Russia And U.S. Economic War Raging | Russia Will Debate All Issues Except Its Own | Opinion - Sunday July 5th, 2015 at 4:39 PM
- Get link
- Other Apps
As tensions between Russia and the United States expand, it is increasingly clear that an economic war is being waged between the two superpowers. This is certainly not the first time that the United States and Russia have been on opposite sides of such a conflict, with the Cold War essentially being defined by two completely separate economic systems.
Russia and U.S. energy battle
The economic battle that is currently taking shape will have global ramifications for many years to come. Energy is certainly playing a major role in this economic battle, with Moscow seeking to counteract the desire of Washington and Brussels to divide Russia from Europe. The Russian government unquestionably has massive power owing to the amount of energy exportation that it is involved in, and a lack of cooperation in this regard would certainly be damaging to numerous Western companies and countries alike.
European nations in particular are hugely reliant on Russian oil and gas in order to function. Ironically, the United States' major ally the United Kingdom derives most of its oil importations from Norway. But mainland Europe is particularly dependent on Russian exports, and it would become extremely vulnerable should the Russian government decide to alter its energy policy.
Additionally, a huge amount of economic and energy machinations are taking place under the surface. While the Western media has tended to focus on conflict in the Ukraine, Moscow has been assiduously moving its pieces into place under the radar. The Russian energy giant Gazprom has entered into critical deals with a variety of Western energy companies, which has completely undermined the efforts of Western governments to isolate Russian economically.
Russia energy deals multiply
Gazprom has clearly been making a concerted effort in recent years to be more visible in the Western marketplace. European fans of soccer in particular will recognize the brand, as it is a prominent sponsor of the Champions League tournament.
At the same time that Russian companies are establishing these important links, Russian-sponsored gas pipelines in the North and South of Europe significantly complicate the geopolitical picture. These important economic assets ensure that it is extremely difficult to alienate and isolate Russia from the existing European marketplace, and it provides the Russian government with a huge amount of political and economic power.
The tension between the United States and Russia is emblematic of a wider geopolitical chess game between the BRICS nations and the traditional Anglo-American world order which has dominated the planet over several decades. The BRICS have demanded a greater representation in global economic institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and have even threatened to set up their own central bank as a response to US and British isolationism.
Another aspect to this economic war is the dollar's status as world reserve currency. This has provided the United States economy with a huge advantage throughout the 20th century, but there have been suggestions in some quarters that this may end at some point. And these suggestions have not been limited to pundits. The current head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, has in fact stated explicitly that the United States’ “exorbitant privilege” would come to an end in the foreseeable future.
Russia accumulates gold rabidly
Perhaps anticipating this eventuality, there has been significant evidence that both Russia and China are preparing for a future in which the dollar is no longer the reserve currency. The BRICS nations have been rampantly investing in gold in particular. This perhaps goes against the economic consensus among Western economists, but it anticipates a time when the mountain of debt in the West has unravelled. At a time when many fiat currencies are incredibly vulnerable and devaluing, the Swiss franc became pegged to the Euro in April, 2011, ending what HSBC described as “the last safe haven”.
The suggestion is that Russia is hoping to introduce gold-backed reserve currency into the world economic mechanism, and that the opportunity to do this could come as the dollar loses its existing status and encounters trading difficulties. And this has not merely been a suggestion, but also something grounded in explicit statements.
In March, 2009, the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported on Arkady Dvorkevich, the Russian Kremlin's chief economic adviser, commenting that Russia would like to see a return to a gold-backed currency. The Telegraph noted that “the world's fiat paper currencies have lacked any external anchor ever since (Nixon abandoned the gold standard). It is widely argued that the financial excesses and extreme debt leverage of the last quarter century would have been impossible – or less likely – under the discipline of gold”.
Vast Russian infrastructure projects
Regardless of the legitimacy of this particular plan, Russia is clearly waging a very significant energy war at present. A recent agreement between Gazprom, which is now the top gas producer in the world, and Royal Dutch Shell, to build two new gas pipelines to Germany will come to define the economic relationship between Russia and the European Union in the medium-term. Effectively, Russia has become a central cog in the German economy, and critical to Germany's industrial base.
It is also obvious that such an economic agreement will have a significant global impact. There is already an existing project related to oil and gas development in Sakhalin Island, Russia, that is essentially a Gazprom and Shell collaboration. This project only reached its full capacity last year, and the strong economic position of Gazprom, coupled with the important economic agreement it has entered into, will allow for the expansion of this arrangement.
As Russia moves to establish an energy position of significant strength, the imminent construction of the Altai Pipeline will solidify Russian and Chinese energy cooperation. The project has ultimately been described as a full-blown energy alliance, and it will supply in the region of 35 billion m³ of Russian gas from Western Siberia to China.
The United States and its economic entities have been accused of deliberately driving down the oil and gold price in order to harm Russia and China. But this has resulted in a covert economic assault from Russia, the consequences of which will continue to unfold as this conflict inevitably expands both publicly, rhetorically and strategically.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · ·
Opinion
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the presidential residence of Bocharov Ruchey in Sochi, Russia May 12, 2015. Russia had plans to take Crimea well before Euromaidan forces took power in Kiev, the author writes. Joshua Roberts/Reuters
After Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Sochi on May 12, a barrage of articles urged Western leaders to provide Russian President Vladimir Putin with an off-ramp for his various Ukrainian adventures. Even more disheartening than the volume was the growing diversity of reasons for giving Putin a pass.
At least three arguments were made.
The first and oldest was familiar enough. As framed, the position asserted that an arrogant West, post 1991, repeatedly antagonized Russia by promoting expansion of the European Union and NATO, initially among Russia's old Warsaw Pact allies and eventually in the former Soviet space.
With Ukraine, to which Russia felt strong historical and cultural links, a red line was drawn. Putin, supported by the Russian public, decided to put an end to the triumphalist nonsense. The measures he took in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, if understood against the stated background, made good sense.
The second and more recent justification was a more focused version of the first. Putin and Russia were no longer interested in the geopolitical project known as the Soviet bloc. But they did seek recognition of their primacy in the world of Eastern Orthodox Christianity—or Russkiy Mir ("Russian world").
The grab for Crimea was instinctual; it returned to Russia the land where its ancient Prince Vladimir accepted Christianity—in contrast to the Ukrainian claim that Kyivan Prince Volodymyr converted on the banks of the Dnipro River. Framed against the posited background, Putin's efforts bore an undeniable logic.
The third narrative was made of different cloth than its predecessors. The central point was that Putin was not actually planning anything. Noticing the chaotic interregnum between former President Viktor Yanukovych's fall and the consolidation of the Euromaidan government, the Russian President used the opportunity to seize Crimea. When no one stopped his grab in Crimea, he used the same playbook in the Donbas.
In short, the Russian leader was basically winging it. If so, why give him a pass? Precisely because his ad hoc approach was capable of causing an accidental conflict—a twenty-first century echo of Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August, when great powers blundered into World War I.
The first position was essentially an open apology for Russian aggression and could be easily portrayed in that fashion. The second construct was simply a more sophisticated version of the first and could be treated as such. The third construct presented a real problem; it could, given the right informational sell as an assessment closest to reality, win over the hearts and minds of many in the West.
There's a kernel of truth to the third position. The downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 played into the narrative that Putin was winging it. If Russian proxies or Russian regulars were guilty, which looks increasingly likely, the seat-of-the-pants notion gains credibility.
Russia gave weapons and trained rebel forces to wreak havoc in eastern Ukraine. But it's impossible to control weapons once they've been distributed.
The assassination of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov also fits into the storyline that Putin was making it up as he went along. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov most likely ordered the hit.
But why wasn't Kadyrov immediately brought to justice? Because Putin was no longer in full control of the situation. After the Nemtsov assassination, Putin disappeared for 10 days.
It's not quite that simple, though. Even if MH17 and the Nemtsov assassination got out of Putin's control, there's still evidence that the Russian President isn't winging the big picture.
Putin acknowledged in a documentary that he planned and orchestrated the military takeover of the Crimean peninsula.
Novaya Gazeta obtained an alleged strategy document showing that Russia had plans to take Crimea well before Euromaidan forces took power in Kyiv.
Run-ins between Russia and NATO first began to rise in September 2013, six months before the invasion of Crimea and three months before the Euromaidan emerged. In fact, the run-ins coincide with when Putin first started to push the Yanukovych regime to relent on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU.
Moscow did everything it could to block Ukraine from signing the EU Association Agreement, and its campaign to dissuade the country from doing so indicates long-term planning and pre-meditated action.
A memo about the Bessarabian People's Rada chronicles the on-goings of a mélange of Russian intelligence operatives, supposed Bulgarian ethnic separatists in Ukraine, Russian-speaking refugees from Moldova and supporters of an Odesa proto-Franco initiative looking to push for autonomy for Bessarabia as an optimal goal and a free port in Odessa at a minimum.
The intricacies of the operation, meant to "push Ukraine into non-viable forms of decentralization," were complicated. The detailed plans indicate years of preparation, not something that was cooked up overnight.
A Ukrainian government official in Washington familiar with Russian intelligence operations confirmed the scope of the Bessarabian operation to me.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Putin is improvising in Ukraine. The big, geopolitical decisions in Russia don't happen without his blessing or knowledge. Putin's isn't winging it, and neither should we.
Walter Zaryckyj is Executive Director of the Center for US-Ukrainian Relations. This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
"Look at the size of her breasts — she's obviously a woman, not a girl." "She's from a village, who's to say she didn't luck out by marrying a powerful policeman? Even if she didn't want to at first." "Why should I care about how they do things in Chechnya? Their traditions are their problem."
I've been reading the reactions of Russians to Chechnya's so-called "wedding of the millennium" on social media, and I can honestly say that even those who profess to be OK with it are obviously in doubt. Why else would people go to such lengths to excuse what happened?
To recap: Novaya Gazeta recently reported that a powerful Chechen police official was trying to marry a teenager by force. The 17-year-old girl, Kheda Goylabiyeva, would become his second wife, it was reported. The policeman first denied the allegations, but then Chechnya's top brass, including Ramzan Kadyrov, stepped in, saying Kheda's family had consented to the match.
Kheda was swiftly married off to the man, alternatively reported to be either 30 or 40 years her senior, in a much-touted ceremony that seemed designed to mock anyone who dares question the life-affirming and not at all creepy idea of pairing underage schoolgirls with men who look old enough to be their grandfathers.
Some Russian officials rushed to express their approval of the blessed nuptials, calling everyone who disagreed "prudes."
Fuzzy interpretations of Russian federal law — which ostensibly says no one can marry unless they are 18, unless there are special circumstances, such as pregnancy — were trotted out in defense of the marriage.
The Kremlin refused to comment, and it is obvious why.
Chechnya has caused enough headaches for Moscow already — from the slaying of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov to Kadyrov's (swiftly retracted) declaration that law enforcement from other regions should be shot if operating in Chechnya without permission.
Ordinary Russians, however, have debated and continue to debate what happened. And even among people trying hard to play down the genuinely scary implications of the wedding, a sense of unease is palpable.
Many Russians insist that Kheda's fate has nothing to do with them. Chechnya is far away, they argue. Its customs have nothing to do with the rest of the country. Anyway, their kids could never be in danger of being snatched by a policeman.
Yet the treatment of Kheda has highlighted some very specific ideas that people entertain about women, particularly women considered to be of lower status. Any suffering they experience is considered normal — in fact, they are meant to suffer.
The so-called "zhenskaya dolya," a woman's lot in life, is considered harsh — but perfectly acceptable in the grand scheme of things. It can make people sad and uncomfortable, but a kind of Stockholm syndrome, I would argue, prevents them from really questioning it.
This is because people in Russia are expected to side with power. They're equally expected to disdain the weak. It's nothing personal; it's just how power cults work.
Lower-status women — those who weren't lucky enough to be born as daughters of mighty state officials, those who come from provincial backgrounds, etc. — are awarded little protection in society.
In that sense, the wedding is a symptom of a larger issue. And by publicizing it so thoroughly, Chechnya is doing more than flexing its political muscle — it is beginning to set a wider agenda.
Contempt for civil society, the crushing of dissent, and a patriarchal attitude toward women — things Chechen leadership is famous for — find major resonance and approval in Moscow and beyond.
And Chechen support for Russia's misadventures in Ukraine have begun to make it seem as though Chechnya is owed even more prominent status on Russia's political landscape.
This is why all those eagerly insisting that "the wedding of the millennium" is an isolated event in some exotic, peripheral and irrelevant locale are kidding themselves.
The call is coming from inside the house.
Natalia Antonova is an American playwright and journalist.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has caused a great deal of excitement in Russia. That is not surprising: anti-U.S. sentiment and homophobia are the two most important ingredients in the ideological cocktail that the Kremlin has been forcing down the throats of the Russian people.
The notion that the opponents of the ruling authorities are not only agents of influence of the U.S., but also homosexuals, has become so common that it is almost axiomatic in some circles. The U.S. Supreme Court decision is the cherry atop the sundae that the Kremlin long ago whipped up: In the excited minds of those fighting Washington's imperialism, the U.S. has finally proven itself a hotbed and promoter of sexual deviance.
The lively online debate is not accompanied by any substantive discussion of the topic in the press. The reason is clear: to do anything but condemn gay marriage and relationships risks incurring charges of illegally promoting homosexual activity. On the other hand, the widespread and primitive pseudo-logic of the argument "If you're not homophobic, you're gay" — and its popular LGBT counterpart, "All homophobes are closet gays" — are both so "loaded" as to compel any prudent citizen to remain silent on the subject rather than risk ridicule.
The squabbling on the Internet is just a rehearsal for the broad and open discussion of this sensitive issue that Russia will have to make in the distant, or perhaps not so distant future. Politicians and commentators can argue all they want that this topic is irrelevant to Russian society, but the fervor of their words indicates otherwise.
Same-sex marriage in the United States is simply the most recent example illustrating a sad fact: with no opportunity in modern Russia to hold a constructive debate on a number of pressing issues, Russians have practically no option but to discuss the problems of other countries. The authorities actually encourage such behavior, in part through specific tactics on the Internet. They skillfully channel Russians' critical and negative attitudes outward, away from Russia's problems.
Russia is full of "Euro-sceptics" and "Euro-optimists" who debate the prospects of the European Union and EU membership for this or that country. They prefer endless squabbles over what will happen with Greece and Britain to any discussion of Russia's future in Europe.
The taboo concerning the issue of migrants in Russia is offset by the constant debate over the migrant situation in Europe: even among Russians who have never left the country, there are many such self-appointed "specialists" who are always ready to discuss the failure of multiculturalism in France and the problem of Turkish integration in German society.
The subject of federalization and the relationship between the regions and the center — a topic of great import in Russia — finds no discussion here, but is actively debated with regard to Ukraine. This is despite the fact that, according to their constitutions, Russia is a federal state, but not Ukraine.
It would be nice to believe that all of this energy will eventually get focused on Russia's domestic problems and a search for solutions to them. However, Russian society is presently far more interested in discussing the problems of other countries and gay marriage in the U.S. than the domestic economic crisis and its increasingly uncertain prospects.
Fyodor Krasheninnikov is the president of the Institute for Development and Modernization of Public Relations in Yekaterinburg. This comment originally appeared in Vedomosti.
Read the whole story
· ·
HOW TO VIEW RUSSIA
“Putinism: Russia and Its Future with the West” by Walter Laqueur (Thomas Dunne Books) — The publisher says this historian author has “been ahead of the curve, predicting events in post-Soviet Russia with uncanny accuracy” for 20 years. He cautions against the notion that U.S.-Russia tensions, heightened by Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and Western economic sanctions among other factors, are harbingers of a Russian return to a Cold War mentality. What the author sees instead is a Russian return to attitudes and governance reminiscent of the pre-Russian Revolution era more than a century ago, citing the Putin-era roles played by traditional hallmarks of Russian ideology — the Russian Orthodox Church, a Russian sense of “manifest destiny” in Eurasia and fear of foreign adversaries — and Putin's popularity at home. The author urges America to approach Russia on that basis, warning of danger in thinking today's Russia is a relic of the Cold War.
Президент России Владимир Путин окончательно решил забаррикадировать все возможные пути выхода из той ситуации, в которую он загнал себя и Россию.
Об этом в интервью "Обозревателю" заявил бывший советник Путина, президент Института экономического анализа, старший научный сотрудник Института Катона Андрей Илларионов.
Так, по его мнению, исключительно ядерным шантажом Путин заставил Канцлера Германии Ангелу Меркель вместе с Президентом Франции Франсуа Олландом прилететь в Минск в феврале и поставить подписи под новыми соглашениями. И таким образом, по словам Илларионова, "легализовать ликвидацию суверенитета Украины над украино-российской границей на Донбассе".
Бывший советник президента РФ считает, что Кремль, убедившись в эффективности ядерного шантажа, может прибегнуть к нему снова. Но сейчас Запад уже решился на конфронтацию с Россией, которую в Кремле воспринимают, как тупиковую ситуацию, не видя никаких выходов.
"Путин как угодно долго может представлять себе эту ситуацию в виде тупика, в который его якобы загнали. На самом деле в этот тупик его загнал не Запад, он сам в него забрался. Более того — продолжает забираться все глубже и дальше. А все возможные выходы из этого тупика он тщательно баррикадирует", — утверждает эксперт.
При этом, учитывая наличие в России ядерного оружия и семисоттысячной армии, это заставляет миллионы людей по всему миру бояться действий Кремля.
"В этом трагедия нынешней ситуации, потому что сотни миллионов людей напрямую зависят от Путина. Их жизнь, здоровье и благополучие действительно зависят от решения одного человека. Но проблема заключается еще и в том, что в современном мире обычные граждане, экспертное сообщество и лидеры западных стран не знают, как поступить в этой ситуации", — считает Илларионов.
Вместе с тем, единственным выходом из этой ситуации, по мнению эксперта, может стать лишь продолжение конфронтации.
Так, по его мнению, исключительно ядерным шантажом Путин заставил Канцлера Германии Ангелу Меркель вместе с Президентом Франции Франсуа Олландом прилететь в Минск в феврале и поставить подписи под новыми соглашениями. И таким образом, по словам Илларионова, "легализовать ликвидацию суверенитета Украины над украино-российской границей на Донбассе".
Бывший советник президента РФ считает, что Кремль, убедившись в эффективности ядерного шантажа, может прибегнуть к нему снова. Но сейчас Запад уже решился на конфронтацию с Россией, которую в Кремле воспринимают, как тупиковую ситуацию, не видя никаких выходов.
"Путин как угодно долго может представлять себе эту ситуацию в виде тупика, в который его якобы загнали. На самом деле в этот тупик его загнал не Запад, он сам в него забрался. Более того — продолжает забираться все глубже и дальше. А все возможные выходы из этого тупика он тщательно баррикадирует", — утверждает эксперт.
При этом, учитывая наличие в России ядерного оружия и семисоттысячной армии, это заставляет миллионы людей по всему миру бояться действий Кремля.
"В этом трагедия нынешней ситуации, потому что сотни миллионов людей напрямую зависят от Путина. Их жизнь, здоровье и благополучие действительно зависят от решения одного человека. Но проблема заключается еще и в том, что в современном мире обычные граждане, экспертное сообщество и лидеры западных стран не знают, как поступить в этой ситуации", — считает Илларионов.
Вместе с тем, единственным выходом из этой ситуации, по мнению эксперта, может стать лишь продолжение конфронтации.
Как известно, Андрей Илларионов заявил, что Россия будет всячески оттягивать реформы в Украине.
Если Вы обнаружили ошибку на этой странице, выделите ее и нажмите Ctrl+Enter
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
- Путин боится вакуума власти после своего уходаФото: АР
Президент России Владимир Путин уже готовит себе замену, боясь повторить путь Виктора Януковича. Сейчас главный кандидат - Сергей Иванов, глава администрации президента, который активно "лезет во все дыры". Такая страховка - не рядовое событие, учитывая возможное окончание очередного президентского срока Путина лишь в 2018 году.
Об этом в интервью "Обозревателю" рассказал бывший советник Путина, президент Института экономического анализа, старший научный сотрудник американского Института Катона Андрей Илларионов.
Так, уже начиная с марта все кремлевские СМИ активно продвигают главу администрации президента России Сергея Иванова. Даже на сайте президента появился раздел, посвященный администрации - случай вопиющий в мировой практике, уверен эксперт.
"Учитывая то, что очередной срок Путина в кресле президента истекает лишь в 2018 году, такое решение показывает то, что он готовит страховку на случай непредвиденных обстоятельств. И делает все возможное, чтобы переход к его преемнику произошел максимально гладко, без "вакуума власти". Путин опасается ситуации, которая возникла в Украине после бегства Януковича", - рассказал Андрей Илларионов. Добавив, что это далеко не рядовое явление.
Также бывший советник президента РФ уверен, что "дворцовый переворот" в России возможен лишь с согласия самого Путина и вполне вероятно, что он уже происходит.
"Дворцовый переворот возможен лишь если он будет санкционирован самим Путиным. Даже передача власти Иванову - это уже "переворот", с нарушением всех формальных требований", - считает эксперт.
Read the whole story
· ·
_________________________________
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment