Friendship failure
This is the third of three pieces I've written to set the scene for Friday's EU-Russia summit, as I explain here.
The Friendship pipeline snakes all the way from Siberia to the largest oil refinery in Eastern Europe, in Lithuania.
But friendships can come to a sudden end.
The walls of the headquarters of the oil refinery are lined with black-and-white photographs of Soviet-era workers, looking suitably heroic, building the plant.
When Lithuania became an independent country 16 years ago, the oil kept flowing, the friendship kept going after a fashion.
Taps off
But when the Lithuanian government decided to privatise the plant, it chose to sell to a Polish company rather than Russia鈥檚 which was eager to purchase this window on the West - the modern equivalent of a warm-water port.
According to the company鈥檚 PR department, the sale was announced in June, and by July the Russians had discovered that the pipeline was leaking.
The taps were turned off and have never been turned on again. Is this an example of Russian bullying, normal commercial practice, coincidence or accident?
The management here simply doesn鈥檛 want to speculate.
I was told before interviewing the Polish director of that he wouldn鈥檛 talk politics, but he seemed to want to gloss over the last year altogether.
The company does still get Russian oil from a sea route and is also looking to South America, so when I ask him what happened, he told me: "We are trying to earn money in the current environment. It means we are searching for the best offer as far as supplies are concerned."
So I asked him again: "What happened to the other supply route? Did you turn up to work one day and it wasn鈥檛 working?"
He replied: "We are concentrating on the current situation and the current situation is that one route isn鈥檛 working, so we are concentrating on our other route which is available."
I persisted: "But did you turn up to work one day and the oil wasn鈥檛 coming in?"
He ignored the question and instead said: "Hopefully we have a connection to the sea, and that allows us to get suppliers from different sources."
Punishment?
This is perhaps what one expects from a company that is a minnow compared to the giant Gazprom, and one might have expected the same sort of evasion from the Lithuanian government, which is equally dwarfed by Russia鈥檚 might.
Not a bit of it.
The Lithuanian president, Valdas Adamkus, is an interesting man, who fought the Soviets when they invaded and then fled to America where he made a career in the US environmental protection agency.
In a state room where he once greeted both the Queen and President Bush, Mr Adamkus told me that he鈥檚 sure the switch-off was intended as punishment for selling to the Poles.
"I have no doubt about this. Let鈥檚 be honest, there is no need any more to cover up with nice diplomatic phrases," he said.
"At the very beginning it was definitely a very reasonable technical issue. We offered assistance from our specialists to repair it. No response. Formal letters came from the presidents, even came from the EU president Barroso, no response, total ignorance.
"Finally they have admitted that they don鈥檛 intend to deliver any more to Lithuania. I don鈥檛 believe that this is really fair dealing with their neighbours."
What is now known as "energy security" will be high on the agenda of the
When Russia turned off the taps to Ukraine in the new year of 2006 the householders in the rest of Europe didn鈥檛 shiver for long, if at all.
But the politicians did... at the thought of a European Union that depends on Russia for half its gas and a third of its oil needs.
Free trade
The EU wants plenty of different supply routes from Russia and elsewhere and is beginning to see renewable energy as a strategic "must" as well as an environmental imperative.
But what they would really like is to be able to trust Russia, and not feel that Gazprom has them over a barrel.
The Lithuanian president, like most leaders of the ex-communist countries, wants a firm, single European policy towards Russia and wants to hear that voice raised at the summit.
"I believe the European Union, all the members, should speak with one voice, as far as the EU relationship with Russia is concerned. We still want to see Russia as a good neighbour, a co-operative neighbour," he says.
"We want to see Russia as a real participant in European affairs, because let鈥檚 face it, it鈥檚 a great country which has a lot of potential. It鈥檚 a country which needs to participate in European affairs, bringing stability to the entire European continent.
"But it should be dealt with strongly, clearly... If we are talking about free trade - and Russia definitely needs markets in Europe and around the world 鈥 if Russia wants to be in the World Trade Organisation, a fully-fledged market, I believe they have to play according to same rule that applies to everybody."
"Or else, what?" I ask.
"Or else if they want to be isolated from the rest of it, that鈥檚 their choice."
Nuclear deficit
At the end of my all-too-brief tour of Poland and two of the Baltic states, I sought out the Russian response.
The Russian ambassador to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, is also an interesting man, a former deputy foreign minister.
His curly grey hair and broad smile give him an avuncular appearance but when you listen to his replies you see the steel that makes him a Kremlin favourite.
He says the EU-Russia relations are "complex, multi-faceted, not without problems". But he denies that Russia uses energy as a political tool.
"Well, it is totally untrue. We never cut off pipelines in order to punish anybody. When there is a rupture in the pipeline, yes, the supply has to be cut off to avoid environmental disaster.
"Pipelines have to be cut off when somebody鈥檚 not paying for the gas. It鈥檚 the same on a household basis, so whenever any of your viewers in Britain stops paying his or her bills for gas, British Gas will come and cut it off.
"That鈥檚 what鈥檚 been happening. I would say, on the contrary, as an example of politicising the energy business, I can give you a small example.
"Before the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, during the pre-accession talks, they were made to abandon the existing nuclear power stations, those that had been built by my country鈥檚 specialists during various years, for purely political reasons - not because all those reactors were Chernobyl-type, or too old. Actually, the oldest nuclear power reactors are those in Britain.
"So, as a result, starting from 2009, most countries of that particular part of Europe, will have to suffer for at least five to six years a deficit of energy. And as a result, the governments of those countries, applied to Russian suppliers of oil and gas for additional amounts, and Brussels begins crying wolf saying that the degree of dependence on Russians supplies is growing. It鈥檚 a situation created by the European Union itself."
Fish flour fuss
I asked him about the specific example of the Lithuania refinery. Why was oil not flowing through the Friendship pipeline?
"There was a series of ruptures in the pipeline along this 70km stretch. And since then the technological survey of the Russian Federation has been assessing the situation from a technical point of view, and also the owner of the pipeline, which is a Russian company, has been assessing the feasibility of restoring it.
"I鈥檓 not aware of the conclusions that they might reach eventually, this is still to come, but understandably, the company might have views on whether it is worthwhile to repair the pipeline or not.鈥
I put it to him that the Lithuanian president rejects that argument.
"Well, it鈥檚 his personal view. He鈥檚 entitled to have one."
"But you鈥檙e saying there鈥檚 no politics."
"No politics. No politics."
Then I turn to the question of trade, which I referred to in my posting from Latvia, and touched on briefly in the article on Poland. He starts by talking about the Polish ban on fish flour.
"You see, if our veterinary experts find that the fish flour is actually two-thirds bone flour, from animals, rather than fish, it doesn鈥檛 smell of politics, it smells of fraud.
"And the bone flour, as you may be aware, is forbidden is to be re-exported or sold within the European Union, because it鈥檚 the easiest way to transfer the famous BSE disease.
"As far as the famous polish meat issue is concerned, well the problems primarily were not initially with Polish meat as such, but rather with meat and other products posing as Polish meat 鈥 transiting Polish territory, and ending up in the Russian market.
"Of course, it was not the Russian side that has been politicising the whole issue."
And the sprats?
What about those Latvian sprats that don鈥檛 meet Russian standards but pass EU laws which are often perceived as too tough?
"The fact is, that Russian veterinary and food safety standards are much stricter than those applied in the European Union. But again, nobody should see anything political in it 鈥 it鈥檚 just public health."
Then to the question behind all of this. Does Russia bully its old allies?
"We believe the problem with the political elite or at least part of it in those countries, and the problem of the EU since those countries acceded to the EU, has been that they are suffering from what is sometimes called phantom pains of the past, some going back to the days of the Soviet Union of which they were part, some going even further to the days of the Russian empire in 18th Century, particularly concerning Poland.
"So I don鈥檛 believe that this is the way to address future relations with the new democratic Russia. It only hinders the development of bilateral relations and unfortunately, due to the principle of EU solidarity among members, it hinders the overall development of EU-Russia relations."
The last point is critical. Russia doesn鈥檛 like the European Union speaking with one voice, which is precisely the reason politicians from the eastern part of the EU are so keen on it.
We鈥檒l find out on Friday at the summit itself what policy they pursue.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
The comments of the Russian ambassador are more than a touch disingenous. There continues to be an evident policy by the Russian government to coerce and bully all its neighbours and for that matter any nation or people who disagrees with it. Perhaps it is the mindset of a bigger nation to throw its weight around like an elephant in a tulip field? It's more than high time that those in power in Russia stopped treating their neighbours like errant school children.
Mark, at the moment Mr. Chizhov told you with a straight face that Russian veterinary and food safety standards are so much stricter than those of the EU, you should have asked him if he receives extra danger pay for representing Russia in a place with such low standards. The man is risking his health to represent his country!
1) Please note that the Russian oil company Lukoil (not Russian gas giant Gazprom) is the company that has historically shown a keen interest in obtaining control of Lithuania's Mazeikiai Oil (Mazeikiu Nafta). This interest continues through today as reported by Reuters on 10.22.2007: "Russian oil major LUKOIL (LKOH.MM: Quote, Profile, Research) is still keen on buying refining assets in Lithuania, a company official said on Monday after Russia signalled it would not resume its crude oil supply to the Baltic state. "We are still very interested in expanding refining capacity. In Europe, either Northwest Europe or Lithuania," said the official, who asked not to be named."
2) Moscow's use of energy supplies for geo-political leverage has been felt by the Baltic States well before other EU members began paying more attention to energy security over the past year or so. The cut off of crude oil supplies to Lithuania is something the country has had to contend with since breaking away from Moscow and re-establishing independence.
For some background on the situation prior to the purchase of Mazeikiai Oil (Mazeikiu Nafta) by Poland's PKN Orlen please read a exerpt from a statement by Ambassador Keith C. Smith (Senior Associate, Europe Program Center for Strategic and International Studies - CSIS)before the U.S. House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy and Resources and the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations (05.16.2006)
"鈥淧ipeline imperialism鈥 by Moscow dates back to 1990, when it interrupted energy supplies to the Baltic States in a futile attempt to stifle their independence movement. The 鈥渆nergy weapon鈥 was again used against the Baltic States in 1992, in retaliation for Baltic demands that Russia remove its remaining military forces from the region. In 1993 and 1994, Russia reduced gas supplies to Ukraine, in part, to force Kiev to pay for previous gas shipments, but also to pressure Ukraine into ceding more control to Russia over the Black Sea Fleet and over Ukraine鈥檚 energy infrastructure. Even Belarus, and indirectly Poland and Lithuania, suffered supply disruptions in 2004 from the Kremlin鈥檚 effort to take over Belarus鈥 gas pipeline system. From 1998 to 2000, in an attempt to stop the sale of Lithuania鈥檚 refinery, port facility, and pipeline to the Williams Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Transneft, Russia鈥檚 monopoly transporter of piped oil, stopped the flow of crude oil to Lithuania nine times.
Russia鈥檚 Gazprom, with the help of Germany鈥檚 Ruhrgas, exercises control over the gas facilities and pipelines in the three Baltic States, where they also have monopoly control of the domestic gas markets in all three Baltic States. Media outlets in the West have generally ignored Transneft鈥檚 refusal to allow Kazakhstan to supply oil to Lithuania鈥檚 Mazeikai Refinery through the Russian pipeline system. Kazakhstan鈥檚 oil company has the legal right to ship crude oil to the Baltic coast, based on their transit agreement with Transneft agreed to last fall. Moscow is determined to prevent any but a Kremlin approved company from taking over the Yukos ownership of Lithuania鈥檚 facilities. Three years ago, Russia stopped all piped shipments of oil to Latvia in an effort to gain control over the oil port at Ventspils. Now, Moscow is again attempting to keep non-Russian companies from buying Lithuania鈥檚 Mazeikai Nafta Refinery and the port at Butinge, on the Baltic Sea. This use of pipeline imperialism is ignored in the West even though Latvia and Lithuania are EU and NATO members."
After reading all three articles and some of the comments, it seems that its just like the good old days.
Russians accuse the US of being imperialists who are using states in Europe further their goals. While they look at themselves as just looking out for their own rightful interests.
They look at Eastern European states as being ungrateful for being liberated by them from the Nazis.
What they choose to ignore is the fact that except for the murder of Jews, Stalin was no different then Hitler with regards to his plans for domination, and more people died under Stalin then Hitler.
The west looks at Russia as someone who is once again trying to influence the world scene, but are weary of them because they are not the most democratic (freedom of press to name one) and they use not the most conventional methods (by western standards) to archive that.
Somewhere down the line I think relations will stabilize, but not anytime soon.
If you look at the countries that Russia has tried to punish for breaking away, they have only moved further west.
btw Mark, I think you have the most interesting political blog on the net.
EU problem is its new members not Russia. Enlargement was an ill-considered political decision. It鈥檚 ludicrous to think that Russia will solve our problems for us by appeasing countries like Poland with their historic complexes and nationalist agenda. Washington laid us enlargement trap and we fell into it.
There's an old saying that nations don't have friends, they have interests. But even here, appearances can be deceptive. The USSR actually never had any relationship with any so called allied nation which was not exploitive and imposed by military force. Would any nation in Eastern Europe, say Hungary, Poland, or Czechoslovakia have voted to remain within the Soviet Bloc if they'd had the choice? Hungary answered that question in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland in the early 1980s. The exodus from East to West Germany through Czechoslovakia in the mid to late 1980 spelled the end of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Even in Cuba, they vote to this very day by sailing in rickety boats risking being shot by Cuban guards only to face the shark infested waters of the Straits of Florida if they succeed in running the first gauntlet. Meanwhile, Soviet leaders did their best to re-demography (is there such a word?) the "socialist republics" by forcibly moving some ethnic groups out of their own countries resettling them elsewhere and encouraging Russians to move to these countries to resettle their families. As a result, many enclaves of ethnic Russians who feel a greater affinity for Russia than their own nation live in places like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.
What did these countries get in return for their "friendship" imposed by Communist puppet regimes under Moscow's control? Subsidies of whatever the USSR had to offer including energy. It was never contemplated that Moscow would lose control over the pipelines which ultimately send oil and gas now west to European customers but the loss of "the near abroad" as Russians call it has put those pipelines and the shutoff valves on what is now hostile territory. One look at the map shows that there is no way around it. As the US, EU, and NATO come closer to Russia's near abroad, whether through commercial ties, cultural ties, or outright military alliances the Russians feel threatened. The only weapon they have is the threat of cutting off energy supplies. This is a very poor weapon, especially for oil. Oil is "fungible." You can't deprive someone of the products of petroleum, all you can do is force them to buy it elsewhere at a higher price due to the higher cost of shipping it through less efficient routes so long as the total world supply and demand remains the same. Gas is more problematic especially for Western Europe, the logistics of moving it in the quantities Europe needs is great. Russia also has waiting customers for its oil and gas in China and India. Europe is clearly vulnerable to Russian blackmail. The US is not.
Russia is still a banana republic, a one trick pony. Oil and gas are the one export it has which can earn it currency and the power it brings. Its economy and military are a shambles even though it still has the power to blow up the world with nuclear weapons. Putin has been both lucky and skillful. Lucky because the price of energy has risen to record heights and skillful at using it as a political weapon no matter what anyone says. The mere insinuation of a cutoff of Russian energy when Europe needs it most during the winter is enough to send chills up and down the spines of EU leaders. They won't get much sympathy from the US, not after their needless stupidity in alienating it over issues they had no business meddling in such as Iraq's perceived threat to US security or the sham of the patently unfair Kyoto Protocol and global warming. Right, wrong, or otherwise, Americans saw Kyoto as a thinly veiled attempt by Europe to destroy its economy. Comply and go into severe recession, don't comply and risk the wrath of outraged Europeans who blame global warming on the US. Shroeder and Chirac whipped up anti-American sentiment all over Europe, now Europe will pay the penalty for this and much much more. Many Americans now see Western Europe as their enemy.
The EU superstate is beginning to shape up very little as a United States of Europe and far more like a European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It's anti capitalist and anti democratic policies fall right in line with long standing historical cultural proclivities of Europe no matter what European commentators say to the contrary. You can see the trappings of it in so many ways, the unrestricted internal movement of ethnically very different cultures into each others鈥 territories, vast bureaucratic restrictions on industry, unwillingness to allow a voter referendum even on issues of the most fundamental nature of their governance. It鈥檚 far more like what happened in the USSR than in the US and all under the pretense of social democracy, the eternal hew and cry of socialists. This is very good news for America. A Soviet style monolithic empire as a commercial competitor is one it knows very well how to defeat soundly. The trappings of that are also already becoming manifest.
It is very amusing to sit back and watch one European centrally planned laughably stumbling effort after another fail. The one time failed try to land a probe on Mars, the disastrous unprofitably marketable A380 Eurosaurus Wrecks, the Galileo competitor to GPS (which thankfully has been abandoned as a technical failure sparing the US the need to shoot it out of the sky as it inevitably would have) and now the "blue card" proposal. With the end of the need to operate Europe as a high cost American protectorate under a pax Americana, the leveling of the market playing field with the WTO, and heavy investments by American corporations in China and soon India, we'll see just how well the new Europe can do on its own. All it needs now is a meeting to set out its next five year plan. (And what about Britain鈥檚 red lines? A joke, in five years it either complies with the rest of the EU treaty like everyone else or it faces the prospect of penalties without limit imposed without having anything to say about it.)
Mr Chizhov is completely correct as saying that 鈥渟tarting from 2009, most countries of that particular part of Europe, will have to suffer for at least five to six years a deficit of energy." But he did not tell you the reason WHY. It鈥檚 so, because according to numerous Western energy studies, due to greedy and unwise policy of President Putin and those secret services people who lead now Russian natural monopolies, all Russian energy companies pump up currently the resources EXPLORED IN THE SOVIET TIMES YET. Russian powers had imprisoned (former Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovskiy) or forced out of the country all modern capitalists who used not only to exploit old Soviet drills and old Soviet equipment, but also invested money into new geological explorations and into modern equipment. Now GazProm and their oil companies nationalized by GazPutin, DON鈥漈 PUT ANY MONEY INTO RECONSTRUCTION, and DON鈥檛 allow any EU or American companies to do so, because they don鈥檛 want to share profits with the West. Such inefficient policy had resulted, according to famous Russian economist Andrey Illarionov who resigned from the post of Putin鈥檚 advisor due to his strong opposition to suspension of gas supplies to EU during dispute with Ukraine in the eve of the year 2006, that output of Russian gas and oil fell at estimated around 9%!!!!!! only in the year 2007, and it will be falling by galloping pace in the recent future. Every educated person does understand that fossil fuel is not renewable energy source, or pumping such fuel up will be so expansive that it鈥檒l become unprofitable for European companies to utilize such energy. (Especially under bad weather and infrastructure conditions of Russian Siberia, if not to mention extremely bad environmental impact on the taiga ecosystem and indigenous peoples of Russian North, what should worry European Greens, especially Germans who care so much about their dear Russia). But GazProm has long-term contracts (some of them concluded in the Soviet times yet) with EU countries for gas supplies. Due to such output falls, GazProm will just fail to meet their obligations in compliance with the contracts. Will Germans which unwisely receive more than 30% of its energy from one source, Russia, sue GazProm? They should, in terms of free market rules. What Chancellor Merkel is going to propose her country in such case? Sometimes I think like she has bad advisors or probably bad intelligence. President Adamkus is completely correct as saying that Russia 鈥渟hould be dealt with strongly, clearly... If we are talking about free trade - and Russia definitely needs markets in Europe and around the world 鈥 if Russia wants to be in the World Trade Organisation, a fully-fledged market, I believe they have to play according to same rule that applies to everybody." Regarding energy, we should mention that Russia under Putin NEVER RATIFIED European Energy Charter signed under Yeltsin rule. It鈥檚 just unacceptable if all play in compliance with some clear rules, but there is one bully which is allowed to violate them.
Special thanks on behalf of the people of Ukraine to management of Lithuanian Mazeikiu Oil for supplying us with good-quality European-standrads-like petrol in 2005, when our then-Orange government under leadership of Yuliya Tymoshenko tried to struggle with Russian companies which own 90% of our oil refinaries granted them almost for free by our former corrupt President Kuchma. All Russian bosses of all those companies were summoned to Kremlin that time and ordered to stop output of petrol even at the expance of their own lost profits. Unfortunately, that struggle had failed, not least because inner circle of our current President Yushchenko is connected with Russian oil companies and GazProm. We, Ukrainians, wish success to all our neighbours in their struggle with Russia and, lt鈥檚 be honest, with the majority of EU functioners who have their business interests in Russia and strong sentiments to it. Ukraine is, by the way, one of major electric energy suppliyers, produced both on nuclear power stations and hydro electric stations (this is for Mr Chizhov). Mr Adamkus knows that, I know, so we all together will survive. Please don鈥檛 surrender to German spineless position regarding Russia!
"So I don鈥檛 believe that this is the way to address future relations with the new democratic Russia", the Russian EU ambassador explains.
I guess this 'new democracy' equals Kremin's peculiar term 'sovereign democracy' - which clearly allows Russia to act with precious little regard for the judgements of outsiders
Mark,
1.What you have not mentioned in your piece is that soon after Lithuanians sold Mazaikiu Oil to a Polish company rather than to Gazprom, the plant was severly damaged by a mysterious fire and nobody in the plant or pres. Adamkus's government seem to believe that it was started by Lithuanians. ;-)
2. It's a little surprising to hear from Mr. Ambassador that "Russian veterinary and food safety standards are much stricter than those applied in the European Union" in view of reports that citizens of the Federation get frequently poisoned by strictly Russian vodka which, it seems, is not much safer than denaturated alcohol which some of them also consume, mixing it sometimes with eau de cologne to improve its flavour.
3. I like very much, though, Mr. Chizhov's diagnosis that those countries acceded to the EU "are suffering from what is sometimes called phantom pains of the past".
I hope that next time men from Moscow say that Poland [Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.] is a pain in the ass, somebody from Warsaw, Tallin, Riga or Vilnius will explain to them that what they feel are simply "phantom pains of the past".
The ambassador did not mention the phanthom pains russia itself had to experience when the old USSR was about to collapse. These pains where not only caused by history but to a greater extend by western capitalist and russian oligarchs trying to get hold on russian oil- and gasfields and polluting the markets with all kinds of rubbish. Personally I have little doubts when the ambassador is complaining about fishy fishflour or rotten meats. These Items are traded freely within the EU, so why should not someone come and try to sell it in russia! It was during the Yeltsin years when russia went down the drain while beeing considered as a fat prey by above mentioned capitalists and oligarchs. We westerners should feel sorry for the peoble who had to feel the pain on their very own and be happy someone like Putin came and stopped the russian downfall. True, this had to be done with a iron fist. True, democracy is at danger there. True, another world power is hard to swallow for the americans. But just imagine this heavily nuclear armed country as the biggest playground for terrorists ever.
A strong russia is a reliable russia and with no doubt a good trading partner for all EU members. EU should speak to russia with one voice, but the voice should not be overstressed by things that happened in he past. Leave history alone, start talking about the future!
Of course Russia does not like Europe to talk with one voice. No country can be interested to have a powerful neighbour, its better to cohabit with the 27 dwarfs.
Anyway, even if we accept the idea (which I nevertheless consider actually false) proposed by the Russian ambassador, that the so-called gas-diplomacy is not a way of politically punishing or pressing East Europe countries but just a common way of making business, it remains one very factual problem: the money Russia gains selling us the gas and the oil are used to improve Russia's defensive and offensive military power, this means that we are paying for the rearmament of our biggest neighbour, a neighbour which is not part of the military alliance we belong to, but it is used to raise verbal aggressiveness and political tensions toward it.
This does not seem to be the result of a wise policy.
Lithuania and Poland have the right to trade with whom they please. Russia and the USA are still in the Cold War Mentality.
Hurray! Finally in the series of three articles
"to set the scene for EU-Russia summit" a Russian was given a word (Chizhov). When I read the first two articles I felt like reading "Pravda" of the early 80's. This last one feels like the the very beginning of Perestroika in 1985.
I was touched by Mr. Mardell attempts to squeeze an anti-Russian statement from the director of Mazeikiu Oil. The poor chap probably forgot that he now lives in a free country or maybe he was afraid of the long hand of KGB.
And how about that heroic Lithuanian president Adamkus who was fighting the Soviet occupation of Lithuania (when he was 14). Never mind that he immigrated to Germany in 1944. Apparently he was OK with the Nazi occupation of Lithuania.
The ultimate goal of the three articles is clear - to further increase the anti-Russian sentiment among the 大象传媒 readership before EU-Russia summit. After reading some of the comments I am happy to
see that not all Wasterners are buying this propaganda.
It will be a good idea if all sides try to avoid megaphone arguments, in other words simply propaganda.
-The fact is that Russia is kept away from Europe because some so- called Europeans are scared in the face of a Strong and Independent Europe.
-Paying tribute to Soviet army soldiers it has not nothing to do with Stalin the dictator. It is a matter of respect towards those common people who fought against the Nazis.
-Free market it simply means market prices when it comes to gas!
- At the end of the day those who are next to Russia they have to realise that is equally important to have good relations as with USA. Those who govern these countries have to realise that their mission is to guarantee the future of the coming generations instead of trying to make headlines in the European Press and win the sad game of false impressions.
Rather sad spectacle of double standards and incoherent thinking. Not for a moment are we allowed to seriously consider the fact that selling and buying are based on a price, that if the buyer doesn't want to pay the price (or vice versa), the transaction doesn't happen. Period. Gazprom didn't "cut of the energy", they were not paid, the buyers couldn't agree on a price - so the delivery stopped. Not any different than when I walk out of a car dealership because I don't like the price.
.
So why do we always have to bring the archaic stereotypes into the discussion. Pipelines are not a "right", they are controlled by the people who own them (in this case Russians). They can shut them down, blow them up, fix them, or whatever. It is idiotic to argue that Lithuania has a "right" to cheap Russian energy. Grow up and stop whining. And that Kondracki contributor who writes here, a real throwback to at least 19. century. I think we re all lucky that Poland has no strategic energy resources, otherwise we would all probably have to recite Sienkiewic before turning on lights...
So, Mark, do I get it right,
"But when the Lithuanian government decided to privatise the plant, it chose to sell to a Polish company rather than Russia鈥檚 ..."
This, apparently is OK with you and most of the people commenting on it. As somebody has mentioned,
"Lithuania and Poland have the right to trade with whom they please."
However, somehow it appears that many europeans (and at least majority of your forum participants) are not ready to grant that same right to Russia. Why not accept that Russia has right to sell its oil and gas to whom it pleases, and on the same grounds that Lithuanians and Poles trade their property (in particular, disfavoring russian companies for political reasons). By the way, the latter has recently become a major theme in the western european countries, too. It is quite clear that there will not be enough of those commodities for everybody. If you wish to be among those who gets these - be prepared to pay what it takes.
Our problem is that EU is badly influenced by US through its new members and UK. It all has come to a braking point. Today Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow Iran then Russia. American appetite is growing. They want to use this missile defense system to launch a 鈥減reemptive鈥 nuclear war against Russia with impunity. A crazy idea? Iraq adventure was also a crazy idea but it came to fruition. It鈥檚 a bad idea to be American vassals -- too costly and dangerous. By the way this libel campaign against Russia in our media reminds me something鈥
Economy should come first. We need to have Russia on board. We made a mistake with the enlargement now we have to live with it. But it does not mean that we should tolerate Washington meddling in EU affairs. Poland and other troublemakers should be put in front of a choice: missiles and other American toys or EU subsidies. To our American friends: for a change consider starting the Third world war not in Europe but on American continent.
When EU was enlarged I as many other EU citizens was not asked. So now we see what happens: nationalist specters are back, we are swamped with immigrants, corruption and criminality. New missiles, new prospects of another 鈥渧ictorious鈥 war with Russia. As if history taught us nothing. My diagnosis 鈥 the enlargement killed idea of Europe.
Does Russia actually have any neighbours that like being Russia's neighbour? Russia is about as popular in Central and Eastern Europe as the US is in Latin America - that is to say, not at all.
Historically, Russia has been a very expansionist and aggressive country. That mentality hasn't changed, although the means of exerting force are now largely economic and not military.
Mark in comment #6 is quite right on the subject of Russia and its neighbours, but couldn't be more wrong about the EU and the US.
He clearly knows little about the USSR of old. The EU is not like it at all. Brussels is much more like Washington than Moscow, meddling in the affairs of member states and always ready to grab more power. But where is the KGB-style secret police? Where is the Party and its commissars? Where is the huge army ready to invade any colony showing dangerous signs of free thought? Comparing the EU to the USSR isn't hyperbole, it's stupid.
I would also like to correct the delusions of US economic might. 30 years ago maybe that would be justified, but not now. The US has outsourced all it could and now owes astronomic sums of money to China. The financial markets are reeling, and the US car industry is doing so badly that Japanese car makers are talking of voluntarily reducing exports in order to avoid trade wars. Prices are going up but most people's income is staying the same. And instead of fixing the problems, America is wasting something on the order of $100bn/year in Iraq.
The 20th century was America's century. The 21st isn't.
Of course it is true that the Soviet Union was held together on the basis military power. On the other hand, is it not rather naive to believe that the "West" does not exert any pressure too? Recently, France (and Germany) suffered somewhat severely economically and politically -simply for refusing to tow the US line regarding the invasion of Iraq.
Of course the countries of "eastern Europe" have suffered from Soviet domination -and maybe they will get a better deal from the EU -one can only hope so. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union has obviously also been a traumatic time for all involved. Most "ex-communist" countries still seem to alternate politically between "left" and "right" -as each side successively proves its failings. Inside Russia, it seems that many have experienced an economic deterioration since the fall of the USSR.
Ever since the collapse of the "iron curtain" the world (on both sides of the previous divide) seems to have seen more of the "ugly face" of global consumerist capitalism than its pretty face (if it has one). The apparent lack of global political choice has lead to a period of unbridled expansion of US hegemony (possibly held only in check by the EU).
In itself, this was a missed chance: Shortly after the collapse of the USSR we were told that the "end of history" was here and that bourgoise liberalism and democracy were (automatically) conquering the world (as people discovered the new freedoms). Later, the disadvantages of these "freedoms" became clear -as many people lost their jobs and their feelings of economic security while the economicm and criminal maffias seemed to get free rein. From many reports, it seems that western capitalism did not behave very nicely in the "ex-communist" areas.
In fact. even many reports from within the "western" territories (concerning education, obesity, corruption, trafficking, environment and the effects of poverty) seem to suggest that western consumer capitalism is structurally a disaster for all outside a small elite of corporate profiteurs (rather analogous to communist party politics). In my view, there is a direct connection between the pain of the transition in eastern Europe, the debacle of the rebuilding of Iraq and the failure of the US to react adequately to Katrina and other such internal issues -including basic health care for its citizens. In fact, one wonders how much more global conflict there would have been without the personal intervention of George Soros -even though I do not believe that such powerful initiatives should be left entirely in the hands of private people and undemocratic organizations.
However, if Russia is heading on a collision course with the west -then can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and claim that we did not initiate this course? It seems to me that the apparent American addiction to its military-industrial complex and the need to keep conflict levels high by promoting zero-sum games (keeping the US as a winner and the rest as losers) is a major cause of global tension. Kick a man when he is down and one cannot blame him if he attacks you when he manages to stand up.
Indeed, why didn't we use our "freedom" to develop more sensible (fair) and sustainable policies regarding energy, consumption and trade much earlier?
This debate centers to much on Russia. While it certainly looks like Russia is bullying its neighbours/customers it is by no means the only energy-supplier doing this.
Given the nature of semi-monopolies, they are subject to easy abuse wether electricity in France or oil from the Midle East/Russia/... It is called hydraulic despotism by the way.
I find it remarkable that the have-nots in the oil/energy security issue don't come to the conclusion that it is time to invest on a big scale in localised energy production which can not be monopolised.
I find it far more remarkable that the US and its have not allies doe not massively invest in alternate technology. After all Al Qaida is mostly funded by Arab economies which float on oil. Any reduction of our dependance on oil hurts Al Qaida.
The Romans knew already to cut the (pecunia) nervus bellum. So did the French, Dutch and English when at war wit Spain from the 1580's to the late 1700's. In my opinion it is criminal negligence to allow such heavy dependance on oil to continu.
And by the way any alternative is likely to be helpfull in CO2-reduction.
To Igor (#16):
Igor, please consider that there was an agreement between Lithuania and Russia about buying/selling oil with the market price. This agreement had nothing to do with the ownership of the factory. With closing the oil supply (without any warning), Russia violated the terms of the agreement.
Michal #21
The EU isn't like the USSR? True, not yet, at least not like the USSR we knew in our lifetimes. But Rome wasn't built in a day and over time, the similarity will become all too apparant. The same need to control every aspect of life by a centralized authority, the same mindset which insists only those at the core of political power know what is best for a vast population is identical to what gave rise to the USSR we came to know and love. It is the despotic tyrannical need for power which corrupts absolutely and becomes and end in itself. This is the legacy, the history, the culture of Europe. When that happens, any force required to keep the ruling class in power justifies itself including secret police and military force. Re-read Orwell's Animal Farm. The animals didn't expect a new tyranny when they overthrew the old one either.
Comparisons of national GDPs can give an illusory view of world economics. GNP may have been a much more useful comparison but even there it is difficult to compare. Much of what China produces for example winds up as profits for overseas companies especially in the US. One Chinese producer commented on 大象传媒 recently that only 10 cents of every dollar of goods sold by China stays in China. I don't know if this is generally true but it is indicative of what's really happening. Also, China's economy is based largely on mass produced low cost, low quality everyday junk. The real engineering and cutting edge science happens elsewhere. Often China is where the dangerous tedious low paying semi skilled production work is done. A look at France's economy shows that half of its two trillion dollar GDP goes to medical care. What does that say about investment in its future? The recent hiccup in the subprime mortgage lending scandal in the US has rippled throughout the world. European economists told us in 2000 when the US economy was headed for a slowdown that it would not affect Europe but it was years after a minor recession in the US that much of Europe finally recovered. That may have been overlooked in the UK because the changes Prime Minister Thatcher made to the UK's economy made it far less vulnerable to vascillations abroad than the rest of Europe. Why then did so many Brits hate her? Because they are like small children who hate a doctor who forced them to swallow bitter tasting medicine, suffer the pain of an injection, or the aftermath of surgery. BTW, if you are an investor in American markets, it's always useful to watch where European investors here put their money. It's one of the most reliable negative leading indicators I've seen.
"I find it far more remarkable that the US and its have not allies doe not massively invest in alternate technology." [#23]
A small correction:
1.US HAS heavily invested in alternative power generating technologies, among them - fuel cells, coal gasssification and new, more efficient solar panels
(with a little help from NASA).
And the research into feasibility of fusion reactors has been going on for donkey's years.
2. This year, for the first time since Chernobyl disaster (which has created a NIMBY reaction here) permits for first new nuclear power plants have been granted, and for 37 of them to boot.
3. After 2nd Arab oil embargo US has significantly diversified its sources of oil and as a result only 13% of the oil it imports come from the Middle East.
[It's biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico]
When going gets tough, tough get going.
trevor batten #22
"Recently France (and Germany) suffered somewhat severely economically and politically- simply for refusing to tow the US line regarding the invasion of Iraq."
Ha, if you mean that they couldn't bid on contracts funded by US taxpayers to reconstruct Iraq that was nothing. France and Germany haven't even begun to suffer the consequences yet. The economic storm clouds headed towards the heartland of the EU have barely begun to gather. The entire EU economy is headed for a crash. How can that be with such a strong Euro? The US had a strong dollar....just before the stock market crash of 1929 and the great depression. It also had trade and tax surpluses as well. The reason is that the EU's economy is no longer viable. It cannot compete on any level playing field in any niche market in the world and it will never be given one sided advantages the way the US gave it in the aftermath of WWII and during the cold war to help it rebuild and keep it prosperous. There is no place it is number one in anything which it can exploit. Not in manufacturing, not in technology, not in agriculture, not in anything. It is dependent on others for much of its resources and can no longer exploit colonial possessions with force as it once did. It will not get any help or sympathy from America any longer either. Considerations of the impact on other countries such as those in Europe given when deciding American monetary and trade policy are over, replaced by a confrontation the EU begged for. They said they did not want a mono-polar world and now they have set themselves up as an anti-American pole. They will find the US a formidable adversary. Besides what comes directly from the US, American investments in China and India are growing those economies in ways which are eliminating European access to markets around the world both as suppliers of finished goods and as consumers of raw materials. Look at posting #7 by Oksana Hasiuk above. Russia will not meet its contractual obligations to supply gas and oil because not only will its output decline, some of it will be diverted to China and India. Europe will not have sufficient energy resources. Look at it as a way to enforce Kyoto reductions on Europe which it promised whether it likes it or not. The EU demanded Kyoto as it is written, now let's see how it likes living with the consequences of it, inevitable consequences the US rejected. Perhaps Hugo Chavez will help Europe out. And then again....
"Gas is more problematic especially for Western Europe, the logistics of moving it in the quantities Europe needs is great."
Not really. Portugal and Spain are laying as we speak a second gas line to Algeria, which has huge amount of it readily available for export.
And if Green ecoterrorists hadn't managed to stop construction of new nuclear power plants in Germany and actually (together with Schroder's SPD's left wing) hadn't prevented Chancellor Merkel's coalition government from building any new ones now - that country would not have been vulnerable to putinesque Russia's dictate and wouldn't have to kow-tow so embarrassingly to former(?) KGB officers who run the Russian Federation these days.
Elm #23, pardon the religious overtone, for those who mind it, but:
"I find it remarkable that the have-nots in the oil/energy security issue don't come to the conclusion that it is time to invest on a big scale in localised energy production which can not be monopolised."
AMEN BROTHER/SISTER!
These options are, among some: clean nuclear; the classic renewables; bio oil grown from algae; hydro; small scale localised generation from multiple sources; or even clean coal.
So... I find it remarkable too that the EU or the USA for that matter prefer to fight with Russia or Iraq/Iran respectively, instead of investing a fraction of the costs/effort into independent energy sources! Then let's ignore Russia instead if it keeps on playing nasty...
I hear in all western media reports, such as the one by 大象传媒's Mark Mardell, praising "the walls lined with photographs of Soviet-era workers looking heroic". They are petically used to describe "russia's old friendships" in reference to eastern european countries. in fact, most geo-political stories from Eastern Europe presented nowadays are to do with troubles created by "russia loosing the old friends". as other commentators mentioned already, the eastern european "neighbours" were never "friends" by choice but were forced into agreements and alliances that did not bring them benefits.
He-he, Chizlov is good! I think the modern Russian statesmen are exemplary for the 19th century international politics. On the other hand, US and Europe like to give the impression that they have moved on. But every now and then we hear about the US imposing economic sanctions on the countries it doesn't like for some ideological reasons, no? And be supported by most EU countries (previous french and german goverments being notable exceptions). How different is that from Russian bullying?
Mr. Chizlov however raises valid points ignored by everybody else here.
EU did impose political (and economical) decisions on the ascending members to dismantle their Russian-built nuclear stations way before the end of their designed operation time. Safety of the reactors in Bulgaria was checked numerous times by the International Agency and it was always up to the highest standards. In fact, the technical experts gave opinion that the operational time can be extended beyond the original design. Yet the reactors had to be switched off 2 minutes before the start of 2007, as the country entered EU.
By the way, this was the single biggest issue causing anti-EU attitudes in Bulgaria.
It is also true that this caused an energy deficit across the Balkans - as the cheap Bulgarian exports on which most of our neighbours were relying on, had to be cancelled. This counts countries even poorer than us, with unstable economies and politic situations. I have been to Kosovo - houses there are still on diesel generators.
Western Europe complains about the lowering of gas pressure in 2006? Well the Balkans depend mostly on electricity - for warmth in the winter and some cool in summer. During the record heatwave this summer entire Albania and Macedonia were left out without electricity because the Greek air conditioners were sucking up too much. Imagine being locked up in a lift shaft at 45+ degrees C.
And about banning food exports to Russia - probably it is bullying, but one cannot state for sure, unless the actual companies blamed by Russia are investigated. I have not seen such investigation in Western newspapers, have you?
Please, note that alot of the smaller companies in the new countries did not make EU-quality products. When their country joined the EU they had to reorient from home markets to export for former Soviet republics, Arab countries, etc. At least that is what happened in Bulgaria.
So the fact that somebody can export meat to EU, does not mean that the other meat he exports elsewhere is of the same quality. if it was, he'd probably be selling it in Europe - the prices there are much better.
And about banning food exports to Russia - probably it is bullying, but one cannot state for sure, unless the actual companies blamed by Russia are investigated. [#24]
I wouldn't be surprised if an independent FSB Commission would find traces of polonium-210 in Polish meat. Figures.
["butler did it"]
"I find it far more remarkable that the US and its have not allies doe not massively invest in alternate technology." [#23]
A small correction:
1.US HAS heavily invested in alternative power generating technologies, among them - fuel cells, coal gasssification and new, more efficient solar panels
(with a little help from NASA).
And a research into feasibility of controlled/sustained fusion has been going on for donkey's years.
2. This year, for the first time since Chernobyl disaster (which has created a NIMBY reaction here) permits for first new nuclear power plants have been granted, and for 37 of them to boot.
3. After 2nd Arab oil embargo US has significantly diversified its sources of oil and as a result only 13% of the oil it imports comes from the Middle East.
[It's biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico]
When going gets tough, tough get going.
It amazes me to see how many people in Poland and the Baltic states have strong anti-Russian sentiments. They still think that Russia wants to invade them or punish them for no reason. They think that their countries were the only ones that suffered because of the communism, but they should wake up and see that the biggest damage was done to Russia itself. Millions of Russians perished during the collectivisation period alone. The so-called "Golodomor" in the Ukraine was not a genocide directed against the Ukrainians - it was part of the collectivisation process which negatively affected all regions of the former USSR. Farm production in all of the USSR fell after that.
Then there were various repressions and executions of enemies of the states. Again, the largest loss of human life was in Russia.
Second World War brought more death and misery to Russia than to any other country in the world.
After the fall of the USSR, Russia was far worse off than other ex-Soviet Republics.
And now the "West" complains that Russia is getting stronger. When it was weak, it could be toyed with and if it was not obedient, it could be punished. Now it is no longer possible to punish it and that annoys many governments in the "West".
Yes, Russia is not happy with the attitude towards it and it has the right to defend its own national interests, just like any other country. Take US, for example, if some state threatens its national interests, that state is in most cases penalised by various means, including economic sanctions. Same goes for the UK and other major countries.
I really do not see a point in bullying Russia, because by bullying Russia, you only cause more problems for yourselves. The leaders of the EU have made a good point not so long ago by deciding not to teach Russia how to live, but by rather cooperating with it. One should accept that not all countries want to have exactly the same standards and ideals, but all of us want to live in happiness and prosperity on this planet.
Marat, USSR had started the WWII as Hitler's ally so all deaths and misery were related rather to soviet own politics than anything else there. USSR was actually the only true winner of that war as it gained half of the continent, while all others had only lost their resources with no gains at all (best example being actually UK). Then USSR occupied dozen of countries for 40 years and did not hesitate to kill it's citizens up to late 80's if you consider what happened in Afganistan or even up to now if you look at Chechnya. Does such a "tracking record" of russian foreign policy make the mistrust to the russian authorities really so difficult for you to understand? Your statement that Russia is worse-off after the fall of the USSR is violating several nations' rights to enjoy independence. Unless one simply considers the return of stolen property to be a "worse-off" deal for the thief indeed.
The West is not objecting Russia being strong. I believe it's objecting Russia's authorities behavior including murdering other countries citizens rather. The West would even love to see the russian citizens being strong, instead of seeing the powerty of most of them nowdays. If you accept the current russian foreign politics, you should actually call for the restore of the british empire in India and Middle East as well. Only then such a world politics view would be consistent.
WW2 is entirely on Western Europe's consience. It happened because of the mutual grievances left over from the WW1, which was also a European creation. Add Napoleon into it, and see why Europe has been a very, very dangerous neightbour for Russia, one much more conniving and agressive then Russia itself despite all the smooth European rethoric. Why complicate the truth when it is quite plain to see?
Russian agreement with Hitler happened after Britain and the gang first refused to accept Russia as a partner against him... In any case, I cannot see how it could have possibly affected Hitler's initial intention to dominate the world, Russia included. Therefore, to say that the suffering inflicted upon Russians is somehow due to Russia's politics is just wild and crazy.
As to speaking to Russia with one voice, these days it can be achieved only artificially and only for a short time. Eu countries do have different interests, and people in EU business and diplomatic circles tend to see beyond the usual anti Russian propaganda. Fact is, too many people in high places, smarter then you and me, do not see Russia as a threat. A lot of those who do either fail to appreciate how the definition of danger changed in the 21st century, or openly represent US interests in Europe (reference to my other post regarding the East European elites). Or both. Either way, those who thought that Russia in the 90s would follow the footsteps of Hitlerian Germany and nuke the world were proved wrong; most of the peoples of the Soviet union proved to be highly civilised as the country disintegrated without the major civil war, and Russia is becoming a moderate player on the world stage, playing a crucial role in the battle against terrorism and trying to prevent Bush from expanding his disastrous aggression into Iran.
And by the way, the evidence of Litvinenko case has so far been very convincing. Boo-hoo.
Mr Chishov may denie that oil or gas are used as a political coercive tool. He is a diplomat and after all that is what diplomats do.
However it is nothing out of the ordinary to use trade as a tool of foreign policy. You name a major Western State which does not do the same. So this being settled I would just ask; If Russia's sudden pipeline problem was a political decission which it probably was, what would you say Mazeiku's sale to a Polish company rather than to a Russian company was or what about the sale of the Lithunian Port facility to an American company rather than a Russian company?
Insignificant little Nations, Russian bullying is the echo of your foreign policy. Learn from it.