Grand Danois
Entertainer
Because EU is not beggars.
Please spend the "amassed" SWF/reserves and see how long it lasts. 
Caucasian Powderkeg?
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Status
Please spend the "amassed" SWF/reserves and see how long it lasts. Corporate EU is begger in sense that its own consumers cannot afford the products which are necessary for its growth. 30% of EU truck market is Russia. Similar is that huge transfer in Auto production. where ur going to sell that S Class MBs/RR/Bentley. huge Siemens turbine contracts. these are necessary for those firms otherwise there stock will nose dive.Because EU is not beggars.
Russians are not stupid they are buying more natural resoruces with SWF around the world and is preparing to extract arctic. Chinese/Japanese/SK can do this with there SWF on same scale as they have to support currency market. So there is huge difference money in Russia hands and Chinese hands.
Essentially EU is bankrupt thats why it has to sell these critical things to Russian Aviation/military sector which shorten there production times and can be used in several projects which can be inturn used against EU
Imagine doing this things in Soviet times without enabling infrastructure.
The Western, particularly US statements of respecting "territorial Integrity" and "Disproportionate Response" is almost laughable. Also the statements of changing regimes through military actions is unacceptable in the 21st Century, also makes it painfully idiotic.
The US should refrain from using these statements and try to claim a moral upper hand in the conflict.
They should not be making such claims when what happened in Iraq and Serbia-Kosovo is just that.
US changed the regime of Saddam with the false accusation of WMD by using FORCE in the 21st Century, against the UN's wishes.
US attacked Serbia's capital during Kosovo's seperationing by using Disproportionate force. the use of Long range Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, Stealth bombers smaks "Disproportionate use of force" or "Disproportionate Response"
How can US try claiming the moral Higher ground by continuing to portray Russia as the bad aggressor by using certain languages when they themselves are guilty of doing it. Its laughable.
Mr. Saakashvilli also is doing a great job portraying himself as the innocent guy, with his country being bullied by the big bad wolf, when he was the 1 who launched salvo's of MLRS into a sleeping town killing 2000 ppl.
the international news Media CNN, and BBC is also helping him in his quest as much as they can by doing just that. Hardly have they went into S.Ossetia or Russia to get the picture from the Ossetians. A question come to my mind. Why didnt CNN go to Saddam and get his press conferences on a big nation bullying and attacking his country and ppl on the baseless accusations of WMD? Perhaps because he did not talk good English?
The US should refrain from using these statements and try to claim a moral upper hand in the conflict.
They should not be making such claims when what happened in Iraq and Serbia-Kosovo is just that.
US changed the regime of Saddam with the false accusation of WMD by using FORCE in the 21st Century, against the UN's wishes.
US attacked Serbia's capital during Kosovo's seperationing by using Disproportionate force. the use of Long range Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, Stealth bombers smaks "Disproportionate use of force" or "Disproportionate Response"
How can US try claiming the moral Higher ground by continuing to portray Russia as the bad aggressor by using certain languages when they themselves are guilty of doing it. Its laughable.
Mr. Saakashvilli also is doing a great job portraying himself as the innocent guy, with his country being bullied by the big bad wolf, when he was the 1 who launched salvo's of MLRS into a sleeping town killing 2000 ppl.
the international news Media CNN, and BBC is also helping him in his quest as much as they can by doing just that. Hardly have they went into S.Ossetia or Russia to get the picture from the Ossetians. A question come to my mind. Why didnt CNN go to Saddam and get his press conferences on a big nation bullying and attacking his country and ppl on the baseless accusations of WMD? Perhaps because he did not talk good English?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Is that's 30% of total EU truck production or 30% of exports. There have been so many factual errors in your postings here that I have to ask you to clarify.
Another issue is that your factoids don't translate into the real world as you hope for them to do - sorry. They lack context and causation. You're presenting the world is as flat.
Another issue is that your factoids don't translate into the real world as you hope for them to do - sorry. They lack context and causation. You're presenting the world is as flat.
Perhaps the ex-KGB and USSR FM Eduard Shevardnadze could be called back from retirement? Consider it a joke on my part.
As for bombers, even tactical fighters such as F-15/16/18s, Mirages & various Sukhois/MiGs can carry nukes- it their range that counts! That's why TU-22Ms without refueling probes aren't strategic.
Georgian soldiers arrive at an airbase in Tbilisi from Iraq, August 11, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Geor...oViewer=/080811/ids_photos_wl/r2748069280.jpg
IMO, they were safer in Iraq than were they are now!
The MVD was supposed to relieve the Army in Chechnya some months ago, so they are indirectly helping anyways!
You greatly, FATALY overestimate the importance of this event. I dont think any partner programs with EU will be affected in any way. If anything, for very large joint projects (like mentioned pipelines) it will benefits russians as they shown they will to protect own vital interests if needed.
Besides, remember - Russia constantly, literally every day for the last 10 years told everyone (Georgia, US and EU in first case) what they will protect Ossetia and Abkhazia if Georgia will try to attack them, and what it will have unpleasant consequences for Georgia. Now, what will think some real decision makers (western, eastern, etc) about russian "trustworthiness" ?
Technically, it is relative easy to shift away from gas. But the main questions here - shift to WHAT? There is just no alternative of comparable scale. Oil is lacking as is already. Coal is very ecological unfriendly, cost more than gas, and is also produced in insufficient amount. Wind, solar, etc - lol. Nuclear - could be a real choice if not usual EU greens nuclear phobias, and will require decades to build anyway.
What i'm trying to tell - sure EU will survive without russian gas & oil. But EU economical losses will be nightmarish. Whereas russian economical losses will be somewhat mitigated due to already mentioned China, Japan, etc selling.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Hmmm. Europe was dependent on imported energy before "globalization". So what's the difference now? IIRC 27% percent of gas consumption in EU is imported from Russia. If Russia ceases exporting, then there's no money to fund the war machine. Simple, 3/4 of growth in Russia since the post Soviet low has been in the energy sector. Not a diverse economy. Russia needs the cashflow and mfg from EU.
Using energy as a weapon is a Damocles sword. Do it for serious once...
The big difference these days is that there is more than one major customer for Energy Commodities, ie China, India and other parts of the developing world. They will happily buy whatever Europe turns its nose up at. The whole story of Geopolitics in Central Asia is about who achieves Energy Security, not so much for themselves, but the ability to satisfy the energy security needs of Europe. Medvedev, former President of Gazprom is now President Of Russia and has concluded major exclusive Gas Marketing and Distribution rights for Russia via Gazprom in a number of Major Central Asian Gas producers like Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and is close to establishing a new OPEC style Gas Cartel with the above and Iran.
America/NATO has lost this competition with Russia/SCO. It is Russia that can keep Europe Warm, Fed and Mobile, not America and this brings considerable influence as we are now seeing. The closing down of a pro western Georgia and establishing control over the last Independent Oil and Gas pipes is a near final act of this process. The final act will be bringing the Ukraine back to heel as well.
In terms of the Georgian endgame, I think the Georgian military will be left in no doubt as to what the final outcome will be and so will be invited to take matters into their own hands and remove the current Georgian government. I think it is significant that Bernard Kouchner and Sarkozy are heading the Diplomatic efforts, as France is where the exiled former Defence Minister has sought refuge and he is regarded as the man most likely to be able to form a new (and presumably Kremlin acceptable) Government.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Not if they go into "Czechoslovakia after having taken the Sudetenland" - to paraphrase.
See above. It has limits.
Gas can be placed by any means of electricity generating capacity, there are many - and we've had this discussion in another thread already, including on nuclear power.
You mean that Russia can toss such an amount of energy on an essentially open market (despite it being an exclusive sell) without pushing worldwide energy costs down?
I will suggest you to think about 1 simple thing. There were Cold War. Remember these time? Czechoslovakia, Berlin Wall, etc. Yet USSR and EU happily traded oil and gas, and build a huge natural resources export infrastructure which is still used by Russia now. Russia and EU are not even remotely as hostile as were USSR and EU. So dont expect any problems in joint projects.
If it would be so easy, world (and especially rather rich EU) would have done it long ago.
Not quite all amount, but lets for easer discussion suggest it. Yes, it will not drive prices down. If anything, it will drive them up. As EU will be forces to also buy energy from open market - just not directly from Russia. As you know, world is closed system. Oil and gas do not comes from cosmic magic. So if EU buys oil from somewhere, then that oil earlier were bought by some other costumer which now would be forced to find new supply - and Russia will happily provide that supply.You mean that Russia can toss such an amount of energy on an essentially open market (despite it being an exclusive sell) without pushing worldwide energy costs down?
Plus, of course, 20-30% less oil & gas exported will not hurt Russian economy. Even 50% less revenue will not affect it that much - right now about same export revenues share goes to "reserve" - read buying US/EU shares/currency and supporting US / EU economic.
P.S. About EU. Consider 1 thing. Saakashvilli was American puppet. You are quite wrong if you think EU leaders dont understand that and what this fact dont affect they reaction.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hehe, so why did USSR sell to the capitalists?
I'm sorry it's getting late, but a short comment on gas consumption in the EU: if 27% of consumption (perhaps a bit more this year? I think 27% is a 2006-2007 number) is imported from Russia, then you only have to replace that 27%, not substitute the entire generating capacity from gas.
I'm sorry it's getting late, but a short comment on gas consumption in the EU: if 27% of consumption (perhaps a bit more this year? I think 27% is a 2006-2007 number) is imported from Russia, then you only have to replace that 27%, not substitute the entire generating capacity from gas.
The word is that Russia has in excess of 1,000 tanks inside Georgia right now.
Georgia has fewer than 100 tanks in its entire military.
Actually it is Russia that bought Capitalist and that even includes China in most of cases. EU is too poor now to purchase anything.Hehe, so why did USSR sell to the capitalists?
I'm sorry it's getting late, but a short comment on gas consumption in the EU: if 27% of consumption (perhaps a bit more this year? I think 27% is a 2006-2007 number) is imported from Russia, then you only have to replace that 27%, not substitute the entire generating capacity from gas.
Actually it is 50% gas and 25% oil. and Russia has now exclusive agreements in North Africa/Central Asia which will further raise the price. EU practicall has no choice. EU has to eat what Russia dish out and that includes enforced Peace.
actually it is much more than 30% of EU truck market size.
Although annexation is a long shot to say the least, one wonders what NATO would do if Russia did press on, fully conquer, and annex Georgia outright in the coming week(s).
If NATO have done nothing now (With France disgracefully even blocking a verbal condemnation of Russia!), why would they do anything in that case? And then in 2009, 2010, it'll be Estonia or Latvia, who "oppress their Russians" we're told [those Russians who were so 'graciously' poured into the Baltic by the USSR, like China did to Tibet], or Ukraine, or one of the central Asian states with Asiatic inhabitants?
If NATO is too timid to stand up to Russia [its raison d'etre], it might as well disband.
This seems pretty obvious. "Peacekeepers" and "humanitarian relief" are modern PC buzz-words, everyone knows that.
Of course Russian occupying soldiers in the 20% or so of Georgia that they held as of last week, were always quietly preparing for invasion if need be. That's what armies do.
Now - yes. But 4 days ago Georgia had more than 200 tanks, most of them were upgraded with Israel/Western tech.
1000 tanks on russian side - might be possible counting Abkhazia. Newly rebuild railroad there can greatly speed up Russian troops relocation. Then i talked about weeks needed for troops relocation, i forgot about Abkhazia and its railroad. Seems Black Sea navy marines also played a role in ground operation.
This conflict will enter as classic example in all military books. For us, forum jokes - it will serve as infinite source for interesting discussions about many military things.
We should not concetrate on the implications of the war on EU and America relations because we do not know what is Russia's intentions. Once it is known then we can speculate. At moment the conflict is still active, thus we need as much info on whats happening on the ground.
What is your source for that 200 figure?
BBC has been saying Georgia had 82 main battle tanks.
The problem here, NATO as whole dont see it nearly as dangerous as America. Right now you propose ultimate uncompromising NATO stand - but it is not how real politic is done. Largely, "old" EU countries react rather "friendly" to russian invasion to Georgia.
Only today Saakashvilli said "more than 100 tanks are ready to defend Gori". This was after they lost god know how many.
But jokes aside... example. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/georgia/army.htm
Since then Georgia purchased at least 60 tanks.
- Status