Grand Danois
Entertainer
You can't. "Energy dependence" from Russia is a hype.
NATO's Multiple Frontiers?
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
Don't get me wrong Grand Danois, I think we are all open for suggestions.
By the way, I'm not Pax Brittanica over here. Thank You...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Your absolutely right Grand Danois. As always.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Well, thank you. Good to see you up an about again.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #47
The thread is on how we (members) look at it. Of course the reality will always be how the European states look at it. This is going to be a member opinion but from what I have been seeing since past year is that Europe finds Russian option quite cheaper. In addition the oil crisis of we have had recently had a negative impact on Europe. We saw UK transporters on strike & transporters in other European states followed.
In these cases Russia is the better option but calling it a hype!? I would agree with you.
Better options are available, example Central Asia. Regardless of Central Asian Republic [CARs] states being pro-Russia their leadership will sell their soul to get revenue & selling oil is their primary interest which they find it hard exploit. Russia on the other hand want to control the CARs oil rout, with recently signing agreement with Kazakhstan to lay a Kazakh-Russia-Europe pipeline.On the other side the CARs (wanting to free themselves of Russian shekels) look for alternative rout to Europe. One of them being "Georgia." The moment Russians realized Caspian-Azerbaijan-Turkey rout as the feasible path they helped Armenia invade Nigorno Karabagh (Azerbijan) thus cutting Azerbijan in two [now from East to West its like: Caspian Sea, Azerbijan, Occupied Nigorno Karabgh, Azerbijan & then Turkey]. This made it impossible for Turkey to connect any direct pipeline with Azerbian & other Caspian & CARs States. However, Georgia provided an alternative rout & the pipeline went from Casipian shores of Azerbijan to Georgia & then to Turkey (failing the Russian plan).
What I see recent Russian moves is threefold:
1. Reasert itself in its own European Backyard
2. Revenge for Kosovo
3. Disrupt the oil flow, make the region voilatile for Europe so they would switch to much secure rout; namely Russia itself.
It is therefore I would say; Oil Flow is a hype from Russian side not European. There are various alternative routs. It only depends on European diplomacy.
Germany is currently considering to build a national strategic gas reserve. Due to Georgia.
As for Gazprom, i wouldn't be that worried. Consider that Gazprom itself actually has to buy rights to develop fields for the most part from European firms - BP, Shell, ***, E.On and so on. Gazprom lacks money to develop fields on its own - almost all newer developed fields in Russia itself even have usually 15-40% operational stakes from Western European companies.
And the same companies are of course the ones that are driving the oil and gas market worldwide.
Forget Chevron, Mitsubishi, ExxonMobil really, and forget completely about Gazprom - outside the CONUS, it's BP, Royal Dutch Shell, E.On, RWE, ***, Norsk Hydro, Total who quite literally own the market. ExxonMobil and Chevron are about the only US players that can keep up in that game. Other than that it's Western Europe that owns the world, energy-wise.
As for Gazprom, i wouldn't be that worried. Consider that Gazprom itself actually has to buy rights to develop fields for the most part from European firms - BP, Shell, ***, E.On and so on. Gazprom lacks money to develop fields on its own - almost all newer developed fields in Russia itself even have usually 15-40% operational stakes from Western European companies.
And the same companies are of course the ones that are driving the oil and gas market worldwide.
Forget Chevron, Mitsubishi, ExxonMobil really, and forget completely about Gazprom - outside the CONUS, it's BP, Royal Dutch Shell, E.On, RWE, ***, Norsk Hydro, Total who quite literally own the market. ExxonMobil and Chevron are about the only US players that can keep up in that game. Other than that it's Western Europe that owns the world, energy-wise.
Grand Danois, I'm not going to take your bite. And you should know better. Any disagreement you have with me should be sorted via PM.Well, thank you. Good to see you up an about again.
Sabre and kato follow up with some very relevant points.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I think what happens with Nord Stream and the proposed NG powerplant at Greifswald will be an indicator if there is to be a substantial shift.
Hate to put my Fianance Hat on here, but is the Nord Stream going to be cheaper Eastern Natural Gas?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you ask if it is NG from the east, then yes.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
How do you figure? You're not making sense...
This is not the forum. PM.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #56
I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle We seem to be too stuck on "dependency theory" aren't we? Very well in that case the question I assume is that the are future NATO frontiers going to be dependency based [based mainly on Economic & natural resources]?
We seem to be too stuck on "dependency theory" aren't we? Very well in that case the question I assume is that the are future NATO frontiers going to be dependency based [based mainly on Economic & natural resources]?Sabre what your saying is totaly relevant to the toipic at hand. It would seem however certain cat herders have an agenda.I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle
Sabre what your saying is totaly relevant to the toipic at hand. It would seem however certain cat herders have an ulteria motive.I am just wondering; did I open the thread to discuss NATO or Euro-Russia tussle
Stryker001
Banned Member
Well you lost the war in Afghanistan last year, when you leave the foreign fighters will move. I do believe that there is border security issue coming from North Africa to the EU. The point with Afghanistan the the Pakistan tribal regions is that the insurgents al-Qaida got established, if that occurs in North Africa the EU may have problems.
That is right al-Qaida does not export terrorism so the Director is wrong when he is concerned about the training camps in the tribal regions in Pakistan in regards to terror operations in the US,UK and EU. The Morocco connection is self-explanatory.
Since 2001 invasion of Afghanistan the US has not be attacked and the majority of attacks and plots have been diversified to the EU and the UK. The UK is more of a target for terrorism that the PRC is and was and the terrorist have a proven success at breach the CT defenses. Therefore, it is likely that an operation would be launched. The UK CT operations are well task for after the fact investigations compared to prevention.
The French riots was due to persons from North Africa, such socio-economic economic, geo-political matters have no effect on terrorism or ideology, yet that is a key problem in all conflict zones. It is highly likely that such causes could full terrorism in the future; once again al-Qaida does not export terror so that is not a problem. That fact is that many Muslims have been killed that not amount of money or goats can be used to repay the debt, hence the reason that various tribes and clan have had feuds for centuries.
Well if NATO is a target of al-Qaida and Muslim extremists, so the Russian pipelines and any expansion of are obvious target for terror attacks, which effects the Russian economy.
Therefore, unlike NATO who let al-Qaida fester for many years and then had to go to Afghanistan, Russia may put a base there to keep as a preventative measure to protect the infrastructure in the EU.
Finish the war you started before you try to start another one, yes Russia is weak and can do no harm to the west, and NATO will crush them with sanctions, as you are doing with Iran. If it was not for the ceasefire with the Quds Iraq would not be as peaceful and Afghanistan would be much worse.