|
|
|
Last Updated: Oct 9, 2008 - 10:13:22 AM |
For 15 years, we heard barely a dying wheeze from the Russian bear
although we could see by just looking that it was a very sick beastie.
We saw plenty of individual Russians flaunting their newly acquired
wealth (and in London, from where I write, the English establishment
welcomed their cash with craven back and without enquiring too closely
to its origins) but the state itself was virtually invisible.
In August this year, however, it came roaring back onto the
international scene, delivering a virtual knock-out blow to Georgia,
its upstart neighbour in the Caucasus, in the space of a couple of
days. Cue wailing Cassandras announcing the outbreak of a 'New Cold
War', and predicting that the sore-headed animal will soon embark on an
invasion of all its neighbours.
Marshall Goldman - senior scholar at the Davis Center for Russian
Studies at Harvard and an advisor to President Bush prior to
the St
Petersburg G8 summit in 2006 - is too experienced and knowledgeable to
subscribe to the thesis of a New Cold War but he shares a lot of the
New Cold Warriors' concerns about the nature of the Russia
reinvigorated under Putin.
Oilopoly explains the
transformation of an erstwhile superpower that projected its might by
military means into one that seeks to do the same by using its
ownership of vast energy resources.
But while Goldman's scholarship is unimpeachable and frequently
extremely interesting (I would not want to put off anyone from reading
this mercifully brief and taut book), he conveys a consistent
impression that Putin's almost genetic inclination is to deploy his
powerful tool in order to inflict damage on others. Like many American
politicians since Reagan, Goldman warns Europe quite specifically
against becoming over-dependent on Russian gas and oil.
Putin and his entourage are perfectly capable of manipulating the
supply of gas and oil for vindictive purposes. But by over-emphasising
the possibility, Professor Goldman almost completely misses an
important truth too often overlooked: Russia's energy reserves and
Europe's demand are a very happy match.
True, Russia could leave Europe in the dark by selling to China and
India, although switching its major routes would be an almighty
upheaval. But please let's not forget that Europe pays top dollar for
Russia's black stuff and it pays on time. Europe may have fears about
being over-dependent on Russia as a consumer, but Russia is, I suspect,
even more wary of becoming over-dependent as a supplier to China.
Furthermore, as Goldman himself concedes, Russia is dependent on
Western technology to maintain its high levels of production. Turn your
back on the West and it might not be long before your wells grind to a
halt. At the very least, Russia would suffer a severe slump in output.
Goldman believes that we should diversify our energy sources - in
itself a perfectly reasonable idea. But while Russia is vindictive, the
countries he recommends we deal with instead - Algeria and Iran - are
hardly bastions of rectitude. Indeed some Western countries might be
about to go to war with one of them.
The starting point to this debate should not be an alarmist assertion
that Russia as an energy supplier is uniquely dangerous and nasty. It
isn't. Not only are the great majority of global energy suppliers both
nasty and dangerous, they are all fully aware of the huge influence and
wealth their resources confer on them - or on their elites, at least.
Ordinary folk are generally locked in a state of near penury. Given
that, we should approach them with a combination of guile and respect.
Russia really is like a bear - talk nicely to it and give it a bit of
honey, and you'd be surprised how manageable it is. Poke it in the eye
and it will come after you. And angry bears can inflict very serious
damage indeed.
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|