Russia's Achilles Heel
Over the last couple of days, the post-mortems have begun to roll in from big-thinkers on Russia. The prescriptions advised in order to bring about status-quo ante in Georgia -- ejecting Russia from G-8, distancing Moscow further from global trade treaties -- add up to a consensus of "Oh Dear, Oh My." Non-membership in G-8 and WTO no doubt is provoking snickers in the Kremlin.
Contrary to these views, however, the West and the U.S. in particular do have one very real lever, one that Karl Rove might recognize -- Russia's very strength.
Russia's Achilles Heel is its petro-power. It's a message that both senators Barack Obama (and his running mate Joe Biden) and John McCain should keep in mind as they prepare to deal with Russia.
For more than a year, O and G has been describing progressive U.S. setbacks in what I've called the Pipeline War, the struggle with Russia for energy-driven political influence in Europe. We've also been writing here during that period about the growing tensions between Russia and Georgia.
In a nutshell, Russia understands that power in a large swath of the world -- Europe, the former Soviet Union and parts of the Middle East -- can be exerted from control of oil and natural gas pipelines. That's how the U.S. has inserted its power into Russia's backyard -- through the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that crosses the country of today's conflict, Georgia. Now, Vladimir Putin intends to build on Russia's restored power by erecting two gigantic new natural gas pipelines into Europe, which already relies on Russia for almost a third of its gas.
Here's where the Achilles Heel comes in. One of these pipelines -- South Stream -- would pass through nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Austria. These are countries in which the U.S. has influence.
If the U.S. wants Russia's attention, persuade these countries and others -- for instance Germany, the main European partner on the second pipeline, called Nord Stream -- to freeze their support for the lines until it's satisfied that Georgia's sovereignty is no longer compromised.
Energy, and specifically Nord Stream and South Stream, are a Russian strength, and a genuine vulnerability.
Contrary to these views, however, the West and the U.S. in particular do have one very real lever, one that Karl Rove might recognize -- Russia's very strength.
Russia's Achilles Heel is its petro-power. It's a message that both senators Barack Obama (and his running mate Joe Biden) and John McCain should keep in mind as they prepare to deal with Russia.
For more than a year, O and G has been describing progressive U.S. setbacks in what I've called the Pipeline War, the struggle with Russia for energy-driven political influence in Europe. We've also been writing here during that period about the growing tensions between Russia and Georgia.
In a nutshell, Russia understands that power in a large swath of the world -- Europe, the former Soviet Union and parts of the Middle East -- can be exerted from control of oil and natural gas pipelines. That's how the U.S. has inserted its power into Russia's backyard -- through the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline that crosses the country of today's conflict, Georgia. Now, Vladimir Putin intends to build on Russia's restored power by erecting two gigantic new natural gas pipelines into Europe, which already relies on Russia for almost a third of its gas.
Here's where the Achilles Heel comes in. One of these pipelines -- South Stream -- would pass through nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Austria. These are countries in which the U.S. has influence.
If the U.S. wants Russia's attention, persuade these countries and others -- for instance Germany, the main European partner on the second pipeline, called Nord Stream -- to freeze their support for the lines until it's satisfied that Georgia's sovereignty is no longer compromised.
Energy, and specifically Nord Stream and South Stream, are a Russian strength, and a genuine vulnerability.
Labels: biden, Gazprom, georgia, mccain, natural gas, obama, oil pipelines, Putin, Russia
19 Comments:
Um, no. Given the rate Europe's own gas fields are declining, and given the rate that Europe's gas demand is growing, freezing these projects hurts Europe far more than it hurts Russia. Fact is, Europe needs these projects more than Russia needs the revenues from them, which are already so huge that the only thing more revenues would do is drive up Russian inflation and the size or Russian currency reserves.
Hi Rkka: thanks for the remark. You have fallen into the Russia trap. It's true that Europe is reliant on Russia. But in the same way that a sudden drop in demand has transformed what vaunted experts like Goldman Sachs had predicted was an inexorable rise in crude oil prices to $200 a barrel, the demand side has a lot more power than might be obvious.
You are in good company. As far as I can tell, no one has perceived the pressure point presented by Russia's strategic plan for Gazprom. Putin and Medvedev have committed all of their prestige, dozens of hours of time, peripatetic trips ranging from Ashkabad to Europe over the past 18 months or so to making sure that South Stream is in place. To call this project more a need of Europe than Russia is to ignore why the Kremlin is putting so much effort into the Gazprom strategy.
It is Russia's future. Putin sees Russia's future riches coming from an integrated energy system, profiting from the ownership of pipelines starting in Turkmenistan, and filling out like a web into Europe.
A freezing of cooperation with South Stream puts a wrench into those plans.
"It's true that Europe is reliant on Russia. But in the same way that a sudden drop in demand has transformed what vaunted experts like Goldman Sachs had predicted was an inexorable rise in crude oil prices to $200 a barrel, the demand side has a lot more power than might be obvious."
If they have alternatives that can be brought online in the same timeframe as Nord/South Stream, or if they're heading into a recession that drops projected demand a good deal.
Without leverage like this, Europe needs more pipelines, strengthening Russia's position.
In fact RKKA, there is no firm indication that Russian gas supplies will actually RISE with the advent of Nord Stream and South Stream, or whether they are simply an attempt by Moscow to regularize the current service by bypassing troublemakers like Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland and so on; and, of course, in the case of South Stream, to upend U.S. plans to build the competing Nabucco pipeline.
Russian gas supplies MAY rise. But mainly these pipelines are designed to cement Gazprom's hold on European energy.
Europe is not short of natural gas. It will do just fine with or without Nord Stream and South Stream. Russia can ship through its current lines. But it wants more control.
You are right in one considerable respect -- Europe needs to nail down a more diversified supply. If it were possible to kill a corpse, the Georgian war did so to the U.S.-backed Nabucco pipeline. Now Europe must find an alternative.
South Stream and North Stream are Russian pressure points, pure and simple.
Do you think there are Russian observers studying the current situation and saying that when it comes to the U.S., "anything goes" as well? The U.S. government hasn't done anything as dramatic as the poisoning of Litvinenco, but it has orchestrated elections with the taxpayer supported National Endowment for Democracy (in many places including Georgia), it got Poland to agree to missile interceptors on its soil (which, pre-Ossetia, was considered too provocative), and it is still expanding NATO almost two decades after the Warsaw Pact dissolved.
I am no fan of any nation-state, but I do think that, when cornered, most can be expected to act as though "anything goes." One point is certain: U.S. neoconservatives have been very successful in suppressing any resurgence of liberal internationalism in the years following the Cold War. The rank-and file--in Ossetia, Georgia, Russia, and the U.S.--are no better for it.
Hi Barry: the Russians most certainly regard the Ukraine, Georgian and Kyrgyz revolutions as outrageous, not to mention U.S. policy on Poland, Czech Republic and Kosovo. It seems quite a stretch, however, to equate the confounding of a fixed election (Ukraine) or, say, the arrest of the activities of a true killer (Milocevic) with Litvinenko.
There are examples of terrible and even tragic U.S. foreign policy (Iraq, unilateralism, torture). There are examples of almost anything goes in U.S. policy, but they are in domestic politics.
Incidentally, there are definitely positive examples of anything goes in Russian history. How about Stalingrad? The Russians simply wouldn't give up.
Thanks. Just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts here, have learned much, and look forward to your commentary. Thanks for taking the time.
Steve: Any comments or thoughts about the following:
In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin:
"[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)
Water also seems to be a major factor in Israel's interest in all of this.
allyn
what if such action would make Russia turn off all natural gas to europe?
what then?
Hello, Steve. There´s a Russian pipeline project under examination here in Finland. It would run under the Baltic sea waters towards Germany http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=260903&lan=fi&clan=en
Could make a comment on this project, pls?
Anxious in Finland
Georgia provided many troops to assist the US in Iraq. The US invaded
Iraq to control its oil. Russia is invading Georgia to control the BTC
pipeline for its oil. Bush did it to Iraq. Putin is doing it to Georgia.
This would have never occurred before invading Iraq. Bush took the
opportunity of having the world's sympathy due to 9/11 to invade Iraq.
Which he had no business doing. Now, the US appears weak and
overstrained and Putin knows this and is flexing his muscles. My biggest
fear is China. China is a sleeping giant waiting for an excuse to join
forces with Russia so they both can control the region. China and
Russia want the Stan's back.. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc. European
forces are complacently waiting to see how the US is going to respond.
If the US responds using force China will join forces with Russia and
they will be a huge threat to Europe in the future. If the US responds
only through politics then they will lose Georgia and the power of
Russia will grow. This power will be a big threat in the future and many
countries regionally will be in fear. Russia is expecting the US to get
involved and I believe they already have a plan of action for a US
response. We cannot let them implement this plan. Europe needs to throw
them for a loop and take over this situation. Russia must be stopped now
but not by the US. Europe needs to step up and flex.
Hi Allyn: It's a bloc -- an economic bloc. At least it was until Aug. 7th. I think that it will hold together in some form. But it will be weaker. Much weaker. And the Central Asian countries are all but out of the picture.
Steve:
I brought up the Israeli connection becomes it's something I just learned about. In addition to the oil factor, it could have influences on the other Mediterranean conflicts.
The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are farreaching.
What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon. In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory.
"Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East,
The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.
Do you have any info on this?
allyn
Instead of preaching people on how to " deal " with Russia, can you propose a peace plan to stop all this conflict that ARE currently happening on this globe, which has gone, unfortunately, very, very wrong?
Make love, not war.
Why is everyone pointing to Kosovo as a precedent? Why not look at Chechnya of 1992-1999, when it declared and was in fact an independent state. The West didn't recognize Chechnya's independence out of concern for Russia's interests. Russia should have done the same with respect to Kosovo. Both Kosovo and Serbia are in the heart of Europe, so Europeans' interests should be respected. Just like Russia's interests were respected in the case of Chechnya.
Petr, may I remember You, that Chechnia (that is the chechen Premier -so he was then- Shamil Basaev) started the second chechen war (invasion of Dagestan etc.) in August 1999 ? You think that, under circumstances, an international recognization would have changed anything ? Basaev made the same mistake of Sakashvili . And even more grievously answered it...
Anonymous, can you read English? Re-read my comment. It's about the independent Chechen state that existed from 1992 to 1999. During those six years, the West treaded carefully and refrained from recognizing Chechnya's independence out of concern for Russia's interests. Russia should have done the same for Europe on the Kosovo issue.
Um... Chechnia was a criminal country which kidnapped hundreds of people for ransom, killed remaining Russian population, and then waged war on Russia and all other 'infidels' after it was given de facto independence. It is as much in Western interest for Chechnia to be under control as it is to have the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, Kosovo was given full autonomy and was de facto independent. In this respect, Abhazia and South Ossetia are most similar. They too are de facto independent and only de jure part of Georgia. They too have been victims of ethnic violence (remember early 1990s people!), and, just as is case in Kosovo where Serb villages were burned down and civilians killed by the separatists, ethnic Ossetians and Abkhazians torched Georgian villages on their land.
Frankly, I think Kosovo should have stayed de jure part of Serbia (after all, why are we concerned about territorial integrity of Gerogia but not Serbia, who is too, part of Europe?) while S. Ossetia and Abkhazia should have stayed part of Georgia. Now that Kosovo is independent, however, we have no right to say that South Ossetia shouldn't be.
In the long term, I think it is in the interest of the US to be not on the side of people who claim to be their allies, but on the side of moral justice. The right to self-determination is part of UN charter, and it is what drove decolonization of large part of Africa and Asia. There is much wrong about Russia, and I wouldn't mind if we stood up in those cases. However, this isn't one of them.
Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? Russia recognizes the independence of South Ossetia, where 90% of the population are already Russian citizens. Ditto with Abkhazia.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home