winthrop360

Shameless U.S. News and World Report

2009-12-31T12:17:00.000-05:00

My high school, which was ranked as the 45th best high school in America last year has now fallen to 71st . Unfreakingbelievable

talk about transperency

2009-02-09T20:06:00.001-05:00

Laura Rozen writes about how the United States funneled $100 million to the accounts of the Kyrgyz ruling family. Interesting stuff.

post-Cold War geopolitical scene

2009-02-07T14:18:00.000-05:00

Kit Gallant: But, in terms of overall size and effectiveness, and most importantly in terms of a realistic and honest appreciation of the uses and capabilities of a modern military, the Russian Federation got the post-Cold War geopolitical scene right and we got it decidedly wrong. There is no need, except an arguable economic one, for an army the size of ours. So our first Russian lesson for American power is that, when it comes to the post-Cold War role of militaries, limited and attainable goals (e.g. not "Nation building") are optimal.

It would be wise for American policy makers and the new administration to take to heart this Russian lesson. For it would be beyond any doubt greater for American power itself to gain from the knowledge of another world power's success than that it continue to march myopically and unilaterally forward, into an uncertain and multi-polar future

on david miliband

2009-02-07T13:05:00.001-05:00

Rakesh Krishnan Simha: After the diplomatic disaster in Delhi, it is apparent the foreign secretary has not listened to that advice. One reason could be that while the Cold War has turned to thaw, Miliband remains frozen in a time warp.

His efforts to isolate Moscow have been thwarted by Russia's resurgence on the geopolitical scene led by the master strategist, Vladimir Putin. And India's slow but sure progress to great power status is leaving less and less room for Britain in the Commonwealth, which seems likely to go the way of the International Cricket Council that was once Britain’s private club, but is now controlled by India.

Perhaps Miliband was trying to get back at the Indians for the drubbing they gave another British foreign secretary. In 1997, when Robin Cook offered to mediate in the Kashmir crisis, the then Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujaral told his guest he was the envoy of a "third-rate power" which shouldn't be "poking its nose in" India's affairs

darn

2009-02-07T12:51:00.002-05:00

T. Boone Pickens says that the United States must become energy independent to stop the transfer of wealth that is allowing energy oil exporting nations to allocate increased funds for transportation and create miles of new roads (he cites infrastructure programs in Russia and Qatar). He seems particularly disgusted that nations abroad will soon "zoom down glistening, brand-new highways"

energy blackmail ?

2009-02-04T12:54:00.001-05:00

Bruce K. Gagnon: Today China imports the vast majority of its oil and natural gas via ships through the Taiwan Straits. The US has been doubling its naval presence in that region in an attempt to have the ability to choke off China's importation of these resources which are vital to its economy. Thus China wants to build land-route pipelines from the resource rich Caspian Sea region eastward into China. Again Kyrgyzstan sits right in the middle of the whole show

[CW: Really ?]

emps

2009-02-06T09:27:00.001-05:00

Chalmers Johnson: Imperialism, meaning militarily stronger nations dominating and exploiting weaker ones, has been a prominent feature of the international system for several centuries, but it may be coming to an end. Overwhelming majorities in numerous countries now condemn it—with the possible exception of some observers who believe it promotes "stability" and some United States politicians who still vigorously debate the pros and cons of America's continuing military hegemony over much of the globe.

Imperialism's current decline began in 1991 with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the collapse of its empire. The United States now seems to be the last of a dying species—the sole remaining multinational empire. (There are only a few vestiges of the old Dutch, English, and French empires, mostly in the form of island colonies and other enclaves in and around the Caribbean.) As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made clear, the United States is increasingly stressed by the demands of maintaining its empire through its own military resources. Change is in the air...

"The characteristic form of US power outside its territory is not colonial, or indirect rule within a colonial framework of direct control, but a system of satellite or compliant states," observes Eric Hobsbawm, the British historian of modern empires. In this sense America behaves more like the Soviet empire in Europe after World War II than the British or French empires of the 19th century...

Like all empires of the past, the American version is destined to come to an end, either voluntarily or of necessity. When that will occur is impossible to foretell, but the pressures of America's massive indebtedness, the growing contradiction between the needs of its civilian economy and its military-industrial complex, and its dependence on a volunteer army and innumerable private contractors strongly indicate an empire built on fragile foundations. Over the next few years, resistance to America's military overtures is likely to grow, meaning the agenda of national politics will be increasingly dominated by issues of empire liquidation—peacefully or otherwise

grande armee

2009-01-27T18:57:00.004-05:00

I started reading today History of the Expedition to Russia: Undertaken by the Emperor Napoleon in the Year 1812, by Count Philip de Segur and I did not know that a gigantic coalition was formed by Napoleon to invade Russia, which included, according to Wiki:

- 300,000 French
- 98,000 Poles
- 90,000 Germans
- 34,000 Austrians
- 32,000 Italians
- 25,000 Neapolitans
- 9,000 Swiss
- 4,800 Spanish
- 3,500 Croats
- 2,000 Portuguese

This amplifies the comparison to Barbarossa. Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Spanish (volunteers), and other nationalities made-up the forces that invaded and fought against Russia in 1941-5.

"The largest country in the world" is tempting to one and all, that's for sure. The lust to invade it and carve it up might never end. History repeats itself grandly.

bigger and better

2009-01-26T14:02:00.001-05:00

Russia's icy past revisited, by Andrew Roberts (Daily Mail, 26-Jan-09)

The Russians do their war memorials bigger and better than anyone else in the world — by far.

They are majestic, powerful edifices full of Nazi snakes and swastikas being trampled underfoot by the horses ridden by heroes of the Soviet Union.

With 27 million killed in what they call 'The Great Patriotic War', they have much to commemorate.

Yet they do it with such pride, reverence and sheer splendour that to visit their battle sites is more thrilling and immediate than anywhere else I have ever been.

And as a member of the Guild of Battlefield Guides, I am completely addicted to them.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II — prompting a huge upsurge in battlefield touring, with tens of thousands of people visiting the Normandy beaches, Pegasus bridge, Arnhem and the V2 launching sites along the French coast.

These are all great tours, but for the more adventurous and committed battlefield enthusiast, the ultimate World War II tour experience is to be found where the outcome of that conflict was really decided.

Four out of every five Germans killed in combat between 1939 and 1945 died on the Eastern Front, and the biggest battles out there dwarfed anything seen in the West.

Four million people fought in the Kursk campaign, for example, which is considered by military historians to be the biggest battle in the history of mankind.

The Kursk battlefield is the same size as England and I was sceptical that these Russian battles of unimaginable size could really be captured in just an eight-day tour.

Instead — and thanks largely to the charming, super-efficient and highly knowledgeable Oleg Alexandrov, who runs the long-established Three Whales Travel Company — my wife Susan and I had a truly fascinating and hugely enjoyable week...

After a one-hour flight to Volgograd, we visited some of the sites of the battle of Stalingrad, that Manichean six-month struggle in 1942-43 that led to the deaths of more than one million people, and which — in atrocious winter conditions — broke the will of the German Sixth Army.

It might not sound glamorous to visit places called The Tractor Factory, The Grain Elevator, Crossing 62, Pavlov's House and The Mill, but it was in the moonscaped rubble of these places that the Nazis' dream of world domination was finally destroyed.

They are intensely moving places where extraordinary acts of heroism and self-sacrifice took place, and the Russians understandably treat them as almost spiritual.

Russian memorials to World War II are the finest in the world, and Volgograd is dominated by a magnificent 250fthigh statue of Rodina Mat ('Mother Russia', pictured), erected on the summit of the Mamayev Kurgan, a hill that is also the resting place of 35,000 people who died fighting for its control.

The sword she wields weighs 14 tons alone. It is an utterly breathtaking sight and the whole battlefield is instantly comprehensible from the top of it, rather as climbing the Lion Mound puts everything into perspective at Waterloo.

We also visited the underground HQ of Field Marshal Paulus, where he was captured at the end of January 1943 and forced to surrender a quarter of a million men — to Hitler's fury.

The Stalingrad Museum contains the Sword of Stalingrad given to the city by King George VI, and a panorama of the battle 16m high and 120m long...

Our trip was not all World War II-themed, of course; there was also time to visit the Kremlin, St Basil's Cathedral, the Tretyakov Gallery and the bohemian Arbat quarter, but the military sites we visited did make us think again about the war — leaving us with a powerful sense of the supreme role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

super

2009-01-20T09:54:00.001-05:00

Jose Miguel Alonso Trabanco: The end of the Cold War was a huge window of opportunity for the US to forge a 'Pax Americana' now that the Soviet Union had collapsed. A vacuum power provided a chance to prolong this 'unipolar moment' long enough to become a 'unipolar era'. This is the geopolitical context in which the Project for a New American Century was born, echoing Henry Luce's appeal to become the world's only and unchallenged superpower.

To fulfill such strategic agenda, American policymakers had to take care of some matters first. Even though the Soviet Union had been split into fifteen Republics, Russia was/is a major cause for concern. During the 90's Russia was economically devastated and its political leadership was too corrupt or too incompetent to heal the country's ailing health. Nonetheless, that did not necessarily mean that someday Moscow could not regain its place as a world-class major power.

Russia inherited a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of obliterating the United States; it has a competitive military-industrial complex that designs and manufactures state-of-the art products (long-range strategic bombers, fighter aircraft, satellites, tanks, submarines, ICBMs); its huge territory contains large sums of key natural resources (oil, gas, precious metals, iron ore, bauxite, diamonds, fresh water, coal, timber); it possesses the third largest foreign currency reserves; its manpower must not be underestimated because Russia has more college graduates than any other European country. Last but certainly not least, Russian national morale and resilience have always been formidable because both its State and its people have successfully managed to recover from tremendous catastrophes such as the Mongol, Napoleonic and Nazi invasions, which inflicted a great deal of pain on Russia.

Therefore, the West was not willing to share any power with Russia even though Russia's ruling elite, at the time, thought it was possible to build a Northern community from Los Angeles to Vladivostok. The West had different plans; the idea was to gradually disintegrate Russia as a functioning Nation-State once and for all so that it would never reemerge as a strategic challenger. Russia, as suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, would be Balkanized into several States (following the Yugoslavian model) to gain access to its abundant natural resources (particularly in the Caspian, the Urals and Siberia), its economy had to be permanently crippled and the country's remaining its pieces could serve as cannon fodder to be used in a potential war against China should the need arise

1a 1b

2009-01-19T17:03:00.001-05:00

Here's a good series of articles by Martin Sieff for UPI:

19-Jan-09: Why are U.S., Russia still top global powers in 21st century?

1-Dec-08: U.S., Russia still unrivaled in global power projection

26-Nov-08: Helsinki talks show U.S., Russia still lead world

georgian embargo

2009-01-19T11:04:00.007-05:00

News out today that Russia will impose "special" economic sanctions on countries, organizations, or individuals that export military and dual purpose products to Georgia. Among other things, this could mean that Investors Business Daily and The Weekly Standard will vanish from the international newsstands in Moscow (both have called for arming Georgia) and that the URLs jamestown.org and gfsis.org are banned from the Russian Internet. Also, expect Russia to amend this act to allow the Russian Space Agency to purchase shuttle rides to the International Space Station from its American counterpart.

In all seriousness, it will be interesting to see which option Russia will choose to take, because some countries are still arming Georgia and will continue to do so because they will miscalculate Russia's will and intent. What exactly will Russia do?

update - I reread the report and in addition to imposing economic sanctions, Russia will also "restrict military cooperation" with countries supplying arms to Georgia. As we all know, the American and European defense industries are dependent on Russia in certain niche areas

nice answer

2009-01-17T05:36:00.003-05:00

New U.S. Envoy to Russia Echoes Father Who Fought for Soviets, by Ellen Barry (New York Times, 16-Jan-09)

When John Beyrle, the new American ambassador to Russia, appeared on a Russian radio show shortly after Russia’s five-day war with Georgia, the questions he got were predictably in-your-face. Is it true that the United States is sneaking weapons into Georgia disguised as humanitarian aid? Can you prove that planned American missile defense sites are not aimed at Russia?

And then: Is it true that your father was a Soviet soldier?

The answer — which Mr. Beyrle (pronounced BY-er-ly) delivered on the air in flawless Russian — has to be one of the more amazing stories to come out of World War II. Yes, during the last desperate months of the war, a starving 21-year-old from Muskegon, Mich., crossed the eastern front by foot and offered his services to a Soviet tank battalion, using the three words of Russian he had learned as a German prisoner of war — Ya Amerikansky tovarishch, or "I am an American comrade!"

And, yes, he fought the Nazis alongside them, wrapping his boots with burlap and downing shots of vodka to keep from freezing. During lulls in fighting, he answered batteries of questions about capitalism and taught the battalion to sing the Notre Dame fight song. And when the war was over, and Joe Beyrle was a supervisor in a bowling-ball factory, he told the stories to his son — the future ambassador to Moscow.

Click here for rest of article >>

inside the covert world of her majesty's royal air force

2009-01-17T17:07:00.003-05:00

Virus ‘sends RAF e-mails to Russia’, by Michael Smith (The Sunday Times, 18-Jan-09)

The Ministry of Defence is investigating a major breach in security amid claims that all e-mail traffic from a number of RAF stations has been sent to a Russian internet server.

The e-mails were allegedly diverted to the Russian sender by a worm virus that entered the MoD systems 12 days ago bringing down computers and blocking e-mail communications across the military.

The allegations have been relayed to Mark Pritchard, a Conservative MP, by an official who is concerned that the MoD is failing to take cybersecurity seriously.

Pritchard said the official “told me he could not say whether there was any evidence of active Russian involvement but that e-mail traffic from some RAF stations was sent to a Russian internet server”.

An RAF source said the virus “originated from the former eastern bloc” and said forces security experts were surprised at its sophistication.

The virus affected at least 24 RAF bases and caused damage to the computer systems of 75% of Royal Navy ships, including the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

The RAF stations affected included those from which fighter aircraft have been scrambled to counter Russian bombers testing British air defences.

The MoD said it was investigating the virus but had no knowledge of any e-mails being sent to a Russian server. It refused to say whether the investigation was looking at Russia as a possible source of the virus, and denied that any secure systems were affected.

[CW: Stuck between a rock and a hard place, really]

t-50

2009-01-17T11:13:00.004-05:00

[CW: It's getting redundant, but a second UPI article about fifth-generation fighters by Heritage Foundation Russia expert Ariel Cohen gets hammered. This is a comment in response to Russia bets on new Sukhoi fighter to match F-35]

skip_the_bias (user comment): Is it just me, or is this article biased in favor of the U.S.? Consider the statement, "U.S.-based simulations and tests suggest that the stealth-enabled fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current aircraft," including the T-50? What are the sources for making this claim, what exactly is the nature of these so-called simulations/tests, and what good are those simulations when the T-50 prototype is still in the process of being built and its true capabilities are unknown? As for the "Raptorsky" moniker, if the T-50 is based on the Su-47 and MiG-1.42/1.44 technology demonstrators, which are clearly NOT copies of the F-22, then the T-50 can hardly be considered a copy of the F-22 Raptor, and the moniker is misplaced (although it sure sounds good for short-sighted pro-Western propaganda.)

[CW: To quote a German general, "We have severely underestimated the Russians... This is the revenge of reality"]

bearophile

2009-01-16T10:46:00.001-05:00

Pipe dreams (Financial Times, 15-Jan-09)

By letting its Russian gas dispute drag on for two weeks , Ukraine has discharged a double-barrelled shotgun into its nether regions. Russia and the European Union have forceful incentives to back pipeline routes skirting round it, reducing transit fees that earn Ukraine $2bn a year. Russia's reputation is further tarnished, too. Even so, three years after the first Ukraine gas shut-off, the EU has made limited progress in diversifying energy sources. Today's talk is more of diversifying gas supply routes - and planned alternative pipelines tend to lead back to Russia.

The most advanced project is Nord Stream , under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. Poland and other bypassed states say it threatens EU unity; Sweden voices environmental concerns. But the European Commission has made it a priority project, warming further to it after Russia's conflict with Georgia, another energy transit state, apparently persuaded Brussels of the merits of direct pipelines. Gazprom's consortium partners include Germany's Eon Ruhrgas and BASF/Wintershall and the Netherlands' Gasunie, with former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, as chairman, lending clout.

The other arm of Gazprom's pipeline pincer movement, South Stream , intended to bring gas across the Black Sea and Balkans, is progressing too. Gazprom has signed up Bulgaria and Serbia, and Italy's Eni. Brussels is wary of South Stream as it competes with the EU- and US-backed Nabucco project, which aims to transport Caspian basin gas through Turkey - bypassing Russia. But concerns persist that Nabucco lacks gas. One possible source, Turkmenistan, has contracted most production to Russia and China; another, Azerbaijan, is being courted by Moscow. Nabucco says it may carry Russian gas - ironic for a venture seen as a way of bypassing Russia. Until it can develop other sources, the EU's best option to avoid future shut-offs may be to deepen its partnership with the Bear. [CW: Say it ain't so Joe]

thanks cia

2009-01-15T23:01:00.000-05:00

CIA Director Michael Hayden: Russia has invested so wisely and has such a such a huge sovereign wealth fund that they could probably manage [the fall in oil prices] most easily

knitting

2009-01-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

(in response to Russia trails U.S. in pursuit of a fifth-generation jet, by Ariel Cohen)

Flight Test Engineer (user comment): Dr Ariel Cohen clearly has little experience or expertise in aviation or the operation of military aircraft, let alone any competencies in the techno/strategic analysis of airborne and air defence systems. The speeds and altitudes quoted here bear little resemblence to reality as, in a similar way, do the claims of JSF superior aerodynamic/kinematic performance over the latest generation Sukhoi Su-35 aircraft.

Dr Cohen should stick to his knitting and stop conjecturing and trying to generate spin on things he has demonstrated he knows little about.

fake martyr

2009-01-12T18:03:00.004-05:00

Kiev Plays the Shell Game, by Sylvia Petrova (Standard News (Bulgaria), 13-Jan-08)

At the dawn of democracy in Bulgaria Gypsies used to play the shell game all round towns and cities and dwindled the naive. Is it a coincidence this memory strikes me in the heat of the so-called gas war? Maybe because the gentlemen from Kiev remind me too strongly of the expert-shell-gamers that picturesquely added the final touches of every corner in Bulgaria a couple of years ago. Ukrainians' endless shilly-shallying has started to bore everybody. Hardly anyone now thinks they have any other end in mind but to snatch greater profit, at any price.

Kiev tried anything - negotiations with Gazprom to desperate effect. Ukraine not only lost the right of preferential gas prices but from now on they will have to pay double. Then the play with Brussels started. Kiev at one moment invited EU observers, at the other would not let them close to the pipes. They pretended they would sign the monitoring protocol only to change their mind in the end. To cap it all, Kiev came up with a declaration describing Ukraine as a martyr and infuriating the Kremlin. According to the declaration, Kiev is a reliable partner and has never stopped the gas supply for Europe and has never stolen even a gram of Russian gas and owes nothing to Gazprom. Even those with nerves of steel cannot keep their head against such blasphemy. In the long run Gazprom explicitly stated that if the observers detected even the slightest lack along the pipes running through Ukraine they would cut off the supply immediately.

Kiev played the saviour with Sofia too promising some of their gas reserves. Although it was crystal clear it cannot happen in practice. Nothing but hypocrisy. Otherwise the easiest thing to do is to swear against Moscow for not turning on the tap against no money.

dumb-headed

2009-01-12T11:28:00.006-05:00

Btw, almost forgot, I lol'ed when I read headlines like these on 7-Jan-08:

AHN - EU Orders Russia To Restore Gas Deliveries To Europe In 24 Hours

The Telegraph - European Union issues 24-hour deadline for Russia to restore gas supplies

Again, what was the EU thinking? Did it actually think that Moscow would cave-in? And didn't it realize that Europe's credibility would suffer once the 24-hours passed and it was powerless to enforce its threat? Seriously.

Imo, it should have learned from what happened to Poland, for example. Poland tried to use the weight of the EU to blackmail Russia to lift an embargo of Polish meat imports. Russia never yielded. After more than a year, Poland had to save face, cave in, and allow Russian veterinary specialists access to Polish slaughterhouses. Just take a look at this post.

Over and over again, Russia is being tested by countries that think Russia's bluffing a weak hand, when in reality it is Russia's counterparty that's doing the bluffing. When Russia calls, it shows the best hand and its opponent seems naked and exposed.

I cannot understand why the same mistake is being repeated so much.

clownish

2009-01-11T18:03:00.006-05:00

Mirek Topolanek signs an agreement in Moscow. Agreement in hand, he gets back to Kiev. Ukraine signs, but handwrites "with declaration attached." See the declaration here.

Late last night I remember reading an article quoting Tymoshenko bragging that the agreement that Ukraine signed wasn't the same one that was signed in Moscow and that Ukraine got a much better deal in the end. I cannot find that article.

Regarding not just changing the agreement, but also bragging about it: what was she thinking? What did she have to gain? And could she not think just one step ahead?

The answers could involve the inherent inability of some to control their Russophobic emotions, strategic miscalculation, nationalistic pride, or plain-old peer pressure.

Anyway, in the past couple of hours, the European Union has apparently pressured Ukraine to resign the agreement completely to Russia's terms.

"Clownish politics bring humiliating results." That should be the headline of tomorrow's Kiev Post. And let's see what happens in a month, because Ukraine says that the monitors can only stay for that long. After that, it will be able to steal filthy Russian gas again and more fun should ensue.

Oh, and just one more tidbit. Two of the most Russophobic people on the planet, who have said some of the most horrible things about Putin ever, met face-to-face with the Russian PM last week; Topolanek and the Guardian's Luke Harding. I bet they were much kinder to him in person than they are in Prague or behind the virtual screen of Comment is Free.

nonintervantion-ism

2009-01-09T09:08:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul: Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats...

We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don't know all the answers to all the world's problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically – we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen

the $250 discount

2009-01-07T09:38:00.003-05:00

Quickly, just two things that I think have gone under the radar:

- We now know that Russia is paying Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan an average of $340 per 1,000 cubic meters

- I think it's interesting how Russia raised its ask price from $250 (prior to the cut-off) to $450 (after the cut-off). Putin said the low offer of $250 had been made for many reasons, including as a "humanitarian gesture" and for "fraternal reasons." When I first heard of this I had a hunch that Putin was referring to Russian language television in Ukraine; i.e. pay $250, but put Russian television back on (a lot of it has been shut down as per a new law). But after I read Putin's full explanation, I let go of this hunch.

Putin on the discounted offer: The first reason - let me tell you without the slightest exaggeration - is a humanitarian one. Out partners are, without the slightest exaggeration, the fraternal Ukrainian people. And we realize how serious the situation in Ukraine is at the moment due to the world financial and economic crisis, and that situation is much more serious than in our country. Many experts even believe that it is, to a certain extent, a kind of pre-default situation. The second reason is purely economic and pragmatic. We believe that none of our partners must be put in a situation where they are completely unable to pay for our commodity. The third reason is this: unfortunately, you and I know that the situation in Ukraine is being made worse by the fact that clan struggles, which have become more intense, are having a negative effect on the economy. Despite this, our Ukrainian partners are refusing to sign agreements and a contract of this kind either

mba

2009-01-06T19:11:00.003-05:00

Mark Almond: Now the west's fear is that Gazprom is beginning to play a role like that of America's oil companies or BP in the days when the west's energy interests determined who ran countries such as Iran...

Western triumphalists marked Russia down for inevitable decline. Certainly so long as Yeltsin let his crony capitalists plunder the country and deposit the loot in London and New York, pessimism was justified. Now, however, Russia's capitalist crew are not fly-by-night asset-strippers but ruthless capitalist politician-businessmen of the sort Britain used to produce.

Gazprom's executives are the 21st-century equivalent of Britain's 18th-century pioneers of unscrupulous national power and wealth. Suddenly, yesterday's proponents of the unbridled free market have discovered a distaste for the brute realities of supply and demand. Rather like poker players who have won all the chips on the table, western states recognise that the odds will turn sharply against them, so they insist on the economic equivalent of a whist drive. But will the hard young men running Gazprom take up this granny's game?

i can't stand it that i was wrong plus i'm bored

2009-01-06T09:46:00.004-05:00

I just wanted to say that the events of the past five days have proven that I was wrong all along and that Europe does have enormous leverage over Russia. Russia is totally dependent on Europe, its main market, to buy its natural gas and, therefore, can't afford to displease it. Especially in today's trying times when Russia just plainly needs to sell its energy exports (it just can't afford not to, not even for a minute). Besides, Europe is far more populous than Russia, its economy is that much larger, and it has the handy democracy card to play if Russia ever decides to get out of line. And if things get even nastier, Russia will just have to understand that its rotting armed forces (good for scrap metal, if) are no match for the Brussels Brigade.

Credit is due where credit is due. Congratulations to Edward Lucas and LaR, among others.

Edward Lucas: The absurdity is that Europe should be laying down terms to Russia. Not only is the EU the Kremlin's largest customer, Europe's economy is more than ten times larger than Russia's, its population more than three times bigger

LaR: Russia’s power in Europe is far less than some like to imagine... What’s more, even if Europe did depend on Russian gas, it’s far from likely that any intention action by Russia would turn off the spigot. So it’s not that Russia is threatening to cut off Europe, it’s that Russia is threatened by being unable to supply Europe — or indeed even Russia’s own domestic demand, a point Boris Nemtsov has already made emphatically in his White Paper on the gas monopoly. Once again, we see a Russian propaganda bubble, this time gas-filled, burst like a childish illusion