MrFirst

So, shortly summarizing the European parliament resolution: Estonians are good, kind and smart, all what they did they did right, and Russians are bad, bad, very bad, and all what they did they did wrong.
Noone expected anything else.

Parihaka

It is Russia that's turning off oil and fuel supplies and blocking imports from countries it has disagreements with, isn't it?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

MrFirst

No, it isn't.

braindead

A bit late , but perhaps usable as good background info

Russia and the West

No divide, no rule


May 17th 2007
From The Economist print edition


A troubling new pipeline deal is a symbol of the West's inability to cope with Russia


THESE are bleak and unsettling times if you believe that Russia and the West ought to be better friends. By common consent, the mood has not been so icy since Soviet days. Russia says it feels encircled by NATO expansion and proposed American missile defences, patronised on human rights and assailed by double standards. The West finds Russia's pushy foreign policy, increasingly authoritarian manner and growing grip on its energy supplies alarming.

A summit late this week between the European Union and Russia's Vladimir Putin looks likely to agree on nothing; ex-communist countries such as Poland and Lithuania are determined to veto talks on a new partnership agreement so long as they are subject to Russian trade sanctions and other pressure. Visits earlier in the week to Moscow by the American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and by Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier, produced only a half-hearted promise to cool some of the more heated rhetoric (see article).

Doing that is no bad thing—but the worst words have come from one side only. Mr Putin recently seemed to liken America to Nazi Germany. Ms Rice merely called trends in Russia “troubling”. The American media are harsher—but, perhaps contrary to Kremlin belief, she is not to blame for that.

The idea of Russia being tricked and humiliated by a mighty, well-organised Western camp led by a power-hungry America is preposterous. The truth is that Russia, having first scared its neighbours into NATO by its bullying behaviour, is currently outmanoeuvring a divided and indecisive West on almost every front—and especially on energy.

Last week Mr Putin struck a crucial if provisional deal with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan on routing their gas exports to Europe via Russia. Along with his recent schmoozing of Algeria and Qatar, this threatens to exacerbate Europe's energy insecurity, kyboshing the hope of importing large quantities of Central Asian gas without Russian involvement. The idea was to hook up Europe to the region's gas reserves with a new pipeline under the Caspian Sea, and then an existing one through the Caucasus and Turkey. The obstacles to the Caspian scheme are formidable; the Kremlin can offer the Turkmen and Kazakhs incentives, such as unquestioning support for their domestic policies, that the West cannot. But the existing Caucasian pipeline once looked just as unlikely; political will turned it into reality, and could still save the Caspian scheme.



Stand your ground
Russia can hardly be blamed for maximising the economic benefits of its energy riches and geography; every other poor, resource-rich country does the same. But that does not mean that Europe should simply acquiesce. Whatever the pipeline arrangements, it should aim for greater resilience in the face of Russian pressure. It should liberalise its own energy industries, pay for better gas storage, build more interconnecting pipes and power lines, and invest more in liquefied natural gas terminals. The deeper and more liquid Europe's energy markets are, the harder it is for an outsider to manipulate them.

Most important of all, the West must resist Russia's attempts to pick and choose among its customers. The Kremlin seems not fully to accept that its Baltic, Balkan and central European neighbours are as independent as the countries of western Europe are. The centrepiece of Russian policy is to strike bilateral deals: with the big members of the EU, notably Germany, and with weakly governed new members such as Hungary, Latvia and Bulgaria. By seeming to accept this divide-and-rule policy, the Europeans undermine themselves. That is why the German-backed gas pipeline under the Baltic, and the agreement of Hungary and others to a Russian gas pipeline through the Balkans, are so damaging.

Russia's combination of ruthlessness, ambition and wealth is unique and scary. But it should not be intimidating. Europe should accept that a bad deal with the Kremlin is worse than no deal at all. Germany, in particular, needs to be less fixated on friendship with Russia, no matter what. But there is no need to declare a new cold war, whether over energy supplies or more generally. Europe's dependence on Russia for gas and oil is sure to continue, but need not be harmful. After all, it makes Russia dependent on Europe as its main market; talk of switching supplies to China is a pipedream in the absence of pipelines, which take both years and oodles of money to build. The way to bring more equality to the relationship of bullying supplier and anxious buyer is for Europe to stand united against Russian attempts to divide it.

Edward Lucas

__________________
If i only were so smart yesterday as my wife is today

braindead

One of Russias biggest concerns is that somebody has been meddling in their ´´spheres of influence´´ or ´´blizhneye zarubezhje´´ as they see it . There has never been any respect of these spheres even in Cold War days - Sov.put missiles in Cuba , supported Angola etc. , US reacted somwhere else . There never have been any spheres of influence , no one has ever respected the idea of a sphere of influence. There is just competition between states. And that's all.
Rus.claims that it is surrounded , somebody has slept in his bed , spoiled his food - sounds like from ´´3 bears ´´fairy tale.

Stan187

Hahaha. I love that story.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

MrFirst

If my memory serves well, the girl in the fairy tale didn't spoil the food, she ate it.

braindead

Behind Putin's Estonia Complex . You send in NKVD special ops troops , to country where they only a year before commited ax-murders and deportations , burned-ground tactics and they hope for popular support and they feel betrayed .

Ray

The US is no paragon of virtues.

No country is.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

MrFirst

Interesting article. So, the Estonians first gave food to Putin's father, but next they gave him to the Germans. Nothing strange that Putin's father perhaps didn't like the Estonians.

braindead

Hmm , let´s see : if I´d live in a single forest farm and from forest appear Putin-sen. with 30 NKVD troops (the same ones who about a year earlier rolled through neighbourhood , burning everything down , ´´scorched earth´´ -orders , deported, shot people ) , demand food and hint that they might stick around .... , well yes I could see me give them food to spare my life/farm/family and then send for help.
The ´´Partisan warfare´´ around here fell through miserably , Putin-sen. was very lucky to get out here alive .And if his units work is supported by documents , it was probably one of the most successful groups in terms of operations and survival rate. The population was not very keen on them .

MrFirst

You, Braindead, are coming into the area of assumptions and guesses. I don't think there is any sense to talk about "if I was, if I'd live" and so on in this way. I don't understand your tryings to blacken Putin's father at any cost and to present the actions of your compatriots during the WWII as their best. Maybe that Estonians weren't farmers at all, how can you know that? Have you read Putin's book? Stop, Braindead, it begins to look funny.

braindead

Well around 60% of this fine land is bogs and forests , and farms are the places where people go to find food (as out'r Forest Brothers did too) , but thatˇs irrelevant . Iˇm not whitewashing my fellow countrymen , we are just as capable of backstabbing as everybody else (or perhaps even more ).And Iˇm not trying to tarnish Putin-sen. , I just stated my opinion , why it seems ridiculous to me this ˇbetrayalˇaccusation.
But your right ,the thing has gone little bit off-topic .

yoda9999

The EU can't face Russia alone so they want to surround Russia with a bunch of little manageable client states. Not unreasonable I guess.

braindead

The following passages are from an article by Mihhail Lotman , Estonian semiotic and politician .
The first half of article deals with our internal problems , so I took the liberty of not translating it , but second half is quite interesting IMO . Sorry for my usual clumsy style. .



--- ---------------------------
Russia is constant geopolitical problem (to us - BD) and a problem that needs constant attention .
Subsequently I want to concentrate on question , that bothers many people here - why ? What goals Russia endeavours with it´s constant anti-Estonian attacks ? Guesses are of bewildering variety - from Putin´s fathers sad fate , that his son is avenging now ; to logic of post-neocolonial strategy. In between them are several interesting plots and circumstances . Can´t say that they are false , but still more blurring that clarifiying the picture . Besides they leave out such important factor as Timing .
On the right track are the analysts , who connect current crisis with Russias presidential elections .

Clarification : these are not simply presidential elections , as in last time , what basicly was almost automatic extending of Putin´s mandate , but elections that (at least on current constitution) will bring a new president to Kremlin . Therefore the situation is more comparable with election of 1999 , than with 2003 .

In Russia change of power has almost always been connected to excesses , whereby there are not much differences in Czarist Russia , Sov.Union or post-soviet Russia . This is directly connected with semiotic models of authority . If Czar is God and there is only one God , then how on his lifetime can there be another ruler ?
I still remember the the descent of Khrushchev , one of most important aspects of it was that he was left alive and not even arrested . There were talks that something is really changing in Russia .

What is self-explainatory in European context , was new and surprising in Russia . But it still went the old way , it was just an one episode and all following leaders of Sov.Union got their post after the death of their predecessor .
So there was a unique situation in Putins Russia , where there were 2 more living presidents in addition to Putin : Gorbatchov and Yeltsin .
Different rulers being alive on the same time in Russias history has meant only on thing : impostering and confusion . But even the physical death of previous ruler is not enough . More important is to discredit him . If Czar is god , then it applies only on him , and not his predeccessors , who automaticly will become false-gods .
Starting with Catherine II no Russian Czar has been continuing his(her) predeccessor´s lifework , but has started from scratch ( first starting with Peter I, who was codified not as ruler of the universe , as earlier Czars , but pictured as demiurg , Creator of the world : Peter created a new State , new Capitol , new Order and even new Nation) . Czars who came after him proclaimed him their predecessor - like Catherine II - or also started from beginning . Only exception being Nicolas II . He differed from other Czars by not wanting to be the first , but kept his fathers lifework . But destiny prepared for him different role - he became the Last .

This is not the place for speculations , how Yeltsin succeeded guaranteeing his personal security and that although much societal hatred there was no official campaign of critisizing started against him.
But it is clear why on current president these mechanizms would not work .Putin has to come up with something new.

But not only Putin , his family and inner circle are worried about the future , but the whole Russias political leadership . Clear signs of panic can be seen from example on Russias Federal Council´s chairman Sergei Mironov´s call to extend presidential term of office from 4 years to 7 and instead 2 terms change the constition so it would allow 3 terms .

8 years ago Boris Yeltsin named his successor formerly completely unknown Vladimir Putin . Yeltsin´s opponents , meaning the whole political elite took it with contemptous irony . Leader of communists , Zjuganov announced barely keeping his laughter down that it is not important - Yeltsin is political corpse and corpses cannot have successors .

But then strange things started to happen . In Moscow houses started to explode and Shamil Bassayev´s group attacked Dagestan to help Hatchalayev-brothers islamist insurgency .

Then Vladimir Putin announced using criminal jargon ´´to snuff the terrorists
in the toilet´´ . Traditional script to kick-start the peoples enthuisiasm : little victorious war. This scenario is now out of the question , not only because russias electorate would not fall for it second time , but also because the war did not turn out so small nor victorious as originally planned .
Because of this now there is another scenario , even more immanent to Russia : we´re surronded by enemys . Looking from Estonia there might be an impression that we are in the center of Russias attacks .
But this is not true : the focus of this campaign is in constant movement .
One time it is Latvia , then Poland , then Ukraine , then Georgia - important thing is that there would be constantly some tension . So it is not very surprising that when crisis in Estonia was showing first signs of calming down , suddenly situation in Ossetia abruptly intensified .

In the same time the circle of enemies broadens constantly . And there is another clear pattern : Putin chooses his enemies these states and societies who´s civilized reactions are guaranteed .

In one word , he searches him a comfortabe enemy and I think Estonia ended on the top of the list exactly because it is a very comfortable enemy : nobody believes that Estonia would be real a danger to Russia in any way and that inter-state relations will not endanger local russians security in any way .

If politics are often called the art of finding allies , then Russias leadership is often looking for an enemy . In the end of Putin´s rule the old aphorism of Czar Alexander III is becoming popular again : ´´Russia has only 2 allies : Navy and Army ´´

The last demonstrative weapons tests originate from the same comprehension .

------


Quite good article and it put´s some things into perspective . All comments are welcome .