NationStates Jolt Archive

http://media.economist.com/images/20081011/CEU964.gif


The Arctic contest heats up

COLD, empty and rich in fish and minerals, the seas of the “High North” are a tempting prize for a big, confident country. Even before the startling news of Vladimir Putin’s offer of a €4 billion ($5.4 billion) emergency loan to Iceland (see article), Russia had been beefing up its presence in a part of the world where the NATO presence is fitful. Although American submarines still ply the northern seas, other NATO vessels are rarely seen. America bruised Icelandic feelings when it pulled out of its Keflavik air base in 2006.

The Kremlin, by contrast, commands a cash pile of over $500 billion and, despite sagging markets in Moscow, is well-placed to assist a country facing bankruptcy. Iceland’s prime minister, Geir Haarde, said that apart from some support from Nordic states, he had received little response to his appeals for help from Western countries. “When our old friends didn’t help us, we had to find new friends,” he declared. What Russia might want in exchange is unclear. But it is unlikely to be nothing.

That highlights worries elsewhere, particularly in Norway, where fighter jets scramble on average once a week to intercept Russian warplanes buzzing close to their country. The Kremlin’s aircraft and ships do not quite break international law. But they commit what a senior official terms “breaches of etiquette”. These have included naval manoeuvres in the midst of Norway’s oil and gas platforms in the North Sea, involving aggressive air sorties that grounded all offshore helicopter flights; that was inconvenient, expensive and dangerous. Also troubling was a mock bombing run against Norway’s northern command centre at Bodo, and at least three other, so far unpublicised, incidents.

Russian planes and ships may be old, but training and upkeep have improved and some of the weapons they carry are increasingly modern, such as a new long-range cruise missile. Some think Russian submarines in the north have been experimenting with the Shkval, a super-fast torpedo that gives Western navies the jitters. “Russia is establishing a new reality in a strategically empty space,” says Jon Bingen, a defence analyst in Oslo.

Legal fuzziness increases Russia’s room for manoeuvre. The “grey zone” off the northern tip of Norway (see map)...**The map above** is claimed by both countries. Another dispute is around the island of Spitsbergen, on which Russia has had mining rights since 1920. Norway says it owns the continental shelf around it. Others, chiefly Russia, don’t agree. Russia is prospecting for minerals beneath the seabed there. Norway objects to that, and to Russian trawlers’ sometimes cavalier behaviour; their on-board electronics can be unusual, too.

Norway is the only old European NATO member bordering Russia. Its military planners are disappointed by their allies’ tepid response to Russian provocation—for instance when a rogue Russian trawler briefly kidnapped Norwegian fishing inspectors in 2005. At stake are not just fish, hydrocarbons and minerals: melting ice means that the Arctic, once largely a dead end, may become a strategic route to East Asia.

How to deal with Russia after its war with Georgia in August has become a key issue for NATO, whose defence ministers met in Budapest on October 9th. America wants the alliance to drop its taboo on making contingency plans to defend members that feel threatened by Russia, such as Estonia. Norway plays down the threat of real conflict. “Unlike some ex-communist countries, we are not hysterical,” an official insists. Indeed, neighbourly relations on border controls and sea safety have survived Russia’s freeze on military contacts with NATO. A Norwegian firm is weighing whether to help exploit the Shtokman offshore gasfield, a showcase investment project for the Kremlin. But even the most sanguine Norwegian officials admit that the “trajectory” in Russia is worrying.

Norway is quietly boosting defence co-operation with Sweden and Finland. And it hopes to “NATO-ise” a big land, sea and air military exercise next spring, named Response. Just what that is responding to is left tactfully unclear.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12381767

Is Russia trying to push the West into jumpstarting a new era of East-West tensions, perhaps a new Cold War?

It's quite unfortunate that the West didn't help Iceland....but what do you think Moscow's motives are in helping Iceland?

I really like the idea of a joint Scandinavian Response military, ready to defend against any possible Russian aggression. Praise to the Norwegians for leading this project. What do you guys think of this Scandinavian Reponse idea?

It's fairly simple--if NATO doesn't have a base on Iceland, the Northern seas can no longer be monitored. They could have four Typhoons parked in the middle of the North Atlantic and no one would have a clue.

Brilliant move by Russia, but I'm not sure if antagonizing a bunch of Vikings is wise...then again, Putin can probably skin them alive while breaking a Siberian tiger's neck with his chin.

Seal clubbing. Those bastards. They're after our baby seals to club. Not if I and the rest of Canada have anything to say about it. Pick up your clubs fellow Canadians, be it a two-by-four, a crow bar or tire iron. These are our seals and we shall club them first!

Is Russia trying to push the West into jumpstarting a new era of East-West tensions, perhaps a new Cold War?


That does seem to be the case, yes.

It's fairly simple--if NATO doesn't have a base on Iceland, the Northern seas can no longer be monitored.
Actually, I was wondering....The Economist seems to be implying in this article that Iceland wanted the American military base in Keflavik, and that America pulled the troops out against Iceland's wishes....but I've always heard that the American base there was unpopular in Iceland?

Russia will bring the glorious communism to the filthy Euros!

To be honest, in this case, I think this is merely a profit motivated move.

To be honest, in this case, I think this is merely a profit motivated move.
If so then how would you explain all this Russian nonsense?

That highlights worries elsewhere, particularly in Norway, where fighter jets scramble on average once a week to intercept Russian warplanes buzzing close to their country. The Kremlin’s aircraft and ships do not quite break international law. But they commit what a senior official terms “breaches of etiquette”. These have included naval manoeuvres in the midst of Norway’s oil and gas platforms in the North Sea, involving aggressive air sorties that grounded all offshore helicopter flights; that was inconvenient, expensive and dangerous. Also troubling was a mock bombing run against Norway’s northern command centre at Bodo, and at least three other, so far unpublicised, incidents.

Is Russia trying to push the West into jumpstarting a new era of East-West tensions, perhaps a new Cold War?

no, Russia is being Russia the same can be said for NATO

It's quite unfortunate that the West didn't help Iceland....but what do you think Moscow's motives are in helping Iceland?

making money and trying to build back a shattered foreign image

maybe cod

I really like the idea of a joint Scandinavian Response military, ready to defend against any possible Russian aggression. Praise to the Norwegians for leading this project. What do you guys think of this Scandinavian Reponse idea?

this is news?

Is Russia trying to push the West into jumpstarting a new era of East-West tensions, perhaps a new Cold War?


Clearly, you pay little attention to the international news until someone drops a headline across you... or something.

If there is a new cold war, it's going to have it's blame laid far more heavily on such factors as missile bases off the Russian borders, or the clever politicking of Bush the Lesser, than it is on Russia's diplomacy with Norway or Iceland.

Talk about walking in halfway through a conversation...

If so then how would you explain all this Russian nonsense?

They always do that shit, but I think it's unrelated to the loan to Iceland.

If so then how would you explain all this Russian nonsense?It's Russia playing superpower based on the example given by the US.

If so then how would you explain all this Russian nonsense?

so you choose to ignore the reason Russia started doing this? (being that NATO broke an agreement to pull back military forces as Russia did pulling heavy weapons back behind the urals)

Russia is bullying its neighbours to try and assert control over future trade routes and other resources nearby. In historical terms its hardly shocking action from a major power, and from a Russian point of view it seems fairly rational action. To a great extent, it isn't Russia's choice as to whether there will be a new Cold War but the choice of the United States. Quite frankly, the United States has no business interfering in the area. If the Scandinavian countries want to form some sort of military alliance, thats fine for them, but the US acts as imperialistically as Russia if it starts interfering in Europe's affairs for the purposes of its own power games.

Russia is bullying its neighbours to try and assert control over future trade routes and other resources nearby. In historical terms its hardly shocking action from a major power, and from a Russian point of view it seems fairly rational action. To a great extent, it isn't Russia's choice as to whether there will be a new Cold War but the choice of the United States. Quite frankly, the United States has no business interfering in the area. If the Scandinavian countries want to form some sort of military alliance, thats fine for them, but the US acts as imperialistically as Russia if it starts interfering in Europe's affairs for the purposes of its own balance of power games.

Thing is, we may need some sort of counter-weight to Russia, and a Scandinavian alliance isn't really sufficient.

Thing is, we may need some sort of counter-weight to Russia, and a Scandinavian alliance isn't really sufficient.

If Russia did something really disturbing the balance of power, like a wholesale invasion of Eastern Europe, then the USA and the rest of Europe obviously couldn't stand for it. But for now these are just fairly typical games that big powers tend to play. It hardly justifies starting a new Cold War at this stage. Russia has been weak for some time, and this could be seen as it just asserting once more that it is a major power, to be respected by others. Time will tell

If Russia did something really disturbing the balance of power, like a wholesale invasion of Eastern Europe, then the USA and the rest of Europe wouldn't stand for it. But these are just fairly typical games that big powers tend to play. It hardly justifies starting a new Cold War at this stage.

Agreed.

Not a cold war. Russia is just marking it's territory, and probing around to see what's up for grabs. Iceland (an old NATO vassal) has been abandoned by a rival empire rather abruptly, and so now is willing to talk to new friends. It's only natural for Russia to put out feelers and see if she can add to her sphere of influence. She'll probably be longing for some "soft" influence in Iceland, not to build bases or anything, just for someone to toe the Russian line now and again.

I am not happy about Russia playing with Iceland as I think that all major powers should respect each other's sphere of influence. However I think this was violated by the US/NATO pact a long time ago, so Russian counter-moves are an understandable response. It's hypocritical of us to say Russia is violating our sphere of influence when we made the first aggressive move in expanding NATO forces into former Russian vassals.

Clearly, you pay little attention to the international news until someone drops a headline across you... or something.
Well that was an feel-good statement with absolutely no meaning or proof whatsoever if I've ever seen one and belive me, being on NSG for a few years I've seen plenty.

If there is a new cold war, it's going to have it's blame laid far more heavily on such factors as missile bases off the Russian borders,
Regardless of Russia's wishes, Poland and Czech are soverign, independent nations and can make any deals they wish to with the United States.

Obviously you are not informed on this issue but since I'm a nice guy I'm going to take some time out of my day and show you the kind of shit Russia is pulling that will create further tensions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100831438617621.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_opinion

or the clever politicking of Bush the Lesser, than it is on Russia's diplomacy with Norway or Iceland.
Right..when in doubt...blame it on Bush and not on Russia pushing for more influence into it's former Soviet sphere.....ignoring the sovereign nations who reside there....

It's quite clear that the Russians have specific geopolitical interests, which is actually normal for an economic power looking for new resources to exploit. However, I suspect that The Atlantian Islands wants to play his part in artificially resurrecting the Reaganist view of Russia as the Empire of Evil. This is strange, since the Russian Federation clearly is ruled by authoritarian leaders who are not afraid to get things done. Aren't those your favorite, The Atlantian Islands?

They are obviously building another Death Star, and Unless Nato does something about it, It could be fully operational within a month.

Well that was an feel-good statement with absolutely no meaning or proof whatsoever if I've ever seen one and belive me, being on NSG for a few years I've seen plenty.


On the contrary, when someone turns up with a pointless complaint about 'Russia restarting the cold war', in the wake of the last few years of history of American attempts to increasingly isolate and agitate the former superpower, it's only fair to assume they're ignorant.

Because otherwise, it's just trolling.

I was doing you a kindness by assuming you were simply blathering on with mouth open on autopilot.


Regardless of Russia's wishes, Poland and Czech are soverign, independent nations and can make any deals they wish to with the United States.

Obviously you are not informed on this issue but since I'm a nice guy I'm going to take some time out of my day and show you the kind of shit Russia is pulling that will create further tensions:


Yes, obviously I am not informed on the issue, which is why your entire contribution has been something about Iceland/Norway, and an OPINION piece that's still got damp ink on it.

The US is free to make whatever deals it likes with Poland and the Czechs, but it's not entirely beyond reason to assume that simply reversing roles in this years Cuba Crisis won't make it any more palatable.


Right..when in doubt...blame it on Bush and not on Russia pushing for more influence into it's former Soviet sphere.....ignoring the sovereign nations who reside there....

Bush and sovereign nations might not have been the direction to pick, considering his invasion of two of them in the last few years, and his inappropriate touching of at least one more in it's bathing suit reguion, right now.

Why do I 'blame it on Bush'? Well, the Poland missile thing sticks out... and his behaviour at economic summits where he attacked Putin for his human rights record, etc. A casual look over the last term or so of American presidential politics is a catalogue of attempts to antagonise the former soviet bloc.

Are Norway's defensive responsibilities still shared between the itself and the United Kingdom? If so any hostile actions may involve the UK. Will this may not alter the outcome, it will alter the amount of Russian men, money and equipment that would have to be wasted attempting to take out both the Norwegian armed forces and a British task force, with serious consequences if they do. Finland and Sweden lay between Norway and Russia, both capable of defending themselves. Aswell as NATO, if Norway and the UK are involved.

This does make me wonder why the Russians are focusing on Norway, A small island and some fishing rights can't be that important surely? I'd also like to add that the UK also have had to send up interceptor aircraft to meet incoming Russian aircraft.

While Russian actions may be seen to be dodgy, and in my opinion they are. I do doubt they will escalate to anything.

On a more serious note, I believe the Russians are just trying to prove to the word, that they have regrained their power , and are a force to be reckoned with.

Regardless of Russia's wishes, Poland and Czech are soverign, independent nations and can make any deals they wish to with the United States.


Too bad you aren't willing to extend the argument the other way, and when sovereign states don't agree with you, you advocate invading them anyway.

In any case, it takes two to have a cold war, and if there is to be one, America will have equal blame for it with its past few years of containment strategies for Russia.

Wouldn't you be offended if some guy surrounded your house with "missle defense systems"....defending your neighbors from you.

I think the media wants a new cold war. Dunno about Russia.

Actually, I was wondering....The Economist seems to be implying in this article that Iceland wanted the American military base in Keflavik, and that America pulled the troops out against Iceland's wishes....but I've always heard that the American base there was unpopular in Iceland?

Yes, because the Economist actually gets Russia...

Economist said that:

1. Russia will lose the Second Chechen War (whoops)
2. Under Putin's plan Russia's economy will collapse (whoops)
3. Selling small arms to Iran (AK-47s) will not be a profit for Russia (whoops)
4. Russia cannot stop Ukraine from joining NATO (whoops)
5. When the price of oil will go down, Russia's economy will crash (whoops)
6. Putin rigged the elections in Russia in 2003/2004 (whoops)
7. Putin will not be able to deal with the Mafia (whoops)

All the Economist does is slander Russia. And they have such a high percentage of not getting Russia, that if you bet on the exact opposite of what the Economist says, you will have a pretty damn good chance of winning. May I recommend reading the Guardian instead? At least their percentage is above Economist. Well when it comes to predicting Russia Joe Six Pack's percentage is above that of the Economist. Doggone it!

they are obviously building another death star, and unless nato does something about it, it could be fully operational within a month.

win!

Also this: "breaches of etiquette". What the fuck? Is the Economist just making up terms now? Anything can be described as a breach of etiquette. Russians sending ties to Saakashvili was a breach of etiquette. Note how the Economist doesn't bother naming the senior military official. I don't see a single FACT in that article showing that Russia's a threat. All just hype, pure hype. As per Norway's response - it's obvious, they want the Arctic too. Note how both Norway and Russia know this will be just over the Artic, while the Economist wants to make it look like as if Russia's invading Norway.

*Visits the Deathstar*

Not a cold war. Russia is just marking it's territory, and probing around to see what's up for grabs. Iceland (an old NATO vassal) has been abandoned by a rival empire rather abruptly, and so now is willing to talk to new friends. It's only natural for Russia to put out feelers and see if she can add to her sphere of influence. She'll probably be longing for some "soft" influence in Iceland, not to build bases or anything, just for someone to toe the Russian line now and again.
I didn't mean *this* was the move that made it a Cold War, I just meant this, combined with recent events where Russia has been threatening (to various levels) it's neighbors, trying to expand it's influence outwards and has become nastier and nastier with the West.

Also...why exactly did America pull out of Iceland? I remember it happening but no specefic reasoning why? Also, did Iceland want the American troops there or did Iceland went them withdrawn?
It's quite clear that the Russians have specific geopolitical interests, which is actually normal for an economic power looking for new resources to exploit.
It is also normal then, for nations who's geopolitical aims collide with Russia's, to oppose Russian expantionist policies....
However, I suspect that The Atlantian Islands wants to play his part in artificially resurrecting the Reaganist view of Russia as the Empire of Evil.
That's incorrect. The Soviet Union was an evil empire. Don't apply labels incorrectly, please.


This is strange, since the Russian Federation clearly is ruled by authoritarian leaders who are not afraid to get things done. Aren't those your favorite, The Atlantian Islands?
Nope. But please, go on! Do keep guessing!

Too bad you aren't willing to extend the argument the other way, and when sovereign states don't agree with you, you advocate invading them anyway.
For example?
In any case, it takes two to have a cold war, and if there is to be one, America will have equal blame for it with its past few years of containment strategies for Russia.
Yes, it also takes two to have a war.:rolleyes: Thus, if one is invaded, one shouldn't fight back because then he has equal blame in carrying on a war, by that awful logic.
On the contrary, when someone turns up with a pointless complaint about 'Russia restarting the cold war', in the wake of the last few years of history of American attempts to increasingly isolate and agitate the former superpower, it's only fair to assume they're ignorant.
Hahahahahah....oh man, that's rich!

A "pointless complaint"! Hah!

So, having a problem with Russian expansion, Russian wars of agression, Russia trying to influence the politics of sovereign nations, Russia resuming bombing raid-practice where it hasn't since the Cold War and Russia adding nations to it's "nuclear hit list" = pointless!
:)

Because otherwise, it's just trolling.
I'd love to see the dictionary that defines "trolling" as opposes Russian expansion in the geo-political realm.


Yes, obviously I am not informed on the issue, which is why your entire contribution has been something about Iceland/Norway, and an OPINION piece that's still got damp ink on it.
Eh...that's the article I used for the thread. I found it interesting....what kind of an insult is that?:tongue:

The US is free to make whatever deals it likes with Poland and the Czechs, but it's not entirely beyond reason to assume that simply reversing roles in this years Cuba Crisis won't make it any more palatable.
Except that the Soviets aimed missiles at the U.S. where as the U.S. is creating an anti-missile defense shield....


Bush and sovereign nations might not have been the direction to pick, considering his invasion of two of them in the last few years, and his inappropriate touching of at least one more in it's bathing suit reguion, right now.
You are so typical and predictable...can't miss a single reason to bring Bush into a thread that has NOTHING to do with him...

his behaviour at economic summits where he attacked Putin for his human rights record, etc.
As if it's a bad thing to call Putin out on that.....
A casual look over the last term or so of American presidential politics is a catalogue of attempts to antagonise the former soviet bloc.
No....America has actually reached out alot to Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries....

Truth is, Russia's economy is a joke built on foundations that make our current situation look strong in comparison. Their non-oil GDP is smaller than that of Turkey, so they are effectively living on the bought time of exporting their natural resources. Combine that with a declining and aging population, and you've got a decaying state attempting to lash out and retain its influence. China's pretty much using them to their fullest extent, quite masterfully in fact.

If there is another Cold War, they might end up losing far more than the Soviets did, especially considering they are nowhere near as strong as their predecessor in any aspect.

Their GDP is smaller than Brazil's, for Christ's sake. Their entire economy is based on selling raw materials to the West, which essentially means that if they go to war with the US, they'll be screwed both economically and militarily.

For example?

Did you not advocate a number of wars and government toppling in history taken specifically for "containment" of ideology or economic purposes? Especially when the invadee did not seem to be wanting to play along with American interests. I seem to remember you doing so.


Yes, it also takes two to have a war.:rolleyes: Thus, if one is invaded, one shouldn't fight back because then he has equal blame in carrying on a war, by that awful logic.


Next you'll be equating pickpocketing to murder.

A cold war can only happen when two equally strong parties are at odds with one another and have interests at conflict with each other and are ideologically prevented from dealing with each other cordially. Otherwise what you have is a hyperpower mucking around in the global stage doing whatever the hell it wants because nobody is strong enough to counter it with prospects of equal devastation.

And this is what is happening when America decides to court former Soviet states with NATO membership. When they talk about "Axis of Evil" and try to turn it into "Polygon of Evil", and all that rubbish rhetoric they sell as 5 second soundbites. It's an attempt at containment, the exact same thing that started at the beginning of the cold war. America and NATO have a part to play in this as Cold War re-enactors.

Don't try to avoid the subject with straw men.

So, having a problem with Russian expansion, Russian wars of agression, Russia trying to influence the politics of sovereign nations, Russia resuming bombing raid-practice where it hasn't since the Cold War and Russia adding nations to it's "nuclear hit list" = pointless!
:)


A diplomatic disagreement about who owns 'the gray area', some not-even-an-incursion flights, and offering the Icelanders a few bucks doesn't add up to the horror story you seem to wish it does.


Eh...that's the article I used for the thread. I found it interesting....what kind of an insult is that?:tongue:


Did I promise an insult? I'm just pointing out - the sum of your knowledge, as presented, is an article and an opinion piece.


Except that the Soviets aimed missiles at the U.S. where as the U.S. is creating an anti-missile defense shield....


The US says they are creating an anti-missile defense shield...


You are so typical and predictable...can't miss a single reason to bring Bush into a thread that has NOTHING to do with him...


Because... you weren't actually implying anyone else was going to be involved in your new Cold War?

Or were you just hoping that you'd say 'cold war' and everyone would tell you how wonderful you were, and ignore whether Russia could legitimately be matched to YOUR description of starting it, or whether Russia was the only player...?


As if it's a bad thing to call Putin out on that.....


During an economic summit? It was either a lack of tact unequalled even by Bush's other great performances, or it was pure provocation.


No....America has actually reached out alot to Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries....

No... America has intervened where it is strategic to do so. Trying to build a powerbase in the region... whcih, you seem to think is a bad thing... if Russia does it.

Don't try to avoid the subject with straw men.

He has to - the subject IS a strawman.

He has to - the subject IS a strawman.

One would think that TAI himself is nothing more than a composition of straw men.

Um, I don't think the concept that Russia is building up its nationalism, its old aggressive spirit, under Putin is a straw man.

With the Arctic, it's pretty obviously not "strategically worthless." There's the arctic oil (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/arctic_oil200805), for one. Sorry, did I say 1? I meant up to 25% of the world's oil reserves could be up there. So Putin's rolling the dice.

Whether this is going back to a "Cold War" or something else, that much is clear.

However this poll is ridiculous. Apparently I have to be either "pro Russian" or "anti Russian," there are no other options in TAI-verse. This insistence of his on a false dichotomy is why he also thinks you have to be either pro/anti Muslim, pro/anti Black People etc.

Truth is, Russia's economy is a joke built on foundations that make our current situation look strong in comparison. Their non-oil GDP is smaller than that of Turkey, so they are effectively living on the bought time of exporting their natural resources. Combine that with a declining and aging population, and you've got a decaying state attempting to lash out and retain its influence. China's pretty much using them to their fullest extent, quite masterfully in fact.

If there is another Cold War, they might end up losing far more than the Soviets did, especially considering they are nowhere near as strong as their predecessor in any aspect.

Facts are your friend, do not argue against them: (from CIA World Factbook - not exactly pro-Putin source)

"Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 30% of government revenues"

GDP: $2,097 billion; Exports: $355.5 billion; (Russia)
GDP: $853.9 billion; (Turkey)

Source: CIA World Factbook

poster who's dead wrong and shows anti-Russian bias: Vetalia

Moral of the story: do not argue against facts, you will lose, and people like me will make fun of you for it.

As for Vetalia's China reference, you know China using Russia:

"Exports - partners: Germany 9.5%, Netherlands 7.5%, Turkey 6%, Italy 5.6%, China 5.1%, Ukraine 5%, US 4.8%, Belarus 4.6%, Switzerland 4% (2007) "

Hmm, Italy 5.6%; China 5.1%. Clearly China has a huge influence over Russia, just under the super-power that is Italy.

Vetalia, anything else my dear? Oh yeah, as for Russian Demographics, actually those are improving under Putin-Medvedev as well. So to sum it up: arguing against facts works for the Economist; but not everyone can bullshit so well that facts are ignored. As for Russia's resources, they've got a shitload of natural gas, that's not going anywhere this lifetime.

However this poll is ridiculous. Apparently I have to be either "pro Russian" or "anti Russian," there are no other options in TAI-verse. This insistence of his on a false dichotomy is why he also thinks you have to be either pro/anti Muslim, pro/anti Black People etc.

I like this part of the post and I agree with it. The poll sucks, you cannot say you're either pro or anti Russian you're either with us or against us. Just do a poll: Cold War or no Cold War. Shish, that shouldn't be complicated.

Russia has a good plan for Iceland, it will give them a strategic naval base in the Atlantic. I wonder if we will see something similar to the Cuban missile crisis? It would be inside the shield they have been putting up over eastern Europe.

Russia also would like more control over the North as it would give them better access to the abundance of minerals within the Artic circle, and is why the US along with the EU helping Iceland out, not using anti-terror laws against them. *frowns at the UK*

[url]
Is Russia trying to push the West into jumpstarting a new era of East-West tensions, perhaps a new Cold War?

Well for what it's worth, A rocket carrying US and Russian crewmen blasted off a couple days ago for the International Space Station. At least there's that.

Economist said that:

1. Russia will lose the Second Chechen War (whoops) They haven't.
2. Under Putin's plan Russia's economy will collapse (whoops) Getting there, though. Putin's managed to stave it off by freezing bread prices and high income on oil and gas.
3. Selling small arms to Iran (AK-47s) will not be a profit for Russia (whoops)What?
4. Russia cannot stop Ukraine from joining NATO (whoops)They didn't. It's been my understanding that several European countries were behind stopping the Ukraine from joining at this time, because it's a highly divisive issue within the Ukraine.
5. When the price of oil will go down, Russia's economy will crash (whoops)Once it drops sufficiently low, it will.
6. Putin rigged the elections in Russia in 2003/2004 (whoops)He did... One would assume his widespread impediment of the OECD and their subsequent boycott of monitoring the election would be ample indicator that something was amiss.
7. Putin will not be able to deal with the Mafia (whoops)Have they changed the law where if your house burns down, you lose your property and the state sells it to the people that torched your house?
All the Economist does is slander Russia. And they have such a high percentage of not getting Russia, that if you bet on the exact opposite of what the Economist says, you will have a pretty damn good chance of winning. May I recommend reading the Guardian instead? At least their percentage is above Economist. Well when it comes to predicting Russia Joe Six Pack's percentage is above that of the Economist. Doggone it!Can you provide the articles that claimed what you claim they claimed?

Facts are your friend, do not argue against them: (from CIA World Factbook - not exactly pro-Putin source)

"Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 30% of government revenues"

GDP: $2,097 billion; Exports: $355.5 billion; (Russia)
GDP: $853.9 billion; (Turkey)

Source: CIA World Factbook

poster who's dead wrong and shows anti-Russian bias: Vetalia

First export does not equal sole contribution to the GDP of an item.
second when you want to disprove and have multiple sets of numbers someone use the numbers most closely proving the person right.

Russia GDP (official exchange rate) 1.29 trillion
turkey GDP (official exchange rate) 663.4 billion

still about 300 billion short. look at domestic consumption though.
production = 9.87bbl/day
export = 5.08 bbl/day
use math since the consumption on current CIA world fact book is a year before. 9.87-5.08= 4.79 bbl/day. simlar numbers with natural gas.
so just slightly less then what they export in oil so basically that's more or less the 300 billion to make his claim a possibility.

This is not even taking into account the services attached to the oil industry that are also added to the GDP.

GDP: $2,097 billion; Exports: $355.5 billion; (Russia)
GDP: $853.9 billion; (Turkey)
If I may interject here, "non-oil GDP" is not the same as "GDP - oil exports".

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/08/content_8127401.htm
The share of oil and gas in Russia's GDP has increased from 12.7 percent in 1999 to 31.6 percent in 2007, and natural resources account for 80 percent of its exports, according to the Institute of Economic Analysis.

Still not quite enough to make the remaining GDP smaller than that of Turkey according to my figures (http://www.econstats.com/index_gl.htm) (882.07b vs 663.42b, current US dollars), but the difference is certainly smaller than your numbers suggest.

Ultimately while his point was flawed, the gist of it - that Russia is overreliant on the windfall from primary industries and doesn't have a sound economic footing outside that (as demonstrated for example by the panic surrounding Russian sharemarkets and banks right now) - does stand.

First export does not equal sole contribution to the GDP of an item.
second when you want to disprove and have multiple sets of numbers someone use the numbers most closely proving the person right.

Russia GDP (official exchange rate) 1.29 trillion
turkey GDP (official exchange rate) 663.4 billion

still about 300 billion short. look at domestic consumption though.
production = 9.87bbl/day
export = 5.08 bbl/day
use math since the consumption on current CIA world fact book is a year before. 9.87-5.08= 4.79 bbl/day. simlar numbers with natural gas.
so just slightly less then what they export in oil so basically that's more or less the 300 billion to make his claim a possibility.

This is not even taking into account the services attached to the oil industry that are also added to the GDP.

Vetalia's post was about oil, had nothing to do with natural gas. Must you just change his whole argument by adding natural gas to make right? It also included timber and metal. So umm yeah you still fail. Now if you were to include natural gas AND timber AND metal AND all of Russia's raw resources, THEN you may have a shot. But Russia isn't exhausting her raw resources for several generations. Also, you use the purchasing power parity, not the official exchange rate, as one shows the true value of the country, whereas the other one shows how much the country can commit to trading, which is irrelevant to the Russian economy, because Russia has a self-sustaining economy, with raw resources, finished goods and services to run it.

Either way, the argument that Vetalia made that only included oil is factually incorrect. If you include all of Russia's raw resources AND use the official exchange rate, then of course you'd be right, but the numbers you'd be using are inaccurate.

"russia", never "started" the previous "cold war". that was all eisinhour's own invention. of course that left them no other choice then to participate in it. whether they actually deserved to have had to i have not idea, but it seems more likely they might not have.

at any rate, "the seas above europe" are the only place russia has to exercise its navel, so big deal. this is a totally pointless attempt to make an excuse for more hate mongering out of what is an inevitable bussiness as usual that has been going on as long as there has been a russia. even BEFORE lennin, even before marx was born.

Well that was an feel-good statement with absolutely no meaning or proof whatsoever if I've ever seen one and belive me, being on NSG for a few years I've seen plenty.


Regardless of Russia's wishes, Poland and Czech are soverign, independent nations and can make any deals they wish to with the United States.

Obviously you are not informed on this issue but since I'm a nice guy I'm going to take some time out of my day and show you the kind of shit Russia is pulling that will create further tensions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100831438617621.html?mod=hps_us_at_glance_opinion


Right..when in doubt...blame it on Bush and not on Russia pushing for more influence into it's former Soviet sphere.....ignoring the sovereign nations who reside there....

Really nice...
What about the shit the US pulled in Georgia?
Or the shit the US is pulling in Czech Republic and Poland?

Are we back to the old Reagan line that whatever the US do is nice and good and that Russia is the Evil Empire?

Come on, both the US and Russia are doing what superpowers do, and it is not Russia the aggressive one.

That's incorrect. The Soviet Union was an evil empire. Don't apply labels incorrectly, please.

Ahem, dont't you know that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxD4xcELlGw

lol

Actually, I was wondering....The Economist seems to be implying in this article that Iceland wanted the American military base in Keflavik, and that America pulled the troops out against Iceland's wishes....but I've always heard that the American base there was unpopular in Iceland?

The government liked it, the people didn't. In the end the policy makers make all the moves... people be damned 98% of the time.

Vetalia's post was about oil, had nothing to do with natural gas. Must you just change his whole argument by adding natural gas to make right?
I think both greed and death and myself acknowledged that Vetalia's statement wasn't backed up by the numbers we could find. It may just be taken straight from an unreferenced claim in wiki that I found.

But that's not the point - the point is that his argument was that the Russian economy relies heavily on its primary exports, which means oil and gas. The rest of the economy is not working efficiently, mainly driven along by artificially low interest rates. When something threatens this climate, the whole thing looks a lot like a house of cards, which is how you get a 70% fall in share markets (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=RTSI%24%3AIND) within a week or two.

But Russia isn't exhausting her raw resources for several generations. Also, you use the purchasing power parity, not the official exchange rate, as one shows the true value of the country, whereas the other one shows how much the country can commit to trading, which is irrelevant to the Russian economy, because Russia has a self-sustaining economy, with raw resources, finished goods and services to run it.
There is no such thing as a self-sustaining economy. And Russia most certainly isn't one - even assuming it could find all the technology, capital, expertise and so on to keep going, the transition costs associated with losing its trading partners would be similar to what you saw when the USSR fell apart.

And PPP is a measurement that determines exchange rates using what a unit of currency actually buys. When comparing GDP, PPP is probably a better measure than official rates. However, we don't know the source of the figure you used for exports - not all the exports went to the US, so it stands to reason that most of the trades would have been denoted in euros and various other currencies. What sort of exchange rate was used to convert all this into US dollars? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say official rates were used rather than PPP figures, making greed and death's comparison slightly more accurate.

Of course, none of that is actually important, because the export figures don't tell the whole story. As my source pointed out, 31.6% of Russian GDP is created by the oil and gas sector, which includes domestic employment, foreign FDI and domestic investment etc etc.

I was going to ignore this thread, but then I read the title.

"The SEAS above Europe" :confused:

OMG!!! The world is upside down!!! Forget what the Russians are up to -- SWIM!!

SNIP

why do you think its so cloudy in Britain? :tongue: (and full of depressed middle aged people)

so you choose to ignore the reason Russia started doing this? (being that NATO broke an agreement to pull back military forces as Russia did pulling heavy weapons back behind the urals)

Ah, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty didn't require Russia to pull behind the Urals, or NATO to do something equivalent. It did cap the number of troops both sides could have in Europe, but on many of the indices NATO just was nowhere near the limit that was set to begin with. The largest military force in NATO, the US, is largely across the Atlantic, and always has been. The two and three ground forces are Germany and Turkey, and neither really has an equivalent of "beyond the Urals".

Clearly, you pay little attention to the international news until someone drops a headline across you... or something.

If there is a new cold war, it's going to have it's blame laid far more heavily on such factors as missile bases off the Russian borders, or the clever politicking of Bush the Lesser, than it is on Russia's diplomacy with Norway or Iceland.

Talk about walking in halfway through a conversation...

Don't be silly.

Putin is a Russian nationalist and an expansionist. He wants to spread Russia's power and influence abroad. Bush is a class A nitwit, I assume clever politicking is meant in jest, because, in reality he's done none of that.

As far as the NMD stuff, the system that's being installed in Europe is exceptionally limited, by the technical capability, the cost of a missile system that could even remotely challenge the super-massive Russian strategic arsenal, and just simple military plans and local political necessity. It has nothing to do with Russia, other than the fact that it gives Putin an amazing scapegoat, and something he can complain about, and that his nationalist countrymen can rally against.

Don't be silly.

Putin is a Russian nationalist and an expansionist.


We're currently engaged on two front, ourselves.

He wants to spread Russia's power and influence abroad.


Which means what? How does that define Putin as opposed to other leaders?


Bush is a class A nitwit, I assume clever politicking is meant in jest, because, in reality he's done none of that.


You're right, it was sarcasm. What Bush has been doing is the exact opposite of clever politicking.


As far as the NMD stuff, the system that's being installed in Europe is exceptionally limited, by the technical capability, the cost of a missile system that could even remotely challenge the super-massive Russian strategic arsenal, and just simple military plans and local political necessity. It has nothing to do with Russia, other than the fact that it gives Putin an amazing scapegoat, and something he can complain about, and that his nationalist countrymen can rally against.

The specifics are irrelevent. The Cuba Crisis brought the world to the eve of war over weapons that weren't even operational.

I was going to ignore this thread, but then I read the title.

"The SEAS above Europe" :confused:

OMG!!! The world is upside down!!! Forget what the Russians are up to -- SWIM!!

Well the article in the OP is hung up on the island of Spitsbergen instead of what would be normally referred to as Svalbard. Expect the OP to continue in the same vein :wink:

Russia is building an aquatic death star.

Regardless of Russia's wishes, Poland and Czech are soverign, independent nations and can make any deals they wish to with the United States.

And regardless of the US/Norway, Sweden, and Finland's wishes, Iceland is a soverign, independent nation and can make any deals it wants with Russia, yes?


Therefore, I fail to see a problem.

It is also normal then, for nations who's geopolitical aims collide with Russia's, to oppose Russian expansionist policies....

If they're capable of doing so, they should. If they're not, tough luck. Action speaks louder than words, much to the chagrin of diplomats... and say what you will, but the Russian Federation recently has gained a flair for being rather pro-active.

That's incorrect. The Soviet Union was an evil empire. Don't apply labels incorrectly, please.

The Soviet Union certainly had its faults, some of them quite grave. But to call the USSR an evil empire means as much as to call the USA the Great Satan. Both insults have equal value.

Nope. But please, go on! Do keep guessing!

Anything for a smile. You're one of those crypto-anarchist agitators, aren't you?

By a self-sustaining economy, I meant that an economy will be bale to sustain itself during the times of crisis, i.e. an economy that has everything it needs to survive, but NOT to expand. In order to expand and keep up with the EU, Russia of course must trade. But they're not importing 70% of their oil, like that one other country.

Also, don't you love American Media Coverage of the Georgian War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlruGdmKz2w&feature=related

August 7th - Georgia attacks S. Ossetia. August 8th - American Media shows Russians attacking poor little Georgia. These are the same people who called the USSR an Evil Empire. Why am I not remotely surprised?

By a self-sustaining economy, I meant that an economy will be bale to sustain itself during the times of crisis, i.e. an economy that has everything it needs to survive, but NOT to expand.
Well, firstly I don't think that's particularly desirable. And more importantly, any kind of crisis would first of all feed through the financial system straight into the heart of the Russian economy. If those firms go bust, that may not make the factories disappear, but short of complete nationalisation there is little that can be done to make them run again in the short term.

So if by crisis you mean some sort of political fall-out that would lead to a stop in trade flows between Russia and the west, Russia would probably hurt a lot more. As for the US oil imports, I can't really think of a realistic way in which those would be stopped completely by any sort of event.

By a self-sustaining economy, I meant that an economy will be bale to sustain itself during the times of crisis, i.e. an economy that has everything it needs to survive, but NOT to expand. In order to expand and keep up with the EU, Russia of course must trade. But they're not importing 70% of their oil, like that one other country.

Also, don't you love American Media Coverage of the Georgian War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlruGdmKz2w&feature=related

August 7th - Georgia attacks S. Ossetia. August 8th - American Media shows Russians attacking poor little Georgia. These are the same people who called the USSR an Evil Empire. Why am I not remotely surprised?I take it you're not going to follow up and support your claims on the Economist then?

So if by crisis you mean some sort of political fall-out that would lead to a stop in trade flows between Russia and the west, Russia would probably hurt a lot more. As for the US oil imports, I can't really think of a realistic way in which those would be stopped completely by any sort of event.Den Schwarm (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Schwarm) lesen, Jungelchen. =P