Rise of Russia(?)

[nrupatunga]

A very very interesting read.

Russia's turnaround in the Middle East

Ukraine has briefly become a Near Eastern country for us. The failure of the European Union's hopes that an agreement on an association between Ukraine and the EU would be signed in Vilnius on Nov. 28 is regarded by all as a success for Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who fiercely fought against Ukraine's "departure" for the West. This success is now viewed against the backdrop of Moscow's active and successful approach in the Near East, and it adds to the feeling of Russia's power and influence in the international arena on the part of many Russian observers. Syria and Ukraine have little in common, except that Russia had been considered an obvious and irreversible "loser" in both places, but it turned out to be — at least for now — the winner.

However, truth be told, there is another parallel. Ukraine is actively being invited into the Customs Union — an association that Moscow is initiating in the territory of the former Soviet Union for the purposes of integration. A couple of weeks ago, Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that it would be a good idea to invite Syria and Turkey into this organization so that the project would not look like a restoration of the USSR. But this, of course, was something of a political joke.

In general, Russia is actually becoming a most important participant in all political processes in the Near East. Only in the past few days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, were in Moscow on separate occasions, one after the other. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is participating in the final round of negotiations of the six major powers on Iran. At the same time, Russian diplomats are still trying to break the deadlock in the Syrian Geneva II conference, communicating with Damascus and representatives of the opposition, and continue to work on the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria. On Nov. 14-15, a Russian-Egyptian meeting was held in Cairo in the form of "2+2" (the ministers of defense and foreign affairs), with arms contracts expected as a result of this meeting.

This situation is unexpected. Just several months ago, it was believed that Moscow was hopelessly losing ground in the Near East. The last clients inherited from the Soviet past are losing power in their respective countries, new ones have not developed and Russian policy provokes hostility and rejection from most capitals and religious and ethnic groups in the region.

What is the reason for such a turnaround? We should give credit to the move in respect to chemical weapons, whose elegance was appreciated by all and which is likely to go down in diplomatic history. But we have to recognize that the success of Russia is largely derived from the failure of others. Against the backdrop of a mindless imitation of policy that the EU is pursuing in the Near East and the flip-flopping of the United States (China, as always, is deliberately on the sidelines), Russia looks strong, primarily due to its consistency with respect to Syria and — oddly enough — its slow pace on other issues.

The line of people that is emerging to meet with Russian authorities is not surprising. Few people have liked, or like, Moscow's position on the events in Syria, but it is consistent, and in essence remains unchanged from the beginning. A feeling is forming that Russia knows exactly what it is doing and what it wants — unlike the United States and the rest. And, if real interests are understood, that there is something to agree upon with Russia, then it is possible to move forward on the Syrian issue. In any case, it seems that way. As for other countries that underwent their "spring," such as Egypt, the lack of haste after the first revolution, for which many reproached Moscow, as well as the restraint after the second revolution, allowed it to avoid the mistakes made by the United States, for example, which cast about between "the sides of history."

The irony is that Moscow's success in the Near East is something of a side effect. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it never again will be. So, the panicked arguments in the US press — to the extent that the United States suffers failures and is actually beginning to leave the Near East — Russia will take over this vacant position, are groundless. The Kremlin is simply not pursuing this, and it does not have the resources to play the role of a major patron state. Clearly, no one will refuse additional opportunities in important countries and their markets. But the approach that has been advanced in the region since 2011 is primarily dictated by the desire to protect itself from even larger shocks, which as Moscow believes, are the result of foreign interference in the affairs of the Near East, similar to how it disowned any "collaboration" in the Libyan campaign.

Russia's consent to the operation against former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (or more precisely, its unwillingness to prevent it) was apparently explained by what former President Dmitry Medvedev had assumed: In this way, Moscow could thus distance itself from those not very important to it. It turned out to be the opposite — inactivity deepened the crisis, a precedent was set for an absolutely devastating "humanitarian intervention," and Russia ended up at the center of mostly hostile attention from all sides.

The Near East proves that the international system is a single, interconnected organism, subject to certain laws. This heterogeneous and volatile region has always been a target for external forces, which also posed as regulators. And when the United States, which had performed this function after the Cold War "declined," a vacuum emerged, demanding to be filled. Russia refused to have a regulatory role after the collapse of the USSR, limiting itself to protecting its remaining commercial interests. But the logic of international relations pushes Moscow back (since there are no other contenders), in essence, against its own will. And Russia is expected — intentionally or not — to take on the burden of responsibility, in return for some dividends, of course.

This is a heavy burden, and considering the ongoing processes — a thankless and pointless one. Moscow is not ready for this, as it realizes — it is one thing to point out the US' failure and quite another to achieve the necessary result in the Near East. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to justify expectations, and for this reason the stream of visitors to the Russian capital hoping to enlist the support of the Kremlin will not dry up.

What is the reason for the success of Russian diplomacy? As the leading Russian specialist in international affairs Sergei Karaganov notes, it largely plays by the rules established by the geopolitical patterns of the past centuries and the state-centered Westphalian international system. In today's world, nothing is clear, and contradictory processes occur simultaneously: globalization and a return to the role of nation states, the erosion of borders and attempts by governments to control domestic affairs using new methods, the emergence of new forms of force and rapidly growing ungovernability. And in such a world, "Russian diplomacy, preserving and developing mastery, but unencumbered by ideology, feels like a fish in water," writes Karaganov. "It is guided by values that are associated with an unconditional defense of sovereignty and, arguably, that have been rooted for the past 300 years in the national identity of a great power and the desire to be among the leaders."

In general, it turns out that a simpler policy that is guided by clear instincts and aspirations, but that at the same time does not pretend to know a universal recipe, seems more effective. This does not bring solutions any closer, but it adds points in the wider political game. A policy that pretends to know the solutions and that is guided by ideological and moral values provides neither one nor the other.

 

[nrupatunga]

Kuwait eyeing up Russian weapons - foreign minister

Kuwait wants to broaden military cooperation with Russia, said Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah Al-Khalid al-Hamad al-Sabah.

"Our military officials have been in Russia for arms shows on many occasions. Some samples of the Russian weaponry have been bought for testing. We must see how well these weapons will do in our climate and deserts. The Kuwaiti armed forces have Russian weapons in their arsenals already," he said on the Voice of Russia radio station.

"We are now eyeing up Russia's latest achievements," he said, noting that Kuwait wants to broaden trade with Russia.

"A Kuwaiti investment fund recently provided half a billion dollars to be put into projects in Russia. Agreements, signed by Russian and Kuwaiti universities, are just as important," he said.

"We hope by the spring of 2014, when His Highness Amir Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah pays a visit to Russia, many of these plans will have been fulfilled," the foreign minister said.

What the F is this?? GCC looking for non-western that too russian arms:shocked::cool2: Couldn't stop posting all 3 smileys here. Folks please don't say now that this is isn't the 1st time this is happening. Have west(read usa) really pi**ed gcc now or is it just that these camel herders pleading west not to leave them in desert.

 

[nrupatunga]

Russia is not trying to be 'some kind of superpower,' Vladimir Putin says

Russia is not trying to be a superpower or to "teach anyone how to live," President Vladimir Putin said Thursday in a veiled criticism of the United States.

"We do not aspire to be called some kind of superpower, understanding that as a claim to world or regional hegemony," Putin said in an annual address to parliamentarians and senior national officials.

"We do not infringe on anyone's interests, we do not force our patronage on anyone, or try to teach anyone how to live," he said, using phrases that echo his previous criticisms of the United States.

Russia, he said, would strive to be a leader which defended international law and respected national sovereignty and the independence of nations.

"This is absolutely understandable for a state like Russia, with its great history and culture," he said.

Russia had a big role in a deal under which Damascus is to scrap its chemical weapons and possible U.S. military strikes were averted. He said.

Russia had helped "international law, common sense and the logic of peace" prevail.

Without naming the United States, Putin warned that the development of anti-missile shields and powerful long-range non-nuclear weapons could "reduce to nothing" existing nuclear arms control pacts and upset the post-Cold War strategic balance.

"Nobody should have any illusion about the possibility of gaining military superiority over Russia," he added. "We will never allow this to happen. Russia will respond to all these challenges, political and military."

Russia is developing its own effective non-nuclear weapons, he said, adding that in efforts to upgrade its nuclear arsenal "we are reaching new milestones successfully and on schedule. Some of our partners will have to catch up."

Putin also said that he was counting on a political solution to the ongoing crisis in neighboring Ukraine, where pro-European protesters are facing off against a government seeking closer ties with Moscow.

In a speech to lawmakers and other officials, Putin said the Russian-led customs union which he hopes Ukraine will become part of was based on equal rights for all members.

"I hope that all political powers in the country manage to reach an agreement that is in the interests of the Ukrainian people and find a solution to all the problems that have piled up," he said, referring to the ongoing protests.

 

[jmj_overlord]

change in US policy towards iran and egypt prompted the middle east to warm up towards russia, right ? seems like nowadays many allies seem to lose trust in US

 

[hello_10]

.
I have something in store about the Economic Rise of Russia as below. i hope it would make this thread more interesting :thumb:

Russia's economic fortunes rise as West sinks

Despair, which is judged on the 'despair index' as inflation + unemployment + poverty, in the West is now higher than in Russia, says Ben Aris.

The traditional way of measuring pain in times of crisis is to look at the misery index: inflation + unemployment. But to really capture the pain people are feeling, you need to look at the despair index: inflation + unemployment + poverty.

The shocking fact is that despair in the West is now higher than in Russia.

In October, the US Census Bureau announced that one in seven Americans is living in poverty — the highest number since record-keeping began 53 years ago.
Two weeks later, the UK announced that the number of people out of work has reached its highest level in 17 years, and youth unemployment has hit a historic high at well over 20pc, according to the Office for National Statistics. Spain capped the round of bad news by announcing that unemployment there is 23pc — its highest figure ever and the highest in the EU. Even with the West's low inflation, the misery index is already very high. :ranger:

Related Articles

Micex-RTS exchange opens 22 Dec 2011

But unemployment coupled with inflation alone doesn't really tell the whole story. What does it matter if the cost of an iPod rises by 10pc a year if you can't even put food on the table or heat your home?

The despair index allows a direct comparison between the West and emerging markets. The surprise is that central and eastern European states are doing better than the developed economies of the West.

And thanks to record low poverty and unemployment numbers in November, Russia's despair index score of 25.5 is now lower than that of the United States, which has a despair level of 28.1.

Russia's score highlights the transformation the country has been through since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Life for Russians at the start of the Nineties was truly horrible. Russia's misery and despair indices were into the thousands thanks to hyperinflation, but as the decade wore on, the despair index fell steadily from around 90 in 2000 to the current level.

It is easy to blame the rising despair on the current crisis, but the US Census says poverty levels in the US have been rising since well before the current crisis began. Economists say that most American families were worse off in 2000 than they were in 1990.

There are some problems with comparing poverty across countries. With a poverty line of $11,139 (£7,160) per annum, America's poor are a lot better off than most Russians, who earn an average of $9,600. However, the US Census Bureau says half of those living in poverty live in "deep poverty" with incomes half of the official poverty rate, which would make them poor even by Russian standards. :ranger:

The existence of poverty in the "rich" world only underscores the fact that western democracy is flawed and emphasises the increasingly desperate need for deep structural reform. There has been a lot of talk of emerging markets overtaking the West, but for the majority of people, the Brics have already caught up. If you are rich, then you are better off living in America, but if you are poor, then the chances of your life improving are now brighter in Russia. :thumb:

Ben Aris is the editor and publisher of Business New Europe.

Russia's economic fortunes rise as West sinks - Telegraph

 

[hello_10]

Russia's economy under Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia on March 26, 2000, and was re-elected to a second term on March 14, 2004. On May 8, 2008, he was appointed Prime Minister by presidential executive order.

16 May 2000

President of Russia


Economic history of the Russian Federation 2000-2007

Russia posted gross domestic product growth of 6.4% in 1999, 10% in 2000, 5.1% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 7.3% in 2003, 7.2% in 2004, 6.4% in 2005, 8.2% in 2006 and 8.5% in 2007[9] with industrial sector posting high growth figures as well.
Главная::Федеральная служба государственной статистики

Under the presidency of Vladimir Putin Russia's economy saw the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) double, climbing from 22nd to 11th largest in the world.[/COLOR] The economy made real gains of an average 7% per year (2000: 10%, 2001: 5.1%, 2002: 4.7%, 2003: 7.3%, 2004: 7.2%, 2005: 6.4%, 2006: 8.2%, 2007: 8.5%, 2008: 5.6%), making it the 6th largest economy in the world in GDP(PPP). In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of 1990, meaning it has overcome the devastating consequences of the Soviet era, 1998 financial crisis, and preceding recession in the 1990s.

During Putin's eight years in office, industry grew by 75%, investments increased by 125%,[10] and agricultural production and construction increased as well. Real incomes more than doubled and the average salary increased eightfold from $80 to $640.[11][12][13]:thumb: The volume of consumer credit between 2000–2006 increased 45 times,[14][15] and during that same time period, the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million, an increase of 7 times. The number of people living below the poverty line also decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.[10][16][17]

Economic history of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


=> The Putin's Era of Russia is highlighted as below: :ranger:

=> Government Debt To GDP - Countries - List


=> the Chart Below puts Russian Per Capita Income in the same category of many Western European Countries like Italy, Spain etc., while they are heavily indebted too :thumb:

=> also we find Ruble value stabilized since 2000 itself, as below:

Year - US Dollar exchange

1995 - 4.55 Rubles
2000 - 28.13 Rubles
2005 - 28.27 Rubles
2009 - 30.20 Rubles

Economy of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hello_10]

Russia makes huge investment

An ambitious programme in Russia to remake or modernise the crumbling Soviet-era roads, railways, bridges and ports is under way.

Between $60bn (£39bn) and $65bn (£42bn) is being invested each year on major renovation projects across the country – not that you'd notice if you visit Russia's regional capitals, which still look drab and run-down, bar a few brightly coloured billboards. That's because most of the money is going into transport and power systems – the lifeblood of this vast but largely empty country.

Infrastructure investment in Russia in 2010 reached $111bn (£72bn), according to a report by Morgan Stanley, a 10-fold increase from the $7bn spent in 1999. :thumb:

Commentators regularly attack the Kremlin's "spending frenzy", claiming it has driven up the oil price needed to balance the budget to over $125 a barrel – from $21 in 2007, based on Citigroup figures.

But they don't seem to acknowledge that, rather than propping up struggling factories or paying public servants, the money is going on much-needed infrastructure projects.

And, when set against the rapidly expanding economy, the spending splurge is not that much: as a share of GDP it has doubled from 3.5pc of GDP in 1999 to 7pc in 2010 – slightly ahead of India's 6pc, but well behind China's 11pc. :thumb:

What's more, it isn't just the federal government making the investment, but state-owned companies, many of which are now on the privatisation list. Over half of all infrastructure investment (3.7pc of GDP) was made by just eight large state-owned companies, while federal budget spending accounted for only 1.8pc, according to Morgan Stanley.

The real boom in infrastructure spending, though, has not even begun. A host of mega-projects are being prepared that will push the spending even higher over the next couple of years.

Among the biggest projects planned are the development of the Vankor oil and gas field, the biggest find in Russia in the past 25 years; the Ust-Luga port in the Gulf of Finland that will be the biggest warm-water port in Russia; the reconstruction of the Black Sea resort of Sochi ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics; and the construction of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean (Espo) oil pipeline.

Morgan Stanley estimates that a total of $500bn worth of infrastructure projects are underway or about to start.

"Based on our major projects database, we see a steady $60bn-$65bn [per year] flow of infrastructure capital expenditure on major projects, and a new generation of mega-projects under development, including high- speed rail, new federal highways, the Moscow transport hub and further development of the Yamal oil and gas province," says Jacob Nell, chief economist of Morgan Stanley and author of the report.

To sustain this high level of development, Mr Nell estimates state-owned companies will have to raise another $28bn a year to finance the work – about as much as Russia attracts in foreign "¨direct investment.

What is odd is that much of this work has gone unnoticed. This is partly because the spending has not had much impact on the country's growth or overall investment – both are now lower than before the financial crisis began. And because the more opaque state-owned companies are in the front line, their spending is harder to see than federal budget spending or privately funded investment.

But perhaps the biggest factor is that, unlike China and India, which were both largely agrarian economies, Russia inherited a lot of serviceable infrastructure from the Soviet era. :cool2: In the boom years of the Seventies, when the workers' paradise looked like it might actually happen, Kremlin spending on infrastructure averaged 40pc of GDP a year. It was only in the Nineties that it fell away to next to nothing. :ranger:

"Russia inherited significant elements of a modern industrial infrastructure from the Soviet Union, including an oil and gas industry, a mining industry, a railway network, a power network, and urban transport and municipal services. However, the infrastructure was often inefficient, and there were notable gaps, particularly in telecommunications and transport," says Mr Nell.

Russia makes huge investment in transport networks - Telegraph

 

[Austin]

Its better not to be a Superpower that has too many stigma attached to it but work with like minded nations like BRICS and other for upholding UN laws and right which in past 2 decades US and its western allies have taken for a ride

 

[Austin]

Should give an idea the resources Russia holds as well as other nations

24/7 Wall St. » Blog Archive The World’s Most Resource-Rich Countries «

 

[hello_10]

we have a military strength comparison as below too. its the most recognized source in this regard, even if reliability of these sources is always on question. :ranger:

=> Global Firepower Military Ranks - 2013

here, PwrIndx of US at 0.2475 is sharp fall of "comparative" military strength of US. Russia at 0.2618 is very closed to it also. i remember, PwrIndx of US was very high in 2003-05, at around 0.13, can anyone confirm it?

 

[hello_10]

double post

 

[nrupatunga]

Russia's Middle East Chess Game

The Middle East represents an important global theater for Russia. And for both America and Russia, the Middle East represents an area where they can cooperate.

Only the tiniest bottleneck through the Ottoman Bosphorus and Dardanelles led to the Mediterranean and world's oceans. But this has never stemmed Russia's aspiration to play a leading role on the global stage. Quite the contrary. It has always sought to expand its influence and reach abroad. Continually lusting for the Straits, it was Russia that helped trigger the Crimean War when it instructed the Ottoman Empire in 1853 that it was intent on preserving the rights of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Constantinople balked. Britain and France intervened. War broke out. Equilibrium was restored in 1856 with the Treaty of Paris. Russia had little to show for its bellicosity. After World War II, Stalin lusted for the Dardanelles, but Harry S. Truman sent Turkey military aid to stymie Moscow. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, some Cold Warriors speculated that it was part of a fresh drive for a warm-water port; in retrospect, it was a sign of weakness rather than strength.

One of the most profound changes in Russia's Middle East policy is Putin's tilt towards Israel. With 40 percent of its citizens Russian immigrants, Israel is now a large trade partner. Enthralled with the Holy Land, Putin is the first Russian leader to visit Israel.

State-owned gas giant Gazprom and oil giant Rosneft execute Moscow's new expansion. A major guarantor of Russia's weal, Gazprom bears liquid natural gas [LNG] to European markets. Significantly, the most important energy hubs of the myriad Middle East pipeline plays—are Syria and Turkey., Russia's aim is to keep other pipelines from encroaching on Gazprom's monopoly and Rosneft's profits. One of these was the planned Nabucco pipeline, designed to lesson Europe's vulnerability to Russia. Because of Russian pressure, a less ambitious Trans-Adriatic (TAP) pipeline has replaced it

Vladimir Putin's stock in the Middle East is rising. The Russian president's black belt, better-than-Chuck-Norris machismo, and his dual background as a KGB operative, and reform-minded administrator, make him a formidable leader. He is proud and wants to be treated as an equal.

President Barack Obama's Middle East stock is falling. The Saudis are enraged by his compromise with Russia. Egypt, livid at Obama's reducing military aid after the ouster of Islamist Morsi, has just welcomed a Russian delegation. Israel isn't happy either.

Yet long-term trends are not encouraging for Russia. In his "Near Abroad," few countries have joined his Customs Union. Maintaining only nuclear parity with America, Russia's military hardware, is largely obsolete. Traditionally, the Russian navy has been unable to compete with those of the more advanced Western powers.

No country is more dependent than Russia on oil and gas—their high prices a major factor behind its recovery under Putin. Both American and Russia have powerful incentives to cooperate, not least because of the rise of China, and a common interest in stability and fighting terrorism in the Middle East.

 

[Austin]

Just to give an idea how much reserves does Arctic Hold from Official Russian Government

Russia's Arctic holds 100 Bln tons of oil, gas

Russia's Arctic holds 100 Bln tons of oil, gas

Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev's statement comes as Russia is strengthening efforts to defend its claims to parts of the Arctic, which is believed to contain as much as a quarter of the Earth's undiscovered oil and gas. Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the region, which is promising new opportunities to tap its oil and gas resources as the polar ice shrinks.
"Our sector in the Arctic is estimated to contain up to 100 billions tons of resources," Trutnev told a small circle of reporters on Tuesday.

100 billion Tons is 714 Billion Barrel of Oil Equivalent ( bboe )

 

[Austin]

Gazprom looking to Russia arctic for energy exploration - UPI.com

Gazprom said parts of the Russian continental shelf haven't been explored well. It estimated the continental shelf could hold as much as "100 billion tons of fuel equivalent, of which some 80 percent is (natural) gas."

 

[nrupatunga]

Not sure if this is the right thread. But this combo will shape european geo-politics in the coming years: either for good or for for worse.

Get Ready for a Russo-German Europe

The last few weeks have revealed some important truths about Europe. Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, most Americans and Western Europeans had become used to a Franco-German Europe. In this version of Europe, which was designed after World War II to dampen one of the greatest state rivalries in history, France and Germany made the decisions, and Europe's center of gravity was squarely in the West. But, these days, the real action happens further east. Ukraine, looking to overcome its Soviet past, was taking its first steps toward becoming one of the European Union's largest and most populous members until Russia made its move to derail those plans. And Poland, for years considered a junior member of the European team, has risen as a leader by shepherding negotiations between former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition. In this new Europe, the Franco-German engine has been replaced by a Russo-German one: as the European Union moves eastward, settling its future borders and borderlands, it is Germany and Russia that will decide who is in and who is out -- and under what terms.

To a large extent, the battle for Ukraine has become a battle over the shape that this Russo-German Europe will take. Russia, through its geopolitical boldness, aggression, and sense of entitlement, has proved willing to annex the territories that it wants, building up a Eurasian bloc to balance against the European Union. Ukraine is an essential part of that plan, and Crimea is the leading edge. Russia is very likely to keep what it has now seized, as it has in all other regional conflicts, and continue trying to use its position in Crimea to destabilize Ukraine. That will help Russia as it attempts to draw a sharp line between its values, culture, politics, and economy, and the West's.

Thanks to Germany's role as a key state in the European Union and its deep ties to Russia, it is the only country that could thwart or contain Russia's grand geopolitical ambitions. It was particularly clear during European negotiations this week over possible sanctions on Russia for invading Crimea that Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, would ultimately decide how much to pressure Russia and how to balance Europe's desire to punish the country against its desire to bring Russia closer through economic engagement. Germany held the line against jumping too quickly to sanctions and, instead, channeled Western anger toward Russia into an "off-ramp" solution, in which Russians and the new Ukrainian government would hold direct talks about the future of Crimea, with international mediation.

And that hints at Germany's reluctance to abandon its long game: Since the end of the Cold War, the country has emphasized economic engagement with Russia in the hope of ushering Russian society along toward modernization. It has sought to build a strong partnership with the Kremlin to underpin a peaceful order in Eastern Europe, just as it joined with France in Western Europe after World War II to prevent conflict there.

The strategy has deep historical roots: during World War II, German armies shot up dozens of Russian towns and cities and laid siege to St. Petersburg, starving over a million civilians there. Russia resisted at huge cost and then raped and pillaged its way back to Berlin for revenge, starving a million German POWs in return. Both armies marched through Ukraine and fought devastating battles there, including in Sevastopol. This terrible shared history brought Germany and Russia closer together after 1991 in an effort not to repeat it; Germany has taken great pains since then to court Russia and prevent the re-emergence of competition and conflict. It has offered its industrial might and know-how to Russia to help with important Russian infrastructure projects and industries. Russia has accepted and appreciated those overtures. It, too, has sought to develop a special relationship with Germany, treating Germany as a great power and providing Germany a direct link to Russian gas through its Nord Stream pipeline. This tight relationship -- some say too tight -- was symbolized by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder taking a well-compensated job with Gazprom upon leaving power in 2005.

The relationship hit new highs a few years ago, between 2008 and 2012, when Dmitri Medvedev served as president of Russia. Germans loved working with him and tended to regard him as a symbol of what a more modern Russia could be. They exalted him as a Russian political leader who spoke their language and supported liberal rights and freedoms. Europeans saw great promise in his Skolkovo initiative to turn Moscow into a high-tech hub, for example. But in their desperation for a good counterpart in Russia, Germans overestimated Medvedev's importance.

Putin's tumultuous re-ascension to power in 2012 -- and Medvedev's demotion back to prime minister -- shattered Germany's hopes. German political leaders saw clearly what some had argued all along -- that Medvedev was nothing more than Putin's puppet, a convenient liberal face to an otherwise autocratic reality. Putin's eagerness to return to power at a time when many Russians wanted him to stay away, his tough talk, and his crackdown on protests in Moscow in 2011 showed that Russia was not, in fact, evolving. Since then, Germany increasingly has been forced to confront the fact that peaceful engagement and economic cooperation don't always prevent conflict, especially with a Russia dedicated to authoritarian politics at home and expansionist policies abroad. For instance, in Moldova, Russia has launched an open campaign to prevent that country's pro-Europe government from signing a European Association Agreement and also encouraged ethnic enclaves to break away. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has held the line on Europe's support for Moldova's EU ambitions.

As much as Germany has become disillusioned with Russia and would like to isolate it, it now finds doing so very difficult; Germany is inextricably linked to its eastern neighbor as a result of its geography and years of cooperation, competition, mutual benefit, and memories of mutual destruction.

Today, Russia is Germany's 11th largest export market, after Poland. Russia sells Germany gas and oil and Germany sells Russia expensive cars, machine tools, and manufactured products. A trade embargo or asset confiscations would sting Germany more than any other European power -- except Netherlands where Royal Dutch Shell has substantial interests -- and far more than the United States. So would a gas cutoff or embargo. But Russia, of course, is far more dependent on the West than the West is on Russia. It needs Europe as a consumer of its oil and gas exports. It is dependent on Germany, in particular, for investment and technical expertise. Economic isolation would be damaging to both sides, but especially to Russia.

And that is why Russia, although it has marched into Crimea, has likely not won the war. Germany, having avoided coming to blows with Russia and having attempted to ease tensions, seems more determined than ever to take Ukraine under its economic wing. As Ukraine develops, it might be in a better position to assert its independence from the Russian empire. For now, German leaders have started to recover from the shock that Russia would disregard international law so blatantly in Crimea. Leaders in Russia and Germany understand the stakes in their competition to regulate European politics and economics. They are devoted to sharply diverging outcomes, but are also interested in finding a common ground to maintain the peace. Although the tussle in Crimea may end in stalemate, both powers will live to play another day and work toward a vision of Europe that is not yet shared, but could be. That Russo-German Europe is the Europe we will live with, for better or worse.

 

[jmj_overlord]

Gazprom looking to Russia arctic for energy exploration - UPI.com

Gazprom said parts of the Russian continental shelf haven't been explored well. It estimated the continental shelf could hold as much as "100 billion tons of fuel equivalent, of which some 80 percent is (natural) gas."

with russia having such large reserves of natural gas, isn't imposing sanctions on them by the west a foolish move ?

 

[Jagdish58]

I would credit Putin for Russian growth & agressive posture , If you give Russia to Manmohan singh or Sonia gandhi or AK antony or Chindambaram to govern will they take russia to super power status?? noooooooooooo If the leader is firm & agressive on foreign policy then country will prosper both militarily or economically:thumb:

 

[happy]

The beauty of Kremlin rivaled by none !!!

Kremlin : The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

 

[thethinker]

with russia having such large reserves of natural gas, isn't imposing sanctions on them by the west a foolish move ?

Absolutely. The plan to isolate Russia has backfired. With Crimea under Russian control, an even larger pool of natural gas fields is now directly controlled by Russia.

All the West has done is provoke a trade war for natural gas with EU and US on one side while Russia and allies (including India) on other. Looks like someone has over-estimated their own capabilities of exporting gas (read " fracking") by a long shot. This whole dog-pony show if was designed to displace Russia from being the main exporter of natural gas globally will actually end up burning West very badly in future.

 

[Ankit Purohit]

The beauty of Kremlin rivaled by none !!!

Kremlin : The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

Thanks happy for posting, this is just outstanding .