Russian public think USA is No.1 enemy – poll

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by pmaitra, Oct 10, 2014.

  1. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Russian public think USA is No.1 enemy – poll

    Source: http://rt.com/politics/194512-russia-usa-enemy-poll/

    The red part is concerning. PRC should be trusted only within certain limits. One does not know what they will do when.
     
    sesha_maruthi27 likes this.
  2.  
  3. AVERAGE INDIAN

    AVERAGE INDIAN EXORCIST Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    2,719
    Location:
    Detroit MI
    India's balancing act in Crimea crisis


    While many countries have condemned Russia’s actions in the ongoing Crimea crisis, India is the only Asian power that has backed Moscow. In light of this development, DW takes a look at Indo-Russian ties.

    In a sign of future developments in the bilateral partnership, Igor Sechin, the head of Rosneft, Russia's biggest oil company, led a delegation to India on March 24, offering to supply vast amounts of oil and gas. Sechin was quoted by Indian news agency PTI as saying: "India is a very important country for Russia…. And we want to expand our cooperation."

    India′s balancing act in Crimea crisis | Asia | DW.DE | 01.04.2014
     
    sesha_maruthi27 and pmaitra like this.
  4. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
  5. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    A drop in oil prices means there is less demand for oil, and thereby, the Petro-Dollar. The drop in oil prices will also hurt the US. The question is, what is the way out for countries that heavily import oil?
     
  6. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    Russia´s problem is that all it´s new oil/ gas fields are in the difficult to reach regions and to "harvest" them is extremely difficult and expensive. Russia is almost totally dependent of west regarding those technologies to drill oil in those areas. Some estimate that it might not be profitable to drill there is the oil prices do not rise.
     
  7. Sylex21

    Sylex21 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    326
    Location:
    USA
    In light of this are Indians too pro-Russia? Maybe the feeling of goodwill from 1971 goes only one way. Disappointing to see India lower than expected on the list.
     
  8. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Brent Crude has dipped $85 per barrel hasn't it? Russia is reportedly able to balance her budget only if the price is above $115 :shocked:
    [​IMG]

    Here's How President Obama Is Using the 'Oil Weapon'—Against Iran, Russia, and ISIS | Mother Jones

    It was heinous. It was underhanded. It was beyond the bounds of international morality. It was an attack on the American way of life. It was what you might expect from unscrupulous Arabs. It was "the oil weapon"—and back in 1973, it was directed at the United States. Skip ahead four decades and it's smart, it's effective, and it's the American way. The Obama administration has appropriated it as a major tool of foreign policy, a new way to go to war with nations it considers hostile without relying on planes, missiles, and troops. It is, of course, that very same oil weapon.



    Until recently, the use of the term "the oil weapon" has largely been identified with the efforts of Arab producers to dissuade the United States from supporting Israel by cutting off the flow of petroleum. The most memorable example of its use was the embargo imposed by Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on oil exports to the United States during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, causing scarcity in the US, long lines at American filling stations, and a global economic recession.

    After suffering enormously from that embargo, Washington took a number of steps to disarm the oil weapon and prevent its reuse. These included an increased emphasis on domestic oil production and the establishment of a mutual aid arrangement overseen by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that obliged participating nations to share their oil with any member state subjected to an embargo.

    So consider it a surprising reversal that, having tested out the oil weapon against Saddam Hussein's Iraq with devastating effect back in the 1990s, Washington is now the key country brandishing that same weapon, using trade sanctions and other means to curb the exports of energy-producing states it categorizes as hostile. The Obama administration has taken this aggressive path even at the risk of curtailing global energy supplies.

    When first employed, the oil weapon was intended to exploit the industrial world's heavy dependence on petroleum imports from the Middle East. Over time, however, those producing countries became ever more dependent on oil revenues to finance their governments and enrich their citizens. Washington now seeks to exploit this by selectively denying access to world oil markets, whether through sanctions or the use of force, and so depriving hostile producing powers of operating revenues.

    The most dramatic instance of this came on September 23rd, when American aircraft bombed refineries and other oil installations in areas of Syria controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL or IS). An extremist insurgent movement that has declared a new "caliphate," ISIS is not, of course, a major oil producer, but it has taken control of oil fields and refineries that once were operated by the regime of Bashar al-Assad in eastern Syria. The revenue generated by these fields, reportedly $1 to $2 million daily, is being used by ISIS to generate a significant share of its operating expenses. This has given that movement the wherewithal to finance the further recruitment and support of thousands of foreign fighters, even as it sustains a high tempo of combat operations.

    Black-market dealers in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have evidently been assisting ISIS in this effort, purchasing the crude at a discount and selling at global market rates, now hovering at about $90 per barrel. Ironically, this clandestine export network was initially established in the 1990s by Saddam Hussein's regime to evade US sanctions on Iraq.

    The Islamic State has proven adept indeed at exploiting the fields under its control, even selling the oil to agents of opposing forces, including the Assad regime. To stop this flow, Washington launched what is planned to be a long-term air campaign against those fields and their associated infrastructure. By bombing them, President Obama evidently hopes to curtail the movement's export earnings and thereby diminish its combat capabilities. These strikes, he declared in announcing the bombing campaign, are intended to "take out terrorist targets" and "cut off ISIL's financing."

    It is too early to assess the impact of the air strikes on ISIS's capacity to pump and sell oil. However, since the movement has been producing only about 80,000 barrels per day (roughly 1/1,000th of worldwide oil consumption), the attacks, if successful, are not expected to have any significant impact on a global market already increasingly glutted, in part because of an explosion of drilling in that "new Saudi Arabia," the United States.

    As it happens, though, the Obama administration is also wielding the oil weapon against two of the world's leading producers, Iran and Russia. These efforts, which include embargoes and trade sanctions, are likely to have a far greater impact on world output, reflecting White House confidence that, in the pursuit of US strategic interests, anything goes.

    Fighting the Iranians

    In the case of Iran, Washington has moved aggressively to curtail Tehran's ability to finance its extensive nuclear program both by blocking its access to Western oil-drilling technology and by curbing its export sales. Under the Iran Sanctions Act, foreign firms that invest in the Iranian oil industry are barred from access to US financial markets and subject to other penalties. In addition, the Obama administration has put immense pressure on major oil-importing countries, including China, India, South Korea, and the European powers, to reduce or eliminate their purchases from Iran.

    These measures, which involve tough restrictions on financial transactions related to Iranian oil exports, have had a significant impact on that country's oil output. By some estimates, those exports have fallen by one million barrels per day, which also represents a significant contraction in global supplies. As a result, Iran's income from oil exports is estimated to have fallen from $118 billion in 2011-2012 to $56 billion in 2013-2014, while pinching ordinary Iranians in a multitude of ways.

    In earlier times, when global oil supplies were tight, a daily loss of one million barrels would have meant widespread scarcity and a possible global recession. The Obama administration, however, assumes that only Iran is likely to suffer in the present situation. Credit this mainly to the recent upsurge in North American energy production (largely achieved through the use of hydro-fracking to extract oil and natural gas from buried shale deposits) and the increased availability of crude from other non-OPEC sources. According to the most recent data from the Department of Energy (DoE), US crude output rose from 5.7 million barrels per day in 2011 to 8.4 million barrels in the second quarter of 2014, a remarkable 47% gain. And this is to be no flash in the pan. The DoE predicts that domestic output will rise to some 9.6 million barrels per day in 2020, putting the US back in the top league of global producers.

    For the Obama administration, the results of this are clear. Not only will American reliance on imported oil be significantly reduced, but with the US absorbing ever less of the non-domestic supply, import-dependent countries like India, Japan, China, and South Korea should be able to satisfy their needs even if Iranian energy production keeps falling. As a result, Washington has been able to secure greater cooperation from such countries in observing the Iranian sanctions—something they would no doubt have been reluctant to do if global supplies were less abundant.

    There is another factor, no less crucial, in the aggressive use of the oil weapon as an essential element of foreign policy. The increase in domestic crude output has imbued American leaders with a new sense of energy omnipotence, allowing them to contemplate the decline in Iranian exports without trepidation. In an April 2013 speech at Columbia University, Tom Donilon, then Obama's national security adviser, publicly expressed this outlook with particular force. "America's new energy posture allows us to engage from a position of greater strength," he avowed. "Increasing US energy supplies act as a cushion that helps reduce our vulnerability to global supply disruptions and price shocks. It also affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our international security goals."

    This "stronger hand," he made clear, was reflected in US dealings with Iran. To put pressure on Tehran, he noted, "The United States engaged in tireless diplomacy to persuade consuming nations to end or significantly reduce their consumption of Iranian oil." At the same time, "the substantial increase in oil production in the United States and elsewhere meant that international sanctions and US and allied efforts could remove over 1 million barrels per day of Iranian oil while minimizing the burdens on the rest of the world." It was this happy circumstance, he suggested, that had forced Iran to the negotiating table.

    Fighting Vladimir Putin

    The same outlook apparently governs US policy toward Russia.

    Prior to Russia's seizure of Crimea and its covert intervention in eastern Ukraine, major Western oil companies, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Total of France, were pursuing elaborate plans to begin production in Russian-controlled sectors of the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, mainly in collaboration with state-owned or state-controlled firms like Gazprom and Rosneft. There were, for instance, a number of expansive joint ventures between Exxon and Rosneft to drill in those energy-rich waters.

    "These agreements," Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, said proudly in 2012 on inking the deal, "are important milestones in this strategic relationship... Our focus now will move to technical planning and execution of safe and environmentally responsible exploration activities with the goal of developing significant new energy supplies to meet growing global demand." Seen as a boon for American energy corporations and the oil-dependent global economy, these and similar endeavors were largely welcomed by US officials.

    Such collaborations between US companies and Russian state enterprises were then viewed as conferring significant benefits on both sides. Exxon and other Western companies were being given access to vast new reserves—a powerful lure at a time when many of their existing fields in other parts of the world were in decline. For the Russians, who were also facing significant declines in their existing fields, access to advanced Western drilling technology offered the promise of exploiting otherwise difficult-to-reach areas in the Arctic and "tough" drilling environments elsewhere.

    Not surprisingly, key figures on both sides have sought to insulate these arrangements from the new sanctions being imposed on Russia in response to its incursions in Ukraine. Tillerson, in particular, has sought to persuade US leaders to exempt its deals with Rosneft from any such measures. "Our views are being heard at the highest levels," he indicated in June.

    As a result of such pressures, Russian energy companies were not covered in the first round of US sanctions imposed on various firms and individuals. After Russia intervened in eastern Ukraine, however, the White House moved on to tougher sanctions, including measures aimed at the energy sector. On September 12th, the Treasury Department announced that it was imposing strict constraints on the transfer of US technology to Rosneft, Gazprom, and other Russian firms for the purpose of drilling in the Arctic. These measures, the department noted, "will impede Russia's ability to develop so-called frontier or unconventional oil resources, areas in which Russian firms are heavily dependent on US and western technology."

    The impact of these new measures cannot yet be assessed. Russian officials scoffed at them, insisting that their companies will proceed in the Arctic anyway. Nevertheless, Obama's decision to target their drilling efforts represents a dramatic turn in US policy, risking a future contraction in global oil supplies if Russian companies prove unable to offset declines at their existing fields.

    The New Weapon of Choice

    As these recent developments indicate, the Obama administration has come to view the oil weapon as a valuable tool of power and influence. It appears, in fact, that Washington may be in the process of replacing the threat of invasion or, as with the Soviet Union in the Cold War era, nuclear attack, as its favored response to what it views as overseas provocation. (Not surprisingly, the Russians look on the Ukrainian crisis, which is taking place on their border, in quite a different light.) Whereas full-scale US military action—that is, anything beyond air strikes, drone attacks, and the sending in of special ops forces—seems unlikely in the current political environment, top officials in the Obama administration clearly believe that oil combat is an effective and acceptable means of coercion—so long, of course, as it remains in American hands.

    That Washington is prepared to move in this direction reflects not only the recent surge in US crude oil output, but also a sense that energy, in this time of globalization, constitutes a strategic asset of unparalleled importance. To control oil flows across the planet and deny market access to recalcitrant producers is increasingly a major objective of American foreign policy.

    Yet, given Washington's lack of success when using direct military force in these last years, it remains an open question whether the oil weapon will, in the end, prove any more satisfactory in offering strategic advantage to the United States. The Iranians, for instance, have indeed come to the negotiating table, but a favorable outcome on the nuclear talks there appears increasingly remote; with or without oil, ISIS continues to score battlefield victories; and Moscow displays no inclination to end its involvement in Ukraine. Nonetheless, in the absence of other credible options, President Obama and his key officials seem determined to wield the oil weapon.

    As with any application of force, however, use of the oil weapon entails substantial risk. For one thing, despite the rise in domestic crude production, the US will remain dependent on oil imports for the foreseeable future and so could still suffer if other countries were to deny it exports. More significant is the possibility that this new version of the oil wars Washington has been fighting since the 1990s could someday result in a genuine contraction in global supplies, driving prices skyward and so threatening the health of the US economy. And who's to say that, seeing Washington's growing reliance on aggressive oil tactics to impose its sway, other countries won't find their own innovative ways to wield the oil weapon to their advantage and to Washington's ultimate detriment?

    As with the introduction of drones, the United States now enjoys a temporary advantage in energy warfare. By unleashing such weapons on the world, however, it only ensures that others will seek to match our advantage and turn it against us.

    Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
     
  9. jouni

    jouni Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Location:
    finland
    You can see in this poll that after his first term Putin started to build enemy scenarios towards USA, Government controlled media has been very successful in claiming both US and EU as anti Russian. Now the grip on civil society is almost complete with the approval of the new media law. Luckily last few days has shown that there might be somebody left who opposes Putin's medieval politics. Sperbank's CEO and finance minister were quite outspoken about current affairs in Russia.

    Still it is quite possible historians of the future compare current Russian propaganda machine to Goebbels, both created new ways to have a highly educated population under control using latest tools available ( Goebbels with radio and movies and Putin with tv and social media ).
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  10. Kshatriya87

    Kshatriya87 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    3,185
    Location:
    Mumbai
    They are right to think so
     
  11. Peter

    Peter Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2014
    Messages:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kolkata
    The Russians who think China is a better ally than India will soon realize their folly. The Chinese can never be trusted. They are just like their products,"cheap".
    [​IMG]
     
  12. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    Tell us what India can offer Russia, now that your defence orders are about to dry up for Russia。

    China, Russia sign currency swap deal

    Russia about to import pork from China
     
  13. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    What do you expect from Russia then? Its not their fault. Its because of us getting close to US that has decreased their trust. Also considering China as an ally makes sense for them as China can be an alternative for them to provide good investments to keep there economy running . Indian Economy is not mature enough to compete with that. Even Geographically China is at an advantage due to shared borders. If we want to export something to Russia, it would have to be sailed to Vladivostok and then through trans Siberian Railways to get our goods there. So , we need to provide goods that are cheap enough to compensate for this . In Future, When Indian Economy is much more mature than today, Im sure Russians will consider Indians as their " friend " ally . Russians consider Chinese as a strategic ally. Im sure guys at Kremlin are getting very angry due to China copying there technology,stealing there market by unfair means , but they really dont have any other choice.
     

Share This Page