tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post2151072402190053444..comments2024-01-16T08:40:53.682+00:00Comments on <a href="http://www.openeurope.org.uk">Open Europe</a>: Does Russia’s gas deal with China change things for the EU?OEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00556463374230498875noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-59640941749249194322014-05-22T00:14:49.170+01:002014-05-22T00:14:49.170+01:00From there Russia looks best served by splitting r...From there Russia looks best served by splitting risks. Say to 30-40% China (most reliable partner), 20-30% other East Asia (pay better prices). India 10-20%, Europe 20-25%. A huge drop for Europe from now.<br />It is a sellers market so it can.<br />For gas effectively having to move to ME or US (latter possibly as still has to materialise). <br />As LNG which will rubbish any climate targets as it is say 30% less efficient.<br /><br />The US will asap be replaced as financial centre for both Russia and more important China. Which will create opportunities for the UK, but also dangers when it is seen as too close to the US.<br />Combine with NSA industrial espionage and a few other recent things likely most of the rest will spread risk away from the US. <br /><br />Airplane industry likely another one that will see a new Airbus-like venture between these 2.<br /><br /> Countrywise similar issues can be expected with India. These are the 3 main powers that will see themselves potentially under fire by the US.<br /><br />Problem the US has is that it has be advertising now several times that it will be close to outright hostile to competitors. Logical move for these is coalition and cut the US out as much as possible (simply risk limitation).<br /><br />There is where the huge conflict of interest is between the EU and the US. The US policies as such are already not all to clever. The general idea might be good but it simply looks like the costs and dangers are way outweighting the benefits.<br />Anyway Europe basically requires a stable relation with Russia and China.<br />Forming a coalition (or better stepping up the current one) with the US likely will create close to a similar reaction as the one towards the US.<br /><br />A lesson from the past. In post Middle Age Europe every time a dominating country arose. Coalitions were formed between the others. Spain 16th, Holland 17th, France 17th, France around 1800, WW1 Germany, WW2 Germany.<br />All these at the end of the day had their backsides kicked. The only succesful one was the UK, but mainly as it looked oversea.<br />It is so much more difficult to fight a long term conflict on sombodyelse's home turf than on your own. Most of these went wrong by going abroad (on the enemy's turf).<br /><br />Europe will have to answer a few questions.<br />-How will it gets its energy longer term. And has to think stategicly on that (not like a complete idiot like now).<br />-Position Baltics/Poland and alike. Hardly useful to get away with the natural conflict between France and Germany in Europe but replace it by a new one between the EUs East and Russia. Stability in Europe simply requires a stable relation with Russia. Which was borderline for Western Europe imho. Already lousy because of East EU and now further deteriorated.<br />-Relation with the US.<br /><br />Anyway the EU seems simply on the outlook for new troublkes and internal PR disasters.<br />This is simply another exercise with which another group of its people will be alienated from the EU (and traditional politics in a lot of countries as well).<br />Amateurishly handled. Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-47799051039752913062014-05-22T00:14:10.031+01:002014-05-22T00:14:10.031+01:00Not this deal as such, but this whole crisis has s...Not this deal as such, but this whole crisis has simply made Europe look like a considerably more unreliable partner than previously thought.<br />Some of the stuff done by countries like the UK, Germany and a lot of the EU East are simply hostile towards Russia and will be seen as such.<br />It might be bad for Russia as well, but the main question is what does it do for Europe. As said before winning a conflicts in my world means being better of than before not being kicked one times less between the legs than the other party.<br /><br />The blunder that Europe made is that it didnot have its strategic priorities right (effectively never properly considered them. At this stage and in the foreseeable future as said many times that main thing is a stable Ukraine not who owns the manuregap.<br />And re Russia may be not friendly relations but also not relations spoilt like now. Both on security as energy supply.<br /><br />All 3 of the top priorities have taken a heavy hit by this. With in return a lot of costs on top of it.<br /><br />Ukraine hardly looks stable. The 2groups that found it nearly impossible to live next to each other have now a period of violence on top of all the already available issues.<br /><br />For energy the country is in fact only important for transport. With a split country and all the economic problems caused by it, it simply has become considerably more unreliable.<br />For future pipelines it is also a difficult one. This is Europe's Nigeria. You rather donot have your pipelines there. Turkey looks a far better bet.<br />From energy transport pov who owns the country doesnot matter as long as it is stable.<br /><br />Europe spends very little on defence. But basically when Russia would cover their flank East and South East it doesnot need to spend a lot. Only if it wants to be involved in all sort of foreign adventures (which look for the bigger ones on popular opinion simply a complete no go).<br />However that would require a stable relation with Russia. Which is spoilt or close to that.<br />The East EU already was constantly making a mess of it and could and still can get away with that also within the EU. Same btw for the UK one of the most active countrie pre coup as well as Germany with a moronic attempt to become an international player. <br /><br />Russia looked longer term a much stabler source of energy than the ME. Archaic governments will very likely be overthrown at one point.<br />The Israel issue.<br />And most important shorter term Iran nukes which would highly destabilise the whole area (as a few others would want those as well if Iran gets them).<br />Anyway nobody really likes anybody else there and like to show that in an armed way.<br />Simply a highly unstable neighbourhood.<br />Riknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-71706475427998730632014-05-21T19:04:09.561+01:002014-05-21T19:04:09.561+01:00Maybe it isn't the Russians driving the deal, ...Maybe it isn't the Russians driving the deal, maybe it is the Chinese?<br />http://www.cnbc.com/id/101450365<br /><br />Look at what the dangerous foreign countries are doing? Seems xenophobic and isolationist ;-)<br /><br />So to protect against the foreigners lets centralise (the term used is co-ordinate) power to ward off the threat of these foreign nations? And while taking actions to protect against the threat of foreign nations, lets make national borders obsolete and anyone opposed is to be labeled a xenophobic nationalist populist fear-monger...<br /><br />& just for the fun of it, lets introduce a mechanism whereby national interest is less worth than corporate profits (ISDS). Surely no company in any of the countries that we're to fear (Russia, China etc) would ever (ab)use the ISDS? Right? Gazprom would never sue?Jespernoreply@blogger.com