You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
WaPo: Who Needs Russia?
2008-08-24
On Thursday, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister.

This was a small and unsurprising event in the annals of Russian diplomatic history. But it's worth noting as the United States and its European allies consider how to reshape relations with Russia in the wake of its Aug. 7 invasion of Georgia. A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.

Iran provides a useful example. Russia has participated, with Germany, France and Britain, in talks aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and even has gone along with some sanctions enacted by the U.N. Security Council. But Russia's principal contribution has been to slow the process and resist meaningful sanctions, stringing the Bush administration along just enough to convince it that truly effective measures -- sometime, somewhere down the road -- might be possible. Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without inhibition. Meanwhile, Russian experts help develop Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and Russia sells Iran air-defense weapons it can use to protect its nuclear sites and anti-ship weapons it could use to menace Persian Gulf shipping traffic in the event of conflict. While the administration blames Iran and its proteges, including Hamas and Syria, for destabilizing the Middle East, Russia sells arms to all of them, and to Venezuela and Sudan.

None of this means that the United States should seek or welcome a new cold war with Russia. Russia could make life far more difficult for many of America's friends if it chose to do so, just as it could, if it chose, help combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But President Bush's imagined partnership with president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has been pretty much an empty husk for a long time. We hope and believe that the West would not under any circumstance barter away the independence or territorial integrity of a small, free and helpless nation in exchange for a promise of big-power cooperation. But when that promise is an illusion, the calculation should become even easier.
Posted by:ryuge

#10  Azerbaijan and Georgia would also be the transit route to transport Turkmen gas to Europe. 1/3 of all Russian gas exports is Turkmen gas the Russians pay 30-40 cents on the dollar and transport through their pipelines. That's billions/year in free money to the KGB princes. An alternate pipeline would reduce Russian gas export revenues by 25%. And there are many areas of the Caspian and Kazakhstan still to be explored or put into production.
Posted by: ed   2008-08-24 16:12  

#9  SpikeU,Georgia doesn't produce much oil but it is an important transportation route for it, from as you say, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is perhaps the oldest oil exporting region in the world, and as such has long been a 'hub' for gathering new oil supplies from around the Caspian region and sending them on through the traditional outlets. Georgia, with its central valley running from the Black Sea towards the Caspian, is one (and the most direct) of those routes, both for rail and for pipeline. Most other routes run through Russia, and now so do the Georgian routes.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-08-24 15:28  

#8  The reality-based community prefers its reality in bite-sized nuggets. Give WaPo time.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-08-24 14:47  

#7  Thanks NS. I hoped I was missing something. Between the WP making sense AND the nomination of Biden as VP, I thought maybe reality and I had gone in different directions.

Well, at least Russia is seen as the bad guy again.
Posted by: Slats Glans2659   2008-08-24 14:28  

#6  Phil, doesn't most of gas (and oil) supply come from Azerbaijan?
Posted by: Spike Uniter   2008-08-24 13:34  

#5  Russia will do whatever it wants in Georgia, because the West is not prepared or not able to respond.

For example, if Europe said we will implement a nuclear power program to ensure they don't need Russian gas in 5 to 10 years, Russia would be out of Georgia PDQ.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-08-24 12:59  

#4  This is not an article, it is an editorial. The news pages in the WaPo continue to be filled with leftist slanted reporting. Same as the WSJ. It creates a false impression that because the editorial slant is clearly realist the reporting must be too. Not so.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-08-24 12:22  

#3  What am I missing NS? THIS article seems to be thinking pretty clearly, unlike their typical blinkered viewpoint.

"while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents"
Posted by: Slats Glans2659   2008-08-24 12:06  

#2  One wonders when their reporting will reflect reality. Then one reads the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-08-24 10:28  

#1  "Fill 'er up."
Posted by: Perfesser   2008-08-24 10:22  

00:00