russia adoption

Well said!

I’m wondering what Iranian public opinion on this behavior is.

As much as I bag on the behavior of Russia’s government, I usually have pretty good things to say about Russians themselves. That’s awfully hard to do lately with all I’ve been hearing about the glee of the Russian public at the thought of Georgians suffering in the cold.

1) Russia did not cut supplies. They cut supplies to Ukraine, because Ukraine refused to pay the market price for gas. Ukraine had had a phase-in deal to slowly work its way up to market prices, but they backed away from the deal after they learned that Russia was going to sell directly to Europe (previously, Ukraine had been selling to Europe at market prices what it had been buying for about 1/4 of the price from Russia, so naturally they’re a bit pissed that Russia is cutting the cord). Then Russia said, if you don’t want the deal we agreed on, fine. Ukraine took some of the gas passing through Europe to avoid a less colorful revolution, and now everybody says it’s Russia’s fault. Oh, thanks, Russia, for selling cheap gas to us for the last 20 years, and keeping our citizens alive, we REALLY APPRECIATE IT. Whingers.

2) The Russians are not gleeful about Georgians suffering- Russians themselves do not have access to gas, because their government is selling it to other countries (viz Belarus) at extremely low rates and saving very little at home. The government is happy to see the new rainbow governments sqirm, and the Russians are glad to see that now, Ukraine and Georgia will pay for all the Russian gas they got at ultra-low prices, but they’re not happy at people’s suffering.

3) I wonder why so many people who are fond of realpolitik and brute power get their panties in such a bunch when other countries have it. Iran and Russia have natural resources, America has money and a war machine. Why shouldn’t other countries be allowed to leverage their power? If you want to invade Iran, fine, go ahead, but don’t go around pretending you’re doing the right thing.

4) Public opinion takes a dive when the biased media networks in Russia, the US, and Western Europe report their one-sided stories. I was watching RTR, ORT, Euro News, the BBC and CNN at that time. What a laugh! I don’t think any of them shared a single “fact” in common- except possibly the BBC, which went so far as to interview real Russia analysts and Russian politicians, as well as French, Italians, Poles, and Ukrainians. Their coverage was still super biased though, something along the lines of, “Well, Rupert, do you think the world (meaning: “we”, “us”, “not them”) can trust the Russians on this one?”

You want ze gass, you take ze gass. You want zee oil, you take zee oil. Baz, khalas. Don’t let’s pretend we’re doing this for humanity or some such nonsense.

Speaking of others playing the game, there’s this.

First Elizabeth, I think it’s good for these countries to have to pay market rates for the gas. I also don’t mind Russia having power. What bothers me is that Russia can’t seem to exercise its power with cool confidence. Huffing, puffing, chest-pounding, petulance, and claims of snow-white innocence almost always carry the day.

I’ll admit that it’s only hearsay, but Kuda is not the only person who has told me that many Russians “are quite happy about this turn of events – seemingly oblivious to the wretchedness of spending freezing winter nights without energy.” Perhaps its a stretch for me to say they’re happy at the suffering of others, but at the very least they hold human suffering in lower regard than seeing others get what they see as their due comeuppance.

Also, I have to wonder why someone who thinks it’s fine for Russia and Iran to negotiate from their strengths passes moral judgment like this when other countries respond from theirs. (Not that I want an invasion of Iran, and don’t think that would be the right response to a gas cutoff.)

Nathan-

“What bothers me is that Russia can’t seem to exercise its power with cool confidence. Huffing, puffing, chest-pounding, petulance, and claims of snow-white innocence almost always carry the day.”

They didn’t huff and puff. The contract ended, and they stopped supplies. Then Ukraine freaked out, and Russia was left explaining, but if you’ll notice, there were very few reports on the Russian side of the story. Ukraine, with its newfound support from the west, took advantage. Who can blame them?

“Kuda is not the only person who has told me that many Russians “are quite happy about this turn of events ““ seemingly oblivious to the wretchedness of spending freezing winter nights without energy.”Â? ”

‘Seemingly’ being the key word here. As all countries, Russia has its fair share of jackasses, and I don’t doubt that the most vocal nationalists are exhibiting schadenfreude. I just can’t believe, however, that Russians- so many of whom have relatives in poorer countries, and so many of whom have suffered gas cuts- would really be happy about the suffering of individuals. (Though the media is no doubt gleeful, I’ll give you that.)

What Russians are truly joyful about is the fact that the Georgian and Ukrainian governments- which gained a lot of support through opposing Russia- are being shown up. They promised their citizens, “We’ll leave Russia, join the west, and we’ll finally be happy.” Russians often feel they got the raw deal in the whole Soviet Union, and that they were supporting these countries. SO they’re happy to see that Georgia and Ukraine can’t live without them.

“Also, I have to wonder why someone who thinks it’s fine for Russia and Iran to negotiate from their strengths passes moral judgment like this when other countries respond from theirs. (Not that I want an invasion of Iran, and don’t think that would be the right response to a gas cutoff.)”

First of all, I don’t think its right for Russia and Iran to negotiate in this way. I think it’s only fair, but fair is not the same as just. Russia and Iran should be nice and decent.

Also, I must say that retrospectively, I’ve taken back my stance on Afghanistan: I believe the US troops have made strategic and tactical errors, but that the coalition was right to attack, because Afghanistan did pose and immediate (and more importantly, evident and undeniable) threat to the US and many other countries.

I believe that war in Iraq was stupid and wrong, but not because I don’t believe that realpolitik has a place. It’s because I think that Iraq was an issue dreamt up in the land of freakpolitik.

Likewise, I think that war with Iran would be the wrong answer to cutting off gas supplies- not the wrong answer if Iran were shown to pose a real and immediate threat to the US.

Chirol- That’s true enough, but I find the disparaging attitudes towards these countries (with a dash of “how dare they- they are bad countries!” thrown in) more annoying.

Rightly so?

Certainly resource exporting nations shouldn’t violate contracts and deny nations energy that they rely on, but I’m not sure it justifies invasion preparations.

Curzon I fully agree.

Chirol Sorry, I misunderstood the tone, and take back related comment.

Regarding your reply to Curzon, however, I would like to point out that a good plan for averting an energy crisis would probably be:
(a) To have the right amount of stockpiles (minimum needed for the amount of time to allow for adoption of alternative fuels and/or practices)
(b) To develop alternative fuels (nuclear, wind, hydro, whatever we have on our own soil) that can be quickly adapted to our existing infrastructure and adopted by large numbers of people.
(c) To develop a specific plan to avoid panic and irrational price rises, i.e. a plan that addresses the need to inform the public, a plan that allows for regular flows of existing stockpiles for a set amount of time and that allows people to adopt new technologies at their own (albeit accelerated) pace, and a plan that gives us directions for our foreign policy with said powers.

This would be like normal budgeting of any finite resource. The plan which you suggest- “We really need it, so if they stop selling it, we’ll break into the shop and just take it” is very uncivilized. We have alternatives (nuclear and hydro power being very real alternatives, with natural gas being an excellent alternative for cars) and the infrastructure is being produced.

Why go waving banners for war when we could do something that (a) costs less than war, (b) would not have the adverse effect of raising fuel consumption in the meantime (as war does), and© is a long term solution?

I’m not saying the Pentagon shouldn’t plan for any wars. That’s their job. Fine. But I don’t think that their plans should be considered our “energy emergency plan”. That’s a very weak plan.

Curzon- It’s the emphasis. The post was about Iran’s and Russia’s annoying and frightening behaviour regarding supplies of fossil fuels to the world market. Rather than mentioning anything about a more rational first response to such a thing- like, “perhaps we should stop shopping there and find another way to support our lifestyles”, you immediately jumped to the war solution (you didn’t mention it as a last resort).

Fair enough—the blog is called the Coming Anarchy—but you get what you expect. If all we talk about are plans for war, when the shit comes down, it’s war we’re going to see. If we allow the guys in the Pentagon to do their creepy but necessary work, but as civilians focus on normal solutions to problems of scarcity, then if anything should happen, our peaceable and prosperous nation will go on that way.

It is not about “supporting our lifestyles” or “finding somewhere else to shop”. It is about the continuation of civilization itself. Energy is the lifeblood of civilization as Curzon rightly pointed out. A massive shock to our energy systems doesn’t mean a little inconvenience. We are talking total social breakdown if large enough damage is done to our energy distribution systems.

Developing alternatives takes decades, not days. We cannot just find somewhere else to shop fast enough to make any difference in situations like these. If a Hamas or Taliban style government took over in Saudi Arabia in the 70’s the only options would have been to invade or to commit civilizational suicide. Today our supplies are better diversified and there is much we can do to reduce (but not eliminate) dependency short term. Top among them are building more refining capacity and clearing the way for heavy private investment in the build out of new nuclear.

The situation in Iraq is being mischaracterized as usual. The oil is a contributing, not primary, factor. Much more significant is the central position of Iraq in relation to all of the other nations of concern in the region. If attempting to transform the entire region, from Libya to Iran, then Iraq is at the top of the list of places to start. We can argue until we are blue about how well the war and the post-war ops have been carried out or about how the media misrepresents the truth in one way or another, but making the war all about the oiiiiiiilll is as much nonsense as suggesting the primary reason for invasion was human rights. A contributing and worthwhile consideration? Sure. But far from the deciding reason.

As for Iran, their status as a hostile regime willing to use whatever means at their disposal to incite and carry out violence in the region and against the US and Israel is impossible to disregard unless willfully blind. Their history already matches their more recent words. Their nuclear program is an unacceptable threat as well. Personally I couldn’t care less about their oil or gas. The way Iranian energy comes into the picture as regards military action is that they are dependent on imports for their refined gasoline. They have the pre-refined stuff, not the usable stuff. The most likely form military action would take is a prolonged bombing campaign to destroy or set back by years their nuclear program, combined with a naval blockade to cripple their imports, and likely an increase in bombings by factions within Iran as supplied by the US, Britain, Israel and others, similar to what we may have seen last week. In addition to that, countermeasures will likely be seen in response to the increase in Iranian backed violence in Iraq and to the missles launched from Iran towards Israel and elsewhere in their 2000 mile range. Whether that takes the form of Special Forces incursions within Iran or additional targets for the air campaign… or a combination of both as seen in Afghanistan… only the Pentagon knows.

As for the energy situation, I’m happy to see $70-$100 oil because it means Canada becomes a serious player in world oil markets. The US also becomes a bigger player with drilling in ANWR, even if that is short term. Short term is exactly what we have a problem with. Longer term allows for that alternative energy development everyone wants, and with drilling in ANWR it could be paid for much more easily. Add to that huge reserves of oil shale that are viable when oil is trading at this high range and things are looking pretty good without a need to invade Iraq or Iran for oil. Rather, the way in which it is all about the oil in the Middle East is predominantly about how the governments which take over from the current and former hostile regimes now get to support themselves with oil money that is 2-3 times what had been considered “normal” before. That is a lot of money that is flowing into the new Iraqi government even with production at much lower levels than they are capable of. So yes, in a way it is all about the oil with Iraq and Iran, but for them not for us. For us it is all about the security. Our interests are security, security, and more security.

I think the discussion on the US “diversifying its sources of supply” entirely misses the mark. Crude oil is essentially completely fungible, and taking any oil off the market would affect us all. Refineries prefer a stable and predictable supply of a familiar crude oil, but they would take whatever they had to in times of shortage. In that sense, Iran and Russia have us all at their mercy… but so does Saudi Arabia and Norway.

Elizabeth: Why do you think it is that Dushanbe is not wracked by constant war and run by bloodthirsty tribal tyrants? What would civilization there be like if the great powers of the world ceased functioning and all of the post imperial cultural rulesets we have become so comfortable with were thrown out the window in a return to open raw power? The way you see civilization is only possible because it exists in the calm created by the mechanized civilization that would be severely damaged by large scale energy shocks.

If we are “civilized” and care for the greater good the hard realities of food, transportation, commerce, shelter, crime, and all other day to day concerns will not matter when the energy needed to power all of our systems is interupted severly? Is that not like saying that if we are mereley properly educated and have sufficient faith then our bodies will keep functioning despite being deprived of blood for a series of days or weeks? It betrays a belief in your wishes that everyone would just think “rightly” in a place where a cold assesment of the facts, the science, and the engineering involved in the systems that functioning societies depend on should be. Our civization is not just dishwashing machines and the like. It is this internet you are using and the computers which power it despite your disdain for the technology. It is the trains and trucks and ships which feed and cloth and move more people than any system in the history of the earth. It is the office buildings which require affrodable energy to employ people who raise families across this nation every single day. It is the schools which require energy if they were to indocrinate the people in your notions of survival without physical needs but with “right thinking”. It is the water systems and the wewer systems and the heating systems and the communications systems and absolutely everything that has built the what you apparently take for granted every single day. Why if it is all so frivolous do you still depend on it all instead of leading by example and going into the wilderness or living only by the “old ways” yourself?

Your “civilized alternatives” are unserious. They do not take into account what it actually takes to make any of them. Just as those who call for alternative energy to replace oil instantly don’t understand what is actually involved in the production and development of energy sources. And just as many of them you are deaf to those of us pointing out the flaws in such dreams. You are deaf to our own calls for developing new energy sources, but with respect to what it actually takes to make that happen and respect to how long it will take. Renewables like wind and solar aren’t serious options. They do not come even close to replacing what we use now, or a large part of it, let alone being able to meet the surging growth in demand. You want renwables, go nuclear. In the meantime, oil is the only way you will be able to afford to keep your views. Without it you would be too busy struggling to stay alive in a desperately brutal world.

To stave off anarchy we should start with repeating a very often used phrase around here: “Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know to be superior in battle” Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem. Or the shorthand: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Last country Iran attacked? Counting proxies, Iraq and US forces in Iraq. Israel through it’s support of Hezbollah. This regime in Iran also has a long history of financing, arming, and otherwise supporting terrorism in the region, against the US, and around the world. I do not suggest we should attack them for their oil or gas. We should attack them because they are a serious threat that will not change its ways otherwise.

The way oil came into this was in discussing Saudi Arabia in the 1970’s. In that situation attacking them for their oil would have mad a lot more sense, assuming the worstcase scenarios being prepared for had come to pass. The point was that attacking to secure energy resources which the world is dependent on is a valid reason for war, even if it doesn’t really apply in this case. The additional point I think Chirol was trying to make was that China and India are losing patience with Iran for reasons similar to those which cause the US to consider war against Saudi Arabia in the 70’s. So while conditions are different today, it still informs us to consider their perspectives.

As for fatalistic spin, you misrepresent what I am saying. It is not that we must seek out people to kill to feed our hunger for resources. It is that energy resources can be used as a weapon and acts of war can take forms other than the conventional ones you appear to limit yourself to recognizing. Iran is a regional and global security threat with which energy systems are to be considerd in war planning. Same with Iraq.

Ultimately, I find most your attempts to claim the mantle of civilization for yourself to be uncivilized. Your suggestions are not “more civilized” at all. Your attempt to dismiss those who would challenge your views with statements such as that don’t serve to further insight or promote civilization in the least.

I’m enjoying this back and forth and think J. Kende’s got it just about right.

Yes, civilization did exist before the industrial revolution. The population of the planet was also one-eighth of what it is today. Oil is not Xanax—it’s lifeblood. If supplies were cut off, modern civilization would collapse, no matter how you slice it. Quick transnational transport would end, stranding people wherever they were. Food supplies would have to be self-sufficient (think North Korea, the only self-sufficient country of note on the planet). This would be impossible, resulting in mass starvation in many countries (Japan produces less than 40% of its calories domestically.) Society would collapse as people fought for what food was left, order would break down, and general chaos would ravage most countries for centuries before any semblance of international order was restored.

The “civilization” that developed in the city-state of Athens with its maximum population of 16,000 people is nothing compared to the civilization we enjoyed by billions today. Your comparison of Seattle with Dushanbe is amusing considering the high unemployment and crime rates, that most of its people don’t have access to drinking water, the high drug addiction rate, not to mention Tajikistan’s recent civil war and ethnic tensions. Indeed, if it’s so great I wonder why I met so many Tajiks in Almaty looking for work.

Oil is necessary. And if a nation thinks it can deprive us of it to result in the horrors noted above, war would not be an option, it would be a demand of the public. It would be the only civilized thing to do.

Elizabeth, you ask, is civilization the same thing as industrialization? I’m not really sure what civilization has to do with this whole question of oil, but no, it isn’t the same thing as industrialization. I just think it’s unrealistic to think that people in developed countries would be willing to accept a life reduced to pre-industrial type conditions for long. The pressure on governments to do something would be tremendous.

As for the second question, I think it would depend on how soon this happened and the level of the cutoff. If Iran suddenly shut off the supply tomorrow, I think the world would probably attempt to get by with shortages and a frantic ramping up of any and all alternates they could grab, while they worked feverishly to work out a diplomatic or non-war solution. If it then became apparent that there were no other solutions, and if the shortage was severe enough, with no end in sight, I think war would be on the agenda. Should we be planning now for looming oil shortages? Yes. Find all the alternative reserves possible. Drill in the Arctic reserve. Pour money into developing hydrogen, natural gas, coal (there’s a much more environmentally-friendly type being produced now) and whatever else is profitable (this is the operative word, as the private sector is now attempting to find solutions and they will, given enough time). If oil prices are high enough, the oil companies will find it profitable to search for and develop even the most difficult reserves. But industry and people wouldn’t wait for long for all this to come on-stream.

I don’t think it’s realistic to rule out war in the case of a sudden and severe disruption in the supply of oil. Of course, any and all alternatives need to be explored, but with such a short time frame, there may not be many alternatives and I highly doubt that people in developed countries will put up with a serious drop in conditions for long. The pressure would build and build and be intense on politicians to attack and restore the supply.