Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

After reading some comments on pravda.ru about 'NATO terrorism' regarding Libya, I had to wonder why the Russians who speak are so vehemently opposed to action in this instance and desperate to keep the current goon(s) [Gadhaffi and co.] in power.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

After all, they seem to enjoy their 'humanitarian interventions' as much as the West does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war
The why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Georgian-Russian_espionage_controversy <-2006
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=31506 <- 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Azerbaijan

Involved in the S.O.war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Business_Network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war <-how

Then, after the S.O. war
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/19/gazprom-azerbaijan-georgia-markets-emerge-cz_hb_0819markets20.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8124809.stm

Russian forces remain stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under bilateral agreements with the corresponding governments. <- from wiki Aug 20 2011

Not directly related but it shows the goal:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/27/exxon-sakhalin-gazprom-markets-equity-cx_vr_1227markets02.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3101431.ece

Anyways,

http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/14-08-2011/118739-Urgent_to_defend_Libya-0/

http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/12-08-2011/118737-Libyan_My_Lai-0/ <- doctored search results included in story, look on wiki for Zlitan


So, using my powers of internet:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100625/159580435.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/gazprom/index.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/gazprom/index.html

http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/18-08-2011/118779-ukraine_gas-0/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Notable acquisitions
In April 2001 Gazprom took over NTV, Russia's only nationwide state-independent television station held by the oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky's Media-Most holding.[19][20][21] In 2002 the Gazprom subsidiary Gazprom Media acquired all of Gusinsky's shares in the companies held by Media-Most.[22]
In September 2005, Gazprom bought 72.633% of the oil company Sibneft (now Gazprom Neft) for $13.01 billion, aided by a $12 billion loan, which consolidated Gazprom's position as a global energy giant and Russia's biggest company. On the day of the deal the company was worth £69.7 billion/US$123.2 billion.
In December 2006, Gazprom signed an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi, taking over a half plus one share in Sakhalin Energy.[23]
In June 2007, TNK-BP, a subsidiary of BP plc agreed to sell its stake in Kovykta field in Siberia to Gazprom after the Russian authorities questioned BP's right to export the gas to markets outside Russia.[24][25][26][27] On 23 June 2007, the governments of Russia and Italy signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on a joint venture between Gazprom and Eni SpA to construct a 558-mile (900 km) long gas pipeline to carry 1.05 trillion cubic feet (30 billion cubic metres) of gas per year from Russia to Europe. The South Stream pipeline would extend under the Black Sea to Bulgaria with a south fork extending to Italy and a north fork to Hungary.[28][29][30]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Company characteristics

Gazprom is a vertically integrated company which dominates both upstream and downstream activities. It owns all main gas-processing facilities in Russia, operates the country's high pressure pipelines and has (since 2006) a legal export monopoly. Other natural gas producers, such as Russia's second largest gas company Novatek, are forced to use Gazprom's facilities for transmission and processing.[41]
At the end of 2008, Gazprom had 221.300 employees in its major gas production, transportation, underground storage and processing subsidiaries. Of this, 9.5% were management, 22.9% were specialists, 63.4% were workers and 4.2% were other employees.[31]
Gazprom belongs to the so-called national champions; a concept advocated by former Russian president Vladimir Putin, in which large companies in strategic sectors are expected not only to seek profit, but also to advance Russia's national interests. For example, Gazprom sells gas inside Russia considerably under the global market price as a form of subsidy to the public.[5]
The company also controls assets in banking, insurance, media, construction and agriculture.
In 2008, Gazprom's activities made up 10% of the Russian GDP.[31

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Efficiency concerns
Swedish economist Anders Åslund estimates that 50 percent of the state-owned Gazprom's investments are lost through corrupt practices.[55] For instance, the Russian section of Blue Stream pipeline was three times more expensive to construct per kilometer than the Turkish section of the pipeline.[55]

http://www.gazprom-media.com/en/index.xml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions <- why
Also directly under the above link seems a good spot to put this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Business_Network

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/WesternGeco_Announces_New_Contract_with_GAZPROM_Libya_BV/117131d6.aspx

http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/articles/p/105/article/995/

http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/deposits/libya/

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100625/159580435.html

However, that's not to say the following didn't happen, although I guess we'll see what the Libyans themselves have to say about it in the coming weeks:

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/08/make-no-mistake-nato-committed-war-crimes-libya

Also, I'm quite aware of the West's own energy companies having an interest in Libya, I believe I made a post somewhere (possibly in the Egypt and Libya thread) with quite a few links with Western international companies having some shady dealings with the former Libyan government up until the civil war started.

[sluissa]

While I appreciate all the sources you provide. I'm not exactly sure what you expect us to get out of this.

Russia seems to have nationalized their oil and gas production through a state owned monopoly. Honestly nothing wrong with that. That's their choice to run things that way and honestly, they wouldn't be the first and won't be the last to do it. (you'll even see people in the US suggesting it. Even Republicans I know have suggested it as a way of keeping oil prices down.)

We all know about their foreign relations, esp. w/re: South Ossetia. While it is in some cases questionable about their motives, I really can't say it's surprising or really, given how the world works, in any way comparably bad to how things just are.

Pravda seems to be a bit biased, but really, I could point to Fox News and say the same thing.

Perhaps Gadhaffi was their puppet, but really, as I said before, it's not surprising given how things work in the world. It's not as if it's never been done before, nor has it suddenly stopped.

If there's something else you'd like to say with this long list of articles you want us to read, then please, say it. Like I said, I appreciate the research and sources, but you could at least give us a bit of lead as to what you want us to get out of this. I tried this in college once, just giving a bunch of quotes and sourced facts to fill out a paper. It didn't fly then and it really shouldn't fly here.

[mainiac]

I don't think that Fox News is as bad as a state run newspaper.  Fox news gets to twist the facts and conjure up tortured storylines.  State run newspapers can invent
"facts" wholesale and keep things out of the news entirely if need be.

As for the Russian news... yeah, who's surprised?  Under Putin, Russia used it's oil and gas exports to put it in a comfortable relationship with the west.  Without the need to play nice, Putin regularly took a reflexively anti-american stance on various issues that weren't very vital to Russia in order to play along with his tough guy nationalists image.  It's hard to see to what extent President Medvedev buys into his predecessors world view, but my reading of the tea leaves is that he doesn't care about those issues as much as domestic reforms.  Either way, Russia takes a bit of an inflammatory stance simply because they can.  I'd compare it to Rick Perry's talk of secession, he can get away with it and it plays with his base even if it's rather braindead.