Print

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

[Sheb]

"Secure energy"? Russia got all the energy they need inside their own borders. Actually, a lot of politicking between the Caucasus and the mediterranean is dud to Russia wanting to secure pipeline to export their energy to Europe (And being able to selectively turn the tap, so that they might block Ukraine or Poland without blocking Germany and Western Europe.)

[Duuvian]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Sheb, look up the Manchurian Railroad wars of the early 1900s and you'll see what I mean. They might have energy security already but they want more of the market and they can do that by controlling infrastructure in other countries via their 'puppet' leadership.

EDIT: Meanwhile Europe doesn't want Russia to control their supply of gas or what-not and the USA is allied to the EU, forming the West etc etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Manchuria_Railway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_%281892%E2%80%931917%29 <--1892-1917

[Sheb]

Well, it's a bit more complicated. Eastern Europe is wary of the Russians, but Western European are foreign policy pansies, that don't really care. They're actually more worried about getting the Russia gas cut off because Ukraine don't want to pay their bills (That happened a couple years ago) that being totally dependent on Russian gas. That's why you find Germany investing in the North Stream pipeline for example.

But that's not really relevant to Syria: it's too far south for pipelines, and doesn't have much energy. Other factor (not wanting to loose the Tartus base, not wanting to make precedent for invasions of country that repress their populations, wanting to stick it to the West, not wanting to loose an ally and the billion-dollars arm contracts...) explain it much better. And none of those is important enough to provoke an open war between Russia and NATO.

[Duuvian]

Ok. Give me like a half an hour or more and I'll attempt a somewhat in-depth explanation.

EDIT1:

But that's not really relevant to Syria: it's too far south for pipelines, and doesn't have much energy. Other factor (not wanting to loose the Tartus base, not wanting to make precedent for invasions of country that repress their populations, wanting to stick it to the West, not wanting to loose an ally and the billion-dollars arm contracts...) explain it much better. And none of those is important enough to provoke an open war between Russia and NATO.

Yes, you are probably right. There will most likely not be a World War. However there is still a possibility and that's what I'm talking about. I'm also of the opinion that the West is in the right as far as supporting the right side for humanistic reasons. What I probably don't support (not only because I don't know what they are yet) are their hidden monetary motives that some small part of the population of the West that I'm sure have and they probably will inflict upon the region as people in charge always seem to allow, accept, or not notice at (at some point due to their often changing personalty-in charge)

[Sheb]

I frankly don't believe there is a possibility. Even during Korea, when you has Russian airplanes fighting against American one, there wasn't a world war.

Also, Ankara is now claiming the jet was shot down in international waters, 13 miles from the Syrian shore. The North Atlantic Council (NATO) will meet on Tuesday.

[Dutchling]

Nice. It's about time for something interesting to happen.

[Duuvian]

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/ is always an interesting read

Particularly http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/31-05-2012/121281-obama_war_syria-0/

Sure pravda isn't the only news source in Russia, but they sure like Putin! Gee, I wonder if Putin favors them? Do you think that might mean they don't get their reporters murdered?
Now:

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

Spoiler: Syria–Turkey connection (agreement to bypass Russian energy supply lines (click to show/hide)

In March 2006, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Romania reached an agreement to build the pipeline's extension through Syria to the Turkish border. From there, the pipeline will be connected to the possible Nabucco Pipeline for the delivery of gas to Europe. Turkey expects to buy up to 4 billion cubic metres (140 billion cubic feet) of gas per year from the Arab Gas Pipeline.[17] On 4 January 2008, Turkey and Syria signed an agreement to construct a 63 kilometres (39 mi) pipeline between Aleppo and Kilis as a first segment of the Syria-Turkey connection of the Arab Gas Pipeline.[18][19] On 14 October 2008, Stroytransgaz signed a US$71 million contract for the construction of this section.[20] This contract was annulled at the beginning of 2009 and it was re-tendered. The connection is expected to be ready by 2011. From Kilis, a 15-kilometre (9.3 mi) long pipeline with a diameter of 12 inches (300 mm) will connect the pipeline with the Turkish grid. It allows to supply the Turkish grid via the Syrian grid even before completing the Homs–Allepo segment.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroytransgaz

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

OAO Stroytransgaz is a Russian engineering construction company in the field of oil and gas industry. The company was founded in 1990. It was originally a subsidiary of Gazprom, but now controlled by Gennady Timchenko though his Volga Resources SICAV SIF SA fund.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_Pipeline is the second step

Spoiler: The Turkish section of the Pipeline goes to Europe instead of diverting it through Russian 'friendly' states (click to show/hide)

The Nabucco pipeline (also referred as Turkey–Austria gas pipeline) is a proposed natural gas pipeline from Erzurum in Turkey to Baumgarten an der March in Austria diversifying natural gas suppliers and delivery routes for Europe. The pipeline attempts to lessen European dependence on Russian energy. The project is backed by several European Union states and the United States and is seen as rival to the Gazprom-Eni South Stream pipeline project. At the same time, there are some doubts concerning viability of supplies. The main supplier is expected to be Iraq with potential supplies from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Egypt.[1]

Related and from 2012: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/03/gazprom-trouble

Therefore, by causing war between Syria and Turkey, or at least bad relations, Russia's privileged few take financial and strategic gain as far as energy goes.

That's what I've got so far; will be looking into it further.

So, what did nationalistic people do in the past when denied resources? Was it intervene militarily?

How about supply one side with weaponry?
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-ship-carrying-helicopters-syria-ifax-124722776.html for a single egregarious example

Was it put troops in the country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-18/russia-marines-syria/55663966/1

What has this lead to in the past?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

Spoiler: Japenese Embargo of 1940 (click to show/hide)

What Happened?
What led up to that Day in Infamy?
War itself generally makes little sense, but the attack on Pearl Harbor has always sparked the imagination.
3,500 Americans were killed or wounded in the attack on December 7, 1941.

Before The Attack
September 1940. The U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.

April 1941. The Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviet Union to help prevent an attack from that direction if they were to go to war with Britain or the U.S. while taking a bigger bite out of Southeast Asia.

June 1941 through the end of July 1941. Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.

Toward the end of 1941. With the Soviets seemingly on the verge of defeat by the Axis powers, Japan seized the opportunity to try to take the oil resources of Southeast Asia. The U.S. wanted to stop Japanese expansion but the American people were not willing to go to war to stop it.  The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory.

Prior to December 1941, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and ... to prepare for war.

After becoming Japan's premier in mid-October, General Tojo Hideki See Books about Tojo secretly set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war.

The Japanese military was asked to devise a war plan. They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.  See Books about Japanese Plans

The Warnings
The U.S. had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew an attack was imminent. A warning had been sent from Washington, but it arrived too late.

Early warning radar was new technology.  Japanese planes were spotted by radar before the attack, but they were assumed to be a flight of American B-17s due in from the West Coast.  Read the eyewitness account

The Attack
On December 7th 1941, on an otherwise peaceful Sunday morning on a beautiful Hawaiian island, the first wave of Japanese airplanes left 6 aircraft carriers and struck Pearl Harbor a few minutes before 8 AM local time. See Map of Pearl Harbor

In two waves of terror lasting two long hours, they killed or wounded over 3,500 Americans and sank or badly damaged 18 ships - including all 8 battleships of the Pacific Fleet - and over 350 destroyed or damaged aircraft.  At least 1,177 lives were lost when the Battleship U.S.S. Arizona More about the Arizona exploded and subsequently sank.

So yes, I have an extremely valid point and I'm afraid you lose this one, Sheb, my friend.

[Sheb]

So, your point is that Russia has an interest in fostering strife between Turkey and Syria to prevent gas from the Arab Gas Pipeline to feed the Nabucco pipeline. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Well, I frankly don't think it's really relevant. I don't remember any attempt from Russia to do this prior to the Arab Spring. That pipeline ain't that important either, because it would only feed around 4 billion cubis meters of Egyptian gas into the Nabucco pipeline.

The other factors given before (Putin needing to show off, Russia wanting to keep its ally and its base on the Meditteranean...) are IMHO far more important, and suffice to explain Russian actions.

(Also, one of the stuff you posted state that a subsidaries from Gazprom won the contract to build the pipe. What's your point there?)

[Duuvian]

By now I've probably written enough on this stuff for a University thesis; so if any Universities want to give me something in exchange out of the goodness of your hearts instead of for financial gain, feel free. 

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=91644.msg2555609#msg2555609

Basically the fact that Will of Putin=Will of Gazprom=Will of current government of Russia seems to be escaping you, whether on purpose or accidentally I don't know. Since from your posts I gather you actually live in Russia, I would expect you to know more than I do about that. Perhaps you do, but then again, murdered reporters.

Living in a free country is a beautiful thing my friend. I have an entire government constantly working on keeping your government from either killing me themselves due to dissent with them or in one of the worst case scenarios forcing you to try to kill me in a theoretical war. Perhaps you should work towards that. If they fail? Well there are these forum posts. Would your government risk me being the straw that breaks the camel's back? Probably, but the most beautiful thing about a free country is I accept that.

[Sheb]

Nah, I'm from Belgium, but my dad was working for the Georgian back in 2008, so I learned a lot about Russia back then (I think I still got a pic of me posing in front of the Russian BMPs north of Gori somewhere :p). Been following it since, and I am familiar with most of what you posted. (Of course, if you're actually writing a PhD thesis on that stuff, you obviously know more than me, but I'm not a total ignorant either).

I know that Gazprom is basically a tool of the Kremlin. I know full well that Russia is using gas as a tool of influence within Europe, and playing it hard to split Western from Eastern Europe (Hence the North Stream Pipeline for example). It's also the reasons they're bailing out Cyprus for example.

I also get your point that anything that delay the link between the Arab Gas Pipeline and Nabucco is benefiting Russia. What I disagree with is that fostering bad relations between Turkey and Syria is the main (or even of the main) goal of Russian foreign policy in Syria.

AFAIK, Russia never tried to destroy the bad relations between Turkey and Syria before the Arab Spring. Assad is however a Russian ally, and they're supporting him. This explain the arms delivery, the vetoes in the UN, everything. They've got tons of reasons to support Syria (the Tartus base, the need to stick it to the West, the arms contracts, the need for Putin to look strong and reinforce the "The world is out to get Russia" narrative that he use to legitimate his strongman's tactics...) that don't include gas.

Gas and oil aren't the alpha and omega of geopolitics.

Also, there won't be a war between Russia and the West in Syria, because nukes. No one will risk a nuclear war for a pile of sand.


P.S. And please try to explain what you mean. I feel like I only got the sources section of an academic paper and I'm trying to understand what the author meant, and this probably explain a lot of the stuff we seem to disagree on.

[Duuvian]

Nah, I'm not writing a paper. Maybe someday I will use what I've learned for one; or write a book but someone will probably beat me to that.

Also it sounds like we are totally in agreement in everything, so I don't even know why we are arguing. I've even said that it's most likely that open world war is highly unlikely. What's more likely is the start of a 'new' cold war due to the desires of politicians like Putin who personally benefit from such things just as he did from the old one.

As you've listed there are many reasons why Russia would want to keep a sort of control of Syria. What I've said is an additional way for them to benefit from ruining Turkey-Syrian relations. It's simply saying that Russia's trying to start a new Cold War (or at least increase the Coldness if you will) for strategic and probably monetary gain, while avoiding open warfare.

This leads to the conclusion that open military support of the Syrian Revolution is the best move by the West; because as you've said they most likely won't fight an open war over it. Meanwhile it weakens Putin's position everywhere (including in his Mother Russia) even more than his own actions have done already because face it, he lost in every possible way except spamming out maybe propaganda. That said I think a Libya style intervention is called for, with no occupation whatsever but air support offered as per request.

As for that matter, why should a new Cold War be allowed to foster because Putin likes the idea? Why shouldn't the West pressure Russia into submitting if Russia is reluctant to stop supporting what the majority of the West's citizen's consider the 'bad' side (if they are informed and can be bothered at all like maybe 50% of the youth and maybe 10% of the older people at least around me [generous figures])? If Putin desires a Cold War, why should the West and their friends in the area of discussion keel over and submit to the wrongs being committed? If there is to a Cold War in the first place, can you blame the West for taking advantage of foreign policy blunders committed by the very person determined to see such a thing? Perhaps they may find a way to prevent a Cold War, but perhaps it is up to the Russian people themselves at the next elections/mass demonstrations.

[Sheb]

Well, it's hard to avoid a cold war if one of the side want it. How are you supposed to prevent it from happening? :p

Also, what kind of pressure can you put on Putin? Seize his assets abroad? I mean, Russia is big, the US need it (to bring supply on Afghanistan, or to get it to pressure Iran on nukes for example), and Russia can more easily pressure Europe by stopping the gas flow that the other way around. and in the current climate, European leaders won't risk their economies to save Syria.

I also think you're blowing this out of proportion. Syria is just one more pawn in Putin's foreign policy. He doesn't want a war, either cold or warm. He just want to make Russia relevant, kinda like those kids that are annoying as hell because they want attention.

[Duuvian]

Well, it's hard to avoid a cold war if one of the side want it. How are you supposed to prevent it from happening? :p

Also, what kind of pressure can you put on Putin? Seize his assets abroad? I mean, Russia is big, the US need it (to bring supply on Afghanistan, or to get it to pressure Iran on nukes for example), and Russia can more easily pressure Europe by stopping the gas flow that the other way around. and in the current climate, European leaders won't risk their economies to save Syria.

I also think you're blowing this out of proportion. Syria is just one more pawn in Putin's foreign policy. He doesn't want a war, either cold or warm. He just want to make Russia relevant, kinda like those kids that are annoying as hell because they want attention.

You can counter Putin by making his foreign policy look ineffective, inflexible, and foolish. If he loses Syria then he loses whatever prestige he would have received from standing his ground despite the bloodshed. If the West comes in and the bloodshed stops or at least slows and it leads to elections, Putin has international egg on his face.

This leads to either his removal from power by domestic sources, or the containment of Putin via outside forces realizing he's kind of a self serving jerk who stands by massacres if it suits him.

I also think you're blowing this out of proportion. Syria is just one more pawn in Putin's foreign policy. He doesn't want a war, either cold or warm. He just want to make Russia relevant, kinda like those kids that are annoying as hell because they want attention.

No, I am not putting this out of proportion. Russia is already relevant, as demonstrated by the energy thing with Europe. These are current, world shaping events and only a fool would downplay them.

[Sheb]

Right. However, the chance are that Syria is going to be a bloody mess. Even if we remove Assad from power, the odds of another Iraq are pretty big. Putin will just have to stand back and say "Look what happens when the West intervene in a country. Assad was an asshole, but at least it wasn't that bad".

[Duuvian]

Right. However, the chance are that Syria is going to be a bloody mess. Even if we remove Assad from power, the odds of another Iraq are pretty big. Putin will just have to stand back and say "Look what happens when the West intervene in a country. Assad was an asshole, but at least it wasn't that bad".

Did you say the same thing about Egypt and Libya?

Besides that, I missed the part about Iraq only involving air superiority and ground interdiction instead of 10 years or whatever of occupation by outside ground forces.