PDA

View Full Version : Turks are joining to the war in Iraq.



Chevan
10-22-2007, 08:46 AM
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/meast/10/22/turkey.kurds/art.convoy.gi.jpg
CNN) -- Turkey's military confirmed Monday that eight of its soldiers were still missing following a weekend ambush that killed at least 12 Turkish troops, raising the prospect of a major Turkish military incursion into northern Iraq targeting the Kurdish separatists blamed for the attack.
Last week Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly to authorize possible military strikes inside Iraqi territory against Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighters accused of operating from bases there.

Amid U.S. and Iraqi calls for restraint, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged the U.S. to take "speedy steps" towards cracking down on the PKK in Iraq, according to a report by The Associated Press.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/22/turkey.kurds/index.html

It seems guys the Turks want a war.......
For the Iraq;)
There is no any doubts they would attack the Kurds. Thus the last more or less piecefull region of Iraq will fall into the war.
What would resault of the possible turks military operationn - will it help for the coalition or not?
What do you think?

Digger
10-22-2007, 09:11 AM
The Americans don't want them there as they will destabilize the area. Anyhow it might be a war the Turks could win;)

digger

Dani
10-22-2007, 09:32 AM
An interview with Jalal Talabani (president of Iraq) published today in "Le Figaro":

Following its approval by the Turkish Parliament, can a Turkish attack in Iraq still be averted?

Following the visit by our vice president, Tariq Hashemi, to Ankara, I have the feeling that the Turks will wait for a political solution to the crisis to be found. We have two options to this end. First, via the tripartite committee (the United States, Turkey, and Iraq,) which can examine all the disputes, including that caused by the PKK's [Kurdistan Workers Party] presence in our country. Second, via a direct dialogue between Ankara and the regional Kurdish government of Iraq. This is my preference. The Kurdish government of Iraq condemns the PKK's military activity. The leaders of Kurdistan, Masud Barzani and I myself, call on the PKK to halt its armed struggle from Iraq. The PKK must realize that the world has changed. The days of Che Guevara are past. I say to the PKK: return to Turkey and take part in the democratic and parliamentary debate.

Do you also call on the Turks to dismantle their four military bases in your country?

The Turks regularly accuse us of supporting the PKK. These are false accusations. On the contrary, by authorizing the Turkish Army to have four bases in our country, with thousands of soldiers and dozens of tanks, it is we who support the Turks.

If there is a Turkish military intervention in Iraq, what will the Iraq Armed Forces' response be?

It will all depend on the extent of the Turkish intervention. If the army invades cities such as Zakho or Dohouk [place names as published], the Kurdish and Iraqi forces will resist. The Americans cannot prevent us from doing so. But I think that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan will exclude this hypothesis. If the Turks penetrate only as far as the Kandil mountains, where the PKK is entrenched, it will also cause many losses on both sides, and the operation will not necessarily end to the Turks' advantage.

From http://www.lefigaro.fr/english/20071022.WWW000000437_jalal_talabani_urges_pkk_to_ halt_its_armed_struggle_from_iraq_.html

Drake
10-22-2007, 11:18 AM
Just when you think it cannot get any worse down there. US should get outta there asap and wait till the dust clears, even if its unpleasant, probably better than staying and hoping for the best. There is no winning strategy there for them, if they stay it will just be Vietnam reloaded. Winning all battles but losing the war .... If I were a US citizen I would try to sue Mr. Bush and his fellows, I mean he obviously and willingly broke his oath to serve the country, tricking the public into that mess. He damaged the US on so many levels (politically, economically etc.) it's not even funny, there just has to be a law against it.

alephh
10-22-2007, 01:20 PM
But isn't the war in Iraq going just fine, according to Bush? ;-D

"We're kicking ***."
--George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007

"The solution to Iraq -- an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself -- is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad."
--George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007


"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope, an ideology of hate, excuse me, with an ideology of hope."
--George W. Bush, Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007


_

Chevan
10-23-2007, 01:39 AM
Well thank you for replies and for jokes.
But i have to notice you - this thread is not about to make fun with G. Bush and not about critic of the USA policy in Iraq.This is about Turks intentions toward the Iraq.
I have to agree with Digger - there is nothing good if Turkey will attack the PKK in Iraq.
As we know the Kurds are relatively loyal for te coalition forces - and they criticise ( at least in public) the PKK activity as the Dani's post proves.
From other hand there is a point that the some of anti-Turks action of PKK were organised by the Turkish special units in aim to receive the "official reason" to invide and capture the Iraqi Kurdistan.
From this prospect the turks simply planns to capture the great piece of territory with Kurds population.
Today this is clear that Iraq will not stay stable if the US withdrow from here. And it will disintegrate at least for 3-4 hostitle part. The Turks want its "own" part.
Thus we see the realising of plan of the annihilation of Iraq as a state.

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 02:36 AM
"We're kicking ***."
--George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007

This could be true.

In Australian, and British, English, an *** is a donkey. :D

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 02:39 AM
An interview with Jalal Talabani (president of Iraq) published today in "Le Figaro":

... and the operation will not necessarily end to the Turks' advantage.

From http://www.lefigaro.fr/english/20071022.WWW000000437_jalal_talabani_urges_pkk_to_ halt_its_armed_struggle_from_iraq_.html


Remind anyone of anything?

"... the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage"

Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, August 1945.

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 02:48 AM
Amid U.S. and Iraqi calls for restraint, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged the U.S. to take "speedy steps" towards cracking down on the PKK in Iraq, according to a report by The Associated Press.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/me...rds/index.html What do you think?

I think that the US calling for restraint is one of the most hypocritical things it's done since it invaded Iraq, and will be one of the most hypocritical things it does before it attacks Iran.

Nickdfresh
10-23-2007, 03:41 AM
The Turks will probably go in using special forces, and hopefully not more...

Kovalski
10-23-2007, 03:50 AM
From other hand there is a point that the some of anti-Turks action of PKK were organised by the Turkish special units in aim to receive the "official reason" to invide and capture the Iraqi Kurdistan.
From this prospect the turks simply planns to capture the great piece of territory with Kurds population.
Today this is clear that Iraq will not stay stable if the US withdrow from here. And it will disintegrate at least for 3-4 hostitle part. The Turks want its "own" part.
Thus we see the realising of plan of the annihilation of Iraq as a state.

I wonder when the Turks start to regret it. As far as I know the Kurds are not the only one who live in northern Iraq (they are in majority, but there are others). I'm afraid that when Turks enter the province, the Kurds as the only force capable to prevent "insurgents","terrorist" or simply "criminals" from their action will be under so big Turkish pressure that nobody will be able to stop the eruption of violence (like happened in other part of Iraq).

From the other side, so far the Kurdish problem inside Turkey was treated as the internal Turkish affair. It didn't turn out yesterday that Kurds have bases in northern Iraq and that it is extremely difficult situation. As long as Turks and Kurds were killing each other in Turkey it was fine. But now, everybody blame Turks for aggressive and irresponsible behavior in the most politically unstable area in the world. I just can't recall, how many times any foreign politician offered his help to end this conflict.

BTW if Turks attack, it will be a great opportunity to put the blame on them for the escalation of the conflict.

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Nickdfresh
10-23-2007, 04:55 AM
I'd like to add that there are very few US forces on the Kurdish north of Iraq. The area is largely devoid of the civil war and is secured by the "PeshMerga," a Kurdish militia. I'm not sure how many "regulars" of the Iraqi Army would even be in the north...

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 06:42 AM
I'd like to add that there are very few US forces on the Kurdish north of Iraq.

As there was a total absence of American and Western military support for the poor bloody Kurds after GW1 when we encouraged them to rise up, which they did in the expectation of our help and for which they paid dearly.

They were a nuisance to the regional and major powers then, threatening to establish a new (albeit more Marxist in 1990 and more Islamic in 2007) state that none of the countries bordering them, and none of the major powers, wants. Nothing's changed, since then, or since the Halabja massacre of 1988 and previous events.

The Kurds aren't going to be allowed to win anything. It's just a question of who crushes them this time. Poor bastards.

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 07:33 PM
The Kurds aren't going to be allowed to win anything. It's just a question of who crushes them this time. Poor bastards.

Looks like it's presently 2/1 in favour of the US doing the dirty work, no doubt to keep Turkey out of Iraq.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/america-weighs-air-strikes-on-kurds-in-iraq/2007/10/23/1192941063299.html

Gen. Sandworm
10-23-2007, 09:11 PM
Looks like it's presently 2/1 in favour of the US doing the dirty work, no doubt to keep Turkey out of Iraq.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/america-weighs-air-strikes-on-kurds-in-iraq/2007/10/23/1192941063299.html

So Bush's idea is to keep the hate on us so that shit storm doesnt become a diarrhea flingin hurricane.

Nickdfresh
10-23-2007, 09:47 PM
Yeah, just what we need - more enemies...

BTW, this wouldn't be the first time the Turks entered Iraq in modern times, they were there in the Saddam years.

Rising Sun*
10-23-2007, 10:44 PM
Yeah, just what we need - more enemies...


Bush is greedy.

You've got more than enough already. :D

There is a disturbing risk here that the pundits have failed to pick up.

When Bush was here recently for the APEC conference he called it the OPEC conference, then commented on our prime minister visiting Austrian, not Australian, troops in Iraq. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480494

If Bush continues his long established geographic and mental confusion, the Kurds in Iraq are safe, because here's where the cruise missiles are going to land, with interesting results. http://maps.google.com.au/maps?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wl&q=kurd%20hungary

Drake
10-24-2007, 04:01 AM
Hihi, if he wasn't in such an important position Bush would be one hell of a political comedian, that's for sure. But for me he is also the first US president where you can actually see the puppet strings and that is rather not so funny.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 05:25 AM
BTW if Turks attack, it will be a great opportunity to put the blame on them for the escalation of the conflict.

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski
Yes probably you right.
But not only the Turks will blamed - but also and coalitions forces.
Coz the escalation of conflict in iraq should bury the any possibility of the Peacefull ending of the operation "Iraqi fredom" and particulary the Bush's planns of the insltalling the "Democratic" Administration in Iraq. If the whole iraq will immerse into the total religion and ethnical war- this will collaps of Bush policy in NEar East.
Thus the Turkish provocation is anti-bush and anti-american in sense- they just want to explode the rest of Iraq and then solve its own political problems with Kurds IMO.
But the responcibility of it would lie to the Coalition forces as the force that was not able to prevent the blood conflict.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 05:27 AM
Hihi, if he wasn't in such an important position Bush would be one hell of a political comedian, that's for sure. But for me he is also the first US president where you can actually see the puppet strings and that is rather not so funny.
The puppet American Administration ??;)
But who could rule the prsident Bush?:D

Drake
10-24-2007, 07:34 AM
The administration is not the puppet, george bush is a puppet for others in the administration (cheney would come to mind) and several highly influential lobbies from my perspective. It's an internal american affair, not some worldspanning conspiracy crap.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 07:51 AM
The administration is not the puppet, george bush is a puppet for others in the administration (cheney would come to mind) and several highly influential lobbies from my perspective. It's an internal american affair, not some worldspanning conspiracy crap.
Loddy in America forced Bush to make a unpopular policy in the USA?
What highly influential lobbies do you mean?

Drake
10-24-2007, 08:09 AM
Oil and arms seem to have profited a lot from his decisions.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 08:17 AM
But they should be stopid to send the troops for the oill. The war in Iraq increase the oil prices in several times.
This is unfavourable for US economy

Drake
10-24-2007, 08:37 AM
High oil prices might be bad for the overall economy, but the oil companies make more money than ever. They sell the same amount of stuff for simply more profit.
You seem to make the assumption that everyone looks for the big picture, which is a little naive imho. The oil price development could easily be predicted by anyone who thought just 1 minute about consequences of gulfwar3 and that alone could possibly make it profitable enough for rather ruthless people who only see their interests to push for action, getting a grip on even more oil could therefore be considered a bonus which would make it even more interesting. The US government knew there were no WOMD or alqaeda terrorists in Iraq and no one really believes the spreading democracy excuse given US track record of working with dictators, so there has to be some reason for an intervention and the most logical and obvious is money. It's what makes the world go round, always has always will as long as humans populate it.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 08:46 AM
High oil prices might be bad for the overall economy, but the oil companies make more money than ever. They sell the same amount of stuff for simply more profit.

But this is pure anti-state conspiracy that make injury for the US nation;)
Some companies make a money while the rest of the people get the problems;)
I can't believed the US goc is so stopid to let this war go for the oil.


You seem to make the assumption that everyone looks for the big picture, which is a little naive imho. The oil price development could easily be predicted by anyone who thought just 1 minute about consequences of gulfwar3 and that alone could possibly make it profitable enough for rather ruthless people who only see their interests to push for action, getting a grip on even more oil could therefore be considered a bonus which would make it even more interesting. The US government knew there were no WOMD or alqaeda terrorists in Iraq and no one really believes the spreading democracy excuse given US track record of working with dictators, so there has to be some reason for an intervention and the most logical and obvious is money. It's what makes the world go round, always has always will as long as humans populate it.

But is this ONLY for oil?
Is there no other pure political reason to invide the Iraq. May be to support some of its' ally in the Near East?

Drake
10-24-2007, 09:08 AM
Why do you believe people in governments always have their countries best interest in mind? It's what they are supposed to do, what they actually do is on a completely different page. It has nothing to do with stupidity either, it's more about greed and other human qualities in that class. I fail to see any political benefits for countries in the region, not even for Israel which I assume was the point of your allusion. They too have or should have a high interest in stability in their immediate neighborhood. An openly hostile but rather harmless saddam in iraq who also acted as a buffer against iran was a much more controllable and calculatable risk than the civil war that seems to be even spreading now.

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 09:26 AM
But they should be stopid to send the troops for the oill.

So, Bush was stupid. And your point is? :D


This is unfavourable for US economy

Nobody in government in any country gives a stuff about the national economy, in the sense of benefiting everyone. Whoever happens to be in government prefers certain interests. Sometimes it's really naked like Mugabe or Hussein, other times it's less naked like Western democracies where they can't get away with as much, but Western conservatives always screw workers while democrats / Western socialists usually screw themselves and workers in the process of trying to screw the rich.

How is it favourable for the 'US economy' to divert corn production and arable land from grain feed for protein animals and other uses to ethanol as a gasoline substitute or additive? Good for some major corn producers, not so good on national economic and environmental grounds.

Oil's no different.

What makes you think it's just about Iraq's oil?

Where are the oilfields outside Iraq and, more importantly, the ports to transport oil?

Central Asia is one of the major sources of oil not previously available to the West, and the US in particular. http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/geopolitics.html [I'm not putting forward this and later links as objective or even reliable, but there's a ton of commentary and analysis to the same effect. They're just examples.] What's the problem there? Where are the ports controlled by the West? Not in the Caspian Sea, and not in energy hungry China where pipelines could go to and finish.

Have a look at this map. http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm How does the US / West get Central Asian oil to ports in seas it controls or can use? Well, if it controls Iran it avoids the need to go through unstable Pakistan which in time will quite likely fall to a Taliban type of government. Gee, and where is Bush proposing to go next, before he finishes his lame duck presidency, because it might have missiles that can reach the US in eight years? Mightn't it be better to leave Iran to the next president who'll have plenty of time to deal with it? Or might that not be in the interests of the oil crew that Bush, Cheney and Co represent, as distinct from the 'US economy'?

What has US oil company Unocal been doing for years?l http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=central+asian+oil+unocal&meta=

Why does the US have bases in Central Asia, with airbases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/base-j30.shtml Does that put the US conveniently across major gas and oil supply lines to China and Russia?

Dig into it deeper.

Iraq is just one of the squares on the chess board, an early move in a long and complicated game.

Drake
10-24-2007, 09:42 AM
It's particularly interesting that you as a russian citizens don't see the importance of oil and gas to people in leading political positions while your government even blackmails other nations and tries to make claims with stupid PR actions on the north pole about it.

Chevan
10-24-2007, 12:39 PM
It's particularly interesting that you as a russian citizens don't see the importance of oil and gas to people in leading political positions while your government even blackmails other nations and tries to make claims with stupid PR actions on the north pole about it.

Oh did i miss something?
My gov blackmails the nations? What a nations do you mean?Does Putin threat somebody by the russian army?:)
Stupid PR action???

Chevan
10-24-2007, 12:52 PM
So, Bush was stupid. And your point is? :D

No mate. My point is this look like an idiootism from a side.
But as Drake says this is not so simply like it look:)
So i just worry about - what is the real reason of Bush policy?Lobby, Oil, geopolitic or the something else;)




Dig into it deeper.

Iraq is just one of the squares on the chess board, an early move in a long and complicated game.

So you say the Iraq is just the first step of great geopolitic chess.( the battle for resources of Asia) So what will the next step?More exactly WHO will the next?
If the first step has bring the world economy to the oil-famine. What would be the final resaulf of this GAME?
Third world nuclear war?:shock:
Do you really think that the first step cost a such great people life price:)

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 04:40 PM
So you say the Iraq is just the first step of great geopolitic chess.( the battle for resources of Asia) So what will the next step?More exactly WHO will the next?

Bush is making all the right noises for Iran to be next. It's the next 'logical' step. He seems to want to do it before he goes out of office.


If the first step has bring the world economy to the oil-famine. What would be the final resaulf of this GAME?
Third world nuclear war?:shock:


No idea.

There's lots of possibilities, but no clear result. Too many combinations and permutations.

The rise of China and India will be factors that are much more important as time goes on.

The history of Bush's administration is that they act first and think later so far as long term consequences are concerned. Iraq is a perfect example of not being prepared for the way things could turn out as distinct from the way the neo-cons wanted to believe they would, both militarily and on the response of the Iraqis and others. They built their invasion on a fantasy they wanted to believe and thought their fantasy of how it would turn out was a guaranteed reality.

Same with the Kurds. Say Bush fires off the missiles to keep Turkey out of Iraq. How fond is that going to make the Kurds of the US? What are the consequences for the US of then having Kurds who are hostile to it, determined to avenge what they'll see as the deaths of innocents? America will just start to dig the Iraq hole deeper, right when there's some sign that things might be improving finally. Only Bush could snatch defeat from the (presently pretty weak) jaws of victory with such stupidity.

It's precisely the sort of stupidity that's required to go into Iran, and really inflame the region and the wider world. I have every confidence that Bush and Co are more than stupid enough to do it. They don't learn from their mistakes, which is one quality of a complete idiot.

Drake
10-24-2007, 07:47 PM
Oh did i miss something?
My gov blackmails the nations? What a nations do you mean?Does Putin threat somebody by the russian army?:)
Stupid PR action???

Hmm, planting a flag on the bottom of the sea at the north pole is a pretty stupid pr action, didn't they report about it in russia, was a couple of weeks ago. And shutting down gas pipelines to neighboring countries or threatening to do so to achieve something despite existing contracts is blackmail, what else would you call it?

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 07:52 PM
And shutting down gas pipelines to neighboring countries or threatening to do so to achieve something despite existing contracts is blackmail, what else would you call it?

Russian diplomacy? :D

Like Kruschev banging his shoe on the desk in the UN, while shouting "We will bury you."

Chevan
10-25-2007, 01:27 AM
Hmm, planting a flag on the bottom of the sea at the north pole is a pretty stupid pr action, didn't they report about it in russia, was a couple of weeks ago.

Oh you are about it;)
Was it stopid?
Perhaps it was . At least it was no more stopid than to install the American flag on the Moon, or national flags on the science-research stations on the Southern Pole:D
Does it a stopid PR actions in your mind too?


And shutting down gas pipelines to neighboring countries or threatening to do so to achieve something despite existing contracts is blackmail, what else would you call it?
Blackmails by the gas pipelines:) are you kidding?
May i ask you - would you sell me the Mersedes-Bentz that costs in Europe $100 000 for 20 000, just coz i have not any more.?Especially if i continie to insult you and complain to the local criminal boss ( NATO , USA, Eerope or ets) that this is a "blackmail" - you don't want to sell me YOUR car for 20 000 and i WANT only the YOUR mersedes.
Who does victim of Blackmail in this case - me that want YOUR mersedes or YOU coz you don't want to sell uit for me for MY price?
;)

Chevan
10-25-2007, 01:46 AM
Russian diplomacy? :D

Like Kruschev banging his shoe on the desk in the UN, while shouting "We will bury you."
Yes mate.
It seems this is the new Russian diplomacy. Unfortinatelly our Eastern European partners still has not understood the Soviet diplomacy has come to the end( when Commi were buying the "socialist brothershood" by the "cheap" russian resources for 10-30% of world market prices).
TO the happiness thime has shanged today.
But some of them ( who get used to be a bludger ) today have a troubles- but this is their problems not our.
Just economic , nothing personal:D

Drake
10-25-2007, 04:56 AM
Well Chevan, the problem is not, that russians want world market prices for their ressources, which is perfectly fine. But the problem is that they wanted it, despite longer running contracts with fixed lower prices. The oil and gas companies signed those a couple of years back and as the prices skyrocketed suddenly wanted to bail out of those contracts which is completely inappropriate and probably damaged russia more than it was good for them. And here we are again that some companies and politicians only think of themselves. The big oil and gas companies might earn more money now, but the overall russian economy suffers, cause many western companies thought and think twice about investing in russia because they can't be sure if the contracts they sign are worth the paper they are signed on.

On the flags. There is a significant difference in planting a we were here/are here flag on the moon or the south pole and the stunt the russians pulled on the north pole, because they want to make claims about possible ressources there. They can make claims as US/Canada and other neighboring countries also do it, but this will be an issue of diplomacy and not one of russian adhoc occupation backed by dubious scientific results. Putin might think he plays smart by boasting around on the international stage but he is wrong, he severely damages russian interests that way.

Chevan
10-25-2007, 07:46 AM
the problem is that they wanted it, despite longer running contracts with fixed lower prices. The oil and gas companies signed those a couple of years back and as the prices skyrocketed suddenly wanted to bail out of those contracts which is completely inappropriate and probably damaged russia more than it was good for them. And here we are again that some companies and politicians only think of themselves.

Well i/m agree it was a harsh decision of Putin.
The problems that the all the contracts were signed with the former Ukrainian gov that considered and respected the interests of Russia.
The "new Ukraine Orange gov" that has come to the power with anti-russian ideas
So this i naive to think the gazprom would continie to feed them by the "cheap gas". Therefor this was a logical step of Gazprom.
It have to do it sooner or later- coz to sell the gas for Ukraine for 50$ when the Poland buy it for 220$ ( Germany -240-250$) is a very unprofitable bisness.
But i have to notice the Gazprom several times reminded and warned the Ukraine befor to cut off them the gas supplies - the price will rise. But they did nothing.
So i think it was inevitable action of GAzprom. Perhaps it sould not be so politiced as well.


The big oil and gas companies might earn more money now, but the overall russian economy suffers, cause many western companies thought and think twice about investing in russia because they can't be sure if the contracts they sign are worth the paper they are signed on.

I think it's not correct to say that the Gas scandal seriously damaged the reputation.
Firstly we did not see the essential western investitions befor the gas crisys.
Sec the economical statistic clearly shows - in the beginning of the 2007 the wester companies invest in Russia 50% more then in 2006.
So i do not think that the situation is so serious but mach better then you think:D


On the flags. There is a significant difference in planting a we were here/are here flag on the moon or the south pole and the stunt the russians pulled on the north pole, because they want to make claims about possible ressources there. They can make claims as US/Canada and other neighboring countries also do it, but this will be an issue of diplomacy and not one of russian adhoc occupation backed by dubious scientific results. Putin might think he plays smart by boasting around on the international stage but he is wrong, he severely damages russian interests that way.
Drake , the flag is ONLY the flag- nothing more.
The so called "Russian claims" is mostly inflated myth by the western mass media.
There is no any real connection betwen the flag and claims ( that as you know pretend also Canada, USA, Norvay, Denmark). The all claims consider the special International comission. ANd NOBODY even will think about flag;)
On my mind this action ( tyhe installing the flag) is nothing but senseless hoddy of scientists. This will not help the russia in its claim for those waters.
BTW this was funny to watch as after this russian action and critical compain in western mass media- the Canada "suddenly" send there the own expedition ship:D And USA "suddenly" wish to sign the Wolrd Sea Coast threaty ( the Internation Sea Right Agreement):)
It seem Canadians want the own "PR action"

Drake
10-25-2007, 08:59 AM
On my mind this action ( tyhe installing the flag) is nothing but senseless hoddy of scientists. This will not help the russia in its claim for those waters.


Exactly, but that is why it's a problem. How other people see you is important for russia as it is for any other nation and even if it is hyperinflated by the media this could have been prevented if the guys just took their scientific probes and left without a flag. It's exactly that kind of stupid behaviour without thinking about outward appearance that alienated germany (hun speech, agadir etc.) to other europeans in the early 20th century and we all know where that ended. Russia is an important nation even without Putins constant and for our (the west) perception rather annoying "reminders", that seem to indicate a pretty big inferiority complex on his side.

Rising Sun*
10-25-2007, 09:14 AM
Exactly, but that is why it's a problem. How other people see you is important for russia as it is for any other nation and even if it is hyperinflated by the media this could have been prevented if the guys just took their scientific probes and left without a flag. It's exactly that kind of stupid behaviour without thinking about outward appearance that alienated germany (hun speech, agadir etc.) to other europeans in the early 20th century and we all know where that ended. Russia is an important nation even without Putins constant and for our (the west) perception rather annoying "reminders", that seem to indicate a pretty big inferiority complex on his side.

I think there are parallels between early Germany and current Russia, coming from opposite sources.

Germany came to nationhood quite late in comparison with Britain, France, Russia, and even America. It was always the new boy, arriving too late to grab the really worthwhile colonies and lacking the national history of the other major powers. There was a sense of inferiority concealed by national pride.

Russia in its present form is a very recent nation, despite having a grand ancestry in Imperial Russia and the USSR. What it is now is a shadow of its former glories, and particularly of its fairly recent Soviet identity. So there is also a sense of inferiority, but compared with its own past rather than with other nations as was the case with early Germany.

The result is much the same. Making a big noise to show that you're a force to be reckoned with, to convince yourself and others of it, and fearing being cut out of the game by the other big players.

Kato
10-25-2007, 12:12 PM
posted by Chevan

The problems that the all the contracts were signed with the former Ukrainian gov that considered and respected the interests of Russia.
The "new Ukraine Orange gov" that has come to the power with anti-russian ideas
So this i naive to think the gazprom would continie to feed them by the "cheap gas". Therefor this was a logical step of Gazprom.
It have to do it sooner or later- coz to sell the gas for Ukraine for 50$ when the Poland buy it for 220$ ( Germany -240-250$) is a very unprofitable bisness.
But i have to notice the Gazprom several times reminded and warned the Ukraine befor to cut off them the gas supplies - the price will rise. But they did nothing.
So i think it was inevitable action of GAzprom. Perhaps it sould not be so politiced as well.

The present gas price for Ukraine is US $95 per 1,000 cubic metres.
The two thirds of this gas supply for Ukraine comes from Central Asian states that sell gas to Russian Gazprom at very low prices and Gazprom resell it to Ukraine at higher prices due to the Russian monopoly on Central Asian gas transit to Europe,

So even the price of 50 dollars was profitavle for Russians. It was rather lucrative as in responce Ukraine charged low fees for the transit of Russian gas supplies to Europe. 80% of Russian gas transit to Europe goes through Ukrainian pipe-lines.

Chevan
10-30-2007, 01:51 PM
The present gas price for Ukraine is US $95 per 1,000 cubic metres.
The two thirds of this gas supply for Ukraine comes from Central Asian states that sell gas to Russian Gazprom at very low prices and Gazprom resell it to Ukraine at higher prices due to the Russian monopoly on Central Asian gas transit to Europe,

Yes 95 is a contemporary price.
However this is too low. Poland buid it for 200$.
So i think we have to increase the gas cost for Ukraine soon.


So even the price of 50 dollars was profitavle for Russians. It was rather lucrative as in responce Ukraine charged low fees for the transit of Russian gas supplies to Europe. 80% of Russian gas transit to Europe goes through Ukrainian pipe-lines.
The problems my friend that the Turkmenistan ( the state that your mean ) has no the own pipe-line system. And after the delivering of the gas via the 1000 of km to the Ukraine the price should increace...twice.
And yes you right...... for the while the Ukraine pipe is the basis of all Russian gas import to Europe.
However do not forget about SEG ( Nothern-European gas-pipe) in the bottom of the Baltic sea. This pipe are building together with Germans and Europeans.
And what it will have builded....it would great, coz the Moscow will not "threat" for Ukraine and the Ukraien will not steal the gas that transits for the Europe:)
Right mst Kato?:D

Drake
10-30-2007, 03:58 PM
Yes 95 is a contemporary price.
However this is too low. Poland buid it for 200$.
So i think we have to increase the gas cost for Ukraine soon.



As long as russia sticks to it's contracts I see no problem with raising the price as soon as they expire. But Putin seems to get cocky in the firm believe he could do whatever he wants and I doubt he will get far with that attitude. As far as the international relations pokergame is concerned, he's playing a highly aggressive game with a good looking but rather weak hand (something like 2 pairs, oil /gas and nukes) on a table of sharks. It might very well backfire as soon as a really big economic player calls, so to speak. (US, EU, CHINA)

Though one has to admit he played it smart in Russia itself, there isn't much left from the democratic developments in the 90ies and I would bet a little fortune, that he'll figure out a way to stay in power beyond next year. Something like changing the rules of election would be to obvious/aggressive for the rest of the world, though. My guess would be, install a puppet in his chair, become prime minister and change the power structure in the favor of the office of prime minister or sth like that. I guess he'll never call himself Führer, but he continuously works towards the position anyway.

Kato
10-30-2007, 07:03 PM
Posted by Chevan
The problems my friend that the Turkmenistan ( the state that your mean ) has no the own pipe-line system. And after the delivering of the gas via the 1000 of km to the Ukraine the price should increace...twice.
However do not forget about SEG ( Nothern-European gas-pipe) in the bottom of the Baltic sea. This pipe are building together with Germans and Europeans.

The transit of the gas can't cost that much. Russia just uses its monopoly on the gas transit from the Central Asia to keep prices high. Europeans should build the pipe-lines from the Central Asia to Europe outside the Russian territory if they want to have cheap gas and get rid of the Russian gas monopoly.

Europeans, especially Baltic states and Poland are unhappy with this project.

Estonia vetoed the project and prohibited to build the pipe-line.

http://www.rg.ru/2007/09/21/gazoprovod.html