tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post114588467993650604..comments2024-03-27T13:07:01.768+03:00Comments on Russian Blog: Imperialistic GasUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1976802114967112082018-08-16T17:03:28.691+03:002018-08-16T17:03:28.691+03:00Very Nice And Interesting Post
Short Inspirational...Very Nice And Interesting Post<br /><a href="https://famouspositivequotes.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Short Inspirational Quotes</a> - <a href="https://trainhardquotes.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Gym Quotes</a><br /><a href="https://quotes-words.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Best Quotes</a> - <a href="https://thefuturequotes.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Future Quotes</a> - <a href="http://xyore.com" rel="nofollow">xyore</a><br /><a href="https://yorequotes.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Image Bank</a> - <a href="https://positivefamousquotes.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Positive Life Quotes</a><br /><a href="https://super-successful.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Success Quotes</a> - <a href="https://hekmas.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">حكم قصيرة</a><br /><a href="https://greatquotesonlife.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">اقوال وحكم</a> - <a href="https://hekmas.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">حكم عن الحياة</a>Enthusiasm Quoteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13788878293976552512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1146458631537598652006-05-01T08:43:00.000+04:002006-05-01T08:43:00.000+04:00To: Thomas WickerRe: number 3You sure wrote a lot ...To: Thomas Wicker<BR/><BR/>Re: number 3<BR/><BR/>You sure wrote a lot to illustrate your point. Though it seems that there is something missing to balance your conclusion. This maybe it:<BR/><BR/>There is a definite relationship between the Western oil and gas companies and their respective governments. These relationships are just as clear (the difference is in the regulating mechanisms, but these are merely technicalities) as in the case of Gazprom and the Russian government, and are as strong; and when it comes to foreign policy those relationships are defended *militarily* as well as diplomatically, as we have seen many times through history.<BR/><BR/>So, using your logic, it would be much more dangerous to let the (for example) US companies in on your soil as you’d be risking the wrath of US military if those companies do not enjoy the host’s full cooperation.<BR/><BR/>As for Gazprom’s shareholders – it’s capitalization dynamic, especially around and after the time of the price war with the Ukraine, shows that they approve of it’s actions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1146218154737092682006-04-28T13:55:00.000+04:002006-04-28T13:55:00.000+04:00Thomas,Fortunately, Russians do not subscribe to t...Thomas,<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, Russians do not subscribe to the ideas of Anglo-Saxon free-market fundamentalists. In case you did not notice, EU does not have problem with memeber states' energy state monopolies either.<BR/><BR/>As for irrational fears of the "West" (I assume, US and UK) you decribe, looks like some attitude adjustment is in order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1146178564673377292006-04-28T02:56:00.000+04:002006-04-28T02:56:00.000+04:00Actually, the mentioned former Soviet territroies ...Actually, the mentioned former Soviet territroies have a greater case for independence when compared to "Kosova" (the Albanian pronounced and spelled version of the south Serb province).<BR/><BR/>Michael Averko<BR/>Independent Foreign Policy Analyst & Media Critic<BR/><BR/>mikeaverko@msn.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1146109732534745642006-04-27T07:48:00.000+04:002006-04-27T07:48:00.000+04:00Now, substitute "ExxonMobil" for "Gazprom," and "B...<I>Now, substitute "ExxonMobil" for "Gazprom," and "Bush" for "Putin," and see if the sentence would make any sense (even if many of the facts would be the same -- ExxonMobil tries to force the Ukraine to pay more, etc.). Or, try "BP" for "Gazprom" and "Blair" for "Putin." Either way, people would be scratching their heads -- because it would make no sense to say that the leader of the country would be negotiating for the price of the energy. Sure -- it's grammatically correct. It just wouldn't bear any resemblance to reality.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the fundamental difference between how the business is done in the Western countires and in Russia. That's exactly why so many so-called democrats are not happy with the situation in the country. Most people in Russia would never believe that the head of a country cannot influence whatever he wishes. It has been like that from back God knows when so people don't know the difference and think that it is how it should be done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1146064329792038882006-04-26T19:12:00.000+04:002006-04-26T19:12:00.000+04:00Privet, Konstantin,As always, a very interesting p...Privet, Konstantin,<BR/><BR/>As always, a very interesting post, and a good explanation of your viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>A couple of points:<BR/>1) Gazprom has, in fact, sold gas to the UK (LNG, in fact). In today's Moscow Times:<BR/>'Gazprom Is Good for the World'<BR/>By Aiste Skarzinskaite and Andrew McChesney <BR/>Staff Writers<BR/>http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/04/26/001.html<BR/><BR/>Money quote:<BR/>In his speech, he [Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev] also directed criticism at the media. He said Russia delivered its first LNG shipment to Britain last April, but instead of welcoming it, "the British media went into hysteria -- I cannot find a better word."<BR/><BR/>2) Maybe the translations are bad, but, according to the Google search I did, Putin described Russia as an "energy superpower" in a speech on 31 Jan 2006. As I said: maybe they were bad translations.<BR/><BR/>3) About the "West's" problems with Gazprom ...<BR/><BR/>It's less to do with the fact that there's a Russian company that's making this statement, than that the company is controlled by the Kremlin.<BR/><BR/>A key paragraph from your post is where you talk about how, in the Gazprom-Ukraine conflict, "Putin acted as a pathetic weakling."<BR/><BR/>Now, substitute "ExxonMobil" for "Gazprom," and "Bush" for "Putin," and see if the sentence would make any sense (even if many of the facts would be the same -- ExxonMobil tries to force the Ukraine to pay more, etc.). Or, try "BP" for "Gazprom" and "Blair" for "Putin." Either way, people would be scratching their heads -- because it would make no sense to say that the leader of the country would be negotiating for the price of the energy. Sure -- it's grammatically correct. It just wouldn't bear any resemblance to reality.<BR/><BR/>And that's where the West has a problem with Gazprom. As you yourself indicate, Gazprom's actions aren't defined by a corporate interest, a desire for profit, a simple wish to have good working relations for the purpose of conducting business. Instead, Gazprom's interests are blurred by being also part of the government, and governments have far more interests than companies do.<BR/><BR/>And that's where Gazprom's latest dealings cause alarm, and why Great Britain is making a stink about a Gazprom takeover of a British gas firm. It's not one company taking over another; it's a subsidiary of the Russian government taking over a British gas firm. Instead of Gazprom acting in its own interests, the part of the Ukrainian deal that really scares the West is that Gazprom might act simply in the national interest of Russia -- even when it would be contrary to good business practices. We can't (and don't) assume that ExxonMobil or BP or other companies will act in concert with US or UK foreign policy objectives (for example, if we hadn't made it illegal, they would've happily bought oil from Saddam Hussein). Gazprom, however, takes its marching orders not from its shareholders, nor from its customers, but from Putin (again, as you point out in your post). Gazprom *will* act in the foreign policy interests of Russia -- even if it would hurt Gazprom as a company (for example, it didn't raise gas rates for Belarus at the same time it did for Ukraine).<BR/><BR/>In the West, we're used to having things compartmentalized. On one side, there are companies, and we can quickly and easily predict how they will react -- thus, there's little risk in dealing with the company. On the other side, there's a government, which may or may not make laws that affect the company (e.g., "You can't buy/sell to this country," or "We'll give $X in foreign aid to Ukraine," or whatnot). Since it's not a company, it's relatively easy to predict how it'll react -- and governments usually take awhile to react, so you have some lead time before things happen (at least in democracies, since everyone has to squabble and fight and complain and bluster first). Thus, with compartmentalization, there's a great deal that's predictable in how the actors will react, meaning there's less risk, meaning there's more trust and faith.<BR/><BR/>And that's the problem with Gazprom: it's not compartmentalized, and, since we've seen some evidence that it *might* be being used for political purposes, there's more risk, and less faith. Just the same as there's less faith from foreign investors in US ports these days, because the Congress has shown that it wants to interfere in the process -- meaning there's more risk for potential investors in US infrastructure, and, thus, less trust. It really doesn't matter what country makes the process riskier; it just matters that the country makes it riskier.<BR/><BR/>All that said, I'm *not* advocating for an immediate privatization of Gazprom; I think the '90s showed that indiscriminate privatization falls under Really Bad Ideas. However, having the Kremlin provide Gazprom with more autonomy, and provide this transparently, would go a long way towards making everyone happy. What always amazed people about the supplies during the Soviet times was that the gas providers acted like a company; they really didn't seem to care about the foreign policy of the USSR. Thus, they earned their customers' trust, because they were seen as independent. Now, with Medvedev as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Gref, Khristenko, and Yusufov on the board (source: http://www.gazprom.ru/eng/articles/article8823.shtml), there's a lot more suspicion since the government controls so much of the board.<BR/><BR/>Do you really want people to trust Gazprom? Then it needs to be more transparent, and should immediately take, and hold, positions that put it into conflict with Putin (e.g., set a price for its gas -- for everyone, no matter the country, or its relationship with Russia). Make its deals crystal clear. Have the government become a "non-voting shareholder," with no seats on the board (keep a requirement for majority Russian ownership, and, say, a supermajority of Russian membership on the Board of Directors). Have Gazprom, and all other companies, pay major taxes on the products, so that they're effectively receiving the same amounts, and the government can take the windfalls and still provide subsidies and support other projects.<BR/><BR/>In short, as long as Gazprom remains under the wing of the Kremlin, to the point where its defenders explicitly point out that Putin gives it marching orders, it isn't going to be trusted by the West. It's not that Gazprom is a company with headquarters in Russia, it's not the fact that it's giving incredible amounts of support to the Russian economy, it's not that most shares are in Russian hands. It's all about the governmental control, and particularly how control appears to be being used. And, frankly, whether that's fair or not is completely beside the point; it is what it is, and will continue to be that way until the Kremlin's control is released.<BR/><BR/>At least, IMHO. But -- thanks for the opportunity for discussion! :^) Poka y udachi!<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>Thomas WickerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10366934.post-1145965644878467432006-04-25T15:47:00.000+04:002006-04-25T15:47:00.000+04:00'2. Accept Kosovo scenarios for Transniest, Abkhas...'2. Accept Kosovo scenarios for Transniest, Abkhasia and South Osetia.'<BR/><BR/><BR/>That will never happen. You know, because this are totaly different conflicts :)<BR/><BR/>Good post!jinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08624794205921235433noreply@blogger.com