Posted on 05/24/2007 1:47:34 AM PDT by RusIvan
The present crisis in relations between the European Union and Russia is being exaggerated on both sides. Part of the problem is that too many Western commentators still set as their standard for good relations the utterly Western ambition of the early 1990s - a "democratic" Russia that would be completely subservient to the West.
Russians too are often still reacting to their experience of humiliation and exploitation in the 1990s with a counterproductive prickliness, arrogance and suspicion. Both sides need to ratchet down their rhetoric and seek pragmatic solutions to the concrete problems dividing them.
They also need to remember that in the long historical term, responsibility for the peace of Europe lies in the hands of the major powers of the Continent. Europeans, including Russians, are fated to live together - or die together, as they did in the past at Poltava, Borodino, Sevastopol, Tannenberg and Stalingrad.
In the face of this bloody history, present difficulties hardly look so bad. With luck, they will diminish as the confused post-Soviet period ends and Russia's economic recovery leads to a new equilibrium. Policy on both sides should be directed at achieving such an equilibrium.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Ping
This will be very difficult to achieve because Russia's main problem is the dis-respect for the rule of law in general which is now quite deep rooted in the psyche.
Ex KGB members, various mafia and even those in the Kremlin have their hands in big pies and operate with a gang mentality in many affairs. These people think nothing of what gas or oil contracts mean on paper, as long as they're bigger than you and call the shots that's all that matters.
What is the source of disagreement between the EU and Russia? It seems a lot of the things the EU is accusing Russia of, they do themselves.
For the first time I agree with you, at least partly.
You made only couple of mistakes here:
a) The proud and independent Russia doesn't do anything because of the West, but only what she really wants. You see, I can be even more patriotic than you are.
b)There is no "what if" here - Russia is for the long time the best Islamists' ally (just have a glance on the monkey-boy Ahmadinejad and his future nukes).
If Russia wants to have friendly relations with the USA, it needs to stop supporting the Islamo-Commies that are currently trying to kill us. It’s that simple.
If Russia wants to have friendly relations with the USA, it needs to stop supporting the Islamo-Commies that are currently trying to kill us. It’s that simple.==
How Russia supports them? Sells them some weaponry for US dollars? Russia does the ligitimate trades with them. But what do you want? United States trades with them too and first. You buy oil from them and pay them US dollar THEN Russia comes and gets YOUR dollars back. If you stop your OWN trades with them then Russian will stop too. Russia will not certainly give them nothing for free.
Second thougt. Islamo-commies attacks you because of the american support to Israel. So US pays for that. How it concerns Russia? Russi acres less about Israel. So you see.
==How Russia supports them? Sells them some weaponry for US dollars?
They sell our enemies weapons, help our enemies develop nuclear capability, sold weapons (such as anti-tank missiles, GPS jamming equipement, night vision goggles, etc) to Saddam during the lead-up to Gulf War II, take the part of our enemies in the UN. And when I say that, I mean they are arming, equipping, and lending their UN veto power to the enemies of freedom the world-over. Sorry, but Russia is still one of our principal enemies, there’s no two ways about it.
Its not a matter of "subservience", but it is telling that it is seen that way. Integration with the West is not subservience, if one assumes that Russia is ultimately a fellow European nation, with its roots in western culture.
Honoring contracts is not subservience.
Russia's cancellation of some very one-sided energy deals of the 1990s may well be morally and even legally justified.
This speaks volumes. When the oil companies first entered Russia, it was in chaos, and "rule of law" was not yet in place. Under those conditions, risk-mitigation becomes a big consideration in any contract. So the terms aren't going to be as favorable as they might be in Kansas, where the laws are clear and predictable, and the courts fairly transparent, and you don't have to worry about losing your investment to some local oligarch.
In every country where oil companies operate, one of the important tasks they have is to help to build the body of commercial law that will enable them to operate with some security. Until that body of commercial law is in place, the risks are significant and that risk has to be built in to the contracts.
Once the situation is legally clear and predictable, the risk factor goes down significantly, and the environment becomes very competitive, oil companies from various countries are lining up to invest. So those "unfavorable" terms from the early days are simply not available on future contracts, and they are also not necessary. Russia doesn't have to offer such unfavorable terms in order to get investment, and the investors don't require such terms in order to protect themselves. The terms become more normal as rule of law kicks in.
For Russia to abrogate a contract on the basis that it is unfair, after a significant investment has been made, simply proves that the oil companies were right. It guarantees that, to attract future investment, risk mitigation again becomes a significant consideration. You, as an ordinary person won't be aware of it, you'll just read in the press that Putin threw out the "unfair" contracts. You won't see that to get future investment Russia is paying a price with more "unfair" contracts. Why would anyone risk investing in a country where the contracts can be changed at any time?
More to the point, it means that the only people who can dare to invest are the ones with friends in high places. A climate in which contracts can be changed at any time guarantees the establishment of an oligarchy. If contracts and ownerships can be changed at will by the government, you are not destroying an oligarchy, you are creating one.
Also, please remove me from this and all future ping lists. Unsolicited pings are spam. Come to think of it, along with murder, spam is Russia's leading export.
Yep, dhimmis like Ivan will really think its fun when the religion of peace beheads him and rapes his family.
You may substitute Russia with most every European country in this sentence, and it will make as much sense.
Russia is the triple play. Male Slavs dying at Bangladeshi rates, a non muslim birthrate thats tiny, lots of nice fertile muslims with a grudge, AND sitting on a pile of nukes. And RusIvan thinks playing footsy with the Islamists will be “fun”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.