Saturday, June 29, 2013

Russia won the long battle of pipeline politics, but now what does it do?

U.S. Backs Trans-Adriatic Pipeline Choice

1 Share
The United States has welcomed the decision by the international consortium developing Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas field to choose the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline to deliver Caspian gas to Europe.
A State Department statement called the move "another important step in the process of advancing Europe’s energy security and promoting competition in the supply of energy resources."
The Trans-Adriatic Pipeline will  take gas from the Turkish border through Greece, Albania, and across the Adriatic Sea to Italy.
The move is seen as reducing European dependence on Russian energy supplies.
EU officials unveiled a "Southern Corridor" energy route plan in 2009. This is a network of pipelines aimed at bringing Caspian Basin gas to Europe via routes that avoid Russian territory.
Around a quarter of Europe’s gas is supplied by Russia.

Iran, Russia plan joint naval exercise in Caspian Sea: Russian cmdr.

1 Share
Iran, Russia plan joint naval exercise in Caspian Sea: Russian cmdr.
A top Russian Navy commander says his country and Iran are examining a plan to conduct a join naval exercise in the Caspian Sea in the second half of the current year.

Deputy Commander of Russia’s Caspian Flotilla Nikolai Yakubovsky announced the news after a Friday meeting with the commander of Iran’s naval fleet that has been dispatched to the Russian port city of Astrakhan, RIA Novosti reported. 

In 2009, the two countries conducted their first joint naval maneuvers in the Caspian Sea, involving about 30 vessels. 

Iran has dispatched two indigenously-built missile-launching warships to Astrakhan in a move to consolidate friendly relations between Tehran and Moscow. 

During the Iranian naval fleet’s stay at Astrakhan Port, the Iranian naval officers will visit some military and port facilities in Russia and hold meetings with a number of high-ranking Russian commanders and officials. 

On April 21, a group of Russian Navy warships docked at the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas after a long journey from the Pacific Ocean. 

The fleet, which comprised Admiral Panteleyev anti-submarine destroyer and the logistic battleships Peresvet and Admiral Nevelskoi vessel with a crew of 712, entered the Iranian naval zone in a bid to further strengthen relations between Tehran and Moscow and promote bilateral naval cooperation to maintain maritime security. 

In recent years, Iran’s Navy has been increasing its presence in international waters to protect naval routes and provide security for merchant vessels and tankers. 

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly asserted that its overseas naval presence is meant to convey a message of peace and friendship to other countries. 

ASH/NN/HJL

Russia won the long battle of pipeline politics, but now what does it do?

1 Share
Russia has won a big round in an almost two-decade battle with the West over the flow of natural gas from the Caspian Sea. But the June 28 victory is a mixed one for Moscow, for it helps undermine the rationale for another Russian project—one that has been a key weapon in the country’s fight for energy dominance.
The story is tangled, and before we move to the details, let’s just identify one suprising winner—long-suffering Greece. It will fall along the transit route for the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), which beat Western-backed Nabucco, the line over which the West has fought Russia since the mid-1990s.
With TAP’s victory, crows Greek prime minister Antonis Samaras, the world should understand that economically struggling Greece is on its way to recovery. After all, “who would invest money in a country facing economic, social and political threats?” Samaras said in a statement.

The US schemed to keep Russia out of its backyard

The story goes back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Having defeated its Cold War rival, the US drew a figurative line around the southern half of the USSR—the eight new states of the Caucasus and Central Asia—and announced a strategy to keep them from ever falling again into Moscow’s grip.
The US plan was to back the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines to carry the region’s energy to Western markets, avoiding Russian soil, and thus bolster their economic independence. In 2006, the first line materialized—the 1,100-mile Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean. A companion natural gas pipeline soon followed. That took care of the Caucasus side of the Caspian.
But the Central Asian states, the so-called “stans,” turned out differently. There, the US and Europe envisioned a roughly 3,500-mile (5,600-kilometer) natural gas line starting in Turkmenistan, crossing west over the Caspian, and going on through to Europe. Such a line would provide Central Asia with the same independent economic channel as the Caucasus now enjoyed.
Routes of the proposed trans-Caspian, Baku-Ceyhan and other pipelines.Thomas Blomberg/Wikimedia Commons
Only, Turkmenistan balked. Year after year, it could not seem to commit to the proposed line, or any onshore drilling deal with a Western company to produce the needed gas exports. Some said Turkmenistan was afraid of Russia; others blamed its deep suspicions of all foreigners. Whatever the case, hopes for a decisive Turkmen embrace of a trans-Caspian pipeline seemed lost.

Then the US decided to abandon Central Asia

In 2002, the West pivoted. It proposed a new, shorter pipeline called Nabucco (named after a Verdi opera), which would skip Turkmenistan and instead start in Azerbaijan. This proposal seemed to have a better chance of success, but completely ignored the line’s original rationale—Central Asia would no longer be rescued from Russia’s grip. But the US and the European Union argued that, while they were no longer saving Central Asia, they could rescue Europe, which, they asserted, relied far too much on Russian natural gas. The effort gained particular momentum after 2006, when Russia, in aseries of disputes with Ukraine, shut off the natural gas supply temporarily to Europe.
In 2007, Russia’s Vladimir Putin responded with his own weapon—he would build “South Stream,” a $39 billion, 1,500-mile pipeline that, in a direct challenge to Nabucco, would carry Russian gas to the heart of Europe.
South StreamCourtesy: South Stream
But it seemed to many experts that the two lines—Nabucco and South Stream—were incompatible. For reasons of both supply and demand, only one would be financed and built.
Meanwhile, smaller players emerged that muddied Nabucco’s prospects for success in Azerbaijan. Among them was TAP, a relatively small line that would carry just one third of the volume promised by Nabucco, but would also cost a lot less.
TAP, Nabucco and other Caspian rivalsTAP
The climax came June 28. A BP-led consortium in Azerbaijan announced that it would build TAP. The decision appears, at least at this stage, to have rested on the economics. TAP came in cheaper even when Nabucco shortened itself even further into a compact version that it called “Nabucco West”.
By keeping the pressure on Nabucco, Putin provided time and breathing room for TAP to make its case. And that resulted in a much diminished threat to Russia’s dominance of the European gas market. TAP will supply just 10 billion cubic meters (about 330 billion cubic feet) a year of gas compared to the 30 billion cubic meters (1 trillion cubic feet) a year of gas that Nabucco originally proposed to ship into the continent.

With no Nabucco, what is South Stream’s rationale?

So Russia’s South Stream pipeline might now seem to have a clear road ahead. Putin has not yet commented, but in the past he has said that he will build South Stream regardless of Nabucco’s fate. And a series of bilateral agreements along its route suggest a project etched into stone.
Yet the math is challenging. In order to finance big oil deals signed June 21 with China, Russia’s heavily indebted Rosneft had to get pre-payments from Beijing totaling $60 billion-$70 billion. In aspeech on June 28, Alexei Miller, the CEO of Russian gas giant Gazprom, boasted of plans for enormous liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants in Vladivostok and on the Baltic Sea, toward an aspiration to supply 15% of the world’s LNG. Such plants cost billions of dollars. In short, Russia has a lot of competing needs for its cash.
Meanwhile, the European market is uninviting: Gas competition is stiff from Norway, Qatar and potential supplies by the end of the decade from the US, Israel and Mozambique. Europe is also turning to cheaper coal. And its energy appetite as a whole is stagnant at best.
So there is reason to at least call South Stream’s economic calculus into question. And now that Nabucco is dead, there is no glory to be won in it either.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · ·

Russian pro-, anti-gay activists clash, police detain dozens

1 Share
ST PETERSBURG, Russia | Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:38am EDT
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Police detained dozens of people when pro- and anti-gay activists clashed in the Russian city of St Petersburg on Saturday, just two weeks after parliament passed a law banning homosexual "propaganda".

Russian pro-, anti-gay activists clash, police detain dozens

» Russian pro-, anti-gay activists clash, police detain dozens
29/06/13 14:38 from Reuters: International
ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Police detained dozens of people when pro- and anti-gay activists clashed in the Russian city of St Petersburg on Saturday, just two weeks after parliament passed a law banning homosexual "propaganda". 


» Russia's Crackdown On 'Gay Propaganda' And Popular Illiberalism - Forbes
29/06/13 13:34 from Russia - Google News
Russia's Crackdown On 'Gay Propaganda' And Popular Illiberalism Forbes Over at The Nation, Alec Luhn recently wrote a quite good summary of the recently-passed ban on “gay propaganda” and the generally perilous state of gay rig..

Russian pro-, anti-gay activists clash, police detain dozens

1 Share

ST PETERSBURG, Russia | Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:38am EDT

ST PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Police detained dozens of people when pro- and anti-gay activists clashed in the Russian city of St Petersburg on Saturday, just two weeks after parliament passed a law banning homosexual "propaganda".

Critics say the bill - a nationwide version of laws in place in cities including St Petersburg, President Vladimir Putin's hometown, - effectively bans gay rights rallies and could be used to prosecute anyone voicing support for homosexuals.

Up to 100 people took part in the march to protest against the law, confronted by an equal number of anti-gay activists, who threw eggs, smoke flares and stones at them.

Police intervened with batons to stop the violence and detained dozens of people.

"We staged the rally to support our rights and express our protest against the homophobic law," Natalya Tsymbalova, a gay activist said by telephone from a police station, adding that the rally did not infringe Russian law.

The march was organized by the group "Ravnopraviye" (Equal Rights).

The incident highlights increasing intolerance in Russian society towards gay people and a toughening of laws aimed at stifling any dissent against the rule of Putin in general.

The bill passed by the lower house on June 11 bans the spreading of "propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations" to minors and sets heavy fines for violations. It has yet to be signed into law by Putin.

There are no official figures on anti-gay crime in Russia, but in an online poll last year, 15 percent of about 900 gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender respondents said they had been physically attacked at least once in the previous 10 months.

Putin, who has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church as a moral authority and harnessed its influence as a source of political support, has championed socially conservative values since starting a new, six-year term in May 2012.

(Reporting by Alexander Demianchuk and Vladimir Soldatkin; Editing by Alison Williams)

U.S. bugged EU offices, computer networks: German magazine

1 Share
BERLIN (Reuters) - The United States bugged European Union offices and gained access to EU internal computer networks, according to secret documents cited in a German magazine on Saturday, the latest in a series of exposures of alleged U.S. spy programs.
Der Spiegel cited from a September 2010 "top secret" document of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which it said fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had taken with him and which the weekly's journalists had seen in part.
The document outlines how the NSA bugged offices and spied on EU internal computer networks in Washington and at the United Nations, not only listening to conversations and phone calls but also gaining access to documents and emails.
The document explicitly called the EU a "target".
A slew of Snowden's disclosures in foreign media about U.S. surveillance programs have ignited a political furor in the United States and abroad over the balance between privacy rights and national security.
According to Der Spiegel, the NSA also targeted telecommunications at the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, home to the European Council that groups EU national governments, by calling a remote maintenance unit.
Without citing sources, the magazine reported that more than five years ago security officers at the EU had noticed and traced several missed calls to NSA offices within the NATO compound in Brussels.
Each EU member state has rooms in Justus Lipsius with phone and Internet connections, which ministers can use.
Snowden, a U.S. citizen, fled the United States to Hong Kong in May, a few weeks before publication in the Guardian and the Washington Post of details he provided about secret U.S. government surveillance of Internet and phone traffic.
Snowden, 30, has been holed up in a Moscow airport transit area since last weekend. The leftist government of Ecuador is reviewing his request for asylum.
(Reporting by Annika Breidthardt, editing by Gareth Jones)
Read the whole story

· ·

Putin Triumphant at the G-8

1 Share
Putin Triumphant at the G-8
29 June 2013
The meeting between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland left an impression that the White House is ready to cooperate on the Kremlin’s terms. Donald N. Jensen, Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, finds “inexplicable” the US president’s unwillingness to mention human rights in his conversation with Putin.


There was much to talk about for the world leaders attending the G-8 summit in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland on June 17-18: Syria was in flames, Iran had just elected a new president, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks remained interrupted, and one of the representatives present, Russian President Vladimir Putin, was ruthlessly cracking down on political opponents. But the main message coming out of the talks seemed to be the participants’ concern about Putin’s mood. After the discussions concluded, the Russian leader, one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s few allies and the main obstacle to achieving an international consensus on a way to end Syria’s civil war, was asked by one reporter whether he felt “lonely” among the other world leaders over the past two days. “No, that’s absolutely not true,” Putin answered. “It was a general discussion…but Russia was never left to defend its approach to the Syrian problem on its own.” Talk of Moscow’s isolation had been raised by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper before the G-8 meeting began, perhaps as a tactic to force Putin to compromise. Singling out the Kremlin’s support for Assad, Harper said, “this is the G-7 plus one.”
For observers who felt the G-8 meeting was a chance for the Kremlin to prove its good faith as a key contributor to global security, the summit was a failure. Putin succeeded in blocking mention of Assad from the bland final communiqué that backed the Geneva peace process and called for a vague “transitional governing body.” All participants but Russia support his ouster and, though Harper mystifyingly and inaccurately reversed course and announced that Russia had changed its position, Putin repeated that he was against arming the Syrian opposition and claimed there was no proof Assad had used chemical weapons. During the talks, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Russia would fulfill its contract to deliver S300 advanced air defense systems to Assad. After the proceedings ended on June 20, Lavrov criticized the West for impeding the work of the planned international peace conference. That same day Putin faulted the West for failing to ensure that the weapons it plans to supply to Syrian rebels do not fall into the wrong hands.
Inexplicably, Obama did not once publicly criticize Putin over human rights.
The stalemate at the Northern Ireland summit was a blow to White House efforts to constructively re-engage with the Kremlin, relations with whom have become strained due to the Syria crisis, passage of the Magnitsky Act, Russia’s adoption ban last fall, and differences over missile defense. With Putin and Obama glumly sitting side-by-side in adjacent chairs, Putin announced, “Our opinions do not coincide. But all of us have the intention to stop the violence in Syria.” Inexplicably, Obama did not once publicly criticize Putin over human rights, the rule of law, the prosecution of opposition leaders, the pressure on nongovernmental organizations, or the adoption issue, for which the US president is under heavy pressure from Congress and prospective parents. Instead, Obama praised a new deal with Russia to dismantle chemical and nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. The approving comment by an Obama Administration official that the new nuclear agreement was less intrusive than its predecessor, the respected Nunn-Lugar program, showed how deferential the White House is to the Kremlin’s sensibilities about foreign involvement in Russia’s “internal affairs.”


President Obama turned quixotic in Berlin, the next stop on his European trip, when at the Brandenburg Gate he proposed reducing US-deployed strategic nuclear warheads by one-third, to about 1,000. While the offer was placed in the context of US-Russia relations, Obama did not appear to rule out unilateral reductions—a move that would face substantial opposition in the US Senate—or putting such cuts outside the Congressional treaty ratification process entirely. Despite the support of arms control enthusiasts in Washington for the proposal, the prospects for concluding an arms control treaty with Russia are dim. About the same time as Obama delivered his address, Putin, speaking to arms industry officials in St. Petersburg, warned that Russia needs to preserve its strategic deterrent in the face of US missile defense plans and increasingly powerful conventional weapons. Igor Korotchenko, a member of the advisory board of the Russian defense ministry, called further reductions “unacceptable.” If anything, in recent months the Kremlin’s position has become tougher.
Having lost the support of the urban middle class, Putin has been strengthening his base among nationalists.
Having lost the support of the urban middle class in cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin has been strengthening his base among nationalists and working people in the regions. This means making anti-Americanism a basis of his foreign policy. In an exclusive interview with RT, the Kremlin-funded English-language satellite television network, during the run-up to the G-8 meeting, Putin praised the channel for ending “the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon media” in the world. He reminded viewers that the US was founded on the “ethnic cleansing” of its native populations and used the atomic bomb against Japan at the end of World War II. Putin also presented the Kremlin’s alternative view of global affairs in which a beleaguered Russia “wages a lonely battle for principle and common sense against a cynical and hypocritical West.” This rhetoric reflects a deeper turning inward in the Kremlin. Gone is the openness toward external influences that characterized the years of Dmitri Medvedev’s presidency. Among the more dubious outcomes of the Northern Ireland meeting was the recommendation to re-establish US-Russia presidential commissions on key issues, an approach that did not work well even in better times. Russia will not integrate with the West, the Kremlin now insists. Any cooperation will be on its own terms.
In this regard, the Syria crisis provides the Russian leadership with a chance to demonstrate its hard new approach to foreign affairs even as, in the view of the well-connected foreign policy commentator Fyodor Lukyanov, Moscow’s obstinacy gives the West an excuse not to become involved. For Lukyanov, even the Obama Administration’s disengagement from Afghanistan, willingness to negotiate with Iran, and dithering over Syria have sinister motives. “America is composing itself,” he writes, “Syria and even Iran are less important to its future positions in the world than the creation of an economic community of the United States and the European Union, as announced by the interested parties at the G-8.” If this succeeds,” he adds, “then the possibility of the new ‘West’ influencing world processes and imposing its own rules of play will increase sharply.”
Read the whole story