US, Russia and the lucrative energy market
Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:27:14 GMT
By Maksud Djavadov
The visit of Barack Obama to Moscow had a lot less to do with the US and Russian nuclear missile schemes and its influence on the US-Russian relations, than their competition for energy markets. The circumstances of missile plans and the stock piles of them are less strategic then most think.
The nature of the weaponry itself is very strategic, but if anyone looks at the relationship between Russia and the US today the relationship cannot be classified as a strategic rivalry.
These strategic weapons lack strategic motives for a potential use. Even though the development of the US missile shield in Europe is justified as a strategic measure against potential Russian political ambitions in Europe to restore its Soviet era influence, the reality is far from this assumption.
The only ambition Russia has in Europe is to make sure that Europe remains a secure market of Russian energy products and that Russia remains Europe's only dominant supplier of energy resources. Therefore, it is unwise to assume that Russia would destroy or destabilize its most profitable and stable market of its energy products.
Even though Russian society experiences nostalgic sentiments for the days of the Soviet might, Russian society will never be willing to swap full shelves of products for the past days of the deficit. Russia is not in a different ideological camp because today's Russia has no ideology of its own.
Also Russia hasn't had a strategic rivalry with Europe itself in the past fifty years and the Russian state system recognizes Europe as a separate political entity and not the area of Russia's exclusive interests.
However, Russia has its own energy resources and in the modern world of cut-throat capitalism to which Russia has capitulated, it will do everything it can to ensure that its energy products remain the primary source on the world markets and especially the European market.
This is exactly where Russian and the US interests are colliding, because the US wants its vassal Arab territories in the Persian Gulf to be the dominant exporter of energy resources. The US knows that its de-facto control of the Persian Gulf estates will give it an upper hand whenever it would need to coerce its European allies to join it in some war of adventure.
If the Persian Gulf territories remain the key world suppliers of energy, Europeans will indirectly depend on the US-controlled energy resources. Therefore, the US is stimulating an artificial conflict with Russia on European soil.
The US needs the presence of conflict between Europe and Russia in order to hinder the full-scale Russian energy cooperation with Europe. The presence of tension on the European soil with Russia will force the Europeans to continue purchasing energy products from the US vassals in the Middle East.
For now this artificial conflict is being marketed and known as the “Missile Shield Plan.” Keeping the situation in this condition the US backed European circles will present NABUCCO as the only alternative to independence from Russian influence.
The US used a similar tactic in Azerbaijan, but on a smaller scale when it convinced the Aliyev run kleptocracy to stop transporting Azeri oil through pipelines going to Russia. At the moment the US is using a resurfaced corruption case in New York against the fragile ruler of Azerbaijan namely Aliyev Jr. to join NABUCCO wholeheartedly as his father joined the Baku-Jeihan project.
Azerbaijan, due to its strategic geopolitical location, is the key transit point for NABUCCO. If the US manages to convince Aliyev Jr. to join NABUCCO it will greatly damage Russian ambitions to become one of the worlds leading energy exporters.
If Russia decides to retaliate against this major blow, it will most likely do so against Aliyev Jr. as it did against Georgia in order to set an example to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan not to join NABUCCO. The ruling regime in Azerbaijan is much weaker than the Georgian government.
Therefore, its eminent collapse in the case of a harsh Russian retaliation in whatever form it may come will kill NABUCCO. Azerbaijan will be forced to focus on its own existential problems once the current ruling regime collapses and as a result will leave the NABUCCO option for later consideration.
In light of the above analysis it is easy to see that the missile shield issue, which the world media was hyping up during Obama's visit is not the key substance in Russian-US relations. Rather it is a competition for dominating the world energy markets.
Whether it remains just a competition or turns into a strategic rivalry depends on the steps the US takes in convincing Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and most importantly Azerbaijan to join NABUCCO.
If Russia sees these steps as an existential challenge, then a strategic rivalry may resurface because the Russian state system still views the territories of the former USSR as its exclusive backyard.
Posts
