Russia may face wars over energy: Kremlin

I was going to post this in the breaking news but the story is a few hours old I did a quick search and didn't find anything if I missed it please forgive me. Anyhoo this looks very interesting to say the least. I'll post a video I uploaded a few months ago to our Video/Media section about the possible upcoming global issues with the fight for oil in our future.

Russia may face wars over energy: Kremlin

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia may face wars on its borders in the near future over control of energy resources, a Kremlin document on security policy said Wednesday.

The paper did not name potential adversaries, but Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, shares a border of more than 3,600 km (2,250 miles) with resource-hungry China and a small sea border with the United States.

"In a competition for resources, problems that involve the use of military force cannot be excluded that would destroy the balance of forces close to the borders of the Russian Federation and her allies," said the document, which maps out Russia's security strategy until 2020.

reply to post by SLAYER69


By neighbors we are talking about Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. It has long been suspected that the provocations toward Georgia and other Central Asian republics were due to a desire to control the Caspian pipeline that leads to Iran.

I wonder if this was some sort of "leak" or a coded threat?

reply to post by clay2 baraka


I found it strange that this was put out and not much mentioned of it in the MSM
Sounds to me like Good ole Mother Russia may be back in business.

I liked this bit here. Seems to me that they are seriously nervous and I'm glad the US is not seen as the only possible bad guy in this.

The Kremlin has watched with displeasure as the European Union, the United States and China seek to challenge its dominance over energy supplies from the former Soviet Union.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

Everyone has known this for years . It has been played under the misnomer 'the global war on terror' , but the Russians and the Chinese are aware of it's significance and true aim, but to date have always played along with the false rationale , perhaps because the curbing of islamic extremism is something that to them is a actual aim as it could genuinely affect them in their near abroad , as opposed to the make believe fear mongering of the americans and how it impacts on them.

So why now , it could be a move away from assisting the usa with supply lines in its war on 'terror' , it could be a move away from the pretence as it sees the USA is not even nominally doing anything to curtail extremism , rather to cultivate it . Perhaps an opening shot on SCO plans to police their own territories and neighborhoods with the view to minimising US and NATO interference for geostrategic gains in the area for fossel fuel and mineral resources.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


‘The Great Game’

The Great Game was a term used for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 a second, less intensive phase followed.

The term "The Great Game" is usually attributed to Arthur Conolly, an intelligence officer of the British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry.[1] It was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901).

The new Great Game

In The New Great Game, Lutz Kleveman gives us a fearless, insightful and exacting portrait of a new battleground in the violent politics and passion of oil: Central Asia, known as the "black hole of the earth" for much of the last century. The Caspian Sea contains the world’s largest amount of untapped oil and gas resources. It is estimated that there might be as much as one hundred billion barrels of crude oil in the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan alone.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I had to check the date of this thread.
I thought all of this was obvious a long time ago

Every nation is focusing on energy and fuel, those who have it want to secure it and charge more, those who don't have it want lower prices and will consider gaining it by force if need be.

No nation seems to be taking practical steps to lower their use and reliance on such fuel and energy, and that's where the main problem lies. We all use too much. We are all too comfortable with having every light in the house on, traveling fifty miles to do a job we could do from home, importing things we don't actually need...

We're already beyond the point of imbalance, we can't produce enough to meet demand, so common sense would be to lower demand to within our own production levels.

Russia will defend their fuel, and others will likely attack to gain it, but not for a long time yet. I dare say that stage is far beyond 2020.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I had to check the date of this thread.
I thought all of this was obvious a long time ago

Oh I hear ya.

I to took a double take when I first read this.
That's why I posted the informati0on regarding the " The Great Game"
Deja vu all over again.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

It is like jumping over your neighbors Mr Andropov's fence to tell him you are trying to kill rats while really stealing his turnips . For years , everyone knows you are stealing turnips but mr andropov still maintains you are after the rats . Even thou you know Mr Andropov sees you making off with the turnips and the rats have increased thricefold . Then one day Boris Andropov says .. You are stealing my turnips . So , the question is , what will Boris do about you jumping over that fence , now he has openly declared his knowledge of your true intent towards his turnips ?

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil



But aren't we talking about Former Soviet states that are now on their own here?
shouldn't they be able to negotiate with whomever they choose to?

It is Russia and China's near abroad . If you do not think they should maintain any economic influence over them , then you are against the monroe principle that south america should be guarded against economic incursions by european or asian nations that would entail a lessening of US corporations interests in the region . Remember , europe nor asia stages color revolutions in south america to further their agenda by instilling political regimes aquiescent to these nations governments, but rather mutually beneficial trade agreements that do not entail overwealming debt , votes at the UN , military bases and other such subserviant measures that the US imposes .

I don't think anybody would be opposed to the US making fair trade agreements with any ex soviet nation , but that is not the way they work . Their methods are war , installing dictatorships and crushing democracy , inciting factional differences towards conflict , exploitation of human rights issues for intervention , exploitation of regions and populations for US corporate benefit and nobody wants them around anymore , when the US trades openly and freely without subversion and dishonorable tactics, then you can ask that question again.

Thanks from opening important thread, statements of Russia has been widely noticed here in Finish media too...

Couple of news related to the issue:

Russia warns of war within a decade over Arctic oil and gas riches

Russia raised the prospect of war in the Arctic yesterday as nations struggle for control of the world’s dwindling energy reserves.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Kremlin: Battles over energy may lead to wars

The future will be shaped by fierce competition for energy resources that may trigger military conflicts on Russia's borders, the Kremlin predicted Wednesday in a report signed by President Dmitry Medvedev.

wire.antiwar.com...

- Greatest threats of Russia by President: NATO and USA

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
It is Russia and China's near abroad . If you do not think they should maintain any economic influence over them , then you are against the monroe principle that south america should be guarded against economic incursions by european or asian nations that would entail a lessening of US corporations interests in the region .

Very interesting. The Monroe Doctrine was against European Colonialism. That was kind of odd that you would bring that up. Didn't the former Soviet states in the region throw off their Euro-Russian handlers? As far as the Americas I think the Whole Cuban issue of decades past had pretty much settled that issue.

reply to post by JanusFIN



It seems to me that cooperation should be the way to go. If there is that much oil there then there should be no need to make claims.

Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic, and the dispute has intensified amid growing evidence that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening up new shipping lanes and resource development possibilities.

Here is an older article on the situation. It seems that they have had their eyes on this for a long time.

Russia leads race for North Pole oil

2007
The Arctic's untapped resources include huge reserves of fuel and minerals. Now Moscow has raised tensions by dispatching an expedition to annex a vast expanse of the ocean.

In the darkest depths of the Arctic Ocean a new Cold War is brewing. American and British nuclear submarines lurk in the shadows, preparing for company.

'Why has Britain been sending submarines into Arctic waters?' asked Rob Huebert, associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies in Calgary. 'Because it wants to retain its capability to deal with the Russian threat.

If you take it in a static historical context , then yes .. it was against european colonialism , but it is not a concept that was introduced enacted and then subsequently forgotten about , it is a dynamic and integral facet of american foreign policy , then and now . To restrict it to it's original parameters would be akin to defining the art of the renaissance by the paintings of the early period artist Filippo Lippi.

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


Very good observation.

Yet they seem to be free to negotiate with whomever they choose.
Venezuela and China sign oil deal

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has offered China wide-ranging access to the country's oil reserves.

The offer, made as part of a trade deal between the two countries, will allow China to operate oil fields in Venezuela and invest in new refineries.

Venezuela has also offered to supply 120,000 barrels of fuel oil a month to China

Indeed. It is the outcome , no doubt , of South America being freed from the US focus for awhile , on the back burner so to speak, while they are off in the middle east causing trouble for other nations rather than keep their eye on south america . Reagan never kept his eye off them , and Obama is turning his gaze back towards the region . But fortunately for the south americans , george W Bush was too interested in his wars of religion, corporate gain and pseudo terrorism and gave them the respite they needed . Of course , Obama is back.. shaking hands with Chavez , and americans abhor that image . But america is like a snake , it slithers left and right , war or peace towards its goal of corporate profit , chavez knows this as do much of the other south american governments . They want to deal with china and they want american interests out , and who can blame them .

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


OK so let me get this straight.

Any country in the western hemisphere can negotiate with anyone they choose to. Yet the former Soviet states that were under Russian control sometimes by force who have revolted against them for their independence now have to be by default stay under the Russian thumb?

Seems fair to me.

I addressed all that in the posts above . I'll say again , if the US were to go about trade agreements in an above board , transparant , free and fair manner , nobody would have any problems with them , with ex soviet union states, with the outer hebrides to the islands of new guinea , nobody would care who you traded with . But you don't trade fair , and rather than address why nations shouldn't trade with you because of this , you prefer to go on about generalized arguments and principles of what should be applied to normal trading relations between nations.