Ruerl Khan wrote:
Ah, but the chinese economy is something of a bubble according to at least one economist i've spoken to, now I do not have the numbers myself and haven't done the research, but this is roughly what I was told:
- The coastal areas of China and border areas suffers from an experience of workforce drain due to the low wages there and easy access to other areas with higher payment.
- China being competetive is in a large part due to very low wages, a drain on the skilled workforce is a drain on the economy.
- Ten years ago we saw many companies move their buisness to China, but these days many are moving their buisness out.
- If you look at the infrastructure then there is a lot of waste and plenty of corruption.
I agree with that, but economy runs on energy. So the Russian gas would boost Chinese production which (under competent government) might be used raise the wages. About two years ago I have read that China is slowly switching from export driven economy to supplying its internal demand. (And that it will not be easy task with guaranteed success.) Which means that external competitiveness might not be such a problem. Of course, that does not mean that China will succeed. On the other hand, EU has serious problems of its own. It is hard to say which choice is more risky.
Loflar wrote:
Whether this view is legitimate depends on whether a part of country can declare independence against will of central government, especially government with no legitimity from elections.
I put an emphasis on one of the biggest issues in the above, at least from one of the other greater powers of the world, namely that of China, its a pathwork of small nationalities and as such you can be quite sure that its against its interests to allow small local groups to decleare independence and this is not something its ever to accept internationally, if it accepts it well, then look at the regions inside china who has a different mindset than that of the Chinese? Tibet is only the best known example.
Yes, and that is IMHO the reason why China abstained at Security Council voting.
Loflar wrote:By business I meant importance of the harbour for commercial ships. Its hard to say whether losing the base was an option, but I can easily imagine that from Russian point of view, it was possible outcome with disastrous (for Russia) results.
I doubt Ukraine ever wanted to deny Russia that, that would have been frankly stupid.
The problem is that behaviour of the new Ukraine government sometimes is pretty stupid. Whether they like it or not, Russia is a neighbour and has to be taken into account. They could have started by declaration of willingness to keep all international relations unchanged until elections and of tolerance to all Ukrainian citizens. Instead, they canceled status of Russian as a administrative language and allied with people shouting that Ukraine is for Ukrainians. (You know, in Czech Republic, people who shout that Czech Republic belongs to Czechs are considered neonazi, because it carries a message, that minorities have no right to citizenship.) Further, these people worship Ukrainaian nazionalist Bandera, who is in Russia considered Nazi ally and war criminal. In light of this and western attempts to make Ukraine member of NATO, the danger was there.
Mind you, in politics plenty of stupid things happens, but the entire reason for this conflict is at the bottom of it, an economic issue. Ukraine wanted to move closer to the EU and that denied the Ukraine-Russian trade, its about money at the heart of it.
What Russia did was an attempt to bully in order to get economy, it failed and I do not think that Russia has gained from this conflict, quite the contrary. Well, unless you believe Fox News of course.
I don't think that it is just economy. Losing Sevastopol might mean reverting to times before Catherine the Great, considerably diminishing Russian influence in the world. For Russians, there is huge symbolic value.
Also, your sentence that "Ukraine wanted to move closer to the EU and that denied the Ukraine-Russian trade, its about money at the heart of it." is somewhat misleading. If Ukraine wanted to move closer to EU, its last democratically elected president and parliament would be pro-EU. However, the president was pro-Russian and it was parliament, who decided to prefer Russian offer. If you look at voting patterns (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Ukraine ), you will see that Ukraine is split. So IMHO it would be more precise to say that pro-EU faction in Ukraine currently has the upper hand. Also, moving closer to EU did not have to deny Ukraine-Russian trade. Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to be neutral space between EU and Russia, but EU refused that. But yes, it is about money. EU did not want to share Ukraine with Russia, so Russia took the part it considered most important.
Loflar wrote:Teledor wrote:
In a move to make Europe rethink their positions, maybe a short term gas cut would cause some concern. But the Russians by doing so may motivate the USA to make their natural gas available for export which it currently is not. I know there has been small scale preparations for such a move but exports on a large scale could be ready in a few years based on what I've read.
USA has no gas to export. I watch the oil & gas situation a bit, and with all the hype about shale gas (which was mostly aimed at attracting investors anyway), USA is now importing about 11% of its consumption. US shale gas production is expected to peak in about 2016 on a value not much higher then the current one. Read for example this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... rgy-weapon
Loflar: Your not responding to what it said by Teledor
- he said that there is no export avaliable currently and that it could be ready in a few years, so your both in agreement there. And in 2016 is in a "few years" so to say.
He said that there are no export capabilities, i.e. LNG terminals. Actually, there is one under construction and others are planned. I have responded that there is nothing to export and probably never will be.
Loflar wrote:
Now it might be a problem in the meantime, but if Europe weans itself off Russian gas, then what will Putin do?
Sell it to China.
Who are not that interested in aiding the Russians, for the reasons stated above.
Well, but they are interested in aiding themselves. Fossil fuels are not just a comodity. It is lifeblood of current economy. Gas means heating, electricity production and fertilizers. And Russia is so convenient source, just behind the border. Of course, not the only one, so it will be hard business. But it is still an option.
BTW, did you notice recent Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia, to ensure them that USA is their friend? Not a word about human rights. Now, Iran and Russia are human rights paradises compared to Saudi Arabia, but they are scolded for human right abuses while Saudi Arabia not. Why? Because Saudi Arabia sells USA oil, and when it comes to oil, a lot can be overlooked. So if China really needs the gas, it might decide to overlook the implied threat to its territorial integrity.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel