Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (11748)	11/27/2001 5:47:43 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good article, though I think the writer is exaggerating the Russian advantage, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.

To: Rascal who wrote (11748)	11/27/2001 6:09:57 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

It certainly appears on its face that Putin is playing some cards aimed at reasserting Russian influence in the 'stans... But Russians are there only at the invitation of the Tajiks, Usbeks, and Turmenis... And I don't reckon their governments are overly inclined to see their political power subverted by the Russians. I expect them to keep their options open, given the knowledge that the US has more to offer them, than does Putin. Hawk

To: Rascal who wrote (11748)	11/27/2001 10:13:23 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

FWIW, my two cents on this are the following. I think the author exaggerates the Russian influence on events, exaggerates the significance of the energy angle, and exaggerates the geopolitical significance of all this. For example, the author says "Putin stole a march on the Bush administration, which was so busy trying to tear apart Afghanistan to find bin Laden it failed to notice the Russians were taking over half the country." This is a bit much--both because many in the administration were quite aware of what was going on, and because Russia does not have "control over half the country." He also says, "Central Asia's oil and gas producers are landlocked. Their energy wealth must be exported through long pipelines. Competition over potential pipeline routes has become the 21st century's geopolitical equivalent of the great power race to build strategic railroads, a rivalry that helped spark World War I. He who controls energy, controls the globe." The landlocked part is true, but the rest is overwrought. There are enough energy reserves there to create a nice pool of money and to serve the energy needs of some specific countries, but not enough to have dramatic long-term effects on the world market. Moreover, once they get out they flow into a giant substitutable pool of oil whose prices will clear worldwide. The U.S. has some real but relatively modest interests in seeing to it that there are multiple pipeline routes out of the Caspian Basin--enough to merit us throwing some diplomatic pressure and/or subsidies at the problem. Other than that it matters far more to the specific companies and local countries involved than to the U.S. or world more generally. I could be underplaying all of this, but I doubt it. Those truly interested in the issue should consult the solid overview of the Caspian energy issue (and U.S. policy towards it) written by Jan Kalicki in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs: foreignaffairs.org tekboy@yawn.com