At least that's the jist of the article.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html

Quote :

"Russia spins global energy spider's web The vast bulk of the world's oil, gas and strategic minerals resources either is coming under or is already under the control of authoritarian, or less-than-democratic, or leftist, or otherwise radical regimes either with a decidedly anti-Western political stance and ideology or pointedly decreased sensitivities to strategic US interests. It is difficult to name more than a handful of resource-rich states that are liberal democracies and that are still significantly aligned with the West. Only Canada and Mexico come immediately to mind, and even Canada is increasingly embracing China and the East in the sphere of strategic energy deals and agreements. Even those resource-rich regimes that are considered to be the most moderate of the globe's producing states are far less closely aligned geopolitically with the US than they were previously. Saudi Arabia, for example, continues its "Look East" policy of diversifying its markets away from the US. It has concluded a range of important deals in the energy sector with China and India and is steadily moving into closer geopolitical alignment with the rising East. A number of other key Middle Eastern regimes are following suit. By and large Latin America is doing the same, as are Africa and Central Asia. Almost none of the world's oil and gas producers wants to be inordinately dependent on the US market any longer. Additionally, the steady rise of the powerful economies of Asia beckons oil and gas producers toward such lucrative markets that are politically cost-free, meaning they do not attach political demands and seek to interfere in the domestic affairs of the producing regimes, as does the US. In virtually all cases, the interests of the West and of its multinational oil companies and big Western financial institutions are being minimized and/or pushed out as the global trend of nationalization, by one means or another, of the oil-and-gas sector picks up speed. That is occurring in Russia, which has now surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest exporter of oil, in Central Asia, the Middle East and in Latin America. Within virtually all such regimes the lines of separation between the top levels of political leadership and the directorship of key corporations and industries are not only blurred but are being obliterated. The multinational oil companies of the West are being marginalized as a direct result. That is the case in Russia, where in many key areas of industry corporate directors are intimately tied to President Vladimir Putin, having formed a close association with him long before he became president, and many even hold key positions as upper-level Kremlin officials, or as government ministers. Not merely coincidentally, the key corporations the directors of which are so closely allied with Putin are often resources-based and are also those that are state-controlled businesses, with the Russian state holding controlling (51% or more) interests. To varying yet alarming degrees, the resource-rich regimes around the globe are copying the Russian model. Resources-based corporate states with a profound political affinity for one another and a simultaneous collective disdain and even a hatred for US-led unipolar dominance are proliferating around the globe. Resource-rich Russia's mounting global leverage with the world's other producing states and with the powerhouse economies of the East, and its profound political affinity with such producers and key consumer states, far outweighs the influence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). How so? Russia is crossing the membership boundaries of OPEC to court its most powerful members and to conclude with them joint-venture agreements of huge consequence and importance for the future of global oil and gas exploration and production. The West is rapidly being pushed out of such ventures, or is being forced to take radical reductions in the size of its stakes, and is being left out entirely in many new ventures. Instead, the world's producing regimes are increasingly entering key joint ventures between themselves and in very close cooperation with the powerhouse economies of the rising East, such as China. We are witnessing not merely the formation of some new oil-and-gas cartel with Russia at its center, but rather the formation of something that includes both producers and the key consumer states of the East in an ever more cohesive de facto confederation. This is dedicated to the achievement of strategic energy security for those within its clearly defined circle. In the process, OPEC itself, as an entity, is being undermined and marginalized. Simultaneously, the West is being forcibly cast from the proverbial frying pan into the fire as something far more powerful, compelling and all-encompassing than OPEC is coalescing. The ominous rise around the globe of the resources-based corporate state is accelerating. The implications for the West are enormous, yet such implications are only beginning to be understood. As noted above, such states are concluding rapidly increased numbers of strategic agreements among themselves for the joint exploration and production of oil and gas, and with the rapidly rising powerhouse economies of the East, such as China and India, for the private long-term supply of oil and gas. The creation of such private pools of oil and gas for the consumption only by specific economic powers in the East and select economies of the West is also a new development that carries with it profound implications for the West. In essence, the circle defining international energy security is now being drawn. Inside the circle are those producer and consumer states whose political and geopolitical affinity for each other is the result of no mere chance occurrence and whose energy-security interests are being strategically served and addressed on both sides of the producer/consumer equation. Some of the economies of the West, such as Germany, are being included within the developing circle. Outside the circle are those economies of the West that are to be left out of the growing international energy-security arrangements currently being constructed, as alluded to above. Interestingly, and as a profound new development, it isn't the United States that defines the path and scope of the circle. Instead, it is Russia and its strategic partners who are defining it. Because Russia's leaders adroitly positioned the Russian Federation to capitalize massively on global energy developments, it is the state that inherited the unique ability to shape global developments as they unfold. Russia is shaping important developments among the world's key producing and consuming powers. They are being shaped contrary to the strategic interests of the United States, as noted above. The US is also shaping developments, foolishly handing Russia and the East ever more global leverage. By incessant strategic blunders, the US has isolated itself internationally and fanned the fires of global anti-Americanism, which increasingly engulf the very regions where its own resources-based strategic interests lie. An entire array of fundamental global developments as respect strategic resources is quite literally changing the landscape of the traditional global energy order. With regard to energy and energy security, a new global order is emerging. The US-backed liberal, open global oil market order is beset by an accelerating proliferation of private, state-to-state long-term agreements and contracts concluded within the circle Russia and its partners are defining. This is creating increasing numbers of private pools of oil and gas dedicated only to serving the energy-security interests of the circle of private participants. Along the way, Russia's export monopoly of the oil and gas that still flows outside the circle to the West continues to grow, further ensuring its mounting global leverage. Rather than being merely unrelated and random events, global developments in the energy and geopolitical spheres over the past seven years form a distinct pattern that bespeaks the execution of a developing strategy of a Russian reacquisition of global power, but in concert with its strategic partners, at the incalculable expense of the West in general and of the US in particular. Contrary to the assumptions of conventional wisdom, the US hasn't any longer the global leverage to shape unfolding developments in its favor. Russia is rapidly acquiring such leverage, and it is expertly plying that leverage against US vulnerabilities in the energy sphere. W Joseph Stroupe is editor of Global Events Magazine online at http://www.GeoStrategyMap.com. He has authored a new book on the implications of ongoing energy geopolitics titled Russian Rubicon - Impending Checkmate of the West."

We can cry source all day on this one, but I'm curious if anyone knows if anyone of the information here is directly true or false.

The explanation given in the article, I think, fairly concisely explains Israel's curious restraint against Lebanon, its even curiouser proclamation recently that it may have to 'go it alone' against Iran, and the seemingly now-inevitable geopolitical immasculation of the United States when the troop drawdowns and Civil War begin in Iraq.

But is it true? False? Is it an overreaction to true events? Basically, what gives?

I'm particularly looking to LoneSnark for an assessment of the factual nature of the claims of the article, AND a critique of its implications if possible. I'm curious what everyone has to say about the article, though.

8/24/2006 8:52:00 PM

Has the US really ever been important as a resource country for the rest of the world? I realize that during colonial times the resources were a big part of the colonization, but has america ever derived it's power in the world from it's control over a particular important resource?

Furthermore it's not too particularly suprising that the resource rich states (or those whose economy depends chiefly on one resource) would band together to seek to preserve their power, especialy banding away from a nation of established power to nations of developing power where they might have some influence over the way policies develop.

8/24/2006 9:50:48 PM

THe US exports well-produced movies.

8/24/2006 10:05:40 PM

this is nothing more than a reorientation of the world, from a two sphere world to one with probably about 4 to 5 competing spheres. this is nothing more than competition, the very thing that has made us great. what is there to worry about. you cant expect a replay of a roman style dominance for 2000 years, just isn't goin to happen. we have advantages so do they.. in the end we will be come less of an issue and they will stop mobilizing against us, as we become more equal. by that i mean its always easy to see the elephant in the room when your ants, but when you yourself become closer to an elephant, your worries shift to not only the largest elephant but the neighbors as well.

am i making any sense?

8/24/2006 10:24:42 PM

Quote :

"but has america ever derived it's power in the world from it's control over a particular important resource?"

History is often quite awesome.

In the late 19th century oil was used primarily as kerosene for lighting. At that time there were only two countries with reserves sufficiently developed to export: The United States and Tsarist Russia. These two countries competed fiercely for markets, a battle the U.S. ultimately won. As the 20th century wore on, the United States remained the world's largest oil exporting nation until it was surpassed by the British Empire's numerous holdings. However, it remained a major oil exporter, the price setter, until the 1950s. America retained it's price setting dominance until the Texas Railroad Commission abandoned price supports in the 1960s and was replaced by OPEC in the next decade. Many have argued that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 occured as a result of America's halt of oil exports to Japan in response to the invasion of China.

8/24/2006 10:41:05 PM

Quote :

"THe US exports well-produced movies."

I know you meant this as a joke, but this is the truth. We're like France, the only product that the United States exports today as a resource is "culture".

You can make an argument that we export food, and we do somewhat, but because it is subsidized, not because it's on open-market, and we produce far too much of it.



As far as your question Gamecat on ramifications, I think the future is going to be very cruel. The Israel-Lebanon conflict was a sign of the future. Israel killed far more Lebanese civilians than they did Hezbollah, and Hezbollah killed far more Israeli civilians than they did Israeli Army. I think it's a sign going back to old wars where the leaders hide while the rest of us become cannon-fodder.

The Middle East is going to increase in power. As world oil supplies become tighter, world powers are going to ignore what they do in their off time and just buy their oil. It's pure capitalism pretty much.

This cynical foreign policy invites the comment that a couple wars are not too far away: Israel-willing Muslim states, China will annex Taiwan and the U.S. will not be able to defend Taiwan, North Korea is certainly going to do something, probably against South Korea and maybe Japan, and the most deadly and catastrophic of all of these, being India-Pakistan.

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 11:10 PM. Reason : /]

8/24/2006 10:52:06 PM

Quote :

"this is nothing more than a reorientation of the world, from a two sphere world to one with probably about 4 to 5 competing spheres. this is nothing more than competition, the very thing that has made us great. what is there to worry about. you cant expect a replay of a roman style dominance for 2000 years, just isn't goin to happen. we have advantages so do they.. in the end we will be come less of an issue and they will stop mobilizing against us, as we become more equal. by that i mean its always easy to see the elephant in the room when your ants, but when you yourself become closer to an elephant, your worries shift to not only the largest elephant but the neighbors as well. am i making any sense?"

i think i agree with this person the most so far

8/24/2006 11:32:38 PM

Quote :

"Israel killed far more Lebanese civilians than they did Hezbollah"

True, with the ratio being roughly 10:1, or worse.

Quote :

"and Hezbollah killed far more Israeli civilians than they did Israeli Army."

FALSE. Civilians : IDF = 1 : 3

8/25/2006 1:29:17 AM

Thats some bullshit propaganda right there, Trap.

According to unbiased estimates, approximately 500 of the Lebanese casualties were Hezbollah fighters. That puts the ratio of fighters to civilian casualties close to 1:1.

8/25/2006 1:44:23 AM

^ I never heard that from any source. Got any source?

If you are going to ask ME for a source, I will say look at pretty much any source: CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, FOX, etc.

8/25/2006 1:49:34 AM

Hezbollah claimed that 43 of its troops were killed. Of course that is bullshit, they want to boost the number of civilian deaths and minimize Hezbollah losses to make Israel look bad.

Quote :

"Although Hezbollah has refused to make public the extent of the casualties it has suffered, Lebanese officials estimate that up to 500 fighters have been killed in the past three weeks of hostilities with Israel, and another 1,500 injured. Lebanese officials have also disclosed that many of Hezbollah's wounded are being treated in hospitals in Syria to conceal the true extent of the casualties.They are said to have been taken through al-Arissa border crossing with the help of Syrian security forces "

http://www.nysun.com/article/37320

8/25/2006 1:55:11 AM

I am seeing that figure for the 1st time.

Don't know what to believe anymore.

8/25/2006 2:20:36 AM

i sure as hell wouldnt believe terrorist organizations

8/25/2006 2:30:41 AM

^ You think governments are any better?

8/25/2006 7:06:48 AM

OEP, You mean you take Hezbollah's number as given...but the NY Sun as propaganda?

8/25/2006 7:56:58 AM

How did you come to that question after reading this, "Don't know what to believe anymore?"

8/25/2006 4:59:06 PM

^^ Who said I am taking Hezbolla's numbers?

Did you read what I said:

Quote :

"If you are going to ask ME for a source, I will say look at pretty much any source: CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, FOX, etc."

All those news organizations say around 100-150 fighters killed, and 1,000-1,200 civilians killed (this is documented in several threads with links to sources). At least that's what they said until the last days of the war. I haven't checked lately, so the numbers may have been revised.

That's why I said I don't know what to believe anymore.

As for the "NY Sun", I have never heard of that paper ever. Still, they might be true, they might not be true. But, this sure doesn't make them see impartial:

http://www.nysun.com/jinsa.php

Back to casualties, I guess that's what happens in war. Until the fog is cleared, and voices of reason deaden those of propaganda, no one will know exactly what happened.

[Edited on August 25, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ^ Thanks! Yeah when did I say I believed any numbers??? I said exactly the opposite.]

8/25/2006 5:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Back to casualties, I guess that's what happens in war. Until the fog is cleared, and voices of reason deaden those of propaganda, no one will know exactly what happened."

Hmm. Methinks you might be led astray by idealism on this one.

To be perfectly honest, I don't expect that anyone will ever completely agree on what actually happened. Even after the dust of history settles.

Take a look at Haditha for a microcosmic example. The lawyers at work for the troops are busy concocting a story of innocence corrupted by influence from above. The lawyers at work for the government are busy prosecuting an unjustifiable case of the slaughter of innocents. I doubt there'll ever be a true "majority view" about what actually took place there.

Take a look at Vietnam for a macrocosmic example. The players' roles change, but their efforts to malign the truth for short term gains, ultimately succeed also in making a true historical understanding of what actually happened--and thus real, true, informed political progress--both impossible for the future.

8/25/2006 6:20:43 PM

^ The Vietnam case is true. Some people argue we never lost that war.

8/26/2006 8:48:17 AM

Quote :

"We're like France, the only product that the United States exports today as a resource is "culture". "

AHA idiot, lets just ignore every goddamned innovation in the last decade and then run our mouths in an attempt to sound cool

8/26/2006 8:53:50 AM

^such as?

(i am genuinely curious)

8/26/2006 8:56:14 AM

how about internet commerce for one thing

how about windows

how about processors out the ass

genome shit

pharmaceuticals

hell, we even exported the motherfucking globalization idea itself!

etc. etc. etc.


[Edited on August 26, 2006 at 9:00 AM. Reason : s]

8/26/2006 8:59:46 AM

United States' commodity exports:
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)

United States' commodity imports:
agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys) (2003)

8/26/2006 9:21:26 AM

The jist of the article is that the worlds resource rich countries are hedging together in order to counterbalance and possibly usurp US global political influence. In essence, this is the equivelent to an economic seige being prepared that would probably be sprung sometime in the future. Its pretty scary stuff. Imagine having all the worlds petrol resources coordinated through Moscow! That would give the Russians more control over the American economy (Current) then the Fed or any other institution here in the US.

Off course, I think what will happen is that the US will lead an explosion of alternative energy technologies and just like the Internet, all these countries will again miss the boat and pissed on the sidelines while we make more bank.

That, or WW3.

8/26/2006 9:50:25 AM

Quote :

"all these countries will again miss the boat and pissed on the sidelines while we make more bank."

That's true--the money is in doing something with raw materials, not just possesing them. Until these countries move from resource gathering to industrialization, they're still going to be behind everyone else.

8/26/2006 10:03:51 AM

^^ I see that scenario as it was layed out, but I don't fear it that much. The American economy is far less resource dependent today, so the possible harm that can be inflicted is not too severe, definitly nothing compared to what the FOMC can do. Yes, OPEC can cause a lot of damage, oil at $120 a barrel is high and is very detrimental in the short term, but once the "economic seige" begins, it is only a matter of time before the market backfires.

A Monopoly has rules it must follow in order to maximize long term profits. The first rule is to minimize demand destruction, which an "economic seige" is not doing. An excellent historical example is the OPEC Oil embargo during the 1970s. In the short-term after OPEC began demanding higher prices for it's oil customers were forced to pay it, wraking in massive profits. However, within months, oil consumers began using less oil and oil competitors began boosting production. Ultimately, by the mid 1980s, prices were back to pre-embargo levels, yet OPEC production was almost half pre-embargo levels. All in all, in the long term, OPEC broke even, but only because it finally gave up on the endeavor and began demand rebuilding.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/Peak%20Oil_files/image002.gif
Note: Images are not accurately to scale.

8/26/2006 11:50:22 AM