Russia ''invades'' Georgia

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

The argument sink, is that despite our friendly relations with CAN and AUS, we'd still be dependant upon another country for our energy needs. Which was the crux of SeanW's post. There is of course no reason, we cannot be friendly with Russia and infact they would probably welcome a friendly overture from someone in "the west". Since we are a non-aligned country we'd be ideal, and in Nato's backyard to boot!
Russia is on the up, USA is on the down.
I'd say we should join VEN and recognize the independance of both break away regions of Georgia.

We can not be completely independent in any area. I thought Dev's economic policies made that abundantly clear. Russia although it's doing well has not got the potential to rival the US or EU. It population is less than half the US and falling while the US population is continuing to increase, the EU's is over 3 times the size. Our primary economic interest is with the EU and US and there isn't any potential of that changing in the medium - long term.

Kama

Yes they can just 'cut' it, how many Russians do you think would be out in the streets protesting that?

Given how much of Russias GDP is dependent on the profits of the resource industry, quite a number of them I can't help thinking. Interdependence cuts both ways. Also bear in mind that military funding is also milking at this teat, as is development of its downstream delivery infrastructure. Russia is in many ways a market-corporate state, heavily focuses on extractive energy industries, so there would be a high cost domestically to the 'cut in spite' scenario. I'm not saying they can't, but it would hurt them more than you might think. They've been emphasising long-term delivery contracts for quite a while, and delivered on them, not because they are nice, but from basic economic necessity. Here's Putin's CNN interview on Russia turning the taps off, full transcript here

Vladimir Putin: We have never done it. Construction of the first gas pipeline system was started during the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, and for all those years, from the 1960s until this day, Russia has been fulfilling its contract obligations in a very consistent and reliable way, regardless of the political situation....It's true that the Europeans depend on our supplies but we too depend on whoever buys our gas. That's interdependence; that's precisely the guarantee of stability.

Now, rumor-mills on the possibility of doing just that have been very active, on both sides. Kommersant has a short write-up on the threat, but taking action on the threat has definite costs, and would most likely come in response to economic sanctions on our part on a tit-for-tat basis, imo. Plus we take near-all of Russian production, which accounts for about 1/4 of our use, so dependency cuts a bit harder on them tbh.

Agree with Sink, complete autarky isn't really viable; but decreased dependence for risk and security reasons doesn't seem that bad an idea, and seems to fit with the agendas on both sides of the partisan divide. I *think* we specialized more in gas generation because of economic reasons, and comparative ease to increase generation for peak demand, rather than because of the Aquarian Conspiracy of the Greens, but I'm not an expert on this...

SeanW

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's trendy arguement you make SeanW.
It used to be to our detriment to be dependent upon the ME for our oil, now it's Russia for our gas.
And what's next?

Both actually. Importing fossil fuels is for a variety of reasons, a mugs game. We cannot store natural gas, oil yes but it's a major engineering challenge. Uranium on the other hand is stocked up to a year in advance in the normal course as most reactor designs require a full year loading of fuel at a time, and you can create a Uranium stockpile for much longer than that quite easily if you want to insure against any future disruption or shortage.
As it stands, in about 5 years the Russians will be able to turn off the taps and put our lights out within 24 hours.

Uranium? Well, guess what, ireland has none of that too.

Well, two exploration companies thought we did. Oh dear.

So i suppose we'll be dependent upon Australia, Canada, and Russia for that too.

Well we could always kick these muppets out of office and issue some new exploration licenses.

In any case, fuel comprises about 5% of a nuclear operators operating cost. The rest goes on things like staffing. i.e. local jobs.

I propose that any nuclear power generating station be located next to your house SeanW

You mean a nice safe nuclear reactor with all those jobs nextdoor? With all the electoral sweetners the gov't would have to throw in to ensure the support of my neighbors? If that were ever to happen, Longford would probably get motorways, schools and hospitals and everything.

Be doing a good thing for Ireland AND potentially getting richly rewarded too?

I say, BRING IT ON :eek:

since you are it's pimary advocate.

I propose future gas and coal plants be built next door to RedPlanet since he is their primary advocate. Better you than me breathing in all that sulphur dioxide, mercury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

I propose future gas and coal plants be built next door to RedPlanet since he is their primary advocate. Better you than me breathing in all that sulphur dioxide, mercury, arsenic, radiotoxins etc.

Tut tut SeanW, you're logic is similiar to George Bush's.
If you're not with us, your against us.
Do show me where i've advocated fossil fuels.
Actually, you know already that it is a waste of time because i haven't.

Kama

Ehm, veering off-topic Georgia-->energy security--> nuclear generation but:

Do show me where i've advocated fossil fuels.
Actually, you know already that it is a waste of time because i haven't.

SeanW isn't putting words in your mouth, he's drawing out the consequences of rejecting nuclear as being increased fossil fuel dependence.
Being against nuclear to some extent means you are implicitly for fossil fuel generation to meet energy requirements.

/offtopic

RedPlanet

Kama wrote: »

SeanW isn't putting words in your mouth, he's drawing out the consequences of rejecting nuclear as being increased fossil fuel dependence.
Being against nuclear to some extent means you are implicitly for fossil fuel generation to meet energy requirements.

Oh i think you're dead wrong there. What he said was that i am the primary advocate of fossil fuels, which is not true.
I also disagree with your deduction as i am all for decreasing our use of fossil fuels, i promote renewables and am constantly onabout getting people out of their cars. Not so SeanW, read posts of his at the Commuting Transport board, he's motorist-centric, how ironic is that?
Personally if Ireland is not going to go green, and would rather continue the status quo, then i think we may as well buddy up with Russia as they can offer the status quo the goods.
I don't think for a moment, that we should pur our chips in the basket of some corporate global energy giant, with the usual environmental track record they leave in their wake. And i certainly do not trust our lovely cute-hoor politicians to protect our environment and stand up to these giant energy corporations.

Sand

I also disagree with your deduction as i am all for decreasing our use of fossil fuels, i promote renewables

You might as well try supply Irelands realistic energy needs via interpretive dance tbh.

Renewable sources of energy can subsidise fossil or nuclear energy production, but it cannot replace it given its variability whilst demand is constant. So discounting nuclear power by default implies the shortfalls of renewables must be met by fossil fuels.

Sand

In other news, I see the Russians are laughing their heads off at the all the huffing and puffing delivered by the EU summit there. Must be an awful let down for the EU to suddenly realise the limits of soft power when faced with a country thats not afraid of using hard power.

cabinteelytom

Boss;That person who, when something goes wrong, is personally and individually responsible for placing the blame.
www.komersant.com/p1020720 reports 5-9-08 that Saakashvilli is taking personal charge of a 'purge' of the Georgian armed forces. Yes, it seems the performance of the US and Israeli trained army was below expectations during the recent offensive into Ossetia.
There is no sign of an enquiry into the political decision to launch the offensive.
So long as you are scapegoating others, you can't be the scapegoat yourself.

Manic Moran

The US trainers didn't think the Georgians were ready for high-intensity ops either. Looks like nobody took their advice.

NTM

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US trainers didn't think the Georgians were ready for high-intensity ops either. Looks like nobody took their advice.

NTM

I think that the main problem was that the Georgian army was given running shoes instead of boots.

Kama

I think Vizzini put it best in 'Princess Bride':

'You feel victim to one of the greatest blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia!'

Mayo Exile

Couldn't help but hear the phrase "Georgia Proper" on news bulletins in the last few days. Source unknown, but believed to be EU diplomats. No doubt this is code for Georgia minus Abkhasia and South Ossetia, and to stay that way by the sounds of it.

They have as much chance of getting these regions returned, as Mexico has of getting Texas and California back.

Sand

Ah now Mayo Exile, you must be mistaken. The EU will never stand for this sort of reckless sort of unilateral redrawing of sovereign borders by Russia.

Theyll huff and theyll puff and theyll.....ask Russia to give them a dozen helicopters for their mission in Chad because they cant afford to fly any themselves...

EU....militaristic superstate....LOL tbh.

SeanW

And so the geopolitical fun and games continue:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080910/tts-russia-oil-energy-opec-0d84f64.html

Gordon Brown, useless as he may or may not be, has the right idea:

Gordon Brown wrote:

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned at the end of August that the West would not be held to ransom by hydrocarbon-rich Russia and urged Europe to find alternative sources of power to avoid "an energy stranglehold."

On that point, I am very much in agreement.

Slav

A Russian documentary about the war:

http://www.war080808.com/