The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Especially not by using gas as a political tool. IIRC Russia and before that the Soviet Union has never ever broken a gas export contract with the West. I hardly see that happening now. If it did happen the French, Germans etc would freak out and go hard down the nuclear/coal route. No one would ever trust the Russians as reliable suppliers again. And while Stratfor might be right in that Germany need Russian gas more than Russia need German euros this winter, in the longer term the opposite is true. Russia is far more reliant on Europe as a market than Europe needs Russia as a supplier.
Indeed, if the EU could ever get its act together we would here see the real energy weapon: us threatening the Russians with lowering our consumption if they make trouble over eg. Kosovo. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Stratfor thinks it's likelier that Russia will deploy military units along the Kosovo border.
Russia, in a weaker state in 1999, rushed an entire battalion into Pristina to claim the Pristina airport in 1999, and they caught NATO with their pants down. This was the infamous incident in which British General Jackson told American General Clark, "I am not willing to start World War 3 for you."
Just a friendly dash to the airport gets some Brit thinking he's about to start WW3. Anyway, the situation was eventually resolved, mostly in favour of NATO.
He served in the NATO chain of command as a deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark. In this capacity, he is best known for refusing, in June 1999, to block the runways of the Russian-occupied Pristina Airport, to isolate the Russian troops there.[1] Had he complied with General Clark's order, there was a chance the British troops under his command could have come into armed conflict with the Russians; doing this without prior orders from Britain would have led to his dismissal for gross insubordination. On the other hand, defying Clark would have meant disobeying a direct order from a superior NATO officer (Clark was a four-star general; Jackson only a three-star). Jackson ultimately chose the latter course of action, reputedly saying "I won't start World War III for you",[1] though the point became irrelevant when the American government prevailed upon the Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians to prevent the Russians from using their airspace to fly reinforcements in.
Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.
But to recap, there never was an order to open fire. That's four or five steps down some hypothetical scenario.
You don't start WW3 by seeking diplomatic solutions. You start it by firing on the enemy.
The occupation of the airport was an aggressive move by Russia after they felt they had been double-crossed in the negotiations. Clark wanted to prevent it. The WW3 part is a personal estimation of Jackson that the situation would get out of hand. Clark and Solana had a different view. But the troops in the area were mainly British.
The Russian move was aggressive? Interesting you don't qualify NATO's moves as being aggressive. The Russians, who were instrumental in negotiating a deal between NATO and Milosevic, had an agreement with NATO that they would "deploy" their forces in the North of Kosovo. To thank the Russians for their mediation, NATO later reneged on this agreement (surprising of such a worthy organization).
The Russian move was aggressive? Interesting you don't qualify NATO's moves as being aggressive.
The occupation of the airport was an aggressive move by Russia after they felt they had been double-crossed in the negotiations.
Foreign Affairs - Compromised Command In the immediate aftermath of the war, Clark responded to the Russians' seizure of the Pristina airfield by seeking to oust them. After his subordinate on the ground, British General Michael Jackson, told him, "I'm not starting World War III for you," London ordered Jackson not to comply with Clark's order to block the airfield's runways. The British action averted any potential crisis, something about which Clark was apparently not concerned. His attitude toward containing the Russian role was consistent with the general confidence about NATO's hegemony in Europe and America's hegemony in NATO that was implicit in the whole enterprise. But even though Clark's prose reveals a sharp sensibility about most things, he has a tin ear for Russian interests. He reports how Russian General Viktor Barynkin told him during the Dayton negotiations, "We know what you Americans are up to. ... You are coming into Bosnia because it's in our part of Europe and you want to be there. And you say you will be gone in a year, but you won't be; you will stay." Clark reflected that the Russians "saw the peace plan in Cold War terms ... to establish spheres of influence," as if the Russians were hidebound reactionaries. Yet nothing that has happened in the six years since proves Barynkin wrong. What are the Balkans now if not an expanded sphere of influence for NATO -- one nudging Russia's front door?
In the immediate aftermath of the war, Clark responded to the Russians' seizure of the Pristina airfield by seeking to oust them. After his subordinate on the ground, British General Michael Jackson, told him, "I'm not starting World War III for you," London ordered Jackson not to comply with Clark's order to block the airfield's runways. The British action averted any potential crisis, something about which Clark was apparently not concerned. His attitude toward containing the Russian role was consistent with the general confidence about NATO's hegemony in Europe and America's hegemony in NATO that was implicit in the whole enterprise.
But even though Clark's prose reveals a sharp sensibility about most things, he has a tin ear for Russian interests. He reports how Russian General Viktor Barynkin told him during the Dayton negotiations, "We know what you Americans are up to. ... You are coming into Bosnia because it's in our part of Europe and you want to be there. And you say you will be gone in a year, but you won't be; you will stay." Clark reflected that the Russians "saw the peace plan in Cold War terms ... to establish spheres of influence," as if the Russians were hidebound reactionaries. Yet nothing that has happened in the six years since proves Barynkin wrong. What are the Balkans now if not an expanded sphere of influence for NATO -- one nudging Russia's front door?
The New Yorker's / Slate Being "sure" of oneself is not quite the same as a compulsive snap judger who does things by whim, as when he threatened to open fire on Russian positions during one close call in the NATO campaign over Kosovo. Fred Kaplan
Being "sure" of oneself is not quite the same as a compulsive snap judger who does things by whim, as when he threatened to open fire on Russian positions during one close call in the NATO campaign over Kosovo. Fred Kaplan
On the first, I'll note that there were two events: an order by Clark to occupy the airport in advance of the Russians, and a later order by Clark to block the runways with tanks. Both were refused by Jackson. Russian air lifts were eventually held back by the US convincing the surrounding states to close their airspace. It's unclear to me where exactly the 'World War 3' quote comes in as the BBC gives a different picture.
Then Clarke ordered troops to block the runways to prevent landings - now since presumably the 200 Russian troop had taken the airport with the intention to use it, you couldn't block the runways without opposition from the Russian troops already there.
Then Clarke managed to close the airspace of neighbouring countries.
As for vladimir's
I don't know how you can "oust" a battalion of 200 men without threatening to fire on them.
Now, this is all very strange considering that NATO and Russia were supposed to be on the same side here. BBC News | EUROPE | Confrontation over Pristina airport
General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''
As has been pointed out around here, the Russian perception of relationships with The West™ changed dramatically after the Kosovo campaign. During the 1990's they seem to actually have believed the US and its allies were genuinely interested in partnership. In addition, Bush started off being very friendly to Putin but after a couple of years Putin realised Bush wasn't to be trusted. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
yup, it's hard when you're looking into someone's soul to stop them looking right back at yours...
putin has been restrained in his responses considering how bushco's behaviour has been one long windup.
he's right not to take bush at face value, apart from being much smarter, he is better placed to take advantage of current and coming events than bush, who has already won his place in notoriety as the most recalcitrant ignoramus ever to steal a country's vote.
...and then reduce everything he touches to gold, for his friends...
....to dust for everyone else 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Reality is just never that simple.
us threatening the Russians with lowering our consumption if they make trouble over eg. Kosovo.
By arguing that the EU has bargaining power against Russia in the energy sphere requires that two conditions are met:
1. that the Russians can't sell their energy elsewhere - which is false because they're busy building pipelines going East to Asian markets;
2. that the EU can actually do without Russian energy supplies - which by my books isn't reality. Maybe you can contribute some data to the discussion? Cheers.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Of course, that may just the environmentalist in me. But also, if Europe were to become a world specialist in all things energy consumption reducing, could it fail to be repaid tenfold when all countries will start to be desperate for energy savings?
Of course, it would require policy choices of a rather different nature from what we have seen of late. Surely the fact that Schröder had a nice rich seat waiting for him at Gazprom is no sign that all was being done to relieve Europe of the dependency... Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
if Europe were to become a world specialist in all things energy consumption reducing, could it fail to be repaid tenfold when all countries will start to be desperate for energy savings?
now that's an interesting idea for would-be entrepreneurs around here :)
Just look at Sweden. We use practically no gas (except a single gas-fired CHP which might just as well use wood), and things are nice here anyway.
If Europe wanted, gas imports from Russia could be eliminated in 10 years. But it's pretty hard to see what use that would be, except as a way of weakening Russia. And I don't think that's in anyones interest, at least if things don't become a lot worse.
Remember that the gas relation worked very well even during times of much greater tension, like in the 80's when Andropov et al in their utter senility where huddling under their tables, awaiting a NATO nuclear first strike! Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The Norwegians began making fertilizer from hydroelectricity 100 years ago.
At the turn of this century Professor Kristian Birkeland[1] of the University of Kristiania (soon to be renamed Oslo) was experimenting with a device called the Terella. This was a laboratory model of the earth, complete with magnetic field, placed in an evacuated vessel into which ions could be injected at high voltage. By observing the discharge glow, Birkeland was able to understand the three-dimensional structure of the Aurora Borealis. However, the equipment was expensive and money, then as now, was hard to come by. Kelvin suggested to Birkeland that research into armaments might prove lucrative and allow him to continue with the Terella. This was not the first time this idea had occurred to a physicist, Birkeland with his expertise in electromagnetism, set about producing an elektriske kanon, a rail-gun. On Feb. 6th, 1902 Birkeland's kanon short-circuited and exploded during a test, but the disappointment he felt was muted by the observation of a disc-shaped arc, spread by the magnetic field, and the smell of nitrogen oxides. The reason this was intriguing was that the world was then gripped by a fear greater even than that of the looming conflict in Central Europe - that of world famine. Chilean nitrate deposits, on which the world depended as a fertilizer, were on the brink of running out, and chemists were scurrying to find an economical way of fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Clearly the acrid brown stench of nitrogen oxides was the smell of nitrogen being fixed, as it was a short hop skip and a jump to nitric acid and any nitrate you please. Birkeland was not the first to fix nitrogen by electric arc - Crookes in Manchester already had a pilot plant producing calcium nitrate by this means - but the disc-shaped arc promised a high yield[2]. However, a week after the explosion he met a man who was already working on the means which would make economical production possible. That man was Sam Eyde, a civil engineer who was fascinated by the enormous potential of Norway's mountains and rainfall for the production of hydro-electricity. After that things moved with breath-taking speed. A week after meeting, Eyde and Birkeland submitted a patent for artificial fertilizer. They obtained money from the Swedish financiers, the Wallenbergs, and a mere three years later a hydroelectric plant had been built out of the wilderness at Notodden and a Birkeland-Eyde arc furnace was producing the first Norgesalpeter - Norwegian Saltpeter, i.e. calcium nitrate. In the same year as the first Norgesalpeter was produced, Fritz Haber discovered a much better way of producing nitrates via ammonia made by what is now known as the Haber process. Indeed, the Norwegians soon abandoned the arc furnaces and adopted Haber's idea. However, Birkeland's discovery had started something irreversible: the large scale development of hydro-electric power in Norway by the company he and Eyde had started: Norsk Hydro.
On Feb. 6th, 1902 Birkeland's kanon short-circuited and exploded during a test, but the disappointment he felt was muted by the observation of a disc-shaped arc, spread by the magnetic field, and the smell of nitrogen oxides. The reason this was intriguing was that the world was then gripped by a fear greater even than that of the looming conflict in Central Europe - that of world famine. Chilean nitrate deposits, on which the world depended as a fertilizer, were on the brink of running out, and chemists were scurrying to find an economical way of fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Clearly the acrid brown stench of nitrogen oxides was the smell of nitrogen being fixed, as it was a short hop skip and a jump to nitric acid and any nitrate you please.
Birkeland was not the first to fix nitrogen by electric arc - Crookes in Manchester already had a pilot plant producing calcium nitrate by this means - but the disc-shaped arc promised a high yield[2]. However, a week after the explosion he met a man who was already working on the means which would make economical production possible. That man was Sam Eyde, a civil engineer who was fascinated by the enormous potential of Norway's mountains and rainfall for the production of hydro-electricity. After that things moved with breath-taking speed. A week after meeting, Eyde and Birkeland submitted a patent for artificial fertilizer. They obtained money from the Swedish financiers, the Wallenbergs, and a mere three years later a hydroelectric plant had been built out of the wilderness at Notodden and a Birkeland-Eyde arc furnace was producing the first Norgesalpeter - Norwegian Saltpeter, i.e. calcium nitrate.
In the same year as the first Norgesalpeter was produced, Fritz Haber discovered a much better way of producing nitrates via ammonia made by what is now known as the Haber process. Indeed, the Norwegians soon abandoned the arc furnaces and adopted Haber's idea. However, Birkeland's discovery had started something irreversible: the large scale development of hydro-electric power in Norway by the company he and Eyde had started: Norsk Hydro.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 31 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 57 comments
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Oui - Sep 49 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 331 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments