The UK urges a "Tough Response"

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583486.stm

UK urges tough response to Russia

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has called on the EU and Nato to initiate "hard-headed engagement" with Russia in response to its actions in Georgia.

In a speech in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, he urged them to bolster their allies, re-balance the energy relationship with Russia and defend international law.

Mr Miliband also warned the Russian president not to start a new Cold War.

His visit came a day after Dmitry Medvedev recognised the independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions.

Earlier, Ukraine's president said it was a hostage in a war waged by Russia against countries in the old Soviet bloc.

More at link...
 
Miliband is attempting to undermine his own Prime Minister. He published an article in one of the leading UK newspapers at the beginning of the Summer in which he set out a barely-concealed leadership challenge to Gordon Brown. Brown, as many will be aware, is facing a collapse in electoral support for the Labour Party and disastrous poll ratings for his own leadership.

Miliband's sudden interest in international law, which he appears to have previously mislaid sometime around the time of preparations for the Iraq War, is part of his attempt to appear more Prime-Ministerial than his boss.

Miliband is a lightweight Foreign Secretary. I wouldn't take a great deal of notice of him and the shapes he's throwing. The real action in Europe is taking place in Brussels, Paris and Berlin (especially Berlin - watch Angela Merkel if you want to know which way teh European wind is blowing).
 
Last edited:
We'll see how "tough" a response europe is going to engage in against Russia .. with them being dependent on Russian oil.
 
blackascoal said:
We'll see how "tough" a response europe is going to engage in against Russia .. with them being dependent on Russian oil.
Click to expand...

Given that Georgia is providing them with an option to receive Caspian oil WITHOUT going through Russia.... I am guessing they do indeed get tough.
 
Superfreak said:
Given that Georgia is providing them with an option to receive Caspian oil WITHOUT going through Russia.... I am guessing they do indeed get tough.
Click to expand...

Get better informed my brother.

Russia gets tough on energy sales to Europe
No foreign access to pipelines, official says

"Without Russia's ratification, the charter would be severely weakened because Russia is one of Europe's most important suppliers of gas as well as one of the biggest transit providers for other forms of energy. Over a quarter of the EU's energy needs and a third of Germany's are supplied by Russia."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/12/news/energy.php

Georgia crisis tests EU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/08/s_1.html
 
Dungheap said:
So tough that Russia will have to . . . sell their oil to someone else.
Click to expand...

LMAO... who? Don't you see that it doesn't friggin matter? The only way Russia could effect Europe is to stop selling oil.... which would crush the Russian economy.

Otherwise the only damage inflicted would possibly be slightly higher shipping costs.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... who? Don't you see that it doesn't friggin matter? The only way Russia could effect Europe is to stop selling oil.... which would crush the Russian economy.

Otherwise the only damage inflicted would possibly be slightly higher shipping costs.
Click to expand...

How does it "crush the Russian economy" if they just simply sell their oil to someone else .. like China?
 
blackascoal said:
How does it "crush the Russian economy" if they just simply sell their oil to someone else .. like China?
Click to expand...
Oil is fungible, and since they are offered a different source in Europe by Georgia, the only way that Russia could negatively effect the Europeans is by lowering the supply to increase the price.

It doesn't matter where the oil is sold because it is a fungible item.
 
blackascoal said:
Get better informed my brother.

Russia gets tough on energy sales to Europe
No foreign access to pipelines, official says

"Without Russia's ratification, the charter would be severely weakened because Russia is one of Europe's most important suppliers of gas as well as one of the biggest transit providers for other forms of energy. Over a quarter of the EU's energy needs and a third of Germany's are supplied by Russia."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/12/news/energy.php

Georgia crisis tests EU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/08/s_1.html
Click to expand...

You may wish to take the bolded advice to heart and do so yourself.

OF course Russia didn't want anyone else using their pipelines as THAT would create competition. THAT is why Georgia was building pipelines that would circumvent Russia. Which is a part of the reason that Russia is pissed at Georgia.

Russia cannot simply shut off oil to Europe. True, they could shut off their oil supply, but given that it is the lifeblood of their economy I don't see that as a viable threat. As for their selling oil to someone else... who cares? If they sell their oil it is thus on the world market. Whomever buys their oil will stop buying from someone else and Europe can buy from the party that lost that business. At most it increases shipping costs.
 
Damocles said:
Oil is fungible, and since they are offered a different source in Europe by Georgia, the only way that Russia could negatively effect the Europeans is by lowering the supply to increase the price.

It doesn't matter where the oil is sold because it is a fungible item.
Click to expand...


I thought we were talking about the EU getting tough with Russia, not the other way around. If the EU decided to stop buying Russian oil I am fairly certain that Russia will be able to find willing buyers elsewhere, like China. The EU is in no position to "get tough" with Russia by refusing to buy oil.

Also, you presume that Europe could obtain alternative sources of oil through Georgia on a relatively cost-free basis. As an initial matter, I don't think the oil flowing through Georgia from Azerbaijan and elsewhere is sufficient to replace the amount of oil the EU is buying from Russia.

As an aside, does anyone know what Miliband had in mind by a "tough response?"
 
blackascoal said:
How does it "crush the Russian economy" if they just simply sell their oil to someone else .. like China?
Click to expand...

If they sell to China, that means China is not buying that quantity of oil from someone else. It would only potentially effect the transportation costs. That is it. Whomever China normally buys from would thus have excess oil to sell to Europe. The only way they could effect the price substantially is to remove the oil from the world market.
 
Dungheap said:
I thought we were talking about the EU getting tough with Russia, not the other way around. If the EU decided to stop buying Russian oil I am fairly certain that Russia will be able to find willing buyers elsewhere, like China. The EU is in no position to "get tough" with Russia by refusing to buy oil.

Also, you presume that Europe could obtain alternative sources of oil through Georgia on a relatively cost-free basis. As an initial matter, I don't think the oil flowing through Georgia from Azerbaijan and elsewhere is sufficient to replace the amount of oil the EU is buying from Russia.

As an aside, does anyone know what Miliband had in mind by a "tough response?"
Click to expand...


We are... but BAC stated that he didn't think it likely for the reason you mentioned.

As I stated before, which you apparently failed to read, the fact that Georgia is trying to provide an ALTERNATIVE method of getting Caspian oil to Europe etc... is part of the reason Russia is pissed, because it creates competition and potentially lowers their control on world oil supplies.

THAT is why Europe WOULD take a tough stance in protecting Georgia. It is in their long term interests to have that competition.
 
Dungheap said:
I thought we were talking about the EU getting tough with Russia, not the other way around. If the EU decided to stop buying Russian oil I am fairly certain that Russia will be able to find willing buyers elsewhere, like China. The EU is in no position to "get tough" with Russia by refusing to buy oil.

Also, you presume that Europe could obtain alternative sources of oil through Georgia on a relatively cost-free basis. As an initial matter, I don't think the oil flowing through Georgia from Azerbaijan and elsewhere is sufficient to replace the amount of oil the EU is buying from Russia.

As an aside, does anyone know what Miliband had in mind by a "tough response?"
Click to expand...
If the EU decided to "get tough" with Russia it may increase shipping cost but it would not kill the EU nor deprive them of a fungible item like oil.
 
Can someone please explain what "getting tough" actually means. There is a tendency in political debate to throw around phrases without taking the time to explain what is meant by them. The phrase "getting tough" is one of thsoe casual comments that can mean pretty much anything to anybody from harsh words to military action.

Let me try and outline the EU's position on this crisis. The EU's response at this moment is to attempt to de-escalate the situation. This means persuading the principal actors to tone down their rhetoric, to persuade Russia to resile from their provisional recognition of Abkazian and South Ossettian independence and to withdraw troops from Georgia proper, and to persuade the Georgians to recognise the very real damage that they have done to their own interests by launching a reckless attack upon South Ossettia.

The EU's interests are driven primarilly by our security needs. War in the Balkans in the 1990's was deeply destabilising in Europe. A war in the Caucasus has the same potential to destabilise the region and spread as far as Ukraine and Moldova, much closer to the EU's borders. Secondly, the EU is heavilly dependent on security of both gas (approx. 40% of imports) and oil (approx. 30%) supplies from Russia. The link to the Caspian oilfields through Georgia does not have tehcapacity to replace any more than a minor fraction of the oil and gas that comes from Russia and is not a viable alternative to security of supply from Russia. Thirdly, Russia is a major consumer of European goods and services, especially from Germany and Eastern Europe and there is little point in putting that trade at risk.

I said in my earlier post that we should pay little attention to what David Miliband is saying on this topic. He is very much a junior player in these discussions and is playing a different game with respect to his own political ambitions in the UK. If you want to see how EU policy is being developed with respect to this crisis you should follow the comments being made by Angela Merkel (the German leader) instead. All of the EU's efforts are going into de-escalating this issue and restoring some calm to the situation. There immense dangers to both the EU and Russia in allowing this situation to spiral out of control.
 
I suppose "tough" is a relative term. Here's a different take on Miliband's remarks:

British Foreign Secretary Derides Russia Policy Backed by McCain

Sen. John McCain has repeatedly proclaimed that it is time to kick Russia out of the "Group of Eight" organization of industrial powers, even before Russia's recent conflict with Georgia. But the idea has not been embraced by many foreign policy experts, who tend to view it as needlessly provocative.

Today, the top diplomat of one of the U.S.'s closest allies, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, weighed in, calling the notion "knee-jerk," though he did not mention McCain's name.

In a tough speech delivered in Kiev, Ukraine, Miliband said Russia will face consequences for its actions in Georgia. But he added: "In all international institutions, we need to review our relations with Russia. I do not apologize for rejecting knee-jerk calls for Russia to be expelled from the G8, or for EU-Russia or NATO-Russia relations to be broken. But we do need to examine the nature, depth and breadth of relations with Russia."

The Bush administration has also been cool to the idea of kicking Russia out of the G8, which holds an annual summit of leaders. The foreign ministers other seven members -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan -- today did issue a statement condemning the actions of Russia, "a fellow G8 member," particularly its recognition this week of two separatist regions.

In any case, the United States can not kick Russia out of the G8 unilaterally.
Click to expand...


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/27/british_foreign_secretary_deri.html
 
Dungheap said:
I suppose "tough" is a relative term. Here's a different take on Miliband's remarks: ...
Click to expand...

That's a good example of what I'm talking about, dungheap.

Calling for "tough" action is largely meaningless unless you define what action that actually involves. And when we get down to reviewing possible sanctions that might be deployed against Russia, very few of them, if any at all, are particularly appealling.
 
PES Activist said:
That's a good example of what I'm talking about, dungheap.

Calling for "tough" action is largely meaningless unless you define what action that actually involves. And when we get down to reviewing possible sanctions that might be deployed against Russia, very few of them, if any at all, are particularly appealling.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agreed with pretty much everything you wrote up there, with the exception of Merkel being the bell-weather of EU policy. On that, I'll just have to take your word for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top