Thread: Russia helping Iran build nukes

Originally Posted by Johanna

But if Europe wants nothing but energy from Russia -- then why critisise the situation in Caucasus and the state of democracy in Russia?

I think because:

1. The same oil can come in different prices.
2. An "oiled" country is rich, and in capitalism (also European) everything could be sold and bought. Add two and two on your own.

So is the Russian oil/gas more expensive now than earlier?
Supposedly there is a world market price, or does Russia have such a monopoly that Gazprom can set whatever prices they want? The UK and Norway have gas too although not as much as Russia.

Originally Posted by Johanna

So is the Russian oil/gas more expensive now than earlier?

And the second point was easy, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Johanna

Supposedly there is a world market price [...]

Um.. the market price is a relative thing (like everything else) and requires a certain coordination. Here's a nice overview that can help you get the dynamics http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n12d01.htm

(I assume you know what happened in year 2000 in Russia.) Please pay close attention to the following part:

Originally Posted by http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n12d01.htm

For a long period after the fall of the Soviet Union development of Russian oil production was an extremely drawn out affair because of legal and administrative constraints, together with a lack of experience and clear policy for facilitating investments. The ensuing long period of stagnation in Russia’s oil industry was, in fact, a direct result of the chaotic legal and administrative system that prevailed, following the very long reign of a centrally planned system, together with an inherent resistance to change in economic structure, which had the effect of hindering new investment by Russian or international oil companies.

However this period of stagnation soon ended with the year 2000 being marked by a rapid growth in investments in Russian oil production – increasing from less than $2bn in 1999 to $6bn in 2001. Investments continued to grow (albeit at a lower rate) and by 2003 reached $6.6bn. This massive growth in investments between 1999 and 2003 produced a steep rise in Russian oil production from 6.1mn b/d in 1999 to 7.7mn b/d in 2002 and to 8.4mn b/d in 2003, and is expected to reach 9.1mn b/d this year (2004). This means that the cumulative growth of Russian oil production since 1999 has already reached 50% in four years! It is estimated by the CGES that, given present market conditions, Russia’s oil production could be expected to reach 10.3mn b/d by 2006.

The spectacular increase in Russian oil production has been reflected in a correspondingly high growth rate of Russian exports to the world market. [...] Russia’s crude oil exports to the world market rose from 1.6mn b/d in 1992 to 3.6mn b/d in 2003 and 4mn b/d in 2004. [...]

Russia’s surge in oil production and exports will have a direct impact on OPEC, given that the organization, as was explained earlier, will be forced into reducing still further its total production quota in the face of additional supplies from outside the organization. This means that the greater the increase in Russian oil exports, the lower OPEC’s production – in order to keep the price at present levels.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, I'm a strong believer in the fact that democracy as a form of government is a blight upon the face of this world and must be purged before it's too late.

Well, here you have one thing right. You are in total agreement with the Founding Fathers, who warned against democracy as a form of government and that is why the USA was formed as a "Republic"

I never understood why Americans seem to revere these "Founding Fathers" as some sort of higher beings. It seems almost religious. I've heard that in American schools they read out parts of the constitution and swear allegiance to these founding fathers every morning... For 10 years of their lives. Hm...

My impression from having studied Political Science at uni is that the US is not particularly democratic and that there is very little change that the people can actually achieve within the existing system. Don't know if this is exactly as the "Founding fathers" intended it, or if the system has been hijacked and corrupted.

But there is something very ironic about the fact that the US is a country that most European social scientists (at least) have some serious reservations about as a democracy. But at the same time is invading other countries and keeping troops permanently stationed across the developed world... ostensibly to PROTECT create / democracy... At least that's what they make most people believe.

DDT I don't really understand what you are getting at in your post above.
Do you mean that you don't consider the US to be a democracy?