USA 2020 Elections: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Thu Jan 27 21:24:02 PST 2022


The Other Side Of The Story: Russia's View On Geopolitics, War, &
Energy-Racketeering

https://thesaker.is/the-other-side-of-the-story-russias-view-on-geopolitics-war-and-energy-racketeering/

The following is an exclusive interview with Russian Duma deputy,
Yevgeny Fyodorov, a high-ranking conservative, nationalistic lawmaker
in President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party. He has been
Chairman of the Committee on Economic Policy of the State Duma and a
member of the Advisory Council of the President of the Russian
Federation. Below we discuss war with Ukraine, principles of
sovereignty and geopolitics, the ongoing energy battle, the nuclear
option, and the reestablishment of the Soviet sphere, all within the
context of US ambition and Russian counter-strategy.

INTRO:

Atop the unipolar priority list lies the looming Russian “threat” of
providing European consumers with affordable, dependable heating and
cooking gas at stable long-term contract terms amidst the dead of
winter.

Only America and its’ “allies”/ [subordinates/collaborators] can halt
this menace by supplanting cheap Russian gas piped from relatively
short distances with much more expensive, technically-complex US
liquid natural gas shipped from across the Atlantic, capitalizing on
America’s shale revolution while stamping out Russian influence in
Europe—killing two birds with one stone. (Although at least
twenty-nine multibillion dollar regasification intake terminals have
been built across Europe under US pressure to import its supplies, a
new Russian pipeline threatens to render them sunk costs).

The Russian pipeline would “pose an existential threat to European
energy security,” states one US sanctions bill, implying that the very
notion of energy security outside of US/EU auspices is the threat
itself. Washington is trying to block this development, using various
means that now include the threat of war under any pretext.

Since Soviet times as much as 80% of Europe’s Russian gas imports
traversed Ukraine— but lately those flows have since slowed to a
trickle, due to Washington’s eight-year proxy war in Donbas, NATO
expansion, Kiev’s tendency to syphon Russian gas and not pay its
bills, and other factors. It is little wonder Moscow is scrambling to
establish alternate routes avoiding third-party generated instability.

This year European gas prices rocketed to record highs, adding fuel to
Russian ambitions to circumvent its’ now-hostile neighbor with its’
latest project, the recently- completed $11 billion natural gas
pipeline, Nordstream 2, running under the Baltic sea direct to
Germany, crucially evading land transit states subject to external
control.

Nordstream 2 could be a major geopolitical boon to both Russia and
Germany, helping the latter achieve the energy independence it would
need to take steps to chart an independent course and/or remove US
occupation troops from its territory, still present under the NATO
umbrella since WWII.

Despite the pipeline’s recent completion, the European Commission has
delayed (indefinitely) the certification required in order for Russia
to start pumping gas. Whether Moscow will go ahead and do it anyway
remains up in the air.

What is clear is that US counter-strategy is a patchwork of threats,
hysterics and racketeering. As Richard Morningstar, former US diplomat
and founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Centre,
bluntly put it, “I think Nord Stream 2 is really a bad idea…If you
want to kill the [US-based] LNG strategy go ahead with Nord Stream
[2]”.

The pipeline also undermines an interrelated, long-developing, radical
globalization scheme—an internal EU gas market established under the
European Energy Charter that’s designed to dismantle Gazprom by
preventing Russia from owning or controlling its downstream energy
assets.

Large land transit states like Ukraine help to ensure that Russia obey
the rules. But after withdrawing from the aforementioned treaty in
2009, Russia has struck bilateral gas deals with states like Hungary
and Belarus, enraging Washington and Brussels. Now Nordstream 2 would
symbolize the ultimate affront to the internal energy market
architecture as it involves Europe’s most powerful nation, Germany,
with no transit states in-between.

(Berlin has been left in the cold ever since caving to pressure to
phase-out its nuclear capacity and cease domestic coal production).

The pertinent question is: on whose outside supplies will Berlin come
to depend? Europe’s future may hang on the answer.

Ex-German chancellor Angela Merkel supported the pipeline, her foreign
minister, Sigmar Gabriel, along with the Austrian Federal Chancellor,
Christian Kern, complaining, “The draft bill of the US [sanctions
regime] is surprisingly candid about what is actually at stake, namely
selling American liquefied natural gas and ending the supply of
Russian natural gas to the European market. We cannot accept the
threat of illegal extraterritorial sanctions…involving Russia, such as
Nord Stream 2, [which] impacts European-American relations in a new
and very negative way.”

Detractors, meanwhile, insist that a pipeline avoiding Ukraine would
give Russia more leverage over its weaker neighbor, despite the
implied detachment, a piece of double-think requiring little to no
explanation.

Nevertheless, one hard-headed member of Russia’s Duma explains what’s
really going on, from Moscow’s view, and what’s truly at stake in this
developing saga.

Yevgeny Fyodorov

INTERVIEW:

Q: How does EU policy affect European states’ energy consumption?

A: The alternative to our natural gas is, of course, importing US LNG,
which is much more expensive. The crucial interested parties in our
piped gas are Europe and especially Germany. The key question arises
from the fact that the EU wants absolute control over the Nordstream 2
gas pipeline. They want to control everything. The principle of
competition of nations is involved. Russia is also interested in full
control over those gas supplies; it helps Russia to fulfill its
obligations. We welcome no third party to play this game as an outside
controller over the pipeline.

Hence the Germans’ position: they support Nordstream 2 because it
provides for their gas balance and they understand that otherwise they
will lack gas. Nord Stream 2 is a kind of “magic wand” for Russia
because it helps Germany to get a stable gas supply and sign long-term
contracts. Otherwise they will need to keep temperatures in their
dwellings very low. If the EU refuses to certify Nordstream 2, Europe
will freeze. It would be like shooting its’ own leg.

The position of Europe is this: give us all transport routes and gas
fields—but it contradicts the Russian principle of state sovereignty.
So Russia won’t agree to it. Our position is simple: we supply gas,
you can either take it or not. We aren’t going to sort out your
domestic problems.

Q: What are the impediments to gas flowing through the
recently-completed Nordstream 2 pipeline?

A: Blocking Nordstream 2 is a result of pressure from the Americans.
There we need to understand common sense. What is the Americans’
interest? It is a very basic interest. There is no economic profit in
LNG supplied from the US. The interest of the US is that they are
generally against German economic independence and independent
resouces. Yes, we have American military troops in Germany, Germany is
being controlled by the US. In case Germany becomes too independent it
will simply throw away American control. This is how history works. Of
course, this is why the Americans are against NS2. Not just because of
the competition with their LNG, but also because of US Anti-German
policy. They dislike that Germany would gain a new level of economic
independence; such level which would allow Germany to get rid of
American control.

It’s clear that the U.S. wouldn’t like European countries,
particularly Germany, to become more powerful. So, the U.S.’s
geopolitical interest consists in Germany not being able to solve its
problems with gas supply beyond U.S.’s influence, without the
influence from Ukraine, Poland etc… As a result Americans opposed Nord
Stream 2 from the very beginning. It’s obvious. Because it’s one thing
when you control a few countries and manipulate them and it’s
absolutely different thing when Germany will get a regular gas supply
and will be independent of the US. It’s the position of the US and
it’s clear and understandable.

The position of Germany: it needs a reliable gas supply and
independence. The position of Russia: to earn money for its gas
supply. With every coming year, Germany will become more and more
sovereign\independent and one day American troops will be withdrawn
from its territory. I’m sure one day Germany will raise the question
of withdrawal of American occupation troops from their land. You know,
these troops were simply renamed from occupation troops into NATO’s
troops. It’s in the interests of German people and at some point
Germans will do it. Russia will definitely help them, not in a
military way but by creating geopolitical foundation of free nations.

And now another question: the situation in the European Union.
European regulations/treaties/charters/energy packages were adopted
not by Germany but by the EU and which are greatly influenced by the
U.S. They created the so-called energy packages … If EU countries had
signed long-term contracts, there wouldn’t have been any price
increase. They could have agreed on $300 per cubic meter for many
years ahead. But without these contracts the price rocketed to $1000,
harming Germany and other European countries.

A: How does the issue of sovereignty come into effect?

What’s the main motivation of any nation? Sovereignty and freedom. And
if there are any occupation troop on their land, it’s anything but
freedom. That’s why any nation will demand occupation armies to leave
their country even if at present they don’t talk about it openly
because of the propaganda. Germany is moving in this direction. It’s a
normal process. A Unipolar world is neither normal nor legal in the
historic context. Either there is one Empire, like the Roman Empire of
Alexander the Great, or the world is multi-polar. There is no other
option.

Today’s unipolar world is volatile. And Americans understand this.
They have two options: either to create a colonial empire (but aren’t
powerful enough to do it) or accept\embrace the multi-polar world
model. They are guided by the rules of competition among nations
according to which everyone is everyone’s enemy. That’s the way people
live in the world. All the wars were caused by this. The logic is:
you’re the most powerful and the rest are suppressed by you. Everyone
is suppressed by you, not only major enemies like Russia, but allies
as well. They are allies because American troops are on their
territory but not because they love America.

Q: Why does the U.S. still insist on gas transit through Ukraine?

A: Another play is the game with Ukraine, where we still talk about
keeping gas supply transiting through it. Nobody (in Russia) refuses
to transit via Ukraine. But the talks and wishes are about the
substantial profit Ukraine will obtain from transiting our gas over
its’ territories. The Americans will continue to insist that Russia
must finance its’ own war with Ukraine, until NS2 will start to
function; until Russia manages to exclude Ukraine from financing its’
military actions with Russian money [via transit fees amounting to
billions of dollars per year].

Frankly speaking there is a particular part of Ukraine that refused to
follow the orders of the newly- emerged power in Kiev, who occupied
power in 2014. The new undersea pipeline (NS2) shouldn’t involve a
third party like what we have to deal with in the case of Ukraine. Our
undersea pipeline is more convenient for Europe. It is clear that when
the Ukraine pipeline was constructed in the middle of last century
there were no underwater pipeline technologies. Now this new
technology has emerged thanks to scientific progress.

Q: What are the economic implications of this energy battle?

A: Let’s look at this question from the viewpoint of science, history
and geopolitics. What is the American dollar? The American dollar is a
world currency. Let’s look at some figures: the American dollar
turnover in the world is 40%, the euro turnover is 40% whereas the
ruble turnover is only 0.18%. So, the ruble turnover is 400 times
lower than that of the dollar or euro. The ruble doesn’t exist on the
global scale.

Americans have built their consumption at the expense of the world
dollar. Estimates show that Americans consume 4 times more than they
produce on their territory. The situation in Russia is quite the
opposite. Russia produces 4 times more of the global GDP than it
consumes. As a result Russia is a contributor to the world economy
while the US is a vermin\parasite. These are merely figures\data,
nothing personal. So, the dollar is of great importance to the
Americans.

The dollar requires worldwide jurisdiction – Anglo-Saxon law – because
currency is worthless if it’s not supported by juridical system. Hence
comes the mechanism of the world jurisdiction, the unipolar world as a
vertical authority. According to Putin, “one power center means one
decision-making center”. What’s Russia’s interest? To restore the
ruble, which will allow Russia to immediately control 6% of the world
currency turnover. And I’d like to remind you that at present we
control only 0.18%. In the long run, taking into account that Russia
has 1\3 of the world’s resources, we expect this figure to reach 1\3
of the world turnover. We want to have the right to print out
currency.

Q: Do the aforementioned issues implicate a pivot to Asia?

A: There is a policy of reducing dependance of EU countries on Russian
gas. We are ready to sell our gas to EU countries. But we see EU
legislation creates harm to Europe, eg. Now the natural gas price
jumped to $900 per 1000 cubic meters. But those are internal problems;
they should be able to set up their legislation so that it will not
harm their economy. Concerning Chinese – Russian relations and natural
gas supply to China, the supply will continue to grow.

This is about geopolitical and economic profitability. There are
certain issues that lead to this. Russia and China have a common goal:
to establish sovereignty. I reiterate one figure for economists: in
the world economy the USD and the Euro comprise 80% of the world
economy. The Russian ruble comprises one twentieth of 1% of global
reserves. Hundreds of times less. Naturally that is unfair and
illegal. And we will carry on politics which will result in the
situation where the Russian ruble will equal Russia’s economy and
resource export capability. And China will be our ally.

Q: What is the general position of European states, notwithstanding EU
internal market legislation?

A: Who is the enemy of American unipolar world? The enemy of any
unipolar world, including the American one, is national
thousand-year-old states\countries, like Germany, France, etc… because
such countries don’t want to be given orders. France has been
independent for more than 1000 years.

They don’t need any bosses in Brussels, let alone in Washington. So
the policy of the US is to subdue them. The US has been trying to
achieve this goal, firstly, by assisting in EU creation and by
Mediterranean wars which led to millions of refugees who break French,
German etc… national regimes. That’s the goal. Why did America bomb
Libya, Syria? Why were they involved in the coup d’état in Egypt? It’s
clear that they wanted to destroy national thousand-year-old states,
which leads to economic destruction.

Q: What do you make of the de-Russification laws in Ukraine?

A: It is occupational tool intended to limit and prohibit the Russian
language in Ukraine. The character and basic feature of Russian nation
is that it is cultural people with big history. And the Russian
language is a very important factor in consolidating and uniting
multiple smaller nations.

In the territory of Ukraine, as Ukraine itself is not a legal state
from the position of International Law. So in Ukraine outside
extranational parties. First of all, the US and their allies carry out
the politics to stop the process of reestablishment of the joint
united Motherland within it’s 1945 borders. In turn the
reestablishment process in many parts of the Soviet Union is being
carried out by all interested parties.

>From this fact emerges the conflict within Ukraine. This conflict
could only be resolved by establishment of one single united state of
Ukraine and Russia. Otherwise, it will never be resolved and will last
forever. Actually, the reunion (of Ukraine and Russia) will definitely
happen one day, is my strong belief. All serious leading experts
understand that. The situation (between Russia and Ukraine) is still
not regulated in accordance with the procedures guiding the
liquidation of the Soviet Union. That is most important to understand.
To say it in rough words, the situation with Ukraine and Crimea is
prolonged and delayed until today. These are the roots of conflicts
and arguments with Ukraine about Crimea and Donbass and Lugansk, and
with Moldova, Transdniestria, Georgia, Abkhazia, etc…

Q: How does Russia view subversive actions in nearby states like
Belarus, for example?

A: As an attempt to intrude by a third party into territory of an
internationally recognized state entity, a joint Motherland within
1945 borders. Actually, we will react to intrusion into any other
country, not only Belarus. Russia will use shield and defense tools.
Defense tools we have include nuclear weapons, to protect and secure
our borders and keep them safe and contain safely our nuclear weapons,
and using those nuclear weapons. In other words, should America enter
the territory of Belarus, our nuclear missiles are targeted at London,
Washington, New York and other cities. The US will continue to
manipulate Ukraine and Belorussia to oppose Russia. They will utilize
the issue of unregulated state borders [see today: Kazakhstan] between
these countries as a lever against its’ competitor and opponent,
Russia.

Q: Do you feel that America’s missile bases in Eurasia are directed
towards Russia?

A: We don’t ignore the reality that the US has installed missile bases
throughout Eurasia. And the [US] State Department was saying that they
will form new military nuclear bases there, including in Asian
countries. Please understand this is very simple story. Russia plans
to engage its nuclear weapons not against those countries where it was
launched against Russia, but against the mastermind cities where the
decisions were made. To be exact, it is Washington, New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago and other American cities. Please fully understand,
in case American nuclear weapons are launched from, eg. Taiwan, or
Poland, the response will hit New York or Washington.

Q: Please elaborate on the EU’s long-unfolding internal gas
market/energy treaty packages.

A: Sure. European policy was to reject long-term contracts. This
policy was to start a competitive war in which, as they said, the
price would be reduced as a result of competition. And here lies their
error of judgment. Competition works only if there is excess supply.

But taking into consideration the post-Covid economy boost of China
and Asia [among other factors], there hasn’t been any excess supply.
As a result the EU failed. [higher prices, however, have increased
demand for US LNG imports, perhaps implying that Russia’s plan
backfired, playing into America’s hands]. Those who signed long-term
contracts didn’t suffer at all. Some French companies, for instance,
didn’t lose anything. They even benefited from this. So this price
increase is the EU’s fault. What Russia wants is just to earn money
for its produce. Russia thinks like this: if we don’t sell gas in
Europe, we could sell it in China.

Q: What is the situation surrounding US negotiations with Germany
regarding Russian energy?

A: Look: Who is more important: the supplier or the consumer who pays
money? Surely, it’s the consumer. So, who is the main player in this
situation: Germany or Russia? Germany. That’s why the U.S. opposes
Nord Stream 2 by negotiating with Germany, not Russia. Germany is the
main player here. So, the U.S. exerted pressure on Germany. And
Germany, in its turn, tried to compensate by offering to invest in
Ukrainian system, hydrogen etc… The negotiations regarding Nord Stream
2 were conducted between Germany and the U.S. but not between America
and Russia.

Q: How do offhand events, like the “Russiagate” fraud, the alleged
Navalny poisoning, hysteria surrounding Russian troop buildup along
the Russian-Ukrainian border, etc… influence public opinion?

A: Russia is constantly blamed and there are two reasons why. Firstly,
Russia doesn’t have influence on its own information sphere; it
doesn’t have the necessary technology. Even Russia’s social networks,
television are American. Mass media in Russia are beyond Russia’s
jurisdiction. Russia doesn’t have “weapons” in the information sphere.
Besides it’s very convenient to put all the blame on Russia in order
to solve one’s own domestic problems. It’s common practice.

Q: Is the EU’s energy Treaty Packages/Charter unfeasible?

A: The EU’s energy packages are based on market excess supply. What I
mean is they get gas supply from everywhere, from the U.S., Asia,
Norway, and Russia. Europe wants to get the lowest price due to the
competition between these suppliers. It only works providing there is
excess supply due to different reasons, including transport logistics
[plus Russia’s allegedly withholding supply from the market for
leverage in Nordstrream 2 negotiations]. So it was a wrong strategy. I
have only one question here: was this strategy was wrong because they
are fools in Brussels or because they just played along with
Americans? I think the latter. The situation got out of control: it
led to price increase. Now they don’t know how to handle it.

Q: Will Russia accept the terms and conditions of these energy packages?

A: While drawing up this energy package (and it took years), they
didn’t anticipate post-Covid syndrome which changed the situation
globally. But Russia’s position is very simple. We support
sovereignty. Historically, the concept of sovereignty in the Russian
word is a priority. We respect the sovereignty of others. Russian
position is simple: here is gas, you can either take it or not. We
aren’t going to change your own internal regulations.

Q: How does US and Russian geopolitical strategy differ?

A: We have a different geopolitical strategy. The U.S. strategy is to
support dollar turnover in the world. The U.S. domestic economy is
dependent on external dollar. Hence 800 (military) bases abroad.

The strategic historical policy of Britain and later America – the so
called “gunboat policy, is creating conflict zones and supporting both
conflicting parties with the aim of controlling the situation. That’s
the U.S. policy. It originates from the American principle of nation
building. Russia’s policy is exclusively managing our own business. We
are a country of defensive\protective policy. The only exception was
the USSR with its Marxist ideology of world revolutions. But it was a
temporary exception and it was rejected by Russia.

Q: Do you regard ecological complaints from Poland as a part of the
American scheme?

A: Sure. Poland is under U.S. control. If Americans remove this
control, it will be gained by Germany. But it’s not in the U.S.
interests, so they use Poland and Ukraine. They tried to control
Belarus but failed. It’s a clash of strategies. The American strategy
is “divide and rule.” Americans want to divide Russia in order to get
supplies separately from the Siberia, Ural. But since Russia has
nuclear weapons, this plan won’t work out for them.

Q: Would Russia like to restore something like the USSR?

A: The priority here consists in re-establishing legal outcomes, in
restoring something that was violated illegally. If a country is
divided legally, they have the right to do so. For example, the Czech
Republic and Slovakia decided to split. If they did it legally, that’s
not a problem. But if it’s illegal, it should be revoked. Do you feel
the difference?

As for Yugoslavia one should scrutinize the legitimacy of its
division. What are the relations between international and
internal\domestic laws? International law doesn’t interfere with
domestic laws. A country can be destroyed\divided only by its own
laws. If internal Yugoslavian laws were broken while dividing
Yugoslavia, then this country should be restored. For the same reason
Americans insist on Serbia recognizing Kosovo. Because Americans are
well aware that until Serbia recognizes Kosovo’s independence, Serbia
and Kosovo can’t be considered legally divided, no matter how many
American (military) bases are located in Kosovo.

Without any doubt, the Soviet Union’s dissolution was illegal. By the
way, from the viewpoint of law, it wasn’t dissolved because no
republic, except for the Baltic States, took the decision to leave the
Soviet Union. The republics decided on the state sovereignty but any
union consists of sovereign states. So, it doesn’t mean the
dissolution of the union.

Q: Who controls Russia’s Central Bank?

A: You must understand how our Central Bank works. The Central Bank is
the Depositary of IMF and secures and answers for worldwide USD
circulation and includes part of Russian territory. So the Central
Bank is part of USD circulation. The Russian Ruble is a derivative of
USD and Euro circulations. The Ruble emission is carried out
proportionally to part of export deals, as part of USD and Euro income
as a result of such operations. So, the Central Bank policy and ruble
policy does not reflect the Russian economy at all. It just shows our
export potential. So we understand we need reforms to nationalize our
currency exchange system and Central Bank. And reforms would create a
ruble currency bulk inside Russia in correlation with exports. Similar
to what the ECB and Forex are doing. We plan this reform.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list