Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He wants Europe addicted to it so he can wield the threat of shut offs over them.

12% of Germany's gas comes from Russia . . . no-one is going to be addicted to Russia

Opium was far more effective.

Originally Posted by sabang

So to summarise- the US has those enormous military resources permanently stationed in the Middle East because it has two thirds of the worlds oil, but not because [ipso facto] it can then



I think we have found a new Kissinger.

Your self portrait illustrates why you don't understand that the US military are there to stop the likes of Iran shutting off the oil, not the people who sell it you fucking simian.

Originally Posted by panama hat

12% of Germany's gas comes from Russia . . . no-one is going to be addicted to Russia

I said "wants", not "has".

We can but hope.

President Vladimir Putin said he has a cold and he isn’t suffering from Covid-19, after he was heard repeatedly coughing at a televised meeting with officials.

Nah, he's fine . . . it's highly doubtful he took Sputnik as his vaccine of choice

The questions from the listener continues:.

"Plenary session moderator Headley Gamble:

"Hadley Gamble:

Okay, walk me through this. Essentially, the markets are looking for some sense of stability here. Are you saying that in terms of increasing supplies to Europe that you would get the current capacity increased by as much as 15 percent? The IEA says that could calm the markets.

Vladimir Putin:

I have already said that we increased it by 15 percent. Just now. In the first nine months of 2021 we increased gas deliveries to Europe by 15 percent.

You see, we are not the problem. It is the Europeans who caused this problem. They did not fill their storage facilities on time. First, the wind power generators did not work in the summer. Everyone knows this. You just cannot help this, because this is what the weather was like. They did not pump the amount of gas they needed into their underground storage facilities on time. They were filled only to 75 percent, which is very little. Everyone understands and sees this. Deliveries from other parts of Europe, and the United States, declined. We increased supplies, while the United States reduced them. Of course, all this caused a panic. This is what caused it.

Part of the energy resources, some of the gas is stored in Ukraine’s underground storage facilities. I may not have the exact figures, since we do not have the precise data, but about 18 billion cubic metres of gas, maybe a little bit more, were pumped into Ukraine’s underground storage facilities. A substantial portion of this volume belongs not to Ukrainian operators, but to European ones, to private entities, etc. We know, and our Western partners know what is going on in Ukraine’s energy sector today.

In 2008, we were unable to recover gas from these storage facilities even though it belonged to Russia. Why has the energy crisis started with Ukraine in 2008? We wanted our gas back, but they refused, and started consuming it. Today, there are irresponsible politicians in Ukraine who are calling for this gas to be nationalised, I mean the gas in Ukraine’s underground storage facilities that does not belong to Ukraine. And what can we see now? We see private operators, including foreign ones, starting to pump out gas from Ukraine’s underground storage facilities.

We are ready to deliver even more gas, but to do so these volumes have to be ordered. I am telling you: we increase deliveries to the extent that we are asked to do so. Today, we are up 15 percent, and if they ask for more, we will give them even more. This is within our contractual commitments. Not only do we fulfil all our obligations, but we are even ready to exceed them, but to do so, we need orders for additional volumes. After all, we cannot send out gas into nowhere. It has to have a destination. We deliver as much as we are asked. There has not been a single instance when we refused to deliver.

Hadley Gamble:

These things will come at a cost. Can you assure us that there will be no price gouging?

Vladimir Putin:

Let me explain this to you. This is the second very important question.

Our European partners have been insisting on setting up a European hub, an exchange, thinking that trading gas on a free market would balance out the energy market. As I have said recently, this primarily was the case for the former college of European Commissioners. We have always told them that long-term contracts must remain a priority. These approaches imply different price setting mechanisms. Under long-term contracts, prices are pegged to global prices of crude oil and some other petroleum products such as gas oil, etc. There is no secret about this. Still, it is the market that determines these prices.

Let me emphasise that this pricing mechanism is pegged to the price of oil on the market. Nobody imposes anything on anyone. Furthermore, there is a certain lag before gas prices are adjusted compared to oil, about six months, enabling operators and consumers to anticipate future developments and adjust their actions accordingly.

The spot market is different. Prices depend on supply and many circumstances that are hard to predict. There is too much uncertainty: whether the winter is cold and long, the underground gas storage facilities may or may not be filled, the wind turbines can stop working, prices can go up in Asia, and gas supplies can move there. The reasons that led to a spike in prices on the European market are obvious.

However, Gazprom will never see this money, be it $2,000 per 1,000 cubic metres, or $1,500, or $1,225, which is the current price. Gazprom sells gas under long-term contracts that are tied to the price of oil. Some of our colleagues in this room are heads of Russian companies who know that oil, I mean Russia’s Urals crude, is currently traded at $81-$82 per barrel. The prices Gazprom charges are tied to these oil prices. Gazprom does not get $2,000 per 1,000 cubic metres. That is why we built the first gas pipeline, Nord Stream 1, to Germany along the Baltic Sea bed, and are about to complete the second one. Germany buys gas for $250, $230 or at the maximum price of $300 per 1,000 cubic metres, not $2,000 or $1,500. This means that Gazprom actually loses money. On the spot market, it would have gotten $1,200 per 1,000 cubic metres, but instead they get $250 to $300. However, Gazprom is interested in maintaining this stability.

Why? Because they know that it will sell a certain amount of gas at a specific minimal price, which enables them to plan their investment policy. This benefits both the supplier and the consumer.

Hadley Gamble:

So what is a fair price for Russian gas then, when you have 800 million people who are facing a very-very cold winter? What is a fair price?

Vladimir Putin: I have already told you.

Hadley Gamble: The oil is sitting above 80.

Vladimir Putin:

As I have said, this is a fair price, which is not regulated by the government; it is regulated by the oil market. Oil prices fell last year or in 2019, and gas prices immediately also fell as a result. And, of course, Gazprom also reduced production, and net earnings and profits, and everything else also went down. Oil prices started growing little by little, and its incomes also rose. But it does not profit from speculative spot prices in Europe. I want you to hear this, and I want those people who will be watching our meeting to hear this, as well. It profits from oil price quotations and long-term contracts.

I repeat for the third time that it does not receive $2,000, like at the London Exchange or somewhere else in Europe. And, of course, these countries, including Germany, are our main consumers. Such countries, our main consumers, such as Germany, should bow low to Gerhard Schroeder for the fact that Germany now receives gas at $300, rather than $1,000 or $1,500.

This is a positive factor for households, for the people of the Federal Republic of Germany, the industry and the European economy’s global competitiveness.

Hadley Gamble:

Mr Putin, at the end of the day, though, a big question has been surrounding, as you were mentioning, the blame game. One person who has not cast blame on Russia is, of course, the outgoing Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. She has advocated that you continue to use Ukraine to supply gas to Europe, beyond the commitments of 2024. Can you commit to that?

Vladimir Putin:

It is a great exaggeration to say that she does not blame Russia for anything. We have very different approaches to many matters and problems. The claims …

Hadley Gamble: But not on Nord Stream 2.

Vladimir Putin:

Yes, speaking of Nord Stream 2, you are right, she has never blamed us because she and I have always assumed that this is a purely commercial project that is not politically motivated, as the project’s opponents have always said. They said that it was economically unprofitable and politically motivated, and that Russia will only lose from this, but it is building Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2, TurkStream, etc., in order to bypass Ukraine, purely out of political considerations.

Look, this is just more nonsense, total gibberish. Let me explain this.

First, the Gas Transmission System of Ukraine was built under the assumption that only one territory of the Russian Federation, namely, the Urengoy field, produced gas. This deposit is being depleted little by little, and we have started producing gas in more northerly regions, including the Yamal Peninsula, and we have started building our new pipeline system from there. We have been persistently and gradually building pipeline offshoots all over the Russian Federation for over a decade now, proceeding from our capabilities. We also started building our export routes from there. This is how Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 came into being.

Now, let us move on to economic feasibility and political motivations. Everyone, please listen carefully to what I am saying.

This route is 2,000 km shorter than the Ukrainian route; therefore, it links our main consumers in Europe more quickly and is cheaper. You see, this means shorter and cheaper transit, including for end consumers, because the transit price is part of the end price for consumers, including those in Europe and the Federal Republic of Germany.

It is A – shorter; B – it is therefore cheaper; C – it uses cutting edge equipment, including pipes for pumping gas under high pressure and gas-pumping equipment.

What is a gas compressor station? It is a small plant that pumps gas along the pipeline, but in the process, it uses some of the gas and causes emissions.

What I wanted to say is that for Nord Stream 1 and especially Nord Stream 2, CO2 emissions are 5.6 times lower compared to Ukraine’s gas transportation system. When some claim that there is a political agenda, they are simply ignoring obvious facts. They are the ones who are guided by political motives.
Nord Stream 2, just like Nord Stream 1, are purely economic projects. This is what the outgoing Chancellor has always said, and I fully agree with her.

Hadley Gamble:

So will you extend your commitments to continue with the flow of gas through Ukraine, beyond 2024?

Vladimir Putin:

This is also a purely economic project. I have already told you that the degree of wear and tear within Ukraine’s gas transportation system stands in the range of 80 to 85 percent. Maintaining, let alone increasing volumes, is a challenge, and we are now increasing them despite all odds, regardless of our political differences. I have already said that we will exceed our contractual obligations on gas transit by 10 percent this year. At the very least, they could have thanked us for this. Instead, all we hear are insults.

However, to pump gas, you need to make sure that, first, the system is up to standard. This applies to us, to European consumers, and to the Ukrainian operators. This is the first point.
Second, we need to understand how much we can sell. This is a very important question. I have raised this issue with Ms Merkel, and she has been asking us the same question all the time.
To answer your question, let me tell you that we are ready to retain this contract. Moreover, we can even increase supplies, if the necessary economic and technological conditions are met. But we need to understand how much we can sell.

There will probably be questions on the environment, the transition to a low-carbon economy, the carbon footprint, etc. But if Europe wants to move away from carbon fuel, including giving up on gas in the future, how can we undertake to increase transit through Ukraine, if Europe wants to stop buying our gas? Tell us how much you are planning to buy and sign a contract on these deliveries. This way we will know how much we can deliver along the northern route, how much will go into TurkStream, and how much will still go through Ukraine, and if we can increase this volume.

We need to understand what the market volume will be. When Europe tells us, and everyone else, that we are scaling down the carbon footprint and moving away from carbon, but after 2024 you will have to pump gas through Ukraine for who knows for how long, maybe 100 years, how does that make sense? Are you in your right mind? Let us sit down, put our cards on the table, open them and count everything. If the question is whether we are ready, the answer is positive. We are ready. We need to calculate everything.

Hadley Gamble:

Alexander Novak, your Deputy Prime Minister, was suggesting last week that moving quickly with the regulatory hurdles, getting them out of the way before allowing gas to pass through Nord Stream 2, would actually, at least in the medium term, assuage the gas crisis that we are seeing in Europe. Have you had any indication from Europe that that is moving more quickly, that we could see Nord Stream 2 come online at a sooner date?

Vladimir Putin:

No, on the contrary.

We see that the administrative barriers are still there, and there are various questions related to the Third Energy Package in Europe, and this project is not an exception. There are a number of details, and I do not want to elaborate too much on this right now. These administrative barriers do exist and have yet to be removed. I know that Nord Stream 2 is currently discussing this, with the German authorities among others. The German regulator must take the corresponding decision, but has not done so yet. Of course, if we could increase deliveries through this route, this would substantially ease tension on the European energy market. I am 100 percent sure about this. Of course, this would affect prices on the European gas market. This is obvious. However, we cannot do this so far because of the administrative barriers.

Hadley Gamble:

President Putin, in the past you have said that China and Russia agree on a number of issues, you are very close in terms of your priorities, both regionally and globally. I just want to get a sense of how you feel about what has been happening of late in terms of rising tensions in the South China Sea. President Xi has reiterated that it is a historic task to complete the reunification of the motherland, that it must be fulfilled. And, of course, he is talking about Taiwan. When you think about this a bit more broadly, if China were to invade Taiwan, would you say there is a real risk of war?

Vladimir Putin:

If you followed closely what the leaders of the People's Republic of China were saying, in one of his speeches at an international event that was held most recently, I believe, by the UN, which I attended, President Xi Jinping said that the People's Republic of China was not planning to use its armed forces to resolve any issues. He said something along these lines. This is my first point.

Second, as far as I understand the Chinese philosophy, including state building and governance, it does not include the use of force.

Third, I believe China does not need to use force. China is an enormous and powerful economy. It has become the world's number one economy in terms of purchasing power parity leaving the United States behind. China is capable of achieving its national goals by building up this capacity, and I see no threats here.

With regard to the South China Sea, indeed, mixed interests are at play, but the Russian Federation is operating on the premise that every country in that region should be given a chance to resolve all arising controversial issues without the intervention of non-regional powers in a calm manner relying on the fundamental norms of international law and by way of negotiations. I believe the potential is there, and it is far from being fully tapped.

Hadley Gamble:

In terms of that response, obviously $3.5 trillion in global trade flows through the South China Sea every year, and almost as much in terms of oil as in terms of goods. So, it is considered an international waterway. When you talk about external powers, those that are not regional, are you referring to the United States?

Vladimir Putin: I am talking about the countries that are not part of that region.

Hadley Gamble:

When you think about this a bit more broadly, President Xi has, of course, taken drastic measures to address this energy crisis. He has essentially said that they would buy gas at any price. Obviously, there are a lot of conversations being heard about whether or not China was going to be able to stick to their goals, in terms of the climate change agenda, in the face of this rising crisis. How damaging do you think it will be to the green energy agenda if China is forced by this crisis to move away from their goals?

Vladimir Putin:

You are asking me questions that I am in no position to answer, since I am not the leader of China, but the President of the Russian Federation. I do not know for certain what the Chinese leadership is planning. I only know what they are doing, including in cooperation with us.

First, China is our largest trade and economic partner. Despite a recession in the global economy, trade between Russia and China is on the rise and exceeded $100 billion over the first nine months of this year which is a good figure for us. We may even reach an all-time high this year. In this sense, China is a highly reliable partner of ours. I am not talking about any political component, although China is our strategic partner and ally in almost all major areas of cooperation.

China, our reliable partner and ally, fulfils all of its obligations too. If any questions arise, including, say, in the economy, we sit down and negotiate and look for solutions. We find solutions through mutual compromises. This also applies to energy cooperation.
Firstly, China is working with us on one of the largest LNG projects, which also involves Total, by the way, and our NOVATEK. The project is called Arctic LNG, and it is very successful. China will most likely participate in the next project as well.
We have agreed on the supply of pipeline gas to China, built a pipeline, and are planning to reach a total of 38 billion cubic metres.

China is a big market, a huge, growing economy, with growing consumption. We are now working out a second route across the territory of Mongolia, and I believe we have already agreed on it in general. I have already mentioned this.

Now take coal supplies, for example. Coal-based power generation is huge in China, and the country's government is making great efforts to reduce it. It is not so easy to do. China has a population of 1.5 billion. They have to ensure the interests of their people, they must think about them, which is what they are doing. They have built a well-routed policy to reduce hydrocarbon emissions, including the transition period when they rely heavily on natural gas. We will increase both through the existing systems as well as through forward-looking ones.

I am not sure if China can actually fulfil all the plans, because the volume is very large, but everything that has been done in China so far, in terms of achieving their goals, everything has been fulfilled. They have achieved everything in the economy, and this gives us hope and confidence that when it comes to reducing the anthropogenic load on the environment, China will achieve its goals planned until 2060, I think.

Hadley Gamble:

That leads me to a question about the oil market. Mr Putin, do you believe that we are going to see oil at $100 a barrel?

Vladimir Putin:

This is quite possible. The price of oil is currently rising. We, I mean Russia and our partners within OPEC Plus, are doing everything we can to stabilise the oil market for good. We seek to prevent price swings because this does not serve our interests. We are committed to honouring our obligations on production cuts in full. These are very complex decisions for the Russian economy and our companies. You see, unlike other oil fields, in the Middle East for example, we pump oil in territories with a harsh climate. Cutting production requires us to take additional action, which leads to additional costs. Still, we agreed to go down this road and scaled down oil production, which stabilised the market.

By the way, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the King of Saudi Arabia and former US President Donald Trump all played a positive role in this process. This I can tell you in all responsibility because I took part in these trilateral talks. Trust me, this is not about politics. He championed the interests of American companies and wanted these decisions. Even though the United States did not take part in the OPEC Plus format directly, the country still influenced this process because it touched upon the interests of American oil producers. Overall, we were able to stabilise the market and save jobs, including in the United States.
The market has stabilised. However, we have yet to recover to pre-crisis production levels of 11 million barrels per day. We believe that we need to expand production as demand for fuel grows on the market. I have my colleagues here in this room, heads of Russian companies. Of course, the budget is our priority, but we also cater to the interests of our major companies and coordinate our actions with them. The fact that we decided to cut production, in the end, benefited the global market. It stabilised, and prices went up to an acceptable level, creating a win-win situation for the Russian companies and for the budget in terms of higher revenue from a higher price of oil. Overall, the situation turned to our advantage.

We do not seek to restrain production in order to cause skyrocketing prices, as we are seeing on the gas market. We want any changes to be gradual and well-balanced.

Hadley Gamble:

President Putin, I’ve heard that former President Donald Trump called you directly about prices and about the oil market, trying to get that OPEC Plus deal done. Do you have the same relationship with the White House today, with President Biden? Has he contacted you as a member of OPEC Plus?

Vladimir Putin:

No, I did not discuss these issues with him but we are in contact with the administration and I believe, generally we have established a working and sustainable relationship with President Biden. Now the Under Secretary of State is in Moscow. She is discussing with her Russian colleagues issues linked with our further contacts with President Biden. So, our relations with the current administration are constructive enough.

Hadley Gamble:

The latest Pew Research poll says that 44 percent of American Republicans want President Trump to run again in 2024. Would another Trump presidency be good for the energy market?

Vladimir Putin:

This has nothing to with us. Do you understand? I do not want to make such assessments in this regard. I said earlier – before the elections in the US, before Mr Trump’s election, after it, and before the latest election – that we will work with the US leader who will be elected by the American voters, the American people.

We do not give any assessments.

I believe our nations have fundamental interests in ensuring security, reducing strategic offensive arms, countering terrorism and money laundering, including tax havens, and stabilising energy markets. There is no doubt at all that these objective goals and mutual interests will lead to the improvement of our relations in one way or another and that the US political establishment will stop using Russian-US relations to the detriment of its own interests and its own businesses.

The Americans have introduced sanctions in the energy sector. What have they achieved? ExxonMobil has withdrawn from profitable contracts, stopped its participation in them with one exception for a contract in the Far East, which it has been part of for a very long time. So, who has gained anything? Nobody has gained anything. Gas prices have skyrocketed and the Americans have to suffer from some events that took place in the oil market. The result is not just zero but negative for those who are doing this. I hope the realisation that this policy has no future will eventually prevail and we will be able to gradually restore our relations.

Hadley Gamble:

President Putin, when you think about this with regard to Russia’s commitments on the climate change agenda, are you planning to attend COP26?

Vladimir Putin:

I have not made up my mind yet with the pandemic still going on. In any event, I will take part in this work. I am not sure yet if I will attend it in person, but I will certainly take part in it.

Hadley Gamble:

Are you afraid of getting COVID?

Vladimir Putin:

At one point, I could have become infected, with my closest employees, who, unfortunately, got sick, being around, but this did not happen because, as experts are now saying with complete certainty, I was protected by our Sputnik V vaccine.

However, it is not about me. The fact of the matter is that when I go somewhere, over a hundred people come along, including the press service, security guards, drivers, protocol staff, in a word, a large number of people who, in one way or another, could get exposed. This is something to ponder.

Hadley Gamble:

I just spent two weeks in quarantine so I could be here.

Walk us though the climate change commitments that you can make today for Russia. Because at the end of the day, many people say this is a country that is not doing enough, that they are not doing as much as Europe in terms of trying to get to net zero. I fact, Greta Thunberg recently put it as “blah, blah, blah, blah.” How do you respond to that?

Vladimir Putin:

Let us look at what is going on without any political clichés. You mentioned Russia's willingness to increase energy supplies to Europe and the rest of the world. So, do you want us to increase them or not? If you do, then we need to produce it. Or do you not? Electricity does not come from a power outlet; we need a primary source of energy to produce it in order to meet the growing needs of Russia and the global energy market.

Now let us face reality. We have increased not only gas supplies, but we have also increased coal supplies to the global market by 8 percent in both directions – to the East and to the West – and to Europe as well. Production increased by about 8.5 percent, and our exports grew by 8 percent.

Now let us take a look at our energy balance: nuclear power accounts for 26 percent, hydropower 20 percent, and gas 40 percent. The hydrocarbon balance at 86 percent is a very low number. The United States, with its 77 percent, is the second best in this regard. Germany’s net energy balance runs at 64 percent. It is even lower in other countries. We have the world’s cleanest hydrocarbon energy balance today, one of the cleanest. And we continue to work to make it zero, as I said, by 2060. Just like some other countries have set themselves the same goal. And we are ready to do so. We have drafted corresponding plans and provided tax breaks for the companies and industries that will engage in emission cuts, including under the renewable sources and hydrogen energy programme. We have an entire programme covering tax incentives.

I believe that Russia has not only proclaimed it, but, I want to emphasise this, is following this path. We understand that disregard for the preservation of the environment can be disastrous not only for all humankind and for the entire world. This is what we started our discussion with today. As I said, warming is happening at a faster pace in Russia and even faster in the Arctic region, where we have entire cities built on the permafrost. This represents a real danger for us, and we are thinking about it and working on it.

Hadley Gamble:

You mentioned nuclear several times today, just now and in your remarks earlier. Do you believe it is a mistake for governments, for example, for Germany, for other countries, to move away from nuclear energy?

Vladimir Putin:

I do not want to speak in such terms or accuse anyone like others accuse us – groundlessly and using any pretext, or even without one.

Whether it is a mistake or not, is up to the people of Germany to decide. As I have already said, nuclear generation accounts for 21 percent in Russia’s energy mix. If I said otherwise, I was wrong. Nuclear accounts for 21 percent, and hydropower for 26 percent. Germany decided to move away from nuclear energy.

If you want to know my opinion on this matter, whether this is a mistake, in my opinion, it does not make any sense, because nuclear power accounts for over 80 percent of energy balance in France, Germany’s neighbour. Does it make any sense to close down nuclear generation in one place while on the other side of the fence, on the neighbouring territory, nuclear is flourishing?
I can understand that in a country as big as Russia, with its immense territory – the biggest country in the world – you could say that we will develop nuclear in one part of the country, but there are reasons not to do so in other parts. However, in Europe with its density where everything is crammed together, does this make any sense? Either they have to agree on this policy on a pan-European level, or it will not make any sense. That said, nuclear power accounts for a substantial portion of Germany’s energy mix. I do not remember the exact number. I think it was over 30 percent…

(Addressing Director General of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Alexei Likhachev.)

How much did you say? Nuclear accounts for 11 percent in Germany’s energy mix you say? We are talking about nuclear, right? They used to have over 30 percent, but now they have only 11 percent. This is a huge loss in power generating capacity. Of course, they must replace this resource with something. But what? Wind turbines? That is tricky. It is how you get price hikes. You see, everything must be done softly, calmly, in a balanced and calibrated manner. This is what matters. In addition, professionals must be the ones to take these decisions, not someone else.
I have learned recently that there was a ruling by a court in the Netherlands on Shell. Quite a curious ruling at that. Let us see. The court ruled that Shell mush reduce CO2 emissions by 45 percent. This sets a precedent. If people who lack any professional insight take these decisions, you inevitably get price swings on the global market.

In the Middle Ages, when the weather was colder and the climate was harsher, I think it was the Dutch who used frozen rivers and channels to skate from one place to another, and to this day they are quite good at skating. If this carries on, people in Holland will return to this means of transportation, and will put on their skates to visit one another, because it will be too expensive to drive cars, including electric vehicles. People will skate not only to get from point A to point B, but also to warm themselves.

The market is telling us that this danger exists. The decisions in this sphere must be made by professionals, of course, in close contact with non-governmental organisations and the public, who must carefully monitor the developments in this area and set the government and energy companies’ mind on taking the right steps in this regard, because the future of humankind depends on whether the planet gets overheated or not. We must act professionally.

Many decisions come at random today based on the current political situation. I believe many participants in this process are taking advantage of people's fears about climate change to achieve domestic political goals or, perhaps, to derive certain economic benefits, because low-carbon energy also involves the production of equipment and the creation of infrastructure, and much more. It is necessary for the public and public organisations, including environmental organisations, to be aware of these problems and to be clear-eyed when making final decisions.

Hadley Gamble:

Speaking about that smooth transition, I want to ask you about this proposed legislation by the EU that would basically ban drilling in the Arctic, oil and gas. Is that in your view a mistake? Because that would certainly hit the Russian economy pretty hard.

Vladimir Putin:

You see, if such decisions lead to some price spikes, it will not affect us that much, because we will cut production and recoup everything we anticipated through higher prices.

To reiterate, there is no need to bring politics into decisions of this nature. These decisions must be made in close cooperation with professionals and experts in this area if we want to strike the right balance between green energy and conventional energy without hurting consumers and people.

We have spent a full hour discussing international developments. Who gets hurt by these prices? Ultimately, consumers. Domestic gas prices for residential consumers in Russia, I believe, is $64, in dollar terms, per 1,000 cubic metres, and $64 for industrial consumers. Look, this is a far cry from $1,200 on the European spot market, but the entire economy is in a good rhythm. By the end of this year, we may achieve major GDP growth, in fact, record-breaking. There are issues, to be sure, but the necessary conditions for stable growth and the necessary environment for people to plan their lives are being created.

Look at what is happening in Eastern Europe and Western Europe. As I said, rates go up every month there. The situation in Ukraine is the same and gas prices for households have already reached $281 per 1,000 cubic metres at a time where average income is $230 in dollar terms. I may be a little off with my numbers, but things are like that more or less. Are the consumers managing? There is a gap between prices and incomes. In the end, they will ruin the utilities sector and so on. A number of regions in Ukraine have already refused to conclude energy contracts, because they do not have the money to pay for it.

You see, if we approach these decisions in an unbalanced manner, we will only create more problems, not resolve them."


To be continued, again"

Russian Energy Week International Forum plenary session • President of Russia

Fuckloads of drivel.

I'm sure hoohoo probably doesn't even read this shit.

Well he's not alone, let's face it.

No more waiting for the Kremlin and reading needed.

For those that are interested, in the climate change and potential solutions, a video of the event has helpfully been provided by RT:



The Q&A start at 30:59.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The Q&A start at 30:59.

The drivel starts at 00:01.

He makes a lot more sense than Donald trump.

Originally Posted by OhOh

total gibberish

Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by sabang

He makes a lot more sense than Donald trump.

So does Kim Jong Un - doesn't make your lazy whataboutism any better

But even Kim makes a lot more sense than you!

Originally Posted by sabang

But even Kim makes a lot more sense than you!

Can't deny that . . . plus, he speaks Korean

Sochi probes the Utopia of a multipolar world

The annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi, Russia, was another lively affair for envisioning a post-unipolar global order


by Pepe Escobar

October 20, 2021

"The annual Valdai Club meeting has always been positioned as absolutely essential when it comes to understanding the non-stop movement of geopolitical tectonic plates across Eurasia. The ongoing 18th meeting in Sochi, Russia once again lived up to expectations. The overall theme was Global Shake-Up in the 21^st Century: The Individual, Values, and the State. It expands on the theme of a “crumbling world” that Valdai had been analyzing since 2018: as the organizers highlight, this “has ceased to be a metaphor and turned into a palpable reality before our own eyes.”

Framing the discussions in Sochi, Valdai released two intriguing reports capable of offering prime food for thought, especially for the Global South: The Age of the Pandemic: Year Two. The Future is Back, and History, to be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World.

The “Future is Back” concept essentially means that, after the Covid-19 shock, the notion of a linear one-sided future, complete with “progress” defined as globalized democracy enshrining the “end of history,” is dead and buried.

Globalization, as framed by neoliberalism, proved to be finite.
The slide towards medical totalitarianism and the trappings of a maximum-security penitentiary are self-evident. As some Valdai participants noted, Foucault’s concept of “biopower” is no longer abstract philosophy.

The first session in Sochi went a long way in terms of framing our current predicament, starting with how the current incandescent US-China clash is unfolding.
Thomas Graham, from the Council on Foreign Relations – the conceptual matrix of the US establishment – recited the proverbial “indispensable nation” platitudes and how it’s “prepared to defend Taiwan,” even as he admitted, “the Biden administration is still articulating its policy.”

It was up to Zhou Bo, from the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University, to ask the hard questions: if the US and China are in competition, “how far are we from conflict?” He stressed “cooperation” instead of a slide into confrontation, yet China “will cooperate from a position of strength.”

Zhou Bo also clarified how Beijing is “not interested in bipolarity,” in terms of China “replacing the USSR during the Cold War”: after all, “China is not competing with the US elsewhere in the world.”
Yet even as “the center of gravity is moving irreversibly to the East,” he admitted the current situation “is more dangerous than during the Cold War.”

Surveying the global chessboard, former Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim stressed “the absurdity of the UN Security Council deciding even matters related to the pandemic.”
Amorim voiced one of the Global South’s key demands: the “need for a new institutional framework. The closer we get would be the G-20 – a little more African, a little less European.” This G-20 would command the authority the current UN Security Council lacks.

So Amorim had to tie it all to the centrality of inequality: his quip about “coming from a forgotten region,” Latin America, was very much on point. He also had to stress, “we didn’t want a Pax Americana.” A real, “concrete step” towards multipolarity would be “a big conference” that could be led by this “modified G-20.”

Togtbaatar Damdin, a Mongolian parliamentarian, evoked “my great, great, great grandfather,” Genghis Khan, and how he built “that huge empire and called it Pax Mongolica,” focused on what matters to the here and now: “peaceful trade and economic integration in Greater Eurasia.” Damdin stressed, “we [Mongolians] no longer believe in war. It’s much more profitable to be involved in trade.”

A constant theme in this and other Valdai sessions has been “Hybrid War” and “Shadow War”, the new imperial instruments deployed against parts of Latin America, the greater Middle East and Russia-China, in contrast to “a transparent system under the rule of law – and kept by international law,” as noted by Oksana Sinyavskaya from the Institute for Social Policy at the Higher School of Economics.

The discussions in Sochi essentially focused on the twilight of the current hegemonic socio-economic system – essentially neoliberalism; the crisis of alliance systems – as in the rot within NATO; and the toxic confluence of Hybrid War and the pandemic – impacting billions of people. An inevitable conclusion: the current dysfunctional international system is incapable of dealing with crisis management.

In the roundtable presenting the Valdai report on Year Two of the Age of Pandemic, Thomas Gomart, a director of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), stressed how hard it still was to analyze the geopolitics of data.

With the Chinese privileging the concept of “ecological civilization,” questions of technological monitoring – as in how social credit is framed – are now on the forefront.

And as we delve deeper into “invisible wars” – Gomart’s own terminology – we face a toxic convergence of environmental degradation and hyper-concentration of digital platforms.
Gomart also made two crucial points that escape many analyses across the Global South: Washington has decided to remain the primus inter pares, and won’t abdicate from this position no matter what. This is happening even as global capital – heavily slanted towards the US – wants to find the new China.

That set the stage for Nelson Wong, the vice-chairman of the Shanghai Center for RimPac Strategic and International Studies, to diplomatically shatter divide and rule tactics and the US obsession with a zero-sum game. Wong stressed how China “does not hold a hostile attitude towards the US”; its aim, he claims, is a “peaceful rise.”

But most significantly, Wong made sure that “the post-pandemic world will not be determined by the outcome of the confrontation between the US and China, or by splitting the world into two competing camps.”

This hopeful perspective implies the Global South will eventually have its say – aligned with Amorim’s proposal of a tweaked G-20.

The Valdai discussions in Sochi significantly take place just as Moscow decided to suspend the work of its mission to NATO from November 1, and close the NATO information office in Moscow.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had already stressed that Moscow no longer pretends that changes in the relationship with NATO are possible in the near future: from now on, if they want to talk, they should contact the Russian ambassador to Belgium.

One of the questions at Sochi had to revolve on whether Moscow should expect NATO to take the first step to improve relations. Lavrov had, once again, to repeat the obvious: “Yes, we proceed from this. We have never started the deterioration of our relations with NATO, the European Union, or any other country in the West or any other region of the world.

“Everyone knows this story well. When Saakashvili in August 2008 gave the criminal order to bomb the city of Tskhinval and the positions of peacekeepers (including Russian ones), Russia insisted on convening the Russia-NATO Council to consider this situation.

“The then US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice categorically refused, although when creating the Russia-NATO Council, the founding act emphasized that it should act in any ‘weather,’ especially when crisis situations occur. This is one example that marked the beginning of the current state of affairs between the US and NATO.”

So Russia has established the new game in (Atlanticist) town: we only talk to the masters and ignore the lackeys. As for NATO now geared to create “capabilities” to be used against China, the Global South may collectively engage in rolls of laughter – considering the fresh NATO humiliation in Afghanistan.

With the inevitability of an EU more and more geo-economically intertwined with China, dysfunctional NATO at best may keep on prowling as a bunch of zombie rabid dogs. Now that’s a Utopia theme for Valdai 2022. "


https://asiatimes.com/2021/10/sochi-...tipolar-world/

Sure, there is emerging a more multipolar world order- but it will be a bipolar world order first. Soon enough that will be old news, and the emergence of India will be the cat in the henhouse. So wise words Mr Russian guy, but the bad news is your country will play a limited part in it.

Originally Posted by sabang

the emergence of India will be the cat in the henhouse

One would have thought NaGastans, failure to control one Asian countries' growth, the indigestion would diminish their desire to attempt a second bite from the same apple tree.

Originally Posted by OhOh

One would have thought

You don't have your own thoughts, though . . . broaden your horizon:

Putin Blasts Pushing Transgenderism On Children As "Simply Monstrous" In Critique Of West's 'Wokism'

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Oct 22, 2021 - 12:05 PM


Russian President Vladimir Putin issued some typically frank and devastating comments on woke culture afflicting the West and particularly the United States, in particular going after new emerging 'norms' on gender discussions, race relations, as well as 'cancel culture'.
His wide-ranging assessment was given during the annual Valdai Discussion Club event held in the Black Sea city of Sochi on Thursday, during Q&A interactions with the audience. As we previously described, some of his harshest words were in condemnation of NATO's attempts to expand its military infrastructure and presence in Ukraine, which he said is "already underway" and poses a "real threat" - but later he additionally called out the cultural threat to traditional Russian values posed by the modern West.


Some his most interesting commentary in this area focused on transgenderism and so-called gender fluidity pushed by the Left, and accompanying cancelation of any public figure who dares speak against it... "Those who risk saying that men and women still exist, and that this is a biological fact, are virtually ostracized" in the US and West in general, Putin said. He likened what's going on to "a total phantasmagoria" - or dreamlike fantasy - according to a translation of his words featured in Russian media.


Outside the US Embassy in Moscow, Getty ImagesPutin perhaps had the ongoing Dave Chappelle/Netflix controversy in mind, given the comedian's widely watched latest act focused on dismantling transgenderism and advocates' attempts to shut him down.
The Russian leader further called the inability of otherwise rational people to recognize simple biological fact of two genders, male and female, and to go so far as push this viewpoint on children a "monstrous" subversion of timeless self-evident truth:

"This is not to mention things that are simply monstrous," he added, "like when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. In fact, they are indoctrinating them into the alleged choices that are supposedly available to everyone – removing parents from the equation and forcing the child to make decisions that can ruin their lives."

This is borderline crime against humanity – all under the guise of ‘progress’

^ How does that come into play with your penchant for LBs?

The idea that anyone could think it was easy to have one’s gender changed is utterly absurd.

’Hey, this looks like a bit of a lark!’

Actually, it's impossible.

So Vlad has an army of spooks snooping on those who would dare criticise him, and filtering out anything that might make him look bad.

Murderous Dictator 101.

Russia’s boldest moves to censor the internet began in the most mundane of ways — with a series of bureaucratic emails and forms.

The messages, sent by Russia’s powerful internet regulator, demanded technical details — like traffic numbers, equipment specifications and connection speeds — from companies that provide internet and telecommunications services across the country. Then the black boxes arrived.

The telecom companies had no choice but to step aside as government-approved technicians installed the equipment alongside their own computer systems and servers. Sometimes caged behind lock and key, the new gear linked back to a command centre in Moscow, giving authorities startling new powers to block, filter and slow down websites that they did not want the Russian public to see.

The process, under way since 2019, represents the start of perhaps the world’s most ambitious digital censorship effort outside of China. Under President Vladimir Putin, who once called the internet a “CIA project” and views the web as a threat to his power, the Russian government is attempting to bring the country’s once open and freewheeling internet to heel.

The gear has been tucked inside the equipment rooms of Russia’s largest telecom and internet service providers, including Rostelecom, MTS, MegaFon and Vympelcom, a senior Russian lawmaker revealed this year. It affects the vast majority of the country’s more than 120 million wireless and home internet users, according to researchers and activists.

The world got its first glimpse of Russia’s new tools in action when Twitter was slowed to a crawl in the country this spring. It was the first time the filtering system had been put to work, researchers and activists said. Other sites have since been blocked, including several linked to jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

“This is something the world can copycat,” said Laura Cunningham, the former head of US State Department programmes on internet freedom. “Russia’s censorship model can quickly and easily be replicated by other authoritarian governments.”

Russia’s censorship technology sits between companies that provide internet access and people who are browsing the web on a phone or laptop. Often likened to intercepting mailed letters, the software — known as “deep packet inspection” — filters through data traveling across an internet network, slowing down websites or removing whatever it has been programmed to block.

(In its online version of this story, The Times demonstrates how an image from a tweet about a protest in Moscow takes 4 seconds to load under normal conditions, but 34 seconds if a user in Russia attempts to open it.)

The cutoffs threaten to upend Russia’s thriving digital life. While the political system has clung to Putin’s cult of personality and television broadcasters and newspapers face tight restrictions, online culture has brimmed with activism, dark humour and foreign content. Broadly censoring the internet could return the country to a deeper form of isolation, akin to the Cold War era.

“I was born in the era of a super-free internet, and now I’m seeing it collapsing,” said Ksenia Ermoshina, a researcher from Russia now working at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

She published a paper in April about the censorship technology.

The censorship infrastructure was described by 17 Russian telecom experts, activists, researchers and academics with knowledge of the work, many of whom declined to be named because they feared reprisal. Government documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times, also outlined some of the technical details and demands made to telecom and internet service providers.

Russia is using the censorship technology to gain more leverage over Western internet companies in addition to other strong-arm tactics and legal intimidation. In September, after the government threatened to arrest local employees for Google and Apple, the companies removed apps run by supporters of Navalny ahead of national elections.

Roskomnadzor, the country’s internet regulator overseeing the effort, can now go further. It has threatened to take down YouTube, Facebook and Instagram if they do not block certain content on their own. After authorities slowed down Twitter this year, the company agreed to remove dozens of posts deemed illegal by the government.

Russia’s censorship efforts have faced little resistance. In the United States and Europe, once full-throated champions of an open internet, leaders have been largely silent amid deepening distrust of Silicon Valley and attempts to regulate the worst internet abuses themselves. Russian authorities have pointed to the West’s tech industry regulation to justify its own crackdown.

“It’s striking that this hasn’t gotten the attention of the Biden administration,” said Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration.

He criticised Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter for not speaking out more forcefully against Russia’s policies.
A White House spokeswoman said the administration has discussed freedom of expression online with the Russian government and also called on the Kremlin to “stop its pressure campaign to censor critics.”

In a statement, Roskomnadzor did not address its filtering technology but said foreign social networks have continued ignoring Russian internet laws, which prohibit incitement and content on topics that “split the state,” such as drug use and extremist organisations.

“Russian legislation in the field of media and information does not allow censorship,” it said, adding that the law “clearly defines the types of content that are harmful and pose a threat” to citizens.

Google, which owns YouTube, and Twitter declined to comment. Apple did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement, Facebook did not address Russia specifically but said it was “committed to respecting the human rights of all those who use our products.”

Rostelecom, one of Russia’s largest internet service providers, referred questions to Roskomnadzor. MegaFon declined to comment. MTS and Vympelcom did not respond to requests for comment.

Many question whether Russia has the technical expertise or political will to cut off major online sources of entertainment, information and work for its citizens. In 2018, before the new censorship technology was in place, authorities abandoned an effort to shut down the popular messaging service Telegram because of technical problems and public anger. Many see YouTube as a future target because of its use by independent media and critics of the Kremlin, which could cause a backlash.

Yet internet access is increasingly used as an instrument of political power. In recent years, governments in India, Myanmar, Ethiopia and elsewhere have used internet blackouts to stifle pockets of dissent. Russia had internet shutdowns during anti-government protests in the southern region of Ingushetia in 2018 and Moscow in 2019.

China has provided inspiration. For years, Russian politicians held talks with Chinese officials about making their own Great Firewall, once even meeting with the architect of the filters that block foreign sites. In 2019, during China’s World Internet Conference, Roskomnadzor signed an agreement with its Chinese analogue pledging tighter government controls over the internet.

But unlike China, which has three state-run telecoms that get people online, Russia has thousands of internet providers, which makes it more difficult to censor. That’s where the black boxes come in, giving government officials a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer for the filtering of specific websites and services without cutting off all access.

Russia has a long history of censorship. For decades, international phone lines were restricted and radio jammers obstructed foreign broadcasts. The state still tightly controls television.

The internet was different. It was credited with playing a role in bringing Boris Yeltsin to power in 1991 by allowing pro-democracy groups inside Russia and beyond to coordinate and exchange information. In the ensuing years, fiber-optic cables were laid to connect the country to the global internet.

Putin has tried putting that genie back in the bottle. Surveillance systems monitor people’s online activities, and some bloggers have been arrested. In 2012, the country passed a law requiring internet service providers to block thousands of banned websites, but it was hard to enforce and many sites remained available.

In May 2019, Putin signed off on a new phase: a “sovereign internet” law that forced internet providers to install “technical means of countering threats” — equipment loaded with software for the government to track, filter and reroute internet traffic without any involvement or knowledge from the companies.

The law created a registry of transnational internet cables entering the country and key exchange points where internet networks in Russia connect. This map makes it easier for authorities to shut down parts of the network, experts said.

Since then, hundreds of companies have received orders from Roskomnadzor. The regulator has demanded information about the companies’ computer systems and what settings must be used to allow a government body, the Center for Monitoring and Management of Public Communications Networks, to remotely access their networks, according to documents shared with The Times.

Then government-approved contractors installed the filtering equipment, allowing the regulator to block, slow or redirect traffic, said Mikhail Klimarev, an industry analyst who has worked with Russian internet firms such as Rostelecom.

“A blocking system is installed at the border of every Russian internet provider,” he said.

The technology is now at 500 locations of telecom operators, covering 100% of mobile internet traffic and 73% of broadband traffic, a Russian official involved in the programme said Wednesday. By next year, the technology will be inside more than 1,000 locations, the official said.

The filtering technology is made by companies including RDP.ru, a Russian provider of telecommunications technology with ties to the government, according to University of Michigan researchers and Russian telecom experts.

On RDP’s website, it boasts of offering “high-performance URL filtering of prohibited sites” that allow operators to comply with Russian laws. The company sells products in Belarus and Kazakhstan, countries where human rights groups have documented internet censorship.

RDP.ru did not respond to a request for comment.

Attacking Twitter, which is not widely popular in Russia, was a “crucial moment,” said Andrei Soldatov, co-author of The Red Web, a book about the Russian internet. University of Michigan researchers measured the connection was slowed by about 87%, only slightly better than cellular networks from the early 2000s.
“It showed they had this capability and could use it,” Soldatov said.

How Russia built its digital Iron Curtain