MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) Bushehr NPP is still Moscow's diplomatic trump card/ No sense in discussing American missile defense in Europe with Prague and Warsaw - State Duma deputy/ United Russia goes left, but will continue to support Putin's right-wing policies/ Yukos production assets to be divided equally between Rosneft and Gazprom/ Environmentalists warn of danger from ageing nuclear reactors
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Bushehr NPP is still Moscow's diplomatic trump card
Tehran and Moscow have virtually ended their dispute on funding for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran.
It appears that Russia, which played it tough with regard to Iran prior to the latest UN Security Council resolution, can tone down its stance now that the UN Security Council has given Tehran a further 60 days to halt all uranium enrichment operations.
A high-placed source in Tehran said documents to resolve financial issues as regards Bushehr will be signed in the near future.
Irina Yesipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroyexport, Russia's state-owned nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, said the company had already received the first payment since financing was halted.
But it is still too early to discuss the issue of nuclear fuel supplies, Yesipova told the paper.
The situation around Bushehr is probably facilitating consensus between Russia and its partners in the group of six major powers (the United States, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany).
A source close to negotiations between them said they would continue to try and involve Iran in the talks, including bilateral talks. He said top-level contacts between Iran and other of the six countries, except the United States, were possible.
Iranian diplomats asked off the record not to pay attention to the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. According to the paper's source, the Iranian Presidential Administration is now trying to minimize his contact with the outside world, so that he does not say too much.
Russian diplomats also said Tehran's position should not be judged by Ahmadinejad's statements. "We are trying to react to actions, rather than words," a diplomatic source told the paper.
He said it would be pointless to make any comment on the situation surrounding Iran because Tehran could interpret any statement incorrectly to the detriment of Moscow and its partners.
Izvestia
No sense in discussing American missile defense in Europe with Prague and Warsaw - State Duma deputy
Polish and Czech leaders have put their EU colleagues, Russia and their own populations in a spot by allowing the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems on their territories and rashly letting out NATO's awful secret: it is not rogue states or terrorists that will be targeted, writes Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the State Duma's international politics committee.
Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwartzenberg indicated following the Russian president's Munich speech: Moscow's reaction is reason enough for the alliance to move eastward. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczinski was even more outspoken: U.S. systems, he said, would help Poland break free from Russia's influence. This is a strange approach to freeing oneself from Russia, which naturally announced that it would be forced to retarget some of its missiles to the new threat to its national security.
The Czech Republic's motives are not quite clear. As for Poland, things are more or less understandable. Its establishment, whose interests are represented by the Kaczinski brothers, does not see its objective in breaking free from its larger eastern neighbor's tiring influence - that happened a long time ago, mutually and to each side's satisfaction. Paradoxically, the goal is rather to make Russia a focus for Poland's influence and interests.
This is Warsaw's objective as it tried to hijack the EU's eastern policy and turn it confrontational. The same explains the sabotaging of the North European gas pipeline project, which would not have been necessary had Poland been a reliable transit partner, and the creation of an "energy NATO".
Similar stances by Ukrainian and Belarusian sides are also understandable: in facing Moscow the former enemies put aside their historical disputes with Ukrainian nationalists. As is the attempt to dictate to Russia how to trade with Poland and draw a larger Europe into addressing two-way economic problems.
A showy military friendship with the United States to punish Europe for not being tough and militant enough towards Russia is also indicative: we will decide our security issues ourselves, the way we see them, they say, while you in Brussels debate Iran, North Korea and terrorists.
In the current situation, there is no reason to discuss the issue with Prague and Warsaw. As long as they are unaware that their historical complexes and separate games with Washington are upsetting the established security on the continent, this must be the business for Europe in the first place.
Gazeta.ru
United Russia goes left, but will continue to support Putin's right-wing policies
Russia's "ruling" and "opposition" parties have offered their electorate a retreat from the conservative macroeconomic policies of President Vladimir Putin, that he has pursued for seven years and were confirmed by him in the recently published budget address, a respected economist writes in a popular Net publication.
According to Sergei Guriyev, rector of the Russian Economics School, the fact that all parties, including the ruling and right-wing ones, are leaning to the left will not precipitate a radical left turn in Russian economic policy. These are only populist election slogans, which are unlikely to have any serious effect on Russian politics.
If parties do not assume responsibility for the fulfillment of their electoral promises, the result will be the same. They will all promise more than a balanced economic policy can deliver, Guriyev writes.
On the other hand, voters understand that parliamentary parties may discuss economic policy to their hearts' content, but it is the executive authority that will make the final decision, the economist writes.
It is unimportant who has a constitutional majority, because the true ruling party is not United Russia or Just Russia, but the government (mainly the Finance Ministry) and the Kremlin administration. It is their policy the electorate votes for during presidential elections, whereas the policies of parliamentary parties do not interest anyone, including the parties themselves.
However, this situation is fraught with a split personality for United Russia, which has to use left-wing rhetoric knowing that after the elections it will support the right-wing policy aimed at growth, not redistribution.
Guriyev warns that this is not good for the voters either. If the executive authorities are the only political "party" and the outcome of the presidential elections is predetermined, the voters have no freedom of choice, because there will be no real discussion in the vertical structure of executive power.
Kommersant
Yukos production assets to be divided equally between Rosneft and Gazprom
Eduard Rebgun, trustee in the bankruptcy procedures of the Yukos oil company declared bankrupt last summer, has made a proposal to the committee of the company's creditors to unite Yukos production and processing assets in forming lots for the sale of Yukos assets. The lots should include enterprises that operate in a single region. In this way, a Samara and Siberian production group could be formed. The sector's experts say that this scenario will make it possible to divide Yukos production assets equally between Rosneft state-run oil company and Gazprom gas giant.
The Samara group will include three Yukos refineries, Syzran, Kuibyshev and Novokuibyshevsk refineries, with their total annual design processing capacity of about 26 million metric tons, and also Samaraneftegaz oil and gas producing company (it produced 9.3 million metric tons of oil in 2006). The Siberian lot will include Tomskneft (11.23 million metric tons of oil in 2006), two refineries - the Achinsk refinery in the Krasnoyarsk Territory and the Strezhevskoi refinery in the Tomsk Region, and also the Angarsk Petrochemical Company (APC) in the Irkutsk Region, one of the largest oil refineries in Russia, with a total capacity of about 25 million metric tons a year. The lots may also include marketing companies.
Georgy Ivanin, analyst with the Antanta-Kapital investment company, says that Rosneft is the main contender for the Samara group of Yukos assets, and Gazprom - for its Siberian group. After the purchase of Yuganskneftegaz, a Yukos subsidiary, Rosneft has been involved in oil processing at Yukos' Samara plants since 2005. Gazprom has already declared its interest in Tomskneft and its large-scale plans to modernize the Angarsk Petrochemical Company.
Nadezhda Kazakova, analyst with the MDM Bank, a major Russian private bank, estimates the Samara group of assets at $8.7 billion (of which about $5.7 billion falls on production companies), and the Siberian production group (including APC) at about $9 billion.
However, Konstantin Batunin, analyst with Alfa-Bank, a major Russian universal bank, is convinced that Rosneft will buy the entire Yukos production complex. In his opinion, lots should be formed in such a way as to "formally trace the logic and prevent numerous monitors, including foreign ones, from thinking that decisions are taken in favor of one company." He said that Rosneft had already borrowed funds for the purchase of Yukos assets ($22 billion), while Gazprom had not taken out any loans of late.
Novye Izvestia
Environmentalists warn of danger from ageing nuclear reactors
The Kursk nuclear power plant will today restart the reactor, which automatically closed down following a malfunction in the distribution system three days ago. Rosenergoatom, the state-owned nuclear power generation concern, insists that radiation levels around the plant are normal and that the unplanned shut down was absolutely safe. Environmentalists, however, say that there is a risk, because many nuclear reactors have aged physically.
The small accident at the Kursk plant Sunday morning, which mainly provides electricity for the Russian capital, "was not caused by the reactor's functioning," said Rosenergoatom's press secretary Ashot Nasibov.
Such minor accidents are relatively frequent, as it turns out. Last year alone, nuclear reactors stopped working 42 times because of malfunctions, according to the Federal Service for Environmental, Technology and Nuclear Supervision. Environmentalists raise the alarm in each case. "More frequent accidents reflect the condition of the nuclear plants," said Alisa Nikulina, expert at the international environmental group Ecodefense. "Nuclear reactors at many plants are approaching the end of their service life. All of them were built in the 1960s and 1970s and were designed for 30-35 years. In fact, they should be shut down, but their service life is simply extended. It is unclear what this could lead to. Perhaps, there will not be an explosion, but a huge radioactive leak because of physical ageing is quite possible."
At present Russia has 31 nuclear reactors at 10 power plants, according to the Service. The service life of nine reactors has been extended. This practice will not lead to frequent accidents or catastrophes, the Service said. "There are numerous requirements, which, if they are complied with, allow a plant to continue operating after its initial service life," said an expert with the Service who asked to remain anonymous. "A lot of work is carried out in modernization. All parts past their service life are replaced. In fact, it is possible to replace everything in a nuclear plant, even a reactor. But replacing a reactor is more expensive than building a new power plant. Modernization reduces technical risks by several times. So there is no cause for concern: there is unlikely to be a catastrophe in the foreseeable future."
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
