MOSCOW, November 18 (RIA Novosti)
Russia, Europe can discuss Caucasus problems calmly / Russia unconvincing as key global player / World financial system may get a new look / Gazprom to produce gas in Alaska, build pipeline to Chicago / China: new market for Russian carrier-based fighters
Kommersant
Russia, Europe can discuss Caucasus problems calmly
The outlook for the second round of the Geneva talks on Abkhazia and South Ossetia is bleak, because the differences between Russia and Georgia are too great. The trend is unlikely to change even after a major reshuffle in Georgia, a Russian analyst writes.
Sergei Markedonov, head of the ethnic relations department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, writes that whoever replaces Mikheil Saakashvili is unlikely to accept compromises in relations with Moscow. At the same time, the Kremlin cannot be expected to cancel its recognition of the two breakaway republics' independence.
Is it expedient to continue the Geneva talks in this situation? To answer this question, we should look at what we may achieve at their third, fourth or 25th rounds, Markedonov writes.
Apart from determining the legal status of the rebel republics, the talks should also address the problem of violence, notably terrorist and guerrilla activities in the Gali District of Abkhazia and the Leninogorsk District of South Ossetia.
The problem of Nagorny Karabakh could be addressed as stipulated in the November declaration even before the assignment of a legal status to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, he writes. The declaration, signed in Moscow, stipulates that all conflicts must be settled politically, without resorting to military force.
This is exactly what Russia has been trying to encourage Georgia to do in the past four years. The Geneva talks offer it a chance to enforce this formula with the help of western intermediaries.
The Geneva talks should also consider the international presence in the conflict zones and around them, the analyst writes. The two conflicts acquired an international dimension after the five-day war in the Caucasus. In this situation, Moscow needs to agree a favorable format for the international presence, which has become an unavoidable necessity.
Markedonov writes that Russia can still ensure an optimal combination of its interests and international presence. Therefore, it should urge a pragmatic dialogue with the EU, rather than Georgia, in Geneva.
The participation of Abkhazian and South Ossetian representatives in the talks, although only as experts, points to these countries' partial legitimization as political entities without which the conflicts cannot be settled, the analyst writes. He recalls that the discussion of Kosovo's status started in a similar way.
In short, Moscow still has a chance to speak confidentially with Europe on a wide range of issues of Caucasian security without bickering with Georgia, especially since it does not have much to discuss with Georgia anyway, Markedonov writes.
Gazeta.ru
Russia unconvincing as key global player
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has clearly attempted to carry on Vladimir Putin's drive to establish Russia as a key global economic and political player at recent summits - the Russia-EU talks in Nice and the G20 summit in Washington. However, it appears that he has chosen the wrong time and place to pursue a policy of force.
Firstly, Russia's policies are currently affected by objective economic realities. A country whose income and political ambitions have until recently been based solely on fuel exports, obviously finds it difficult to discuss the global financial architecture and its active participation in its design with its key financial trump card gone, if only temporarily.
It wasn't much easier to talk about a collapse of the U.S. currency and plans to use rubles for oil and gas settlements at a time when the ruble is plummeting against the dollar, and government officials are compelled to make reassuring statements daily, telling their citizens they will prevent a sharp devaluation of the national currency.
Secondly, Russia's role as a designer of the post-crisis global order has been seriously weakened by the recent hasty attempt to amend the Constitution, extending the presidential term in office, also timed ill-advisedly. It generated speculation over Putin's possible early return to absolute power, which is said to be behind the planned emergency change in legislation.
The above objective and subjective factors have led to President Medvedev finding himself the potential lame duck in both Nice and Washington. The unclear relationship between the two top politicians, and the raging financial crisis and reduced ability to simply blackmail its oil and gas partners has prevented Russia from sounding convincing as it made proposals about a new world order.
With the global oil price as low as $50-$60 per barrel, with major stakes in key Russian companies pledged with foreign creditors and their capitalization plummeting, and without a clear understanding of who will run this country in 2009, Western countries don't think they have to listen to Russia.
One should not discuss global issues in a situation where the national economy has obvious weaknesses and the different wings of Putin's team are vying for power. This kind of policy of force in a situation of weakness is proof that Russian officials still have a misguided vision of Russia's global role and real potential.
RBC Daily
World financial system may get a new look
The International Monetary Fund will need no less than $100 billion more in the next six months to help restore the global economy. Analysts believe the IMF pins its hopes on large developing economies. This will shift the world financial "center of gravity" to Asia.
The number of countries hit by the global financial crisis is growing. Small and medium-sized economies are lining up for urgent IMF loans, but money is already stretched to the limit and does not meet every request. Ahead of the G20 summit in Washington on November 14-15, experts estimated the resources needed by the IMF at $250 billion. Japan promised $100 billion, while Dominique Strauss-Kahn officially said the fund needed another $100 billion at the least. It is not clear who can help the IMF to balance its books.
Analysts say the IMF is currently placing its hopes on large developing economies from among the Group of 20, which are withstanding the crisis successfully.
"Developed countries, with the exception of Japan, lack resources to fund the IMF," said Yevgeny Vinokurov, an analyst at the Eurasian Development Bank. "Developing countries, on the other hand, have both resources and reasons. The main reason is their increased weight in the global economic system. It is obvious that global economic architecture is undergoing a sea of change: before our eyes the world financial center of gravity is shifting from the Atlantic zone (the United States and the European Union) to Asia (China, Japan and Southeast Asia)." In the analyst's view, IMF loans could become an instrument for shifting decision-making to Asia.
Russia could take part in IMF aid programs and contribute $1 billion before the end of the year to the financial fund from which the lender issues loans to different countries. As Russia's Deputy Finance Minister Dmitry Pankin said following the G20 summit, this sum will draw interest and could be recovered if necessary.
Developing economies face a serious restraining factor: they cannot control IMF activities the way they would like. An overwhelming majority of votes on the fund's board of directors belongs to Europe and the U.S. The IMF is today an abnormal structure in the loan business because borrowers are allowed no say in drawing up loan rules, Robert Weide, an analyst from the London School of Economics, told RBC Daily. In his opinion, the IMF is also slow in reacting to emergencies.
Kommersant
Gazprom to produce gas in Alaska, build pipeline to Chicago
Russian energy giant Gazprom is in talks with U.S. ConocoPhillips on natural gas production in Alaska and construction of the Denali gas pipeline to Chicago. Analysts say it has little chance of succeeding due to lack of available funds and substantial political resistance.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva discussed on Monday the possibility of joint production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and Gazprom's involvement in geological exploration and gas production and transportation projects in Alaska.
A source in the gas monopoly said the talks were quite successful. "We proposed that our U.S. partners should above all choose between the Denali pipeline from Alaska to central U.S. states and an LNG plant, and also discuss available resources for the transportation projects," the source said.
ConocoPhillips was not available for comment yesterday.
BP joined the project last April. The 4,200-km (2,610-mile) $30-billion pipeline is to go from the North Slope gas fields in Alaska to Alberta, Canada, to southern U.S. states. BP also announced its plans to attract a third partner to the project.
During the international economic forum in St. Petersburg last July, Miller said Gazprom had begun talks with BP and ConocoPhillips on that issue. Since then, a Gazprom delegation has visited Alaska, where it held a presentation of its capability to build pipelines in the Extreme North.
Analysts are divided on Gazprom's possible participation in these projects.
Vitaly Kryukov of the Capital investment group said the gas monopoly might get a stake in ConocoPhillips' Alaskan deposits in return for resources in Russia.
Mikhail Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, said Gazprom "has no spare funds or experience of building pipelines in permafrost on pilons."
Valery Nesterov of Troika Dialog said Gazprom's chances are "minimal for political reasons."
The Denali pipeline is to have an initial capacity of about four billion cubic feet per day depending on the final level of customer commitments, and to transport about 6%-8% of the United States' current natural gas demand.
Vedomosti
China: new market for Russian carrier-based fighters
Chinese military officials have finally admitted they are designing an aircraft carrier for the country's navy. However, shipboard fighters for it can only be purchased in Russia.
The world shouldn't be surprised to see China building an aircraft carrier of its own, said Major General Qian Lihua, deputy director of the Defense Ministry's Foreign Affairs Office.
Although he refused to acknowledge directly that China was building a carrier, his statement was the closest they ever got to admitting China did have an aircraft carrier design program.
China has been consistently buying written-off carriers in many countries since the 1980s, to study their design. These include Australia's Melbourne, Russia's carrier cruisers Minsk and Kiev, and an unfinished Soviet carrier, Varyag.
A source in the Russian Technologies state corporation said the Chinese had also bought prototypes for the Su-33 carrier-based fighter from Ukraine, which reportedly kept the prototypes after the Soviet Union's disintegration.
China has been in talks with Russia on buying advanced Su-33s for a long period, but without success. The problem is that China planned to buy only 12 aircraft to copy, while restarting production in Komsomolsk-on-Amur is only feasible for an order of 48 fighters or more, an aircraft-building company manager said.
China's open desire to build a carrier means they will do it soon. Therefore, they will have to adopt a more constructive position at the negotiations, said Konstantin Makiyenko, an analyst from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
He said China had been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to build its own twin-engine fighter based on Russia's Su-27. They have failed to copy the engine, but cannot buy the fighters in any country except Russia, he explained.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
