The Russian new world order and it´s bedfellows

                           (Marine Le Pen, leader of National Front of France, and Vladimir Putin.)

In the short article Russia´s Bedfellowing Policy and the European Far Right, published in the
Russian Analytical Digest (nº 167 on May 6th 2015), professor of International Relations of Georgetown University Marlène Laruelle analyzes the general strategy of the Russian government in the enticement of "partners" within Europe.

In the second term of Vladimir Putin (2004-2008) the Russian government, taking advantage of the economic boom that the country lived with the high gains in gas and oil trade, invested heavily in promoting it´s globalization. Much of the legacy of the vast Soviet-era contact networks that existed around the world, such as the Communist parties, has retreated with the end of the regime and the following economic crisis of the 1990´s. With the return of economic prosperity, the government began to invest in TV channels, radio, internation groups of academic discussions and promoting foundations of "Russian values" aiming to form an alternative world order to the West having Russia as reference.

Today the country seeks new partners abroad, mainly in Europe, to extend the arms of it´s new order. As Laruelle says:

"This ‘bedfellowing’ policy has been built on an ideological agenda that has taken some time to develop. It can be briefly defined as follows: Russia denounces the hypocrisy and double standards of the Western world order, which pretends that Western countries, and especially the United States, promote an idealist agenda of democracy promotion, human rights, and the right to interfere on humanitarian grounds. However, Washington’s foreign policy, Russia insists, is in fact shaped by purely realistic, strategic interests: it aims to preserve the supremacy of its military, financial and industrial capabilities, to maintain its allies—Europe, Japan, Israel—in a situation of security dependence, and to ensure that no competition emerges from other countries or regional blocks."

(BRICS´ meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, in July 2014.)

Russia, Laruelle continues, says the current world order seeks to favor the US legally and financially, as well as guaranteeing for the Americans the information domain through the hosting of internet servers. "In turn", the professor says "Russia seeks to denounce this form of realpolitik, and to establish alternatives to American global dominance, such as the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, assertive positions at the UN, confronting NATO, supporting opposite regimes to the West (such as Syria and North Korea) and policies that challenge US supremacy in the aerospace and information industry. This, of course, serves Russia´s own strategical goals, as for example it´s pursuit for a strategical partnership with China.

(Members, observers and partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.)

The creation, for example, of the Russian medias, such as Russia Today and Sputnik, put here in this blog, are explicit examples of this endeavor. In the same way, the sponsorship of the Russian oligarch´s great fortunes close to the government for events such as the World Congress of Families shows that an intricate web of relations among politicians, multibillionaires, intellectuals and political, academic and social organization are creating a Kremlin-centered network and promoting an indeological agenda at the international level. This whole structure aims, in the last instance, to contain and replace, according to the Eurasian language, the "unipolarity" of the US global power by the "multipolarity" led by Russia.

(Russia Today - RT - television channel. The suggestive news headline refers to the Bilderberg Group, consisting of billionaires and Western political leaders.)

It´s interesting to note that the aliance that the Moscow government seeks with the far-right and fascists in Europe, as well as with the far-left, is based on a critical stance that both Russian leaders and such European groups have about the US role in the world, the current organization of the European Union, the Western democracy and liberalism in moral values (with the exception of the far-left in this last point). The far-right, however, isn´t a pro-Russian monolithic bloc, being some of them anti-Russian, especially the nationalist groups of countries that have already been under the Moscow´s rule in the Soviet times, such as those in Eastern Europe and Ukraine. By this way, Russia has an alliance with extremist groups who are out of the mainstream of European politics and seeks through contacts, meetings and discussion groups to bring them to the center of the political landscape in order to make them palatable to Western democracies. At the same time, while the Russian government has been striving to promote fascist groups in Europe on one hand, on other it has fought groups of the same ideology in Ukraine. As Laruelle says:

"The Kremlin is thus performing a difficult balancing act. It denounces the role of ultra-nationalism in the Euro-Maidan revolution and the influence of neofascist groups in Ukraine, while parties with a similar, but pro-Russia, ideology are held up as the authentic representatives of European conservative values." 

We can conclude from author´s comment that, if for the US is valid the two weights, two measures principle when applying it´s policy of strategic interests, exactly the same is true for Russia in it´s strategy of influencing European politics and, in a wider dimension, global policy. Although the Russian game has Europe as it´s main arena, it´s pretension isn´t merely regional. Eurasia is it´s stepping stone to the world.

* Published in Portuguese on July 2nd 2015.

Competition to Russian gas comes from the other side of Europe

(Ship of the US company Cheniere with liquid natural gas tanks arriving at the port of Sines, Portugal, April 26th.)

The bimonthly magazine New Eastern Europe, especializing in political, economic and social issues of Central and Eastern Europe, published a short article about the end of the near-monopoly of Russian company Gazprom over gas sold to Europe. According to the text, the increase of natural gas production by the United States is encouraging the product export on liquid form to Western Europe. The country is already the largest natural gas producer in the world, surpassing Russia.

The event that marked this American venture was the arrival of the first shipment of liquid natural gás to port of Sines, in Portugal, on April 26th. The ship belongs to Cheniere company, which first sell the product to Europe after meet Brazil, Agentina and India.

According to the New Eastern article the Gazprom chairmanship received with relative indefference the entrance of liquid natural gas in Europe by the Americans and announced that it will lower the price for the sale of natural gas to continent in a clear attempt to fight the new competition. But if Russia, which sells one third of natural gas comsumed in Europe (see p. 35-38) having a monopoly on sale in some countries for the eastern part, why it should fear the US entry if it´s selling gas in liquid form, more expensive than the Russian one? And why the article discussed here is rushing to talk about the end of the Gazprom near-monopoly in Europe?

(Price of liquefied natural gas: sold to Asia in red; sold to Europe in blue. From early 2014 untill now, the profit difference in sales for both continents is small.)

The issue isn´t the current situation, but the prospect of the natural gas global market in the near future. According to New Eastern, nineteen countries already are world exporter of liquefied natural gas, and the number of exporters increased, the market continues to expand and the technology for the conversion and transport of gas in liquid form is cheapening. Furthermore, with the slowdown of Asian economies, especially China, and the increasing of the American production the product price is falling all over the planet.

This brings two direct consequences for the gas market: reduces the Gazprom income and the product demand in Asia, making Europe more atractive for the US exports. The forecast is that 55% of all natural gas produced by the US is destinated to Europe. On the European side, the forecast is that the continent will further increase demand for gas: in 2013, 65% of natural gas consumed by the European Union was imported. This number should rise to 77% in 2025. Even if the increase of demand means the market expansion for both the US as to Russia, the strong American investiment in production and product transport will cause an increase competition between two countries.

(Pipeline gas for Europe: Gazprom´s project in black dotted; Western project in light blue dotted. Now competition extends to the other side of the European continent.)

This can change the energy geopolitics of Europe in the short time, perhaps troughouth Eurasia, as Russia also supplies the Asian market and will have to reconsider it´s sales strategy for other countries in a context of fall of the product price and the search for new markets.

Most importantly, however, will be the decline of Russia´s ability to use gas as a political weapon against Europe. The new geopolitics will have impact in projects already commented in this blog, pipelines that connect Russia and Europe and the pipelines led by Western countries in order to compet with Russian gas extracting the product from Caspian Sea through Caucasus. The competition, therefore, will result in a further price fall of the product, the increase in economic difficulties in Russia and smaller investiments in this competition coming from the east. It´s an exaggeration to speak at the end of Gazprom´s monopoly on the sale of gas to Europe as a whole, as Russia provides only one third of gas consumed by all continent, with the rest coming mainly from Middle East, Algeria and Norway. The threatened monopoly is in the eastern parte of the continent. What should happen, rather, is the expansion of energy geopolitics and the oscillation of it´s pendulum to the Atlantic Ocean and the consequent decrease of the Russian ability to influence European politics by manipulating prices and gas supply, as occurred in 2006 and 2009 in disputes involving Ukraine. The new Russia´s concern is in the other side of Europe.

* published in Portuguese on April 29th 2016.

Europe´s challenges in putting "Putin in his place"

(Former prime minister of Belgium, Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party MEP and leader of liberals of European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt)

Two articles written by former prime minister of Belgium (1999-2008), Guy Verhofstadt, try to find reasons why Europe should act firmly against Kremlin´s action in the continent.

In the first article of Freburary this year entitled Putting Putin in his Place, Verhofstadt lists six crises that are shaking Europe in 2016: the regional caos caused by war in Syria, the possible departure of United Kingdom from EU, the increased refugees flux since World War II, economic challenges still unresolved, Russian expansionism and return of nationalism to the political agenda.

Author comments Putin has exarcebated at least for of these crises, with the exception of the war in Syria and economic problems in Europe. It isn´t surprise for Europeans that there is a penetration estrategy of Russia on the continent. This strategy has sought to coopt political allies from far-right, far-left and extreme nationalists with their anti-UE and pro-Russia agenda, mantaining the flow of easy money to seduce politicians and businessmen, supporting campaign for departure of UK from the bloc and more recently increasing the refugees flow through campaign in Syria. According to a NATO high-ranking general, Russians bombed civil areas with deliberated intention of leaving them no place of residence and increase the mass scape. The arrival of these imigrants heats up the debate on refugee crisis and reinforces the support of the electorate to European anti-imigrantion nationalists and Putin´s allies.

(Tensions and desagreement between Europe and Rússia: a complicated relationship.)

In the second article from June entitled Don´t Appeaze Putin, the former prime minister don´t ask only that Europe will not loosen economic sanctions againt Russia in the context of the crisis in Ukraine, but increase them. The redution of sanctions would be conditional on the withdrawal of Russin troops from Ukraine as the first Minsk Agreement in 2014. But the agreement wasn´t fulfilled. Moreover, somes Europeans diplomats and leaders from Italy, Hungary, Greece, Cyprus and Germany prefer to loosen the sanctions. The article also says that Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, and the President of European Commision, Jean-Claude Juncker, will be present as guests at the International Economic Forum of Saint Petersburg, a Russian version of World Economic Forum in Davos. It would be a Russia´s strategy to show to the world the diplomatic and less agressive side of the country while it acts militarily in eastern Ukraine. About continental diplomacy, Verhofstadt says that EU expansion policy have failed. It´s soft-power hasn´t been sufficient strong enough to compete with the Kremlin assertive stance.

Verhofstadt also warned about the difficulty for Europeans to establish a common defense policy, he said a mistake. In NATO some coutries are spending less than 2% of the GDP in defense, minimun ratio requered by it´s members. The author sees a potential government of Donald Trump in US as a problem for defense of the continent, since the Republican presidential candidate have criticized the lack of financial commitment of members to the NATO, relapsing costs over Americans.

(Putin´s strategy: penetration and desintegration of Europe for a pro-Russia and anti-US alliance.)

The Kremlin´s strategy of penetration, weakening and even desintegration of EU isn´t surprise for European scholars and journalists. It´s goal is to link the continent to it´s sphere of influence in an anti-US alliance. It seems that Guy Verhofstadt managed cover in few lines all Russian strategy for achiving this goal. But I believe that mantaining or increasing sanctions against Russia are needed, not so much for it´s effectivness, but above all as a strong political position to try to put "Putin in his place". Buy the dispute is much longer and complicated: permeates the fight against financial channels to allies, Russian official propaganda through media and, above all, grooming of political leaders, intelectuals, ideologists and militants capable of reversing the Europe´s geopolitical axis from Atlantic to Eurasia. The sanctions are just a small part of this history.

Oligarchs, ideologists and extremists: the penetration of Russia into Europe*

(International Eurasianist Movement symbol)

In that i´m going searching the characters of Russian action in Europe i´m discovering the existence of a network composed of the following elements: 

1 - Russian oligarchs, responsible for financing and promoting meetings and discussion groups among stakeholders;
2 - Russian ideologists, responsible for promoting pro-Russia ideologies in order to attract neighboring countries to it´s sphere of influence;
3 - Europeans politicians of the following trends: a) extreme right-wing, b) fascists, c) extreme left-wing. They all have in common a critical opinion about European Union (eurocepticism), US role in the world and Europe, liberal capitalism and, in general, cultural agenda of release of customs (gay marriage, abortion, minorities policies, etc), except for the extreme left. Lastly, they nourish sympathy for Russia and the country´s leadership personified by Putin.
4 - political activists of nazifascist, communist, nationalist and racialist character; responsable for acting inside Russia and establish contact with other European movements and groups on wich are inspired.

Groups 1, 2 and 4 are formed by people direct or indirectly linked to Kremlin, in a relation, in my opinion, of symbiosis with Russian government. That is, there would be no full government control over these groups, and these groups don´t exert influence in order to directly control the government of Moscow.

(Alexander Dugin)

The highlight within these actors is the International Eurasian Movement, created and led by Alexander Dugin, the Russian intelectual currently most influential. Dugin, as he has said, doesn´t claim to act directly on policy but lead it behind the scenes advising, monitoring, guinding, publishing books and articles and disseminating ideas through meetings and contacts inside and outside Russia.

The example of existing contacts in this network, penetration and the emergence of the extremist movements in Russia have origin and inspiration in European ideologies and political movements. Therefore, Russia imports these elements from Europe and then turn to (and against) it in order to absorb it to it´s sphere of influence.

 In following weeks i will detail everything about this network in this blog.

*published in Portuguese on June 26th 2015.