Tweet
SERGEY GRINYAEV: USA, ISRAEL AND FRANCE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE POLITICAL TENDENCIES OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
Tuesday, February 21, 18:17
Interview of director general of Russian Centre for Strategic
Assessment and Forecast , Sergey Grinyaev, with Arminfo news agency
The crisis of the European zone, European economy has been gradually
turning into the political problems. Can this crisis affect partnership
within the frames of NATO?
The events taking place in the European Union are the reflection of
deeper transformations that touched the world economy and are known
like for the last three years. The analysis shows that the developing
economical crisis is not at all impartial. Today there is no doubt
everything was framed up. The crisis was planned and launched for
fulfillment of the programme on creation of the new world order. The
fundamental problems of the modern civilization development: exhausting
of strategic resources, first of all oil, the population growing old
and changing of the migration flows, as well as wide distribution of
new technologies which can radically change the established economic
order, lay in basis of this programme fulfillment. The key elements
of today's world order: UN, WB, EU, NATO, etc. were developing
under other circumstances during which they were effective. However,
along with changing of the environment the former elements lose their
effectiveness and require replacement by something new. In particular,
the EU which is so much tense today, is a final product of the epoch
of confrontation of the superpowers: the USSR and the USA, the expert
said. The EU was born like a machinery for the political and economical
integration of the countries of Europe in the face of the enemy -
socialistic bloc. The same is regarding NATO which demonstrates
Euro-Atlantic unity in the matter of standing against the .
In fact, the last years of development of EU and NATO connected with
active extension and introduction of EUR was just an inertial motion.
All this would be expedient if we still had the USSR. Moreover, the
economical infrastructure of the EU has been so much integrated in
the energy infrastructure of its - Russia, that today to imagine the
situation when Europe will refuse Russian oil and gas is practically
impossible. Such dependence of Europe, the major part of the countries
of which are NATO members, on the Russian energy resources makes the
whole project senseless. Moreover, many European countries shocked by
economical problems and being on the edge of bankruptcy are simply
unable to fulfill their obligations within the frames of NATO. For
this reason, I think the situation with NATO is quite clear - in its
present state it will not exist for a long time, and will be swallowed
by the crisis just the same way as Europe was.
More than 60% of the oil containing regions of the world as well as
the oil prices have been controlled by the USA in this or that way.
May the appetites of Washington regarding Iran be watched like a part
of the strategy on covering of the oil potential of the world?
The embargo imposed on Iranian oil today will be a suicide for
Europe tomorrow. Considering the hard economic conditions most of
the European countries (Greece, Italy, Spain) are facing today,
any attempts to change the existing energy supply scheme will be
disastrous. The EU's decision has proved once again that Europe is not
politically independent and cannot pass crucial political decisions
without consulting the United States. In this particular case, the
Europeans are forced to act to their own detriment.
The United States controls over 60% of the world's oil fields, and its
actions against Iran are part of its strategy to grab the whole. Oil
is still the key fuel, the "blood" of the modern civilization. But
its resources are growing increasingly scarce. If the world continues
extracting oil as quickly as it is doing today, it will have none
by the end of 2030, with no real substitutes available yet. So,
the Americans are acting quite pragmatically: they are trying to
gain control over oil and, even more importantly, gas - for it will
be exactly gas that will be able to replace oil for several decades
after the latter expires. So, if the war for oil is our present,
the war for gas is our future.
The situation around the nuclear programme of Iran has becoming more
and more tense. The tension in the Middle East is extremely beneficial
for Russia as it maintains high prices for oil. Nevertheless, Moscow
is trying to ease tension around Iran by all means. What is the reason
of such a paradox?
There is no paradox here. The rise of oil prices caused by escalation
of tension around Iran is recompensed in Russian oil incomes due to
the falling oil consumption by Europe's economies that keep falling
into bankruptcy. All this is now favorable to Moscow. In addition,
escalation of tension around Iran and even an armed conflict are quite
short-term events, while the further changes in the region and in the
world may prove much more serious for Russia than the monetary profit
from high oil prices. Russia has already made a mistake supporting
USA's aspiration to strengthen its positions in Central Asia to
fight the Taliban. The U.S. is currently holding peace talks with
the Taliban and regards its members almost as allies. Nevertheless,
the USA has no intention to leave Central Asia.
Does instable situation in Syria find room in the frames of the
American foreign policy conception? Or the USA has nothing in common
with the situation and the Saudi Arabia is the master of the situation?
I think that the situation in the region depends also on the situation
in Iran's ally country Syria. At the same time, regional developments
show that without Syrian's exclusion, the military operation against
Iran will not be as lighting as Washington wants. Therefore, the
developments in Syria are backed mainly by the USA and Israel, which
has not put up with the idea of killing the nuclear program of Iran
preserving the status of the only regional nuclear super power. The
stakes are so high today that regional players yield their places to
global ones. The USA's interests in the region are much higher than
the interests of Saudi Arabia, which has become just an instrument
for the United States.
The main oil and gas lines run through the territory of the South
Caucasus which is direct neighbor of Iran. How can the possible attack
upon Iran affect the countries of the region in this context, taking
into consideration different attitude of the three republics of the
South Caucasus towards Iran?
The Caucasus countries Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are experiencing
hard times now with the active political games around these countries
being the best evidence of that. Thus, before starting the conflict
with Iran, the U.S.A, Israel and France try to change the political
landscape in the region and maybe launch reconstruction processes
also in the region. And these countries have certain success, for the
situation as of February 2012 differs from the situation a few months
ago. Today the South Caucasus states differently assess the possible
consequences of the regional conflict with involvement of Iran. It is
very important considering that the key oil and gas arteries extend
through the territory of the South Caucasus neighboring with Iran.
Does the Nabucco project have prospects, taking into account an
extremely unstable situation in the region as well as changing of
Turkeys priorities from Nabucco to Trans Anadolu?
The Nabucco prospects were rather misty from the very beginning. Today
the project is practically dead. There are several reason of that.
First, it would change the conjecture of the world energy market -
the project had to be developed in other conditions, and today it
is economically unprofitable. Second, Russia has fulfilled energy
projects. The completion of the "North flow" construction and the
beginning of the construction has made more discord in the brains
of the Nabucco ideologists. One thing is to build the pipeline for
the political pressure upon Russia, and another thing is to get from
Russia the vital oil and gas, perhaps for the lower price as the crisis
has emptied the financial stores. In the present unstable situation
Turkey and Azerbaijan have understood that it is more beneficial to
have close relations with Russia which is next to them than to take
part in the political games of the far away Washington.
From: Baghdasarian
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
Tuesday, February 21, 18:17
Interview of director general of Russian Centre for Strategic
Assessment and Forecast , Sergey Grinyaev, with Arminfo news agency
The crisis of the European zone, European economy has been gradually
turning into the political problems. Can this crisis affect partnership
within the frames of NATO?
The events taking place in the European Union are the reflection of
deeper transformations that touched the world economy and are known
like for the last three years. The analysis shows that the developing
economical crisis is not at all impartial. Today there is no doubt
everything was framed up. The crisis was planned and launched for
fulfillment of the programme on creation of the new world order. The
fundamental problems of the modern civilization development: exhausting
of strategic resources, first of all oil, the population growing old
and changing of the migration flows, as well as wide distribution of
new technologies which can radically change the established economic
order, lay in basis of this programme fulfillment. The key elements
of today's world order: UN, WB, EU, NATO, etc. were developing
under other circumstances during which they were effective. However,
along with changing of the environment the former elements lose their
effectiveness and require replacement by something new. In particular,
the EU which is so much tense today, is a final product of the epoch
of confrontation of the superpowers: the USSR and the USA, the expert
said. The EU was born like a machinery for the political and economical
integration of the countries of Europe in the face of the enemy -
socialistic bloc. The same is regarding NATO which demonstrates
Euro-Atlantic unity in the matter of standing against the .
In fact, the last years of development of EU and NATO connected with
active extension and introduction of EUR was just an inertial motion.
All this would be expedient if we still had the USSR. Moreover, the
economical infrastructure of the EU has been so much integrated in
the energy infrastructure of its - Russia, that today to imagine the
situation when Europe will refuse Russian oil and gas is practically
impossible. Such dependence of Europe, the major part of the countries
of which are NATO members, on the Russian energy resources makes the
whole project senseless. Moreover, many European countries shocked by
economical problems and being on the edge of bankruptcy are simply
unable to fulfill their obligations within the frames of NATO. For
this reason, I think the situation with NATO is quite clear - in its
present state it will not exist for a long time, and will be swallowed
by the crisis just the same way as Europe was.
More than 60% of the oil containing regions of the world as well as
the oil prices have been controlled by the USA in this or that way.
May the appetites of Washington regarding Iran be watched like a part
of the strategy on covering of the oil potential of the world?
The embargo imposed on Iranian oil today will be a suicide for
Europe tomorrow. Considering the hard economic conditions most of
the European countries (Greece, Italy, Spain) are facing today,
any attempts to change the existing energy supply scheme will be
disastrous. The EU's decision has proved once again that Europe is not
politically independent and cannot pass crucial political decisions
without consulting the United States. In this particular case, the
Europeans are forced to act to their own detriment.
The United States controls over 60% of the world's oil fields, and its
actions against Iran are part of its strategy to grab the whole. Oil
is still the key fuel, the "blood" of the modern civilization. But
its resources are growing increasingly scarce. If the world continues
extracting oil as quickly as it is doing today, it will have none
by the end of 2030, with no real substitutes available yet. So,
the Americans are acting quite pragmatically: they are trying to
gain control over oil and, even more importantly, gas - for it will
be exactly gas that will be able to replace oil for several decades
after the latter expires. So, if the war for oil is our present,
the war for gas is our future.
The situation around the nuclear programme of Iran has becoming more
and more tense. The tension in the Middle East is extremely beneficial
for Russia as it maintains high prices for oil. Nevertheless, Moscow
is trying to ease tension around Iran by all means. What is the reason
of such a paradox?
There is no paradox here. The rise of oil prices caused by escalation
of tension around Iran is recompensed in Russian oil incomes due to
the falling oil consumption by Europe's economies that keep falling
into bankruptcy. All this is now favorable to Moscow. In addition,
escalation of tension around Iran and even an armed conflict are quite
short-term events, while the further changes in the region and in the
world may prove much more serious for Russia than the monetary profit
from high oil prices. Russia has already made a mistake supporting
USA's aspiration to strengthen its positions in Central Asia to
fight the Taliban. The U.S. is currently holding peace talks with
the Taliban and regards its members almost as allies. Nevertheless,
the USA has no intention to leave Central Asia.
Does instable situation in Syria find room in the frames of the
American foreign policy conception? Or the USA has nothing in common
with the situation and the Saudi Arabia is the master of the situation?
I think that the situation in the region depends also on the situation
in Iran's ally country Syria. At the same time, regional developments
show that without Syrian's exclusion, the military operation against
Iran will not be as lighting as Washington wants. Therefore, the
developments in Syria are backed mainly by the USA and Israel, which
has not put up with the idea of killing the nuclear program of Iran
preserving the status of the only regional nuclear super power. The
stakes are so high today that regional players yield their places to
global ones. The USA's interests in the region are much higher than
the interests of Saudi Arabia, which has become just an instrument
for the United States.
The main oil and gas lines run through the territory of the South
Caucasus which is direct neighbor of Iran. How can the possible attack
upon Iran affect the countries of the region in this context, taking
into consideration different attitude of the three republics of the
South Caucasus towards Iran?
The Caucasus countries Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are experiencing
hard times now with the active political games around these countries
being the best evidence of that. Thus, before starting the conflict
with Iran, the U.S.A, Israel and France try to change the political
landscape in the region and maybe launch reconstruction processes
also in the region. And these countries have certain success, for the
situation as of February 2012 differs from the situation a few months
ago. Today the South Caucasus states differently assess the possible
consequences of the regional conflict with involvement of Iran. It is
very important considering that the key oil and gas arteries extend
through the territory of the South Caucasus neighboring with Iran.
Does the Nabucco project have prospects, taking into account an
extremely unstable situation in the region as well as changing of
Turkeys priorities from Nabucco to Trans Anadolu?
The Nabucco prospects were rather misty from the very beginning. Today
the project is practically dead. There are several reason of that.
First, it would change the conjecture of the world energy market -
the project had to be developed in other conditions, and today it
is economically unprofitable. Second, Russia has fulfilled energy
projects. The completion of the "North flow" construction and the
beginning of the construction has made more discord in the brains
of the Nabucco ideologists. One thing is to build the pipeline for
the political pressure upon Russia, and another thing is to get from
Russia the vital oil and gas, perhaps for the lower price as the crisis
has emptied the financial stores. In the present unstable situation
Turkey and Azerbaijan have understood that it is more beneficial to
have close relations with Russia which is next to them than to take
part in the political games of the far away Washington.
From: Baghdasarian