Over at neweurasia—Turkmenistan, Abdulgamid highlighted a comment by Pete on Ben’s response to my post on Nordstream. Pete made some good, serious points which I consider worth responding to.
- First, some clarity: I am not a Russophobe, but I am unabashedly biased toward the West and the U.S. That is not a crime, especially when looking at something in a European context. I also get sick of the continued conflation of “criticism” and “phobia.” They are not analogous motivations.
- I think calling my post “grotesque caricature” is a bit hyperbolic. Also, while I placed that discussion in a geopolitical context, one of the very good responses Ben made was that there was legitimate economic logic. I don’t deny this, nor do I think a new Russian pipe into Europe is a bad idea on its own; it is the way Nordstream itself is being structured that has a keen strategic logic.
- Indeed, if Russia were not an aggressive player in energy markets with a sour reputation for manipulating prices and transit agreements for political gain, Pete is right—we wouldn’t bat an eye at its construction.
- I don’t deny Russia’s right to craft advantageous energy and foreign policies; in fact I would be surprised if they didn’t try. Russia is acting in its own interest here, and is doing so quite skillfully. My complaint is that the U.S. is not.
- There are not substantive technological differences between the trans-Caspian and the Nordstream pipes: both are suboceanic pipelines meant to skirt political problem areas for the U.S./EU and Russia, respectively.
- Europe does not have a unitary energy policy. The problem is that Russia negotiates bilateral agreements with each member state of the EU, while the EU holds vast sway over economic policy within each country. This creates an environment in which Russia can essentially undermine European unity. Again: smart on Russia’s part, bad news for Europe.
- Lastly, Pete and I agree fully that we need a more rational and forward-thinking policy of engagement with the Central Asian states.
Really, his points are well-made, thoughtful, and none too easy to respond to. I don’t think I’ve responded to them fully, and I need to think a lot more to see if and where they might have further validity that I initially gave them. But this is part of the debate on Nordstream: it is a devilishly smart more for Russia, just not so much for everyone else.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust