Dear Sirs, In his column today ("The west folds before Putin's bluff"), Philip Stephens sees the energy relationship with Russia as a zero-sum game where one party has to lose, and he bemoans our political leaders for not fighting hard enough. Beyond not making clear what fighting harder (or "calling Putin's bluff") would entail, this article is revealing of the West's sanctimonious, self-righteous and, frankly, spoilt attitude towards uppity foreigners that dare put conditions to our unfettered access to the resources - in particular the energy resources - on their territory. It is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when the UK and North America are suddenly losing their natural gas self-sufficiency and look to a future where, like Japan and most European countries, they need to import a significant portion of their gas, in particular from Russia. As energy becomes scarcer, we have the choice to either use less of it or to deal with those able to provide us with our needs. "Dealing with" does not mean "ordering around" or "being sanctimonious to". It means listening to, and in all likelihood taking into account what is said. And if we don't like it, then we can always go back to option one: using less energy. Describing the Putin years as a "steady drift from nascent democracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" is also pretty disingenuous. A "steady drift from chaotic kleptocracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" (a net positive for Russians) would be more apropos. "A steady drift from cowed-impotent-and-submissive to uppity-and-impossible-to-ignore" might be an even better label from the perspective of Western elites and explain their current annoyance, as expressed in Mr Stephens' column.... So far, Russia (and before it, for a long time, the Soviet Union) has been an extraordinarily reliable supplier of gas, and there is no reason to believe that this will change. Gas infrastructure creates co-dependencies and neither party can use the mutual dependency to any lasting profit - both lose out from conflict. Russia is currently benefitting from much higher oil and gas prices, caused by our reckless push for ever more energy to be burnt, and is reacting mostly benignly to what can only be described as the self-indulgent tantrums of a spoilt kid. We have no God-given right to the energy resources of the rest of the world, and Russia, despite the supposed decline or weakness described in Mr Stephens' column, is unlikely to have its hand forced. It's time to drop the self-righteous tone and speak in good faith with Russia - or to work on reducing energy demand. Why is that so hard to understand - and to do?
In his column today ("The west folds before Putin's bluff"), Philip Stephens sees the energy relationship with Russia as a zero-sum game where one party has to lose, and he bemoans our political leaders for not fighting hard enough.
Beyond not making clear what fighting harder (or "calling Putin's bluff") would entail, this article is revealing of the West's sanctimonious, self-righteous and, frankly, spoilt attitude towards uppity foreigners that dare put conditions to our unfettered access to the resources - in particular the energy resources - on their territory.
It is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when the UK and North America are suddenly losing their natural gas self-sufficiency and look to a future where, like Japan and most European countries, they need to import a significant portion of their gas, in particular from Russia. As energy becomes scarcer, we have the choice to either use less of it or to deal with those able to provide us with our needs. "Dealing with" does not mean "ordering around" or "being sanctimonious to". It means listening to, and in all likelihood taking into account what is said. And if we don't like it, then we can always go back to option one: using less energy.
Describing the Putin years as a "steady drift from nascent democracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" is also pretty disingenuous. A "steady drift from chaotic kleptocracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" (a net positive for Russians) would be more apropos. "A steady drift from cowed-impotent-and-submissive to uppity-and-impossible-to-ignore" might be an even better label from the perspective of Western elites and explain their current annoyance, as expressed in Mr Stephens' column....
So far, Russia (and before it, for a long time, the Soviet Union) has been an extraordinarily reliable supplier of gas, and there is no reason to believe that this will change. Gas infrastructure creates co-dependencies and neither party can use the mutual dependency to any lasting profit - both lose out from conflict. Russia is currently benefitting from much higher oil and gas prices, caused by our reckless push for ever more energy to be burnt, and is reacting mostly benignly to what can only be described as the self-indulgent tantrums of a spoilt kid. We have no God-given right to the energy resources of the rest of the world, and Russia, despite the supposed decline or weakness described in Mr Stephens' column, is unlikely to have its hand forced.
It's time to drop the self-righteous tone and speak in good faith with Russia - or to work on reducing energy demand. Why is that so hard to understand - and to do?
-- remove "uppity" from the first sentence in paragraph two. (It sounds too snarky to me, given that the LTE makes the same point anyway but by other means.)
-- remove "pretty" from the first sentence in paragraph four. Disingenuous doesn't, I think, need qualifying.
--Remove the last sentence. As a rhetorical question it doesn't ask the reader to think beyond their own prejudices (unlike the rest of your great, as always, LTE.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Can this be reworded less heavy on dashes and parenthesis? Not that I can suggest a cleaner wording or really insist ..
"Dear Sirs,"
Is this standard at the FT? Otherwise just: Sir,
P 1 - 2
"...a zero-sum game where one party has to lose, and he..." finds fault with our political leaders for giving up without a fight.
He does not make clear in what precise fashion this is a win-or-lose situation, or... "what fighting harder (or "calling Putin's bluff") would entail". I suggest you cut the rest of the paragraph and just say something like this: Beyond this, the article is revealing of an unacceptable attitude to sovereign foreign nations and the natural resources on their territory.
P 3 OK
P 4 for "apropos" read appropriate ..."their current annoyance", (as expressed in Mr Stephens' column..?)
P 5 To date, Russia (and before it, for many years, the Soviet Union)... ..."despite the supposed decline or weakness"... imputed by Mr Stephens,
Otherwise I like it.
Sir, In his column today ("The west folds before Putin's bluff"), Philip Stephens sees the energy relationship with Russia as a zero-sum game where one party has to lose, and he finds fault with our political leaders for giving up without a fight. However, he does not make clear in what precise fashion this is a win-or-lose situation, or what fighting harder (or "calling Putin's bluff") would entail. And beyond that, this article is revealing of an unacceptable attitude to sovereign foreign nations and the natural resources on their territory. It is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when the UK and North America are suddenly losing their natural gas self-sufficiency and look to a future where, like Japan and most European countries, they need to import a significant portion of their gas, in particular from Russia. As energy becomes scarcer, we have the choice to either use less of it or to deal with those able to provide us with our needs. "Dealing with" does not mean "ordering around" or "being sanctimonious to". It means listening to, and in all likelihood taking into account what is said. And if we don't like it, then we can always go back to option one: using less energy. Describing the Putin years as a "steady drift from nascent democracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" is also disingenuous. A "steady drift from chaotic kleptocracy to authoritarian kleptocracy", a net positive for most Russians, would be more appropriate. "A steady drift from cowed-impotent-and-submissive to uppity-and-impossible-to-ignore" might be an even better label from the perspective of Western elites and explains their current annoyance (as expressed in Mr Stephens' column)... To date, Russia (and before it, for many years, the Soviet Union) has been an extraordinarily reliable supplier of gas, and there is no reason to believe that this will change. Gas infrastructure creates co-dependencies and neither party can use the mutual dependency to any lasting profit - both lose out from conflict. Russia is currently benefitting from much higher oil and gas prices, caused by our reckless push for ever more energy to be burnt, and is reacting mostly benignly to what can only be described as the self-indulgent tantrums of a spoilt kid. We have no God-given right to the energy resources of the rest of the world, and Russia, despite the supposed decline or weakness imputed by Mr Stephens, is unlikely to have its hand forced. It's time to drop the self-righteous tone and speak in good faith with Russia - or to work on reducing energy demand. Best Regards, Jerome Guillet Editor, European Tribune Note: a longer comment on Mr Stephens' article can be found on European Tribune, at http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/7/18/11939/9588
In his column today ("The west folds before Putin's bluff"), Philip Stephens sees the energy relationship with Russia as a zero-sum game where one party has to lose, and he finds fault with our political leaders for giving up without a fight.
However, he does not make clear in what precise fashion this is a win-or-lose situation, or what fighting harder (or "calling Putin's bluff") would entail. And beyond that, this article is revealing of an unacceptable attitude to sovereign foreign nations and the natural resources on their territory.
Describing the Putin years as a "steady drift from nascent democracy to authoritarian kleptocracy" is also disingenuous. A "steady drift from chaotic kleptocracy to authoritarian kleptocracy", a net positive for most Russians, would be more appropriate. "A steady drift from cowed-impotent-and-submissive to uppity-and-impossible-to-ignore" might be an even better label from the perspective of Western elites and explains their current annoyance (as expressed in Mr Stephens' column)...
To date, Russia (and before it, for many years, the Soviet Union) has been an extraordinarily reliable supplier of gas, and there is no reason to believe that this will change. Gas infrastructure creates co-dependencies and neither party can use the mutual dependency to any lasting profit - both lose out from conflict. Russia is currently benefitting from much higher oil and gas prices, caused by our reckless push for ever more energy to be burnt, and is reacting mostly benignly to what can only be described as the self-indulgent tantrums of a spoilt kid. We have no God-given right to the energy resources of the rest of the world, and Russia, despite the supposed decline or weakness imputed by Mr Stephens, is unlikely to have its hand forced.
It's time to drop the self-righteous tone and speak in good faith with Russia - or to work on reducing energy demand.
Best Regards,
Jerome Guillet Editor, European Tribune
Note: a longer comment on Mr Stephens' article can be found on European Tribune, at http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/7/18/11939/9588
