Responses to "The New Energy Cold War" are highlighted and addressed in Part II of the energy dynamics installment.

When I asked for feedback on Wednesday’s piece, “The New Energy Cold War,” I wasn’t sure what to expect. What I did get came as a bit of a surprise.

The Taipan Daily inbox was flooded with e-mails, the vast majority of them positive. Most of you strongly agreed with the piece, which actually surprised me somewhat. (I was expecting a bit more verbal abuse.) Those of you who disagreed did so thoughtfully and intelligently. In the whole pile, there were only one or two truly harsh responses (one of which is shared a bit further down).

Today we’ll look at the good, the bad and the ugly of your replies. But first, a quick mention of something my keen-eyed copy editor brought up. After e-mailing her the first installment for a final once-over, I got a quick call to clarify something.

“Where’s Medvedev?” she asked. “Why didn’t you mention him?”

Of course, meaning Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s freshly installed president. She wanted to make sure my focus on Putin -- and absence of reference to Medvedev -- was deliberate. I told her it was. 

Master of Puppets

For a brief window of time, it was an open question as to whether Medvedev could be his own man as Russia’s new president. Would Putin let his hand-picked successor have any real power?

Now we know the answer: No.

Putin used the theatrics of the South Ossetia conflict to reconfirm his iron grip. While Medvedev made wooden statements from behind a desk in Moscow, Putin, the people’s man of action, was broadcast at ground zero with his soldiers. This was a clear hint to the world: Vlad is still in charge.

The Economist caught the message, too. Its most recent cover headline reads, “RUSSIA RESURGENT -- And How the West Should Respond.” A giant Putin stands alone, with planes, tanks and soldiers flowing forth. There is no Medvedev in sight.
 
A wry Russian joke captures the one-sided relationship between prime minister and president:

Putin and Medvedev sit down for lunch at a Moscow restaurant.

The waiter asks,“And what will you two gentlemen be having today?”

Putin replies, “I’ll have the steak.”

“Very good, sir. And what about the vegetable?”

“He’ll have the steak, too.”

Godfathers and Fools

Now to some of your responses. (Keep in mind that these are only select excerpts. I stayed up late reading the full versions.)

You say of Russia that it was "...a once respected and still proud empire...."  I don't think any rational person would have respected the Russian Communist empire. It was a brutal perversion and deserved to die... The President of Georgia had every right to order Georgian troops into Ossetia to ensure that that land remained part of Georgia.  I think Putin and the President of Russia should be charged with "Crimes Against Humanity."

  -- TD reader Frank L.

...Yes, let's understand Russia's perspective, but let's also not delude ourselves into wishful thinking that they're good ol' boys who share our Western values. 

   -- TD reader Stan G.

The leadership of the country of Georgia should have been intelligent enough not to provoke Russia, but the devastation to the people, who had nothing to do with the fight, such as poor farmers that had their crops and livestock killed and houses burned, was uncalled for and unnecessary. Russia is and probably always will be the bad bully that can't be trusted.

  -- TD reader Eric

In a lot of ways,  the principal nations of our world behave in a manner that would fit right in with the world of the movie series, "The Godfather."  Mr. Putin strikes me as a prime candidate for the role of a Godfather... With significant agreement toward what you said today,  the only real difference in the West is that there may be a little more polish and sophistication and maybe, maybe not,  less actual blood.

-- TD reader Wayne M.

I see a Putin who ruthlessly invades a sovereign country.  I see a Putin that is a liar who now refuses to withdraw and continues to lie about it.  I see a Putin who is a danger to Eastern Europe.  Why do you think the Poles and others want to get under a NATO umbrella??  Because they have not forgotten Putin and others like him who sent tanks and the military to subjugate them in the first place.  Georgia is just the beginning and fools like you endorse the aggression.

  -- TD reader Ralph W.

Ouch. The one from Ralph W. (reprinted in full) is the real zinger. Especially the last line: “Georgia is just the beginning and fools like you endorse the aggression.”

Endorse the aggression? I endorse no such thing, Ralph. I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. Since when did Putin get a free moral pass from yours truly?

Consider this Taipan Daily passage, published December 28 of last year:

At least one thing is certain: Putin is an intensely pragmatic man… and an intensely dangerous man. This is someone for whom the ends always justify the means. (Ever notice how those who cross the Kremlin tend to wind up in jail or dead? Funny thing, that.)

We can’t be certain what will come next. You get the sense this guy could do anything… anything with a cold compelling logic to it, that is. Alliances, morals, ideals… They’re all just pieces on the chessboard.

Putin is no rube, and neither am I. If anyone is a fool here, it was Georgian President Saakashvili, for thinking he could jab a grizzly bear in the butt and get away with it scot-free.

I don’t know which move of Saakashvili’s was dumber... assuming the Olympics would keep Russia from responding with full force, or expecting the West to back Georgia’s play with anything more than hot air.

What’s more, reader Wayne M. hits the nail on the head with his “godfather” comment. I’ve written a fair bit about Putin over the years, and in all that time I’ve never disputed the caricature of him as a modern-day mafia boss... with all the cunning and brutality that such a metaphor entails.

The whole of Russia, in fact, has been run by mafia-style tactics for years.

We saw it with Yukos, the oil giant that ceased to exist once Putin saw fit to dismantle it. We saw it with the Sakhalin Island project, in which Shell Oil was ruthlessly strong-armed out of billions. We’re seeing it again with the TNK-BP fiasco, in which British Petroleum is also getting strong-armed out of billions. We saw it with the murder of troublemakers like Anna Politskaya and Alexender Litvinenko.

And we recently saw a different type of smackdown with Mechel Steel, a publicly traded Russian company whose market cap dropped $6 billion on a few harsh words from Vlad.

When Putin muttered darkly about Mechel Steel’s CEO -- who had begged off a meeting due to illness -- investors panicked at the fear of another Yukos-style dismantling. The post-plunge carnage in Mechel Steel shares worked out to $1 billion per sentence, according to the International Herald Tribune.

In sum, there’s no wishful thinking here. Recognizing the hypocrisy of the West doesn’t mean embracing Putin’s actions, or casually making him one of the “good guys.”  Dudley Do-Right he ain’t.

In a way, though, this underscores the original point. Things are not black and white here. Putin may have all the charm and compassion of a cold-blooded mafioso, but that doesn’t negate the legitimate aspects of Russia’s point of view.

Missiles Redux

In its lead for this week, “Russia Resurgent,” The Economist sums things up as follows: “The war in Georgia is a victory for Russia. The West’s options are limited, but it needs to pursue them firmly.”

Amen to that.

Russia found victory because Saakashvili walked into a trap, exposing the blustery weakness of Georgia’s backers in the process. The West has precious little blood and treasure to spare on a fight with Russia... but one thing it can spare, hopefully, is a little more brainpower than what has so far been on display. It’s time to stop playing checkers and start playing chess.

Many of your replies highlighted the Poland missile pact as a source of Russian anger:

This new cold war was already started by the idiot from Crawford! Missiles in Poland! Missiles in Cuba; see any familiarity there?!! Sponsoring nations on Russia's border for NATO membership not unlike turning Latin American countries to the other ideology!

  -- TD Reader Al C.

As you know we just signed a Ballistic missile shield pact with Poland, which has infuriated Putin. He sees us putting our missiles 100 miles from his boarder for possible offensive purposes. I therefore see Russia retaliating with a new Cuban missile deployment, as well as other strategically sensitive areas. This will happen, and depending on the guts and wisdom of our new president, it should prove to be full of drama and tension.

 -- TD reader David R.

Great analysis of Russia in today's newsletter! Considering the perspective from another's shoes is the only way to understand both sides of a situation. I agree with your assertion that the West has played a role in this current conflict... I wonder if starting another war is in Washington's interest? The military-industrial complex would certainly love it, as it could provide an excuse for increased military spending. But really, how much more military spending is the US capable of withstanding?

-- TD reader J.P.E.

The West may well stand up and beat their chest and have a lot to say but they are powerless to stop Russia. Whether Russia will now use that power remains to be seen.... To be a superpower, the strength comes first from finance. USA has lost it.

-- TD reader Keith A.

Of all the arrogant behaviors of the US, I find the thought that Russia would fail to respond to the Cuban Missile crisis in reverse simply amazing. Georgia was the actual target, but, the potential Polish agreement to accept US missile interceptors was the reason. It really is about power and who holds it. Right now, Russia is in the catbird seat, looking for ways to exert influence. They invaded a former satellite country and presto, influence through a simple reminder of power. How can the US condemn the "aggressive military behavior" of Russia with a straight face?  They simply used an accepted American Method...

-- TD reader Garry M.

Your lines of thought make sense to me. What doesn’t make sense to me, in any way shape or form, is the perplexingly lame rhetoric coming from the White House.

President Bush, for example, called Russia’s actions “unacceptable in the 21st century.” Meaning what exactly? That Russia should say, “Oops, our bad -- we take back the invasion”?

Secretary of State Condi Rice later added that military power is “not the way to deal in the 21st century.”

As if international relations have ever come down to anything besides the barrel of a gun, Condi (or a missile silo, for that matter)? If might doesn’t make right, why does Uncle Sam have a $550 billion military budget? And why were we so keen on slipping those missiles into Poland in the first place?

Part of the problem here is that guys like Putin don’t play games. There’s no “after you, my Dear Alphonse” … no glossing over hard truths with candy coating.

We (meaning the West) have painted ourselves into a corner, and soon we’re going to have to pay for it.

Doh! I really didn’t intend a third installment in this series. But here we are, having already gotten this far, with the energy angle yet untouched. (You just sent in so many great responses, I couldn’t resist sampling a small portion.)

We’ll take a break and do something fresh on Monday, then come back around for the energy dynamics in Part III (the final installment -- I swear).

Some of you have already written with sharp insights on the oil and gas connection to all this... More thoughts in that vein are certainly welcome. And as always, feel free to e-mail your rants, raves and inquiries anytime: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Warm Regards,

JL