Obama Bin Laden and other stories

On July 25 the Financial Times announced that TNK-BP's CEO, Robert Dudley, was leaving Russia and would run the company ''from a secret location abroad''. It was the last move in a chain of confrontations about the strategic directions the company is expected to take. The Russian shareholders (led by Mr. Fridman , according to the media) are pressing for independence from BP, and accuse London of trying to run this joint-venture as a local office, avoiding those moves that are in conflict with direct BP interests. On its side, BP declares that the Russians are mostly willing to ''extract cash'' from the company, instead of reinvesting profits.

It's been a dirty war, a war that went all the way into pushing the local administrations into turning the visa renewal process for about 60 foreign professionals into a nightmare (with many of them eventually deciding to leave). On July 23 the Guardian had reported their extremely chaotic situation. When their visas came, they found that security codes in the building had been changed, so while being allowed to stay in Russia there were actually not allowed into their offices. How can Mr. Dudley plan to run a full company "from a remote location" when he could not even control its security while being in place? But run it he must, since it accounts for 25% of BP's oil output. It's quite obvious that what we have just seen is but one page of a long novel, definitely not the last one.

In the meantime, Mr. Hayward (BP's CEO) has declared to the Financial Times that he does not think the Russian Government is in anyway involved in the business, and that this is but an internal war between two parties of shareholders. It's an interesting position, indeed. A position apparently reinforced by a declaration by BP regarding the so called "Georgian war": "A BP spokesman told AFP: "We've seen reports attributed to a Georgian minister saying that the Russians have bombed the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. We are not aware of that and I think we probably would be if it were true."" (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080809/wl_uk_afp/georgiasossetiarussiaunrestoilbp)

So what's happening? Could it be that after having been considered one of the leading forces behind Sakhashvili's regime BP has suddenly fallen in love with Russia? This is much less impossible than it might seem. And it really might be one of the pushing forces behind this conflict. Much can be said (and has already been said) about democracy in Russia, yet as a matter of fact Mr. Putin's main strategy has been that of patiently diminishing the influx of the local oligarchies and to grow a Russian middle-class on which he could successfully base his power. Most of the times this has been done with little espect (if any) for the letter of the democratic principles, sure. Yet in the end growing a strong middle class is the main precondition for western style democracy, so in the long run Putin may end up in building much more democracy than most of the so called "reformers" that are crowding the rest of the post-soviet space. I quite doubt that "building democracy" can be an issue behind BP's positions, but if Mr. Fridman is your enemy, then sure enough Mr. Putin is probably your best potential ally. This, in my opinion, is a highly possible explanation to such a disrespectful dismissal of that very Tbilisi regime that so far was always considered almost like "a BP creature".

Both Yushchenko and Sakhashvili are painfully aware of the growing lack of interest towards them not only by international business, but also by most European countries, with some of them heading more and more towards direct agreements with GazProm (agreements that actually coincided with negative votes for the acceptance into NATO of both the Ukraine and Georgia). They also have to manage rapidly deteriorating internal situations, in which the combined effect of their oligarchies and the US$ crisis are generating a social tsunami. Their public opinion's attention urgently needs being readdressed to external factors, so several thousands corpses to show on the internal and international media are not a bad option for Tbilisi, at least as long as they can serve as a portmanteau explanation for everything that will follow. Plus, you can always play the poor pitiful me part and hope the West will cry for you enough for us to open our wallets without later asking where the money went (as us heartless bastards have lately started to do, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/eu?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews ).

I do not expect Yushchenko to resolve to "sacrifice Crimea" in order to use Moscow as a scapegoat for the Ukrainian disaster, at least because this disaster comes in very handy to get rid of Mrs. Timoshchenko (he can probably succeed in making her appear as the one and only responsible for it). Besides, the Ukraine is in control of Crimea and loosing it would be a real hit to its resources, while Tbilisi is not in control of Southern Ossetia. Whatever damage will occur there, the bill will be sent to Moscow, it's the Russians who will eventually have to repair all damages (supposing anyone will make any repair at all). Tbilisi does not appear to run any risk, all that can happen is an enhancement to its public international position. At least so it seemed, before BP started to publicly mock Tbilisi's statements. Now the situation is getting a bit more twisted.

Another factor that Tbilisi was surely expecting to come into play was pressure from the NATO area. Yet, as already said in this blog, current NATO's power and freedom of action should not be overstated. First of all, the full of NATO's real military capabilities is basically already deployed (can you imagine any western country resorting to conscription in order to help Georgia? Come on...). Most of what NATO is doing these days is trying to find a way to free some units from a front in order to deploy them on another. Second (and much more important) comes the economic factor. While most nationalistic romantic dreamers think of war as a matter of "calling everyone up to defend a Sacred Principle", war actually is a complex economic business. A business that is quickly leading NATO countries to disaster, as it always happens when a war goes on until forever. Western leaders may love to use lots of nice Big Words, but as westerners we all know since childhood what gas and electricity bills are. Those leading oligarchs of ours that we call our democratic representatives know it just as well. In the end you can spend only the money you have, and we have almost none left. I strongly doubt that any of us would accept to pay even a cent more in taxes, in order to help Sakhashvili, Yushchenko or Jesus Christ in person.

Besides, there is one growing impediment to NATO's freedom of manoeuvre: it's the very fact that the government financing most of it's activity (the USA, obviously) is increasingly depending on financial help by those very countries NATO is supposed to confront (see http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-sovereigns-are-coming ). I'm not very convinced that such possible financial pressure tools will eventually be used as such. Their use has a price, for example on the value of the Chinese Yuan (that would dramatically raise, putting China in a very unpleasant situation) and on the internal savings of millions of Russians who are still using the US$ for their everyday savings. Hitting the US$ is not like sending a bomb to explode on planet Mars, it's something that involves all parties, and neither China or Russia seem good candidates for a kamikaze role. Yet, the very possibility of such a move will have a deepening impact on the already badly shaken American psychology. When Americans are nervous enough to bring an ally like Norway to declare "It seems you don't like us, but you need our money." it is fairly easy to imagine the kind of relations they can have with less friendly foreign investors.

Commercial logics would say that Georgia is not worth a NATO move (since leading interests like BP's are outstandingly moving towards other directions), and mostly it cannot be expected to have even a formal NATO decision in its favour, since leading NATO nations like Germany, France and Italy have more than once voted against her. Yet Americans do not necessarily need to move under a NATO umbrella, especially if they want to show their increasingly less sympathetic European allies who is the Master of
the game. And logics would have said that an intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq should be avoided, because they could both only end in the bottomless and pointless expenditure they are nowadays. Still, both of them happened. So maybe what Tbilisi is betting on is the American low professionalism in Intelligence that already cost the country billions of wasted money. And if you put it this way, it may even be a winning bet, in the short run.

Yet, while the Russians seem to be leaking information about an upcoming NATO involvement in Georgia (see http://finchannel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17837&Itemid=13 ), there is no hint of activity from NATO itself, let alone the pavlovian reaction of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, who obviously declared that he is "deeply concerned" just as such an actor is expected to say at this point in the play. In the meantime the EU position is, as always, a non-position. Funnily enough, the BBC reports it in great evidence on its Russian edition, while the same event is conspicuous in its absence for the English reading public. Anyway, according to the meat of the statement by Mr. Bernard Kouchner's, the French Minister or Foreign Affairs "Us Europeans are all concerned, there are no differences among us, although, of course, there nuances..."

Oh yes... in this century there are no wars, only international peace-keepings, and no differences, only nuances. I had forgot. :) And since we all love to play with words, you should better know that people down here are starting to call the next US President Obama Bin Laden. Maybe it's the KGB preparing grounds to bomb Washington as an anti-terrorism operation :) Anyway, our American allies can feel reassured: if the Kremlin will ever dare such a move, us Europeans will immediately retaliate with such a delirious amount of nuances that we will turn Siberia into the most psychedelic corner of Carnaby Street :) So, as my favourite book goes, the situation is desperate, but not serious :)