In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11214
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Mirror 09/27/2010 11:39 PM Report
To clarify. Top crude oil imports to the US come from: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico. Saudi Arabia is the number one exporter of crude although there are other sources (including the moral paragon Nigeria).
Back to my point. Still. I cannot find a decent reason for the drip-drip of the never-ending Russophobia in the media which makes improvement of relations between Russia and the US nearly impossible. How stupid.
Mirror 09/27/2010 03:36 PM Report
Also, answering my persistent question below with "Russians are bad" or "we have to burn all bridges and boats and stick it out in the Middle East" are non-sensical. The US has been dealing with the Saudis which is a dictatorship and a monarchy with 7th century human rights records and the home for most of the 9/11 high jackers. A handful of Saudi princes that the majority of the Saudis passionately hate is all the US can count on. Is that really wise?
And what country could possibly claim high moral ground (especially after 8 years of Bush presidency)?
There is only one possible form of sanity: pragmatism. Why would you switch the subject from the most critical issue facing the US: we have no alternatives, we have dug our own hole and that is where we shall be buried unless sane people start making decisions and taking actions.
Mirror 09/27/2010 03:21 PM Report
The statement below seems to be a general one not on Yukos specifically.
The key question remains: in the modern all permeable world of multiple networks and alliances and relationships, why would the US have a singular dependence on the Middle East for its resources? It is suicidal. How long would the US last should the Middle East unravel? Two weeks? A month? No alternative has ever been developed. I have to keep asking because no sane answer is in sight.
slightly_optimistic 09/27/2010 03:03 PM Report
Quite. Incidentally on global finance, the FT reported this month on Yukos:
"Regardless of where the truth lies, what is emerging is a situation where global audit firms operating in Russia may all be vulnerable to the double jeopardy of auditing the books of notoriously opaque companies, while being regulated by a government able to launch arbitrary attacks. This lose-lose situation could call into question the value of audits that have been hotly sought as a western seal of approval ever since Russian companies began to access international financial markets."
Mirror 09/27/2010 02:01 PM Report
The treatment of BP had to do with British Petroleum's environmental regulations. You may have heard that their record is very far from perfect. And with Yukos it had to do with the hurried foreign sale of assets that Khodorkovsky planned before Russia passed the laws on resource use (similar to those in all resource rich countries). That was inadvertently admitted by Khodorkovsky's own lawyer in an interview with Warren Only. The official story: Khodorkovsky was a political opponent which is very funny because the "oligarchs" are about as popular in Russia as Bernie Madoff is here (imagine Bernie Madoff with a blood trail and you get the "oligarchs") .
NATO reports are not something I'd rely on: they are a military alliance with old loyalties and old-think.
The key question remains: in the modern all permeable world of multiple networks and alliances and relationships, why would the US have a singular dependence on the Middle East for its resources? It is suicidal. How long would the US last should the Middle East unravel? Two weeks? A month? No alternative has ever been developed. That is just staggering.
slightly_optimistic 09/27/2010 01:08 PM Report
Yes, Russia too has to agree to observe international rules. The disquiet in NATO members about possible attempts by Russia to intimidate countries, and the Georgian episode are recorded in the official report.
On additional safeguards, Article 2 of the NATO Treaty [the so-called Canadian Article] introduces an economic dimension, the wish to harmonise economic policies in NATO. This seems especially relevant today - the treatment of energy companies Yukos and BP are especially interesting cases - it's a pity there was so little international adjudication.
Mirror 09/27/2010 11:49 AM Report
"knew" (not "new", sorry for the typo)
Mirror 09/27/2010 11:47 AM Report
NATO has to be kept in check by the international law. And it has to be a partnership with Russia if the alliance is to stay current and not remain in the Cold War imaginary past. Again, the mutual distrust is natural just as it would be natural for the US to object to a Russian/or, say, Pan-Slavic alliance on its own borders. Remember that we all nearly ended up in a nuclear winter just because of one Soviet boat on its way to Cuba not so long ago. As to Georgia conflict and NATO's non-intervention, the answer is simple. They new perfectly well that Georgia was the one who attacked not the other way around. Again, refer you to the NYT front page series of articles which documented the invasion by Georgia and Russia's retaliation hour by hour.
The question remains: why would the US & the EU dodge their chances for alternative source of resources, security and anti-terrorism cooperation and a variety of other collaborations with Russia? Because what will happen is the only thing that can happen: Russia will turn to Asia (China, Japan).
slightly_optimistic 09/27/2010 05:53 AM Report
How will the NATO alliance be kept in check by international law? The alliance seems to be seriously considering this problem, with a view to tightening its procedures on the way to multilateralism. But is Russia showing similar resolve?
NATO's future role will be decided in November. In fact a report was prepared earlier this year to help with the deliberations. The report notes the importance of the Russia-NATO partnership.
However it also warns of mutual distrust, which needs to be overcome:
"Experience teaches. . . that Russian and NATO leaders do not always view the same set of facts in the same way. Leaders in Moscow have expressed concerns about past and prospective NATO enlargement, while Allies have voiced concerns about possible attempts by Russia to engage in acts of political or economic intimidation. This combination of shared interests and strained feelings argues for a policy of active and constructive engagement both on NATO’s part and Russia’s.
"NATO members, when asked, may vary in their descriptions of Russia while still seeing eye to eye on their prescriptions for engagement with that country. For reasons of history, geography, and recent events, some countries are more sceptical than others about the Russian government’s commitment to a positive relationship. The fact that the NRC was not used to prevent the 2008 crisis in Georgia is unsettling, as is Moscow’s oft-expressed wariness about NATO’s intentions. Russia has sent conflicting signals about its openness to further cooperation with NATO, and its proposals for an alternative security order in Europe seem designed in part to constrain NATO’s activities."
Mirror 09/26/2010 05:49 PM Report
I have wondered why the relations between Russia & the US have not improved. Russia, like all nations, is deeply flawed: after all, it is a country the size of an ocean, with dreadful and bloody recent history, a collapse of a system that was in place for nearly a century. And yet, this is not a place like, say, Saudi Arabia with medieval laws and systems, essentially, a monarchy & dictatorship where decapitation, public executions are routine. Yet, there is hardly a peep about it anywhere. But when a tourist gets a stomach flu in Moscow it makes the front page of the NYT (not a joke, btw). Old habits die hard & phobias sell. Maybe that is why there is still this kind of rabid Russophobia which permeates the press, the politics, and especially, the talking heads.
So, there is this one place on earth that is filled with oil, gas, and natural resources to the brim which does NOT have a whole population set against the US and part of the population set on a jihad against the US. And we cannot pass beyond some stupid talking points about "resetting some buttons"? Bewildering and, frankly, short-sighted. Unless, of course, the status quo is not simply stupid and short-sighted but thoroughly considered. The question then is the following: who benefits from making sure that the US does not diversify its portfolio and hedge its bets in places other than the Middle East? Temperamentally, I am not inclined to believe in conspiracies. But I have many more questions than answers here.
Mirror 09/26/2010 05:17 PM Report
My sense of the current political dynamic is that NATO is not as important a player as it once was due, in part, to recent moves of the economic levers. As the minister says, with economic power comes the political one. But more fundamental issue have undermined NATO: the last time NATO got significantly involved was in the Balkans. It never moved a finger during any other conflict. Neither was it a deterrence. So, it is more of a nominal membership although as it is still military alliance it does become an obstacle in Russia vs US & the EU improvement of relations.
As to spheres of influence .. aren't they always self-proclaimed? or not claimed at all just "begotten"? Remember the banana republics? What about American military presence in the Middle East. Troops & boots on the ground for decades. Yukos case follows in that vein but only partially and not the way it was portrayed in the mainstream press (not because of conspiracy but our of hubris, habit and a fairly successful PR campaign which is now routinely employed by the men who call themselves "the oligarchs").
slightly_optimistic 09/26/2010 05:36 AM Report
A couple of days after this interview the Russian foreign minister asked about NATO: how will the alliance be kept in check by international law? However NATO expansion seems to reflect an appetite in new entrants for the greater enforcement of international political rules, within what is a multilateral economy.
At present regularity capture is possible by nations alone. This is evident for example in self-proclaimed spheres of influence, nationalisations, Yukos and BP.
Mirror 09/24/2010 11:53 AM Report
The facts are:
- Georgia was the one who initiated the conflict and attacked Abhazia (see a several part New York Times front page series of articles shortly after the attacks)
- The dispute between China & Japan goes back many decades and has nothing to do with Russia's actions
- Unfortunately, Hammas won the elections. It would have been great if it were rigged, but it wasn't. Even Israel admits it and that is largely responsible for the mood of dejection among the Israelis when it comes to the peace prospects.
- The fact that Russia reacted negatively to NATO expansion & missile defense shield on its border is natural. Americans, too, would mind a Slavic missile defense shield and military forces in Tijuana or Canada. It is now all scrapped and antiquated and defunct as it should be.
- Russophobia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophobia), like all small mindedness, is a symptom of a severe disease - paranoid schizophrenic idiocy. DavLev go check with a doctor. Also, learn some English. No wonder you understood little.
slightly_optimistic 09/24/2010 11:33 AM Report
Russia's incident in Georgia is having echoes in the conflict between China and Japan - which China is winning. Steve LeVine writes in Foreign policy that in 2008 Russia informed the United States and rest of the West that the former Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia were within Moscow's sovereign sphere of influence. Thereafter Russia went to war with Georgia. And Yukos?
China is now threatening a lifeline of Japan by disputing ownership of international seas in the East.
There still seems to be little appetite to finalise property rights.
DavLev 09/23/2010 11:45 PM Report
Typically, the Russian contradicted himself, and seems not to understand the US. Starting with Hezbollah who he applauds being part of the Lebanese parliament, to Hamas, who did win a rigged election then threw the opposition off of rootops, to Iran and Serbia, he again shows Russias
perfidy. I would have asked him about his own restive southern republics..notibly that little enclave of Muslims, which Russia pounded to pieces. Terrorism is okay against active US intersts and friends, like Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq..but against Russia, come one. And what about Russias crackdown on its own dissadents, and parties?
Oh these Ruskies, cannot be trusted for one moment. Why didnt Charlie ask him about the threat to incinerate all of Eastern Europe if they allowed missiles to be used against the mighty Russian empire? In Serbia, they stayed out of the conflict not because they loved Albrights war, but they were weak and lacked financing. Contradictio9ns galore.
They have good relations with Iran..over Centuries..but wont sell them the S-300 Missiles? I guess they now understande the consequences (somewhat) of a nuke Iran.
But I hae hope for these Russ people. BTW, both Hamas and Hez are surrogates of Iran, finance and armed through Syria, their favorite anti-US client. If nt for Russia, Israel would not have needed 400 nukes ( Dolphin, F-15Is and Jeichos). Russian support of No. Korea led to 35,000 US deaths. I know GIs who fought in that war..and they still mistrust the Ruskies. True, they were our allies during WW2, and then placed an Iron Curtain over the hapless countries. They want it both ways folks...and this F.M.
is typically Russian..no one to trust.
kid 09/23/2010 11:21 PM Report
Thank you, Charlie! You keep surprising me. I have never had an opportunity to meet or to hear Mr Lavrov. And in the USA I have got the chance. I liked him a lot. He is professional.
anne4444 09/23/2010 03:09 PM Report
Wow. another great interview. Thank you.
REMant 09/23/2010 12:53 PM Report
Foreign policy types seem fixated on China, sometimes incorrectly, I think, India as well, leaving behind the East-West confrontation, as well as Japan and Asian tigers in their calculations, and overlooking not only Brazil, but most egregiously the obvious re-emergence of Islam. Admittedly this is at present hard to see in conventional terms, except in the Gulf and a few other places, but it is clearly there in terms of cultural vitality. To the extent it is recognized, it is so negatively, while it is a matter of pride to them, if often exaggerated, as by Ahmadinejad the past few days. Russia, and China and India, too, must be expected to take an interest in this development, far more than we or even Israel.
Slavic ppls who make up Russia, BTW, had a greater involvement in Europe than mentioned, settling in Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, Greece and the Balkans, as Germanic tribes fled the Huns, and fought the Franks. The word slave derives from the French for Slav. If you think of it broadly Slavic ppls occupy half of Europe today. And a great number of them migrated to the US. But just how much we share a common civilization is I think still open to debate. Certainly the Germans have not been overly fond of them, nor the Turks and Scandinavians.