The central narrative of global affairs in the first 37 years of my life (I choose that number out of convenience, since German reunification occurred on my 37th birthday, and that is sort of midpoint between the fall of the Wall and the failed Soviet coup of 1991) was dreading, preparing for and at the same time trying to avoid the moment that Slim Pickens, in "Dr. Strangelove," described as "New-q-lure combat, toe-to-toe with the Rooskies."
Well, we put all that behind us some time ago — people voting for the first time in this year’s elections have no memory of the time when our itchy trigger fingers hovered over that calamity, fueling such pop culture reflections as not only Strangelove, but its dead-serious counterpart "Failsafe," or lesser touchstones such as "The Day After," or "Twilight’s Last Gleaming," or "WarGames," or … well, we could go on and on. Suffice it to say, we thought about that stuff a lot.
Now, we argue over Iraq, worry over Afghanistan, and basically are unmotivated to think about any greater military challenges — such as that posed by our host in the current Olympics. Our toes are now too busy on the starting lines at poolside, waiting for the starting pistol, to be set against the toes of the Rooskies.
And into that vacuum strides, suddenly and decisively, a newly resurgent, confident, muscular, resentful, petulant, oil-rich Russia, once again under KGB management. And takes out Georgia before we’ve managed to say so much as, "Hey, wait a minute…"
That’s the thing that strikes me about the events of recent days. While Americans have concerned themselves with Beijing’s festivities and the sins of John Edwards, the Russians have dropped the hammer on one of our most promising allies in their once and future sphere of influence. Decisively.
I had to wait yesterday past the usual time for a George Will column — the one we ran today — which was the first commentary from one of our main syndicated columnists on what was happening in Georgia. And by that time, the Russians had essentially achieved their goals.
And the lesson here is that they can do this, and will do it again when they choose — and no one here, or in Europe, is ready for either this time or the next one.
Related Posts
What percent of its oil/natural gas does the EU get from Russia?
Europe gets about 25% of its energy from Russia, primarily in the form of natural gas.
Here’s a report published today that gives a good summary of the energy politics from the Caspian to the EU. The Russians now supply about 25 percent of the European Union’s crude oil needs and half of its natural gas. According to this story Germany gets 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia.
This report talks about how Russia has countered European attempts to diversify their energy supply: Russia is simply buying up the competition in Bulgaria and Serbia, blocking Europe’s attempts to build a 5,300-mile pipeline to bring gas to Europe from Iran and Azerbaijan via Turkey.
Seems to me like a good reason for the US to start getting a little more of its natural gas and petroleum from domestic sources.
Please don’t tell bud…
Everyone one of the energy stories seems to have the same theme. The various sources for our energy are precarious. Therefore we must find a way to produce more domestically. Couldn’t this just as easily suggest that we need to find ways to use less. We could have smaller houses that require less NG. We could power our houses with electricity from other sources that don’t require NG (wind, solar). That way we would need less of it. NG is pretty good stuff. It’s the cleanest of the fossil fuels and apparently we’re in a bit better shape with NG than we are with oil.
So the bud mantra is going to be this:
less, Less, LESS. Hell yeh, less is best!!!! Go Wind!!!
You guys better leave the Rooskies alone or Putin will blow cigarette smoke in your face and there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it.
That’s a nice religion you have there, bud, so I suggest that you discover the way to assure economic growth and energy security through conservation. Oh, and we import about 18% of our natural gas too. Let’s just buy more LNG from Russia and put a LNG terminal off Charleston.
Obama will show you the way since he’s he sole sponsor of legislation that would block geological research to locate offshore oil.
Obama’s Introduced his “Oil SENSE Act” (S.115) in January 2007; the bill would prohibit expanded use of 3-D seismic techniques that locate and measure underwater oil deposits — even though those tools are in wide use where offshore drilling is allowed, such as the western Gulf of Mexico. But maybe you would rely on 1970s roadmaps for a trip instead of using MapQuest or GPS.
Well, now, Richard, to quote Gen. Turgidson, "I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed…"
Oh, and if you want to see Slim Pickens’ "toe-to-toe" speech, here it is. It includes the gem, "Heck, I reckon you wouldn’t even be human bein’s if you didn’t have some pretty strong personal feelings about nuclear combat."
That’s a nice religion you have there, bud, so I suggest that you discover the way to assure economic growth and energy security through conservation.
-Mike
I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m not preaching in a religious sense. Rather I’m an advocate for pragmatism and common sense. It’s the pro-drilling crowd that seems to believe in devine intervention. Somehow if we drill enough wells in enough places the almighty will fill up our gas tanks with $2/gallon gasoline. All we have to do is worship at the First Petroleum Church of Exxon. If Obama did sponsor some type of bill to discourage oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean so what. It doesn’t change the fact that oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1970 and will continue to decline. Somehow you pro-drilling fanatics just can’t seem to grasp that one simple fact. So here’s an assignment. Just go to the blackboard and write this 525,000 times (the number of oil wells in the U.S.):
US Oil Production Peaked in 1970
US Oil Production Peaked in 1970
US Oil Production Peaked in 1970
Got it.