• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The West Calls Russia "the Arctic Bear"

V

viktorzar

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A paper Arctic Deeply published in July and August two artciles with similar content. Both of them state that America will never say that Russia is an equal economic and political partner, but is ready to admit the necessity to cooperate in the Arctic.

In the 21st century Russia has been paying special attention to the Arctic region. In 2001 Russia filed its first claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
In the face of Russia’s performance actions of other states that have area of responsibility in the Arctic are not really visible. Norway is exploring the Barents Sea bottom, Finland is chairing the Arctic Council and that is it. In mass media the Arctic states are laying stress on dialogue and friendship, but they seem to be upset and annoyed.
The Arctic states understand they have lost time. By 2007 Russia had collected proves of its right for a vast part of the shelf, and has strengthened its positions in the north of the country by now. The US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden or Iceland will have to start from nothing. Arctic Deeply calls the actions of the Russian party “imperial ambitions” and “militarization campaign”. But wouldn’t these countries like to expand their own boundaries and take control over a part of the shelf if they had such an opprortunity?
The journalists haven’t also ignoresd the topic of the North Sea Route. According to Dr. Andrew Chater’s opinion, it is the most valuable Arctic resource, not oil or gas. Considering the fast ice melt in the Arctic region, this route will be accessible not only for expensive icebreakers, but also for ordinary ships in the nearest future.
At the same time Dr. Chater states that Arctic cooperation between the West and Russia is inevitable otherwise Russia will have no customers for its hydrocarbons found in the Arctic. Here the author unadvertently mentions the ambitions of China which is already contributing a lot into building and development of the Arctic infrastructure. The author believes that the Asian country would never be able to interchange the European market for Russia.
And he contradicts himself. He cannot decide which argument to use as a main one: either to promote the idea that this North of yours is not so good with all those inaccessible resources, or to say that Western countries will never stay on the sidelines because the Arctic projects have allegedly no sense without European and American markets?
 
What is any of this supposed to mean?
 
Even though the two countries seems to care for only the North Sea route, the oil and gas are still an asset for the country's capital. The habitat also can be a great resource for them. In every opportunity of wealth that can be taken, countries will go for it. However, the ownership is not I'm concern of. The destruction of the biosphere and the rapid meltdown of the ice are what worries me.
 
viktorzar said:
A paper Arctic Deeply published in July and August two artciles with similar content. Both of them state that America will never say that Russia is an equal economic and political partner, but is ready to admit the necessity to cooperate in the Arctic.

In the 21st century Russia has been paying special attention to the Arctic region. In 2001 Russia filed its first claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
In the face of Russia’s performance actions of other states that have area of responsibility in the Arctic are not really visible. Norway is exploring the Barents Sea bottom, Finland is chairing the Arctic Council and that is it. In mass media the Arctic states are laying stress on dialogue and friendship, but they seem to be upset and annoyed.
The Arctic states understand they have lost time. By 2007 Russia had collected proves of its right for a vast part of the shelf, and has strengthened its positions in the north of the country by now. The US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden or Iceland will have to start from nothing. Arctic Deeply calls the actions of the Russian party “imperial ambitions” and “militarization campaign”. But wouldn’t these countries like to expand their own boundaries and take control over a part of the shelf if they had such an opprortunity?
The journalists haven’t also ignoresd the topic of the North Sea Route. According to Dr. Andrew Chater’s opinion, it is the most valuable Arctic resource, not oil or gas. Considering the fast ice melt in the Arctic region, this route will be accessible not only for expensive icebreakers, but also for ordinary ships in the nearest future.
At the same time Dr. Chater states that Arctic cooperation between the West and Russia is inevitable otherwise Russia will have no customers for its hydrocarbons found in the Arctic. Here the author unadvertently mentions the ambitions of China which is already contributing a lot into building and development of the Arctic infrastructure. The author believes that the Asian country would never be able to interchange the European market for Russia.
And he contradicts himself. He cannot decide which argument to use as a main one: either to promote the idea that this North of yours is not so good with all those inaccessible resources, or to say that Western countries will never stay on the sidelines because the Arctic projects have allegedly no sense without European and American markets?
Click to expand...

Russia has about 10 time zones across its' Northern borders adjacent the Arctic. Russia's only warm water port used to be Vladivostok, but global warming will change that to Russia's benefit. Russia's Arctic claims are based upon fact but USA multinational Corporations will protest because it cuts them out of the profit loop, Since the USA operates for the benefit of its' largest Energy Corporations, it spells trouble for the Russian claims, just like the foolishness in the South China Sea. Europe would be foolish not to develop closer relations with its' neighbor, Russia, but USA policy keeps trying to drive a wedge between EU and Russia. I think the USA policy is doomed to failure because it is a Corporate policy not a policy for the benefit of local citizenry of the Nations involved. Russia's long experience with shipping from their Northern ports gives them an advantage in Arctic development and realistic endeavors and puts the USA at a tactical and strategic disadvantage. It would behoove the USA to quit villifying Russia as an evil empire and begin recognizing Russia as a dynamic and reasonable actor in the World's present and future economy.
/
 
viktorzar said:
A paper Arctic Deeply published in July and August two artciles with similar content. Both of them state that America will never say that Russia is an equal economic and political partner, but is ready to admit the necessity to cooperate in the Arctic.

In the 21st century Russia has been paying special attention to the Arctic region. In 2001 Russia filed its first claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
In the face of Russia’s performance actions of other states that have area of responsibility in the Arctic are not really visible. Norway is exploring the Barents Sea bottom, Finland is chairing the Arctic Council and that is it. In mass media the Arctic states are laying stress on dialogue and friendship, but they seem to be upset and annoyed.
The Arctic states understand they have lost time. By 2007 Russia had collected proves of its right for a vast part of the shelf, and has strengthened its positions in the north of the country by now. The US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden or Iceland will have to start from nothing. Arctic Deeply calls the actions of the Russian party “imperial ambitions” and “militarization campaign”. But wouldn’t these countries like to expand their own boundaries and take control over a part of the shelf if they had such an opprortunity?
The journalists haven’t also ignoresd the topic of the North Sea Route. According to Dr. Andrew Chater’s opinion, it is the most valuable Arctic resource, not oil or gas. Considering the fast ice melt in the Arctic region, this route will be accessible not only for expensive icebreakers, but also for ordinary ships in the nearest future.
At the same time Dr. Chater states that Arctic cooperation between the West and Russia is inevitable otherwise Russia will have no customers for its hydrocarbons found in the Arctic. Here the author unadvertently mentions the ambitions of China which is already contributing a lot into building and development of the Arctic infrastructure. The author believes that the Asian country would never be able to interchange the European market for Russia.
And he contradicts himself. He cannot decide which argument to use as a main one: either to promote the idea that this North of yours is not so good with all those inaccessible resources, or to say that Western countries will never stay on the sidelines because the Arctic projects have allegedly no sense without European and American markets?
Click to expand...

Russia has about 10 time zones across its' Northern borders adjacent the Arctic. Russia's only warm water port used to be Vladivostok, but global warming will change that to Russia's benefit. Russia's Arctic claims are based upon fact but USA multinational Corporations will protest because it cuts them out of the profit loop, Since the USA operates for the benefit of its' largest Energy Corporations, it spells trouble for the Russian claims, just like the foolishness in the South China Sea. Europe would be foolish not to develop closer relations with its' neighbor, Russia, but USA policy keeps trying to drive a wedge between EU and Russia. I think the USA policy is doomed to failure because it is a Corporate policy not a policy for the benefit of local citizenry of the Nations involved. Russia's long experience with shipping from their Northern ports gives them an advantage in Arctic development and realistic endeavors and puts the USA at a tactical and strategic disadvantage. It would behoove the USA to quit villifying Russia as an evil empire and begin recognizing Russia as a dynamic and reasonable actor in the World's present and future economy.
/
 
viktorzar said:
A paper Arctic Deeply published in July and August two artciles with similar content. Both of them state that America will never say that Russia is an equal economic and political partner, but is ready to admit the necessity to cooperate in the Arctic.

In the 21st century Russia has been paying special attention to the Arctic region. In 2001 Russia filed its first claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
In the face of Russia’s performance actions of other states that have area of responsibility in the Arctic are not really visible. Norway is exploring the Barents Sea bottom, Finland is chairing the Arctic Council and that is it. In mass media the Arctic states are laying stress on dialogue and friendship, but they seem to be upset and annoyed.
The Arctic states understand they have lost time. By 2007 Russia had collected proves of its right for a vast part of the shelf, and has strengthened its positions in the north of the country by now. The US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden or Iceland will have to start from nothing. Arctic Deeply calls the actions of the Russian party “imperial ambitions” and “militarization campaign”. But wouldn’t these countries like to expand their own boundaries and take control over a part of the shelf if they had such an opprortunity?
The journalists haven’t also ignoresd the topic of the North Sea Route. According to Dr. Andrew Chater’s opinion, it is the most valuable Arctic resource, not oil or gas. Considering the fast ice melt in the Arctic region, this route will be accessible not only for expensive icebreakers, but also for ordinary ships in the nearest future.
At the same time Dr. Chater states that Arctic cooperation between the West and Russia is inevitable otherwise Russia will have no customers for its hydrocarbons found in the Arctic. Here the author unadvertently mentions the ambitions of China which is already contributing a lot into building and development of the Arctic infrastructure. The author believes that the Asian country would never be able to interchange the European market for Russia.
And he contradicts himself. He cannot decide which argument to use as a main one: either to promote the idea that this North of yours is not so good with all those inaccessible resources, or to say that Western countries will never stay on the sidelines because the Arctic projects have allegedly no sense without European and American markets?
Click to expand...

Huh? Is this about mustard? Because, you know, it would be really cool if this were about mustard.
 
It would behoove Russia to start acting as a ynamic and reasonable actor in the World's present and future economy.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Huh? Is this about mustard? Because, you know, it would be really cool if this were about mustard.
Click to expand...
Well, in that case you can be pleased, because it IS about mustard.:mrgreen:
 
JamesBY said:
It would behoove Russia to start acting as a ynamic and reasonable actor in the World's present and future economy.
Click to expand...
It would also behoove Russia to direct its troll factories towards some place else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom