Not
only is the supply of Russian energy resources to China, but the
emerging modernization and technological alliance between the two
countries - that's what was most interesting result which ended on
Wednesday visit to Beijing, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.Aircraft
manufacturing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology,
medicine - an area listed on the Prime Minister following his two-day
work in the Chinese capital. This is a new (and welcome) trend - not only economic but also political achievement in bilateral relations.Price formulaOn
the eve of Putin's departure to Beijing, it was known that the
successful conclusion of negotiations on long-term supplies of Russian
gas to China at this time is expected. So the prime minister said that the two countries' approach to the finale "in the gas talks - it is a pleasant surprise. Just
as in Beijing and reached an agreement on oil, is going through a
pipeline south from Skovorodino (the Chinese side decided to "refine"
the price on it, and pay less, bringing the "Transneft" to the idea of
breaking all agreements and to submit to arbitration in London .)
The Sino-Russian debate over gas prices, which is expected to supply China for three full decades, can not be reduced to the ability to "come together in the middle." In the middle you can draw a line along the Amur, the more so that the river was probably the only anomaly in the world, where one party - the USSR and then Russia - and belonged to one of the beaches and all area. Rivers still generally divided in half, on the fairway. So in the negotiations, finally settled 6 years ago, all the territorial issues between the two big countries, the outcome was known in advance. With gas more difficult.In unofficial reports of a price dispute was referred to a "fork" between 350 and 250 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And no matter how famous the Chinese ability to stop and haggle a little longer after it stops, get off at the middle of, like, not so difficult.But we are talking about deliveries in total 68 billion cubic meters of gas per year (30 billion cubic meters along the western route, which presumably will go with 2015, and another 38 billion cubic meters - the eastern route) for 30 years. Such contracts in the global energy sector has ever had. So no surprise that the negotiations have been dragging for about five years and will last for some time.But how could identify even the very price and the price formula for the next 30 years? Today, China can be linked in a tangle on the price received by them and other Turkmen gas to the price for which Moscow is trying to sell gas to Europe, and it all together - with quotes LNG and European intentions to get rid of the "Russian gas dependence." But how and why this formula to express the price in an era of financial crisis, when nobody knows what will cost a dollar or euro in a year? May be considered in the bags of rice?Both Moscow and Beijing share the ideology of "global energy stability," the essence of which - to save energy costs of market uncertainty and move to a strategy of stable and predictable supplies.Russia has made this idea even a key theme of the St. Petersburg summit, "Big Eight" in 2006. Partners then signed the declaration, and then forgot about it. But China thinks differently. But it is generally understood that a good idea. And when you begin to approach it exactly, it turns out extremely vague.Reality upgradeAmong the many economic documents signed during this time in Beijing, swept the final memorandum of cooperation the modernization, which raises our level of economic cooperation in global politics.This is good news. To begin with, you will notice that Moscow still achieved some success in their attempts to fix the "colonial" in its trade imbalance with the number one economic partner (this year, confirmed Putin in Beijing, the turnover may reach $ 70 billion). "Colonial" here is that we supply raw materials to China and get high-tech products. Type in a search engine the word "Chinese" and see what the system tells you: not just tea, cars, iPhones, etc. This is - the reality of our two economies.Output, as we see, is found in actually promoting China's modernization of the Russian economy (though, who argue, not without benefit to the Chinese side). This, on top of that, we repeat - and even politics. Including - Russian interior.Not refuse myself the pleasure of quoting a recent comment about the key theme of President Dmitry Medvedev: "If you talk about Russian policy in the west, that is where the EU and the U.S., the purpose of his proposed Moscow" modernization alliance "clearly political ... we are working on part of the technological modernization of the Russian economy, and beyond it is inevitably followed by upgrading the political (but not in reverse order). In general, a good suggestion.Russian liberals in general are prone to foreign policy illusions and immediately loaded this simple formula alliance many additional meanings. Such as what the essence - in a decisive turn to the west of Moscow, on the fear of oriental despots, but otherwise nothing, because all resources are located exclusively in the modernization of the U.S. and the EU.It would be very strange to make these "turns" at the very moment when the West itself is set in the East, where more and more clear that the modernization potential and many other resources are increasingly moving to where the rapidly developing new powers. "As we see, especially our economic cooperation with China are not always happy - but for Russia's modernization, they obviously useful.Opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
The Sino-Russian debate over gas prices, which is expected to supply China for three full decades, can not be reduced to the ability to "come together in the middle." In the middle you can draw a line along the Amur, the more so that the river was probably the only anomaly in the world, where one party - the USSR and then Russia - and belonged to one of the beaches and all area. Rivers still generally divided in half, on the fairway. So in the negotiations, finally settled 6 years ago, all the territorial issues between the two big countries, the outcome was known in advance. With gas more difficult.In unofficial reports of a price dispute was referred to a "fork" between 350 and 250 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And no matter how famous the Chinese ability to stop and haggle a little longer after it stops, get off at the middle of, like, not so difficult.But we are talking about deliveries in total 68 billion cubic meters of gas per year (30 billion cubic meters along the western route, which presumably will go with 2015, and another 38 billion cubic meters - the eastern route) for 30 years. Such contracts in the global energy sector has ever had. So no surprise that the negotiations have been dragging for about five years and will last for some time.But how could identify even the very price and the price formula for the next 30 years? Today, China can be linked in a tangle on the price received by them and other Turkmen gas to the price for which Moscow is trying to sell gas to Europe, and it all together - with quotes LNG and European intentions to get rid of the "Russian gas dependence." But how and why this formula to express the price in an era of financial crisis, when nobody knows what will cost a dollar or euro in a year? May be considered in the bags of rice?Both Moscow and Beijing share the ideology of "global energy stability," the essence of which - to save energy costs of market uncertainty and move to a strategy of stable and predictable supplies.Russia has made this idea even a key theme of the St. Petersburg summit, "Big Eight" in 2006. Partners then signed the declaration, and then forgot about it. But China thinks differently. But it is generally understood that a good idea. And when you begin to approach it exactly, it turns out extremely vague.Reality upgradeAmong the many economic documents signed during this time in Beijing, swept the final memorandum of cooperation the modernization, which raises our level of economic cooperation in global politics.This is good news. To begin with, you will notice that Moscow still achieved some success in their attempts to fix the "colonial" in its trade imbalance with the number one economic partner (this year, confirmed Putin in Beijing, the turnover may reach $ 70 billion). "Colonial" here is that we supply raw materials to China and get high-tech products. Type in a search engine the word "Chinese" and see what the system tells you: not just tea, cars, iPhones, etc. This is - the reality of our two economies.Output, as we see, is found in actually promoting China's modernization of the Russian economy (though, who argue, not without benefit to the Chinese side). This, on top of that, we repeat - and even politics. Including - Russian interior.Not refuse myself the pleasure of quoting a recent comment about the key theme of President Dmitry Medvedev: "If you talk about Russian policy in the west, that is where the EU and the U.S., the purpose of his proposed Moscow" modernization alliance "clearly political ... we are working on part of the technological modernization of the Russian economy, and beyond it is inevitably followed by upgrading the political (but not in reverse order). In general, a good suggestion.Russian liberals in general are prone to foreign policy illusions and immediately loaded this simple formula alliance many additional meanings. Such as what the essence - in a decisive turn to the west of Moscow, on the fear of oriental despots, but otherwise nothing, because all resources are located exclusively in the modernization of the U.S. and the EU.It would be very strange to make these "turns" at the very moment when the West itself is set in the East, where more and more clear that the modernization potential and many other resources are increasingly moving to where the rapidly developing new powers. "As we see, especially our economic cooperation with China are not always happy - but for Russia's modernization, they obviously useful.Opinion of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
