I am dicking around, waiting for the NCAA basketball games to start.  For the hell of it, I am reading Pravda, enjoying the withering and relentless criticism of Russians who really don't seem to understand that the Cold War is over, and that Americans no longer consider them to be the adversaries that they once were.

Suddenly I find the most shockingly frank acknowledgement of the true nature of the war.  From an article called "Libyan War Damages Russia's Economic Interests", we see that the Russians really, I mean really, don't give a crap about any of this "humanitarian" nonsense:

The events in Libya are impacting the economic interests of Russia. While Russian raw materials companies working in this country may still cherish the hope to participate in some projects, the loss of Rosoboronexport's contract with the Jamahiriya will amount to over $4 billion. In the event of the victory of the Western coalition the country's weapons market will be closed for Russia.

With regard to the companies working directly on the territory of Libya, there are three most active Russian companies - Tatneft, Gazprom and the Russian Railways (RZD). Stroytransgaz has an office in the country as well.

Tatneft has been operating in the country for 6 years. The company received a concession to develop an oil block in the Ghadames (Unit 82-4) and won the rights to three oil blocks in the Sirte basin and Ghadames. The Russian company is involved in the projects under the production sharing agreement with Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC). In 2009 alone it has invested $43 million in the projects.

In 2007, following an exchange of assets with BASF company, Gazprom acquired 49% in oil concessions C96 and C97. According to the memorandum of cooperation with the National Oil Corporation of Libya (NOC) signed in 2008, Gazprom could take part in the tenders for the development of fields, mentions RBC Daily.

The company won the right to conduct exploration in the licensed areas #19 and #64. In mid-February, Russia's gas monopoly announced the purchase of the shares from Italy's Eni in the Libyan oil project Elephant (16.5%) for $163 million. The force majeure will likely prevent this deal from happening.

   

However, the fate of Iraq and Lukoil suggest that the raw materials companies may be welcomed back, albeit on much worse terms. The Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said that Russia was hoping to defend its economic interests in Libya, under any scenario in this country, The Moscow Post reports.

Since the opposition has failed to seize Libya right away, the forces behind the rebels have decided to legalize them and gave the rebels more or less official status. Post and telegraph are not very important in the current situation, so the Libyan oppositional National Transition Council has set up its own oil company (to replace the abovementioned NOC) and another nation's central bank, Bloomberg reports.

RZD has also contracted with Libya to build a 500-kilometer road Sirt - Benghazi, a modern high-speed (up to 250 mph) railway running along the Mediterranean coast and connecting major cities of the country. The project cost is 2.2 billion euros. To implement the project, a rail welding plant in Ras Lanuf has been launched.

With regard to the exports of the Russian arms, the head of Russian Technologies Chemezov estimated potential losses of $4 billion. However, Russia has only obtained this contract after it has cancelled the remaining Soviet-era state debt of Libya in the amount of $4.6 billion.

That is from the business pages of Pravda, not a classified government report!

http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/24-03-2011/117309-libya_russia-0/

If there was ever an argument to liberalize all state-owned companies, there you have it.  Get rid of dictators that promote terrorism?  Hell no! 

Dictators make good for business--Russian style business.

"Why do they hate us?"   JFT

You do have some strange ideas. Personally, I would claim to know and appreciate the USA rather well, from Key West to Boston, from Seattle to San Diego, from Chicago to San Antonio.

Now Yemen. Gawd, at this rate Iran will go democratic next week.

 Fighter jets intimidating demonstrators in Bahrain

The west’s staunch support of freedom and democracy is demonstrated by the choice of its allies.

See how Nato is supporting the good guys in Libya. Lovely.

Napoleon Bonsai wants the next UN resolution, this time against Ivory Coast:

"France has submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations. It is a scandal that heavy weapons are being fired in Abidjan. At a minimum there should be no heavy weapons in Abidjan," Sarkozy told a news conference after a meeting of European leaders in Brussels.

I wish he had told us too how these weapons got there!

I suppose the UN will find  a resolution against Ivory Coast using heavy weapons okay, but a resolution against countries exporting heavy weapons to dictators would be taking things too far.

Crap.  Been gone for two days and gotta wade through over 100 posts to catch up.  I'll toss in my two cents before I have to be gone for another two days:

There was a justification to dclare war on Iraq in Gulf I because Saddam had left his own borders and attacked a sovereign country.  There was justification to attack Afghanistan because they gave material support and protection to those who attacked a sovereign foreign country.  And there was (although some may disagree) justification to attack Saddam in Gulf II because he violated the cease fire agreements (any violation, no matter how minor, nullifies a ceasfire, in my opinion).  However, there has been no invasion of any other country, no attack, no violence outside the borders of Lybia.  Malomar Gadfly has not left the boundaries of his own state.  This is an internal matter.  There is no justification for the UN to "take sides" in a civil war.  If "civil rights violations" and "protection of civilians" is sufficient reason to interfere in a civil war, the list or interventions is going to grow very long, very quickly.  I'm not saying that's not a good idea.  It's just a bit hypocritical to pick and choose.

There is no question of 'interfering in a civil war'. That's the Gaddafi line. The 'responsibility to protect' has been exercised by UN peacekeepers, member states and regional organizations in regard to many countries.

Including Iraq.  Saddam killed WAY more of his people including use of chemical weapons to wipe out whole towns, but that wasn't a civil war worth intervening?  Somehow Gadaffi is a dictator worth intervention and Saddam was not?  How come the Arab League has withdrawn their support of UN "responsibility to protect" ?  Hypocritical!  

Brendan,

Also, I think the growing coalition will make "collateral damage" far less likely. I'd like the American pilots to sit this one out very soon. These Americans are a bit hair triggered if you had not noticed.

Good news.  Recently announced that the NATO mission over Libya is going to be taken over by a Canadian:  Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard.  Here come the cluster pucks.

Brendan,

I hope to hell that your optimism is warranted.  Perhaps we are seeing a new mindset emerge in the Arab world, one that refuses to accept the economic and social results of closed dictatorships, and that things really are changing in a liberal democratic direction.

If not, we are watching the world's most sensitive/politically unstable region become even more unstable.  Unless something is fundamentally different about the Middle East that could qualify the statement, "This 'aint ya daddy's Middle East", this will be just another Arab excuse to crush hope.  Our hope, and their own.  That is one area of the world where the "better angels of our nature" rarely prevail.

Jay,

look at the leading headline at the Drudge Report, it's hilarious.

Scooped again, I see...I really should invest in reading a little prior to posting.

Chris,

...enjoy your gold coloured watch.

yet,

...lazy afternoon humor.

Which is it, Dudley?  Do you prefer the Limey rules of spelling or the Yanks'?  Are you inspired by the dynamism of American modernity, or still smitten by the Brits' adherence to the time-hono(u)red traditions of Middle English?