Research Project Final draft

"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." These words of Russia's late great leader Lenin are inscribed on a statue in Nehru Park in India. The Russia of today is not the Russia that Lenin had envisioned at the height of the soviet power. Instead, today Russia is a fragmented part of its former self, once the beacon of communism now merely a shadow of the iron curtain. Lenin stood for the ideals of communism and despised the capitalistic "greed" of the western nations. It's ironic that Russia has strayed seemingly far from the principles of its last great visionary, becoming a capitalistic state itself. Russia controls a large portion of raw resources that are exported to Europe as well as other continents (citation needed). This control allows Russia tremendous bargaining power throughout the region. In particular, Russia distributes natural gas to much of central and Eastern Europe; approximately 173 billion cubic meters was sold in 2007 alone, according to a CIA world fact book estimate. This past year Russia, in an openly defiant act, cut off the supply of natural gas all the way to France in response to allegations that Ukraine was stealing from their pipeline. This event impacted millions of people across Europe, forcing closures from businesses to schools. This type of behavior is not acceptable by international standards, as such actions put great strain on international relations, endangering both human life and economic stability of a whole region. Although the current geopolitical stability of Europe is not solely the responsibility of Russia, the Russian government must restrict the negative ways in which it interacts economically with the rest of Europe because they are unjust, strains international ties, and jeopardize the stability of the region.
Before one can assign blame in this socio-economic problem one must look at the entire issue in order to understand how Russia and most of Europe arrived at the current economic situation that affects all of them. As of the year 2000, as many as 12 of 33 European nations (including former eastern block countries) were 100 percent reliant on foreign natural gas importation, while another 7 of the 33 were more than 95 percent reliant. Of those total 19 countries, Russia has been the main supplier of natural gas and LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) (Stern, 12). That natural gas dependence in and of itself hasn't posed a problem to Russia or the dependent nations; what has proved to be a problem is the supply route for the natural gas. Approximately 90 percent of natural gas leaving Russia travels via a Russian/Ukrainian pipeline to the rest of Europe including Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, even including Germany and France (Stern, 14). Russia claims that Ukraine had been "stealing" natural gas, and on January 1, 2009 they completely halted gas imports to Ukraine only to resume limited services four days later stating that Ukraine will only receive partial shipments due to the amount stolen. While this issue seems as if it may boil down to petty accounting problem and business bickering when one looks at the history of negotiations between Russia and the rest of Europe fundamental problems have appeared in the last five years.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Russia has undergone major economic and social restructuring. Russia has been the sole supplier of natural gas for a large portion of Europe for almost two decades, and it had been speculated early on that there was no inherent risk in Russia strong arming other nations either as a group or individually, as there were no potential gains for doing so (Stern 20). This view was altered in January 2006 when Russia's energy company Gazprom, which is directly controlled by the Russian government, essentially did just that and strong armed Ukraine into paying significantly higher prices for natural gas, roughly increasing the price threefold (Nichol, 3). While there was no direct political correlation to this act, two things became evident: first, that Russia was, and still is, willing to demand unreasonable gas price hikes under threat of a complete shut off; and secondly, that these actions, if carried through in the future, would lead to a significant destabilization of the region's political and economic sectors (Victor).
But why has Russia infuriated its neighbors and threatened them twice in front of the international community? In both instances money seems to be the likely factor for Russia's aggressive policies. The incident in 2009 shares a striking to that three years earlier, in that Russia economic situation has been destabilized has lead to them attempting to regain lost capital by using the fact that they have the ability as the sole producer of natural gas to gain unfair leverage in the region. In both cases, when Ukraine has not responded to the price increase Russia has shut off the pipeline (Kramer). The ethical implications of these acts are appalling. Not only is Russia taking advantage of their position as the sole supplier of natural gas to arbitrarily bully other nations they treat the commonwealth of other nations but as collateral damage (commonwealth in this instance being the stability, security and safety of other nations receiving natural gas downstream of Ukraine's pipeline). We find that this characteristic mood swing for Russia, desperately trying to flex their political and economic muscles in a world economy that doesn’t move and bend to their will the way they did just twenty years ago. These acts of bravado were completely unprovoked even in the eyes of the experts before the first act of aggression in 2006, that there was no implication that Russia for any reason would be a force to reckon with regard to retaliation like this in any respect (Stern, 20). So what has changed so significantly in the last few years, not enough to warrant this kind of reckless behavior? Russia’s grasp on the region is absolute, as they control a majority of the natural gas coming into Eastern Europe and several downstream nations.
These incidents, taken in the context of geopolitics can seem sterile, like a business transaction. What’s lost in this interpretation of the event is the lives of the people who this gas cut off affects the most, the people living in the affected countries. From Ukraine to France, people who depend on natural gas for cooking, heating and electricity went without these basic necessities during one of the most punishing times of the year. Countries like Bulgaria were devastatingly impacted during the January 1 gas cut off. Feelings of anger and resentment are carried through the region a "New York Times" piece that ran on January 11 where journalist Dan Bilefsky interviewed those affected in Bulgaria. He reported that not only were people upset at this injustice but they were also fearful for their safety. Infants and the elderly, the most at risk groups for a gas shut off were put into jeopardy throughout the crisis. The government of Bulgaria has commented since the shut off and subsequent reopening that they were seeking an alternative energy option in order to reduce their reliance on Russia's natural gas. One of the proposed options was reopening of previously closed nuclear power plants (Dnevnik), which may end up further destabilizing the region. Whatever the eventual solution is it's important to remember it's not only national reputations at risk here but rather it's the lives of millions of people throughout Europe that are put at risk by Russia's reckless behavior.

Lenin once said, "I don't care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution." -1918. The leader of the Soviet Union spoke once that he does not care the fate of Russia, for it was only a stepping stone towards his own vision of world order. Perhaps then, it's best that he never saw what has become of his former state. Russia is forcing its will onto less powerful nations, still waging war just as it did before the fall of Soviet Union, this time without bullets or bomb but rather with the power of economics, the result can be just as brutal however. It isn't just the act of shutting off Europe's gas supply that outrages me and others, but rather the attitude and intent that such a brazen act provokes. Acts such as these put too many lives, careers and economies in turmoil, both financially and physically. Hopefully, in the future Russia will learn that despite its once great power and subsequent twenty year long downfall, their government can interact in a positive way with their European neighbors to promote economic and geo politically stability. It's unclear what the future of Russia's economy is, but we pray that it's a sensible one.



Works Cited
Bilfesky Dan "Without Gas, Bulgarians Turn Icy to Old Ally" The New York Times Online 11 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

Brainerd Elizabeth. "Winners and Losers in Russia's Economic Transition .The American Economic Review, Vol. 88 No. 5 Dec., 1998, Pages (1094-1116) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009

CIA World Fact Book


Gleb Bernard A . CRS Report for Congress Russian Natural Gas: Regional Dependence. Washington DC: January 5th 2007.

Nichol Jim and Woehrel Steven CRS Report for Congress Russia's Cutoff of Natural Gas to Ukraine: Context and Implications, February 15th 2006.

"Gasping for gas". The Economist print edition (online). 15 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009


Ericson Richard E. "The Post-Soviet Russian Economic System: An Industrial Feudalism?" Institute for Economies in Transition No.8 2000. 29 Mar 2009 Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009


Dr. Heinrich Andreas. "Under the Kremlin's Thumb: Does Increased State Control in the Russian Gas Sector Endanger European Energy Security?" Europe-Asia Studies Nov2008, Vol. 60 Issue 9, p1539-1574, 36p) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009

Kramer Andrew E. "Russia cuts off gas deliveries to Ukraine". International Herald Tribune A29 . 2 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

"Russia Ukraine reach deal to resume gas supplies to Europe" Qatar News Agency 18 Jan 2009 . 30 March 2009
<>

"Russia shuts off gas to Ukraine" BBC World News 1 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009


Lynch Allen C. "Roots of Russia's Economic Dilemmas: Liberal Economics and Illiberal Geography".
Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002 Page (31-49) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009 <>

Darik Dnevnik "Bulgaria informs EC it might reopen nuclear unit" Associated Press. Mediapool 12 Jan. 2009. 29 Mar 2009.


Sokov, Nikolai. "The Ukrainian Gas Crsis Revisited" Current History; Oct2006, Vol. 105 Issue 693, p348-351 Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. University of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009

Stern John. "Security of European Natural Gas Supplies: The impact of import dependence and liberalization." The Royal Institute of International Affairs. July 2002 Page (1-36)

"Ukraine accused of stealing gas" BBC World News 2 Jan 2009. 30 Mar 2009



Victor Nadejda M. " Russia's Gas Crunch" The Washington Post 6 April 2006.
29Mar 2009.

Joshua O’Crowley workshop

Overall

Hi Jousha I just read your second draft and I'm here to help you workshop it.

First off, I like the topic of your paper, it's very current and you talk about some very important relationships. The structure of your paper is good; however, you seem to use a lot of redundant sentences throughout. There are quite a few subject object arguments grammar mistakes, and a lack of proper citation. Also, you continually shift the targeted reader by making many definitive statements "we" or "us" meaning "Us as the world" and "Us as Americans". This makes it quite confusing.

Is there anything particular that you feel you wanted help with? If so please e-mail me at fssar7@uaf.edu

Thesis

I can't find an although statement, so I assume that your thesis statement is in the bottom part of your first paragraph where you start saying "Would it cost us less now to start…". This needs to be fleshed out and put into proper format with an although statement. Perhaps, "Although the cost of starting new renewable energy programs can be expensive…".

You seem to identify with those who would promote energy renewable resources but you don't flesh out both sides of the argument very completely.

Content

I found this paper to be a 7 out of 10 for being interesting to read. Lots of good information but you need to cite properly otherwise it doesn't mean anything. You talk a lot about exciting renewable energy sources but you don't flesh out how they might be implemented which in my opinion is the most interesting part. You could enhance this part of your essay by looking at a few interesting renewable energy sources and researching what they are currently doing to make them available to the public.

You don't seem to look at the negatives to these reports other than mentioning how current energy policies were enacted in your third paragraph, and you don't really talk about technology for unrenewable resources. Also all of these paragraphs seem to be going in the same direction, each topic sentence refers back to how much we currently use. Try to move all of this to one section then develop all of your other paragraphs around a specific issue.

Because you don't really have a thesis statement it's hard to figure out how well this all relates to each other.

Style

You do a lot of jumping around defining who "we" are throughout the paper; this is distracting at least to me, maybe not to other. In your second paragraph your style changes when you describe the energy bills, be careful with paraphrasing to make sure it's rewritten in your own words, just removing one or two words isn't enough you should RESTATE IT completely.

This sections here "These laws changed previous energy policies by deregulating oil and gas prices; imposing energy efficiency standard for appliances, giving tax credits; loans and grants for residential solar heating and energy conservation improvements; required that electric utilities buy back power generated from personally owned energy generators; a…"

Be careful how you define energy, perhaps it would be better to classify what kind of energy, steam, electric mechanical. You don't explicitly define energy in your opening sentences and that makes it difficult to read.

I don't really see a concluding paragraph here, perhaps you should split the last part of your final paragraph into 2.

Research

I only count you using 3 citations throughout perhaps (Alternate Fuels?) Is a citation but I can't tell the difference between your parenthetical to your citations because they are not in the right format. And there is no works cited so it's impossible for me to tell how many you are using.

I hope this has helped you, let me know if there's anything else you need.

Essay 3 Final Draft

The ground is frozen solid, the temperature a shocking negative 40 degrees centigrade with a slight wind chill. A few brave souls step inside of a local grocery store for a brief moment of relief from the chilling surroundings outside. After a few moments rest, they take one last warm breath before heading out the automatic doors, back to walk the streets just a few more blocks until they reach their local church. It is a Sunday, and parishioners walk from their homes to worship, the one day of the week in Fairbanks, Alaska, when the bus doesn't come by. If one has ever been to northern Alaska in the winter, this image is a familiar one. Here in Fairbanks, residents are blessed with affordable and reliable public transportation offered to residents by Fairbanks North Star Borough. Service runs Monday through Saturday for most of the working day (6:00AM until 9:00PM), and overall the bus system is quite competent. There is only one issue that I have with the current system: there is no bus service offered on Sunday. Sunday, for a large portion of the Fairbanks population, isn't a "working day" ,but for many it's the busiest day of the week! The residents of Fairbanks do everything from shopping to worshiping and for some even work on that forgotten day of the week. Although the current mass transportation in the Fairbanks area is good, the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) should increase bus service to Sundays because it will decrease weekend road congestion, lower pollution in the greater Fairbanks area, and increase the autonomy to those dependent on the transportation services.

 

The questions are why doesn't Fairbanks have week long bus service, and what would the consequences, both positive and negative, be for enacting such a policy change? The city of Fairbanks belongs to the North Star Borough, which is similar to a county and, money for bus services and other city programs comes directly from taxes and the Borough. Considering that on Saturday the current city wide bus system has an altered schedule, it seems acceptable that if Sunday service would be enacted, it too should be on this reduced, yet still functional time table. This would allow those who depend on bus service for work and personal activities such as shopping an easy transition from their current program, as it would simply be an extension of an existing plan. Enacting Sunday service would marginally increase the operating budget for the FNSB (Fairbanks North Star Borough), but the autonomy it would give citizens would be worth it.

 

The FNSB should know that enacting this plan into the current program is not only prudent, but also in line with the goals outlined by their own committee in 2003 when they set forth an initiative to lower carbon emissions around the Fairbanks area in order to comply with EPA standards. In this report they outlined two relevant facts. Firstly, that there is a growing need for this service; between 1999 and 2003, the number of annual patrons of the MAC (Metropolitan Area Commuter System) bus system rose from 246,064 (III.C5-19) to over 375,000 .Secondly, the number projected vehicle miles traveled per winter day was projected to grow around 10,000 miles per year through 2015 (IIIC.3-7). By the council's own projections, this service is going to increase in utility for the residents of the Fairbanks area each year, and with each year that passes more and more people will be around to take advantage of this service. This has implications that directly affect Fairbanks residents. The golden heart city doesn't look the same as it did just five years ago when I moved here from Alaska. The big box stores such as Lowes, Barnes & Noble, and Old Navy didn't exist; neither did many of the subdivisions around the military base. In the short time I've spent in this great city, I've seen a substantial amount of growth, but with that growth consequences are also expected. These consequences come in many forms. One of the most visible consequences of growth is increased traffic on our modest intercity road system. This traffic not only inconveniences many, but it may be potentially dangerous, especially in our road conditions.

 

So how is this problem going to resolve itself? It's not going to happen overnight, but the seeds for making a change like this are simple. The plan to start a Sunday bus service is broken down into three steps. First, a show of support by a small group of concerned citizens who would benefit from this change should speak out at our local city council meeting. With enough support, petitions would show that there is enough need for service (Step2). The third step would be to requisition this change to be reflected in the 2010 Borough budget. All of this can be accomplished easily in a few months.

        

With each year that goes by without increased service to the existing transportation network here in Fairbanks millions of opportunities for our own local Fairbanks citizens are lost. We owe it not only to our neighbors and fellow residents of Fairbanks, but also to future generations, for as we lower our carbon footprint around our homes and businesses we are ensuring a safer, cleaner Alaska for the next generation.

Research Project 2nd Draft

"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." These words of Russia's late great leader Lenin are inscribed on a statue in Nehru Park in India. The Russia of today is not the Russia that Lenin had envisioned at the height of the soviet power. Instead, today Russia is a fragmented part of its former self, once the beacon of communism now merely a shadow of the iron curtain. Lenin stood for the ideals of communism and despised the capitalistic "greed" of the western nations. It's ironic that Russia has strayed seemingly far from the principles of its last great visionary, becoming a capitalistic state itself. Russia controls a large portion of raw resources that are exported to Europe as well as other continents (citation needed). This control allows Russia tremendous bargaining power throughout the region. In particular, Russia distributes natural gas to much of central and Eastern Europe; approximately 173 billion cubic meters was sold in 2007 alone, according to a CIA world fact book estimate. This past year Russia, in an openly defiant act, cut off the supply of natural gas all the way to France in response to allegations that Ukraine was stealing from their pipeline. This event impacted millions of people across Europe, forcing closures from businesses to schools. This type of behavior is not acceptable by international standards, as such actions put great strain on international relations, endangering both human life and economic stability of a whole region. Although the current geopolitical stability of Europe is not solely the responsibility of Russia, the Russian government must restrict the negative ways in which it interacts economically with the rest of Europe because they are unjust, strains international ties, and jeopardize the stability of the region.

Before one can assign blame in this socio-economic problem one must look at the entire issue in order to understand how Russia and most of Europe arrived at the current economic situation that affects all of them. As of the year 2000, as many as 12 of 33 European nations (including former eastern block countries) were 100 percent reliant on foreign natural gas importation, while another 7 of the 33 were more than 95 percent reliant. Of those total 19 countries, Russia has been the main supplier of natural gas and LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) (Stern, 12). That natural gas dependence in and of itself hasn't posed a problem to Russia or the dependent nations; what has proved to be a problem is the supply route for the natural gas. Approximately 90 percent of natural gas leaving Russia travels via a Russian/Ukrainian pipeline to the rest of Europe including Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, even including Germany and France (Stern, 14). Russia claims that Ukraine had been "stealing" natural gas, and on January 1, 2009 they completely halted gas imports to Ukraine only to resume limited services four days later stating that Ukraine will only receive partial shipments due to the amount stolen. While this issue seems as if it may boil down to petty accounting problem and business bickering when one looks at the history of negotiations between Russia and the rest of Europe fundamental problems have appeared in the last five years.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Russia has undergone major economic and social restructuring. Russia has been the sole supplier of natural gas for a large portion of Europe for almost two decades, and it had been speculated early on that there was no inherent risk in Russia strong arming other nations either as a group or individually, as there were no potential gains for doing so (Stern Soviet and Russian Gas). This view was altered in January 2006 when Russia's energy company Gazprom, which is directly controlled by the Russian government, essentially did just that and strong armed Ukraine into paying significantly higher prices for natural gas, roughly increasing the price threefold(Nichol, 3). While there was no direct political correlation to this act, two things became evident: first, that Russia was, and still is, willing to demand unreasonable gas price hikes under threat of a complete shut off; and secondly, that these actions, if carried through in the future, would lead to a significant destabilization of the region's political and economic sectors(Victor).

But why has Russia infuriated its neighbors and threatened them twice in front of the international community? In both instances money seems to be the likely factor for Russia's aggressive policies. The incident in 2009 shares a striking to that three years eriler, in that Russia economic situation has been destabilized has lead to them attempting to regain lost capital by using the fact that they have the ability as the sole producer of natural gas to gain unfair leverage in the region. In both cases, when Ukraine has not responded to the price increase Russia has shut off the pipeline. The ethical implications of these acts are appalling. Not only is Russia taking advantage of their position as the sole supplier of natural gas to arbitrarily bully other nations they treat the commonwealth of other nations but as collateral damage (commonwealth in this instance being the stability, security and safety of other nations receiving natural gas downstream of Ukraine's pipeline.)

These incidents, taken in the context of geopolitics can seem sterile, like a business transaction. What is lost in this interpretation of the event is the lives of the people who this gas cut off affects the most, the people living in the affected countries. From Ukraine to France, people who depend on natural gas for cooking, heating and electricity went without these basic necessities during one of the most punishing times of the year. Countries like Bulgaria were devastatingly impacted during the January 1 gas cut off. Feelings of anger and resentment are carried through the region a "New York Times" piece that ran on January 11 where journalist Dan Bilefsky interviewed those affected in Bulgaria. He reported that not only were people upset at this injustice but they were also fearful for their safety. Infants and the elderly, the most at risk groups for a gas shut off were put into jeopardy throughout the crisis. The government of Bulgaria has commented since the shut off and subsequent reopening that they were seeking an alternative energy option in order to reduce their reliance on Russia's natural gas. One of the proposed options was reopening of previously closed nuclear power plants (Dnevnik), which may end up further destabilizing the region. Whatever the eventual solution is it's important to remember it's not only national reputations at risk here but rather it's the lives of millions of people throughout Europe that are put at risk by Russia's reckless behavior.

Lenin once said, "I don't care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution." -1918. The leader of the Soviet Union spoke once that he does not care the fate of Russia, for it was only a stepping stone towards his own vision of world order. Perhaps then, it's best that he never saw what has become of his former state. Russia is forcing its will onto less powerful nations, still waging war just as it did before the fall of Soviet Union, this time without bullets or bomb but rather with the power of economics, the result can be just as brutal however. It isn't just the act of shutting off Europe's gas supply that outrages me and others, but rather the attitude and intent that such a brazen act provokes. Acts such as these put too many lives, careers and economies in turmoil, both financially and physically. Hopefully, in the future Russia will learn that despite its once great power and subsequent twenty year long downfall, their government can interact in a positive way with their European neighbors to promote economic and geo politically stability. It's unclear what the future of Russia's economy is, but we pray that it's a sensible one.

Works Cited

Bilfesky Dan "Without Gas, Bulgarians Turn Icy to Old Ally" The New York Times Online 11 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

 

Brainerd Elizabeth. "Winners and Losers in Russia's Economic Transition .The American Economic Review, Vol. 88 No. 5 Dec., 1998, Pages (1094-1116) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009<http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/>

 

CIA World Fact Book

<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html>

 

Gleb Bernard A . CRS Report for Congress Russian Natural Gas: Regional Dependence. Washington DC: January 5th 2007.

 

Nichol Jim and Woehrel Steven CRS Report for Congress Russia's Cutoff of Natural Gas to Ukraine: Context and Implications, February 15th 2006.

 

"Gasping for gas". The Economist print edition (online). 15 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

<http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12953847>

 

Ericson Richard E. "The Post-Soviet Russian Economic System: An Industrial Feudalism?" Institute for Economies in Transition No.8 2000. 29 Mar 2009

 

Dr. Heinrich Andreas. "Under the Kremlin's Thumb: Does Increased State Control in the Russian Gas Sector Endanger European Energy Security?" Europe-Asia Studies Nov2008, Vol. 60 Issue 9, p1539-1574, 36p) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/>

 

Kramer Andrew E. "Russia cuts off gas deliveries to Ukraine". International Herald Tribune A29 . 2 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

 

"Russia Ukraine reach deal to resume gas supplies to Europe" Qatar News Agency 18 Jan 2009 . 30 March 2009

< http://www.qnaol.net/QNAEn/News_Bulletin/Economics/Pages/09-01-18-1959_527_0036.aspx>

 

"Russia shuts off gas to Ukraine" BBC World News 1 Jan 2009. 29 Mar 2009

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7806870.stm>

 

Lynch Allen C. "Roots of Russia's Economic Dilemmas: Liberal Economics and Illiberal Geography".

Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002 Page (31-49) Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. Univeristy of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009 < http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/>

 

Darik Dnevnik "Bulgaria informs EC it might reopen nuclear unit" Associated Press. Mediapool 12 Jan. 2009. 29 Mar 2009.

<http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/newsbriefs/2009/01/13/nb-02>

 

Sokov, Nikolai. "The Ukrainian Gas Crsis Revisited" Current History; Oct2006, Vol. 105 Issue 693, p348-351 Academic Search Premier EBSCOhost. University of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmussen Lib, Fairbanks AK, 30 May 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/>

 

Stern John. "Security of European Natural Gas Supplies: The impact of import dependence and liberalization." The Royal Institute of International Affairs. July 2002 Page (1-36)

 

"Ukraine accused of stealing gas" BBC World News 2 Jan 2009. 30 Mar 2009

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7808465.stm>

 

 

Victor Nadejda M. " Russia's Gas Crunch" The Washington Post 6 April 2006.

29Mar 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501954.html>

 

Essay 3 Rough Draft

The ground is frozen solid, the temperature a shocking negative 40 degrees centigrade with a slight wind chill. A few brave souls step inside of a local grocery store for a brief moment of relief from the chilling surroundings outside. After a few moments rest they take one last warm breath before heading out the automatic doors, back to walk the streets just a few more blocks until they reach their local church. It is a Sunday and parishioners walk from their homes to worship, the one day of the week in Fairbanks, Alaska, when the bus, doesn't come by. If one has ever been to northern Alaska in the winter this image is a familiar one. Here in Fairbanks residents are blessed with affordable and reliable public transportation offered to residents by Fairbanks North Star Borough. Service runs Monday through Saturday for most of the working day (6:00AM until 9:00PM) and overall the bus system is quite competent. There is only one issue that I have with the current system, there is no bus service offered on Sunday. Sunday for a large portion of the Fairbanks population isn't a "working day" but regardless, for many it's the busiest day of the week! The residents of Fairbanks so everything from shopping to worshiping and for some even work on that forgotten day of the week. Although the current mass transportation in the Fairbanks area is good, the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) should increase bus service to Sundays because it will, decrease weekend road congestion, lower pollution in the greater Fairbanks area even further and increase the autonomy to those dependent on the transportation services.

The question is why Fairbanks doesn't have week long bus service and what would the consequences, both positive and negative be for enacting such a policy change. The city of Fairbanks belongs to the North Star Borough, which is similar to county, money for bus services and other city programs come directly from taxes and the Borough. Considering that on Saturday, the current city wide bus system has an altered schedule it seems acceptable that if Sunday service would be enacted it too should be on this reduced, yet still functional time table. This would allow those who depend on bus service for work and personal activities such as shopping an easy transition from their current program as it would simply be an extension of an existing plan. Enacting Sunday service would marginally increase the operating budget for the FNSB but the autonomy it would give citizens would be worth it.

The FNSB should know that enacting this plan into the current program is not only prudent, but also in line with the goals outlined by their own committee in 2003 when they set in forth an initiative to lower carbon emissions around the Fairbanks area in order to comply with EPA standards. In this report they outlined two relevant facts. Firstly, that there is a growing need for this service, between the 1999 and 2003 the number of annual patrons of the MAC bus system rose from 246,064 (III.C5-19) riders in the 1999/2000 to over 375,000 in 2003. Secondly, the number projected vehicle miles traveled per winter day was projected to grow around 10,000 miles per year through 2015 (IIIC.3-7). By the councils own projections this service is going to increase in utility for the residents of the Fairbanks area each year, and with each year that passes more and more people will be around to take advantage of this service. This has implications that directly affect Fairbanks residents. The golden heart city doesn't look the same as it did just five years ago when I moved here from Alaska. The big box stores such as Lowes, Barnes and noble and Old Navy didn't exist; neither did many of the subdivisions around the military base. In the short time I've spent in this great town I've seen a substantial amount of growth, but with that growth consequences are also expected. These consequences come in many forms. One of the most visible consequences of growth is increased traffic on our modest intercity road system. This traffic not only inconveniences many but it may be potentially dangerous, especially in our road conditions.

So how is this problem going to resolve itself? It's not going to happen overnight but the seeds for making a change like this are simple. The plan to start a Sunday bus service is broken down into three steps. First a show of support by a small group of concerned citizens who would benefit from this change should speak out at our local city council meeting. Step two, with enough support petitions would show that there is enough need for service and step three would be to requisition this change to be reflected in the 2010 Borough budget. All of this can be accomplished easily in a few months.

With each year that goes by without increased service to the existing transportation network here in Fairbanks millions of opportunities of our own local Fairbanks citizens are lost. We owe it not only to our neighbors and fellow residents of Fairbanks but also to future generations, as we lower our carbon footprint around our homes and business here we are ensuring a safer, cleaner Alaska for the next generation.

Week 10 Reading Response “Their Hearts and Minds?”.

We are at war. David Rieff believes that we are at war, and in his piece "Their Hearts and Minds" He expands on the idea that the struggle that we face today against the extremists of the Middle East is fundamentally different than the past war where we tried to capture the hearts and minds of those we fought against. Reiff tell us that unlike our previous battle with communism, this current battle is much more difficult for America. We face an enemy which differs from us at a fundamental level, a level at which at its core reflects the difference between two societies, the modern and the anti-modern, as coined by Reiff. We see here that unlike our old war of communism, which was much like our American ideals, striving for equality and freedom as founding principles, all be it going about it in a completely different manner, this current enemy holds old traditions are relevant than ideological truths. Many of those who are now fighting against us have watched the "American dream" of democracy and communism fail to provide them with even the most basic of human needs, and firsthand experience is the true teacher in this war of ideas. The old regimes of the past have done little to help much of the muslim world, so again they turn to the one thing they all share in common, their religion. It is here where the line is drawn between east and west.

Research Project Rough Draft

"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot." The words of Russia's late great leader Lenin are inscribed on a statue in Nehru Park in India. The Russia of today is not the Russia that Lenin had envisioned at the height of the soviet power, instead today Russia lays a fragmented part of its former self, once the beacon of communism now a shadow of its former self. Lenin stood for the ideals of communism and despised the capitalistic "greed" of the western nations. It's almost ironic now that Russia has strayed seemingly far from the principles of its last great visionary becoming a capitalistic state itself. Russia controls a large portion of raw resources that are exported to Europe as well as other continents (citation needed). This control allows Russia tremendous bargaining power throughout the region. In particular, Russia distributes natural gas to much of central and Eastern Europe; approximately 173 billion cubic meters was sold in 2007 alone according to a CIA world fact book estimate. This past year Russia, in an openly defiant act cut of the supply of natural gas all the way to France in response to allegations that Ukraine was stealing from their pipeline. This event impacted millions of people across Europe forcing closures from businesses to schools. This type of behavior is not acceptable by international standards as such actions put great strain on international relations, and it endangers human life and economic stability of a whole region. Although the current geopolitical stability of Europe is not solely the responsibility of Russia, the Russian government must restrict the negative ways in which it interacts economically with the rest of Europe because it is unjust, strains international ties and jeopardizes the stability of the region.

Before one can assign blame one in this socio-economic problem one must look at the entire issue in order to understand how Russia and most of Europe got into the current economic situation that affects all of them. As of the year 2000 as many as 12 of 33 European nations (including former eastern block countries) were 100 percent reliant on foreign natural gas importation, another 7 of the 33 were more than 95 percent reliant. Of those total 19 countries Russia has been the main supplier of natural gas and LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) (Stern, 12). That natural gas dependence in and of itself hasn't posed a problem to Russia or the dependent nations, what has proved to be a problem is the supply route for the natural gas. Approximately 90 percent of natural gas leaving Russia travels via a Russian/Ukrainian pipeline to the rest of Europe including Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and further down Germany and France (Stern, 14). Russia claims that Ukraine had been "stealing" natural gas and on January 1^st 2009 they completely halted gas imports to Ukraine only to resume limited services four days later stating that Ukraine will only receive partial shipments due to the amount stolen. While this issue seems as if it may boil down to petty accounting problem and business bickering when ones looks at the history of negotiations between Russia and the rest of Europe in the last five years fundamental problems seem to appear.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's Russia has undergone major economic and social restructuring. Russia has been the sole supplier of natural gas for a large portion of Europe for almost two decades and it had been speculated early on that there was no inherent risk in Russia strong arming other nations both as a group or individually as there were no potential gains for doing so (Stern Soviet and Russian Gas). This view was altered in January 2006 when Russia's energy company Gazprom, which is directly controlled by the Russian government, essentially did just that and strong armed Ukraine into paying significantly higher prices for natural gas roughly increasing the price threefold(Nichol, 3). While there was no direct political correlation to this act two things became evident, first, that Russia is willing to demand unreasonable gas price hikes under threat of a complete shut off, and secondly, that these actions if carried through in the future would lead to a significant destabilization of the regions political and economic sectors(Victor).

But why has Russia infuriated it's neighbors and threatened them twice publically in front of the international community? In both instances money seems to be the likely factor for Russia's aggressive policies. The 2006 incident as well as one in 2009 are similar in that Russia economic situation has been destabilized has lead to them attempting to regain lost capital by using the fact that they have the ability as the sole producer of natural gas to gain unfair leverage in the region. In both cases when Ukraine has not responded to price increase Russia shuts off the pipeline. The ethical implications of these acts are appalling. Not only is Russia taking advantage of their position as the sole supplier of natural gas to arbitrarily bully other nations they treat the commonwealth of other nations as collateral damage; commonwealth in this instance being the stability, security and safety of other nations receiving natural gas downstream of Ukraine's pipeline.

Lenin once said "I don't care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it. All this is only the road to a World Revolution." -1918. The leader of the Soviet Union spoke once that he does not care the fate of Russia, for it was only a stepping stone towards his own vision of world order. Perhaps then it's best that he never saw what has become of his former state. Russia itself forcing its will onto less powerful nations, still waging war just as It did before the fall of Soviet Union, this time without bullets or bomb but rather with the power of economics, the result can be just as brutal however. It wasn't just the act of shutting off of Europe's gas supply that outrages me and others, but rather the attitude and intent that such a brazen act provokes. Acts such as these put to many lives, careers and economies in turmoil, both financially and physically. Hopefully in the future Russia will learn that despite it's once great power and subsequent twenty year long downfall their government can interact in a positive way with their European neighbors to promote economic and geo politically stability. It's unclear of what the future for Russia's economy is but we pray that it's a sensible one.

 

Works Cited

Elizabeth Brainerd. Winners and Losers in Russia's Economic Transition .The American Economic Review, Vol. 88 No. 5 Dec., 1998, Pages (1094-1116)

CIA World Fact Book
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html>

CRS Report for Congress Russian Natural Gas: Regional Dependence. January 5^th 2007. Bernard A . Gleb

CRS Report for Congress Russia's Cutoff of Natural Gas to Ukraine: Context and Implications, February 15^th 2006. Jim Nichol and Steven Woehrel

The Economist print edition (online). Gasping for gas. January 15^th 2009.
<http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12953847>

Richard E. Ericson The Post-Soviet Russian Economic System: An Industrial Feudalism?. Institute for Economies in Transition No.8 2000

Dr. Andreas Heinrich. International implications of increased state control over the Russian oil and gas sector. 23 June 2006

"Andrew E. Kramer "Russia cuts off gas deliveries to Ukraine. International Herald Tribune January 2^nd 2009:
A29

Qatar News Agency Russia/ Ukraine reach deal to resume gas supplies to Europe January 18^th 2009

"Russia shuts off gas to Ukraine" BBC World News January 1^st 2009
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7806870.stm>

Allen C. Lynch Roots of Russia's Economic Dilemmas: Liberal Economics and Illiberal Geography.
Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002 Pages(31-49)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/826216

John Stern. Security of European Natural Gas Supplies: The impact of import dependence and liberalization. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. July 2002 Page (1-36)

"Ukraine accused of stealing gas" BBC World News January 2^nd 2009
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7808465.stm>

"Nadejda M. Victor " Russia's Gas Crunch, Thursday April 6, 2006 The Washington Post