MOSCOW, December 9 (RIA Novosti) No hurry to sign new START treaty - analysts / U.S. failure in Afghanistan will damage Russia, CIS and SCO / Russian president to be able to use force outside Russia without formalities / Decision on investment in Shtokman postponed again /

Vedomosti

No hurry to sign new START treaty - analysts

Although the current Russian-U.S. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-I) expired on December 5, 2009, Moscow and Washington are still unable to agree on the new START treaty's key parameters and criteria.

Analysts at the Moscow-based Institute for Strategic Assessment say there is no hurry to sign a new START treaty, which must be both mutually beneficial and feasible.

The United States is interested in the new START treaty which would highlight the positive stance of Washington's changed foreign policy and would justify the world's most prestigious award, the Nobel Peace Prize received by the war-time President, Barak Obama.

The new agreement would also confirm Russia's status as a nuclear superpower. However, the nuclear disarmament process was frozen nine years ago due to the previous U.S. administration's negligent attitude toward this issue and the passive behavior of Russia which prioritized START talks only after the U.S. unveiled plans for deploying elements of its missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Numerous problems have accumulated in the past nine years. The number of Russian and U.S. nuclear-warhead delivery vehicles in the future is the most difficult issue. Washington does not want to lose its potential advantage and opposes the minimal 500-warhead ceilings.

Specific methods for counting nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles are another stumbling block. Russia wants to count all potential delivery vehicles and nuclear warheads in storage, while the United States is balking at this.

An agreement on equipping Russia's new Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle B) intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads capable of breaching enemy missile defenses could facilitate mutual parity without changing the number of delivery vehicles.

Both sides will also find it hard to reach consensus on the treaty-implementation mechanism because Moscow had some misgivings about the previous option and because new delivery vehicles will make it more difficult to monitor compliance.

Another hard-to-resolve issue is placing curbs on Russia's land-based mobile ICBM deployment areas. Unfortunately, Moscow lacks any serious trump card for wresting concessions from the U.S.

The negotiating process may slow down, unless both sides sign a new agreement by New Year's Eve. However, Moscow could profit from subsequent mutual consultations and inspection procedures on the basis of the START-1 Treaty.

Kommersant

U.S. failure in Afghanistan will damage Russia, CIS and SCO

Several days after U.S. President Barack Obama made public his new Afghan strategy, the world media published pessimistic and even openly negative predictions. They said the United States would fail in Afghanistan just as the Soviet Union did 20 years before.

If these forecasts come true, the U.S. failure in Afghanistan will also damage the interests of Russia and its partners in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Russian analyst writes.

Alexander Lukin, director of the East Asia Research Center at the Foreign Ministry's Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), said Afghanistan has always been a security threat (terrorism, separatism and extremism) to neighboring states and through them, to Russia.

All SCO countries - Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan - as well as India, Iran and Pakistan have lost lives in terrorist attacks. They also have problems with separatists who are most frequently supported by religious extremists.

Failure to stabilize Afghanistan will inevitably provoke an outbreak of terrorism and separatism in Central Asia, China's Xinjiang Province, and some regions of Russia, Lukin writes. Therefore, Russia needs the situation in Afghanistan to be stabilized, all the more without contributing any resources, first of all personnel.

Russia will not offer unconditional assistance to the international coalition. The coalition, and first of all the United States, should respect other countries' national interests and agree to discuss Afghan problems with the SCO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

Dialogue with the SCO is already under way, but Washington and NATO are so far unwilling to talk officially with the CSTO, which comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the analyst writes.

The CSTO could contribute to the international coalition's efforts, in particular by training security specialists for Afghanistan.

Russia and the other CIS and SCO member states claim that victory in Afghanistan will strengthen the U.S. position in Central Asia and possibly lead to its domination there, which would be dangerous.

But victory is still far away, Lukin writes, adding that creating a Kabu-basedl government capable of controlling all of Afghanistan would be a major achievement.

In addition, do those who fear a U.S. victory in Afghanistan really think that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan would be a better neighbor for Russia's allies in Central Asia? The idea may appeal only to those who would like to establish similar regimes there and possibly in Russia, Lukin concludes.

Gazeta, Kommersant

Russian president to be able to use force outside Russia without formalities

President Dmitry Medvedev has submitted a proposal to the Federation Council authorizing him to make prompt decisions to use force outside Russia.

Kremlin sources say the upper house's approval would be permanent and that the president would no longer be required to refer each specific case to the legislature to make the decision.

The house is reportedly ready to approve the proposal by December 16, while analysts claim that it is in conflict with the constitution.

The current process requires the president to seek approval from the parliament's upper house which issues a separate resolution each time there is a need to use force abroad.

"The president practically violated the constitution by forcing Georgia into peace in August 2008 without the required approval," said Sergei Krivenko from the presidential council on civil society and human rights.

Viktor Ozerov, who heads the Federation Council's defense and security committee said: "The president will be granted the right to make the decisions promptly. The resolution will not be issued for a specific term, but will be universal and permanent." He does not think the change will be contrary to the constitution, since article 102 enables the Federation Council to make the decision on the possible use of force outside the country.

However, the president, who is also the armed forces' commander-in-chief, will need specific approval for peace-keeping operations, as the document in question will only cover emergency use of force. "For example, he will need an upper house sanction to extend the service of four Russian Federation helicopters serving with a peacekeeping mission in Chad," Ozerov added.

A Kremlin source said the president had asked the upper house to pass a permanent resolution - in fact to provide him with blanket authority to independently make decisions regarding Russian armed forces' operations outside the country - thus allowing him to react more promptly to emergencies such as pirate attacks on ships.

"The president's permanent right to use force runs contrary to the constitution," said Mikhail Krasnov, vice president of the Indem Foundation, a pro-democracy NGO.

Viktor Sheinis, one of the authors of the current constitution, said the proposal was "absolutely unconstitutional."

Gazeta

Decision on investment in Shtokman postponed again

The final decision on investment in Russia's Shtokman natural gas project may be postponed until late 2010. This would push back the start of commercial production to 2016.

Arnaud Breuillac, Total's vice president for exploration and production in Central Europe and Continental Asia, said a final decision would be made by the end of 2010, nine months later than a previous deadline for the Gazprom-led project.

Initially, the Russian energy giant planned to settle financial issues in 2009, start building the project's technological facilities in 2010, and then ship gas from the deposit to the Nord Stream pipeline in 2013.

"The project is 70% financed with borrowed funds," said Alexander Shtok, head of due diligence at 2K Audit Business Consultancy. "Therefore, development will largely depend on financial markets' stability."

Dmitry Baranov, an analyst with Finam Management, said: "If the decision is made in 2010, commercial gas production will not start any sooner than in 2016."

Vitaly Kryukov from the investment financial company Capital is more pessimistic. He said Shtokman wouldn't yield its first commercial gas any sooner than 2017-2020.

Apart from raising the cost of commercial loans, the global financial and economic crisis has cut gas consumption due to shrinking production. Gas consumption in Europe is expected to fall 10% next year. The accrued gas surplus has cut the cost of gas on the U.S. and European spot markets by nearly 70%, which is 45% below Gazprom's price. In the next three years, the gap will grow by another 25%, said Jochen Weise, a member of Executive Board of E.ON Ruhrgas in charge of gas supply and trading.

Dmitry Lyutyagin, an analyst with investment company Veles Capital, said: "This makes development of the Shtokman project unprofitable, as its gas will not be competitive."

Lyutyagin said the situation should stabilize within the next few years, spurring the demand for gas. However, forecasts of aggregate gas consumption by the end of the decade should be reviewed, he said.

"This puts in question the expediency of building so many gas export pipelines. Nord Stream and South Stream may not have enough gas for profitable operation," he said.

The Shtokman offshore project in the Barents Sea, led by Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom (51%), is expected to require $15bn of investment in its first phase alone. France's Total holds 25% in the project and Norwegian energy firm StatoilHydro 24%.

RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.