U.S. may circumvent START restrictions with Britain's help - analyst/ Beyond possible U.S. recognition of Armenian genocide/ Global geopolitical crisis to hit within next decade/ Rosneft receives offshore development license without tender

Nezavisimaya Gazeta

U.S. may circumvent START restrictions with Britain's help - analyst

Russian experts consider the new Russia-U.S. strategic arms reduction treaty to replace START to be a bilateral agreement. However, there is a way for Washington to circumvent strategic offensive arms ceilings with London's help.

Under the December 1962 Nassau Agreement, negotiated by U.S. President John F. Kennedy and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, Washington was to provide London with a supply of nuclear-capable Polaris missiles (under the terms of the Polaris Sales Agreement), in return for which Britain was to lease the Americans a nuclear submarine base in Scotland.

Alexei Fenenko, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of International Security Studies, writes that a revamped Nassau Agreement remains in force today.

Four British-made Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines forming the mainstay of Great Britain's strategic nuclear forces and wielding U.S.-made Trident-II missiles will be automatically involved in a hypothetical conflict together with U.S. submarines, the analyst writes.

U.S. involvement in modernizing British strategic nuclear forces allows Washington to circumvent the new arms reduction agreement. First, the United States and the United Kingdom can jointly develop new types of nuclear weapons. In May 2005, Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston, announced work to develop new-generation warheads for Trident-II missiles.

Although the United States may promise Russia not to upgrade warheads being removed from Trident-II missiles, nothing can prevent it from modernizing them jointly with Britain, the analyst writes.

Second, U.S.-British cooperation makes it possible to draft a new program of nuclear tests. In 1992, Washington announced a nuclear-test moratorium but did not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). London, which ratified the CTBT in 1998, did not announce a nuclear-test moratorium.

The CTBT did not enter into force, while nuclear tests are only prevented by national moratoriums. Technically speaking, nothing can stop London from resuming its nuclear-test program. Moreover, Washington can join the program, without violating the moratorium, the analyst writes.

Third, Britain, which is not a party to the 1987 Soviet-U.S. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, can manufacture shorter-range and medium-range missiles, as well as ground-based cruise missiles. Washington and London can launch joint projects in this sphere under the pretext of modernizing the British-French Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles.

Unlike their U.S. equivalents, British nuclear-tipped missiles and other delivery vehicles have a shorter approach time and can therefore reach European Russia more quickly. The United States may continue modernizing its nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles jointly with Great Britain. And the most important thing: even if Washington agrees to stipulate missile-defense ceilings in the new arms reduction agreement, it can still develop such systems under joint U.S.-British projects.

Russia considers all these trends to be extremely unfavorable. Consequently, the barely noticeable British factor plays a highly important role in the strategic balance, the analyst writes in conclusion.

Gazeta.ru

Beyond possible U.S. recognition of Armenian genocide

Regardless of whether U.S. legislators recognize the Armenian genocide and how Turkey will react to that recognition, the reasons why Armenia and Turkey have agreed to seek contact continue to remain solid: Turkey still wants to see itself as a regional leader that has settled all issues with its problem neighbors. For Armenia, Turkey is the only route to Europe.

The U.S. Congress Foreign Affairs Committee has voted in favor of a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide in Turkey for the second time [since 2007].

Experience suggests that a full house vote for the resolution is unlikely. No matter how high passions run, all the parties concerned realize that the cause of the conflict is a little artificial.

That is perhaps why officials in Yerevan, after showing great enthusiasm for the occasion, are not demonstrating signs of euphoria. Armenia, by expanding on the subject of genocide every time it finds it fit, is playing a political win-win lottery. The only drawback to this game is that it offers no gain. Even if the unbelievable happens and Turkey, driven to repentance, recognizes what happened 95 years ago as genocide, how will Yerevan profit from the triumph of historical justice? A few days of rejoicing will no doubt ensure a lucky leader his re-election at the next polls, but that is all. Armenia, on the other hand, will lose the chance of mentioning its role in global political practice forever.

Some Turkish politicians, vexed as everyone in Turkey by recurring genocide charges, quite pragmatically consider the option of going through the pain of recognition and then forgetting all about it. Understandably, in present-day Turkey this is impossible, which saves Armenia the victory that can eventually reduce it to outsider status.

With everyone realizing the virtual nature of the current crisis, few can be fooled by the excessive deliberateness of programmed reactions. Turkey, in line with the scenario, was to warn that a congressional committee decision would call in question the issue of reconciliation between Ankara and Yerevan. But Turkish-Armenian contacts follow their own path and their own logic, independent of passions in the U.S. Congress. And, despite indignant outcries, the sides do not seem to be stopping the restoration work on one of the border bridges.

The only unclear issue is whether the vote count will be taken, or President Barack Obama will shoulder the burden of another reconciliation with Turkey and will not allow voting at all. From the standpoint of real policy, this is a very secondary issue.

Vedomosti

Global geopolitical crisis to hit within next decade

The next global crisis will hit within the next ten years, and is likely to be geopolitical rather than economic or financial, according to a survey by a Moscow analytical center.

The Post-Crisis World Institute Foundation said the current economic downturn is not the last shock: It will entail another crisis which will reshuffle the lineup of forces in the global economy. The liberal model of a market managed by the metaphoric Invisible Hand will become history; the new economy will be state-regulated and governed by nationalist policies. This will lead to the emergence of regional clusters and limit globalization as local community values will prevail. The new global leaders will be China, India, the United States, Russia, Brazil and the EU.

The foundation surveyed 247 economists, consultants, business leaders, state officials and journalists in 53 countries asking their opinion on their vision of the global economic development. "The survey covered specialists in various fields who analyze and understand the current situation and have influence in decision making and shaping of public opinion," explained Mikhail Polikarpov from the Post-Crisis World Institute.

A quarter of the experts surveyed preferred not to be named, especially in China, which is evidence of discrepancy between the public and the official position, said Yekaterina Shipova, the director of the institute. She said she was amazed at the pessimistic sentiments, which appeared common among intellectuals worldwide: "A geopolitical re-division and a multi-polar world forecast imply war." There is a concept of a self-fulfilling prophesy, which means that the more people share an apprehension, the more chances it has to come true, she warned.

Separatist moods will grow, and balance will be shattered in some regions, impossible to restore with economic methods; geopolitical tools will be required, said Vladislav Inozemtsev, the head of the Center for Postindustrial Studies, a Moscow-based think tank. The United States is unlikely to accept China's dominance and emerging nations' growing clout.

There are even worse scenarios, such as the Taliban using nuclear weapons, said Sergei Guriyev, rector of the New Economic School. On the other hand, stock market quotes and five- and ten-year futures curves suggest that millions of investors do not share the gloomy forecasts. They do not think a geopolitical crisis is inevitable and believe in rational and wise policies of the countries, Guriyev added.

The Post-Crisis World Institute Foundation is an independent analytical center established in Moscow in early 2009, at the initiative of several well-known Russian public and professional organizations, including the Public Opinion Foundation, Stock Market Development Center, the non-commercial partnership Business Solidarity and others.

RBC Daily, Vremya Novostei, Vedomosti

Rosneft receives offshore development license without tender

The Russian government has granted the largest state oil producer Rosneft an exploration and development license for an offshore area in the Sakhalin Region.

The Astrakhanovskoye More - Nekrasovsky license area is rather small, said an official from the Natural Resources Ministry. Its recoverable contingent reserves comprise 19.3 million tons (141.86 million bbl) of oil and 44 billion cubic meters (1.55 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas. The good part is that it is located near the Sakhalin-1 fields in which Rosneft holds a 20% stake.

Under the law on mineral resources, offshore licenses are granted without a tender only to state-controlled Gazprom and Rosneft. Until recently, the licenses Rosneft sought to receive, including for three offshore areas, were turned over to the gas export monopoly.

The government has decided to compensate Rosneft's losses it sustained last year in the fight for license areas, said Alexander Shtok, head of due diligence at 2K Audit Business Consultancy. However, it will need to give the oil producer several more licenses to ensure its parity with Gazprom, he added.

Analysts say that getting the license area is more important to Rosneft than actually developing it.

"Unlike the Arctic areas, the Sakhalin projects should not be a problem," said Vyacheslav Bunkov, chief analyst at the Aton Investment Company. "The region has been developed rather extensively and has the necessary infrastructure. But given the current situation on the commodities market, Rosneft need not hurry to develop the new area. It now has the license and can put off investment until the demand starts growing."

Alexander Yeryomin, an analyst at the investment company Finam, said that "it will be several years before commercial production" begins at the license area. Still, getting new licenses is a priority goal of Rosneft in its hydrocarbons race against Gazprom.

According to analysts, state resources are becoming the reserves of state-controlled companies which are in no hurry to increase production. Even when they are granted tax holidays, like the 15-year tax holidays granted to the fields in the Sea of Okhotsk last summer, the corporations are not eager to invest in expensive offshore projects.

Natural Resources Minister Yury Trutnev complained about the companies' low investment activity more than once. He said that putting greenfield projects in reserve was a counterproductive strategy.

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

MOSCOW, March 10 (RIA Novosti)