"Let men be wise by instinct if they can, but when this fails be wise by good advice." -Sophocles

Friday, June 29, 2007

Putin's North Pole Wish: Steal Santa's Oil

On future Christmas morning the stockings you hung by the fire the night before may be filled with Russian delicacies, Vladimir Putin action figures, and Russian oil vouchers. Russia, under Putin’s increasingly authoritarian control, has now declared ownership of the North Pole, and presumably Santa’s beloved workshop, a region long protected by a division of territory among 5 nations. Why would Russia make such a bold claim for an area dominated by ice, frigid temperatures, and flying reindeer? Quite simply, Santa has been sitting on one of the world’s largest undeveloped oil deposits for all these years and Putin wants to take it away from the right jolly old elf. According to the UK Daily Mail, Putin’s arctic motives are all too clear. The area claimed by Russia is:
a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia….Experts estimate the ridge has ten billion tons of gas and oil deposits and significant sources of diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, nickel, lead and platinum.

No wonder Santa has enough funds to produce toys for every child in the world! Burl Ives’s rendition of “Silver and Gold” in the beloved Rudolph animated Christmas special makes much more sense now that we know Santa’s been hoarding untold treasures on his Arctic estate. It also explains why Mrs. Claus is always cheerful and optimistic despite frigid isolation and no local shopping malls or beauty salons for entertainment.

This is not Russia’s first attempt to claim arctic territory (a previous effort failed 5 years ago), but according to British officials Russia is far more serious about the current claim, which is based on alleged geological links and structural similarities between an underwater North Pole ridge and the Siberian continental shelf. Russia claims that the ridge in dispute, the Lomonosov Ridge, is connected to the Siberian continental shelf and is thus an extension of Russian territory.

The distinction is critical, since the geological link argument was carefully crafted to nullify the existing UN convention. As the Daily Mail reported:
Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the U.S., Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland) - are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.

A UN convention says none can claim jurisdiction over the Arctic seabed because the geological structure does not match the surrounding continental shelves.

But Russian scientists have returned from a six-week mission on a nuclear ice-breaker to claim that the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure.

The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.

International geologists have roundly rejected Putin’s claim on scientific grounds, pointing out that by extending the same logic Russia employed to conclude that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, similar arguments could be made that Canada should lay claim to Russia because the two are connected by a shared ocean floor plate:
Ted Nield, of the Geological Society in London, branded Russia's claim nonsensical.

"The notion that geological structures can somehow dictate ownership is deeply peculiar," he said.

"Anyway, the Lomonosov Ridge is not part of a continental shelf - it is the point at which two ocean floor plates under the Arctic Ocean are spreading apart.

Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive moves toward nationalizing Russia’s industries, especially gas, oil, and power production under state control, the world should make it clear to Putin that he must contain his lust for the North Pole’s natural resources and halt any ongoing plans to seize the territory that Russia may be formulating. The U.S. State Department and international authorities labeled Russia’s claim surprising and extraordinary, and believe it will go nowhere. The danger lies in what Putin’s reaction will be when the UN rejects, once again, Russia’s claim to the North Pole and its incredible potential revenue stream. Anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe have loudly and illogically insisted that the Iraq War is a war for oil and claim that a war based on oil needs is immoral. Surely the unpopularity of the Iraq War and President Bush’s subsequently low approval ratings are not lost on Putin in his North Pole strategy considerations.

If Americans think a war over oil would be immoral (although we have left all Iraqi oil under Iraqi control), then Putin has likely already concluded that he could seize the disputed North Pole area with no fear of forceful military response by America. It would be, after all, an actual war over oil, and America’s liberals would give Russia anything it wanted to avoid another (in their eyes) war for oil.

President Bush’s personal summit with Putin in Kennebunkport this weekend promises to be tense and likely unproductive. The issues over which Russia and America are at odds are substantial: Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran; the proposed missile defense shield for Eastern Europe; increased state control over industries and the Russian media; and possibly this new claim to the North Pole. Will the UN and U.S. appease Putin’s Arctic lust to avoid armed confrontation? If so, we must ask ourselves which is better, energy dependence on the Middle East, or energy dependence on Russia? Both options should be unpalatable to the American people, yet we are already enslaved by one to an extent, while the other would like nothing more than to enslave us and exercise direct and unquestionable control over our economy through oil manipulation.

If Russia seizes the North Pole in the coming months or years, U.S. reaction must be swift and decisive to push Russia back behind its current borders. Hitler made claims on territory he desired and based those claims on ethnic and cultural similarities of the populations. Europe appeased him and he eagerly devoured what he had truly lusted after; it was not the people or culture he wanted, it was the industry and natural resources he could assimilate to arm, equip, and transport the German military machine on its march to world domination. Putin’s motives for claiming the North Pole are no less diabolic. Instead of culture or ethnicity, he invokes geological links to declare Russia’s “rights” to the North Pole, but like Hitler his true desire is for resources that are essential to securing his power and his nation’s future domination

On January 1, 2007 I published my list of the top 5 threats facing America in 2007. Number one was internal strife in America because of its potential to paralyze us when faced with imminent threats. Number two was Russia. I have seen nothing that would change my initial assessment. Even the threat of a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the threat Russia poses, as Russian technology, equipment, and UN Security Council veto powers have allowed Iran to reach its presently precarious position threatening Israel and America with Nuclear holocaust. The North Pole issue actually combines the top two threats, as our anti-war left will hesitate to act against Russia when Putin's patience with the UN runs out and he seizes the resources he covets.

Putin must not be appeased, lest “gifts from the North Pole” take on an entirely new and ominous meaning each future Christmas season.

Image credit: "North Pole Idol" courtesy of SantasJournal.com

Technorati Tags:, , , , , , , ,

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Putin's recent actions can be linked to the value of this land. I am attaching a report that examines the Russia Oil potential. I hope you find this valuable.

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/ppc/RussianOilReport2.html

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Thanks Kevin, that is a great report you found!