This is disturbing, if true:

Rumors regarding Russia’s alleged handing out of passports to ethnic Russians who make up the majority of the population in the strategic Crimean peninsula have some Ukrainian parliament members deeply concerned.

The Crimea, located along the Black Sea, has strategic significance to the Russians and Ukrainians alike, because it hosts the Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea fleets in the port of Sevastapol.

Ukrainian parliament member Mykola Stretovych, a member of the ruling Orange Coalition, said in a London Telegraph report the Russians had handed out 400,000 passports in the strategic port city. Anatoly Gritsenko, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s national-security committee, launched a probe into Mr. Stretovych’s assertions, saying they would pose ” a threat to national security” if true.

Russia’s excuse for going into Georgia was to protect the Russia-leaning people in South Ossetia, many of whom have Russia-issued passports.

Is Russia laying the groundwork for a move on Ukraine, to protect “its people” in Ukraine?

Last week, Ukraine issued restrictions on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which is based in Sevastapol. Ukraine was upset that Russia was using its ships in its attacks on Georgia.

This upset Russia, which needs a good Black Sea port, and if that port happens to be in Ukraine’s territory, well, too bad for Ukraine. Russia is developing a habit of throwing its military weight around to get what it wants.

It remains to be seen how far Ukraine is willing to go on this port issue, but if Russia is handing out passports in Sevastapol, it’s a clear sign that Russia won’t take kindly

Today there is this report,

Russian soldiers took about 20 Georgian troops prisoner at a key Black Sea port in western Georgia on Tuesday, blindfolding them and holding them at gunpoint, and commandeered American Humvees awaiting shipment back to the United States.

Russia’s aggressive poses a real challenge for the West. Today, NATO ministers met to discuss the matter.

NATO Foreign Ministers decided to develop, together with Georgia, a NATO-Georgia Commission, a consultation mechanism similar to the NATO-Ukraine Commission. This new political body will follow up the decisions taken at the Bucharest Summit, and oversee the NATO-Georgia relationship.

A number of support measures were agreed upon at the meeting, including sending a team of 15 civil emergency planning experts to help Georgia assess damage to its civil infrastructure. The Alliance will establish contacts with Georgia to assess the state of the Georgian Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces.

At the same time, Allies plan to support the re-establishment of the air traffic system and assist the Georgian government in understanding the nature of cyber defence attacks.

North Atlantic Council meeting, August 19

If NATO is serious about standing up to Russia, it will move quickly on NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, even knowing full well it may bring a confrontation with Russia. Bullys are pushed back by force, not by words.

Yesterday, a reporter asked Secretary of State Rice the crucial question, and her answer did not exactly inspire,

QUESTION: How practically is NATO going to show that Russia can’t draw a new line in the sand to those states that haven’t been integrated? Is – do you think a simple restatement of Bucharest is going to do it, considering that Bucharest itself didn’t stop them from going into Georgia?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I just want to repeat again, Helene, now – I’ll get to your question, but I want to repeat again – what has Russia demonstrated? It has demonstrated that it can use its overwhelming regional military power to beat up on a small neighbor. That’s what it demonstrated. It can attack Georgian civilians, it can block Georgian highways, it can bomb Georgian ports, and it can say very nasty things about a democratically elected Georgian Government. That’s what it has demonstrated.

Now, the democratic – democracy in Georgia will survive and prosper. Georgian ports and infrastructure will be rebuilt. Unfortunately, Georgian civilians can’t be brought back, but the Georgian people have demonstrated their resilience. And to the degree that this was meant to intimidate states around Georgia, the Russians have received nothing but approbation from those states.

So Russian – on the other hand, Russian reputation, Russian protestations that it wants to be a part of the international community of states in a 21st century way, the Russian President, who continually says things that his forces either – that his forces don’t carry out; those are matters that are much harder to rebuild than Georgian ports. And so I think we have to be very clear what Russia has already lost with this venture.

Now, in terms of a reaffirmation of Bucharest, I think that is extremely important, and I think you’re hearing that solidly from the alliance. I don’t expect that we will, and nor have we sought to accelerate MAP for Georgia. We have not done that. We’ve said that was a matter for December and we’ll take that up in December. But I think the very fact of the alliance meeting, the very fact of the alliance considering what steps it will take to assist Georgia will send a very strong message that the strategic objective of undermining Georgian democracy is not going to be achieved.

NATO can have councils and contacts all it wants, but paper won’t stop a tank. The international community must act, and it can start by fast-tracking NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and by pushing Russia out of the G-8, and by holding up WTO membership for Russia.

As Vladimir Socor wrote yesterday,

This war is not simply about Georgia; it is far more than a Russia-Georgia conflict. This conflict is about the creation of a “Unbrave New World,” parallel and alternative to the Western world. It would be a domain policed by KGB alumni, regulated by Russian state energy monopolies, and expanded by military force through the incorporation of non-Russian territories. If allowed to expand as it now does in Georgia, this domain will soon become the power base for a direct Russian challenge to Western values and interests.

The time to act is now, not when another Iron Curtain begins to fall.

On Monday, German Chancellor Merkel spoke in Berlin to a conference of military commanders. The text of her speech is here, auf Deutsch. (Here is video of a news story about the conference, also auf Deutsch. The NATO Secretary General also addressed the conference.)

She kicked two piles of dirt on the NATO alliance, only a few weeks before the big summit in Bucharest. First, with regards to Afghanistan. There are increasingly sharp feelings in the alliance about what NATO should be doing in Afghanistan, and the level of committments from member nations. Canada has made veiled threats about leaving Afghanistan if it does not receive more help. Earlier, remarks from Secretary Gates about the capabilities of NATO troops raised hackles.

At the recent meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Secretary Rice addressed these tensions, in a characteristically diplomatic tone.

QUESTION: In what ways do you think that the new strategy for Afghanistan might help bridge divisions within the alliance? And do you think Europe and Germany, in particular, are doing enough in the south? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first, let me say that I would not talk about divisions in the alliance on Afghanistan. I think the alliance has a very clear, commonly shared view that the NATO mission, which NATO took by consensus, the decision to enter this mission in Afghanistan, is a core mission of NATO, it is an essential mission of NATO, it must be successful. That means helping the Afghans to defeat the Taliban and other terrorists. It means helping the Afghans to build a decent and more prosperous and more democratic society. It is – since NATO is a military alliance, that there is a requirement that we be able to meet the obligations in a military sense. And not all nations contribute in exactly the same way. We have been concerned, and both Secretary Gates and I have made clear that we have been concerned that there be a sense of burden-sharing in the alliance that shares all of the burdens of what is a difficult fight, again, in a country that has experienced 30 years of conflict and more than 20 years of civil war.

Germany, like others, is contributing to the effort, and that is greatly appreciated. What we have to be able to do is to make certain that we can fulfill all of the requirements. We can’t just fulfill the requirements having to do with reconstruction and development. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to do with governance and rule of law. We can’t just fulfill the requirements that have to deal with the hearts and minds of the population. We also have to win against these insurgents — help the Afghans to win. We have to train the Afghan army. We have to mentor and provide help to them. And it is SACEUR’s view that he needs more help in that regard, and there’s been a significant effort to do that.

Let me say one word also about the Canadians in this regard, who have made it clear that they desire a partner in the south. And we believe that the alliance has an obligation to deliver on that because this is a NATO mission. This is not a Canadian mission or a Danish mission or an American mission or — it’s a NATO mission, and we have to respond as an alliance.

She was saying, sweetly, that it would be nice if Germany contributed more troops. Combat troops, preferrably. Merkel threw cold water on all that.

Chancellor Angela Merkel called on NATO members to improve coordination of military and civil elements in crisis areas such as Afghanistan. She stressed that Germany would not lift restrictions on troops in the country.

The trans-Atlantic alliance is a pillar of Germany’s foreign and security policy, but it has to move away from purely military thinking, she told a meeting of German armed forces commanders in Berlin on Monday, March 10.

The chancellor also affirmed Germany’s opposition to extending its military role in Afghanistan to the volatile south, a move requested by the United States and other NATO members.

She said her country’s NATO-led troops were needed in the relatively peaceful north, where they were engaged mainly in civilian reconstruction projects.

She took a shot at US leadership,

Erstens. Eine vorsorgende und wertegebundende Politik muss international möglichst breit abgestimmt sein. Wir müssen vor allen Dingen das Gespräch mit unseren Verbündeten und Partnern in Europa und in der transatlantischen Gemeinschaft suchen. Rein nationalstaatliche Lösungen helfen uns nur in den allerseltensten Fällen weiter. Selbst für eine Macht wie die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ist heute klar: Niemand kann allein ohne Verbündete, auch ohne politischen Rückhalt, Probleme lösen. Das heißt, jeder auf der Welt braucht Partner, weil wir eben auch ein universelles, ein umfassendes Verständnis von Sicherheit haben.

Meaning, and mentioning the US by name, nobody can solve problems alone, without allies. Let’s have none of that cowboy diplomacy.

Second, Merkel took a saw and hacked off the limb upon which the membership hopes of Georgia and Ukraine were sitting. She said,

Wir werden uns auch über die Frage der Heranführung von Georgien und der Ukraine zu unterhalten haben. Hierzu möchte ich heute nur zwei sehr allgemeine Bemerkungen machen. Meine erste Bemerkung lautet: Ich bin der Meinung, ein Land sollte nur Mitglied der Nato sein, wenn nicht nur eine augenblickliche politische Führung diese Mitgliedschaft befürwortet, sondern wenn es auch eine qualitativ bedeutsame Unterstützung der Nato-Mitgliedschaft in der Bevölkerung gibt. Wir dürfen keine Risiken – sozusagen je nach Wahlverhalten in bestimmten Ländern, in denen sich noch zentrale politische Orientierungen herausbilden – eingehen.

Translation, from Vladimir Socor at the Jamestown Foundation,

In her speech, which dealt primarily with Afghanistan’s challenges, Merkel also cautioned against opening the door to Ukraine and Georgia. ‘Countries that are involved in regional or internal conflicts can not become members [of the alliance],” she stipulated, in a chilling “No” to Georgia.

Moreover, “qualitatively significant” internal public support would be required for countries’ accession to NATO. It is not enough for countries’ membership aspirations to be only supported by the incumbent leaderships, Merkel noted. Nor could the alliance risk admitting countries on the basis of their voter preferences, she contended (DPA, March 10).

What is this all about? Is it about energy? Russia is adamantly opposed to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Russia does not want NATO that close to her borders. So why would Germany carry water for Russia?

Consider that Germany, the third largest consumer of natural gas in the world, gets over 40% of its gas from Russia. That is bound to increase with the building of the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

What’s ironic is that when Merkel’s predecessor, Schroeder, left office, he took a leadership role in Nord Stream AG, the consortium building the pipeline. Nord Stream AG is 51% owned by Gazprom, the Russian gas company. In effect, Schroeder went to work for Russia. Merkel criticized him for this at the time.

Two days before her speech in Berlin, Merkel went to Moscow to meet with Medvedev and Putin, the incoming and outgoing Russian Presidents. Note that Medvedev is still Chairman of the Board of Gazprom. Yulia Latynina writes,

At a news conference on Saturday following his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s foreign policy under President-elect Dmitry Medvedev would remain unchanged. “I do not think that our partners will have it any easier with him,” Putin declared.

Merkel’s speech was a balancing act, if not a step in Russia’s direction. Faced with a more aggressive Russia, a Russia with a hand on the spigot of Germany’s gas supplies, Merkel doesn’t seem eager to poke the bear with any sharp sticks.

Update: For more, see The Washington Realist, and Siberian Light.

Prices for Central Asian gas are going to rise to match Europeans prices. The nation probably most interested in this is Ukraine, as the hike portends higher prices for that nation. The two-rail bank shot would be Russia pays higher prices for gas from Central Asia, and in turn Ukraine pays higher prices to Russia. From Kommersant,

Gazprom, KazMunayGaz, Uzbekneftegaz and Turkmengaz officially declared yesterday the transfer to the European prices for the Central Asia’s gas in 2009. No price formula has been worked out yet, but it is known that Turkmenistan is willing to hike the price from $130 to $150 per a thousand cu meters in 2008 to between $250 and 270 per a thousand cu meters in 2009. The timing of this statement is interesting. Made on the eve of another round of negotiations with Ukraine, it signals Kiev will no longer find a supplier of cheap gas.

As RIA Novosti says, Russia and Ukraine are currently meeting to talk about prices,

Russia and Ukraine launched on Wednesday a new round of natural gas talks which will be continued on Thursday, a source close to the negotiations on the long-running dispute said.

The former Soviet allies partially resolved their gas dispute last Thursday, agreeing that Ukraine would pay off about $1 billion of its debt and that talks would continue on a supply scheme for 2008. The agreement came after Russian gas monopoly Gazprom restored gas supplies to Ukraine, which were cut by 50% early last week.

However, Ukraine is drawing a line in the sand,

Ukraine will not buy Russian gas at prices higher than 179.5 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko stated on Tuesday commenting on media reports saying Ukraine was ready to pay over 300 dollars.

“A delegation of Naftogaz Ukrainy has got clear instructions from the government that the price of Russian gas in 2008 cannot exceed 179.5 dollars per 1,000 cubic meters. At the same time, the price of Central Asian gas cannot exceed 130 dollars,” the prime minister said.

From the Financial Times,

The announcement, made after Gazprom’s chief executive, Alexey Miller, met with top energy executives from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, signals that Ukraine could face a fourth stiff price increase on gas in as many years. European consumers could also face higher prices. Gazprom said the Central Asian producers had told it that “starting from 2009 natural gas will be sold at European prices”.

Ukraine doesn’t have a lot of alternative options at the moment, however, when it comes to gas supplies. It may have to bend to higher prices.

One thing is certain. Russia will continue to press its thumb on Ukraine until Ukraine gives up any notion of joining NATO.