The always-great Good Beer Blog has an interesting post from Alan on brewing under license and a recent article about the Pilsner Urquell which is brewed in Russia. Unlike Pilsner Urquell, Russian journalism doesn’t have such a great reputation, and this article seems more than a bit sensationalistic, starting out with the premise that Russian beer drinkers are being cheated (it’s right there in the headline, folks).

Two things caught my eye: the article says that the Russian version doesn’t taste as good as the original, claiming that it uses Russian water and hops. Second, the article quoted a company spokesman as saying that Russia is the only brewer of Pilsner Urquell outside of the Czech Republic.

That definitely seemed strange, as everyone knows that Pilsner Urquell started brewing under contract in Poland several years ago. So I picked up the phone and called Pilsner Urquell’s press spokesman Jiří Mareček, who said that yes, Pilsner Urquell is brewed under contract by a Czech brewmaster in Poland (at a dedicated brewery in Tychy) and in Russia (at Kaluga, south of Moscow), but that the Polish and Russian versions are only sold in those countries and not exported elsewhere. The Pilsner Urquell in this country and everywhere else in the world is from the original brewery in Plzeň, aka Pilsen. He added that the Czech brewmasters export both hops and barley to the breweries in Russia and Poland, and clarified via email that the licensed Pilsner Urquell in Russia uses 100% Czech Saaz hops, just like the brew back home, contrary to what was reported in the article.

Points of contention: the licensed brew is made with Russian water, so if you’re buying a can of Pilsner Urquell for the famously soft water of Plzeň, you’re out of luck. And while the original says “Brewed in Plzeň” on the front, the Russian and Polish versions say “Born in Plzeň,” which might lead to confusion.

Personally, I can see both sides of this issue. I’m keenly interested in beer as a local beverage, with local roots, and I have no interest myself in drinking any Pilsner Urquell that doesn’t come from Plzeň. However, the Russians might not be making out so badly: a story quietly making its way around Czech beer circles has it that the Russian Pilsner Urquell was the winner of the brewmasters’ in-house quality-control tasting, besting the Polish version as well as the Czech original.

If the Russian Pilsner Urquell actually tastes bad, I can understand why people would be disappointed — but no one is forcing them to ever buy that beer again.

Of course, if the beer is good, does anyone really care where it’s made?

And on a macroeconomic level, isn’t a local product — even one with a foreign name — a lot more desirable than an import?

Not to get too far out on my contrarian limb here, but there’s also an environmental aspect that no one ever seems to mention: the vast amounts of energy that it takes to ship beer all over creation. One would imagine that Greenpeace and Al Gore would sign off on the Russian-brewed Pilsner Urquell, at least for local, Russian beer drinkers.

I’m not saying I’m crazy for licensed beer. I always found it strangely sad that at one time much of the Asahi in Europe was actually brewed at Prague’s Braník brewery, despite the fact that it presented itself as a Japanese beer. And after InBev closed the Braník brewery last year, nothing stopped them from brewing Braník across the river at the Staropramen brewery, but still calling it Braník.

But what if the Russian-brewed Pilsner Urquell is actually the best golden lager in Russia? Would brewing under license really be so bad?

Here’s a solution for everyone, no matter where you are: buy the best locally produced beer that you can, no matter what it is. And if it’s not good enough or not what you want, let the breweries know what you prefer and buy that.

Vote with your wallets. And vote every day.

A few months ago, a friend mentioned that when he was just starting out as a young lawyer in the mid-1990s, he did some work at a law firm here in Prague. One of his projects back then was the contract for a possible sale of Budějovický Budvar to Anheuser-Busch.

That sale never went through, of course, and Budvar and Anheuser-Busch maintain a “frenemy” relationship today, entering into distribution deals for Budvar (only under its “Czechvar” pseudonym) in the United States while continuing international legal battles over the name “Budweiser.”

But talk of Budvar’s sale (subscription required) has returned, as the Prague Daily Monitor news desk reports, via Hospodářské noviny.

This time, it looks like things really are going forward. First up is a tender in January to decide which of three firms will serve as the Czech government’s advisor for the conversion of state-owned Budvar into a joint-stock company — the initial step toward a sale.

Since the advisor has yet to be chosen, it’s hard to guess how this will play out. Initially, the Czech government will hold 100% of the shares. After that, you’ll have to grab your Magic 8-Ball. Will the Czech government maintain a stake and a say in what goes on, just as the German state of Niedersachsen does with Volkswagen? Will the whole thing be sold off in one fell swoop? Or will they make it a publicly traded brewer, like InBev or Sam Adams?

The only thing we know for sure is that the current government hopes to privatize Budvar before its term is up in 2010. Heineken is currently on a buying streak here, picking up Krušovice earlier this year and reportedly in negotiations for the four breweries from Drinks Union (Zlatopramen, Louny, Dačický and Březňák). In fact, given its $9.6 million net profit in 2006 and strong sales growth internationally, I’m sure many groups would love to get their hands on a plum like Budvar. But given its American distribution deal and the, um, affinity for the name, the most likely buyer simply has to be Anheuser-Busch.

Yes, I know that sounds like sacrilege to many beer fans. But if Budvar is privatized, can you imagine that anyone other than Anheuser-Busch would end up owning it? And does anyone out there consider for a second that maybe, just maybe, this might be a good thing — and not only in terms of the reduced legal fees for both companies?

To put it another way, if you were advising the Czech government on the privatization of Budvar, what would you do?

Both reasoned answers and nonsensical howls are welcome in the comments.