Here's a very pessimistic view of how the United States will cope with economic collapse, peak oil, and associated oil shortages. It's written by Dmitry Orlov, who made his name in 2006 with the widely-commended "Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for collapse than the US."

Both articles are must reads.

He also has a blog, ClubOrlov.

Amidst all the anti-Russian ignorance originating from the Legislative Branch, there are occasionally comments more in track with reality:

[on the happenings in Abkhazia]

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA): We have a totally inconsistent position when it comes to some countries that might have areas that want to have their self-determination but are occupied by people who are somewhat pro-Russian.

Brad Sherman (D-CA): There are substantial claims of the people of Abkhazia, and the people of South Ossetia, to go their own way and not to be part of Georgia. There are arguments on the other side, and perhaps we would need a more extensive review before we put the national security of the U.S. on the line.

Lithuania chose yesterday to block talks on a strategic deal between the European Union and Russia. Officially, Lithuania's main demand is oil; they want the resumption of Russian oil supplies to the Mazeikiu refinery via a ruptured section of the Druzhba pipeline (Russia announced last summer that it will not fix the pipeline due to technical and economic reasons and concentrate instead on other more preferred pipeline routes, i.e. to more cooperating customers in Asia and southern Europe). Unofficially, the Lithuanian leadership is trying to exploit the issue to beef-up floundering domestic support.

I could care less about Lithuanian internal politics, but what are the implications of yesterday's veto? I have some ideas...

- Russia will never yield to Lithuania's demands under the gun. Poland learned this already. It tried blackmailing Russia and issued a similar ultimatum itself. Russia never yielded. More than a year later, the Polish PM was elected out-of-office, the new PM expressed some consoling sentiments, and the two sides reached a compromise that included intense inspections of Polish slaughterhouses by Russian veterinary specialists. By no means did Poland win anything by trying to use the weight it felt it had, as part of the E.U., to blackmail Moscow. Lithuania's on its way to learning the same lesson. In fact, right after Lithuania's veto, the Russian Foreign Minister simply said that Russia will patiently wait until the E.U. gets its ship in order, not acknowledging Lithuania's attempt at blackmail. Because, in reality, time's on Russia's side; the E.U. needs this new agreement more than Russia does and Lavrov's nonchalantness totally displays that situation.

- All of these FSU states say that it's important to diversify energy supplies so as not to be dependent on Russia. Lithuania's own Minister of the Economy, Vytas Navickas, compared over-dependence on one energy supplier to "drugs," calling for increased diversity whenever possible. So, Lithuania, here was your chance - Russia gave it you! With supplies from Druzhba gone, you had a chance to source oil from anywhere else in the world that had it. You're not a landlocked country or anything, just ship it in! Well you tried, but most of the oil refined at Mazeikiu today is still Russian oil (lol). And, now, two years later, you show how addicted you are to Russian oil by issuing a lame ultimatum trying to secure more of it. Completely hypocritical and totally laughable.

- Finally, it would not be a surprise if Lithuania is thanked by Russia one day for going ahead with all of this drama as it will probably forestall any E.U. unity, which would benefit Russia. The bigger E.U. countries are becoming more fed-up by the abuse of the veto power by the more irrelevant member, especially when it is used for self-serving reasons like this one, totally out of Brussels' realm. Spain and Britain were among the more vocal members that expressed their dissatisfaction with Lithuania's veto. For this reason, it can be argued that having a short-sighted antagonist, like Lithuania, in the E.U. could be quite beneficial for Russia in the end of the day. On this last point, I've written recently that extreme anti-Russian behavior by New Europe could backfire, increasing the resolve of Old Europe to shun and slander them publicly, while growing its economic and political cooperation with Russia at the same time.

A couple of interesting developments today on Russia's strategic defenses:

Russia develops defense program against high-precision strikes, (RIA Novosti, 4/29/08)

Russia has developed a new concept for unified national defense against high-precision weapons, a first deputy prime minister said on Tuesday.

[CW: It could be based on chemical lasers]

"This program envisions the creation of a unified, combined-arms defense network to protect vital objects of military, political and economic infrastructure from strikes delivered with high-precision weapons," Sergei Ivanov told a meeting of the military-industrial commission under the Russian government.

However, he said the implementation of the program would require thorough modernization of the existing arsenal of air and missile defense systems in conjunction with a complete overhaul of command-and-control structures.

As a first step, Russia will strengthen air defenses around Moscow and in the central part of European Russia by deploying a second regiment equipped with new S-400 air defense systems to protect the air space of the capital and industrial zones.

Russia's Air Force is also planning to transform the 16th Air Army into an Air Force and Air Defense army in 2009.

The 16th Air Army is the most important unit of the Special Purpose Command. Initially formed during the Second World War as a part of the Soviet Air Force, it is now the tactical air force component of the Moscow Military District, headquartered at Kubinka airbase near Moscow.

Ivanov said the Russian budget allocated 700 billion rubles ($30 billion) for state defense orders in 2007.

The Russian Armed Forces and other security-related bodies adopted over 200 types of new weaponry last year.


Russia to cut risks from U.S. missile shield in Central Europe, (RIA Novosti, 4/29/08)

Russia will reduce the risks from the proposed deployment of a U.S. missile shield in Central Europe, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday after a meeting with his counterpart from Luxembourg.

The U.S. is planning to relocate its X-band radar on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific to the Czech Republic as part of its proposed European missile shield, which will also include deploying 10 interceptor missiles in Poland.

"We believe these plans contain risks that will destabilize the situation and create demarcation lines. We will try to reduce these risks if we cannot stop them," Lavrov said.

[CW: Lavrov sounds confidant]

The Russian diplomat said earlier this month that Washington could ease Moscow's concerns "by not deploying missile defenses in Europe."

The Pentagon's deployment plans in Central Europe continues to be a major bone of contention in relations between the U.S. and Russia, which considers the project a threat to its national security. Washington has proposed a range of measures to ease Russian concerns.

However, Russia has insisted on the permanent deployment of Russian personnel at the facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. Agreement has yet to be reached on the issue.

And here's a second early morning observation!

A Russian official said today that Russia will increase natural gas exports to Pacific Rim countries from the current 3% to 30% of its total exports by 2020.

This is great news because Russia would diminish the chances of being held hostage by any specific consumer nation or consuming nation bloc; diversifying demand is one of the eight requirements for the strategic development of natural resource-rich nations.

The implications for Europe are grand. It disenfranchised Russia a lot by complaining endlessly and unjustifiably about Russian energy supplies. As some of you know, I have some very strong opinions about this and if I were Russia and it were up to me, I would simply stop selling oil and gas to ungrateful Europe completely (Golden Tickets for Italy and others, though).

Just an early morning observation:

A Bloomberg article this morning reads "Shell, BP Post Record Profit on $100 Oil; Shares Jump."

Yet, Russophobe, staunt anti-Gazprom-ist, and pro-stealing Russia's oil guy Michael J. Economides wrote in December an article titled "Profits Decline at $100 Oil!"

Just sayin'

If you have been following Russia a bit, you would know that Russia's demographic predicament has reached a turning point; births are at the highest levels in almost twenty years. This clearly indicates renowned optimism and hope and widespread expectations of economic prosperity and social stability. Russians are happy and procreating and, by 2014, Russia's population will be growing instead of falling. This will be an astonishing reversal of course and a magnificent achievement. By the way things are going and by the way how I expect things to be, I think this milestone is basically in the bag.

Therefore, it is of no surprise that the Russophobes have come out to dispute reality. One after another, they are desperately crying-out that this can't be happening.

Mind you, this was their ace in the hole, the one card which they felt would ensure the destruction of the world's largest country and the only one capable of forging an alliance to confront American imperialism and long-lasting hegemony. After Russia's economic recovery and political resurgence on the world stage, Russophobes still held hope that the demographic crisis, so grave as it was, would be something Russia would not be able to overcome.

For sure, once more, they're on their way to failure and disappointment. But, delusional as they are, they still like to write cynical articles, which in my opinion depicts their humanity, or rather lack thereof, because:

- They seriously seem disappointed that more Russians are being born and try to come-up with lame excuses and explanations!

- They seriously try to list the way Russians are dying, could die, and should die!

- They seriously attempt to contrive figures that could possibly justify their main thesis, which they know is disappearing like a dream!

I've read a lot of these recently and here are a few. They are a real treat if you're into reading manifestos of desperation, which in my opinion are always funny.


Experts Doubt that Russia's Population Decline can be Halted, by Jonas Bernstein (Jamestown Foundation - Eurasia Daily Monitor, 4/28/08)

Moscow’s Claim of 'Demographic Breakthrough' Overblown, by Paul Goble (Window on Eurasia, 4/27/08) [CW: Goble's a real psychopath. Of punching a wall or biting-off a finger nail, he probably does one or the other whenever he hears of Russia's rising birth levels - or thriving multiculturalism]

Dying Russia, by Nicholas Eberstaft and Hans Groth (Wall Street Journal, 4/25/08)


UPDATE: Certifiable Russophobe Paul Goble added another contrary-to-reality article on Russia's demographics on April 29th. Here's the link to this laughable article:

Accelerating Population Decline Threatens Russia’s Future, by Paul Goble (Window on Eurasia, 4/29/08)

An exceptional Letter to the Editor of The Moscow Times:

In response to "Why Moscow Doesn't Have a Lot of Friends," a column by Georgy Bovt on April 10.

Editor,

Bovt writes, "Russia must first offer its own society -- and only later the world -- an attractive model for development that other countries would want to follow."

This is a terribly naive assertion. Even if Russia is a beacon of democracy, many of its neighbors are not going to become friends of Russia. Just look at the British Commonwealth. There is no love lost between Britain and its former colonies. Most former colonies are fundamentally anti-British. That will never stop, at least not for a long time, irrespective of what Britain does.

Similarly, do you think that the United States' "friends" in Asia, for instance, are friendly toward Washington because the United States is a democracy? Absolutely not.
The same is true for Russia. The only option for Russia is to get rich as soon as possible. Then, even those who hate Russia will become dependent on it.

Chatura Ranweera
Toronto

Last week, Estonia's Central Bank lowered its GDP forecasts for 2008 by more than 50% to a really, really paltry 2%. This signals a clear failure for that country's economy, considering it was supposed to be an emerging market. As such, growth rates greater than 5% are more or less expected and two-percent is a complete disaster.

To imagine how hard a landing Estonia is having consider this: between 2006 and 2007, Estonia's growth decelerated 37% year-over-year. And between 2007 and 2008 (as forecast), Estonia's growth will decelerate an additional 72%.

As a comparison, Russia's economy, which is at least 60 times larger than Estonia's, acelerated its growth in 2007 over 2006 and Russian officials have continuously upped forecasts and estimates throughout 2007 and 2008 year-to-date, most recently last week.

Economists agree that Russia's G8-leading economic growth is no longer being led by oil and gas exports and record-high energy prices. Manufacturing, retail, and financial services are among the sectors creating more economic growth than energy, for example.

So what can explain the crisis in Estonia? Being so close to the fastest growing country in the G8 and a charter member of BRIC, one would assume that Estonia would just be able to piggy back off Russia, supplying consumer goods and services to its growing middle class.

One would assume.

Here's the story as reported today by the AP:

Tiny Estonia still suffering from Russia's pinch a year after Soviet monument row

The €40-million (US$60-million) coal terminal at the Muuga port outside Tallinn has ground to a halt, its mountains of sooty Siberian cargo vanished.

Russian coal and oil deliveries destined for the European market have shifted to other Baltic Sea ports, as Estonia feels the financial sting of its giant eastern neighbor.

A year after a furious row over the relocation of a Soviet war memorial in Tallinn, a government study says the Baltic country has lost Russian business worth an estimated €450 million (US$700 million), or nearly 3 percent of its gross domestic product.

The impact was especially strong at the Port of Tallinn, where state-of-the-art coal conveyers stretch between shiny silos and lofty cranes.

The port lost 13 percent of its transit volumes last year as Russian cargo trains suddenly stopped crossing the Estonian border.

Meanwhile, Estonian products all but disappeared from store shelves in Russia and the flow of Russian tourists — big spenders in the Baltic capitals — dwindled in Tallinn.

"Estonia has suffered greatly as a result of Russia's actions," said Nikolai Petrov, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Moscow. "Whenever you have two neighboring countries that are so completely asymmetric in terms of economic potential, the smaller is bound to suffer."

Moscow never made it official policy to punish the Baltic country of 1.3 million residents. But Estonian officials suspected Russian involvement from the onset of the upheaval that ensued after Tallinn authorities on April 27 moved a Red Army monument and nearby war grave from the city center.

To many Estonians, the so-called Bronze Soldier statue was a caustic reminder of five decades of Soviet occupation. But Estonia's ethnic Russian minority, about 25 percent of the population, and Moscow saw the move as an affront to the memory of Soviet troops who died fighting the Nazis.

[CW: Mind you, a portion of these 25 percent are considered non-citizens, something more reminiscent of segregated America or apartheid South Africa, rather than the European Union in 2008]

Rioting broke out, leaving one man dead, more than 100 injured and dozens of shops looted. The government's computer networks were crippled by cyberattacks widely believed to have been orchestrated in Russia. In Moscow, pro-Kremlin youth protesters lay siege to Estonia's embassy.

As tensions eased, many Estonian business leaders realized the worst was yet to come —on their balance sheets.

"It was a severe blow, and we're still recovering," said Lauri Betlem, marketing manager at dairy company Valio Eesti.

The company's cheese exports "ceased completely" in May as Russian wholesalers took its Atleet brand off distribution lists, Betlem said. Exports resumed in July, but the volume was only about 50 percent of "pre-Bronze Soldier figures" by the end of the year.

Estonian candy maker Kalev also took a hit. Its exports declined 9 percent in 2007, mainly due to a drop in Russian sales.

To be sure, Russian government never officially blacklisted Estonian goods. But the youth groups that waged the PR campaign for the boycott included Nashi [CW: Power to the people], whose former leader later became a Kremlin official in charge of youth politics. The Russian embassy in Tallinn declined to comment.

The Port of Tallinn said volumes of liquid cargo, such as oil, fell 16 percent, in the first quarter while coal handling plummeted 97 percent.

"The reason behind the decline ... was primarily related to the redirection of cargo volume originating from Russia to Russia's own ports," the Port of Tallinn said in its annual report.

The Klaipeda port in Lithuania also has reaped the benefit of Estonia's pain. Freight handling jumped 24 percent in 2007, while the volume of Russian transit doubled, said Kestutis Voveris, head of the port's statistics department.

Estonia's tourism industry, too, has suffered. At the end of the year, some 41,000 Russians had visited the Estonian capital, down 18 percent from the previous year, said Evelin Tsirk of Tallinn's tourism office.

"It was quite a big shock to the Tallinn tourism business. People in Russia were afraid and confused about what was happening here," Tsirk said.

[CW: How about totally insulted, let down, and double-crossed. I think those are the more accurate adjectives while afraid and confused are more like subtle put-downs. What a jerk]

Russia's economic pinch comes at a time when Estonia's economy is undergoing a drastic slowdown. GDP growth is expected to plunge from 11.2 percent in 2006 to less than 4 percent this year.

[CW: Lol. Cause and effect, silly]

The government, however, downplays the economic fallout of the dispute. Prime Minister Andrus Ansip told the business daily Aripaev that Russia was bound to redirect transit flows anyway as it develops its own port capacity on the Baltic Sea.

Port of Tallinn spokesman Sven Ratassepp said the future for the port lies in west-to-east transit flows —or goods destined for Russia's burgeoning middle class [CW: Off topic, but remember how this was totally unpredictable eight years ago? Russia was supposed to be a dying carcass]. The port has agreed with China's Ningbo Port to build a container terminal aimed at distributing Chinese goods to Russia and Nordic countries.

"We're quite sure that oil transit volumes will never be as high again, but we will remain a transit port," Ratassepp said.

Politically, however, relations are still frigid.

"We still lack trust and respect in bilateral relations, and that is not very easy to improve," Marina Kaljurand, Estonia's ambassador to Russia, told The Associated Press in an e-mail, adding that relations are hoped to improve under incoming Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

[CW: I disagree. Frankly, Estonia is not a priority for Russia and not a country it needs to have strategic relations with. That said, the Kremlin is practical and if it senses a positive change of attitude by an antagonistic country it will respond in kind. But, especially with small countries like Estonia that Russia really doesn't care much about, the first step needs to come from Tallinn and it needs to be meaningful and completely sincere. Case in point: Tusk's Russia policy has improved from Kaczynski's and Russia has responded by inviting him to Moscow, ending the ban of Polish meat, etc.]

This editorial appeared in the Financial Times on 4/20/08. My comments are in red:

Breaking the grip of Gazprom

If the European Union needed a new warning of Russia's efforts to strengthen its grip on the continent's gas supplies, it has come in the shape of President Vladimir Putin's trip to Libya.

During the visit, Gazprom, the state-run gas monopoly, agreed to a wide-ranging joint venture with Libya's national oil and gas company. Gazprom also revealed it was talking to Italy's Eni about investing in a new Libya-Italy undersea pipeline and to Nigeria about a trans-Sahara route. The discussions follow talks with Algeria and Qatar and a determined drive to reinforce Russia's grip on central Asian gas exports.

[CW: Well said]

Gazprom's ambitions make sense even at a purely commercial level. With some 25 percent of EU gas going through its pipes, it will naturally strive to boost market share, with or without partners. That is what would-be monopolists do. But, for the West, the Kremlin connection adds a disturbing political dimension -- Gazprom is the embodiment of Putin's stated aim to make Russia an energy superpower.

[CW: Sure]

The EU recognizes the danger. But its ability to present a united front to Russia is undermined by the repeated willingness of leading states, including Germany, France and Italy, to strike bilateral deals. Gazprom divides and rules.

[CW: If you run a tally, more than half the E.U. is happy striking bilateral deals with Russia. Therefore, if the E.U. wants to fulfill its obligations to democracy, the status quo shall stand no matter how paranoid and Russophobic a minority in the E.U. remain]

So what should the EU do? First, it must encourage Gazprom and other Russian gas companies to invest more in new production. The more gas that Russia produces, the better for consumers [CW: In my opinion, Russia is determined to lower its oil and gas production and allocate more production to the Russian market. Russia is fed up with complaints from consumer nations and allegations of blackmail. It will no longer shoulder the burden of energizing Europe under these conditions. Like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, as a matter of fact, Russia might just be going on strike]. Next, Brussels must accelerate internal energy market liberalization so all states benefit from a common energy pool.

[CW: Maybe Brussels should consult Sacramento first]

Also, union members must reinforce ties with non-Russian suppliers, including Libya and Nigeria [CW: To paraphrase a Nigerian energy official, the West has taken advantage of Nigeria for fifty years and now Russia has come along and can offer a better deal]. It must redouble efforts to secure new suppliers, notably in the Caspian. The planned Caspian-EU Nabucco route needs finance and committed gas supplies [CW: Seriously, the only hope is Iraq]. Both might be easier to find if EU states offered more explicit financial support. Finally, the EU must do more to encourage energy saving and energy diversification, backing investments in clean coal and nuclear power [CW: Finally, something that makes sense]. With EU gas output declining, there is no time to waste.

There is no need to demonize Russia [CW: Advise the veep to stop using the word blackmail and senile Polish officials to stop comparing Nord Stream to Molotov-Ribbentrop]. Moscow is unlikely to use its dominance to cut off the EU [CW: True that. Russia's just being practical and looking after its interests]. It depends on gas revenues even more than the union depends on its gas [CW: Hmm, not anymore. In my opinion, Russia's fed up with the complaints, feels it can do with little or no oil and gas exports, and considering going on strike]. But a stronger market position allows the Kremlin to seek higher prices and better terms [CW: You mean market prices. What's wrong with that?] -- and to exert political influence, particularly in Eastern Europe where dependence on Russian gas is highest [CW: Here's where you screw up your logic. You mentioned Germany, France, and Italy above. Those are the countries that are striking bilateral deals, yet no one can honestly acknowledge that Russia's trying to exert political influence there. But you say that Russia's trying to exert political influence in Eastern Europe. It doesn't make sense logically, so contemplate this - Russia's asking for market prices and it's getting tamper-tantrums in response from countries completely lacking confidence and totally living in the past, like Poland and Ukraine, augmented, of course, by those with agendas, like Robert Amsterdam, Anders Aslund, Paul J. Economides, and Edward Lucas]. The only effective EU response is a unified, multi-headed and flexible approach to energy security. It is perhaps the biggest contribution the union could make to Europe's economic well-being.

[CW: The only effective E.U. response is energy conservation, the development of ITER, and praying that Russia doesn't really go on strike]

Here's an interesting interview of Edward Lozansky, President of the World Russian Forum. The interview is dated 4/18/08. I'm not sure who it is giving the interview.

Q.: The month of May is not far off, and in that month Washington will host the next World Russian Forum, a traditional event on Capitol Hill. Incidentally, what number will it be?

Lozansky: The twenty-seventh. The first one took place in May 1981, and ever since U.S. Congress generously provides one of its best auditoriums for this event. This is despite the fact that Russia is portrayed by the media as a very bad boy these days. Needless to say that we are extremely grateful to Congress for doing this.

Q.: Is that what it was called in the Soviet era as well?

Lozansky: No, of course not. At the time it was known as the Tribute to Andrei Sakharov. At those hearings the attendees discussed the Soviet Union’s domestic and foreign policy and how the West should adequately react. Incidentally, the main reason why our Forums are held in May is that Sakharov’s birthday falls on May 21. In 1981 Sakharov turned 60. At the time we saw the Forum as a sort of festival to celebrate his birthday.

Q.: Would it be correct to say that in the past the Forums were anti-Soviet, while now they are pro-Russian?

Lozansky: Basically, yes, but both then and now the Forum has always served the interests of America and Russia alike. I stress the word Russia, not the Soviet Union, of course, which was a sworn enemy of the United States and the entire free world. Communist dictatorship oppressed its own people and was in the business of expanding its ideology. This expansion was not just a battle of ideas, it was also backed by the mammoth military machine that the better half of the country’s economy was working for. Fighting that enemy required the Pentagon hardware, Star Wars scare, NATO, and obviously also what is called soft power, i.e. the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the Kontinent magazine, and other underground literature, Sakharov forums, etc.

That fight ended in victory, but not of the West over Russia, as is frequently assumed, but of all of us, including the Russians, over communism. Once it collapsed, it was necessary to make a Herculean effort to incorporate Russia into the Western world. Unfortunately, America has made lots of tragic mistakes, and on this road we have wasted almost 20 years.

Q.: What were America’s worst mistakes, in your view?

Lozansky: First and foremost, Russia should have been offered considerable economic assistance to ensure as painless a transition as possible from a centrally planned to a market economy.

Next it was necessary to draw up a road map for Russia joining NATO, or else for transforming NATO into a different organization, given the new geopolitical situation. An organization with the new set of aims and tasks that would include Russia.

Last but not least, it was necessary to devise a new strategy for U.S. and European security, something that George Bush Sr. used to talk about: security from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Alas, it never went beyond verbiage, and the same can be said of Bush’s solemn promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO.

Regrettably, not only abovementioned ideas were not implemented, worse, what has been actually done is almost the exact opposite.

Q.: Is this a reference to the desire of Bush Jr. to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO?

Lozansky: That too, and also to his decision to deploy Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) elements in Poland and Czechoslovakia ­ without consulting Russia or even United States’ own allies in NATO. The BMD idea as such is quite attractive, provided that its systems are developed and deployed with the U.S., Russia and NATO working closely together.

As for Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, they are certainly entitled to do so as free and independent nations, and Russia has no right to veto the process. However, it is common knowledge that the majority of Ukrainians reject this idea, while Georgia is embroiled in territorial conflicts. Georgia’s accession to NATO is not only a violation of that organization’s charter, but it is a sure way to a military collision with Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Are we ready for this? As for Ukraine it would also make a joke of the current U.S. president’s fundamental concept.

Q.: What exactly are you referring to?

Lozansky: The Bush legacy. The philosophical pivot of his legacy is the messianic idea of spreading democracy throughout the world. One may accept or reject the idea itself, but Bush, as a deeply religious person, does indeed believe that all or at least most of the global problems can be solved by democracy. Yet, what triumph of democracy can we talk about if Ukraine is being dragged into NATO against the will of its own people?

Q.: You’ve talked of America’s mistakes. Did Russia do everything just right?

Lozansky: Of course it didn’t. I can give you a long list of Russia’s mistakes too. But Russia was then and still is a young, inexperienced apprentice in democracy, while America is a renowned professor on this subject and should be judged as such.

Where Russia went wrong in a big way was its failure to condemn clearly and unequivocally the crimes of the communist regime against Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, Western Ukraine, the so-called captive nations. Russia acted somewhat unwisely, but generously and nobly, when it acknowledged the Soviet Union’s entire financial debts. Now, while it was at it, it should have clearly stated that it was not responsible for the empire’s moral debts, itself being simply another victim and one of the countries enslaved by communism. In terms of facts and figures, Russia was the country worst hit by communist terror.

Some statements to this effect have been made by Yeltsin and Putin, but they were not nearly coherent and convincing enough. Meanwhile, that would have radically improved Russia’s relations with the former captive nations, and with Europe and America too for that matter. Moreover, it would also help Russians themselves to overcome the nostalgia over the loss of the empire and move them closer to the West.

Q.: What’s on this year’s Forum’s agenda?

Lozansky: Mostly issues of Russian-U.S. cooperation in economics and security. The economic panel is being assembled by Ruslan Grinberg, director of the Economics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; the security panel, by General Vladimir Dvorkin, senior research fellow at the International Economics and World Politics Institute, also of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Both panels will include leading U.S. experts, among them General Henry Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency.

Naturally, certain broader aspects of U.S. - Russian will also be discussed, including business, science, education, and cultural cooperation, the role of Russian Diaspora in U.S., etc.

Besides, we intend to present two new Russian NGOs about to open their offices in the United States ­ the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation headed by Professor Andranik Migranyan of the Moscow International Relations Institute, and the International Institute of Research into Comparative Political Cultures, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Lebedev.

Q.: Could you sum up the Forum’s principal goals and objectives?

Lozansky: They have remained unchanged throughout the 27 years of its existence. We would like to achieve close cooperation between a free, democratic, thriving Russia and the West, in addressing the 21st century’s global problems. This may sound a bit too grand, but it’s hard to find a different formula.

A few days ago I took part in a function honoring Zbigniew Brzezinski, attended by virtually the entire Who’s Who in U.S. foreign policy, including Henry Kissinger. Practically all of the speakers said that world’s global problems could not be solved without Russia’s cooperation. Even Brzezinski himself, a person often viewed in Russia as an evil genius, talked of the need to bring Russia to the West.

Against this backdrop, statements by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to the effect that Russia had to be excluded from G-8, isolated and contained, surely jar on one’s ear. As for the two Democratic candidates­ well, frankly, so far, they are making some unintelligible noises on this issue. In the circumstances, the voice of the public appears all the more important.

Q.: Did you invite the presidential candidates to attend the Forum?

Lozansky: We certainly did. We have sent invitations to McCain and Obama as the more likely candidates for the two parties. Obama’s people promptly sent back a polite reply saying that he would be engaged elsewhere on that day. As for the McCain office, it is still keeping silent. This is a good sign, for it implies that he and his advisors are thinking the matter over. The Forum will take place at the Hart Senate Office Building, practically next door to McCain’s office, so he will not have to go too far. We have assembled quite an impressive group of U.S. and Russian experts ready to have an honest and earnest talk with McCain if he shows up, of course. McCain proved to be a good soldier on the battlefield. Let us see how he does in the battle of ideas.

The coverage of Putin's Russia by the Western press will be looked at with astonishment by historians of the future.

Unbound hypocrisy and double-standards.

And, as of late, the laughable reporting of totally unverified conspiracy theories !

For example, all of Litvinienko's bullshit. For those who don't know, he was the Russian equivalent to Holocaust deniers and 9-11 conspiracists. Yet, the Western press willingly repeated his insanity because it painted Putin's Russia in the negative light.

After reading passages of Edward Lucas' Russophobic book, I was like, woah, everything he's written so far is a conspiracy theory. Before that, of course, we had the $40 billion conspiracy theory of the publicity-seeking Stanislav Belkovski. Totally outrageous, yet the Western press bought it up.

Last week, slanderous statements about Putin's personal life by a low-ranking tabloid. This news crisscrossed the mainstream press quite fast. Of course, later reports included it as fact and almost no one recanted after it became clear that this news was just the creation of someone's wild imagination.


What does this all mean?

In my opinion, this means that the Western press, and their backers, are desperate and have become more desperate as of late. They haven't been able to get Putin yet, so they have resorted to making up the most outrageous of lies and repeating the most unbelievable of lies made-up by others. The fact that they are grasping at straws, like the Alina Kabayeva conspiracy theory completely indicates, means that they are becoming more desperate. They have tried everything and now they are willing to try anything, even that which is hopeless.

So this is good news for Russia because it is a good signal from the other side that Russia is winning. The terms of victory are hard to define but include an end to Western involvement in Russia's internal affairs. Western involvement took place in the 1990s, but has abated with Russia's reemergence. The aim of getting Putin, therefore, is to bring about a new government in Moscow that would facilitate the return of Western involvement in Russia's internal affairs. This goal has totally failed thus far.


Not only has it failed in Russia, but it has also brought about unexpected repercussions in the west itself as the men and women in the street are beginning to like Russia more; Russia was the biggest winner in a recent worldwide opinion poll conducted by the BBC and PIPA !

I can only speak for myself, but I can read through the lies, misinformation, and anti-Russian propaganda distributed by The Moscow Times (Finnish-operated), Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and Washington Post, among others.

In fact, all of this anti-Russian yellow journalism and repetition of conspiracy theories reaffirms my belief that Putin's Russia represents the noble force that can balance the world and reasonably check an increasingly imperialistic United States.

Call it woman's intuition, call it rooting for the underdog, or just knowing better. But, the fact that Putin's Russia is covered this way makes a very compelling case for it, in my opinion. And, sure, the arrogant, know-it-all tone used by The Moscow Times can make anyone hate that newspaper and like Putin's Russia. I mean, it's just common sense.

Judging from the BBC opinion poll and the very unfavorable reactions to anti-Russian opinion pieces at The Guardian's Comment is Free, many others share my point of view.

Sounds like a propaganda boomerang !


I wasn't sure if the term propaganda boomerang was original or not so I searched for it on Google. The term was used back in 1941 by Tom Harrisson in a Political Quarterly article about the Soviet Union. Harrisson was surprised that unabated anti-Soviet propaganda failed to yield any anti-Soviet uproar in British society. Harrisson discovered that the propaganda, in fact, helped improve the Soviet Union's public perception and created resentment against the figures of authority spewing out the propaganda. Hence the boomerang effect.

Harrisson's original article is available to subscribers only, but Sue Harper and Vincent Porter cite key sections of Harrisson's findings in a 1989 article of their own:

After 40 years of persistent anti-Soviet propaganda, it is difficult to realise the affection in which the British public held the Russian people at that time. At least two pre-war opinion polls conducted by the British Institute of Public Opinion in 1939 had shown that some 85% of the British people wanted closer ties with Russia, and even after Russia's attacks on Finland and Bessarabia the British attitude towards Russia was one of puzzlement rather than hostility. When Germany attacked Russia in June 1941, the great majority of the British people expected Russia to hold out against Germany, if not to defeat her. Russia's resistance had exercised a powerful positive influence on the whole of British morale, although there was a strong suspicion that the anti-Russian bias in high places was continuing.

When America joined the war, the British people obviously welcomed another ally in their fight against the Nazis. But until the Allied Powers launched the second front in June 1944, the British people were faced with a piquant contrast. As Sir Frank Roberts has noted, the Russians were not in the UK, but were fighting hard and successfully against the Nazis. The Americans, on the other hand " were in the UK, but they were, to use the catchphrase of the day, "over-paid, over-sexed and over here". Whatever the political views of the British people, until the arrival of D-day, there was a contrast between the absent but fighting Russian, and the present but disruptive American.

You wouldn't know how happy I was to read today that Russia might be facing declining oil production. This was hinted at by Leonid Fedun, not a Russian government official persay, but someone up high at Lukoil. In a strongly worded exchange, Fedun explained that Russia will no longer be able to produce 10 million bpd "in his lifetime" due to a peak in producion. The International Energy Agency confirmed that over the first three months of the year Russian oil production has dropped for the first time in a decade.

Bare with me, but I will try to explain the significance and meaning of this exceptional development.


First and foremost, this adheres to one of the eight requirements for the strategic development of natural resource-rich nations, which is to limit supply (through a cartel or otherwise). Doing this extends one's production capabilities into the future and increases the price of the natural resource today. I don't believe in any theory that says that natural resources are unlimited (lol). Selling 5 million barrels a day at $220 is an order of magnitude better than selling 10 million barrels a day at $110.

No matter what the jackals in natural resource-lacking countries say about market share and production growth, reducing production to increase prices is a win-win for the producing nation, no doubt about it.

Second of all, this means that Russia feels it is strong enough economically to withstand any possible revenue losses (in the unlikely scenario that another oil producer picks-up the slack; meaning oil prices remain steady despite less supply from Russia). If you read the financial pages you wouldn't be surprised with this - Russia's economic growth of late has been led by retail and services, two relatively clean sectors as compared to oil and gas.

The Russian consumer is singlehandedly saving legendary, century-old companies from sales slumps and the clearly-emerged Russia middle class, not the oligarchs, are the ones behind this. They're young, they're hot, and they have money to spend. Russia has one of the world's lowest income tax rates (second lowest after the UAE) and the state subsidizes a lot of services. So, arguably, the disposable income of the average Russian is higher than that of the average debt-ridden American. This is an astounding condition considering what Russia went through in the 1990s.


But getting back to the subject at hand, which is oil and specifically peak oil in Russia. Is this for real? Personally, I highly doubt it. I can cite a hundred quotes, but how about this one, straight from the Russian President when asked point-blank about peak oil from a resident of Vorkuta during his 2005 live television and radio dialog:

SERGEI BURKO: Now to my question: yes, we are indeed concerned about the development of the coal industry. Everyone knows that a lot of attention is being focused on developing the oil and gas sector, but reserves of oil are not great – enough for 30-50 years – while coal reserves in Vorkuta, for example, are enough for another 500 years.

My question then is does the state intend changing its priorities in the energy sector? We are worried, of course, for the future of Vorkuta.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I understand.

As far as I know, the situation in Vorkuta is gradually improving and getting slowly closer to the situation in other coal basins, in particular the Kuzbass. There are still a lot of problems to resolve but positive trends are already visible.

Regarding reserves of coal, oil and gas, I think that our country’s oil and gas reserves are underestimated. In reality they are greater than we think and will last us some time yet. They will be enough for us and for future generations.

But we do, of course, need to use our resources wisely and you are absolutely right, it is essential that we gradually change the energy balance in the country. We need to ensure there is demand for other energy resources, and not just oil and gas, and that they be attractive for the economy and for consumers. And of course, an energy resource such as coal is very important in this respect.

So I think a real good possibility is that this is a test to see who, if anyone, can replace Russian oil. If someone can, then Russia might infer that others have been holding back (and if it's the United States or an American ally, Russia would have guessed right). If no one can't, then Russia is that much more geopolitically stronger.

Another possibility is that Russia's responding to production increases in Iraq. It feels that it needs to lower production to sustain $110 oil, or thereabouts, due to the late-arriving fruits of America's war for oil.


And then we have possibility that Russia has in fact reached peak oil, for real. This will be catastrophic for the importers of Russian oil and gas, not Russia itself, since most remaining energy resources will be allocated within Russia. Although these should be sufficient to power Russia for decades, consumer nations will have a hard time coming-up with sufficient energy resources to keep their economies going.

But, if anything, this scenario will shut-up Russia's critics who complain about energy blackmail, specifically the agenda-linked Robert Amsterdam, Michael J. Economides, Pavel Romanov, Dick Cheney, proponents of the colonial-like Energy Charter, and the stuck-in-the-past ultranationalists in some states of the FSU or Eastern Bloc.

If Russia decides to stop energy exports altogether, all of these losers will have no reason to complain about energy blackmail and that would be the end of that !

Frankly, Russia had done the world a favor these past few years by selling it more and more oil and gas and all it got in return was a bunch of complaints from some ungrateful customers who are so over themselves that they don't want it to appear that they're becoming dependent on Moscow. Russia could end these headaches by simply shutting the taps once and for all! Like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, Russia should stop contributing to an ungrateful world and simply go on strike.


More of note here is an underreported statement made by Deputy Natural Resources Minister Alexei Varlamov earlier this month that in several years Russia "might come to the verge of exhausting its mineral resources." Varlamov specifically mentioned oil reserves being depleted in 2022 and natural gas reserves being exhausted by 2025. In hindsight, and assuming everything in Russia is well-planned, like in chess, Varlamov set-up Fedun.

And if we are to go back further we would see that more peak oil predictions have come from the Kremlin, including Natural Resources Minister Yury Trutnev saying the same things Varlamov said, but four-years earlier.

Finally, given this most recent information, it is intriguing to analyze Lukoil's decision to cut oil supplies to Germany, which began last summer and is apparently still in effect.


So, this has gone around in circles long enough. I hope everyone is confused because I am ! But this is Russia we're talking about after all, so I wouldn't expect any less ! We can come out with predicaments, make justifications, and proclaim we know what it's up to and why, but we would just be fooling ourselves if we do. The Russian government knows what it's doing and the people who write about it can only imagine that they have but an inkling.

But this development here has the ability of being earth-changing so it ought be mentioned and tracked, at the very least. I'm glad that Russia could possibly be going ahead with it.

And, on a related note, it's like a breadth of fresh air for a country to play by its own rules, rather than those imposed in Washington DC. Too many speeches made by officials of supposedly sovereign nations are drafted in the American capital and the people in Washington hate mentions of peak oil, big time.

Yesterday, Robert Fox wrote in The Guardian that Dick Cheney's belligerence and aggressive anti-Iran rhetoric is driving Arab nations into the arms of Russia. Fox specifically notes that Saudi Arabia, other GCC states and Egypt (basically a Who's Who of our friends in the region) are turning to Russia and awarding it with both defense and energy contracts.

This is a major reversal of course that could turn into a significant strategic victory for Russia.

Today, writing for the Arab News, Hassan Tahsin passionately defends Russia and its president, while blaming the United States for trying to revive the Cold War.

Cheney Cold-Shouldered, by Robert Fox

Is the West Trying to Revive the Cold War?, by Hassan Tahsin

Cheney Cold-Shouldered, by Robert Fox, The Guardian

Dick Cheney's belligerence and aggressive anti-Iran rhetoric is driving Arab nations into the arms of Russia

There is talk of new wars across the Middle East this summer - and there is nothing new about that. What is new is the reaction of America's closest allies in the Arab world to the latest outbreak of belligerent rhetoric. Led by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Egypt, they have indicated they don't like the war talk from Vice-President Cheney and his team.

Furthermore, they're hedging their bets. While not exactly cosying up to Moscow they have opened up new lines of diplomacy with the Russians on a range of issues from regional security to nuclear technology, and joining the World Trade Organisation.

Israel has been carrying out a series of emergency civil defence drills, with officials warning of possible simultaneous attacks from Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories this summer.

On last month's tour of Middle Eastern capitals, Dick Cheney is reported to have blamed Iran and Syria as the primary sources for mischief in the Middle East. Both are seen as the sponsors of Hizbullah and Hamas. Damascus is the prime base for Sunni extremist groups now operating in Iraq, while Tehran is seen as the prime sponsor of trouble in the Shia communities.

And on top of all that there remain Iran's nuclear ambitions - with President Ahmadinejad announcing only a few days ago that the Iranian nuclear energy authority now has 6,000 more centrifuges up and running to enrich nuclear fuel.

The Cheney narrative of "not allowing Iran to go nuclear on my watch" has had its cover somewhat blown by recent revelations that the US has been talking quietly with Iran for some years.

One of the suggestions was that Iran would have fuel enriched outside the country, but a certain amount on enrichment could go in Iran itself, provided there is international supervision. The talks even looked at having an international approval and surveillance committee on which the Iranians said they would allow one American member.

Given the possibilities that some sort of dialogue between Washington and Tehran might bear fruit, the Arab powers were alarmed at the belligerence of Cheney's message and rhetoric on his recent tour. It sounded to them that he still very much wanted to attack Iran, or Syria, or both.

No sooner had Cheney departed than President Mubarak took off for Moscow to discuss cooperation on nuclear energy and programmes with the Russians. A few days after that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council States said they would open talks with Russia about WTO membership.

The inference is clear: the conservative Arab states now believe that, in the short to medium term at least, Russia is as good a bet for containing the ambitions of Shia Iran as a Republican regime in Washington. It will not have escaped their attention that some of the leading Iran-bashers of the Washington thinktank circuit, notably John Bolton and Robert Kagan have quit team Bush to join team John McCain.

So Russia is back in the Middle East and Mediterranean security game in a big way. Moreover it is also back in the oil security game in a big way. Moscow has just struck a big gas export deal through an alliance of its own Gazprom and Italy's ENI for the export of gas from Libya. It seems a similar deal with Algeria involving Gazprom and ENI is now on the cards.

By their misguided belligerency, Dick Cheney and co appear to have undone the legacy of their hero Ronald Reagan in isolating Russia at the end of the Cold War. It is even being whispered that the princes in Riyhadh want to sign an arms deal and defence pact with Moscow.

So Russia appears to be riding high in the Arab Middle East in a way that it hasn't since the days of Gamal Abdul Nasser and his vision of Pan-Arab socialism. Interestingly, we haven't been hearing too much from Vice-President Cheney these past few weeks.

Is the West Trying to Revive the Cold War?, by Hassan Tahsin, Arab News

Vladimir Putin decided not to run for another term as president of Russia paving the way for his protégé Dmitry Medvedev to succeed him.

This does not mean he is no more interested in the future of the Rossiyskaya Federatsiya (the Russian Federation) which rose, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of the Soviet Union. As two-term president, Putin transformed Russia beyond recognition. Now Russia is a confident, resurgent power. For the last eight years, GDP has steadily increased, rising by the highest percentage of 8.1 percent since the fall of the Soviet Union. Inflation has fallen to under 10 percent, and Russia’s trade balance has increased threefold in four years.

Russians would, undoubtedly, remember Putin as a strong leader who rescued them from the anarchy that surfaced in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and reasserted the Russian identity.

The outside challenges Putin had to counter were no less serious. The United States, which wanted a total surrender by Russia, applied varying degrees of pressures to guarantee that Moscow would never be back on its feet after the terrible decade of disintegration, rampant corruption and steady decline. The most threatening and humiliating of the US moves against Russia is a new European missile scheme that would include installation of US radars to spy on Russia.

Reminiscent of the old Soviet adventures, Putin sent Russian scientists to explore the polar region and put the Russian flag deep in the ocean in the disputed Arctic region. It was a calculated move to reassert Russian stakes over the enormous energy reserves in the normally inaccessible region. More than 100 Russian scientists and geologists had a mission to find evidence to reinforce the mountain ranges in the ocean bed was a geographical extension of Russian territory providing valid grounds for the Russian claim.

The Western protests at the Russian attempt to ignite a conflict on the North Pole region was quite understandable. According to US experts, the Arctic region sits on top of the 25 percent of the oil and gas reserves in the world besides reserves of diamonds, platinum, manganese, nickel, tin and lead.

In an apparent move to show the Western powers that he did not fear them, Putin launched a scheme of advanced long-range ballistic missiles. They included missiles that could be launched from sea, land and from the air.

Russia also decided to station permanent fleets in the Mediterranean and other major oceans around the globe. Putin is also not ready to accept unilateral US decisions in matters related to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russia recently warned that NATO was playing with fire if it intended to go ahead with the plan to admit its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine to the US-dominated alliance.

The neoconservatives at White House believe that Putin was trying to revive the Cold War and thus play its historical role on world stage.

It is also not a secret that there are fundamental differences of opinion between Moscow and Washington on most sensitive international issues such as the independence of Kosovo and Iran’s nuclear projects besides the defense shield project in the Eastern Europe.

Russia also does not approve of the continued US presence in Iraq or the NATO presence in Afghanistan besides the American meddling in the Central Asian republics.

Their suspicion is not misplaced as Putin made it clear that he was determined to return Russia to its old glory, particularly after NATO backed the plan to install a US radar system in the Czech Republic to track ballistic missiles.

Though Putin has stepped down as president, it does not mean that he would not come back after four years.

In February 2007, Putin warned the US that some of its practices went beyond limits of toleration. Three months later in June he threatened to position the Russian missiles toward new European targets if the US went ahead with the Defense Shield project.

One thing is certain: Putin would not remain a mute spectator if the Western powers attempt to sideline Russians.

From an IBM press release:

Students from St. Petersburg University of IT, Mechanics and Optics in Russia are this year's world champions in the 32nd annual Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC), sponsored by IBM (NYSE: IBM).

Also known as "The Battle of the Brains," the competition in Banff, Alberta, Canada challenged students to solve a semester's worth of computer programming problems -- modeled on real-world business challenges – in just five hours. The first place team brings home IBM prizes, scholarships, and bragging rights to the "world's smartest" trophy.

Each team of three students was faced with solving 11 problems computer programming problems. St. Petersburg University of IT, Mechanics and Optics solved eight. Students were challenged to develop software code to determine the length of a city skyline, map the size and capacity of a new building design, and provide support for an embedded neural network for cell phones. More than 6,700 teams representing 1,821 universities from 83 countries competed in the fall Regionals competition this year, compared to 840 teams who competed in 1997 when IBM first sponsored.

"The emergence of the global economy is creating a highly skilled, interconnected workforce that spans time zones and cultures," said Doug Heintzman, Director of Strategy, Lotus Software, IBM Software Group, and ICPC Sponsorship Executive. "The ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest provides university students from all corners of the world with the opportunity to grow their critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration skills, helping them prepare to become the next-generation of global leaders. We’re proud to give such talented and creative students a forum to come together in the spirit of competition to showcase their programming and problem-solving acumen -- skills which employers demand."

He added, "I'd like to thank this year's host school, University of Alberta, for their hard work in helping support IBM and ICPC to put together another memorable World Finals."

While in Banff, students also had the opportunity to experience many of the emerging technologies they hope will play a role in their careers -- whether it is designing an instant translation device to enable people of different languages to overcome language barriers; helping commuters get to work faster through burgeoning mass transit systems; or protecting consumers from theft.

"These superstars will extend society’s ability to address challenges, strengthen and improve the world of tomorrow," said Dr. Bill Poucher, ICPC Executive Director and Baylor University Professor. "They are team players who will make a difference by enhancing the avenues we use to interact with each other."

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States of America, Izhevsk State Technical University in Russia and Lviv National University in Ukraine finished the competition in second, third, and fourth places, respectively, and all won Gold medals. Regional champions included: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (North America Region); St. Petersburg University of IT, Mechanics and Optics (Europe Region); University of Cape Town (Africa and the Middle East Region); Universidad de Buenos Aires (Latin America Region); Tsinghua University (Asia Region); and University of Auckland (South Pacific Region).

This year's top twelve teams that received medals are:

* St. Petersburg University of IT, Mechanics and Optics (GOLD, WORLD CHAMPION)
* Massachusetts Institute of Technology (GOLD, 2nd Place)
* Izhevsk State Technical University (GOLD, 3rd Place)
* Lviv National University (GOLD, 4th Place)
* Moscow State University (SILVER, 5th Place)
* Tsinghua University, (SILVER, 6th Place)
* Stanford University, (SILVER, 7th Place)
* University of Zagreb, (SILVER, 8th Place)
* University of Waterloo, (BRONZE, 9th Place)
* Petrozavodsk State University, (BRONZE, 10th Place)
* St. Petersburg University, (BRONZE, 11th Place)
* Belarusian State University, (BRONZE, 12th Place)

The teams were awarded medals based on the number of problems they solved in the shortest amount of time during the competition.


For the record, five of the top twelve schools are Russian, one is Ukrainian, and one is Belorussian. And as the article stated, more than 6,700 teams representing 1,821 universities from 83 countries competed. That seven of the two twelve, from such a large pool, were from the former Soviet Union cannot be a coincidence. Especially since this trend has repeated itself year after year !

Although MIT finished an admirable second, check out the full results and see how far down the list you find Princeton, Oxford, and Cal Tech, three other world-renowned western universities.

There will be blood if anyone has taken my advice regarding the price of oil. lol

If you have been following this blog closely, it might be apparent that I am a long-time dollar bear and gold bull. Long-time meaning last two to three years. lol again

But, although I was ahead of the curve in reading all of those peak oil books (I started reading them in 2002, way, way before the peak oil theory became mainstream and the books became stylish), I have been on the wrong side of the oil trade, hypothetically, since it crossed $70 and I determined that prices over $70 were not sustainable.

In no uncertain terms, on the last day of last year, while oil was treading $100, I predicted that oil would fall to the $50-70 range during this year and theorized that Russia's economy would accelerate at these lower price levels.

I'm not going to tout the successes of being short the dollar and long gold because the facts speak for themselves, but why have I been so wrong on oil ?


Daniel Yergin.

I hear him on Bloomberg radio every so often and he has such a soothing voice.

And he makes such a convincing argument. He always says that his team at CERA (not to be confused with PIRA, where I once interviewed ), has done a study of all of the world's oil fields and projected that a lot of new oil will be coming on-stream soon creating a glut. Therefore, oil prices must come down, Yergin stresses.

Yergin's analysis is not the sole reason I turned sour on crude, but it played a large part.

In retrospect, I should have figured that a collapsing dollar would precipitate high oil prices. Such a no-brainer, really.


Going forward, I simply cannot see a meaningful recovery for the dollar and foresee the calamities that this event could bring with it. Still, it just might be wiser to stay in the sidelines because the F/X and commodity markets will be volatile and anything can and probably will happen. Just sayin'

I've been to one WNBA game in my life. It was in 2004 and oddly enough it was at Radio City Music Hall. Since there was a political convention taking place at Madison Square Garden, the New York Liberty had to play a few of their games at Radio City. A friend of mine got hooked-up with a couple of tickets and we got to go.

So I've seen Becky Hammon play live, if that means anything (it doesn't really). But I'm just saying that she's a very good player. She dominated the game and displayed a unique sense of humility and sportsmanship while doing so.


This week, Becky Hammon announced that she received a Russian passport and will play for Russia at the Beijing Olympics. I'm not here to judge the merits of her decision, although there is a very lively discussion going on at Hammon's hometown paper, the Rapid City Journal.

Nor am I here to overblow Hammon's decision. She still considers herself a proud American and simply wishes to fulfill her dream of playing in the Olympic Games. Nothing more than that.

But, I still think that this typifies the evolution of the geopolitical system and the resurgence of Russia.

Right after the end of the Cold War, Eastern Bloc athletes and coaches (and scientists, musicians, and intellectuals) fled west for lucrative contracts and a chance to participate in top-notch programs.

Now, the opposite is happening. Becky Hammon isn't fleeing anything, of course, but is simply an example of the reversal. J.R. Holden is another example.

And not just in sports.

If you scan the pages of the top financial papers you would see multiple job offerings for banking and managerial positions based in Russia. They want the best and they're willing to pay for it - and they clearly state so in the offerings. And they also want the best scientists and the most talented artists.

Including the ones who left fifteen years ago.

Some have returned.

And from the sense I'm getting, many more are on their way.

A hell of a lot of Russophobic pundits like to write that Europe needs to unite itself to fend-off Russia. If all of Europe can talk with one voice, they explain, it will be able to dictate the terms and boss Russia around again. Divided they will be picked apart but, according to the pundits, a united Europe will be stronger than ever. And just to cite the latest example of this shortsighted analysis - an interview today of Fraser Cameron, the director of the EU-Russia Centre, by EurActiv.

I have two things to say about this:

1. The European Union is the new OPEC

In 1999, I took an undergrad political theory class at New York University (I didn’t major in politics, but the professor was kind cute. Sigh). Anyway, when studying cooperation and prisoner’s dilemma, the prime example was OPEC. The cartel is able to periodically meet and set production quotas to drive-up oil prices. Later on, watching the price of oil rise, an OPEC member might be tempted to cheat on one’s quota and does so. They all do and the conclusion is that cartels are by and large unstable. This was one of the foundations of cooperation theory throughout the 80s and 90s, a theory that was validated in the reality of oil oversupply and plummeting energy prices.

Today, apparently, OPEC has been able to set its ship a straight (this is arguable and high oil prices are in my opinion more a result of unending demand. But some American politicians blame OPEC), while the European Union is the new OPEC!

People like Fraser Cameron are exactly like the hawkish OPEC members calling for production cuts and strict adherence to production quotas.

There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but it just ought to be acknowledged that cartel cooperation has a high degree of failure and could take forever to master. Call a spade a spade, if you will.

2. Oh, and don’t forget about democracy

Fraser Cameron, Edward Lucas, Robert Amsterdam, and others argue that Germany, France, Italy, and all the other black sheep must reverse course 360 degrees to copy the anti-Russian policies of the United Kingdom, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, and Poland.

But, what if it’s the other way around?

What if Europe unites one day, but instead of becoming a force against Russia, it becomes a force beneficial to Russia? For example, what if Europe unites to mimic the Russian policy of Germany, meaning realistic and mutually-beneficial cooperation? The Russophobes would be steaming !

And with Hungary and Latvia apparently abandoning the Russophobic stance, the raw count is tilting Germany’s (and Russia’s) way.

If unity is a precondition and it comes to a vote, Europe will not turn into a Russophobic force that can be used to boss, dictate, and slander. The Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines will not be abandoned. And an Energy Charter will not be forced down the throat of Moscow.

Instead, probably, the opposite will happen. This will result in, among other things, a Poland taking the example of Italy and confidently dealing with Russia without resorting to threats, ultimatums, and aggressive pack mentality; and a prudent Lithuania allowing Russian companies to invest in its infrastructure, much like Germany is behaving today.


So what I’m trying to say to the Russophobes advocating a strong and united Europe policy is to be careful because you reap what you sow, especially in a democratic world !

Jim Cramer (CNBC video, 4/8/08): While America languishes in recession, they're having a boom back in the USSR. We know how lucky they are and we want to be apart of it. With 6% (sic) annual GDP growth the Russians are prancing us!

Forget the missile gap. We have an economic growth gap !

This is their new economic policy and, unlike Lenin's, it's working !!


Cramer goes on to recommend Wimm-Bill-Dann, a juice, milk, and baby food company. And to validate the assertion that demand for baby food in Russia is about to spike, he mentions Russia's remarkable baby boom.

If a picture could tell a thousand words, what would this picture tell?



Since the end of the Cold War, many people across the world saw the President of the United States as the leader of the free world.

In so many ways, this was true. From being the world's police force to being the dominant economic force to leading the globe in scientific and technological achievements, America was tops.

And as the leader of America, the POTUS had a rightful claim to that distinguished title.

Some Americans even tried to assure that this status quo did not go away.

But, for many reasons, it was not to be. And as the Foreign Minister of France recently said, the magic is over.

A multipolar world has emerged where there isn't one single leader of the free world any longer. But, flat out, if we were to determine who comes closest I think that one can make a good case for the President of Russia. I mean, if we go through all the categories - from hard power to soft power to economic prowess - Russia will be right up there with the United States. And as far as perception goes, which could just be the determining factor, I think that Russia wins it.


How oddly similar !

M K Bhadrakumar (Asia Times, 6/30/07): When the progenies of that US operation - Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia - along with neighbors Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Albania held the first energy summit of the Balkan region in Zagreb, the Croatian capital, last Sunday and decided to roll out the red carpet to receive a "special guest" in their midst, that was for Putin. No matter Washington's best efforts for the past decade to exorcise Russia from the Balkans, Russia won't go away. It is back in the region that has been part of its history.

CTV news staff (CTV, 4/4/08): Despite Bush's pledge, the last day of the summit meeting was dominated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is extremely displeased with NATO on two separate issues. On arrival, however, Putin received treatment more accustomed to a rock star, than a politician. "Putin walked in and there was quite a gaggle of, well to be frank, young women around him clamouring for his autograph and trying to get pictures of him. He seemed to be basking in all of it," CTV's Graham Richardson said on Canada AM, reporting from Bucharest.

I remember reading about this a few months ago and thinking it was so funny.

Halfway through a news conference attended by over 1,300 Russian and foreign journalists, where Putin answered 100 questions from 78 reporters, and broadcast live on Russian television, a Le Figaro reporter asks Putin this question:

At the parliamentary elections the United Russia party list you headed received 99 per cent of the vote in Chechnya, with a 99 per cent turnout. There were similar results in Ingushetia. Do you think that these are real figures? And what do you think, will Dmitry Medvedev repeat these results in March?

In a real moment of genius, Putin passes this question to Chechens in the room (who else would know better !!):

Who among us is from Chechnya? Here is a colleague from Chechnya. Do you think this was the real outcome of the elections in Chechnya?

A Chechen reporter from the hall responds to Putin and answers the question of the unidentified Le Figaro correspondent:

I think anyone who has been in the Chechen Republic since United Russia led parliament probably knows for himself exactly what the party is doing in the republic. There are dramatic changes in the economy, the social sphere, with respect to the restoration of infrastructure, and housing. These are absolutely authentic figures. Personally, all my acquaintances, including myself, voted for United Russia, primarily because we want stability.

This is so dramatic and so real and authentic. The Figaro reporter is stunned !

But it's not over yet !!!

After three questions are asked and answered, the Figaro reporter is bombarded with the unfiltered truth again when another Chechen reporter begins his question by first addressing Le Figaro:

First, if you will permit me, I would like to say literally just a couple of words to our colleague from the distinguished Figaro newspaper. I just want to say two words. Our troubles in the region begin when outsiders start to meddle in our internal affairs, including people from abroad. With regard to the election results. I do not work for the electoral commission, but I can say something about the results. Speaking for myself as a voter and for my family, another ten voters or so, we all voted, and we voted for the incumbent President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

A little while later it happens again as yet another reporter, this one from Mordovia, also lambastes Le Figaro and affirms the results from his or her region.


I find this impromptu conversation to be a stunning moment of civil society and public discussion. A French reporter asks an arrogant, colonial-sounding question to the Russian president and not one, not two, but three reporters who are from the region the question refers to stick it and stick it good to the French reporter and Le Figaro, humiliating both of them on a grand scale in front of the entire world.

This is unprecedented and this is the Russia that so many of us non-Russians crave for:

A self-confident and assertive Russia, willing and able to stick-up for itself, its history, and its elections. For example, the Russia displayed perfectly by Putin at Munich where he said it like it is and made so many of us proud.

Perhaps inspired by Yuri Mamchur's blog post from February, both Yuriy Humber of Bloomberg and Douglas Birch of the Associated Press separately report on an emerging baby boom in Russia. Such an event indicates several things, including renewed optimism and genuine perceptions of economic and social stability.

Russia's 'City of Brides' Triggers Baby Boom After Love Quests, by Yuriy Humber

Russia Has First Post-Soviet Baby Boom, by Douglas Birch

Russia's 'City of Brides' Triggers Baby Boom After Love Quests, by Yuriy Humber, link

When Nick Wilsdon met his Russian wife, Anna, on the Internet, friends teased him about his mail- order bride. Turns out, he was a mail-order husband.

Three years after first exchanging e-mails with Anna on an online dating site, the Web designer from England's south coast made the 2,200-mile trek to Ivanovo, Russia's "City of Brides." He and Anna are now expecting their first child.

The Ivanovo region has the highest ratio of women to men in Russia, a legacy of the Soviet textile mills that imported female workers from across the country. The city, which once helped marriage bureaus recruit young women for foreign spouses, is now enticing residents to stay and raise families. That's fuelling a baby boom as Russia struggles to stem a population decline.

"When I get in the lift of our building, I'm surrounded by so many kids it makes me think of rabbits," Wilsdon, 32, says at the 12th floor apartment he shares with Anna, 29, in Ivanovo.

Since the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Russia's population has dwindled 4.1 percent to 142.2 million. Unless fertility rates improve, the population may plunge to 128 million by 2025, the Washington-based World Bank said in November.

By contrast, births in the Ivanovo region jumped 7.8 percent last year, four times the pace of 2006, according to national statistics. The number of second children in families rose by a record 24 percent, more than double the Russian average.

With the death rate declining and the outflow of people reversed, city officials expect the population will stop shrinking this year for the first time since the Soviet era.

Female Assets

Ivanovo achieved the turnaround by making the most of its biggest asset: women. According to Russian government statistics, 56 percent of the city's 432,000 people are women.

To encourage them to stay and raise children, the city has doubled the number of subsidized home loans for families, added 1,000 kindergarten spaces in two years, and built a new maternity hospital, says Deputy Mayor Igor Svetushkov.

"We're not calling ourselves the 'City of Women,'" Svetushkov says. A bride is a "partner for life, a symbol of the family. We'd like to tell people to come here to find their happiness."

Other Russian regions have had less success in boosting their birth rates.

In Ulyanovsk, south of Moscow, the local government gave mothers and fathers special holidays to spend with their families -- and perhaps expand them. Couples that have children on July 12, Russia Day, can win cars and appliances in a prize drawing.

The local benefits are in addition to a payment the federal government introduced about a year ago to cover education and housing costs for women who have a second child. The award is currently about 280,000 rubles ($11,900).

Taking Time

Even so, the number of births in the Ulyanovsk region in 2006 is only 0.3 percent higher than in 2000. In the Ivanovo region, births are up 14 percent in the same period, according to the latest data available at the Federal Statistics Service.

"It's important that the federal government takes a raft of measures to stimulate population growth, but it takes time for them to come into effect," says Tatiana Gurko, an expert in families at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. "You can't expect results immediately."

At Ivanovo's registry office, which sits on a narrow street in the old town center, the violinist barely has time to add resin to his bow before each couple and their guests enter to the sound of Mendelssohn's march.

During the summer, when the office squeezes in as many as 50 weddings a day, each couple get no more than 15 minutes for the ceremony, says Yelena Rebenkova, the registry's spokeswoman.

Family Club

Yury Krutikov, 27, a Ukrainian national, says he met his Ivanovo bride two years ago after she divorced her previous husband, who was from the city. He and his wife Olga, 41, plan to set up a club for families.

"Her voice hypnotized me, it was like a voice from another life," Krutikov said, adding that the couple now plan to have three children. "I really want to have two girls, so that Olga can pass on all that she knows and feels to them."

Olga Nikiforova, a 22-year-old marketing graduate and Ivanovo native, says newcomers are welcome.

She spent several years traveling to nightclubs in other cities and dating foreign men before marrying Nikolai, a 30-year- old designer from Kostroma, in central Russia. She is now pregnant with her first child.

"Because there are more women than men, Ivanovo men are used to female attention and make no effort," Nikiforova says, patting her bump. "My friend Sveta, she runs after her man like a lap dog."

Ivanovo's women are also staying home because Russia's economic boom has made the city a better place to live over the past nine years.

Six auto dealers including Toyota Motors Co. opened outlets in Ivanovo during the past 12 months. Retailers including Ikea and McDonald's Corp. have inquired about leasing space, according to the municipal government.

"Russia's not a poor country anymore," Wilsdon says. "People that come out thinking that they'll just get a girl here who is going to be indebted to them because they pay for their plane ride to England are going to have a bit of a shock."

Russia Has First Post-Soviet Baby Boom, by Douglas Birch, link

When they decided to have their first child, Alexander Gorlov and Laila Simanova discovered that something new was afoot in post-Soviet Russia: a baby boom.

Simanova, 31, now five months pregnant, said she was surprised by how many of her friends were becoming pregnant as well. When she signed up with the Pre-Natal Medical Center in Moscow, she found it swamped with expectant mothers.

"The doctors said when they opened two years ago, we could have played football in the halls," she said. "Now there are queues. When you call you can't get through. The line is always busy."

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's population plummeted, and until recently was shrinking at the rate of about 750,000 people a year.

So the Kremlin made kids a priority. A 2007 law expanded maternity leave benefits and payments, and granted mothers educational and other vouchers worth $10,650 for a second child and any thereafter. More important, perhaps, Russia's surging economy has made it possible for young couples to plan for their future.

The population decline hasn't halted, and demographers warn it could plummet again. But today births are on the rise, from 1.4 million in 2006 to 1.6 million in 2007 — their highest level in 15 years.

Both Gorlov and Simanova, who lived together for years before their recent marriage, say their decision to start a family was deeply personal. But Simanova noted the public service ads on television every night that showcase big families and praise the virtues of adopting children. And she suspects this may have played a role in her current plan to have three children and adopt a fourth.

"They are promoting families, they are promoting babies, and somehow this message is getting through," she said.

Her husband, Alexander, a 30-year-old lawyer, wasn't so certain that government policy influenced his decision.

"It's not that we want to raise a lot of Russians to raise the booming economy," he joked after soccer practice one recent evening. But he did say that Russia's economic resurgence over the past decade has made it easier to raise children.

For Russia, the increase in births is more than a signal of a society recovering from decades of poverty and social upheaval. Because of falling birthrates and rising death rates, the number of Russians dropped between 1989 and 2008 from about 148 million to 141.4 million. Villages emptied, the pool of military recruits shrank and a labor shortage loomed.

Some experts have estimated that the number of Russians could fall below 100 million by 2050, making one of the world's most sparsely populated countries even more so and — some fear — threatening its very existence.

President Vladimir Putin says the baby boom is just one sign of a turnaround in the country's long demographic decline, and credits increased state spending on health and social programs.

"We have checked the falling birthrate and rising death rate," Putin said in a Feb. 8 speech in the Kremlin. "Many doubted that the state investments this program called for would be of any use. Today I am happy to say that they have been of use."

Putin also noted, however, that deaths still outpace births and that Russian life expectancy is the lowest in Europe. "This is a disgrace," he said. "Our population is declining with every passing year."

The 750,000 annual loss of previous years shrank to just 223,000 in the first 11 months of 2007, compared with 521,000 over the same period of 2006.

Between 2005 and 2006, life expectancy for males increased by 1.6 years, according to the Russian state statistical service, roughly a 2.7 percent jump.

Men in Russia today can expect to live to just over the age of 60 — about 15 years less than males in Europe, but still more than during the rest of Russia's post-Soviet history.

Demographic experts were impressed.

"In a normal country with a normal history, during one year, life expectancy can grow .02, .03 percent," said Yevgeny Andreev, a Russian researcher with the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany. "More than one percent is extremely high growth."

Russian women can expect to live to be about 73 on average, much longer than men but still about seven years shorter than the European Union.

While Russia's population decline has slowed, experts are divided over when and if it will ever grow again. The country may still be headed for a population crash, says Murray Feshbach, a prominent Western expert on Russia's population crisis.

Feshbach, who is with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said the number of women aged 20-29, their prime childbearing years, will start to decline around 2013. Moreover, he predicts a sharp rise in deaths from AIDS, tuberculosis and hepatitis C over the next 5-10 years — a result, for the most part, of authorities having paid too little attention to preventing these diseases after the Soviet collapse.

Russia, he said, finds itself in a "demographic pit" that may be difficult to escape.

After almost two decades of low birthrates, Russian society can seem less child-friendly than other industrialized nations.

Employers rarely grant paternity leave, Simanova and others say. Working mothers-to-be also face job discrimination, because of a widespread belief that pregnant women lose their memory and become "weak-minded."

On the other hand, being pregnant no longer seems to carry a stigma, at least in Moscow. Simanova and others say subway riders now offer their seats to pregnant women, and avoid pushing or shoving them on the chronically overcrowded trains and platforms.

Previously, Simanova said, the attitude of many passengers was: "It's your fault, so suffer."

The roots of Russia's demographic implosion reach deep into the Soviet era, but the current crisis started as the Soviet Union began to break apart in the late 1980s. Couples stopped having children and the birthrate plummeted by 50 percent between 1987 and 1999.

Putin recently called for raising life expectancy to 75 by the year 2020 — a staggering increase.

Andreev of the Max Planck Institute said it was possible, but would need new curbs on alcohol and tobacco, better medical services, and other initiatives requiring both money and "political will."

"These will not be popular measures," he predicted.

Writing for The Guardian, Soumaya Ghannoushi sticks it to the hypocrites in the west, who prefer the rotting, self-destruction, bankrupt, corrupt, and oligarchic Russia of the 90s to the optimistic, confident, wealthy, and resurgent one of today:


Bear Baiting, by Soumaya Ghannoushi

Washington and its allies are playing a foolish game by casting Putin's economically resurgent Russia as a potential security threat

To say that Russia's image in the British and American media is negative would be quite an understatement. Read press reports on the country and the impression you will get is of a semi-rogue state run by a power-crazed 21st-century tsar, who oppresses dissidents at home and threatens countries abroad.

What is missing from this chilling narrative, however, is that Putin, the former KGB agent dismissed as a new Stalin, saved Russia from disintegration and Yugoslavia- style mayhem. He succeeded in putting an end to the vortex of European and American foreign interventions that transformed his country from the world's mightiest power to a ludicrous caricature epitomised by a drunk president, who specialised in making a fool of himself and his country, bumbling, dancing or stumbling at international gatherings.

It is ironic that the man who presided over Russia's collapse was feted, while opprobrium is heaped on the one leading it through its recovery. For much of his rule, Yeltsin was hailed as a hero and embraced by western statesmen - sometimes literally. Clinton even campaigned for his re-election. This proceeded as he transferred his country's wealth to gangs of thieves while his people went hungry, while GDP plummeted (by 50%), over a quarter of Russians sunk into poverty (an estimated 30%), and mortality rates rose by 50% (see this report, pdf). He was even cheered in western capitals when his tanks besieged the Duma - after it refused to pass his drastic liberalisation reforms - shelled and almost destroyed the building with the elected legislature inside. As long as he did Washington's bidding, he could do no wrong.

In the space of a few years, Putin transformed Russia from the world's latest sick man to a confident, resurgent power. Russia is back on its feet after the terrible decade of US/IMF blessed "shock therapy", of rampant corruption and comprehensive decline. For the last eight years, GDP has steadily increased, rising by the highest percentage since the fall of the Soviet Union at 8.1%. Inflation has fallen to under 10%, and Russia's trade balance has increased threefold in four years. Last year, the World Bank declared that Russian economy had achieved "unprecedented stability".

Many British and American economic analysts compete in playing down Putin's role in Russia's economic resurrection, maintaining that it has more to do with high oil prices than with any economic reforms he has introduced. What these conveniently overlook, however, is that, had it not been for Putin, the country's enormous oil and gas revenues would still be flowing into the accounts of Shell, BP and other foreign companies. And were it not for his audacious pursuit of the oligarchs who looted the country to starvation in the mass privatisation of the Yeltsin era, the country's riches - over 70% of the economy - would still be in the hands of Khodorkovsky, Lebedev, Berezovsky, and the other titans of the Yeltsin era.

What is seldom said in the European and American media is that, far from being a threat to the West, Russia is, in fact, a country under threat. Since the fall of the iron curtain, the US has been tightening the noose around its neck in an attempt to drive it outside the international equation altogether. Analysts love to speak of Russia's new aggressive tone under Putin. But what is rarely ever mentioned is that rather than being on the offensive, Russia is defending its vital interests and national security from a continuous encroachment by Washington and its European allies.

In December 2001, the US announced its withdrawal from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia. The treaty, President Bush declared, is "now behind us"; missile defences will be deployed "as soon as possible". In defiance of Russia's virulent opposition to the move, the US proceeded to announce plans to deploy a radar facility in the Czech Republic and a missile base in Poland. Through Nato, the US has worked to isolate Moscow, admitting its former eastern European and Baltic client states into the organisation.

As a result, Russia today finds itself militarily encircled, with Nato at its western frontiers and a ring of military bases planted in central Asia on its southern borders. After a string of colour revolutions, the US has further encroached into Russia's geopolitical zone by supporting Kosovo's independence.

And yesterday, Bush set the stage for the coming Nato summit by announcing his intention to "support Map for Ukraine and Georgia" (Map being Nato's membership action plan for future members), despite the reluctance of Germany and France. In response, Putin warned that should the plan go through, "one can't theoretically exclude the possibility that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory."

Is it any wonder Russia looks angrily westward? As a Russian politician put it, "Russia can't just twiddle its thumbs when it sees the Americans taking root in the Baltic and Caucasus countries and strengthening their positions in East European countries ... When Nato's steam engine is directed toward us, we simply must respond."

Today, as Putin prepares to vacate the Kremlin - and move next door - Russia looks healthier and stronger than it did for years. Not only did he succeed in halting the cycle of decline and disintegration unleashed by his predecessor, he has driven his country forward economically, politically and militarily, restoring its confidence and sense of itself as a global power. Important lessons can be drawn from this episode of the history of western-Russian relations. One of these is the following: if you see a world leader greeted with open arms in Washington, or London, then beware. Most likely, his services are not for his country or his people, but for those who applaud and cheer him.

Russia is the biggest winner in a worldwide opinion poll conducted by the BBC and PIPA, which identifies positive and negative assessments of 13 countries, among them being the United States, European Union, and Russia.

Positives views of Russia rose an astounding 28% year-over-year, while negative views fell by an equally impressive 18% !

Russia showed the greatest improvements of any country and continues to lead the country that it is most compared to, the United States. Throughout the world, Russia is viewed slightly more favorably and far less negatively than the United States, according to the poll.

In an article on the poll, Mark Rice-Oxley of The Christian Science Monitory presents what I believe is the correct justification for Russia's increasing popularity:

Experts in Moscow said the world could not help but admire Russia's startling economic renaissance, and may also appreciate that a strong Russia could help restore a multipolar global order.

"There is a perception that having one center of power [the US] has not led to a more stable and balanced world system, and so people see Russia's emergence as a positive thing," says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a Moscow-based foreign-policy journal.

Dmitri Trenin, an expert with the independent Carnegie Centre in Moscow, adds that Russia's improving image "is because people abroad see Russia as an independent force that has its own interests in the world. It doesn't interfere in the affairs of other countries and it doesn't let anyone interfere in its own affairs."


Since the world has spoken, one can use occasions like these to give arbitrary points and start counting. See who's winning, who's losing.

And the hardest part, really, was choosing representatives for each side: who should earn a point for Russia's public relations victory and who shouldn't?

Many people and groups have worked to defend Russia and build-up its reputation, while an even larger group is [desperately] working against this.

Pat Buchanan, Gary Hart, and Chuck Hagel were among those considered for the winning side and deserve honorable mention, while elected officials of Eastern European countries, Alex Goldfarb, and the Jamestown Foundation were considered for the losing side and deserve [dis]honorable mention for that.

But, I made a decision and the scoring is official and I'm keeping track:

Peter Lavelle: 1
La Russophobe: 0

Congratulations Peter. La Russophobe, it was a good last-minute effort, but better luck next time.

Edward Lucas used to think and say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel hated Russia, loathed it from birth, and will lead a strong European Union against Russia. I’m not sure exactly in which way, but Lucas could have easily contemplated economic embargoes and public slanders and stuff like that. He is a very fantastic and imaginative writer, no less. lol

But he does hate Russia a lot, no doubt, so maybe when it came to writing about ways a German-led E.U. would stick it to Russia, he would have thought of something clever.

Anyway, something must have happened in the hot summer days of 2007, while I was probably at a beach in the still-affordable Hampton Bays, which led Lucas to change his mind.

Did Angela Merkel telephone Lucas threatening a lawsuit for libel?

Was The Economist scared that such a phone call was forthcoming and decided to pull the plug?

Did the FSB pressure Lucas, or was it the KGB???

Was David Miliband in on it, perhaps trying to resuscitate British-Russian relations?

Or, did Lucas himself decide to end the outlandish, misguided, and ill-conceived allegation himself?

Maybe, just maybe, Lucas realized that he’s just making things up after it became more and more apparent that the Russian-German strategic partnership forged between Putin and Schoeder is simply being reinforced during Merkel’s reign. This signifies that strong Russian-German relations are not reliant on any one political party in Germany and reflect more of a state-policy.

So I ask the question: Who’s holding back Edward Lucas from repeating the "Angela Merkel hates Russia" myth he concocted?

Who’s holding back Edward Lucas?
	Angela Merkel
	The Economist
	The FSB
	The KGB
	David Miliband
	Edward Lucas himself
pollcode.com free polls

Background: A search for the term "Angela Merkel" in Edward Lucas’ blog yields a generous amount of results until mid-July 2007, including the following:

3/10/07: Privately, politicians such as Tony Blair, George Bush and Germany’s Angela Merkel are deeply gloomy about Russia’s future, and detest Mr Putin

3/22/07: Ms Merkel seems to have persuaded the Poles that she is a sympathetic friend, not a revanchist and bullying neighbour.

5/23/07: Luckily for us, Russia's goons and spooks have overplayed their hand. Outrage in Germany about the way Vladimir Putin's thuggish regime crushes opposition and bullies its neighbours makes it easier for the steely Chancellor, Angela Merkel, herself a former inmate of the grim Communist prison camp of East Germany, to show her own distaste.

6/6/07: Like Germany’s Angela Merkel, who grew up in the Soviet-run part of Germany, [Sarkozy] finds Mr Putin’s nostalgia for the Soviet Union repellent.

6/6/07: I have spoken to Merkel at some length. Whatever her family background, she loathes communism and has unhappy personal memories of it.

6/22/07: When western Europe was led by burnt-out leaders such as Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schröder, the contrast was less striking. But the arrival of Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France and (next week) Gordon Brown in Britain casts a harsh light on the steppe to the east.

7/5/07: Angela Merkel, the present chancellor, is tremendous: the best-placed friend that east Europeans could wish for. It is most likely the only time that someone who grew up under communism will run one of the big Western democracies.

7/13/07: Germany's gutsy Chancellor, Angela Merkel, longs to be tough with Mr Putin, a man she loathes. But her own party's influential business backers are holding her back.

[abrupt end]