winthrop360

Shameless U.S. News and World Report

2009-12-31T12:17:00.000-05:00

My high school, which was ranked as the 45th best high school in America last year has now fallen to 71st . Unfreakingbelievable

talk about transperency

2009-02-09T20:06:00.001-05:00

Laura Rozen writes about how the United States funneled $100 million to the accounts of the Kyrgyz ruling family. Interesting stuff.

post-Cold War geopolitical scene

2009-02-07T14:18:00.000-05:00

Kit Gallant: But, in terms of overall size and effectiveness, and most importantly in terms of a realistic and honest appreciation of the uses and capabilities of a modern military, the Russian Federation got the post-Cold War geopolitical scene right and we got it decidedly wrong. There is no need, except an arguable economic one, for an army the size of ours. So our first Russian lesson for American power is that, when it comes to the post-Cold War role of militaries, limited and attainable goals (e.g. not "Nation building") are optimal.

It would be wise for American policy makers and the new administration to take to heart this Russian lesson. For it would be beyond any doubt greater for American power itself to gain from the knowledge of another world power's success than that it continue to march myopically and unilaterally forward, into an uncertain and multi-polar future

on david miliband

2009-02-07T13:05:00.001-05:00

Rakesh Krishnan Simha: After the diplomatic disaster in Delhi, it is apparent the foreign secretary has not listened to that advice. One reason could be that while the Cold War has turned to thaw, Miliband remains frozen in a time warp.

His efforts to isolate Moscow have been thwarted by Russia's resurgence on the geopolitical scene led by the master strategist, Vladimir Putin. And India's slow but sure progress to great power status is leaving less and less room for Britain in the Commonwealth, which seems likely to go the way of the International Cricket Council that was once Britain’s private club, but is now controlled by India.

Perhaps Miliband was trying to get back at the Indians for the drubbing they gave another British foreign secretary. In 1997, when Robin Cook offered to mediate in the Kashmir crisis, the then Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujaral told his guest he was the envoy of a "third-rate power" which shouldn't be "poking its nose in" India's affairs

darn

2009-02-07T12:51:00.002-05:00

T. Boone Pickens says that the United States must become energy independent to stop the transfer of wealth that is allowing energy oil exporting nations to allocate increased funds for transportation and create miles of new roads (he cites infrastructure programs in Russia and Qatar). He seems particularly disgusted that nations abroad will soon "zoom down glistening, brand-new highways"

emps

2009-02-06T09:27:00.001-05:00

Chalmers Johnson: Imperialism, meaning militarily stronger nations dominating and exploiting weaker ones, has been a prominent feature of the international system for several centuries, but it may be coming to an end. Overwhelming majorities in numerous countries now condemn it—with the possible exception of some observers who believe it promotes "stability" and some United States politicians who still vigorously debate the pros and cons of America's continuing military hegemony over much of the globe.

Imperialism's current decline began in 1991 with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the collapse of its empire. The United States now seems to be the last of a dying species—the sole remaining multinational empire. (There are only a few vestiges of the old Dutch, English, and French empires, mostly in the form of island colonies and other enclaves in and around the Caribbean.) As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made clear, the United States is increasingly stressed by the demands of maintaining its empire through its own military resources. Change is in the air...

"The characteristic form of US power outside its territory is not colonial, or indirect rule within a colonial framework of direct control, but a system of satellite or compliant states," observes Eric Hobsbawm, the British historian of modern empires. In this sense America behaves more like the Soviet empire in Europe after World War II than the British or French empires of the 19th century...

Like all empires of the past, the American version is destined to come to an end, either voluntarily or of necessity. When that will occur is impossible to foretell, but the pressures of America's massive indebtedness, the growing contradiction between the needs of its civilian economy and its military-industrial complex, and its dependence on a volunteer army and innumerable private contractors strongly indicate an empire built on fragile foundations. Over the next few years, resistance to America's military overtures is likely to grow, meaning the agenda of national politics will be increasingly dominated by issues of empire liquidation—peacefully or otherwise

energy blackmail ?

2009-02-04T12:54:00.001-05:00

Bruce K. Gagnon: Today China imports the vast majority of its oil and natural gas via ships through the Taiwan Straits. The US has been doubling its naval presence in that region in an attempt to have the ability to choke off China's importation of these resources which are vital to its economy. Thus China wants to build land-route pipelines from the resource rich Caspian Sea region eastward into China. Again Kyrgyzstan sits right in the middle of the whole show

[CW: Really ?]

grande armee

2009-01-27T18:57:00.004-05:00

I started reading today History of the Expedition to Russia: Undertaken by the Emperor Napoleon in the Year 1812, by Count Philip de Segur and I did not know that a gigantic coalition was formed by Napoleon to invade Russia, which included, according to Wiki:

- 300,000 French
- 98,000 Poles
- 90,000 Germans
- 34,000 Austrians
- 32,000 Italians
- 25,000 Neapolitans
- 9,000 Swiss
- 4,800 Spanish
- 3,500 Croats
- 2,000 Portuguese

This amplifies the comparison to Barbarossa. Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Spanish (volunteers), and other nationalities made-up the forces that invaded and fought against Russia in 1941-5.

"The largest country in the world" is tempting to one and all, that's for sure. The lust to invade it and carve it up might never end. History repeats itself grandly.

bigger and better

2009-01-26T14:02:00.001-05:00

Russia's icy past revisited, by Andrew Roberts (Daily Mail, 26-Jan-09)

The Russians do their war memorials bigger and better than anyone else in the world — by far.

They are majestic, powerful edifices full of Nazi snakes and swastikas being trampled underfoot by the horses ridden by heroes of the Soviet Union.

With 27 million killed in what they call 'The Great Patriotic War', they have much to commemorate.

Yet they do it with such pride, reverence and sheer splendour that to visit their battle sites is more thrilling and immediate than anywhere else I have ever been.

And as a member of the Guild of Battlefield Guides, I am completely addicted to them.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II — prompting a huge upsurge in battlefield touring, with tens of thousands of people visiting the Normandy beaches, Pegasus bridge, Arnhem and the V2 launching sites along the French coast.

These are all great tours, but for the more adventurous and committed battlefield enthusiast, the ultimate World War II tour experience is to be found where the outcome of that conflict was really decided.

Four out of every five Germans killed in combat between 1939 and 1945 died on the Eastern Front, and the biggest battles out there dwarfed anything seen in the West.

Four million people fought in the Kursk campaign, for example, which is considered by military historians to be the biggest battle in the history of mankind.

The Kursk battlefield is the same size as England and I was sceptical that these Russian battles of unimaginable size could really be captured in just an eight-day tour.

Instead — and thanks largely to the charming, super-efficient and highly knowledgeable Oleg Alexandrov, who runs the long-established Three Whales Travel Company — my wife Susan and I had a truly fascinating and hugely enjoyable week...

After a one-hour flight to Volgograd, we visited some of the sites of the battle of Stalingrad, that Manichean six-month struggle in 1942-43 that led to the deaths of more than one million people, and which — in atrocious winter conditions — broke the will of the German Sixth Army.

It might not sound glamorous to visit places called The Tractor Factory, The Grain Elevator, Crossing 62, Pavlov's House and The Mill, but it was in the moonscaped rubble of these places that the Nazis' dream of world domination was finally destroyed.

They are intensely moving places where extraordinary acts of heroism and self-sacrifice took place, and the Russians understandably treat them as almost spiritual.

Russian memorials to World War II are the finest in the world, and Volgograd is dominated by a magnificent 250fthigh statue of Rodina Mat ('Mother Russia', pictured), erected on the summit of the Mamayev Kurgan, a hill that is also the resting place of 35,000 people who died fighting for its control.

The sword she wields weighs 14 tons alone. It is an utterly breathtaking sight and the whole battlefield is instantly comprehensible from the top of it, rather as climbing the Lion Mound puts everything into perspective at Waterloo.

We also visited the underground HQ of Field Marshal Paulus, where he was captured at the end of January 1943 and forced to surrender a quarter of a million men — to Hitler's fury.

The Stalingrad Museum contains the Sword of Stalingrad given to the city by King George VI, and a panorama of the battle 16m high and 120m long...

Our trip was not all World War II-themed, of course; there was also time to visit the Kremlin, St Basil's Cathedral, the Tretyakov Gallery and the bohemian Arbat quarter, but the military sites we visited did make us think again about the war — leaving us with a powerful sense of the supreme role of the USSR in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

super

2009-01-20T09:54:00.001-05:00

Jose Miguel Alonso Trabanco: The end of the Cold War was a huge window of opportunity for the US to forge a 'Pax Americana' now that the Soviet Union had collapsed. A vacuum power provided a chance to prolong this 'unipolar moment' long enough to become a 'unipolar era'. This is the geopolitical context in which the Project for a New American Century was born, echoing Henry Luce's appeal to become the world's only and unchallenged superpower.

To fulfill such strategic agenda, American policymakers had to take care of some matters first. Even though the Soviet Union had been split into fifteen Republics, Russia was/is a major cause for concern. During the 90's Russia was economically devastated and its political leadership was too corrupt or too incompetent to heal the country's ailing health. Nonetheless, that did not necessarily mean that someday Moscow could not regain its place as a world-class major power.

Russia inherited a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of obliterating the United States; it has a competitive military-industrial complex that designs and manufactures state-of-the art products (long-range strategic bombers, fighter aircraft, satellites, tanks, submarines, ICBMs); its huge territory contains large sums of key natural resources (oil, gas, precious metals, iron ore, bauxite, diamonds, fresh water, coal, timber); it possesses the third largest foreign currency reserves; its manpower must not be underestimated because Russia has more college graduates than any other European country. Last but certainly not least, Russian national morale and resilience have always been formidable because both its State and its people have successfully managed to recover from tremendous catastrophes such as the Mongol, Napoleonic and Nazi invasions, which inflicted a great deal of pain on Russia.

Therefore, the West was not willing to share any power with Russia even though Russia's ruling elite, at the time, thought it was possible to build a Northern community from Los Angeles to Vladivostok. The West had different plans; the idea was to gradually disintegrate Russia as a functioning Nation-State once and for all so that it would never reemerge as a strategic challenger. Russia, as suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, would be Balkanized into several States (following the Yugoslavian model) to gain access to its abundant natural resources (particularly in the Caspian, the Urals and Siberia), its economy had to be permanently crippled and the country's remaining its pieces could serve as cannon fodder to be used in a potential war against China should the need arise

1a 1b

2009-01-19T17:03:00.001-05:00

Here's a good series of articles by Martin Sieff for UPI:

19-Jan-09: Why are U.S., Russia still top global powers in 21st century?

1-Dec-08: U.S., Russia still unrivaled in global power projection

26-Nov-08: Helsinki talks show U.S., Russia still lead world

georgian embargo

2009-01-19T11:04:00.007-05:00

News out today that Russia will impose "special" economic sanctions on countries, organizations, or individuals that export military and dual purpose products to Georgia. Among other things, this could mean that Investors Business Daily and The Weekly Standard will vanish from the international newsstands in Moscow (both have called for arming Georgia) and that the URLs jamestown.org and gfsis.org are banned from the Russian Internet. Also, expect Russia to amend this act to allow the Russian Space Agency to purchase shuttle rides to the International Space Station from its American counterpart.

In all seriousness, it will be interesting to see which option Russia will choose to take, because some countries are still arming Georgia and will continue to do so because they will miscalculate Russia's will and intent. What exactly will Russia do?

update - I reread the report and in addition to imposing economic sanctions, Russia will also "restrict military cooperation" with countries supplying arms to Georgia. As we all know, the American and European defense industries are dependent on Russia in certain niche areas

inside the covert world of her majesty's royal air force

2009-01-17T17:07:00.003-05:00

Virus ‘sends RAF e-mails to Russia’, by Michael Smith (The Sunday Times, 18-Jan-09)

The Ministry of Defence is investigating a major breach in security amid claims that all e-mail traffic from a number of RAF stations has been sent to a Russian internet server.

The e-mails were allegedly diverted to the Russian sender by a worm virus that entered the MoD systems 12 days ago bringing down computers and blocking e-mail communications across the military.

The allegations have been relayed to Mark Pritchard, a Conservative MP, by an official who is concerned that the MoD is failing to take cybersecurity seriously.

Pritchard said the official “told me he could not say whether there was any evidence of active Russian involvement but that e-mail traffic from some RAF stations was sent to a Russian internet server”.

An RAF source said the virus “originated from the former eastern bloc” and said forces security experts were surprised at its sophistication.

The virus affected at least 24 RAF bases and caused damage to the computer systems of 75% of Royal Navy ships, including the aircraft carrier Ark Royal.

The RAF stations affected included those from which fighter aircraft have been scrambled to counter Russian bombers testing British air defences.

The MoD said it was investigating the virus but had no knowledge of any e-mails being sent to a Russian server. It refused to say whether the investigation was looking at Russia as a possible source of the virus, and denied that any secure systems were affected.

[CW: Stuck between a rock and a hard place, really]

t-50

2009-01-17T11:13:00.004-05:00

[CW: It's getting redundant, but a second UPI article about fifth-generation fighters by Heritage Foundation Russia expert Ariel Cohen gets hammered. This is a comment in response to Russia bets on new Sukhoi fighter to match F-35]

skip_the_bias (user comment): Is it just me, or is this article biased in favor of the U.S.? Consider the statement, "U.S.-based simulations and tests suggest that the stealth-enabled fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current aircraft," including the T-50? What are the sources for making this claim, what exactly is the nature of these so-called simulations/tests, and what good are those simulations when the T-50 prototype is still in the process of being built and its true capabilities are unknown? As for the "Raptorsky" moniker, if the T-50 is based on the Su-47 and MiG-1.42/1.44 technology demonstrators, which are clearly NOT copies of the F-22, then the T-50 can hardly be considered a copy of the F-22 Raptor, and the moniker is misplaced (although it sure sounds good for short-sighted pro-Western propaganda.)

[CW: To quote a German general, "We have severely underestimated the Russians... This is the revenge of reality"]

nice answer

2009-01-17T05:36:00.003-05:00

New U.S. Envoy to Russia Echoes Father Who Fought for Soviets, by Ellen Barry (New York Times, 16-Jan-09)

When John Beyrle, the new American ambassador to Russia, appeared on a Russian radio show shortly after Russia’s five-day war with Georgia, the questions he got were predictably in-your-face. Is it true that the United States is sneaking weapons into Georgia disguised as humanitarian aid? Can you prove that planned American missile defense sites are not aimed at Russia?

And then: Is it true that your father was a Soviet soldier?

The answer — which Mr. Beyrle (pronounced BY-er-ly) delivered on the air in flawless Russian — has to be one of the more amazing stories to come out of World War II. Yes, during the last desperate months of the war, a starving 21-year-old from Muskegon, Mich., crossed the eastern front by foot and offered his services to a Soviet tank battalion, using the three words of Russian he had learned as a German prisoner of war — Ya Amerikansky tovarishch, or "I am an American comrade!"

And, yes, he fought the Nazis alongside them, wrapping his boots with burlap and downing shots of vodka to keep from freezing. During lulls in fighting, he answered batteries of questions about capitalism and taught the battalion to sing the Notre Dame fight song. And when the war was over, and Joe Beyrle was a supervisor in a bowling-ball factory, he told the stories to his son — the future ambassador to Moscow.

Click here for rest of article >>

bearophile

2009-01-16T10:46:00.001-05:00

Pipe dreams (Financial Times, 15-Jan-09)

By letting its Russian gas dispute drag on for two weeks , Ukraine has discharged a double-barrelled shotgun into its nether regions. Russia and the European Union have forceful incentives to back pipeline routes skirting round it, reducing transit fees that earn Ukraine $2bn a year. Russia's reputation is further tarnished, too. Even so, three years after the first Ukraine gas shut-off, the EU has made limited progress in diversifying energy sources. Today's talk is more of diversifying gas supply routes - and planned alternative pipelines tend to lead back to Russia.

The most advanced project is Nord Stream , under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. Poland and other bypassed states say it threatens EU unity; Sweden voices environmental concerns. But the European Commission has made it a priority project, warming further to it after Russia's conflict with Georgia, another energy transit state, apparently persuaded Brussels of the merits of direct pipelines. Gazprom's consortium partners include Germany's Eon Ruhrgas and BASF/Wintershall and the Netherlands' Gasunie, with former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, as chairman, lending clout.

The other arm of Gazprom's pipeline pincer movement, South Stream , intended to bring gas across the Black Sea and Balkans, is progressing too. Gazprom has signed up Bulgaria and Serbia, and Italy's Eni. Brussels is wary of South Stream as it competes with the EU- and US-backed Nabucco project, which aims to transport Caspian basin gas through Turkey - bypassing Russia. But concerns persist that Nabucco lacks gas. One possible source, Turkmenistan, has contracted most production to Russia and China; another, Azerbaijan, is being courted by Moscow. Nabucco says it may carry Russian gas - ironic for a venture seen as a way of bypassing Russia. Until it can develop other sources, the EU's best option to avoid future shut-offs may be to deepen its partnership with the Bear. [CW: Say it ain't so Joe]

thanks cia

2009-01-15T23:01:00.000-05:00

CIA Director Michael Hayden: Russia has invested so wisely and has such a such a huge sovereign wealth fund that they could probably manage [the fall in oil prices] most easily

knitting

2009-01-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

(in response to Russia trails U.S. in pursuit of a fifth-generation jet, by Ariel Cohen)

Flight Test Engineer (user comment): Dr Ariel Cohen clearly has little experience or expertise in aviation or the operation of military aircraft, let alone any competencies in the techno/strategic analysis of airborne and air defence systems. The speeds and altitudes quoted here bear little resemblence to reality as, in a similar way, do the claims of JSF superior aerodynamic/kinematic performance over the latest generation Sukhoi Su-35 aircraft.

Dr Cohen should stick to his knitting and stop conjecturing and trying to generate spin on things he has demonstrated he knows little about.

fake martyr

2009-01-12T18:03:00.004-05:00

Kiev Plays the Shell Game, by Sylvia Petrova (Standard News (Bulgaria), 13-Jan-08)

At the dawn of democracy in Bulgaria Gypsies used to play the shell game all round towns and cities and dwindled the naive. Is it a coincidence this memory strikes me in the heat of the so-called gas war? Maybe because the gentlemen from Kiev remind me too strongly of the expert-shell-gamers that picturesquely added the final touches of every corner in Bulgaria a couple of years ago. Ukrainians' endless shilly-shallying has started to bore everybody. Hardly anyone now thinks they have any other end in mind but to snatch greater profit, at any price.

Kiev tried anything - negotiations with Gazprom to desperate effect. Ukraine not only lost the right of preferential gas prices but from now on they will have to pay double. Then the play with Brussels started. Kiev at one moment invited EU observers, at the other would not let them close to the pipes. They pretended they would sign the monitoring protocol only to change their mind in the end. To cap it all, Kiev came up with a declaration describing Ukraine as a martyr and infuriating the Kremlin. According to the declaration, Kiev is a reliable partner and has never stopped the gas supply for Europe and has never stolen even a gram of Russian gas and owes nothing to Gazprom. Even those with nerves of steel cannot keep their head against such blasphemy. In the long run Gazprom explicitly stated that if the observers detected even the slightest lack along the pipes running through Ukraine they would cut off the supply immediately.

Kiev played the saviour with Sofia too promising some of their gas reserves. Although it was crystal clear it cannot happen in practice. Nothing but hypocrisy. Otherwise the easiest thing to do is to swear against Moscow for not turning on the tap against no money.

dumb-headed

2009-01-12T11:28:00.006-05:00

Btw, almost forgot, I lol'ed when I read headlines like these on 7-Jan-08:

AHN - EU Orders Russia To Restore Gas Deliveries To Europe In 24 Hours

The Telegraph - European Union issues 24-hour deadline for Russia to restore gas supplies

Again, what was the EU thinking? Did it actually think that Moscow would cave-in? And didn't it realize that Europe's credibility would suffer once the 24-hours passed and it was powerless to enforce its threat? Seriously.

Imo, it should have learned from what happened to Poland, for example. Poland tried to use the weight of the EU to blackmail Russia to lift an embargo of Polish meat imports. Russia never yielded. After more than a year, Poland had to save face, cave in, and allow Russian veterinary specialists access to Polish slaughterhouses. Just take a look at this post.

Over and over again, Russia is being tested by countries that think Russia's bluffing a weak hand, when in reality it is Russia's counterparty that's doing the bluffing. When Russia calls, it shows the best hand and its opponent seems naked and exposed.

I cannot understand why the same mistake is being repeated so much.

clownish

2009-01-11T18:03:00.006-05:00

Mirek Topolanek signs an agreement in Moscow. Agreement in hand, he gets back to Kiev. Ukraine signs, but handwrites "with declaration attached." See the declaration here.

Late last night I remember reading an article quoting Tymoshenko bragging that the agreement that Ukraine signed wasn't the same one that was signed in Moscow and that Ukraine got a much better deal in the end. I cannot find that article.

Regarding not just changing the agreement, but also bragging about it: what was she thinking? What did she have to gain? And could she not think just one step ahead?

The answers could involve the inherent inability of some to control their Russophobic emotions, strategic miscalculation, nationalistic pride, or plain-old peer pressure.

Anyway, in the past couple of hours, the European Union has apparently pressured Ukraine to resign the agreement completely to Russia's terms.

"Clownish politics bring humiliating results." That should be the headline of tomorrow's Kiev Post. And let's see what happens in a month, because Ukraine says that the monitors can only stay for that long. After that, it will be able to steal filthy Russian gas again and more fun should ensue.

Oh, and just one more tidbit. Two of the most Russophobic people on the planet, who have said some of the most horrible things about Putin ever, met face-to-face with the Russian PM last week; Topolanek and the Guardian's Luke Harding. I bet they were much kinder to him in person than they are in Prague or behind the virtual screen of Comment is Free.

nonintervantion-ism

2009-01-09T09:08:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul: Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats...

We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don't know all the answers to all the world's problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically – we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen

the $250 discount

2009-01-07T09:38:00.003-05:00

Quickly, just two things that I think have gone under the radar:

- We now know that Russia is paying Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan an average of $340 per 1,000 cubic meters

- I think it's interesting how Russia raised its ask price from $250 (prior to the cut-off) to $450 (after the cut-off). Putin said the low offer of $250 had been made for many reasons, including as a "humanitarian gesture" and for "fraternal reasons." When I first heard of this I had a hunch that Putin was referring to Russian language television in Ukraine; i.e. pay $250, but put Russian television back on (a lot of it has been shut down as per a new law). But after I read Putin's full explanation, I let go of this hunch.

Putin on the discounted offer: The first reason - let me tell you without the slightest exaggeration - is a humanitarian one. Out partners are, without the slightest exaggeration, the fraternal Ukrainian people. And we realize how serious the situation in Ukraine is at the moment due to the world financial and economic crisis, and that situation is much more serious than in our country. Many experts even believe that it is, to a certain extent, a kind of pre-default situation. The second reason is purely economic and pragmatic. We believe that none of our partners must be put in a situation where they are completely unable to pay for our commodity. The third reason is this: unfortunately, you and I know that the situation in Ukraine is being made worse by the fact that clan struggles, which have become more intense, are having a negative effect on the economy. Despite this, our Ukrainian partners are refusing to sign agreements and a contract of this kind either

mba

2009-01-06T19:11:00.003-05:00

Mark Almond: Now the west's fear is that Gazprom is beginning to play a role like that of America's oil companies or BP in the days when the west's energy interests determined who ran countries such as Iran...

Western triumphalists marked Russia down for inevitable decline. Certainly so long as Yeltsin let his crony capitalists plunder the country and deposit the loot in London and New York, pessimism was justified. Now, however, Russia's capitalist crew are not fly-by-night asset-strippers but ruthless capitalist politician-businessmen of the sort Britain used to produce.

Gazprom's executives are the 21st-century equivalent of Britain's 18th-century pioneers of unscrupulous national power and wealth. Suddenly, yesterday's proponents of the unbridled free market have discovered a distaste for the brute realities of supply and demand. Rather like poker players who have won all the chips on the table, western states recognise that the odds will turn sharply against them, so they insist on the economic equivalent of a whist drive. But will the hard young men running Gazprom take up this granny's game?

i can't stand it that i was wrong plus i'm bored

2009-01-06T09:46:00.004-05:00

I just wanted to say that the events of the past five days have proven that I was wrong all along and that Europe does have enormous leverage over Russia. Russia is totally dependent on Europe, its main market, to buy its natural gas and, therefore, can't afford to displease it. Especially in today's trying times when Russia just plainly needs to sell its energy exports (it just can't afford not to, not even for a minute). Besides, Europe is far more populous than Russia, its economy is that much larger, and it has the handy democracy card to play if Russia ever decides to get out of line. And if things get even nastier, Russia will just have to understand that its rotting armed forces (good for scrap metal, if) are no match for the Brussels Brigade.

Credit is due where credit is due. Congratulations to Edward Lucas and LaR, among others.

Edward Lucas: The absurdity is that Europe should be laying down terms to Russia. Not only is the EU the Kremlin's largest customer, Europe's economy is more than ten times larger than Russia's, its population more than three times bigger

LaR: Russia’s power in Europe is far less than some like to imagine... What’s more, even if Europe did depend on Russian gas, it’s far from likely that any intention action by Russia would turn off the spigot. So it’s not that Russia is threatening to cut off Europe, it’s that Russia is threatened by being unable to supply Europe — or indeed even Russia’s own domestic demand, a point Boris Nemtsov has already made emphatically in his White Paper on the gas monopoly. Once again, we see a Russian propaganda bubble, this time gas-filled, burst like a childish illusion

exceptionally exceptional

2009-01-04T18:37:00.001-05:00

Dominique Moisi: Even if America under Obama praises and even practices multilateralism, Americans are far from ready to accept the reality of a multi-polar world. They may write about it conceptually, but its meaning has not really penetrated the national psyche...

America’s internationalism remains grounded in the idea of American "exceptionalism" — a unique role and sense of mission. It is an approach to the world with which Europeans have great difficulty coming to terms. Even with Obama as president, they may be quick to denounce the combination of arrogance and hypocrisy that they see as linked to America’s view of her "special and unique mission"

Tulsagrad

2009-01-03T10:51:00.002-05:00

[CW: A couple of times I've made comparisons of modern day America with the Soviet Union, particularly the foreign policy aspects. Regarding how this comparison also delves into domestic society, take a look at what Matt Taibi, formerly of the eXile, once said]

Matt Taibi: I was there for 10 years -- I basically grew up in Russia, considering that I went in my early 20s. When I came back I was a little shocked to find that what I saw looked a lot like Russia, particularly the lingering Soviet aspects of Russia: the celebration of stupid ideas as though they were new and original, the dumb patriotism -- the style of the patriotism. You can go to any town in America today, and you see the same Blockbuster Video, Wal-Mart, McDonald's, or Jack in the Box -- every place looks the same, they all have the same strip malls, and so on. This is how it was in communist Russia: You could go to any city in the country, and you saw the same Meat and Fish Store No. 6 or Gastronome No. 4 that was in your hometown; even the street names were the same.

The Bush scene on the aircraft carrier was straight out of Soviet Russia: the sailors in their colored sweaters rushing out to greet the leader who himself hasn't served in the military. It made me think of Brezhnev, who wore a zillion fucking medals and was probably the only person in Russia who didn't know how to put together a Kalashnikov.

Dial v for vacation ?

2008-12-31T12:34:00.007-05:00

Doug Bandow: The presumption that a new agreement terming Georgia a "strategic partner" of America, or even full NATO membership, would deter Moscow from undertaking military action in the future is both naïve and foolish. Russia already has demonstrated its willingness to go to war regarding border issues. It isn’t likely to believe that Washington is prepared for a military confrontation in a region of no serious strategic interest to the West. And with a large supply of tactical nuclear weapons as well as an adequate strategic nuclear deterrent, Moscow is well situated to tell the U.S. government to mind its own business. The Kremlin wouldn’t be likely to "appease" Washington in a crunch... Georgia matters to Russia, not the United States. Washington should not climb up a hill when retreat would be its only logical option if challenged

[CW: A lot of other great stuff in this article - i.e. that NATO officers in Brussels believe that Georgia started the conflict not out of self defense, but rather as a calculated offensive "to create the facts on the ground"; that Batu Kutelia, then Georgia's deputy defense minister, said that Tbilisi didn't expect Russia to respond (to which Bandow offers an "Oops"); and how Saakashvili is "an authoritarian demagogue, who irresponsibly starts a war in the belief that he can drag the United States into it along with him, if necessary." Totally worth reading imo]

[CW: I hadn't heard of Kutelia's remark, but it's eerily similar to what Reintegration Minister Temur Iakobashvili is also accused of saying prior to the attack - that Russia "will not even move a finger" for Tskhinvali. And that appears to have been the prevalent thought - that Georgian officials believed Russia wouldn't do anything. Perhaps because they read on the Internet that Russia was weak (to quote David Clark, Dennis McShane, Paul Armstrong, Pierre Noel, etc.). Or perhaps because the Olympics were starting (in my first blog post a few hours after the shelling began I pretty much thought that Russia would have its hands tied because of this and thought possible that it would just issue an ultimatum - i.e. that Russia would interfere if Georgian troops aren't out of South Ossetia by the end of the Games). In hindsight, of course, this was a major miscalculation]

A serious post about music

2008-12-30T21:08:00.009-05:00

Based on a sampling of songs I like (listed below) can anyone recommend other songs that I might like ?

People in my neighborhood listen to bands I've never heard of and occasionally I discover a tune I like and download it but it's embarrassing to ask them all the time "who's this?" But most burdensome of all, I like music that isn't really hip, while I live in a very hip neighborhood!

Some happy songs I like: Lions and Tigers (Sleater Kinney), Back on the Chain Gang (The Pretenders), Here Comes My Baby (Yo La Tengo), Reach out of the Darkness (Friend and Lover), Hot n Cold (Katy Perry)

Some sad songs I like: Homeward Bound (Simon and Gurfankel), Femme Fatale (The Velvet Underground), Summer Wine (Nancy Sinatra), Leaving on a Jet Plane (Peter, Paul, and Mary), What Can I Say (Brandi Carlile), Mad World (Tears for Fears), In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (Neutral Milk Hotel), We Both Go Down Together (The Decemberists)

I'm looking for specific songs, not bands. Thank you

p.s. I know that none of you might help out, but I appreciate you reading this regardless

p.p.s. Yes, I like sad songs ! And apparently I like ballads, also

Robert Coalson can't mandate reality and make Putin unpopular

2008-12-30T12:20:00.006-05:00

The more I think about it the more great I find Jeffrey Finckenor quote from the previous post .

There seems to be a belief that you can mandate reality, followed by a refusal to accept any information that runs counter to that mandate

For instance, take how Radio Free Europe’s Robert Coalson and former Secretary of State Colin Powell choose to describe Putin's popularity.

In what can only be described as a senile rant, Coalson writes that the popularity is a “myth” and that "the often-cited 70 percent favorable rating for Putin is... an illusion."

On the other hand, Powell recent said that "Mr. Putin succeeded in restoring a level of pride to the Russian people through the Russian Federation, and they respect him for it. And he is at 85 percent popularity. And you have to take that into account when you start to deal with the Russians."

I have followed Russia intensely for the past 5+ years (my job has a lot of downtime and this allows me to read basically everything about Russia) and Colin Powell is absolutely right.

No matter how much he tries, Robert Coalson can't mandate reality and make Putin "unpopular." Coalson can continue to live in the isolated world of delusion all he wants, nobody's stopping him, but he will be doing a disservice to whoever reads his articles if he can't let go of his fantasies, acknowledge reality, and make educated statements based on these realities.

cc: Brian Whitmore who is like Robert Coalson-lite. Guys, you just can't make up your own reality and refuse the overwhelming facts against what you are saying. Sorry

Fly me to the krazy moon

2008-12-30T09:33:00.006-05:00

Two great quotes imo, both taken from The Fight Over NASA’s Future, by John Schwartz (The New York Times, 30-Dec-08):

Jeffrey Finckenor, an engineer who left NASA this year, sent a goodbye letter to colleagues that expressed his frustrations with the program. "At the highest levels of the agency, there seems to be a belief that you can mandate reality," he wrote, "followed by a refusal to accept any information that runs counter to that mandate."

[CW: I don't want to knock NASA, but that is a great quote with many historical and present-day analogies - such as the situation that Wall Street is in, for example]

In July, former Senator John Glenn of Ohio said in testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee that he favored flying the shuttles until the Constellation craft were ready to fly. "I never thought I would see the day when the world’s richest, most powerful, most accomplished spacefaring nation would have to buy tickets from Russia to get up to our station," said Mr. Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth.

[CW: Richest, most powerful, most accomplished spacefaring nation? With all due respect, just one of those three distinctions can be honestly claimed by us]

Gonna take some time to do the things we never had

2008-12-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

[CW: This was the fifth most unnoticed story of 2008 as per Foreign Policy]

Russia Makes Play for Africa

China’s recent adventures in Africa have been well-publicized, as have the West’s attempts to keep up. Now add one more player to the mix: Russia is moving into Africa in a big way, snatching up gas and oil deals, with an eye on winning even greater leverage over the global energy market.

In September, Russia’s state-controlled energy monopoly Gazprom obtained gas concessions in Nigeria, which is thought to hold one of the world’s largest natural gas supplies. In addition to offering such development-aid carrots as electricity generation, Gazprom agreed to help the West African country fund a 2,700-mile trans-Saharan pipeline to Europe.

Gazprom, in a joint venture with Italy’s Eni, is also looking to finance a pipeline from Libya that would carry natural gas under the Mediterranean. Russia offered to buy all Libyan gas and some of its oil exports. If the deal goes through, it would give Russia complete control over supply to the European Union. Russia has additional deals in Algeria, Angola, Egypt, and the Ivory Coast worth $3.5 billion and expected to be operational by 2010.

But it’s not just pipelines Russia wants—it’s also hearts and minds. Russia has canceled $20 billion in African debt and recently announced a $500 million aid package for African countries with no strings attached. Russia helped prevent sanctions on Zimbabwe from passing the U.N. Security Council a few months after Zimbabwe was opening a tourism office in Moscow. [CW: Well, in the Security Council it wasn't even close. Russia, China, Italy, South Africa, Panama, Costa Rica, Vietnam, and Burkina Faso on one side, endorsing the African Union's mediation efforts. The US, UK, France, and Belgium on the other, wanting the UN to intervene]

All this has Europe very worried. [CW: lol] If Russia controls natural gas supplies from the east—through Gazprom’s holdings in Central Asia—as well as the south, that would leave Europe surrounded, with little room to find alternative energy supplies. It was no coincidence that the EU offered $21 billion for the trans-Saharan pipeline just after the Georgia-Russia war. Let the great games begin.

Russian middle class in Austria

2008-12-29T12:36:00.002-05:00

Lisa Chapman: Russians are coming to Austria in steadily-increasing numbers, according to the Österreich Werbung marketing institution (ÖW). ÖW manager Petra Stolba said: "2008 has been a dream year for tourism from Russia, with an increase of 35 per cent in arrivals and 40 per cent in overnights making it the best year for Russian tourism in history."

Stolba added there were around 10,000 Russian and Ukrainian tourists in Austria at present who wanted to spend the holidays in the Alps. Noting that Vienna and Tyrol were Russian guests' favourite destinations, Stolba said Russians aged 30 to 49 found Austria especially attractive. Over 240,000 Russians have visited Austria this year and been responsible for more than one million overnights, according to ÖW.

[CW: This reminded me of a Bloomberg article that highlighted how "the Swiss are learning to say 'spasibo' instead of 'thank you'"]

my predictions for 2009

2008-12-29T09:28:00.009-05:00

Just for reference, my 2008 predictions are here, with a recap here; and my 10 Russophile predictions, which are more long-term in nature, are here.

- Medvedev is still President of the Russian Federation at the end of 2009

- After all the speculation, Obama treats Russia rather nicely. For example, he doesn't try to meddle in Russia's internal affairs, curtails the military encirclement of Russia (through NATO expansion, American military bases, ballistic missile defense, or otherwise), and generally treats Russia as an equal partner on equal footing

- Richard Lugar, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel, or Gary Hart becomes next American Ambassador to Russia

- Sarah Palin is present as Medvedev and Obama sign an inter-government agreement to construct a Bering Strait tunnel by 2019

- The Heritage Foundation calls Obama's Russia policy "weak" and/or "appeasing"

- Russia's real GDP growth rate is 575 basis points above America's and 550 basis points above the European Union's

- A Bretton Woods-like conference creates a new world economic order, instituting worldwide financial regulation and a gradual (15 year-long) and strictly controlled end to American dollar hegemony

- Major unrest and civil strife in Hungary, Ukraine, Georgia, and at least one Baltic state

- Israel extradites Leonid Nevzlin to Russia. Britain extradites Boris Berezovsky to Brazil

- Moscow Mid-East Summit happens in May and is successful

- Peace treaty signed between Russia and Japan. Japan gets Shikotan and Habomais and renounces claims to Iturup and Kunashir

- Russia says that that it'll built its own fusion reactor in Eastern Siberia or the Far East

- ESPO 95% complete and South Stream progressing to plan, but Nord Stream cancelled in favor of LNG

- Births increase by 140,000 over 2008

- Will be in the news: Lake Vostok, EurAsEC, Tesla, scalar, Project 20120, Ruthenia, Okruashvili, Primakov, titanium shortage

- Zenit St. Petersburg repeat UEFA Cup glory

don't say a word

2008-12-29T07:36:00.005-05:00

In the past five minutes I have read a Washington Times article warning us that Russia is "producing a whole new family of strategic missiles" and an article on Strategy Page saying that Russian missiles are "dying of old age." Sigh

going over my 2008 predictions

2008-12-26T11:20:00.011-05:00

I made eight predictions on 31-Dec-07. Just a grade and a few words for each one.

1. Russian birthrates, which are at something like 18-year highs already, continue to rise strongly

Grade: A-

Russian births increased by 100,000 in 2008 versus 2007. This was an easy prediction to make

2. Russian businesses grow internationally through acquisitions that annoy western nationalists

Grade: B

Well, there were a few but not as many as I expected. Off the top of my head I can recall the acquisition of Serbia's NIS, oil and gas deals in Libya, Algeria, Angola, and Venezuela, and, possibly, a stake in Spain's Repsol. Western nationalists were surely annoyed and expressed their resentments vocally

3. A resurgent Russia takes first place at the medals table in Beijing

Grade: C+

Russia came third and I found its Olympic performance disappointing. However, a lot of its athletes were among the youngest in their competitions and it can be said that these Olympics were like a "rebuilding year." On the positive, Russia won the World Championship in Ice Hockey and its soccer team beat a badass Netherlands team to reach the semi-finals of Euro 2008 (a big thing in Europe). Russian sports are definitely on the up !

4. Ownership changes at Kashagan and Tengiz

Grade: B+

This happened quickly. On 13-Jan-08, it was announced that KazMunaiGaz would raise its stake in Kashagan to 16.8 percent, on par with the top shareholders and that the Eni-led group would pay Kazakhstan $5 billion to compensate for lost revenue and share profits with the state earlier than planned. Regarding Tengiz, there are now talks about a special export tax, and, imo, Chevron's position is pretty shaky

5. Oil prices fall to the $50-70 range

Grade: C-

I think oil was approximately $100 at the time I said this, so I was totally wrong to miss the run-up that happened to $150. In theory, my idea of lower oil prices came to be, but I was wrong on timing and extent

6. As oil prices fall, Russia's economy grows even faster and GDP forecasts are increased on multiple occasions. For 2008, at least 8% growth

Grade: C

Who knew the entire world economy would implode ! Looking forward, and I'll make my predictions for 2009 later, Russia is poised to be among the countries that emerges the strongest out of all this

7. Better relations with a plethora of countries in Eastern Europe / FSU (basically everyone except Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, and the Czech Republic)

Grade: B-

I should have added Poland and Ukraine to the exceptions

8. Increasing defense ties between Russia and Israel

Grade: A-

Well, the drone deal is one thing, but it's much more than that, and a lot of it is with nanotechnology and other next generation stuff. There was a strong upward turn in 2008

year in review - africa and the middle east

2008-12-26T10:23:00.007-05:00

Africa: Libya, Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Sudan are the countries in Africa that Russia has exceptional relations with, relations which progressed steadily and across the board in 2008. I still do not know where Russia stands on Ethiopia/Somalia vs. Eritrea. Ethiopia was a Soviet ally, but it is pretty close to the United States today (although it it can be argued that it is still close to Russia, too).

Africa is a continent of enormous geostrategic significance that the four major powers, America, Russia, Europe, and China, are vying after. I think that Russia's position in this game is unique and advantageous. There are many reasons why and, to quote a Nigerian energy official, one reason is because "[Russia's] talking tough and saying the west has taken advantage of us in the last 50 years and they're offering a better deal... they are ready to beat the Chinese, the Indians and the Americans."

Middle East: The one country in the region where Russia's relations with soured remarkably during 2008 was Iraq. This was both predictable and understandable. However, looking forward to 2009 and beyond, I regard this situation as unsustainable on Iraq's part (and when the status quo begins to change things will move real quickly).

On the contrary, Russia's relations improved with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and, most notably, Israel and Qatar. The MiG gift helped restore ties with Lebanon, but in my opinion relations with that country are still a little bit cool, like they are with Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (who's made France its primary ally).

up next: Latin America

Scheffer and Barroso get nailed for their double standards

2008-12-24T10:51:00.005-05:00

Eric Walberg: Little more than a month later, the storm clouds over Russia seem to have dispersed. Europe again began improving relations, with a Euro-Russia summit in November, followed by renewed negotiations on a strategic partnership and a renewal of Russian-NATO dialogue in December. The Bush administration was not amused, but then lame-duck President George W Bush has about as many friends these days as Saakashvili.

It was amusing watching NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer jumping through hoops, so to speak, in early December after a NATO foreign ministers meeting, as he explained the alliance’s decision to begin “a conditional and graduated re-engagement” with Moscow, despite strident disapproval from Washington, not to mention Moscow’s own strident disapproval of NATO moves to absorb Ukraine and Georgia, and after its spectacular assertion of authority in its “near abroad” with the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abhazia. The Hoop argued, “Russia is such an important factor in geopolitical terms that there is no alternative for NATO than to engage Russia.” He innocently claimed he had no idea why Russia felt “victimized, not to be taken seriously, but if that is the perception, we have to discuss it, because I have to try to convince them that democracy and the rule of law coming closer to Russia’s borders — why should that be a problem?”

As if he actually believes that NATO is about the tired clichés of democracy and freedom that are used to justify this Cold War relic, and not about US empire and its attempt to end any residual opposition, especially in the oil-rich Eurasian space, which Russia just happens to control.

So why the sudden courtship of the Russian ogre? De Hoop said it was because of Afghanistan, fighting terrorism and narcotics. We could add the financial crisis as well. But towering over even that is the very frightening specter of another arms race between the two — yes two — superpowers which Europe is uncomfortably sandwiched between.

[CW: Great stuff and I haven't even included the part where Walberg calls out Barroso for being hypocritical about spheres of influence (Europe can have them, Russia can't). Click here for the entire article, it's just great]

Saakashvili's bust

2008-12-24T09:56:00.003-05:00

Georgia's Saakashvili gambled and lost big in Ossetia war (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 22-Dec-08)

'Georgia would have to be crazy to go to war with Russia, and we are not crazy,' President Mikheil Saakashvili told a reporter from Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa in a May interview.

Saakashvili's analysis - the first half of it at least - was certainly proven accurate by August's South Ossetia War. Russia's army demolished Georgia in a lightning campaign, as the biggest gamble of the Georgian leader's life came up a bust.

The South Ossetians and Georgians had fought once before, in 1991. By the summer of 2008, Saakashvili and the Kremlin were in open conflict over control of South Ossetia, a renegade Georgian province boasting de facto independence with its government defying Tbilisi's right even to set foot in the region.

The Georgian-South Ossetian frontier heated up in the early days of August, with Saakashvili's press staff compiling lists almost every day about shootings and mortar fire into Georgian villages from South Ossetia.

The South Ossetian version of events differed wildly, with Eduard Koikoty, the region's leader, denying that most of the firefights had even taken place. He accused Georgia's secret police of masquerading as Ossetians and shooting back into Georgia, so as to give Saakashvili a pretext for invasion.

What is nonetheless clear is that on the evening and night of Thursday, August 7, pretext or no, the Georgians did invade.

Georgian infantry columns trained by US special forces rumbled north, along with brand new NATO standard artillery and armoured cars and hundreds of Georgian police in Rambo bandanas. The armed advance was necessary, Saakashvili said, to bring peace to the region.

The Georgian lunge was, by no coincidence, a repeat of two earlier Saakashvili military gambles. Twice, in 2004 and 2006, Georgian troops overran renegade regions bloodlessly to bring them under Georgian control.

Indeed, the return of the Adjara and Kodri districts were Saakashvili's greatest foreign policy coups and the keystone of his initially wide popularity: Georgia's President was seen by Georgians to be reuniting the country.

But when Saakashvili rolled the geopolitical dice on South Ossetia, it turned out his opponents were prepared.

The five-plane Georgian air force launched a pair of bombers to block a critical road tunnel connecting South Ossetia with Moscow through the mountains. Russian missiles shot them down.

Georgian artillery and rocket launchers pounded the South Ossetian capital Tskinvali, leveling the city centre in an attempt to destroy a regiment of Russian paratroopers wearing peacekeeper uniforms stationed there. The Russian infantry held.

By the third day of the war hundreds of Russian tanks and thousands of veterans from Chechnya were rolling into South Ossetia.

Russian Marines landed on Georgia's sea coast, against negligible Georgian opposition. Saakashvili had started a war against Russia, it turned out, with roughly one-third of the Georgian army stationed in Iraq as part of the US-led occupation force there.

Saakashvili mobilized Georgia's reserves, only to discover they were poorly equipped, badly trained, and, for the most part, unwilling to fight. Tens of thousands of refugees clogged Georgia's roads. The Georgian army dissolved, abandoning weapons and vehicles. [CW: I've read stories that I will never forget about the panicky and disorganized capitulation of the Georgian armed forces, including "a group of retreating Georgian soldiers hastily abandoned their truck after its wheels were shot out by a sniper and crossed the border on foot"]

Russia's air force ranged more or less freely over Georgia, striking bridges and military bases. Russia's navy sank half the Georgian navy in a short action in the Black Sea, captured the other half, and then scuttled it.

Saakashvili's long-crafted public image as Georgia's first warrior crumbled as quickly as Georgian morale. Two YouTube videos surfaced, one showing the President nervously chewing his tie. The second had Saakashvili crouching behind a pile of bullet-proof vests and looking fearful, as his panicked bodyguards ran to-and-fro after hearing a Russian jet in the distance. [CW: Armchair generals are after self-preservation first and foremost and I could easily picture Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, and so many others doing the exact same thing]

By the last day of the war, August 11, Georgian propaganda had forgotten the alleged need for 'peace in South Ossetia.' The argument became that Georgia was a victim of Russian aggression.

Russian tank columns, meanwhile, ranged deep into Georgia, with one spearhead halting only 30 kilometres short of the capital.

The Russians dragged their feet on leaving Georgia, and for the next month systematically blew up or carted back to Russia Georgian tanks, cannon, and firearms. They argued that a disarmed Georgia could not invade South Ossetia again.

By the end of the year, Georgia's hopes of joining NATO were in tatters, foreign investors were fleeing, the Kodori valley was lost, and Russian forces were dug in throughout South Ossetia, now independent as far as the Kremlin was concerned.

But even worse for Saakashvili and his political future, was what Georgians nationwide had taken to calling his disastrous South Ossetia gamble: 'Saakashvili's War.'

Gaddafi: Greed, stupidity, recklessness and miscalculation must not continue to implicate humanity in war

2008-12-23T12:55:00.001-05:00

Provoking Russia, by Muammar Gaddafi (The Washington Times, 23-Dec-08)

The gamble of poking the bear

Once again, the West's policy toward Russia and its addiction to interfering in the affairs of other countries is having dangerous effects on the rest of the world. The seeds for the current danger were sown by NATO´s expansion to Russia's borders after the fall of the Soviet Union. That deliberate, provocative and continuing process echoes in Russia's long memory the painful experience of the Napoleonic and German armies storming across Europe into their motherland, hellbent on conquest.

NATO's expansion was not merely an attempt to secure Russia's vast resources - the sole objective of those earlier adventures. Its other aim was to fill the political vacuum left by the dismantlement of the Soviet Union. It was "independence mania" being driven down the throats of the former Soviet republics. However, Russia perceives its encirclement - from Central Asia to the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea - to be a threat, the effects of which are now playing out on the regional stage, including the recent hostilities in Georgia.

The real danger lies in the fact that Russia possesses 16,000 nuclear weapons, among the largest stock in the world. Intimidating Russia and attempting to besiege it fuels nationalism and threatens the world, again, with nuclear war. A new arms race is already afoot in the wake of the West´s decision to install a missile system in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border.

Interestingly, the West's misread of Russia's reaction to NATO expansion was a precursor of recent strategic blunders - such as the invasion of Iraq - based on misleading information and short-sighted and naive analysis. Did the West really expect that "independence mania" would stop at pro-West Kosovo and not reach Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Now NATO is considering Georgia and Ukraine for their military alliance, more geopolitical bombs at Russia´s borders.

The continuation and expansion of NATO has no justification anymore, after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. And, unlike during the Cold War, Russia is not defending a political, economic or philosophical ideology; it has none. What it will defend is Russian nationalism and the integrity of the Russian nation itself. In fact, it will be defending its very existence. This makes the current situation all the more dangerous.

America, like any other country in the world, has the right to defend itself as well as to seek to live in permanent peace. Its remote geographical location - insulated by two vast oceans and with non-threatening neighbors to the north and south - has made it a safe haven for immigrants and refugees, away from the conflicts and ambitions of the old world. Such a stature makes America the worthy host of the United Nations. Such a status would also qualify it to be a neutral country.

As America reassesses its role in the world under a new president, it should consider a return to the Monroe Doctrine, which called for non-interference in problems or relations with Europe, and non-expansion by European countries of their colonial hegemony toward America. This principle of non-interference should be extended by and for all countries of the world.

Greed, stupidity, recklessness and miscalculation must not continue to implicate humanity in war. Russia is not the Soviet Union. The world has moved on, and cooperation, not intimidation, is the key to peace and progress. Will the West wake up to this fact in time?

Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of the Great Socialist People´s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, recently returned from a state visit to the Russian Federation

year in review - asia and oceania

2008-12-22T15:00:00.006-05:00

China - consistent. From the border treaty to increased trade to continuing to advocate together for a multipolar world, things continued to go well. The ongoing dispute over natural gas prices was the only blur

Japan - improved. The new leadership looks to be serious about achieving peace and anti-Russian provocations, including poaching in Russian waters, have been limited

South Korea - vastly improved. Lee was quick to make friends with and recognize the unique importance of Russia. A lot of realistic plans are now on the table to take bilateral relations to the next level

India - consistent. Good and bad. Russia's accommodations to India's nuclear energy demands have been much appreciated. Brahmos is doing great. Some other defense industry deals not so -- but I think that the MiG-35 is still odds-on favorite to win a big chunk of the massive MRCA tender

Afghanistan - negative. It's pretty funny that Afghanistan was the first country in the world to recognize Kosovo as I think that the American administration thought that a lot of other Muslim countries were going to follow it (only Turkey, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates did)

Mongolia - improved. There was a barage of OpEds a few months ago that we (America) were "losing" Mongolia (I specifically remember a WSJ piece), so Russia must be doing something right (it is)! Cooper, gold, coal, and uranium projects now have a whole lot of Russian interest. Trade is booming

Indonesia - consistant. Relations really improved in 2007 with Putin's vist and remained at a high level in 2008

Australia - negative. I did not like how Australia backtracked a bit with the uranium deal, but I was happy that BHP chose to defend Russia and I have a feeling that it will have the final say in the end, not Stephen Smith

up next: Africa and the Middle East

The Daily Mail's misinformed Will Stewart

2008-12-22T14:59:00.002-05:00

Will Stewart: Gas monopoly Gazprom is wholly controlled by the Kremlin, and current president Dmitry Medvedev used to be its boss

[CW: In my opinion, the entire article was disturbingly inaccurate and I think that this sentence proves that Stewart doesn't know what he's talking about. Gazprom is not "wholly controlled" by the Kremlin; the Russian Federation owns 50.002%, E.ON Ruhrgas of Germany owns a sizable chunk, other institutional holders own some, and over 500 thousand ordinary stockholders, including Russians, Brits, and Americans, own the rest. Medvedev was never Gazprom's "boss." The CEO is a company's "boss;" Medvedev was Chairman of Gazprom (there's a big difference between the two titles)]

How to console American oil executives

2008-12-22T13:18:00.000-05:00

John Daly: As for American oil executives checkmated in their Great Game with Russia, they can always console themselves with the Bush administration's parting gift of increased access to drilling off America's coasts

robert amsterdam's blog notes

2008-12-22T11:00:00.005-05:00

Hi, I have nothing against Robert Amsterdam's blog, which I read daily. I think that Bob and James are good and decent people, smart and somewhat practical even.

(I cannot say the same kind words about another of that blog's contributors, who is a constant complainer imo and just a negative person, sees nothing good in anything Russian... ever, and just spews out anti-Kremlin hate speech, consistantly and predictably)

I am also grateful that they recently let a comment of mine go through (for a while, none of my comments were going through and I had even abandoned trying to comment there for a few months)

That said, I want to point out 2 striking factual inaccuracies that were recently published on Robert Amsterdam's blog, as well as 1 incorrect assertion that it has been making for a while:

- On 17-Dec-08, James wrote that "[Alexanyan] was recently given an opportunity to be released on bail - but only by paying the Russian government a staggering $1.8 billion bond." In reality, bail was set at 50 million rubles, or $1.78 million, a number not so staggering after all

- On 15-Dec-08, James clearly implied that a "majority" of the bribes that Siemens recently confessed to went to Russia. In reality, of the $528.3 million in bribes, only $55.7 million have been attributed to Russia ($55 million of which were actually to a Dubai-based business consultant, according to the SEC complaint, so maybe it's just a measly $700 thousand to Russia). I don't know how a little more than 10% can constitute a majority, but then again I didn't get 800 on the Math SAT (I got 790). Maybe he meant "most," but that would be wrong too since China was ahead of Russia

- Finally, I don't understand all their talk about "clans," including Robert Amsterdam's 19-Dec-08 column entitled The Unreal Realists. I mean, I would think that by "clan" they mean political faction. If so, there are political factions everywhere. The Christian right, the neoconservatices, those who are pro-business or pro-labor or pro-choice or anti-war or what have you. There will always be people with different opinions who organize themselves to strengthen their position -- what exactly is wrong with that?

In my opinion, however, their use of the word "clan" goes beyond that and is a little bit mischievous and/or devious. First of all, they might think that by speaking of "clans" and "clan wars" they could instigate fights between the "clans" that would, presumably, weaken Russia (and bring back to power the clan that they seem to be rooting for most, the oligarchs of the 1990s). If they think that, they are vastly overestimating their influence and grossly underestimating the stability of the Putin system. And, second of all (and I hope this is not the case), they might be using the word "clan" as a form of slander, be it to say that Russians are "backwards peoples" (Mongolian hordes, clans of Asians from the east, etc.) or racist even (clan spelled with a k).

In the end, their "clan" talk will go nowhere (they have been talking about it for a long, long time now and seem incensed with this theory) and they should just abandon it imo to save face and restore some credibility.

trading places

2008-12-22T08:00:00.001-05:00

William H. Stewart: Thus, while China and Russia are on track to largely abandon much of the previously communist state controlled mechanisms to direct their economies-they have adopted much of the doctrine of capitalism.

Meanwhile, if recent actions are an example, the United States government is starting to take the country the other way and is now embracing what heretofore were communist and socialist convictions to support the nation’s deteriorating domestic economy. Today, the U.S. Government and by extension the American taxpayer is heavily participating in the economy in ways it previously detested. The American government is now-or soon will be-a major participant in the ownership of banks, insurance companies and possibly major players in the automobile manufacturing industry. All this is not too different from what the former Soviet Union and the PRC cast off as not being an efficient method to raise the standard of living of their population.

Wow! I’m confused. Friends-we live in strange times.

cash-rich in carbon credits

2008-12-21T22:23:00.001-05:00

[CW: Just fyi, I didn't like the cynical tone of Chadha's article and let him know about it]

Mridul Chadha: Russia has used its resources to gain geopolitical mileage and by deciding to withhold such great amounts of emission permits, which are instruments not only for emission reduction but also industrial growth, it stands to gain even more strategic and economic leverage

tbilisi's miscalculation saved iran, too ?

2008-12-21T11:00:00.007-05:00

In my opinion, one of the most underreported stories of the year was Seymour Hersh's allegation (to be fair, totally unproven) that neocons held a meeting in Dick Cheney's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran, including, possibly, dressing up American Navy Seals as Iranians, putting them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shootting at them. Americans killing Americans, creating a "false flag" incident to justify war with Iran. Read reports here, here, and here.

I had forgotten about this until I did some research on Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, and saw that he recently said that Russia's show of force in Georgia helped put an end to the Iran attack fantasies.

don't mess with zohanov

2008-12-21T08:44:00.001-05:00

[CW: I was a little bit droopy eyed this morning but, boy, this has woken me up. The article deals with a modern-day issue concerning Russian-Philippine relations and this is just an analogy they're giving, but it's pretty spicy]

Balita Pinoy: In the turbulent world of Beirut in the 1980's, kidnapping of foreigners was a national sport. Normally, it was American, British or French who were the main targets. However, in October of 1985 three or four Russian diplomats were kidnapped. One of them, Arkady Katkov, was murdered and his body dumped.

The Russians went into immediate overdrive. Calling in old favors and putting pressure where needed they discovered the identity of the kidnappers and who led the group.

A brother of the leader was thus kidnapped by the Russians as were several others. What happened next is subject to variation and speculation. Different stories came out of Beirut, that body parts were sent to the kidnappers. The body parts were said to be fingers and genitals.

Nothing official ever came out as hard news except that the remaining Russian hostages were freed very quickly.

While the other nationalities had to endure years of captivity, the speed of the release and the fact that no other Russians were ever again kidnapped in Beirut shows that the Russian actions were extremely effective.

David Clark's oligarch-funded anti-Russian org. in shambles

2008-12-20T23:09:00.003-05:00

Key aide to Gordon Brown is director of anti-Putin group, by Robert Watts (The Times, 21-Dec-08)

One of Gordon Brown’s chief aides is a senior figure in a lobby group that has attacked Vladimir Putin’s leadership of Russia as “corrupt” and “bullying”.

Jon Mendelsohn, the Labour party’s chief fundraiser, is a director of the Russia Foundation, a London-based think tank financed by expatriate opponents of the Russian prime minister and of Dmitry Medvedev, the country’s president.

Last week David Clark, the chairman of the foundation, told The Sunday Times that he had planned for Mendelsohn to help with fundraising. However, yesterday he said that Mendelsohn had “clarified” with him that this would no longer be possible.

Clark said: “As a director of the Russia Foundation, Jon Mendelsohn contributes to a strong lineup. The foundation benefits from his considerable political and organisational experience in developing its programme and we are very pleased to have him on board.”

The news that a figure so close to Brown also works for an organisation hostile to the Kremlin could cause embarrassment in Downing Street’s relations with Moscow.

The foundation was launched in 2004 by an associate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian billionaire now imprisoned in Siberia for fraud and tax evasion. Its website claims it to be “an English language resource for those seeking a deeper understanding of political, social and economic developments in contemporary Russia”.

However, the vast majority of the material featured on the site is strongly critical of the Kremlin’s leaders.

Clark, a former Labour adviser, has repeatedly attacked Putin and Medvedev in the press. In recent months, he has said Putin presides over “an authoritarian regime too corrupted by power to change” and is feeding Russians on “antiforeigner paranoia and chauvinist revivalism”.

He has also urged the European Union to take a tougher line on Putin’s Russia, arguing that “the West can no longer stand idle while the Russian bully wreaks havoc”.

Mendelsohn, 41, has greatly improved Labour’s finances since he replaced Lord Levy in August last year. He is not paid for his work with either Labour or the Russia Foundation.

year in review - europe and central asia

2008-12-19T13:24:00.016-05:00

Hi, I'm tremendously bored at work right now and I really don't want to think about my personal life (in a way, I am currently like Vicky in Vicky Cristina Barcelona) so I'm just going to try to lazily analyze, for a little while, Russia's relations with several regions of Europe during 2008 (vs. 2007):

Old Europe - improved. Big improvements with Italy and especially Spain (who hasn't recognize Kosovo). France and Germany were consistent (not necessarily better). And I have a feeling that even the United Kingdom is beginning to turn around (notice how David Milliband was virtually silenced after his offensive remarks and Lord Mandelson tried to make amends)

Benelux - consistent. I mean nothing really happened, but, generally, these countries support Russia against the anti-Russians in Eastern Europe

Scandanavia - consistent. All in all, things went well with Norway and Finland. Because of its neo-con Foreign Minister, Sweden remained a nuisance, but its power projection is really minuscule

New Europe - mixed. The change of leadership in Poland helped (it's good that we don't hear from the deranged Anna Fotyga anymore). Estonia and Latvia have basically stfu and put themselves in their place (except for that speech by Ilves). Lithuania still sucks big time (isolating itself from the rest of Europe in the process) and the Czech Foreign Minister continues to act senile, but some improvements in Hungary and Slovakia

Balkans - mixed. Generally good relations with the former Yugoslavia (notably Slovenia), Greece, and Bulgaria. Not so sure about Romania

Central Asia - improved big time. "European prices" is a game clincher. Russia has solidified its influence in the region. Every country, every way

Caucasus - mixed. Better relations with Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. Not so with Ukraine (but, incidentally, the anti-Russian regime in that country has created such a big mess that a change in leadership is inevitable and imminent). Russia also helped secure the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and should work productively with those new states in the new year

Turkey - mixed. Reaction to the border incident during the summer had some heads scratching, but Turkey was good enough to abide by Montreux and also award Russia a tender to build its first NPP (I just think I saw the headline for this, but I'm not certain of the details so don't quote me on that)

up next: Asia

Quote of the day

2008-12-18T15:04:00.002-05:00

[CW: Note that I'm taking it out of context, but good nonetheless imo]

Ahmed Shihab-Eldin: Russia continues to challenge American supremacy and shift the balance of power

ariel cohen heritage doozy

2008-12-18T14:03:00.008-05:00

[CW: Please note that this is another one of those guys who has passionately argued for continued American expansion and control of the world, now complaining about Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere. Totally funny stuff]

Russia’s Play in Uncle Sam’s Neighborhood, by Ariel Cohen (Trend News, 12/18/08)

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at the Heritage Foundation, especially for Trend News

Despite the raging economic crisis and collapse of oil prices, Russia continues to push its global diplomatic offensive, which has overt anti-American overtones. At the end of November, President Dmitry Medvedev paid a week-long visit to Latin America. The trip demonstrated Russia’s growing strategic reach and political clout in a region considered a U.S. sphere of influence. [CW: lol] The question remains whether the deep economic recession and attempts of rapprochement with the incoming Obama Administration are likely to cool the Kremlin’s ardor for geopolitical gambling in 2009.

Moscow had planned Medvedev’s visit around the XVI Summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in Lima, Peru.

According to Kremlin officials, President Medvedev pursued exclusively an economic agenda. The claim is bizarre considering that the economy is the purview of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, while Medvedev is supposed to be in charge of Russia’s foreign and defense policy. [CW: This is complete misinformation on Cohen's part and he knows it]

Geopolitical motives are clear, however. To promote trade the president does not need to sell a nuclear reactor to technologically backward Venezuela, nor pay personal visits to Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers in Cuba.

Visits to Cuba and Venezuela, America’s key regional foes, vividly demonstrate Russia’s anti-American ambitions and its wish to revive the “special relationships” with these Latin American countries largely abandoned since the end of the Cold War. For Moscow and Caracas, this meeting was a chance to poke Uncle Sam in the eye. [CW: In the first sentence, replace Cuba, Venezuela, and America with Georgia, Estonia, and Russia, respectively. Uncle Sam = Big Bear]

Additionally, Medvedev has demonstrated Russia’s ability to act in the U.S. back yard--a response to the American support for Georgia in the August military confrontation. [CW: Ariel, don't fool yourself. This is a response 15 years in the making... and this is only the beginning] Beyond that, this was yet another step in return to the Soviet-style global power projection, albeit in a much smaller scale than in the twentieth century.

Joint Naval Maneuvers

Russia and Venezuela held joint naval exercises VenRus-2008 on December 1-2, following Medvedev’s November visit to Caracas. Dissatisfied with the presence of NATO warships off Georgia’s shores in August and September, Russia sent its own squadron to the Caribbean coast of Venezuela.

For the maneuvers, Moscow dispatched the atomic missile cruiser Peter the Great, an anti-submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and two support ships (a tanker and a rescue tug – just in case). Venezuela provided 12 warships, including three frigates and a tank landing ship, and a squadron of Su-30 fighter planes. The ships practiced joint tactical maneuvers, rescued a vessel in an emergency and refueled in the process.

Yet, the maneuvers give an impression of a power demonstration rather than naval training. Ret. Admiral Vladimir Komoedov, a former Russian Black Sea Fleet commander and member of the Russian State Duma, told Kommersant that using a heavy missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship for inspection and rescue operations was a “senseless expense.”

In another symbolic move, the Russian destroyer Admiral Chabanenko crossed the Panama Canal, for the first time since the World War II. The ship visited the Panama’s Balboa naval base (a former U.S. naval hub known as Rodman).

Russia’s naval maneuvers around the globe, such as the forthcoming January exercise with India, are illustrative of Moscow’s global ambitions. Yet, this may be an expensive pursuit. The raging economic crisis leaves Russia with limited funds for such global games. [CW: As compared to the situation that the United States is in, where in effect it is borrowing from China and OPEC to fund two wars and bailout its entire economy, Russia has greater financial capabilities to pursue "such global games"]

Military and Energy Cooperation

As mentioned, Venezuelan Sukhoi fighter jets, purchased from Russia, participated in the exercise. Today, Caracas is the largest customer of the Russian weapons exports, replacing India and China. Since 2005, massive arms deals, exceeding $4.4 billion, have included radar equipment, Sukhoi-30 aircrafts, helicopters, tanks, up to 100,000 AK-47 rifles, and a factory to make more Kalashnikovs.

In addition to the military cooperation, Russia will help Venezuela build its first nuclear reactor. In technologically backward [CW: This is the second time in this article that Cohen's used this phrase and I must say that I find it a bit offensive, even though I am not Venezuelan. Neo-con Goebbels-like racist arrogance] and energy abundant Venezuela, this project may be an unnecessary and dangerous undertaking. Caracas lacks expertise for a safe and viable nuclear program, and it has enough natural gas and heavy oil to satisfy its energy needs. Nuclear weapons development by President Hugo Chavez would be irresponsible and destabilizing.

Moreover, if Venezuela moves towards a military nuclear program, it may trigger a nuclear arms race in Latin America, which experienced a nuclear competition between Argentina and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s. This may be similar to what Iran may trigger in the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey may respond with nuclear programs of their own if Iran gets even closer to deploying nukes. Brazil and Argentina will not idly observe a nuclear-capable Venezuela. [CW: Getting a little ahead of himself here]

During the visit, the two Presidents agreed to set up a $4 billion joint development bank and to abolish visa regime between their countries.

Russian companies will also help explore oil and other mineral deposits in Venezuela. In particular, Gazprom and Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVESA) intend to work together in the giant Orinoco oil basin. Besides, Caracas is cooperating with Moscow in the natural gas exploration and in setting up a gas cartel with participation of Iran and Qatar.

Since Chavez pushed out Western international oil companies, Venezuela cannot count on Western money or technology. [CW: Yup, Venezuela can no longer count on the Western money and technology that are currently failing big time in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan's Kashagan and Tengiz] But Russia and China are ready to do business without paying attention to the Comandante’s authoritarian ways. The Russian “package” comes with the access to its weapons market and the “authoritarian capitalism” model. Moreover, both Russia and Venezuela are desperate to see oil prices hike back up to support their regimes. Russia’s signals that it may join OPEC fit nicely with the Moscow-Caracas axis. However, the Kremlin may not be playing the same game as Comandante Chavez.

Geopolitical Implications

Although Moscow and Caracas share anti-Americanism, their geopolitical agendas are largely divergent. Hugo Chavez strives for a strategic alliance with Russia to stand together against “Yankee imperialism.” Some observers noted, however, that Dmitry Medvedev has been more discreet in his words and deeds. He seemingly wants to send the incoming Obama Administration a signal that the Kremlin may be ready for a new page in relations with Washington.

However, the global financial crisis might prevent Russia from fulfilling its commitments in such major projects as the energy consortium with Venezuela and the construction of the regional transcontinental pipeline. Moscow may have to delay these projects indefinitely. Thus, the political effect of Medvedev’s trip to Latin America may turn out to be less impressive than Moscow had originally expected. [CW: I doubt it]

If Moscow and Washington hope for a thaw, and if no follow-up military activities take place (such as a permanent Russian military base or intelligence collection facility as the one in Lourdes, Cuba), the maneuvers will remain just a geopolitical chess move to boost Moscow’s bargaining power. Boosting presence in Latin America is Moscow’s way to create the levers of influence to seek further concessions from Washington in other areas. Moscow is accumulating chips to trade -- if and when Washington wants to play.

.az

2008-12-18T10:57:00.004-05:00

Lol that the West's darling Azerbaijan, not Russia, joined the evil OPEC cartel to try to artificially inflate prices (if interested, search this blog for the posts about how Azerbaijan is firmly and solidly on Russia's side).

Double lol that BP, a modern, technologically-advanced (aka "not Russian"), Western oil company is having massive failures in that country. Capacity is 1 million bpd, current output is 840 thousand bpd, and projected output (post-"cut") is just 540 thousand bpd (due to "technical problems at an offshore platform in the Caspian Sea").

I've been reading too many World War II books lately and maybe I'm too quick with the gun with the W.W. II analogies, but so, so many Western analysts are grossly and incompetently underestimating Russia and Russia's capabilities vs. the West's capabilities.

Semi-Asiatic, Mongolian hordes can't dig their own oil and need us to do it for them lol.

hmm

2008-12-17T16:27:00.001-05:00

Foreigners Seeking Nanotech Secrets in Saratov Region (Interfax, 12/17/08)

Russia's scientific and defence capability, specifically, its nanotechnology research, is of interest to foreign special services, the head of the FSB [Federal Security Service] directorate for Saratov Region, Maj-Gen Valeriy Beklenishchev, has said.

"While escorting diplomatic delegations during their work in the region, we established that specific attempts were made by a staff member of a foreign embassy to receive information about scientific research projects which are being carried out in our universities in the field of nanotechnologies, heat and power engineering and electronics," Beklenishchev told a news conference on Tuesday [16 December].

"Other foreign representatives were also noticed trying to obtain information about the defence capability of the troops stationed in the region, our military installations, defence production facilities and related defence scientific research projects," he added.

He said he was concerned that foreign special agencies are trying to obtain classified information from Russian citizens as part of international scientific exchange programmes.

"Scientific exchange programmes are under way now; our specialists are travelling abroad, joint research projects are being carried out, which is fine. But special agencies abroad are working actively; we are getting indications of this. They are trying to engage our citizens in finding out classified information, spying out details of the research which is being done at our production facilities as part of these joint projects. Unfortunately, not all of them are timely unmasked as malice," Beklenishchev said.

He cited two examples of counterintelligence work in the region: "Together with defence counterintelligence agents we carried out an operation and revealed an attempt by a female citizen of a CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] country, who had been gathering information about military facilities. She even used military uniform to penetrate military facilities, gained the trust of military personnel and had sexual relations with them."

"In the course of her arrest it became known that the woman had been collecting information about the location and combat readiness of military units and the command staff. Following a court decision, she was deported from our country and is banned from entering Russia. She worked for a CIS country," Beklenishchev added.

According to him, FSB staff members also tracked down an Uzbek national who illegally acquired Russian citizenship and offered his services in gathering information about military installations in Saratov Region to a Western intelligence agency.

"In cooperation with a department of the central office of the FSB, we conducted an investigation against a citizen of Uzbekistan, who offered his services in gathering information about military installations in our region to a Western intelligence agency," Beklenishchev said.

"We registered these facts, put them on the record. He was detained and confessed that he had been doing this. By the way, he acquired [Russian] citizenship illegally and later a court ruled that he be stripped of Russian citizenship and he was handed over to our Uzbek partners," he added.

"In 2008, 16 foreign diplomatic delegations visited our region. It was established that among the visitors were staff members of foreign intelligence services as well as people who provided all sorts of assistance to them. Of course, they did not make up the entire delegations but such people are included in them," Beklenishchev said.

BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Cindy McCain dissed in historical revision

2008-12-17T15:28:00.004-05:00

The Palin Russia quote got quote of the year, but, a historical correction, the real brains behind this argument was Cindy McCain, who made it on 31-Aug-08 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos. The McCain people didn't want to admit that the potential first lady could have mispoken and had to run with it and, when asked, Palin had to defend it.

la

2008-12-16T23:19:00.000-05:00

Alexei Barrionuevo: With the rise of China as a principal export destination and the visit last month by President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to court Latin American leaders, there are more frequent reminders that the United States is becoming an ever more distant player in the affairs of the region, said Riordan Roett, the director of the Latin American Studies program at Johns Hopkins University.

“The United States is no longer, and will not be ever again, the major interlocutor for the countries in the region,” he said.

un influence

2008-12-16T18:11:00.003-05:00

I remember there was a report out a few months ago about the lost influence of the United States and Europe in the Union Nations, with the Russia and China camp gaining the advantage.

So this is of no surprise (on a Zimbabwe resolution):

The majority of Security Council members, among them permanent members Russia and China as well as Italy, South Africa, Panama, Costa Rica, Vietnam and Burkina Faso endorsed Sadc and African Union mediation efforts... The US, United Kingdom, France and Belgium — who were calling for UN intervention — were in the minority

Nano

2008-12-15T13:22:00.002-05:00

Check out Russia's Crash Nano Program, by Mike Treder

Memorable quotes of the week

2008-12-05T12:16:00.003-05:00

Dmitry Rogozin: There is an open split within NATO and it will widen if NATO tries to expand further. The schemes of those who adopted a frozen approach to Russia have been destroyed

Bryan Berard: So far I like everything [about Russia]!

Dmitry Medvedev: We have all the required conditions for a future breakthrough to create a potential dominance in the sphere of nanotechnology

Nikolai Solovtsov: Americans will never manage to implement this scenario because Russian strategic nuclear forces, including the Russian Strategic Rocket Force, will be capable of delivering a strike of retribution given any course of development

Josh Kucera: Russians spent the 1990s on the backs of their heels, wounded. While rhetoric from Washington called Moscow a partner, concrete US policies toward the former Soviet bloc seemed suspiciously aimed at weakening Russia and bringing its former satellites into the US sphere of influence... While Russia was weak this policy didn't really have any consequences. But Russia, like it or not, is back, and the war in Georgia was its angry notice that it was no longer going to be pushed around in its back yard

Saakashvili's December purge

2008-12-05T11:07:00.002-05:00

Just kidding. But whenever any Russian cabinet official is replaced, Russophobes automatically say that it's "Putin's purge". It's adorable how in sync they they are in using that term. Anyway, must be Saakashvili's purge then.

Yuri Zarakhovich grossly incorrect

2008-12-05T10:59:00.003-05:00

Yuri Zarakhovich: Imagine this contemporary painting, "Medvedev in India" Under the Constitution, Dmitri Medvedev is Russia's President and Chief Executive. But who gets to give his own State of the Nation address this year over state-run TV, state-run radio, a special internet-site? Why, it is Medvedev's predecessor, Vladimir Putin, the incumbent Prime Minister

[CW: Medvdedev delivered the state of the nation address on 5-Nov-08. Putin's remarks yesterday were entirely Q&A. No addressing. Zarakhovich doesn't have a history of anti-Russian propaganda so I'll cut him some slack, but he just has to do his job better imo]

Country of John McCain's birth to host Russian warship

2008-12-03T10:23:00.005-05:00

Russian warship to cross Panama Canal (Associated Press, 3-Dec-08)

Moscow projecting its military power in traditional U.S. zone of influence

The Russian navy said Wednesday one of its warships would sail this week through Panama Canal — a symbolic projection of Moscow's power to the U.S. zone of influence. [CW: There's that word again]

It will be the first time since World War II that a Soviet or Russian military vessel crosses the canal, Russian navy spokesman Capt. Igor Dygalo said.

The destroyer Admiral Chabanenko will arrive Friday at the Rodman naval base in Panama's port of Balboa for a six-day visit after carrying out joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy, Dygalo said in a telephone interview.

The Panama Canal has long been a symbol of U.S. influence in Latin America. Rodman was once the hub for all U.S. naval activities in South America and supported fleet units transiting the 50-mile canal.

The joint maneuvers with Venezuela this week were widely seen as a show of Kremlin anger over the U.S. use of warships to deliver aid to Georgia after its war with Russia in August.

[Wikipedia: As relations between Panama and the U.S. became increasingly tense... this set in motion the process of handing the canal over to Panamanian control for free as long as Panama signed a treaty guaranteeing the permanent neutrality of the canal (Neutrality Treaty) and allowed the U.S. to come back anytime]

[CW: Imagine if the Soviet Union, in the early 1990s, required all Warsaw Pact members to sign permanent neutrality guarantees (i.e. no NATO) and to pledge to allow Soviet troops to come back anytime. That is the humiliating equivalency]

Spheres of influence notes

2008-12-01T13:01:00.005-05:00

Three things about spheres of influence that have come up lately:

- Nobody made any fuss about it, but Medevedev said in Peru that Russia wants to have "special, privileged relations" with the nations of Latin America. It's interesting because all the anti-Russian pundits assumed that Medvedev meant the states of the FSU when he said on 26-Sep-08 that Russia "has regions where it has its privileged interests" (even though he specifically stressed that these interests extend to nations that Russia doesn't necessarily border)

- A lot of hawks who have advocated unlimited American expansion / hegemony / unilateralism are becoming concerned about Russia's (and China's) influence in the Western hemisphere.

Take the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes. On 21-Apr-08 he wrote that "the next White House must keep its sights on East Asia to protect and advance American interests." But on 27-Nov-08 he wrote that "since geography is destiny, maintaining - or regaining - America's influence in the region will be key for the next US president"

- Finally, here's an interesting article by Geoffry Wheatcroft advocating spheres of influence as a way to keep the peace. This passage, in particular, I thought I was spot on:

Whenever Bush mentions any historical matter he reveals his ignorance. By way of sneering at the United Nations, he sneers at the memory of the League of Nations, evidently unaware that its ineffectuality was largely explained by America's decision not to join the League, although it was the brainchild of Bush's predecessor Woodrow Wilson. And he now says the 1945 Yalta agreement was "one of the greatest wrongs of history".

The consequences of that agreement, in effect partitioning Europe and recognising that Poland in particular, on whose behalf we originally went to war, would become a Russian satellite, were very unpleasant for the Poles and others. But Yalta was itself a consequence, of the way the Western allies had left Russia to do most of the fighting against the Third Reich. Well over four-fifths of German deaths in action were on the eastern front and, by the time the Anglo-American armies landed in Normandy, much of eastern Europe was already in the hands of the Red Army, which was not going to retire to within Russia's pre-war borders. And although Winston Churchill is the tutelary hero of the Bush administration and the neoconservatives, it was he who, months before Yalta, cut a cynical deal with Stalin giving Russia "90 per cent predominance in Romania" and the British the same in Greece (a bargain Stalin kept).

Bitter as it was for the Poles, Romanians and Hungarians, that post-war partition was followed by the longest period of peace Europe had known for centuries

- I have not made up my mind on spheres of influence yet, but what the United States and European Union have tried to impose on Russia is totally hypocritical. Either there are spheres of influence, or there aren't. You can't cry foul if Russia's making deals with Latin America, North Africa, and the Middle East when the West is making the same deals in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and, yes, the Middle East.

For too long, Russia has been taken advantage of and it's beginning to fight back; employing the same arguments Washington and London once employed against it. In case after case.

Anyway, Russia's going for the whole shebang and, in my opinion, it will get it.

Russia vs. the K-52

2008-12-01T10:03:00.008-05:00

This is something that I've been thinking about lately: should Russia trust any of the 52 countries that have recognized Kosovo to date?

This was a major issue for Russia. One of Sergei Lavrov's two "red lines" and the Pandora's Box that Sergei Ivanov warned about.

But to Moscow's disappointment, I'm sure, some of its supposed allies, like France, Germany, and Italy, chose to recognize Kosovo.

If I were Russia, I would be approach this carefully. Sure, these countries are very pro-Russian in other regards, including in NATO. But why did they drop the ball here?

And especially since Russia has been double crossed by the West so many times in the past, I would be very careful and have my eyes wide open.

(p.s. this is entirely different from South Ossetia / Abkhazia. Russia hasn't lobbied anyone to recognize these new states and it doesn't care if anyone does or not)

Multiple Trojan horses applicable

2008-11-28T12:39:00.000-05:00

I just searched winthrop360 for the keyword "Trojan horse." Here are the results:

- In this post, Greece, Cyprus, and Bulgaria were identified [not by me] as Russia's Trojan horses within the European Union

- In this post, I identified Lithuania as Russia's real Trojan horse in Europe (for effectively disenfranchising Old Europe and giving it the resolve to split itself from the pathological Russophobia of New Europe)

- And in this post, Americans of Russian decent were identified as the KGB's new Trojan horse by Konstantin Preobrazhensky

That said:

- I just finished reading a fascinating article by Julian E. Barnes about ingenious Russian hackers infiltrating Defense Department computers. I mean, it's just incredible how they did it

- So, I think another Trojan horse Russia has is its unrivaled ability in information technology

- The St. Petersburg University of IT, Mechanics and Optics won this year's prestigious Association for Computing Machinery International Collegiate Programming Contest, sponsored by IBM, beating out the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

- But the bigger story is this: Five of the top twelve schools were Russian (while one was Ukrainian and one was Belarussian)

Kitsmarishvili summary

2008-11-28T09:17:00.005-05:00

Check out the testimony of Erosi Kitsmarishvili, Georgia’s former ambassador to Russia. This was provided to Georgia's parliamentary commission studying the August war, who did not take the truth very well.

Here's a summary:

- In February 2004, Russia showed support for the new Georgian government, saying that they wanted to start with a clean slate

- In May 2004, Russia expressed displeasure of Georgia's handling of the Adjara Crisis

- In August 2004, Saakashvili pondered launching a military assault on Tskhinvali. Irakli Okruashvili was in favor of the military operation, while Vano Merabishvili, Irakli Chubinishvili and Zurab Adeishvili were against it

- [this corroborates a September 2007 statement by Okruashvili, where he says that there was a plan in place to take back South Ossetia. He lists the same individuals as having knowledge of the plan]

- Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania was also categorically against of the war, and, after a phone conversation with one of the foreign capitals – who warned against of any military operation, a decision was made against of this military operation and the war was averted

- [please note that Zhvania died in February 2005 in unusual circumstances and that Saakashvili has been blamed by some to have been behind Zhvania's death]

- In June 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special envoys - Yuri Popov and Valery Kenyakin - told Kitsmarishvili that there was a good chance that the South Ossetian conflict could have been resolved in late 2004 - early 2005, but that that chance disappeared after the death of Zhvania

- [Kitsmarishvili notes that "everyone is aware of the aggressive rhetoric the Georgian authorities used in direction of Russia and its leadership" after 2004]

- In February 2008, Saakashvili told Kitsmarishvili that in August he would relocate Georgia’s capital from Tbilisi to Sokhumi (in breakaway Abkhazia). This was said in the presence of Gela Bezhuashvili, Grigol Vashadze (Deputy Foreign Minister), and Eka Sharashidze

- Kitsmarishvili assumed that Saakashvili was referring to a military operation

- After a March 2008 meeting between Bush and Saakashvili in Washington, Georgian officials said that they had United States support to carry out the military operation

- In April 2008, Georgian officials reiterated that Georgia received the green light from a western partner to carry out the military operation

- Kitsmarishvili tried to double-check this information with the American ambassador to Georgia, who categorically denied it

- After the meeting with the American ambassador, Kitsmarishvili went to meet Saakashvili. That meeting was attended by Davit Bakradze and Davit Kezerashvili(Defense Minister)

- Kitsmarishvili warned against any military operation, but was rebuffed by Kezerashvili who said that Georgia will not have as strong an army as it has now in the next four years and that military instructors have been brought in to prepare for a military operation in Abkhazia, to begin in early May "before the snow melted on the mountain passes"

- This decision did not materialize

- In May 2008, Vashadze stressed that Georgia should build ties with Moscow

- In June 2008, a Georgin-Abkhaz meeting was held in Stockholm. The meeting failed because the Georgian delegation was mainly composed of hawks, including Alexandre Lomaia, Temur Iakobashvili (Minister for Reintegration), and Nika Rurua

- In June 2008, Kitsmarishvili received information that Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the Russian President’s administration, wanted to visit Georgia in mid-July to attend the Russian cultural days in Tbilisi and organize a visit of the Russian President to Georgia. This was a good sign for possible dialogue for launching new relations with Russia

- Kitsmarishvili passed this information to Vashadze and Zurab Adeishvili, who at that time was chief of the Georgian President’s administration

- On July 10, 2008 Saakashvili called Kitsmarishvili:
Saakashvili: Is that someone – Naryshkin – really coming to Tbilisi?
Kitsmarishvili: Yes
Saakashvili: Okay, let him come, but tell Naryshkin that we have just met with Condoleezza Rice and we are in a good situation now

- Naryshkin visit did not materialize due to increased tension between the two countries

- On June 19, 2008 Iakobashvili told Kitsmarishvili, Zurab Abashidze, and Davit Aprasidze that Georgia was capable of taking over Tskhinvali in three hours

- When Kitsmarishvili told Iakobashvili that Russia would respond, Iakobashvili said that the Russians will not even move their fingers about it

- In July 2008, Kitsmarishvili was surprised that Vashadze, who was in favor of building ties with Moscow, agreed that Georgia had the capability to regain control over Tskhinvali in several hours

- On July 21, 2008 a representative sent by the Russian President met Saakashvili in Batumi

- On August 7, 2008 at 4 p.m. Saakasvili told Kitsmarishvili that war was starting

- Kitsmarishvili told reporters after the hearing that the commission does not want to know the truth

Powerful Russian lobby in Poland says Kaczynski

2008-11-28T07:36:00.003-05:00

Jaroslaw Kaczynski: [The thesis] that Russia is good while Poland and Georgia bad, and in particular that Polish and Georgian presidents are evil people threatening interests of an honest superpower is shameful, saddening and reflects who is in power in Poland... there is a powerful Russian lobby

[CW: Fyi a report by Poland’s Internal Security Agency dismissed last week’s shooting incident involving the motorcade of the Georgian and Polish presidents as a stunt staged by Georgia for propaganda purposes]

Moron of the month: Dennis MacShane

2008-11-26T14:54:00.011-05:00

British Labour MP Denis MacShane throws a temper tantrum in the Financial Times today about how Europe's right is cozying up to Russia - calling out Berlusconi, Merkel, and Sarkozy in particular. MacShane says that the left in Europe are now more prone to criticize Moscow.

MacShane's an idiot, no doubt. Here are four striking exceptions to his theosis that immediately come to mind:

- Hungary: anti-Russian rhetoric forms the foreign policy of the right-wing (basically fascist) opposition party Fidesz, while the the ruling socialists are pretty pragmatic with Russia

- Poland: Tusk is way friendlier than was/is Kaczynski

- Cyprus: the new communist administration is already talking about a strategic partnership with Moscow

- Spain: Zapatero vs. neo-con Aznar? Easy answer

Also:

- The Schroeder-Mekel and Berlusconi-Prodi-Berlusconi transitions prove that friendly relations with Russia transcend party lines in those countries

- The Chirac-Sarkozy transition proves that they also transcend personalities

And finally:

- On 15-Sep-08, MacShane wrote in Newsweek that Russia's retaliation to Georgia's atrocities have "united Europe" against Russia, noting that "the surprising outcome of the EU Council was its unity in suspending talks with Russia on a new partnership agreement. From the leftist Libération to the right-wing Figaro, the tone of editorials has been very firm and hostile to Russian aggression."

- Now, a mere two and half months later, he's complaining that the right in Europe are ruining things by being so pro-Russia

- What a freaking moron

Russia-Turkey post-Georgia

2008-11-26T11:55:00.003-05:00

Some key points from Igor Torbakov's reflections on Russia-Turkey relations after the Georgia crisis:

- Turkey's Prime Minister said that Turkey cannot afford a disruption in ties with Russia, disavowing a foolish comment by Kursad Tuzmen, the country's Foreign Trade Minister

- Russia is Turkey's biggest trade partner. A top Turkish businessman recently said: "The Russian market is as important to us as the European Union"

- Any ambitions for a "Fourth Corridor" to carry Caspian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe have hit a wall

- The Western (mostly U.S.) grand strategy that envisioned: the formation of a strategic transit corridor through Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia; the introduction of an American military presence in the South Caucasus; the acceptance of Azerbaijan and Georgia into NATO; the isolation of Armenia; and the permanent departure of Russia from the region has failed

- Instead, Russia has reasserted its influence over the region and energy transport routes are being reoriented toward Russia

- A geopolitical consequence of the Caucasus crisis is Russian-Turkish rapprochement

- Another is that the regional powers of the South Caucasus - Russia, Turkey, and Iran - have indicated that they themselves could resolve their own problems, without involvement of the United States and the European Union

- Some Russian analysts now see Turkey as a military-political partner and that a Russo-Turkish regional alliance could emerge from common concerns about American destabilizing policies

- There is a group of Russophiles - anti-Western and pro-Russian senior officers - within Turkey's Armed Forces who believe "America has betrayed Turkey; the country will never fit into the European Union; and to avoid isolation, Turkey should become a member of a Eurasian alliance that will be built around a resurgent Russia." They support a long-term strategic partnership with Russia that includes energy and defense cooperation

Russian restraint vs. American instigation

2008-11-26T00:22:00.005-05:00

Writing for the Minnesota Daily, a student-produced newspaper on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota, Sam Ross-Brown outlines many of the ways that the United States has blatantly instigated Russia since the end of the Cold War (expanding NATO, going ahead with BMD, etc.) before pondering:

Russian restraint over the last decade has been astonishing

Dear Sergei Roy, I've been there and done that

2008-11-25T11:23:00.010-05:00

Sergey Roy, editor of guardian-psj.ru, as quoted by Russia Today on 23-Nov-08 describing a recent article by The Telegraph's Adrian Blomfield:

Practically every sentence in this exercise is either a direct lie or some other trick in the propaganda warfare bag of tricks

[Roy goes on to nicely detail how so many - practically all - of Blomfield's assertions in the article are false or misleading]

Dear Sergei Roy,
I just wanted to say that I've been there done that, thank you very much. (on 5-May-08 I went through a Blomfield article and highlighted everything that was false)

Between Adrian Blomfield and The Guardian's Luke Harding I do not know which one is worse. Mind you, these are Moscow correspondents - not analysts or opinion writers. The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Times of London, and Washington Post are all very harsh with Russia in their opinion pages, but their Moscow correspondents report on the news as unbiased as they can. Blomfield and Harding just spew out propaganda and lies. Endlessly.

Sometimes it makes me sick.

Sometimes it makes me laugh ("Putin to divorce wife and marry twentysomething gymnast")

Sometimes I think that they work for British intelligence.

Sometimes I think that they work for Russian intelligence.

sigh, here's my least proud moment to be an American

2008-11-25T10:50:00.004-05:00

122 countries voted in favor of an anti-Nazi United Nations General Assembly resolution that tackles the rise in the glorification of Nazism and the desecration of World War II monuments.

Not surprisingly, Ukraine, Estonia, and Latvia were among the 54 United Nations delegations that cowardly did not vote in favor and decided to abstain.

Only one nation, the United States, voted against it.

Indybay.org puts it this way:

You read it right: NAZI USA SUPPORTS THE GLORIFICATION OF NAZISM AND THE DESECRATION OF WW2 MONUMENTS. This glorification of fascism has nothing to do with opposing Stalin's crimes. The Soviet people united and defeated the Nazis DESPITE STALIN, as the Nazis invaded their country, causing the Soviet people to call WW2 the Great Patriotic War. They lost some 20 million Soviet citizens. The heroism of the Red Army and the Soviet people in saving more Soviet Jews than expected, defeating the Nazis in the turning point of the war, the Battle of Stalingrad (before American Lend-Lease aid arrived) and being the first to enter Berlin, beating the American "second front" by 110 miles in the race to Berlin, with a woman Red Army major planting the Red Flag in Berlin, is applauded by all anti-fascists around the world, including in the USA. We are horrified at the fascist US government.

winthrop360 investment call ii

2008-11-25T09:40:00.003-05:00

This is not an investment call.

I just wanted to ackowledge the e-mails I received over the weekened that voiced agreement or disagreement with my first investment call.

As far as other investment calls go, I have none.

But, if the first investment call hit the mark for you, I'd also reccommend, hint, hint, being long these commodities:

- WTI Crude: $53.29 (futures price as per Bloomberg.com, 9:29 AM)
- Natural Gas: $6.726 (futures price as per Bloomberg.com, 9:29 AM)
- Platinum: $873 (spot price as per Bullion Desk, 9:29 AM)
- Palladium: $201 (spot price as per Bullion Desk, 9:29 AM)
- Uranium: $55 (futures price as per Nymex.com, 9:29 AM)

And this currency:

- Swiss franc: $0.8431 (benchmark price as per Bloomberg.com, 9:29 AM)

As well as:

- Sugar: $11.85 (futures price as per Bloomberg.com, 9:29 AM)

(in regards to sugar, all credit and/or blame for that should go to Jim Simmons because that's the only reason it's on this list)

keeping it technical
Advice: I have never traded futures so I have no idea how that works and would not reccommend it. If you do do it, please keep tight stops.

Price targets: For many of these, I would expect 50% upswings over the next 12 months (it sounds crazy, but yes). Long-term holders, however, will be the most rewarded.

Disclosure: I have no direct or indirect interest in any of the commodities or currencies listed above.

"fired directly into residential apartments"

2008-11-21T16:11:00.001-05:00

Tim Whewell: But what seems increasingly clear from eyewitness testimony and examination of the destruction is that a considerable number of the deaths were caused by Georgia's use, in its initial attack on Tskhinvali, of notoriously inaccurate Grad rockets and of tank shells which, in some cases, were apparently fired directly into residential apartments. Now it is also becoming clear that those western nations that have given such strong diplomatic backing to Georgia since the war probably knew all along about the nature of that assault.

Obama vs. Cold Warrior Washington

2008-11-21T13:29:00.000-05:00

Eric Walberg : If Obama wants to make any progress in the empire's affairs abroad, be it in Afghanistan, Europe, Iraq, Iran, he will have to wrestle the Cold Warrior Washington establishment into submission and make peace with Russia.

Soros-funded EurasiaNet shamelessly lying about Russia

2008-11-20T22:43:00.004-05:00

EurasiaNet: Intent on gaining political leverage over Washington, Moscow pumped roughly $100 billion in the ill-fated mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now it appears the investment has backfired with disastrous financial effects for Russian officials...

Russia’s investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suggest that the Kremlin let geopolitical ambitions cloud its fiscal thinking. Some experts in Moscow suggest that Russia, in betting heavily on the US mortgage giants, was hoping to replicate China’s investment pattern. Beijing’s status as a major holder of US government-backed securities is seen as something that limits Washington’s policy options concerning China and Taiwan. Moscow by striving to enhance its position as a creditor to the United States was similarly looking to increase its political leverage -- something that could have potentially proven useful in the ongoing competition over Caspian Basin energy exports.

The Central Bank has confessed that it had about $100 billion invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the beginning of 2008. Almost 11 months later, Russia’s position stands at $20.9 billion. In the wake of the collapse of both entities, the Central Bank has not revealed how much the state has lost, but experts say the loss can’t be less than $25 billion.

[CW: Purposely or inadvertently, this is completely and utterly false and misleading. Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the American government, which means that the stockholders of those companies lost close to everything. But, the holders of Fannie and Freddie paper, like Russia, didn't lose a cent. Remember, Fannie and Freddie paper is guaranteed by the American government. Basically, the only way Russia could have lost in this investment was if the American government was going to fail. That makes Fannie and Freddie paper a very conservative investment. And, in hindsight, it was a very shrewd move by Russia to be invested in debt securities rather than equity securities - if I'm not mistaken Norway's SWF was invested in a lot of equity securities, which, in all likelihood, have gone down a lot.

Regardless, Russia decided to lower its position during the third quarter and that explains why it currently just holds just $20.9 billion in Fannie and Freddie paper.

"Experts say the loss can’t be less than $25 billion" is just a EurasiaNet lie, 100%.

I understand that EurasiaNet was created to criticize Russia, but you won't be able to do that if you lose your credibility by being caught in lies and deception every other day]

The Russophobic failure of historic proportions

2008-11-20T16:10:00.008-05:00

I have just finished reading the 198 comments to Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas D. Kristof's New York Times OpEd about the conflict in South Ossetia, where he blames Saakashvili for starting the it, states that Georgia is anything but a free democracy, and argues that Georgia and Ukraine shouldn't be accepted into NATO.

The 198 comments mostly came from the United States, with a few Western European and FSU mixed in.

These comments were decidedly (90% +) in agreement with Kristof and pro-Russian.

The same thing goes on with Russia-related OpEds on The Guardian's CIF.

The OpEds there are usually anti-Russian; David Clark, William Harrisson, Dennis Macshane, Roger McDermott, Luke Harding, Alexandros Petersen, and Irina Filatova are some of the contributors.

The CIF comments, mostly from British and Western Europeans, really let the contributors have it, again in decisive numbers favoring Russia, 90% +.

analysis
This tells me how much of a failure the anti-Russian / Russophobic propaganda machine has been. It was well organized, well funded, and was doing well for a little while.

But it crashed and burned - and now it's just comical. And their desperation is so evident, jumping off the pages.

A historic failure.

winthrop360 investment call

2008-11-20T14:33:00.005-05:00

Changing it up a bit, just for once.

(what other Russia blog site does this !)

Date: 20 November 2008
Time: 2:39 PM EST
Security: Gold bullion
Position: Long
Price: $ 750.9 (spot), $ 805 (bullion, approximate)
Target - 12 months: $ 1,200
Target - 60 months: $ 5,000

Disclosure: I have held this position for more than four years and have added to it today

Related advise: Choose modern bullion coins, like Philharmonics, Kangaroos, Pandas, Eagles, and Buffalos that now go for up to $60 over spot (pre-crisis they were like just $10 over). Do not buy numismatics !

Invest at your own risk .

who's the washington times' soxconn ?

2008-11-20T09:59:00.006-05:00

In response to a moronic neo-conish OpEd by retired U.S. Navy admiral James Lyons, a commenter going by the username soxconn provided an interesting, thought out, albeit a little bit far fetched comment, posted below, on The Washington Times' web site. Using Google, I searched for soxconn's previous comments and a lot of them are very interesting as well.

His/her specialty seems to be Russia and, in my opinion, soxconn could be one of the following individuals: Martin Seiff, Martin Walker, or George Friedman. These are the names that come to mind.

He/she is definitely well read, that's for sure.

Here's the comment:

By: soxconn

By all appearances, Obama is aligning his cabinet and staff to pursuing a Clintonisque foreign policy. He will not commit U.S. the military forces in U.S. national interests for fear of being "unilateral". Clinton never did, through the WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing and Black Hawk Down in Somalia. Clinton did commit our forces in international interests in Kosovo. This is the reason Obama is liked internationally, especially in Europe, they will have a say in the use of U.S. military primacy. Clinton was uncomfortable with the military, Obama is uncomfortable with the military. Clinton was a lawyer and pursued legal consensus for not acting, Obama is a lawyer and will pursue legal consensus. From this point of view, Obama will turn the North Korean problem over to China and let NATO wither in his dealings with Medvedev because of the EU's apathetic view of Russian expansionism. Russia will eventually force NATO out through energy intimidation and the lack of U.S. energy independence. According to Obama's plan, the Russians have about 10 years to force the issue. It may be forced to the surface quicker because of Iran. Israel will not let them go nuclear. When it happens, Russia is in a perfect position to (1) take over the BTC pipeline using Ossentian guerilla's as proxies and (2) encourage Chavez to sell all of its oil to China or other eager parties and (3) capitalize on the threatened closure of the Straits of Hormuz. If two of the three of those events occur, Europe will fall under a serious energy intimidation threat by Russia (most of their natural gas and up to 40% of their oil). The U.S. has no plan's for developing is energy resources in oil sands, drilling or oil shale because of Obama's energy policy which is in reality an environmental policy, and past threat to bankrupt the coal industry, we will be useless to assist. China will be more than happy to take Chavez's oil, even temporarily. Without leadership (voting present), this will essentially regionalize U.S. economic, political and military primacy. If NAFTA is rescinded, it will isolate the U.S.

November 20, 2008 at 5:43 a.m.

[CW: One of the standout inaccuracies is the importance of BTC. It's not important at all and it will never be able to work anywhere near capacity, in my opinion. Lavrov or Putin once said something about how the Western-backed pipelines will inevitably be good for scrap metal since they are just empty pipe dreams]

psychops

2008-11-19T23:43:00.000-05:00

Ehud Barak: The way I see to make it effective is to cut through the psychological obstacles about cooperating with Russia and China and open a new discourse.

hint about Ukraine territorial split; East will break-off

2008-11-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

RIA Novosti: Ukraine is increasing its marine group and forming three air defense units in Sevastopol following the conflict between Georgia and Russia in the South Caucasus, a naval officer said on Wednesday... according to the source, servicemen from Ukraine's western regions, "being genuine patriots," will account for 80% of these forces.

[CW: Woah. Imagine if the United States said that only people from red states are "genuine patriots." It would reveal an irreconcilable split in American society and, in my opinion, foretell an imminent collapse of the union. That's what I get about the situation in Ukraine from that statement]

LaR krazy-ness

2008-11-18T14:08:00.000-05:00

[CW: I just wanted to jot this down for the archives. Either LaR has gone over the edge into the depths of delusion or she's an FSB agent breeding anti-American and pro-Russian sentiment on the world wide web. Regardless, this was an inspiring and memorable explanation. Dated November 6, 2008]

For the record, we should point out that there are those who might argue that America has no more right to object to Russia installing missles in Kaliningrad than Russia would to object to the U.S. putting missiles in Alaska. That’s simply false, for four reasons:

- First, Alaska doesn’t share a border with a country the missiles possibly could be used against, Kaliningrad does. Therefore, it’s immeasurably more provocative.

- Second, America is a superpower, Russia isn’t. Russia simply can’t afford to take the same kind of measures the U.S. can get away with. To believe otherwise is suicidal. Kaliningrad would not be at all easy for Russia to defend if NATO were to move against it. [CW: There are two superpowers again ! Take a look at this headline]

- Third, America has no record of mass murder and and repression in Alaska the way Russia does in the Kaliningrad region (Katyn, etc.). It’s flatly immoral for Russia to act in this manner.

Finally, it is ludicrous on its face to suggest that Russia has a clear title to Kaliningrad. Alaska was purchased in a business transaction; Kaliningrad was annexed by the Soviet army. [CW: Just checking, but where's the "clear title" to the United States of America? I'm not a history expert but I don't think we were the native peoples of these lands ??? Please explain]

What Medvedev is doing in Kaliningrad is quite simple: He is intentionally escalating a military confrontation that Russia, like the USSR before it, has no hope of winning, and doing so even though he is fully aware of the dire and desperate need his countrymen have for investment in social services and infrastructure.

In short, Medvedev is far more dangerous to Russia’s future than any foreign “enemy” you can name.

[CW: rflol]

Lavrov: Russia won't take anymore lies and bs

2008-11-18T13:40:00.000-05:00

Lavrov: Political guarantees have been given to us repeatedly - on the non-expansion of NATO, on the issue of deploying significant armed forces on the territory of new NATO members, and on non-establishment of military bases. These political guarantees have not worked for all these years. Physical guarantees are required that there will be no Third Site in Europe. Then there will be no need for military-technical measures on our part.

Russia right, once again

2008-11-17T13:27:00.011-05:00

Robert Scheer: So, Vladimir Putin was right: It was Georgia that started the war with Russia, and once again it was President George W. Bush who got caught in a lie. As The New York Times reported last week, "Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."

The Bush White House knew - but kept from the American public - facts concerning the provocation by Georgia's U.S.-trained forces killing civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before Russian troops crossed the border, which also has been documented in a BBC investigative report and by a growing consensus of other reliable sources.

No surprise, but it is a reminder of just how eager some are for a new Cold War and how indifferent they are to the truth of the matter. The career hawks are influential in both political parties, as was evidenced by the knee-jerk response of both presidential candidates that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack.

[CW: How many times has this happened over the past three or four years? Lots.

For example, the Estonian cyber attacks. Estonia blamed the Kremlin. The Western press wrote it up. Russia denied it... A few months later, experts conclude that Russia was telling the truth (and that the entire attack was conducted by a young man - in Estonia, if I'm not mistaken).

Another example, BMD in Europe. Russia has said that this is targeted against it. Russia was called paranoid... yet, during the hot days of August, American, Czech, and Polish officials cited the "Russian threat" as the reason for the missiles (not to mention the conclusive report by Ted Postol and others showing that it is aimed against Russia and Russia calling America's bluff about cooperation by offering the use Gabala).

Another example, WMDs in Iraq.

Another example, nuclear weapons programs in Iran (a CIA report basically debunked that story earlier this year).

Another example, shutting-off gas to Ukraine.

Another example, the Polish meat embargo.

Another example, the Litvinienko incident.

Over and over again, the Russian side of the story has been proven correct and its concerns legitimate. Consistently, the West has been shown to be distorting the facts, totally spewing propaganda, and outright lying, not to mention the hypocrisy and double standards in many of the cases. Let's not forget that the Western press printed the story that Putin was going "to divorce wife and wed twentysomething gymnast" as fact.

So, lesson learned. Do not trust the West and do not buy its anti-Russian version of current events... like you shouldn’t be buying the anti-Russian revision of history being distributed by the fascist-leaning, Nazi-sympathizing governments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine]

Washington: Why is Russia trying to encircle us ?

2008-11-17T11:13:00.001-05:00

Stratfor: Iceland’s president offered the strategic Keflavik air base to Russia at a diplomatic luncheon in Reykjavik on Nov. 7, shocking Iceland’s neighbors and apparently surprising even the Russians. With Iceland’s economy in a desperate position, the offer most likely represents an attempt to pressure Western creditors, rather than a move to give the Russians military control of the North Atlantic in exchange for rubles.

Yushchenko. Absolute failure

2008-11-17T10:48:00.001-05:00

John Marone: Now, more than any time since the country gained independence 17 years ago, Ukraine looks destined to come back under Russian hegemony. Ironically, the more the pro-Western administration of President Viktor Yushchenko resists this outcome, the greater the chances of it coming about.

no more suppression

2008-11-17T08:00:00.002-05:00

Georgia's shameful attack on South Ossetia, by Lira Tskhovrebova (Los Angeles Times, 11/17/08)

Recent reports raise doubts about the Georgian president's account of the war, yet western nations are still providing aid to his government

In recent days, there has been a remarkable change in Western opinion about the August war between Georgia and Russia over my homeland of South Ossetia. The New York Times, the BBC and Human Rights Watch have reported extensive evidence of U.S.-armed and trained Georgian troops attacking innocent civilians using cluster bombs and other banned weapons. The U.S. State Department, which initially backed Georgia strongly, now concedes that Georgia erred in launching its attack, while British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has condemned the Georgian government for its "reckless" attack. Officials of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have come forward to demolish Georgia's absurd and self-serving claims that it was fighting a defensive war.

Yet the Los Angeles Times, which reported extensively on the August conflict but only briefly acknowledged the suffering of the South Ossetian people shortly after the war, has not published an article on these crucial developments. Nor is The Times alone in overlooking the Georgian government's abuses. Last month, Western governments decided to reward those ruthless actions by giving Georgia $4.5 billion in aid -- money that will never end up reaching the people of South Ossetia whose homes and schools have been destroyed. American taxpayers, whose president-elect has vowed to restore his country's standing as a champion of human rights and democracy, are set to send another $1 billion to a government accused by some of war crimes.

Georgia's public relations campaign was effective in suppressing the voices of South Ossetians during the conflict. But now that the war is over, The Times and others must acknowledge some basic facts about this terrible conflict.

After weeks of rising tensions and spurts of cross-border violence, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili went on television Aug. 7 and reassured South Ossetians that he was implementing a "unilateral and immediate cease-fire." We in South Ossetia went to bed relieved after Saakashvili told us that Georgians did "not have the will to respond to violence with more violence."

Within a few hours of Saakashvili's televised appearance, the Georgian army launched a vicious assault on South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali. I hid with my husband and my 86-year-old mother-in-law in my house, which shook with the explosions. During the occasional lull, I reached some friends and relatives by telephone. The news was horrifying. One of my colleagues' relatives was killed by Georgian tanks. Alan, my young dentist, was blown to pieces by a rocket attack just outside his house.

When I finally emerged from my home three days later, after Russian troops forced the Georgian army to retreat, my beloved city was in ruins.

Today in Tskhinvali, my friends and neighbors are rebuilding their lives. Homeowners are repairing plaster walls. Storekeepers are restocking their shelves. Teachers are setting up temporary classrooms.

But our trust cannot be rebuilt so easily. With one cynical move, Saakashvili threw a match on smoldering ethnic hatreds, distrust and misunderstanding. South Ossetians who lived their entire lives with Georgians, who were tied by marriage, friendship, geography, traditions and customs, are now convinced that they would have been annihilated if the Russians had not come to save their lives.

Peacemaking is my profession. For more than a decade, I have been arranging meetings between South Ossetians and Georgians -- schoolchildren, mothers, teachers and even soldiers -- to discuss the values we shared and the misunderstandings and hatred that have driven us apart. Child by child, person by person, village by village, we worked to defuse the historic and complex tensions in South Ossetia, a region of diverse ethnicities and national identities.

Yet even I am no longer confident that peaceful coexistence is possible.

We in the peace movement have never blamed Georgians for the actions of their government. I feel no hatred toward Georgians. They, like us, were victims of Saakashvili, a so-called democratic leader who has repressed the media and kept his own people in the dark about what really happened that awful night.

I still believe in the power of honest dialogue, and I continue to reach out to my Georgian friends. Last month, I met with some peace activists in Istanbul, where we discussed the challenges facing women in the conflict zone. I recently traveled to Baku to meet a group of Georgian women and hear how their lives have been upended by the five-day war.

If the world is committed to ending the conflict in South Ossetia and resolving the territorial issues in the Caucasus, the following must happen:

* The U.S. must support the European Union's new commission to investigate the war and hold a hearing to determine whether international laws were violated.

* Congress must hold hearings to determine how Georgia used its American training and weapons to carry out attacks. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) has introduced a bill, S 3567, to investigate the causes of the war and make recommendations on U.S. policy toward Russia, Georgia and other countries in the region.

* We must listen to the stories of the South Ossetians who lived through the five-day conflict and its aftermath.

* Countries that send billions in aid to the war-torn region must ensure that a fair share actually reaches the people of South Ossetia, home to the most heavily impacted victims of the war.

* Any additional aid to the Georgian government must be dispensed on the condition that Saakashvili sign an agreement renouncing the use of violence against South Ossetians.

* Countries that provide aid to Georgia must demand that their assistance does not contribute to further militarization by the Georgian government.

Years of experience have taught me that real reconciliation cannot occur without two essential ingredients: trust and truth. Saakashvili, with his campaign of lies and his refusal to give up violence against my people, has ensured that neither of those elements exist. Until the world hears our story and acknowledges what really happened on Aug. 7, there is no way for "justice" to be served.

Lira Tskhovrebova is the founder of the Assn. of South Ossetian Women for Democracy and Human Rights and has worked for more than a decade to improve relations between people of Georgian and Ossetian descent in the Caucasus

LaR's sleepless

2008-11-14T18:18:00.000-05:00

A great comment by Misha on LaR's blog:

Misha // November 14, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Oh you can bark all you want about how “crude” Prime Minister Putin is, when he says what he wants to do to those who murdered Russian citizens (whether Chechnyan warlords or Georgia’s lunatic of a president). And what does Mr. Bush say? “Bring it on!” “Dead or alive!” The fact is that Vladimir Putin isn’t running in any popularity contests in your country. He is the Prime Minister of Russia, not Candyland. And the Russian people love and admire Putin greatly, almost without exception, because he brought Russia back again, after her long national humiliation. Don’t believe me? Look here!

I know the fact that Russia is back, stronger and better than ever, keeps the readers of this blog awake in their beds at night, with the sheets pulled tightly over their heads, but then there’s nothing you can do about it either, is there?

Sarkozy the anti-American

2008-11-14T16:38:00.003-05:00

I'm just about to leave work, but I want to make this comment -- I was just thinking that Sarkozy has made quite a few anti-American remarks lately (i.e. in the past 2 weeks or, since I've come back from Greece).

- the don't endp up like Bush remark
- America's inaction and failed policies in Georgia
- America's militarism in the Black Sea
- America's failed economic policies and blaming America for the crisis
- regarding BMD making Europe less safe

And several other ones.

All doozies.

Great president. Friend of Russia, for sure.

Search Sarkozy in this blog, winthrop77, and winthrop88 to see how I sort of understood this after his encounter with Putin at the G8 summit in Germany (the mysterious cell phone call, the "I understand" how Russia has been abused comment, etc.). Also, the remarks of the two leaders during Sarkozy's first visit to Moscow as President.

Got to go.

Europe votes: Russia wins

2008-11-14T14:05:00.002-05:00

RFE / RL: Sarkozy said that "an immense majority" of EU member states supports the French stance. This contradicts a statement made by a senior EU official in Brussels earlier this week who said the bloc's member states had not yet had a chance to formulate a joint position to Medvedev's proposals.

[CW: Yup, if there is ever EU unity, the overwhelming majority (of 21 nations) will not cave in to the pathetic backwards-looking minority consisting of just 6 nations: Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, and the Czech Republic. It will be the other way around. Those who yearn for "European unity" as a tool against Russia will reap what they sow]

The West's privileged interest hypocrisy

2008-11-14T13:29:00.001-05:00

Medvedev Spoils the Party, by Jeffrey Tayler (The Atlantic, 11/14/08)

...

China is still nominally Communist, but can anyone imagine the United States showing it the kind of disregard that the Bush II and Clinton administrations have displayed toward Russia? There are obviously pressing economic and strategic reasons for treating China carefully. The same holds true for Russia.

And what of Russia’s heavy-handed actions in its “near abroad?” Do they make Russia unworthy of Western partnership? By all appearances Russia is seeking not to conquer or subjugate Europe, let alone the West, but to reestablish its role as the dominant power in some—not all—of the domains of the formerly Soviet and tsarist-era Russian empire, and protect what Medvedev has termed the country’s “privileged interests.” That Russia claims “privileged interests” in Eurasia poses problems for Western leadership circles that seek to woo countries away from Russia, largely to assure access to those countries’ massive hydrocarbon reserves rather than for any reasons pertaining to “support for democracy.” Humiliations inflicted by the West on Russia in the 1990s continue to stoke nationalist sentiment, and ensure that the Kremlin’s efforts in safeguarding its “privileged interests” enjoy popular Russian support.

“Privileged interests” might be a phrase of recent coinage, but the issue is age-old. Since Russia’s transformation from an eastern European confederation of Slavic princedoms (Kievan Rus’), in the Middle Ages, into a multiethnic empire stretching across sparsely populated, resource-endowed terrain from Europe almost to Alaska, Russian leaders have conflated security, stability, and prosperity with dominance of “their” part of Eurasia, much as the United States has considered the Western hemisphere inherently its own (hence the Monroe Doctrine). The United States—geographically distant, culturally remote, and eyed by most former Soviet citizens with suspicion (especially in Muslim Central Asia)—can do little to stop Russia from reasserting itself in its “near abroad.” Even if Russia is taking a beating in the financial crisis, its energy reserves guarantee it a measure of independence that will confound Western attempts to pressure or counter it.

In view of all these factors, what steps can the United States take to redefine its approach to Russia, and show that it means business? First, Obama should seek to overturn the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, which advocates, and allocates funding for, the accession of Georgia and Ukraine. NATO expansion hardly made the news in the United States until the Russia-Georgia war, but it has stoked unprecedented suspicion, incredulity, and even ire both in the Kremlin and among the Russian population at large. American and European assurances that NATO expansion “isn’t directed at Russia” sound fatuous, laden with the tone-deaf arrogance of their bearers. NATO was created to counter the Soviet threat, and its expansion is meant to check Russia’s potential for reviving its influence beyond its borders. But to end the “Russia threat,” the West needs to engage Moscow as a partner. Sooner rather than later, Obama should decisively announce that NATO will grow no further, citing, perhaps, the expense involved in bringing the Ukrainian and Georgian militaries up to speed, and the many strategic problems those two countries would pose as members.

Second, Obama should put a halt to U.S. missile defense plans. He has not been very forthcoming on this subject, though he has stated that he will evaluate the program based on its cost and likely effectiveness. Those two factors alone should doom it, and could serve as adequate reasons for its termination, without reference to Russian objections. For those who don’t know: if “missile defense” sounds innocuous, the system—even limited to only ten interceptors, as plans have it now—in fact would grant the United States potential offensive leeway vis-à-vis Russia, in that it could conceivably serve to shoot down the few Russian missiles that would survive an American first strike. True, this presupposes that Russia would not launch its rockets upon determining that it was under attack. But what if the technology substantially improves? What would stop the United States from increasing deployment of interceptors in bases already established? In any case, a U.S. missile defense capability would amount to one more aspect of the Pentagon’s sought-after “full-spectrum dominance.” Basing this system so close to Russia makes it inherently provocative, especially in view of Russia’s aging nuclear arsenal and decaying military.

The third matter that the Obama administration must address concerns, more broadly, America’s role in the world, about which President Obama should initiate a national dialogue. Will America pursue hegemonic policies that date back to the end of the Second World War? Or will it truly aspire to help fashion a revitalized, more just, world order, in which Russia is a partner rather than an adversary? Here Obama has his work cut out for him. He could start by repudiating the Bush administration’s two National Security Strategies. The Strategy of 2002 announced, “[American] forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States” (thereby abandoning deterrence, the key peacekeeping principle of the Cold War). And the Strategy of 2006 declared, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world” – an unstated threat to the autocratic regime Putin has established in Russia, and in fact a threat to any country the United States deems oppressive. Obama should issue his own Strategy, one that pays due attention to principles of international cooperation and respect for the rule of law by all—including the United States. If America wishes to confront terrorism and stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it will need the help of other countries – most notably Russia.

In devising a new Strategy, the U.S. defense budget should come under intense scrutiny. It is only in support of hegemonic policies that America can justify spending $695 billion on weapons and wars, as it did during the fiscal year 2008. The Western press has taken notice of the military build-up Putin has begun, but this has amounted to raising the Russian defense budget from $25 billion in 2006 to a projected $50 billion in 2009—a figure that, even with $100 billion a year flowing into state coffers from petroleum receipts, the Kremlin would presumably be happy to reduce. The U.S., facing no threat of Soviet magnitude, should cut back its defense expenditures and redirect taxpayer dollars to other priorities.

Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation. Russia commands the largest landmass on earth; possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin government. The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.”

Once the world financial crisis passes, we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the greatest challenges facing humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove the “indispensable nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.

SScheunemann

2008-11-13T11:56:00.001-05:00

Gerald Posner: An active US intelligence asset tells Whistleblower that Saakashvili phoned Scheunemann on August 6, one day before Georgian rockets hit Tskhinvali, the isolated separatist capital of South Ossetia, and that this phone call was monitored by the National Security Agency. According to the intelligence analyst familiar with the NSA recording, Saakashvili was surprisingly blunt in giving the McCain aide a heads-up that all hell might break out.

On August 9 it did, when Russia launched an over-the-top retaliation for two days of Georgian shelling and started a bloody mini-war. The international press portrayed this as a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia, which was swiftly condemned by both US presidential candidates. Only in recent weeks have independent reports by military observers cast doubt on Georgia’s version of the clash.

Did Scheunemann tell McCain that the Georgians were not the innocent victims they played so well? If so, then McCain misled the country about an event that just happened to bolster his campaign rhetoric.

"Russia may be 15 years ahead of the Americans in missile technology and missile defence systems"

2008-11-13T10:35:00.002-05:00

Two interesting comments to a good article about BMD in the UK's Independent:

Ian Watson at 13.11.08, 08:55 GMT: OK Johann... here is something for you to look into... Why doesn't the Independent investigate just how many "Star Wars" scientists have died in extremely bizarre incidents here in the UK and elsewhere over the last two decades...?

As for it ever working, Patriot has a rather noticeable failure rate, the system feted for Poland doesn't work, heck the Americans can't even afford to send their own ships into space anymore.

Russia on the other hand has developed systems that work, killer satellites, missiles that can hit low orbit geostationary bodies, the Pentagon itself admitted to Congress this year that they fear Russia may be 15 years ahead of the Americans in missile technology and missile defence systems.

The funniest story I read last year was when the Russians kindly notified America that using S-300 systems they found a way to digitally track American stealth craft...

Technomist at 13.11.08, 12:11 GMT: Isn't memory interesting? This article is a re-heating of one Hari published on 11 June 2004, called "The most dangerous movie ever made". Mr Hari then wrote:

"After he told the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1986 that he had been present at the liberation of Auschwitz - even though he did not leave California for the duration of the war - he explained that he had been thinking of a film he nearly made."

There was in fact no movie which Reagan made or claimed that he had made one about the liberation of Auschwitz, something which Hari knows. Four years later, we have Mr Hari saying that:

"Reagan was losing the ability to distinguish between reality and films he repeatedly claimed he had been at the liberation of Auschwitz, when he had recreated it in Hollywood."

It seems that Mr Hari's recall has deteriorated in the last four years. From one citied instance of the Auschwitz claim, we now have claims this was 'repeated' confusion about a film actually made.

ns or lng

2008-11-12T14:54:00.002-05:00

Reuters: "Europe must decide whether it needs this pipeline or not," Putin told Finland's Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, at a meeting in Moscow.

"If you don't we will build liquefaction plants and send gas to world markets, including to European markets. But it will be simply more expensive for you. You are free to make the calculations yourself," he added.

fyi i made this suggestion - abandoning nord stream for lng - earlier this year (although i'm not certain if i made it on this blog or as a comment on the guardian's cif). it just makes better sense, strategically

lol

2008-11-08T15:41:00.000-05:00

take a look at this:

The French diplomatic offensive was assisted by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who said he had warned the Lithuanian and Polish leaders that, if prevented from acting in concert, individual member states would start striking separate deals with Moscow

Georgian invasion

2008-11-03T06:52:00.001-05:00

Ossetians fiercely resisted Georgian invasion , by Scott Taylor (The Chronicle Herald, 11/3/08)

WITHOUT a doubt, this war-ravaged, disputed territory has to be one of the most difficult places I have ever attempted to get into.

South Ossetia is linked to North Ossetia, Russia, by only a single winding pass through the imposing Caucasus mountains, and all access routes to the south, into the Republic of Georgia, are blocked by the volatile armed conflict lines.

The eyes of the world focused briefly on this small autonomous region last summer, when a Georgian attempt to reassert sovereign control by force led to a full-scale military response by Russia. As there were no independent monitors present when the Georgian tanks attacked South Ossetia on the night of Aug. 7-8, very little was reported about that attack. Filling that void of knowledge was the primary focus of my research trip into South Ossetia.

Now having declared itself an independent country, South Ossetia is home to about 25,000 ethnic Ossetians. In 1989, the population was estimated at around 70,000, but four wars and four rounds of ethnic cleansing over the past two decades have taken a considerable toll. From top to bottom, the entire territory is only about 75 kilometres deep. The capital city — Tskhinvali — now houses about 80 per cent of the population and it is located at the extreme southern tip of Ossetia, just 400 metres from the previous ceasefire lines with Georgia.

Ossetian officials admit that they were aware an attack was imminent after the Georgians began massing armoured forces along the previous ceasefire line on Aug. 1. In response, the South Ossetian militia was mobilized, and additional medical supplies were stockpiled at the Tskhinvali hospital.

Despite the escalation in tension, the Ossetians believed Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili when he took to the airwaves on the evening of Aug. 7 to say that his troops would not respond to any provocations and that violence was not an option.

Just hours later, the Georgians unleashed a barrage of Grom missiles at the barracks that housed the Russian peacekeeping force, killing 150 people and obliterating the building.

Although the Georgian tanks were easily able to push into the centre of Tskhinvali, Georgian forces were never able to completely secure the city. The South Ossetian militia continued to fiercely resist with short ambushes.

"The Georgians were in their tanks with the hatches down, driving on streets which they did not recognize," said Vitaly, a 32-year-old policeman-reservist who was wounded during the recent fighting. "We live in this city all of our lives; we know every alley, every sewer, every hiding place. They could have been here for 10 years and they could not crush the resistance."

Frustrated and unable to suppress the Ossetians, the Georgians engaged in a campaign of vandalism, arson and looting. The tide turned on the morning of Aug. 10, when Russian armoured units, supported by helicopter gunships poured in from North Ossetia. The Georgians put up only a minimal fight, and their orderly withdrawal quickly turned into a panicked rout. The ethnic Georgian villagers who had taken up arms and turned on their Ossetian neighbours during the initial fighting took their cue from the Georgian troops and fled south as well.

The hardliners in South Ossetia point to the fact that with Russian assistance, they were able to win a military victory. However, pragmatic Ossetians have either fled north to start a new life or are making plans to do so as soon as possible.

"If I could find a buyer for my home, I would leave here tomorrow," said Evelena, a 51-year-old widow who runs a small informal bed and breakfast. "But who in their right mind is looking to buy a house in a potential war zone like Tskhinvali?"

Scott Taylor is the publisher of Esprit de Corps military magazine and author of several books

16

2008-10-20T14:12:00.000-04:00

Check out The Sixteen Reasons Why Russia Should NEVER Trust the West, by Stanislav Mishin

just booked my vacation

2008-10-12T22:22:00.013-04:00

I'm going on vacation on October 22nd and I'm going to... Greece.

My best friend growing up was a Greek-American. In 2002, she got married and moved back to Greece, where she lives in a great beach town in the Halkidiki region.

I visited her before in the summer of 2003. There were many tourists there, including many, many Russians. Menus were translated to Russian (a couple were also in English thank heaven). Fur shops were everywhere.

She tells me that this year there are more Russians than ever - and that they stay longer and have far more money to spend (than Germans and Dutch, who are the second and third most common tourists to the area).

Anyway, can't wait to go . I know that October isn't prime vacation time, but I understand that the Russian tourists come year-round and that there will be many of them that I will be able to mingle with when I go.

Cheers

thank you and maybe one of you can help me for once

2008-10-11T19:19:00.007-04:00

First of all, I would like to thank the many of you who are regular visitors to this blog and the some of you who are posting comments to blog posts. Even though I don't respond to many of the comments, rest assured that I do read them.

Now, I need your help.

I need to know more about the jacket that Putin is wearing in these pics. What brand is it and is it available for sale in the United States?

It's a great jacket and I have been promised many favors in return from a friend of mine if I can locate it for him. It looks like a faux fur trim black down jacket and is similar to some of the stuff Calvin Klein, American Eagle, and Juicy Couture are making, but I don't think it's them.

Thanks !

(from Putin's and Medvedev's visit to the Mikhail Gromov Flight Research Institute in February)

(p.s. I know that I'm asking for a lot and that the chances for success are slim to none)

at the un

2008-10-10T23:29:00.000-04:00

Neil Clark: The quote of the day in the General Assembly's debate came from Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa's Ambassador to the UN, who in response to the US Ambassador said:

"Perhaps 48 countries did recognize Kosovo independence, but it may be worth mentioning that the other 144 did not."

The most significant country of the list of countries supporting Serbia is Indonesia-the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country. The neocons and their liberal imperialist allies like to use their championing of Kosovan independence as a show that they’re not anti-Muslim. It’s great to see that Islamic countries aren’t falling for it.