FULL ARTICLE HERE The political game is all about having leverage. Russia, currently, is doing all it can to gain leverage against the American presence in Central Asia. This is a vital time to do so because the new US President has not yet established himself as a hardliner and has not made any bold foreign policy moves. The Bush administration fought hard on every level to keep anyone else from meddling in Washington’s affairs in the region. The US provided a lot of support for numerous former Soviet republics in Central Asia in order to secure their political dominance in the region.
One of the most important reasons for having friendly nations in Central Asia, especially Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, was because they provided vital supply bases for US operations in Afghanistan. The majority of US personnel, ordnance, and supplies were channeled through the US Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan. Now, however, the United States has lost that base and Moscow has acted upon an opportunity to provide a counterweight to US policies abroad.
First, Kyrgyzstan stated that the US base that was virtually sold to Russia for $2 billion can be used to still transport humanitarian supplies to US forces in Afghanistan. However, it means that Washington will have to find another base to use for directing supplies to their forces fighting the Taliban. The strategic advantage of the base in Kyrgyzstan was that it was only 1,5 hours of flight time away from the US airfield in Bagram.
Second, Moscow recently offered NATO the opportunity to use their Air Force to transport supplies to US forces in Afghanistan, since they were close to Afghanistan and it would take the burden off NATO to maintain active bases in the region. For Russia this means a lesser NATO and American presence in the region. It also gives Moscow an opportunity to control the flow of supplies intended for the war in Afghanistan. This is the most important factor in the ordeal over Central Asia, having leverage against American policies abroad. If NATO agrees to use the Russian Air Force to bring …CONTINUE READING HERE
The way wars are fought has changed over time, but the reason for the wars hasn’t. It is not about religion, it is not about simply acquiring new territory. It is about acquiring resources and protecting their flow into the nation that is currently controlling those resources. Currently, not all “takeovers” have been militarily achieved. Nations that risk too much in an open conflict will bend to the requests from more powerful nations in return for more wealth from those that are already in control. The more powerful nations or blocs are the US, China, Russia, and the EU. All the others that are on a less resource-based economic “diet” do not meddle in affairs of resource acquisition. At least not to the extent that the afore mentioned nations do.
However, armed conflicts are what this article will be about. Nations that are not developed, that are unstable, are the most probable targets for an invasion by more powerful countries in order to control the resources and vital trade routes. Most nations that are considered as developing already “willingly” share their resources. African nations, certain Middle Eastern… FULL ARTICLE HERE
In 2008 there have been numerous disputes, peaceful and not, with regard to borders. In some cases these disputes turned violent. The biggest border conflicts and disputes have resulted in tensions between Israel and Gaza, Russia and Georgia, India and Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. The peaceful border tensions are between the U.S. and Mexico and the ongoing debate about the status of Cyprus. Aside from the geographical border disputes and tensions, the economic crisis has shown the world that economic borders are not that safe as well.
In 2009, many nations that have border disputes will try to settle them. After the fall of the USSR, borders of many countries have destabilised and there are many regions and territories in the world that would like to see independence. After having numerous countries engage in open and political conflicts in 2008 with regard to borders, leaders of some nations look like they have realised that borders need to be set and finalised once and for all, preferably without the use of force.
Geographical
There is an argument that, in order to have a stable regime, whatever it may be, inside a country, that nation needs to have stable borders. Support for this argument is abundant, and there are few that would disagree. However, it seems that only now is this argument really finding its place in the global arena. Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev has assigned an advisory commission to present solutions to Russian border disputes, to map those borders, and to finalise them, so everyone knows where the nation’s borders are drawn.
As Israel has had numerous clashes with its neighbours, it has become evident that it needs to start working towards more stable and accurate borders in order to avoid conflicts such as the one in Gaza. Therefore it could definitely say that a rocket attack, or any attack, over that particular given line will automatically result in an open conflict.
Gaza’s borders are not stable. Israel set up a wall, literally and figuratively that isolates the people inside the Gaza strip. Israel even goes as far as to not allow international aid workers to bring in supplies and medication to Palestinians living in the Gaza strip. During Israel’s short campaign in the Gaza strip, the Israeli Navy went as far as ramming a ship full of humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian civilians. Israel’s conflicts have been coupled by political instability. Not that the regime has changed or has any intention to do so, it is that the Israeli government has largely been unstable and its leaders and prominent politicians have been at the center of attention for shady activities on numerous occasions.
Another country with unstable borders and even more unstable relations with its neighbours is Pakistan. It has been in the spotlight quite often recently. First of all, its borders with Afghanistan are nearly unguarded, to say the least. Secondly, after the events in Mumbai, Indian-Pakistani borders have become as tense as ever because of India’s accusations that Islamabad had trained and even organised the attack in Mumbai.
Northern Waziristan, according to U.S. sources, is a base of operations for Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military has been launching raids into Pakistan on many occasion, stating the fact that Pakistan’s military has nearly no control over the province and lets insurgents roam freely over the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Evidence of instability in Pakistan is seen through the change of power in August of 2008, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and many other events. All of this can be linked to the fact that the borders of Pakistan are very insecure.
The United States, although most stable out of the above mentioned countries, has their own instability to deal with. The U.S. erected a fence going between Mexico and the U.S. The illegal immigration of Mexicans to their northern neighbour has stirred up a lot of controversy. The fence was erected exactly for the reasons of stabilising the inside of the country, rather than the illegal immigration situation. The Bush administration was already speeding downhill at the time of the decision to erect the fence. Its hope did not do anything to stabilise their situation and slow down their descent in public approval. Nevertheless, it was an attempt at getting the situation under control.
Now, Barack Obama will try and secure the border with means other than physically trying to get in the way of the illegal migrant inflow into the U.S. Whatever the means are, they are aimed primarily at stabilising the order primarily in the Southern and Southwestern United States. Whatever the arguments may be for and against, it is a fact that illegal immigration destabilises the order in places that illegal migrants go to because they are willing to work for below the minimum wage and thus cost jobs that actually create tax revenue. This is the issue with border stabilisation between the U.S. and Mexico.
Cyprus and Turkey have another border issue to deal with on the international arena, primarily due to Turkish aspirations to join the EU. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey, and thus Turkey will need to determine what is more important: a small area that has been disputed since the British colonial rule, or the current issue of joining the EU. It will have to draw its border sooner or later and finalise the issue eventually.
Turkey, although more stable than most other Middle Eastern countries, still has problems developing a more stable democracy, to which they aspire. Its relationship with the Kurds and the Iraqi border is another issue at stake. Until those issues are finalised, it will be hard to focus more on internal issues because they are an immediate security risk.
Geographical borders will need to be covered first in order to stabilise regimes and political situations within many countries. It looks like more and more countries are recognising the correlation between stable borders and stable governments. Nevertheless, the economic expansion of many multinational corporations from all over the world brings instability as well (to be discussed in part 2 later this week).
Conclusion
There are many unresolved border and territorial disputes all over the world. After seeing many conflicts spring up between neighbours in recent years after the fall of the Soviet Union, borders have become key issues in certain regions. In recent years many conflicts and disputes have escalated to new levels primarily because many nations are not willing to look into the issues and would rather just keep at proving that they are right. Although it seems logical, nations need to compromise and resolve these issues because unstable borders nearly always lead to unstable governments and internal politics.
It is a benefit to all to find solutions to these problems in order to bring about more order within a nation. 2009 will be the founding year for nation defining their national borders and securing them in order to bring about order with regard to domestic politics.
Many political analysts and observers have predicted that the EU will rise up to be the next power, stronger and more unified than the United States. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why this may not happen and it is important to note this in order to understand the reasons for Europe lagging behind its scheduled growth and why the EU, with its bigger markets and greater population, has not risen above America yet.
Although today Europe is a multinational union that has integrated …
…indication enough that Europe is not sovereign enough. Western Europe is fairly independent of the US, considering the fact that they’ve blocked most major US companies from becoming major players in Europe’s economy (GE, Microsoft, Boeing to name a few). Nevertheless, Eastern Europe is not needed for the market share. It is needed for political leverage and for presence close to Russia.
Although the EU knows this, it also knows that getting in the way of US global aspirations will end up hurting them in the end. After all, it was the American Marshall Plan that rebuilt Western Europe after World War Two. It was the Americans that helped Europe keep the “evil” USSR from attacking the weakened Europe throughout the Cold War. Most of all, it was the Americans that helped Europe, including Germany, to get back up after being destroyed by war.
To reiterate – Europe will not be more powerful than the United States. It is closely tied to America economically and by past “favors”. Moreover, the fact that the EU is not socially integrated is still a problem. Eastern and Western Europe are still different and even some Western European nations are still unfriendly towards some of their partners and neighbors. Most of all, the fact that the US has some control over Eastern Europe is an indication that Brussels is still not the one in control over the whole EU. Once someone is in the US’s pocket (IMF, World Bank loans), then it will most likely not get out of it. Eastern Europe is in and thus half of the EU is under American influence. It is essential to understand this to understand relationships within Europe and of Europe to the rest of the world.
News about U.S. bailout packages have been on every newsstand and news website in the past months. There is talk constantly of American companies being bailed out and discussions about the topic are abundant. The stir is caused not because America is considered a superpower and not because United States economy is the symbol of economics success that many nations are aspiring for. It makes news because America is becoming less and less American. With the U.S. economy being the weakest that it has been since the Great Depression, many Europeans and Asians are taking advantage of this and buying out American companies and their assets.
The bailout packages that are being considered and hundreds of billions of dollars that have already been committed are aimed at buying up failing U.S. companies for one reason – to keep the U.S. economy dependant on itself and its own workforce rather than European parent companies and…
FULL ARTICLE HERE Aside from being an essential element in heating homes during the coldest time of the year, Russian gas is a political tool. It is a tool for the U.S.-sponsored Ukrainian government as well as Moscow. However, what are the goals being pursued? It is not just to show might and power over Europe. That actually would hurt Russia in the long run with no real short term benefits either. The current gas dispute between Moscow and Kiev is actually a continuation and a move forward in trying to discredit each other and win over the majority support of the population.
Just to recap, President Yuschenko and his government tried to discredit the Russian Black Sea Fleet and taint Russia’s reputation in Ukraine during and after the conflict in the Caucasus between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. Yuschenko was not successful in getting the Fleet out of Sevastopol and did not change the population’s outlook on Russia. One thing did become evident – Ukraine is split into East and West, Eastern Ukraine being pro-Russian and Western part being more pro-Western. Also, Yuschenko’s government is not as popular as some, especially in Washington, had hoped for.
Transit of gas is one of the best trumps in Russia’s hands. If the observers that are supposed to monitor the flow of gas through Ukraine find any disruptions that can potentially damage Ukraine’s credibility, Moscow will score a big win in this tug-o-war on many levels. First, the credibility of President Yuschenko’s government will be dealt a big blow. Second, Moscow would score an indirect win against the U.S. in global politics. Lastly, the EU will be more reluctant to consider Ukraine for membership.
If Russia is successful in discrediting Yuschenko’s government, Washington will suffer the biggest loss. Having put a lot of effort into getting the current Ukrainian government in place and putting even more…FULL ARTICLE HERE
The recent attacks in Mumbai reminded people all over the world that no matter how big the city, no matter how developed we think we are, no one is safe from terrorist acts – simply because we cannot bring the battle to the terrorists. They bring the battle to the place of their choosing. The attacks are believed to have cost the terrorists from $100,000-200,000. Compared to the destruction and the personal damage caused, these amounts are extremely small.
Aside from the horror and destruction caused by these attacks to individuals, some lessons must be learned. Necessary conclusions need to be made in order to avoid such attacks from happening again. Although terrorist organisations will always find ways to cause destruction, nations should do their best to make it as hard as possible for them before they spread beyond control.
India spends $1.5 billion dollars on national defence. However, that was not enough to prevent the extremism that cost a small fraction of that. That may be evidence that they were not allocating resources to face the more potential threats of terrorism.
Indian spending may mostly be on training for a possible war with Pakistan. Nevertheless, recent events in Mumbai have shown that there is greater possibility of terrorist acts rather than a full out war with Pakistan.
All Talk But No Action
The rest of the world’s countries which have either been hit or are considered as potential targets of terrorism should learn from Mumbai, and quick. The United States, for example, spends around $600 billion on their military. Nevertheless, many reports state that America is still vulnerable even after the hype following 9/11. Russia and Europe themselves have been hit and they also spend hefty sums in billions of dollars on defence.
Full article can be viewed on RussiaToday site and I would appreciate any comments to be made on this page.
Washington is holding on to everything it has in Georgia, and for a reason. It needs a platform of allies surrounding Russia, which is nothing new. In addition, the fact that has purposefully been overlooked in the mainstream media is that the U.S. is more interested in the economy of Georgia, which will ensure their alliance. The system that America uses to keep hold of Georgia and its President is an elaborate scheme that will ensure political cooperation of Georgia and big profits for U.S. companies.
Making the Rich Even Richer
United States’ “private” companies have long been working in favor of their government abroad. Their actions are commendable as they show patriotism and a belief in both the capitalist system and the American way of life. Nevertheless, working in favor of your country, more often than not, means making citizens of a country worse off than before the investments came into that country’s economy.
The system is fairly simple – bring in U.S. companies to build up energy production, infrastructure, and re-arm the military. The financing of the projects is done through loans made to Tbilisi by the World Bank or similar financial institutions. The loans are given in such large amounts that Georgia will most likely default in the near future. Defaulting will in turn mean that the U.S. will have a firm hold on Georgia’s politics and its system of government as a whole.
The projects that the loans will be issued for will make the rich that own the power plants, dams, and other industrial investments richer. These are the same individuals that sit in the Georgian parliament and run the country. The people, on the other hand, whose land is used for the projects and whose labor is used to make the whole industry work, will be getting a below-acceptable wage and most will likely be out of work as a whole.
Reports indicate that in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, the unemployment rate is close to 30%. In 1991, after gaining independence, Georgia reported a 17% unemployment rate. Today, although Georgia reports economic growth and higher per-capita income, people are actually worse off now than before America took an interest in the small Caucasus nation.
It is true that Georgia is growing economically, producing more power, and that more industries are working. However, most of the income earned from the industries goes to paying off the huge loans taken out for the projects. In addition, the wealth of the rich has grown, which produces a higher statistic for the country’s economy. It’s a case of simple math – the more overall wealth divided by the approximately the same number of people in the country produces a higher per-capita statistic.
Georgia Owes America
The people in the Georgian government owe their increase in wealth completely to America. If the U.S. had not offered to help build up the country and lend them the money, Georgia would’ve been struggling just as much today as it had in the 1990s. What does this mean for Washington? It means that they can utilize Georgia’s military, UN votes, WTO membership, and many other tools of politics in their favor.
Tbilisi owes Washington for setting up the Rose Revolution. It is a simple fact that no one in Georgia had the money to set up such a well-funded and well organized action. Not too surprising that in 1999, Georgia’s GDP grew at 3%. The following year, with the introduction of new investors from the West, their GDP grew at 2%, 4.5%, and 5% in 2000, 2001, and 2002 respectively. Right after the Rose Revolution, the GDP growth nearly doubled in 2003 to 8.3%.
In addition to investing in the Georgian political and economic welfare, America and a row of its allies invested heavily in rearming the Georgian military. It was a necessary measure in ensuring that the Georgian army is under their control. If Georgia would side with Russia once again, the project of reequipping the military again would be a costly affair. It is a headache which Tbilisi is not willing to go through again in the near future.
What’s Going to Happen Next?
America has a firm hold on Georgia. Tbilisi is bound by the “friendly” gesture of the Western states to be their allies and to side with America on its foreign policy. Georgia has already become a firm base for the American military. In case of an armed conflict with Russia, Georgia will provide a buffer zone that will be able to hold out for the necessary time needed to bring U.S. troops to the region.
Economically, it benefits the U.S. industries and the few that hold the wealth of Georgia. The U.S. and European companies reap good profits off the projects in the region. On the flip side, the Georgian elite get their share of income that keeps them out of meddling with U.S. interests. The platform has been prepared in case of a potential threat from the Russian Bear.
The Islamic nations in the Middle East have all been carefully watching the war in Georgia. Russia in the 1990’s Russia was ready to sacrifice friends and national interests to gain “good relationships” with the West. By using military force to enforce it’s decisions regarding South Ossetia, Russia has shown the world that now it is to be dealt with when it comes to its national interests and friends.
President of Syria Bashar Asad recently visited Moscow on a two day visit to discuss possible strategic and economic relationships. “It is not a secret, that back in the day industries and defense systems were set up with Soviet help [in Syria]“, said Vladimir Isaev at the Institute of Eastern Studies. Most Syrians know Russian and use outdated Soviet equipment for their defense and industrial purposes. Russia will jump on the offer to produce new equipment for new power stations in Syria, along with setting up trade channels of military equipment. The Syrian Army is equipped with old Russian weapons and weapons systems, which are outdated by today’s standards. Russian military industry is already trying to set up a deal to sell anti-tank complexes to Damascus. “Unites States are dealing weapons to anyone they want, so why can’t we sell weapons to those, with whom we have been friends with for a long time?”, asks Isaev. Russia has a lot of business opportunity in Middle East, and particularly in Syria, as the whole country is screaming to be reequipped and modified. It is a whole new market for Russian industries.
New Naval Base
The most important part of the Syrian President’s visit to Russia is his offer to allow the Russian navy to set up a base in Tartus. He even offered to allow Russia to set up Iskander missiles to defend the naval base. This is a much better alternative to the Black Sea Fleet, because it allows access into the Mediterranean Sea. For the Black Sea Fleet to exit the Black Sea, it needs to sail through Turkey’s territory, so access out of the Black Sea is dependent on Turkey’s mood towards Russia and the nature of the Black Sea’s reasons for leaving the Black Sea. Although Turkey has supported Russia in it’s war with Georgia, it is trying to enter the E.U., which may turn Turkish loyalties away from Russia. Syria, however, has been antagonized by the West and after seeing Russia step up their game in South Ossetia is evermore willing to become a strategic partner. Israel has criticized Russian-Syrian partnership, however, now that it is proven that Israel helped build up Georgian military (nearly $300 million in military equipment has been sold to Georgia by Tel-Aviv) it is evident why they would not want Russia to help Syria.
Ukraine has not allowed Russia to utilize it’s missile defense systems, and has not allowed the Russian Navy set up those of their own. Ukraine has also been trying to get the Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea, and bring in American Naval ships into the Black Sea. Ukrainian President, Yuschenko, has tried to use South Ossetian War as an excuse to get the Russian Navy out of Crimea and out of Ukraine for good. However, Russia Navy does not answer to the President of Ukraine, and all of his orders for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to leave are illegitimate, as all branches of the Russian Defense Ministry answer solely to the President of the Russian Federation. The Black Sea Fleet is a thorn in Yuschenko’s side because to be part of NATO, they cannot have Russian bases on their territory. Europe is reluctant to accept Ukraine into its Union because of the same reason. In case of a military dispute, Russia will have their ships in the Black Sea ready to bombard targets in Europe. Right now, however, if Syria’s offer is valid and will be accepted, Russia will be willing to give up their port in Sevastopol and will more than gladly jump on the Syrian offer.
The Conclusion
Russia defending it’s interests and it keeping its promises in South Ossetia has shown the world that it is back in the game is to be dealt with. Now, any anti-west nation (all Islamic nations and most of South America) will be having talks with Moscow to become strategic partners. Venezuela and Cuba have already expressed interest in Russian partnership. Although partners for a while, friendship hasn’t gone as far as military bases and large business partnerships. The war in South Ossetia is changing the relationships in the world. Now, the division between the East and West will become more evident.
Russian Black Sea Fleet's Flagman Cruiser "Moskva"
CNN is a trusted news source in the Western world. It made a name for itself, and it’s editors know this. Eduard Kakoiti, while visiting a hospital near Tskhinvali, saw a CNN journalist, who was with the Georgian Army at the time of attack. He was quoted by RBC to say that the journalist told him, that he was told there will be a form of “blitzkrieg”. That the Georgian Army will sweep into South Ossetia and will topple the South Ossetian government. Well, this did not happen, and the journalist, remaining unnamed, was actually wounded and taken to a hospital in South Ossetia. Kokoiti also was quoted, as saying that when the journalist goes back to the U.S., he should tell the truth about the conflict. Needless to say, the journalist will most likely never release his encounter with the South Ossetian leader to the Western public, and CNN will most likely do everything it can, so the story does not leak out.
CNN also is accused of using the wrong footage to cover the events in Georgia. In a nutshell, CNN is accused of using videos of Tskhinvali, to demonstrate destruction of Gori. Not only is this copyright infringement (the videos shot by Russian camera men belong to them, if privately shot, or to the TV company, for whom the journalist works), but this is disinformation of the masses. It is the biggest crime that is imaginable. If the U.S. does not have the decency to calm down Saakashvili and tell him not to bomb civilian population, at least make sure the mass media presents true facts. Here, are two videos. The first video was shot by the man that speaks in the second video. The first video shows Tshkinvali, capital of South Ossetia. Second video is in English and requires no translation.
Fox News Controversy
Fox News Studio B’s anchor Shepard Smith has shamelessly been rude on live TV to survivors from South Ossetia – 12 year old Amanda Kakoeva (an american-ossetian living in the U.S.) and her aunt Laura Tadeeva-Koreviski. An interview was set up to give live accounts of what happened in South Ossetia. Obviously, FOX did not get the storyline they needed, instead, they got two survivors blaming Saakashvili. Both were visiting their relatives in South Ossetia when the Georgian Army attacked. Smith continuously interrupt the guest speakers in places where they talk about Georgian President’s Saakashvili Army bombing civilians and committing war crimes. Towards the end of the video, Laura is interrupted by Shepard Smith abruptly to go to commercial. Both were quoted later as saying they were really pressured into not saying what they had to say, but seeing this was live television, they took the opportunity to do so. See for yourselves:
The Conclusion
Saakashvili went out of line during his military operations. Now, the West is faced with “inconvenient truth”. Those in power will do their best, to turn the mass media away from the reality of the conflict. As was mentioned before on this blog, Russia has won on the battlefield, but the media war is being lost. Not completely, but it is slowly slipping out of their control. It is vital, to analyze the tiniest details, when looking at politics, for the real reasons are never evident to the naked eye.
closerview
