Prediction

FULL ARTICLE From the way the world is going, the region where a cataclysmic event may happen is in the Middle East. There are too many sides fighting for power and dominance of the region, and each is pushing the envelope further and further, currently testing the other sides’ patience and diplomatic ability.

The world today does not want to see war, necessarily. However, the veterans of World War II are dying out. They are the ones that have seen how devastating and brutal a world war can be, and how even the most civilized countries are ready to indiscriminately kill civilians and demolish whole cities in order to gain a simple ability to sell something that is located in a different land.

Commerce is the name of the game, and those that have the most resources have the best commercial ability. Commerce is power and leverage. It is control of whole economies. The United States has been very discreet about imperial aspirations. The basics of empire expansion are control of resources for a purpose of selling them. Not everyone has the power to expand in such a manner, and most take the old-school route — that is, guns blazing and bombs flying, with tanks sweeping in and destruction in the armies’ path.

The most important resource allocation in the world right now is located in the Middle East. Also, the biggest rivalries are in the Middle East. The interesting thing is that it was Europe and the United States that created the reason for there to be conflict in this area. They sparked old rivalries anew in the Middle East by creating Israel as a state. It was a gesture of good will from the Allies and the USSR. However, dislocating a large portion of people and telling them that their rivals are now the owners of the soil is bound to get one side pissed off.

And guess who that side is: the whole Arab world. Now, I am not against the State of Israel, but it is the reason for instability in the Middle East today. With European and mainly America’s backing and support, Israel was able to muster up one of the…FULL ARTICLE

How Can US Get Russia’s Support Over Iran?

FULL ARTICLE HERE

So, the gears are set in motion now as Barack Obama has sent an official letter to President Medvedev proposing to cease the European Missile Defense efforts in Poland and the Czech Republic if Moscow collaborates with Washington on pressuring Tehran to stop its nuclear enrichment program. This is not the way talks should begin over the European anti-missile shield and Iran between Moscow and Russia. Obama has not yet made a name for himself in the international arena, if anything, Hillary actually tainted the view of the way the world views the foreign policy of the new administration in Washington. At a press conference with the Spanish prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev stated clearly that he is not going to settle for any exchanges with regard to the anti-missile defenses in Europe and that he viewed it as an unproductive approach. The implications of decisions made on the subject of cooperation between Moscow and Washington regarding Iran were discussed in an earlier article, so now, things start moving, and it looks like not in the direction which will actually bring the results intended.

Foreign Policy of the US

It is clear to anyone paying attention to politics that Obama does not have much experience with foreign policy and most likely will stumble along the way in his first year as he learns how other countries operate and how to deal with different nations. Entrusting his foreign affairs to Hillary is more than an indication that he is not yet at the level of knowledge about the international arena as one might hope. Obama won purely because of his domestic policy promising change to save the US from total collapse and good marketing. His foreign policy platform was only concerned with telling the Americans what they wanted to hear – stopping the war in Iraq.

Now, the reality sets in, and it is not as easy as it looks. America does not have the leverage that it had in the nineties over Moscow, when Yeltsin would pull back on certain national interests in return for support for the new Russia from the West. Obama’s letter to the Kremlin seems to indicate a lot of false assumptions over the way Russia has set itself in the international politics. The White House seems to put a lot of emphasis on the European anti-missile defense, not realizing that Russia is not really concerned with it as much as it is with further extending its influence in Central Asia and cooperation with Iran on weapons trading and technological research and development.

It is extremely wrong of Obama to try and put Russia in a position that would be beneficial only to the US national interests. International politics does not work like that. In the international scene today, if one county wants to further their national interests abroad they have to take into consideration the other side’s interest as well in order to facilitate cooperation in any given area. The new administration should not put pressure on Russia’s national security in order to get what they want. They need to give Russia something to benefit their national interest abroad in order to get Moscow’s cooperation. Considering the possible benefits of Moscow-Tehran relations for Russia, Washington will have to find another way and give a lot to with regard to Russian national interests.

Evidence of Direction

Every time a person representing a foreign policy speaks to anyone, they usually think about the way their words will be viewed else where. Clinton seems to miss this point. If there are two countries bumping heads, and a third country comes in and pledges support for one of the sides, it becomes an enemy of the other. As the saying goes, “My worst enemy’s worst enemy is my best friend.” So, ipso-facto Clinton’s words… CONTINUE READING HERE

Should Russia Side With Iran or the US?

FULL ARTICLE HERE Russia halts their weapons deal with Iran until they finish talks with the US President Barack Obama. This is seemingly small news. However, the results of this can lay the foundation for long term international relations between the two countries and the way both nations’ foreign policies will be formed for many years to come. The reason is that there may be two outcomes. One potential outcome is the Russia continues on trading weapons with Iran. Another outcome is that Russia stops weapons trading and joins US in persuading Iran to halt their weapons build up and potential nuclear program.

Outcome #1

The first outcome to consider is that Russia keeps on trading weapons with Iran, sending over experts and increasing cooperation between the two countries. Iran’s weapons build up and increased might will help it achieve its result of becoming the center for the Islamic world and will put it on the map as a country to be dealt with regarding any outside nation’s interests in the Middle East. This will help Iran further its interests in global affairs and will help them decrease the pressure that US and most of the West is putting on it with regard to its military and internal affairs.

For Moscow, there are benefits in this deal coming out of cooperation with Iran. Russian domestic weapons production will have huge sales contracts with Tehran and considering that Iran most likely will not buy weapons from the West Russian weapons and military production industry will hit the jackpot in the near future. They will basically supply all of Iran’s military with the equipment needed to make its military up to par with Western counterparts.

In addition, Russian gas and oil companies will be able to get huge contracts with Iranian oil and gas industries with regard to Caspian basin natural resources. Since Western companies will not be allowed to participate in the sale of contracts, Russian companies will most likely be the winners of most, if not all, contracts that Tehran may offer to build up their oil and gas industry. Considering this, United States currently sees it as in the national interest to keep Tehran out of the oil game because US and Iran bump heads very often and it will put in jeopardy the continuous flow of natural resources because US will have to use Tehran’s pipelines if it wants to diversify places from which it imports resources.

Outcome #2

The next possible outcome is that Moscow will decide to stop trading weapons with Tehran and will start siding with the US to get Iran to cease their military build up and nuclear program. Although on the surface it looks like Russia will not gain as much from this deal with US, it actually has the potential to benefit from the externality that comes of this. That externality is a large influence in Central Asian countries, former Soviet Republics, which have access to the Caspian and all of the natural resources that …CONTINUE READING

Determining Borders – Creating Internal Stability

Dear readers – please use this link to the original source of the article

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.

Dear readers – please use this link to the original source of the article

Energy Wars: Diversify or Die

FULL ARTICLE HERE on Russia Today.

It would be very naïve to think that oil producing countries would all come together during the financial crisis in order to adjust prices to suit all the parties involved. Even more naïve would be to think that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other oil economies are good friends. Well, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are definitely closer than, for example, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Nevertheless, competition drives prices lower and also takes away market share from other competitors in a given industry. According to the New York Times, Iran and Venezuela both need US $95/barrel in order to maintain balanced budgets. Russia’s ideal oil price is US $70/barrel. Saudi Arabia needs a price of US $55/barrel in order to meet … FULL ARTICLE HERE

Is U.S. missile defense necessary in Europe?

This original published article can be found here. RussiaToday is the original source of this article.

United States officials say that the missile defenses are aimed at Iran. However, Iran’s missiles and motives indicate no threat to Europe.
One of the main issues facing the new President-elect Barack Obama is the European Missile Defense System that the Bush administration has been trying to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian Federation has been fiercely protesting this action and has viewed the installation of Anti-Missile Defenses as a direct threat to its national security.

The Kremlin has threatened to counter the deployment U by placing short to mid-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack stated that the Anti-Missile Defenses are not aimed at Russia and expressed hope that one day Russia will see this. The threat that the defenses are aimed at, according to the White House, is Iran. But why would U.S. place missile defenses some 3,000 kilometers away from Iran? A look at the U.S. missile defense system and the Iranian ballistic missiles shows that Tehran’s strike on a major European city is highly unlikely.

U.S. Missile Defense

A missile defense system’s purpose is to intercept anything from ICBMs to smaller ballistic missiles. However, the missile defense systems in use today are not as sophisticated as one might think. They still need to be located close to the potential flight path of the missiles. An independent study by the American Physical Society (APS) in 2004 showed that, “effectiveness of interceptor rockets would be limited by the short time window for intercept, which requires interceptors to be based within 400 to 1,000 kilometers of the possible boost-phase flight paths of attacking missiles.”

The United States Army uses MIM-103 Patriot surface-to-air missile system (SAM). The Patriot system proved to be effective during the Gulf War in 1991, shooting down Iraqi SCUD missiles. Still, SCUDs are short to mid-range missiles, and the Missiles Defenses were located very close to the flight path of the missiles. There is no confirmation of U.S. Missiles Defense intercepting long range missiles far away from the launch point. According to the study by the APS, the missiles’ effectiveness decreases as the distance of the potential flight path of the ICBM or other missile increases.

Iran’s Missiles

Little is known about the Iranian missile program. However, the Iranian Mid-Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) Fajr-3’s operational range is estimated at 2,300 kilometers. The Shahab-6 missile is Iran’s longest range ballistic missile with a range of 4,000-5,000 kilometers. Nevertheless, no official reports come of successful tests of this missile or any detailed information on the missile specifications in general. The last Iranian test that Washington has denounced was the Shahab-3, with a range of 2,300 kilometers.

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to destroy Israel has not been taken lightly. Iran’s defiance of the West has only added fuel to the fire. Tehran is not allowing international organizations to monitor their nuclear enrichment program and is refusing to shut it down all together. It is already known that Tehran is able to strike Israel, however, there have been no threats made to Europe. There is a possibility that Iran has nuclear capabilities, but they are still a threat to Israel, rather than Europe.

Putting it all together

According to Google Maps, direct path from Tehran to Raciborz, Poland (located between Warsaw and Krakow), is 3,114 kilometers, which is beyond the potential range of Shahab-3 and Fajr-3 missile and it is still unknown whether Iran has successfully made an ICBM capable of striking major European cities. Tehran is more likely to strike Israel rather than a European nation.

U.S. Missile Defenses are more in the way of a possible strike by Russia on Europe, rather than by Iran. Iran may be a good excuse to move missile defenses closer to Russian borders, also creating closer ties with countries that are more outspoken against Russia than most other European nations.

The European Missile Defense System looks like an attempt by the GOP to bring the world back into a Cold War-like state. This only makes sense, as they were the party that claimed the victory over the Soviet Union, when it collapsed in 1991. If things heat up around European Missile Defenses and Russia is made the “bad guy” again, the GOP will have a fighting change to reclaim the White House in 2012, riding on the wave of claims that they’ve defeated the “Evil Empire” once and they’ll do it again.

President-elect Obama has already said that the European Missile Defense system will have to prove its ability to protect Europe against Iran before he allows millions of dollars to be allocated for this project. Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough stated that, Obama’s “position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he [Obama] supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.”

Aleksey Sazonov for RT

Important Video of U.S. Lawmakers During the Hearing on War in Georgia

U.S Congressmen HAVE to support Georgia, for U.S. holds responsibility for Saakashvili and his administration. This video was sent to me by a reader. It shows direct speeches of Ron Paul, Dana Rohrbacher, and (!!!) Hillary Clinton.  No commentary is needed further. The evidence is there.

Winners and Losers in the Georgia-Russia Conflict

The Battlefield Victory

Russian military has full control of the war in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgian mobilized reserves are running away in numbers, as stated by journalists at www.Utro.ru working in the area of the conflict.  A military observer, analyzing the town of Gori, where the 4th battalion of the Georgian army has been stationed, said that the4th battalion does not exist anymore. All over the ground there are uniforms, regalia, jeeps and trucks, along with heavy artillery and tanks are abandoned. The citizens of the town fled, fearing the the South Ossetian militia and the Russian army will start killing them, because of what the Georgians did in Tskhinvali. The Georgian President Saakashvili is trying to play it as Russians are on the move to oust him from power by force, take Tbilisi, and take over Georgia.

This is true, for the Russian armored column, which was said to be moving towards Tbilisi, has turned away back to the bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Georgian President, in frustration, is trying to accuse the Russian side continuous bombing and military operations. Nevertheless, no military operations are being carried out. Georgian civilians have been constantly quoted by the media to say that they don’t want this fighting. They don’t want their children dying for Saakashvili, as he does not present a rallying figure to them. They are aware, despite the Russian media blockade in Georgia, that Russia does not want to take over Georgia and to forcefully make it part of the Russian Federation. In short, the battle has been won by the Russian military. Now it is a question of keeping peace.

Russian soldiers on an APC passing a knocked out Georgian Tank

 

The Information Battlefield

This is the 21st century. Battles are not won solely on the battlefields anymore. Battles are fought in the press as well. This is where the Russians are taking a beating. The Georgian government, the U.S. government, and everyone else knows about the ignorance of the majority of the U.S. population. This may be blunt, but true. It has been easy for the Georgians to win the support of the American people. All that was needed was for CNN to run a short clip of Russian tanks crossing the Ossetian border, saying that the Russians have “invaded” Georgia. What can be more simple? Think back to when the campaign was started. The western media did not run anything on the Georgian MLRS “Grad” launching massive barrages of high-explosive shells on Tskhinvali. Why? Well, it’s not that important apparently, that close to 1500 civilians have been killed and a city leveled within the first 24 hours. It is more important to portray the Big Russian Bear as the bad guy marching into a small “democratic” (it’s hilarious to call it that, really) Georgia. The Georgian President Saakashvili has been coming out with new statements every hour or so of his waking time. If interesting at all, notice that his statement contradict themselves. It is safe to assume that he has no idea how to get himself out of this mess. He is comparable to a conrnered beast, which in the acts of trying to saveor hist last moments using anything at his disposal to save his skin. Saakashvili has been chracterizied as a paranoic, and has been prescribed a lot of medication, such as Prozac, to keep his head straight (If interested, bisit Russian news sites, if you can read Russian). Nevertheless, the Western media won the informational battle. They showed a few dead Georgian civilians (notice how they keep showing same pictures over and over of the same people) and the big bad Russian armored columns. It is only natural for people in the West to subconsciously  to put the two together and think that a huge force is moving on peaceful Georgia, forgeting that Georgia started the mess. All in all, Russia needs to step up their game in the Media. However, with a few allies left in the West, it is nearly impossible.

The Big Question: What’s in it for the U.S.?

It is really asstounding, to how ruthless politics can be. At the cost of an allied country, Washington in the end has benefitted most from this mess. Only thing left to do is stand by in awe and disgust. The NATO naval forces have amassed their ships in the Persian Gulf. Biggest naval build up in the region since the beginning of the war in Iraq. No one has noticed the build up of force in the region because the world’s attention is directed towards Georgia and the Olympics. Washington, knowing that the Olympics are not enough to keep the media occupied, had planned an escalation of the conflict in Georgia on the day of Olympics. The plan is fool proof. The media is stretched, and the world wants to know what is going on in Georgia and the Olympics, so the reporters cannot cover the build up in the Persian Gulf. Also, the forces in Kuwait are on full alert. The only times when forces are on full alert is when a big military operation is about to take place. Most likely it will be in Iraq.

The Conclusion

In the end, the battlefields in Georgia are controlled by the Russian 58-th Army. The Western leaders have already confirmed this. The media war will keep going for an undetermined amount of time. However, the battle may be lost, but the overall victory over the opinion of the masses in the West is still up for grabs. The true winner so far is the U.S. They have used this, if not planned this, to their advantage in the Persian Gulf regardeing Iran. Keep reading the news for updates. If the Western Media comes across facts of ethnic cleansing and Gerogian atrocities in the region, the Western leaders may have to turn their back and gamble away their Georgian ally.

!!Finally!!

As this analysis is being finsihed. I just came across a very interesting article by the British newspaper “The Guardian”. As I mentionaned in my previous post, the Russian will wait for things to settle and finally release the “hungry” Western journalists to look at the destruction of Tskhinvali http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia3

I highly suggest for everyone to read this, as this is the first article by the Western media to bring first hand accounts of the South Ossetian side of the war.