Gas Tug-o-War

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

Washington’s Ambitions in Crimea

FULL ARTICLE AT RUSSIATODAY.COM

Crimea is the current target of Washington’s campaign in Ukraine. Overall, the United States is after lucrative business opportunities in Ukraine, aside from becoming a bigger thorn in Russia’s side. A recent announcement by the U.S. Department of State stating that U.S. may open a diplomatic post in Simferopol in Crimea is another step toward escalation of tensions between Washington and Moscow over Ukraine.
 
Washington’s goals are fairly simple – business opportunities galore coupled with putting more pressure on Russia. Most importantly, if U.S. influence in Ukraine grows, it will be able to keep Russian gas companies in check by becoming the direct negotiator representing Ukraine on the issues regarding gas. In addition, it will be able to play its role in the politics of Europe regarding gas, thus increasing pressure on Russia.

Ukraine’s president is already a Washington supporter. Yushchenko’s …FULL ARTICLE AT RUSSIATODAY.COM

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

America Owns Georgia

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.

Georgia War Crimes in South Ossetia

Georgia denies ‘war crimes’ claim

Georgia’s president Mikhail Saakashvili: “We strongly deny any accusation of war crimes”

President Mikhail Saakashvili has denied that Georgia’s armed forces committed war crimes during their attack on South Ossetia in August.

Evidence obtained by the BBC in the breakaway region suggests Georgia used indiscriminate force, and may have targeted civilians.

Witnesses said tanks had fired on an apartment block, and civilians were shot at as they fled the fighting.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has raised the issue with Tbilisi.

South Ossetia and another region, Abkhazia, broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Georgia’s attempt to re-conquer South Ossetia triggered a Russian invasion and the most serious crisis in relations between the Kremlin and the West since the Cold War.

Witness claims

The BBC recently undertook the first unrestricted visit to South Ossetia by a foreign news organisation since the conflict.

Marina Kochieva, a doctor in the regional capital Tskhinvali’s main hospital, told our reporters that she and three relatives were targeted by a Georgian tank as they were trying to escape by car from the town on the night of 9 August.

There were certainly war crimes committed, certainly not by us Mikhail Saakashvili The claims against Georgia

She said the tank fired on her car and two other vehicles, leading them to crash into a ditch. The firing continued as she and her companions lay on the ground, she added.Georgy Tadtayev, a 21-year-old dental student, was one of the Ossetian civilians killed during the fighting.

His mother, Taya Sitnik, 45, told the BBC he bled to death in her arms on the morning of 9 August after a fragment from a Georgian tank shell hit him in the throat as they were both sheltering from artillery fire in the basement of her block of flats.

Mrs Sitnik said she subsequently saw the tank positioned a few metres from the building, firing shells into every floor. Extensive damage to the five-storey block appeared consistent with her version of events.

Mr Saakashvili said: “We strongly deny… accusation of war crimes – but of course, we are very open for any kind of comments, we are very open for any kind of investigation.

There is a high level of anger towards Georgians in South Ossetia

“We called indeed for international investigation into [the] conduct of this war, into conditions leading to this war, into circumstances leading to this invasion.”He added: “Those areas which were under Georgian control – and they were not Georgian villages, they were basically villages mostly predominantly populated by ethnic Ossetians but they were affiliated with the Georgian government – were 100% destroyed.

“So, you know, there were certainly war crimes committed, certainly not by us.”

‘Without favour’

Mr Miliband – normally a strong supporter of Georgia – told the BBC: “I think the Georgian action was reckless, I think the Russian response was disproportionate and wrong.

“And that is the series of events that have landed us where we are.

“On my visit to Tbilisi of course I raised at the highest level in Georgia, the questions that have been asked and raised about war crimes and other military actions by the Georgian authorities.

“We have acted in this without fear, without favour.”

The BBC visit also confirmed the systematic destruction of villages inside South Ossetia that were inhabited by ethnic Georgians.

Some homes appeared to have been not just burned by Ossetians, but also bulldozed by the territory’s Russian-backed authorities.

Financing the Georgian Army – Foreign Investment Galore

Following the annihilation of the Georgian Army during the South Ossetian War, NATO and other allies of Georgia have promised Georgia to help rebuild its full military potential. Having Western say in the Caucasus region seems to be the priority of the Western world.

Captured Georgian Military Equipment

The Russian military officials have reported that they captured around 150 military units, 65 of them are tanks. 44 tanks have been brought back to Russia, the rest were destroyed because they were either unfit for use or of old modifications. Georgian Armed Forces had 230-240 tanks in use before the conflict was started. Most of those tanks were modified by an Israeli firm Elbit Systems into T-72-SIM-1. During the fighting, the Russian troops also captured 5 anti-aircraft missile systems 9K33 “Osa”, 15 BMP-2, numerous 122-mm towed howitzers D-30, American armored personnel carriers, HUMVEE’s, and artillery systems of Czech design. According to Lieutenant-General Golovchenko of the North Caucasus Military District, one of the captured anti-aircraft systems registered 3 launches.

Military Bases in Gori, Senaki, and Poti

The West has condemned the Russian military for moving into Georgian territory, primarily into the port of Poti and towns of Senaki and Gori. the Georgian military completely abandoned their military bases in all of those cities. Saakashvili raised panic and evacuated civilians out of those areas, saying that the Russian and Ossetian forces will kill the civilians as a form of revenge for what the Georgian military has done to Tskhinval (Tskhinvali with an “i” at the end is a Georgian renamed city. After Medvedev declared the republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independent, the “i” was dropped, to return the city its rightful ancient name”).

The goal of the Russian military operation was not to destroy the Georgian economy, which was not good before the war already. The goal was to demilitarize the Georgian Army and to thwart Georgian military potential in the region. A lot of the captured military equipment the Russians took from Gori. 15 T-72-SIM-1 tanks, dozens of armored fighting vehicles, and artillery systems along with their ammo were captured. Part of the arsenal found in Gori was destroyed, part was taken to Russia. The explosions that the Saakashvili said were Russian bombings of Gori were actually Russian engineers destroying Georgian military equipment.

From the military bases in Senaki, Russian troops captured 1728 assault weapons. 764 American M4 carbines, 28 M-40 machine guns, and 754 various modifications of the AK. Western Media sources also say that Russian military has also captured 15 Georgian vessels, among them torpedo boats.

According to the representative of the Russian Peacekeeping Force in the Caucasus, there was enough high-caliber ammunition in Senaki to level all of Caucasus. On the base at Senaki, for the time of the conflict, the Georgian 2nd Infantry Brigade was stationed. Georgian forces left Senaki after the Russian Air Force carried out air strikes against the air field by the base.

Anatoliy Nagovitsin, the commanding General of the Russian Forces in the conflict said that 4000 assault weapons were captured, that’s not counting the ones destroyed and other military equipment captured. The American and Georgian governments have requested Russia to return the captured weapons. The Russian officials have said that they have no intent on returning the weapons, as they are captured during military operations.

Foreign Investment in the Georgian Military

According to the official statement presented by Lieutenant-General Golovchenko, there is written documentation captured by the Russian Forces that the tanks of the 1st Georgian Infantry Brigade (played biggest part in the storming of Tskhinval) underwent partial modifications in 2002 and complete modernizations in 2007 in Lvov and and other cities in Ukraine. Same thing with the BMP-2’s.

From official statements and reports to the U.N. from Ukraine, since 1999 Kiev has delivered 150 units of heavy tanks and equipment of Georgia. In the first report in 1999, among 11 other nations, Georgia was also listed as a buyer of a Rocket-Cruiser “Konotop” from Ukraine. Then, there was a four year gap in military eqiupment sales from Ukraine to Georgia. In 2004, Georgia received 6 self-propelled howitzers 2S3 “Akatsiya”. In 2005, after Yuschenko came to power and board of directors of UkrSpetsExport changed(responsible for Ukrainian weapons export), military equipment sales from Ukraine to Georgia increased dramatically. In 2005 alone, Georgia bought 15 T-72 MBTs, 12 BMP-2s, 10 BTR-80 APCs, 6 self-propelled howitzers 2S3s, 6 MI-24 “Hind” attack helicopters, and 2 MI-8 transport helicopters. In 2006 no sales were made from Ukraine to Georgia. However, Georgia still received 2 air-radar vehicles 36D6-M to control the air space around Tbilisi.

In 2007, Georgia Ukraine sold 74 T-72 MBTs, 6 BTS-5B heavy armored tracked towing vehicles, 2 self-propelled howitzers 2S7 “Pion”, 8 training aircraft L-39 (can be fitted to serve as regualr ground-attack planes). Ina Georgian official statement to the U.N., it says that it bought 5 units of the self-propelled howitzers 2S7 “Pion”, not 2, like Ukraine states.  Also, according to the Georgian version of the document, they also acquired one Anti-Air Mobile System “Buk” and 48 Anti-Tank Guided Missiles “Kombat”. Also in 2007 Tbilisi said that it bought assault weapons from Ukraine.

Looking at this statistic, how Georgia financed all of this. Georgian GDP for 2003 was 3.91 billion dollars. It’s external debt being 1.8 billion, or 40% of its GDP. Per capita income averages $700 per year. So how can Georgia buy these weapons? Simple – financial help from the West.

The biggest contributor to Georgia’s military build up was the United States. During the period of 2004 – 2007, Washington officially gave Tbilisi nearly $600 million dollars. In addition to this, Tbilisi made a special fund in 2004, that accepted donations to develop its national armed forces. Donations can be made in full anonymity from private and government organizations, as well as NGO’s and non-profit organization.

The German Controversy

Recently, the German news channel ARD released a statement saying that Georgian soldiers were photographed and noted as using the German G36 assault rifle. Western reporters were actually the ones that took pictures of the Georgian Special Forces holding G36 rifles, made by the German weapons company Heckler und Koch. The director of the informational bureau in Freiburg – Jurgen Gresslin – stated that he had no doubt that the rifles in the pictures were the H&K G36 with the shortened barrel for the special forces.

The German Minister of Economics denied Germany selling the weapons to the Georgians, as special documentation that is required for export is not on file and never has been filed. No permission has been given to Heckler und Koch to sell the guns to Tbilisi. Channel ARD, quoting the British Jane’s Defence Weekly, Heckler und Koch directed a request to the German government for sale of 230 G36 rifles to Georgia (200 of them shortened special forces versions, and 30 compact-assault versions). However, H&K’s request was denied. Although no permission was given, because it violates the German policy of not selling weapons to countries involved in territorial conflict, the G36 rifles appeared on the battlefield in South Ossetia. H&K could’ve as easily sold the weapons to a third country, who could in turn sell the weapons to Georgia.

Most Recent Confrontation

On the 19th of August, an incident took place that undermined Washington’s statements that it was delivering humanitarian help to the people of Georgia. In the Georgian town of Poti, Russian troops arrested 22 Georgian uniformed men. After interrogation, the men said that they were supposed to receive humanitarian help from the U.S. ships. As it turns out, their packages included assault weapons, rocket launchers, and plastic explosives. The Georgian soldiers were driving nearly brand new HUMVEE’s, whose odometer showed not even 400 miles. On the windows of the vehicles there were still stickers with “U.S. Property” printed on them. This incident sparked the Pentagon’s official request made by Brian Wittman to the Russian government to return “US property” to the rightful owners.

Elections ‘08, Economics, and Recent Events in the Caucasus

Win-Win for the GOP

United States in general had a win-win situation in Georgia. If Russia took no action, or anything short of intervening in force in South Ossetia, the republican party was going to take credit for putting Saakashvili in power, promoting democracy that was fighting to for its right to exist, and so on and so forth. In case of Georgia losing the war, Republicans still benefit, because in the 1980’s Reagan, who was a Republican, kept the Soviets at bay, called it an “Empire of Evil”, and took credit for toppling the Soviet government and defeating the Soviet Union. Isn’t that just great, seeing as how Obama threatens to shake the Republicans up and bring about a lot of changes, against which all of G.O.P. is fighting so hard? Obamacan only do one thing in this situation, and that is to side with McCain’s reaction to the war in Georgia. Republicans are scared of Obama, and they know that the American people do not really care about Georgia or the South Ossetians. So at the expense of thousands of dead, and hundreds of thousands left without homes, the G.O.P. decided to better their falling chances of winning the elections.

It is understandable why the Republican party simply “has to” win these elections. Their businesses in the Middle East and all of the time and money invested in planning an attack on oil rich Iran would be wasted, for Obama is looking to openly talk with Tehran, and actually make progress towards stabilizing the U.S. relations with unfriendly countries in the region.

Oil, Once Again

Anyone that knows anything about economics, if a war is erupted ina  region, usually prices of goods increase. The goods coming from Middle East are *drum roll* OIL. Ever since the wars in the Middle East started, price of oil has steadily increased and those that trade the commodity – all politicians invest their money – have made good buck on the situation. Even better, politicians are on the “inside”, meaning, they know preemptively, what the official Washington will do, thus knowing, not speculating, on whether prices of commodities increase or drop.

In addition, the BP oil pipeline runs around Russia, through Georgia. If the constant supply of oil through the region is threatened, prices will increase, as speculators in the market will anticipate a drop in the supply. The price of oil in the recent months has been steadily fluttering around $120-$130/barrel. If the prices has more or less been constant, then no one makes money. A decrease or increase is needed for those that have a lot invested in the commodity.

Putting the Two Together

George W. Bush and many other politicians are reaping the fruits (cash) of the recent events in in Georgia. Bush is a lame duck and now he is using all the power and information he has to make a buck. You can’t blame him, his approval ratings are down, his party has virtually turned on him, so now he is trying to get as much benefit from this as he can retire and live in peace.

The GOP, knowing that their credibility has been damaged is trying to use their Cold War reputation to keep its representation in the White House – basically have a Republican President. To do so, it only makes sense that if democracy is threatened (anywhere in the world) by an old nemesis (Russia), then it can say, “We’ve toppled their regime before, and we’ll do it again!”. Which is exactly what is happening. Republicans do not want change, which is the platform on which Obama is running. Obama is not ignorant, he knows that this war in the Caucasus is damaging his chances of winning the Presidential race. After all, McCain is considered to have military experience, although questionable, and Obama is just young, black Senator from Illinois.

Syria and Russia – New Naval Bases and New Markets

Middle-Eastern Promises

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"

The New Politics of the XXI Century

The New “Iron Curtain”

The United States has been accusing Russia of fueling a new Cold War and wanting to set up a new “Iron Curtain”. It is, however, the United States that is setting up a new type of a “curtain”. Let’s call it the “blinds”. It is a good analogy, for whenever Washington does not want to their citizens to know something, they simply close them, and open them whenever it is safe for them to receive harmless information from their Eastern counter parts. The Iron Curtain during the Soviet Era was basically the border between the West and the East. Politicians today are children of the Cold War. No matter what happens in the political arena, Western political leaders will still see Moscow as a threat to the “free world” and Russians as drunk, bear-wrestling people with think accents. U.S.S.R. had satellite nations, which were basically a buffer zone in case of an attack from the West. Today, that buffer zone has been eliminated, and Washington could not be happier. American troops can actually be on the border of Russia in broad daylight. the Baltic States, Ukraine, Georgia, are all lead by former or current American citizens. There are hundreds of “political” and Pentagon-employed advisors in those countries “helping” make decisions. United States accusing Russia of making a new Iron Curtain is absurd, due to the fact that the United States has been slowly creeping up to Russian borders. The “blinds” are set between Russia and the United States, running through the borders of the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia.

The E.U.

The European Union is a great idea, and has worked out well so far, for the most part. The Europeans have been doing nothing but mediating talks and conflicts, and most countries of the E.U. have avoided getting involved in conflicts in the Middle East and other places around the globe. The E.U. will always side with Washington, for Europe has never liked that Russia has so much control over the resource market. The only way to keep the “Russian Bear” at bay, is to have a big power have some leverage. That big power with leverage is the United States. E.U.’s has and oil, at least most it, comes from Russia. Europeans don’t have many resources left on their land, so they really depend on the eastern neighbor. Their politics are purely business. Although its citizens make fun of Americans and their politics, E.U. and U.S. need each other. E.U. needs the United States for pressure on Russia, and United States needs E.U. to have the power that it has. If E.U. become indifferent to U.S. politics and decides to be nutural, U.S. will stop being a big power. Nevertheless, the commercial markets and interdependency on financial and capital exchange will keep the two sides of the Atlantic bound for a long time.

Modern Political Drive

Today politicians are driven not by ideologies (Communism vs. Democracy during the Cold War), but by money. So, today’s political world should be analyzed just like a business is, but on a much bigger scale. Biggest of them all, actually. Almost every leader of any country makes decisions based on his potential financial gains, and utilizes tax payers’ money to do his dirty work. In essence using someone else’s funds to pay for business intelligence and research. President George W. Bush has stake in United Defense, Carlyle Group, and numerous other industries that relate directly to his administration’s agenda and goals. Vladimir Putin, just like most of Russian politicians have stake in Gazprom, Rosneft, and other companies that are ultimately in charge of natural resources. So, no matter what these or any other leaders say about “noble” motives for the actions (i.e. territorial integrity, anti-ethnic genocide, human rights, bringing down dictatorships, etc.), the underlying motives are always business. And if any good for the people is actually achieved, it is simply something done along the way to the ultimate goal of personal financial gain. Ideologies no matter govern political decisions. It is business, and just as was mentioned previously in this blog, resources are the sole reason for any major armed conflict. Morris 108 laid out the last major armed conflict motive very well,

“The BP run BTC pipeline is the only valuable item in Georgia, the only thing to fight over, and just 2 weeks ago, the promise of it being filled with Kazakh oil disappeared. And it disappeared into Russia’s hands. Within a week the pipeline was blown up, and the Georgian offensive started.” Full Article Here

Another example is Sudan. United States politicians, to keep citizens of the U.S. happy, have been criticizing the events in Darfur. However, no direct action has been taken. None of the world really has, and that is because Sudan doesn’t have enough resources in it’s land to have interest of big businesses. Today, ethics have nothing to do with big political decisions of any player of the Big Game.

China and the Rest of Asia

China has been knocking on Siberia’s door for decades. Starting with earliest provocations along Amur and Ussuri rivers, biggest of them all being on Damanskiy Island in 1969 with tens of Russian border troops killed in open armed conflict and hundreds of Chinese soldiers killed (thanks to introduction of the new “Grad” system, which was also used by Georgians in the South Ossetian War). China, although has a lot of sparsely settled land the West, has most of the populations living along the Pacific Coast, because a lot of its resources and jobs are in major cities, all of which are along the Eastern Coast. Once again, resources come into play. China, today, imports a lot of resources. It’s exports are slowing down (read China Today’s trade section, and you will notice this trend as well). It’s population is growing. Russia is the target of the People’s Republic because of the abundance of resources. The abundance of living space, resources, and business opportunity drives the Chinese to keep disputing over Russian territories and they actually send people into Russia to live, to drive out the Russian population, so some time in the future, they will have no problem having population support of historically Russian regions wanting to join PRC (smart, you have to admit).

The rest of Asia is simply living in their own world. They have enough problems of their own, and their leaders have no problem being corrupt and making cash. If anything, leaders of most Asian countries don’t want to be involved in the politics on the world scale, for it will bring too much attention to their corrupt governments.

The Conclusion

Smartest political players have already transitions into the 21st century mentality, that business runs everything. Expect events to heat up from here on in. The South Ossetia War in Georgia has started a new crack between the East and the West. Sides are going to be chosen, and the alliances made within the next few years will remain such for decades on. A new Cold War, more ferocious and dangerous has begun. This one, however, is not of ideologies between the West and the East, it is a war of business interests between resource rich, and resource needy.

“The Times” on the War in South Ossetia

Vladimir Putin’s mastery checkmates the West

Russia has been biding its time, but its victory in Georgia has been brutal – and brilliant

Michael Binyon

Russia accused of cluster bomb abuse | Video: Journalists attacked in Ossetia | Rice in Georgia amid scorched earth claims

The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia’s national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.

Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia’s views no longer mattered.

A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato’s door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington’s ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.

More infuriating was Western encouragement of “freedom” in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.

Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia’s. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.

Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi’s undoing.

It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.

Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine – “hands off the Americas” – has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies – in Cuba and Nicaragua.

Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard – Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.

The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.

It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush’s remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).

The attack was short, sharp and deadly – enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches – on both sides – Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.

Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan’s invasion of Grenada to “rescue” US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.

There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics – remember your geography. To Nato – do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi – do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington – does Russia’s voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.