Bush intends to punish Moscow for invading Georgia - US navy ship steams into port where Russian troops stationed

Bush intends to punish Moscow for invading Georgia

 

 

By JENNIFER LOVEN,

President Bush is poised to punish Moscow for its invasion of Georgia by canceling a once-celebrated deal for civilian nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Russia.

With relations between the two nations in a nearly Cold Warlike freeze over Russia’s actions against its neighbor last month, planning is under way at the White House for the largely symbolic move by Bush, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not yet final. Action could come quickly, within days at the most, and officials see no need to wait until Vice President Dick Cheney returns next Wednesday from an overseas trip that includes stops in three former Soviet republics.

Withdrawing the agreement from Capitol Hill would have little actual impact, as the deal very likely would not gain approval during Bush’s presidency.

But taking the overt and public step of pulling it would be intended to send a message to Russia and the world that its actions in Georgia last month are not acceptable and will not go unanswered.

It would require a statement by Bush to Congress that the deal is “no longer in the national security interests” of the United States. A future president could reverse that and send the agreement back to Congress.

Signed in May by the two nations, the administration originally presented the deal as a landmark breakthrough.

It represented a significant reversal in policy for the U.S. on cooperation with Russia on nuclear issues. It would give the U.S. access to state-of-the-art Russian nuclear technology and clear the way for Russia to establish itself as a lucrative center for the import and storage of spent nuclear fuel from American-supplied reactors around the world. Such a deal was seen as crucial to boosting relations with Russia, and to fulfilling Bush’s vision of increasing civilian nuclear energy use worldwide as a way to combat rising energy demands and climate change.

But key lawmakers were suspicious of it even before the disastrous Russia-Georgia war.

Some feared it would undermine efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, because of Russia’s extensive business and energy — including nuclear — ties with Tehran. That has so far prevented a move to approve the deal, and now there isn’t enough time left in the fall legislative calendar for the required review period to run out and have the agreement take effect without congressional action.

After years of tensions between Russia and Georgia, the recent fighting began Aug. 7 when Georgia’s military tried to re-establish control over its breakaway province of South Ossetia. Russia joined the battle, brutally repelled the Georgian offensive and then pushed deep into Georgia proper, where many of its forces remain.

Both sides signed a cease-fire, but Russia has ignored its requirement for all forces to return to prewar positions.

Administration officials determined almost immediately that Russia must suffer some consequences for its actions and wanted to take punitive measures in concert with Europe. But they have been frustrated at the lack of similar resolve among allies, who have offered condemnation of Russia but little else.

If Bush decides against pulling the deal, there are other penalty options available.

The administration could insist that Russia continue to be quietly left out of any discussions among the elite Group of Eight nations, essentially denying Russia membership in the club of major industrialized democracies without actually kicking it out.

The United States also could sell sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank military hardware to Georgia.

A $1 billion economic recovery package for Georgia that Bush announced Wednesday — and which puts the tiny, impoverished nation in the top tier of U.S foreign aid recipients — does not include any military aid. But the U.S. had been helping the Georgian military modernize and U.S. officials have said it is likely that more military assistance will be forthcoming at some point to help the badly routed Georgian forces rebuild again.

Moscow has greeted such talk with anger, already accusing the U.S. of instigating or even helping Georgia make its ill-fated incursion into South Ossetia.

Among the most aggressive moves in Washington’s potential arsenal are withdrawing its support for Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization or trying to strip Russia of the right to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, now scheduled to be held in the Black Sea town of Sochi, near the border with Georgia. These options have been all but rejected as too harsh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_russia

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

”””””””””””””””””””””””””

US navy ship steams into port where Russian troops stationed

 

 

 

 

The USS Mount Whitney,  today made a controversial landing at the port of Poti
 

James Hider in Tbilisi

A US navy flagship has steamed into a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed, stoking tensions once again in the tinderbox Caucasus region.

A previous trip by American warships was cancelled at the last minute a week ago amid fears that an armed stand off could erupt in the Black Sea port of Poti.

The arrival of the USS Mount Whitney came as Moscow accused Dick Cheney, the hawkish US vice-president, of stoking tensions during a visit to Tbilisi yesterday, in which he vowed to bring Georgia into the Nato alliance. Russia sees any such move as a blatant Western encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence.

Russia’s leadership has already questioned whether previous US warships that docked at the port of Batumi, to the south, were delivering weapons to rearm the smashed Georgian military, something Washington has denied.

While Russia again questioned the deployment of what it described as “the number one ship of its type in the US navy” on the Black Sea, it said it planned no military action in response. The Russian Army has kept a small number of soldiers in Poti, where local Georgian officials accuse them of looting port authority buildings.

“Naval ships of that class can hardly deliver a large amount of aid,” said Andrei Nesterenko, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman. “Such ships of course have a hold for keeping provisions for the crew and items needed for sailing. How many dozens of tonnes of aid can a ship of that type deliver?”

He said the presence of US warships could contravene international conventions governing shipping on the Black Sea, and - in particular - restricting the entry of naval ships from countries that do not share a Black Sea coastline.

Militarily, the small Russian garrison in Poti would pose almost no threat to a vessel like the Mount Whitney, but the proximity of two hostile forces in such a fraught setting set the political temperature rising again in the Caucasus, a month after Russia’s five day war with Georgia.

The American warship is too large to actually enter the port, where Russia sunk several Georgian navy vessels in its offensive last month. Instead, it is expected anchor offshore and unload its cargo of blankets, hygiene kits, baby food and infant care supplies on to smaller boats.

“I can confirm it has arrived in Poti. Anchoring procedures are still ongoing but it has arrived,” said a US naval official.

Moscow, which followed up its crushing military defeat of Georgia by unilaterally recognising the independence of two of its breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was fuming that Mr Cheney still insisted on Georgia’s entrance into the Atlantic alliance – something several key NATO members are wary of.

“The new promises to Tbilisi relating to the speedy membership of NATO simply strengthen the Saakashvili regime’s dangerous feeling of impunity and encourages its dangerous ambitions,” said Mr Nesterenko.

Washington has also pledged one billion dollars in aid to help Georgia rebuild after Russia pounded many of its military bases to dust and targeted important infrastructure.

The brief conflict has left thousands of Georgians homeless, including many driven from South Ossetia and the surrounding Russian buffer zone inside Georgia itself.

Georgian officials have accused the Russian-backed Ossetian militias of “ethnically cleansing” remote villages, while Moscow has charged Tbilisi with “genocide” for its heavy handed attack on the breakaway region last month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4682003.ece

 

Russia Takes Strategic Advantage From America’s War Against Islamic World

Russia Takes Strategic Advantage

From America’s War Against Islamic World

 

 

By: STRATFOR

The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:

The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program , demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.

The Russian Resurgence
In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan ( and above all to Iran ) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.

The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.

On Sunday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger . Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.

The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”

Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy.

These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.

This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.

The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany’s defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.

The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option , in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black , Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.

But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.

More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.

In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad . This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia’s actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.

At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.

The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.

This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.

The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.

The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.

There are four broad U.S. options:

Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.
Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO . On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.
Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans . On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia’s re-emergence.

Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.
We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.

If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.

We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.

Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.

We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.

By George Friedman

Link

Russia to create electromagnetic super weapon - Russia to send ‘humanitarian aid’ to Cuba - US invades Pakistan — but no complaints from the ‘international community’

Russia to create electromagnetic super weapon 

 

 

 

Technologies and discoveries 

Defense strategists place their stakes on high-tech weapons. Nearly all superpowers of the world conduct their works in the development of such weapons. It transpired recently that Russian scientists developed a generator, the capacity of which is comparable to that of a nuclear unit. It is a genuine scientific breakthrough, and it is already clear that the defense industry will not be the only field where the new super device is going to be used.

An individual, who is miles away from physics and is only familiar with home electricity, will not be able to imagine the power of several billions of watts. It will be even harder to imagine that such power can be generated by a device that is fit to be placed on a table.

“The devices generating such power – billions of watts – used to be very large in size before. This appliance has a very short impulse, which makes it possible to have it on a desk – it is a very compact device,” the Director of Lebedev’s Institute of Physics, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Gennady Mesyats said.

Mikhail Yalandin, one of the creators of the miraculous machine, said that the scientists had assembled two of such devices in Yekaterinburg – a bigger and a smaller one.

Never before had a relatively small device ever been able to generate electromagnetic impulses the capacity of which could be comparable to a huge water power plant. It is ten times as much as any foreign-made analogue.

The new device can be used practically anywhere. The invention will let specialists create radar telescopes and radars of new generation. Missile troops and defense departments on the whole will most likely be the first customers to order the appliance. The new generators can also be used to check the stability of large energy objects and systems. The device is capable of imitating the strays which appear as a result of a lightning strike or even a nuclear blast.

It is impossible to take photographs or film a video of the new generator in action because it immediately puts all electronic devices out of order.

The research that was used for the creation of such a device can be applied in the development of electromagnetic weapons.

“No one has ever studied biological effects of such impulses. It is obvious that it affects the electronic equipment near it. Computers or cell phones have to be screened from such radiation,” Mikhail Yalandin, a senior specialist of the Institute of Electrophysics said.

The device was called Nika, which means ‘victory’.

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/04-09-2008/106296-electromagnetic_super_weapon-0

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

”””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Russia to send ‘humanitarian aid’ to Cuba

 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered planeloads of humanitarian aid to be sent to Cuba - recently battered by Hurricane Gustav.

“Under orders from the Russian president, the emergency situations ministry is sending a cargo of humanitarian aid to Cuba,” said spokeswoman for the Russian ministry for natural disasters and emergency situations, Irina Andrianova Tuesday.

She added that four planes would carry ‘construction materials, food and essential supplies’ for Cubans.

RIA Novosti quoted Andrianova as saying that the first two planes were scheduled to take off for Cuba on Wednesday.

Hurricane Gustav blew through western Cuba with 150 mile per hour (240 kph) winds, damaging around 86,000 houses and leaving much of the region without electricity.

While no death has been recorded in Cuba, some 250,000 people were evacuated in four western provinces.

The report comes amid White House claims that Russia is mulling reigniting its close relationship with its former ally Cuba in a counter-measure against the US ‘defense missile shield’ which will be built in Eastern Europe.

 

Russia sends two more aid planes to hurricane-stricken Cuba

Russia sent two more aircraft carrying humanitarian aid to hurricane-stricken Cuba on Friday, a Russian emergencies service spokesperson said.

“The first Il-76 cargo aircraft took off at 10:40 a.m. Moscow time 06:40 GMT, and the second one at around 11:00 a.m. Moscow time 07:00 GMT. They will deliver around 60 metric tons of humanitarian cargo,” the spokesperson said.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the emergencies service to send four aircraft to Cuba to deliver tents for 5,000 people, construction materials, and food in the wake of Hurricane Gustav. The first two cargo aircraft arrived in Cuba on Thursday.

Hurricane Gustav swept through Cuba last Saturday with winds reaching 300 km p/h (186 mph) as it hit the Isla de la Juventud, to the south of the Cuban mainland.

The storm later swept through the province of Pinar del Rio on the country’s western tip, damaging around 86,000 houses and leaving much of the region without power.

No hurricane-related fatalities have been reported in Cuba, although Gustav took some 120 lives in other Caribbean islands, including Haiti, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic.

Tropical Storm Hanna has also killed at least 150 people in Haiti since Tuesday.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080905/116568768.html

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

US invades Pakistan — but no complaints from the ‘international community’

 

I love it! I just came across an article, “Did We Just Invade Pakistan?” but you’ll search in vain for any headline in the mainstream media that even comes close to calling it a US invasion of Pakistan.

This is how the BBC reported it,

“Pakistan fury over ‘US assault’ Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador to protest at an alleged cross-border raid which officials say killed at least 15 villagers in the north-west.”

Talk about double-standards!

Note that the BBC puts the ‘US assault’ in single quotes and talks of an ‘alleged cross-border raid’ which calls into question whether or not the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ did in fact assault, invade or otherwise use its helicopter gunships against yet another sovereign nation killing perhaps twenty people some of which are, by one report, children (‘US forces kill 20 in Pakistan cross-border raid’).

Predictably of course, the US denies that it ‘assaulted’ Pakistan. The BBC is not merely the mouthpiece for the UK state but also for the US. So much for ‘objective’ journalism. (For a cross-section of reactions see ‘Pakistan News-links 3-4 September 2008’.)

So what gives here? How come when Russia conducts a ‘cross-border raid’ to repel an invasion by Georgia of the Autonomous Region of Southern Ossetia, we read how it’s condemned by the ‘international community’? But then the ‘international community’ is at best ten countries, all of which are ‘allies’ of the US.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=4284

In the Eye of the Storm of the Credit Crisis Hurricane - GM, Ford, Chrysler on Sales Collapse Risk Bankruptcy - House prices suffer biggest fall since records began

In the Eye of the Storm of the Credit Crisis Hurricane

 

 

As we enter the height of the hurricane season, it may be worthwhile to recall, when considering the economy at large, the particular deception that lurks in the “eye” of the storm. After a raging tempest, the sudden appearance of the calm ‘eye’ can all too easily encourage people to leave their shelter in order to assess and even repair damage, exposing themselves to the often more devastating second leg of the hurricane.

We have long warned our readers of a coming real estate crash which would then lead to a credit crunch, and eventually a major round of bank failures. We have argued that these developments would be the precursors to a major recession, and perhaps a depression.
As predicted, the collapsing values of bonds backed by subprime mortgages did indeed lead to a collapse of the entire mortgage market, a bank liquidity crisis, a credit crunch and a steep fall in consumer confidence. This was the first leg of the storm, but the full blown banking collapse and the deep recession are not yet manifest. The conventional wisdom holds that the bullet has been dodged.

The markets are buying this hypothesis. Tempted by the latest crop of economic data that seems to show expansion, U.S. stocks have moved sideways, and even climbed slowly. The U.S. dollar has risen from its lows, and the rate of bank failures appears to be under control. In short, with gold off almost twenty percent from its highs, it looks as if many investors have concluded that the worst of the storm has past, and have decided look for good deals amid the stock market wreckage. Proceed with caution.

At its core, our economy is simply showing the effects of a national depletion of wealth caused by decades of consuming more than we produce and spending more than we earn. The natural corrective mechanism to such a condition is a recession. But recession is very bad for politics, especially in an election year. So, the potential corrective recession has been postponed by a massive injection of billions of dollars into the economy. At a time when we needed serious physical therapy, the government instead offered four massive pain killers:

-First, the debased U.S. dollar has boosted exports and helped the GDP to remain positive.

-Second, by setting interest rates below the rate of inflation the Federal Reserve discouraged savings and encouraged borrowing and spending.

-Third, massive government lending kept the financial service industry solvent and the mortgage lenders operating.

-Fourth, stimulus checks have kept American’s spending money that they have not earned.

Although these government palliatives have succeeded in calming the immediate crisis (by saddling American taxpayers with massive liabilities), they have not cured the disease. If anything the huge doses indicate that the patient is getting far worse, even if in silence!

Last week, the FDIC announced that bank losses have tripled to $26.4 billion, leading to a fall of 86.5 percent in bank earnings. The Case- Shiller home price index shows American housing to have fallen in value by some 20 percent and still sliding. These massive movements have yet to be felt along the entire economic spectrum…but it is inevitable that they will be.

Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security and start buying U.S. equities at seemingly knockdown prices. We are in the eye of the hurricane. Beware of the second leg!

 

By John Browne
Euro Pacific Capital
http://www.europac.net/

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

 

GM, Ford, Chrysler on Sales Collapse Risk Bankruptcy

 

 

 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting Auto Sales Tumble, But Industry Sees Signs of Hope .
Sales of cars and light trucks fell 15.5% to 1.25 million last month, down from 1.48 million a year earlier, according to Autodata Corp. The closely watched seasonally adjusted annualized selling rate was 13.7 million vehicles, up from 12.55 million in July, but down from 16.3 million in August 2007, Autodata said.
“There are early indications of somewhat improving conditions,” said Ford Motor Co. economist Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, in a conference call with analysts and reporters. She pointed to a decline of about 40 cents a gallon in the price of gasoline, improvement in a key measure of consumer confidence and an upward revision in the federal government’s estimate of second-quarter economic growth.

“The biggest issue is credit,” Chrysler President Jim Press said in an interview. “It isn’t the gas mileage of the vehicles turning people off, it’s getting credit and financing.

Disingenuous Talk At GM, Ford, Chrysler

There are no legitimate reasons to state “There are indications of somewhat improving conditions”. Falling crude prices are a strong sign of a collapsing global economy. Second quarter GDP is simply not believable. See GDP Much Weaker Than Headline Numbers for the rationale.

To suggest that auto financing issues are “the biggest issue” is complete silliness. People are tapped out and increasingly frugality is one issue. GM, Ford, and Chrysler producing SUVs, trucks, and cars that are now out of favor is another reason.

Car Sales Post 10th Straight Decline

Bloomberg is reporting GM, Ford Drag U.S. Car Sales to 10th Straight Decline .

Here is my favorite quote from the article. It is from Chrysler President Jim Press: ” Maybe towards the end of ‘09, going into 2010, there’ll start to be some signs of recovery. “

GM Celebrates

In celebration of our 100th anniversary, we’re sharing our GM Employee Discount . You pay what we pay. Not a cent more.

2009 models include Chevy HHR, Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, Equinox, Avalanche, Silverado, Buick Enclave, Pontiac G5, G6, Vibe, G8, Solstice, Torrent, GMC Acadia, Sierra, Saturn Aura, SKY, OUTLOOK, Cadillac CTS, SRX, DTS, STS, HUMMER H2 and H3. At participating dealers only. Take delivery by 9/30/08. See dealer for details.

If things were improving, would GM be celebrating?

On June 24 GM announced price hikes on 2009 models by an average of 3.5%. I called it GM’s Ridiculous Bluff . Indeed it was.

I panned GM’s Employee Pricing Ploy on August 19th with this statement:

” GM is offering over $4,000 in incentives and extending the offer to some 2009 models as well. It will not be long before the offer is extended to all 2009 models (and/or some other incentive program is put in place for 2009 models). “

Well that did not take too long.

The original offer was due to expire on September 2nd, but has now been extended to September 30th. Coverage of included 2009 models has been expanded to most 2009 models as noted in the above list.

Shop Until You Drive

Chrysler continued its ‘Shop ‘Til You Drive’ Campaign by offering Up to 40 Percent Off MSRP.
“To help consumers, we are offering some of our most popular vehicles at significant savings. In August, we saw this formula generate new signs of momentum on vehicles like our Chrysler and Dodge minivans, Dodge Ram light-duty trucks and Jeep(R) Liberty. In September, we will continue to offer competitive values and showcase dynamic new vehicles like the 2009 Dodge Challenger, and hybrid Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen SUVs.”

Chrysler’s ‘Shop ’til You Drive Sales Event’ continues through Sept. 30, offering up to 40 percent off MSRP on select vehicles, and zero percent APR for 72-months on the 2008 Dodge Ram, Dodge Durango, Chrysler Aspen, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Commander. Especially strong values are available on Dodge Ram pickup trucks, with up to $9,000 discounts in select markets. The only sign of momentum is in reverse. Nonetheless, at 40% off Chrysler will eventually clear inventory. What a difference from 2006.

Chrysler Achieves All Financial Targets

Chrysler CEO says Chrysler Shrinking to a Profitable Size .
Chrysler cut a million units of assembly capacity in the past year, pared its lineup and now will thin its dealer ranks with a goal of making money on annual sales of as many as 2.5 million vehicles, down from an “unprofitable” 4 million, Press said today in Los Angeles.

In the first half of 2008, “we’ve achieved all of our financial targets that Cerberus set at the start of the year,” Press said. Those must have been the easiest financial targets in automotive history.

Chrysler Tops Peers in Bankruptcy Risk

On August 15 Bloomberg reported Chrysler Tops Peers in Bankruptcy Risk, JPMorgan Says .
Chrysler LLC is the most likely of the three U.S. automakers to file for bankruptcy protection in the next two years, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said, citing a panel discussion among credit-rating companies.

General Motors Corp. is the next most likely and Ford Motor Co. is the least, JPMorgan analyst Himanshu Patel wrote in a report today, quoting discussion yesterday by analysts from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings. S&P and Moody’s both cut Chrysler’s credit one level on Aug. 7, seven steps below investment grade.

Moody’s cut GM’s rating to Caa1 on Aug. 13. S&P lowered GM and Ford to B- on July 31. Fitch downgraded Ford to B- on Aug. 1, matching its action on GM on June 25.

Without government (taxpayer) bailouts, these companies simply cannot survive.

By Mike “Mish” Shedlock

 

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

 

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/

 

 

 

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

 

 

House prices suffer biggest fall since records began

 

House prices fell by 1.8% in August, bringing the average price of a property in the UK below the government’s new stamp duty threshold, figures showed today

The UK’s largest lender, Halifax, said the average price of a property had fallen by 12.7% since last August - the biggest fall since it began publishing a monthly survey in the early 1980s.

Prices have dropped by more than £25,000 since August 2007 when the average cost of a home was £199,612, and by more than £3,000 since July.

The average house price now stands at £174,178.

This is below the new £175,000 stamp duty threshold introduced by the government on Tuesday as a temporary measure designed to stimulate the housing market.

The annual price fall quoted by Halifax is 10.9% - lower than the fall shown by comparing the average prices in August this year and the same month last year.

This is because the lender calculates the annual change on the basis of three months’ figures, which it says gives a fairer representation of what is happening in the market.

This is the first time that figure has been in double-digits since the survey began in 1983.

Last week, rival lender Nationwide also reported a first double-digit fall in prices, saying values were down 10.5% year-on-year.

The 1.8% fall in August reported by Halifax followed a 1.7% drop in July and was the sixth consecutive monthly fall of more than 1.5%.

Martin Ellis, Halifax’s chief economist, said market conditions looked set to remain “challenging”.

He said: “The pressure on householders’ income, together with the reduction in the availability of mortgage finance due to the global financial markets crisis, is resulting in both lower property prices and activity levels.”

But he said the market continued to be supported by high employment levels, low interest rates and a shortage of new houses.

He added: “This week’s announcement on stamp duty is a welcome development and will benefit a significant number of homebuyers, particularly outside the south-east.”

Decline as a deterrent

House prices have been falling since last autumn when the credit crunch started to reduce the availability of mortgages, making it harder for first-time buyers to raise funds to buy a property.

The sharp downturn in prices - and predictions of further falls to come - has also deterred would-be buyers.

Figures published by the Bank of England on Monday showed the number of mortgage approvals for house purchases fell to a record low in July, and surveyors and estate agents have reported low levels of buyer interest over the summer.

Although the stamp duty change has been welcomed by lenders and buyers, many experts say the continued lack of mortgages will continue to dampen demand.

“Major downward pressure on house prices continues to come from extremely weak market activity, stretched buyer affordability, and tight lending conditions,” said Howard Archer, chief UK economist at Global Insight.

Archer added that rising unemployment could also lead to an increase in the number of homeowners putting their properties on the market for “distressed” reasons, which would further depress prices.

“Given these very poor fundamentals for the housing market, it is unlikely that the recently announced government measures to support the housing market will have a significant impact in stabilising activity or prices,” he said.

Mortgage cuts

Although an interest rate cut might encourage buyers into the market, Archer said the high level of inflation in the UK meant the Bank of England was likely to hold rates when it made its decision today.

There has been some good news for borrowers in recent weeks, however, as mortgage rates have started to edge down.

According to Moneyfacts, the average cost of a two-year mortgage has returned to its pre-credit crunch level - dropping to 6.39% from a peak of 7.08% in early July.

And today, Abbey announced it was cutting rates on its two-, three- and five-year fixed-rate loans by up to 0.3%.

First-time buyers have also been given a glimmer of hope, with Skipton building society announcing it would be renewing offering 95% mortgages from September 15.

However, the deal is only available to borrowers who save with the society or who have family members who do.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/sep/04/houseprices.property

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan …backs Russia over Georgia Arms Embargo - A Major War: Not Just Rumors

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan …

backs Russia over Georgia Arms Embargo

 

 

Heads of the security councils of a post-Soviet security bloc have backed a Russian proposal to impose an arms embargo on Georgia, the head of the Russian Security Council said on Wednesday. (Cache of Georgian arms found in Kodori Gorge - Image gallery)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that Moscow would like to see the imposition of an embargo on arms supplies to Georgia until a change of leadership takes place in the Caucasus state.

“We are against arming Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s regime, and creating preconditions for the genocide of this or another ethnic group,” Nikolai Patrushev said following a session of the heads of the security councils of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Yerevan, Armenia.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization is a security grouping comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

“We know that a number of countries had been supplying arms to Georgia and Saakashvili, and that the country’s military budget had increased by more than 30 times. It is clear that they were preparing for it military conflict,” Patrushev said.

South Ossetia was attacked by Georgian forces on August 8. The majority of residents of South Ossetia hold Russian citizenship, and Moscow launched a massive operation to expel Georgian troops from the region and to reinforce its peacekeepers.

According to information provided last month by the Russian General Staff, since 2005, Georgian tank numbers increased from 98 to 183, armored vehicles from 83 to 134, artillery weapons from 96 to 238, combat helicopters from three to nine, and warplanes from seven to nine.

“We cannot but be concerned that humanitarian aid to Georgia is delivered by NATO warships equipped with modern weapons,” Patrushev said.

Tensions between Russia and the West have been heightened further by the build up in the Black Sea of U.S. and NATO naval vessels delivering humanitarian aid to Georgia. In an apparent response, Russia last week sent a group of warships, including the Moskva missile cruiser, to Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia.

The U.S. has staunchly supported its ally Georgia throughout the crisis and has sent millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to the South Caucasus state. Russia has however expressed concern over the aid shipments, saying that it suspects they could include arms. The U.S. has denied the allegation.

Patrushev also said that the security organization backed Russia’s response to the Georgian military offensive in South Ossetia.

“The heads of the CSTO security councils have also backed Russia’s measures, just like the SCO members did earlier… There is no doubt that the Georgians deliberately started the war,” he said.

China and the other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) voiced their support last month for Russia’s actions in regard to Georgia and South Ossetia following the recent conflict.

The security bloc, seen as a counterweight to NATO’s influence in Eurasia, comprises China, Russia, and four Central Asian states - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

However, the Asian countries stopped short of backing Russia’s move to recognize the independence of the breakaway province, along with Georgia’s other rebel region, Abkhazia.

Russia officially recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia last week despite Western warnings, saying the move was needed to protect the regions.

Meanwhile, Yury Zhadobin, the state secretary of the Belarusian Security Council, told journalists on Wednesday that the issue of South Ossetia and Abkhazia joining the Union State of Russia and Belarus was likely to be discussed Thursday at a meeting of CSTO foreign ministers.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080903/116521515.html

 

 

——————————–

Nicaragua recognizes independence of Abkhaiza & South Ossetia

 

The Nicaraguan government “recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia”, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega told a rally held on the occasion of the 29th anniversary of the creation of the Sandinista armed forces of Nicaragua.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13037604&PageNum=0

Venezuela did it last week.

---

Only one Western source reporting this at the moment - NASDAQ…

Nicaragua Recognizes South Ossetia, Abkazia

(RTTNews) - Daniel Ortega, the left-leaning President of Nicaragua, announced Wednesday that his country recognizes the independence of the two breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“The government of Nicaragua recognizes the independence of the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and we fully agree with the Russian government’s position that that conflict may end through dialogue with European countries,” said President Daniel Ortega in a speech.

With Ortega’s announcement on Thursday, Nicaragua became the second country to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Russia.

Last week, Russia had recoganized the independence of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkazia, despite strong objections from the Western countries.

Russia responded to a Georgian effort to annex the breakaway region of South Ossetia by force by launching a massive counter-attack and by occupying large parts of Georgian territory.

link

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””

---

 

A Major War: Not Just Rumors

 

The crisis in relations between the United States and Russia over Georgia heralds a particularly dangerous period in world affairs: the era of asymmetrical multipolarity. A major war between two or more major powers is more likely in this configuration than in any other model of global balance known to history. The most stable system is bipolarity based on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which was prevalent from the 1950s until the end of the Cold War. The awareness of both superpowers that they would inflict severe and unavoidable reciprocal damage on each other or their allies in a nuclear war was coupled with the acceptance that each had a sphere of dominance or vital interest that should not be infringed upon.

With Brest-Litovsk and the Barbarossa in mind, Stalin “intended to turn the countries conquered by Soviet armies into buffer zones to protect Russia” (Kissinger). The Western equivalent, also essentially defensive, was defined by the Truman Doctrine (1947) Proxy wars were fought in the grey zone all over the Third World, most notably in the Middle East, but they were kept localized even when a superpower was directly involved (Vietnam, Afghanistan). This model was the product of unique circumstances without an adequate historical precedent, however, which are unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future.

The most stable model of international relations that is both historically recurrent and structurally repeatable in the future is the balance of power system in which no single great power is either physically able or politically willing to seek hegemony. This model was prevalent from the Peace of Westphalia (1648) until Napoleon, from Waterloo until around 1900, and from Versailles until 1933. It demands a relative equilibrium between the key powers (usually five to seven) that hold each other in check and function within a recognized set of rules that has come to be known as “international law.” Wars between great powers do occur, but they are limited in scope and intensity because the warring parties tacitly accept the fundamental legitimacy and continued existence of their opponent(s).

If one of the powers becomes markedly stronger than others and if its decision-making elite internalizes an ideology that demands or at least justifies hegemony, the inherently unstable system of asymmetrical multipolarity will develop. In all three known instances—Napoleonic France after 1799, the Kaiserreich from around 1900, and the Third Reich after 1933—the challenge could not be resolved without a major war.

The government of the United States is now acting in a manner structurally reminiscent of those three powers. Having proclaimed itself the leader of an imaginary “international community,” it goes further than any previous would-be hegemon in treating the entire world as the American sphere of interest. As I pointed out two weeks ago, the formal codification came in the National Security Strategy of September 2002, which presented the specter of open-ended political, military, and economic domination of the world by the United States acting unilaterally against “rogue states” and “potentially hostile powers” and in pursuit of an end to “destructive national rivalries.” To that end, the administration pledged “to keep military strength beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”

Any attempt by a single power to keep its military strength beyond challenge is inherently destabilizing, and results—sooner or later—in the emergence of an effective counter-coalition. Napoleon finally faced one at the Völkerschlacht at Leipzig in 1813. “There is no balance of power in Europe but me and my twenty-four army corps,” the Kaiser famously boasted in 1901. Within years he was also building a high seas fleet. By 1907, Wilhelmine Germany engendered a counter-coalition that prompted even traditional rivals like Britain and Russia to join forces (the latter to be replaced by the United States in 1917). And as for the most recent Griff nach der Weltmacht, by the second week of December 1941 Germany was irrevocably doomed to another defeat.

An early yet certain symptom of destabilizing asymmetry in action is the would-be hegemon’s tendency to claim an ever-widening sphere of influence or interference at the expense of his rivals. In the run-up to 1914 this was heralded by the Kruger Telegram (1896) and exemplified by the German bid to build the railway from Berlin to Baghdad (1903) and by the First Moroccan Crisis (1905). Neither Napoleon nor Hitler knew any «natural» limits, but their ambition was essentially confined to Europe. With the United States today the novelty is that this ambition is extended—literally—to the whole world. Not only the Western Hemisphere, not just the «Old Europe,» Japan, or Israel, but also Taiwan, Korea, and such unlikely places as Georgia, Estonia, Kosovo, or Bosnia, are considered vitally important. The globe itself is now effectively claimed as America’s sphere of influence, Russia’s Caucasian, European and Central Asian back yards most emphatically included.

Four weeks ago the game itself became alarmingly asymmetrical. For America it is still ideological, but for Russia it has become existential. Russia is now acting as a conservative, pre-1914 European power in seeking to protect its “near abroad.” America is acting like a global revolutionary power, whose “near abroad” is literally everywhere.

It is therefore futile for Russia to try to “manage” the crisis in a pre-1914 manner and hope for some elusive softening on the other side, because the calculus in Washington is not rational. The counter-strategy of unpredictability, exemplified by Medvedev’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is an eminently rational response, however. It may yet force the remnant of sanity inside the Beltway to try and exercise some adult supervision over the bipartisan “foreign policy community” of smokers in the arsenal.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10053

The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq - US-Iraqi Agreement: Leaked

The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq

 

How the Bush Administration is Helping McCain

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Political events in Iraq are seldom what they seem. The hand- over by the US military of control of Anbar province, once the heartland of the Sunni rebellion, to Iraqi forces is a case in point. The US will keep 25,000 American soldiers in Anbar, so the extent to which the Iraqi government will really take over is debatable. But the future of Anbar is a crucial pointer to the fate of Iraq. It is a vast area and one of the few parts of Iraq that is overwhelmingly Sunni.

The Iraqi government is dominated by Shia Islamic parties in alliance with Kurdish nationalists. The vital question now is whether or not this Shia-dominated government can reassure the Sunni minority that they are not going to be overrun as the US withdraws its forces. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is in a very confident mood. In the past four months he feels he has successfully faced down the Shia militiamen of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by taking back control of Basra, Sadr City and Amarah. Then he refused to sign a new security accord with the US which President George Bush wanted to see agreed by August 31.

In the past few weeks he has been confronting his Kurdish allies over the future of the oil city of Kirkuk and the town of Khanaqin.

Mr Maliki may be overplaying his hand but there is no doubt that the Iraqi state is becoming more powerful in Iraq and the Mahdi Army, the Americans and the Kurds less so. The Americans in particular feel that he exaggerates the extent to which his success against the Mahdi Army was because of the new strength of the Iraqi security forces.

These troops were doing badly until they received American support.
Nevertheless, Mr Maliki’s position is strong. He seems to have realized that he may need the US, but the US also cannot do without him and is in no position to replace him as it did with his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Much of what the White House is now doing is done to help the Republicans in the presidential election. The aim is to give the impression that Iraq has finally come right for the US and victory is finally in its grasp. The surge is promoted as the strategy by which the tide was turned and it is true that the Sunni uprising against the US occupation has largely ended.

But it has done so for reasons that have little to do with the surge or American actions of any kind. Crucial to the success of the government against the Mahdi Army has been the support of Iran. It is they who arranged for the Shia militiamen to go home.

It takes real cheek for Mr Bush to claim yesterday that “Anbar is no longer lost to al-Qa’ida” since during the last presidential election in 2004, he was claiming that the media was exaggerating the success of the insurgents.

Patrick Cockburn is the Ihe author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick09032008.html

 

 

 

 

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

 

US-Iraqi Agreement: Leaked

 

 

 

By Raed Jarrar

I read about a leaked copy of the US-Iraqi agreement a few days ago when a radio station in Iraq mentioned some of its details, then it was mentioned in some Arab newspapers like Al-Qabas and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. A couple of days ago, one Iraqi website (linked to an Iraqi armed resistance group) published the leaked draft on their web page for less than a couple of days before their website went offline. (Thankfully, I downloaded the 21 pages agreement and saved them before their server went down)

I spent this weekend translating it, and just finished now. you can read the 27 articles August 6th draft by clicking here or here or here. The title of this draft is “Agreement regarding the activities and presence of U.S. forces, and its withdrawal from Iraq”, but this is the same agreement that is referred to as a “status of forces agreement” or “SOFA” or framework or whatever. It’s the result of months of negotiations after Bush and Al-Maliki signed the “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America” by the end of last year.

This leaked draft is a treasure of information. It’s the first time any document related to this topic is made public. It shows how weak the Iraqi negotiations team is (it is really pathetic to read their “suggestions” on how to fix the disaster of an agreement).

There are many outrageous articles in the agreement that violates Iraq’s sovereignty and independence, and gives the U.S. occupation authorities unprecedented rights and privileges, but what has draw my attention the most (so far) are three major points:

1- the agreement does not discuss anything about a complete US withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, it talks about withdrawing “combat troops” without defining what is the difference between combat troops and other troops. It is very clear that the US is planning to stay indefinitely in permanent bases in Iraq (or as the agreement calls them: “installations and areas agreed upon”) where the U.S. will continue training and supporting Iraqis armed forces for the foreseeable future.

2- the agreement goes into effect when the two executive branches exchange “memos”, instead of waiting for Iraqi parliament’s ratification. This is really dangerous, and it is shocking because both the Iraqi and U.S. executive branches have been assuring the Iraqi parliament that no agreement will go into effect without being ratified by Iraq’s MPs.

3- this agreement is the blueprint for keeping other occupation armies (aka Multi-national forces) in Iraq on the long run. This explains the silence regarding what will happed to other occupiers (like the U.K. forces) after the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of this year.

It is really disturbing to read how the U.S. government is still going down the same path of intervention and domination in Iraq.

This agreement will not be accepted by the Iraqi people and their elected representatives in the Iraqi parliament, and if the U.S. and Iraqi executive branches try to consider it valid anyway it will lead to more violence in Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35797

 

 

The Strategic Importance of the Black Sea

 

 

 

By Stratfor

Stratfor, short for Strategic Forecasting Inc., is the world’s leading private intelligence company. Founded in 1996, Stratfor delivers to its clients real-time intelligence, analysis and forecasts on geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues.Recent events in Georgia have brought into sharp focus the strategic value of the Black Sea, a vital body of water in the middle of a resource-rich area. This region is particularly strategic from the Russian perspective, meaning any fight flaring up between the West and Russia would likely see the Black Sea as a major point of conflict. A review of the strategic importance of the Black Sea for the various interested powers is therefore in order.

The Black Sea forms roughly the southern and the eastern boundaries of Europe with the Middle East and Asia respectively, and it is the major body of water between the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean. It is connected to the Mediterranean via the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, two straits that form a maritime bottleneck separating Europe from Asia. The Turkish coast forms the southern coastline of the Black Sea, while the northern coast of the sea is split almost equally between Russia and Ukraine. The Russian-populated, but Ukrainian-owned, Crimean Peninsula juts into the middle of the sea, affording whoever controls it crucial access to the Russian and Ukrainian plains. To the sea’s east are the Georgian coast and the Caucasus, while in the west lie the Balkan states of Bulgaria, Romania and landlocked Moldova.

The Black Sea is essential to any attempt at force projection in the region because the Carpathian Mountains in Romania and the Caucasus Mountains constrain any land-based moves against Russia from the south. The Black Sea is therefore the only path through which a potential enemy could threaten Russia’s core without, of course, driving across Poland and the North European plain straight to Moscow — a path Napoleon and Hitler found was not so direct after all. Because the Black Sea is close to the Caucasus and directly below Russia’s oil-producing regions of Tatarstan and Bashkorostan, it also affords any Russian enemy a direct line toward the energy lifeline of the Russian military.

For Europe, the Black Sea has never been a major military route of invasion and has often, in fact, acted as a buffer against land-based armies. As a trade route, however, the Black Sea is vital for the Europeans. During the Cold War, Black Sea shipping was minimal, as the lower Danube River fell into the Soviet sphere. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the cessation of hostilities in former Yugoslavia, the Danube has returned as a key transportation route, particularly for Germany. Now, Central European manufacturing exports can be floated down the river to the Black Sea, which is much cheaper than transporting them to the Baltic Sea by land. Any renewed closure of this transportation route would certainly be a big problem for Europe.

The Black Sea is vital for Georgia, whose only access to Europe is via the sea, due to the rugged terrain of the Caucasus and through Russian hostility.

For Russia, the key strategic value of the Black Sea lies in controlling the energy resources in the Caucasus and around the Caspian Sea. If a naval operation were to project power from the Black Sea toward the Don River corridor between Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (better known by its former name, Stalingrad), Moscow would be cut off from the Russian Caucasus and the region’s immense energy resources.

French and British expeditionary forces tried to do just that during the Crimean War, first invading Crimea and taking Sevastopol and then trying to get to Rostov-on-Don through the Sea of Azov. In the nuclear age, a similar land invasion of Russia would of course be out of the question, but the trajectory of possible power projections still stands: through the Black Sea to Crimea and into the Rostov-on-Don/Volgograd Don River corridor. By attacking Moscow’s control over the Don River corridor, an enemy essentially would cut off the Caucasus from the Kremlin, setting the stage for further force projection inland.

Contemporary politico-military arrangements in Europe dictate that the Black Sea is essentially a NATO-controlled lake. The bottleneck of the Dardanelles/Bosporus is, for all intents and purposes (nuances of current international treaties such as the Montreux Convention aside), fully under the control of NATO member Turkey. Just south of the crucial straits lies the Aegean Sea — also NATO-controlled — a confining body of water that further entrenches NATO’s power in the region. Even if Russia were to miraculously break through the Dardanelles, the maze that is the Aegean would prove impossible to escape. Also, the entire Mediterranean is a NATO lake, given the predominance of its navies there along with the fact that the entire sea is in range of land-based airpower.

The extent of Russian naval and military power today lies in its ability to conduct precisely the sort of power projection witnessed in Georgia. Russia can play on its side of the Black Sea, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine; the strategic Crimean Peninsula and the naval base of Sevastopol act as a cockpit from which Russia controls the northern shores of the sea. Combined with air superiority on its side, Russia can certainly dominate the Caucasus and Ukraine. Russia also dominates these regions by virtue of its land power and contiguous territory. Doctrinally, Russia rolls in on the ground, maintaining direct land links to its home territory.

But this cuts both ways, and the Black Sea is the perfect platform through which to project military power into the very heart of Russia. Oceans and seas, in general, are the modern highways of war that a powerful state can use to project its power to any point on the planet. Without the Black Sea, the closest anyone could get to the Russian underbelly would entail marching through the North European Plain or the Balkans, prospects with a historically very low rate of success — and brutally high human and military costs. Alternatively, a modern navy, such as those possessed by the United States and some of its NATO allies, could easily park its fleet in the Black Sea, thanks to Turkish control of the Dardanelles. This would put the fleet within easy striking distance of Moscow’s energy-rich Caucasus region, all without the need to invade Russia proper as during the Crimean War. This option has only appeared with the advent of modern -guided missiles and carrier-launched aircraft, which perhaps accounts for the increased importance of the Black Sea Fleet, nominally the Kremlin’s least-favored fleet.

At present, the West also has overall superior military power in the Black Sea. By controlling the Dardanelles, the formidable U.S. and Turkish navies control the sea’s entrance as well as its waters. Turkish and U.S. air forces also have presence in the region. The U.S. air force has a hub in the southern Turkish air base at Incirlik, and airfields in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania could easily host decisive airpower from any number of NATO member countries, which could be used to establish air superiority over the entire sea and devastate the Russian naval presence. Turkey’s air force is also well-drilled and well-equipped. Modern weapons systems such as submarine- and ship-launched cruise missiles and carrier-launched jets would be able to target the very heart of Russia once the supremacy of the Black Sea was assured. (It should be pointed out, however, that when it comes to U.S. ship-, submarine- and air-launched cruise missiles, the Black Sea presents an additional vector of attack but is not decisive for attacking Russia’s European core, given U.S. access to the Barents, Baltic, Mediterranean and Aegean seas.)

The Black Sea could become an advantage for Russia only if Moscow somehow managed to neutralize Turkey and its control of the straits. Thus far, Russia has never been able to do this, either militarily or diplomatically. Moscow’s geography has always hindered its naval development, and despite trying on and off for more than a century, it has never been able to secure the Black Sea, instead living with it as a buffer, just as it uses Ukraine as a buffer. Today, more than ever, Turkey holds decisive military control over the only sea access to the Black Sea, and as such is the absolute arbiter of outside naval intervention. Turkish alliance with the West is therefore the key to NATO’s — and thus the West’s — continued denial of the Black Sea to Russia as anything more than a buffer, a reality that has not changed much throughout the centuries.

Link

Putin vows ‘an answer’ to NATO ships near Georgia - EU split over Russia - Ukraine, NATO start military drills in Poland - NATO build up naval presence in Black Sea

Putin vows ‘an answer’ to NATO ships near Georgia

 

 

 

 

By MIKE ECKEL

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia will respond calmly to an increase in NATO ships in the Black Sea in the aftermath of the short war with Georgia, but promised that “there will be an answer.”

Russia has repeatedly complained that NATO has too many ships in the Black Sea. Foreign Ministry official Andrei Nesterenko said Tuesday that currently there are two U.S., one Polish, one Spanish and one German ship there.

Russian officials say the United States could have delivered weapons to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid.

“We don’t understand what American ships are doing on the Georgian shores, but this is a question of taste, it’s a decision by our American colleagues,” he reportedly said. “The second question is why the humanitarian aid is being delivered on naval vessels armed with the newest rocket systems.”

He said Russia’s reaction to NATO ships “will be calm, without any sort of hysteria. But of course, there will be an answer,” Interfax quoted Putin as saying during a visit to Uzbekistan.

Asked by exactly what measures Russia would take, Putin was quoted as answering “You’ll see.”

Separately, Russian officials criticized European threats to postpone talks on a partnership deal over the war in Georgia, but the Russian envoy to the EU said he was not surprised that the bloc declined to impose sanctions on Russia.

“We are too interdependent,” Vladimir Chizhov told reporters in Moscow. “Russia and the European Union are bound by destiny to be close partners.”

EU officials said Monday that unless Russian troops pull back from positions in Georgia, talks on the wide-ranging political and economic agreement would be delayed.

Britain and Eastern European nations held out for a tougher line, but Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and natural gas deterred stronger sanctions.

Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan only highlighted that dependence: The Russian leader announces a new natural gas pipeline to cross Uzbekistan, strengthening Russian control over Central Asian gas exports to Europe and undermining Western-backed efforts for a rival trans-Caspian route.

Criticizing the EU decision, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said Russia had fulfilled “all of its commitments.”

He claimed efforts were under way to rebuild Georgia’s armed forces, and said Georgian military forces were behind protests against Russian troops stationed in the country.

“There are active attempts to restore the activity of Georgian troops,” he said. “Yesterday, there were rallies and provocations near the town of Kapoleti targeting Russian troops. We believe they were organized by Georgian special services.”

Georgian officials could not be immediately reached for comment on the claim.

“Naturally, we cannot agree with a number of biased statements regarding Russia in the final declaration of the summit, including the assertion that our reaction to the Georgian aggression was disproportionate,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“The main thing, however, is that they are in the minority and the majority of EU countries have manifested a responsible approach and confirmed their intention to continue the partnership with Russia,” the ministry said.

On Aug. 7, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, hoping to retake the province, which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s. Russian forces repelled the offensive and pushed into Georgia. Both sides signed a cease-fire deal in mid-August, but Russia has ignored its requirement for all forces to return to prewar positions.

Moscow insists the cease-fire accord lets it run checkpoints in security zones of up to 4 miles into Georgian territory.

Link

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

EU split over Russia

 

 

 

The Foreign Ministry says it regrets the EU’s decision to suspend talks on a new partnership agreement with Russia. Moscow says the new deal is just as important to Europe as it is to Russia. The bloc has been split over its response to the conflict in South Ossetia.

At Monday’s emergency summit in Brussels, EU leaders decided to halt talks on a new deal with Russia. The move was in response to Moscow’s role in the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. But according to some members of the European parliament, the summit showed that the union is anything but united.

Member of the European Parliament, Giulietto Chiesa, said that ‘a strange situation’ had occurred in the EU:

“The document states Russia made a disproportionate reaction while there is no mentioning of the attack from the Georgian side, so, we are talking about ‘disproportionate’ reaction, but against what? That was not even clear. It is not a good sign because it shows that Europe is not united”.

The EU has divided into two groups over the issue. On one side, Western European states - including France, Italy, Germany and Spain – are opposed to any harsh steps against Russia.

The French President Nicolas Sarkozy summed up their position:

“We don’t want to embark upon a new Cold War where problems in relations between Russia and Europe can only be settled through military confrontation. We have to remain calm and cool-headed”.

On the other side, newcomers to the Union – including Poland and the Baltic countries, backed by Sweden and Great Britain - condemned the events and insisted that Moscow must be punished for its actions in South Ossetia.

John Laughland, an expert from the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, says the EU is hopelessly divided and therefore powerless.

“This is an organisation that has been struggling now for nearly ten years to elaborate a unified foreign policy. It’s precisely because they cannot agree on anything; they want to try and present a united front to the world on the situation with Russia, to make an impression that they are doing something, but in fact the EU is essentially powerless”.

The EU failed to agree on any concrete measures against Moscow. Many thought sanctions would be imposed, but they weren’t even mentioned.

The only practical outcome of the gathering is that a new partnership agreement with Europe and Russia to replace the one signed in 1997 has been suspended.

The Foreign Ministry says it isn’t happy with this, but says Europe should think about whether this delay is in its interests.

“We do have a lot of issues of mutual concern, and I believe that without being partners at the negotiating table on these issues we would not be contributing to the solutions of the problems,” said Andrey Nesterenko, Foreign Ministry spokesman.

But despite some potentially unpleasant consequences, there is a belief among Russian politicians that common sense has prevailed.

The Foreign Ministry said that despite the efforts of some European leaders to rock the boat, there’s still room for optimism.

Many experts agree that the biggest achievement of the EU talks is that European parliamentarians have agreed to go to Georgia. Then they’ll see with their own eyes what has been happening in the conflict zones.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29836

 

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Ukraine, NATO start military drills in Poland

 

A joint Ukrainian-Polish-British tactical exercise began on Tuesday at the Nova Demba military training grounds in Poland, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said.

The Cossack Steppe 2008 exercise is part of the NATO Partnership for Peace Program and has been conducted in succession on the territories of the three countries since 1997.

“The current exercises are aimed at practicing stabilization measures in a region controlled by opposing terrorist and extremist forces,” the ministry said in a statement.

The exercise involves 50 Ukrainian servicemen from the 79th Airmobile Brigade and will be conducted until September 14. Soldiers from the brigade have served as peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone.

The stated goal of Ukraine’s defense policy has long been to integrate with NATO, a drive that has received strong backing from the United States.

Every year the U.S. Departments of State and Defense allocate about $1-3 million to Ukraine’s participation in Partnership for Peace Program through the so-called “Warsaw Initiative,” founded by the United States in July 1994. The initiative primarily helps to promote the ability of the Ukraine’s armed forces to cooperate with NATO members, as well as to prepare the country for joining NATO.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080902/116478044.html

 

 

 

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

 

NATO continues to build up naval presence in Black Sea

NATO is continuing to strengthen its naval task force in the Black Sea, a Turkish military source said on Wednesday. “A U.S. Pathfinder ship has entered the Black Sea,” the source said on condition of anonymity.

USNS Pathfinder (T-AGS 60) is an oceanographic survey ship owned by Military Sealift Command and has a civilian crew and scientists on board.

However, a Russian military source told RIA Novosti that ships of the Pathfinder class could be used for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering purposes.

“We have reliable information confirming that the Pathfinder ship has arrived in the Black Sea primarily to conduct intelligence gathering operations in support of the NATO naval task group currently deployed in the area,” the source said.

NATO sent at least five warships, including guided missile frigates, into the Black Sea after Russia completed its operation “to force Geo