Who Restarted the Cold War?

"Putin's Hostile Course," the lead editorial in the Washington Times of Oct. 18, began thus:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior. The old Soviet obsession – fighting American imperialism – remains undiluted. ...

"(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests."

The Times pointed to Putin's snub of Robert Gates and Condi Rice by having them cool their heels for 40 minutes before a meeting. Then came a press briefing where Putin implied Russia may renounce the Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty, which removed all U.S. and Soviet medium-range missiles from Europe, and threatened to pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, whereby Russia moved its tanks and troops far from the borders of Eastern Europe.

On and on the Times indictment went. Russia was blocking new sanctions on Iran. Russia was selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia was selling weapons to Syria that found their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia and Iran were talking up an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. All this, said the Times, calls to mind "Soviet-era behavior."

Missing from the prosecution's case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

To answer that question, let us go back those 16 years.

---eoe---

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58227

:shrug:

Be aware that the link takes you to Worldnetdaily, another source I rarely link to.

If you object to giving that site hits, don't click on the link.

they have a column that reports the daily Iraqi casualty count that is pretty thorough and well sourced.

Who put 300,000 American troops on Russia's doorstep?

In fact, he already has the Chimp and the treasonous Republicans, along with the rest of us, in checkmate.

I agree with Mr. Buchanan, though. I think Putin would have been more than willing to be partners if the Chimp and the treasonous Republicans had not badly bungled the situation.

And remember, they can't steal Russia's oil, as they have nukes.


The only way to win is not to play.


Putin has long been nursing ambitions of using Russia's vast oil and gas supplies as an instrument of power. In the mid '90s, after 15 years in the KGB, Putin went back to school, attending the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. He wrote a dissertation titled "Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company." The topic: how to use energy resources for grand strategic planning.

“In the early stages of pro-market reforms in Russia the state temporarily lost strategic control over the mineral resources industry. This led to the stagnation and disintegration of the geological sector built over many decades…. However, today the market euphoria of the early years of economic reform is gradually giving room to a more balanced approach that... recognises the need for a regulatory role of the state.”

- Vladimir Putin, “Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company.”, PhD dissertation, St. Petersburg Mining Institute


”The Rouble must become a more widespread means of international transactions. To this end, we need to open a stock exchange in Russia to trade in oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for in Roubles. Our goods are traded on global markets. Why are not they traded in Russia?”

— President Vladimir Putin, Speaking before the full Russian parliament, Cabinet and international reporters, May 2006


”Russia has found the Achilles’ heel of the US colossus. In concert with its oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil-market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy-security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East”

- W. Joseph Stroupe, author, Russian Rubicon: Impending Checkmate of the West, as quoted in the Asia Times, November 22, 2006


From the Russian perspective, the Saudi role and OPEC model have benefited the United States, which can pressure Saudi Arabia into opening the spigot to deal with supply emergencies; the US also pressures other oil producers, such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Indonesia, by military methods, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. In the Russian alternative, the US will be far less influential, and have fewer levers, commercial or military, to effect pressure on the energy suppliers. Russian arms and defense-industry partnerships are on offer to relatively weak, intervention-prone energy producers in Africa and Latin America to offset US pressure.

In the OPEC model, the benchmark is Brent crude, priced in US dollars. In the Russian model, the discount and disadvantage between the Brent and Urals benchmarks will be reduced, and pricing will evolve toward a currency basket, including the ruble. In the OPEC model, suppliers hold much of their cash and government securities in US controlled institutions. In the Russian model, cash is held in the form of a currency basket; conversion from cash is sought into non-US assets, particularly in the European market.

In the OPEC model, investment in new energy reserves should be open to, and may be controlled by, US corporations. In the Russian model, strategic reserves should be controlled by national companies, state-controlled champions, or joint ventures in which Russian interests are in the majority. The Russian model also extends to energy-convertible coal, uranium, and other mineral resources. Through negotiations for Russian accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US, Australia, Canada and other resource-exporting states have sought to gain unlimited access to search and development of Russian minable resources.

The Russian model rejects this, and instead assigns priority and equity control of domestic resources to national resource companies. The model proposes tradeoffs and partnerships in resource exploitation in third countries, especially the developing states. The US-backed OPEC model assigns international priority to the Arab states. The Russian model assigns priority to the Central Asian alliance, including China, India, and Iran; secondarily to Latin America and ultimately Africa.”

- John Helmer, “Russian energy model challenges OPEC,” Asia Times, July 18, 2006,


In the end, the choice between these two alternatives — Grab the Oil or Energy Reconfiguration — this decision is much bigger than oil alone. It is a choice about the fundamental ethos and, in fact, the very nature of the country. Most immediately, it is about democracy versus empire. In economic terms, it is about prosperity or poverty. In engineering terms, it is a matter of efficiency over waste. In moral terms this is the choice of sufficiency or gluttony. From the standpoint of the environment, it is a preference for stewardship over continued predation. In the ways the US deals with other countries it is the choice of co-operation versus dominance. And in spiritual terms, it is the choice of hope, freedom and purpose over fear, dependency and despair. In this sense, this is truly the decision that will define the future of America and perhaps the world.

- Robert Freeman, “Will the End of Oil Mean the End of America?,” 2004


http://www.worldwiderenaissance.net/Contributions/HirshWorldFacesDevastatingEnergyWars.htm

http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/PDFs/Hysteria_Over_Iran_and_a_New_Cold_War_with_Russia.pdf (.pdf)

We all know that Putin and Russian politicians have absolutely no agenda of their own.

If they do something, it must always be in reaction to what the US does.

Same for every other country. They all define themselves, their goals, their dreams, their very personhoods, by comparison with us.

Right. Must feel great to be that delusional.

*Putin's* Russia has always been hostile. It was hostile in 1980, it was hostile in 1985, it was hostile in 1990, it was hostile in 1995, 2000, and 2005. It's the Russia that continued to keep Georgia a mess, that resents the idea that Estonia isn't Russian territory any more, that is moderately embarrassed but still happy at Lukashenko's quasi-Stalinism. It's the Russia that was pissed when Ukraine took seriously the transfer of Crimea to the Ukraine.

*El'tsyn's* Russia and the oligarchs' Russia were *not* hostile, at least not in any meaningful sense. And that Russia was lost by 1995.

US actions have some importance in how Russia treats the US, don't get me wrong. But Buchanan's attempt to make the US be the watchspring that drives Russian politics is, well, precisely what we'd expect from Buchanan.

by going Cold War.