Geopolitical thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jun 2010 16:18

@prad -- fascinating -- but till now the power in US is solidly WASP. It is one thing to change skins like a snake does, it is quiet another to change the content, in the end, the snake remains a snake.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Jun 2010 21:00

Clearly, Obama has no ancestral attachment to Europe - except through the influence of Atlanticist Democrats and the lure of European socialism which the Atlanticists have tried to frame as the savior for American society.

The sudden collapse of the Euro has then burst the bubble of the European socialist dream, along with the Atlanticist case for American emulation of it.

This is leaving Obama increasingly isolated and out on a limb, as his agenda falters under the assault of reality.
Arguably, a vacuum is resulting which could offer an opening for a shift in the USA's direction.

I think that greater international stability would be served if there was a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, which could be joined by France and even the US.
Let Germany exit the Euro, and leave the Southern European states to form a common economic bloc with Turkey, and maybe even the wider Middle East. That would pressure France to follow Germany out, or else be inundated by immigrants from the South.

Britain doesn't seem to like the idea of any European bloc of any form, so let them continue their solo path to irrelevance, given that even Anglo-Americanism is fading.

I really feel that this would be the most stable arrangement, and it will leave the Atlanticists high and dry, which is to our benefit, since then they won't have the strength/influence to pursue jihadism in South Asia as a strategy.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Jun 2010 08:00

For Turkey, an Embrace of Iran Is a Matter of Building Bridges

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/world ... urkey.html

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 13 Jun 2010 08:09

Under MMS, India is a rather feeble power.

Sitting on some seat does not confer any power to a nation that cannot stand up for its own interest.

The talk about following UN rules is nutty. US certainly did not follow any rules when it invaded Iraq for its oil.

The least they could have done is exempt all Indian financial companies from doing business with Iran even if the nuclear ones are sanctioned.

---

'India can't support Iran against UN sanctions'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 042328.cms

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2010 20:24

U.S. in a foreign policy corner on Iran
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... d+Stories)

Neither U.N. punishment nor Obama's attempt at engagement has helped.

By Doyle McManus
June 13, 2010
Last week, after 16 months of relentless effort, President Obama finally achieved one of his major foreign policy objectives: a United Nations Security Council resolution imposing stronger economic sanctions on Iran.

But it wasn't much of a victory. The resolution wasn't unanimous, which diluted its intended message. And the sanctions themselves are modest, watered down to secure support from Russia and China. Even Obama isn't promising much. "We know that the Iranian government will not change its behavior overnight," he said in a muted victory statement, "but [the U.N.] vote demonstrates the growing costs that will come with Iranian intransigence."

If sanctions are unlikely to produce rapid change in Iran, neither has the administration's other approach: engagement. When Obama entered office, critics mocked his offer to Iran of an outstretched hand as starry-eyed. But he made it clear all along that he didn't expect engagement to bear instant results. That's why he opted for a "two-track" policy: both engagement and sanctions.

The Obama Administration has a failed foreign policy. It is now in a foreign policy corner everywhere. It has disenfranchised our allies in order to appease our enemies.

The only thing worse than foreign policy, is the domestic policy that the Obama Administration has also failed to create.

Oil washes up on our shores while they sit idly by, in the cheap seats, wringing their hands and crying that the evil corporation doesn't do what they want it to do, fast enough. Or should have done this, or should have done that... without any idea of what it is this company does, or any idea of what the technology is, nor the steps needed to do anything.

They are powerless and ineffective BECAUSE they are ignorant and lack the skills to effective control the elements of national power.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Jun 2010 02:40

The company business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrXoLxPpRaI

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Jun 2010 07:37

Flemish Separatists Win Elections in Belgium

Whoo! Somethings gonna hit the fan soon!
That country has been living on borrowed time for quite awhile now.

What are the implications for Europe if Belgium breaks up?

I see the end of Belgium as a wider metaphor for the Brussels-headquartered EU & NATO.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 14 Jun 2010 09:06

prad wrote:
Sanku wrote:@prad -- fascinating -- but till now the power in US is solidly WASP.
yes, power is in WASP hands.

One has to look at control of the financial sector, monetary policy, the media and the entertainment industry, amongst other things.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Jun 2010 12:22

prad wrote:
Sanku wrote:@prad -- fascinating -- but till now the power in US is solidly WASP. It is one thing to change skins like a snake does, it is quiet another to change the content, in the end, the snake remains a snake.

yes, power is in WASP hands. it is the same WASPs who broke from UK more than 200 years ago.

Did they really? I dont count nominal independence and self control of finance as breaking away? It would be tiring to repeat the infinite list of connections that existed after the "break away" including *most importantly* immigration laws (since US being the immigrant country derived its entire sense of existence from them).

I consider it more a battle of one upmanship between two brothers for a piece of land rather than a fundamental departure.

(Yes the french influence and modernity as enshrined by the US constitution were a big leg up over the British, but still not really a break, merely a evolution by choosing a cousins, French, meme)

but there are deeper issues here. every country gets its basic instincts from its geography.

I agree to this, but here, the concept of Geography and connectedness has changed drastically in last 200 years.

and the US instinct is isolation. the domestic situation in the US is deeply unsettling to the Europeans. not just the Brits. all Europeans in general. there is fear that the US will revert to being a mercantilist power actively competing with Europe for markets and economic power. the Europeans fear this deeply b/c since WWII, America has been the benevolent brother which allowed Europeans easy access to its markets while not really caring for what they did.

Which is a valid fear and a valid possibility. I do not see this breaking down short of a massive crises or a war. Because if it does break down, *WAR(S)* will follow.

do some research on how the US Dollar has been used time and again to stabilize Europe. in fact, even in 2008, it was only the FED's direct interference that saved EU from another possibility of hyperinflation. the monetary alliance between US and EU isn't given much attention, but it has been an essential part of EU stability.

a US which is free from the shackles of post-WWII treaties and agreements will be a US that the Europeans deeply resent and fear.

Which is possible, but frankly unlikely unless the world turns despite the best effort of US-EU combine. The relative power may shift even more to US, and EU may actually be forced to turn "cosmopolitan" like US, but a total change, no that is bound by blood, still.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Jun 2010 00:15

Sunil Sharan.Director GE Smart Grid Initiative 08-09, clean energy pioneer
The West's Victim Complex

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-sha ... 10762.html

Westerners have developed an acute consciousness of their own pain but their senses have become dulled to the suffering of those they take on. Centuries of world domination have inculcated in them a feeling of solipsism, that my hurt matters while yours does not. The ideal of freedom, its protection at home as well as its evangelization overseas, is repeatedly invoked to justify military interventionism, almost as if without a world vigilante constantly fanning the flames of liberty, asphyxiation would strangulate the planet's supposedly oppressed. But consider the poignant remark of a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq: "We were sent to liberate Iraq. Instead we sure have liberated the hell out of the Iraqis."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jun 2010 08:04

High drama at the U.N.

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/post ... _at_the_un

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jun 2010 08:18

Getting outside the box on national defense

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... al_defense

A quick shout-out for two studies you should look at, particularly if you're interested on how the United States could spend less money on defense without making itself dangerously insecure. ...

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jun 2010 08:33

Has the U.S. given up on Central Asia?

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/po ... ntral_asia

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jun 2010 18:15

From Tribune:

Iran’s N-ambitions
Now ‘taqiya’ strategy comes into play
by K. Subrahmanyam

THE UN Security Council has imposed the fourth round of sanctions on Iran with 12 members voting for it and two against it with one (Lebanon) abstention. Turkey and Brazil, whose leaders attempted to mediate on the issue and whose mediation efforts were widely applauded, voted against the fresh sanctions. The 12 who voted in favour included all five permanent members of the Security Council and seven non-permanent ones, including Bosnia-Herzegovina and Nigeria, which has only 50 per cent Muslim population, though both are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference. In other words, the Iranian nuclear issue is not viewed as an Islamic one, as some people in India portray it.

It is claimed by the US and its supporters that the sanctions will bite this time unlike on the last three occasions. At the recent NPT Review Conference, President Ahmedinejad made a personal appearance and attempted to portray Iran as a country pledged to disarmament, which was only exercising its right under the NPT to have access to peaceful application of nuclear energy. He was rebutted by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who said, “In the case of Iran, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material, but remains unable to confirm that all nuclear material is in peaceful activities because Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation. I continue to request Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council, and to clarify activities with a possible military dimension.”

The Security Council sanctions are the direct result of Iran’s refusal to cooperate with the IAEA, the UN watchdog on the peaceful nature of the nuclear activities, by a member-nation of the NPT.

Why should Iran take the risk of such sanctions if it wants to be a member of the NPT? Its reactor at Bushehr initiated by the Germans during the period of the Shah and completed last year by the Russians has guaranteed enriched uranium fuel supply from Russia.

Accounts from defectors, clandestine attempts to procure uranium enrichment technology from Pakistan, procurement and construction of clandestine centrifuge plants, its non-cooperation with the IAEA, its dealings with North Korea and its development of long-range missiles all raise reasonable suspicions that Iran is attempting to acquire clandestine nuclear weapon capability. At the same time, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has issued a fatwa saying that production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the IAEA in Vienna and, more recently, at theTeheran conference on nuclear disarmament in April this year. Most of the western analyses of Iran’s nuclear efforts relate them to its ambitions to be a regional power, its hatred of Israel and its anti-Western orientation.

Most of the Western analyses ignore that Iran is the only country which was subjected to an attack by a weapon of mass destruction (a chemical weapon) in the 1980’s by a Sunni Muslim country, Iraq. The Sunni Arab countries financially and otherwise supported Saddam Hussein. Iran is estimated to have suffered 500,000 casualties. That war followed the Iranian Revolution and was undertaken simultaneously with the vast Wahabisation effort of the Afghan mujahideen. Al-Qaeda and the associated extremist groups which owe their origins to the Afghan war period conditioning have been targeting Shias in Pakistan and Iraq. There are demands from Sunni extremists that Shias should be declared apostates and non-Muslim.

The restoration of Shia majority rule in Iraq is resented in the Sunni countries. The animosity between the Sunnis and the Shias is as old as Islam. Iran could not overlook the expansionism of nuclear Pakistan and its establishing a Wahabbised Sunni rule over entire Afghanistan in the nineties, attempting to dominate the majority Dari-speaking Afghan population. Consequently, Iran supported the Northern Alliance and was involved in a covert war with Pakistan supporting the Taliban

In the eighties, as the Pakistanis, with financial support from Saudi Arabia and direct nuclear proliferation support from China and tacit permissiveness of the US, acquired their nuclear weapons, simultaneously Saudi Arabia obtained its long-range missiles from China.Those missiles make no sense unless they have nuclear warheads and the only nuclear warheads to which Saudi Arabia can have access are the Pakistani ones which they lavishly financed. Now comes the news from a number of Western sources that Pakistan has already exceeded India’s nuclear stockpile and is planning to multiply its arsenal manifold, thanks to the plutonium production reactors provided by China.

As usual, Western analysts are fixated only on the India-Pakistan equation. In its latest annual world military expenditure report, released on June 2, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said Pakistan’s weapons-grade plutonium production would jump seven-fold with the two new reactors at Khushab nearing completion. “Our conservative estimates are that Pakistan has 60 warheads and could produce 100 nuclear weapons at short notice,” said SIPRI. Many Western observers overlook the possibility that the additional warheads could arm Saudi missiles, and Shia Iran may face a two-front Sunni nuclear threat. The Pakistanis think that they will be back in Afghanistan irrespective of what President Obama may say. The Iranians are well aware of the consequences of firing nuclear warheads on the West or on Israel. They, in fact, need the nuclear weapon capability against the Sunni nuclear threat. A nuclear Iran will give a further morale boost to the Shias in the Sunni-majority countries as the Iranian Revolution and the emergence of Shia-majority Iraq and Azerbaijan have already done.

How do the Iranians hope to achieve this objective against the tremendous odds they face, including the present sanctions? They appear to depend on the Shia strategy of taqiya. Within the Shia theological framework, the concept of taqiya refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when they face a threat, persecution and compulsion. A top-ranking Shia religious scholar, Ayatollah Sistani, has explained that taqiya is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be killed or harmed if he does not observe taqiya. In such case, it is obligatory to observe taqiya.

History would appear to indicate that taqiya is especially allowed in the case of dealings with non-believers. Iran is presumably resorting to taqiya, both in respect of Sunni Pakistan and the non-believer West. After all, it was the US which eliminated Saddam Hussein, routed the Taliban out of Afghanistan and is fighting the Wahabi terrorist groups, all contributing to Shia Iranian interests. It is not in the US interest to allow a two-front nuclear threat to Iran either.

However Taqiya is a tenet of Sunnis also as TSP repeatedly uses it.

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 15 Jun 2010 19:58

Beijing thinks US strategically encircling China

http://militarystrat.wordpress.com/2010 ... ing-china/

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 Jun 2010 21:36

Well, Beijing is doing a far better job of getting itself encircled by hostile or potentially hostile powers than the US could. Washington is playing the gam far more subtly, while Russia/Japan/India are doing it surreptitiously. This is a result of China's short-sighted and counter-productive policies, combined with a sense of confidence that exceeds the reality of its power today. It has revealed its cards, and displayed its trump cards. So it is a predictable game as far as China is concerned. And now it thinks it is being encircled? it should have thought of that possibility when it handed over nukes to Pakistan and North Korea.

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Jun 2010 21:40

If nothing else, i give credit to China and its brashness for managing to get even India, under the peace loving MMS , so riled up that all possible stratergic programs with clear China focus like mountain strike corps, N-subs, border roads, border airfields etc etc have been fast tracked.

It really does take some doing to get the elephant worked up.. Kudos to China in this regard.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jun 2010 08:22

Why Kyrgyzstan matters more than you think

http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _you_think

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 16 Jun 2010 08:37

JE Menon wrote:And now it thinks it is being encircled? it should have thought of that possibility when it handed over nukes to Pakistan and North Korea.

Still, China is needed to balance western powers.

If we assume that all concerned countries are being led by independent governments, then the best strategy for China would be to demonstrate its sincerity by helping clean up the messes it has caused in Pak and N. Korea.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jun 2010 08:39

Emerging economies 'to enjoy food production boom'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10320149.stm

The emerging economies of Brazil, India, China and Russia will enjoy an agricultural boom over the next decade as production stalls in Western Europe, a report says. Agricultural output in the Bric nations will grow three times as fast as in the major developed countries, the joint United Nations-OECD study said. Livestock and crop prices will stay above long-term averages, it added. And rising incomes and urbanisation in developing states will drive growth. "Developing countries will provide the main source of growth for world agricultural production, consumption and trade," the report said. "As incomes rise, diets are expected to slowly diversify away from staple foods towards increased meats and processed foods that will favour livestock and dairy products.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jun 2010 09:14

Obama's big oil test

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/po ... g_oil_test

Much attention is focusing just on the cost of the spill: the $20 billion that Obama wants BP to put into an escrow fund to cover the cleanup; the $10 billion in expected dividends that shareholders will demand either in cash, in an escrow account, or in shares in order to keep Hayward and the rest of the board in their seats; the $16 billion in cash that the federal government can levy against BP under the Clean Water Act at $4,300 a spilled barrel; plus the incalculable billions that victims of the spill may obtain in court settlements.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 16 Jun 2010 11:21

Strange coincidence................something blows up near Russian border whenever there are important games event. USSR invaded Afghanistan right before 1980 games. Georgian musharraf was wiped right before Olympics in China. Khirgistan ended up asking for Russian troops right before world cup. My simple mind tells me that Russkie tend to slap the mad guy next door when world media is focused somewhere else. JMT

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 16 Jun 2010 11:41

Barack Obama turns the oil spill into his poor man's 9/11 to revive Cap-and-Trade climate legislation - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... gislation/

That is why Obama is trying, very unconvincingly, to brainwash Americans into thinking they are facing a crisis as grave as 9/11 – presumably casting BP as the new al-Qaeda – in order to gain support for legislation that would ratchet up energy prices, destroy jobs and cause the economy to contract. The fact that he is reduced to so transparent an imposture is testimony to how dramatically his status and credibility have shrunk during his 17 months in office.

Documents reveal BP's missteps before blowout. Oil giant engineer describes 'nightmare well' six days before rig explosion - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37695879/ns ... n_the_gulf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jun 2010 20:37

Pranav, how is that in the Geopolitical thread? By that token we can post everyting US related in this thread.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 17 Jun 2010 01:47

>>Still, China is needed to balance western powers.

Perhaps, but only to the extent China needs India to balance other world powers, including Western.

>>If we assume that all concerned countries are being led by independent governments, then the best strategy for China would be to demonstrate its sincerity by helping clean up the messes it has caused in Pak and N. Korea.

I don't disagree, but some thoughts nevertheless. Why should China demonstrate its sincerity? And to whom? What China has shown an inclination to do more than anything else is demonstrate its power, not its sincerity - and an occasional nod to the "rules of the game" as understood by the primary powers of the past century: US/Russia/Europe. But it is actively seeking to change the status quo, and makes no bones about it. Despite the hype (among the China boosters and the bashers), one could say that China is not quite the superpower on steroids that some think it already is, nor is it the house of cards that others confidently predict will collapse a few years hence. So it will probably just muddle and muscle along until its effort to change the status quo rubs up against a country, or countries that decide to change the the status quo right back. A world dominated by a China, as it is now, is a hard sell.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jun 2010 00:42

China says Pakistan nuclear deal 'peaceful'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10340642.stm

'Supervision'
China's foreign ministry spokesman said: "I want to stress that the civilian nuclear co-operation between China and Pakistan is in line with each side's international obligations. "It is for peaceful purposes, and is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency," he told a news briefing in Beijing. On Tuesday the US state department said it had asked China to clarify the details of its sale of additional nuclear reactors to Pakistan. "This appears to extend beyond co-operation that was grandfathered when China was approved for membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group," it said. The 46-nation group regulates trade in "dual-use" nuclear fuel and technology to ensure material meant for civilian energy use is not diverted into clandestine nuclear weapons programmes.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Jun 2010 00:51

India's Edge Over China: Soft Power
In the struggle to win support around Asia, India's openness gives the country a big advantage compared with China, columnist John Lee writes
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/c ... 150774.htm

India suffers from a perception gap: Its confidence in the country's future is not yet shared by foreign audiences, who remain unconvinced that India is irreversibly set on the path of modernization and prosperity. Outside regional foreign and defense ministries, the 21st century Indian success story—so important for its soft-power credentials—is still seen as a speculative bet. In the struggle to win support around Asia, India has an important advantage over China. India cannot realize its potential in this area, however, unless it proves to the world that its days of economic and social stagnation (summed up by the derogatory phrase, the "Hindu rate of growth") are truly a thing of the past.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jun 2010 08:03

A non-polar world

http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... olar_world

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Jun 2010 08:09

ramana wrote:Pranav, how is that in the Geopolitical thread? By that token we can post everyting US related in this thread.

Well, carbon taxes etc have geopolitical objectives. Yes, there is a dedicated thread for such matters. But one should not view such measures in isolation from other steps towards political and economic control, no? Should not miss forest for the trees.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2010 08:15

Prem wrote:India's Edge Over China: Soft Power

'farooq'
Jun 18, 2010 10:41 AM GMT
'indians have shown an incredible amount of malice towards pak, china, usa. pakistan is already strong and will get stronger as a major nonNATO ally. one pakistani soldier = 10 indians jawans. indian knows that they will be committing suicide if they use nuclear weapons. that if one nuke is attempted to launched at pak, pak will empty its nuclear arsenal (larger than indias) in return. who knows, these base characters may even claim a non-state actor launched at pak. pak must watch every move of india, a place will only soft weakness and nefarious designs'

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jun 2010 08:48

Agreement resolving a longstanding dispute over Malayan Railway (KTM) land in Singapore

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... r_a_change

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 19 Jun 2010 08:49

US Senator Lieberman Submits Bill for Internet 'Kill Switch'

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jun 2010 09:07

Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls?

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/po ... tans_calls

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Jun 2010 01:02

Unfortunately, a kill switch could cripple all the commercial activity that takes place across the internet. I assume that this kill switch would also apply to internal US domestic communication, and not just international communication with the US. After all, there could be Chinese and other hackers operating from within US soil.

India should hedge its bets by building up its own domestic communication and server infrastructure, so that it does not suffer disproportionate collateral damage from US triggering of its kill switch.

Today, most internet servers reside within the United States.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jun 2010 01:10

They are all thinking NWO.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/ ... 8239.shtml

France, Russia Vow To Promote Global Role Of G-20
France, Russia Vow To Make G-20 A Leading Voice In Global Decision Making
Font size PrintE-mailShare.(AP) ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Saturday that he wanted to work with Russia to give developing nations a larger say in how to regulate the global economy.Global financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund - created at the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire 1944 - are outdated and must be replaced, Sarkozy told an economic forum in St. Petersburg hosted by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev."We all need to think about the foundations for a new international financial system. We've been based on the Bretton Woods institutions of 1945, when our American friends were the only superpower," Sarkozy said."My question is: Are we still in 1945? The answer here is, 'no,'" he said.While the Bretton Woods conference took place in 1944, the International Monetary Fund was officially established a year later, when the 29 countries that had participated signed its Articles of Agreement.Sarkozy said the United Nations has too many members to reach consensus on how to reform the global financial system, while the G8, which includes the world's eight wealthiest nations, pays too little attention to developing countries."Who can seriously address the big problems of the world without asking the opinions of China, India, Brazil, Mexico?" Sarkozy asked. He said the most effective platform is the G-20, a group of 20 wealthy and developing nations.
The French president pledged to work with Russia during next week's session of the G-20 in Canada to address some of the most urgent issues that have emerged from the global financial crisis, such as restricting offshore financial zones and abolishing the "law of the jungle" that he says governs the global economy.
Sarkozy also said the G-20 "should think together about a new international currency system," but he did not elaborate.Medvedev went further, stressing the need for more reserve currencies besides just the euro and the dollar."We are making plans for the future. We are talking about creating other reserve currencies, and we are counting on other countries to understand this. Even the use of two currencies as strong as the euro and dollar will not insure the world against problems," Medvedev said.John Lipsky, the deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, supported broadening the list of reserve currencies."Making, for example, the ruble an international reserve currency implies lots of strengthening of the institutions, deepening of the markets. It's a very good and plausible goal," Lipsky told The Associated Press.France, Germany and Italy have been positioning themselves as Russia's main partners in Europe, winning preferential energy deals in the process.Russia and France signed nearly a dozen deals on the sidelines of the forum, on issues ranging from natural gas to space. Among them was a deal for France's GdF Suez to join Russia's Nord Stream gas pipeline project, of which the French company will now own 9 percent.But the increased cooperation has worried some of France's NATO allies, such as Poland and the Baltic states. France wants to sign a deal with Russia that calls for building four French Mistral-class warships - designed for amphibious assault - in Russian shipyards.Sarkozy said the Cold War was over and the European Union and Russia should work closer together. He pledged to hold more regular meetings with the German and Russian leaders to "to coordinate our positions."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Jun 2010 08:54

Indispensable or insolvent?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... _insolvent

If the United States reduced its defense budget significantly, how would this affect international affairs? ...

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 22 Jun 2010 10:49

prad wrote:it's a move designed to counteract PRC's cyber warfare. if there is a full frontal assault of US Cyber space, NSA will spearhead US retaliation. the first phase will be to stop Chinese penetration, which is easy to do when you have a 'kill switch.' after that, the full strategy of counter attacking can be planned and put into action. it is essential that the US have these 'kill switches' to take on PRC hackers, if there is a cyber war.

It is probably a move to suffocate alternative channels of news dissemination through the Internet and shutting down free speech, aka Chinese style censorship (if not more), with PRC's cyberwarfare being the fall guy. After all, the climategate and WHO's 'swineflu hoopla' scandal first broke via the Internet before the infuenced international mainstream media and the dumb media (which takes down notes dutifully from PR "spin masters") were forced to cover the issues.

Lieberman mentioned China, which censors dissent, as a model to follow.

This is what happens when you have "kill switches" in place
China tightens Web screws after Xinjiang riot

Tie up that "kill switch" item with this article:
The FCC’s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?

Matthew_H · Post by **Matthew_H** » 23 Jun 2010 00:18

Deleted spam posted on multiple threads.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jun 2010 00:23

http://www.businessinsider.com/germany- ... her-2010-6
Germany And Russia Moving Closer Together
( As known here before, we are going back to Pre US Era)

It should be remembered that the Germans are proposing a Russian security relationship with Europe, not a Russian security relationship with Germany alone. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Germans taking the initiative to open the talks by unilaterally negotiating with the Russians and taking their agreements to other European countries. It is also important to note that they have not taken this to all the European countries but to France and Poland first — with French President Nicolas Sarkozy voicing his initial approval on June 19 — and equally important, that they have not publicly brought it to the United States. Nor is it clear what the Germans might do if the French and Poles reject the relationship, which is not inconceivable.
The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jun 2010 00:42

http://www.atlantic-community.org/index ... ar's_Bluff
Poles' self Goales
Poland Calls the Bear's Bluff

Jeremy Wysakowski-Walters: Poland must redefine its relations with Russia. Continued military provocations and brinkmanship will only lead to Poland’s position worsening. While maintaining its security interests, Poland must embrace the bear. This notwithstanding, Poland should not negate its democratic ideals.The deployment of a battery of US Patriot missiles to Poland in May 2010 took place in fulfillment of the agreements reached under the US-Polish Declaration on Strategic Cooperation signed in August 2008. This was from the beginning a symbolic act, as one battery is incapable of defending Polish airspace. This fact was acknowledged by the announcement of Defence Minister Bogdan Klich, who stated that the Polish government has started initial supplier selection for the procurement of ten to twelve Polish-owned batteries costing around $1 billion each. Nevertheless, the deployment brings US-Polish relations to a new level. That fact was not missed by Russia, which in September 2009 rattled its sabre in Operation West: a large scale exercise with Belarus, centred around mock landings on a Polish beach and the mock deployment of nuclear missiles.