The Third Rome Project

POLITIKA: Myth of the Alliance

2010-02-23T21:04:00.001-05:00

An interesting article by Stephen E. Meyer called "Myth of the Alliance"
Click here for original article from "Politka."

Even if membership in NATO would bring savings, whether it would be worth the membership, a great debate sparked in Serbia in relation to NATO membership is healthy and constructive. Unfortunately, many arguments for and against membership, left out the most important point. This is especially true for supporters of membership in NATO. Those who favor membership claim that Serbia will be part of a vast collective security system, and a membership within a great democratic community. Proponents also argue that, as a member of NATO, Serbia has undertaken a special responsibility and that it would be less expensive than maintaining the military capacity to the fullest extent. Those who argue against membership, claim it would legitimize the bombing of Serbia in 1999. In addition they argue, NATO membership for Serbia would damage relations with Russia, and anyway, Serbia would receive the same benefits through membership in the European Union. Of course, there are elements of truth in both positions, but whether these arguments apply is the most important question. To determine whether Serbia should become a member of NATO, the Serbs should consider four basic issues.

Firstly, what is the purpose of being part of the collective security system? Who is the enemy of this system of collective security from which Serbia would be defended? Who exactly is the enemy? It is difficult to identify the enemy in the Balkans or in the vicinity, which is in a position to threaten or would Serbia have interest in it. Moreover, even if there are such enemies, whether NATO really committed to the defense of Serbia? Article 5 of the Agreement on NATO says that an attack on one member is an attack on all NATO members. But there is nothing in the 5th Article which requires a member to come to the aid of another. For example, suppose that Georgia was a member of NATO in the summer of 2008. Does anyone really believe that U.S. and NATO would have gone to war with Russia over Georgia? It is incredible!

Secondly, the Serbs must understand that NATO membership really means that Serbia will be expected to conform their security needs of the most powerful members, especially that of the United States. This means that as a member of NATO, Serbia will be under pressure to join the U.S. in military adventures that have little to do with the interests and its own security. Of course, Belgrade would not be obliged to comply, but pressure would be greater and more frequent when she becomes a member of the alliance.

Thirdly, NATO as a force is in the decline. It was built to meet specific threats between 1949 and 1989. When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the need for NATO has declined rapidly. Western military alliance was a real instrument to confront the Soviet threat, but the threat is no longer, and the architect of NATO has not been able to reconstruct the alliance as a viable instrument in the modern world. In fact, the existence of NATO is not much more than the extension of the Cold War division of Europe into the 21st century. Russia is out of this and will never be brought in, the "club." Also, there is almost no value outside the country. In Iraq, the alliance the was not useful, and in Afghanistan is of very little combat use. NATO was good for 1960, but not 2010!

Fourth, Serbia would not save money by serving special role or as special forces in NATO. Depending on which side would be selected for the role of Serbia, the price could be even higher than maintenance for a robust military capability. Even if membership in NATO would bring savings, would it be worth the membership if the Serbian position would not serve the security interests of Serbia? Serbian security interests lie primarily in the south, not to be a servant of the U.S. as an assistant in a place like Afghanistan. In addition, as a member of NATO, Serbia would be under pressure to buy equipment from NATO partners, regardless of whether it is needed.

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Serbia must put forth three questions:

First, what is the nature of the new security landscape?

Second, what are the interests of Serbia in this new environment?

Third, what policies and instruments are required for Serbia to protect and promote her interests?

Frankly considering these issues, the Serbs should face the fact that their interests do not lie only in the West, but are now in Russia, China, Iran, Brazil and many other places. In the modern world security can no longer be defined solely in terms of military interest, but it should be understood in terms of energy, food, environmental and human security. But doesn't this reality require more than membership in NATO? Of course, Serbia should seek EU membership, but not at the expense of relations in many other directions.

University Professor, Washington

Ukraine and the Serbian Connection

2010-02-19T21:39:00.007-05:00

(Click map to enlarge)

Most historians believe that the Serbs and other southern Slavs migrated to the Balkan peninsula from an area roughly where modern Ukraine is located today. What many people do not realize, is that a migration of Serbs and other Balkan peoples contributed to the events that led to the emergence of this "krajina" or frontier on the south flank of the Russian Empire.

Besides the Serbian expats that can be found hanging out at a few Serbian restaurants in Kiev and Kharkov, one of the few remaining signs of once Serbian settlements in Ukraine is the village of "Slovianoserbsk" (Ukrainian: Слов'яносербськ/Russian: Славяносербск) located in the Lugansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine. From 1753 to 1764, it was the capital of Slavo-Serbia, one of the Serbian military colonies on the Russian Empire's frontier.

Another famous colony was located in the modern province of Kirovograd called "Nova Serbiya" or New Serbia (Ukrainian: Нова Сербія, Serbian: Нова Србија, Russian: Новая Сербия). Today there still stands a museum with the gravestone and epitaph for Peter Tekeli (Russian: Петр Авраамович Текели, Serbian: Петар Поповић Текелија) a Russian General of Serb origins.

I'm Seeing Blue in Ukraine

2010-02-15T22:01:00.003-05:00

Well I have to admit, the Ukrainian presidential elections once again held me in suspense as Viktor Yanukovych secures a victory over his Orange rival Yulia Tymoshenko. For the most part, the run-off election went off without much fan-fare and the Western countries who supported the Orange democracy, quickly conceded that this time Yanukovych won fairly.

Just a few years ago these same Western democracies were cheer leading the various "color" revolutions sweeping across the Post-Soviet space. After realizing the severe consequences these newly installed regimes would have on Russia's periphery, the Kremlin began to take action to turn the tables around culminating in the defeat of the Pentagon's Georgia project in the Caucuses, the a Blue Wave is sweeping across Eurasia.

Not so fast! - say some western observers. The same analysts that miss-calculated the rolling back of US/NATO influence in places like Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, are now predicting that this is a temporary set-back. One argument I heard recently was that the problem with Russia is, they don't have much to offer in the long run in terms of economic, political, and social security, thus the pendulum will swing back the other way.

During the 1990's this was certainly true. As the Russian economy collapsed, the Euro-Atlantic powers swooped in to fill the vacuum. Economically and geopolitically, the US remained the single largest super power on the globe. As the Newly Independent States and other countries lost their socialists subsidies from Mother Russia, their expectations for what they will get from the West was high. All they had to do was pretend they are democrats and soon they would get an invitation to the all exclusive NATO club. For them, money in the U.S. grows on trees, and since paper really does come from trees, thus, the US printed allot of it!

How can the U.S. regain a foothold in Russia's back yard without economic clout? Russia's long term economic outlook is looking good if you see the recent financial reports coming from Fitch Ratings, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Here is why:

Russia is starting a second wave of privatization with an aim to ensure Russia is a huge benefactor of capital from the world's financial markets. This injection of cash is expected to cause the Russian economy to pass France and Germany in the next decade from industries outside the commodities. By 2030 Russia's economy is expected to surpass the EU. (It could pass by the EU sooner depending on how optimistic the EU's economy will grow. As this trend happens, you will see even countries like Poland move closer) these reports are very credible in the financial world.

What about the culture of democracy and freedom? On the cultural side, the government of Ukraine tried to discourage a visit last July by the new Russian Patriarch. The pro-Western government would not even guarantee his safety in the predominately Catholic western region. The Governor of the Rovno region declared "not over my dead body will the Patriarch come here." The Patriarch ignored the warning and ironically the Governor was struck by lightning and killed just before the visit! This is a true story. The Patriarch then visited Rovno and rest of Ukraine and was received by thousands, even during his visit to the western regions.

Former Ukrainian president Yushchenko who appointed the now dead governor and the Orange Revolution never achieved anything with substance in Ukraine. I am not sure if that is a pendulum or was just a temporary blip on the radar screen of recent history. As for Eastern and Central Europe, once they see the cracks in the EU's credibility, they will leave the EU faster than they arrived.

Demographically Russia has to turn itself around. However, this is a problem even worse in Ukraine and rest of Europe for that matter. Eurasia will rise pass the Euro-Atlantic powers by sheer economy of scale. Whether the Russians or somebody else is controlling Eurasia remains to be seen, but Eurasia will be the center of things for the next millennia.

If a Blue Wave can take root, there may still be hope for the survival of Christian Civilization.

Serbian Patriarch Irinej

2010-01-29T17:43:00.002-05:00

Recent articles from Serbia are suggesting that the election of the new Patriarch will be a moderate even though there are still "radicals" in the Church hierarchy. This has also caused at least a few Serbs to suggest that the new Patriarch is "soft" by proposing dialogue with the Vatican. I heard another suggest that the Pope is setting a trap for the new Serbian Patriarch. From what I have read thus far it seems that some know nothing atheist spin doctors in Serbia are trying to discredit the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Patriarch Irinej is proposing a meeting of Christian leaders in the year 2013 to mark the 1700 years since the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan to end persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. What is the significance of this and why would he do such a thing you might ask?

- The proposed meeting will be in Nis, Serbia, the birthplace of Constantine.

- The Pope along with other Christian leaders attending will have to participate on Serbian Orthodox terms.

- It provides the opportunity to show the entire world the contributions of Serbia and the Orthodox Church is to civilization. Although this is supposed to mark the day Christianity was no longer persecuted, it will also be a dark irony that Christianity is once again being persecuted. First it was the Serbs and Russians, and next will be the western Christians, ie the Catholics and Protestants as European civilization loses to mass immigration from the Islamic world.

We don't know if the Pope or other western religious leaders will even attend, but if they do, it acknowledges the significance of Constantine who over saw the first Church Councils, the Nicene Creed, and establishment of "Orthodoxy", from the Greek words: orthos ("right") + doxa ("opinion" or "praise") that only exists today in the form of the Orthodox Church.

If they don't attend, it shows the whole world what their true intentions are. The more you think about this, the more you will realize that this Patriarch is wise. It seems this time the trap is set for the Pope, not the other way around.

Similar arguments were made describing Patriarch Kirill as too "soft" when he was enthroned to the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate. Kirill made a historic visit to Ukraine last year and offered to reach out to the predominately Catholic western areas. A former governor from this region warned Kirill, "...this visit will be over my dead body." Kirill did not listen, and just before the Patriarch arrived, lightning struck this politician dead! Kirill was received by tens of thousands in the western part of Ukraine demonstrating the unity of the Orthodox Church. The pro-Western politician is no longer around to persecute any more Orthodox.

If any Serbs think this is a bad approach, then I urge them to start reading the "Prologue from Ohrid - Lives of the Saints" by St. Nikolaj Velimirovic and see how our Orthodox Saints dealt with these issues for the last two thousand years.

Only a SWOT Analysis Will Tell If Things Are Good or Bad

2009-12-25T11:34:00.001-05:00

Only a SWOT Analysis Will Tell If Things Are Good or Bad

This year started with some dire predictions about the imminent and inevitable destruction of the Russian economy with ensuing widespread social unrest.

Will Russia turn Eurasia into the next Byzantine Empire?

2009-12-18T21:24:00.007-05:00

The Roman Empire (Byzantine) lasted longer than any other empire in the history of Mankind, officially beginning when the former pagan Empire embraced Christianity in 306AD to 1453AD.

The following video clip "The Fall of an Empire," is a new film produced and narrated by Vladimir Putin's spirtual advisor and was broadcast on multiple occasions recently on Russian TV.
Click here for English translated video presentation about Byzantium.

Russian ambassador visits Kosovska Mitrovica

2009-12-18T20:59:00.008-05:00

This just in from B-92: “Russia will continue to support Serbia as long as Serbia opposes attempts of its own dismemberment, separatism and political bombardments,” said the Russian ambassador. This quote was taken from the last paragraph of the below article and sums it all up. Unfortunately, the Serbian government does not understand the geopolitical realities that putting all their eggs in the basket of Euro-Atlantic integration will undoubtedly fail Serbia and the Serbian people miserably. - TRP

17 December 2009 13:39 Source: Beta
KOSOVSKA MITROVICA -- Russian Ambassador to Belgrade Aleksandr Konuzin was in Kosovo on Wednesday, in the northern, Serb-dominated part of the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica.
Beta news agency reports that he stated that the Russian Federation and Serbia had good political and economic cooperation, but that it was necessary to expand it to culture and education. Read more...

Kissinger on Russian Foreign Policy

2009-11-18T15:14:00.015-05:00

This week I had the opportunity to hear Henry Kissinger speak at a conference in honor of the famous Soviet diplomat Andrei Gromyko in Washington, DC. Kissinger along with Anatoliy Gromyko, the son of the late Andrei Gromyko, revisited many important meetings and events that took place during the Cold War. Kissinger explained that people often mistake the Cold War era as a time when foreign affairs were simple and predictable since the world was divided into two camps. However, he stressed that it was not simple but a very complex relationship that managed to avoid direct military confrontation between the two super powers.

Kissinger also stressed how important Russia is even today. It is connected to Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It is the largest country in terms of area and resources in the world and it has nuclear capability. Kissinger criticized U.S. policy towards Russia after the Cold War.

It is no secret that Kissinger was a strong critic of U.S. policy from the 1990's to the present. Most notably was his opposition to the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a sovereign state, which he described as a "foolish act." Regarding the Balkans, he made additional public statements that the Serbs and Croats should be allowed to join their respective countries and that the Rambouillet Agreement which would have forced the Serbs to give all its territory access to NATO ground forces, "was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form."

Regarding the current US president, Kissinger joked, "Obama was my second choice." Although he stressed he disagrees with most of Obama's policies, he did compliment recent actions of the Administration for getting U.S.-Russian relations back on track. He also noted that the current policies Obama has taken towards Russia were the same as what he advocated to both candidates prior to the 2008 presidential elections.

As for Afganistan, it was noted that Andrei Gromyko was initially opposed to sending Soviet troops to Afganistan. Kissinger also made a point that he disagrees with the current policies in Afganistan regarding the US policy to create a centralized government. Although he supports the goal of eliminating the threat of terrorists using Afganistan as a launch pad of attacks against the US, he said outside forces can never unite the various tribal regions.

Several questions were put to Kissinger during the conference regarding Russia's recent disapproval of much of U.S. policies with Iraq, Iran, etc. Kissinger explained that it is not that they disapprove, but that the Russians are concerned that the United States does not know what it is doing in these areas. The worry is that the Americans will come in and leave the place worse than when they arrived. When one sees the resulting chaos in Kosovo, Iraq and other places where the US intervenes, the Russians may have a point.

The Walking Saint

2009-11-17T16:23:00.008-05:00

While attending the Divine Liturgy at our local Serbian parish on November 15, it was announced by our priest that + Pavle, His Holiness, Archbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovac and Serbian Patriarch passed away. Although he was ill for years, you could feel the sense of loss among the people.

Founded by St. Sava, the Serbian Church traces its Apostolic roots to St. Andrew by its recognition in 1219, by the Church of New Rome (Constantinople). At the time, Medieval Serbia was arising as a powerful new country founded on territory that was given to migrating Slavs by the Roman Empire. Although deeply rooted in Roman culture and inheriting its Faith from the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, the establishment of a Serbian Church made it possible for the Serbs to properly embrace Orthodoxy by allowing the people to worship in their native Slavic language. This in turn enabled the Serbs to preserve this Faith through centuries of invasions and occupations by foreign enemies bent on destroying the Serbian nation.

Since then, the history of the Serbian people was a story of countless martyrs and persecution. In more recent modern history, the story has not been much different. However, after the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990's began, Serbs found themselves ill prepared for what was awaiting for them. After decades of Communism, +Pavle was the spirtual counter weight to atheism and other post modern problems in Serbia. At at time when many Diaspora Serbs here in the United States were lamenting Serb losses during the 1990's and most recently Kosovo, +Pavle reminded us in one of his homilies, that more Serbs are lost to abortions than all the wars. His message was true. Only a true revival of Serbian Christianity can take Serbia into the 21st Century.

Just a few hours before the Church announced the loss of a great Patriarch, I received an email with the latest article written by Srdja Trifkovic called, "A Tale of Two Subversives Battling Christophobia in California and Serbia. The timing of his article could not be more relevant as we all discovered the next morning of the passing of the Patriarch. It is also now the beginning least officially, the process of who will fill the vacuum left behind to lead another generation of the Serbian flock.

Unfortunately the Serbian political elite are missing the boat. While they still chase the rainbows promised by European integration, Western civilization is being lost to the modern world, as the center of gravity shifts eastward towards Eurasia. The next Patriarch will have an undaunting task to lead the Serbian people spirtually. Already the acting Patriarch Amfilohije will give Serbs hope to continue in the right direction through his own wisdom and humility, but it is yet unknown as to who will assume this ancient throne after the elections. It would be a great disappointment if the next Church leader decides to follow the easy path of materialism and Euro "integration."

A friend of mine working at the Serbian Patriarchate once described to me the situation of the Patriarch who was beginning to fade. He told me it was like watching a candle when it burns to the end. The flames shoot higher just before the candle goes out. Let us hope that the next Serbian Patriarch can guide Serbs back to spirtual Salvation.

New Martyrs?

2009-11-15T17:45:00.004-05:00

I don't know if this article is available online yet, so I decided to post it here rather than just link to it. I thought it is an interesting read. I often use what is happening in Serbia after its legacy of communist Yugoslavia as an analogy of what will happen in the United States. Some of the insane policies created by the communist regime are being played out by Washington! There are many examples, but the one I use often is how Belgrade allowed the Albanians to settle on territory in Serbia. As their population increased, the government just appeased the situation, granted autonomy and provided free services. Eventually this came back to haunt Serbia. Same is happening with immigration in the United States.

The original article will be printed in the CHRONICLES: A MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN CULTURE, December 2009, pp. 20-22

NOTE: This article was released just hours before the passing of His Holiness, Serbian Patriarch +Pavle. TRP

A Tale of Two Subversives
Battling Christophobia in California and Serbia
by Srdja Trifkovic

The intention of postmoderns to destroy real people, with their natural loyalties, traditional morality, and inherited cultural preferences, is the same everywhere. Its specific manifestations may be different in the United States and Serbia—the homes of our two interlocutors and my good friends—but the underlying motivation is identical. It is Christophobia, the incubator of countless secondary pathologies that are imposed and celebrated on both sides of the Atlantic under the label of diversity. Having suffered countless disasters and progressive disintegration during the modern era, how may Christian civilization be effectively revived? “For true-blooded Western conservatives, this is the overarching question of their political life,” says Greg Davis, as we savor boutique vodkas in downtown Santa Monica. “Conservatives are forever trying to get back to something better, sounder, nobler, truer. But how far back? A decade, a century—a millennium?”

I met Greg five years ago, while he was producing and directing the must-see documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know. He is a soft-spoken convert to Orthodoxy, in his mid-30’s, with a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford and an abiding sense that our civilization is collapsing. Western conservatives, he says, are hoping to save the key institution of the West—namely, Christianity—but Christianity did not originate in the West, and therein lies the crux of the matter: “The development of the West since 1054, in opposition to the Orthodox East, was a revolutionary act. The West, at its core, is revolutionary; hence the shouting of our conservatives for history to stop, while intermittently effective in slowing the slide, has proven vain. The West’s defining act was the fundamental innovation of the filioque. The fruit of the schism was apparent in successive heresies and rebellions, which led to the wars of religion that would kill millions and tear Europe apart. Later subversives would translate the revolutionary logic into decidedly unchristian contexts such as the French and Bolshevik revolutions, with monstrous results.”

While the unraveling of Western Christianity has been under way for a thousand years, it gained a new head of steam in our time. With Vatican II, Greg says, Roman traditionalists were dealt a tremendous blow, and they are still suffering its consequences. Meanwhile, “The more traditionally minded Protestant denominations are now sprinting toward Sodom, while the newer ‘Bible churches,’ holding the line somewhat more effectively on the moral front, show themselves very much of this world in their Dionysian revels featuring ‘Christian’ rock music and self-help philosophies about how to succeed in the world of mammon without really trying. The job of shoring up what remains of traditional Western Christianity is, needless to say, not getting any easier.”

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, does not lend itself to the political realm, precisely because its kingdom is not of this world. It is impossible to turn Orthodoxy into a “movement” in the modern political sense, yet the Orthodox view on most political issues today largely tracks the views of traditional Roman Catholics and Protestants, in spite of their theological and ecclesiological differences: “Even in a decidedly Protestant and “revolutionary” country such as the United States, the Orthodox easily recognize the practical wisdom embodied in a document such as the Constitution and its principle of limited government. They are more than anyone averse to the deification of political figures and of the state that has been the bane of the modern era. But they are by nature ill-adapted to navigating the turbulent waters of modern politics, which grow ever more frenzied and anti-Christian.”

The Orthodox countries still outside the Western orbit have shown themselves routinely outclassed in the geopolitical great game to extend U.S.-style materialism and “democracy” to the far reaches of the galaxy. Davis points out how the Serbs have consistently underestimated the malevolence of U.S.-led designs on their country and culture, and how Russia naively undertook a series of Western-inspired “reforms” in the 1990’s that devastated the country: “Now, however, Russia is pulling herself together. Vladimir Putin, regularly portrayed in Western media as a cross between Nicholas I and Darth Vader, refuses to let his people commit suicide along the lines of Western Europe, which continues to renew its vote of no confidence in itself. With the ancient enemy of both Western and Eastern Christianity, Islam, once again making inroads into both, Western conservatives should see Russia and Orthodox civilization generally as a natural ally. Yet prominent conservatives continue to support the U.S.-led prosecution of Russia. Their support for an ever-expanding NATO, for the missile shield, and for Western-sponsored color-coded revolutions is the support for a revolutionary power that recognizes no limit to its hegemony.”

During the Cold War, it was still possible to regard the West, the adversary of revolutionary communism, as a netconservative force in the world, but no longer. Western, and especially American, conservatives are now in the illogical position of defending the actions of the world’s leading revolutionary power. For Western conservatives to remain “conservative,” Davis concludes, they must be willing to support the cause of the few genuinely conservative forces left in the world—namely, those Orthodox nations still willing and able to resist indefinite Western cultural and geopolitical expansion.

Bosko Obradovic is a Serb of Greg Davis’s age who is resisting both prongs of that expansion. He is one of the founders and leaders of Dveri (The Doors, www.dverisrpske.com), a Belgrade-based NGO distinguished from most others by two key facts: It does not get a penny from George Soros, and in its many social and cultural endeavors it seeks the blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church and spiritual guidance from its hierarchs. Bosko is a philosophy and literature graduate in his mid-30’s, a teacher, librarian, and father of three. He was in the news recently for making a key contribution to the cancelation of the planned “gay-pride” parade in downtown Belgrade: “The organizers had everything lined up. The government of Serbia was supporting them because the ruling Democratic Party thought this was one way to show to Brussels that we are progressive enough for E.U. membership. All of the major media, all of the Western-funded NGOs, and countless fashionably enlightened public figures were on their side. This was supposed to be yet another proof of Serbia’s terminal fall, its readiness to sell its soul for the elusive ‘European integration.’”

In the end the parade was called off because of security concerns. Its organizers were offered another location, but they rejected it. This, Bosko says, indicates their real agenda: They did not merely want to march; they wanted to provoke. “Their goal had never been to protect anyone’s ‘human rights’ or to protest ‘discrimination.’ Their goal was to promote a clearly defined ideology, lifestyle, and value system, and symbolically to impose it on Belgrade and on Serbia by taking over, however briefly, the old city center. Their objective was also to assert their political power as a privileged and protected group that promotes modernity. Their goal was to inflict a devastating blow on the traditional spiritual, moral, and cultural code, to present it as marginal, obsolete, and doomed to die out. Last but not least, calling the event off amidst a blaze of publicity was a call to their sponsors to continue and even increase their largesse, because the job is not done: Serbia is still its ugly, reactionary old self.”

Bosko and his friends have been called some nasty names since the parade was canceled in mid-September. There have been calls for a ban on Dveri, supposedly for violating recently enacted “antidiscrimination” legislation, which was drafted completely in accordance with E.U. guidelines. He says attacks are “a compliment to all of us who are determined not to give up on the value system that has kept our people alive through the centuries.” He is nevertheless concerned about the future: “We appear to be well on the way to 2084, when totalitarian NGO types will impose their blueprint for the eradication of our traditional spiritual, moral, and national identity. The NGO elite claims to act for and on behalf of ‘the West’ and enjoys the status of protected species, but no such protection will be extended to anyone if they have their way. Our “democracy” is heading for the abolition of the freedom to think differently from the high priests of Western postmodernity. Just look at the media treatment of Metropolitan Amfilohije, our acting Patriarch, for daring to quote the Scripture on sodomy! Is it not paradoxical? The Orthodox Church and all other mainstream religious communities in Serbia are asked to refrain from stating their position on this issue because doing so makes them liable to prosecution for advocating ‘intolerance.’”

Bosko Obradovic sees the problem in clear-cut terms. Either the Church will speak Her mind clearly and without euphemistic evasiveness, or else She will lose the purpose of Her existence as the saving community based on faith and the teaching of two millennia: “The Church as a whole and individual Christians are expected to refrain from taking a position if it does not conform to the standards of acceptable discourse as proclaimed by those who are not Christians, or—to be more precise—who are determined anti-Christians. Of course, Metropolitan Amfilohije and other bishops did not have any choice: Rather than ignore the intended moral and cultural onslaught, they spoke out clearly and authoritatively. Their authority comes from the Scripture and the Fathers, not from our ‘pro-E.U.’ government, or the ‘progressive’ NGOs, or their foreign mentors. They also condemned all forms of hate and violence, in accordance with the Christian principles, but they, and we, cannot accept a self-isolation that can only end in criminalizing any open profession of our faith.”

Bosko believes that the exclusion of the Orthodox Church from Serbia’s social and cultural life remains the final goal of the parade’s organizers and sponsors. He points out that the chorus of condemnation and indignant disgust against Metropolitan Amfilohije came simultaneously from the usual standard-bearers of “all progressive humanity”—Helsinki human-rights groups, sociology professors, foreign-sponsored “independent analysts,” Soros-financed media outlets—and all had a common accusation: By daring to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, Metropolitan Amfilohije is “objectively” condoning violence and promoting discrimination. Ergo he is guilty of practicing violence and discrimination, of inspiring “far-right groups and all other extremists”: “Their goal is to force the Church into internal exile, just like under communism. This goal is the raison d’etre of many NGOs in Serbia. They always react swiftly and indignantly when the Church adopts a position, treating it as something inherently illegitimate. The Metropolitan’s scriptural reference threw them into rage, as witnessed by the media conglomerate B92, which has assumed the role of ideological prosecutors and star chamber. His reminder that ‘the tree that bears no fruit is cut down’ was twisted in the best tradition of the French Revolution and Bolshevism.”

So what should be a believer’s position on homosexuality—or, for that matter, on any number of postmodernity’s sacred cows? Bosko Obradovic concludes that on this and every other social and political issue of our time, a distinct Christian position can and should be developed: “My faith does not allow it, and I do not want to mistreat, threaten, or discriminate against anyone. At the same time I am obliged to confess my faith, to bring up my children and to contribute to my society in accordance with what has been passed on to me—even if this means suffering legal punishment at the hands of the state.”

That punishment is coming soon to America and Europe alike, and Christians like Greg Davis and Bosko Obradovic are ready for it. They know that the earthly and temporal powers of the state can and should be recognized as imperative only to the degree that they are used to support good and limit evil. In America and Serbia alike, they both agree, a Christian may obey state laws only if such obedience does not demand apostasy or sin. We do not know which of my two friends will be the first to endure martyrdom, but I fear that both will. ¤

Srdja Trifkovic is the author of Defeating Jihad and The Sword of the Prophet

Black Sea Wars by Pat Buchanan

2009-09-23T07:45:00.006-04:00

Mr. Buchanan is right on target regarding the danger of expanding NATO power into the Black Sea region. His view that Obama believes in entente with Russia maybe over stating. The previous Bush administration miscalculated Russia's firm position against further NATO expansion in its own backyard. To save face from backing down, they passed it on to the next administration who now has no leverage and no alternative but to give in. However, you can count on this administration to continue the same anti-Russian policy as the previous if they get the chance. - TRP

Black Sea Wars

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 09/22/2009 ET

In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia's former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its "territorial waters," but it has no navy. Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia. Read more...

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Death of the West,""The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Russian Economic Forcast in 2010

2009-09-21T22:43:00.001-04:00

Last week while attending the 2009 International Investment Forum in Sochi, Russia, I managed to obtain a glimpse of where the Russian economy is heading for 2010 and beyond.

The aim of my visit to the Russian resort city on the Black Sea, was to participate in the Forum in order to have a clear view of the opportunities that the Krasnodar region and Sochi will offer for a business client. Of interest was the short term / mid term construction developments and opportunities in the Krasnodar region linked to the Sochi Olympics in 2014.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, opened the forum’s first session where he participated in a forum discussion along with Jeffrey Immelt, the Chairman & CEO, of General Electric; John Mack, Chairman of Morgan Stanley; and the founder and President of Texas Pacific Group Investment Fund, David Bonderman which represents the largest private equity investment firm in the world.

Putin made several announcements regarding new mechanisms for economic recovery to attract investments in the construction of infrastructure, power stations, roads, railroads and residential housing. He also announced the lowering of interest rates at the central bank.

Morgan Stanley’s CEO remarked that since the crisis, there are $5 trillion in the US and $7 trillion in Japan now waiting on the sidelines. As this money moves into the investment market, Russia will be a “huge benefactor of that capital.”

Because of the rising BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) economies, the CEO of General Electric announced that already 80% of their operations are outside of the U.S. which partly includes Russia. The CEO’s presence in Russia was an initiative to further increase GE’s presence in Russia to take advantage of Russia’s vast opportunities.

Most of the above mentioned forum participants noted a reduction in corruption and an increase in transparency, specifically in the Krasnodar region. Krasnodar Governor Tkachev was congratulated for his efforts to improve the business climate in Krasnodar.

According to public information, the Russian government conservatively estimated last year that the 200 construction projects for the 2014 Olympics would cost $12 billion. The state promised to inject up to $7.5 billion, with the rest coming from the private sector. With the accounting of ruble losing against the dollar, the total amount has been reduced to $9.2 billion. The government estimates at least $2.5 billion will be invested by the private sector in Sochi alone.

According to the Forum organizers, 112 agreements amounting to €13.8 billion were signed at the forum:
- 64 agreements among them to the amount of €8.4 billion were signed by 11 Russian regions.
- The Governor of Krasnodar signed 35 agreements amounting to €4.4 billion.
- Krasnodar Region presented 1,500 investment projects totaling €27 during the forum

I also got the chance to meet privately with officials from the Construction Department of the region of Krasnodar, where much of the construction is ongoing. They also noted that there are opportunities in this region that are unrelated to the Olympics in infrastructure, logistics, and agriculture. International contractors are welcomed and needed to assist the local construction sector.

According to the Krasnodar officials, decisions can be and are made locally. I also heard from some other Russian government officials that they are encouraging the decision making process to take place locally and to not rely on the government or Moscow.

One of the complaints among Russian business participants was regarding business credit and financing. Russian banks were previously charging interest rates as high as 20% . One such critic of doing business in Russia was German Gref, Chairman of Sberbank. However, Putin replied back to Gref that the banks should lower their rates eventually down to 6% embarrasing the head of Russia's largest bank. According to one of my contacts at U.S. EXIM Bank, some previous recipients no longer need to rely on U.S. export products due to their success in Russia. However, foreign companies selling U.S. content in Russia can rely on U.S. EXIM products to reduce risk utlizing some of the stronger local Russian banks. As of this week, the Central Bank of Russia announced it will slash its rates to 10% and further rate cuts are predicted to follow.

Driving along the road from the Sochi seaside to the Krasnaya Polyana Olympic village where I was staying, there was much evidence of extensive construction, new roads, tunnels, bridges, power plants/electrical lines, and the beginning construction of a high-speed rail. Also interesting was the evidence of opportunities in the Krasnodar region not related to the Olympics. Besides the need for affordable residential housing, roads and infrastructure, Krasnodar offers tremendous opportunities in wine production, agriculture and timber.

Interestingly, other regions within and outside of Russia were also being promoted at the Investment Forum from Armenia, the Crimean region of Ukraine, Kalmyk Republic, and Caucuses.

I also heard from other Russian businessmen who reported movement in the construction sector was starting up again in the Moscow and St. Petersburg regions due to government intervention during the economic crisis.

In conclusion, Russia offers tremendous opportunities in construction, agriculture and infrastructure development which will offer long-term opportunities for investors. The forum portrayed optimism that Russia and the neighboring region will be a magnet for investment as the global economy recovers. Already Russia is in 5th place for foreign direct investment inflows according to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development only behind the U.S., France, China, and Britain.

Despite the global economic fallout, Pepsi, Boeing, and John Deere have announced substantial large scale investment plans in Russia for 2010. As energy prices stabilize to normal levels, and demands increase on Russian commodities from China and India, new opportunities will open up in 2010:

• New wave of privatization – Experts predict that since the economic crisis, over 50% of the Russian economy is at least temporarily under state control. As major developers and retailers went bust and construction projects came to a halt, Russia’s top largest banks were forced to step in and take stakes in these indebted companies converting more debt into equity. However, experts believe this is a short-term trend. Recent government announcements indicate a new wave of privatization is taking place as the government offers stakes in these companies to private investors in order to close the gap on the deficit and to avoid heavy reliance of energy prices to maintain normal levels in the state coffers. This trend is also expected to follow with a new wave of mergers and acquisitions as private investors take advantage of lower prices, especially in the real estate sector.

• Krasnodar Region – Sochi will host the 2014 Winter Olympic games marked by heavy investment and construction of the Krasnodar infrastructure systems, Casinos and Black Sea resort developments.

• Energy – Russian oil production output this year has reached record highs since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s Gasprom reports that gas exports to Europe have finally stabilized since the last year’s gas issues. Merrill Lynch Russia predicts oil will rise to $82/bbl before the end of 2010.

• Agriculture and Forestry Sectors – Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan contain the world’s largest land areas for agriculture and forests. At the height of last year’s economic crisis, Russia reported the largest grain harvest since 1990. This sector continued to grow in 2009 and vast untapped lands will attract even further agricultural development.

The presence of Morgan Stanley, GE and other US heavy weights support this conclusion. TRP

New party in Serbia supports merging with Russia

2009-08-26T08:05:00.005-04:00

Some of my Serbian friends made some comments that throughout history Russia never really comes to the aid of Serbia. This talking point is bought hook line and sinker by many (but not all) of Serbs. What is the alternative? How helpful has the West been to Serbia in both recent times and throughout history? For more of my views on this topic, please see my earlier post on this topic: - TRP

New party in Serbia supports merging with Russia
26 August, 2009, 16:47

"The support [for the 'My Russia' party] is tremendous. And people are amazed that no one before actually started anything like this," founder of Serbia's "My Russia" party, Ivan Isakovich, told RT.

More....

A review of 2008 and the future of 2009

2009-01-01T11:46:00.019-05:00

If I can summarize the events of 2008 it would be with one phrase: "Global Economic Crisis." Some of us have been predicting this for a long time. One of my colleagues several years ago predicted the collapse of Western power. His reason was based on the simple fact that the U.S./Western system was victorious over the communist system because it practiced free market principles, whereas the communist system could not compete. When communism fell, many of the former communist countries embraced free market capitalism while the U.S. and the E.U. have in practice become more socialist. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if you believe in the free market system and, capitalism, then you must also conclude that when you depart from those principles the economy will ultimately fail. Even in the United States, where Republicans embrace the ideology of the free market system, the Republicans themselves took charge with expanding the size of the U.S. government and its socialist system. Even the republican President Bush himself "apologized" for his "abandonment of free market principles," after enacting the greatest government intervention of the economy in U.S. history.

I once had the opportunity to meet Newt Gingrich in Washington back in 2005. He predicted privately, that the Republican controlled Congress would be defeated and the Republicans may also lose the White House. Gingrich's reasoning was that the Republicans would be punished because they departed from the free market principles of capitalism which would lead to failure and make it easier for the Democrats to criticize their performance.

Interestingly, there are economic experts who have been warning all of us that the U.S. economy could collapse if its continues on its departure from capitalism. One of those experts is Peter Schiff, an advocate of the Austrian or "Vienna School" of economics has been warning the public since 2006. Both left-wing ideologues and pro-Bush Republicans ridiculed him on Fox News and other news programs. Now both sides are taking him seriously. This video below shows his accurate economic predictions as far back as 2006.

Despite the global economic crisis, 2008 can also be characterized by the following events:

Independence of Kosovo - Metohija. U.S. policy set a dangerous precedent with the declaration of independence of Kosovo, which was also recognized by mostly Western states. Most of the rest of the world including some members of the EU have and do not plan to recognize Kosovo. The Eurasian powers led by Russia (See map of countries recognizing Kosovo independence) have strongly resisted recognition. It is also worth noting that as of this writing, there are still four members of NATO that have not recognized Kosovo, further demonstrating that the U.S. has become less relevant globally.
The Georgian-Russian War led to the failure of the U.S. experiment in Georgia and complete destruction of Georgian military by the Russian military. Russia previously resisted recognizing Ossetia and Abkhazia based on Russia's policy to not change borders of recognized states. The outcome of this event was a severe blow to both U.S. influence in the Caspian Sea area and NATO's presence in former Soviet space. One can conclude, that the recognition of the break-away republics inside Georgia is irreversible and was a direct result of the U.S. policy to recognize Kosovo.
Russia's reassertion to break away from communism was symbolized with the the loss of two important figures in shaping the new destiny of Russia. His Holiness Alexy II, the Patriarch of "All the Russias" passed away leaving a legacy of reestablishing religious freedom in Russia and for re-unification of the Russian Orthodox Church. His leadership in uniting the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad helped to reconcile the splits amongst the Russian people dating back to communism. Another was the loss of a great dissident writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who once was living in exile, returned to live the rest of his life in his Russian Homeland. Both were recognized and decorated by then President Vladimir Putin for their contributions to the Russian people.
Deployment of the "Home Mission" military force inside the United States was barely noticed in the "commentariat," (U.S. media). An entire combat brigade from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry has been deployed to the U.S. in case of civil unrest. The new U.S. military strategy of "Strategic Shock" to deal with internal threats caused by civil unrest was also revealed raising fears that the U.S. is preparing for a future crisis.

These important events of 2008 will definitely define the future of 2009. Unfortunately, the same analysts who correctly predicted the economic crisis of 2008, have even grimmer predictions for 2009. We all know that economies are cyclic. Many times in U.S. history, the economy boomed and other times it was in depression. What will happen to the world's greatest economy in 2009? Some say it will be a repeat of 1929 when the U.S. experienced the Great Depression. Others say it will resemble more like 1979, a recession that followed by a strong revival. However, my prediction is that the U.S. will experience an event similar to 1989. What happened in 1989? The collapse of the Soviet economy which resulted in its break up into separate countries. All three events have one thing in common, and that is that state intervention in the economies was the main cause of these events. However, the U.S. capitalist system always corrected the problems itself from the free market. In the USSR however, it was different. The Soviet socialist state intervention contributed to its demise. Likewise the U.S. government's interventions and state bailouts will also contribute to its own economic failure similarly as did the USSR.

The entire world has been impacted by the economic crisis. Countries that adhere to free market principles will eventually recover as did the U.S. in 1929 and 1979. However, the U.S. has made a departure from capitalism. The U.S. elite have a common belief that governments can solve any problems by just pouring money on them. Once the greatest manufacturer on Earth, the U.S. transformed itself into a service economy that is driven by consumerism rather than creating tangible goods. U.S. economic system has become a gigantic "Ponzi"scheme. Basically, the government spends and borrows money from foreign creditors. Countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Russia will stop providing credits because the U.S. cannot pay all this debt back. Nor can the creditors continue providing this credit as the dollar loses its value. Therefore to solve this problem, the U.S. will just print more cash. This will surely result in hyper inflation (like the USSR experienced) and eventually cripple the U.S. economy entirely.

How rest of the world recovers or not from this crisis will ultimately depend on the directions they make in their own policies and how the the global economic system redefines itself. Will they pursue sound conservative economic policies or will they experiment with socialism and printing more money. One thing is for certain in 2009. The new Obama Administration will bring about no change nor does Obama have any magic tricks to cope with the problems of hyper-inflation.

The other big question is if Russia can remain on course with its free market economic development. The Russian economy is also impacted and the demise of the U.S. economy is not a good scenario for Russia in the short-term. Russia has emerged as a significant energy supplier for the United States but is in the process of establishing more markets in the so called emerging markets of Asia. Certainly Russia may experience a "bump" on its road to economic development, much like the U.S. system had various times in its history. Although Moscow has lots of work to do, the biggest difference between the U.S. and Russia, is that Russia has reduced its size of government, lowered taxes, and has huge reserves of cash. On the other hand, the U.S. has expanded its government (thus increasing incompetence), and has accumulated huge debt that will certainly lead to hyper-inflation and possible civil unrest.

2009 shall be an interesting year.

Russian Analyst: US will have civil war in 2009

2008-12-30T21:30:00.005-05:00

The picture on left published in the Wall Street Journal on December 29, 2008 depicts how the U.S. may split apart following a civil war as according to the predictions of a Russian professor Igor Panarin.

Reaction of course in the commentariat is that Panarin is just ignorant of the United States. Although I was aware of the sensation he created earlier in the Russian media, the article in the Wall Street Journal was one the first times he was mentioned in the mainstream U.S. media. Now as expected, his views have created a stir and which prompted myself to do a little research on who Panarin is and how he came about with this scenario. In another article, Panarin claims, "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

Lets look at some facts:

Igor Panarin is a professor of political sciences and expert on the U.S. as well as Dean of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy in Moscow.
Panarin cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd who in 1976 predicted, the fall of the Soviet Union, based on indicators such as increasing infant mortality rates. Likewise, Todd predicted a similar fate for the United states in 2001.
Similar to Todd's use of demographic date to calculate his predictions, Panarin based his forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts (Russia's equivilent of the National Security Agency) which is used to predict economic, financial and demographic trends.

One must also keep in mind that Panarin himself gives his predictions a 55-45% chance of happening. If you read in one of my previous posts you will also find that his predictions are not far off from some analysts in the United States as well. Other analysts offer other scenarios: The U.S. could prevent its economic collapse by becoming a dictatorship. Standards of living would decrease but the government could use military force to keep the country together and perhaps even succeed with implementing a union with Canada and Mexico and just replace the failed currency with a new one. But this is a topic for another day and another post!

Russia in the Americas

2008-12-06T20:52:00.001-05:00

This picture on the left says a thousand words. The President of Russia is shown lighting a candle in the newly consecrated Russian Orthodox cathedral in Havana, Cuba, while Raul Castro looks on. Dmitry Medvedev's visit to South America was certainly significant for Russia's presence in the Americas. Despite the commentariat's agenda to make it appear that a new USSR is trying to militarize the region, there are several points I think were very significant about Medvedev's visit:

1. Brazil - is one of the so-called "emerging markets" - countries that make up the "B.R.I.C." economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. This is important to note because Brazil and Russia are discussing the process of restructuring the global economy which is just another blow to the global elite and a victory to sovereign nations.

2. Venezuela - While Medvedev was visiting Caracas and Russian naval ships were training with the Venezuelan military, Hugo Chavez held a meeting of the "Bolivarian Movement." This is the left-wing movement that Chavez, Morales and other Latin Americans follow. Although they started as nationalist movements, they merged with leftists during the Cold War. However, Medvedev refused all invitations to participate on this level but instead brought members of the Russian private business community to make business connections in Caracas instead. This means that while Moscow values its relationship with Caracas, it is clear that the Russians came to open up business opportunities and to gain a foothold in the Americas militarily.

3. Cuba - Medvedev took part in the consecration of the Our Lady of Kazan Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Havana. Here again Medvedev is making it clear they are not there for leftist reasons that previously united Castro with the USSR ideologically.

Glenn Beck: U.S. headed for unrest?

2008-12-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Conservative Talk Show Host Glenn Beck videos speaking on the U.S. economic situation.

Why the global elite do not like an economically strong Russia

2008-12-02T14:46:00.005-05:00

I just had to comment on the Economist's Special Report on Russia by Arkady Ostrovsky. The report appears factual but it wreaks with propagandistic rhetoric evident from the so-called Western "commentariat" - a term I prefer to call the liberal globalist media as coined by Russia Today's Peter Lavelle.

Ostrovsky appears in various British print as an "expert" on Russian affairs but the rhetoric is typical of the Economist. I am sure the editor made sure of that since the Economist has always predicted for decades that "pro-Western" countries like Ukraine, Georgia, etc., would become economic successes whilst Russia remain a basket case. Just pick up any old Economist from the 1990's or early 2000's and you will see that the reality of today does not resemble their predictions then. This is what happens when people under the ideology of liberal globalism wrongly define what is right and what is wrong. Now they are faced to explain why Russia has been rising economically and politically. Anything you can find wrong with Russia on the other hand is Putin's fault. However, if there are positive economic reports, it means Putin is using nationalism and oil to allow Russians to get rich unfairly. It is all nonsense.

Ostrovsky at least is more realistic than most of the commentariat that the current Russia is not the Second Soviet Union. The commentariat has led the average American to believe that Putin is trying to re-create another Soviet Union through the KGB. Firstly, Putin is not the Commander in Chief any longer, and secondly as even Ostrovsky rightfully reports, Russia does have a market economy moving away from socialism.

Ostrovsky is wrong on other points as well. Mainly he is wrong by saying that Russia is merely copying the West by "unilaterally" invading Georgia, and suggesting that Russian style capitalism is leaving out the "masses" in the cold who are falling into poverty. Firstly, I don't think Russia had any other choice than to attack Georgia in order to protect its own security. Instead it was the unilateral intention of the U.S. to interfere with Georgian-Russian relations. Secondly, there does not seem to be any dispute in regards to fact the quantity of millionaires and billionaires in Russia is growing. Where do these millionaires come from? Of course we all know a good number of billionaires or oligarchs as the Russians call them got rich in the 1990's by pillaging Russia. Men like Berezovsky or the jailed Khodorkovsky got rich without really creating anything. However, there are plenty of newly created legitimate millionaires who during the same 1990's were making $40 per month, then $100 per month, etc., but used their great talents to harness opportunities that built the consumer economy now present in Russia. Prosperity has only until recently begun to spread to the provincial areas of Russia which in time will also see their standards of living improve. There is much evidence of this happening already. However, there will always be certain Russians, especially older retirees of the USSR era who will be just happy living in their villages and dachas as long as nobody bothers them. Whereas oil and gas has helped make some very rich billionaires in the energy sector and caused state coffers to fill with mountains of cash which the Kremlin has put in its reserves, the implementation of a flat tax, reduction of government and establishment of private property are the real reasons for the rise of the middle class and why there is a growing legitimate millionaire class.

What is lacking in the Economist and most other reports on Russia coming from the commentariat is that they never use real logic or investigate why things are really the way they are. They cannot report the real story because they know that the opposite is happening in the West where there is an unprecedented economic crisis. If you report the facts in Russia, you would discredit the entire elite establishment and their policies of the last 20 or so years.

And lastly the author is dead wrong on the facts about the population decreasing in Russia. According to what I have read, Russia has begun to report positive demographic growth. In fact, Russia (and Ukraine, Belarus, etc.) is among the few European countries with positive birth-rate growth. It is true that Russia has a high mortality rate, but the generation dying currently were born during the 1930's and 40's. Much of this population did not have basics like baby's milk or proper food and were living under severe trauma from the Nazis and the policies of Stalin. Babies exposed to malnutrition may have shorter life spans which now is affecting Russian demographic statistics. But this does not take into consideration the health of young people today who will most certainly enjoy longer life spans.

The Economist and rest of the commentariat love to preach about how Russia is just dying off when it is the West that is really dying off - literally with negative demographic growth in the United Kingdom and all the rest of the major Western nations. It is true, that Russia will need to increase its population in order to survive the realignment of the world order, and that is still to early to tell if Russia will succeed in this arena. While Russia is at least trying to address this problem, the West has not even acknowledged that this as a problem.

McBamma's foreign policy on Russia

2008-09-07T15:54:00.006-04:00

This posting was written after grappling with many of my friends and family on the difference between a McCain or Obama foreign policy. We all know where the Democrats stand on Russia. As for the Republicans it gets confusing. Ideologically, Putin and Medvedev are closer to the Republicans. However, Putin for the last eight years seemed to be embracing free market principles taken out of the playbook of Reagan while his counterpart George W. Bush seems to be using Lenin's playbook. Now where would a McCain presidency stand?

When the Russians pulled their forces out of Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall, they were in a state of Euphoria. The Russians no longer had to worry about security anymore based on the US promises they would likewise not move NATO closer to Russia's borders. It was in agreement that marked the end of the Cold War. However, the Clinton Admin reneged and decided to move NATO closer to Russia's borders despite promises. The US sensed the Russians during the Yeltsin days were too weak to do anything. To add insult to injury, the US decided first to use NATO forces to strike against the Serbs in Bosnia and later in 1999, against Russia's wishes to bomb Serbia and take Kosovo-Metohija from the Serbs.

I remember when Bush W. debated with Gore in 2000 on this issue. Gore must have really thought he had Bush check mated during the debates on this subject. If you were watching the debates you just knew he was thinking that Bush would sound silly trying to debate the "Gore the Expert." However, when Gore asked Bush W. what he would do in regards to Kosovo, Bush properly replied (convincing enough to earn my support) that this is Russia's sphere of influence not ours. I was over joyed to hear Bush answer this since this would mark a 180 degree turn from the Clinton years. However, was I ever wrong on this one! As we know now, Bush W. even recognized the independence of Kosovo despite Serbia's friendship to Bush and against Russia's wishes. I spent many meetings in the White House with the official delegations from the Serbian Orthodox Church to no avail on this subject.

What happened with Bush's change of heart? Going back to 2000, Bush and Putin embarked on a good friendship. Back in 2000, Putin correctly warned Bush that the greatest threat to security for both countries was the terrorist threats from the Middle East. He even proposed a new security agreement that would make Russia and the US the leaders in the war against terrorism. However, Rumsfeld and others laughed at this and continued to push NATO expansion (like Clinton) and to leave the earlier agreements in place that Reagan implemented with Gorbachev. At this time, they still did not take Osama Bin Laden serious. Then came September 11. Putin was right. This was the bigger threat, but the Bush Admin failed to address it earlier. I was puzzled about this since when I was an officer in the US Army, we were quite aware of where the presence of Islamic terrorists in Bosnia but did nothing to interfere with them. Serbs warned us on numerous occasions that Al Qaida would attack us eventually while our people would laugh at them thinking the Islamic extremists were no threat. They were wrong on that! After 9-11, the Russians reminded the US about this and even came to help the US by securing the border of Afghanistan with Russian troops stationed in the "stans" of Central Asia. Even today logistics for US troops are supported by Russia in Central Asia. But for some reason, Bush W. decided to embark on the same play book created by Bill Clinton. He moved NATO even closer to Russia's borders and more recently Bush recognized the illegal independence of Kosovo, an integral territory within Serbia. This was a blow to Russia. Russia was under great pressure to recognize Abkhazia and Ossetia despite but chose not to, even though it would be a popular decision to do so in Russia. Russia stuck to the principle of no border changes making Kosovo a stand on this principle. However, when Georgia which was armed by the U.S., attacked Ossetia and began killing Russian peace keepers, Russia had to change the playing field.

Unfortunately, Senator McCain is also using the same play book and is connected to the government of Georgia through lobbying. Like the pro-Georgian Vice President Cheney on this issue, McCain is wrong - dead wrong . Not only is he wrong, he is supporting the same policies of Bill Clinton which policies will not achieve anything for the United States anyway. The U.S. should not support loose cannon countries and even more so, should not allow these countries to join NATO. Just imagine if a year ago, Cheney got his way and Georgia was allowed to join NATO. That would mean the U.S. would have to provide a defense guarantee to Georgia and be forced to either launch a war to defend Georgia against Russia or risk the collapse of NATO! Is Georgia worth a war against Russia? I think not. The mistake that led to this debacle was the Bush Administration which was following the Clinton Administration's policies by recognizing Kosovo. This caused severe damage to the world order and will impact negatively for decades to come.

Unfortunately Barak Obama is no better. I also cannot help to remember some of my old history lessons about how the Russian Empire fell to communism. The Bolsheviks also supported the Georgians and Ukrainians against Russia! History is repeating itself, only the power base of the Bolsheviks is located on the other side of the ocean. This is insane.

First Ossetia/Abkhazia, is Crimea next?

2008-09-03T17:34:00.009-04:00

I love Ukraine. It is like my second homeland. I studied in Ukraine, got married in Ukraine, and have invested in Ukraine. Sometimes however, I wonder if there are two or even three Ukraines. It is not unusual with all the confusion and instability with the Ukrainian government that you can find yourself among friends or family having dinner and drinking Ukrainian horilka (vodka) and find yourself taking one of two or even the third side to political arguments.

After the recent war in the south Caucuses where Russia crushed the US backed Georgian army, I again was caught between the differing views in in Ukraine. My friend Andrey who is from Crimea said his fellow Crimeans were next. He warned that Russia is passing out passports and will soon use the same argument as an excuse to invade and conquer Ukraine. I then mentioned that many if not the majority of Crimean citizens claim they are ethnic Russian and mostly speak Russian so what is the big deal?

He replied with an analogy: "What if the U.S. decided to hand out passports to some Canadians just because they look and speak like Americans."

After thinking about this I could not help but tell him that if some Americans in Washington had their way, Canada may become part of the United States. One might ask, how can this be?

It is the so called North America Treaty or proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The proposal would diminish much of Canadian sovereignty if it was ever implemented. It would definitely make Canada less sovereign than Ukraine should Russia make a move on its fellow Slavic neighbor. So I told my friend that if he wishes to use the US-Canadian analogy in regards to Ukraine, then he should keep in mind that Canada and the US have very close military cooperation in addition to sharing membership in NATO. Because they are predominately English speaking, and they are closer to each other than US is with Mexico. It is only natural relationship and therefore would be also natural for Russia and Ukraine to have close ties on many spheres as well.

So I instead decided to counter with a better analogy: "Now imagine if Canada opted to join the Shanghai Group with Russia. And now lets say that Russian military forces were allowed to enter into Canadian airspace with Russian jet fighterpatrolling the skies along the US-Canadian border. Then lets imagine they deploy missile sites and bases," I replied. We all know this would sound alarm bells in Washington. If Ukraine wasn't striving to join NATO, a military alliance that attacked the sovereignty of Serbia, and which has become increasingly belligerent towards Russia, I don't think the Crimea issue would even be relevant....

Does Serbia need to be in NATO?

2008-03-17T19:35:00.005-04:00

(РУС) Some of my friends back in Serbia can't wait for Serbia to be a member of NATO. Even though they know first hand what it is like to be a recipient of NATO attacks, even though membership means giving up sovereignty, backing down on Kosovo, and abandoning other principles counter to Serbia's own interests, NATO membership has become some sort of mythical measuring stick that once achieved, assures that everything else will fall in place once membership is given.

One argument given to me is how Serbia's close neighbor and fellow Orthodox Balkan country Greece has benefited from NATO membership.

I am sorry but Greece joined NATO during a time that the Soviet Union posed a huge threat to European and Atlantic security which included Greece. During this time it was advantageous to be part of this security which insured more prosperity.

Geopolitical power has shifted in the last few years. Simply being a member of NATO or EU does NOT guarantee prosperity nor offer any magic wand to improve the situation in Serbia or anywhere in the Balkans.

One must take a look at Romania and Bulgaria and compare the investment climate compared to Serbia which is a powerhouse compared to Sofia or Bucharest. Their membership has not provided the results that they anticipated nor will it.

Furthermore, the ex-communist countries like Russia and others that are doing well economically are doing so because of their market reforms like a flat tax system and reduction of socialism that surpass free market characteristics in the EU. This is proven to improve the livelihoods of common people not simply enjoying security of NATO.

I will concede that Serbia would have benefited like Greece 20 years ago if it was integrated into the EU/NATO during that era. To do so today, I don't see any concrete benefits.

I do however see a huge potential for Serbia's prosperity if it can prevent its further dismemberment (and loss of strategic resources and outlet to the sea) and still be part of Europe and part of the "civilized" world without ever having to invite thousands of social-bureaucrats from Brussels to micromanage Serbia's further dismemberment. From an economic standpoint, I see no advantage if Serbia enters the EU or integrates to NATO.

Geopolitics has changed since 1999. The economic center of gravity is shifting to Eurasia (Russia/Caspian area) away from Brussels or Washington making NATO less relevant.

The Chicken or the Egg - A Free Market System or Democracy?

2007-11-29T22:27:00.002-05:00

As I am writing, the Western media is focused on the Russian elections. In the U.S. in particular, the coverage is spun to show that the elections are proof Putin is dominating all aspects of Russian life and stifling what was left of a once emerging democracy. What is often not mentioned is that the opposition movement to Putin or "Other Russia" relies on the outlawed "National Bolshevik Party" movement for its boots on the streets in anti-government demonstrations and rallies. A prominent component of the "Other Russia," the National Bolsheviks share more in common with the radical leftist organizations that often battle with riot police in the capitals of numerous Western countries than any peaceful democratic movement. Interestingly, statements from the U.S. State Department constantly scold Russia for rolling back democracy. No wonder why the average westerner already is convinced that Putin is restoring the Soviet Union!

Despite all the alarm over democracy in Russia, the fact remains that capitalism is alive and well according to all the economic data which strongly contradicts suggestions of a return to Soviet style socialism. Is the widespread popularity for Putin in today's Russia a result of everyday Russians being nostalgic for a return of the Soviet Union? The answer is no. Anyone who has been in the Soviet Union or the "democratic" Russia under the chaotic 1990's knows that Russians do not wish to turn the clocks back to either period. Today, even in smaller cities, one can see for themselves an emerging middle class that spends their leisure time in newly built shopping malls while the number of automobile owners is rising. Evidence of this fact is by the sheer number of retailers opening up businesses throughout Russia (including Siberia) and the arrival of Western auto manufacturers who are setting up plants in Russia in order to keep up with the demands of the Russian consumer. Even Ford has entered the Russian automobile market while its factories in Detroit are on the brink of bankruptcy.

In summary, there are many factors that demonstrates that the Russia of today is quite different from the previous Soviet one. Among these factors are private ownership, freedom to practice religion, and other freedoms that were previously banned but encouraged in today's Russia. And thanks to Putin's reforms, Russia has begun to reduce its size of government and implement a 13% flat tax to the envy of many pro-business economists in the United States! Although one can argue on how democratic Putin's Russia is or isn't, one thing is for sure, Russia is embracing free market policies that are certainly more liberal than currently in the United States.

By no means is Russia yet an ideal place of opportunity as compared to the United States, it is however on the right path. Let us not forget that before there was a United States, colonists lived under the authoritarian rule of the English King. Thanks to the ingenious American Founding Fathers, the United States was ushered into history on the foundations of free market principles. Today the Founding Fathers would gasp at the size of the current U.S. government and how intrusive Washington has become.

During the Cold War period, Ronald Reagan often cited that economic prosperity taking place outside the walls around the Soviet Union would eventually help defeat Communism. He argued that the Soviet government had an ineffective economic system that was doomed to fail and of course he was right. Eventually Moscow could not control the millions of people trapped behind the "Iron Curtain" when they realized that on the other side was a better life awaiting. By the end of the Cold War however, the West and in particular the U.S., squandered the opportunity to help lead these peoples to real prosperity. Rather than allow the newly freed peoples of former Soviet republics, and other former communist countries the opportunity to pull themselves up by the boot straps, the Euro-Atlantic alliance decided instead to divide and conquer them. Firstly this was tested when a newly united Germany took center stage in the international arena leading a united Europe to recognize the independence movements in Slovenia and Croatia thus breaking up Yugoslavia - the most multi-ethnic country in Europe, and certainly the least autocratic of their communist neighbors. Next, was to foment revolutions in governments that may lean towards Moscow. As some of these former communist countries embraced Europe and the United States, they received the coveted title of being "pro-Western, regardless if they are genuinely democratic or try to implement real capitalism. In other cases, the pro-Western politicians came from the same government that was previously subsidized from a bankrupt Moscow. These pro-Western countries simply swapped their allegiances and began taking handouts from Brussels and Washington. The irony however, was that instead of embracing the free market reforms that Reagan advocated for the peoples within the Iron Curtain, a new European Union emerged that absorbed some of these former communist regimes morphing into a new super state. Today, the EU micromanages the European economy while its ineffective beau racy will soon rival the managed economy of the Soviet Union!

By the time Vladimir Vladirmirovich Putin became the president of the Russian Federation, the Russian economy was in a shambles while its former communists neighbors where enjoying growing prosperity after their governments sold off state assets. This initial period of privatization allowed a quick influx of hard currencies to enter their economies as Europeans and other foreign investors began to snap up state run enterprises. However, as these countries become integrated into the European bureaucratic apparatus, Brussels can now dictate how these countries must run themselves rather than allowing the market to drive the economy. For example, the EU can tell the Poles how they should label and define vodka rather than allowing the Poles themselves. There is no question that much of the former communist bloc has benefited by the technical know how and investments from Europe after the USSR collapsed. Even the intent and idea of uniting the European markets is novel at least in theory. But in any case, EU expansion is running out of steam as is evident of the status and performance of newly admitted EU members Rumania and Bulgaria, more evidence that it is not EU membership alone the magic wand that can bring about economic prosperity but rather real free market implementation.

Case in point is the once former Soviet republic Moldova. Moldova is officially an independent country no longer under Moscow's rule. However, the Transdniester region of Moldova (predominately Russian speaking area) separated itself from the central rule of Chisinau, the capital of Moldova. Moldova receives backing and support from the United States, NATO and the EU. Moldova also has started the path to the necessary reforms for EU accession. Why that Moldova is then is one of the poorest countries in Southeastern Europe? Across the Dniester River, one can look at a contrasting picture when you consider the breakaway Transdniester Region. This area which is de facto independent of the "pro-Western" government in Chisinau is experiencing high economic growth while attracting outside investment. Today rosy economic reports are coming from Tiraspol, the capital of Transdniester. Since they have also adapted an even smaller flat tax than Russia, reduced government bureaucracy, and created a more business friendly environment than is the case outside of Transdniester, this region will ironically be better off without EU's intrusion. Could this serve as a new model for other former communist countries who may grow tired of a stagnant EU?

Always follow the money. Signs already may suggest that "pro-Western" countries may again swap allegiances as Moscow grows prosperous. The vehemently pro-Western government of Georgia is facing stiff opposition and growing street protests. In Serbia, where the U.S. is the largest single investor in that country, may soon see Russian capital flowing in. Especially with the fate of Kosovo-Metohija and the U.S. attempts to centralize Bosnia, Serbia may soon realize it could benefit from a closer relationship with Moscow. Next door to Serbia, the Serb Republic within Bosnia Herzegovina is also enjoying support from Moscow to counter attempts by the U.S. to integrate the Serb entity into a Muslim dominated centralized state. If this trend continues, the Serb Republic could also follow the "Transdniester Model" to build a more prosperous free market outside of Sarajevo and U.S. control. Even the new pro-business government of Poland is pledging to strengthen Moscow - Warsaw ties, and I predict that if Russia continues its economic success, more of her neighbors will try to get into the action.

Throughout the world one can find examples of how the free market can win. While the U.S. wastes its time on trying to build democratic institutions in Iraq, it should instead focus on building a free market there first. While factions butcher each other in that country, Iraq's other oil rich neighbors Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc., enjoy unprecedented prosperity and relative stability while being ruled by undemocratic monarchs. Even U.S. ally Egypt is faced with a similar situation of trying to build a free market system before it can democratize. Although some of Egypt's opposition faces a similar fate to Russia's opposition, Cairo has enacted reforms to cut taxes and encourage a free market. Should Egypt's President Mubarak lose his grip on power, the Muslim Brotherhood will surely win elections and establish an Islamic regime in Cairo creating more instability in that already volatile region.

Time will tell which side will win as the war between socialism under the guise of democracy, versus free market capitalism continues to wage for hearts and minds throughout emerging markets. If the West, i.e. European Union continues to embrace "socialist democratic" policies, it will too implode like the USSR. Will the peoples of Europe and especially former communist countries benefit from a chaotic but democratic Russia or a stable free market one?

Is Russia good for Serbia?

2007-11-11T18:44:00.003-05:00

Is Russia good for Serbia? I have heard numerous Serbs ask this question often. Throughout history, Serbs have looked on "Mother Russia" as a glimmer of hope during the numerous occasions when the smaller Serb nation was up against seemingly impossible odds. In those times, Serbs would say: "Nas i Rusa trista miliona," or translating to: "We and the Russians are three hundred million." Following some disappointment with a Russia during the 1990's which was overwhelmed with her own problems, some Serbs would add to the saying with some cynicism: "…if only Mother Russia realized that her child was Serbia." Even recently, when it seemed Serbia would for sure lose its province Kosovo-Metohija, Russia has managed to delay the independence process for the province offering at least some hope. Now Serbs are again asking: "Is Russia good for Serbia?

Before I answer this question I wish to point out that Russian and Serb relations have existed for centuries. How much this relationship has benefited the Serb people in my view, has varied throughout history due to various circumstances connected to the geopolitical situation of the moment. Therefore I wish to focus for the time being on more recent events.

Most people who follow recent Balkan history will not argue that the Russian Federation during the 1990's under President Yeltsin was capable of standing up to the Trans-atlantic forces that were reshaping Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, most people may not be aware of the important role the Russian military played in stopping the complete destruction of Serbia after the Dayton Peace accords that allowed NATO's occupation of Bosnia Herzegovina which includes the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska).

After Dayton, NATO divided Bosnia Herzegovina into three sectors: British, French, and U.S. Divisions. Each sector included both NATO and non-NATO members as "multinational divisions" which comprised the "Implementation Force" (IFOR), and later the "Stabilization Force (SFOR). The U.S. sector set up its head quarters in Tuzla, which is located on the Muslim dominated "Federation" territory. Within the U.S. sector, various countries occupied specific areas based on negotiations that led up to the Dayton Peace Accords. For example, it was no coincidence, that the bulk of the U.S. forces operated in and around Tuzla, were put there because the local population there had welcomed the U.S. forces. While based among Muslims that were thought to be more moderate, U.S. forces could safely stage patrols from this area into Republika Srpska to directly provide security for the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for other missions. Elsewhere, a Turkish Brigade was assigned to the Zenica area of the Federation territory. Also a Muslim area, Zenica was home to foreign Islamic extremists including Al-Qaida and militant paramilitary units that are still operating there often in plain view. This arrangement may have reduced the risk of exposure to Islamic militants which could target U.S. troops. Furthermore, the Muslim population around Zenica most likely realized that a secular Muslim Turkish military presence would deal with any radical elements with brutality if provoked.

What was also significant to this arrangement was the location of the area of responsibility for the "Separate Russian Brigade." Composed of elite volunteers from Russian Airborne Assault units, these units occupied the main avenues of approach leading to Serbia Proper's underbelly from the U.S. Sector. Russian units likewise were mostly garrisoned in Serb areas reducing the possibility of their soldiers being exposed to hostile Muslim forces. For the most part, the member nations involved during the enforcement of the Dayton Agreement cooperated under their U.S. command within the U.S. Sector. It was not unusual for Russian and U.S. soldiers to be seen on joint patrols and other military operations. On one occasion, the U.S. Division even put a U.S. Battalion Task Force under the Russian Brigade Command temporarily after the Russians requested additional troops for a particular mission. Whereas the Russian and other International forces in the U.S. Sector operated under U.S. command during conventional operations, Russians were required to follow their own Rules of Engagement (ROE) when dealing with the warring factions. This meant that Moscow would not allow them to fire on Serb units unless they were attacked. The Russians also differed on enforcement of the Dayton Accord, and on numerous occasions refused to act against the Serbs.

By 1998, the U.S. Command was already planning possible contingencies for a possible NATO attack on Yugoslavia as fighting escalated between Albanian insurgents and the Serbian government forces. This development initiated military planners in Tuzla to draw up contingencies plans. Possible scenarios could be Yugoslav or Serb forces deciding to attack the U.S. command base in Tuzla or other NATO base camps, and/or should NATO decision makers decide to include NATO forces already forward deployed in Bosnia to launch a ground war invasion to seize Belgrade.

Launching a ground invasion into Yugoslavia through mountainous terrain from neighboring Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) or Albanian territory would pose a challenge. Ideally, the heavily armed mechanized combat teams comprised of U.S. Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles could easily take off from bases around Tuzla towards Belgrade. The main road to Belgrade from Tuzla is only 200 km passing through Bijeljina. This avenue of approach would offer NATO an unhindered movement of vehicles as an advantage over Serb forces defending Belgrade. From Tuzla, these mechanized units could theoretically arrive in Belgrade within a matter of hours under the cover of NATO air suppression. But in reality, the planners were frustrated because the Russian Airborne units occupied all the avenues approach and the they were not going to allow U.S. or NATO forces through its territory to attack Serbia.

On March 24, 1999, NATO began its air attack on Yugoslavia after Belgrade refused to sign the Rambolleit Agreement. This agreement proposed by the U.S. contained text which would allow NATO forces unhindered access to occupy all of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which included Serbia. Despite predictions that Belgrade would capitulate after a few days of bombing, Serbian forces stubbornly resisted the NATO air strikes with tenacity. Speculations of a NATO or U.S. led ground invasion also evaporated since the 50,000 force of U.S. light airborne troops based in nearby FYROM would have to slug onward through mountainous terrain against 40,000 dug in Yugoslav Army troops and possibly tens of thousands of additional Serbian paramilitary forces providing guerilla resistance. When a cease fire was agreed upon after 78 days of bombing, a small contingent of Russian armored BTR vehicles drove from their base in Ugljevik, Bosnia (Republika Srpska) via Belgrade to Pristina provoking NATO forces before they could enter the Kosovo province nearly risking war between Russia and NATO.

It is no secret Milosevic caved in to NATO demands during the bombing from diplomatic pressure from Moscow, but other reports suggest that in addition to weapons and technical know how, the Russians provided intelligence to the Military of Yugoslavia throughout the war. Despite the weakness of the Kremlin to confront NATO directly, it is in my view that it was the maneuvering and negotiations of the Russian military forces that enabled the Serbs to deny NATO a quick victory in Yugoslavia and thus providing Belgrade the leverage to force NATO to compromise on its demand to occupy the entire territory of Yugoslavia. Likewise, NATO could not count on full victory either without risking a wider and unwanted war with a nuclear armed Russia over the Russian military's strategic positions in Bosnia and their race to enter Kosovo first. Thus the Russian contingent within the NATO occupation successfully denied U.S. and NATO planners the opportunity to move in on Belgrade with force and inevitably to occupy Serbia as according to their original demands at Rambolleit. - TRP