Russian Analyst: US will have civil war in 2009

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

(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.