Black Sea Wars by Pat Buchanan

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."

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.

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.

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....

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

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?