Vladimir Putin Political Analysis

US Missile Shield Moves from the Eastern Europe to the Western Europe

2012-02-08T19:02:00.018+02:00

US' Missile Shield moves from Poland and Romania to Western Germany and Spain

After 12 years of work,
Putin's plan starts taking vigorous shape.

Without a major war, but with the World in terrorist and financial turmoil for more than two decades, the World political map gets reshaped to its initial configuration and the military balance is about to be regained.

The US' aggressive offensive towards Russia's borders has been hardly but obviously slowed down.

The key American move to threaten Russia with placing the US' missile shield in Poland has been leveraged by the Arctic Russian offensive - the ace that Putin held in his sleeve when he met his counterpart Bush Sr. In Kenebunkport, in July 2007.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11650470

The unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, in the aftermath of the brutal demolition of the twin NY towers, seems now a futile supreme sacrifice.

Putin's thinking was a meticulous plan, composed of many diplomatic and tactical moves.

Putin charmed some of the Western European leaders, like Schroeder, Chirac, Berlusconi and also many others around the World, therefore gaining leverage that he could now put on the negotiation table, in exchange of gaining back what Gorbachev sold out in 1989.

Gorbachev changed not only the World configuration. He not only destabilized the World balance, but also destroyed and changed many destinies.

Hopefully Putin will succeed to fully implement the plan and to restore the World balance of the Cold War days, to bring back the peace in its post-WWII parameters.

REFERENCES:

MAIN QUOTES:

GERMANY:

The command centre for a controversial missile defense shield in Europe will be housed at a U.S. air base in western Germany

POLAND:

U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to cut nearly half a trillion dollars in defense spending over the next 10 years means Washington is reviewing already announced programs to reflect a stronger focus on Asia.

Poland, one of the most pro-American countries in Europe and once a member of the Soviet bloc, hopes enhanced military cooperation with the U.S. would upgrade its defense systems.

Washington already rotates a Patriot missile battery through Poland and last year sealed a deal with Warsaw on stationing U.S. air force personnel on Polish soil.But this too may come into question, analysts say, under the new U.S. defense strategy.

FULL-LENGTH ARTICLES:

U.S. airbase in Germany to host missile shield command

BERLIN Thu Feb 2, 2012 2:10pm EST

BERLIN (Reuters) - The command centre for a controversial missile defense shield in Europe will be housed at a U.S. air base in western Germany, a NATO spokesman said on Thursday.

Ramstein Air Base, which already houses the European headquarters of the U.S. Air Force and a NATO installation, will host the centre, which NATO says aims to protect Europe from potential attacks by so-called "rogue states" like Iran.

"The command and control element will be based at Ramstein," the spokesman for NATO's Allied Air Command said. "The implementation of the new command structure will take place in the next two years."

Russia opposes the shield, saying it upsets the balance of power in the region and weakens the deterrent of its nuclear arsenal, calling it a project imposed on allies by Washington.

The shield, which is expected to be fully in place by 2020, will include sites in Spain as well as two former Soviet bloc states, Poland and Romania.

Warsaw fears that planned U.S. defense cuts might stall the development of the anti-missile system on Polish soil and leave it more vulnerable to Russia.

Moscow has said it may take military counter-measures and could deploy Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave, a region separated from the rest of the country and sitting between NATO members, Poland and Lithuania.

(Reporting by Madeline Chambers, writing by Brian Rohan)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-germany-shield-idUSTRE8111SO20120202

Poland Fears U.S. Cuts Make It Vulnerable

Jan 25, 2012

Poland fears planned defense cuts by the United States may stall the development of an anti-missile system on Polish soil and leave it more vulnerable to Russia, a senior government source said.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to cut nearly half a trillion dollars in defense spending over the next 10 years means Washington is reviewing already announced programs to reflect a stronger focus on Asia.

This review covers a planned U.S. missile shield endorsed by NATO. Missile interceptors are planned to be deployed in Poland from 2018 but the plan is vehemently opposed by its neighbor Russia, which regards the shield as a threat to its security.

“From Poland’s point of view, the worst-case scenario is that Russia, sensitive to this issue, as a retaliation places various elements in Kaliningrad while the missile shield, now reviewed by Americans, never comes true,” the source said under condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Moscow worries the missile shield would undermine its nuclear deterrent capability. It has said it would take military counter-measures if needed and could deploy Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave, a region separated from the rest of the country and sitting between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

In November President Dmitry Medvedev opened an early-warning radar facility there.

NATO dismisses Moscow’s argument and says the shield is aimed at protecting its European allies from potential attacks by the so-called rogue states like Iran. But talks between Russia and the 28-nation alliance are stalled.

Poland, one of the most pro-American countries in Europe and once a member of the Soviet bloc, hopes enhanced military cooperation with the U.S. would upgrade its defense systems.

Washington already rotates a Patriot missile battery through Poland and last year sealed a deal with Warsaw on stationing U.S. air force personnel on Polish soil.

But this too may come into question, analysts say, under the new U.S. defense strategy.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=none&id=news/awx/2012/01/25/awx_01_25_2012_p0-417535.xml&headline=Poland%20Fears%20U.S.%20Cuts%20Make%20It%20Vulnerable

Russian Revolution in the Eastern Europe

2012-01-21T00:54:00.013+02:00

The Russian revolution in the Eastern Europe is a mirror of the Arab Spring, which represented the revolutionary wave of demonstrations occurred in the Arab World in 2010-2011.

The Arab chain of revolutions ended with the US' temporary agreement with Russia to move the American missile shield from Poland to these (mostly) North African states, further from Russia's borders.

After Russia resolved the problem of Ukraine, ousting Yushchenko, now Romania, Hungary and Slovakia are scheduled to turn left.

Poland is still a battlefield and a big question mark. We'll see if Russia succeeds to take Poland as well, like it plans to take Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.

Conclusion:

Russia fights to push away the US' missile shield, at the same time trying to fortify its borders.

Below is a map with the revolutionary events that took place

since 2010, up to the current day:

MAP LEGEND:

BLUE: Resolved by Russia a while aback
RED: Taken by the US
YELLOW: Russian Revolution unfolding
DOTTED RED: Case unresolved by US
DOTTED YELLOW: Case unresolved by Russia

EASTERN EUROPE

RUSSIAN-BACKED REVOLUTIONS:

1. HUNGARY:

Hungarians protest en masse against new constitution

(AFP) – Jan 2, 2012

Protesters denounced the government of Viktor Orban, with the socialist MSZP, the green-leftist LMP and former prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany's DK taking part in the rally. Politicians were not allowed to take the stage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hONBO6TR1qcsQFja6lblhULWgf9Q?docId=CNG.db7c9b5c0e39e81289addf91510aff0e.8e1

2. SLOVAKIA:

Updated 10:32 p.m., Thursday, January 19, 2012

In Slovakia, meanwhile, opinion polls predict a probable return to power in March elections for Robert Fico, a former left-wing prime minister who has also worried Western diplomats with a sympathetic approach toward authoritarian states. Fico took Russia's side during its 2008 war with Georgia — bucking a trend across the former Soviet bloc to express concern over Moscow's use of power. He has also celebrated Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Romanian-riots-reveal-growing-gloom-in-region-2621338.php

3. ROMANIA:

4:18 p.m. CST, January 19, 2012

About 7,000 opposition supporters rallied in Bucharest earlier on Thursday to demand the government's resignation

The rally was organized by the leftist opposition USL to press for the resignation of Prime Minister Emil Boc's centrist coalition and his ally President Traian Basescu.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-romania-proteststre80i2bp-20120119,0,3517172.story

4. POLAND - STILL A BATTLEFIELD:

In striking contrast to trouble in much of the region, there is one relative oasis: Poland, the largest of the 10 ex-communist states that joined the EU in recent years. Its economy has seen unusual dynamism given the difficult times, thanks in some part to massive infrastructure projects in recent years as Poland prepares to co-host this summer's European football championships with Ukraine.

But economists fear that its economy, too, could lose momentum after the Euro 2012 and with far-ranging austerity measures set to start taking effect this year in an effort to keep state debt from spiraling out of control.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Romanian-riots-reveal-growing-gloom-in-region-2621338.php

The 2012 UEFA European Football Championship is commonly referred to as Euro 2012.
The final tournament will be hosted by Poland and Ukraine between 8 June and 1 July 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2012

U.S.-Poland Missile Plan Enters into Force

By Merle David Kellerhals Jr. Staff Writer 15 September 2011

By 2015, land-based SM-3 interceptors will begin being deployed in Romania and then in Poland by 2018, according to the White House.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/09/20110915150512elrem0.4575006.html

U.S. Likely to Press On With Missile Defense in Poland

January 12, 2012, 1:16 PM CET

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2012/01/12/u-s-likely-to-press-on-with-missile-defense-in-poland/

Russia says missile defense deal with US still possible, but time running out

By Associated Press, Published: January 18

MOSCOW — A deal with Washington to assuage Moscow’s concerns about U.S. missile defense plans in Europe is still possible, but time is running out, Russia’s foreign minister said Wednesday.

Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed that Moscow will take retaliatory action if moves by Washington to deploy missile shield components around Europe pose a threat to Russia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-says-missile-defense-deal-with-us-still-possible-but-time-running-out/2012/01/18/gIQAHxzT7P_story.html

5. BULGARIA:

Bulgaria Won't Host US, NATO Missile Shield Facilities - Defense Min

Defense May 5, 2011, Thursday

Bulgaria will not be hosting elements of the US and NATO missile defense system in Europe, at least for the time being, Defense Minister Anyu Angelov announced.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127963

　
NORTH AFRICAN US-BACKED REVOLUTIONS:

1. US' MISSILE SHIELD MOVED FROM POLAND TO THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA:
US launches new missile defense program for Europe

Wednesday, 02 March 2011

The United States is sending a special radar-equipped warship to the Mediterranean Sea next week, the first step in the development of a broad anti-ballistic missile system to protect Europe against a potential Iranian nuclear threat, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

The move marks the first of the Obama administration's four-phase plan to put land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in several European locations during the next decade.

Under the plan laid out by the Obama administration in 2009, the missile shield would begin with ship-based anti-missile interceptors and radars. Later this year, the United States plans to add land-based radars in southern Europe. Plumb said officials are still in discussions with several nations, but the exact location for those radars had not yet been determined.

In phase two, land-based interceptors would be deployed in Romania in 2015, followed by the placement of interceptors in Poland in 2018.

The Bush administration first proposed stationing 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic. But Russia angrily objected and warned that it would station its own missiles close to Poland if the plan went through.

In September 2009, the Obama administration shelved that plan and offered the new, reconfigured phased program.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/02/139869.html

2. THE ARAB SPRING:

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي ar-Rabīʻ al-ʻArabiyy), otherwise known as the Arab Awakening,[1] is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests occurring in the Arab world that began on Saturday, 18 December 2010.

To date, there have been revolutions in TunisiaHYPERLINK \l "cite_note-tropicpost-1"[2] and Egypt;[3] a civil war in Libya resulting in the fall of its government;[4] civil uprisings in Bahrain,[5] Syria,[6] and Yemen, the latter resulting in the resignation of the Yemeni prime minister;[7] major protests in Algeria,[8] Iraq,[9] Jordan,[10] Kuwait,[11] Morocco,[12] and Oman;[13] and minor protests in Lebanon,[14] Mauritania, Saudi Arabia,[15] Sudan,[16] and Western Sahara.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

3. SPAIN:

Russia criticizes latest U.S. missile defense deal

MOSCOW Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:59am EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday moves by the United States to create a NATO-wide missile shield could undermine its security, ramping up criticism of the project following a new deal that will see U.S. anti-missile warships deployed on the Spanish coast.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-russia-usa-missiles-idUSTRE7951R620111006

4. TURKEY:

US military early warning radar station goes online in Turkey despite opposition
January 18, 2012

http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-charlotte/us-military-early-warning-radar-station-goes-online-turkey-despite-opposition

==========================================

FULL-LENGTH ARTICLES:

Romanian riots reveal growing gloom in region

　
ALISON MUTLER, Associated Press, VANESSA GERA, Associated Press
Updated 10:32 p.m., Thursday, January 19, 2012

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Romanian cities are gripped by the worst street violence in over a decade. Slovaks seem poised to re-elect a confrontational and divisive populist. Hungary alarms the European Union with laws that erode democratic rights.

In former Soviet bloc nations now part of the EU, frustration is mounting due to economic stagnation and worrisome governance, encouraging street protests and unpredictability that could further jeopardize growth and stability in an already troubled part of the continent.

Many of the problems are common far beyond the region: indebted states hiking taxes and slashing state spending to stay solvent. But the added burdens come to a region that was already grappling with much deeper poverty and corruption than in the West before the global financial crisis hit.

In recent days, the situation has played out most dramatically in Romania, where pent-up fury with the government and an eroding standard of living exploded into days of street protests that at times turned violent. In Bucharest over the weekend, 59 people were injured in fighting that saw riot police turn tear gas on protesters who attacked them with stones and firebombs.

"What happened last weekend is only the beginning," commentator Gabriel Bejan wrote in Tuesday's Romania Libera daily paper. "We are in an important electoral year and such confrontations will be frequent. What will they lead to when nobody seems willing to take a step back?"

Much of the frustration goes back to the way Romania transitioned to democracy after its 1989 coup against dictator Nicolae Ceausescu — with many former communists keeping control of power and resources. The results, today, are seen in entrenched cronyism, a huge gap between rich and poor and a lack of government transparency that feeds a widespread sense of injustice.

"The Mafioso government stole everything we had!" protesters declared on banners at several of the rallies that have taken place in more than a dozen Romanian cities since Thursday and appear set to go on.

Hungarians have also been taking to the streets with increased frequency in recent months over a new constitution and a blizzard of new laws that concentrate power for the right-wing Fidesz party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Freedom House, a U.S. group that carries out a yearly global survey of political freedom and civil liberties, has observed "hints of re-emergent illiberalism" across central Europe, said Christopher Walker, the group's vice president for strategy and analysis.

This year's report, which was published Thursday, highlights what it sees as a deteriorating climate for civil liberties in Hungary due to threats to the independence of the press and the judiciary.

"Hungary has shown a bent towards illiberalism which is really inconsistent with the European idea," Walker said.

The EU agrees. On Tuesday the EU Commission launched legal challenges against Budapest over its new constitution and other laws which took effect Jan. 1, saying they undermine the independence of the national central bank and the judiciary and do not respect data privacy principles.

Orban's tightening hold on many institutions comes thanks to an overwhelming 2010 victory for his party on the heels of near economic collapse by the previous, Socialist-led government.

But the mounting EU pressure appeared to have some effect: EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Wednesday that he received a letter from Orban promising to modify the legislation that raised EU concerns.

But for now, anger is clearly greater in Hungary and Romania, and in both places the unfolding developments are shaped greatly by the legacy of communist rule.

In Hungary, Orban has justified his upending of the country's laws by arguing that the former communists and their way of thinking were never purged entirely from democratic Hungary.
Romania sees many of its problems exacerbated by the continued rule of some former communists, including President Traian Basescu, 60, who under Ceausescu was a ship captain for the state shipping company Navrom in Antwerp. That was a position of privilege which allowed him to earn coveted hard currency.

Feeding frustration is a sense that there is too little transparency over the doings, past and present, of Romania's leaders.

More than two decades after the overthrow of Ceausescu, authorities have opened only a handful of the files of the former dreaded Securitate secret police, which had 760,000 informers in a nation of 22 million. Former agents are believed to be active in politics, business and the media — though the public has never been given the full picture.

Also, only a handful of senior officials were ever tried for the mass shootings of unarmed civilians in the 1989 revolution, perpetuating a sense that that story, too, is being covered up.

A political analyst who has studied the revolutions of Eastern Europe, Christopher Chivvis with the RAND Corporation, sees many of today's injustices as being rooted in the overly rapid move toward a market economy in the 1990s.

When state-run industries were privatized then, it was generally only the former communist apparatchiks who knew how to maneuver the system to take hold of them and run them.
"Those who had the know-how — the former regime officials — were able to snatch up large amounts of former state property in ways that ultimately entrenched their position in society and in the state," said Chivvis, who is also a professor in European studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Many Romanians express deep frustration over this.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Romanian-riots-reveal-growing-gloom-in-region-2621338.php

Romania’s protests reveal mounting frustration over poverty, injustice in eastern Europe

By Associated Press, Published: January 19

BUCHAREST, Romania — Romanian cities are gripped by the worst street violence in over a decade. Slovaks seem poised to re-elect a confrontational and divisive populist. Hungary alarms the European Union with laws that erode democratic rights.

"What happened last weekend is only the beginning," commentator Gabriel Bejan wrote in Tuesday’s Romania Libera daily paper. "We are in an important electoral year and such confrontations will be frequent. What will they lead to when nobody seems willing to take a step back?"

The results, today, are seen in entrenched cronyism, a huge gap between rich and poor and a lack of government transparency that feeds a widespread sense of injustice.
"The Mafioso government stole everything we had!" protesters declared on banners at several of the rallies that have taken place in more than a dozen Romanian cities since Thursday and appear set to go on.

This year’s report, which was published Thursday, highlights what it sees as a deteriorating climate for civil liberties in Hungary due to threats to the independence of the press and the judiciary.

"Hungary has shown a bent towards illiberalism which is really inconsistent with the European idea," Walker said.

Orban’s tightening hold on many institutions comes thanks to an overwhelming 2010 victory for his party on the heels of near economic collapse by the previous, Socialist-led government.
But the mounting EU pressure appeared to have some effect: EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Wednesday that he received a letter from Orban promising to modify the legislation that raised EU concerns.

In Slovakia, meanwhile, opinion polls predict a probable return to power in March elections for Robert Fico, a former left-wing prime minister who has also worried Western diplomats with a sympathetic approach toward authoritarian states. Fico took Russia’s side during its 2008 war with Georgia — bucking a trend across the former Soviet bloc to express concern over Moscow’s use of power. He has also celebrated Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution.

But for now, anger is clearly greater in Hungary and Romania, and in both places the unfolding developments are shaped greatly by the legacy of communist rule.

In Hungary, Orban has justified his upending of the country’s laws by arguing that the former communists and their way of thinking were never purged entirely from democratic Hungary.

Romania sees many of its problems exacerbated by the continued rule of some former communists, including President Traian Basescu, 60, who under Ceausescu was a ship captain for the state shipping company Navrom in Antwerp. That was a position of privilege which allowed him to earn coveted hard currency.

Feeding frustration is a sense that there is too little transparency over the doings, past and present, of Romania’s leaders.

Also, only a handful of senior officials were ever tried for the mass shootings of unarmed civilians in the 1989 revolution, perpetuating a sense that that story, too, is being covered up.
A political analyst who has studied the revolutions of Eastern Europe, Christopher Chivvis with the RAND Corporation, sees many of today’s injustices as being rooted in the overly rapid move toward a market economy in the 1990s.

Many Romanians express deep frustration over this.

"We still have unanswered questions regarding shady privatization deals made in the 90s," said Cristina, a Romanian woman who asked that her last name not be published because she works for the government and fears retribution.

Vanessa Gera reported from Warsaw, Poland. Associated Press writer Karel Janicek contributed from Prague.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/romanias-protests-reveal-mounting-frustration-over-poverty-injustice-in-eastern-europe/2012/01/19/gIQA6jGx9P_story.html

U.S. Likely to Press On With Missile Defense in Poland

By Marcin Sobczyk

January 12, 2012, 1:16 PM CET

The U.S. will likely keep its commitment to place missile interceptors in Poland to counter a military threat from Iran regardless of any opposition from Russia and despite defense cutbacks, a U.S. senator said Thursday.

U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009 scrapped the missile-defense plan drafted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, under which Poland would host a base near its border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. The U.S. later proposed a new system envisaging 24 interceptors in Poland at the same location.

"Indications are that despite defense cutbacks, we’re going to maintain the commitment to build the Polish missile-defense system, and that is because the threat from Iran is growing, it’s clear that Iran’s nuclear programs are accelerating," Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk told reporters in Warsaw.

"My hope is that we stay on schedule for a 2018 full operational capability of 24 interceptors at Redzikowo to defend NATO and the United States," he added. "The Russians have been pretty hostile to missile defense. They say that in some way this threatens their nuclear deterrents, but we’re going to build only 24 interceptors in Poland and last I checked Russia has more than 24 nuclear weapons. … We need to defend a free, sovereign and independent Poland regardless of what Russia thinks."

Abandoning the missile-shield project in 2009 had irked Polish officials, who saw the move as part of Mr. Obama’s effort to improve relations with Russia while ignoring Poland’s strategic defense choices.

Poland was forced into the Soviet bloc after World War II and joined NATO in 1999, 10 years after the collapse of communism. Its relationship with Russia remains marred by historical disagreements.

The revival of the Polish missile-defense site plan provoked a Russian response last year, including from President Dmitry Medvedev, who in November 2011 threatened to deploy ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad if the U.S. proceeded with its plan.

Russia negotiated with the U.S. to be given access to data and operations of the U.S.-led missile-defense system as a condition for its acceptance of the project. The U.S. Congress passed restrictions on such data sharing, Senator Kirk said Thursday.

"I’ve expressed some concerns here about having Russians enter the NATO defense system. I think that’s a mistake. The Congress has passed restrictions, saying that no classified data, hit-to-kill technology, or telemetry can be given to the Russians, as well as any other data, and if there’s a proposal to give it to the Russians, that a 60-day delay be imposed," he said.

Russia has a close relationship with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and shares information it gets from NATO, he added.

"Dmitry Rogozin, who’s the deputy prime minister of Russia in charge of these affairs, is scheduled to go to Iran. My worry is that anything we give to him is immediately given to the Ahmadinejad government—and the whole point of the Polish missile-defense system is to defend against Iran," the senator said.

"We should not let the Russians accomplish by diplomacy what they can’t accomplish by espionage, especially given the Russian relationship with the Iranians. I believe everything that we give to the Russians immediately goes to the Iranians," he added.

He also said Russia’s perception of a military threat from Iran is "probably too low," and that if Iran manufactures a nuclear bomb, it will be able to share it with others in the Middle East, which will make nuclear weapons harder to control. This could backfire for Russia if a party hostile to Moscow, such as Chechen separatists, obtains access to the weapons, he added.

"You could see a scenario when Chechens might get access to a weapon. At that point, a weapon could be used just as well against Russians as against NATO. I think the Russians inaccurately perceive the danger," Mr. Kirk said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2012/01/12/u-s-likely-to-press-on-with-missile-defense-in-poland/

US launches new missile defense program for Europe
(moving the missile shield from Poland to the Mediterranean Sea)

Wednesday, 02 March 2011

The move marks the first of the Obama administration's four-phase plan to put land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in several European locations during the next decade.
Endorsed by NATO during a summit in Lisbon last year, the missile shield has triggered opposition from Russia and set off lengthy negotiations over the future expanded ability to shoot down ballistic missiles in the region.

John F. Plumb, principal director for Pentagon nuclear and missile defense policy, said Tuesday that the USS Monterey will leave Norfolk, Virginia, next week, heading to a six-month deployment in the Mediterranean. The ship's mission, he said, will lay groundwork for the unfolding missile defense plan there.

"Here is our first concrete demonstration of our commitment to the missile defense of our deployed forces, allies and partners in Europe," Plumb said in an interview. "We said we were going to do it, and now we're doing it."

In phase two, land-based interceptors would be deployed in Romania in 2015, followed by the placement of interceptors in Poland in 2018. Each phase calls for a more sophisticated and capable interceptor, culminating at the end of the decade with the deployment of the last version planned as of now.

The goal is to protect NATO nations against medium-range missile attacks, with the focus being the growing nuclear threat from Iran.

The USS Monterey is a guided missile cruiser equipped with a sophisticated Aegis radar system. Other ballistic missile defense capable ships have been deployed by the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean since 2009, but this is the first to go under the new European defense plan.

In September 2009, the Obama administration shelved that plan and offered the new, reconfigured phased program.

Since then, U.S. and Russian officials have been struggling to find common ground that also would allay Moscow's fears that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine their deterrence strategy.

U.S. officials are looking for ways to cooperate with Russia, including the possibility of combining sensors and sharing data. A Russian argument to have joint control over the missile defense system has been rebuffed by the United States.

Meanwhile, an Israeli a new defense system shot down an anti-tank missile fired by Palestinians at Israeli forces patrolling the Gaza border on Tuesday, an army statement said.
The Trophy is a shield system mounted on tanks that spots and shoots down incoming missiles.
"For the first time during operational activity, the Trophy system alerted and intercepted (a) missile," the written army statement said.

Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, who held off a punishing Israeli offensive in 2006, destroyed or disabled some three dozen tanks in that war, more than 10 percent of the total deployed.
Trophy's developers Rafael announced earlier on Tuesday that the Unites States had completed a six-week test evaluation of the system.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/02/139869.html

===========================

- political study by Veronica Bicer

Jews Watch Over the World Balance: Israel sides with Putin on Iran

2012-01-12T21:16:00.006+02:00

Iran builds up diplomatic strength with key Jewish intervention.

By not denying interference, Israel practically claimed involvement in the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist, bringing grist to the mill of the Iranian officials determined to defend Iran's nuclear program.

Siding with Putin, Israel agreed on the "scientist scenario", assuming the role of moral accomplice in Russia's killing of the Iranian scientist.

Discretely backed by the Jews,
Iran now blames the killing of the Iranian scientist on American terrorism,
putting in a bad light the American efforts to discredit Iran's nuclear program
and therefore hindering the US' tenacious efforts to claim ownership in Iran.

-Veronica Bicer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran asks UN to condemn nuclear scientist killing

The Associated Press

Published: Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012 - 9:02 am
Last modified: 2012-01-12T17:02:12Z

UNITED NATIONS -- The Iranian government has called on the United Nations to condemn the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, calling it a "terrorist attack," and blaming foreign powers.

Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed Wednesday by a bomb attached to his car by a passing bicyclist.

In a letter to the U.N. secretary general, Iran's Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee called on the U.N. to condemn the killing and two earlier attacks as attempts to disrupt "Iran's peaceful nuclear program."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denied any U.S. role in the slaying. Israeli officials, in contrast, have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/12/4183057/iran-asks-un-to-condemn-nuclear.html

Iranian scientist involved in nuclear program killed in Tehran bomb attack

By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick, Published: January 11

TEHRAN — A scientist linked to Iran’s nuclear program was killed in his car by a bomb-wielding assailant on Wednesday, a bold rush-hour attack that experts say points to a further escalation in a covert campaign targeting the country’s atomic officials and institutions.

The precision hit in a northern Tehran neighborhood killed the 32-year-old chemical engineer employed at Iran’s main uranium-enrichment facility and brought to four the number of Iranian scientists killed by bombs in the past two years. No one asserted responsibility for the bombing, which prompted a swirl of accusations and denials as well as renewed concerns about worsening tensions between Iran and the West.

Iranian officials immediately accused the United States and Israel of orchestrating the attack on scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, who was killed along with his bodyguard when an assailant on a motorcycle slapped a magnetic bomb on his car as he commuted to work, according to Iranian news reports. Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimiblamed the attack on “Zionists” and “those who claim they are against terrorism,” the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.

The Obama administration denied involvement in the attack and distanced itself from the kind of lethal tactics used to kill the scientist.

“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters shortly after the bombing was reported.

Israeli officials declined to address Iranian accusations linking Israeli intelligence operatives to the hit. “It is not our policy to comment on this sort of speculation when it periodically arises,” an Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity under government ground rules.

But the series of attacks against scientists — all of them employed in fields or institutions relevant to Iran’s nuclear program — underscored the perception of a sophisticated covert campaign to disrupt Iran’s nuclear efforts and intimidate key officials and scientists, according to security analysts and Iran experts. The killing bore strong resemblance to two 2010 attacks on nuclear scientists and came on the same day as a ceremony for the second anniversary of the killing of another professor, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, in an explosion.

The scientists’ deaths are part of a pattern of attacks and apparent sabotage. In recent years, Iran has experienced an increase in mysterious explosions at military and industrial sites and gas transportation lines. A computer virus called Stuxnet also has damaged the nation’s nuclear program.

“The idea clearly is to try to disrupt operations that could lead to a nuclear weapon, and to make their scientists feel less secure and less capable of doing their work,” said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Some current and former government officials worried that the tactics could backfire, bolstering Iran’s resolve to defy the West.

-The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iranian-scientist-killed-in-tehran-bomb-attack/2012/01/11/gIQAT1V7pP_story.html

Putin ally fears Israel is pushing US toward Iran war

Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:19am EST
-Reuters

MOSCOW, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Russia fears Israel will push the United States into a military conflict with Iran which could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf, a confidant of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said.

"There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans," Nikolai Patrushev, who heads the Kremlin's Security Council, told Interfax news agency.

Patrushev, a former head of the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB, said Tehran could respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran, through which 35 percent of the world's seaborne traded oil passes.

"It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of Saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them," Patrushev said in an interview published on Thursday.

Tension over Iranian uranium enrichment, which has moved to a mountain bunker better protected from possible air strikes, has raised fears for world oil supplies and even of war.

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful while Western powers believe it has military aims. Israel, which sees an Iranian atom bomb as a threat to its existence, is willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites with or without U.S. backing.

However, Patrushev said there was still no proof that Iran was on the brink of creating nuclear weapons.

"Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years," he said, adding that the United States was trying to topple the Iran's leadership using "all available means" to make the country into "a loyal partner".

Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme and has sharply criticised U.S. and European Union sanctions.

The United States has said it would use force if Iran carried out its threat to block the strait and moved a new aircraft carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea this week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/russia-usa-security-idUSL6E8CC1QK20120112

(Updated) Financial Crisis - Political Scenario

2011-11-26T23:27:00.001+02:00

Everything is politics. Money have no value at this level.

If anybody was still skeptical, the latest Greece-Italy-Spain events come to prove that the so-called financial crisis turned out to be a US-made political scenario in order to justify the grabbing back of these three European states.

Berlusconi, definitely the greatest EU politician, who was making high class politics with both the US and Russia,
Papandreou, who has brought Greece closer to the communist values
and Zapatero, the fierce communist who, for 7 years, helped rebuilding the bridge between Russia and the Latin America,

have all been kicked out of the political stage, being replaced by the US puppets Mario Monti in Italy, Lucas Papademos in Greece and respectively Mariano Rajoy in Spain.

With the already US' puppets - Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France - ,
the US took over the EU.

Therefore, it is highly possible that the financial crisis that preceded the WWII was the same kind of scenario.

------------------------------------------------------

The recent selling out of North Africa and the EU is a two-sided coin.

The reverse should be a close ranks operation in the former USSR, operation which has seriously begun a couple of years ago, when the Ukraine was taken back by Russia,

and a close ranks operation in the Eastern Europe, where a potential US' missile shield, by now on paper only, but which could become reality in a few years, would put Russia in a position of check-mate, placed so close to the Russian borders.

In Poland the installation of US' missile shield was frozen and in Romania the close-ranks operation started with the ousting of Mircea Geoana, the Washington spy infiltrated amongst the Romanian Socialists.

Hopefully the leftist trend will continue in Romania, with the next year's parliamentary elections, where the USL (Social-Liberal Union) is favourite in the race.

A left-sided Romanian parliament would be an important victory for Russia, sine the parliament takes the decisions concerning the installation of the US' military base from Deveselu, scheduled to be functional in 2015.

The pariament could postpone the installation date.

Putin doesn't focus on EU anymore - France's socialist candidate to presidency framed-up

2011-05-21T02:04:00.010+03:00

1. Dominique Strauss-Kahn framed up = Sarkozy has no rival in the presidential race.

DSK was framed up long ago, when Sarkozy, together with his American gang, proposed him for the IMF lead.

2. Carla Bruni pregnant = Sarkozy is a family man.

3. G8 summit next week hosted by Sarkozy = Sarkozy boosts image as an important politician.

--------------

In the light of the missile shield, Putin finally realized that the USSR is more important than the EU.

Therefore, the question is not why DSK was sacked, but rather what happened back in 2007? Why did he accept Sarkozy's proposal to head the IMF?

It's pretty clear that Russia tried to build up a communist nucleus in France, with DSK at the helm.

Whether these efforts were true intentions to take over France, or they were just meant to be used as leverage for Putin's future negotiations with the US on the missile shield.

In 2007 though, when DSK was proposed to lead the IMF, it was crystal clear that something's going on and that Russia got its position weakened in France, possibly in the aftermath of the discussions that the Russian leaders had with the American leaders on global military issues.

I don't think that DSK could be that naive not to figure out that his political career was already done in 2007, when he accepted to head the IMF.

- So either Russia suggested DSK to accept the job and ensured DSK that "they will think of something".
DSK could live with with the hope that meanwhile something could change in the Russia-US relations and that he could, by chance, still become France's president even though he accepted the job at the IMF.

- Or DSK knew about his pure puppet role, he knew that, from the moment when he accepted to head the IMF, his chances to become the new president of France head towards 0, but continued to play the part at the pressure of both the US and Russia, which already established by negotiations the future political shape of the EU.

In any case, as the above-mentioned events unfold, Putin doesn't seem to focus on France anymore - the communist poll in Europe. And this since 2007.

In this light, I hope that Putin is wise enough not to sell Iran out, at least.

Possibly Fukushima was staged just to give the US a good reason to engulf Japan in their missile shield net. Hopefully it had nothing to do with framing up Iran's Bushehr.

It would also be good for Putin to have the power to not let Ukraine out in the EU.

RELATED ARTICLES:

IMF Chief Scandal Throws French Elections A Curveball

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/IMF-Chief-Scandal-Throws-French-Elections-A-Curveball-122346384.html

Iran says Bushehr nuclear power plant becomes operational

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/18/c_13881621.htm

France's Sarkozy wants Strauss-Kahn as IMF head

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/07/us-france-imf-idUSPAB00331220070707

Putin moved the US' missile shield in Romania 250 miles Westwards

2011-05-06T23:59:00.008+03:00

The location of the missile shield in Romania was moved over night from Kogalniceanu - near the Black Sea (the initial location of the US' military), to Deveselu in Oltenia region. (see maps 1, 2).

For now Romania is the only European state to host elements of the US' missile shield.
Bulgarian officials declared that it won't host NATO, US missile shield facilities.

Other elements of the US' missile shield will be placed at the South of the Mediterranean Sea, in the North African countries which recently suffered the artificial revolutions (see map 3), coordinated from Washington with Russia's approval, in the aftermath of the Russian-American negotiation process on the missile shield issue, which unfolded under the New START Treaty umbrella.

In Asia, elements of the US' missile shield will be placed in Japan (in the aftermath of Fukushima staged events) and in South Korea.

MAP 1

MAP2

MAP3

Meanwhile Russia tries to strengthen its position at the Black Sea: it signed an agreement with Ukraine for the Russian fleet to stay in the Black Sea for 25 years, it insists to put the Canadian company Sterling on the run from the Serpent Island (see map) and it gathered the Blackseafor for military exercises.

The alleged oil and gas reserves on the Serpent Island are, if real, of no interest to anybody.
The use of this island is purely military strategic.

Other important news of this week is the Brusells summit, that I will try to write about in another post.

Under this summit Russia allegedly required an accord with the US on the missile shield that the US started to build in the Eastern Europe - see Romania.

In reality they just reached a consensus earlier in Prague, by moving (for now) the base in Romania 250 miles Westwards. An accord on a military base just installed has no meanings. The alleged "accord" that Russia tries to reach now with the US is just dust in the Russian's eyes, who see the missile shield becoming a reality.

The Deveselu base, however, won't be functional until 2015.
By then, hopefully Putin will find a way to put it on the run from here.
If not, Russia will be in trouble, positioned in such disadvantageous angle.

-Veronica Bicer

===============================================

Snake Island, also known as Serpent Island, (Ukrainian: Острів Зміїний, Ostriv Zmiinyi; Romanian: Insula şerpilor), is a Ukrainian island located in the Black Sea near the Danube Delta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_Island_(Black_Sea)

The Black Sea Naval Co-operation Task Group (BLACKSEAFOR), was created in early 2001 under the leadership of Turkey, with the participation of all other Black Sea littoral states, namely Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Naval_Co-operation_Task_Group

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Assures Russia on Romania Missile Base
05 May 2011

A senior U.S. official on Wednesday urged Russia not to be alarmed by Romania's surprise announcement that it would host a U.S. missile defense site at a Soviet-built base.

The Russian Foreign Ministry sharply criticized the Romanian decision to turn Deveselu, a small town in Romania's deep south, into the core of the U.S. defense system in Europe overnight, and the Kremlin asked the United States for legal guarantees that the system would not target Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

"Moscow is monitoring the events very closely because, in our opinion, the prospective missile defense system may create risks for the Russian strategic nuclear deterrence forces in the future," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

But U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher said the U.S. system posed no threat to Russia.

"We have good relations with Russia. We have just ratified the New START treaty, we are working together on various other issues," she told Romanian lawmakers in remarks carried by news agencies. "It is a system that will defend NATO and, if Russia chooses to work with us in a cooperative manner, the system will defend Russia, too."

Tauscher is to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Thursday.

She and Romanian President Traian Basescu on Tuesday traveled to the abandoned Deveselu base, located some 200 kilometers southwest of Bucharest in an area known for watermelon and corn. It was built with Soviet help in 1952, when the first MiG-15s landed there.

An estimated $400 million will be invested in the base, which will become operational in 2015. An average of 200 troops will be based at the site, which can host a maximum of 500, Basescu said. The base will remain under Romanian command.

Moscow wasn't the only one caught off-guard by the base decision. Romanian government officials were apparently unaware of it, and there was not even a whisper in the Romanian media until Basescu announced it Tuesday night. Local officials weren't informed, or asked for their approval, until the night before.

A senior State Duma deputy warned that Russia would take counter measures aimed at protecting itself, although not targeted at any particular entity.

"Military specialists in the United States, NATO and Romania should be absolutely aware that any measure entails counter measures," said Konstantin Kosachyov, who heads the Duma's International Affairs Committee, RIA-Novosti reported.

Basescu insisted that the agreement had serious benefits and would give Romania "the highest security level in its history."

Basescu said the remote base was chosen because it fulfilled all of the 120 requirements needed to guarantee the full security of the system.

The Romanian site is part two of a four-part plan that U.S. President Barack Obama's administration outlined in 2009, when it shelved a plan by the previous administration to use long-range interceptors based in Poland to counter a threat from Iran and North Korea. That plan was opposed by Russia, which worried that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine the Kremlin's deterrence strategy.

The Obama administration has said its plan — designed to counter the threat of short- to medium-range missiles — would be more effective and able to counter a threat from Iran earlier. But critics have said the new plan caved in to Russian demands and have doubted whether the administration could build an effective shield in the timetable promised.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-assures-russia-on-romania-missile-base/436300.html

Russian Navy will stay in Sevastopol forever - admiral

07:35 23/04/2011

Russia will never give up its naval base in Ukraine's port of Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula, ex-commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet Adm. Igor Kasatonov said.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet is stationed in Crimea under a lease agreement with Ukraine. On April 21, 2010, Moscow and Kiev signed a deal extending the lease on the fleet's base in Sevastopol for 25 years after the current lease expires in 2017.

"The year 2042 is not the final date of the Black Sea Fleet's presence in Crimea. The Russian Navy will stay in Sevastopol forever," Kasatonov said in a recent interview with the Kiev-based Expert magazine.

"Russia will never give up either Sevastopol or the Kuril Islands," the admiral said, adding that the naval base in Sevastopol played the utmost strategic role in the protection of Russia's southwestern border.

Kasatonov said that the Black Sea Fleet must be equipped with advanced weaponry as soon as possible to counter effectively the existing and emerging global threats.

At present, the Black Sea Fleet has about 40 operational vessels, including a single diesel-electric submarine, but most of them are slated for decommissioning.

Russian Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said last year that the fleet would be reinforced with 15 new combat ships and diesel-electric submarines by 2020, and could become a formidable force by 2035.

MOSCOW, April 23 (RIA Novosti)

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110423/163662123.html

May 2011

Sterling threatens Black Sea operations suspension

Canadian energy firm Sterling Resources has declared force majeure on exploration in its Midia and Pelican offshore oil perimeters in the Black Sea, Romania, because of a lack of clarity among government authorities in issuing construction permits. Sterling Resources said the project had not been able to obtain permits required for offshore activities under a 2009 law. The company won the environmental and drilling rights for the areas earlier this year. “Romanian governmental authorities are currently unable or unwilling to provide construction permits for offshore oil and gas activities,” said a company release.

http://www.thediplomat.ro/articol.php?id=1959

Blackseafor drill over

Several ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet operating as part of the Blackseafor naval cooperation task force left the port of Novorossiysk on Tuesday at the close of a joint exercise, the Fleet’s representative said after the results of the drill had been summed up on board Blackseafor's Romanian flagship.

Blackseafor was established in 2001 in Istanbul in line with the pertinent accord signed by Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/04/26/49477109.html

Bulgaria Won't Host US, NATO Missile Shield Facilities - Defense Min
Defense | May 5, 2011, Thursday

Bulgaria will not be hosting elements of the US and NATO missile defense system in Europe, at least for the time being, Defense Minister Anyu Angelov announced.

"The only certain Bulgarian participation in the creation of the NATO missile shield in Europe is our proportional share in its funding. No specific talks have been held for anything more than that even though Bulgaria has declared its readiness," Gen. Angelov said.

His comment comes shortly after the United States and Romania jointly selected the Deveselu Air Base near Caracal, Romania, to host a US Ballistic Missile Defense System, according to an official announcement of the US State Department.

The announcement, published Tuesday, informs that the System employs the SM-3 interceptor (also referred to as the "Aegis Ashore System") while the deployment to Romania is anticipated to occur in the 2015 timeframe as part of the second phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) – the US national contribution to a NATO missile defense architecture.

The announcement for the stationing of the US interceptor missiles in Southern Romania as part of the NATO/US missile defense system in Europe was expected. The bigger question was what location will be selected for the radar that is supposed to detect missiles fired at European territory.

Bulgaria and Turkey have been mentioned as the most likely locations of the radar; while officials and media reports mentioned Bulgaria more often in the spring of 2010, Turkey started to figure more prominently in the second half of last year.

The original missile defense in Europe plan of George W. Bush administration provided for stationing interceptors in Poland and the radar station in the Czech Republic. The modification of the plan by the Obama Administration switched it to sea-borne missiles and, later on, locations in southeastern Europe. Initially, there were reports and expectations that Romania and Bulgaria will replace Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively.

During its summit in November 2010 in Lisbon, NATO agreed to adopt the previously purely US missile shield project as its own. The summit did cast some serious doubts over Turkey's participation in the missile defense system because it insisted that its Muslim neighbor Iran should not be mentioned as a source of threat in the respective documents, and eventually prevailed.

The newly announced US Ballistic Missile Defense site in Romania is approximately 430 acres (175 hectares) and is located within the existing Romanian Air Base at Deveselu.

Deveselu is about 50 kilometers away from the Romanian-Bulgarian border. The closest Bulgarian location is the village of Zagrazhden between the towns of Oryahovo and Nikopol.

According to the US State Department, an estimated 200 military, government civilians, and support contractors will be required to operate the US facility at the site, but Romanian President, Traian Basescu, in his own TV announcement, said the number could reach 500.

"The Ballistic Missile Defense System is not aimed at Russia," Basescu stressed.

A year ago, US Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, declared that the United States has not asked Bulgaria to locate elements of the missile defense in Europe on its territory.

Bulgarian President, Georgi Parvanov, recently stated the country must become part of NATO missile defense, but the public will have to be informed with precision and detail. In a rare move, Defense Minister, Anyu Angelov, joined the President in this opinion.

The EPAA will provide protection of NATO European territories and populations, and augment protection of the United States, against the increasing threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles from the Middle East, the US State Department points out.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127963

Missile shield raises new nuclear arms race fears
March 2010

Over the next 18 months the USA and Romania will finalise the location. The US military currently operates from the Mihail Kogalniceanu air base in Constanta county near the Black Sea. This is a remote place as geographically close to the potential threat as possible for Romania, and locations around or close to the base could be an option. Stratfor’s military analyst Nathan Hughes says it is “flexible” where in Romania the defence system could be but, because this is a new initiative, it is hard to be certain of locations.

http://www.thediplomat.ro/articol.php?id=905

Saturday, 3 April 2010 07:16 UK
Romania defends role in US missile shield

No sites have yet been decided, but two almost certainly under consideration are the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase near the Black Sea coast, and a military airfield near Cluj in Transylvania.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8587946.stm

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Why has the US put an end to the Bin Laden fairytale?

2011-05-06T23:58:00.004+03:00

I don't figure out yet the exact reason why the US put an end to the the Bin Laden fairytale.
By now I figured two possible reasons:

1. Because this year there is the 10 years commemoration of the deaths in the twin towers (September 2001- September 2011)

Bush was an impotent. All right. But how could Obama present himself as an impotent too, on 11-th of September 2011? This would've meant that the common American can't trust anybody in the political class anymore.

Therefore something had to be done for the common American elector to be have confidence again in the American political class. Bin Laden fairytale had to come to an end.

Obama announced the end of the fairytale, the imaginary body vanished into the sea, this meaning not another trouble, not another CIA people paid for another adobe photoshop-made footage. A word from the afro-American puppet president was enough.

The summer vacation is near and so Bin Laden had to disappear. No problem, the so-called "terrorism" isn't over. Nothing changed on the matter.

The CIA can well continue to blow up buildings and subways and to blame it on Al-Zawahiri, the new invented Yemen Al-Awlaki, or on another "terrorist" cartoon, made in photoshop adobe.

-------------

2. Another possible scenario is that the US wants to justify the invasion of Libya.

Gaddafi said in February 2011 that he blames bin Laden, drugs for Libya unrest.

See video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41753687/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/t/gadhafi-blames-bin-laden-drugs-libya-unrest/

Now Gaddafi has no one to blame anymore and so the Libyan uprisings allegedly prove being "spontaneously" pointed against Gaddafi.

Libya rebels: Gaddafi should face bin Laden's fate

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218808&R=R3

Osama bin Laden killing 'should serve as warning to Gaddafi' says head of Armed Forces

The killing of Osama bin Laden should serve as a warning to Libya's Muammar al Gaddafi, the head of the Armed Forces has said.

Gen Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said the death of the al-Qaeda leader should have a "psychological impact" on the Libyan dictator and others because "one day their deeds will catch up with them".

The general's warning came as British officials disclosed that weeks of allied attacks had cost Col Gaddafi almost three quarters of his military forces.

Sir David described the killing of bin Laden as "definitely a positive" in the context of political change in the Middle East.

"It will remind like-minded people wherever they are that one day their deeds will catch up with them," he said.

"That is psychologically very important in the context of Libya and other crises in the Middle East, so I think it is a psychological impact rather than a short-term impact."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8499221/Osama-bin-Laden-killing-should-serve-as-warning-to-Gaddafi-says-head-of-Armed-Forces.html

But in my opinion Gaddafi is small fry.

Bin Laden fairytale is just too big bullet to be wasted on Gaddafi.

The first version of the scenario is therefore more plausible: 10 years since September 2001 and a president change. Time for Bin Laden fairytale to disappear before Americans remember the deads and flood the streets again.

Corroborated with the fact that for the US is very important to place that missile shield anywhere, just to place it once and for all (it moved it from Poland and now it plans to place it at the South of the Mediterranean, in the chain of countries where there was the outburts of "spontaneous" revolutions, including Libya), the end of the Bin Laden fairytale isn't that surprising anymore.

In this context, perhaps the time has come for the Bin Laden fairytale to be sacrificed.

See map:

- Veronica Bicer

Discussion for the US' Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, under New START

2011-04-16T01:16:00.009+03:00

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. It has not entered into force. (WIKIPEDIA) because the US has not ratified it yet.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (Annex 1,2) was signed by both US and the Soviet Union on

September 24, 1996, but it was ratified only by Russia, on June 30, 2000.

List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Instead, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) is into force. PTBT prohibitis all test detonations of nuclear weapons except underground and was signed and ratified by both Russia and the US in 1963.

Under New START, Russia insists for the US' ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

-Veronica Bicer

ARTICLES ON THE TOPIC:

The Prague Agenda: The New START's Next Steps

Washington - The New START treaty not only represents a commitment by the United States and Russia toward nuclear disarmament, but also strengthens the reset between Washington and Moscow "that is helping us to address the most urgent proliferation threats we face in Iran and North Korea," National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon says.

(Media-Newswire.com) - Washington — The New START treaty not only represents a commitment by the United States and Russia toward nuclear disarmament, but also strengthens the reset between Washington and Moscow “that is helping us to address the most urgent proliferation threats we face in Iran and North Korea,” National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon says.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( START ), signed April 8, 2010, by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, marks the first major arms reduction pact since the last days of the Cold War.

Keynoting the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference meeting in Washington on March 29, Donilon outlined the next steps to establish missile-defense cooperation.

Referencing President Obama’s vision for achieving the “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” in a speech the president delivered in Prague in 2009, Donilon presented the Obama administration’s plans to advance each of the four dimensions of the president’s agenda.

To reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons, the United States recently exchanged data with Russia on nuclear facilities under the auspices of the Bilateral Consultative Commission, the treaty’s implementing body, currently meeting in Geneva. On-site inspections conducted under the treaty will soon follow. Once the treaty is fully implemented, Donilon said, it will mark the lowest number of deployed nuclear warheads since the 1950s, the first full decade of the nuclear age.

The administration’s next agreement with Russia should include nondeployed and nonstrategic nuclear weapons, Donilon said. “A priority will be to address tactical nuclear weapons.” No previous arms control agreement has included such provisions.

“We are ready to begin discussions soon with Russia on transparency and confidence-building measures that could provide the basis for creative verification measures in the next round of U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reductions,” Donilon said.

To ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal that will facilitate arms reductions, the Obama administration intends to invest $85 billion in the nation’s nuclear infrastructure over the next 10 years, Donilon said. “If Congress approves the president’s funding program for the nuclear complex, it allows us to reduce the size of our nuclear stockpile because we will be able to maintain a robust hedge against technical problems with a much smaller reserve force,” Donilon said, adding that the arsenal is “necessary to defend the U.S. and our allies and partners for as long as nuclear weapons exist.”

Paralleling the Russia discussions, President Obama is committed to deploying an effective missile-defense system to defend the United States and its allies against threats from such countries as Iran and North Korea, Donilon said. He cited the Phased Adaptive Approach, which provides a more effective and timely response to missile threats, an approach embraced by NATO at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, and widely regarded as a substantial improvement over the prior program, according to Donilon.

To advance the second element of the president’s Prague agenda — nonproliferation — the administration is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure inspections and verifications, while tightening international sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

The administration is committed to working with both political parties in the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ( CTBT ). Ratification would serve America’s national security interests by strengthening the legal and political barriers to a resumption of nuclear testing, “which would fuel the nuclear buildup in Asia,” Donilon said.

Donilon also cited President Obama’s support for a new international treaty, the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty ( FMCT ), designed to verifiably end the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.

To meet the third element of the Prague agenda, preventing nuclear terrorism by strengthening international cooperation on nuclear security, the administration has set a global work plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. An interim goal is to demonstrate significant progress by the next Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, in 2012.

The fourth element of President Obama’s Prague agenda is to develop new mechanisms to support the growth of safe and secure nuclear power in ways that reduce the spread of dangerous technologies. Citing the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident in Japan, Donilon called for all nations with nuclear energy programs to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power plants and safe storage of nuclear waste.

The administration is working with the international community to meet the increased demand for low-carbon sources of electricity and access peaceful nuclear power without increasing the risks of proliferation, Donilon said.

( This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov )

http://media-newswire.com/release_1147398.html

Physics professor talks about nuclear weapons

By Molly Gentzel
Collegian Staff

Physics professor Dr. Jerry Gilfoyle discussed the importance of being educated about nuclear weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty to a group of students and faculty in his lecture on Wednesday.
Approximately 25 students and faculty members came to hear Gilfoyle’s lecture, “Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle: The Science of Nuclear Non-Proliferation.” Gilfoyle explained the significance of the nuclear bomb and why college students and citizens of the United States should be concerned with this issue.

Gilfoyle said his interest in nuclear weapons had gone back a long time, and he had spent 2001 working with the federal government in Washington, D.C.

There, Gilfoyle did an assessment of the test-ban treaty and submitted it to President Bill Clinton. An article explaining Gilfoyle’s study of the test-ban treaty and his request for the U.S. to ratify it was on the cover of The New York Times, Gilfoyle said.

“The goal of the test-ban treaty is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, material and technology and to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons,” he said.

The treaty is not based on trust, but rather on a network of testers that are designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions, Gilfoyle said.
The U.S is currently a signatory of the treaty, but it has not ratified it. Gilfoyle said President Obama is committed to bringing the CTBT to a vote for ratification in the senate.

“You should care [about nuclear weapons and the test-ban treaty] if you’re going to be a good citizen and vote,” Gilfoyle said.

Gilfoyle said that ratification of the test-ban treaty would diffuse a lot of potential arms races, and because of advanced technology, it was apparent that detection and identification of nuclear explosions is possible.

“There is important, exciting physics to be done here,” Gilfoyle said. “As someone who has studied this for years, my belief is that we should ratify the treaty.”

Contact staff writer Molly Gentzel at molly.gentzel@richmond.edu

http://thecollegianur.com/2011/04/14/physics-professor-talks-about-nuclear-weapons/20243/

Japan crisis renews interest in U.S. anti-nuke movement
Friday, 04.15.11

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/14/2168421_p2/japan-crisis-renews-interest-in.html

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Clinton February 18, 2009, Clinton 17 April 2011 - Japan Connection

2011-04-13T22:36:00.011+03:00

And here is why Japan, and not another country, has been blown up: You don't want our troops there? We will make you swallow them!

February 18, 2009 - Clinton, Japan sign US troops pull-out deal
April 17, 2011 - Clinton Announces Partnership to Help Japan

(UPDATE): The US staged Fukushima in order to tame down the Japanese and to place elements of the missile shield there.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Clinton, Japan sign US troops pull-out deal February 18, 2009

TOKYO: The US will move 8000 troops from Okinawa, in southern Japan, to its territory of Guam by 2014 under an agreement signed by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in Tokyo yesterday.

Japan will contribute more than $US6 billion ($9.24 billion) towards the planned relocation of the US Marines, first agreed between Washington and Tokyo in May 2006. Mrs Clinton and Japan's Foreign Minister, Hirofumi Nakasone, signed the agreement, in which Japan pledges to pay up to $US2.8 billion in cash and $US3.29 billion in loans and other investments for the relocation cost. Putting her signature on the agreement was the first substantive act of Mrs Clinton's Asia tour in Japan. Following the ceremony, she renewed a US offer for normal ties and a peace treaty with North Korea if it verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear weapons program. Under a deal in 2007 with the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, North Korea agreed to end its weapons-grade nuclear program in exchange for energy aid. But progress in the talks stalled late last year when North Korea, which tested an atomic bomb in 2006, baulked at demands for inspections and other steps to verify disarmament. "If North Korea abides by the obligations it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program, then there will be a reciprocal response," Mrs Clinton said. As laid out in the six-nation deal, the US would offer "a chance to normalise relations", she said, as well as a full peace treaty with the North. The 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended only with an armistice. Mrs Clinton also warned against any missile launch by Pyongyang. Such an action "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward", she said. The isolated Stalinist country on Monday fuelled speculation that it is preparing to test a long-range missile. Mrs Clinton said she would press Pyongyang to account for the fate of Japanese citizens kidnapped to train North Korean spies in language skills. She was scheduled to meet with their families late yesterday. Speaking at a joint press conference, Mr Nakasone said Japan believed the new US administration of President Barack Obama would not change its North Korea policy "in any serious way". Okinawans have long been reluctant hosts for more than half of the 40,000 US troops based in Japan. The pullout aims to reduce the burden of the post-World War II American military presence in Okinawa, where residents have long complained of noise from military operations and occasional crimes by US servicemen. Agence France-Presse

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/clinton-japan-sign-us-troops-pullout-deal/2009/02/17/1234632811274.html

Clinton to visit Japan in show of support (AFP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Japan in a show of support for the US ally as it recovers from a devastating earthquake, the State Department announced Monday. Clinton will travel to Tokyo on Sunday, after stops in South Korea and in Germany where she is attending a NATO conference, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. Clinton's trip aims to "show the United States' support for the people of Japan and to highlight our long-standing commitment to the alliance," Toner said in a statement. She will hold talks with Prime Minister Naoto Kan and other senior Japanese officials, Toner said. The announcement comes on the one-month anniversary of Japan's worst disaster since World War II, which killed at least 13,000 people and left another 14,000 missing in a massive earthquake and debris-laden tsunami.

The United States, whose military presence in Japan has sometimes been controversial, deployed some 15,000 troops to assist in relief.

Senior US officials were also expected to participate in a memorial service later Monday at the Washington National Cathedral. Clinton will take part in a NATO conference on Thursday and Friday in Berlin, where she will hold talks on alliance-backed military operations in Libya and Afghanistan, the State Department said. She will head Saturday to South Korea for talks with President Lee Myung-Bak "as part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and to discuss cooperation on regional issues," Toner said. Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hE9MrO-Mhj6obwd-DYS-87IgWBZw?docId=CNG.740d17ecc56dea7e86ae6c9aaa0aed5e.681

JAPAN NEWS APRIL 17, 2011, 8:45 A.M. ET

Clinton Announces Partnership to Help Japan

By CHESTER DAWSON And EVAN RAMSTAD

TOKYO—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with senior Japanese leaders on Sunday to express sympathy with Japan's people and support for its economy after last month's devastating earthquake and tsunami. That came after she reiterated the Obama administration's support for a free-trade deal with South Korea in meetings earlier Sunday with senior officials in Seoul.

On the second stop of a weekend trip to Asia, Ms. Clinton announced in Tokyo a public-private partnership to help Japan's economic prospects and sounded a note of optimism about the Japanese business community's ability to rebound in the wake of the 9.0-magnitude quake on March 11. The disaster has seriously disrupted supply chains and electricity supplies in Japan and threatens to knock the wind out of a budding economic recovery.

"We are very confident that Japan will recover and that it will be a very strong economic and global player for years and decades to come," Ms. Clinton told Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan after arriving from Seoul earlier in the day.

For his part, the Japanese leader voiced a "sincere appreciation" for U.S. military efforts to provide aid to disaster evacuees and also for advice from U.S. nuclear experts sent to Japan.

Five weeks after the quake, Tokyo has struggled to contain radiation being emitted from a nuclear power plant that was damaged by tsunami waves. Separately on Sunday, the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power, said it expects to stabilize the reactors at its Fukushima Daiichi facility within six to nine months.

Mr. Kan also said he was encouraged by Washington's decision on Friday to end travel advisories which had cautioned Americans to avoid Japan in the wake of the nuclear crisis. The U.S. kept a ban on travel within 50 miles of the plant, but lifted a general advisory about travel to Japan. R-Righht.

Japanese Foreign Minister Matsumoto thanked Ms. Clinton for the U.S. military's disaster relief and recovery efforts. "We would like to express gratitude for working with us around the clock since the earthquake," he said. Mr. Matsumoto added Japan would strive to provide full and transparent disclosure at home and abroad about the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant.

During an overnight trip to Seoul, Ms. Clinton met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan, emphasizing economic connections rather than security ties. That appeared to signal the two countries are for the moment content with their relative strategies vis-à-vis North Korea.

The Secretary of State told her Korean hosts that the Obama administration is committed to pressing Congress to ratify the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement this year."It is important that we're meeting in the home stretch of the Korean free trade agreement," Ms. Clinton said.

Her push is part of a bigger campaign by the administration on the deal, which is under pressure partly because South Korea is close to ratification of a similar free-trade pact with the European Union.

Later this month, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will lead a bipartisan congressional delegation on a trip to South Korea to promote the deal, which is expected to boost the $80 billion two-way trade relationship by 10% to 20% over a five-year period.

Ms. Clinton also spoke to Messrs. Lee and Kim about coordinating North Korea policy. Both countries have been under some pressure from humanitarian activists to restart food aid to the North, where food shortages are expected to be greater than usual in May and June.

But leaders in neither country are under political pressure to change course on North Korea strategy, due to the North's belligerence as well as the greater importance of other events in the world, such as the unrest in the Middle East and disaster recovery in Japan.

North Korea twice last year attacked South Korea's military, both times scuttling quiet diplomacy that had been taking place between Seoul and Pyongyang. South Korean diplomats were hoping to reduce the North's anger at being cut off from unfettered economic aid in 2008 and prod its authoritarian regime into substantive talks about development and disarmament.

North Korea in 2009 walked away from the six-party talks between it and five other countries—China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.—that were aimed at persuading it to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives and security guarantees.

In recent months, prodded by its ally China, North Korea has signaled a willingness to return to the six-party process. But South Korea, the U.S. and Japan have insisted that Pyongyang first deal with Seoul directly over its military attacks that killed 50 South Koreans last year.

In addition, North Korea's revelation in November that it had significantly advanced a second method of building nuclear weapons, using enriched uranium, complicated the prospects for the six-party talks because it will be more difficult for the five countries to create a verifiable way to control that effort.

Another wrinkle emerged last week when the U.S. and North Korea revealed Pyongyang had been detaining an American citizen who visited the country in November for an unspecified crime. Pyongyang in the past two years made a public show of the arrests of four other Americans who entered the country illegally, forcing the U.S. to twice send former presidents in exchange for their release.

Write to Evan Ramstad at evan.ramstad@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704613504576268431769391772.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

(UPDATE) Japan, US discuss North Korea strategy, missile shield (Roundup)
Jan 13, 2011, 7:10 GMT

Tokyo - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and his Japanese counterpart Toshimi Kitazawa Thursday discussed a joint North Korea strategy amid growing US concern over Pyongyang's development of inter-continental ballistic missiles.

They agreed to keep cooperating in dealing with North Korea, whose fatal artillery shelling of South Korea's Yeonpyeong island in November heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

During his stay in Beijing Tuesday, Gates said North Korea's missile arsenal could present a direct threat to the United States within five years.

Gates and Kitazawa discussed the possible provision to third countries of a jointly developed sea-based missile shield system.

A bilateral accord bars the export of the Standard Missile-3 interception system to third countries unless Japan consents to it in advance.

Kitazawa told Gates that Japan would need to discuss the matter.

'I told (Gates) that we would make a decision within this year,' he said.

Gates acknowledged that Japan would need to undergo the process to make such exports possible. 'It makes economic sense to make it available to others,' he said.

Also on the agenda was a controversial US Marine base on the Japanese island of Okinawa, 1,600 kilometres south-west of Tokyo. The defence secretaries reaffirmed an accord reached in May to move the US Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station to a sparsely populated area on Okinawa.

While Tokyo reiterates it would stick with the accord, there has been virtually no progress due to vehement opposition from locals and environmental groups.

Gates said the United States still hoped to carry out the relocation according to the plan.

'We hope to move forward with the relocation of US forces in Okinawa in ways that are more appropriate to our strategic posture while reducing the impact on the communities nearby,' he said.

The US and Japan were considering moving drills involving F-15 fighters from the island to Guam, Kitazawa said.

Gates also met with Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara and the two agreed to work toward deepening the US-Japan security alliance, which marked its 50th anniversary in 2010.

Gates said he looked forward to 'taking stock' of the alliance with Japanese ministers 'in terms of where we are and the next steps we will take.'

Maehara and Gates shared the view that the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region had become increasingly important given the difficult security situation in the area, an unnamed Japanese official was quoted by Kyodo News as saying.

Gates expressed concerns over North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes. The two urged Pyongyang to take concrete denuclearization steps and expected China to play an enhanced role in resolving the nuclear standoff, the official said.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Gates that many incidents had taken place in Asia, and he appreciated Washington's support.

He appeared to refer to a Chinese fishing boat's collision with Japanese coastguard vessels near a disputed set of islets in the East Asia Sea and the subsequent arrest of the captain, which led to the worst diplomatic row in recent years between Tokyo and Beijing.

Gates arrived in Tokyo on Wednesday after visiting Beijing and is to fly to Seoul on Friday to conclude his East Asia trip.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1611409.php/Japan-US-discuss-North-Korea-strategy-missile-shield-Roundup

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

The Main Political Scenarios of the last 25 Years

2011-03-26T22:51:00.018+02:00

1) Chernobyl nuclear disaster - April 1986 results in the Reykjavik Summit - October 11–12, 1986, which results in the INF Treaty

2) 9-11 September 2001 results in the termination of the ABM Treaty - June 2002

3) The US' ratification of the New START Treaty - 02 February 2011 triggers Tōhoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear accident - 11 March 2011

The Same Problem lingers on for 25 years: Russia fears Reagan's SDI

2011-03-26T20:58:00.005+02:00

CHERNOBYL (1986) = REJKJAVIK SUMMIT (1986)

FUKUSHIMA (2011) = NEW START TREATY (2011)

Then in the aftermath of Chernobyl, it was the Rejkjavik Summit. Chernobyl scenario justified the summit.

In the aftermath of the New START Treaty ratification, it was Fukushima. Fukushima scenario justified the ratification of START.

===============================================

Here is the explanatory material:

US launches new missile defense program for Europe
Wednesday, 02 March 2011

John F. Plumb, principal director for Pentagon nuclear and missile defense policy, said Tuesday that the USS Monterey will leave Norfolk, Virginia, next week, heading to a six-month deployment in the Mediterranean. The ship's mission, he said, will lay groundwork for the unfolding missile defense plan there. "Here is our first concrete demonstration of our commitment to the missile defense of our deployed forces, allies and partners in Europe," Plumb said in an interview.

"We said we were going to do it, and now we're doing it." the United States plans to add land-based radars in southern Europe. Plumb said officials are still in discussions with several nations, but the exact location for those radars had not yet been determined. In phase two, land-based interceptors would be deployed in Romania in 2015, followed by the placement of interceptors in Poland in 2018.

Since then, U.S. and Russian officials have been struggling to find common ground that also would allay Moscow's fears that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine their deterrence strategy. U.S. officials are looking for ways to cooperate with Russia, including the possibility of combining sensors and sharing data. A Russian argument to have joint control over the missile defense system has been rebuffed by the United States.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/02/139869.html

Russia Rejects Immediate Talks on Tactical Nuke Cuts
Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011

"We are not avoiding these talks. But talks about tactical nuclear missiles are impossible without a set of other issues: an imbalance of conventional forces, missile defense and the deployment of arms in space," the Russian official said.

Russia is apparently determined to make any potential negotiations on tactical nuclear-weapon curbs contingent on U.S. concessions over plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, according to AFP. Some experts, though, suggested Moscow was more concerned about the planned system's potential to facilitate the deployment of offensive weapons in space.

Antonov yesterday said his country was ready to pursue further strategic nuclear-weapon cuts with the United States as well as other nations, Interfax reported.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110208_1126.php

Reykjavík Summit
October 11–12, 1986

In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviets proposed the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles).[1]

The Russians also proposed to eliminate 50% of all strategic arms, including ICBMs , and agreed not to include British or French weapons in the count. All this was proposed in exchange for an American pledge not to implement strategic defences for the next ten years, in accordance with SALT I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Japan Earthquake and the START Treaty Connection - Chronology

2011-03-24T22:05:00.022+02:00

"Critics of the treaty accused U.S. negotiators of cutting a clandestine bargain to rein in future missile defense plans." (source)
------------------------------------------------------
- The twin towers have been crushed in order to justify in front of Russia and in front of the World, the US' termination of the ABM treaty.

- The Japan earthquake was caused in order to justify in front of the the US' citizens the ratification of the New START Treaty - considered by many Americans a setback in the US' military plans.
--------------------------------------------------------
Obama signed documents completing the U.S. ratification process on February 2, 2011.

Tōhoku earthquake took place on March 11, 2011.

NEW START TREATY (Wikipedia)

See: New Start Treaty US public debate

The North African turmoil: Russia's sellout of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia a.s.o., belong to the same set of negotiations: Russia's tries of reassessment in Europe, which reflect in the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline to Germany and the START Treaty ratification by the US - see moving the dangerous "missile shield" from Poland to the Mediterranean, they were all negotiated at the same time.

After the negotiations, for now, Putin managed to move the missile shield from Poland to the Mediterranean.

The North African oil and gas might or might not be involved in this scheme.

~Veronica Bicer

===================

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NUCLEAR EVENTS AND THE CONNECTION WITH JAPAN's EARTHQUAKE

Medvedev signed the (New START Treaty) ratification resolution passed by the Federal Assembly

28 January 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#Russia

Obama signed documents completing the (New START Treaty) U.S. ratification process

February 2, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#United_States

US launches new missile defense program for Europe

Wednesday, 02 March 2011

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/02/139869.html

Nord Stream Completes Financing with $3.5 Billion Bank Loans

Mar 4, 2011

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-04/gazprom-led-nord-stream-raises-3-5-billion-completes-financing.html

Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation The doctrine of mutual assured destruction is obsolete in the post‐Cold War era. By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER AND SAM NUNN Wall Street Journal,

March 7, 2011

http://www.nti.org/c_press/Deterrence_in_the_Age_of_Nuclear_Proliferation.pdf

U.S. Ready to Work With Russia on Missile Shield, Clinton Says

Monday, Feb. 7, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110207_6886.php

Russia Rejects Immediate Talks on Tactical Nuke Cuts

Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110208_1126.php

Tōhoku earthquake foreshock March 9, 2011 2011 Tōhoku earthquake March 11, 2011 2011 Tōhoku earthquake aftershock

March 11, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan

Head of U.N.'s atomic energy agency says 'lessons will need to be learned'

March 21, 2011, 1:19 p.m.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-iaea-20110322,0,1477504.story

U.S. Diplomat Hopeful for NATO-Russia Missile Defense Cooperation Tuesday,

March 22, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110322_7291.php

Nuke Details Swapped Under U.S.-Russian Pact

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110322_3679.php

US, Russia swap nuke info under START

Mar 22, 2011 06:57 Moscow Time

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/22/47772427.html

Russian, U.S. Agencies to Continue Nuclear Security Efforts

Thursday, March 24, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110324_5373.php

Russia Seen Pursuing U.S. Missile Shield Tech

Thursday, March 24, 2011

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110324_9650.php

Experts compare Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters

26.03.2011

http://en.rian.ru/Environment/20110326/163211750.html

Chernobyl - 25 years anniversary 26 April 1986 - 26 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Reykjavík Summit October 11–12, 1986

In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviets proposed the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles).[1] The Russians also proposed to eliminate 50% of all strategic arms, including ICBMs , and agreed not to include British or French weapons in the count. All this was proposed in exchange for an American pledge not to implement strategic defences for the next ten years, in accordance with SALT I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

Chernobyl Disaster 26 April 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

===================

MAIN QUOTES:

US launches new missile defense program for Europe Wednesday, 02 March 2011 John F. Plumb, principal director for Pentagon nuclear and missile defense policy, said Tuesday that the USS Monterey will leave Norfolk, Virginia, next week, heading to a six-month deployment in the Mediterranean. The ship's mission, he said, will lay groundwork for the unfolding missile defense plan there. "Here is our first concrete demonstration of our commitment to the missile defense of our deployed forces, allies and partners in Europe," Plumb said in an interview. "We said we were going to do it, and now we're doing it." the United States plans to add land-based radars in southern Europe. Plumb said officials are still in discussions with several nations, but the exact location for those radars had not yet been determined. In phase two, land-based interceptors would be deployed in Romania in 2015, followed by the placement of interceptors in Poland in 2018. Since then, U.S. and Russian officials have been struggling to find common ground that also would allay Moscow's fears that the system could target Russian warheads or undermine their deterrence strategy. U.S. officials are looking for ways to cooperate with Russia, including the possibility of combining sensors and sharing data. A Russian argument to have joint control over the missile defense system has been rebuffed by the United States.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/02/139869.html

Nord Stream Completes Financing with $3.5 Billion Bank Loans

By Anna Shiryaevskaya and Brian Parkin - Mar 4, 2011 2:45 PM GMT+0200 .Nord Stream AG raised 2.5 billion euros ($3.5 billion) from 24 banks, completing financing for construction of the OAO Gazprom-led natural-gas pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. Nord Stream will use the funding to start second-phase construction in May, the Zug, Switzerland-based venture said in a statement today. Work on the first line of the gas link will be completed in April, Nord Stream said. Gazprom, Russia’s gas export monopoly, and its partners, BASF SE (BAS)’s Wintershall AG unit, E.ON Ruhrgas AG, Nederlandse Gasunie NV, and GDF Suez SA, plan to ship gas directly to Europe, bypassing transit countries such as Ukraine. Nord Stream’s first line will start delivering gas to European consumers in early October, Managing Director Matthias Warnig told reporters today in Berlin. “The finance for the total project is absolutely in place,” Finance Director Paul Corcoran said in a phone interview from Berlin. “Our project is on track, on plan, within timetable and within budget.” A total of 24 banks, including Barclays Bank Plc, BNP Paribas (BNP), ING Groep NV (INGA), Credit Suisse AG and Natixis (KN) took part in the financing, Nord Stream said. The commercial tranche is for 750 million euros, Corcoran said. The other 1.75 billion euros are covered by Euler Hermes SA (ELE), the world’s largest trade-credit insurer, Italy’s SACE SpA export credit agency and Germany’s UFK government loan guarantee program, he said. Libya Unrest The shareholders will provide 1 billion euros more, as they fund 30 percent of the total costs, Corcoran said. The venture raised 3.9 billion euros from 26 banks in March of last year for the first of the two planned parallel links. The second line will be completed in April 2012 and will start deliveries in November 2012, doubling total deliveries to 55 billion cubic meters. That’s about 70 percent of what Germany consumed in 2009, according to BP Plc. All of the transport capacity has been sold, Corcoran said in the interview. Unrest in North Africa “underlines how important it is to have different supply routes,” Corcoran said. Gazprom said Feb. 28 that it has increased shipments 60 percent to Italy to replace supply lost when a pipeline from Libya to Sicily was shut last week. Gazprom owns 51 percent of Nord Stream, while Wintershall and E.ON Ruhrgas hold 15.5 percent each, and Gasunie and GDF Suez (GSZ) have 9 percent each. Warnig said he is “very happy” with the shareholder structure and there is no sign that anyone wants to pull out. The shareholders will start receiving dividend “quite early following the start of the operations,” provided there is excess cash after paying obligations to the banks, Corcoran said in the interview.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-04/gazprom-led-nord-stream-raises-3-5-billion-completes-financing.html

Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation The doctrine of mutual assured destruction is obsolete in the post‐Cold War era. By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER AND SAM NUNN Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2011 As long as there has been war, there have been efforts to deter actions a nation considers threatening. Until fairly recently, this meant building a military establishment capable of intimidating the adversary, defeating him or making his victory more costly than the projected gains. This, with conventional weapons, took time. Deterrence and war strategy were identical. The advent of the nuclear weapon introduced entirely new factors. It was possible, for the first time, to inflict at the beginning of a war the maximum casualties. The doctrine of mutual assured destruction represented this reality. Deterrence based on nuclear weapons, therefore, has three elements: · It is importantly psychological, depending on calculations for which there is no historical experience. It is therefore precarious. · It is devastating. An unrestrained nuclear exchange between superpowers could destroy civilized life as we know it in days. · Mutual assured destruction raises enormous inhibitions against employing the weapons. Since the first use of nuclear weapons against Japan, neither of the superpowers, nor any other country, has used nuclear weapons in a war. A gap opened between the psychological element of deterrence and the risks most leaders were willing to incur. U.S. defense leaders made serious efforts to give the president more flexible options for nuclear use short of global annihilation. http://www.nti.org/c_press/Deterrence_in_the_Age_of_Nuclear_Proliferation.pdf

U.S. Ready to Work With Russia on Missile Shield, Clinton Says Monday, Feb. 7, 2011 Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister David Dzhalagania today said his government could consider hosting a NATO radar base, as was suggested last week by four Republican senators in a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, RIA Novosti reported. The Obama administration is in negotiations with Turkey to establish the radar facility on its territory. http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110207_6886.php

Russia Rejects Immediate Talks on Tactical Nuke Cuts Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011 "We are not avoiding these talks. But talks about tactical nuclear missiles are impossible without a set of other issues: an imbalance of conventional forces, missile defense and the deployment of arms in space," the Russian official said. Russia is apparently determined to make any potential negotiations on tactical nuclear-weapon curbs contingent on U.S. concessions over plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, according to AFP. Some experts, though, suggested Moscow was more concerned about the planned system's potential to facilitate the deployment of offensive weapons in space. Antonov yesterday said his country was ready to pursue further strategic nuclear-weapon cuts with the United States as well as other nations, Interfax reported. http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110208_1126.php

2011 Tōhoku earthquake March 11, 2011 Head of U.N.'s atomic energy agency says 'lessons will need to be learned' Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says officials around the world need to reassess the international nuclear framework. He says 'arrangements for putting international nuclear experts in touch with each other quickly during a crisis need to be improved.' March 21, 2011, 1:19 p.m. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-iaea-20110322,0,1477504.story

U.S. Diplomat Hopeful for NATO-Russia Missile Defense Cooperation Tuesday, March 22, 2011 The Obama administration in 2009 announced it would scrap a Bush-era program for long-range missile defense in favor of a "phased adaptive approach" that would field increasingly sophisticated sea- and land-based versions of the Standard Missile 3 interceptors around Europe. The first phase of the new strategy began this month with the deployment to the Mediterranean Sea of a guided missile carrier equipped with an advanced missile tracking radar (see GSN, March 2). The Kremlin was vehement in its opposition to the Bush plan, and has given only tacit approval of the new U.S. program amid persistent concerns that the antimissile system would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. the Kremlin wants a shared structure in which each side would assume responsibility for eliminating missiles flying above specific geographical regions. Critics of the treaty accused U.S. negotiators of cutting a clandestine bargain to rein in future missile defense plans. the United States hopes to improve the missile defense capabilities of allies including Japan, France, Israel, South Korea and Australia. "We can work with our allies and partners to upgrade their warships to enable them to conduct missile defense operations and we can work with them to deploy sensors around the world to provide the data necessary for our interceptors to take out ballistic missiles," according to Tauscher. "I think this is a very big basket of opportunity ... it's safe to say that there's a big future for missile defense in the world arena," she said. http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110322_7291.php

Nuke Details Swapped Under U.S.-Russian Pact Tuesday, March 22, 2011 Russia and the United States in recent days started swapping data on their strategic nuclear arsenal assets in compliance with a bilateral arms control treaty that took effect last month, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, March 17). "Moving missile defense from a negative to a positive factor in our relationship could facilitate cooperation in other areas as well, including talks on further reductions in strategic, nonstrategic and nondeployed nuclear weapons. http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110322_3679.php

Russian, U.S. Agencies to Continue Nuclear Security Efforts Thursday, March 24, 2011 A newly renewed agreement allows two Russian and U.S. agencies to maintain collaboration on nuclear security for another seven years, Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Ponemon said today (see GSN, March 21, 2005). The agreement, which dates to 1995, enables the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to provide ongoing support for augmenting the nuclear security rules and audit and training readiness of Russia's Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service, Rostechnadzor. “The United States and Russia remain committed partners in improving global nuclear security, combating weapons proliferation, and preventing dangerous nuclear equipment and materials from falling into the wrong hands," Poneman said in released remarks. “This agreement, and NNSA’s ongoing work in Russia, are vital to reducing international nuclear threats and implementing President Obama's ambitious nuclear security agenda.” Rostechnadzor is charged with ensuring safeguards, management and inventory of materials at Russian nuclear sites, according to an NNSA press release. The service "is committed to continuing our open partnership with DOE NNSA to improve worldwide nuclear security," Rostechnadzor Chairman Nikolay Kutin said in the release. The Obama administration's budget proposal for the next fiscal year requests in excess of $60 million for NNSA efforts to establish and support nuclear "material protection, control and accounting" activities around the world. The program "strengthens the first line of defense against nuclear theft and terrorism by securing material at its source," according to the release. It has conducted operations at 37 Russian nuclear-material depositories, along with 73 Russian nuclear-warhead facilities and 13 nuclear-material sites in other countries (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, March 24). Russia Seen Pursuing U.S. Missile Shield Tech Thursday, March 24, 2011 Russia is pursuing an agreement with the Obama administration that would give Moscow access to U.S. technology for interceptors designed to destroy enemy missiles on impact, the Washington Times reported on Wednesday (see GSN, March 22). The United States has proposed sharing missile launch data and pursuing other initiatives with Russia in a bid to alleviate the Kremlin's concerns about the Obama administration's missile defense activities, which would include deploying increasingly advanced interceptors in and around Europe. The systems, along with accompanying radar technology, would be intended to counter missile threats to the continent, primarily from Iran. Russia presently has few capabilities of use to the United States in a prospective missile defense cooperation pact, U.S. national security officials said. Missile interceptors deployed around Moscow are tipped with nuclear warheads, and Russia is unlikely to tap the defenses in responding to a potential Iranian strike, according to the Times. Such defenses could also be targeted for elimination in possible future U.S.-Russian arms control talks, the newspaper said. The United States has restricted sensitive technology exports to Russia over its previous proliferation to Iran, but Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other Obama administration officials have sought to eliminate some of the restrictions as part of an export reform effort now under way. “It’s the perfect storm: loosened export controls, reset with Russia and arms control fever by the administration,” one U.S. government source said. "Hit-to-kill" technology forms the basis of most modern missile defense systems and was developed over the last 20 years with billions of dollars in funding, according to the Times (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, March 23). http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110324_9650.php

US, Russia swap nuke info under START Mar 22, 2011 06:57 Moscow Time Russia and the U.S. are beginning an exchange of information on nuclear capability under the agreement on reducing strategic offensive arms. The US Nuclear Risk Reduction Centre forwarded its database to Russia last weekend. This information includes data on missiles, launchers, heavy bombers and warheads. Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reported that the first reciprocal inspections at nuclear facilities may be held in April this year. In the 7 years of the treaty, the parties intend to reduce the total number of warheads by a third, and more than twice lower the limit for the strategic delivery systems. http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/22/47772427.html

New START Treaty - U.S. public debate In the United States, a debate about whether to ratify the treaty took place during the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections and in the lame-duck congressional session afterward. While one public opinion poll showed broad support for ratification,[44] another showed general skepticism over nuclear arms reductions The Arms Control Association led efforts to rally political support, arguing that the treaty is needed to restore on-site verification and lend predictability to the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship.[47] Other organizations supporting the treaty include the Federation of American Scientists,[48] and disarmament expert Peter Wilk of Physicians for Social Responsibility called the New START treaty “essential” to ensuring a safer world and stronger diplomatic ties with Russia.[49] Republican supporters included former President George H. W. Bush[50] and all six former Republican Secretaries of State, who wrote supportive op-eds in the Washington Post[51] and the Wall Street Journal.[52] Conservative columnist Robert Kagan, who supported the treaty, says its goals are actually modest compared to previous START treaties and that the treaty should not fail because of partisan disagreements. Kagan said the Republican insistence on upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reasonable but would not be affected by the current language of the treaty.[53] The Heritage Action for America advocacy group, an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, took the lead in opposing New START, lobbying the Senate along with running a petition drive and airing political advertisements before November's midterm elections. The effort drew the support of likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and has been credited by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as changing some Republican votes.[54] According to Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the language of the New START treaty would "definitely" reduce America's nuclear weapon capacity but "wouldn't necessarily" reduce Russia's, and Russia would maintain a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which are not counted in the treaty.[55] Arms control experts critical of the treaty included Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, who have written that the treaty weakens U.S. defenses.[56] Former CIA Director James Woolsey also said that "concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty".[57] Senators Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell complained about a lack of funding for the Next-Generation Bomber during the treaty debate even though this platform would not be constrained by this treaty.[58][59] During the Senatorial debate over the US ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that "Russia cheats in every arms control treaty we have with them", which caused a uproar in Russian media.[60] Additionally, there were concerns about the possibility of restrictions being imposed on the deployment of missile defense systems by the U.S.[61][62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#U.S._public_debate

MAIN SOURCE: NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE

HOME PAGE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

The Timeline of the Chernobyl Events - the Reykjavík Summit

2011-02-27T20:51:00.002+02:00

The timeline of the Chernobyl events:

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine

http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChernobyl_disaster&ei=k41qTcitL8rusgbDgvHxCw&usg=AFQjCNHs5mZNiza1f6ODGcJyyiJZFM-pxg

The Reykjavík Summit was a summit meeting between U.S. president Ronald Reagan and Secretary-General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, held in the famous house of Höfði in Reykjavík, the capital city of Iceland, on October 11–12, 1986.
The talks collapsed at the last minute, but the progress that had been achieved eventually resulted in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

At one point in Reykjavík, Iceland, Gorbachev offered to go to zero nuclear weapons if Reagan would agree to limit testing of his SDI program to the "laboratory."

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/us-soviet-relations/reagan-gorbachev-era.htm

More detailed:

In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviets proposed the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles).[1] Russians also proposed to eliminate 50% of all strategic arms, including ICBMs , and agreed not to include British or French weapons in the count.

All this was proposed in exchange for an American pledge not to implement strategic defences for the next ten years, in accordance with SALT I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit

So, the Russians gave some uranium to the US in exchange of the US to forget about the SDI.

The result of the summit was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

SALT I led to the ABM treaty:

Negotiations commenced in Helsinki, Finland, in 1969. SALT I led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and an interim agreement between the two powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

After the US took whatever it could of the USSR uranium, it then crashed the twin towers and withdrew from the ABM treaty, in order to continue with the SDI, more accurately to place nukes in Poland, claiming that these nukes are a missile defence.

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

After Ukraine, now Putin trades North Africa for his ghosty EU dream

2011-02-24T21:29:00.003+02:00

While North Africa is allegedly in turmoil, Putin visits EU headquarters, "putting foot down" in Brussels over EU gas law.

After he lost Ukraine and he hardly regained it after a 5 years contract with the US and was about to lose Belarus also, trading it for Mexico, while dreaming about I don't know which EU construction, the EU nightmare haunts his mind again.

Now he seems a bit more cautious though.
He said something about not selling out the Stans, saying that the African flu "is not spreading" in the former Soviet countries.

This is all about. When Putin's mind raves at night, the World gets up-side-down.

- comment by Veronica Bicer

REFERENCES:

February 24, 2011 16:31

North Africa events stress need for better Russia-EU coordination - Putin

BRUSSELS. Feb 24 (Interfax) - The ongoing events in North Africa have highlighted the need for Russia and the European Union to coordinate their efforts more closely, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said.

"Amid the complex processes taking place in North Africa today, we should coordinate our efforts both in the foreign policy and the economy," Putin said at a news conference after a meeting of members of the Russian government and European Commission officials in Brussels on Thursday.

"This was the goal of our meeting, which was successful," he said.

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=224666

Putin hopes Germany will permit Nord Stream pumping soon

http://en.rian.ru/business/20110224/162742272.html

Russia ready to meet Europe's gas demand, boost supplies

Russia can increase natural gas supplies to Europe if demand rises due to the recent events in North Africa, Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said on Thursday.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110224/162745149.html

Russia's Medvedev in Rome for talks on energy, defence and culture

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1619777.php/Russia-s-Medvedev-in-Rome-for-talks-on-energy-defence-and-culture

EU energy laws threaten gas pipeline- Yazev

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE71L0GF20110222

Former Soviet Countries and the 'Egypt Effect'

But there are several fundamental differences that preclude the possibility of the “Egypt effect” reaching FSU countries. That said, some key countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia are, for reasons quite separate from the Egyptian unrest, facing pressures that could strain their political and social stability.

Potential Problem States

Four states in the Caucasus and Central Asia — Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Azerbaijan — face more pressure and have more underlying problems for regime stability and security than the states listed above.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62881

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

2009 in Short

2010-01-02T03:18:00.005+02:00

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

The installation of the US military bases from Poland , called "defense shield", has been postponed until 2015.

The work at Nabucco gas pipeline seems to have been speed up. Along with Russia and the US, China is involved in the deal.

EU Lisbon Treaty has been signed, which is a victory for the US, with strategic military repercussions.

Putin still pushes for Bulava missiles.

After 10 years, another IMF wave hit the Eastern Europe. Putin will be in very much trouble to buy back these Eastern European countries.

The US bankrupted Dubai, in order to financially undermine Russia. Saudi Arabia - an American colony, will take advantage of Dubai's bankruptcy.

Greece is bankrupted, because it turned communist.

Putin is back in the East Europe

2009-11-24T19:40:00.008+02:00

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Geoana - the Socialist President of Romania?

I predicted a long time ago a bright political future for Mircea Geoana.

Back then, I said that he will become Prime Minister, relying on his meeting with Gerhard Schroeder and their talks about South Stream. Well, it was not meant to be, but all for the best.

It looks like the election of Sorin Oprescu (ex Social Democrat Party) as mayor of Bucharest, a couple of years ago, was the first step for the social democrats to come back to power in Romania, quite as I said back then.

On 6-th of December 2009, the date of the second round of the Romanian presidential elections, I foresee that Mircea Geoana (the leader of the Social Democrat Party) will be sworn in as president.

According to Wall Street Journal, he will form a team together with the Liberal Party.

The weird and worrisome coincidence though is that the negotiations for the START Treaty will take place on 5-th of December, just one day before the presidential elections held in Romania, but in my opinion the things are already set and no surprise will intervene at that time.

After 5 years, the "orange" contract" seems to have expired and it looks like, slowly but thoroughly, Putin will be back in the East European countries.

Therefore, hopefully Ukraine will follow the same leftist trend at the upcoming elections and probably Tymoshenko will become president.

Even though moderate leftists, the leaders that are to come in the East European countries are a meritorious and, of course, very important step forward that Putin makes towards the fortification of Russia's frontiers.

After five long, dark and frozen years for Russia, the things seem to be able to move again in its advantage.

Nabucco (at least) is, naturally, at stake for this stability in the region.

-Vera

Romanian Voters Head For Round Two, New Coalition Likely

Romanian voters culled the presidential field with a vote Sunday that propels the two finalists, incumbent Traian Basescu and Mircea Geoana, the head of the Social Democrat Party, into a Dec. 6 runoff election.

Basescu appears to have won the first round, according to partial results form the Central Electoral Bureau in Bucharest, but Geoana is narrowly favored by most opinion polls to win the decisive second round.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091123-705112.html

Marian Cozma - Serbia and Kosovo's EU Integration Hero

2009-02-21T02:46:00.024+02:00

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

On 8-th of February 2009 Romanian handball player Marian Cozma was killed by a group of gypsies, aka Roma ethnic individuals, in Hungary, Veszprem.

Note that a Serb and a Croat, friends of Cozma, were also wounded.

On 9-th of February 2009, the Serbian and Hungarian Foreign Ministers have met and, on the discussion agenda, included the above-mentioned crime (which, in normal circumstances, wouldn't have had any place in the high-level talks).

On the other hand, it is worthwhile mentioning that since June 25, 2008, Serbia is chairing the Decade of Roma, which is a political commitment by governments in Central and Southeastern Europe to improve the socio-economic status and social inclusion of Roma (gypsy citizens) within a regional framework.

2008-2009 is the year when Serbia holds the presidency of this forum.

Serbia's goal (backed by the US) is to join the EU in 2009. The US will also try to push Kosovo in the EU, whether its independence is recognized or not:

"History suggests more than one scenario in which Kosovo and Serbia can both move toward EU membership."

"It is time, however, to get beyond the issue of recognition/non-recognition and do everything possible to speed up the integration of both Kosovo and Serbia into Europe, whether they normalize relations between each other or not."

"In the end, that goal of EU integration should be front and center, not the issue of recognition. In another interview, this time with SEETV, Lagendijk got it right again when he said, “That is the most important message that I would like to convey: Both Serbia and Kosovo one day should be members of the European Union and one should not be able to block the other from entering the European Union.” "

http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=309&NrSection=2&NrArticle=20397

Allegedly, Serbia has a plan to provide more assets for the financing of all projects relating to the inclusion of the Roma in the system of social trends.

This "smart plan" will be used as a pretext for pushing Serbia (and later for Kosovo) into the EU.
According to the scenario, the EU will find itself unable to survive without Serbia on its side, which is a "specialist" in gypsy issues and which could help the EU to solve the multiple Roma problems that popped up over night in the Union, particularly in Italy, Hungary and Romania.

Recently the "gypsy problem" in Kosovo was highlighted by the international press and the EU stresses reforms on Kosovo, which consist of efforts to improve ties with the Serb minority and the Gypsy population.

The conclusion is that:

Marian Cozma was killed in order to provide a flashy video linked to the "gypsy problem", video which has the potential to push Serbia and Kosovo into the EU.

After seeing the video, naturally, people are now outraged, they demand death to the gypsies, so the EU, with the help of Serbia, which drafted that magic plan within the Decade of Roma, will allegedly do anything to integrate gypsies into the European society.

Whether or not Marian Cozma is indeed dead, we don't know for certain.

What we might find out instead is that, in exchange for this "wonderful gypsy Serb plan", Serbia and later Kosovo will receive the EU membership.

-Veronica Bicer

RELATED QUOTES AND ARTICLES:

The Veszprém stabbing over the weekend appeared on the agenda of a Hungarian-Serbian foreign ministerial meeting – Kinga Göncz and Vuk Jeremic sign co-operation agreement between their ministries.

Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said in Budapest on Monday that Serbia’s central strategic priority in 2009 is to speed up it accession to the European Union, adding that Hungary is fully backing Serbia on this path.

http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/actualities/visits_and_events/GK_Jeremic_090209.htm

Kosovo: One year on

Kosovo celebrates its first birthday today. But independence has not proved a miracle cure for this international headache. If anything, the situation is now worse.

And this week a further vulnerable group was brought to attention: the Roma population, which is suffering under the general lack of communication. They are currently in lead-contaminated camps but are not being dealt with by the Serbs running the north.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/infocus/features/in-depth/kosovo-one-year-on-$1268967.htm

DECADE OF ROMA – INTERNATIONAL MANAGING BOARD MEETING

19.02.2009."Serbia has made a strategy for the inclusion of the Roma, the action plan and budget

Since June 25, 2008, Serbia is chairing the Decade of Roma and coordinates the actions of implementing the international initiative to change the position of the Roma in the education, health protection, employment and accommodation from 2005 to 2015. So, the Decade of Roma has started in 2005, on the initiative of the Open Society Fund and the World Bank.

"Our goal is to provide more assets for the financing of all projects relating to the inclusion of the Roma in the system of social trends", said Djelic, while adding that this organization will ask for the formal inclusion in the realization of European projects for the Roma. He repeated that the priorities of Serbia during its one-year chairing of the decade are the following: education and avoiding the discrimination; accommodation and making of the European policy towards the Roma.

http://glassrbije.org/E/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6274&Itemid=28

Serbia to seek faster EU membership

February 10, 2009 – 12:42 pm

Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said in Budapest on Monday that Serbia’s central strategic priority in 2009 is to speed up it accession to the European Union, adding that Hungary is fully backing Serbia on this path.

The Hungarian prime minister also expressed deep regrets over the incident in Veszprem, in which handball player, Serbian national team member, Zarko Sesum sustained grave fractures of the facial bones in an attack by an as yet unidentified group of persons early on Saturday morning. In the incident, which took place in a bar in Veszprem, Marian Cosma of Romania was stabbed to death and Ivan Pesic of Croatia sustained grave injuries. All three attacked handball players were engaged by the local MKB Veszprem KC.

http://www.serbianna.com/blogs/newspost/?p=1454

EU official stresses reforms for Kosovo

BRUSSELS: The EU's representative in Kosovo said Wednesday the former Serb province must do more to fight organized crime and corruption, and to promote democracy.

Pieter Feith said his top three priorities this year were to push stability, reforms and reconciliation between the majority ethnic Albanian population and the minority Serbs in the north of Kosovo.
The province of Kosovo gained independence last year.

Feith told lawmakers at the European Parliament there was "continued fragility" in Kosovo, notably tensions between the Albanian and Serb populations but also with the ex-Serb province's Gypsy population.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/11/europe/EU-EU-Kosovo.php

‘Gypsy crime’ versus ‘political crime’

Monday, 16 February 2009 The Veszprém murder made it clear that protection rackets remain a problem in Hungary. Secondly, and more emphatically, it demonstrated that relations between ethnic Hungarians and their fellow Gypsy citizens are at breaking point.

“Gypsy crime” was denounced, rather than inadequate public safety. The murderers of the Veszprém handball idol Marian Cozma and their relatives earned the hatred and the thirst for revenge of the majority of society, not only because of their crime, but also because they are Gypsies.

http://www.budapesttimes.hu/content/view/10978/230/

Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015

http://www.romadecade.org/

Serbian Decade Presidency 2008-2009

http://www.romadecade.org/index.php?content=176

Less Talk, More Action

page 1 of 2
by TOL20 February 2009

History suggests more than one scenario in which Kosovo and Serbia can both move toward EU membership.

This week Kosovo celebrated one year of self-declared independence. As expected, cries of jubilation rang out from Pristina while words of defiance flowed forth from Belgrade. The Kosovars proudly pointed to the stability that has largely reigned over the country – a surprise to many – while critics lamented the lack of progress in so many vital areas of economic and social development. Nearly everyone put their spin on the issue of recognition, with naysayers pointing out that only 54 of the United Nations’ 192 members had recognized Kosovo, while boosters stressing that the vast majority of the European Union (plus the United States) were among the 54. It is time, however, to get beyond the issue of recognition/non-recognition and do everything possible to speed up the integration of both Kosovo and Serbia into Europe, whether they normalize relations between each other or not. One politician who got the message right over the past few weeks was Joost Lagendijk, a Dutch member of the European Parliament and the EP's rapporteur for Kosovo. In an interview with the Serbian newspaper Dnevnik, he said, “It is not realistic to expect Serbia to recognize Kosovo any time soon, but Serbia, Kosovo, and the EU should not be wasting time in integrating Belgrade and Pristina into the EU.” Yet some analysts and European politicians still insist that recognition of Kosovo be a condition of Serbia's EU bid. Accession should be off the agenda, they say, until Belgrade concedes the independence of Kosovo. That approach is completely divorced from reality. Even more moderate, pro-EU forces in the Serbian government will not budge on the issue of recognition, nor can one expect them to in the near future. It is a genuine, not fabricated issue, and the Serbs have real grievances, no matter whether one considers them justified or not. Cooperating with The Hague on arresting war criminals is one matter, but agreeing to recognize what many consider a breakaway province is something completely different.

Less Talk, More Action page 2 of 2

TWO-STATE SOLUTIONS“We must look for a creative diplomatic solution which would not hurt anyone, and would work to everyone’s benefit,” Lagendijk continued in the interview. “The idea of a solution according to the principle of two Germanys, where, despite not recognizing one another, the two sides committed not to interfere with the international activities of the other, could be the basis for an agreement for the two sides that would be rubber-stamped by the EU.” There are many other prominent examples of countries entering Western institutions with major territorial disputes still outstanding, including Turkey and Greece’s accession into NATO and, more recently, Cyprus’s successful application to join the EU. Spain and the United Kingdom continue to disagree about the status of Gibraltar, with Madrid claiming sovereignty over this British territory and London insisting that it will not enter into talks with Spain without the consent of the local government and people. Yet life goes on, and, since 2004, the people of Gibraltar have participated in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.Lagendijk also said some lessons could be learned from Ireland and the way it has constitutionally handled the issue of Northern Ireland.The time is ripe to seriously consider such solutions instead of unrealistically hoping that pressure on Serbia will change the situation. The same goes for the stalwarts within the EU who refuse to recognize Kosovo (Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and Slovakia). A non-binding, European Parliament resolution on 5 February called on those countries to fall in line. They have remained defiant, however, and it is a waste of time and energy to pressure them to cave in. A difference of opinion on such a critical issue as a territory declaring independence, with all the ramifications on international law and setting a precedent, is not without value. And longer term, as EU integration accelerates for both Kosovo and Serbia, the non-recognition stance should in any case become less and less tenable. In the end, that goal of EU integration should be front and center, not the issue of recognition. In another interview, this time with SEETV, Lagendijk got it right again when he said, “That is the most important message that I would like to convey: Both Serbia and Kosovo one day should be members of the European Union and one should not be able to block the other from entering the European Union.”

http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=309&NrSection=2&NrArticle=20397&ST1=ad&ST_T1=job&ST_AS1=0&ST_LS1=-1&ST2=body&ST_T2=letter&ST_AS2=0&ST_LS2=-1&ST3=text&ST_T3=aatol&ST_PS3=1&ST_AS3=0&ST_LS3=0&ST_max=3

Czech presidency outlines three EU priorities for Kosovo
06. February 2009. 09:26
Source: Kosovo Compromise
The indivisibility of territory, decentralisation and participation at regional integrations are three EU priorities regarding Kosovo, Czech Minister of European Affairs Alexander Vondra said on behalf of the Czech EU Presidency
The indivisibility of territory, decentralisation and participation at regional integrations are three EU priorities regarding Kosovo, Czech Minister of European Affairs Alexander Vondra said on behalf of the Czech EU Presidency on Wednesday during a debate on a draft resolution on Kosovo proposed by Dutch MEP Joost Lagendijk. In his address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Vondra stressed the issue of Kosovo's regional cooperation and participation in the main European processes and stressed his expectation that the European Union would some day bring Kosovo closer to the stabilisation and association process. He also stressed that numerous challenges were to be overcome by that date, because it would be difficult for the European Union to achieve unity on Kosovo. The Czech minister said that the division on the status of Kosovo within the European Union in no way diminished the key goals of long-term stability. "Our main challenge in the next few months will be the full engagement of EULEX", Vondra said. He stressed the situation in northern Kosovo, voicing his expectation that it would be difficult in the next few months and that it would be an object of constant EU attention. On behalf of the European Commission, the MEPs were addressed by Commissioner for Consumer Affairs Meglena Kuneva, who quoted several EC programmes of assistance and stressed the special concern over the position of Roma in the lead-polluted camp in Kosovska Mitrovica.

http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/serbia/78151.html

INTERVIEW-Serbia pins Kosovo hopes on court, president says
Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:24pm EST

By Aleksandar VasovicBELGRADE, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Serbia is pinning its hopes for better relations with Kosovo on an international court ruling, but will never recognise Kosovo's independence, Serbian President Boris Tadic said on Monday.Tuesday is the first anniversary of Kosovo's declaration of independence -- a declaration bitterly opposed by Serbia, which sees the region as the cradle of its religious and national identity.Serbia last year asked the International Court of Justice in The Hague to rule on the legality of Kosovo's secession. But a ruling could take years, and would not be binding."The only way for us to enter talks about the future status of Kosovo and a compromise solution is the court's ruling," Tadic told Reuters in an interview.Recourse to the court implies Serbia would accept its ruling, however it turned out. But Tadic nevertheless restated a position that remains a political imperative in Serbia:"Serbia will never take a single action that implies Kosovo's independence," he said.Kosovo is patrolled by NATO peacekeepers and administered by EU and United Nations missions, 10 years after its conflict between Serbs and Albanians ended in 1999, when NATO bombing forced Serbian troops to end a crackdown on Albanians.More than 200,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have fled Kosovo since, fearing reprisal attacks by their Albanian neighbours. Most are still in Serbia."Serbia wants to see the return of normal life in Kosovo," Tadic said. "The protection of human and minority rights there is below an acceptable level and we haven't seen many (Serb) returnees."The United States, 22 of 27 EU members and a number of other countries have recognised Kosovo as an independent state but others, including U.N. Security Council members Russia and China, have not.Tadic said Serbia would not block Kosovo's accession to international financial agencies on condition the territory was represented there by the U.N. Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recognised Kosovo's independence last year and said it would consider its membership "in due course". Kosovo has also applied for membership of the World Bank.Tadic, a pro-Western politician, said Serbia would not hasten the submission of its candidacy to the European Union, reflecting a new approach after EU officials told Belgrade not to rush its application."I am a practical man ... full EU membership is more important than formal application," he said.The Netherlands is opposing the unfreezing of an EU trade deal with Serbia until it arrests and hands over former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic to the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague, which wants him on genocide charges. "We don't know where he (Mladic) is now. Serbia will boost operations of its law enforcement agencies and use its economic resources to arrest Mladic," Tadic said. (Reporting by Aleksandar Vasovic; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLG118812

WHO urges Kosovo to close lead-contaminated camps
The Associated Press
Published: January 31, 2009

PRISTINA, Kosovo: A World Health Organization official says Kosovo must close down lead-contaminated camps in the tiny Balkan country's industrial north where about 100 Gypsy families live.
WHO regional director Dorit Nitzan says tests have shown levels of lead contamination are "severe" though they are falling.
Nitzan said Saturday the area should be declared hazardous for humans, and its residents should be moved.
The makeshift camps are located near a smelter that is part of the Trepca mining complex in the ethnically divided town of Mitrovica.
The Gypsies, also known as Roma, have lived in the camps since their homes were torched just after Kosovo's 1998-99 war with Serb troops. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia last year.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/31/europe/EU-Kosovo-Roma-Camps.php

Kosovo: One year on
Tuesday, 17 Feb 2009 00:00

Deadlock Economic woes are making the current situation on the ground especially pronounced. Unemployment is hovering just short of the 50 per cent mark, shockingly high for any western European country.

Crime levels remain high. Infrastructure is yet to recover. And this week a further vulnerable group was brought to attention: the Roma population, which is suffering under the general lack of communication.

They are currently in lead-contaminated camps but are not being dealt with by the Serbs running the north.

The reason for all this is the lack of a strong central government.

The majority, ethnic Albanians, may run the government but their authority has been eroded by Serbs establishing their own local authorities. Municipalities in Serb-majority areas, especially, have effectively taken over at the local level. A leadership vacuum is the result.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/infocus/features/in-depth/kosovo-one-year-on-$1268967.htm

Ukraine: Putin in Europe or outside of it?

2009-01-07T21:58:00.004+02:00

HOME PAGE

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

In short: On Ukraine gas situation, there are two opposite opinions:

1. The gas chaos was created in order to oust Yushchenko, and so, in 2009 Ukraine will get closer to Russia.

2. Gas was cut in order to justify the further and more rapid construction of South and Nord Stream gas pipelines, which will bypass Ukraine.

Taking a look not further than in Georgia, we will see that Putin is on his straight way to legalize his increased military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Maybe this is not the best comparison, but I used it in order to underline the increased Russian military presence in its own neighbourhood.

My feeling is that Putin's European dream is at the very best in stand by. After Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, one by one took Putin's European hopes away, I think that now it's time for Putin to clean up the relics of his European plan: Ukraine, which he was willing to sacrifice in the eventuality of the materialization of his European plan.

I believe that Nord and South Stream are lost causes, at least for the time being. As long as Europe is led by American puppets, Nord and South gas pipelines, which practically signified Putin's entrance in the Western Europe, will freeze.

Nor there is any European warmth as far as Russia concerns in this very moment.

So, I incline towards the "Yushchenko out" version.

In 2009 he will be ousted and probably replaced with Timoshenko, who is a solution of compromise, another (smoother) compromise between Putin and Bush SR, she being rather a moderate than a deep anti-American, something between pro-American Yushchenko and pro-Russian Yanukovich.

A turn to the left of Ukraine is not meant to make even the anti-Americans happy. It is a severe sign of coldness in Russia-US relations. Russia will be practically outside Europe, while the US, inside of it, won't have energy to feed it. An Iranian war will loom.

~Veronica Bicer

RIA NOVOSTI SAYS:

Yanukovych, Tymoshenko equal chance of becoming president - poll
17:51

24/ 12/ 2008

KIEV, December 24 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's prime minister and the leader of the opposition pro-Russian Party of Regions have an equal chance of winning next years' presidential elections, according to a poll published on Wednesday.

The Public Opinion-Ukraine Foundation said that 30% of respondents indicated they would vote for opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko during the second round of presidential elections.

Media speculation reported that Ukraine would hold early elections after the impeachment of incumbent president, Viktor Yushchenko. The president has dismissed the reports as rumors.
More respondents said they would vote for Yanukovich than Tymoshenko, 20.7% against 17.9%, respectively, during the first round of voting.

All other election hopefuls lag far behind the two poll leaders. The poll was conducted December 7-20 in Ukraine among a sample of 2,000 respondents with a statistical margin of error of 2.2%.

On some aspects of Ukrainian nationalism
16:22

06/ 11/ 2008

(Mark Almond for RIA Novosti) - Four years ago, the Western media celebrated the victory of Viktor Yushchenko in the long-drawn out Ukrainian presidential elections as the dawn of a new age of prosperity and democracy in the country.

Western strategists saw the so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine as confirming the trend of Georgia's Rose Revolution in 2003 for former Soviet republics to seek integration in Western structures like NATO and the EU to the exclusion of Russia.

Although they condemned nationalism as backward-looking in their own societies, in 2004, many Western commentators presented the Orange revolutionaries' Ukrainian nationalism as a positive force. It was supposed to be the engine for Ukrainian progress towards the Western global model.

Today, Ukraine's economy is in deep crisis. Integration with the West has brought recession leaving steel mills and coal mines idle and wages unpaid. As the credit crunch and economic downturn in the West sours even American faith in the blessings of unbridled globalism, all that remains of the Orange project in Ukraine is nationalism. But nationalism in a time of economic crisis is a very rancid ideology.

Even before the current crisis, the Orange revolutionaries of 2004 had fallen out over how to divide the spoils of office and how far to sacrifice the national interest to NATO membership.

The bitter personal rivalry between President and his prime minister, Yulia Timoshenko - the key Orange revolutionaries in 2004 - also reflects a deep divide over Ukraine's future economic and strategic orientation.

As Ukrainian industry grinds to a halt, the country's quarrelling former Orange revolutionaries face a brutal choice. Should they put ideological purity first and pursue the mirage of Western integration for a poverty-stricken population regardless of the Ukrainian people's wishes, or should they put their country's economic well-being first?

Timoshenko is accused of populism by the President's media backers. And it is true that the Ukrainian prime minister has curried support with the voters by backing economic and social measures which help them. But in a democracy it is usually the candidate with populist policies who wins most votes. As ex-National Bank chief, Yushchenko gives the impression that the key voters in his version of Ukrainian democracy are bankers and oligarchs. Maybe they are, but that is not the democracy promised by the Orange revolutionaries in 2004.

With early parliamentary elections looming, to be followed by presidential polls next year, President Yushchenko's popularity has sunk to the single digits. Other post-Soviet presidents have bounced back from such unpopular levels, but hardly by using model democratic means. In 1996, for instance, Boris Yeltsin's backers in the new Russian oligarch class used their media monopoly to re-elect Yeltsin despite the deep poverty of most Russians then by playing up the fear of a Communist comeback.

Today in Ukraine, Yushchenko is trying to play the same game. Using anti-Russian nationalism he has tried to rally the Ukrainian speakers to his side. He tried to cut off access to Russian television channels, popular with Ukrainian as well as Russian-speakers so that only nationalist voices would be heard. Ironically in order to create the kind of slick modern nationalist propaganda, Yushchenko's supporters have had to import expert propagandists from Russia!

Russian journalists who worked for media oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky and Gusinsky in 1996to boost Yeltsin are now in Kiev to revitalise Yushchenko's popular image.

Things were very different then. In 1996 the grim Soviet past was still tangible in Russia. Yeltsin's propagandists could play on the reality that his only alternative was the unrepentant Communist, Zyuganov. In Ukraine, twelve years later, even with a media monopoly, Yushchenko would face a very different scenario.
His main political rivals made their careers after 1991 and have fewer connections with the old nomenklatura than he has. Having built up Yulia Timoshenko as the heroine of an independent post-Communist Ukraine during the Orange revolution in 2004, Yushchenko cannot discredit her patriotic credentials without undermining the Orange myth which is the basis of his own rise to the presidency.
Worse still Yushchenko's failure to clarify how he came to be so disfigured in September, 2004, has come back to haunt his credibility. Then his poisoning was widely claimed to be a sinister Russian plot, but now ex-ministers like David Zhvania suggest it was food poisoning not a criminal act that made Yushchenko's pock-marked face the image of the Orange Revolution and gained him enormous sympathy.

Yushchenko's personal political crisis comes from presiding over an economic crisis compounded by his naive acceptance of every Western consultants' self-interested advice. Then he has added attempts at media control by decree to deny the problems, which has compounded his failure to live up to his promise of a new openness in government.

The Western media, including Western-sponsored outlets in Ukraine present attempts to block Russian television not as censorship but as a blow for Ukrainian independence! What viewers in Ukraine is ignored so long as NATO's geo-political interests are served. American government-funded stations like Voice of America and Radio Liberty are allowed to broadcast independent news on Ukrainian channels but not Russian stations.

Under the guise of promoting a free media market in countries like Ukraine Western taxpayers fund propaganda not only against other countries like Russia but also on behalf of one candidate in the country's political spectrum. Something illegal in the United States itself.
Television is tremendously potent propaganda medium. But cruel economic reality may well prove stronger.

As the economic model promoted by Viktor Yushchenko and his Western sponsors wallows in depression, Ukrainians may ask whether the Orange Revolution marked the rebirth of their country or the last gasp of ideologically-driven politicians. After all, for seven decades Kiev's political class followed the Kremlin's lead blindly. Under Yushchenko it was the White House which laid down the ideological path for Kiev to follow. The coming months will decide whether Ukrainians will finally break the shackles imposed by dogmatic models - Communist before 1991 and so-called capitalist since 2004. Electing politicians who put Ukrainians' rational economic interests ahead of ideology or foreign sponsors' geo-political ambitions will be a huge step forward for Ukraine's well-being. But will such politicians get access to Ukrainian media?
Mark Almond is a Lecturer in History at Oriel College, Oxford, and a Visiting Professor in International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20081106/118163593.html

Greece Turns Communist

2008-12-08T22:11:00.002+02:00

HOME PAGE

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Greece is important for Putin, being both an EU and NATO member.
If communist, it can therefore become the Trojan horse in the EU, more than it already is.

For sure Greece can postpone NATO's MAP (Membership Action Plan) for Macedonia.

Important politically, religiously and being also engaged in many pipeline projects with Russia, such as South Stream and Burgas-Alexandroupoli , if turning left, Greece is a good gain for Putin.

Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline is rival with the US - backed - Kosovo - linked AMBO oil pipeline.

~Veronica Bicer

QUOTES:

Officials said they expect more demonstrations and unrest in Athens as students and the Greek Communist Party are expected to hold protests throughout the day. With a 24-hour general strike called for Wednesday, many expressed fears that the demonstrations could last for days.
Karamanlis' government faced a series of protests from labor groups and students in recent months. Reports said that Karamanlis, whose government rules with a slim majority, may be forced to call early elections.

Public unrest has grown with the conservative government's austerity measures, with unions regularly demonstrating against privatizations, pension reforms and the cost of living.

-DEUTSCHE WELLE

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3858663,00.html

a membership action plan will be extended to Macedonia, as soon as its name dispute with Greece is settled.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-12-03-voa42.cfm

Burgas-Alexandroupoli oil pipeline

The Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline is an oil pipeline that will be used to transport Russian and Caspian oil from the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Burgas to the Greek Aegean port of Alexandroupoli. The pipeline will be an alternative route for Russian oil bypassing the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Its construction will begin in June of 2009, and is estimated to be completed by the beginning of 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgas-Alexandroupoli_pipeline

AMBO pipeline

AMBO pipeline is a planned oil pipeline from the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Burgas via the Republic of Macedonia to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBO_pipeline

Name dispute lands Greece, Macedonia in court

November 18, 2008

ATHENS, Greece (CNN) -- An ongoing name dispute between Greece and Macedonia is to be referred to the International Court of Justice.

Greek officials said on Tuesday they were prepared to defend themselves in court after Macedonia filed a complaint claiming Athens had blocked its bid to join NATO.

The lawsuit marks the latest diplomatic wrangle in the 17-year-old name dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslavian republic.

Macedonia had hoped to join the military alliance earlier this year, but Greece's objections to its northern neighbor's choice of name blocked those aspirations at an alliance summit in April.

Greece wants Macedonia to relinquish its name, which it says is Greek. It also insists that Macedonia's use of the name suggests territorial aspirations on a region of the same name in northern Greece.

In lodging Skopje's complaint with the International Court at The Hague on Monday, Macedonian Foreign Minister Antonio Milosevski said Greece's veto at the April NATO summit was in violation of a 1995 agreement between the two countries.

The agreement, known as the interim accord, aimed to improve relations between the two states, allowing Macedonia to join international organizations under a provisional name -- the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- until the U.N. could mediate a resolution over the name dispute.

The U.N.'s highest judicial organ, the ICJ, said Monday it had received Skopjes' suit. It was not immediately clear, however, when the case would be heard and how long a verdict would take.

Even so, senior officials in Athens said Tuesday that diplomats preparing to defend Greece's positions expected a long and drawn-out legal procedure that could further imperil Macedonia's aspirations of joining international organizations.

"This was a scenario we were expecting," said George Koumoutsakos, spokesman for the Greek foreign ministry. "We are ready to defend our positions, but this will be a long and drawn-out legal procedure and throughout its course, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will remain outside the international organizations it wants to join."

Koumoutsakos said Macedonia's suit was a "tactical move" intended to block ongoing UN mediations aimed at resolving the name dispute.

"It has done everything possible to obstruct the ongoing negotiating process," the spokesman told the state-run NET television network.

Relations between Greece and Macedonia have worsened since NATO's April summit, and a flurry of negotiations brokered by a special U.N. mediator have failed to yield any result on a compromise name.

Earlier this year, a U.N. mediator proposed "Northern Macedonia" as a compromise solution, but negotiations floundered over related issues on how outsiders should refer to the language and nationality of the people in Macedonia.

Wedged between Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Kosovo, Macedonia was the only former Yugoslav republic to win independence in the 1990 without bloodshed.

-CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/18/macedonia.dispute/?iref=mpstoryview

Putin Doesn't Want Any Pipeline

2008-12-02T23:13:00.004+02:00

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Putin doesn't want to actually build any pipeline designed to fuel any other country with Russian gas or oil

(To be periodically updated)

According to the latest news, it looks like Putin doesn't actually want to build any pipeline: neither the South Stream gas pipeline, nor the Northern European gas pipeline, nor any additional one other than the existing pipelines. Let alone the Trans-Siberian pipeline, which was an illusion created to Japan from the very beginning.

He keeps enticing everybody with the phantom pipelines, he keeps using them as political leverage (indeed, he now uses the phantom pipelines to get a renewed partnership agreement with the EU).

The idea, however, is that the phantom pipelines look like pure diplomatic leverage and not realities to count on. Putin doesn't seem eager to fuel any more gas, nor oil on new pipelines, other than the existent ones.

With socialist Tarja Halonen pushed from behind by Russia to question the Northern European Pipeline, allegedly for environmental reasons, and using any pretexts at hand, such as the price of natural gas and even the financial crisis, Putin tries to postpone the finalization of these pipelines indefinitely.

Russia's most precious treasure is its natural resources. Russians must live many years from now on selling these resources, so the less they sell now, the more they will have left in the future.

The articles below come to support somehow my opinion:

Putin Questions Baltic Pipeline

With the price of natural gas falling, the Russian Prime Minister suggests Gazprom won't go it alone building the controversial Nord Stream pipeline.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has questioned the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline for the first time since the signing of the agreement with Germany to establish the gas delivery network, as gas is set to become cheaper along with the drop in oil prices.

Two days ahead of the EU-Russia summit, Mr Putin said he would scrap a planned pipeline that would carry Gazprom gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany if Europe didn't show enough commitment. His remarks suggest the pipeline might be too expensive for Gazprom to build, especially since the price of gas is set to drop significantly.

"Europe must decide whether it needs this pipeline or not," Mr Putin told Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen on Wednesday (12 November) at a meeting in Moscow.

"If you don't, we will build liquefaction plants and send gas to world markets, including to European markets. But it will be simply more expensive for you," he added.

His remarks come ahead of the EU-Russia summit in Nice on Friday, when EU leaders are set to announce the resumption of talks with their eastern neighbour on a strategic partnership agreement, suspended after the Russian-Georgian conflict.

Joachim Pfeiffer, energy-policy spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, said in a statement that while Germany still supports the pipeline, "We won't insist on the Nord Stream project if it doesn't make business sense."

Moscow has so far never questioned the viability of the , km-long submarine pipeline, despite construction costs rising year after year, and now estimated to total €7.4 billion, according to the Suddeutsche Zeitung.

The German daily points out that the financial crisis has hit Moscow badly and that the price of oil, the driver of Russian growth, has dropped by 50 percent since the summer, leaving Gazprom highly indebted.

Mr Putin's calls for Europe to make up its mind about Nord Stream refers to geopolitical and environmental concerns raised by several EU member states. Even in Germany, the project sparked multiple controversies.

The agreement between then president Vladimir Putin and Chancellor Gerhard Schroder was signed during the latter's last weeks in office, with Mr Schroeder later hired later as a member of the Nord Stream board.

The Baltic states and Poland strongly oppose the project, concerned they would be cut off from existing gas infrastructure with Russia, as Moscow would probably channel most of the gas deliveries through the direct pipeline to Germany.

Sweden also opposes the project due to environmental concerns, echoed by MEPs, who have called for a new investigation into the pipeline's impact on the environment.

Finland, one of several EU states that has a say in approving the project, will conduct an environmental review of the plan next year, Mr Vanhanen said after the meeting with his Russian counterpart on Wednesday.

Missile quid pro quo

Ever since the decision of EU foreign ministers to resume talks with Russia, Moscow has softened its stance towards member countries. It has dropped plant import restrictions against Poland and postponed an increase in timber tariffs.

Even President Dmitri Medvedev's discussion of placing missiles in its Kaliningrad outpost the second day after the US elections has proven to be a short-term tactical gambit.

In an interview with Le Monde on Thursday, Mr Medvedev said he was not going to deploy the short-range missiles in Kaliningrad unless the US goes ahead with its planned missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"We are ready to give up our decision to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad if the new US administration, after having analysed the real utility of the system in responding to 'rogue states' decides to abandon its anti-missile system. The first reaction of the US shows that the new administration is reflecting upon it. We are ready to negotiate a 'zero-option'," he said.

- by BusinessWeek

Related articles:

Russian PM Putin signs order to build Baltic Pipeline System-2
Nord Stream gas project important to EU - European Commission
Sweden requests additional information on Nord Stream project
Nord Stream to give Finland environmental report results in 2009

Pipelines:

Baltic Pipeline System
Druzhba pipeline
Caspian Pipeline Consortium
Sever Pipeline

Nord Stream Gas Pipeline (Northern European Gas Pipeline)

South Stream Gas Pipeline
Blue Stream
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline
Turkey-Greece pipeline
Greece-Italy pipeline

MAPS:

Baltic Pipeline System

Nord Stream

Russian Oil and Gas Pipelines to Europe

South Stream

Nord and South Stream

The new Romanian PM and the South Stream Gas Pipeline

2008-12-01T23:58:00.001+02:00

(Draft)

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

Mircea Geoana is going to be the new (leftist) Romanian PM. His job as new PM is to sign for the Russian-based project, the gas pipeline South Stream.

See:

Schroeder: Rusia nu are în vedere includerea României în proiectul South Stream

BUCUREŞTI / 13:42, 12.11.2008

Rusia nu are în vedere includerea României în proiectul gazoductului South Stream, deşi în România există discuţii privind necesitatea implicării în acest proiect, a declarat, marţi, la Bucureşti, fostul cancelar al Germaniei Gerhard Schroeder, într-o conferinţă de presă.

"Nu am nicio informaţie din interior privind includerea României în South Stream, dar de ce nu? Am fost informat că în ţara voastră este o discuţie că s-ar putea să aveţi nevoie de el (gazoductul South Streasm, n.r.), dar asta nu este discuţia mea", a spus Schroeder.

Cancelar al Germaniei pentru două mandate consecutive, între 1998 şi 2002, Gerhard Schroeder este, în prezent, Preşedintele Comitetului de Acţionari al conductei de gaze Nord Stream şi consilier al grupului elveţian de presă Ringier. El se află în România pentru a participa la o conferinţă internaţională pe teme energetice.

Schroeder a adăugat că nu se opune proiectului Nabucco, dar pentru a avea resurse de gaze acest proiect trebuie să includă printre furnizori şi Iranul, chiar dacă SUA se opune. Totodată, proiectele susţinute de Rusia, Nord Stream şi South Stream, au necesarul de gaze, în timp ce Nabucco nu.

"SUA este strict împotriva implicării Iranului, asta trebuie rezolvat. Dacă se rezolvă, Nabucco va fi lucrativ. Nu sunt împotriva Nabucco, de ce aş fi? Dar o conductă de gaze trebuie să aibă şi gaze pe care să le transporte", a adăugat fostul cancelar al Germaniei.

Schroeder a menţionat că între UE şi Rusia există o dependenţă mutuală, Europa având nevoie de energie din Rusia, iar Rusia având nevoie să vândă petrolul şi gazele pe pieţele europene.
În opinia lui, este necesar accesul companiilor europene pe piaţa energetică rusă.
"Rusia este un furnizor de încredere", a spus Schroeder.

Preşedintele PSD, Mircea Geoană, prezent la conferinţa de presă susţinută de Schroeder, a spus că Iranul este o sursă de gaze pentru Nabucco, iar în opinia sa noua administraţie a SUA va încerca să menţină preţul petrolului la un nivel redus, pentru a limita profiturile pe care Iranul le obţine din exporturile de petrol.

Totodată, Geoană crede că administraţia SUA va relua discuţiile mai apropiate cu Rusia într-o coaliţie mai largă faţă de Iran, văzut ca potenţial deţinător de arme atomice.

Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State

2008-12-01T22:54:00.003+02:00

HOME PAGE
MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS

The good news is that my previous analysis was not flawed.

The American Orange Revolution: Hillary Clinton set to be the 44-th President of the US

Hillary Clinton is now the US' Secretary of state, which is nothing else but the US' foreign policy leader.

Obama Names Campaign Rival Hillary Clinton as His Secretary of State

According to Wikipedia,

"the United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence."

So, from now on, lady Clinton will deal with foreign affairs, the most important department of the American state, function which involves face to face meetings with the most important foreign leaders. For sure she will be helped by her husband, the ex-president Bill Clinton, who, in his turn, will be helped in taking decisions by his tennis partner and distant relative, Bush SR.

So, it turns out that my previous analysis was very close to the truth. Hillary Clinton is indeed the connection between the so-called democratic leadership and Bush SR.

What I missed is the new scheme according to which the real leaders vanish in the background, shadowed for the public eye by colourful puppets Obama-Medvedev type.

What helped me guess who will be the most important person in the new democratic US' administration was data which I gathered in time, relying on first hand information from the international media, such as the fact that Bill Clinton is a distant relative of George Bush Jr., the fact that Bill Clinton is a tennis partner of Bush SR and that Bush SR was the president ex-head of the CIA, the most prominent American political figure after Ronald Reagan, being at the same time his most loyal disciple.

It was relatively easy to have a clue on how the things work and who are in fact the individuals who lead the US for real. The things fit. It was a judgement in all of it, which could be logically followed, relying on the information from the international official media.

However, with the instauration of the black man Obama in the highest position of the US' state (a completely unknown and rather hilarious apparition) and with the instauration of Medvedev in the highest position of the Russian state (a serious man, but who seems to have little political genius), a new trend in the international politics is stealthily implemented: the real leaders are pushed in the shadows, making room for plain puppets to occupy the highest positions in the state.

The result will be felt in a few years. What happens in the high political circles will become more and more hidden from the public eye. In a few years we won't be able to know anymore who is the most important person who pulls the highest strings of the state in general and of the secret services in particular.

The high political business will be a completely opaque circle, working in the background, while in the foreground the puppets nominated just to play a part, will make the news.

In this context, when the two key names such as Bush SR and Putin are nowadays, will be unknown, since their high-ranking meetings will quit making the news, it will be harder and harder to make a decent political analysis.

We will remain just maneuverable sheeps, deprived of any basic political knowledge. The most curious ones will have to analyse just the events that occurred and won't be able to foresee, as they did in the past, relying on the timing of the events that occurred quite in the aftermath of the highest-ranking meetings.

Why Obama?

2008-11-03T21:42:00.003+02:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

Quick answer: Because he has a Muslim background.

Omaba studied in a Muslim school for two years, in Indonesia.

According to CNN, Omaba himself admits that:

"Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10."

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

So, probably CIA hopes that Obama could warm up the frozen relationship between the US and the Arab countries. Practically they see Obama as a possible ambasador there, a diplomatic hope.

This could be the explanation as why a black man will become the president of the US.

If true, the scheme is somewhat lame.

Hoping to arrange colour revolutions in Iran (without the accord of the Russian Federation) is something utopian.

And in case that the US and Russia haven't reached an accord on Iran, if the US will continue its policy of brutal invasion in the Arab countries, Obama will be seen as a traitor and hated even more than if he had been white.

Obama scheme could eventually work only if the US has established a prior agreement with the Russian Federation on Iran, for instance, because Iran is the biggest stake ahead.

In this case, Obama's face could look "human" to the Iranian people and the US could eventually gain the acceptance of the population in the Arab countries.

The same apllies to Iraq.

If I haven't been completely wrong in my previous analysis about the Bush SR- Clinton connection, Hillary Clinton might have an important function in Omaba's cabinet and be the connection with Bush SR through the intermediation of her husband Clinton.

"Barack Obama and Bill Clinton campaign together for first time"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3283289/Barack--Obama-and-Bill-Clinton-campaign-together-for-first-time.html

Putin sells out Pakistan and Israel in exchange of the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

2008-09-22T22:11:00.000+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

Here are the articles that make the connection:

South Ossetia, Abkhazia get pact

19/09/2008

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti) - Russia signed friendship and cooperation treaties with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on Wednesday, promising them military and economic support.
Russia recognized the breakaway Georgian regions as independent states last month after a brief armed conflict with Georgia, which attacked South Ossetia on August 8.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the documents with Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh and South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity in the Kremlin.
Medvedev said after the signing ceremony that Russia will not permit any new Georgian acts of aggression against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and is ready to intervene militarily.
"No one should be in any doubt - we will not permit new reckless military acts," he said.
Under the treaties, Russia has pledged to help the two republics to protect their borders, and their signatories have granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.
The treaties also formalized economic cooperation between Russia and the republics, and allowed dual citizenship for Russian, Abkhaz and South Ossetian residents. Russia agreed to unify its transportation, energy, and communications infrastructure with the two republics.
"The sides will be striving for the highest level of economic integration and will actively develop trade and economic cooperation, taking measures to unify energy and transportation systems as well as systems of communication and telecommunication," the treaties said.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia have so far only been recognized by Russia and Nicaragua. Belarus has pledged to follow suit in the near future, and Venezuela has voiced support for Russia's recognition of the two republics.
The two republics broke away from Georgia following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s through wars that claimed thousands of lives.
Bagapsh said Abkhazia and South Ossetia plan to apply for membership in the Russia-Belarus Union State and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. "We will send membership applications to these structures and we hope they will be accepted," he said.

http://mnweekly.ru/news/20080919/55347589.html

Olmert quits - Livni seeks coalition in Israel

(09-22) 04:00 PDT Jerusalem --

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned Sunday, brought down by a string of corruption probes, while Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni struggled to assemble a coalition that would allow her to succeed him without facing new elections.

Olmert had promised this summer to step down as soon as a new leader for his party, Kadima, could be chosen. Livni narrowly won that vote last week, and on Sunday, Olmert submitted a letter to President Shimon Peres that formally sets in motion the process of choosing a successor. Livni has already begun meeting with politicians from rival parties, trying to build a majority in the 120-member Knesset, or parliament.
Olmert's coalition had dwindled over the past year, and most analysts say Livni faces a challenge gathering the support she needs to govern. If she does not succeed within six weeks, Israel probably will have to hold general elections in early 2009. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud party, is the current favorite in that race, with Livni close behind.
The fate of U.S.-backed peace talks initiated under Olmert could be at stake. Livni has been Israel's primary negotiator and has pledged to continue the discussions if she assumes power, but Netanyahu has been a staunch critic of the talks.
By submitting his resignation Sunday, Olmert becomes the caretaker prime minister until a new government can be formed.
The end of his tenure comes nearly three years after then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke, thrusting his deputy, Olmert, into power. Olmert was later elected to a full term, scheduled to end in 2010.
He led Israel through an inconclusive but damaging war with the Lebanese movement Hezbollah in summer 2006. Last year, he relaunched long-dormant peace talks with the Palestinians. But despite great fanfare at the kickoff ceremony in Annapolis, Md., in October, the negotiations have appeared to gain little traction.
Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem, also was dogged throughout his tenure as premier by allegations of corruption. New accusations surfaced in the spring, when New York businessman Morris Talansky told investigators he had given Olmert more than $150,000 over the years, much of it in cash-stuffed envelopes. Investigators later found evidence that Olmert had double-billed charities and government agencies for plane flights and hotel stays.
The police recommended on Sept. 14 that Olmert be indicted on charges of bribery, breach of public trust, money laundering and fraudulent receipt of goods. Prosecutors have not said whether they plan to follow through with the case.
Even if Olmert is not indicted, political analysts say his tenure will not be remembered fondly by most Israelis, who see him as emblematic of a generation of politicians who appear to care more about personal profit than public service.
"The legacy of Olmert is corruption," said Yaron Ezrahi, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/22/MNPO13287S.DTL

At least 53 killed in hotel blast in Pakistan

18:56

21/ 09/ 2008

ISLAMABAD, September 21 (RIA Novosti) - At least 53 people were killed and another 226 injured in a suicide bomb attack on the Marriott hotel in Pakistan's capital on Saturday, Pakistani officials said on Sunday.
A suicide truck bomber attacked the Marriott hotel, a place favored by foreigners, on Saturday evening, starting a fire that swept through the building. The attack occurred just hours after Pakistan's new President Asif Ali Zardari pledged tough measures to root out terrorism.
The Czech ambassador to Pakistan, Ivo Zdarek, was among several foreigners who died in the deadly attack, Pakistani officials said.
The blast destroyed the entire front section of the hotel and left a crater of up to 6 meters (20 feet) in front of the hotel's gates.
No organization has yet claimed responsibility for the deadly blast. However, Pakistan's Interior Ministry blamed Al-Qaeda-linked Taliban militants for the hotel bombing.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080921/117003915.html

Bhutto's widower Zardari sworn in as Pakistan's president
13:46

09/ 09/ 2008

MOSCOW, September 9 (RIA Novosti) - Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was sworn in as Pakistan's president on Tuesday.
The new leader faces intense pressure to tackle rising Islamist extremism and deep economic troubles.
Zardari, 53, was sworn in by the country's top judge at a ceremony in the presidential palace, broadcast on national TV.
The ceremony was attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has criticized Pakistan for failing to bring Taliban militants based near the Afghan border under control.
Zardari won a parliamentary vote on Saturday, and replaces former army general Pervez Musharraf, who resigned as president on August 18 to avoid impeachment by the ruling government coalition.
Zardari's Pakistan People's party had led the coalition to victory in the February election.
The new leader, whose wife was shot dead in December 2007 during a campaign rally in Rawalpindi, has said he also expects to be targeted by extremists.
He is due to give a news conference later on Tuesday.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080909/116639150.html

Large Hadron Collider - The Modern Bin Laden

2008-09-10T21:58:00.010+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

Everybody heard of the Large Hadron Collider experiment, made today, 10-th of September 2008.

Details in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

First of all, it is needless to point out the striking coincidence: The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment was launched quite on 10-th of September, while America was commemorating 7 years from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Following a logical train of thoughts, it looks like someone out there wanted to distract the attention of the crowds from the 9-11 events, towards the scary machine.

Certainly if this kind of experiment was going to be done for real, it would've been done quietly, not on a populated continent like Europe, but rather deep inside the oceans or at the frozen poles.

Just like the famous American journey on the Moon and the 9-11 "terrorist" demolition of the New York twin towers, the "Large Hadron Collider" (LHC) experiment has been aired "live" on the TV channels of the World.

Quoting from RIA Novosti, what was presented as happening today is just a test prior to the inauguration of the "destructive" machine which might "give rise to a chain reaction that could destroy our planet".

RIA NOVOSTI:

"The collider is to be inaugurated on October 21," said Alexander Vodopyanov, of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna)."This means at least one test-run of proton beams around the accelerator ring will be conducted prior to inauguration."

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080805/115771418.html

This statement reads that LHC is not just an isolated experiment, but rather a long term project.
But whether or not the Large Hadron Collider device exists physically is just a figure of speech, as long as its sole purpose is a propagandistic one.

Many have long complained about the reckless universal policy, by which climate change is ignored and even encouraged due to the lack of legislation which could help reduce gas emissions.
Others are concerned with the near future of humanity, when fossil fuels will be just good memories.

In order to soothe these concerns, the global political thinkers of the planet haven't considered for a single moment thinking of a concrete program for reducing the waste of the non-renewable fuels, but they opted instead for improving the image of the old-fashioned Bin Laden.

The image of "terror" has therefore been switched from the bearded man with the stick (Bin Laden) to the complicated tubular machinery called "The Large Hadron Collider".

This big step further in the lie fabrication industry proves that the political thinkers of the planet have finally grasped that while almost every person has easy access to relatively high technology such as a mobile phone or a web camera nowadays, the image of the bearded man with the stick who terrorises the whole planet with his bare hands is severely running out of both time and credibility.

Hence, pressed by the public requests to update this scenario, the political scenarists wrote "The Large Hadron Collider" - a novel meant to divert people's attention from the real problems which aren't scheduled being ever solved, but rather disguised and hidden from the public eye.

Due to the freshly launched story of the miraculous device, the shortage of the non-renewable fuels will fall on the second place on common people's list of global concerns, while the blame for the climate change will be switched from the exponential consume of fossil fuels, upon the monstruous device. Never mind the commemoration of the 9-11 victims, date when people will rather "commemorate" the test of the "destructive machine".

The consequences of this alleged "experiment" are indeed unpredictable, but not in the hilarious sense that a black hole will swallow the whole Universe.

The purpose of the LHC story might be just to shadow the 9-11 events and to diminish their importance on each 9-11 September, the top secret device might slowly become the main official blame for the climate change, or it might become a a pretext for actually launching incognito strikes, nuclear or of any other nature.

Although its purpose seems to be rather to distract people's attention from the climate change than to be used as a pretext for launching preemptive strikes, my prediction is that the concept of terrorism will be slowly left aside and, in time, it will be replaced with the "LHC" concept.

=============================================================

UPDATES:

I was apparently wrong separating Bin Laden from the LHC, but the image that I have attached seems to be correct. No, the notion of "terrorists" won't disappear. It will be BIN LADEN who will screw up the LHC and who will cause the "black hole" which will cause in its turn the intensification of the global warming.

The weakness in this terrorist-LHC joint venture is that very few believe in Bin Laden anymore.

If it will cross politicians' mind to say that Bin Laden attacked the LHC, there will be three groups of people:

1. One who believes in Bin Laden and believes also in LHC, who will swallow every lies.

2. One who believes in LHC but doesn't believe in Bin Laden anymore and who will accuse politicians of claiming that LHC is screwed and who will say that it was screwed from the very beginning and that now politicians want to hide this by blaming the unsuccess of the LHC experiment on terrorists.

3. And one who doesn't believe in both Bin Laden and the LHC and who will say that everything was staged from the very beginning, that there's no LHC actually and that everything that is being sold to us as LHC is pure distraction from the realities of this planet such as global warming.

Just look what a silly page they sell us, babbling about computers hacking and such:

ARTICLES:

TELEGRAPH.UK:

Hackers infiltrate Large Hadron Collider systems and mock IT security

Last Updated: 4:01pm BST 12/09/2008

Hackers have mounted an attack on the Large Hadron Collider, raising concerns about the security of the biggest experiment in the world. By Roger Highfield.

As the first particles were circulating in the machine near Geneva where the world wide web was born, a Greek group hacked into the facility, posting a warning about weaknesses in its infrastructure.

Calling themselves the Greek Security Team, the interlopers mocked the IT used on the project, describing the technicians responsible for security as "a bunch of schoolkids."However, despite an ominous warning "don't mess with us," the hackers said they had no intention of disrupting the work of the atom smasher.

"We're pulling your pants down because we don't want to see you running around naked looking to hide yourselves when the panic comes," they wrote in Greek in a rambling note posted on the LHC's network.

The scientists behind the £4.4 billion "Big Bang" machine had already received threatening emails and been besieged by telephone calls from worried members of the public concerned by speculation that the machine could trigger a black hole to swallow the earth, or earthquakes and tsunamis, despite endless reassurances to the contrary from the likes of Prof Stephen Hawking.

The website - http://www.cmsmon.cern.ch/

- can no longer be accessed by the public as a result of the attack.

Scientists working at Cern, the organisation that runs the vast smasher, were worried about what the hackers could do because they were "one step away" from the computer control system of one of the huge detectors of the machine, a vast magnet that weighs 12500 tons, measuring around 21 metres in length and 15 metres wide/high.

If they had hacked into a second computer network, they could have turned off parts of the vast detector and, said the insider, "it is hard enough to make these things work if no one is messing with it."

Fortunately, only one file was damaged but one of the scientists firing off emails as the CMS team fought off the hackers said it was a "scary experience".

The hackers targeted the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment, or CMS, one of the four "eyes" of the facility that will be analysing the fallout of the Big Bang.

The CMS team of around 2000 scientists is racing with another team that runs the Atlas detector, also at Cern, to find the Higgs particle, one that is responsible for mass.

"There seems to be no harm done. From what they can tell, it was someone making the point that CMS was hackable," said James Gillies, spokesman for Cern. "It was quickly detected."

"We have several levels of network, a general access network and a much tighter network for sensitive things that operate the LHC," said Gillies.

"We are a very visible site," he said, adding that of the 1.4 million emails sent to Cern yesterday, 98 per cent was spam.

The hacking attempt started around the time that the giant machine was about to circulate its first particles, under the spotlight of the world's media.

On Wednesday afternoon, as the world held its breath as the machine sparked up, CMS team members were scouring computers at the machine for half a dozen files uploaded by the hackers on September 9 and 10.

"We think that someone from Fermilab's Tevatron (the competing atom smasher in America) had their access details compromised," said one of the scientists working on the machine. "What happened wasn't a big deal, just goes to show people are out there always on the prowl."

The CMS team studied the files inserted by the hackers carefully before deleting, in case a "backdoor" had been installed, a means of access to the computer that bypasses security.

The system the hackers managed to access was CMSMON, which monitors the CMS software system as the vast detector takes data, during collisions between particles to study the energies and physics in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, which created the universe.

Cern relies on a 'defence-in-depth' strategy, separating control networks and using firewalls and complex passwords, to protect its control systems from malicious software, such as denial-of-service attacks, botnets and zombie machines, which can strike with a synchronised attack from hundreds of machines around the world.

However, there have been growing concerns about security as remote or wireless access, notebooks and USB sticks offer new possibilities for a virus or worms to enter the network, not to mention hackers and terrorists who might be interested in targeting computers to shutdown the system.

More than 110 different control systems are used at Cern. These systems monitor, supervise and safeguard Cern's accelerators, experiments and infrastructure - from buildings, electricity and heating to access control, radiation protection and safety.

To refine security methods Cern set up a working group called Computing and Network Infrastructure for Controls. One document written by the group said: "Recent events show that computer security issues are becoming a serious problem also at Cern."

However, the team said yesterday that it did not want to comment on security at the international facility.

A few years ago, Stanford University in California announced that a number of high-performance academic computer centres had been attacked by hackers lured by the phenomenal power of the grid - pools of computing power linked by dedicated high-speed networks.

Beyond shutting down the machines or stealing or deleting data, one likely malicious use of such power is to crack passwords.

In 2003, hackers broke into ScotGrid, a network of 150 machines based at the University of Glasgow. They intercepted the password of a remote user based in Geneva and used it to gain access to ScotGrid. They ran scripts that tried to reconfigure the machine to steal more passwords.

The commissioning of the giant machine is making extraordinary progress.
Now that the team has managed to get beams of particles circulating stably, they must be "captured" so that the particles stay in bunches.

This has now been done with the anticlockwise beam, circulating a beam for full half an hour. Commissioning, said Gillies, "is going incredibly fast."

They now hope to capture the second clockwise beam. "To give you a feel for how well these guys are doing, what happened on Wednesday was days one to four of main commissioning."

This latest step "is really a more significant achievement than Wednesday's fun and games," comments Dr David Sankey of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/12/scicern312.xml&page=3

TIMES ONLINE:

Hackers claim there’s a black hole in the atom smashers’ computer network

September 13, 2008

Hackers have broken into one of the computer networks of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

A group calling itself the Greek Security Team left a rogue webpage describing the technicians responsible for computer security at the giant atom smasher as “schoolkids” — but reassuring scientists that they did not want to disrupt the experiment.

The hackers gained access to a website open to other scientists on Wednesday as the LHC passed its first test, sending its protons off on their dizzying journey through time and space, close to the speed of light.

The work of the scientists was not derailed and insiders scoffed at claims that the hackers were “one step away” from the systems controlling the experiment itself. The engineering team completed four days of scheduled work in the first 24 hours but what physicists are really waiting for is the big bang machine’s first collisions.

Apart from being wide of the mark from a scientific point of view, fears that the LHC might bring the world to an end this week were in any case premature because it was never going to smash any particles so early on.

This week’s successful start-up means that that should now happen sooner than expected, perhaps as early as the first week in October.

Doomsayers take note: there is still a slim chance that a microscopic (and harmless) black hole will be created, but only once the accelerator starts colliding protons together at close to its maximum energy.

The hackers appear to have targeted the computer system of the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment, one of the four detectors that will be analysing the progress of the experiment.

James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN, the European Laboratory for Network Collision, home of the LHC, said: “We don’t know who they were but there seems to be no harm done. It appears to be people who want to make a point that CERN was hackable,” he added.

CERN officials are now confident that the collider will have started experiments to generate new physics well before world leaders visit on October 21 to inaugurate the project.

Many countries will send their heads of state or government to the event: President Sarkozy of France, President Couchepin of Switzerland and President Köhler of Germany have the date in their diaries, and either President Medvedev of Russia or Vladimir Putin may attend.

The British Prime Minister, however, has apparently decided to skip the opportunity to be publicly associated with black holes.

Responding to a query about whether Gordon Brown would be there to celebrate the passing of the Apocalypse, Downing Street told The Times “to call back nearer the time”.

Describing the CERN team’s progress, Mr Gillies said: “There is a 31-day schedule before the first high-energy collisions, and on Wednesday they did Days 1 to 4.”

On Wednesday night, one beam was circulated around the LHC’s ring about 300 times, and on Thursday, the anti-clockwise beam was fired around the accelerator for half an hour so it could be “captured” and made to travel in neat, compact pulses.

Protons make about 11,000 laps per second, which means 20 million circuits have been achieved. The next crucial step is likely next week, when the captured beams will be fired in opposite directions, and crashed into each other inside the four huge detectors.

A couple of weeks later is the real moment of truth.

The LHC’s superconducting magnets will be fired up to 70 per cent of maximum power, producing proton beams with an energy of 5 teraelectronvolts (TeV) — 5,000 billion electrovolts — and crashing them together.

“That’s where the new physics starts,” Dr Gillies said. It is possible that scientists will start accumulating the evidence that could prove supersymmetry, the hypothesis that all particles have a twin.

The plan next year is to ramp it up to its maximum energy of 7TeV. The accelerator will then be providing results that should shed light on some of the central questions in physics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4744329.ece

The American Orange Revolution: Hillary Clinton set to be the 44-th President of the US

2008-08-30T14:57:00.007+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

We already see that what happens on the American political stage is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats anymore, but rather a battle between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Democrat Barack Obama.

It was all a matter of words. Hillary Clinton suspended her electoral campaign on 7-th of June, which doesn't mean that she ended it. She left room for resuming it anytime.

Hillary's speech, where she was dressed in an orange suit vs. Omaba's wife blue suit, come to confirm my old hunches that Hillary Clinton is set to be the 44-th president of the United States.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's orange pantsuit vs Michelle Obama's blue dress!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/08/hillary-clinton.html

HILLARY CLINTON:

MICHELLE OBAMA:

Aside of the colour matter, Hillary's speech hasn't actually brought any good to Obama, where she was careful enough to make him sound inexperienced and so, unfit for the job.

If we just make a parallel between the Ukrainian Revolution, where Yushchenko was orange and Yanokovich was blue, we will simply realize that blue is the colour of the losers, while orange is the colour of the winners.

Needless to say that, back in 2004, the Romanian presidential elections came up with the same colours.

SEE IMAGE FROM UKRAINE:

http://asapblogs.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/26/ukraine_526.jpg

With Bush allegedly bringing the country in an economic crisis (see the orchestrated housing problem created in order to deteriorate Republican Mc. Cain's image), Hillary was set to win crowds' hearts and the US presidential elections.

Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton's wife, while Bill Clinton is a far relative of Bush Jr. and therefore a relative of Bush SR too.

Here is the confirmation, published in 2004 by RIA Novosti:

BILL CLINTON'S LIFE TO BE PUBLISHED IN RUSSIAN

There are many interesting facts in the book. Mr Clinton, whose royalties ran into $10 million, lived from hand to mouth in his student days, spending only $1 a week on food. In his youth, he seriously thought of becoming a musician or doctor. But he chose politics because he thought it was an easier profession. He is also a distant relative of President George Bush Jr. (they have common ancestors 13 generations back).

http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20040722/39765685.html

Bush SR was the head of the CIA and also Reagan's most valuable disciple. He was the one who changed the World's configuration, together with Gorbachev, on the Gorky ship back in 1989.

He is the most important and capable political figure in the US and so, as long as he is in still in his mental faculties, he will lead America from the shadows, using whoever he trusts as a dull puppet with no political powers, meant to represent him in front of the crowds.

He used "cousin" Clinton for 8 years, then he used his son for another 8 and now he will use "aunt" Hillary.

He cannot afford to break the continuity of his work, neither he can afford to waste time.

He is very old, so he will hold on power now while he is still able.

He is in a rush to finish what he has started 20 years ago, reason why Hillary won't be president in 2016, neither in 2012, but right now, because Bush SR needs her.

Bush SR got well with his relative Clinton who made the war in Yugoslavia. The things are going quite well between the two and they will continue to go fine as long as Hillary is a Disney puppet meant to just send Bush SR's messages to the world.

World Energy Consumption

2008-08-19T03:58:00.000+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

OIL (OFFICIAL DATA):

Energy Information AdministrationOfficial Energy Statistics from the U.S. GovernmentPetroleum Basic Statistics
Total World Petroleum Consumption (2005)
83,607,000 barrels/day
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
World Proved Reserves of Oil
Oil (Billion Barrels): 1,119.615

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

---> RESERVES: 1,119,615,000,000 barrels / CONSUMPTION: 83,607,000 barrels per day / 365 days = 36 years
===========================================
GAS (OFFICIAL DATA):

Natural Gas (Trillion Cubic Feet): 6,380.625
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
World Dry Natural Gas Consumption, Most Recent Annual Estimates, 1980-2007(Billion Cubic Feet)World Total = 104,425
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentNaturalGasConsumptionBCF.xls
---> RESERVES: 6,380,625 billion cubic feet / CONSUMPTION: 104,425 billion cubic feet per year = 61 years
===========================================
URANIUM (UNOFFICIAL DATA):

Today annual requirements to fabricate fuel for current power reactors amount to about 67,000 tonnes of uranium.
According to the authoritative “Red Book” produced jointly by the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s present known economic resources of uranium, exploitable at below $80 per kilogram of uranium, are some 3.5 million tonnes.
This amount is therefore enough to last for 50 years at today’s rate of usage.
http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
============================================

Timescale for Depletion of Fossil Energy Resources (UNOFFICIAL DATA):

Based on current projections, within something like 75 years, the world will have used up
all the world’s extractable coal, all the world’s extractable oil, all the world’s extractable natural gas, and all the world’s extractable uraninum-235.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/fossil-resources.htm

=============================================

CHARTS:

World Wood Consumption
http://greengoldforestry.com/images/article-images/world-wood-consumption.png

World Oil Consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_depletion_per_country.jpg

World gas consumption:
http://www.planetforlife.com/images/gasconsume.jpg

World Water Consumption
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0800e/t0800e16.jpg

World Uranium Reactor Requirements:
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/UprodWorld.gif

World Energy Consumption:
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/img/worldfossil.gif

South Stream Gas Pipeline

2008-06-29T15:31:00.000+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

I will try to gather some material first, because I need to find time in order to make a thorough analysis on this gas project.

SOUTH STREAM - NABUCCO MAP:

Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics

2008-06-28T20:46:00.002+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

Energy Information Administration
Official Energy Statistic from the U.S. Government

Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics

Renewable energy’s market share stood at almost 7 percent in 2006, slightly greater than for 2005 (Table 1 and Figure above.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

Within 15 years, renewable energy could be generating enough electricity to power 40 million homes and offset 70 days of oil imports.

http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html

Only 7.5 percent of total U.S. energy consumption came from renewable sources in 1998. Of that total, 94 percent was from hydropower and biomass (trash and wood incinerators). (U.S. Energy Information Administration)

http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html

Meanwhile, World Population: As of June 21, 2008, the world's population is believed to be 6,704,845,726.

Moreover,

Global energy demand to grow 50%, U.S. agency predicts

WASHINGTON: Global energy demand will grow by 50 percent over the next two decades with continued heavy reliance on environmentally troublesome fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, the U.S. government predicted Wednesday.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/business/25energy.php

========================================================

Energy Information Administration
Official Energy Statistic from the U.S. Government
Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics

Overview

Preliminary data indicates that total renewable energy consumption increased 7 percent between 2005 and 2006 (Table 1). In contrast, total U.S. energy consumption declined 1 percent, mainly due to decreased consumption of fossil fuels (including decreased natural gas consumption in the residential sector and decreased coal and petroleum consumption in the electric power sector).[1]

Renewable energy’s market share stood at almost 7 percent in 2006, slightly greater than for 2005 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Total renewable consumption stood at 6.844 quadrillion Btu. Consistent with historical patterns, the electric power sector consumed the majority (56 percent) of renewable energy (Table 2). The industrial sector consumed 28 percent, with the transportation and commercial sectors using the remainder. Hydroelectric conventional power had the largest absolute year-to-year change at 186 trillion Btu, but this represented only a 7 percent increase, while biofuels[2] consumption increased by 164 trillion Btu or 28 percent, and wind increased by 80 trillion Btu or 45 percent.

Following are topics of special interest for renewable energy during 2006.

The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006

Source: Table 1 of this report.
(entire report also available in printer-friendly format) 0.5MB
Table Title
Formats
PDF
EXCEL
ES1.
Renewable Energy Profile, 2006

1.
U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, 2002-2006

2.
Renewable Energy Consumption by Energy Use Sector and Energy Source, 2002-2006

3.
Electricity Net Generation From Renewable Energy by Energy Use Sector and Energy Source, 2002-2006

4.
U.S. Electric Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source, 2002-2006

5.
Total Renewable Net Generation by Energy Source and State, 2005

6.
Total Renewable Net Generation by Energy Source and State, 2006

7.
Total Renewable Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and State, 2005

8.
Total Renewable Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source and State, 2006

Figure Title
Formats
PDF
HTML
1.
The Role of Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2006

Biofuels[back to top]
Ethanol production increased about 25 percent from 3.9 billion gallons in 2005 to 4.9 billion gallons in 2006.[3] A number of factors contributed to this growth:

Continued replacement of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) by ethanol as a gasoline additive.
Strong world oil demand and higher crude oil prices, which have raised the price of gasoline and thus the demand for, and price of, ethanol as a substitute.

Federal tax laws that provide incentives, such as the 51 cent per gallon tax credit available to blenders for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which mandates annual renewable fuel use in gasoline at 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
At 2006 production levels, ethanol accounted for nearly 4 percent of U.S. finished motor gasoline production.[4] While this had a significant impact on the energy sector, the impact on the agricultural sector may have been greater.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that 14 percent of corn use in the 2005/2006 crop year went for production of ethanol up from 11 percent in the 2004/2005 crop year and 6 percent in 1999/2000.[5] Furthermore, the price of corn hit nearly $4 per bushel during 2006, the highest price seen in the last two decades and considerably higher than the average price of $2.40 seen over that twenty-year-period.[6] Increased ethanol production in the U.S., coupled with increased demand from Asian countries for meat from corn-fed livestock, is contributing to the increased demand for corn.

Meanwhile, the Renewable Fuels Association reported early in 2007 that the number of ethanol plants operating in the United States increased from 95 in January of 2006 to 110 in January 2007, with 76 plants under construction or expanding at that time.[7] Ethanol production capacity increased by almost 1.2 billion gallons per year for a total capacity of nearly 5.5 billion gallons per year online in January 2007.

Consumption of ethanol in the transportation sector, which also includes the impact of trade and stock changes, increased from 334 to 448 trillion btu between 2005 and 2006 (Table 2). This included an expanding share of consumption of imports, largely from Brazil.[8]

Biodiesel production, currently a far smaller component of biofuels production than ethanol, was about 91 million gallons in 2005, based on data from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation. The Commodity Credit Corporation ended its program and its data collection on March 31, 2006. While private estimates of biodiesel production for 2006 called for a steady increase, no verifiable alternative data source has been found to replace the discontinued Commodity Credit Corporation data.[9]

Renewable Electricity Generation and Capacity[back to top]

In 2006, hydroelectric conventional generation increased to 288 billion kilowatthours, the highest level since 2003 (Table 3). However, 2006 output was not as high as levels seen during the high water years of the later 1990’s. Furthermore, hydroelectric generation actually declined substantially in the Southeast, only to be more than offset by gains in the Northwest.

Wind generation increased to 26 billion kilowatthours, up from 18 billion kilowatthours in 2005. This moved wind’s share of the renewable generation market from just 5 percent to 7 percent in one year. Altogether, renewable energy provided 9 percent of total U.S. generation in 2006.[10]

By state, the largest increases in renewable generation were for hydroelectric conventional power in California and the northwestern states: Idaho, Oregon and Washington (Tables 5 and 6). Hydroelectric conventional power accounted for 18 billion kilowatthours of the 27 billion kilowatthours increase in renewable generation. However, the increase in wind generation was also notable. Wind increased 8 billion kilowatthours between 2005 and 2006, spread across a number of states.

Total U.S. net summer capacity for all energy sources increased by 10,049 megawatts in 2006 to 988,069 megawatts, while renewable capacity expanded to 101,383 megawatts total and accounted for 2,637 megawatts or 26 percent of the national increase (Table 4). Wind capacity increased more during 2006 than any other renewable generation source with 2,413 megawatts of new capacity. This exceeds the increase of 2,251 megawatts during 2005.

The three states with the largest increases in wind capacity were Texas, Washington, and California, in order of capacity increase (Tables 7 and 8). Texas alone added 943 megawatts. All other renewable energy sources accounted for just 225 megawatts of the 2006 capacity increase. Hydroelectric conventional capacity remained essentially flat at 77,629 megawatts, increasing only 88 megawatts.

Wind Energy[back to top]

By the end of 2006, wind net summer capacity stood at 11,119 megawatts, or about 2 ½ times its level in 2002 (Table 4). Texas, with 2,698 megawatts of capacity in 2006, overtook California as the Nation’s leader in wind capacity (Table 8). Fifteen states reported net increases in wind capacity. Total wind generation increased by 45 percent year to year. For 2007, the American Wind Energy Association reported the industry was on track to install over 3,000 megawatts of wind capacity.[11]

The following are factors driving this growth in wind energy:

Federal Renewable Production Tax Credit (PTC). This directly affects the economics of projects that can take advantage of the credit. The PTC provides a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour tax credit (adjusted for inflation) for electricity generated in the first ten years of the life of the project to new projects beginning operation by the end of 2008, when the current PTC expires.[12]

Renewable Portfolio Standards and State Mandates. The North Carolina Solar Center maintains the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE), which contains summary information on renewable portfolio standards by state (see: http://www.dsireusa.org/) .

While the objectives and conditions of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and state mandates vary widely among the some 24 states reported by DSIRE to have them, some of the stricter ones (e.g., a mandatory RPS with a renewable generation requirement well above recent levels) are already providing an impetus to renewable development.[13] Differences in RPS provisions include variations in: what renewable energy sources will be counted; whether power can come from existing renewable capacity or must be from new capacity; what percentage of generation must be renewable and by when; how much of a challenge meeting that requirement will be for an individual state depending on the goal to be accomplished and the base from which the state starts; whether the provisions are mandatory or voluntary, or mandatory with conditions (such as a ceiling on cost increases); and whether renewable energy credits, as established by many RPS programs, will be traded.

Higher Natural Gas Costs. Although the cost of natural gas may not be the single deciding factor in choosing to build a wind plant, the average cost of natural gas received by electric power plants has been in an upward trend over the last decade.[14] While the average cost of $6.92 per million Btu (nominal dollars including taxes) in 2006 was lower than the cost for 2005, it remained quite high by historical standards. Because wind power has no fuel costs, higher electricity prices, driven by higher natural gas and other fossil fuel costs, do improve wind’s competitive position and make investment in wind more profitable, particularly as developers speculate that the trajectory of future natural gas costs may rise further.

Global Warming. Concerns over the potential impact of global warming have resulted in some states and regions establishing commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To illustrate, seven northeastern states formed the Northeastern States Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) with the nation’s first multi-state cap-and-trade system for carbon. Also, California, Oregon and Washington have banded together to form the West Coast Governors Global Warming Initiative to reduce global warming.[15] Development of wind power to meet electricity demand can help states and localities meet these commitments.
The following states led the growth in wind capacity:

Texas. With 943 megawatts of new capacity, Texas led the nation in expanding wind capacity. In 2006, Texas brought online the second and third phases of the existing mammoth Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, bringing total project capacity up to 736 megawatts and likely making it the largest wind farm in the world.[16] The project lies on 47,000 acres in Taylor and Nolan counties and employs 291 GE 1.5 megawatt turbines and 130 2.3 megawatt Siemens turbines.In 1999, Texas adopted a renewable portfolio standard that required 2,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity be installed by 2009 in addition to the existing 880 megawatts. Texas has already met that requirement. In August 2005, realizing the 2009 goal would easily be met, Texas increased the mandate to 5,880 megawatts by 2015 (or about 5 percent of the state’s electricity demand). New additions of wind capacity in Texas have contributed to the state’s meeting these goals. The 2005 legislation also streamlined the ability of the state Public Utility Commission to order transmission lines to meet this goal.

Washington. Washington was second in wind capacity additions with 428 megawatts coming online during 2006, which brought Washington’s total non-hydro renewable capacity up to almost 1,200 megawatts. New capacity included the 200-megawatt Big Horn project in Klickitat county and the 229-megawatt Wild Horse project in Kittitas county.In recent years Washington has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing renewable electricity generation. In September 2003, Washington’s governor joined with the governors of California and Oregon to announce the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative to reduce global warming. Later in 2004, the governors issued detailed recommendations on how this might be accomplished. Following these efforts, Washington’s voters passed a renewable energy standard (included in ballot Initiative 937) in November 2006.[17] It calls for electric utilities that serve more than 25,000 customers to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from new renewable sources by 2020. Further, in February 2007 the governor issued an executive order which sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Washington to 1990 levels by 2020. New wind projects in 2006 and any that follow will contribute to the state’s meeting these related commitments.

California. This state was an early leader in the development of renewable energy for electricity generation in the U.S. It had 16 percent of the Nation’s renewable electric capacity in 2006, and notably an even greater share – 24 percent – of nonhydro renewable capacity. Although California added just 212 megawatts of wind capacity (including the Shiloh I Wind Project) to its 2005 base of over 2000 megawatts of wind capacity, it may be expanding renewable capacity (including wind) even more in the future to meet its commitments described below.California’s current renewable portfolio standard requires retail sellers of electricity to purchase 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010.[18] In addition, the governor signed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solution Act, into law in September 2006.[19] This Act caps California’s greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels in 2020. Renewable energy is considered part of a broad-based solution. The speed of its development will depend in part on how fast issues such as the availability of adequate transmission capacity can be settled.

Data Revisions[back to top]

Starting with EIA’s March 2007 Electric Power Monthly and continuing with this and other reports, EIA has revised its methodology for classifying energy sources as renewable, and its estimates of renewable waste energy beginning in 2001. EIA’s definition of renewable energy is “Energy sources that are naturally replenishing but flow limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time. Renewable energy sources include: biomass, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action and tidal action.”[20] Using this definition, EIA decided to revise renewable energy by excluding tires (whose natural rubber content is the smaller part of the total content) and the nonrenewable share of municipal solid waste (MSW).[21]

Details of EIA’s analysis that revised MSW consumption are found in the EIA report, Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenenic Energy (Washington, DC, May 2007).[22] In brief, most of the information EIA collects on MSW comes from the Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report,” and the Form EIA-920, “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report.” However, power plants report only the total amount of MSW consumed and the average heat content. No distinction is made on the EIA surveys between renewable and nonrenewable components of MSW, so EIA had to develop a methodology to approximate the split.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports some information on the material composition of MSW on a periodic basis for various years in its report, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts and Figures. Associating this information with the appropriate heat content for each material category in MSW, EIA divided MSW into its biogenic and non-biogenic portions. In 2005, the split on a thermal basis was about 56 percent biogenic (or renewable) and 44 percent non-biogenic (or non-renewable). Implementing this approach lowered the estimate of renewable energy consumption by about 135 trillion btu in 2006 compared to what it would have been using EIA’s prior methodology. EIA also expanded the level of detail in many renewable tables so the estimates of MSW biogenic and landfill gas can be seen separately.

At the same time, EIA made a correction to classifying tires. Since only a minor portion of tires is made of natural rubber (considered to be renewable) and the larger share is non-renewable, EIA removed energy from tires from the other biomass category, following the EIA’s definition of renewable energy. Implementing this change lowered renewable energy consumption by about 50 trillion btu in 2006.

Finally, unrelated to waste energy classification, EIA redistributed small portions of fuel ethanol consumption to the commercial and industrial sectors from the transportation sector, though the total remained unchanged, and revised its estimates from 1989 forward. The distribution is based on each sector’s share of motor gasoline supplied.[23]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

Arctic again

2008-06-26T02:00:00.000+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

There is no oil in the Arctic, but pure military interests.

The article below proves that:

Russia prepares for future combat in the Arctic

16:38 24/ 06/ 2008
MOSCOW, June 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia must be ready to fight wars in the Arctic to protect its national interests in a region that contains large and untapped deposits of natural resources, a high-ranking military official said in an interview published Tuesday.

"After several countries contested Russia's rights for the resource-rich continental shelf in the Arctic, we have immediately started the revision of our combat training programs for military units that may be deployed in the Arctic in case of a potential conflict," Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, who heads the Defense Ministry's combat training directorate, told the Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) newspaper.

Under the Law of the Sea, coastal states can declare an Exclusive Economic Zone stretching 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the shore, but this area can be extended if it is a part of the country's continental shelf or shallower waters. Some Arctic shelves extend for hundreds of miles, creating the possibility of overlapping territorial claims.

Last August, as part of a scientific expedition, two Russian mini-subs made a symbolic eight-hour dive beneath the North Pole to bolster the country's claim that the Arctic's Lomonosov Ridge lies in the country's economic zone. A titanium Russian flag was also planted on the seabed. Russia first claimed the territory in 2001, but the UN demanded more evidence.

The expedition irritated a number of Western countries, particularly the U.S. and Canada.

The general said wars "are won or lost long before they start" and combat training was crucial for the success of any future military operations.

"The Americans, for example, recently conducted the Northern Edge 12-day large-scale exercise in Alaska, involving about 5,000 personnel, 120 aircraft and several warships," Shamanov said, adding that Russia could not ignore such a show of military force near vital Arctic regions.

He said the Defense Ministry would drastically change its approach to the combat training of highly-professional military units in the Leningrad, Siberian and Far Eastern military districts, which could participate in potential conflicts in the Arctic.

He also said two expert groups in his directorate were closely studying combat training models based on computer-assisted combat simulations that have been adopted by some foreign militaries.
"We may propose to the defense minister setting up a company-level fully computerized training center at one of the former testing sites," the general said.

Russia's General Staff is planning to determine the new composition and size of the Armed Forces by the beginning of July.

Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry has already announced plans to expand the presence of the Russian Navy in the world's oceans, including the Arctic, and extend the operational range of submarines deployed in the northern latitudes.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080624/111915879.html

SEE ALSO MY PREVIOUS ANALYSIS:

The Battle for the Arctic Resumes

http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2008/04/battle-for-arctic-resumes.html

The Dark Side of the Arctic Mission

http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2007/08/dark-side-of-arctic-mission.html

Poland and the Nuclear History of the Cold War

2008-05-03T16:18:00.019+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

RUSSIA ANTI-MISSILE MAP (click to enlarge)

Introduction:

Freed by the 9-11 September 2001 events that allowed the US to quit observing the international law, namely the AMB Treaty, the US now practically instigates Russia to start a nuclear war.

The 9-11 events were purportedly staged in order to allow the US to quit the AMB Treaty and to develop attack plans against Russia.

True that Russia has made the first steps towards such situation, by placing its ballistic missiles in Iran, but this move was made for security reasons, in order to protect Iran against further US' military invasions, which would've jeopardized Putin's plans of taking control over the World gas reserves, in his attempt to establish the so-called "gas OPEC".

Unlike Iran, Arctic is an ideal place for firing Russian ballistic missiles against the US, while the US has a single plan for Poland: pointing its nukes against Russia.

Very similar to a chess game, the US plans to encircle the Russian Federation and to make it unable to react.
Concretely, the US' plans to place in Poland medium-range ballistic missiles aimed at Russia, which will find Russia in a position of not having time to react properly. A single nuclear missile fired from Poland at the Russian Federation could have devastating effects.

Therefore, if the US will deploy its missile shield in Poland, the only option Russia seems to have is to point its ballistic missiles against Poland and to launch a preeptive strike against the US' military facilities placed there, thing that would eventually traduce in the start of a nuclear war.

Another option is to place its missiles close to the US (in Latin America or in the Arctic region), so as to be able to hit the US' territory with approximately the same precission the US could hit Russia from Poland.
Yet, since the US is in offensive and therefore it is prone to attack, this last option doesn't seem viable, for simple security reasons.

Nuclear Treaties

The US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty

The 9-11 events, which took place in September 2001, have brought a majour shift in the World policy.

It's not just that they permitted to the US the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Actually that was a minor gain.

The majour stake was elsewhere, namely: the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty.

In the aftermath of the 9-11 events, the US practically evaded the international law, by quitting the above-mentioned treaty, thing that untied the nuclear hands of the United States and allowed them to place ballistic missiles in Europe.

On December 14 2001, Bush announced:

"Today, as the events of September 11 made all too clear, the greatest threats to both our countries (the US and Russia) come not from each other, or from other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction."

Following this masked belligerent statement, the US pulled out from the ABM Treaty, in June 2002.

In response, on June 14 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by the provisions of the START II Treaty, which banned the use of MIRVs on ICBMs and is hence often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.

A MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) is a collection of nuclear weapons carried on a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Using a MIRV warhead, a single launched missile can strike several targets or fewer targets redundantly.

An ICBM is a long-range ballistic missile (greater than 5,500 km or 3,500 miles), typically designed for nuclear weapons delivery and able to carry one or more nuclear warheads.
The MIRVs are the trump card of the Russian military, being able to evade any current missile defence systems, by overwhelming them.

SORT Treaty

Subsequently, Putin proposed the SORT (Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty), which bypassed the START II treaty that was banning the MIRVs, in order to try to soften the harsh blow that Russia suffered in the aftermath of the US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and, therefore, to find means of defense.

SORT treaty was signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002.

According to SORT, both Russia and the US will reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012, when the treaty expires and may be extended by agreement of the Parties, or superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement.

But SORT hasn't yet entered into force and hence, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty will eventually become pointless because there will be no limits on strategic offensive and defensive weapons.

Start I Treaty

START-I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is an agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR and barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bombers.

But START expires in December 2009 and if it's not extended, nor SORT ratified, there will be no control on the existent number of nuclear warheads.

START II Treaty:

The treaty was officially bypassed by the SORT treaty, agreed to by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at their summit meeting in November 2001, and signed at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002.

Both sides agreed to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012, according to SORT Treaty.

On June 14, 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by START II provisions.

START II, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was signed by United States President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, banned the use of MIRVs on ICBMs and is hence often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.

The INF Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was an 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Signed in Washington D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on May 27, 1988 and came into force on June 1 of that year.

The treaty is formally titled The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles and is still in force.

The INF Treaty stipulates that nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles) are banned, hence that no country on the globe is allowed to use such weapons.

Practically, according to the provisions of the INF Treaty, the US is not allowed to use short and medium-range missiles in Poland, so that is why the military hardware that they plan to install there is called "missile shield".

By calling it this way, they evade the provisions of the INF Treaty, because the anti-ballistic missiles are regulated by the ABM Treaty, which the US premeditatedly quit in the aftermath of the 9-11 September events.

In 2007, the Russian president Vladimir Putin said that "the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, paving the way to the deployment of its missile shield in Europe".

Since it feels threatened by the deployment of US' ballistic missiles pointed against it, Russia could quit the INF Treaty and resume its production of short and medium-range ballistic missiles pointed against Europe, in order to try to defend itself from an eventual American attack launched from Poland, but various reasons hinder it doing such move.

If Russia quits the INF Treaty, not just the Russian Federation takes avantage of this move, but also the US, which will place its short and medium-range missiles very close to Russia's border, where NATO is now.

Another point is that Russia used the INF Treaty as a bargaining chip in various situations.
When former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposed to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, that his country join the United States' initiative to replace ICBM nukes with conventional warheads, the latter advised him to consider withdrawing from the INF Treaty.

Rumsfeld's Proposal

Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense, asked Russia to support a US' proposal to use intercontinental ballistic missiles whose nuclear warheads would be replaced with conventional warheads, to attack terrorists.

ICBMs

ICBMs (Intercontinental ballistic missiles or long-range missiles) are a special category of missiles and are not regulated by the INF Treaty, which still bind both the US and the Russian Federation.

The INF Treaty deals only with short and medium-range ballistic missiles and hence, the long-range ballistic missiles (ICBM's) are exempt from that.

According to the INF Treaty, the US is not allowed to use short and medium-range ballistic missiles, let alone to place them in a third country such as Poland. Results that a viable option for the US are the ICBMs, which have a special regime and which are more advanced from a technological point of view.

There are just seven countries that own ICBMs: the US, the Russian Federation, France, China, India, Israel and North Korea.

Sharing ICBMs with non-nuclear states (such as Poland) seems a difficult task, especially taking into consideration the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) hinders the US, if not legally, at least morally, of deploying its ICBMs in Poland.

Poland is now a NATO member.

NATO interpreted nuclear sharing to be legal under the NPT, but according to the current understanding of most non-NATO parties to the NPT, NATO nuclear sharing probably violates Articles I and II of the Treaty.

Article I of the NPT prohibits nuclear weapon states that are parties to the NPT from sharing their weapons with non-nuclear states:

"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices."

Article II contains a parallel commitment on the part of non-nuclear states parties not to receive them:

"Each non-nuclear weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

The concept of nuclear sharing is ambiguous, concerning the violability of the international law.

"Both the Non-Aligned Movement and critics inside NATO believe that NATO's nuclear sharing violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibit the transfer and acceptance, respectively, of direct or indirect control over nuclear weapons.

"The U.S. insists its forces control the weapons and that no transfer of the nuclear bombs or control over them is intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the [NPT] treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.

However the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO countries practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information.

Even if the U.S. argument is considered legally correct, some argue such peacetime operations appear to contravene both the objective and the spirit of the NPT". - Wikipedia.

Therefore, It's true that the US is not legally banned to share nuclear weapons with the NATO members, but the move of deploying ICBMs in Poland would bring serious consternation amongst the European Union member states and not only, destroying irremediably the image of the United States around the World.

Under these circumstances, Rumsfeld resorted to a diplomatic trick, namely the above-mentioned proposal that he made to the former Russian minister of defense, Sergei Ivanov: to replace the nuclear warheads on ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads, allegedly in order to attack terrorists.

Russians, however, never believed him, because non-nuclear independently targetable warheads are the best way to disguise nuclear warheads.
In other words, if the U.S. or Russia should launch such a missile, no one would know for sure what sort of warhead - nuclear or conventional - it was carrying.

As a result, Rumsfeld's proposal was bluntly refused, Russia using the INF Treaty as a bargaining chip.

The consequences of the US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty:

Therefore, since Russia refused Rumsfeld's proposal of replacing nuclear warheads on ICBMs with conventional warheads, the only choice the US now has is to rely on the ABM Treaty.

The US quit the ABM in the aftermath of the 9-11 September events, which the US carefully planned just in order to be able to bypass the international law and to deploy its ballistic missiles in Europe, pompously and soothingly called "missile shield designed to protect against attack by rogue states".

But since this is just a missile shield and not a ground-based missile launch control center, how is the US going to bypass the INF Treaty and to deploy ballistic medium-range missiles aimed against Russia, since a missile shield, by definition, is supposed to have just a defensive character?

RIA Novosti tries to enlighten us on the matter:

"Any medium-range missile defense system would have to be tested using the appropriate type of missiles, but both the United States and Russia destroyed their medium-range missiles as part of the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces). Hence, Russia must start serious talks with the Americans on an ABM system. – RIA Novosti"

Since the US quit the ABM treaty, it is allowed to place anti-ballistic missiles in a third country.

And as RIA Novosti states, in order to be tested, a medium-range missile defense system require USING the appropriate type of missiles, hence allows the US to practically deploy in Poland nuclear missiles which can hit Russia, bypassing the INF Treaty and shooting medium-range missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Aside of the Arctic response, Russia could now choose a symmetrical option of placing its medium-range ballistic missiles in a Latin American country, such as Venezuela or Cuba (Russia had nuclear facilities in Cuba before, topic known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis").

In any case, the move of redeploying medium-range ballistic missiles in Latin America would not only sound belligerent, but also wouldn't help Russia much, as the great US' capability to strike Russia from Poland leaves the Russian Federation without reaction.

Orbital Interceptors:

Until now, we talked only about ground-launched ballistic missiles, which the US is allowed to use since it quit the ABM Treaty.

But there is one more serious issue: the space-launched missiles.

The US is much more advanced than Russia as far as the technology of orbiting space-based lasers concerns and which was regulated by the provisions of the ABM Treaty, until the US withdrew from the treaty it in the spring of 2002.

The decision by George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty spurred research beneficial to orbiting space-based lasers as part of a global missile defense shield.

Pulling out of the ABM treaty does not tie directly into moving ahead with space-based laser weaponry.

However, according to SPACE.com sources, this action sets in motion ballistic missile defense research and technology work that can advance the day of orbiting lasers.

The US actually proposed to deploy orbital missile interceptors in place of the European missile defense system.

The disadvantage of the orbital weapons is that, unlike ground-bases facilities, they can't be repaired or upgraded anytime, yet this orbital program is another headache for Russia, because Russian military is just trained to disable orbital weapons, but the Russian army doesn't have its own missile defense system based on orbital missile interceptors.

Conclusion:

Russia doesn't have many options now that it witnessed its isolation from Europe and, therefore, it must keep Iran tight in its hands, Iran being its trump card.

The US is strong military, yet not as strong as to be able to defeat Russia in an instant.

And while the US' military technology is probably more advanced than the Russian one, Russia and its allies, mainly Iran, yet own the energy, which is the key to the European Union gate.

Despite the uncomfortable situation it found itself in, with its national security threatened, Russia must act wise and negotiate with the US, in order to press it to ratify the SORT and to push for the further extension of the START I treaty.

And even though the US doesn't seem to hesitate when it comes to achieving its goals, dipolmacy having little effect on its decisions, a policy of bargain and blackmail would have the desired effect of making the US to revise its position.

A belligerent stance of Russia would only lead to more problems, because Russia is still handicapped military, after the shock that it suffered after the USSR collapsed two decades ago.

~Veronica Bicer

See also:

ORBITAL MISSILE INTERCEPTORS:

http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/04/orbital-missile-interceptors.html

REFERENCES:

Five steps for preventing a new Cold War

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070723/69487893.html

Signing of Czech-U.S. radar deal delayed - Czech Foreign Ministry

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080428/106099226.html

Missile defense - back to the sixties

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080410/104778874.html

Two missile defense systems for Europe

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080408/104106486.html

CNN.com - U.S. quits ABM treaty - December 14, 2001

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

Anti-ballistic missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

ABM Treaty Withdrawal Likely to Boost Space-Based Laser Work

http://www.space.com/news/sbl_011218.html

INF treaty

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf1.html

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

Nuclear Sharing in NATO: Is it Legal?

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-3/nato.html

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Reduction_Treaty

Missile Technology Control Regime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime

Nuclear sharing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

HAGUE CODE OF CONDUCT AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILE PROLIFERATION (HCOC)

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/pdfs/icoc.pdf

International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Conduct_against_Ballistic_Missile_Proliferation

Donald Rumsfeld as the serpent

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060830/53313650.html

Should Russia quit the treaty on medium- and short-range missiles?

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070411/63460805.html

U.S. military space lobby proposes orbital missile defense system

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080410/104777902.html

Intercontinental ballistic missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM

Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV

Should Russia quit the treaty on medium- and short-range missiles?

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070411/63460805.html

Why terminate the INF Treaty?

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071207/91436776.html

No final decision to quit INF treaty - FM Lavrov

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070216/60863642.html

Russia may unilaterally quit INF Treaty - General Staff

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070215/60795303.html

NATO extension, an end in itself

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080331/102574381.html

Russia hails Sarkozy nuclear missile plan

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080321/101960177.html

Sarkozy’s INF good intentions

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080325/102156804.html

Collective security: dusting off old cliches

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071217/92769318.html

Defense budget: nuclear or conventional?

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071119/88732218.html

Russia can offer low-cost response to U.S. missile system

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080212/99033702.html

Asymmetrical Iskander missile systems

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071115/88281798.html

Russia, U.S. call on all countries to join INF Treaty-1

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071025/85515703.html

Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander missile system

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88066432.html

MIM-104 Patriot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

ABM verbal commitments are not very meaningful

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080319/101739730.html

Washington's initiative may untie the Iranian knot

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071024/85270321.html

Russia and the United States adamant on ABM in Europe

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071010/83352549.html

Cuban Missile Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Other nuclear treaties:

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Non-Proliferation Treaty

Threshold Test Ban Treaty

START II

SALT I and II

==========================================================

INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty)

2008-04-28T22:02:00.000+03:00

HOME PAGE: http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/

MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html

ALSO CALLED: The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was an 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Signed in Washington, D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on May 27, 1988 and came into force on June 1 of that year.

The treaty is formally titled The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.

The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union, which was much more unequal in number of INF warheads destroyed. Under the treaty both nations were allowed to inspect each other's military installations.

This treaty strongly favored the U.S. and thus it was a first major defeat of Soviet diplomacy during nuclear arms reduction talks. Many treaty provisions, such as counting Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles as equivalent to single-warhead Pershing II systems, including TR-1 Temp (SS-12) and R-400 Oka (SS-23) short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) into INF the treaty—while excluding all U.S. nuclear naval cruise missiles (in which U.S. had a huge advantage over Soviet Union), and not taking into account expanded British and French nuclear arsenals—were clearly provisions unfavorable for the USSR. In sum, after the treaty's implementation the NATO again regained strategic nuclear superiority over USSR in Europe which existed before SS-20 deployment.

History

The agreement was stimulated by the Soviet deployment of their SS-20 missile from 1975 and the US response. The SS-20 replaced existing SS-4 and SS-5 missiles. The longer range, greater accuracy, mobility and striking power of the new missile was perceived to alter the security of Western Europe. After discussions, NATO agreed to a two part strategy - firstly to pursue arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union to reduce their and the American INF arsenals; secondly to deploy in Europe from 1983 up to 464 ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) and 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles. Until the late 1970s NATO had clear superiority over USSR in INF systems because Soviets possessed only liquid-fueled, single warhead, very inaccurate and easy to destroy IRBMs and a few hundreds equally outdated subsonic heavy bombers of Tu-16 and Tu-22 types. In contrast, NATO and USAFE had Mirage IV, V-force and brand-new F-111 bombers in addition to French, British, and US precise, solid propelled IRBMs and SLBMs based in Europe and on adjacent waters. So Soviet attempts to close the "INF gap" by SS-20 and Tu-22M deployment was met with NATO moves to secure Western alliance nuclear advantage in Europe thanks to GLCM and Pershing II installation.

Despite dissatisfaction with the deployment of US weapons in Europe, the Soviet Union agreed to open negotiations and preliminary discussions began in Geneva in 1980. Formal talks began in September 1981 with the US "zero-zero offer" - the complete elimination of all Pershing, GLCM, SS-20, SS-4 and SS-5 missiles. Following disagreement over the exclusion of British and French delivery systems, the talks were suspended by the Soviet delegation in November 1983. In 1984, despite public protest, the US began to deploy INF systems in West Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

In March 1986 negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union resumed, covering not only the INF issue but also separate discussions on strategic weapons (START I) and space issues (NST). In late 1985 both sides were moving towards limiting INF systems in Europe and Asia. On January 15, 1986, Gorbachev announced a Soviet proposal for a ban on all nuclear weapons by 2000, which included INF missiles in Europe. This was dismissed by the US and countered with a phased reduction of INF launchers in Europe and Asia to none by 1989. There would be no constraints on British and French nuclear forces.

A series of meetings in August and September 1986 culminated in the Reykjavík Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev on October 11, 1986. Both agreed in principle to remove INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads. Gorbachev also proposed deeper and more fundamental changes in the strategic relationship. More detailed negotiations extended throughout 1987, aided by the decision of West Geman Chancellor Helmut Kohl in August to unilaterally remove the joint U.S.-West German Pershing IA systems. The treaty text was finally agreed in September 1987.

On February 10, 2007, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin declared that the INF Treaty no longer serves Russia's interests. On February 14, ITAR-Tass and Interfax quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military's chief of general staff, as saying that Russia could pull out of the INF, and that the decision would depend on the United States' actions with its proposed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense missile defense system, parts of which the U.S. plans to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Affected programs:

Specific missiles destroyed:

United States

Pershing Ib and Pershing II
BGM-109 Tomahawk (ground-launched version only)

Soviet Union

SS-4 'Sandal'
SS-5 'Skean'
SS-12 'Scaleboard'
SS-23 'Spider'
SS-20 'Saber'
SSC-X-4

See also:

Hollanditis
Woensdrecht
NATO Double-Track Decision

FULL-TEXT OF THE TREATY:

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE ELIMINATION OF THEIR INTERMEDIATE-RANGE AND SHORTER-RANGE MISSILES

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, commonly referred to as the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.

In the mid-1970s the Soviet Union achieved rough strategic parity with the United States. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union began replacing older intermediate-range SS-4 and SS-5 missiles with a new intermediate-range missile, the SS-20, bringing about what was perceived as a qualitative and quantitative change in the European security situation. The SS-20 was mobile, accurate, and capable of being concealed and rapidly redeployed. It carried three independently targetable warheads, as distinguished from the single warheads carried by its predecessors. The SS-20s 5,000 kilometer range permitted it to cover targets in Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and, from bases in the eastern Soviet Union, most of Asia, Southeast Asia, and Alaska.

In late 1977, NATOs Nuclear Planning Group ordered a study of the Alliances long-term INF modernization needs, consistent with the doctrine of flexible response. In the spring of 1979, NATO established the Special Consultative Group to formulate guiding principles for future arms control efforts involving INF. That summer, NATO produced the Integrated Decision Document, which set forth the basic aims of the Alliances INF policy. It called for complementary programs of force modernization and arms control.

On November 12, 1979, the NATO ministers unanimously adopted a "dual track" strategy to counter Soviet SS-20 deployments. One track called for arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce INF forces to the lowest possible level; the second track called for deployment in Western Europe, beginning in December 1983, of 464 single-warhead U.S. ground-launched cruise (GLCM) missiles and 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles.

Initially the Soviet Union refused to engage in preliminary talks, unless NATO revoked its deployment decision; however, by July 1980, the Soviet position changed, and preliminary discussions began in Geneva in the fall of 1980.

The U.S. approach to the negotiations, developed through extensive consultations within NATO, required that any INF agreement must: (1) provide for equality both in limits and rights between the United States and the Soviet Union; (2) be strictly bilateral and thus exclude British and French systems; (3) limit systems on a global basis; (4) not adversely affect NATOs conventional defense capability; and (5) be effectively verifiable.

Agreement to begin formal talks was reached on September 23, 1981. On November 18, President Reagan announced a negotiating proposal in which the United States would agree to eliminate its Pershing IIs and GLCMs if the Soviet Union would dismantle all of its SS-20s, SS-4s, and SS-5s. This proposal became known as the "zero-zero offer."

At the beginning of the talks, the Soviet Union opposed the deployment of any U.S. INF missiles in Europe and proposed a ceiling of 300 "medium-range" missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft for both sides, with British and French nuclear forces counting toward the ceiling for the West.

During the first two years of the talks, which ended with a Soviet walkout on November 23, 1983, the United States continued to emphasize its preference for the "zero option" even while introducing the concept of an interim agreement based on equally low numbers of INF systems.

During 1984 there were no INF negotiations. U.S. deployments were carried out as planned in the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, while preparations for deployment continued in Belgium.

In January 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko agreed to separate but parallel negotiations on INF, strategic arms (START), and defense and space issues as part of a new bilateral forum called the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST). The United States and the Soviet Union agreed that all questions regarding these three areas would be considered in their interrelationship. Negotiations would be conducted by a single delegation from each side, divided into three groups -- one for defense and space, one for START, and one for INF. Formal talks resumed in March 1985 in all three areas.

In the fall of 1985, the Soviet Union hinted at the possibility of an INF agreement independent of START or defense and space issues. As U.S. GLCM deployments continued, the Soviet Union outlined an interim INF agreement that would permit some U.S. GLCMs in Europe, but which would permit SS-20 warheads equal to the sum of all warheads on U.S., British, and French systems combined. The Soviets also offered to freeze INF systems in Asia -- contingent on U.S. acceptance of their proposals and provided the Asian strategic situation did not change.

In November of 1985, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev met in Geneva, where they issued a joint statement calling for an "interim accord on intermediate-range nuclear forces." At the end of 1985, the United States proposed a limit of 140 launchers in Europe for both sides and proportionate reductions in Asia while emphasizing collateral constraints on shorter-range missiles, since these systems can cover the same targets as longer-range systems.

On January 15, 1986, General Secretary Gorbachev announced a Soviet proposal for a three-stage program to ban nuclear weapons by the year 2000, which included elimination of all U.S. and Soviet INF missiles in Europe.

In late February 1986, the United States proposed a limit of 140 INF launchers in Europe and concurrent proportionate reductions in Asia. This proposal also called for both sides to reduce their INF missile launchers remaining in Europe and Asia by an additional 50 percent in 1988 and, finally, to eliminate all INF weapons by the end of 1989. There would be no constraints on British and French nuclear forces. Moreover, as of the end of 1987, shorter-range missiles would be limited equally either to current Soviet levels existing on January 1, 1982, or to a lower level. The United States also presented an outline for comprehensive verification.

A series of high-level discussions took place in August and September 1986 followed by a meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, where the sides agreed to equal global ceilings of systems capable of carrying 100 INF missile warheads, none of which would be deployed in Europe. The Soviet Union also proposed a freeze on shorter-range missile deployments and agreed in principle to intrusive on-site verification.

Several months later, on February 28, 1987, the Soviet Union announced that it was prepared to reach a separate INF agreement. On March 4, 1987, the United States tabled a draft INF Treaty text, which reflected the agreement reached at Reykjavik, and submitted a comprehensive verification regime. In April the Soviet Union presented its own draft Treaty, and by July, it had agreed in principle to some of the provisions in the U.S. comprehensive verification regime, including data exchange, on-site observation of elimination, and on-site inspection of INF missile inventories and facilities.

In a major shift, however, the Soviet side proposed the inclusion of U.S.-owned warheads on the West German Pershing IA missile systems. The United States responded by restating that the INF negotiations were bilateral, covering only U.S. and Soviet missiles, and could not involve third-country systems or affect existing patterns of cooperation.

During April meetings with Secretary Shultz in Moscow, General Secretary Gorbachev proposed the possible elimination of U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missiles. At the June 1987 meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO foreign ministers announced support for the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range and shorter-range missile systems. On June 15, President Reagan proposed the elimination of all U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missile systems.

On July 22, 1987, General Secretary Gorbachev agreed to a "double global zero" Treaty to eliminate intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

On August 26, 1987, Chancellor Kohl announced the Federal Republic of Germany would dismantle its 72 Pershing IA missiles and not replace them with more modern weapons if the United States and the Soviet Union scrapped all of their INF missiles as foreseen in the emerging Treaty. This was a unilateral declaration by the FRG and is not part of the INF Treaty, which is a bilateral U.S.-Soviet agreement.

In September, the two sides reached agreement in principle to complete the Treaty before the end of the year. On December 8, 1987, the Treaty was signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at a summit meeting in Washington. At the time of its signature, the Treaty's verification regime was the most detailed and stringent in the history of nuclear arms control, designed both to eliminate all declared INF systems entirely within three years of the Treaty's entry into force and to ensure compliance with the total ban on possession and use of these missiles.

The Treaty the United States and the Soviet Union signed at Washington on December 8 includes the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Data,1 the Protocol on Inspections, and the Protocol on Elimination. Because of concerns raised by the Senate during the ratification hearings, and because of issues that arose during technical consultations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the spring of 1988, this package was augmented by three exchanges of diplomatic notes (one on May 12, 1988 and two on May 21, 1988) and an agreed minute signed May 12, 1988.

The Senate resolution of ratification required the President, prior to exchanging instruments of ratification, to obtain Soviet agreement that the four documents "are of the same force and effect as the provisions of the Treaty." This was done through an exchange of notes on May 28, 1988. The Treaty entered into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification in Moscow on June 1, 1988.

The May 12 and May 28 exchanges of notes, as well as the May 12 agreed minute, are included herein following the texts of the Treaty, the MOU and the Protocols. The May 21 exchange of notes, which corrected errors in the site diagrams and Treaty text, are not included, but the textual corrections are listed following the text of the Treaty, MOU and protocols.

Article XIII established the Special Verification Commission (SVC). The SVC serves as a forum for discussing and resolving implementation and compliance issues, for considering additional procedures to improve the viability and effectiveness of the Treaty, and for determining the characteristics and methods of use of inspection equipment as anticipated by Section VI of the Protocol on Inspection. The sides resolved many of those issues during the first SVC session and agreed to utilize the agreements reached until such time as a document embodying them was signed by the two sides.

During the third session of the SVC (December 1988), the sides signed an Agreed Statement on inspection procedures at the continuous monitoring inspection site at Votkinsk and a Memorandum of Understanding on operating procedures for the SVC.

To confirm the declared inventory of INF systems throughout the three-year elimination period and for ten years thereafter, the INF Treaty established various types of on-site inspections, among these are, baseline inspections, to confirm the initial data update; closeout inspections of facilities and missile operation bases at which INF activity ceased; short-notice (quota) inspections of declared and formerly declared facilities, and elimination inspections to confirm elimination of INF systems in accordance with agreed procedures.

In addition the United States also received the right to monitor, on a continuous basis for up to 13 years, the access (or portals) to any Soviet facility manufacturing a ground-launched ballistic missile (GLBM), not covered under the INF Treaty, which has a stage outwardly similar to a stage of a GLBM limited by the Treaty. The Soviets received a similar right to monitor the U.S. facility that previously produced the Pershing rocket motor.

The U.S. On-Site Inspection (OSIA) was established January 15, 1988, inter alia, to coordinate and implement the inspection provisions of the Treaty. Baseline inspections were conducted in 1988 by U.S. and Soviet inspectors to verify the data provided by the United States and Soviet Union on the number and locations of their respective INF systems and facilities.

In late April and early May 1991, the United States eliminated its last ground-launched cruise missile and ground-launched ballistic missile covered under the INF Treaty. The last declared Soviet SS-20 was eliminated on May 11, 1991. A total of 2,692 missiles was eliminated after the Treaty's entry-into-force.

Following the December 25, 1991, dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States sought to secure continuation of full implementation of the INF Treaty regime and to multilateralize the INF Treaty with twelve former Soviet republics which the United States considers INF Treaty successors.2 Of the twelve successor states, six -- Belarus, Kazakstan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan -- have inspectable INF facilities on their territory. Of these six, four -- Belarus, Kazakstan, Russia, and Ukraine -- are active participants in the process of implementing the Treaty. With the agreement of the other Parties, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, each with only one inspectable site on its territory, while participants, have assumed a less active role, foregoing attendance at sessions of the SVC and participation in inspections.

The multilateralizing of what was previously a bilateral U.S.-Soviet INF Treaty required establishing agreements between the United States and the governments of the relevant Soviet successor states on numerous issues. In the SVC and through diplomatic contacts with the actively participating successor states, the United States worked to secure agreements to ensure continuation of the viability of the Treaty regime and to assure the exercise by the United States of its rights under the Treaty.

Among the tasks undertaken were: arrangements for the settlement of costs connected with implementation activities in the new, multilateral Treaty context; the establishment of new points of entry (POE's) in Belarus, Kazakstan, and Ukraine through which to conduct inspections of the former INF facilities in those countries; and the establishment of communications links between the United States and those countries for transmission of various Treaty-related notifications.

Other issues that have been discussed in the SVC include multilateral operating procedures for the SVC's concurrent continuous monitoring under the START I and INF Treaties, and inspection procedures for new missiles exiting from the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia.

__________________________

1 A comprehensive data exchange took place at the time the Treaty was signed. This MOU included the numbers and locations of all Treaty-limited items, as well as their technical characteristics. All categories of data in the MOU are updated at six-month intervals for the duration of the Treaty.

2 The United States did not consider the Baltic states to be successors, since it had never recognized the legality of their incorporation into the Soviet Union.

LINK:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf1.html#treaty