Latest news say Obama pulled out on the missile shield project in Poland. Victory or defeat? First, let's look at what Alfred wrote yesterday:

Perhaps it is just a coincidence: now that Russia has come to agree that some form of action against Iran is necessary, the missile shield has been scrapped.

Was the shield merely a pawn, the eventual discard of which was always intended to be offered to the Russians, in exchange for implicit support for America's much more important foreign policy towards the Middle East?

This perspective essentially seems to say Obama did US-Russian relations a favor by scrapping the missile shield, and at the same time gained a friend in the struggle against Iran. This is basically what Joshua Tucker at the Monkey Cage also argues:

So the bottom line is: (1) it is unclear how these interceptors would have improved US national security; (2) it is unclear how the interceptors would have improved the security of US allies in Eastern Europe; (3) they would have been expensive (note Obama’s mention of “cost-effectiveness” in his speech this morning); (4) we don’t know if they would have worked (note Obama’s emphasis on the effectiveness of his proposed alternative, stating in this morning’s statement that “This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against missile threats than the 2007 missile defense program.”); and (5) they would have continued to provide a serious impediment to improving US-Russian relations. All in all, this does not seem like a program worth going forward with simply because people in the previous administration saw fit to initialize it. When you are the president, you ultimately need to take decision that will improve the national security of your nation, and, in my opinion, on balance the proposed missile shield would not have done so.

Tucker adds that we don't seem to know what the shield's really for, and adding its expensive costs plus an angry Russia, Obama did the right thing. That's not what Brett Stevens over at Amerika.org thinks. He provides commentary supporting a standpoint that suggests America needed the shield to fend off a Russian attack:

This missile shield was never about Iran. It was about using the one advantage the USA has over Russia, which is advanced technology, to remove the Russian ability to have a guaranteed first strike nuclear attack on the USA. The missile shield would have kept Russia in check because if Russia did anything untoward, the Americans could counter her militarily without being worried that the conflict would escalate to a nuclear level.

So: (a) America wants to stop Russia from nuclear bombing the White House, (b) Bush wanted to set up a missile shield in Poland to counter such an attack, (c) but now Obama wants to make friends with Russia instead. A win-win situation. Is all of this true? Let's debunk some common myths once and for all, so that all Russophobes and Neocons can share sweet dreams tonight.

Myth 1: Bush wanted the missile shield to protect America from a Russian nuclear attack

This is nonsense for two main reasons:

(1) The missile shield wouldn't be able to defer any Russian nuclear attack:

Let me begin by stating that the author’s suggestion that Russia’s defense against a US first strike would somehow be undermined by the presence of a missile shield in Eastern Europe is patently absurd. Russia’s ability to launch a counterstrike in such an unlikely event cannot be undermined by the existence of an ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) system in one small country. A US counter-force First strike would definitely incur a counter strike by surviving Russian forces. The small-scale system they are contemplating for the Czechs cannot possibly provide even a low-grade defense for US missiles. The reasons are simple: The US itself currently has no missiles in Eastern Europe, period. And, US intermediate-range missiles have been eliminated from Western Europe as a result of the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty that was signed back in the 80s.

(2) Russian missiles wouldn't even pass through European air space:

And Russian missiles targeting US forces take the shortest possible trajectory, meaning across the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, from their own sub-based platforms and bomber forces. Their trajectory does not pass through European air space.

Myth 2: The missile shield would threaten Russian national security

As we've seen, Russian missiles wouldn't be deferred by the shield if it was ever built. On the contrary, Russia's fears have instead come true thanks to its own paranoia:

Nobody on the Russian side could explain how a handful of interceptor rockets in Poland would hamper a nuclear superpower that can launch weapons from anywhere on the planet.

America is now committed to boosting Poland’s defences. The paradox is that Russia complained loudly about something that did not matter, but by doing so it has got America to do something that does: beef up its security relationship with Poland. This will include more training and equipment (including such sought-after kit as armoured Humvees) as well as high-tech air-defence systems for Warsaw. Even if missile defences are delayed, officials say, these promises will be kept.

As I reported earlier this week, no missile shield means the Baltic States, including Poland, most likely will want to increase NATO presence to raise the security against the Russians. So while Russia complained about a non-existent problem, it can now count on more Western intervention in its backyard.

Myth 3: The missile shield was pointless from the beginning

Not at all. Besides intercepting any nuclear strike from Iran, which America stated was its main purpose, the shield would ensure great security for several European countries:

Such an ABM system as that planned for the Czech Republic provides zero force protection to US subs, bombers or ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles). The only possible protection such a system can provide against Russian-launched weapons would be for the Czechs, the Poles and perhaps some of the other European countries, including former members of the Warsaw Pact. If intermediate-range nuclear missiles have largely been scrapped from Europe, then what is so terribly wrong with the Europeans having something, however small, to protect Europe from a nuclear attack? The European Union currently poses no threat to Russia’s defense, period.

And Europe has a right to defend itself also, even if it's not as handsome and intelligent as it used to be, right?

Myth 4: Pulling the missile shield helps American-Russian relations

This is, as you probably could guess, is a lot of fancy Obamarama talk. Russian foreign policy doesn't work that way:

Moscow is unlikely to interpret a repositioning of missile defense the way Obama hopes -- as a trust-building measure to incentivize Russian cooperation on other fronts. Instead, Russian leaders will learn a simple lesson: that when America and its allies are threatened, Washington backs down. Already, Russia has watched as the Obama administration has softened U.S. support for Georgia and backed off the push for Ukrainian membership in NATO. A third retreat in less than a year would likely trigger the typical Russian response to retreat: additional aggression. A Moscow that sees its repeated demands for a sphere of influence met tacitly today will be bolder in pushing for recognition of that sphere explicitly tomorrow.

The more room you give the Russians, the more they take, as we saw during the war in Georgia, where a paralyzed European Union left the Russians free to roam through Georgia,refusing to leave the land.

Knowing Putin has threatened to target Europe with nuclear missiles before, I believe most of us Europeans would sleep better at night knowing that America still is watching our sorry backs, because we're too meek and disorganized to do it ourselves. This despite the fact that any nuclear war, especially between America and Russia, would be a highly unlikely event.

Reality: Pulling the missile shield was one of Obama's biggest mistakes

Obama has now weakened Western and Eastern European security, displayed profound American weakness, and sent entirely the wrong signals to both Russia and Iran. Brett Stevens correctly identifies the fallacy: Obama thinks US passivity will reduce Russia's aggression. That's probably the biggest flaw in the Obama Administration's current foreign policy paradigm--one that has already embarrassed America in Venezuela and Turkey.

People who still worry about Russia's security after reading this should keep the following in mind: military might is useless unless you're willing to use it. America has during its war on terror proven it will defend itself at all costs. Europe has proven it's a disorganized collection of old medieval kingdoms too dysfunctional to stop a war in a country that begs for NATO membership. Europe is indeed powerful, maybe more so than Russia, but it's too meek to use that power. Strong horse, weak horse. What would you choose?

Barack Obama today reversed almost a decade of Pentagon strategy in Europe, scrapping plans to deploy key elements of a US missile defence shield.

Instead, he said, a more flexible defence would be introduced, allowing for a more effective response to any threat from Iranian missiles.

Perhaps it is just a coincidence: now that Russia has come to agree that some form of action against Iran is necessary, the missile shield has been scrapped.

Was the shield merely a pawn, the eventual discard of which was always intended to be offered to the Russians, in exchange for implicit support for America's much more important foreign policy towards the Middle East?

In case you'd missed it, the Georgian-Russian war celebrates its first anniversary, and suitably so by engaging in a blame-game over territorial disputes like children in a sandbox:

"We are waiting for another war," said Dzhumber Basharuli, a 50-year-old farmer, whose home was reduced to a smoking shell by artillery during the conflict.

The Russian Foreign Ministry Tuesday claimed Georgia has provoked skirmishes along the boundaries of its breakaway regions. In response, Russia put its 1 million-strong military on high alert.

Georgian soldiers and officials, meanwhile, say Moscow-backed separatists have launched sniper, grenade and mortar attacks against undisputed Georgian territory.

Unverified chatter, of course, on both sides. EU does have monitors over in the region to observe what's going on, but aren't allowed through to the critical areas of dispute. What's important to remember is the fragile nature of the current "peace" in the region. Both parts are blaming each other for stirring up conflict, and we may point fingers and say that's nonsense, but remember how the war began: Claims of Russian peacekeepers being shot at, and Georgia responding that it was simply defending itself. And so a war broke out.

Russia aims a particularly heavy charge at America for supporting Georgia, especially in connection to the recent blame game going on. For those of you who don't know, America supports Georgia in a lot of ways:

Russia on Wednesday accused the United States of quietly rearming Georgia a year after Russian forces crushed the ex-Soviet state's US-backed military and warned it would respond accordingly.

On a visit to Tbilisi on July 23, US Vice President Joe Biden admitted that Washington, which equipped and trained Georgian forces prior to the war last August, was working on "maintaining" the Georgian military.

The United States has long supported the goal of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to lead his country away from its centuries-old dominance by Moscow and toward membership in NATO and Western political institutions.

And rightly so, because it's a vital geopolitical corridor between energy markets in Central Asia and Europe. Additionally, America is working together with the EU to help former Soviet blocs to enter the European political sphere, meaning a migration from planned economy, corrupt authoritarianism, and poor public policy. The more of Caucasus and Eastern Europe we infiltrate, the more relationships we establish to help fight back against the problems looming in the East.

Russia, understandably, doesn't like this, because it's nearing the end of its era and will therefore use any method to prove it's not weak before it descends into demographic and economic hell. So any military muscle-flexing, like a shirtless Putin riding horses, is simply for show:

A senior Russian general on Wednesday brushed off American concerns about two Russian submarines spotted off the East Coast of the United States, saying the patrols were routine and suggesting that the U.S. Navy carried out similar missions near Russia.

"I don't know if there is any news in this news for anyone," said Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of the Russian armed forces. "The fleet shouldn't sit on its hands and be idle."

Asked at a news conference about the submarines, Nogovitsyn drew a comparison to the resumption of the long-range bomber missions. "This is our right. We got tired of flying circles on our routes and started strategic flights," he said.

So, to sum this up: The Georgian-Russian anniversary is here, and we're seeing a fragile blame game coupled with Russian nuclear subs skimming the Atlantic. What are we to make of all of this? I'd bet on theory (5) from this list supplied by Hot Air, combined with a small but not insignificant belief in (4):

A few possibilities off the top of my head for What This Might Mean in addition to the NYT’s “Bulava missile” theory. (1) Russia wants to see how much The One will let them get away with, just as Biden predicted would happen last year. (2) Russia’s pissed at Biden for his crack a few weeks ago about their economy “withering” and is flexing some muscle in response. (3) Russia’s looking to expand its presence in the western hemisphere more generally, which explains its naval exercises with Venezuela in December. (4) Russia’s gearing up to make another move on Georgia and is putting The One on notice that they’re not to be trifled with when they do. (5) Russia’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more bare-chested Putin photos, and a display of military strength in America’s backyard makes for nice optics on the front page tomorrow next to Vlad’s pecs. You’re free to vote for more than one theory — they’re hardly mutually exclusive — but as of right now I’m leaning towards number 4.

No one in this conflict wants war; neither Russia nor Georgia can afford it. Still, this will never change the fact that everyone wants to boost their mojo on the empire arena.

Latest news on the Nabucco gasline project bring positive prospects:

No wonder Russian president Dmitry Medvedev gave such a sour look when Barack Obama shook his hand. A consortium of nations led by the US has cracked the Russian monopoly on natural-gas sales to Europe with a new pipeline in Turkey. The deal, which had stalled until the Russians cut off deliveries during the winter in a price dispute, will route energy supplies from the Caucasus to Austria

Russia hopes to build a new empire based on energy production that will dominate Europe, and perhaps Asia as well. Its disputes with Belarus and Ukraine over pricing and rights of passage, and especially Russia’s attack on Georgia, show how critical this monopoly is to Vladimir Putin’s grand strategy for Russian hegemony. After all, Gazprom — the state-owned distributor for natural gas — employs a former German head of state and cabinet minister, a demonstration of Russian influence in Europe whose significance few missed.

A new set of pipelines to eastern and central Europe will shift the balance of power from Moscow to the EU, at least to some degree. Europe will need both suppliers, but now can afford to play the Nabucco consortium against Moscow to get better deals — and to remove the threat of political extortion from their dependence on Russian gas. Putin will no longer have that as a trump card.

Actually, Russia is not trying to build an "empire," because it's out of resources and suffers from demographic, economic and internal political problems. But that doesn't stop it from trying to stay afloat along with the rest of the world players on the geopolitical scene, amongst whom Russia has got a great advantage. Europe is weak and that gives Russia the opportunity to increase its influence in the West. Let's look at why Medvedev and Putin are still worried:

Today's European Union-Turkey deal to begin building the 2,000-mile Nabucco gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Austria – reducing Europe's dependency on Russia – means investors can legally move on a project that has been much more talked about than acted on since 2002.

The €8 billion ($11 billion) project will now compete with a €10 billion ($13.9 billion) Russian South Stream project, which will also be laid under the Caspian, bypassing Ukraine, and that may come on line in 2015, the same year Nabucco proposes to.

"Barroso wants to show to European countries that he is very active in this project of so-called energy security of Europe," Mr. Simonov told New Europe magazine last week. "Barroso only wants to show to [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin that 'You see now we have this project.' And Europe is involving Russia in this dangerous game."

Exactly, that's what this is mostly about. Looking at these projects realistically, none of them are likely to succeed in anywhere near that time frame (if at all), both for financial and geopolitical reasons. These projects are game arenas to combat power influence and alter economic affairs between nations and blocs of super powers. Of course, we Westerners badly need energy independence from Russia, which is why the Nabucco project remains an important project nonetheless - maybe as an appetizer for something else.

What else is on the Euro-Russian plate? If it's not geopolitics, it's dealing with post-Soviet expansionism. After the fall of the Soviet Union, former Russian-dominated regions either chose Europe (Baltic nations, Poland, Romania, Georgia) or the Kremlin (Belarus, parts of Ukraine). The Russian gameplay thus becomes pretty simple: Maintain friendly ties with current partners, keep Muslims and Chinese at bay, and bully the regions that aid NATO-Western expansion (Russia-Georgian war). This is typically done in a diplomatic but provocative fashion:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was greeted by raucous crowds cheering and chanting "Thank you!" when he visited South Ossetia in a trip showing off Russia's ties to the breakaway Georgian region.

Kokoity said, "The South Ossetian people are grateful for your support, for recognizing our nation (as independent). And our ancient nation of South Ossetia thanks you for saving our tiny people."

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said it was "shameful" that Medvedev decided to visit South Ossetia while Saakashvili was in neighboring Turkey, attending the signing ceremony for a major gas pipeline.

Saakashvili was scared out of his pants after the war in South Ossetia, not because he fears Russia will eventually take over Georgia (which is not at all an unlikely prospect), but due to his diminishing popularity. Like Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad, Saakashvili will probably have to boost his mojo a little bit by proving he's got big balls, but so far he's afraid of getting into too much trouble with the Russian bear, so instead he opts for American co-operation:

A U.S. warship anchored off Georgia for joint military exercises Tuesday while Russian jets pounded mock targets nearby in a sign of lingering tensions over the former Soviet nation turned U.S. ally.

A couple of hours after the events in Batumi, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev peered through binoculars to watch jets fly over Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossiisk and fire at nonexistent ground targets. He was shown on state-controlled TV.

Georgia's military cooperation with the United States irritates Moscow, which considers Western forays into Georgia since the war destabilizing.

Pretty harmless, of course, but remember how symbolic gestures like these eventually escalated into the war in South Ossetia. While neither Russia nor its Westernized East European enemies want war (Russia wouldn't stand a chance, so an old Cold War is out of the question), people still give their lives to choose sides, like the Russian rights activist Natalya Estemirova:

A well-known Russian rights activist was found slain execution-style on Wednesday, hours after being kidnapped in Chechnya — the latest in a series of brazen murders targeting critics of the Kremlin's violent policies in the war-torn North Caucasus.

The daylight slaying of Natalya Estemirova follows the killings in recent years of reporters, lawyers and activists, and appeared to indicate that Russia remains a place where political murders are committed with impunity.

"First off, they kill reporters, to cut off the front line of information. Then they kill activists. ... They are by definition enemies and they must be eliminated," he said. "This is the Russian state. This is a Russian political system that generates terror, systematic terror."

I don't find it strange that Medvedev is beginning to voice his regrets about these killings, regardless of who is behind them. It draws criticism against the Kremlin which, in the long run, will destabilize the regime--the last thing an ex-KGB collection of hardball leaders would want. They have enough problems with a competitive China, radical Jihadists, and severe demographic and health problems. Yet, the Nabucco game of geopolitics and strategic wars continue. What's not dead is still moving.

Washington, DC - North Korea was met with heavy criticism from the international community today, after firing another missile from its coast line. In a Whitehouse press conference US President Barack Obama said he had "almost had it up to here" and went on to express further disappointment with the launch:

"What North Korea did today was to completely disregard international agreements and launch yet another missile, provoking its neighbouring countries. I want Mr. Kim Jong to know that I, the President of the United States of America and Holy Bringer of Change, am personally very disappointed at his actions and would wish that he kindly stops defying the voice of the United Nations."

Obama's speech given at the White House in Washington was met with a large round of applause, signifying a new stern message had been sent to North Korea. Political analysts described the message as "mighty," "powerful," "ebony" and "muscular," hoping the North Korean leadership will now change its defiant path. But to the surprise of all leaders gathering at the UN HQ yesterday in a crisis meeting, Kim Jong had forwarded the following written message back to Washington:

"Dear Mr. Obama, I thank you for your kind words. I have considered your words carefully, and have finally decided to launch another missile, this time expected to land somewhere in Alaska. I hope you have implemented environmental protection in the region, because this missile is supposed to create one hell of a mess when it blows. Please don't tell Mr. Bush. I hope everything is well with you and your family. Love, Kim Jong II, leader of the mighty Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

EU and Russia never came to any vital agreement during the recent summit, despite strengthening formal ties:

Tension over energy supplies and EU overtures to Russia's neighbors was palpable. Medvedev warned that the EU's strengthening ties with former Soviet states must not turn into an anti-Russian coalition.

While the tone was warmer than during edgy EU summits with Medvedev's predecessor, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president sparred with the EU leaders over energy — a sensitive issue because Europe relies on Russia for a quarter of its natural gas imports.

Medvedev insisted that only Ukraine was to blame for the two-week cutoff that left millions in Europe without heat in January, and warned that further disruptions are possible if Ukraine cannot pay. Russia turned off the taps to Ukraine during a dispute over pricing and payments, prompting angry EU questions about Moscow's reliability as a supplier.

Quick summary of what you need to know about the progress of EU-Russian energy relations:

(a) Russia wants European and NATO interests out of what it regards as its "backyard."

(b) Since the Putin era, Russia has been boosting its economy thanks to a spike in oil prices, on which it still thrives and, along with gas supremacy, fights to protect at all costs.

(c) EU is wary of putting pressure on Russia due to an internal split of interests, most notably due to friendly alliances between Russia and Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

While it's true that Russia is able to demand any price on its gas to Ukraine, a reliable energy partner doesn't immediately and with short notice raise prices to a customer, and then turn off the tap when the customer is unable to pay. There's no real master plan behind all of this controversy: Russia is trying to keep its nation together despite demographic and national health problems, saving whatever's left of its former Soviet blocs from Western influence.

The West, on the other hand, is looking after its own interests and wants to secure geopolitical points in the region (Kosovoan independence and the war in Georgia are just two examples). What role Obama will play in this game is pretty apparent to all players involved. While trying to establish friendly relations with Turkey, a nation crucial to the Nabucco pipeline project, he's got a real nightmare to tackle with the Europeans:

The map illustrates the ways in which the new American presidential administration will have to strike up relationships with Europe. The most worrying element is the increasing Russian influence in the "old continent" because of its role as major gas supplier to the European countries. Putin and Medvedev are elaborating a plan called "Russia Project" aiming to reintegrate some territories in the Russian Federation and the creation of a Russian Union. Russia can rely on a "Friendly Club" led by Germany. In order to face this strategical threat, the United States can rely on the enemies of EuRussia for support, notably Great Britain and some of the Baltic nations.

Although this paints a pretty simplified picture of the larger strategic game going on right now (Sweden and Great Britain are hardly "enemies" of Russia in any political sense, but there are growing tensions and old suspicions resurfacing), it's a rough estimate of the geopolitical nightmare facing the West, in which the Obama Administration will play a key role. As you can see on the map, the West has already attempted to secure a free path through the Caspian and Black Sea, but the involved countries are not yet ready to strike a gas deal. Most likely, neither Russia's Nord and South Stream projects, nor the Western Nabucco project will become a reality.

The main problem is a divided Europe, fueled by Leftist anti-Americanism after the end of the Bush Administration, and lack of unified energy policies with regards to Russia. The Russians know this and play freely with the EU as often as it can to expose Western impotence. But America is awake and has been for a long time. The question is whether they’re going to bail out Europe again, or leave it to its own fate while the American empire slowly crumbles under foreign debt, shattered public consensus and wars abroad that are hard to win. A nightmare for the West, indeed.

A nuclear weapon is like a super banana among monkeys: once you own one, you can wave it around to gain power. But you can also scare other monkeys into growing their own super banana and use that against you to cease your power. Life's an eternal battle for power, especially between nations. And the battle over nuclear supremacy is hardly over, even though we're in a post-Cold War phase:

Iran tested its longest-range, solid-fuel missile yet Wednesday — a launch that displayed Tehran's reach and burnished the president's hardline reputation ahead of next month's election.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed the test, which was announced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The launch raised concerns about the sophistication of Tehran's missile program and Pentagon officials cautioned that it leaves Iran at a crossroads.

Israel said the test appeared to be in part Iran's response to a positive meeting on Monday between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama. Following the meeting, Obama threatened Iran with further international sanctions if it does not agree to reopen negotiations on its nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is simply doing what Kim Jong II is trying to do:

(a) Challenge the super banana supremacy of the new Obama Administration.

(b) Display his super banana capability to boost his power status.

Yes, Ahmadinejad has proved he too has got big balls, just in time for the election in Iran. Ready to battle over American-Israeli alpha territory, the New Cold War has left the warfare stage and instead transformed into a military and economic game of muscle flexing. Some do it out of aggression, others do it for protection:

Additional evidence has emerged that Pakistan is "greatly expanding" its nuclear weapons program even as Islamic insurgents have been advancing toward the country's heartland from its border with Afghanistan .

"Commercial satellite imagery supports the conclusion that Pakistan , over the last several years, has concentrated on greatly expanding its nuclear weapons production complex," said one of two ISIS reports published Tuesday on the group's Web site. "The reasons for this expansion are undoubtedly related to Pakistani decisions to upgrade its nuclear arsenal."

Pakistan and archrival India conducted tit-for-tat underground nuclear tests in 1998, and some experts think Pakistan's efforts to expand its nuclear program may be a response to a 2007 U.S.- India agreement that critics charge could enable India to produce more plutonium for its nuclear arsenal.

If you feel other alpha monkeys are teaming up against you, you'd be dumb not to grow your own super bananas in defense. Of course - and this is what Obamarama calls for - we'd like to see all monkeys disarmed of their super banana fun. After all, they kill a lot of people when used. In that respect, there is some positive evidence that some alpha powers are willing to negotiate:

The United States and Russia have held two days of successful talks on ways to slash vast stockpiles of Cold War nuclear weapons, a Russian diplomat said on Wednesday.

The talks are complicated by Washington's plan to station elements of an anti-missile system in Poland and Czech Republic, in order to intercept rockets fired from what it sees as rogue states, such as Iran. Russia says the plan will undermine its national security.

"The fundamental principle of an agreement must be equal security for both sides and the preservation of strategic parity," he told reporters at the 19th century mansion where the talks took place. "This of course cannot be ensured without taking into account the situation with anti-missile defense."

What we learn from this, even though the US-Russia talks aren't over yet, is that no alpha power is willing to disarm without first looking after its own interests and security. America is simply following the first rule of all successful civilizations: disarm your enemies before disarming your friends. Not even Obama can be so stupid as to overlook that rule, and so the US-Russia talks proceed the same way as with Iran-Western and Indian-Pakistani relations: slowly, suspiciously, and with a large dose of symbolic banana demonstration.

A story beautiful enough to cry over for those who are sentimental about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

With alto voices blending in rich harmony, Achinoam Nini and Mira Awad trade verses in Hebrew and Arabic and then end in the refrain, "There must be another way."

Dressed in black, Israel's entry in the annual Eurovision song contest struck a note of peacnik earnestness Tuesday night at the annual American Idol-style pageant that prizes kitschy pop and stage shows heavy with pyrotechnics.

"The most politically correct act of the contest," declared the television host, who announced the Arab-Jewish singing duo had advanced to the final round Saturday night.

What you can't achieve in reality, you can pretend to realize through public appearance. It's like a bad political soap opera accompanied with bad music--the perfect symbol of modern European culture. I can't say I'm impressed. The Georgians, on the other hand, realize it's all farce, so they decided to troll the stage:

In an act of disco defiance, Georgia has chosen a song that mocks Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, as its entry for this year’s Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow.

We Don’t Wanna Put In includes a play on the leader’s surname in a Seventies-style performance that is unlikely to get Russian organisers of the contest dancing in the aisles. The cheesy disco number, sung in English by Stephane and 3G, has the chorus:

“We don’t wanna put in
The negative move
It’s killin’ the groove.”

It goes on to urge: “You better change your perspective.”

Of course, this did not go down well with the Eurovision judges, who decided to pull the plug on the fun with the following motivation:

The disco-funk song, We Don't Wanna Put In, appears to poke fun at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

However, it is against the competition's rules to allow political content in entries.

A contest spokesman said: "No lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political or similar nature shall be permitted."

But a symbolic unity of an Arab and a Jew singing "there must be another way" is of course perfectly alright, since it's line with progressive dogma. Foul Georgians, just out to cause trouble! On the musical side of things, it was surprising to see how traditional many of the songs were, most notably Sweden's pop-opera hit by Malena Ernman and the Scandinavian-styled folk dance beat performed by Alexander Rybak.

It seems our Russian comrades have got a peculiar sense of humour:

To understand why it's humorous, for Russians, read here and here.

HT: Edward Lucas

Live and Let Die
Ian Fleming

After having been branded for life physically and emotionally by the Russian counter-intelligence organization SMERSH in "Casino Royale," barely escaping with his life, James Bond proceeds to his second mission as a British spy. Researching the recently discovered circulation of expensive and rare Spanish doubloons on the American black market, Bond travels to New York in order to investigate a black criminal warlord, said to supply the market. The tracks lead him eventually to Mr. Big, a member of SMERSH, funding the organization through wealth believed to belong to an ancient treasure in Jamaica.

This second installment of Fleming's internationally successful Bond-series features some heavy reading. In fact, very few of the Bond movies actually match the Bond character described in Fleming's novels ("Casino Royale" from 2006 coming very close). James Bond here is a cold, brutal and complex spy - rarely charming, but slightly psychotic and often driven by instincts and desires. As a result, this makes for an intense and exciting reading experience, building a lot of tension from the excellent storyline, which evolves gradually and logically.

Safe to say, the women are still attractive, and the scenery is still memorable; in fact, Fleming is quite good at painting landscapes with his sharp story telling, possibly more so than in the first novel. And, not to forget, the nemesis is an intelligent but mentally depraved and brutal enemy. There's quite a lot of raw, physical descriptions in this novel that add up to pretty graphic violence, unsettling enough to compete with the movie. Yet it's skilfully condensed, as if written by a journalist, but with all the imagination and gritty action you expect from a serious author.

This is simply a well-executed and intense piece of reading with both character and intellect. While I recommend all of you to begin by reading the first installment, this sequel can be read as an independent story. Fleming's world is populated by the idols, organizations and politics of his career, but also effectively echoes a bizarre cold war atmosphere into our time. "Live and Let Die" is a solid introduction to such a world, convincingly close to our own, but in fantasy and personality Ian Fleming's own.

From the Cold War Dept.:

Georgia said hundreds of rebellious soldiers surrendered Tuesday after a brief mutiny, but officials backed away from initial claims that Russia supported the uprising as part of a coup plot.

The Interior Ministry at first said it had uncovered a Russian-supported plan to overthrow President Mikhail Saakashvili's government. But Georgian authorities later stepped back from both of those allegations, saying the mutiny was aimed mainly at disrupting NATO exercises, and leaving out mention of Russian support.

Saakashvili did not directly accuse Russia of involvement, but he claimed the mutiny was organized by former military officers with ties to Russian intelligence services.

Time for NATO to send a strong message back to Russia that it will continue to support the elected government in Georgia, no matter what tactics Russia uses against Saakashvili. In fact, it matters little whether this mutiny was Russian-supported or not; we should not back down before Russian interests in the region. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that coup plots like these are a way to counter NATO presence in the Caucasus region and piss the West off. We need to act like cold gentlemen: politely, but powerfully.

While enemies of Russia are being kicked in the shins, the Obama Administration suggests we disarm our own allies:

President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank.

I will come under fire for saying this, but I don't think this is a good idea. With Syria and Iran in the region, so obviously using aggressive pressure on both Israel and America, it'd be unwise to take away one of the greatest threats posed to these nations. I don't like the idea of a nuclear armed world either, but we cannot roll back the technology; right now nations are using their nuclear potential as a defense mechanism, or, as in the case of North Korea, a way to brag about possessing big balls.

First rule of all successful civilizations: disarm your enemies before disarming your friends.

We need someone with the intellect, strength and moral courage of Ronald Reagan to lead America.

HT: Patriot Room

As previously discussed here, the gas race between Nabucco and Nord Stream continues. Washington is now pressing the next important ally in the Nabucco pipeline project, Iran, to secure gas export to Europe. The unofficial goal is of course to circumvent Russian gas extortion on the open market, observing how Russia isbuying up assets in vital European energy companies. Israeli news network DEBKA brings the latest news:

Iran is about to become a major fuel supplier to the West, DEBKA-Net-Weekly reports.

For the sake of dialogue and cooperation, Washington is ceding Tehran the chance to feed its natural gas into the 3,000 kilometer-long Nabucco pipeline project (from the Caspian to the EU via Turkey).

Good move. I am of course a supporter of the project (if you're living in Europe, how could you not be?), although I recognize the vast difficulties we face here. Not only are we not very good friends with Iran right now (or, maybe one should say, few nations are good friends with Iran), but the project is continuously postponed in part due to lack of consensus within the European Union. France, Germany, Italy and Spain in particular prefer business with Russia instead of securing European interests first.

Iran realizes this situation enables it to take use of its newly inherited geopolitical front position (why do you think America has intervened in this region for such a long time?):

Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari here Wednesday assured that it would not be possible to put Nabucco gas pipeline into operation without Iran, dismissing it as uneconomical.

“If Nabucco pipeline comes on stream, Iran will be the sole option for supplying its gas as the country is the world’s second-largest holder of natural gas,” said the minister, however adding other companies could also provide some part of the project’s gas.

National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) Managing Director Mohammadreza Ne’matzadeh had already announced that Europe had no way out but to satisfy its energy needs by transferring Iran’s gas via Turkey’s Nabucco pipeline.

While there is a lot of truth to this, it's not entirely accurate. Let's have a look at the geopolitical map:

(click to see larger image)

As you can see, Europe plans to import gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan as well. And Russia, of course, is far from helpful. Edward Lucas in his excellent "the New Cold War" elaborates:

[The] West's hopes rest on the flimsy chances of persuading two dictatorships, ultra-cautious Kazakhstan and impenetrable Turkmenistan, to take the risk of snubbing Moscow and selling their gas westwards. Unsurprisingly, in the battle for the Caspian Russia has so far outwitted the West at every turn. The chances never looked good. Russia regards the Caspian Sea as a lake. Under international law, the countries round a lake have a power of veto over the economic exploitation of the land under it. Russia can therefore block any attempt to build a pipeline on the Caspian seabed linking Turkmen and Kazakh gas fields to Azerbaijan's existing pipeline westwards. To underline its legal case, it has also been building up its naval forces in the Caspian. But in fact, Russia used an even more powerful weapon than either gunboats or international lawyers: simple diplomatic clout. In May 2007 Mr Putin signed a deal with the leaders of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to build a new gas export pipeline skirting the northern shore of the Caspian and taking the region's gas riches to Europe via Russia.

Edward Lucas, "the New Cold War," p. 229-230

In other words, this is not going to be easy. We may need some Obamarama rhetoric to bring the deal home with Iran. If Obama can play softie with Chavez, he may be able to score points in Iran as well. Of course, the mere thought of this drives most Conservatives nuts:

This hint, I suggest, is all that The Parasitic One needs to form His narrative. Let’s cut to the chase scene, and then we’ll get to Paul Harvey’s (RIP) The Rest of the Story!

The Narrative to come: In the interests of cooperation between our two countries and to further inculcate the Iranian people into the broader economic interests of the region and the European Union, I am pleased to announce today that the construction path of the Nabucco pipeline has been amended to include a second termination point inside Iran. This additional termination point will provide much-needed natural resources throughout Europe, as well as a solid economic foundation upon which Iran can develop and optimize its infrastructure and tend to the educational and technology needs of its citizens.

He’ll say more, but I’m ready to vomit so I have to stop.

This Patriot is more worried about Obama appearing in a good light than actually getting things done. That is loser politics my friend. Conservatism is not about being bitter. I don't hate Obama. In fact, I think in the big game he's kind of unimportant. He has got zero experience with foreign policy, so he will be the puppet of his advisors. Of course Obama is going to try to score points when making this deal with Iran. He needs to affirm his image. That's how democracy works.

The West needs to grow up, strengthen transatlantic relations with Europe, and wake Germany, Italy and France up. This is not a picnic. We need to secure our energy import before we get run over by the Russians.

More amusement from the New Cold War Dept.:

South Korea clones glowing dogs

South Korean scientists say they have engineered four beagles that glow red using cloning techniques that could help develop cures for human diseases. The four dogs, all named "Ruppy" — a combination of the words "ruby" and "puppy" — look like typical beagles by daylight.

But they glow red under ultraviolet light, and the dogs' nails and abdomens, which have thin skins, look red even to the naked eye.

Seoul National University professor Lee Byeong-chun, head of the research team, called them the world's first transgenic dogs carrying fluorescent genes, an achievement that goes beyond just the glowing novelty.

Fancy engineering, if it's true. Now, how about creating a thousand nuclear bears using similar technology to overthrow the enemy in the north? Or maybe clone themselves to prop up their army? Imagine hundreds of millions of those South Koreans, glowing red in the dark, invading the Commies when they least expect it. Like an episode taken straight out of X-Files.

North Korea threatens with nuke test unless given apology from UN

North Korea warned Wednesday it will fire an intercontinental ballistic missile — or even carry out another nuclear test — unless the U.N. apologizes for condemning the regime's April 5 rocket launch.

By flaunting its rogue nuclear and missile programs, Pyongyang has raised the stakes in the escalating diplomatic tit for tat with the outside world. North Korea also said it would start generating nuclear fuel — an indication the regime will begin enriching uranium, another material used to make an atomic bomb.

"The North is trying to maximize the stakes as the United States keeps ignoring it," he said. But the expert also said the regime could gradually put the threat into action if Washington fails to respond as it wishes.

While Obama is exchanging bedtime stories with Chavez in Venezuela and scoring populist points with Turkey, North Korea is attempting to irritate the new Administration long enough for it to act. Of course, if we'd still have Bush and the Neocons installed, we'd see some sparks and bombs flying, but we'd also show the world where America stands, and Kim Jong would remain a pansy.

As it stands now, this soft bully is playing hardball while we're waiting to make a move. My strategy to deal with pansies who play hardball has always been to push them down and make the case clear: you're not going to make a move, son - and if you do, things will blow up.

Leftists are busy complaining about US waterboarding to score populist points after the fall of the Bush Administration. No one seems to have placed these events in an international context. Here's an account of how Russia used to deal with Chechenyan rebels:

“We disposed of her body in a field. We placed an artillery shell between her legs and one over her chest, added several 200-gram TNT blocks and blew her to smithereens. The trick is to make sure absolutely nothing is left. No body, no proof, no problem.” The technique was known as pulverisation.

The account is one of a series given to The Sunday Times by two special forces officers who fought the militants in Chechnya over a period of 10 years. Their testimony, the first of its kind to a foreign journalist, provides startling insights into the operation of secret Russian death squads during one of the most brutal conflicts since the second world war.

The men, decorated veterans of more than 40 tours of duty in Chechnya, said not only suspected rebels but also people close to them were systematically tracked, abducted, tortured and killed. Intelligence was often extracted by breaking their limbs with a hammer, administering electric shocks and forcing men to perform sexual acts on each other. The bodies were either buried in unmarked pits or pulverised.

That makes our military violations in the Middle East appear really wimpy. True, it doesn't "justify" US torture per se, and it probably doesn't place Guantanamo Bay in a better light. But it shows America may not be the most evil country on the planet when it comes to breaking international law. And concerning torture, what are we really complaining about:

Let's say there is a life-saving good to be gained by millions of people that can be had only by my unquestionable torture of a another person. The torture is illegal, but let's stipulate that I truly believe that the other person will give up his information only under torture. Should I attempt to save millions of people by violating my qualms and the law against torture? How much good for how much bad? Personally, I would proceed to try to save the millions fully knowing I will be violating the law. What I have to be prepared for is the sacrifice to be made by me should I be brought before the law. If that is to be a sacrifice of myself, so be it.

Corrupt interview with David Donovan

I like Donovan's perspective: sure, brutal torture should be against international law, but if there's a greater goal to be gained via law-breaking methods, someone is going to have to make a personal sacrifice. But there's a double-edged sword in dealing brutal blows against your enemies. Hot Air elaborates:

The Times article never mentions reciprocity explicitly, but it’s an important part of this story — and an important part of human conflict, regardless of whether we like it. This shows both the pitfalls and the purpose of reciprocity. The Russians, to a man, say that the terrorists only understand the kind of atrocities they themselves dish out, and the only way to quell a terrorist group is to kill them all and to use the exact same methods they use to do it. Obviously, it worked; Chechnya has been pacified. However, the reciprocity created its own dynamic of revenge, which made it more difficult to isolate the terrorists and avoid recruitment.

Reciprocity has played a role in every war, at least until recently. In World War II, Britain began bombing German cities after Germany started the Blitz, although Germany claims it was provoked by Britain. In World War I, everyone started using chemical warfare in order to break the stalemate. Each side claims a moral superiority, but it’s usually the losers who pay the price.

What does this tell us about our own conflict? Perhaps not much. After all, our own statutes still outlaw mock executions as torture, and even Jay Bybee admitted that waterboarding qualified as long as the subjects didn’t know that they would be saved from real physical harm. On the other hand, it’s not hard to draw the conclusion that the inmates at Gitmo have to be happy they were sent to fight in Pakistan and Afghanistan instead of Chechnya by the radical Islamist terrorist networks who employed them.

Cripple your enemy and he will be pissed for life. The French and Russian revolutions were nothing more than a crippled public rebelling against their masters. Torture and warfare are not very effective ways of pushing back resistance long-term, unless you aim for a nuclear holocaust. We need to learn from the third world: breed until you're many, then softly overthrow the regime.

It's often said that you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not. Maybe that's correct in situations like dating, but when we're speaking of nations and empires fighting for power, it may not be that stupid after all:

Haaretz has discovered why the Iranians spend a miniscule amount of money on national defense, as Barack Obama once claimed during the presidential campaign. Instead of building actual systems, they just copy photos of other nations’ weapons and claim them as their own. Tehran’s official news agency announced the release of a new drone, but it bears a very, very, very close resemblance to someone else’s — and you’ll never guess who:

Iranian state-run news agency Press TV ran a story on its website this week praising the unveiling of an Iranian-made drone, that according to the Israeli daily Maariv bears a striking resemblance to an earlier photo taken in Israel of an Israeli-made drone.

In an article run this week on the Maariv website, the photo used by Press TV of the Iranian drone is shown above a remarkably similar photo from Israel Aerospace Industries of the Heron 1 Israeli drone. The two photos appear to be exactly the same, with the angle of the shot and the clouds in the background identical in appearance.

The Iranians have photoshopped military gear before, with little to no success in fooling the West. Hey, if you're going to succeed at improving your empire status on your home computer, you need to actually tweak the image before releasing it to the public. Iran and surrounding Muslim nations are probably better off doing what they do best: outbreeding their enemies.

The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West
Edward Lucas

In August 2008, Georgia launched a large-scale military attack in the separatist region of South Ossetia. Shortly after, Russian combat troops began firing into Georgia with full military response, which escalated a long conflict between the pro-West region in South Caucasus and Russian-backed Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Western response was largely condemning, but surprisingly soft. The European Union was simply baffled: Is Russia returning to its old Soviet patterns?

In his latest international best-seller "The New Cold War" (descriptively subtitled "How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West"), Central and East European correspondent of the Economist, Edward Lucas, attempts to answer that complicated question. Dissecting Russian domestic politics, Lucas aptly recaptures the Russian regime history from Gorbachev to Medvedev, giving special attention to Putin's rise to power and the changes he immediately began applying once in office.

The ex-KGB agent, today enjoying public support greater than any previous Russian leader, is sketched as a cold pragmatic with a clear vision. When in office, Putin broke with Yeltsin's world of corruption and inflation by cracking down on oligarchs, nationalizing vital industry, taking advantage of the spike in oil prices to boom the economy, and reviving a patriotic pro-Russian agenda. The message: Russia is yet again a player in world politics to count on. Over time Putin has made drastic changes in Russia, improving the material and economic condition for millions of middle class Russians, and dethroning the country's worst corrupt handlers.

But Lucas tracks with impressive clarity and research how Putin, despite the positive domestic changes, at the same time has reversed the Westernization seen during Gorbachev-Yeltsin period and instead opted for what Lucas persistently characterizes as "crony authoritarian capitalism." While the West regards law, justice and market economy as ideals, Russia uses them as methods to increase its power influence--the West is idealistic, Russia is pragmatic. Indeed, Putin prides himself as someone who has done away with Yeltsin politics, which he regards as a sell out to the West, and instead chosen state nationalization of industry, media, public life and foreign relations. Lucas describes the product as a return to Soviet-style governmental oppression.

For those who are skeptical of such an assessment, Lucas brings forward loads of evidence, news and research, which will baffle many. Oppositional media is bought out by the government, its prominent figures either put out of business through "tax evasion" excuses, or outright hunted--and in some cases, killed. Strange "bomb practices" complete with stolen cars and mysterious inside terrorism adds up to something that could have been taken out of a 20th century comic book. Vital companies like Gazprom are seized by the government, youth camps glorifying Putin are set up, public life socialized, and bureaucracy running rampant. Corruption is dealt with if it displeases the Kremlin, otherwise left to its own fate. It's a scary insight into a modern Russia taking a different path after decades of repressed totalitarianism.

The effects of the Putin regime change are therefore a double-edged sword: while the middle class is better off than ever before, foreign investment is increasing, and private business life is beginning to thrive, the same sectors of society taken for granted in the West as free and competitive-based, are kept in check through state power, circumventing law and policy by helping or oppressing what it sees as good or evil to the Kremlin. The Yeltsin-era runaway inflation and corruption are finally beginning to reverse, but in turn, the Russian citizens are seeing their private and business life once again going back to centralization, regime dogma and Mafia silencing of public dissidence.

When discussing Russia's international relations, Lucas describes how Russian nationalist economics use clever business interests to buy assets in vital Western energy industry, in effect using Europe's liberal market economy to boost its own geopolitical power. Money, Lucas argues, is the new weapon Russia uses to exploit a morally divided West, too confused and weak to respond to the crimes Russia commits to property rights and public interest. It's a pragmatic game Putin knows how to play, but which leaves Europe impotent and stranded. The problem becomes more complex when EU internally is divided over how to approach Russia's business methods; Lucas exposes German top leaders using high power to strengthen ties with the Kremlin, disregarding European interests to satisfy personal goals. Add EU members like Germany and Italy supporting a soft approach to clear Russian policy breaks, and the situation appears to be more bleak than expected. Russia, like China, is taking the West for a ride, and no one dares to complain.

If any message is central to this book, it's how Western naivity has led to it become divided by foreign ill-spirited intentions. The new Russia is a self-preserving, authoritarian, soft mafia state looking after its own interests only, playing the international market game after its own rules, because it knows it can. If this isn't made clear by the domestic analysis Lucas applies to Russia, it certainly becomes self-evident by the way the Kremlin treats ex-Soviet republics like Ukraine, Estonia, Poland and Georgia. Russia wants to seize control of the Caucasian and Balkan regions in parts where it still enjoys moderate to high support, and use that power against the remaining regions. Scenes like the uproar outside the Russian embassy in Estonia, the gas game played to Ukraine and the "peacekeeping" methods used in South Ossetia to later claim protection of "Russian citizens," appear with clarity in their deviantly humorous form.

Lastly, Lucas sums up his case by carefully plotting the foreign policy of Russia, which currently is trying to consolidate power with common enemies to the West (Iran, China, Venezuela) and building counter-NATO organizations heavily emphasizing Russian energy domination and its new ideological platform "sovereign democracy." A very well-plotted chapter is also dedicated to the pipeline politics played between Russia and the West, where Russia's Nord and South Stream compete with West's Nabucco and Transcaspian pipelines--a fascinating but critical power play between the regions. The complexity of the situation appears to be greater than first thought. Lucas therefore ends his book by describing how the West can still win the New Cold War, in effect proposing an end to anti-American sentiment in Europe to unite it and America in order to strengthen transatlantic relations and resurrect moral courage to resist Russian pressure--the only way to win the power game and save its civilization from inside bankruptcy.

But isn't the Cold War over, we ask? Lucas agrees: the former Cold War played on military terms is over. Russia's military might is still there, but not strong enough to pose as a serious threat to the West (although it gladly props up regimes like Iran with nuclear capability). Instead, Lucas suggests we are in a period of a New Cold War, where we face the same power play scenario, but on different terms and with different weapons. Russia's new methods are economic and geopolitical. It's mission: divide Europe from America and split up EU internally until it's too feeble to resist espionage, energy domination and self-invented policy making from the Kremling Hq. It's a strategical war where super powers don't flex nuclear muscle, but use bully politics to make their bid. The Fukuyama vision of an end to empire war after WWII has turned out to be a facade, and Huntington's vision is finally proven right: super powers are once again colliding, but in ways much more refined and thought-out than in the past.

Lucas, defending a liberal democratic and free market-based West, is unapologetic about his stance, but at the same time balanced. There is no Russophobian sentiment taking over real analysis. Lucas, to his credit, is not only a brilliant journalist and a well-researched writer, but also a great polemic. Some will disagree with his own ideological position; Lucas mentions that groups who defend Russia will be those who currently champion anti-Western (including anti-American) sentiment, but as he insightfully points out, the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. While the West must stand under scrutiny and criticism, those who see a saviour in Russia are by Luca's account seriously mistaken (p. 278 f.):

It may well be that individualism and materialism are an inadequate basis for a happy life; that corruption and influence-peddling in Western political systems may be an indefensible distortion of the principles on which they are founded; freedom may conflict with justice or stability. But that is not the same thing as taking the Kremlin's claims about its own system at face value. Such a balanced approach would be absurd.

Western self-criticism doesn't equal a biased view on Russia, either for or against. Lucas therefore separates himself both from Neoconservative paranoia as well as anti-Western critics in favor of Russian pressure on the West. As a result, "The New Cold War" is an essential read for anyone who is interested in understanding the domestic and international politics of modern Russia. For those concerned about the health, freedom and international status of the Western civilization, there is no shorter guide to understand the mechanisms by which we are systematically and ruthlessly being fooled into disarming our own power and independence. Polemically sharp and well-informed, Lucas' account resurrects Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory in a critically current context, desperately calling for Western unity.