Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism

by Roger Tucker

"We have met the enemy and they are us." - Pogo

Pretty much everyone nowadays rejects fascism, but nobody seems to know quite what it is. The words "fascist" and "fascism" are frequently flung about, but they seem to be applied to all sorts of different and unrelated people and things. The dictionaries and Wikipedia are no help because they all assume that the word refers to a political phenomenon that arose in Europe in the 20th Century. That is indeed when the word "fascism" was coined (in the form of "fascismo," an Italian word for the ideology of Benito Mussolini's political party). Here's an excellent contemporary example: "The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights." (1) However, it is rather easy to demonstrate that fascism, in terms of usage (what people mean when they employ the term) dates back to the dawn of history. In order to do that we have to look at what goes into the process of properly defining a word. There are two things that need to be taken into consideration; the historical, linguistic roots (the etymology of the word) and contemporary usage. The Oxford English Dictionary is usually helpful with the former but not in this case, as it too (following the OED rule that looks at the first instance in print) refers only to the recent manifestations in Italy and Germany. In order to determine usage we need to pay close attention to how and when people nowadays commonly employ the terms "fascist" and "fascism."

The Etymology

The word "fascism" has as its root the Latin term "fascis." Here Wikipedia is helpful: "[Fasces:] from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle," symbolize summary power and jurisdiction...The traditional Roman fasces consisted of a bundle of white birch rods, tied together with a red leather ribbon into a cylinder, and often including a bronze axe (or sometimes two) amongst the rods, with the blade(s) on the side, projecting from the bundle. It was used as a symbol of the Roman Republic in many circumstances, including being carried in processions, much the way a flag might be carried today...Believed to date from Etruscan times, the symbolism of the fasces at one level suggested strength through unity. The bundle of rods bound together symbolizes the strength which a single rod lacks. The axe symbolized the state's power and authority." Another word with the same root is "fascia," which Wikipedia defines as follows: "(from latin: a band) is the soft tissue component of the connective tissue system that permeates the human body...It is responsible for maintaining structural integrity..." Again there is a sense of the binding factor, suggestive of the social glue or cultural bond that defines and holds a community together and gives it strength and endurance.

The Etruscan origin is probably correct and some have theorized that the original symbol depicted a bound sheaf of wheat. Whether factual or not, this hypothesis is very suggestive and goes to the heart of the matter. The bound sheaf of wheat, or bundle of sticks tied together, are clearly symbolic of the basic family, clan or tribal group that lives and works the land together cooperatively. That is what most of the names of indigenous tribes or peoples all over the world mean in their own language, "us," "the people," bound together by blood, language and place.

In its primary and positive sense the fasces symbolizes how we are bound to the earth and how, by working harmoniously with it, we sustain ourselves. It evokes primal feelings of oneness with nature and with one another and is suggestive of nurturing and fertility. It invokes the feminine, or mother principle, and it is no wonder that the early agricultural communities worshipped an earth goddess. Its not so benign meaning emerges with the addition of the axe blades, symbolizing the masculine principles of power, authority and the monopoly of force wielded by those who sit atop the heirarchy that naturally develops in human groups. In that sense, the original holders of the fasces were the mother and father of the primitve family and through the evolution of culture has become invested at the highest level in the leaders of nation-states and those who represent them.

In the simplest and most basic sense we are talking about group ego. The term "ego" is generally understood as the sense of self, all of the disparate physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual elements that we think of as an "I," an ongoing, solid and independent actor. All wisdom traditions point out the danger of solidifying this concept. They teach us that we are inextricably connected, existing only in relation to one another and to everything else. Whether perceived as pacific and cooperative or aggressive and warlike, all group identities court the same danger, the reification of the concept of "Us." Fascism is neither masculine nor feminine, neither rightist or leftist, but a combination of both. Nor does it have anything to do with a particular political or economic setup. Let's take a look at what the Italian fascisti, the ones who coined the term, had in mind. The following is in Wikipedia's translation of the Fascist Manifesto:

---

The Manifesto (published in "Il Popolo d'Italia" on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields. Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created National Councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the King. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the Crown);
The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine).

In labour and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalised;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.
In finance, the Manifesto advocates:
A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

The Manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

---

This sounds remarkably like a program that most liberals and progressives could salute, doesn't it? Of course, fascismo changed markedly after Mussolini assumed control and turned it into a right-wing dictatorship, but what we're concerned with here is the evolution of the term fascism from its linguistic origins in pre-Roman Italy to the present. However, we must guard against the notion that there is anything particularly Italian (or German for that matter) about fascism. The symbolism of the fasces is widely used and displayed in government sponsored designs in the U.S., France and a number of other Western democracies. Similar symbols are native to most cultures; it is well night universal.

In order for fascism to come to dominate an identity group, it must have a compelling narrative. Whether group identity is based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, caste, gender or whatever, there is sure to be a story that glorifies the "tribe" and sets it above all others. Typically, it reaches far back into history and has elements both of exaltation and humiliation, triumph over its adversaries and victimhood. And it will come replete with slogans and symbols, and nowadays, more than likely, bumper stickers.

To sum up, the linguistic root of the term fascism and its visual representation clearly refer to identification with a particular group of people, originally based on family, clan and tribe, including place and language, evolving eventually into what we would nowadays call nationalism, or internationalism when it is based on a politico-economic ideology like capitalism or communism. As will be discussed further, the essential principle applies to any kind of identity politics that distinguishes between "Us" and a "Them" and asserts "Our" interests as primary. At what point, then, does this basic pattern, which is neither good nor bad in itself, become malevolent and get properly labeled as "fascist"? One could say that it turns ugly when sports fans, for example, start physically assaulting one another rather than just rooting for the home team. At the scale of international relations, when nationalism becomes aggressive and predatory, then we can clearly identify the pattern as fascistic. The simplest manifestation is that of the schoolyard bully, usually consisting of a leader and his loyal followers. Writ large, it supplies the tacit or explicit rationale for all wars.

It must be stressed that there is nothing inherently wrong with group identification. On the contrary, without it we would be alienated and lost. The turning point is when a healthy sense of group pride turns into belligerent arrogance and racism; when patriotism becomes an excuse for hating foreigners, when we start dehumanizing and vilifying others, when we go along with a party line that gives us the right to oppress and dispossess outsiders.

Usage

Many observers have remarked that people use the words "fascist" or "fascism" in a context that has only the vaguest reference, if any, to historical events that occurred in the previous century. However, there is a remarkable consistency to the usage that is commonly overlooked. First of all, it is always negative, something to be rejected and actively opposed. Second, it is always used to refer to something characteristic of a particular group of people unlike us, people with whom "we" don't identify, all of whom have in common this "fascistic" quality. And it always contains some explicit or implicit accusation of injustice, abuse of power and arbitrary use of force. At this point it should be becoming clear that fascism is a word that may have been coined in the context of 20th century European politics, but which has been adopted in popular speech to refer to something far more basic, universal and timeless, for which no handier term existed. I suspect that the peculiar potency of the word derives from the enormously successful wartime propaganda of the Allies that strove to identify "our enemies" du jour with evil incarnate, and kept alive through a myriad of films, books and the approved version of history taught to young people. It is no accident that fascists are always the "other," while "we" are always both the victims and the heroic warriors keeping "them" at bay.

Let's look at some circumstances in which a person or some group of people are typically labeled fascist. Children sometimes accuse their parents, or caretakers, of being fascists. What they mean is that their liberty to do as they please is being unfairly circumscribed. No, you can't stay up late playing video games. You can't sleep over with your friends, or whatever. They are fascists because they have used the authority vested in their position to control your behavior and activities. You must comply, because they have a monopoly on the use of force, the ability to withold whatever you want or feel you need and are entitled to, and in the last resort, to inflict physical punishment if you do not obey. Another frequent use of the term occurs in the context of confrontations with the police. They represent authority, as signified by their uniforms and the fact that they are armed and have the government sanctioned option to use their weapons. Nowadays, in our generally disaffected mood, the Government is commonly perceived to be fascist. Here, the relationship to the Roman fasces is obvious - they are identified with the State and its power. A wonderful example of the notion of fascism as it is popularly understood is the character of Nurse Ratchett in Ken Kesey's classic "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." She represents the absolute and arbitrary power of established authority to control others' lives. One might accuse one's boss of being a fascist for exactly such reasons. They have the authority and the power and, as you see it, they abuse it.

In terms of politics, the term is generally employed in reference to parties whose ideology asserts a prerogative to rule based on ethnocentric supremacy, a form of extreme nationalism. However, it has been applied to a variety of political views based on group identity if that identity is used as a rationale for precedence over others. "We" could just as easily be "the working class" as self-proclaimed representatives of national or religious identity. It is useful to remember that both the Italian Fascist party and the Nazis considered themselves to be socialist, while the Spanish and Japanese parties openly appealed to conservative, traditionalist sentiments. In terms of a useful definition of fascism, these distinctions are meaningless.

Let's try a thought experiment to test our own fascist propensities. Create a mental list of those characteristics that constitute your identify. I will provide an example by doing this for myself. I am male, Caucasian, an American, a Jew by birth and a Buddhist by inclination, a senior citizen and retiree, a veteran, a writer, a revolutionary, left-handed and blue-eyed with dark hair. And that's just a partial survey. To what extent do I identify with each of the groups just enumerated? The answer is all of them, to a greater or lesser extent. By identify I mean that there is some emotional attachment, some sense of tribal belonging, however vague and ill-defined that might be. But is that really who I am? Note that all of the above are accidents of birth, except for being a Buddhist and a writer, which are the result of choices that I made (I enlisted in the Army when I was young, confused and looking for a place to hang my hat, and almost immediately regretted it), Also note that, with the exceptions mentioned, all of these identity groups have a story associated with them, ranging from some simple positive affirmation to a long and complicated narrative. Let's look at them one by one in terms of fascist potential.

Male - Just ask a feminist (or vice-versa)
White - Just ask anyone who isn't
American - The Free (to dominate, monopolize, control and bomb) and the Brave (when backed up by overwhelming firepower)
Jewish - When I was young I thought Chosen People meant chosen to suffer. But things morph and change, and now it appears to mean to make others suffer (see the Old Testament).
Buddhist - Yes, there are Buddhists who claim exclusive possession of the Truth
Senior/Retiree - Ah, the Gray Panthers and AARP
Veteran - Ever been to a VFW gathering?
Writer - Those who really know about stuff, the intellectual elite
Revolutionary - the Vanguard of the People (the new ruling class in waiting)
Left-handedness - Well, you know, we are more intuitive and creative
And so on and so forth...

Examples

Fascism, as herein defined, is ubiquitous and has no particular origin. It seems to make sense, then, to talk only about the two varieties with which I'm most familiar, being both an American and a Jew. Coincidentally, they also represent the greatest political challenges facing our world today.

American fascism

American fascism, by definition, became possible once the inhabitants of the Colonies began to see themselves as other than ordinary Englishmen who happened to reside on the other side of the Atlantic. They had to become an identity group. That self-perception solidified, at least among the disaffected, as soon as friction arose between the two populations, culminating in the War for Independence. Victory arrived with all of the fascist accoutrements, tribal symbols, a self-glorifying national narrative and, of course, a flag. However, those who had the responsibility of fashioning the new nation were an unusual assembly of highly educated, sophisticated people (mostly lawyers) who were well aware of the dangers the fledgling republic was facing - not external dangers, but internal ones. Much consideration went into creating obstacles to giving birth to what we are calling a fascist state. But the seeds had already been planted; America's development was dependent on the processes of genocide and slavery. If one overlooks American poaching in Canada and Florida and similar early adventures, one could say that it was pretty much a done deal once the Republic engaged in its first full-blown war of international aggression, which resulted in the acquisition of the northern half of Mexico. Not too much later, the United States proclaimed itself a full-blown Imperialist power in the European tradition with its conquest of the Spanish territorities of the Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, while at the same time grabbing Hawaii from its indigenous population.

Something needs to be said at this point about two terms that are closely related to fascism, "racism" and "imperialism." Fascism necessarily includes racism. Just as in the case of individual egoism, group ego requires the solidification of the sense of separation and distinctness from the other. Furthermore, in order to start going down the road to full-blown fascism, group identiy must become chauvinistic, that sense of overwheening pride in ourselves and our superior characteristics. The expression of this sense of superiority over others is what is called racism, and America, as we know, is a profoundly racist country and always has been - although the "other," aside from the old standbies - the blacks, the Indians and the Hispanics - kept changing depending on who the latest immigrants were. The next step, to full-blown imperialism, requires nationalistic aggression against other states. Whether to acquire loot in whatever form, or to expand control over an ever increasing territory, the drums of war are frequently heard around the land. All of this has become fully institutionalized in the U.S., to the extent that the prevailing national doctrine is now perpetual war (the current Pentagon term is "the long war"). Not that long ago President Calvin Coolidge could say that "the business of America is business." But times have changed; imperialist war - business by other means to paraphrase Clausewitz - has become our major occupation and economic activity - and, no doubt, will in due time be our undoing, as history so clearly tells us. This pattern of serial aggression, which requires creating enemies when they don't conveniently present themselves, is inherent in the dynamics of fascism. All empires have fallen when they have become fully overextended, militarily, financially, geographically and in every other respect. America now has clearly has opted for this destructive and self-defeating strategy.

Jewish fascism (aka Zionism)

Another clear, albeit bizarre, example is Israel, which would no doubt quickly implode without the requisite unifying principle of an external enemy with which the nation must always be at war, or preparing for war. I refer to it as Jewish fascism because it predates the Zionist project. When I was in Hebrew school in the early 50's, in preparation for my bar mitzvah, I thought I should read the Old Testament. What struck me was that much of it conformed to what we were being taught was the essence of fascism, though I didn't make much of it at the time. Although I haven't read it, it appears that the Talmud, the primary scripture of the Orthodox ashkenazim, is a veritable manual of Jewish fascism. (4)

Israel is exceptional in a number of ways:

1. It is the only nation that has ever been deliberately created with the express purpose of occupying foreign territory through the ethnic cleansing of its inhabitants.

2. It is the only nation that required the invention of a "people" to carry out such a settler/colonialist project (1).

3. It is the only nation to have invented a religion (the Holycause) to complement its secular political ideology (Zionism).

4. It is the only nation that is wholly parasitical, dependent on extorting the economic means to survive from other societies that it (or its agents in other countries) has effectively subverted.

Thus, Israel combines three convergent forms of fascism: ethnocentric (based on mytho-history much like the Nazi notion of an Aryan race); religious (nominally Jewish, although its founders were secular. Following the 1940's the place of Judaism as the sustaining religious identity was essentially replaced by Holocaustism, complete with a Holy Inquisition.); and, of course, virulently nationalistic. Fortuitously for the Jewish fascists, or maybe not so coincidentally (3), an extremely powerful ally emerged from within the American fascist world, the Christian Zionists. Although essentially a doomsday cult, it numbers, conservatively, 40-50 million Americans eager for Israel to build the Second Temple, thereby paving the way to Armageddon. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that, considering Israel's nuclear arsenal, endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past. Both Americans and Jews have made extraordinary positive contributions to world civilization, but a ruthless and predatory American imperialism and fascistic Zionism we can do without.

The Antidote

The inner fascist in all of us claims to be one of the "good" people, the "superior" people, the "strong" people, or the "smart" people, but whatever flavor it comes in, we are one of the "entitled" people. The antidote to such delusions is the realization that we are just people, pretty much like everybody else, with as much right to be here as anyone else (and vice-versa). This realization cuts through self-deception, protects us from buying into whatever snake-oil the zealots happen to be selling today and contains within it the possibility of a sane society, however far off and illusory that may seem. We all belong to one tribe, humanity, and if we take our cue from those whom history has deemed wise, we realize that caring for others and the environment that supports us is the key. When we attempt to separate ourselves, individually as egomaniacs or as part of some fascistic identity group, then we're only asking for trouble. We may think we are protecting ourselves by attempting to control and manipulate others, but in the end what goes around comes around, a pointless and painful cycle that reason and experience tell us to abandon. Fascism as we have been describing it is a social pathology and it can legitimately be considered humanity's most urgent public health problem. If enough people come to understand what the disease is and how to diagnose it, perhaps there will emerge a means to inoculate ourselves. At this point American and Jewish fascism appear to have converged into an aggressive pathological force that endangers humanity more than any such phenomenon in the past.

In the short term, it is imperative to dissolve the Jewish state of Israel. Such a state, which has no basis other than a fascistic narrative constructed out of paranoia and mythology, has no legitimacy in our world. It embodies all of the characteristics that humanity has resoundingly rejected in the last century - settler colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide. The dehumanization and destruction of a people, along with the dispossession of their land and property, is utterly intolerable. The only feasible alternative is its replacement by a pluralistic, democratic state that includes the Palestinians as equals. There is no other viable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a conflict that threatens to engulf the entire planet in nuclear devastation. In the long term, we must overcome the tendency to adopt belief systems that are based on blind faith, whether they take the form of political or religious dogmas. Only then can we grow up and have the opportunity to create a truly sane world.

Notes:

1. American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic, by Carl Herman

2. The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand

"...According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."...

3. Scofield Bible made uncompromising Zionists out of tens of millions of Americans, by Maidhc Ó Cathail

4. The Babylonian Talmud (Complete Soncino English Translation)

“Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.” - 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer

U.S. Sen. John McCain declared national hero of Georgia

RIA Novosti reports:

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili awarded on Monday the National Hero of Georgia title to U.S. Senator John McCain.

McCain, along with Senators John Barrasso and John Thune, arrived in Georgia on Sunday. The award ceremony was held on Monday in the southwestern Georgian resort of Batumi.

"The fact that a part of Georgia is free today is the achievement of our friends. It was the idea of freedom that stopped [Russian] tanks in Georgia," Saakashvili said. (What? Until now we had been told that what "stopped" the Russians was the glorious Georgian military and now we are told that the Russian tanks were stopped by and *idea*?! - VS)

The U.S. senator, who repeatedly expressed his support for Georgia during and after its August 2008 military conflict with Russia, told Saakashvili by telephone on the day the ceasefire was agreed that "Today we are all Georgians."
-------
Commentary: clearly, the Georgians are "loosing it" and lunacy has become the hallmark of Georgian politics.

Iran accuses the USA and Israel of assassinating and kidnapping scientists

Iran's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it has found traces of US and Israel's involvement in the assassination of an Iranian nuclear physics scientist. "Primary investigations into the assassination revealed signs of the involvement of the Zionist regime [Israel], the US and their allies in Iran," spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said. Professor Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, a lecturer at Tehran University, was killed by a booby-trapped motorbike blast in the Iranian capital earlier in the day.

Very creatively, the BBC's report added that "There was also confusion as to whether the attack had any political overtones. One university official said Mr Mohammadi was not a political figure. But other reports said his name appeared on a list of academics backing opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi before the 2009 presidential election" thereby hinting that the Iranian government had decided to blow-up one of its own nuclear scientists.

It might be useful to remember that Iran has recenlty accused Saudi Arabia of kidnapping one of its nuclear scientists and handing him over to Uncle Sam.

Russia, China, Iran redraw energy map

By M K Bhadrakumar for The Asia Times:

The inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran pipeline on Wednesday connecting Iran's northern Caspian region with Turkmenistan's vast gas field may go unnoticed amid the Western media cacophony that it is "apocalypse now" for the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The event sends strong messages for regional security. Within the space of three weeks, Turkmenistan has committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia and Iran. It has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing. Are we hearing the faint notes of a Russia-China-Iran symphony?

The 182-kilometer Turkmen-Iranian pipeline starts modestly with the pumping of 8 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas. But its annual capacity is 20bcm, and that would meet the energy requirements of Iran's Caspian region and enable Tehran to free its own gas production in the southern fields for export. The mutual interest is perfect: Ashgabat gets an assured market next door; northern Iran can consume without fear of winter shortages; Tehran can generate more surplus for exports; Turkmenistan can seek transportation routes to the world market via Iran; and Iran can aspire to take advantage of its excellent geographical location as a hub for the Turkmen exports.

We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan hold respectively the world's largest, second-largest and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to the US global strategy.



The Turkmen-Iranian pipeline mocks the US's Iran policy. The US is threatening Iran with new sanctions and claims Tehran is "increasingly isolated". But Mahmud Ahmadinejad's presidential jet winds its way through a Central Asian tour and lands in Ashgabat for a red-carpet welcome by his Turkmen counterpart, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, and a new economic axis emerges. Washington's coercive diplomacy hasn't worked. Turkmenistan, with a gross domestic product of US$18.3 billion, defied the sole superpower (GDP of $14.2 trillion) - and, worse still, made it look routine.

There are subplots, too. Tehran claims to have a deal with Ankara to transport Turkmen gas to Turkey via the existing 2,577km pipeline connecting Tabriz in northwestern Iran with Ankara. Indeed, Turkish diplomacy has an independent foreign-policy orientation. Turkey also aspires to be a hub for Europe's energy supplies. Europe may be losing the battle for establishing direct access to the Caspian.

Second, Russia does not seem perturbed by China tapping into Central Asian energy. Europe's need for Russian energy imports has dropped and Central Asian energy-producing countries are tapping China's market. From the Russian point of view, China's imports should not deprive it of energy (for its domestic consumption or exports). Russia has established deep enough presence in the Central Asian and Caspian energy sector to ensure it faces no energy shortage.

What matters most to Russia is that its dominant role as Europe's No 1 energy provider is not eroded. So long as the Central Asian countries have no pressing need for new US-backed trans-Caspian pipelines, Russia is satisfied.

During his recent visit to Ashgabat, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev normalized Russian-Turkmen energy ties. The restoration of ties with Turkmenistan is a major breakthrough for both countries. One, a frozen relationship is being resumed substantially, whereby Turkmenistan will maintain an annual supply of 30bcm to Russia. Two, to quote Medvedev, "For the first time in the history of Russian-Turkmen relations, gas supplies will be carried out based on a price formula that is absolutely in line with European gas market conditions." Russian commentators say Gazprom will find it unprofitable to buy Turkmen gas and if Moscow has chosen to pay a high price, that is primarily because of its resolve not to leave gas that could be used in alternative pipelines, above all in the US-backed Nabucco project.




Third, contrary to Western propaganda, Ashgabat does not see the Chinese pipeline as a substitute for Gazprom. Russia's pricing policy ensures that Ashgabat views Gazprom as an irreplaceable customer. The export price of the Turkmen gas to be sold to China is still under negotiation and the agreed price simply cannot match the Russian offer.

Fourth, Russia and Turkmenistan reiterated their commitment to the Caspian Coastal Pipeline (which will run along the Caspian's east coast toward Russia) with a capacity of 30bcm. Evidently, Russia hopes to cluster additional Central Asian gas from Turkmenistan (and Kazakhstan).

Fifth, Moscow and Ashgabat agreed to build jointly an east-west pipeline connecting all Turkmen gas fields to a single network so that the pipelines leading toward Russia, Iran and China can draw from any of the fields.

Indeed, against the backdrop of the intensification of the US push toward Central Asia, Medvedev's visit to Ashgabat impacted on regional security. At the joint press conference with Medvedev, Berdymukhammedov said the views of Turkmenistan and Russia on the regional processes, particularly in Central Asia and the Caspian region, were generally the same. He underlined that the two countries were of the view that the security of one cannot be achieved at the expense of the other. Medvedev agreed that there was similarity or unanimity between the two countries on issues related to security and confirmed their readiness to work together.

The United States' pipeline diplomacy in the Caspian, which strove to bypass Russia, elbow out China and isolate Iran, has foundered. Russia is now planning to double its intake of Azerbaijani gas, which further cuts into the Western efforts to engage Baku as a supplier for Nabucco. In tandem with Russia, Iran is also emerging as a consumer of Azerbaijani gas. In December, Azerbaijan inked an agreement to deliver gas to Iran through the 1,400km Kazi-Magomed-Astara pipeline.

The "big picture" is that Russia's South Stream and North Stream, which will supply gas to northern and southern Europe, have gained irreversible momentum. The stumbling blocks for North Stream have been cleared as Denmark (in October), Finland and Sweden (in November) and Germany (in December) approved the project from the environmental angle. The pipeline's construction will commence in the spring.

The $12-billion pipeline built jointly by Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and the Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie bypasses the Soviet-era transit routes via Ukraine, Poland and Belarus and runs from the northwestern Russian port of Vyborg to the German port of Greifswald along a 1,220km route under the Baltic Sea. The first leg of the project with a carrying capacity of 27.5bcm annually will be completed next year and the capacity will double by 2012. North Stream will profoundly affect the geopolitics of Eurasia, trans-Atlantic equations and Russia's ties with Europe.

To be sure, 2009 proved to be a momentous year for the "energy war". The Chinese pipeline inaugurated by President Hu Jintao on December 14; the oil terminal near the port city of Nakhodka in Russia's far east inaugurated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on December 27 (which will be served by the mammoth $22-billion oil pipeline from the new fields in eastern Siberia leading to China and the Asia-Pacific markets); and the Iranian pipeline inaugurated by Ahmadinejad on January 6 - the energy map of Eurasia and the Caspian has been virtually redrawn.

The year 2010 begins on a fascinating new note: will Russia, China and Iran coordinate future moves or at least harmonize their competing interests?

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey

Venezuela to reinforce troops on Colombia border with Russian tanks

Ria-Novosti reports:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced plans for the deployment of new Russian-made tanks and combat helicopters on the border with Colombia.

Ties between Venezuela and Colombia deteriorated last August after Washington signed a deal with Bogota allowing U.S. forces to run anti-drug operations from Colombian bases. Chavez has criticized the deal and called for the Venezuelan people and army to prepare for a war.

"We are expecting the arrival of the first shipment of tanks [from Russia] which will be sent to Barracas [in the state of Barinas] to reinforce a motorized infantry brigade," Chavez said in his weekly TV program, Alo Presidente, on Sunday.

"In addition, attack helicopters arriving from Russia will be deployed along the Colombian border," he said.

Chavez secured a $2.2 loan from Russia during his visit to Moscow last September for the purchase of 92 T-72 main battle tanks, an undisclosed number of Smerch multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), and a variety of air defense systems, including the advanced S-300 complexes.

Between 2005 and 2007, Moscow and Caracas signed 12 contracts worth more than $4.4 billion to supply arms to Venezuela, including fighter jets, helicopters and Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Venezuelan military already has nearly 200 tanks, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, while Colombia has no tank units.
-------
Note: This article mentions specifically the T-72 MBT, the S-300 air defense complex and Smerch MLRS. As far as I know, the "jet fighters" in question are SU-30MKV (a variant of the SU-30MK2 with anti-shipping capabilities), the "Kalashnikovs" are modern AK-101, and the "variety of air defense systems" refers to the 9k38 Igla MANPADS and the Tor-M1 air defense system. The helicopters are Mi-17B multirole helicopters, Mi-35 Hind E attack helicopters and Mi-26 Halo heavy transport helicopters. Finally, Venezuela is also negotiating the purchase of several dozen Ilyushin Il-114 patrol planes and 10 Mi-28N Havoc attack helicopters. Venezuela also expressed interest in the new Su-35 fighter. The Russian government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta reported that the Venezuelan military plans to buy six conventionally powered submarines. Moreover, Caracas wants to acquire several dozen surface warships, including Project 14310 Mirage patrol boats, which are floating missile platforms that can destroy any ship seven to 130 kilometers away.

The ‘Underwear Bomber’ story reeks to high heaven

The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

by Tom Burghardt for Dissident Voice

Despite some $40 billion dollars spent by the American people on airline security since 2001, allegedly to thwart attacks on the heimat, the botched attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day was foiled, not by a bloated counterterrorist bureaucracy, but by the passengers themselves.

Talk about validating that old Wobbly slogan: Direct action gets the goods!

And yet, the closer one looks at the available evidence surrounding the strange case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the more sinister alleged “intelligence failures” become. As this story unfolds it is becoming abundantly clear that U.S. security officials had far more information on the would-be lap bomber than we’ve been told.

The Observer revealed January 3 that the British secret state had Abdulmutallab on their radar for several years and that he had become “politically involved” with “extremist networks” while a student at University College London, where he served as president of the Islamic Society.

Examining “e-mail and text traffic,” security officers claim to have belatedly discovered that “he has been in contact with jihadists from across the world since 2007.”

Indeed, The Sunday Times disclosed that the 23-year-old terrorism suspect was “‘reaching out’ to extremists whom MI5 had under surveillance.” The officials said that Abdulmutallab was “’starting out on a journey’ in Britain” that culminated with last week’s attempt to destroy Flight 253.

It is claimed by unnamed “British officials” that “none of this information was passed” to their American counterparts; on the face of it, this appears to be a rank mendacity.

The Sunday Times further reported that security officials have “now passed a file” to American counterterrorism officers that show “his repeated contacts with MI5 targets who were subject to phone taps, email intercepts and other forms of surveillance.”

None of this should surprise anyone, however. In light of multiple prior warnings which preceded past terrorist atrocities, the selective leaking of information to the British media in its own way, buttresses the official story that the near-tragedy aboard Flight 253 was simply the result of ubiquitous “intelligence failures.”

But as we have seen with Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and Mohammad Sidique Khan, Abdulmutallab’s “journey” was one undertaken by many before, often with a wink-and-a-nod by British and American security officials when it served the geostrategic ambitions of their political masters.

As security researcher and analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote in New Internationalist in October: “Islamist terrorism cannot be understood without acknowledging the extent to which its networks are being used by Western military intelligence services, both to control strategic energy resources and to counter their geopolitical rivals. Even now, nearly a decade after 9/11, covert sponsorship of al-Qaeda networks continues.”

Networks which Ahmed and other analysts such as Michel Chossudovsky, Peter Dale Scott and Richard Labévière have painstakingly documented, enjoy the closest ties with Western intelligence agencies stretching back decades.

That intelligence officers, including those at the highest levels of the secret state’s security apparat, did nothing to hamper an alleged al-Qaeda operative from getting on that plane–in a chilling echo of the 9/11 attacks–calls into question the thin tissue of lies outlined in the official narrative.

An Intelligence “Failure,” or a Wild “Success” for Security Corporations?

Charged December 26 with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner, according to The Washington Post Abdulmutallab “was listed in a U.S. terrorism database.”

The Post reported that the suspect’s name “was added in November to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE.” It is further described as a “catch-all list” which “contains about 550,000 individuals” and is maintained by “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center.”

However, The New York Times revealed December 31 that the “National Security Agency four months ago intercepted conversations among leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man for a coming terrorist attack.”

Times‘ reporters Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton, citing unnamed “government officials,” disclosed that “the electronic intercepts were translated and disseminated across classified computer networks” months before Abdulmutallab boarded Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

But when the NSA intercepts landed at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), analysts there “did not synthesize the eavesdropping intelligence with information gathered in November” when Abdulmutallab’s father provided the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria crucial information on his son’s involvement with the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as al-Qaeda.

Seeking comment from NCTC proved to be a daunting task. As the Times delicately put it, “officials at the counterterrorist center … maintained a stoic silence on Wednesday, noting that the review ordered by President Obama was still under way.”

Despite revelations in the British press, the White House maintains that U.S. intelligence agencies “did not miss a ’smoking gun’” that could have prevented the botched attack, the Associated Press reported January 3.

White House aide John Brennan, citing “lapses” and “errors” in sharing intelligence said, “There was no single piece of intelligence that said, ‘this guy is going to get on a plane.’”

As we will soon see, Mr. Brennan has every reason to hide behind such mendacities.

Investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, the author of the essential book Spies For Hire, reported in CorpWatch, that NCTC is an outsourced counterterrorist agency chock-a-block with security contractors in the heavily-leveraged homeland security market.

Indeed, The Analysis Corporation (TAC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of defense and intelligence contractor Global Strategies Group/North America, “specializes in providing counterterrorism analysis and watchlists to U.S. government agencies.”

“It is best known” according to Shorrock, “for its connection to John O. Brennan, its former CEO, a 35-year veteran of the CIA and currently President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser. Brennan, the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), retired from government in November 2005 and immediately joined TAC.”

Shorrock reports that “much of TAC’s business is with the NCTC itself. In fact, the NCTC is one of the company’s largest customers, and TAC provides counterterrorism (CT) support to ‘most of the agencies within the intelligence community,’ according to a company press release. One of its biggest customers is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which manages the NCTC.”

“During the 1990s” Shorrock relates, “TAC developed the U.S. government’s first terrorist database, ‘Tipoff,’ on behalf of the State Department.”

Shorrock chronicles how “the database was initially conceived as a tool to help U.S. consular officials and customs inspectors determine if foreigners trying to enter the United States were known or suspected terrorists.”

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent reorganization of the U.S. security bureaucracy, the investigative journalist tells us that “in 2003, management of the database–which received information collected by a large number of agencies including the CIA, NSA, and FBI–was transferred to the CIA’s Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and, later, to the National Counterterrorism Center.”

“In 2005″ Shorrock discloses, “Tipoff was expanded and renamed the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, and fingerprint and facial recognition software was added to help identify suspects as they crossed U.S. borders.”

Despite the utter worthlessness of a bloated database containing more than 1.3 million names according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and not the grossly undercounted figure of 550,000 cited by corporate media, TIDE has been a boon for TAC.

“In the five years after 9/11″ Shorrock reveals, “its income quintupled, from less than $5 million in 2001 to $24 million in 2006. In 2006, TAC increased its visibility in the intelligence community by creating a ’senior advisory board’ that included three heavy hitters from the CIA: former Director George J. Tenet, former Chief Information Officer Alan Wade, and former senior analyst John P. Young.”

And what have the American people gained from inflating the corporatist bottom line? In light of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, not much.

As investigative journalists Susan and Joseph Trento revealed in their overlooked but highly-disturbing 2006 book, Unsafe At Any Altitude, most of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqed “were flagged by CAPPS (Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System).”

But because of CIA and FBI monkey-business that rendered watch-list information useless to stop suspected terrorists from boarding an airliner, “the only thing that was done as a result was that the baggage of several members of the Al Qaeda team was held on the ground until the cabin crew confirmed they had boarded as passengers.”

And when you consider that Abdulmutallab didn’t even have any baggage to check, alleged security “lapses” are even more glaring.

According to the Trentos, “the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security refuse to give the airlines an accurate no fly list, thereby allowing the most threatening terrorists to continue to fly.” Is there a pattern here? You bet there is!

An unnamed “counterterrorist official” told The Wall Street Journal December 31: “‘If you look back to these audit reports, there are significant issues raised with the accuracy and omissions to the watchlisting process that haven’t been fixed, clearly,’ as of Dec. 25. ‘Essentially you’re screening blindly, and that’s not effective’.”

However, we can be sure there will be very little in the way of a hard-hitting investigation into this alleged security breach. The New York Times reported that TAC’s former CEO John O. Brennan, has been “granted a special ethics waiver … to conduct a review of the intelligence and screening breakdown that preceded the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on an American passenger plane over Detroit.”

Enter the CIA, Stage (Far) Right

What “other government agency” may have suppressed intelligence on the would-be bomber?

The CBS Evening News revealed December 29 that “as early as August of 2009,” tracking closely with the time-frame of NSA intercepts, “the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed ‘The Nigerian,’ suspected of meeting with ‘terrorist elements’ in Yemen.”

Unnamed “intelligence sources” told CBS, “‘The Nigerian’ has now turned out to be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.” But that connection “was not made when Abdulmutallab’s father went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria three months later, on November 19, 2009. It was then he expressed deep concerns to a CIA officer about his son’s ties to extremists in Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity.” CBS claims “this information was not connected until after the attempted Christmas Day bombing.”

Earlier reports have alleged that Umar’s father, a wealthy Nigerian banker and former high state official, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had only provided Embassy officials with a vague concern that his son’s estrangement “may have” something to do with his growing “religious fervor.” This too, turns out to be a lie.

The Times reported that a “family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: ‘Look at the texts he’s sending. He’s a security threat’.”

Nothing vague in this disclosure, but rather more concrete evidence in the form of “texts” which we now know were shortstopped by British security and included “phone taps, email intercepts and other forms of surveillance” by MI5 that led an anguished father to express well-placed fears about his son to U.S officials.

But as the Times were told by their source, “They promised to look into it. They didn’t take him seriously.”

And here’s where things take a decidedly malevolent turn. According to the Times, “C.I.A. officials in Nigeria also prepared a separate report compiling biographical information about Mr. Abdulmutallab, including his educational background and the fact that he was considering pursuing academic studies in Islamic law in Yemen.”

“That cable was sent to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va.,” Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton disclosed, “but not disseminated to other intelligence agencies, government officials said on Wednesday.”

Then again, perhaps they knew all-too-well of Abdulmutallab’s glide path and chose instead to turn a blind eye. Coming on the heels of disclosures in the British media, the evidence suggests that CIA intelligence provided by NSA intercepts, their own on-the-ground operatives in Yemen and MI5 surveillance reports were scrupulously ignored by factions within the secret state who sat on critical information that withheld, would disarm and paralyze normal security procedures in the face of an attack they knew was imminent.

We were told by corporate media, infamously serving as an echo chamber for grifting politicians, Bushist officials and the 9/11 Commission’s 2004 whitewash, that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks resulted from “a failure of imagination” by counterterrorism officials to “connect the dots.”

Seems there were plenty of “dots” in Abdulmutallab’s case and yet, inexplicably, if you buy the official story, and sinisterly, if you don’t, not a single one was “connected” prior to the time he took his seat on Flight 253.

Despite the fact that Abdulmutallab was denied re-entry into Britain, paid $2,800 in cash for his “ticket to Paradise,” and had no luggage that normally would accompany a person holding a 2-year entry visa into the U.S., the erstwhile lap bomber scored a goal each time and eluded every intrusive “profile” presumably in place to keep us “safe.” Talk about a hat trick!

Available evidence suggests that Abdulmutallab should have landed on TSA’s hush-hush “Selectee list” for additional screening, or the agency’s “No-fly list.” And given NSA intercepts and a CIA biographical report on the suspect, this alone should have barred him from entering the country if “normal” security procedures were followed. They weren’t.

As The Independent on Sunday reported last week, “the revelation of Abdulmutallab’s background has confounded terror experts.” One such “expert,” Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, told IoS that “the attempted bombing ‘didn’t square’.”

“On the one hand” Ranstorp said, “it seems he’s been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list.”

“That doesn’t square” Ranstorp elaborated, “because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don’t understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list.”

Good question, Dr. Ranstorp. Perhaps because someone wanted him on that plane. The question is, who?

One would have thought, given the “special treatment” afforded antiwar activists by TSA at airports, that a warning about Abdulmutallab’s possible involvement with terrorists, by his own father no less, a former top official in a government friendly to Washington, numerous NSA intercepts, a CIA dossier and MI5 reports would have raised at least one red flag!

In the suspect’s case, there were so many red flags flying you’d have thought the Red Army was parading through Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport!

Then again, perhaps Abdulmutallab was on that plane because, as journalist Daniel Hopsicker was told by a former aviation executive during his investigation of the 9/11 attacks: “Sometimes when things don’t make business sense … its because they do make sense…just in some other way.”

As the World Socialist Web Site points out:

The general outlines of the Northwest bombing attempt and the 9/11 attacks are startlingly similar. One might even say that what is involved is a modus operandi. In both cases, those alleged to have carried out the actions had been the subject of US intelligence investigations and surveillance and had been allowed to enter the country and board flights under conditions that would normally have set off multiple security alarms.

Both then and now, the government and the media expect the public to accept that all that was involved was mistakes. But why should anyone assume that the failure to act on the extensive intelligence leading to Abdulmutallab involved merely “innocent” mistakes–and not something far more sinister? (Bill Van Auken, “The Northwest Flight 253 intelligence failure: Negligence or conspiracy?,” World Socialist Web Site, December 31, 2009)

And so dear readers with are left to ponder the question, cui bono? Who would benefit politically from a major terrorist incident on American soil, ready, willing and able to step into the breach and exploit the catastrophic loss of human life that would follow in its wake?

Who indeed.

-------

Mossad Tied to ‘Underwear Bomber’ (thanks to L for this article - VS)

By Victor Thorn for American Free Press

“His explosives couldn’t have blown up his own seat. Even if full power, it wouldn’t have worked.” These were the words relayed to me during a Jan. 2 interview with military analyst and counterinsurgency specialist Gordon Duff in regard to the attempt of Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab [sometimes referred to as Abdulmutallab] to ignite 80 grams of the explosive PETN on a flight destined for America. He also explained how the patsy’s country of origin, Nigeria, is clandestinely controlled by the Israeli army and Mossad.

These entities train the military, sell weapons, run the airports, and wield power over DICON (Defense Industries Corporation). Furthermore, Mutallab’s father is a Mossad partner and Israel’s No. 1 contact in Nigeria. As the former CEO of his country’s most influential bank and the man who ran their national arms industry, Mr. Mutallab also harbors extremely close relationships with the U.S. ambassador and CIA chief in Nigeria.

On Nov. 19, 2009, Mutallab supposedly felt so alarmed about his errant son’s behavior that he met with the CIA’s station chief in Nigeria. Duff describes the father in a Dec. 31 article for Veterans Today as “one of the richest people in the world, head of a major bank, head of the national
armaments industry, and close associate of the U.S. ambassador,” as well as being a Mossad asset. Yet we’re to believe that nobody prevented his Yemeni-influenced “terrorist” son from boarding a plane ultimately bound for Detroit?

Another significant detail is being neglected by mainstream media sources. The firm in charge of security at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport is the Israeli-owned International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS).They’re also the same outfit responsible for all three airports used by “Muslim hijackers” on 9-11. ICTS also handled security for London’s bus system during their 7-7 “Muslim bombing,” while doing the same at Charles de Gaulle Airport when “shoe bomber” Richard Reid boarded a plane in Paris on Dec. 22, 2001.

When a Michigan passenger, attorney Kurt Haskell, reported that a “well-dressed” Indian man arranged for Umar Mutallab to perform a “walkaround” without a passport in Amsterdam, ICTS was one of only a few entities that could have permitted this security breach to take place.

Despite tighter screening processes since 9-11, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 experienced no delays in takeoff. According to the Mathaba News Agency on Jan. 2, “It is evident that clearing the terrorist with higher-ups took a matter of a minute or so—the ‘Indian’ obviously had a high-level pass (CIA, Mossad or high-level security clout).”

Then, during the flight, onlookers noted that another passenger spent a great deal of time filming 23-year-old Mutallab with his camcorder. Even stranger, once the suspect tried to ignite his “crotch bomb,” Mathaba reported, “Throughout the incident, the man continued recording the terrorist, calmly and without interruption.”

Next, after the plane landed, another Indian man was led away in handcuffs after bomb-sniffing dogs smelled explosives in his luggage. Now, more than a week later, officials have refused to release Schiphol CCTV airport footage from Amsterdam, the air-bound “video passenger” film, or identify the man arrested in Detroit.

This Indian link doesn’t surprise Duff. “Israel and India are very close business partners, especially via their military contracts. Also, the Indian intelligence agency (Research and Analysis Wing) works hand-in-hand with Israel. Essentially, the two governments are one.”

But the Mossad’s reach extends even further, directly into the country where Mutallab purportedly trained. On Oct. 7, 2008, BBC News reported, “Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said that security forces have arrested a group of alleged Islamist militants linked to Israeli intelligence.”

The ties go even deeper, straight to Mutallab’s home country. In a Sept. 5, 2008 article by Tashikalmah Hallah and Francis Okeke entitled “Nigeria: Lawmakers Divided Over Mossad,” Sen. Nuhu Aliyu voiced his support for their pact with Israel. “They (Mossad) are professionals, and they are here to help train our own intelligence agents. I don’t see any way by which their presence in the country poses a threat to our national security.”

One final element of the equation needs to be addressed; specifically, the “terrorist cell” that ostensibly trained Mutallab prior to his Christmas Day terror attempt.

However, Duff paints an entirely different picture. “There is no al-Qaeda in Yemen. George Bush released a couple of phony operatives from Guantanamo, and after traveling to the Middle East, they hooked up with the Mossad. The only reason Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez released them is because they’re assets.”

Of course, the American public is being misled again into believing that this “lone nut” terrorist sneaked through the system (no-fly lists, airport scrutiny etc) due to mere incompetence, similar to what occurred on 9-11.

Yet Israeli intelligence provided security at the Amsterdam Airport, where Mutallab boarded a plane with no passport; the NSA is equipped to electronically eavesdrop anywhere around the world; the Mossad is tied to Yemen, Nigeria and India; while the suspect’s father opened up banking and arms contacts in the Middle East while harboring an extremely close relationship with American and Israeli intelligence.

What we’re being fed is another propagandized cover story that is intended to keep ratcheting up Orwellian-style trauma and fear, all the while further spreading our global “terror war” to Yemen and the African continent.
-------
Commentary: I cannot comment on the truth of any of the allegations made by Tom Burghardt and Victor Thorn, but it is quite clear to me that both the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" were not in any sense of the word a "real" attempt at blowing up a plane. In both cases it is absolutely clear that we are dealing with a "useful idiot" used by some agency in order to frighten the public. Predictably, some "doubleplusgoodthinking" pundits immediately concluded that "9/11 Truthers (are) Foiled by 12/25 Attack". Equally predictably, President Obomb'ya not only got to look "tough" and "patriotic", but he now has a hyper-pious excuse to engage in any military operation in Yemen to rescue his Saudi allies. If we ask ourselves basic cui bono question we can only come to one conclusion: the USraelian Empire. Ditto for "motive, means and oportunity". I bet you next time the clothes-terrorist will be Venezuelan or Iranian.

US Imperial innovation: subversion goes private (has anybody noticed?)

CIA Agents assassinated in Afghanistan worked for “contractor” active in Venezuela, Cuba reports Eva Golinger for her blog Postcard from the Revolution

At least eight U.S. citizens were killed on a CIA operations base in Afghanistan this past Wednesday, December 30. A suicide bomber infiltrated Forward Operating Base Chapman located in the eastern province of Khost, which was a CIA center of operations and surveillance. Official sources in Washington have confirmed that the eight dead were all civilian employees and CIA contractors.

Fifteen days ago, five U.S. citizens working for a U.S. government contractor, Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), were also killed in an explosion at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) office in Gardez. That same day, another bomb exploded outside the DAI offices in Kabul, although no serious injuries resulted.

The December 15 incident received little attention, although it occurred just days after the detention of a DAI employee in Cuba, accused of subversion and distribution of illegal materials to counterrevolutionary groups. President and CEO of DAI, Jim Boomgard, issued a declaration on December 14 regarding the detention of a subcontractor from his company in Cuba, confirming that, “the detained individual was an employee of a program subcontractor, which was implementing a competitively issued subcontract to assist Cuban civil society organizations.” The statement also emphasized the “new program” DAI is managing for the U.S. government in Cuba, the “Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program”. DAI was awarded a $40 million USD contract in 2008 to help the U.S. government “support the peaceful activities of a broad range of nonviolent organizations through competitively awarded grants and subcontracts” in Cuba.

On December 15, DAI published a press release mourning “project personnel killed in Afghanistan”. “DAI is deeply saddened to report the deaths of five staff associated with our projects in Afghanistan…On December 15, five employees of DAI’s security subcontractor were killed by an explosion in the Gardez office of the Local Governance and Community Development (LGCD) Program, a USAID project implemented by DAI.”

DAI also runs a program in Khost where the December 30 suicide bombing occurred, although it has yet to be confirmed if the eight U.S. citizens killed were working for the major U.S. government contractor. From the operations base in Khost, the CIA remotely controls its selective assassination program against alleged Al Qaeda members in Pakistan and Afghanistan using drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) Predator planes.

A high-level USAID official confirmed two weeks ago that the CIA uses USAID’s name to issue contracts and funding to third parties in order to provide cover for clandestine operations. The official, a veteran of the U.S. government agency, stated that the CIA issues such contracts without USAID’s full knowledge.

Since June 2002, USAID has maintained an Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Venezuela, through which it has channeled more than $50 million USD to groups and individuals opposed to President Hugo Chávez. The same contractor active in Afghanistan and connected with the CIA, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), was awarded a multi-million dollar budget from USAID in Venezuela to “assist civil society and the transition to democracy”. More than two thousand documents partially declassified from USAID regarding the agency’s activities in Venezuela reveal the relationship between DAI and sectors of the Venezuelan opposition that have actively been involved in coup d’etats, violent demonstrations and other destabilization attempts against President Chávez.

In Bolivia, USAID was expelled this year from two municipalities, Chapare and El Alto, after being accused of interventionism. In September 2009, President Evo Morales announced the termination of an official agreement with USAID allowing its operations in Bolivia, based on substantial evidence documenting the agency’s funding of violent separtist groups seeking to destabilize the country.

In 2005, USAID was also expelled from Eritrea and accused of being a “neo-colonialist” agency. Ethiopia, Russia and Belarus have ordered the expulsion of USAID and its contractors during the last five years.

Development Alternatives, Inc. is one of the largest U.S. government contractors in the world. The company, with headquarters in Bethesda, MD, presently has a $50 million contract with USAID for operations in Afghanistan. In Latin America, DAI has operations and field offices in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

This year, USAID/DAI’s budget in Venezuela nears $15 million USD and its programs are oriented towards strengthening opposition parties, candidates and campaigns for the 2010 legislative elections. Just two weeks ago, President Chávez also denounced the illegal presence of U.S. drone planes in Venezuelan airspace.
-------
Commentary: all this is another good example that people need to wake up to the reality that the USraelian Empire often uses non-governmental organizations for its covert subversive operations. It is mind boggling that nations that are clearly the prime targets of US subversive efforts such as Venezuela, or Bolivia have not followed Iran's example and simply expelled all organizations with "ties" to the USA.

On a similar note, Jeremy Scahill reported in The Nation that at least two Blackwater employee were killed in the December 30th Khost bombing in Afghanistan even though, officially, the CIA had severed all contact with Blackwater on Dec 11.

Bottom line: the US Empire's subversive activities have clearly "gone private", although In reality, they US always made use of private entities for its covert operations (see John Perkins' two books Confessions of an Economic Hitman and The Secret History of the American Empire for details). Still, in the past decade or so we can clearly see a increase in this "privatization of subversion" and the nations who are not part of the US Empire (yet) need to adapt to this reality.

Ukrainian front-runner confirms that he will keep the Ukraine out of NATO

Reuters reports that Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovich, a strong candidate for president, said he would keep the country out of NATO if he wins the January 17 Presidential election (The most recent opinion polls indicate he would beat Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in a February 7 run-off vote).

Iran bans "color-coded" organizations

You have probably already heard that Iran has banned a list of 60 foreign organizations. Here is a list of these organizations:

1. Soros Foundation -- Open Society 2. Woodrow Wilson Center 3. Freedom House 4. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) 5. National Democratic Institute (NDI) 6. International Republican Institute (IRI) 7. Institute for Democracy in East Europe (EEDI) 8. Democracy Center in East Europe (CDEE) 9. Ford Foundation 10. Rockefeller Brothers Foundation 11. Hoover Institute at Stanford University 12. Hivos Foundation, Netherlands 13. Menas, U.K. 14. United Nations Association (USA) 15. Carnegie Foundation 16. Wilton Park, U.K. 17. Search for Common Ground (SFCG) 18. Population Council 19. Washington Institute for Near East Policy 20. Aspen Institute 21. American Enterprise Institute 22. New America Foundation 23. Smith Richardson Foundation 24. German Marshall Fund (US, Germany and Belgium) 25. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict 26. Abdolrahman Boroumand Foundation 27. Yale University 28. Meridian Center 29. Foundation for Democracy in Iran 30. International Republican Institute 31. National Democratic Institute 32. American Initiative Institute 33. Institute of Democracy in Eastern Europe 34. American Aid Center 35. International Trade Center 36. American Center for International Labor Solidarity 37. International Center for Democracy Transfer 38. Community of Democracies (?) 39. Albert Einstein Institute 40. Global Movement for Democracy 41. The Democratic Youth Network 42. Democracy Information and Communication Technology Group 43. International Movement of Parliamentarians for Democracy 44.Institute of Democracy 45. RIGA Institute 46. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School 47. Council on Foreign Relations 48. Foreign Policy Committee, Germany 49. Middle East Media Research Institute 50. Centre for Democracy Studies, U.K. 51. Meridian Institute 52. Yale University and all its affiliates 53. National Defense University, U.S. 54. Iran Human Rights Documentation Center 55. American Center FLENA 56. Committee on the Present Danger 57. Brookings Institution 58. Saban Center, Brookings Institution 59. Human Rights Watch 60. New America Foundation

This list seems to be somewhat botched, as one organization is listed twice (New America Foundation). some of these are probably harmless and some that should be there are missing (I suspect that repeated translation are the issue here). But some of these are truly amazingly toxic fronts for US subversive efforts. If one looks at the recent history of the various "color-coded revolutions" or what happened in Venezuela, it is evident that what Iran did is actually an extremely wise move, even if it was ridiculed by Western pundits (in particular those who work for the above mentioned organizations).

I would hope that other countries such as Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Serbia, Belarus and many others would soon follow Iran's example and stop being idiotically blind to what these organizations (maybe not all, but definitely the most of them) really are and what their true mission is.

To all this I would personally add Doctors Without Borders which is a front for the French foreign intelligence service and the ICRC which is a front for various European intelligence services (though I don't know if either of the two are currently present in Iran).

President Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez are the only two political leaders which have succeeded in surviving a color-coded and CIA-run "revolution" and both of them are clearly thinking along the same lines (Venezuela has also banned some "democratic" organizations with "ties" to the USA). Right now the most threatened independent political leader is probably Evo Morales and I sure hope that he will soon follow their example.

If the world wants to rid itself from the rule of the USraelian Empire it better start taking active measures in disabling the instruments which this empire uses to subvert and incorporate independent countries.

Clashes in Crimea

According to Pravda.ru, Ukrainian nationalists have organized a congress in the center of the city of Sevastopol in Crimea. About 1000 local residents demonstrated under the slogan "Fascism will not pass". Clashes ensued. About 300 demonstrators were able to break through the police barriers and were then violently engaged by police special forces. A number of arrests were made.
-------
Commentary: there we go, exactly as I predicted. The Ukrainian nationalists are staging their meetings in the city center of Sevastopol exactly under the same logic which brings the Israeli settlers to organize "religious" events smack in the middle of Palestinian villages: the point is to trigger a violent response which can then be legally crushed under the heading of "law and order".

For the Ukrainian nationalists an overt conflict with the Russian-speaking population is the best, if not only, way to bring the public's attention away from the absolute disaster in which 18 years of independence have resulted in and to focus all the attention on "patriotic" actions.

There is an very ugly historical precedent: the sudden and violent invasion of the Trans-Dniester Republic by Moldavian forces in 1992 resulting in the local Russian 14th Army being very reluctantly involved in the conflict, primarily because the officers' families were directly endangered by the assault. This could also happen in Crimea where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based. A particularly ominous development in this situation was the demand made by the Ukrainian government that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) withdraw all its officers from Crimea by December 13, 2009. Needless to say, the Russian simply cannot let its Fleet and dependent civilians unprotected in such a dangerous context, thus this demand will simply force the FSB to operate illegally (and increase the force protection mission of the GRU).

Reagan’s ghost: Starwars stops START

Hopes are fading that the historical treaty between the US and the Soviet Union will be renewed, observes Eric Walberg

Russian confidence that US President Barack Obama might represent a fundamental change in the direction of US foreign policy is fast eroding. Even pro-Western analyst Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre reflects, “The people who see Russia as a problem are still at the Pentagon,” and he predicts that even if Obama lasts another seven years, the Russians are coming to the conclusion that “he may not be able to withstand the pressures on him.”

The hope, as recently s a month ago was that a new version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (SALT) might be successfully negotiated. But Obama’s two other surges — NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and the rush to implement the US missile defence system around the world — follow so closely the hawkish policies of his predecessors, that whatever “Atlantists” there might be in the Kremlin have been put on the defensive, so to speak.

To blame Russia for tripping up the START talks, given the facts on the ground, is nonsense. The writing for the present impasse was on the wall even before SALT I was signed. Anyone old enough can remember Reagan in the 1980s with schoolboy enthusiasm showing the media his Disneyesque coloured charts with US satellites zapping UFOs and unnamed enemy rockets.

This was the beginning of the Starwars project which effectively ended the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union sign in 1972 to refrain from developing blanket missile defence systems, the logic being to discourage any thought of launching the unthinkable.

It was only Gorbachev’s willingness to throw in the towel and ignore Reagan’s duplicity, desperate to show some quick results of his perestroika, that allowed SALT 1 to be signed in the first place. The finishing touch came shortly after 911, when Bush II gave notice that the US was formally withdrawing from what is perhaps the most important disarmament treaty in history. Now that Russia is on its feet again, the ghost of Reagan has come back to haunt us.

Asked by a journalist just before the new year what the biggest problem was in replacing the old START treaty, Russian Prime Minister Putin said: “What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one.” “The problems of missile defence and offensive arms are very closely linked. By building such an umbrella over themselves our partners,” Putin said, with his trademark sarcasm, referring to the US, “could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want, which upsets the balance.” Stating the obvious, he added, “Aggressiveness immediately increases in real politics and economics.”

Rumour has it that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Putin disagreed over the new START treaty, with Medvedev and foreign policy advisor Sergei Prihodko inclined to ignore Starwars and sign the treaty as soon as possible to score a major foreign policy success for Medvedev. Putin and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, it is said, opposed rushing the deal, reminding Medvedev of Gorbachev’s hasty agreement with Reagan-Bush in the late 1980s and early 1990s which upset the hard-won balance-of-power policies of Stalin through Brezhnev.

But that is unlikely, as almost any Russian will tell you in unprintable language just what he thinks of Gorbachev’s follies. Medvedev would hardly want to be seen as following in these ill-starred footsteps. As his recent statements make clear, Putin is the force to reckon with on such weighty matters, and few Russians would take issue with this, as his enduring popularity shows.

So instead of a “surge” in dismantling nuclear weapons, the Russian government is reluctantly calling for more money to be spent on developing new ICBMs that cannot be disabled by US anti-missile defences. The world can only be thankful that there is some force preventing the militaristic hegemone from launching nuclear war at will.

This is not what Obama had in mind last summer when he scrapped the Bush plan to set up bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, a decision Putin called “correct and brave” at the time. But in early December, the US and Poland signed an infamous “status of forces” agreement, allowing the US to station troops in Poland for the first time, as well as, yes, an agreement to build an anti-missile defence system there, now “mobile”.

What are the Russians supposed to make of this? Just what country are these troops and missiles to protect Poland from? This move can only be taken as an insult to Russia, and is a foolish and provocative step by Poland. And just role does Obama play in this duplicity? Is he a closet peacenik who is being forced against his will to follow the policy begun by Reagan almost three decades ago?

The missiles are scheduled to arrive in Poland in a few months’ time. And yet US Russian-watchers feign dismay at Putin’s warning. “It would be a huge obstacle in the talks if Putin now says we need limits on missile defence as part of this treaty,” frets Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution. “It would be a huge setback, and it would make the treaty very hard, if not impossible, to conclude,” he moans.

Vladimir Belaeff at the Global Society Institute in San Francisco notes the obliviousness in Washington to its credibility gap with Russia regarding armaments, citing “NATO’s expansion eastward, non-compliance with signed treaties to control conventional armaments in Europe, assurances that American weapons delivered to Georgia would not be used offensively, and the persistence in deploying American weapons in Poland.”

With Obama’s diving popularity (60 per cent of Americans disapproved of his Nobel Prize) and an increasingly ornery Senate, the probability of US ratification of any treaty is not much above zero, so the Russians have nothing to lose by staking out their position to defend the Motherland and waiting for things military to further unravel in the US empire.

What the Russians are up to is well known among Western defence experts. They hailed the failed 13th test of the Bulava submarine-launched ICBM Bulava on 9 December. They were chagrined a week later when an RS-20V ICBM missile was successfully test-fired. The latter is a new version of a Soviet-era missile known in the West as the SS-18 Satan, one of the Soviet Union’s most effective nuclear weapons. The Russian military grimly argue that extending the life of its Soviet-era missiles is a “cost-effective” way to preserve nuclear parity with the US.

US official response has been unimpressive, from the bizarre suggestion that Russia join NATO to the demand that Russia cut its defence and nuclear ties with Iran in exchange for more information about US Starwars plans. Putin brushed such prattle aside by challenging Obama: “Let the Americans hand over all their information on missile defence and we are ready to hand over all the information on offensive weapons systems,” making no reference to any longing to join NATO or to shaft Iran.

Sadly, the present scenario is the classic arms race one: vast sums will be spent by both sides uselessly as their respective economies crumble.

But, maybe all this is a tempest in a teapot, or as the Arab saying has it, salt, which disappears in a drop of water. Andrei Liakhov of Withers Worldwide, London, argues that since the 1960s, “the destructive force of nuclear weapons made them the best deterrent against another global war.” That the proliferation of nuclear states since then merely reinforces this MAD (mutual assured destruction) logic. That rather than a grandiose plan targetting only US-Russian nuclear weapons, strengthening the non-proliferation treaty — which would of necessity include Israel — is the way to go.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

A big "THANK YOU" to all of you!

Dear friends,

I have to frankly admit that when I posted my "Where do YOU want to go" piece I was a little unsure as to the kind of feedback I would get. Reading through all your comments now, I am deeply touched by your words of support. Blogging is in many ways a somewhat frustrating activity as I have no good way to see whether anybody cares, whether anybody needs this. Your comments are a huge encouragement for me and they come at a good time for sure.

I began 2010 by literally wiping off tears off my wife's face while hearing the fireworks going off outside our house (we are trying to avoid bankruptcy). Considering that the USA is now directly involved in at least five and a half wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and, covertly, Iran) I suspect that many families met 2010 in very similar circumstances, or worse. And make no mistake, things are only going to get worse. Consider this: the top 1% of Americans are now richer than the bottom 95%. Or how about this figure: nearly half of all US children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood. And I suppose that you already know that the USA spends more on defense aggression then the rest of the planet together. As for the Zionist "Nomenklatura" which has taken over the USA, it has literally gone insane with imperial arrogance, hubris and delusion. Expect no reform of any kind. None. "More of the same, only worse" is the motto of Obomb'ya's Administration.

The process of Zionization of the US polity which began under Clinton, which continued under Bush is now complete with Obomb'ya. For the vast majority of us this means even less civil rights or freedom, more state violence and much more economic hardship. The corporate press will, of course, write long articles about some "recovery', but by know we all know better than to listen to their garbage.

In a time like that when we are all feeling discouraged and powerless to make any change, it is very important for me to know that I can make my own, small, tiny difference with my modest blog and I will keep working on this blog as best as I can.

I was very surprised to see that most of you did like the rather "format-less" format of my blog. For me, this is the easiest way as it grew naturally out of my own way of doing things, but to see that most of you are also comfortable with this rather eclectic mix of 'recycled' articles, short comments and lengthy analyses was a surprise to me.

One criticism which I did expect was that some of you suggested that I drop the 9/11 Truth topic. I understand your point of view which, after all, was also mine for 7+ years, but I have to very honestly tell you that I cannot follow your advice here. After making a great deal of research into the entire 9/11 topic I came to the rock-solid conviction that this was a false-flag operation orchestrated by the Zionist Nomenklatura currently in power in the USA. The fact that there are so many indisputable proofs that this was an 'inside job' is a crucial chink in this Nomenklatura's armor and this chink needs to be exploited to the full. Simply put: if we can make the truth about 9/11 known we can most probably bring down the entire gang. Furthermore - we owe the truth not only to the thousands of Americans which died on 9/11 and thereafter, but also to the millions of people who have been killed, maimed, kidnapped, tortured or displaced as a direct consequence of this false flag criminal act. Lastly, the folks who are the real culprits are still out there, still in power, and they might well use a nuclear device next time. God only knows what will happen to the USA and the rest of the planet if that happens. No, the truth about 9/11 is not a topic I am willing to drop. No way.

Several of you have expressed a desire for more analyses about what is happening in Russia. Ok, I can do that and I will gladly try to do that regularly.

I will also try to report as much as I can about Hezbollah.

What is going on in Latin America is also hugely important and I will try to cover it the best I can.

I will also come back to the topic of the recent developments in Iran which, yet again, are grossly and obscenely mis-represented in the corporate media and, alas, a good part of the (supposedly) "Left-leaning" blogosphere. Russia, Lebanon, Latin America and Iran are all key battles being waged in the USraelian Empire's long war against the rest of the planet.

There are three areas which I would like to cover, but for which I would frankly need help: India, Kurdistan and the Balkans.

India is clearly in a deep political crisis and the numerous acts of violence which repeatedly have taken there show that the government is either unable or unwilling to prevent them. While Pakistan has long been on my list of most dangerous states on the planet (along with Israel, Turkey and the KSA), India has all the signs of going the "Pakistan way".

The topic of Kurdistan is also one which would deserve far more attention, if only because the the intricate relationship between Turkey, Israel and the USA and because the political importance of the Kurds in Iraq and Iran.

Sadly, I am frankly no expert on Turkey or Kurdistan and I don't feel that I am competent to express myself on the intricacies of these issue. So while I realize that they are very important, I simply cannot pretend be a know-it-all and claim that I can cover them adequately. So I ask you all the help me with this and send me any and all materials which you find relevant to a better understanding to these issue.

On the Balkans my problem is somewhat different. I was professionally involved with the war in Bosnia, at least in the sense that I studied it in depth and that I had full access to the daily UNPROFOR intelligence briefings. In fact, this is the war which ended up costing me my career as a military analyst, but which also freed me from being a loyal accomplice of the US/NATO aggression against the Serb nation. Bottom line - I used to know the war Bosnia very, very well. I did "catch" the US/NATO war in Kosovo, but after that I simply had no time to follow the developments there. As a result, I now have only a very superficial understanding of what is really going on in Serbia and NATO/KLA-occupied Kosovo. Again - I know full well that this conflict was not "solved", but only temporarily frozen and that the next "round" will inevitably happen. I just don't have enough hours in a day to keep myself informed of the current situation there. If any of you can help me with this I would be very grateful to you.

I want to mention one more region here, the Caucasus. I don't believe that Georgia will try to re-take Abhazia or Ossetia anytime soon, not with Russian forces now deployed inside this republic (including, according to at least one source, a full SU-34 wing already in Abkhazia). The situation with Chechnya is more worrying, I think. Yes, the Russians did, I believe, win the 2nd Chechen war, and the Wahabi insurgency has been practically wiped off (including all its main political and military leaders), but then the Russian did something rather risky: they handed the entire Republic to Ramazan Kadyrov and his thugs. Kadyrov is clearly smart and ruthless, but his violent and corrupt rule is clearly alienating a lot of Chechens. I do not believe that a full-scale insurgency is likely to resume there, at least not as long as the current government is in power, but a resumption of a terror campaign mixed in blood feuds between the various 'teips' (clans) is, alas, a real possibility and I will keep an eye on developments there.

Another potential flashpoint here is the Ukraine which has been slowly but surely rotting out under the various US puppet regimes since independence. I do not expect Russia to overtly intervene as most Russians are now coming to realize that Russia is, in fact, better off *without* its western frontier (that is what the word "ukraina" means, by the way - 'frontier region'. Before 1917 people used to speak of the "Siberian ukraina" or Siberian frontier). Sure, Russia wants the Crimean Peninsula (which only was administratively part of the 'Ukraine' because of a decree by Nikita Khrushchev), but the rest of the Ukraine is of no use to modern Russia besides as a transit point for Russian gas, and it is not even reliable in this aspect. No, the real risk for the Ukraine is a internal conflict opposing the pro-US wealthy elites from the Western Ukraine to the rest of the population. The entire Ukrainian polity is corrupt beyond belief and the country itself simply cannot be run solely on the systematic opposition to anything Russian. Chaos and collapse are inevitable there and that means that violence is inevitable. Since the US puppet regime in Kiev will always blame any and all problems on the hidden hand of Moscow, and since the US and UK will always automatically side with anything anti-Russian, we can be sure that trouble in the Ukraine will rapidly degeneration in serious tensions between Russia and the USralian Empire. I will try to keep an eye on this too.

I think I have pretty much covered my plans for 2010. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on any of this, and thanks again for your kind words of encouragement.

Best of luck for 2010 and kind regards,

The Saker