Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New Multipolar World Order

    Share

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:29 pm

    Russia to liberate the world from US occupation- Pravda

    A State Duma deputy, the head of the Committee on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship of the Russian State Duma, Yevgeny Fyodorov, told Pravda.Ru of his impressions from visiting the APEC summit in Vladivostok. According to him, the meeting showed that the U.S. gradually loses absolute power in the world economy and politics. The power and influence of other countries, such as Russia and China, grows against such a background.

    State Duma deputy, the head of the Committee on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship of the Russian State Duma Yevgeny Fyodorov:

    "APEC is a very interesting and important event, although it seems to be an ordinary one. The leaders get together and discuss important issues, but in reality it is the key event in today's global scenario. With the onset of the global economic crisis,with political and economic turbulence, the APEC is a key event in terms of the demonstration of new vectors of unity of the international community outside the United States.


    It is clear that it is not a split - everyone still plays by American rules, but the countries already demonstrate their independence in economic policy. I was there and saw how angry Mrs. Hillary Clinton was when she came from China, where several Chinese leaders - especially those who are to become top officials of China next year - did not even want to meet her. In China, Clinton was told no when she wanted to take on mediator's functions in resolving China's territorial disputes with Asian countries.

    She also heard no in response to her requirement to set the yuan rate. It is an annual requirement of the United States to China to set the yuan rate for political reasons to pump resources and opportunities from China to the U.S. It is an additional form of tribute from China, which China had to deal with every year for political motives. Nowadays, the U.S. was refused. The world is changing.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly expressed his attitude to the dollar as the world reserve currency. In fact, he offered the countries of the world to start building a large number of regional currencies as an alternative to the reserve system of the dollar. This is a strong step and a strong move, including the initiative to switch to mutual payments. He also said that Russia and China had already switched to the system and he urged other countries to follow the example. This shows that the world begins to change fundamentally, and Russia's role at this point is to become the leader in changing the world. I would say that Putin as the leader of the national liberation movement in Russia, demonstrated himself at the event as a leader and provider of ideas for the world national liberation movement against the system of occupation, which was formed after 1991 not only about Russia but also China and many other countries.

    From this point of view, it is the key and turning meeting of the leaders of world's largest economies, which creates conditions to reformat the entire economic system of the world - moving away from the U.S. Do not forget that the U.S. consumes a half the world's GDP, despite the fact that there is only 4.5 percent of the population living there. In other words, they eat ten times as much as compared to the citizens of all other countries. And they eat at the expense of China, Russia, India, Brazil - all other countries.

    Today, the world begins to unite against the colonizer - USA. For the time being, it is a conceptual and preparatory process, but it takes place. In this regard, I would call the preliminary results of the meeting in the Far East the meeting of the future members of the world national liberation movement to free the world from the U.S. occupation.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  TR1 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:27 pm

    Hell of a headline Pravda.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  SOC on Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:16 am

    "I was there and saw how angry Mrs. Hillary Clinton was when she came from China, where several Chinese leaders - especially those who are to become top officials of China next year - did not even want to meet her."

    respekt I wouldn't want to meet her either!

    "In other words, they eat ten times as much as compared to the citizens of all other countries. And they eat at the expense of China, Russia, India, Brazil - all other countries."

    That's a bit of a stretch...OK, it's a hell of a stretch. Please note that we produce the bulk of our food supply, with roughly 20% being imported, and a lot of that is fish from China. Ergo, how much of it we consume ourselves is irrelevant; we're either paying for it or growing it ourselves. Pick an analogy that actually works next time. Plus, I don't think he's even using GDP right? The worldwide GDP is about 80 trillion, ours is about 16, and we import about 2 trillion worth of stuff per year, so how does what he said even make any sort of sense?

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    2013 new Era :End of US world's domination, and new multipolar world is rising

    Post  nemrod on Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:55 pm

    http://www.leap2020.eu/English_r25.html

    Most of this Leap2020's forecasts were true, and since 2006, they presented a fair view about US, and UK's situation.
    In fact the great US war's machine -rather terrorist war machine- was build in the only purpose to avoid this general US collapse. However nobody is fooled, US can no longer maintain its imperialism and terrorism war machine against countries that wants to be only independant.

    Great thx to Mr Vladimir Putin, and the russian direction that very quickly understood -Igor Panarin analysis- the US situation, and undertook what is nessecary to maintain Russia the great power, and delete Yeltsin's era.

    Since the early 2000's the US war was chieftly turned against Russia, by helping Chechenys terrororists, in order to divide russian population: christian against some muslims terrorists. Femen, pussyriots -another western's bullshit against Russia-, and liberal -corrrupted russian politicians- were there in order to fight the orthodox's russian christian faith. Russia resisted, and won the peace, as China, with xingxciang's muslims.


    The great winner of this new era should be Russia, in the near future, a new shift of power would be in favour of Russia.
    The great difference between US's war machine, and Russia's army, is one was built completly by credit, and the other, by the indegenous's wealth.
    Let's hope that the new PAK T-50 would match F22, after that the US'collapse should accelerate.

    Best regards.

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 86
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Could U.S. take over the world?

    Post  andalusia on Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:51 am

    A guy I worked with several years ago said the US Military could take over the world including allies and that Russian generals he met during the 90s were stupid. I think he is underestimating the Russian Military. He also said Russia uses old equipment. Would like a counter argument. Do you think he is overestimating American superiority?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  TR1 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:22 am

    US couldn't even secure Iraq and Afghanistan, how is it going to take over the world Very Happy ?

    mutantsushi
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  mutantsushi on Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:37 am

    Afghanisan.  Iraq.  Vietnam.  Nuclear MAD.
    If they could do this, why wouldn't they?
    Rather than raving about Evil Putin Invading Ukraine, why wouldn't they counter-invade and take all of Russia?
    Why has freaking North Korea puttered along just fine?
    Fuck.  Read about World Island Theory, Brzezinsky, etc.  If controlling the world is viable,
    why do they focus on just achieving chaos to prevent others from controlling blocs to challenge the US?
    What is the point in an argument though?  Let them live in their pathetic fantasy land.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:34 am

    andalusia wrote:A guy I worked with several years ago said the US Military could take over the world including allies and that Russian generals he met during the 90s were stupid. I think he is underestimating the Russian Military. He also said Russia uses old equipment. Would like a counter argument. Do you think he is overestimating American superiority?


    Congratulations you have met a teenager in an adult body.

    Every person with even a simple understanding over politics,geopolitics and military can give you dozen of examples and arguments that this is impossible, which i would point you out the very fact abou the current and the recent past of politics.

    First question would be if it is true what that guy said about US military forces, if that is true why didn't US did exact this?
    We clearly have seen over last 60-75 years that USA has the ambitions to control as many as possible countries and it has a constant goal to get its hands on Russias resources which includes its territory.

    To underline and reinforce this exact argument of intentions and ambitions of global domination or mild said administration and leading of politics of different countries and to establishe the so called "World operative power and reflection". Which is even a part of US military doctrine to reflect at least 2 major wars anywhere on the Globus at the same time.

    So we know that USA has the intentions and the ambitions.

    At this point we can already see if US has the ambitions to by Monopolarity in Military,Political and Economical globaly why didn't they invade the entire planet like your little friend bregged.

    Let us break it down to the very possbility of this attempt, in fully awarness and ignorance of nuclear power and the possible nuclear war that it can bring, lets pretent it doesn't exist.

    Under this situation and the ignor{e]ance of nuclear repartee in a direct military conflict, we only lay our eyes on the rest of possibilities and abilities of militaries and MIC defensive and offensive nature.

    The claim says it could occupy entire world during the 90s. Fortunatley for our sake of argument only, the United States has waged an invasive war against Iraq in exact this time
    period, well actually a decade later Again but their potential only grew over that decade. And this very exact war is the perfect example when it comes to US logistical
    capabilities and the very nature of complexity and transport of sufficient enough Ground forces and armory to hold enemies ground, because we know Air Force can not hold ground neither can the Navy with ships, so there are infantry,motorized infantry, tanks and entire branches of logistical and support units needed inside enemy territory to support and supply their speerhead of units occupying enemy territory.

    You have just to look at a countries transport and logistical capabilities. 1 Abrams tank per a single C17 (while the C17 was first build in 1991 and in 1999 only 11 existed in total), coming to C-5 Galaxy which can load 2 Abrams tanks at same time like in this picture.



    The US is proud of its C-5 fleet and said:
    The C-5 was a major factor in the success of the initial military airlift portion of Operation Desert Shield.

    So how many C-5's did the US had or does it have now?

    http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104492/c-5-abc-galaxy-c-5m-super-galaxy.aspx

    Inventory: Total C-5 fleet changes monthly based on congressional approval of C-5A retirements; 52 C-5Ms are scheduled to be in the inventory by fiscal 2017; 16 C-5Ms have been delivered through December 2013.

    So 52 C-5M of newest versions today but what was with the timespan of 1990-1999 of total C-5's fleet.

    In March 1989, the last of 50 C-5Bs was added to the 76 C-5As in the Air Force's airlift force structure. The C-5B includes all C-5A improvements as well as more than 100 additional system modifications to improve reliability and maintainability.

    Based on a study showing 80 percent of the C-5 airframe service life remaining, AMC began an aggressive program to modernize the C-5 in 1998. The C-5 Avionics Modernization Program included upgrading the avionics to improve communications, navigation and surveillance/air traffic management compliance. The upgrade also added new safety equipment and installed a new autopilot system.

    Untill 1990 invasion the US had in this period of time at least 126 C-5's with some few growing over this few years. In 2001 this was with M models of only 168 C-5 galaxies for a single country which took over a decade of war, but this war wasn't for occupation but only occupation of government and the oil fields and establish a working puppet state in favor of US, a real occupation to enslave everything with the attempt of annexation would took even longer and that alone destroys the argument that US could invade entire planet during 90s.

    2003 invasion of Iraq USA decided to use its brandnew M1 Abrams tanks rather than to use the sufficient enough M60A2/3/4 Pattons against the iraqi monkey models. It took 9 month to bring 200 Abrams tanks on iraqi boarder with help of its vassals in Middle East, by air lift and navy transport units.

    Prior to exact this 200 Abrams tanks, the US Airforce had to assure that US ground forces had a secured and safe region freed from iraqi troops, only so the US can sand in a small unit of pre-operating and supportive units, such as fueltanks, pioneer vehicles to build up a temporary base that is a sufficient and established in its role as command post and a mobile refill and field repair station!

    This has already taken a big time just to assure the requirements for a basis on which this military big scaled operation can have success.

    I think this little example alone gives you a figure about the actual capabilities with this boys wet dreams about global domination.

    I give you another example in 1999 NATO's invasion and bombing campaign of Serbia.

    Preplanned invasion implemented the US of American ground forces from Germans soil out with help of NATO logistics which are far better established in Europe than US could provide. Those exact plans of sending in ground forces were scrapped immidiatley after they have recognized that this entire country would mean a vast major scenario of urban warfare for US tanks and infantry which they would lose big time. The US Air Force along with it NATO partners couldn't comprimise within its 1 week planned SEAD/DEAD missions.
    After the US has lost the factor of sending in ground forces which already eliminates the possibility of annexion/occupation, they ordered US pilots to target infrastructure and civilians like simple trains, hospitals, powerplants, roads, even the sewage plant in belgrad was targeted and the news network studio in a single building on 67 floor was precisley hit by a Laser guided bomb, and only this floor of this news network working for Mesanovic.

    Such a small country like Serbia used very basic and simple methods of decieving tactics use of dummies of tanks,planes and radar stations the US couldn't understand how the SAM capabilities couldn't be comprimized even tho they had constant reports of "kills" against those targets. Until 78th day of this failed "invasion" the serbian forces and SAM capabilities could not be comprimized by NATO.


    There is no American superiority that is why they US terrorists for countries they are not capable on political and military ground to operate in.

    Russia and China said no to Syria so US could only spew poison towards them of "human rights" BS.

    Usually i don't bother even to waste time on such nonsense as your "friend" has mumbled but i'm in good mood.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:29 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    andalusia wrote:A guy I worked with several years ago said the US Military could take over the world including allies and that Russian generals he met during the 90s were stupid. I think he is underestimating the Russian Military. He also said Russia uses old equipment. Would like a counter argument. Do you think he is overestimating American superiority?


    Congratulations you have met a teenager in an adult body.

    Every person with even a simple understanding over politics,geopolitics and military can give you dozen of examples and arguments that this is impossible, which i would point you out the very fact abou the current and the recent past of politics.

    First question would be if it is true what that guy said about US military forces, if that is true why didn't US did exact this?
    We clearly have seen over last 60-75 years that USA has the ambitions to control as many as possible countries and it has a constant goal to get its hands on Russias resources which includes its territory.

    To underline and reinforce this exact argument of intentions and ambitions of global domination or mild said administration and leading of politics of different countries and to establishe the so called "World operative power and reflection". Which is even a part of US military doctrine to reflect at least 2 major wars anywhere on the Globus at the same time.

    So we know that USA has the intentions and the ambitions.

    At this point we can already see if US has the ambitions to by Monopolarity in Military,Political and Economical globaly why didn't they invade the entire planet like your little friend bregged.

    Let us break it down to the very possbility of this attempt, in fully awarness and ignorance of nuclear power and the possible nuclear war that it can bring, lets pretent it doesn't exist.

    Under this situation and the ignor{e]ance of nuclear repartee in a direct military conflict, we only lay our eyes on the rest of possibilities and abilities of militaries and MIC defensive and offensive nature.

    The claim says it could occupy entire world during the 90s. Fortunatley for our sake of argument only, the United States has waged an invasive war against Iraq in exact this time
    period, well actually a decade later Again but their potential only grew over that decade. And this very exact war is the perfect example when it comes to US logistical
    capabilities and the very nature of complexity and transport of sufficient enough Ground forces and armory to hold enemies ground, because we know Air Force can not hold ground neither can the Navy with ships, so there are infantry,motorized infantry, tanks and entire branches of logistical and support units needed inside enemy territory to support and supply their speerhead of units occupying enemy territory.

    You have just to look at a countries transport and logistical capabilities. 1 Abrams tank per a single C17 (while the C17 was first build in 1991 and in 1999 only 11 existed in total), coming to C-5 Galaxy which can load 2 Abrams tanks at same time like in this picture.



    The US is proud of its C-5 fleet and said:
    The C-5 was a major factor in the success of the initial military airlift portion of Operation Desert Shield.

    So how many C-5's did the US had or does it have now?

    http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104492/c-5-abc-galaxy-c-5m-super-galaxy.aspx

    Inventory: Total C-5 fleet changes monthly based on congressional approval of C-5A retirements; 52 C-5Ms are scheduled to be in the inventory by fiscal 2017; 16 C-5Ms have been delivered through December 2013.

    So 52 C-5M of newest versions today but what was with the timespan of 1990-1999 of total C-5's fleet.

    In March 1989, the last of 50 C-5Bs was added to the 76 C-5As in the Air Force's airlift force structure. The C-5B includes all C-5A improvements as well as more than 100 additional system modifications to improve reliability and maintainability.

    Based on a study showing 80 percent of the C-5 airframe service life remaining, AMC began an aggressive program to modernize the C-5 in 1998. The C-5 Avionics Modernization Program included upgrading the avionics to improve communications, navigation and surveillance/air traffic management compliance. The upgrade also added new safety equipment and installed a new autopilot system.

    Untill 1990 invasion the US had in this period of time at least 126 C-5's with some few growing over this few years. In 2001 this was with M models of only 168 C-5 galaxies for a single country which took over a decade of war, but this war wasn't for occupation but only occupation of government and the oil fields and establish a working puppet state in favor of US, a real occupation to enslave everything with the attempt of annexation would took even longer and that alone destroys the argument that US could invade entire planet during 90s.

    2003 invasion of Iraq USA decided to use its brandnew M1 Abrams tanks rather than to use the sufficient enough M60A2/3/4 Pattons against the iraqi monkey models. It took 9 month to bring 200 Abrams tanks on iraqi boarder with help of its vassals in Middle East, by air lift and navy transport units.

    Prior to exact this 200 Abrams tanks, the US Airforce had to assure that US ground forces had a secured and safe region freed from iraqi troops, only so the US can sand in a small unit of pre-operating and supportive units, such as fueltanks, pioneer vehicles to build up a temporary base that is a sufficient and established in its role as command post and a mobile refill and field repair station!

    This has already taken a big time just to assure the requirements for a basis on which this military big scaled operation can have success.

    I think this little example alone gives you a figure about the actual capabilities with this boys wet dreams about global domination.

    I give you another example in 1999 NATO's invasion and bombing campaign of Serbia.

    Preplanned invasion implemented the US of American ground forces from Germans soil out with help of NATO logistics which are far better established in Europe than US could provide. Those exact plans of sending in ground forces were scrapped immidiatley after they have recognized that this entire country would mean a vast major scenario of urban warfare for US tanks and infantry which they would lose big time. The US Air Force along with it NATO partners couldn't comprimise within its 1 week planned SEAD/DEAD missions.
    After the US has lost the factor of sending in ground forces which already eliminates the possibility of annexion/occupation, they ordered US pilots to target infrastructure and civilians like simple trains, hospitals, powerplants, roads, even the sewage plant in belgrad was targeted and the news network studio in a single building on 67 floor was precisley hit by a Laser guided bomb, and only this floor of this news network working for Mesanovic.

    Such a small country like Serbia used very basic and simple methods of decieving tactics use of dummies of tanks,planes and radar stations the US couldn't understand how the SAM capabilities couldn't be comprimized even tho they had constant reports of "kills" against those targets. Until 78th day of this failed "invasion" the serbian forces and SAM capabilities could not be comprimized by NATO.


    There is no American superiority that is why they US terrorists for countries they are not capable on political and military ground to operate in.

    Russia and China said no to Syria so US could only spew poison towards them of "human rights" BS.

    Usually i don't bother even to waste time on such nonsense as your "friend" has mumbled but i'm in good mood.

    +1 for a great post!

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:27 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    +1 for a great post!

    Agreed, for a second there i thought you were mindstorm.  thumbsup 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:11 am

    How many US Generals has he met?

    Personally I think British Generals are rather smarter than US ones... just look at the US Generals orders in Pristina and imagine what would have happened if a rather more sensible General had not done the right thing (Michael Jackson if I remember correctly...)

    The American military is as full of people capable of stupidity as any other organisation... America couldn't even contain Somalia let alone a modern capable military...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Americans Want to Pull Back From World Stage, Poll Finds

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 04, 2014 6:58 am

    Americans Want to Pull Back From World Stage, Poll Finds



    Nearly Half Surveyed in WSJ/NBC Poll Back Anti—Interventionist Stance That Sweeps Across Party Lines

    Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs even as a showdown with Russia over Ukraine preoccupies Washington, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

    In a marked change from past decades, nearly half of those surveyed want the U.S. to be less active on the global stage, with fewer than one-fifth calling for more active engagement—an anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.

    The findings come as the Obama administration said Tuesday that Russia continues to meddle in Ukraine in defiance of U.S. and European sanctions. Pro-Russian militants took over more government buildings in eastern Ukraine, while officials at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said satellite imagery showed no sign that Russia had withdrawn tens of thousands of troops massed near the border. (Read five takeaways from the poll.)

    The poll showed that approval of President Barack Obama's handling of foreign policy sank to the lowest level of his presidency, with 38% approving, at a time when his overall job performance drew better marks than in recent months.

    Mr. Obama defended his diplomacy-first approach at a news conference Monday in the Philippines, the last stop on a four-nation tour through Asia. He said those who called for a more muscular policy hadn't learned the lessons of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.

    "Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?" he said. "And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?"

    Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, "After a week of rhetoric from the administration, I had hoped we would have responded to Russia's blatant violations…with more than just a slap on the wrist."

    The poll findings, combined with the results of prior Journal/NBC surveys this year, portray a public weary of foreign entanglements and disenchanted with a U.S. economic system that many believe is stacked against them. The 47% of respondents who called for a less-active role in world affairs marked a larger share than in similar polling in 2001, 1997 and 1995. (See poll results over time about America's role in the world.)

    Similarly, the Pew Research Center last year found a record 53% saying that the U.S. "should mind its own business internationally" and let other countries get along as best they can, compared with 41% who said so in 1995 and 20% in 1964.

    "The juxtaposition of an America that wants to turn inward and away from world affairs, and a strong feeling of powerlessness domestically, is a powerful current that so far has eluded the grasp of Democrats and Republicans," said Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who conducts the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "The message from the American public to their leaders in this poll seems to be: You need to take care of business here at home."

    The poll results have broad implications for U.S. politics, helping to explain, among other developments, Mr. Obama's hesitance to have the U.S. take the lead in using military force in Libya, the reluctance of Congress to authorize force against Syria and the ascent as a national figure of Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate who has called for a restrained foreign policy.

    Support for Mr. Obama's handling of Russian intervention in Ukraine slipped to 37% in the new poll from 43% in March. But at the same time, a plurality agreed with the statement that Mr. Obama takes "a balanced approach" to foreign policy "depending on the situation," with smaller shares rating him as too cautious or too bold.

    Melissa Western, a graphic designer from Chandler, Ariz., who participated in the poll, called Mr. Obama's foreign policy "lackadaisical."

    "I'm not saying go to war, but I feel like he has a lot of empty threats," said Ms. Western, an independent who voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. "He's hard to take seriously."

    Dora Lovett, a Democratic poll respondent in Ozark, Ark., said Mr. Obama should focus more on domestic issues and less on events abroad. "I just feel like he does more for them than he does for us," she said, citing foreign aid as an example.

    While Mr. Obama's standing as a foreign policy leader has slipped, the poll found his overall job approval rose to 44% from March's record low of 41%.

    But the president's standing remains perilously low just six months before the midterm congressional elections, and the poll was riddled with warning signs for his party. Support for his signature health-care law is improving slightly, a result that comes after the announcement that eight million people had picked insurance plans under the law. Still, support for the law remains weak, with 46% saying it is a bad idea and 36% saying it is a good one. "Clearly, the president has better news from his health-care law. But in general, that better news has still left people, by double-digit margins, saying it is a bad idea," said Mr. McInturff, the GOP pollster.

    The public is deeply divided over the benefits of international trade and globalization, a challenge for Mr. Obama as he tries to shepherd major trade deals through a reluctant Congress.

    The poll found that 48% viewed globalization as bad for the U.S. economy, with 43% calling it a good development. Asked whether they preferred a congressional candidate who argued that free trade was a positive force or one who called it a negative force, 46% favored the pro-trade candidate and 48% the anti-trade candidate.

    Opinions on trade and globalization correlated more with income and education than with party affiliation. People with lower incomes and education tended to be the most skeptical of those forces, with support rising in tandem with income and education. "There are huge chunks of Republicans who would be looking at and supporting anti-free trade candidates, and huge chunks of Democrats who are pro-free trade," Mr. McInturff said, adding that both parties face a difficult task in finding their footing on the issue.

    For all the poll's warnings to Democrats about the 2014 midterm elections, it offered some good news for the party in its early glances toward the 2016 presidential election. The poll found that potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is viewed significantly more positively than two potential Republican contenders.

    Mrs. Clinton was viewed positively by 48% of those surveyed and negatively by 32%. Both Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Paul were viewed more negatively: Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 21% and unfavorably by 31%. For Mr. Paul, opinion split 23% to 25%.

    —Colleen McCain Nelson and Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304163604579532050055966782

    http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/engagement-poll/

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  nemrod on Sun May 04, 2014 12:56 pm



    Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs ...

    This poll is meaningless.
    Agree, or not, the north american regime of Washington fed up with the opinion of its population. Who was agree during the Iraq invasion ? Who was agree during the Vietnam's war ? Who is agree during the actual occupation of Afghanistan ? Who was agree with baillout that gave tax payers' billions $ to the banksters, the uggly bastards of Wall street's ?

    North American regime never took care about opinion of its population, because Washington consider it could modelize the opinion of average american thanks to Hollywood-usefull tool, with american leftists-.
    North american regime of Washington could trigger the third world war, with or without the consent of its population.
    It is not worth to scrutinize american public opinion, because noone either in Washington, New York, Hollywood, or San Francisco -the leftists areas, now became near all, the new ultra liberalists, and worst barbarics worse than any fascissts- never considered it.




    Hannibal Barca
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1219
    Points : 1241
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Tue May 06, 2014 1:04 pm

    I don't know whether this is the right place, I read the latest Stratfor report. I had a good laugh with what the Zionists try to do. I particularly focus on Serbia. Serbia played a very dirty role during cold war and they partially took what they deserved but seems that they still keep the same attitude (EU integration, NATO cooperation and everything). I think if this is the case, they must cease to exist once and for all.. Anyway here it is:


    By George Friedman

    I will be leaving this week to visit a string of countries that are now on the front line between Russia and the European Peninsula: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Azerbaijan. A tour like that allows you to look at the details of history. But it is impossible to understand those details out of context. The more I think about recent events, the more I realize that what has happened in Ukraine can only be understood by considering European geopolitics since 1914 -- a hundred years ago and the beginning of World War I.

    In The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman wrote a superb and accurate story about how World War I began. For her it was a confluence of perception, misperception, personality and decisions. It was about the leaders, and implicit in her story was the idea that World War I was the result of miscalculation and misunderstanding. I suppose that if you focus on the details, then the war might seem unfortunate and avoidable. I take a different view: It was inevitable from the moment Germany united in 1871. When it happened and exactly how it happened was perhaps up to decision-makers. That it would happen was a geopolitical necessity. And understanding that geopolitical necessity gives us a framework for understanding what is happening in Ukraine, and what is likely to happen next.
    The German Problem

    The unification of Germany created a nation-state that was extraordinarily dynamic. By the turn of the 20th century, Germany had matched the British economy. However, the British economy pivoted on an empire that was enclosed and built around British interests. Germany had no such empire. It had achieved parity through internal growth and exports on a competitive basis. This was just one of the problems Germany had. The international economic system was based on a system of imperial holdings coupled with European industrialism. Germany lacked those holdings and had no politico-military control over its markets. While its economy was equal to Britain's, its risks were much higher.

    Economic risk was compounded by strategic risk. Germany was on the North European Plain, relatively flat, with only a few north-south rivers as barriers. The Germans had the Russians to the east and the French to the west. Moscow and Paris had become allies. If they were to simultaneously attack Germany at a time of their choosing, Germany would be hard-pressed to resist. The Germans did not know Russo-French intentions, but they did know their capabilities. If there was to be war, the Germans had to strike first in one direction, achieve victory there and then mass their forces on the other side.

    When that war would be fought, which strategy the Germans chose and ultimately whether it would succeed were uncertainties. But unlike Tuchman's view of the war, a war that began with a German strike was inevitable. The war was not the result of a misunderstanding. Rather, it was the result of economic and strategic realities.

    The Germans struck against the French first but failed to defeat them. They were therefore trapped in the two-front war that they had dreaded, but they were at least fully mobilized and could resist. A second opportunity to implement their strategy occurred in the winter of 1917, when an uprising took place against the Russian czar, who abdicated on March 15, 1917. (Germany actually set the revolution in motion in March by repatriating Lenin back to Russia via the infamous sealed train car.) There was serious concern that the Russians might pull out of the war, and in any case, their military had deteriorated massively. A German victory there seemed not only possible, but likely. If that happened, and if German forces in Russia were transferred to France, it was likely that they could mass an offensive that would defeat the British and French.

    In April 1917, the United States declared war on Germany. There were multiple reasons, including the threat that German submarines might close the Atlantic to American shipping, but also the fear that events in Russia might defeat the allies. The United States had a deep interest in making certain that the Eurasian landmass would not fall under the control of any single nation. The manpower, resources and technology under the control of the Germans would more than outmatch the United States. It could not live with a German victory, and therefore within a year it had sent more than a million men to Europe and helped counter the German offensive after the October 1917 Russian Revolution pulled Russia from the war. The peace treaty ceded Ukraine to the Germans, placing Russia in danger if the Germans defeated the Anglo-French alliance. Ultimately, the American intervention defeated the Germans, and the Russians regained Ukraine.

    The American intervention was decisive and defined American strategy in Eurasia for a century. It would maintain the balance of power. As the balance shifted, Washington would increase aid and, if absolutely necessary, intervene decisively in the context of an existing and effective military alliance.

    World War II was fought similarly. The Germans, again in a dangerous position, made an alliance with the Soviets, assuring a single-front war, and this time defeated France. In due course, Germany turned on Russia and attempted to dominate Eurasia decisively. The United States was first neutral, then provided aid to the British and Russians, and even after entering the war in December 1941 withheld its main thrust until the last possible moment. The United States did invade North Africa, Sicily and the rest of Italy, but these were marginal operations on the periphery of German power. The decisive strike did not occur until June 1944, after the German military had been significantly weakened by a Soviet army heavily supplied by the United States. The decisive campaign in northern Europe lasted less than a year, and was won with limited U.S. losses compared to the other combatants. It was an intervention in the context of a powerful military alliance.

    In the Cold War, the Soviet Union positioned itself by creating deep buffers. It held the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine as its first line of defense. Its second defensive tier consisted of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In addition, the Soviet buffer moved to the center of Germany on the North German Plain. Given history, the Soviets needed to create as deep a buffer as possible, and this line effectively precluded an attack on the Soviet Union.

    The American response was more active than in the first two wars, but not as decisive. The United States positioned forces in West Germany in the context of a strong military alliance. This alliance was likely insufficient to block a Soviet attack. The United States promised the delivery of additional troops in the event of war and also guaranteed that if needed, it was prepared to use nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet attack.

    The model was in that sense similar. The hope was to maintain the balance of power with minimal American exposure. In the event the balance broke, the United States was prepared to send substantially more troops. In the worst case, the United States claimed to be prepared to use decisive force. The important thing to note was that the United States retained the option to reinforce and go nuclear. The Soviets never attacked, in part because they didn't need to -- they were not at risk -- and in part because the risk associated with an attack was too high.

    Thus, the United States followed a consistent strategy in all three wars. First, it avoided overexposure, limiting its presence to the minimum needed. The United States wasn't present in World War I until very late. In World War II, America's presence consisted of peripheral operations at relatively low cost. In the Cold War, it positioned a force sufficient to convince the Soviets of American intent, but always under its control and always poised for full intervention at the latest opportune time, with minimal losses, in the context of an effective military alliance.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union and the revolutions of 1989 stripped away the buffers that the Soviets had captured in World War II. Their strategic position was worse than it was before the world wars or even since the 17th century. If the inner buffer, the Baltics, Belarus or Ukraine, were to become hostile and part of a Western alliance system, the threat to Russia would be overwhelming. The Baltics were admitted to NATO and the alliance was now less than 100 miles from St. Petersburg. If Ukraine and Belarus went the same route, then the city of Smolensk, once deep in the Soviet Union and the Russian empire, would be a border town, and the distance to Moscow from NATO territory would be 250 miles.

    The mitigating factor was that NATO was weak and fragmented. This was not much of a consolation for the Russians, who had seen Germany transform from a weak and fragmented country in 1932 to a massive power by 1938. Where there is an industrial base, military capability can be rapidly generated and intentions can change overnight. Therefore, for Russia, preventing the Western alliance system from absorbing Ukraine was critical, as the events of previous months have shown.
    The U.S. Approach

    The American strategy in Europe remains the same as it was in 1914: to allow the European balance of power to manage itself. Public statements aside, the United States was comfortable with the weakness of European powers so long as the Russians were also weak. There was no threat of a hegemon emerging. The American strategy was, as always, to let the balance maintain itself, intervene with any aid needed to maintain the balance and intervene militarily in the context of a robust alliance at the decisive moment and not before.

    It follows from this that the United States is not prepared to do more than engage in symbolic efforts right now. The Russian military may be able to capture Ukraine, although the logistical challenges are serious. But the United States is not in a position to deploy a decisive defensive force in Ukraine. The shift in the European balance of power is far from decisive, and the United States has time to watch the situation develop.

    At this point, the United States is likely prepared to increase the availability of weapons to the countries I will visit, along with Bulgaria and the Baltics. But the United States' problem is that its historical strategy relies on the existence of a significant military force, and where multiple countries are involved, a working alliance. It is pointless for the United States to provide weapons to countries that will not cooperate with each other and are incapable of fielding sufficient force to use these weapons.

    Since the events in Ukraine, many European countries have discussed increased defense spending and cooperation. It is not clear that NATO is a vehicle for this cooperation. As we saw during the meetings between U.S. President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany's willingness to engage in assertive action is limited. In southern Europe, the economic crisis still rages. The appetite of the British and French or the Iberians to become involved is limited. It is hard to see NATO playing an effective military role.

    The United States looks at this as a situation where the exposed countries must take decisive steps. For the United States, there is no emergency. For Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Azerbaijan, along with the other countries along the buffer line, there is not yet an emergency. But one could materialize with surprising speed. The Russians are not intrinsically powerful, but they are more powerful than any of these countries alone, or even together. Given American strategy, the United States would be prepared to begin providing aid, but substantial aid requires substantial action on the part of the buffer countries.

    The first and second world wars were about the status of Germany in Europe. That was what the Cold War was about as well, although framed in a different way. We are once again discussing the status of Germany. Today it has no western threat. The eastern threat is weak, far away and potentially more of an ally than a threat. The force that drove Germany in two world wars is not there now. Logically, it has little reason to take risks.

    The American fear of a Eurasian hegemon is also a distant one. Russia is far from being able to pose that kind of threat. It is still struggling to regain its buffers. Just as Germany is not prepared to engage in aggressive actions, the United States will continue its century-old strategy of limiting its exposure for as long as possible. At the same time, the buffer countries face a potential threat that prudence requires they prepare for.

    However, it is not clear that the Russian threat will materialize, and it is not clear that, rhetoric aside, the Russians have the political will to act decisively. The buffer states' optimal solution would be a massive NATO intervention. That won't happen. The second best would be a massive American intervention. That won't happen either. The buffer states want to shift the cost of their defense to others -- a rational strategy if they can achieve it.

    The impersonal forces of geopolitics are driving Russia to try to retake its critical borderland. Having done that, the nations bordering Russian power will not know how far the Russians will try to go. For Russia, the deeper the buffer, the better. But the deeper the buffer, the higher the cost of maintaining it. The Russians are not ready for any such move. But over time, as their strength and confidence grow, their actions become less predictable. When facing a potential existential threat, the prudent action is to overreact.

    The buffer states need to arm and ally. The United States will provide a degree of support, regardless of what the Germans, and therefore NATO, do. But the basic decision is in the hands of the Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Serbians and Azerbaijanis, along with those in the other buffer states. Some, like Azerbaijan, have already made the decision to arm and are looking for an alliance. Some, like Hungary, are watching and waiting. Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." There is a rhyme that we can hear. It is in its early stages and few are yet locked into a course as Germany was in 1914. The forces are beginning to gather, and if they do, they will not be controlled by good will.

    I will be listening for that rhyme on this trip. I need to see if it is there. And if it is, I need to see if those most at risk to its verses hear it too. I will let you know what I hear.

    Read more: Borderlands: The New Strategic Landscape | Stratfor
    Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

    Intrigado
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 66
    Join date : 2014-04-15

    New Multipolar World

    Post  Intrigado on Thu May 22, 2014 9:15 pm

    Here's an interesting view provided by an American historian named Edward Luttwak as regards a possibility to contain China's ambitions:

    Salute the Rising Sun

    Except for its 1947 decision to leave the ungentlemanly intelligence business to the seedy back- room boys—who were not even allowed the title ‘Department’ for their central intelligence agency—the US State Department’s deepest regret is its long-revoked denial of a visitor visa to Narendra Modi. That is not just because of Modi’s ascent, but much more because Washington knows that he might transform the entire Asian balance of power. Normally, no individual could possibly do that—not even a Genghis Khan or Timur, if they too were as subject to all the checks and balances and limits of a parliamentary democracy as Modi would be.

    But these only limit what a Prime Minister can do. They cannot stop a Prime Minister who can bring about vast change by simply letting the Balance of Power do its work. In essence, China has greatly overplayed its hand because of India’s passivity; a passivity more obvious in light of Japan’s first dynamic leader in decades, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. If Modi does respond positively to Abe’s offer of broad ‘strategic’ cooperation (what is there to refuse?), that would be enough to allow the emergence of a much broader coalition that has been waiting to happen ever since 2009. That was the year that China’s leaders over-interpreted the West’s financial crisis as a sign that they had become all-powerful, and loudly started demanding territory; reefs, shoals, islands and 3 million sq km of plain ocean waters from India, Japan and Vietnam as well as Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the Sultanate of Brunei. In so doing, they greatly exceeded the limits of the Balance of Power, given that India, Japan and Vietnam alone between them have more people, more economic capacity and arguably more technology than China—even without adding Japan’s treaty ally across the Pacific.

    The potential in a winning coalition of China’s seven threatened neighbours was obvious, but China’s leaders were emboldened by the dogged insularity and inert passivity of the Indian and Japanese governments, without whose joint leadership there could be no coalition, leaving the Vietnamese isolated and Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines much too weak to resist. Yes, there was a low-key increase in intelligence exchanges with Japan, and India did offer its submarine training establishment to Vietnam, but neither changed Beijing’s dismissive attitude. The Chinese too watched the Mumbai attack with fascinated attention, and then waited for India’s reprisal raid. When nothing happened, they saw not wise restraint at work but more passivity, which they felt free to test with border intrusions—in Ladakh as recently as last year.

    Modi need not double defence spending nor start a war with Pakistan to respond to Abe’s offer and start building the winning coalition that might yet persuade the Chinese to go back to peaceful ways. What he does have to do is equip himself, as Abe has done, with a team of officials as dynamic as himself who can in turn energise both India’s defence establishment and its diplomacy. The world’s slowest procurement system has Indian pilots flying the same jet fighters that their grandfathers flew, and blandly accepts decade-long delays in delivery of indigenous systems. Given that Modi means to modernise the entire economy with deregulation and new infrastructure, it would be illogical if HAL were allowed to keep delivering antique Jaguars to India’s Air Force and retain its overall laxity. Equally obvious is that both the Research & Analysis Wing and Intelligence Bureau need new leadership to overcome paralysing bureaucratic factionalism, as well as larger budgets once there is more confidence that the money will be well spent.

    India’s greater task, undoubtedly, would be to change its conduct of diplomacy. With Modi, it would face the formidable task of actually building a functioning coalition. For that, good intentions will not be enough. New Delhi, Hanoi, Jakarta, Manila and Tokyo would have to interact on a daily basis both to build the machinery of intelligence and military cooperation—everything from joint naval task-forces to some joint procurement (to arm the weaker members)—and to coordinate in minute detail every aspect of each country’s China policy. For example, when China abruptly announces a new demand, such as last year’s Air Defense Identification Zone, or engages in provocations such as its new passports decorated with a map that shows all of Beijing’s claims as Chinese territory, there should be identically-worded protests issued simultaneously by all five capitals instead of scattered complaints, which come across as feeble.

    It will not be easy, of course—there would be much more to it than a five-sided editorial conference on the details of a draft agreement—but that is exactly how a functioning coalition is built, by forming joint positions issue by issue, by making coalition policy case by case. Now that ASEAN has lost all strategic relevance—because neither India nor Japan belong to it while China is present through its influence over one or more member-states—everything is set for Modi to join Abe in forging its much-needed replacement. The new coalition partners, moreover, could counteract China in significantly positive ways too; for example by sponsoring a Kolkata-Hanoi road and rail transport axis that would do much for the development of all concerned, including India’s now isolated Northeast. It would also serve the squarely strategic purpose of cutting across the north-south vectors of Chinese influence by drawing in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Laos.

    +++

    It is obvious that India cannot emerge from its diplomatic inertia unless its diplomats are up to the task. Individually, they are usually very able; but they are simply too few of them, especially back home where grossly overburdened officials add their omissions to the perpetual lack of coordination that enfeebles India’s voice. Moreover, new circumstances require new practices.

    Postings to Tokyo and Washington call for double and even triple tours for exceptionally successful ambassadors. This is because continuity yields precious advantages too important to be sacrificed just to give junior diplomats their turn. India’s diplomacy is severely understaffed, but a Modi government would have to do much more than merely adding officials while making sure that today’s high standards are preserved. It would take real foreign-policy leadership—that precious commodity which India has been lacking. As always, real leadership requires courage, which works via a self-reinforcing process: the leader who acts courageously today thereby gains the ability to do more tomorrow. Modi’s act of courage might be to elevate relations with Israel through a prime-ministerial visit; not so much to enhance relations already thriving across the board, but to affirm the independence of India’s foreign policy from any sectarian pressures. Just as no anti-Muslim sentiment should limit coalition-building with mostly-Muslim Indonesia, Indian Muslim sentiment should in no way condition India’s relations with Israel.

    Courage of a different sort—but of much greater scope—will be needed by Modi to make an alliance with Japan work. That Japan is firmly bound to the United States by a security treaty, while India must preserve its Russian ties (also a favour to the US), is a problem easily solved; simply because it is a one-way alliance: the US is under a treaty obligation to defend Japan but has no reason at all to limit its dealings with India.

    The much greater problem is that only a courageously drastic liberalisation of India’s economy—and a dramatic upgradation of its highways and electrical supply—could make India a fit partner to co-lead a coalition with Japan, partly by attracting much more foreign investment, especially from Japanese firms. While they belong to the most organised country on the planet, these firms are willing and able to operate in unorganised countries as well—they are strong in Latin America, for example. But India, now, is neither organised nor unorganised; rather, it is disorganised in a minutely regulated way that often frustrates the Japanese will to invest in the country. Modi’s most important promise is to squarely attack both ends of that problem by assuring key sectors of the economy of quick deregulation and better organisation.

    That is also why Modi’s leadership is India’s best opportunity to achieve higher economic growth—without which there can be no escape from mass poverty, nor any possibility of catching up with China.

    As for his particular interest in highway-building as a priority, what would be the point of providing a Hanoi-Kolkata motorway right across Bangladesh if the road would abruptly deteriorate as soon as it reached the Indian border?

    Japan’s Prime Minister Abe was the guest of honour at this year’s Republic Day parade. Tokyo is now hoping and waiting for a visit by Modi— that would begin with all the usual ceremonies and then continue behind closed doors— as the first of many working sessions that may be expanded to bring in other coalition members. In the meantime, the Japanese Diet is preparing to change the country’s constitution to allow participation in ‘collective defense’, which may be read as the proposed coalition’s charter. As for the US government, it need not participate directly in this vast project; it can support coalition members individually.

    That is important because even as they quarrel over Ukraine, both Russia and the United States can only welcome a new Asian coalition that would redress each country’s own imbalance with China. That is why the US has joined others around the world in hoping for a Modi victory and its promise of transformational leadership.


    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/salute-the-rising-sun

    macedonian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1086
    Points : 1121
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  macedonian on Fri May 23, 2014 12:20 am

    Intrigado wrote:Here's an interesting view provided by an American historian named Edward Luttwak as regards a possibility to contain China's ambitions:
    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/salute-the-rising-sun

    He moonlights as a historian, but he's really a neocon warmonger.
    That article is a truly a great source to see just how the US' 'Divide Et Impera' tactics work: pit nations against each other, or make them allies when suitable, and pretend to be on the sidelines all helpful, all while you actually pull the strings and control the game from the background.

    Here are some further "interesting" reads by the same "historian":

    in the Wall Street Journal
    Weaken Putin With a Russian Brain Drain
    President Obama could immediately make it easy for the best and brightest to get special U.S. visas.
    Neocon Edward wrote:With Russia already suffering from capital flight amid economic sanctions and rising tensions over the Ukraine conflict, the U.S. has another option for ratcheting up financial pressure on the Putin regime: Start a brain drain too.

    Call it an "anti-sanctions" approach. Blacklisting individuals and companies closely tied to Vladimir Putin is fine, but let's also open America's doors to Russia's best and brightest. The instruments to do so are a pair of special U.S. visas that already exist—the O-1A and the EB-5.

    The O-1A is a special visa for individuals of "extraordinary ability" in the sciences, education and business. It entitles them to reside and work for three years, can be followed by an unlimited number of one-year extensions, and often leads to citizenship. There is a parallel O-3 visa routinely issued to the spouses and children of O-1A holders, as well as O-1B visas for artists and entertainers. But these visas are now issued slowly, grudgingly, with only 22,080 O-visas of all types issued in 2013, and they usually require heaps of testimonials to prove extraordinary ability.

    Edward Luttwak: Putin's unhindered advance won't go unnoticed in China
    Article in the Nikkei Asian Review
    Neocon Edward wrote: Putin's plan is to separate all the territory east of the Dnieper River into a new state, "Novy Russia," that could become the Russian Federation's 22nd republic. This territory on the east bank of the Dnieper is many times larger than the Transnistria ministate Russia seized from the Republic of Moldova. Transnistria is also separated from Russia proper, while Novy Russia would seamlessly extend Russian territory down to the Black Sea, including Crimea.

        Given the advance warning -- all the detailed planning, down to the design of a Novy Russia flag, could not be kept secret -- the failure to anticipate Putin's move or at least react effectively is very disappointing. First came the empty words: European prime ministers all seemed to use the same speechwriter, because they all said the seizure of Crimea was "unacceptable." Then, by ruling out any counter-move, they made it clear they would, in fact, accept it.


    And here's a part of the "historian's" CV:
    Neocon CV wrote:Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions. He is a frequent lecturer at universities and military colleges in the United States and abroad and has testified before several congressional committees and presidential commissions. In 2004, he was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Bath (United Kingdom).

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 23, 2014 5:35 am

    Intrigado wrote: That is important because even as they quarrel over Ukraine, both Russia and the United States can only welcome a new Asian coalition that would redress each country’s own imbalance with China. That is why the US has joined others around the world in hoping for a Modi victory and its promise of transformational leadership.[/size]

    http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/salute-the-rising-sun

    My God, what a cookie-cut out Neo-Con hack peddling tired regurgitated geo-political cliches from the Atlanticist-Superemacist sphere, we're still waiting for the PRC to invade Taiwan which they claimed would happened, which still hasn't happened in 6 decades showing you how little foresight they really have.

    1.) The fact that he labeled Shinzo Abe as a "dynamic leader" proves how much of despicable cretin he truly is! Good luck trying to convince the populations of Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines that allying with Shinzo Abe is a good idea when he still refuses to acknowledge Japan carried out gang rapes and torture in East/South East Asia during WW2:

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/noah-kristula-green/2013/05/14/japans-dangerous-revisionist-world-war-ii-attitude

    2.) He truly does consume his own refuse! He truly believes that threatening to invade India to save Pakistan, and propping up the military of Pakistan for decades, establishing anti-Indian racists at the American Embassy in India, while persecuting the Indian Embassy in the U.S. (Devyani Khobragade) and denying Modi access to the U.S. would be so quickly forgotten.

    Here's what Modi had to say about the diplomat scandal:

    "Refused to meet the visiting USA delegation in solidarity with our nation, protesting ill-treatment meted to our lady diplomat in USA."

    https://twitter.com/narendramodi/statuses/412826342762086400

    http://rt.com/news/india-retaliates-us-diplomats-401/


    Modi was quick to acknowledge Putin, slow to mention the U.S.:

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_05_19/Indias-Modi-quick-on-Twitter-diplomacy-thanks-Putin-slow-to-mention-US-9148/


    Plus Manmohan Singh's govt. was far more friendlier to America, and even he turned down a military alliance with the U.S.

    mutantsushi
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  mutantsushi on Fri May 23, 2014 7:49 am

    This guy is really just choice reading...

    Luttwalk wrote:The US State Department’s deepest regret is its long-revoked denial of a visitor visa to Narendra Modi.
    That is not just because of Modi’s ascent, but much more because Washington knows that he might transform the entire Asian balance of power.
    So... it is not because of Modi's ascent... It is because of Modi's ascent.  

    Checks and balances and limits of a parliamentary democracy ... only limit what a Prime Minister can do.
    They cannot stop a Prime Minister who can bring about vast change by simply letting the Balance of Power do its work.
    [cue "Eye of the Tiger", from Rocky III]

    If Modi does respond positively to Abe’s offer of broad ‘strategic’ cooperation (what is there to refuse?)
    Really, what else is there?  Everybody knows that Eurasia is a myth.

    that would be enough to allow the emergence of a much broader coalition that has been waiting to happen ever since 2009. That was the year that China’s leaders over-interpreted the West’s financial crisis as a sign that they had become all-powerful, and loudly started demanding territory; reefs, shoals, islands and 3 million sq km of plain ocean waters from India, Japan and Vietnam as well as Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the Sultanate of Brunei.
    If only we can forget that tragic year in 2009 when India's South China Sea territory was subject to loud demands and VIOLENT over-interpretation of the West's financial crisis...

    Modi need not double defence spending nor start a war with Pakistan to respond to Abe’s offer and start building the winning coalition that might yet persuade the Chinese to go back to peaceful ways. What he does have to do is equip himself, as Abe has done, with a team of officials as dynamic as himself who can in turn energise both India’s defence establishment and its diplomacy.
    Remember, Team "Balance of Power" is ready to ensure all your staff loyalty needs.  Or it can go straight to sanctions, if that makes things clearer.

    Now that ASEAN has lost all strategic relevance—because neither India nor Japan belong to it while China is present through its influence over one or more member-states—everything is set for Modi to join Abe in forging its much-needed replacement.
    Sounds like just another one of those "let the Balance of Power do it's thing" moments...

    As always, real leadership requires courage, which works via a self-reinforcing process: the leader who acts courageously today thereby gains the ability to do more tomorrow. Modi’s act of courage might be to elevate relations with Israel through a prime-ministerial visit; not so much to enhance relations already thriving across the board, but to affirm the independence of India’s foreign policy from any sectarian pressures. Just as no anti-Muslim sentiment should limit coalition-building with mostly-Muslim Indonesia, Indian Muslim sentiment should in no way condition India’s relations with Israel.
    Courage.  Leadership.  Goodthink.  All things are possible with the Balance of Power's assent... Except Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

    The Japanese Diet is preparing to change the country’s constitution to allow participation in ‘collective defense’, which may be read as the proposed coalition’s charter. As for the US government, it need not participate directly in this vast project; it can support coalition members individually.
    Over-interpretation of the West's financial crisis plays no part here, the Balance of Power just doesn't pass up a chance for others to pay it's way.

    That is important because even as they quarrel over Ukraine, both Russia and the United States can only welcome a new Asian coalition that would redress each country’s own imbalance with China. That is why the US has joined others around the world in hoping for a Modi victory and its promise of transformational leadership.
    OH GOD! [tears] Putin really is controlling everything! [more tears]


    Last edited by mutantsushi on Fri May 23, 2014 8:58 am; edited 3 times in total

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 23, 2014 8:40 am

    ^^^Good post, what I also found funny is that he thinks Indonesia is some willing pawn of the Pentagon, in reality Indonesia protested and demanded explanation for NSA spying on their govt. and economically and militarily Indonesia is actually closer to Russia and China than America.

    mutantsushi
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  mutantsushi on Fri May 23, 2014 9:27 am

    Similar with Malaysia, who while in the thick of the Spratley dispute, seems happy to pursue it's resolution diplomatically, just like Norway and Russia did after similar US hysterics predicting inevitable conflict and aggression, and unlike ASEAN members like the Philippines who only seem to be able to play the role of "desperate victim posterchild". (I recall reading that the Shah of Iran once conveyed to the Philippines that some cheap oil deal for post-colonial brothers might be possible except the Americans wouldn't like the idea of it, so tough luck)

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 24, 2014 3:32 am

    mutantsushi wrote:Similar with Malaysia, who while in the thick of the Spratley dispute, seems happy to pursue it's resolution diplomatically, just like Norway and Russia did after similar US hysterics predicting inevitable conflict and aggression, and unlike ASEAN members like the Philippines who only seem to be able to play the role of "desperate victim posterchild".  (I recall reading that the Shah of Iran once conveyed to the Philippines that some cheap oil deal for post-colonial brothers might be possible except the Americans wouldn't like the idea of it, so tough luck)

    Also a interesting fact is that the majority of the South East Asian countries have strong ties with China, Thailand, Burma/Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia (and Sri Lanka but that's more South Asia than South East Asia) are long time friends of China, while Malaysia second largest ethnic group is Chinese, and Singapore's (the most important SE Asian economy) largest ethnic group is Chinese and their President and Prime Minister are ethnically Chinese and their economy has very strong ties with China, they even struck a memorandum of understanding accord to use their national currencies in trade with each other and not the dollar. The only two SE countries that really despise China are Vietnam, and the Philippines, but their are more problems than advantages between a American/Vietnamese/Filipino alliance...


    1.) For the Philippines is that no amount of Sinophobic propaganda can change the fact that The Philippines was colonized by U.S.A. and 225,000 Pinoys died fighting for independence against the colonialist occupation, the U.S. is allied with Japan which refuses to recognize that Japanese committed thousands of gang rapes/murders in The Philippines during WW2, U.S. is allied which Spain which held a colonial occupation of the Philippines, and the U.S. allied with the U.K. and Germany which attempted to colonize the Philippines.

    2.) The U.S. committed the greatest abuse of chemical weapons in the history of the world during the Vietnam War with Agent Orange, Agent White, Agent Purple with the Pentagons despicable scorched earth policy, countless birth defects plus 3 million Vietnamese deaths, plus the U.S. is allied with France that held a colonial occupation in Vietnam, and again U.S. allied with Japan which refuses to acknowledge the crimes against humanity Japanese soldiers committed in Indochina during WW2. Recent anti-Chinese riots caused so much damage to foreign businesses that it causing a massive capital fight...the U.S. attempt to isolate trade out of China via TPP is already collapsing lol!

    ...Pentagon truly believes that the populations of the countries inhabiting SE Asia would be so quick to forget the crimes against humanity committed by the U.S. and it's closest allies such as Japan...btw far more people in world believe the U.S. is biggest threat to world peace than they believe Russia or China to be:





    http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:17 pm

    If you need gas please ask to Russia, if you need oil please ask to Russia, Venezuela, or Gulf states.

    The true and ultimate revenge of Russia. Mwahahahahahahaha           

    Shale gas and oil           sniper 




    Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth
    Industry's over-inflated reserve estimates are unravelling, and with it the 'American dream' of oil independence



    Next month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) will publish a new estimate of US shale deposits set to deal a death-blow to industry hype about a new golden era of US energy independence by fracking unconventional oil and gas.

    EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.

    The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.

    Industry lobbyists have for long highlighted the Monterey shale reserves as the big game-changer for US oil and gas production. Nick Grealy, who runs the consultancy No Hot Air which is funded by "gas and associated companies", and includes the UK's most high-profile shale gas fracker Cuadrilla among its clients, predicted last year that:

       "... the star of the North American show is barely on most people's radar screens. California shale will... reinvigorate the Golden State's economy over the next two to three years."

    This sort of hype triggered "a speculation boom among oil companies" according to the LA Times. The EIA's original survey for the US Department of Energy published in 2011 had been contracted out to Intek Inc. That report found that the Monterey shale constituted "64 percent of the total shale oil resources" in the US.

    The EIA's revised estimate was based partly on analysis of actual output from wells where new fracking techniques had been applied. According to EIA petroleum analyst John Staub:

       "From the information we've been able to gather, we've not seen evidence that oil extraction in this area is very productive using techniques like fracking... Our oil production estimates combined with a dearth of knowledge about geological differences among the oil fields led to erroneous predictions and estimates."

    The Intek Inc study for the EIA had relied largely on oil industry claims, rather than proper data. Hitesh Mohan, who authored the Intek study for the EIA, reportedly conceded that "his figures were derived from technical reports and presentations from oil companies, including Occidental Petroleum, which owns the lion's share of oil leases in the Monterey Shale, at 1.6 million acres." Mohan had even lifted his original estimate for the EIA to 17 billion barrels.

    Geoscientist David Hughes, who worked for the Geological Survey of Canada for 32 years, said:

       "The oil had always been a statistical fantasy. Left out of all the hoopla was the fact that the EIA's estimate was little more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation."

    Last year, the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) published Hughes' study, Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale, which conducted an empirical analysis of oil production data using a widely used industry database also relied on by the EIA. The report concluded that the original EIA estimate was "highly overstated," and unlikely to lead to a "statewide economic boom.... California should consider its economic and energy future in the absence of an oil production boom."

    A spokesman for the Institute, Tod Brilliant, told me:

       "Given the incredible difference between initial projections of 15 billion barrels and revisions to 600 million, does this not call into account all such global projections for tight oil?"

    As I'd reported earlier in June last year, a wider PCI study by Hughes had come to similar conclusions about bullish estimates of US shale oil and gas potential, concluding that "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production would likely peak next year. In that post, I'd pointed out previous well-documented, and alarmingly common, cases of industry over-estimates of reserve sizes which later had been questioned.

    Analysts like Jeremy Leggett have said, citing exaggerated oil industry estimates, that if reserve and production reality are indeed significantly lower than industry forecasts, we could be at risk of an oil shock as early as within the next five years.

    The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore "significantly underestimates" methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.

    The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage.

    Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket.

    According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to "expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration", as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.

    Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.



    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/22/two-thirds-write-down-us-shale-oil-gas-explodes-fracking-myth

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Polish president warns Germany of Putin's 'empire' ambitions

    Post  nemrod on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:02 pm


    The second world war was triggered because of Poland, and not because of Hitler as we were taught. Many polish leaders behaves likes commited cowards for US empire interrests.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/30/us-ukraine-crisis-poland-germany-idUSKBN0GU0AO20140830

    Indeed, what does it mean russian's empire inside the little heads of polish leaders ?
    Russia wants to open a new space of partnerships -economic, polictic, and more threatening for US, cultural fields- between -the ex-CIS states- Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Armenia, Bielorussia, and next Georgia. As they share common interrests, common culture, common neighborhood, it is natural to have good relations between them. Furthermore, it is absolutly revolutionar, because muslims and christians are living in peace.

    The problem for US, this trade between them is not in dollar. Moreover, China and Russia are trading in non dollar currency, for that reason US is enraged. No use to tell more about the US real empire. Furthermore, when US coalition attacked or invaded soveireign states like Iraq, Serbia, Libya they trampled UN resolutions, and they slaughtered millions of inoncent civilians with chemical bombs, depleted uranium. They fed up with all human values.

    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:58 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....

    It is a habit for people to use the label "empire" for something extremely big, economically and militarily powerful, and is rapidly expanding its influence to the neighboring regions.

    Using that kind of labelling we have an U.S. empire, a China empire, and a Russian empire. EU is more difficult to be labelled because it does not have a strong continental centralized government there are many internal conflicts and disagreements. In the future we probably will have a NATO empire and an Eurasia (Russia + India + China + etc.) empire.

    The funny thing in this story is that no one in the list calls itself an empire. But all of them accused each others as "empires".

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:36 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    nemrod wrote:
    Concerning Europ, after all, European Union is enlarging more than never, for all that is it an european empire ? Then, why is Russia's parnerships called an empire ? Because of no compliance to US will ?
    The first rogue state in the world has all rights, meanwhile the others will have to comply, else.....

    It is a habit for people to use the label "empire" for something extremely big, economically and militarily powerful, and is rapidly expanding its influence to the neighboring regions.

    Using that kind of labelling we have an U.S. empire, a China empire, and a Russian empire. EU is more difficult to be labelled because it does not have a strong continental centralized government there are many internal conflicts and disagreements. In the future we probably will have a NATO empire and an Eurasia (Russia + India + China + etc.) empire.

    The funny thing in this story is that no one in the list calls itself an empire. But all of them accused each others as "empires".

    Because Empires don't suite with being Good Guy.

    Dictionary definition of Empire

    a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

    So by that definition the US is a true empire, ruling over nations (EU) which is proven by the fact that they are hurting own economical and political interests just to do what US says i.e Sanctions and Propaganda war of the evil Russia.

    The CSTO on other hand is not fully developed and can be hardly claimed as an empire that dictates around the nations, especially considering all relly on China and good relations with them and Russia needs China and vice versa.


    Sponsored content

    Re: New Multipolar World Order

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:13 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:13 pm