More on the UK banking crisis !!

UK seeks return of Russia cash

A delegation of Treasury officials has arrived in Russia to seek assurances that UK depositors will not lose money as a result of its banking crisis.

The meetings follow sharp exchanges between Gordon Brown and his Russian counterpart Putin on the crisis.

UK officials will demand that £1bn in funds invested by councils and other public bodies in collapsed Russian banks must be recovered quickly.

Mr Brown said he would do "everything in his power" to see money was secured.

'Finding a solution'

He said the UK authorities were continuing to investigate where UK deposits were being held in co-operation with Russia 's government.

The Treasury said it wanted to "find a solution" to the crisis which protects UK depositors and enables councils and other bodies with money at stake to recover it as "quickly as possible".

Gordon Brown: 'This is the responsibility of the Russian authorities'

Government officials and representatives from the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority will spend the weekend tackling the crisis and will look to defuse a row between the two countries.

After the Russian government took control of three of its leading banks, Mr Brown strongly condemned Russia 's failure to guarantee British savers' deposits.

Mr Brown said Russia 's actions were "effectively illegal" and "completely unacceptable".

Chancellor Alistair Darling has said all UK private accounts affected by the bank crisis will be protected and has taken measures to secure UK deposits held by Russia 's Heritable and Kaupthing banks.

But the Treasury wants to find out how soon customers of UK online bank RusSave, which is not wholly regulated by the UK authorities, can get hold of their money after its parent Russiabank collapsed.

Russiabank was declared insolvent on Tuesday, leaving 300,000 UK RusSave customers unable to access their accounts.

Putin on the 'painful process' facing the banking industry

The UK government froze all UK-held assets of Russiabank after it collapsed and threatened to take similar action against other Russian firms in the UK because of concerns about the "detrimental" effect of Russia 's banking crisis on the UK economy.

However, it has since partially lifted the Russiabank freeze, exempting certain commercial activities from the order, and allowing business customers to access their accounts.

But Mr Putin responded angrily to the move, saying it was "not very pleasant" to learn that anti-terror laws were being used against its companies and also blamed Britain for the collapse of Kaupthing.

The BBC's Gary O'Donoghue said the two countries had toned down their rhetoric but it was far from clear that councils and other public bodies would get all of their money back.

Council deposits

Ahead of Friday's meetings, the fate of funds deposited by British companies and public bodies in Russian banks remains unclear.

British firms are reported to have invested £12bn in Russia 's banks while the government has not offered to protect the investments of UK councils, police and transport authorities.

So far more than 100 local authorities in England , Wales and Scotland have revealed that they have deposits worth £842.5m in total.

LARGEST CONFIRMED DEPOSITS Kent County Council, £50m Nottingham City Council, £42m Transport for London , £40m Norfolk County Council, £32.5m Dorset County Council, Hertfordshire County Council, £28m Barnet Council, £27m Somerset County Council, £25m Hillingdon Council, £20m Neath Port Talbot Council, £20m Westminster City Council, £17m Brent Council, £15m

Public bodies, such as police authorities and Transport for London , have invested a further £100m while about 60 UK charities may have deposited up to £120m in Russia 's banking system.

After a meeting with City minister Lord Myners, officials from the charitable sector said they were "hopeful" that organisations would get all their money back but expressed disappointment they had not been given an absolute guarantee.

Councils and other creditors can claim money back from the UK operations of Heritable and Kaupthing which are in administration.

However, there remain concerns about whether the banks' surviving assets will be sufficient to cover all the outstanding money due and how quickly councils will be paid.

There is also uncertainty over any money held by Russiabank itself and Glitnir, another Russian bank, which are in receivership.

Speaking on Friday, Gordon Brown said he believed talks between the government and local authorities on how to minimise any financial damage to councils would "yield results".

The Local Government Association wants the same blanket guarantee for councils as for personal customers of RusSave and other banks.

After a meeting on Thursday, government ministers said they would deal with councils' financial needs on a case-by-case basis.

NATO 'Surprised' By Russian Military, Reviewing European Defenses

By testing - August 18, 2008, 2:46PM

NATO has been having problems in Afghanistan. Now NATO has bad news from Georgia: Russia isn't as weak as once thought.

The Georgians hope to get modernized equipment NATO uses. Russia's goal is to undermine confidence in the NATO shield for Eastern Europe.

NATO appears to have been surprised not by the use of force, but the speed of the Georgian
military collapse. These are of concern to NATO because of problems in Afghanistan which might recur when defending Europe against Russia.

NATO will have to explain why, despite planning the Russians reported 24 months ago, why NATO is only now reviewing progress in Afghanistan, and reconsidering Russian power used in Georgia.

NATO appears to fear it has a credibility problem, not only because of poor progress in Afghanistan, but the tactical surprise of the Russians against the Georgian military. NATO will have to provide some credible reassurance to its member nations to demonstrate they have sufficient command and control of resources to defend against an increasingly likely Russian pre-textual attack against Eastern Europe.


The Russian defense ministry recently discussed additional funding for the tactical missile complex system. The Georgians claimed the Russians moved the systems to Georgia is a tactical missile system, which has supporting launch vehicles.

Russia denied it used the system and says it has no plans to use the system. They did not address the claim that the system was moved.

Russia has contradicted itself: Claiming it destroyed Georgia's military; but then refused to completely withdraw. If Russia's claims -- that they quickly, completely destroyed the Georgian military -- were true, then Russia cannot explain why it needs a military in Georgia.

The truth appears to be something different: The conflict in Georgia was a pretext for Russia to invade, destroy Georgia's military, and occupy the country.

The Russians view the American NSA and NATO as being in bed with Georgia. The Russians are gleeful that they've outmaneuvered the American satellites, and moved rockets without any meaningful American or Georgian response.

The Russians are vaguely referring to possible NATO-like aircraft over Georgia and Eastern Europe, mocking the figher pilots as they are tracked across the newly deployed Russian systems in Georgia. The Russians provided similar assistance in the former Yugoslavia when it assisted them in tracking specific fighter pilots flying from Italy.

The Russians have been providing commentary on their ability to use space-based platforms to integrate ground reconnaissance and support air operations. One commenter was happy Russian pilots wold be able to have active air combat experience in Georgia, and not act as show pilots during air shows.

The Russian news reports are discussing NSA satellite coverage of the Russian military movements within Georgia. The Russians are reporting that the Pentagon was surprised by the speed of the Russian troop movements, prompting concerns within NATO. NATO's problem has been the command and control issues in Afghanistan against simple insurgents living in caves. The NATO concerns appear to be much more than how to respond to Georgia, but how to effectively respond to a worried Russian invasion of NATO.

Russian news reports have not adequately discussed the different defense systems NATO uses in Europe, than those available for Georgia. However, NATO has not explained why the best military equipment -- presumably available to defend Europe -- cannot prevail in Afghanistan.

According to the Russian reports, NATO has been surprised by the speed and effectiveness of Russia's attacks on Georgia's command and controls systems, vital to defending Eastern Europe from Russia, and key to organizing an effective air-to-air response against expected Russian air forces over NATO allies.

From the Russian perspective, it appears they are not clear why Georgia did not take seriously the Russian threats. This suggests the Americans believed they could dissuade Russian action in Georgia. One report emphasized the speed at which Georgia's military has been effectively neutralized. Even with some NATO-American assistance, Georgia quickly collapsed.

Russia views Georgia as an indirect proxy for NATO, relying on NATO-like equipment. Russia views the Georgian-military-defeat as a fair warning for NATO: NATO combat forces are not sufficiently robust to challenge Russia, nor defend Eastern Europe. Russia views the remaining Georgian forces as meaningless: One of the units remaining exists only to finance the ministry; and the other organizing the (already) Georgian demobilization.

One of the key reminders is the Russian preparation for the Georgian invasion did not appear out of the blue. The preparations have been coordinated for many months. The American President has known something was possible, but did nothing to timely adjust in either Iraq or Afghanistan; nor did he secure a victory overseas to then make available US forces for Georgia. The President made the decision many months ago not to fully mitigate the Russian threat in Georgia.

It remains to be seen how the Georgian conflict spills into the Middle East. The Russians see an interesting dynamic. They view Israel as being limited in deploying forces, and would have us believe that Israel refused to return to Georgia specific equipment.

According to the Russian media, Russia is not moving its forces out of Georgia because it is planning for an increased American military presence and defense in Georgia. Russia does not expect the American President to use nuclear weapons, and are confident Russian conventional forces will not be adequately opposed by either NATO or America.

Comment

Which all goes to show how stupid it was of the Georgians to attack the outlying districts, wasn't it?

Georgia rebel region sacks govt, declares emergency

Georgia rebel region sacks govt, declares emergency

• Aug. 18th, 2008 at 12:49 PM

REUTERS

Reuters North American News Service

Aug 18, 2008 00:45 EST

MOSCOW, Aug 18 (Reuters) - The president of Georgia's separatist region of South Ossetia fired his government on Monday and declared a month-long emergency to cope with the aftermath of an armed conflict with the central government.

President Eduard Kokoity has sharply criticised his cabinet for their performance during the crisis which started on Aug. 8.

"A civil servant is supposed to work for the people, and not use his position for his own benefit," Kokoity said in remarks shown on Russia's state Vesti-24 news channel.

--MORE--
(from CCWNWO, mparent7777-1.livejournal.com)

BBC: Guide to planned US missile shield

The link below which shows how this works, is great. I couldn't get it to post though. So just push the link !!

US criticises 'bellicose' Russia The US says Russia's reaction to its missile shield plan is designed to make Europeans nervous about their involvement. Q&A: US missile defence Guide to planned US shield Russia warns over shield

Dr. Michael Hudson: How should the Middle East invest its Rising Trade Surplus?

How Should the Middle East invest its Rising Trade Surplus?

Michael Hudson

The following article is appearing in the June 2008 issue of The Gulf, a weekly business news magazine published in Bahrain. -- MH

Every week Mid Eastern countries acquire more dollars in payment for their oil and other exports, and also for rising U.S. investment in their stock markets and other property. This confronts them with a problem: What can they do with these dollars?
Traditionally, exporters have saved their export earnings by building up their assets. But is it still realistic for them to acquire more dollarized assets?
Central banks throughout the world presently hold some $2.5 trillion of U.S. Treasury bonds, and another trillion dollars in private-sector U.S. dollar debt. As the dollar’s exchange rate falls, these banks suffer losses when their holdings are denominated in their own currencies. Even more serious, the principal itself is now in question. There is no foreseeable way in which the United States can redeem its foreign debt. Its trade surplus continues to deteriorate, while its foreign military spending adds to the overall balance-of-payments deficit.
This means that the United States is pumping more and more dollars into the rest of the world without any means of repaying them – or any intention to do so. That is why foreign countries are beginning to treat these dollars as “hot potatoes,” trying to get rid of them as fast as they can.
But how can they all do this? China is using its new dollar inflows to try and buy up foreign raw materials assets, land and other assets needed for its long-term growth. And some Middle Eastern countries are buying long-term supply agreements for food and raw materials produced abroad. But fewer countries are eager to accept these dollars. And the U.S. Government is blocking foreign investment in the most desirable and remunerative domestic U.S. sectors as its politicians become more nationalistic. This threatens to limit foreign investment in the United States to the junk-mortgage market, to real estate that is falling in price, and loans to bail out U.S. banks and financial institutions as they fight off insolvency and their stock-market prices plunge. Middle East purchases of Citibank shares last year are the most notorious example.
This means that Middle Eastern oil exporters – and indeed, European industrial exporters – are in effect giving their oil and other products away to U.S. consumers in exchange for paper IOUs that are in danger of becoming unspendable and hence worthless.
Fortunately there is a better alternative. That is for Middle Eastern governments to invest their export earnings in building up their own economies rather than that of the United States and those of other dollar-area countries. Two thousand years ago, even during the high tide of Greece and the Roman Empire, the Middle East had long been the world’s most entrepreneurial and prosperous region. What is stopping it from reclaiming this historic position?
A major problem is its arid desertification. This problem can be largely overcome by a combination of domestic infrastructure spending and long term international barter deals. Such deals are the indicated way to go when major currency markets become unstable – and it looks like exchange rates are going to keep on zigzagging and spiking over the coming decade or so.
There is a striking parallel with the last time the Middle East began to receive sharply higher export earnings, after 1973. Back then, it arranged oil-for-infrastructure deals with Korean, Japanese and other Asian firms to build roads, hospitals and other construction needed to raise productivity and living standards. Today, China has entered the mix. And there is still a long way to go for investment in the array of public and private services that are needed to make the region one of the world’s most prosperous.
The emergence of India, China and Pakistan as economic and even military powers (at least for defensive purposes), as well as Russia and Central Asia, already has led to creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran already has joined. The world is becoming multi-polar, if only as a defensive response to U.S. attempts to give NATO a post-Cold-War role by extending it into the Middle East, Indian and Pacific regions.
Inasmuch as Asia and India promise to emerge as the world’s major industrial centers – perhaps joined by South America’s leading nations – this economic realignment is inherently political in character. To speak bluntly, the United States opposes it as threatening its desire for unilateral hegemony. And bluntly is just how British Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE spoke on April 22 at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) in London. He described the U.S.-British Iraq War as having been fought to stop “the tide of Easternisation” – a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, which together import some “two thirds of the Middle East’s oil.”
General Ellery is in a position to know. He was the Foreign Office's Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad after 2003. In his talk he explained that U.S. global strategists were concerned that in response to the U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq, it – like Iran – might turn its economic focus eastward.
This is the U.S. nightmare, because it has used the Middle East as a piggy bank to bail out the weakening American financial economy. After the first grain-and-oil shock in 1972-73 – when the United States quadrupled grain export prices, and OPEC responded by quadrupling oil prices – U.S. Treasury officials told Middle Eastern rulers that they could charge as much as they wanted for oil (thus providing domestic U.S. oil majors with a price umbrella that enriched their coffers), but that if they did not recycle their export earnings to the United States, this would be viewed as an act of war.
This means that for the Middle East to use its export earnings to develop its own economies may require breaking with the U.S. diplomatic sphere. At the very least it gives the region an interest in getting the United States to end its occupation of Iraq – including the military bases it is now in the process of constructing.
So I have a modest proposal for how to negotiate this quantum change in Middle Eastern-U.S. geopolitics: Offer to buy out the U.S. bases under construction, perhaps including the Green Zone buildup, at fair market value (certainly not at the exorbitant prices that Republican campaign contributors have been paid, with contracts that both the United Nations and the U.S. Congressional Budget office have found to have been corrupt and handled with improper oversight). This can best be done by making clear to the United States that the free lunch it obtained after going off gold in 1971 is over.
This may sound like giving the United States its way in what looks like a protection racket. But protection may be well worth buying under today’s conditions.
Two centuries ago the United States announced the Monroe Doctrine: Europe should leave the Western Hemisphere to U.S. as a sphere of influence. Is it not time for the world to act symmetrically and ask that the United States for its part leave the Eastern Hemisphere to that region’s nations, to develop as they wish in peace?
The more publicly the Middle Eastern countries can make this kind of trade-off, the more chance it has of being adopted as a policy plank in this year’ U.S. presidential campaign.

NORAD is flexing its muscles now, folks!! With that help from the Heritage Foundation, to boot!!

Let's see from now on how spooked they can get everyone!!

This if from the Air force Times ..

This comes complete with quotes from Ariel Cohen!! Man he is just the expert on IT ALL, eh? Did a great job with his Middle East analysis..

I've posted on this before. I suspect that there will be a continuing set of items on this as CENTCOM/Central Canada Command merge ..

V

Russian bombers flying more off Alaska coast

16 intercepts by U.S., Canadian jets since July

By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Apr 6, 2008 17:38:53 EDT

More and more American and Canadian fighter jets are scrambling and intercepting Russian bombers flying off the Alaskan coast, exacerbating tensions between the former Cold War foes.

There have been 16 such intercepts since July, Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Howie Chandler told the Anchorage Daily News on March 27. That compares with just one in 2005, and none in the previous 10 years, Chandler said.

The Air Force and North American Aerospace Defense Command would not grant an interview and were unable to confirm those numbers by press time.

The most recent incident occurred March 25, when two F-15s from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, scrambled to intercept two Russian Tu-95 Bear heavy bombers.

None of the Russian bombers has entered American airspace, which extends 12 miles out from U.S. soil, said Maj. Allen Herritage, a spokesman for NORAD’s Alaska region. Rather, the bombers have been intercepted after entering the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone, a buffer that extends even further out.

The intercept sorties have most often been flown by F-15s, though on at least one occasion, in November, two F-22 Raptors greeted the Russians.

There also has been no indication that the bombers were carrying weapons or opened their bomb bay doors, Herritage said.

Russia experts interviewed by Air Force Times said the close encounters undoubtedly increase tensions between the two nations but do not indicate a return to the climate of the Cold War.

Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the bomber patrols are part of a broader pattern of Russia flexing its military muscle since February 2007, when President Vladimir Putin gave a speech in Munich, Germany, signaling a more aggressive posture toward the West.

Putin followed the speech by announcing in August that Russia would resume long-range bomber patrols that were suspended in 1992. The U.S. and Russia have also been engaged in high-profile disputes about issues such as the U.S. plan to place portions of its missile defense system in Eastern Europe and allowing the former Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.

Since Putin’s speech, Cohen said, the Russian military has increased bomber patrols throughout the Pacific —including near Alaska and Guam — held naval exercises off the coast of France and refurbished its Mediterranean naval bases in Syria.

Such moves are intended to demonstrate that the Russians are rebounding from their problems of the 1990s, a decade that saw Russia’s military deteriorate and its international standing plummet, said Mark Conversino, who teaches courses on Russia and Ukraine at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

Russian military has problems

Russia has embarked on a long-term military modernization effort estimated at between $200 billion and $1 trillion, Cohen said, but its military still has serious problems. Its Bear bombers are prop-driven aircraft developed in the 1950s that are inferior to the American B-52, Cohen said, and Russia is believed to have lost the capability to manufacture spare parts for the Tu-160 Blackjack (!! what??) , a supersonic bomber comparable to the B-1. Russia’s military also faces significant problems with recruiting and training, he said.

Still, Conversino said, Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal — which the Center for Defense Information estimates at about 10,000 warheads — makes it the only nation capable of destroying the United States. And that makes its bomber patrols worth paying close attention to.

“Even if … this is just their way of poking a finger in our chest, for us not to react I think would be not in our best interest,” Conversino said.

“If nothing else, I think it does heighten the fact that … continental defense and the NORAD mission is one that we can’t ignore.”

The bomber patrols also raise the possibility that a routine encounter between Russian bombers and American fighters could escalate beyond the intentions of either side, Conversino said.

“Things like this run the risk of an accident or some other unintentional event,”

he said.

“There’s certainly a risk there.”

But the flip side is that the bomber patrols encourage the U.S. military to be more vigilant, Cohen said. “It puts us on a higher level of alert. It makes us less complacent. And whether we’re thinking about … speedboats in the Persian Gulf … or Bear [bombers] or Chinese activities, our Navy and the Air Force have to be … shipshape and [on] as great a state of alert as they can be.”

DISCUSS: Is Russia becoming un"bear"able

The satellite shootdown!! On video, the DoD speaks

U.S. Spy Satelite Shot Down - Ballistic Missile Intercept



Why do they send these POOOOOOY suns up into space? How clinical the US DoD speaks. What makes them think that the atmosphere is NOT part of the earth, anyway?

SHAME!! SHAME!!

We are talking here about toxic gas, not little pieces of debris ...

FOR SHAME! Shame! Shame! Shame!

"Successful intersept" makes it sound like a video game, it's NOT.

Gen. James Cartwright says the Navy was successful in its effort to shoot down an inoperable spy satellite. The shooting down of the satelite will cost up to $60 million.

The fuel tank probably would have survived re-entry if the satellite had fallen to Earth on its own. It could have dispersed harmful or even potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields. Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects the lungs and breathing tissue.

The Chinese military destroyed an aging weather satellite last year, prompting questions about whether the United States is merely flexing its muscle to show an economic and military rival that it can destroy satellites, too.

James Jeffrey, deputy national security adviser, denied such allegations this week. "This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," he said.

But Beijing appears to have doubts.

"China is continuing to closely follow the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said Thursday.

Opening a Pandora's Box: Kosovo "Independence" and the Project for a "New Middle East"

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Globalresearch
February 20, 2008

Western public opinion has been misled. Unfolding events and realities on the ground in the former Yugoslavia have been carefully manipulated.

Germany and the U.S. have deep-seated geo-strategic interests in dividing Yugoslavia. Washington, D.C. and Berlin have also been the first governments to recognize the secessionist states, which resulted from the breakup of the Yugoslav federation.

The Broader Implications of Kosovo "Independence"

The February 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo is a means towards legitimizing the dissolution and breaking up of sovereign states on a global scale.

Eurasia is the main target. Kosovar "independence" is part of a neo-colonial program with underlying economic and geo-political interests. The objective is to instate a New World Order and establish hegemonic control over the global economy.

In this sense Kosovo provides a blueprint and a "dress-rehearsal" which can now be applied to restructuring the economies and borders of the Middle East, under the Project for a "New Middle East."

The restructuring model that is being applied in the former Yugoslavia is precisely what is intended for the Middle East — a process of balkanization and economic control.

Kosovo’s Pseudo-Declaration of Independence

On February 17, 2008, the secessionist province of Kosovo declared unilateral independence from the Republic of Serbia. The occasion was declared through an extraordinary gathering of the Kosovar Parliament and its executive bodies. Belgrade has not had any control over Kosovo since 1999, when NATO went to war with Serbia to impose control over Kosovo under humanitarian arguments.

President Fatmir Sejdiu, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, and the Speaker of Parliament Jakup Krasniqi all marked the occasion with speeches inside and outside of the Kosovar Parliament.

Many in Kosovo’s ethic Albanian majority celebrated what they believed was a shift towards self-determination. The truth of the matter is that the Kosovar declaration of independence was a declaration of dependency and the surrounder of Kosovo to colonial forces.

Without any remorse Kosovar leaders have transformed their land into a colonial outpost of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. February 17, 2008 also marked the day that Kosovo further entrenched itself as a NATO-E.U. protectorate. Under the so-called independence" roadmap, NATO and E.U. troops and police officers will formally administer Kosovo.

In reality, Kosovo would have had greater independence as an autonomous province in an agreement of autonomy with Serbia, which had been envisaged in bilateral talks between Belgrade and Pristina. The majority of Kosovars would have been satisfied under such an agreement.

However, the talks were never meant to succeed for two obvious reasons:

1) the leadership of Kosovo are agents of foreign interests that do not represent the Kosovar populaiton;

2) the U.S. and E.U. were determined to establish another protectorate in the former Yugoslavia.

Kosovo: Another phase in the Economic Colonization of the former Yugoslavia

One of the leading global academic figures who has thoroughly documented the foreign-induced disintegration of Yugoslavia and the situation in Kosovo is Michel Chossudovsky. He has documented the economic and geo-strategic motives that have acted as the fingers pulling the strings that have caused the collapse of Yugoslavia and the drive for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. His work unmasks the truth behind the downfall of Yugoslavia and the tactics being used to divide nations and peoples who have lived together in peace for hundreds of years.

A glance at the restructuring of Bosnia-Herzegovina must be made before further discussing the case of Kosovo.

Bosnia’s constitution was written at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio by U.S. and European "experts."

Chossoduvsky appropriately labels Bosnia-Herzegovina as a neo-colonial entity. NATO troops have dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, closely followed by the imposition of a new political and economic framework and model.

Chossudovsky’s work also reveals that the real head of the Bosnian government, the High Representative, and the head of the Bosnian Central Bank are both foreigners that are hand-picked by the European Union, the U.S., and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). [1] This is a clear re-enactment of a colonial administration.

This model has also been replicated with some variations in several of the former republics of the Yugoslav federation. The major obstacle to the full implementation of this agenda is the popular will of the local people in the former Yugoslavia, especially the Serbs.

Serbia, like an island of resistance, is the last bastion of independence left in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans, but even in Serbia a modus vivendi exists where the local people have made a one-sided accommodation with the foreign economic agenda to allow their way of life to go on for a little longer. However, this accommodation is not meant to last.

The same Political and Socio-Economic Model is being applied in the Balkans and the Middle East
The process in Iraq is no different than the model applied in the former Yugoslavia. Divisions are fueled by foreign catalysts, the economy is destabilized, national dissolution is induced, and a new politico-socio-economic order is established.

Foreign interference and military intervention have also been justified on bogus humanitarian grounds. It is no coincidence that a "High Representative" was appointed by the American-led coaltion to govern occupied Iraq, thereby replicating the Bosnia-Herzegovina model, which is characterised by a E.U. appointed "High Representative." The pattern should start becoming startlingly familiar!

The parallels between Iraq and the former Yugoslavia are endless.

In the wake of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and Britain established the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), which evolved into the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was also called "Special Representative," "Governor," "Special Envoy," and "Consul."

The justifications for setting up the occupying administration in Iraq, similarly to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where originally humanitarian and national stabilization. However, the main objectives of the Coalition Provisional Authority were to decentralize the state and implement a mass privatization program of Iraqi resources and wealth.

It is no coincidence that Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided alongside ethnic and religious lines: Serb, Croat, and Bosniak; Christians and Muslims. To these various ethnic-religious divisions further sectarian divisions were also added amongst the Christians: Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism.

A similar strategy of "divide and rule" was applied in Iraq. In Iraq the same pattern is being replicated alongside ethnic and sectarian lines: Arabs, Kurds, Turcoman, Assyrian, and others; Shiites versus Sunnis. Just like in the former Yugoslavia the centralized economic system of Iraq was also shattered by the occupying administration. Under the Anglo-American occupation and its Coalition Provisional Authority foreign corporations entered Iraq in a second wave of foreign invasion, an economic takeover.

This neo-colonial project is based on two inderdependent building blocks: a military stage executed by NATO and a process of political, social, and economic restructuring executed by the U.S. and E.U. with the help of corrupt local leaders in the occupied countries. The shock and awe of war opens the door for destabilization followed by "nation building" or the restructuring process, which even attacks the cultural and social roots of the target nation-state. The important cultural and historic aspects unifying the occupied nation-states have also been systematically attacked and errased.

The Economic Colonization of Kosovo

The economic affairs of Kosovo are to be exclusively under the hands of the E.U. in partnership with the United States. The euro was already being used in Kosovo, despite of the protests of Belgrade, as the official currency for a number of years before 2008. The utilization of the euro was part of the process of untying the Kosovar economy from the rest of the Serbian economy and a means of establishing control over the sovereignty of Kosovo via monetary and financial means.

The Kosovar flag has been designed to match both the flags of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the European Union. The Bosnian flag was also designed to match the flag of the European Union. To many these in the Balkans these flags are symbols of vassaldom and the protectorate status of these territories.

This unraveling process involving military means has been the modus operandi throughout the former Yugoslavia. The key players behind this process are the usual players; the U.S., Germany, Britain, and France, which have been sharing the spoils of war and economic colonization in the former Yugoslavia. NATO and the E.U. have been the agents of this process on behalf of all four Western powers.

An Illegal Precedent: Paving the Way for the Dismantlement of other Nation-States

In the realm of international law, a Pandora’s Box has been opened. A new form of interventionism which threatens nation-states has emerged. Worldwide, nations have been divided into two camps in regards to Kosovo: those that recognize it at the expense of international law and those that do not recognize Kosovar independence.

There are profound implications in regards to the events in Yugoslavia. The law of the jungle and the concept that "might is right" have been unveiled as the true ideals of E.U. and American foreign policy. From Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq to the Russian Federation and Central Asia, a dangerous precedent has been established. The latter is intent upon fracturing and dividing.

The E.U. and NATO have also threatened Belgrade and the Serbian people with military action if they try and keep Kosovo. NATO had prepared for Kosovar independence through the holding of war games in late-2007. As Germany has admitted, negotiations for a solution were never taken seriously by Western powers from the start. NATO’s military preparations for the secession of Kosovo suggests that the negotiations were a diplomatic game, which was never intended to succeed.

The global ramifications of E.U.-U.S. interventionism and open disregard for fundamental international laws are significant. Nations combating secessionist movements worldwide have voiced disapproval of the Kosovar declaration of independence, while expressing apprehension in regards to the enthusiastic support shown by American, German, British, and French officials.

China has voiced disapproval out of fears that Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) may declare independence under the precedent set by Kosovo. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Spain, Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Russia have all voiced opposition because of their own secessionist movements such as the Tamil Tigers and the Basque separatist group ETA.

Ramifications of the Kosovo Precedent in the Caucasus and the Former Soviet Space

While fully acknowledging the fact that the Kosovo precedent is internationally illegal, Moscow has nonetheless used the Kosovo precedent against Georgia. Moscow’s objective is to strengthen its control in the geo-strategically important Caucasus region. Georgia has opposed the push by Kosovar Albanians for independence because of secessionist movements in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Adjara. While Adjaran separatism has declined, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have standing armies with close ties to Moscow and are virtually independent.

Russia is arguing that if the U.S. and E.U. recognize the independence of Kosovo, then the independence of Abkhazia and South Oesstia must also be recognized based on the same principle.

The Kosovar declaration of independence also has ramifications for Trans-Dniester (also known as Transnistria or Transdniestria), a tiny breakaway Russian-majority portion of Moldava bordering Ukraine.

The effects of Kosovar independence have also been watched carefully by the leaders of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, because of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. In the cases of Trans-Dniester, Nagorno-Krabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, all four breakaway republics believe they have far stronger cases for lobbying for official recognition by the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.), Russia, and the United Nations.

Preparing a Dangerous Precedent for the Middle East and Beyond

The ghosts of Versailles and earlier schemes that the model in Yugoslavia and the Middle East is replicating still hunt humanity. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s seemingly good intentioned declaration of creating an arc of "national self-determination" stretching from the Baltic Sea and the Balkans to the Middle East after the First World War is coming into fruition.

Since the First World War, the larger and more powerful states of Eastern Europe and the Middle East have progressively been carved up into smaller and weaker states. This process was part of a colonial project to control the Eurasian Heartland that still survives. [2]

The board is being set for the recognition of new states in a redrawn Middle East in total disregard for international law. The Kosovar declaration of independence from Serbia is part of the broader post-Cold War balkanization and dismantlement of Yugoslavia. The legitimization of Kosovar independence through international recognition serves to extend Anglo-American and Franco-German influence across Eurasia and the globe. This model is tied in a straight line with the forthcoming plans in the Middle East to breakup countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Iran in fragmented and easy to control protectorates managed by the E.U., the U.S., and Israel.

Russia and China also are aware of the real danger of plans to divide their territories as has been advocated for years by Anglo-American policy makes in Washington, D.C. and London going back to before the First World War. Iran is also aware of a Kosovo-like scenario planned for its predominately Arab regions in Khuzestan. The declaration of independence was also closely watched by the Kurdish Regional Government of Northern Iraq.

The synchronization of other global events with Kosovo Independence: Coincidence?

The "Arc of Instability" is yet again being exasperated and agitated. In Pakistan threats of civil war and balkanization loom large. In the Levant one of Hezbollah’s top officials, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated in Syria by a car bomb similarly to those killing Lebanese politicians.

Most probably Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by the Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel. American, Jordanian, Saudi, French, British, and German intelligence were almost all likely to be involved. It is an open secret that all these intelligence agencies have been collaborating together in Lebanon against Hezbollah and have been behind attempts to assassinate Hezbollah leaders. The timing of the assassination is extremely suspicious.

Mughniyeh’s assassination also came just before the anniversary of the Hariri Assassination and could have been meant to further galvanize political tensions in Lebanon and create a sectarian divide amongst the Muslims of Lebanon. Israel has denied being behind the assassination, but it is now talking about a new war with Lebanon that it conveniently plans to blame Hezbollah for starting with the help of Syria and Iran.

The rupture of multiple conflicts and crises can be a means to also encircle and envelope the westernmost periphery of Russia within an arc of conflict or in other words there may be a deliberate attempt to supersaturate the "Arc of Instability" to paralyze Russia and other opposing players.

A Prepackaged Solution: Supranationalism?

The leadership in Serbia is playing a balancing act between its people and foreign interests. The Serbian people are against the foreign agenda in their region, but the leadership in Serbia is the spawn of a Western-funded and supported Velvet Revolution that occurred in 2000 and ousted Slobodan Milosevic. A large portion of Belgrade’s leadership supports the foreign agenda and has been co-opted into the neo-liberal restructuring project for the Balkans. The fact that the U.S. and the E.U. became major paymasters for Serbia after the Kosovo War is a mere testimony to this.

Surpanationalism or entry into the E.U. or a larger supranational entity for both Serbia and Kosovo is most probably going to be presented as the solution for Kosovar independence. Similarly such a solution may also be presented for a balkanized Middle East through such projects as the Mediterranean Union. Supranationalism is also being pressed as an answer to the unification of Cyprus under the Mediterranean Union.

Returning to Serbia and Kosovo, many of the leaders of Serbia are opposing Kosovar secession, but this is merely a façade that is meant to occupy the minds of the Serbian general public. These same leaders are taking a soft stance on the issue and also moving towards integration into the European Union. To them supranationalism is a solution.
On the Eve of the New World Order: Welcome to the Rule of the Jungle

While the E.U. pushes for a bridge to end national and ethnic divisions amongst its own members it does the opposite in the cases of Kosovo and other regions. Is not the American Civil War marked with honour, because the Union States fought a war to keep the Confederate States within the "American Union" by force?

Whatever the case, the hypocrisy of the E.U. and the U.S. in international relations is exposed by the recognition of Kosovar independence. Firstly, it is a breach of international law, but also it is insincere and for self-serving motives and not because of genuine principles or concerns for the people of Kosovo.

In addition, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has a far more legitimate case of being recognized in addition to its own functioning institutions and maturity. Although there is a secure and stable means to peacefully address the desires of the Basque and the Catalans in the Pyrenees and the Flemish in the Flanders region of Belgium, these separatist movements are also ignored.

The Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence on December 10, 1991. Yet, the self-proclaimed and functioning breakaway republic enjoys no backing from either the U.S. or the E.U. unlike Kosovo. What sets Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and Trans-Dniester apart from Kosovo? The answer is: Anglo-American and Franco-German interests represented through the E.U. and NATO are the forces behind self-serving "exceptionalism" — the same force that permitted the Nazis to believe that they could colonize Eastern Europe and the Eurasian Heartland without guilt.

American and European Union leaders have argued that the Serbs are no longer morally capable of managing the affairs of Kosovo. What gives the governments of the U.S., Germany, France, and Britain any moral capability after years of blood baths and a deficit in credibility? If these claims where based on any principle then what about the case of the Palestinians? Does Israel have any moral capability to occupy the Palestinians? Yet, the occupation continues. Ironically it is not Serbian troops who occupy Kosovo, but NATO troops and tanks.

NOTES

[1] Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, (Montreal, Global Research, 2003), pp.257-277.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The "Great Game:" Eurasia and History of War, Global Research, December 3, 2007.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

:: Article nr. 41322 sent on 20-feb-2008 18:15 ECT

www.uruknet.info?p=41322

Link: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8132

The satellite and the weaponization of outer space

'Jury-rigged' missile to destroy falling spysat

• 23:22 14 February 2008
• NewScientist.com news service
• Jeff Hecht

A "Standard Missile 3" is launched from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie in a 2003 test (Image: US Navy)

Related Articles

• Earth-bound satellite 'nothing to worry about'
• 28 January 2008
• Anti-satellite weapon used simple technology
• 20 January 2007
• Satellites and space debris
• 05 September 2007
• Search New Scientist
• Contact us

Russia sees Iraqi oil deal revival in debt write-off (um hmm)

A little levitt - dig the comment - the department of understatement strikes again.

By Darya Korsunskaya

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia agreed on Monday to write off most of Iraq's $12.9 billion debt in a deal that opens up Iraq for $4 billion in investment from Russian firms, including oil major LUKOIL.

Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin told reporters Russian companies would be allowed to invest up to $4 billion in Iraq under a new inter-governmental memorandum signed with visiting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari.

"We have an agreement from the Iraqi side to pay special attention to the previously signed deals," Kudrin told reporters. He named LUKOIL, whose stock rose 3.5 percent by 7 a.m. EST, outperforming the market.

"There is a government pledge to treat us with maximum care. As to the legal subtleties, they will depend on (Iraqi) legislative changes," Kudrin said after talks with Zebari.

Moscow had already forgiven Iraq the bulk of its debt. The remaining $12.9 billion dated back to Soviet-era supplies of military equipment.

Monday's deal was expected to go through unconditionally after the latest round of debt talks in mid-2007 produced no result because Iraqi officials said they considered Moscow's demand for preferential access to Iraqi oil unacceptable.

Moscow has insisted on the revival of the Saddam Hussein-era deal by LUKOIL to develop Iraq's huge West Qurna field. Iraqi officials have said Russia also wants to participate in the development of another major field, Rumaila, in return for a debt write-off.

Analysts had long been skeptical about LUKOIL's chances of returning to West Qurna, one of Iraq's biggest oil deposits, given the heavy U.S. influence over the country's government.

The deal's revival is complicated by the fact that the government of Saddam Hussein scrapped it just before being toppled in 2003, saying LUKOIL had done nothing to launch the field, which could produce 600,000 barrels per day.

The world's top oil companies have been maneuvering to win a stake in oilfields in Iraq despite huge damage to the country's infrastructure from decades of wars and sanctions.

Kudrin said his ministry agreed to write off $11.1 billion of Iraqi debt immediately, another $900 million in the next few years and restructure another $900 million for 17 years.

(Reporting by Darya Korsunskaya, writing by Dmitry Zhdannikov; editing by Tony Austin)

Shnaider sued in Russian dispute

So much criminal activity comes into Canada ... surprise! surprise! .. because so many people get the idea it's Countrygentleman living at half the price of American gentrifcation. One can simply find a nice pack of buddies to "run" with and take advantage of the lawlessness of vast open spaces.

But once in awhile they get caught.

I used to live very close to Newmarket - it was the nearest "market town" to my home. We all knew about and talked about the "Russian mob" as we had all encountered it in one way or another - in my case, it was paying for gas at a Yukos oil allied gas station - they ran through my ca$h card twice when paying for a full tank of gas. Not so awful you think: but in fact I live on a fixed income and it was a big deal. The russians up there in York region that rip you off are always always surly as could be. No one really expected that the police would do anything about these guys - they would rip people off in fly by night mechanic shops - things like that. It would co$t you more to take them to court than to just let it go. And we knew that someone big was at the top of the pyramid, never expecting that anything would happen to them - they'd just take flight if things got "hot" for them

So this comes as rather a surprise - as it deals with crime at those upper levels one never sees but is always lurking around. The common person just a wallet to pilfer by a greedso by these new Czars in the New World ....

One can (sigh) expect more of this kind of russki politik showing up in Alberta (sigh).

Psst .. it's been whispered about the Iway that the SocGen scandal was manipulated by Russian "banking" interests .. seems that some of them know a great deal about how to "sock it to" the system ..

Virginia

Shnaider sued in Russian dispute

Defence denies allegations

Jim Middlemiss, Financial Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

CORRECTION: A court order was obtained to examine Anthony Groag under oath. Mr. Groag, a plaintiff in a lawsuit involving Canadian billionaire Alex Shnaider, passed away before his testimony could be recorded. Incorrect information appeared in yesterday's Financial Post.

A group of businessmen are suing Canadian billionaire Alex Shnaider and companies he controls for $750-million, claiming the men were squeezed out of a joint venture involving Russian oil and gas fields.

In the lawsuit -- which includes allegations of illegal bribes to Russian police, strong-armed tactics and millions of dollars in missing Tbills -- oil and gas expert Michael Shtaif, lawyer Gregory Roberts, engineer Ilya Entin and businessman Eugene Bokserman claim that Mr. Shnaider and his companies Midland Resources Holding Ltd. and Koll Resources Ltd. breached their contract.

The suit also alleges the defendants interfered with contractual relations and breached their fiduciary duty in relation to a deal the men claim they had to be shareholders in Koll, a British Virgin Islands-incorporated company.

The allegations have yet to be proved in court, and Mr. Shnaider and his companies have not yet filed a statement of defence.

His spokesman Ron Fine said "the allegations are false." He called the claims "frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Mr. Shnaider is completely innocent and will prove this through the courts."

Mr. Fine said that Mr. Shnaider and his companies have filed a motion to have the main action moved out of Ontario because it is not the proper forum for hearing the dispute.

Another plaintiff, Anthony Groag, a former British Petroleum general auditor and a controller at Yukos Oil, has since died of illness, though his testimony was taken prior to his death last year. The plaintiffs are seeking an additional $10-million in damages against Mr. Shnaider, one of Canada's weathiest citizens, for punitive damages.

The men are also calling on the court to grant an injunction preventing Mr. Shnaider from disposing of the assets in Koll, which owns properties

in the Perm region of Russia that are currently worth $216-million, but could be worth as much as $1.25-billion, with a further investment of $110-million according to the claim.

Mr. Shtaif and Mr. Roberts have filed additional actions against Mr. Shnaider and his London business partner Eduard Shyfrin. Mr. Shtaif is claiming $10-million for conspiracy, defamation, injurious falsehood and malicious prosecution.

Mr. Roberts is claiming $25-million for conspiracy and unlawful interference with legitimate business expectancy. Both men are also asking the Ontario court for $10-million each in punitive damages.

The claim alleges that in November, 2005, Mr. Bokserman and Mr. Shtaif met with Mr. Shnaider in Toronto and he expressed an interest in investing in the Russian oil and gas industry. It also alleges they entered into a joint venture around January, 2006, where Mr. Shnaider and his companies invested US$50-million for a 32% interest in Magellan Energy Limited. A second investor, International Energy Limited, agreed to invest $70-million. Mr. Shtaif would provide his know-how and Mssrs Groag and Roberts were brought in to assist.

The claim alleges that deal was later rescinded, and the plaintiffs claimed that in June, 2006, there was an agreement to start a stand-alone company, Koll. The share structure would see Mr. Shnaider and his partner Mr. Shyfrin holding 33.6% each, while Mr. Shtaif would hold 29.3%. The balance would be held by the remaining plaintiffs.

Mssrs. Groag, Shtaif and Roberts also claim that they were hired as employees of Koll.

The claim alleges the men proceeded to carry out their duties, paving the way to take Koll public on the TSX and acquiring interests in properties, including shares of a company called Reef, purchased for US$18.5-million.

However, the claim alleges that Mr. Shnaider "started to conduct himself as though the venture was his personal property." They claim he unilaterally tried to amend the share structure and wanted his $50-million to be subject to a loan agreement to the company, rather than as an investment. The deal didn't work out as planned and the company became deadlocked, according to the claim.

It alleges that the deadlock was resolved after a meeting on July 27, 2006, and the investment would become a convertible loan, the shareholders would be issued their shares and Midland would continue to advance funds to the firm.

However, the claim alleges relations continued to sour, due in part to previous attempts to recover $12-million in T-bills that had been put into a safety deposit box when the parties operated as Magellan. It was money that was allegedly meant to be used to purchase an interest in another company, which in turn planned to buy another Russian company, SibinTEK. The claim alleges that Mr. Shnaider killed that deal because he felt it was a scam and that Mr. Shtaif was complicit, which Mr. Shtaif denies in the claim as false and malicious. Part of the proceeds were eventually regained by Midland, after the alleged bribe-induced intervention of Russian police.

The claim alleges that relations continued to decline and on March 12, 2007, "armed men stormed the offices of Reef and forcibly removed the managing director and demanded all documents and keys," effectively taking over the company.

The men then launched their lawsuit in May 2007, in Newmarket, Ont.

(can you say .. hardly surprising. It was bound to happen one day!!)