I have been accepted by ILP(International Language Program).  I will be going to Russia to teach English in January.  I am really excited.  There are all kinds of things I still have to do, but I have been accepted.  I am trying to start learning Russian.  I am trying to read through a Russian Book of Mormon to become familiar with the alphabet, and I bought a phrase book so I can start learning some important phrases.

I have a new job.  Dad got me a job as an office clerk at his work.  It is making good money, and I should be able to work up the money for Russia pretty quick.  I am working ten-hours a day, four days a week.  It is a little bit intimidating, but I am having fun.

I am in nursery now.  For those who are not LDS the nursery is for children eighteen months-three years, then they move up to the next class the new year after they turn three.  It is not a very popular calling, but I love it.  I love little kids, they are so sweet.  There is this little girl, she is so shy, so I am trying to pay special attention to her and make her feel more comfortable.  It seems to be working so far, by the end of nursery on Sunday she was laughing and playing, both with me and with the other kids.  She really is sweet, I am starting to love all the kids in the class.

July 25, 2008

THE UNITED STATES and Russia can't see eye to eye on anything these days. However, they may soon be staring eyeball to eyeball again, as reports surfaced this week that Russian bombers could be deployed to Cuba if the United States goes ahead with plans to install missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe. Commentators have been using the term for months now, but are we really heading for a new Cold War?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveled in mid-July to the former Soviet republic of Georgia to bolster the country's enthusiastically Western-leaning government, which finds itself bombarded by Russian threats over its ambitions to join NATO and rein in Moscow-sponsored separatists on its territory.

Despite hopes for a new beginning, Russia's new president, Dmitri Medvedev, has continued his predecessor's penchant for undermining American objectives - most recently scuttling previously agreed UN sanctions on Zimbabwe. This comes in the context of Medvedev's calls before this month's Group of Eight summit to redirect the world economic order away from a flagging American hegemon. The world's financial system, he said, cannot be dependent on "only one currency and only one country."

This is the new Russia talking - a phoenix that has risen from the ashes of the 1990s, when the former Soviet empire was plunged into chaos by robber-baron capitalism and shamed by an ineffectual (and often drunk) President Boris Yeltsin. The Russia rebuilt by former KGB operative Vladimir Putin in the past eight years has relied on its vast territory's immense energy wealth and on the export of arms.

Newly confident and increasingly assertive, the Kremlin has recently sought to decrease Western influence in its Eurasian neighborhood. But, it has also exerted influence of its own further afield - such as claiming the North Pole and beginning Cold War-style nuclear bomber patrols to Guam and Scotland.

Since claiming that he gazed into Putin's soul and found it not to be threatening, President Bush has largely chosen to ignore Moscow's provocations, or attempted to counter them without much fanfare. John McCain, however, has said he would push for Russia to be kicked out of the G-8. And Barack Obama has hinted on more than one occasion that he would take a harder line on the country's human rights and foreign policy problems. Either way, the growing trouble spots in US-Russia relations - from Moscow's sale of antiaircraft units to Iran to the Kremlin's growing grip on Europe's energy supplies - will necessitate a new approach by a new administration.

That said, we may be on the cusp of a breakthrough. Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, usually spends his time lambasting the Alliance for seeking to surround Russia. Earlier this month, however, he quietly mentioned that in September, Medvedev will suggest a joint security framework "from Vancouver to Vladivostok."

While he gave few details, it seems that Moscow will attempt to elicit a grand bargain from the West: transcontinental security cooperation in exchange for a Russian sphere of influence in former Soviet Eurasia.

This could mean that the United States would have to abandon democratic Georgia, reforming Ukraine, and the energy-rich countries of the Caspian region to Russian dominance. Both NATO and the EU would have to halt their expansion, along with the peace, prosperity, and good governance they bring. If that is Russia's aim, then there is little to be gained from such an ambitious pact.

But, if US and European negotiators can hammer out an agreement with Moscow that serves the interests of both sides, then the dividends would be significant. Having Russia on side to tackle Iran, North Korea, transnational terrorism, climate change, and energy security would make life a lot easier for a new administration that is certain to have its hands too full elsewhere to engage in a new Cold War.

Alexandros Petersen is policy adviser with the Institute for Strategic Studies in Brussels and an adjunct fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

As per the Customs Committee of Russia, in the first quarter of 2007 Russia imported 108,900 tonnes of pork, this year the figure for the same period is 152,600 tonnes; an increase of 40%.  Imports from the EU have more than doubled with countries such as Denmark and Germany profiting most from this increase in demand. These two countries, along with the Netherlands, Spain and France, rely heavily on the cheap import of soy to feed their factory-farmed animals, the intensive production of which is causing devastation in Latin America.

As the pig farmers, corporations and governments who benefit from Russia's new taste for cheap meat rub their hands together, we all suffer the consequences; deforestation, climate change, pollution...

It's always the same problem though. How can we tell Russia to consume more responsibly if we are not prepared to do so ourselves. It's time to set a good example. Go vegan.

O polêmico estilo emo pode ser tratado como algo ilegal por causa de uma nova lei na Rússia.

Segundo o site NME, a legislação do país pretende regular sites sobre assuntos emo e também proibir o uso roupas de tal estilo em escolas e prédios públicos.

As autoridades russas definem os emos como adolescentes que se vestem de preto, usam piercings no rosto e "franjas que cobrem metade do rosto", de acordo com o jornal The Guardian.

A elaboração da lei foi motivada pelo receio de problemas futuros provocados pelo "modo de vida" da tribo, que geralmente é associada à pensamentos depressivos e até mesmo suicidas.

A discussão da lei já gerou vários protestos, comandados pelos jovens, no país no último final de semana, segundo o NME.

Fonte: Cifra Club

The hit TV sitcom The Office will soon be adapted into a Russian show. Having originated in the United Kingdom, the concept was first translated into an American show in 2005. The American version, which stars Steve Carell and John Krasinski, is now one of the most popular shows in the country and has one a number of awards. In 2006, France premiered its own version of the show. Now, four different countries will have their own version of this versatile show.

Not only has this never been done before, but it denotes a sort of unified sense of humor around the globe. Although each country inflicts its own sort of local humor upon the concept, the basic premise remains the same. Furthermore, each version employs a setting that is not exactly a relevant, national city—Slough, Berkshire in England, Scranton, PA in America, Villipente in France, and the as-yet unnamed Russian city. The idea of the show is simple and yet it is something all businessmen and women around the world can relate to. Here’s hoping the Russian version is as much a success as America’s.

For more information, check out this BBC article.

]]> http://gregornot.wordpress.com/?p=117 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:53:41 +0000 gregornot http://gregornot.wordpress.com/?p=117 Russia Considers Using Cuba For Refuelling of Nuclear Bombers

MOSCOW - Russia was today considering the use of bases in Cuba for its nuclear bombers, in a move that revives memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and which is likely to profoundly annoy the United States.

Russian military sources said that Moscow is contemplating using Cuba as a refuelling base for its nuclear-bomb carrying aircraft. The move is in retaliation for the Bush administration’s plan to site a missile defence shield in Europe.

Russia objects vehemently to the Pentagon’s plan. It says the US’s proposed system in Poland and the Czech republic - which formally agreed a deal with Washington last week - poses a direct threat to Russia and its security.

According to a report in Monday’s Izvestiya, the Kremlin now wants to use Cuba as a base for its long-range Tu-160 and Tu-95 strategic nuclear bombers. Citing a “highly-placed military source”, the paper said discussions had taken place.

“While they are deploying the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech republic, our long-range strategic aircraft already will be landing in Cuba,” the source told the paper. No final decision on landing bombers in Cuba had been taken, it added.

Today defence analysts told the Guardian there was little strategic point in using Cuba as a nuclear base - adding that the idea appeared to have been floated simply as a way of irritating the US and underscoring Russia’s anger.

Russia’s ageing nuclear aircraft have a range of 2,000-3,000kms - allowing them comfortably to fire a nuclear missile at the US from much further away, defence expert Pavel Felgenhauer said. “Frankly in Cuba they would be sitting ducks,” he added.

Additionally, there were other places were the planes could refuel, he said. “Any deployment in Cuba would be highly provocative and very costly. There would be no military advantage. Cuba would want compensation,” Felgenhauer said.

He added: “They [the Russians] are trying to tell the guys [in America] that if they don’t back out of their missile defence shield in Europe, we can make mischief in different places.”

It was not immediately clear whether Cuba had agreed to Russia’s proposal. In a brief, cryptic note posted on a government website, Fidel Castro said his brother Raul - Cuba’s president - was wise not to respond to the report.

Castro said that Cuba was not obliged to offer the US an explanation for the story, “nor ask for excuses or forgiveness.” Most observers believe that Raul - who took over from his brother in February - would be unlikely to agree to any request from Moscow.

But today’s apparent discussion is reminiscent of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when Khrushchev attempted to site nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island. His aim was to lesson the then strategic nuclear gap with the US.

Khrushchev eventually backed down and withdrew the missiles. The US secretly removed its missiles from Turkey. It also agreed not to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro’s communist regime.

During the Cold War, Cuba remained an important military ally for the Soviet Union. In 2002, however, Russia’s then president Vladimir Putin decided to close Russia’s Soviet-era radar and listening station in Cuba on the grounds of cost.

Last summer Putin ordered the resumption of worldwide bomber patrols by Russia’s nuclear aircraft. Although some experts have dismissed the flights as mere “willy waving”, Nato jets including from Britain have scrambled in response.

The US state department today said it had not had official confirmation from the Russian government about the report. “We continue to work with the Russians on this issue,” Gonzalo Gallegos told the Associated Press, referring to the US’s missile defence shield.

He added: “We have consistently made it clear to them that our proposed deployment of a limited missile defence system in Europe poses no threat to them or their nuclear deterrent.”

Russia’s new president, Dmitry Medvedev, has disappointed western observers who had hoped he might take a more conciliatory foreign policy line. During an address to ambassadors in Moscow this month, he explicitly criticised the US’s missile defence shield, promising Russia would respond ‘appropriately’.

Russia’s approach has recently hardened on several key international issues, experts say.

“It’s become much more rigid,” Felgenhauer said, adding that hardline officials inside Russia’s foreign and defence ministries appeared to be responsible. “There is uncertainty over who is really in charge of Russian foreign policy,” he said.

He added: “We are returning to policy positions agreed last autumn. There is no series attempt at compromise. Right now there is zero purpose in compromise until there is a new administration in Washington.”

“We are just spitting at each other,” he observed

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/24/10567/

Our daughter, Tania, had just returned from a 2 week camping trip in WI.  She had a great time.  She confided in me that she had met another girl from Russia while there.  I had commented I thought that was pretty cool.  She then told me even more.  As the girls spoke about Russia, they both realized they had been adopted from there...and that they actually were even from the same orphanage in Komsomolsk, Russia!

While I thought this was absolutely amazing...that these girls would learn they were from the same orphanage in Far Eastern Russia, they both just went on with their camping adventure like it was a normal, everyday occurance.

I guess, as the adults who lived through an International Adoption, and one that is from such a faraway country, I found it amazing that these two girls would meet again in a small tent in a Wisconsin campground several years after living in an orphanage together.  (They didn't know each other well in the orphanage.)  I know how difficult the trip was and how we struggled to get there and home each time.  Kids however, just follow along and do what kids do when traveling.  It's not stressful for them...so Tania had no idea how unusual it was to meet someone from her orphanage while camping! 

But....I had to sit back in awe...it really is a SMALL world after all....

Deborah Mumm, The Adoption Coach.... www.youtube.com/debmomof5

Russia’s Navy Sets Up A Force of NG Nuclear Submarines
Constructing nuclear multipurpose and strategic submarines of the fourth generation is the absolute priority of Navy’s development, declared the RF Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky.
Creation of the force of the next-generation strategic missile submarines is funded sufficiently and as a matter of priority, Vysotsky made clear.

The flagship of project 955, nuclear submarine Yuri Dolgoruky that is armed with Bulava-M ballistic missiles will be put operational in the near term, the admiral specified. “Construction of series submarines of this project is underway,” he pointed out.

The plans are to hand over to Northern Fleet the multipurpose nuclear submarine Severodvinsk of project 885, the admiral said. “A submarine of the new project 677 (St. Petersburg, Lada project) is passing state testing; it is armed with new missile and torpedo weapons.

Nuclear submarine Yuri Dolgoruky has floated out and the Navy will get it in 2008. Nowadays, Sevmash is building another two submarines of this class, Vladimir Monomakh and Alexander Nevsky.

From Bloomberg News on July 24, 2008:

Castro Says Cuba Owes No Apology to U.S. Over Russian Bombers

By Henry Meyer

July 24 (Bloomberg) -- Cuba's former President Fidel Castro said his country has no need to apologize to the U.S. over reports that Russia might start sending nuclear bombers to the island nation.

Castro, 81, praised his brother Raul, now Cuban president, for maintaining silence about the reported Russian plans. He provided few hints himself about the accuracy of the information, which appeared in Russia's Izvestia newspaper.

``You need nerves of steel in these times of genocide, and Cuba has them. The empire knows it,'' Castro said in an online commentary posted yesterday on www.cubadebate.cu, referring to the U.S. ``There's no need to give explanations, to provide excuses or to apologize.''

The U.S., whose plans to deploy elements of a missile- defense system in two former Soviet satellite states in eastern Europe have strained relations with Russia, warned Russia on July 22 not to cross a ``red line'' by sending nuclear bombers to Cuba, a Cold War ally of the Soviet Union.

Izvestia reported on July 21 that Russia plans to use Cuba as a refueling base for nuclear bombers. Crews of a supersonic Tu-160, a nuclear bomber known as ``White Swan,'' and Tu-95, which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization dubs ``Bear,'' are on the island nation doing reconnaissance work and inspecting infrastructure, the Moscow-based newspaper said today, citing unidentified Russian Defense Ministry officials.

`Fairy Tale'

Bombers can be deployed to bases in Cuba, Venezuela or Algeria at any time, Izvestia said.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky denied today's Izvestia report. ``There's no truth in it,'' he said by telephone, calling the report ``a fairy tale.''

General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be U.S. Air Force chief of staff, warned Russia two days ago not to fly bombers to Cuba in response to America's plan to place parts of a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

If Russia pursues the deployment, ``I think we should stand strong and indicate that that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line, for the United States of America,'' Schwartz told a Senate confirmation hearing in Washington.

The deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba brought the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear conflict during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Under the deal that ended the crisis, the Soviet Union withdrew the missiles and pledged not to station offensive weapons on the island, about 145 kilometers (90 miles) south of Florida.

Russia said on July 8 that it would react with military means to the U.S. system. Russian leaders have threatened to aim nuclear missiles at the planned bases in the Czech Republic and Poland, which they say would threaten Russia's security.

From Kommersant on July 23, 2008:

Chavez to Buy Russia’s Weapons for $5bn
The size of military and technical cooperation of Russia and Venezuela may reach $5 billion in the nearest ten years, said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Strategies and Technologies Analysis Center.
“Irrespective of global conditions of armaments’ market, the course of Hugo Chavez towards buying Russia’s weapons will continue and [the amount] may reach $5 billion in the following ten years,” Pukhov told RIA Novosti Wednesday.

In time of future negotiations, Pukhov went on, the parties are likely to begin by deliberating on the acquisition of diesel submarines of Amur class, military transport aircraft Il-76-MDs, flying tankers Il-78s and air defense weapons and systems of S-300, Buk, Top types and their modifications.

Venezuela will be willing to attract Russia's loans, as the time when they were paying cash for Russia’s armaments is over, the expert explained, specifying that they will be buying weapons on credit, by offset, transfer of technology and production license.

According to independent analysts, the amount of military deals that Russia and Venezuela have clinched since 2005 may vary from $2 billion to 4 billion.

From the Jamestown Foundation’s North Caucasus Weekly on July 17, 2008:

Russia Holds Military Exercises in the North Caucasus A large-scale Russian military exercise called “Caucasus 2008” is underway in Russia’s North Caucasus. Russian news agencies on July 16 quoted an aide to the commander of the North Caucasus Military District, Lieutenant Colonel Andrei Bobrun, as saying that the exercise would involve about 8,000 military personnel, 700 combat vehicles and more than 30 aircraft, and take place on the territory of Chechnya, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Karachaevo-Cherkessia. Russian military officials were quoted as saying that the aim of the exercise was to work on interoperability between federal troops, Interior Ministry troops, border guards and the Air Force in special operations against militants in the North Caucasus, as well as defending Russia’s state borders and supporting Russian peacekeepers in Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Indeed, Kommersant on July 17 quoted Igor Konashenkov, an aide to the commander of the Russia’s infantry forces, as saying that the exercises will involve resolving “anti-terrorism” tasks, but that in addition, “considering that the situation in the zones of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and Georgian-Ossetian conflict have become much more tense in recent times, several military units will develop a solution to peacekeeping tasks as problems.” Konashenko told the newspaper that exercises will be held at an altitude of more than 2,500 meters in the area of Roki and Mamison passes, which connect Russia and South Ossetia, and that special forces units and mountain brigades will take part in those exercises. Along with units from the North Caucasus Military District, mainly the 58th Army, the 4th Air Force Army, Interior Ministry troops, and border guards, units from the 76th Airborne Division based in Pskov will also take part in the exercise. Georgia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement released on July 16 that statements made by Russian military officials about the aims of the “Caucasus 2008” military exercise “can be viewed as a continuation of the aggressive policy the Russian Federation has been pursuing against Georgia in the recent period.” The ministry added: that “not a single document on conflict resolution authorizes Russian armed forces to carry out any kind of activity on the territory of Georgia” and thus that the statements by Russia’s Defense Ministry and top Russian military officials must be viewed as “a threat of aggression directed against the sovereign state.” The Georgian Foreign Ministry’s statement concluded: “The Russian Federation’s aggressive policy against Georgia poses a threat to peace and stability in the Caucasus region as a whole. The Russian side should be well aware that against such background of developments, successively higher levels of tension in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria and numerous armed clashes between local combatants and Russian law enforcement agencies may slide into increasing instability that, in our belief, must be far from serving the interests of the Russian Federation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia urges the Russian side in the strongest terms to refrain from irresponsible statements and stop its aggressive policy against Georgia.” On July 15, Georgia began its own large-scale military exercise in conjunction with the United States, dubbed “Immediate Response 2008,” near its capital of Tbilisi. Some 1,650 personnel, including troops from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, are to take part in the exercise, which was planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command and financed by the U.S. Defense Department.

From Kommersant on July 11, 2008:

Chavez' Defense Includes Russian Tanks
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that he intends to buy Russian weapons, including tanks, during his coming visit to Russia. The Venezuelan leader plans to hold talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on that topic in Moscow on July 22, the Associated Press reports. Chavez has already declared his intentions to purchase Russian submarines because the United States is strongly opposed to Venezuela having a submarine fleet. “They threaten us all the time and we have to defend our revolution,” Chavez explained.
Chavez also expressed the hope that the military-technical cooperation between Russia and Venezuela will continue for a long time to come. He said the Venezuelan Air Forces consists of outdated American planes and the U.S. has not provided any replacement parts for them for the last five years. Chavez thanked Russia for delivering a squadron of Sukhoi planes, which “fly remarkably.” In addition, he said, Venezuela has old NATO machine guns that hardly work. Now a shipment of Russian Kalashnikovs has arrived, with which “Venezuela is quite satisfied.”

In 2006, the Venezuelan president concluded a $3-billion contract with Russia on the purchase of weapons, including 100,000 Kalashnikov machineguns, 24 Su-30 fighter jets and 53 military helicopters.

Russia is preparing to attack Georgia, a NATO ally, while it plans to station nuclear bombers in Cuba, ships more weapons to the anti-American Communist dictator and Iran-ally Hugo Chavez, and builds the next generation of nuclear submarines.

Who is Russia's target?

The Russian government is in the process of drafting a law to make emo and goth music illegal.

Last month a parliamentary committee was convened to discuss a draft proposal of the Russian government's Government Strategy In The Sphere Of Spiritual And Ethical Education bill, the details of which were leaked to The Moscow Times. The newspaper subsequently reported that, among other things, the draft bill dubbed the musical movements a "dangerous teen trend" and called for emo and goth websites to be regulated and young people dressing like emos or goths to be banned from entering schools and government buildings. read more

by Eric Walberg / July 23rd, 2008

As the United States election race enters the final stretch, Barack Obama as the candidate promising change is revealing his true colors, much to the despair of anyone actually expecting any change. His recent call to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, his denial of Palestinians’’ right of return, and his support for a Bantustan Palestinian “state” which poses no threat to Israel show how completely he has caved in to the Zionist establishment on that issue.

As President George W Bush calls for early reductions in combat troops in Iraq, Obama’s position on Iraq — a vow to bring troops home within 16 months, excepting a “residual force” — looks less and less of a defining moment in his foreign policy. Whatever happens to troop levels, there is no explicit talk of overriding the plans for 14 permanent bases.

Obama is toeing the line in Afghanistan, too. As NATO casualties continue to mount, surpassing monthly Iraqi casualties as of June this year, he is proposing — now seconded by McCain — that the United States shift up to 15,000 more troops there from Iraq. Just prior to his trip to Afghanistan, he wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.” Please, will someone show me the silver lining in an Obama victory in November?

But then none of the above should come as any surprise to those familiar with his chief promoter and foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, along with current (and likely future) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has already entered history as helping “suck the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.” These are the words of President Jimmy Carter’s Under-Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe in March 1979, eight months before the Soviets were successfully “sucked in,” when Gates was CIA chief. The changing of the guard, come November, will change nothing. US foreign policy has a logic which transcends who sleeps in the White House.

What’s especially ghoulish about all this is that there are five Brzezinski offspring who are all onboard the Obama wagon: Mark (director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, and one of the prime movers of the 2004 color revolution in Ukraine), Ian (currently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO affairs and a backer of Kosovan independence, NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia and US ABM missiles in Poland), Mika (political commentator on MSNBC whose interview with Michele Obama contributed to the general media Obamamania) and finally, Matthew (a friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, “foreign minister” and US envoy of the Chechen opposition).

Brzezinski’s brand of anti-Russian, anti-Muslim geopolitics will dominate a future Obama administration. In Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, published last year, he lays out his New World Order agenda without so much as a blush. Apparently, there is a global political awakening going on, the goal of which is “dignity”. Not economic development, not the alleviation of poverty, not national sovereignty against the IMF and World Bank. Just plain old dignity, though Zbig’s brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanization, and the creation of weak statelets for each ethnic minority subservient to the US. Think: Kosovo and — if he has his way — Chechenia. Neo-Wilsonian demagogy in the service not of peace but of US world domination, encirclement of Russia and control of the Arab world.

Zbig said in endorsing Obama: “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples.” Obama’s alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig’s university textbook, or rather Second Chance, which will be the manual for the Obama campaign and presidency.

Obama is literally a second chance for Brzezinski: having destroyed the Soviet Union and shattered the Warsaw Pact, he now wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself and put the finishing touches on Afghanistan as an impregnable US military base against China, Russia… the list is endless. Perhaps Zbig is dreaming of restoring Greater Poland circa 1600 — from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all controlled by petty szlachta aristocrats like . . . the Brzezinskis?

The Economist blog put it best: “A new brain for Barack Obama! It’s 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter.”

The messianic idealism of the Obama campaign has not been seen since the days of another Brzezinski creation — Jimmy Carter, who made him national security adviser with disastrous results. Brzezinski’s anti-Russian obsession back in 1976 prompted him to foment the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which he touted as the greatest single bulwark against Soviet communism. Tarpley argues that Brzezinski was even a prime behind-the-scenes mover in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and installing Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Tehran. Brzezinski cared less about the Middle East and its oil than he did about the need for a centre from which Islamic fundamentalism of the most retrograde type could penetrate the soft southern underbelly of the USSR. For Brzezinski, the space between the southern frontier of the Soviet and the Indian Ocean littoral became an “arc of crisis”, and we have his handiwork to thank for the horrors taking place there to this day.

The 1980 Carter Doctrine — that the US was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf — is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the possible war on Iran. Brzezinski’s grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War and gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they turned out to be. By 1980, disillusionment with Carter led to the nightmare of the Reagan regime. But this was of little concern to Brzezinski — a mere blip on his radar screen.

In 2008, we have an obscure Illinois senator, a neophyte with no legislative achievements to speak of, but with a raft of utopian promises, including solving the race problem once and for all. Recession, unemployment and an alarming rise in poverty are of no consequence; a golden age is at hand thanks to his magnetic personality. Since he knows nothing of foreign policy, these matters will be competently managed by the Brzezinski cabal.

But there seems to be one slight hitch. Despite Obama’s slavish pro-Israeli genuflections of late, he is still not trusted by the Jewish lobby. Quite possibly because they know who the power behind the throne-to-be is, and they can’t stomach him, nor he them. Addressing the AIPAC crew in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said, “They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.”

But then Brzezinski was a key player in Carter’s 1978 Camp David Accords, much loathed by the Zionists as giving up Sinai in exchange for a cold peace with Egypt. Brzezinski is definitely not a hardcore Zionist, though he’s happy to allow the destruction of Palestine. Perhaps he is, under his suave exterior, still the quintessential Polish anti-Semite, with a vision of the New World Order without Israel at the centre.

If he can keep up the momentum, however, he may be able to outflank the Zionists in Washington and bringing his horse first past the finish line. They are on the defensive these days, what with spy trials, even J Street Project, a Jewish lobby group that — gasp — dares to criticize Israel. Is this, then, the silver lining in an Obama victory?

Eric Walberg is a journalist who worked in Uzbekistan and is now writing for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo. You can reach him at his site: www.geocities.com/walberg2002/ Read other articles by Eric, or visit Eric's website.

source

The way I see it, there are only two legitimate ways to determine the price of gas for Ukraine:

• Option A: Take the cost of the gas produced (whether in Russia or in Central Asia). Add the cost of transit. Add the cost of taxes and customs. Add a industry-standard profit margin (maybe $5-15 per thousand cubic meters). You are then left with the price for gas at the Ukraine - Russia border.
• Option B: Take the cost of gas charged by Gazprom to other major European consumers like Germany and Itay. (This price is developed using a formula based on the price of oil, the closest “substitute” to natural gas.) Subtract transit costs for the difference in distance between these countries and Ukraine. Average these various prices together to arrive at the “European” price for Ukraine. Let Gazprom worry about where they get the gas–whether from Russian wells or Central Asian–for the supplies, as should be done when negotiations are going through Gazprom.

The question becomes who–Ukraine or Russia–will capitalize on the profit margin between these two types of contracts...

Full account is available here.

By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press Writer

WARSAW, Poland - (AP) Poland and the U.S. took a step on Wednesday toward resolving a dispute over Warsaw's demands for defense aid in exchange for accepting part of an American missile defense system.

Polish and U.S. officials "had broad agreement on the threats, on the needs that Poland has in modernizing its military," Stephen Mull, a top U.S. diplomat on military issues, told reporters after a meeting in Warsaw.

"Now comes the hard work on specifics on working to develop the financing package necessary to go forward with this," he said.

Mull and Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski led experts from four working groups in meetings focused on a possible U.S. role in helping upgrade Poland's military. The aid would be tied to an agreement on building a U.S. missile defense base on Polish soil.

Washington wants to place 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland and a radar base in the neighboring Czech Republic.

It says the defense system is needed to protect Europe and the U.S. from possible future attacks from Iran. However, Russia is angry at the prospect of the bases close to its borders in Eastern Europe, and has threatened to point its own missiles at them.

Two weeks ago, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected the latest U.S. offer aimed at getting Poland to accept the missile defense base.

Tusk said the proposal fell short of strengthening Poland's security, and stressed that Warsaw needs U.S. assurances of short-and medium-range anti-missile systems, including a Patriot missile battery, to shore up its own defenses.

After Wednesday's talks, Komorowski said Warsaw and Washington "practically agreed on the scope of modernization, although some things still need to be ironed out."

Another round of talks is slated for late August in Washington to work out the final scope, timeline and U.S. financial role in the possible modernization deal, Mull and Komorowski said.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

I have been trying to pin down Barack Obama's stance on Russia for quite sometime now. He more or less totes the NATO line when it comes to cooperation with Europe, but hasn't totally fleshed out his approach to Russia. John McCain by stark contrast has been openly hostile towards Russia, seeking to kick them out of the G8 and openly admitting that the Missile Shield is necessary to guard against threats from "strategic competitors like Russia and China."

Obama primarily focuses on cooperation between Russia and the United States on nuclear disarmament, which I think is certainly moving in the right direction. By contrast, the Bush Administration suspended American involvement in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and Russia expectedly followed suit the next day. Now with jockeying of position over the Missile Shield, it is likely we will actually reescalate our nuclear forces with Russia.

Clearly the lack of detail in Obama's Berlin speech doesn't divulge much in terms of specifics about his Russia policy, but given all the Cold War talk and his gradual move to the center lately, I'm overall satisfied with "work with Russia when we can" and "to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax
The seven graphs that dispel alarmist claims about climate change

Global corporations and governments have joined forces to launch a united propaganda assault about how we must turn “green” while all the real environmental crises - deforestation, GM crops, chemtrails, genetic splicing, and cancer-causing cellphone tower radiation - are completely ignored.

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 22, 2008

Read Full Article Here

Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 16, 2008

The paper concludes, “CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”

Recent News:

1. United States

The United States of America is the single largest consumer of oil. It uses as much as 20.73 million barrels per day.

2. China

A fast growing China is the world's second largest user of oil. The world's most populous nation uses 6.534 million barrels per day.

3. Japan

Japan is the third largest consumer of oil. The Asian nation consumes 5.578 million barrels per day.

4. Germany

Germany is the fourth biggest consumer of oil in the world. It uses 2.650 million barrels per day.

5. Russia

Russia is the fifth largest consumer of oil. It uses 2.500 million barrels per day.

6. India

India is the sixth largest consumer of oil. It burns up 2.450 million barrels per day.

7. Canada

Canada is the world's seventh largest consumer of oil. It uses 2.294 million barrels per day.

8. South Korea

South Korea is the world's eighth largest consumer of oil. It uses up 2.149 million barrels of oil per day.

9. Brazil

Brazil is the ninth largest user of oil. It guzzles 2.100 million barrels per day

10. France

France is the world's tenth largest consumer of oil. It devours 1.970 million barrels per day.

No news has reach us yet of any gas chambers cranking out Glassjaw but...

Last month the State Duma held a hearing on “Government Strategy in the Sphere of Spiritual and Ethical Education”, a piece of legislation aimed at curbing “dangerous teen trends”. There, without a clue in the world, social conservatives lumped “emos” together with skinheads, pushing for heavy regulation of emo websites and the banning of emo and goth fashion from schools and government buildings.

“The point of the bill is so that by 2020, Moscow will have someone to rule its government,” explained Alexander Grishunin, an adviser to bill sponsor Yevgeny Yuryev, apparently without irony. “This is the first step in the public discourse.”

Yuryev and his allies hope to pass the legislation before the end of the year.

[...] The new bill describes “emos” as 12–16 year-olds with black and pink clothing, studded belts, painted fingernails, ear and eyebrow piercings, and black hair with fringes that “cover half the face”. Emo culture’s “negative ideology” may encourage depression, social withdrawal and even suicide, the bill alleges – with young girls being particularly vulnerable.

Guardian

China and Russia’s veto in the recent UN Security Council vote for imposing a new round of sanctions against Zimbabwe has caused quite a stir in the British media. The huge disappointment is understandable as President Mugabe’s continuing repression continues unabated. Nevertheless, the difference in attitude towards sanctions brings up some vital questions about the future of the UN and international law in general.

    Interestingly, China came under far less criticism than Russia. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, China’s engagement with states that have inexorable human rights records, from Burma to Sudan, has been well documented over the past year. Therefore, it came as no surprise that China once again vetoed in favour of a regime that it supplies arms to. Secondly, at the G8 summit in Hokkaido, Dmitry Medvedev indicated that Russia would support “financial and other measures" in response to Robert Mugabe’s crackdown against opposition activists, leading the U.S. and Britain to believe that they would change their obstructive stance within the Security Council. The consequent ‘nyet’ vote from Russia provoked cries of broken promises. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, was particularly critical, claiming

 “The U-turn in the Russian position is particularly surprising and disturbing ... [and] raises questions about its reliability as a G8 partner”.

However, both Russia and China’s response to the criticism alludes to a far wider problem than those given credence to by the media – that of Russia and China’s foreign policy commitment to traditional Westphalian, state-centric principles of international law.

   The mainstream media portrayal of Russia’s apparent u-turn is of a power political response to U.S. and E.U. foreign policy moves in Kosovo and the post-Soviet space that are to Russia’s distaste. However, analysis of the language used in Russia’s riposte to the criticism demonstrates a consistency in foreign policy originally outlined by former President Vladimir Putin and continued by his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the UN, argued that sanctions would have taken the body beyond its mandate to deal with threats to international peace and security. Sanctions

"would have created a dangerous precedent, opening the way for Security Council interference in the internal affairs of states in connection with one or another political event ... which is a gross violation of the UN charter,"

Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. This commitment to the maintenance of a strictly state-dominated view of international law should in principle be welcomed. Russia will certainly be held to her word in regard to the Abkhazia dispute with Georgia where she has certainly been involved in the domestic affairs of its neighbor.

      The wider problem concerns the international community’s most pressing challenges in Darfur, Burma and Zimbabwe, which demand more of the UN than it is mandated to do. In the de-colonised, post-Soviet world, civil war has posed the biggest military threat to humankind the world over, ranging from Rwanda to Kosovo. In 2005, world leaders agreed on the Responsibility to Protect through a UN General Assembly Resolution. While exciting in principle, China and Russia’s alternative interpretation of international law is demonstrated by their preference of state sovereignty over human rights and self-determination. Dmitry Medvedev made Russia’s stance clear in a recent speech to the country’s diplomats outlining his foreign policy values -

 “It is absolutely essential to identify and resist the attempt of national or group interests to ignore international law. After all, this is the set of rules that has been and remains the most solid foundation for relations between nations”.

     Russia’s vision of a multi-polar, rule based international order creates a paradoxical situation for the West’s vision of global relations. On the one hand, it is encouraging that both China and Russia are committed to a set of principles enshrined by the UN in 1945 which maintains international peace and security. However, 21^st century challenges require nations to bear a greater responsibility for solving problems that transcend their borders – from climate change to poverty and increasingly, the responsibility to protect those who are not treated humanely by their government. Russia has shown no inclination up until now, that it will assist in setting any kind of precedent for interfering in another nation’s domestic affairs.

      Although this may contradict the political realities of Russia’s meddling in the affairs of it’s ‘near abroad’, in terms of values, Russia has become one of the leading voices in a camp of nations that values its sovereignty to develop politically and economically as it wishes. The UN has therefore become redundant as a vehicle to confront challenges which push the limits of international law. Disagreement in the UN Security Council over Kosovo, Iraq and Zimbabwe is not tit-for-tat political point scoring but rather, a genuine split along a values-orientated line.

     Despite the doom and gloom over the prospect of future disunity in the UN and other international institutions, there are indications that Russia would like to confront the breakdown in the principles-based relationship. Talking about international law in his foreign policy speech, Medvedev commented that

“[i]f these principles retain their universal importance, we have to honestly examine why they have ceased to be universally applied. We must decide whether they are adequate to the new conditions of life, or come up with something fundamentally new for the construction of a modern European architecture that would be designed for 21st-century realities. I'm absolutely convinced that this requires new approaches. The resources of previous approaches have to a large extent been exhausted”.

A willingness to address the problems of the rules-based international order, albeit for different reasons, is a positive sign, particularly when we still live in a nuclear infested world. Unfortunately, in the short term, frustrations over the plight of Zimbabweans and Darfurians will continue.

... The world's political leaders need to honour their pledges and wholeheartedly tackle the big global challenges

Writing in response (amended in parts to the original reply):

A number of issues spring to mind reading through this article.

G8, as it stands, is out-of-date and meaningless. In addressing world issues, this global forum requires to expand so as incorporating others such as representatives from within the African Union and greater incorporation by both India and China. Rather than a G8, why not a G12 or 15, a more representative spread of how world problems should be tackled. The G8 shouldn't be afraid in opening up its doors by creating a better democratic platform in which such issues of vast importance are openly discussed. Russia, a re-emerging nation of strategic importance, should be having a greater say at G8 meetings.

G8 should reflect, earnestly, on the reforms made by both the World Bank and the IMF. Institutions that remained, up until recently, cumbersome and bureaucratic, are now better streamlined and fit for the purpose by which they now serve. The IMF, for example, was initially set-up in monitoring exchange rate movements. With that task now redundant it is now geared towards helping those countries in most need of financial help. The Brentwood accord still has some way to go before its reforms are complete.

The loss of credibility with both the UN and its Security Council doesn't create an enduring perception of G8. The G8, regularly seen as a talking-shop, like the UN requires an urgent make-over. Reforms of G8, along with the likes of the WTO, seem more pressing given just how so many countries around the world have been affected through rapid rising food prices, the price of oil and, in particular, how globalisation has networked the global economy into the state we currently find it. When economists talk of recession now-a-days, it's more in terms of global and universal, and not necessarily just national. The parameters of how economics is now interpreted require different solutions as to how such solutions were found and presented in the past. It means, in effect, liberalising world bodies so as agreements and decisions can be more effective with minimal delays in implementation. That can hardly be said at the present moment. Without proper representation by countries themselves at a wider gathering can only continue the discord that has become so prevalent at places like the UN Security Council. Ceding power, by those who remain determined in being influential players by holding onto it, isn't really the point. A democratic outcome requires democratic consent.

The 'League of Nations' as advocated by John McCain, does offer something, I believe, that could counter the current stalemate. Based on the notion of existing alongside the UN, that one day might replace it, its decisions before becoming effective would require majority rather than unanimous consent. It skirts around the issue and difficulties associated with the often splits that arise during Security Council meetings. The link that G8 has with other UN bodies is inextricable; transparency and continuity of purpose must remain uppermost if this gathering is to succeed in the future.

A future G8, or expanded forum, requires working more coherently with the UN purely on the basis of it being relevant. At present, the ad-hoc nature by which so many world bodies exist has created the bottlenecks to which we regularly witness. Joined-up thinking and decision-making requires consistency.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

Reference:

• Professor Jeffrey Sachs, "G8 leaders are able but unwilling to act"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/24/g8.globalisation

Other articles by Professor Sachs:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jeffreysachs

On this day in 1978, Louise Joy Brown, the world's first baby to be conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) is born at Oldham and District General Hospital in Manchester, England, to parents Lesley and Peter Brown. The healthy baby was delivered shortly before midnight by caesarean section and weighed in at five pounds, 12 ounces.

"World's first "test tube baby" born ." 2008. The History Channel website. 25 Jul 2008, 02:35 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=59456.

On This Day

0326 - Constantine refused to carry out the traditional pagan sacrifices.

1394 - Charles VI of France issued a decree for the general expulsion of Jews from France.

1587 - Japanese strong-man Hideyoshi banned Christianity in Japan and ordered all Christians to leave.

1593 - France's King Henry IV converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism.

1805 - Aaron Burr visited New Orleans with plans to establish a new country, with New Orleans as the capital city.

1845 - China granted Belgium equal trading rights with Britain, France and the United States.

1850 - In Worcester, MA, Harvard and Yale University freshmen met in the first intercollegiate billiards match.

1850 - Gold was discovered in the Rogue River in Oregon.

1866 - Ulysses S. Grant was named General of the Army. He was the first American officer to hold the rank.

1909 - French aviator Louis Bleriot flew across the English Channel in a monoplane. He traveled from Calais to Dover in 37 minutes. He was the first man to fly across the channel.

1914 - Russia declared that it would act to protect Serbian sovereignty.

1934 - Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss was shot and killed by Nazis.

1941 - The U.S. government froze all Japanese and Chinese assets.

1946 - The U.S. detonated an atomic bomb at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. It was the first underwater test of the device.

1946 - Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis staged their first show as a team at Club 500 in Atlantic City, NJ.

1952 - Puerto Rico became a self-governing commonwealth of the U.S.

1956 - The Italian liner Andrea Doria sank after colliding with the Swedish ship Stockholm off the New England coast. 51 people were killed.

1984 - Soviet cosmonaut Svetlana Savitskaya became the first woman to walk in space. She was aboard the orbiting space station Salyut 7.

1994 - Israel and Jordan formally ended the state of war that had existed between them since 1948.

Congress passes Crittenden-Johnson Resolution

The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution passes, declaring that the war is being waged for the reunion of the states and not to interfere with the institutions of the South, namely slavery. The measure was important in keeping the pivotal states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland in the Union.

This resolution should not be confused with the Crittenden Compromise—a plan circulated after the Southern states began seceding from the Union that proposed to protect slavery as an enticement to keep the Southern states from leaving—which was defeated in Congress. At the beginning of the war, many Northerners supported a war for to keep the Union together, but had no interest in advancing the cause of abolition. The Crittenden-Johnson plan was passed in 1861 to distinguish the issue of emancipation from the war's purpose.

The common denominator of the two plans was Senator John Crittenden from Kentucky. Crittenden carried the torch of compromise borne so ably by another Kentucky senator, Henry Clay, who brokered such important deals as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 to keep the nation together. Clay died in 1852, but Crittenden carried on the spirit befitting the representative of a state deeply divided over the issue of slavery.

Although the measure was passed in Congress, it meant little when, just two weeks later, President Lincoln signed a confiscation act, allowing for the seizure of property—including slaves—from rebellious citizens. Still, for the first year and a half of the Civil War, reunification of the United States was the official goal of the North. It was not until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of September 1862 that slavery became a goal.

"Congress passes Crittenden-Johnson Resolution." 2008. The History Channel website. 25 Jul 2008, 02:33 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2258.

Mussolini falls from power

On this day in 1943, Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy, is voted out of power by his own Grand Council and arrested upon leaving a meeting with King Vittorio Emanuele, who tells Il Duce that the war is lost. Mussolini responded to it all with an uncharacteristic meekness.

"Mussolini falls from power." 2008. The History Channel website. 25 Jul 2008, 02:36 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=6530.