The November-December 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine is a true collector’s item. 

I have already written about the fascinating debate (‘Faulty Powers’) sparked by John Mearsheimer’s claim in the preceding issue that the West is to blame for the crisis surrounding Ukraine.

Another major essay, entitled ‘Pick Your Battles,’ by Richard Betts, director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University  explains how the US military can move beyond its  losing engagements with counterinsurgency and nation-building over the past dozen years and return to what it knows best:  big wars against great powers.  Russia specialists may take comfort in Betts’ finding that Russia is too weak for the US to bother with and can be left safely to its NATO allies in Europe to dispatch. China hands must shiver alone: China is the big game that the Pentagon can stalk in war scenarios intended to preserve U.S. global hegemony.  

Yet it is the contribution of Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, parent organization of Foreign Affairsmagazine which probably trumps all others in the issue. This magisterial essay, entitled “The Unraveling. How to Respond to a Disordered World’ should be mandatory reading for the editorial board of Foreign Affairs. Their studying it closely could lead to very beneficial changes in the publication policy with respect to ''dissident voices'' in the American international relations community.

Considering where he stands on Putin and Russia generally, it is more than ironic that Haass chose to address the very same theme as guided the Valdai Discussion Group’s meeting in Sochi the week before FA’s November-December magazine was released to its subscribers: "The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules."  And where Vladimir Putin’s keynote speech in Sochi was a model of consistency, the doyen of his field in the USA delivered an analysis and prescription for policy that is a jumble of contradictions.

At the start of his essay, Haass sets out the challenges to global governance and describes the causes, many of which, by his own determination relate to US actions in the Middle East and the way it has conducted its relations with Russia. He touches upon a number of more general buttons with which we in the 'other camp' on directions for US policy will agree fully:  including the lax regulation of financial institutions that led to the 2008 crisis which is the biggest determinant in European politics today, plus the 'overly aggressive national security policies that trampled international norms.'  Moreover, it is not just American political scientists in the shadows who would agree with his very frank listing of causal factors to the unraveling of the world order. Vladimir Putin's narrative tracks very closely to the points laid out by Haass.

As regards his big picture appraisal of pluses and minuses around the globe, Haass speaks of Russia as an unappealing outlier capable of causing troubles only on Europe's periphery. The language is so close to passages in President Obama’s speeches about Russia in the late spring and summer that the question naturally arises: who scripted whom?

Russia is not a major threat in part because it is constrained by interdependency, in Haass’ view. As a consequence, he concludes that America can direct its attention elsewhere:  Europe is "no longer a security problem."  Thus, Haass is entirely on the same page as Richard Betts as noted above. But this is an odd formulation at the very moment when a hot war between Russia and NATO can break out at any moment on the territory of Ukraine and when Russia's declared military doctrine states that it will use nuclear arms if it faces superior conventional forces.

The risks of nuclear exchange by misjudgment in the context of the ongoing information war and hyper-active military maneuvers of both sides must not be played down.  This is not Ebola. It is not ISIS.  It is a potential Armageddon. How can Haass and Betts be oblivious to it all?

Given Haass’ spot-on statements about Russia being constrained by interdependence, I find it contradictory that in the last third of his essay, among his recommendations for a way forward he persists in recommending that we 'shore up Ukraine economically and militarily, strengthen NATO and sanction Russia." 

Then one inch down the page he calls upon Europe to cut its dependence on Russian energy. Surely this is not out of solicitude for Europe’s economic welfare, since Russian gas, especially if the South Stream project is eventually built, is and will be the most secure and by far the cheapest source of energy available to the Old Continent. The real intent is to destroy the foundations of the Russian economy and downsize the Russian-European strategic partnership. That policy of cutting interdependence is a concise formula for  ending Russian restraint and ushering in WWIII.

Sandwiched between those two economic prescriptions is the recommendation that Ukraine ‘not become a member of NATO any time soon.”  This formulation will shock the Neocons, for whom Ukraine’s joining NATO will prove its sovereignty and provide a cudgel against Russia. At the same time, the intentionally vague ‘any time soon’ will not satisfy Russia for whom Ukraine must be excluded from consideration for NATO, full stop.

At the beginning of his essay, Haass casts aside the objections to Russia itself being admitted to NATO going back to the 1990s, before the water went over the dam. He says that in effect NATO is no longer a classic alliance, just a pool of talent for 'coalitions of the willing.'  Why then does he not re-examine the implications of his own words as they bear on current policy?  

We are now beyond Russia in NATO, though from the Russian standpoint it was a viable proposition as recently as in 2009, a year after the Georgian war.  But we have before us the possibility to return to Dmitry Medvedev's initiative of finally ending the Cold War in a manner that was overlooked by the Clinton presidency, by bringing Russia into a newly designed pan-European security architecture. Medvedev's 2008 proposal was half-baked, but the West made no counter-offer.

In conclusion, I find that Richard Haass arrives at a neutral position in his tour d’horizon of global order and forces for disorder. But he does so in a manner that will please no one.  He takes the understanding of causality from the dissident analysts who are almost never published in Foreign Affairs.  And he provides the policy recommendations that come from the hawks who populate the administration and who otherwise fill the pages of the magazine.  Is it any wonder that with advisers like this the United States has such a wrong-headed policy on Russia, and on many other hot spots globally?

G. Doctorow is an occasional guest lecturer at St. Petersburg State University and Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow. His latest book, Stepping Out of Line: Collected (Nonconformist) Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2008-12, is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites worldwide.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

Multinational corporations (sector-wide) do not intentionally loose money without a good reason. Some MNC’s do loose big, like car manufactures or banks during the 2008-2011 financial crisis – but not all and not at the same time. That’s what we are seeing now – all major Western oil producers across the globe are taking massive revenue losses without putting up a fight. Other major businesses that use or depend on oil also are sitting tight. That’s very strange. Have they finally decided to share their wealth with the people or is there an alternative agenda at work? I do not know, and to be honest everything that I’ll say below is a mere speculation about what is really happening. I do however hope to stimulate your curiosity, to get you thinking and asking questions about what is happening because oil is the key to our civilization. It’s the key to the way our governments function and how our economies behave. Without oil we go back to the 19th century so those who control it, to a great extent, dictate the rules of the game on this planet.

Also, before we begin, let’s get this notion out of the way that lower prices benefit corporations because people will buy more of their product. That is certainly true for leisure and luxury brands, but not for oil, food, plastics and chemicals producers who know their products are a real “need” not a “want” for the population. This means people will go in debt but will still buy gas to drive to work, food to feed their families, plastic and chemical products without which civilized world simply does not function. That is why on average, prices on almost everything we buy only go up. Corporations know they can get away with it.  

So who or what controls oil? The answer to this question is simpler than you think – the US dollar (a.k.a. the petrodollar). Of course there are other factors that impact oil prices, but none are as significant as the value of the USD. If the value of the dollar is high – oil prices are low. That’s because US currency has strong purchasing power which means you need less of it to buy a single barrel of oil. If the dollar is weak - prices of oil are high because you need more USDs to buy that same barrel.

This is very simple stuff, and there is plenty of evidence for it. For example let’s go back and take a look at the 2008-2011 global financial crisis. Most mainstream economists attribute it to the bad credit lending practices, the housing bubble which grew out of that and the riskily, shady or even illegal practises of the major banks in United States and EU. All of this is true – however in my opinion and recollection of those years, that is not what started that meltdown. The above mentioned issues were the subsequent failures that were caused by one specific catalyst that initiated that crisis. That catalyst was – high price of oil.

Do you remember those early years of the new millennium when quickly rising oil prices started to capture our attention? That was way before the talk of any economic meltdowns, bubbles and so on. It amazes me how quickly everyone forgot what had happened after 9/11 and especially after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Gas and diesel prices started to skyrocket! Remember those long gas station line-ups of 2004? I do. Then, those TV commercials louring you to buy fuel in large amounts at locked prices in 2005? How about those massive scandalous earning reports of the oil companies in 2006, have we forgotten it all?

Surprisingly, most people don’t remember those times because they got so used to the current high prices so much that they simply disassociated those years with events that followed. Or perhaps those events got so overshadowed by what is happening now with ISIS, Ebola and economy that people simply blocked them out.

Regardless of the reason, that does not change the fact that between 2003-2006 oil prices tripled. Subsequently products that were made from oil, did the same thing. Naturally the consumer was stuck with a bill – the bill that many were not able to afford.

At that time I was traveling often between Canada and Europe, seeing firsthand what those high oil prices were doing to the average folks all over the world. I remember how North Americans and Europeans were outraged over high cost of fuel. No one had the extra cash to pay for it, yet all had to. Home heating got way more expensive. Then soon after food prices started to increase because of higher transportation as well as production costs, all due to more expensive fuel. And finally, after several years of this, close to the 2006, the private sector started to buckle under the high cost of goods and services. Everyone wanted to pass their losses down the line to their consumers and clients. When in 2007 that relay hit the end of the line – meaning struggling middle class, the economic crisis started to unfold. What has stayed unchanged – wages. What did all of this mean, population had no money to pay for their mortgages, credit cards and loans.  People got laid off, some business failed, clients defaulted on their debt, interest wasn’t being paid; a panic started to spread and economy began to slow down. Shortly after speculative investment banks like Goldman Sachs, the inflated housing market and short-sighted car manufactures were in big trouble. In 2008 the financial crisis went global. The rest is history. And again, this is not what I think happened, this is what I remember living through along with many others.

Now that we got this out the way I would like to go back and analyse what impacted the price of oil in those years. The obvious answer is 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, then Iraq in 2003, and of course let’s not forget the subsequent long wars that followed. However we must look closer at what exactly did those events do and what aspect of the economy did they impact, because it wasn’t oil!

There’s no denying that 9/11 genuinely shook the US economy. It did not however impact the price of oil that much. In fact, oil remained fairly stable until the invasion of Iraq. But why would gas prices skyrocket when oil-rich Iraq started to yield more of it than ever before? Keep in mind prior to that war, Iraq was under sanctions preventing the export of oil, so again - the invasion only brought more of it to the international market. Shouldn’t the price of oil have decreased in value because there was more of it? I believe, and current ongoing conflicts in the Middle East support my theory, that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq did not have any negative impacts on the global oil production nor did that increase its price. Further more, it is becoming evident that those conflicts were not the reason for rising oil prices, they were the excuse. Then what did cause that massive price jump? To answer this question we need to look at what was happening parallel to these events – and that was the quickly declining buying power of the US dollar.

It simply fell in value against nearly all other currencies with every passing year, going lower and lower. I say this not because I analyzed this market – I say this because I fully partook in it, making as much as $70,000 at one point, simply by betting against the USD in 2009. It’s not a large sum of money for the Forex traders but it’s enough to know the situation and how that market works. I also took losses and do remember having to exchange USD to CAD or EUR and receive less and less in return. I remember how weak the dollar was becoming, and how everyone who used it or invested into were frustrated about that. Of course at that time we all believed that USD was falling because the US was engaged in the Middle East. Now we know that was wrong. Why? See for your self. US is till in Afghanistan and is going back to Iraq, which is worse than ever before. Libya and Syria are in ruins. Tensions with Iran are high to say the least. ISIS is on a rampage across that entire region. There is a conflict with Russia, which is a major oil producer who is now trading with China in national currencies (meaning they are moving away from the petrodollar). US economy has barely recovered and is still very weak. And yet the dollar is getting stronger. Logically there is no reason for it, other than someone very high up simply decided that it’s time to increase its value.

To everything said in the previous paragraph let’s add the following - world’s population increased, so did the demand for oil (especially in China). At the same time the total amount of potential oil on the entire planet, as well as all other fossil fuels by the way, has only decreased. Still oil prices are going down? Let me repeat this again and in a more simplified terms – THE DEMAND FOR FUEL IS GROWING, WINTER IS UP ON US, AND OIL PRICES GO DOWN! That defies logic, rules of business, economical theories and common sense. But that else is happening? We do not need to look far for an explanation, it is evident – the US dollar is growing in value.

If you understood this USD / OIL relationship you must ask - who controls the USD? The answer once again is simple – the Federal Reserve along with the certain government officials of the United States. I also would add the mainstream media to this duo, simply because I see how they are the ones who enforce those ideas onto the general public.

A quick reminder - all currencies today, including the USD, are fiat currencies, meaning they are not supported by any specific commodity such as gold. This of course allows for many types of manipulative strategies to be performed with high degree of accuracy. Another understanding that I wish to cover is that free markets do exist, even in the currency trade. In fact most of the time it appears that Forex does follow the model of a free market, where supply and demand dictates the rules of the game. It does however also appear that while that’s the case of 90% of the time, when it is advantageous to the major participants such as Federal Reserve, they interfere by stepping in and change the direction of where the market was heading. This change can be quick or it can be gradual. It is however almost always attributed to some other external factors such as a war or other major news event. The more sensational that event is the bigger the change to the dollar.

There are many strategies they can employ from flooding the market with currency, to buying it back, to spreading misinformation via high-level channels, or bluntly telling the population what dollar should be perceived as via top news channels. I personally saw countless examples where ridiculous things like low corn yield in Brazil impacted the USD / EUR exchange rate. As I partook in the Forex market I began to realize that these were excuses for a broader strategy that was being implemented by key players on the market. Of course I could be dead wrong but that does not change the fact that such capabilities do exist, and in the world of fiat currencies it is all about the perception rather than tangible events. Because of this I cannot say for sure that yes, Fed manipulates the US dollar at their discretion, and this is how they do it… I don’t think anyone can, unless they are on the inside and have hard evidence to prove it. What I can say is that this is a very real possibility and it is highly feasible for people with government access, ability and power to do these type of manipulations. Manipulations that have worldwide consequences! If you can accept this as a possibility then we must account for it by further exploring what is the end goal of such manipulation.

The theory so far is that together, key top officials in the Federal Reserve, the US government and with the support of major news networks have the capability at critical moments to manipulate the US dollar as they see fit – and have done so in the past. Major world events, that may have happened intentionally or unintentionally, are simply a public justification for a raise or fall of the US dollar on the international foreign currency exchange market. In turn the USD directly impacts the prices of crude oil that further impact all aspects of global economy. That is my theory that I would like to apply to current world events.

To restate them – we have: chaos in the Middle East, depleting fossil fuel reserves of all types, difficult relations with Russia and an ever-growing demand, dependence as well as need for oil by all nations on this planet. And yet the price of oil is falling while the USD growing. This is highly unusual and thus I theorise that falling fuel prices and the simultaneous rise of US dollar is happening not by the free market but by manipulation.

If so we can derive that this economic manoeuvre is being executed for a specific reason, a reason that is known only by those who are initiating this global strategy. I cannot say weather it is good or bad, or even what their ultimate objectives are. However it’s reasonable to assume that it is not a single but rather several objectives for which a favourable time has come. Furthermore not all of these objectives may be negative and some may not even succeed. I believe that calculations by people, executing this large scale strategy, are extensive, and they think in terms of multiple targets and priorities, meaning certain failures are expected and accounted for as well.

To give an example, the Fed along with another powerful group of highly influential people, let’s say the oil industry, may be simultaneously trying to:

1 - Collapse / damage competitive energy companies and even sectors.

2 - Cripple economies of independent nations like Russia and Iran.

3 - Give a financial break to the American / European populations.

4 - Execute a major currency exchange operation.

5 - Strengthen the trust of the USD as the world’s reserve currency.

6 - Re-establish the power of the petrodollar. 

7 - Degrade ISIS revenues from captured oil fields. 

Again, this is just an example of a multistage strategy. Furthermore, let’s say they are not able to degrade Russia and Iran, and on top of it, as a side effect, they know that China, a very fuel hungry nation, will benefit from these low oil prices, in so becoming a much stronger adversary. If the Fed (or who ever is doing this) calculations show that the pros outweigh the cons they may go forward with such a strategy simply because it is advantageous to them at the time.

The point of this article is not an attempt to predict what “the powers that be” have in mind, although that is certainly worth a try, the idea is to realize that something is happening and you should, just in case, brace yourself for impact. If things improve, so be it, no harm done, however if economy turns for the worst at the very least you will be prepared.

Imagine if you had the foresight of investing into gold, that was stagnating prior the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2011, and afterwards skyrocketed. Or if you are one of those people that was lured into a low mortgage rates and then lost your home because foreclosure after the housing bubble burst – what if you avoided that by exercising caution. Well now once again is a time of uncertainty and high probability that something unpredictable might happen. After all, I think oil prices are not going down without a good reason. USD is behaving very unusually and outside of the economic trends. This means change, for the good for the bad – I do not know.

My advice is to mimic the Chinese by hedging your position so you win in any situation and risk as little as possible. What does this mean in real world? One (if means allow) – invest up to 20% of your saving into gold, 20% into farmlands, 20% into cash, and 20% in art, antiques and collectibles.  Two – until you figure out what is happening with the dollar and oil - do not take any unnecessary financial risks. Save as much as possible. Be conservative in your spending. Also put away major decisions like buying a car until economy starts to make sense to you. Finally, invest in your own physical safety (this includes your family). Purchase a firearm and learn how to use it, if you haven’t done so already. Have extra food and water to that will last you more than a month. And finally educate yourself as much as possible about economy, politics, history, environment, health and even survival. By covering all your basis you greatly increase your chances of withstanding even the most severe economic downturns. If the USD becomes strong while oil remains cheap and nothing happens – you have gained extra knowledge, security and skills. If this is some sort of manipulation with a bad outcome for the middle class (which is happening more and more nowadays) you are also well prepared to face whatever comes next.

The point of this article is not to show off my foresight but to get you, the reader, to think outside the box, anticipate multiple outcomes and be prepared. These are standard practises for most military commanders and no one ever accused them of thinking too much about hypothetical scenarios. On the contrary - such thinking is encouraged.

Lastly, because of the theoretical nature of this article, I do not wish to be perceived as some one who has the sole monopoly on the truth. Above that I have no problem saying that - I’m open to changing my views should strong evidence point elsewhere. In light of this I welcome your comments and encourage discussion!

Dmitry Tamoikin
President of Tamoikin Art Fund
CEO of Earth Sphere Development Corp.

PS: An art investment suggestion for veterans: Good quality vintage firearms are very well appreciated in value, especially those that were made between 1930s and 1980s. That’s because they are still highly functional but at the same time old enough to be collectible. Consider buying them as an art investment, and as a security tool. Also many art buyers who are into survival have pointed out to me that reliable non-complex firearms (with ammo) will be more valuable than gold in any large scale crisis situation.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute as any type of financial or security advice. All statements in this report are an opinion. Act at your own risk. Cover image: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar

Halifax, NS, Canada
© Dmitry Tamoikin / November 2014

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

Originally published on:
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/11/14/strong-dollar-cheap-oil-free-market-or-manipulation

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

There has been much discussion about combat drones, with some calling them bad while others claim they are a force for good. In this short memo I want to give an unbiased, realistic outlook on what combat drones are, where this technology is going, and how to use them responsibly. 

Unmanned combat vehicles, or drones, are an irreversible technology that will only continue to develop, becoming increasingly more sophisticated, capable, precise, and in the hands of the military – lethal. All nations that are able to build them will do so without reservation or delay, a fact that everyone must accept. The race for the most advanced drones is really just beginning, and in this age of technology they are fast becoming an essential tool for every military institution. This is neither good nor bad. 

From a technological point of view it is beneficial since more advanced technology, especially in the fields of aviation, robotics, and transportation, will have many constructive uses in our society. WWII, as horrific as it was, brought about and accelerated the development of many useful technologies that we now enjoy. The use of drones by the military is no different and in the age of technology is fast becoming an essential tool for every military institution. 

That said, combat drones demand a very high level of responsibility as they permit operators to perform their jobs, physically and psychologically, in a location very distant from the battlefield. This increases the likelihood of possible abuse of this technology and allows an operator to play “fast and loose” with lethal arsenal. Due to this distancing from the area of operation and without physical assessment of the aftermath, the pilots, commanders, and the highest levels of government are highly prone to using drones on more occasions than they would otherwise. This results in excessive collateral damage including civilian causalities which turns the effected population, that otherwise would not do so, against the user nation. Therefore, the implementation of drones alone over other tactics or the use of drones without an “on the ground” damage assessment may create more enemies than such weapon destroys. What are the solutions to these problems? 

The chain of command, from the Commander in Chief to the pilot executing the order, must be thoroughly informed about the target, the strategy in the region, and the risks as well as the outcomes that are to be achieved. All analysis should be done for long and short term outcomes. If any of the objectives are not, or cannot be met, then the strategy must be corrected immediately. The general objective of any military should be: eliminate the enemy, prevent enemy reinforcements, and gain the support of the local non-combatants. Drones partially allow the military to do that, however for this strategy to be effective drones strikes must be:

• Very precise.
• Conducted with minimum civilian casualties and collateral damage.
• Carried out only with absolute certainty that the target is correct, on the ground, and is worth striking.
• Authorized by the appropriate legal representative.
• Supervised by experts on the region of operation and on the target in question.

The above guidelines can be summarised into one sentence that must be at the core of any long-term strategy that involves the use of combat drones. “The goal of all drone strikes is the elimination of enemy combatants with absolute minimal civilian and collateral damage.”

To accomplish this, all strikes must be accompanied by highly effective on the ground humanitarian efforts such as medical support, plentiful food and water supply, infrastructure and housing development, educational programs, and all other supportive actions that are necessary to win the “hearts and minds” in the area / country of operation. 

In the event of human casualties and severe collateral damage, these efforts must be doubled. All combat strikes must be followed by strong “nation building” efforts in order to show the population that they are not the target. Furthermore, because drones are predominantly used in third world countries, it is the effected population and not the local government, which in almost all cases is highly corrupt, that must receive the bulk of all humanitarian support. 

Without the above mentioned assistance, which should be considered as the cost of waging drone warfare, these strikes will prove ineffective as a long-term strategy. Such attacks will create more enemies than they eliminate. Enemies that one day will start using drones themselves.   

By Dmitry Tamoikin
CEO of Earth Sphere Development Corp. 

PS: I invite everyone to have a pragmatic discussion on this subject so we can all learn from one another. You comments are more than welcomed. 

Originally published in on: www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/11/05/combat-drones

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

Dear friends of the Russia & America Good Will Association and antiwar colleagues!

Is the mystery of the Malaysian airliner tragedy finally solved? So says the Russian engineer Ivan Andrievsky who claims he received email from an anonymous American who had access to satellite pictures showing the shooting of the plane by a Ukrainian air force jet. You may choose from two reports, it's your call:

http://orientalreview.org/2014/11/14/scandal-last-seconds-of-mh17-flight-were-snapshot-by-a-us-or-uk-spy-satellite/
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/15-11-2014/129041-satellite_image_boeing-0/#.VGcHPGeWx74

THE elections in Ukraine on October 26, in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics on November 2 and the mid-term election in the USA on November 4 went as scheduled and ended as expected. The only unexpected thing was the voter participation: about 75% in the war-torn fledgling republics, about 5O% in the post-coup Ukraine and 36.6% in the USA. The impression is that the more US tries to export democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Russia, the less is left for local consumption. Even the unflappable Washington Post is exasperated at the lowest turnout since WWII

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

An unprejudiced observer can see that the further West you go, the lower is the share of those who vote. It does not bode well for Western democracies.

Putin is tops everywhere— the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Beijing, G-20 Summit in Brisbane, and at the BRICS leaders’ conference inside G-20 Summit.

Forbes magazine reports: For the second year running, our votes went with the Russian president as the world’s most powerful person, followed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2014/11/05/putin-vs-obama-the-worlds-most-powerful-people-2014/

Don’t we need to hear what the world’s most powerful person has to say? Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

The speech shows a great deal of exasperation with the US drive for dominance, but Putin carefully eschews any belligerence or ill will. Read Patrick Smith’s detailed analysis

Friday, Nov 7, 2014 
The New York Times doesn’t want you to understand this Vladimir Putin speech. The Times botches it badly
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/07/the_new_york_times_doesnt_want_you_to_understand_this_vladimir_putin_speech/

Patrick L. Smith followed up on the latest events 
Friday, Nov 14, 2014 
What really happened in Beijing: Putin, Obama, Xi — and the back story the media won’t tell you. Ukraine, Iran's nukes, the price of oil: if only the media connected the dots 
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/13/what_really_happened_in_beijing_putin_obama_xi_and_the_back_story_the_media_wont_tell_you/

Patrick connects the dots the Big Media does not want you to connect

<<The planet’s other major powers, for all their imperfections and, indeed, disgraces, understand that their time has come, parity between West and non-West is upon us. This is the core reality, not to be lost sight of. China’s and Russia’s domestic problems are rather like America’s; they are to be resolved by Chinese, Russians and Americans, a point we understand easily when it comes to the interference of others but not the other way around, when the question is our interference elsewhere.>>

Patrick Smith’s analysis echoes that of Seumas Milne on the other side of the Atlantic
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/counterweight-us-power-global-necessity-conflicts-spread
<<A real counterweight to US power is a global necessity. Conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine will spread without effective restraint on western unilateralism…With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that restraint disappeared. It was only the failure of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and Russia’s subsequent challenge to western expansion and intervention in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine – that provided some check to unbridled US power.>>
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/counterweight-us-power-global-necessity-conflicts-spread

Twenty-five years ago the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and with it - we are told - the last moments of the Cold War. Today there is talk of a new Cold War again pitting Russia against the West. One can make the argument the Cold War never ended for Washington. Watch Peter Lavelle CrossTalking with Ray McGovern, Ed Lozansky and Andranik Migranyan. http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/204771-cold-war-berlin-wall/

 RAGA’s task of providing varied, objective and dependable info about US-Russia relations became a LOT easier with the advent of Russia-Insider. Below is Ed Lozansky’s article—but please peruse through the whole site:

The West's Fatal Russia Mistakes: 1989-2014
    When the Berlin wall came down the West had an historic chance to find a strong friendly ally in Russia.
    Western mistakes over the following years has lead to the exact opposite.
    The US to must reverse its policy of hegemony, and pursue multilateralism.  Anything else will lead to continued conflict.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/10/10-01-25am/wests_fatal_russia_mistakes_1989-2014?page=0%2C0
Lozansky blames the USA for imposing Neo-Liberal reforms on Russia: <The consequences of that tragic decision signified a catastrophe for Russia — devastating economic decline worse than in World War II; collapse of education, science, health services, of the military; two Chechen wars; thousands of Western "advisers" helping implement criminal privatization of state assets; the IMF’s crude policies…Russian oligarchs, some of them cheered by the West were grabbing not only economic and financial power, but also openly buying up politicians, wholesale and retail.>>

Lozansky does a good job of informing not only Americans, but Russians as well. About US role in Ukraine he writes (for those who read Russian):

<<На самом деле ни для кого не секрет, что главной целью этого проекта было серьезное геополитическое ослабление России. Что произошло на самом деле, хорошо известно: гражданская война, более 4 тыс. убитых и десятки тысяч раненых, сотни тысяч беженцев, колоссальное разрушение домов и инфраструктуры.…В мировом информационном пространстве активно насаждается версия о том, что вина за эту трагедию полностью лежит на России, а точнее, на ее президенте Владимире Путине.>>
http://www.ng.ru/world/2014-11-11/3_kartblansh.html
 
RAGA associate Professor Nicolai Petro sends his remarkable collection:
"Is Ukraine Slipping Into Illiberal Democracy?" The Nation, October 30, 2014.

"Main legitimacy concern: Ukrainian parties opposed to 'Euromaidan' faced restrictions," RT Op-edge, October 28, 2014.

"Ukraine's Elections Sealed Minsk Agreement’s Fate, Make Country Easier to Govern," RIA Novosti, October 28, 2014.

"How Russia Views the post-Cold War Order, Russia Direct, October 27, 2014.

"Ukraine Holds Parliamentary Elections, Al Jazeera America, October 27, 2014.
 
Sharon Tennison offers an interview with Ray McGovern,
History: Berlin Wall to Ukraine and Crimea
http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2014/11/history-berlin-wall-to-ukraine-and-crimea.html#more
 
RAGA associate Gilbert Doctorow emails:
<<My trip to the States was quick and relatively painless. The main event which drew me there…was the Massachusetts Peace Action on the MIT campus. The results of that day are set out in the following:
http://usforeignpolicy.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2014/11/14/american-peace-movement-and-the-new-cold-war-1136655.html

In a challenge to the authors of the booklet Costs of a New Cold War: The US-Russia Confrontation over Ukraine published by the Center for the National Interest, I argue on the pages of RAGA that the current US hostility toward Russia is an escalation of the New Cold War that the USA has started when post-Communist Russia refused to obey under US Neo-Liberal hegemony. This New Cold War conflates the Crusade against Muslim “terrorists” with a Crusade against secular, but a re-born Christian Russia.
http://www.raga.org/news/the-folly-of-the-new-cold-war-by-vladislav-krasnov

The problem the US has with Russia is NOT that it is reverting to the old Soviet ways. No, the problem is that the New Russia has been asserting itself as a new nation state which has thrown off the yoke of Communism and therefore feels stronger, prouder and more unified in body and spirit than ever under the USSR. To be sure, the New Russia has its share of the problems, those inherited from the USSR (such as the weakness of civil society, suspicion toward democratic procedures, and excessive reliance on centralization and government controls) and those which have resulted from US-sponsored neo-liberal reforms (capital flight, oligarchic monopolies, corruption, and consumerism). However, Putin's Russia has been making big strides in balancing various group interests to create a positive vector of democratic development.
 
Recently I was interviewed by Radio Radonezh, independent Christian network broadcasting in Russian language across the globe. We talked about my book Novaya Rossia, which is actually Russian translation of my book Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth published in the USA in 1991. The thrust of my argument is that Russia’s national rebirth as a great civilization is inevitable. When I wrote the book, Soviet soldiers were forbidden even to wear a crucifix. Now Putin and his associates want to be seen at Russian church services. You may want to listen to this November 11, 2014 (at 22:20) interview on http://tv.radonezh.ru/www/_radio/efir/20141111%2022-00.mp3#21:18
 
If by its meddling in Ukraine, the US tried to divide the Russians in order to affect regime change in Russia, it failed miserably. After Crimea re-joined Russia via popular referendum, there is a remarkable patriotic upswing in all regions of Russia. There is a movement underway for consolidation of all patriotic forces, regardless of their political leanings, as long as they are ready to protect Russia’s sovereignty. For those who can read Russian, I recommend a religiously inspired http://www.pereprava.org/projects/
 
Thanks to those who responded to Antidote 6 RAGA Newsletter containing IAC appeal against US meddling in Ukraine. It may have been a link error in Ramsey Clark's petition to Pres. Obama. The direct link to the petition is 
http://www.iacenter.org/ukrainepetition/.
 
I'm happy to report that the Veterans for Peace (VFP), an organization which I joined in 1998, have announced that a number of prominent Americans, such as Oliver Stone, Ed Asner, Andrew Bacevich, Jackson Browne and Ralph Nader joined its International Advisory Board.
 
Well, if you still doubt the uniqueness of Russia’s Russian Christian civilization, William Brumfield’s photographs. William is Professor of Russian at Tulane University. From his email:

<<My current article for Russia beyond the Headlines is devoted to
​ The Cathedral Square ensemble of Kargopol, one of the most beautiful of northern Russia's ancient towns http://rbth.com/travel/2014/11/07/the_shrines_of_kargopol_preserving_the_art_of_the_russian_north_41243.html
​
For best results with the slide show (full screen), click the 4-arrow icon at lower right of photo window.

​This is the 11​​​3th of my articles and photo essays on Russia's architectural and cultural heritage for the foreign-language service of the Russian national newspaper Rossiiskaia Gazeta. A unified link to the series can be found at:  http://rbth.ru/discovering_russia  
​
Through this link a total of 3,​358 ​photographs from my documentary work in Russia are ​now accessible.>>
 
While Russia currently undergoes spiritual and religious renaissance, a miraculous recovery after 73 years of atheist Soviet suppression, this cannot be said of some Western counties, certainly, not of Italy, the well-spring of European renaissance and once the strong-hold of Catholicism
 http://rt.com/news/200999-italy-church-repurposed-martino/
<<With the Italian economy crippled by recession, more and more churches are being deconsecrated and sold to private buyers, who repurpose these former houses of God into banks, theaters, night clubs and even car repair shops…Several thousand churches have recently found new owners, indicating the hard times experienced by the Catholic Church and Italy’s general switch towards secularity. >>

Malice to None. Good Will  to All. 
Peace and Justice to the World.
миру мир и благоволение в сердцах

 From RAGA site:
"We are an association of Americans who believe it is in the U.S. national interests to foster friendship with Russia on the basis of mutual Good Will and non-interference in each other's affairs. RAGA is a gathering of people who share common interests in Russia's history, culture, religion, economy, politics and the way of life. We feel that Russian people have made outstanding contributions to humankind and are capable of greater achievements. We envision Russia as a strong, independent, proud and free nation and as a partner in achieving peace in the world."

Sincerely,
W George Krasnow (=Vladislav Krasnov)
President, RAGA

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

In this brief essay I present my observations as an attendee of plenary sessions and co-chair of a Workshop in the Massachusetts Peace Action at the MIT campus on Saturday, 8 November. My ‘sample of one’ method to characterize the American peace and anti-nuclear movements might be dismissed as anecdotal evidence were it not for the high visibility and high quality of the event in question.

The keynote speaker for a day dedicated to the principle of ‘A Foreign Policy for All’ was the great American dissident MIT Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky. His well-constructed speech, delivered in a calm and reflective tone, covered the waterfront of wrongs in Americans’ conceptualization of their place in the  world, beginning with ‘exceptionalism’ and extending to the bizarre notion that they own the world and any ‘loss’ of some piece of it is a direct challenge to their national security.

Other featured speakers included veteran NY Times journalist and academic Stephen Kinzer, noted journalist and activist on the Israeli occupation Phyllis Bennis and Black affairs – labor activist and writer Bill Fletcher, Jr., all of whom delivered informative presentations with great passion.

The national reputations of these speakers assured the event’s relative popularity. The 300-seat auditorium was filled with a cross section of ages and occupations.  To be sure, gray heads predominated, veterans of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 60’s and ‘70’s, of the SANE and nuclear freeze movements of the ‘80’s. They ran the show, unlike the days of their own training in protest when youth called the shots in the post-1968 world. However, though they were observers rather than leaders, the students from the many universities of the Greater Boston area constituted close to 50% and one workshop was dedicated to recruitment of sympathizers on campus. 

The organizers and participants clearly shared an identity as the Progressive Left, with strong anti-corporate, anti-Washington biases. For all that it was unmistakable how very strongly their priorities have been shaped by the narrative coming from the nation’s capital and from the mass media. Put simply, this community of peaceniks is concerned about what CNN and Fox News tells it to be concerned about – whether Ebola or the ISIS threat in Syria and Iraq. In a misguided approach to risk appraisal, it allows itself to panic over Jaws while pooh-poohing the risks inherent in driving automobiles.

These problems show up in the unstructured menu of Workshops which head off in all directions from Food and Foreign Policy to Drones, Space Weapons and Cyber Wars; from the Struggle Against Inequality and for Social and Economic Justice to Manufacturing Consent.  They show up in the list of Priority Regional issues calling for “New approaches to China, Korea, Middle East and Persian Gulf, Israel/Palestine, Africa Cuba, Venezuela, Marshall Islands, NATO and more.”  The failure to mention new approaches to Russia at the very moment when the onset of a New Cold War is recognized by all political commentators is emblematic of how the leadership of the peace movement is behind the curve, oblivious to changes in the international arena which have bypassed the favorite topics of special cause groups in which so many of the presenters are heavily invested.

 This obtuseness is all the more striking in the vital area of nuclear disarmament: the Workshop on this subject was dedicated wholly to issues of non-proliferation, working in line with Washington’s post-9/11 concerns about terrorists laying their hands on dirty bombs provided to them by rogue states.  Armageddon from a nuclear exchange between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, a notion which spawned SANE and the other organizations represented at the MIT event decades ago and which is today back with full vigor  has not yet penetrated the consciousness of the leadership.

The net result of this blindness to the new realities and subservience to old concerns of injustices around the world and to a phony agenda manufactured by their opponents in Washington, like cyber warfare and Ebola threats, is that the Workshop on Eastern Europe, Ukraine & Russia with its 3 presenters attracted just 9 visitors from among the 300 plus persons in the plenary sessions. 

The single greatest draw was the Workshop on A Foreign Policy for All in the Middle East & North Africa: Foreign Intervention, Jihadism & Alternatives. Beheadings clearly have captured the popular imagination; the murder of the civilian population in the Donbas by heavy artillery, the threat of a hot war between NATO and Russia as their respective proxies in Ukraine suck the principals into conflict on Ukrainian territory is still off the radar screens of peaceniks.  For now.

Of course, there are other reasons why they are clueless that merit a word or two.  First, Russia and its President Vladimir Putin are not likable after years of denigration and information warfare coming from Washington. Peace movement members are no more immune to media manipulation than the general population whatever they may think of their own perspicacity.

The values-based Progressive Left easily gets taken in by propaganda about an authoritarian regime that allegedly jails dissent, about homophobia and about conservative family values of Russia’s silent majority, not to mention about greedy, raw capitalism.  They ignore the obvious fact that most of the movement’s values on peace and international cooperation, justice and indeed human rights as well as most of their policy bullet points have been promoted by Putin in deed and in word, most recently in his Valdai Discussion Club speech in Sochi. They ignore the obvious fact that only one world leader, Vladimir Putin, directly challenges American global hegemony, that he does so in a principled and disciplined way.  China is silent. The EU is cowed.  Shame on the peaceniks for failing to get it.

In keeping with the age and sentiments of the leaders of the 8 November event, the morning and afternoon plenary sessions were opened by a  banjo-strumming singer-composer of protest songs in the Pete Seeger tradition who cleverly appealed to the conceit of the audience that they are subversive, subject to the watchful eye of the Feds who photograph and tape record their every move. In this spirit he warned the audience to be vigilant and to point out any of their neighbors who were not singing along.  As one of only two in attendance wearing a jacket and tie, I sang lustily.

© Gilbert Doctorow, 2014
      
G. Doctorow is an occasional guest lecturer at St. Petersburg State University and Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow. His latest book, Stepping Out of Line: Collected (Nonconformist) Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2008-12, is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites worldwide.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

MIR TV Channel, with 90 million viewers in 14 different nations across the globe, through its series “Made In USSR” tells the story of how life was in the Soviet Union. In this latest program called “Soviet Jewellery” the audience will learn about the type of jewelry people wore in USSR, the high quality, appeal and rarity of these unique items, as well as the demand for them today in the collectors world.

NOTE: Video is in Russian language.
Video copyrights © МТРК «МИР» www.mirtv.ru
Direct video link: http://mirtv.ru/programms/4212468/episode/11498920

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org

Vote vs vote - legitimacy vs legitimacy: During the course of a week Ukraine has experienced two election cycles with very different outcomes. One appears to support war, the other peace. 
CrossTalking with Marcus Papadopoulos, Gilbert Doctorow and Dmitry Linnik.

Video source: http://youtu.be/8NOSNvbzA48
© RT.com
      
G. Doctorow is an occasional guest lecturer at St. Petersburg State University and Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow. His latest book, Stepping Out of Line: Collected (Nonconformist) Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2008-12, is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites worldwide.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

RAGA News
www.RAGA.org