Saturday, November 22, 2014

Chess players Tehran, Moscow and poker player Washington


Chess players Tehran, Moscow and poker player Washington.


The entire financial structures have become fully dependent on easy money and debt financed by a printing press, buttressed by derivative machinery. The Uncle Sam bearing the USDollar emblem is like a pathetic heroin addict brandishing a modern howitzer. The US Dollar is fast losing its integrity, during a dangerous global rejection episode; Jim Willie CB in Market Oracle


The article below is about the chess game, sometimes very rough, going on between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 overthrow of Shah of Iran, US's gendarme in the greater Middle East. Two days ago I had circulated an article of mine on the decline and fall of American century and its hegemony, along with URLS of my11 articles written since 2000. The article below also updates facts and figures about the state of health of US economy which is much worse than what I have been describing.


Iran/Persia has a long history as a major regional power whose influence and sway reached Eastern Libya and across the straits of Bosporus, and Dardanelles .In fact, the first Greek victory against the Persians is still celebrated in West initiated Olympic games as the Marathon race .The relations between Iran and Russia have also been mostly adversarial as both of them were fighting for the same space in Caucasia and Central Asia. But there are occasions when Iran and Moscow get together against the declining Hegemon, the United States of America. Many times the differences and distrust between Teheran in Moscow have been acute but I presume both sides realise that at the moment the common adversary is Washington. USA realizes the importance of Iran as a major powerful player, in the geopolitical battle for supremacy in south east Caucasia and between the Caspian Sea and the Gulf.


The tactical and strategic maneuvers, feints and battles and wars in bits and pieces between U.S.-led West on one side and Russia and Iran on the other side but not always together has been therefore a very fascinating battle of wits and sometimes even dangerous developments and threats .I had never supported the view that US after 2003 will dare bomb Iran, inspite of all options on the table and that terrible chap Netanyahu. It would have unleashed terrible forces.


One of the very foolish policy being carried out by USA, Turkey, Jordan and oil-rich Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, et cetera has been the financing , supply  of arms and training of ISIS/ISIL/IS bloodthirsty Jihadis . The statements by Washington and Ankara are just Charades. Once the number of IS extremists fighters was supposed to be 30,000, now it is said to be running into hundreds of thousands. They were shown flying around in black flags and going around in SUVS, trucks and other vehicles. US claims that its satellites can even read the plate numbers of cars and vehicles. Quite obviously the whole thing has been organised by USA and its Sunni allies to scuttle a continuous huge corridor of Shia states and territories from the Gulf via Iraq, Syria to Eastern Mediterranean.


Ankara  tried to convince the world that it has nothing to do with IS but wants a no-fly zone south of the Turkish border from Syrian territory from north Iraq to the Eastern Mediterranean .There have been a number of important visits by US leaders, led by VP  Biden and military and strategic decision-makers .But any such attempt will bring about fierce opposition from Russia and Iran .Behind closed doors it is difficult as yet to fathom what Washington and Tehran are talking on the question of P5 + 1 vs Iran , going on about Tehran's uranium enrichment program, with the last date of so-called ultimate extension of deadline ending on Sunday. I believe it could be a package and all details may not be disclosed. 


Read on—


K.Gajendra Singh 21 November, 2014

Iran takes center stage in East-West struggle
By Ramin Davoodi 
Asia Times 21 November, 2014

The macroeconomic and geopolitical stakes are high in a stand-off between the global East, South and West. As the stakes rise on the world's chessboard, so does Iran's role. 

The United States, though still the largest economy on earth, has been in a seven year-long depression that, despite nearly US$4.5 trillion of "Quantitative Easing" printed since autumn 2008 – and despite nicely rigged equity, bond, precious metals, oil and foreign currency markets - isn't showing any signs of letting up. 

US national debt is pushing US$18 trillion, and the real rate of US unemployment is anywhere between 12% and 25%. Meanwhile, five of the largest American banks each carry over $40 trillion worth of exposure to hyper-risky financial derivatives instruments and the toxic mortgage problems that caused the 2008 Financial Crisis aren't fully resolved. 

There is also a student loan bubble worth more than $1.2 trillion threatening future institutional insolvencies, and to top it all off, there are vicious, sophisticated currency and resource wars in procession amongst multiple sovereign players between East and West. 

The collective economy of the European Union certainly isn't better off, with long term, structural debt problems plaguing much of the continent, and systemic risks remaining latent between North American, European and Japanese financial institutions. 

Nations of the global East and South have responded to increasing economic and political tensions sparked by the over-leveraged US by increasingly coordinating their efforts so as to hedge against said risks and their expected contagion. 

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) blocs have rapidly established political, economic and even military joint ventures as means for procuring both regional protection as well as tactical responses to what their component states each view as a disturbingly desperate, belligerent NATO. 

The core members of both BRICS and the SCO - Russia and China - have been at the forefront of all the activities, with the aim of taking on established Atlanticist norms. 

Eastern responses in the financial and energy fields have provoked the West into action, with a general "de-dollarization" effort underway by multiple nations, and a direct challenge to the 41 year old US-backed petrodollar global currency standard actively in the works. 

To counter and circumvent the US-led sanctions against Russia, deter attacks against the Russian ruble, generally distance themselves from perceived excessive reliance on US Dollar pricing as well as hopefully establish a keen, solvent precedence for other nations to follow, Russia and China have begun using their own respective currencies for energy trading. 

Beijing has increased its usage of yuan trading directly with various nations in bilateral deals meant to strengthen its currency, circumvent dollar reliance and strengthen relationships. Banning SWIFT access to Russian banks has resulted in a "judo-style" response involving the exploration of an alternative to SWIFT for Russia's - and Russia's partners' - banks. 

The importance of physical gold - the oldest, most riskless and thus most reliable form of money on earth - shows in its embrace by both Russia and China in their economic reform efforts. 

To secure their own economic sovereignties, as well as those of their stated alliances, Eastern nations see gold accumulation as an imperative. 

China is blunt about the strategy, as is Russia, and both realize the vital utility of gold for establishing a new global economic order that would originate in the East, as well as to lend an imperative credibility to any future energy pricing and trading platform. 

Fellow BRICS member India, along with Turkey and Iran certainly understand the gold-energy nexus as well, with Iran recently committing to further mining its own gold to shore up economic security and currency. 

Massive energy deals amongst these state actors are pushing the global momentum eastward. The recent Russian $400 billion natural gas agreement diversifies energy exports away from a NATO-compliant European market towards ally China, averts the tactical attack against Russia's energy sector (staged with weary Saudi support), while furthering an anti-petrodollar agenda. 

Russia also signed a $30 billion oil pipeline deal with India earlier this year, providing necessary supply diversification for New Delhi and traversing through China. Importantly, the deal will more than likely be consummated using rubles and rupees rather than dollars or Euros, as the practice of ruble deployment increasingly becomes Russian state policy. 

Such monetary practices by the BRICS countries and the SCO are not taken trivially by the West, and are garnering perceptual dividends for the East. Germany, despite technically being in the Atlanticist camp, nonetheless just started Europe's first yuan trade settlement practice. 

Germans took the strong hint earlier this year when their requested gold reserves were not returned from the New York Fed, and face the loss of 300,000 jobs over Russian sanctions. Berlin, too, is itching to lean further East. 

The importance of Iran
Although it is not a formal member of either the BRICS or, until recently, the SCO, Iran has nonetheless played an indispensable role in their respective build-ups. Tehran has retained "observer status" for years while seeking formal admission to both. 

"Earning its stripes" with these consortiums hasn't been hard for Iran, considering A) millennia-old relationships that Tehran has retained with their members (for better or worse), and B) Anglo-American-Israeli animosity, interference, virulent propaganda, outright state acts of terrorism, politically-charged assassinations, and cyber-subterfuge, amongst a myriad other complaints by Iran, and C) a clearly shifting economic momentum toward the East and South (especially in the case of China). 

Russia and China have set their anchors in Iran as well, with the latter welcoming practically every deal. Russo-Iranian strategic cooperation stretches across banking, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy development, agriculture and infrastructure. 

The collaboration has stretched into major bartering deals as one means of circumventing US-drawn sanctions, promising to expand the current scope of Russian-Iranian trade. China remains Iran's largest trading partner and has represented a loyal ally. 

For instance, when the US objected to the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline ("IPI", also referred to as "the peace pipeline") project in favor of the US/UK-sponsored TAPI Pipeline, China offered to pick up the slack, asking to serve as the IPI's end route. 

New Delhi has also repeatedly revisited the IPI opportunity, and resents being told what to do by Washington and by Israel regarding Iran. Pakistan retains the same growing resentment over such condescension. 

Washington's economic sanctions on Iran pushed Tehran closer to the BRICS/SCO camps and vice versa, triggering trading innovations while lacking the full punch that the West intended. Russia and China stepped up their trade and diplomatic relations with Iran, adopting the seemingly orphaned energy power on the world stage, providing advanced technology, services and other goods to Tehran, and even showing some muscle, akin to the bigger kids protecting the proud, smaller one against the globe's bullies. These rising Eastern nations are not afraid of the West and have assisted Tehran with security for a few years now. 

Subsequently, Washington and its allies are in a quandary, abruptly shifting a 35-year-long policy of isolating Iran like a tanker trying to turn on a dime to avoid hitting an iceberg. Desperate times apparently call for desperate measures, as the Atlanticist camp increasingly realizes Iran's economic and geostrategic worth and is now in the process of cautiously trying to repair ties in order to achieve wider political aims against a rising Eurasian juggernaut. 

As tensions mount against a shrewd, calculating Kremlin, the West sees Iran's natural gas supplies - second in the world in proven reserves behind Russia itself - as an essential replacement for Russia's near monopoly over Europe. 

Despite sanctions being in place, the French are salivating over re-entering Iran's car and energy markets. In fact, some Western analysts are even elevating Iran's to being the leading 'untapped emerging market', representing over $1 trillion of value. In anticipation of a historic deal being struck next week over Iran's nuclear negotiations, strategists have pulled out their graphics and giddy US-based lobbyists are urging the US government to proactively engage Iranian business ties. 

Yet the messages from the West are certainly mixed. Despite direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, Washington nonetheless fields near-fictionally belligerent language from some of its deepest-pocketed supporters. 

Billionaire media mogul Haim Saban, a Hillary Clinton supporter, told a riled-up audience at the Israel American Council conference last week that he would "bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches", referencing Iran. 

His Republican Party-supporting counterpart, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who significantly funded Mitt Romney's campaign in 2008, said last year that an "atomic weapon" should be dropped on Iran. 

Plus, Washington has, with its Saudi ally, engineered a drastic, cunning oil price drop in order to hurt both Russian and Iranian bottom lines, in hopes of sparking public unrest in each nation, thus presumably paving the way for respective regime changes. 

That tactic managed to work 38 years ago against the shah of Iran, but global economic dynamics are different today, and this tactic reveals a desperate tightrope strategy that will hurt the nascent shale energy platform, threaten a dangerous slide into the very deflationary forces that the Quantitative Easing and Zero Interest Rate ("ZIRP") policies of the past six year were meant to prevent, and throw a brick at the wider global debt bubble. 

Washington's forcing of Japan to pick up the global liquidity slack, while it "tapers" its own paper printing experiment, won't do the trick here either. Should Western sanctions be lifted from Iran, and offers of diplomatic and private sector engagement commence, Tehran must tread very carefully. The ideal eventual scenario for Iran is one of striking a balance between BRICS/SCO and NATO/G8 economically and politically while protecting its interests, similar to what Turkey and India have established, yet with the key difference of maintaining complete autonomy and state sovereignty while doing so. 

Recent personnel changes within Iran's energy sector and other overtures have many sensing that a more "pragmatic" approach to the West is in the works. Yet President Rouhani recently displayed Iran's dignity and sense of fidelity by stating that, should sanctions be lifted, Iran will not replace Russian gas supply to Europe. 

This independent instinct within the global energy game only intensifies the urgency within Western circles for achieving regime change in Iran, as the events of 1953 and 1978-9 underline. Combine that general reality with the acute, recent history of funding and stoking separatist movements in Iran's eastern, northwestern, western Arab and western Kurdish flanks - and a knack for attacking a nation's economy through speculative means - and one sees why trusting the NATO/G8 contingency is a difficult thing to do. 

In a sense, and despite the massive US market with which Iran could viably trade, Iran can either expose itself to heightened risks of being Balkanized and/or caught in an exposed position during the eventual global carry trade unwinding, or lend further muscle to an increasingly solvent, hard-assets backed Eastern and Southern endeavor. One that tends to respect Iranian sovereignty and aims at setting legitimate global checks and balances. 

The choices, eventual national growth strategies, and ultimate strategic chess moves on a dangerous board, are solely up to Iran to make. 

Ramin Davoodi is a private equity executive and former commodities trader working between Asia, Europe and North America. He has advised multiple public and private sector firms on corporate finance, government policy, risk mitigation, market entry and trends within global finance. He can be reached at 

(Copyright 2014 Ramin Davoodi) 

Friday, November 21, 2014

India in 2025 and the Decline of American century and its Hegemony



India in 2025 and the Decline of American century and its Hegemony


Not only because of my knee problems, but even otherwise, have I rarely gone to lectures at Sapru House. But I did go yesterday and was greatly disappointed.


The 'Tour de Horizon' is a common phrase used when foreign delegations discuss international situation, in the region and then bilateral relations and problems (frank discussions in diplomatic parlance). The 'Tour de Horizon' was firmly rooted in 1990s, if not 1980s. Very well articulated, but not taking into account the economic and strategic changes, both regionally and internationally. There was not even mention of Russia or Putin, who is keeping MAD US at bay despite daily provocations. There were effusive compliments.


The English-speaking classes in India ,educated in public schools , British and American universities, journalists, diplomats still refuse to see that the United States power ,except its ability to destroy any state, barring Russia ,has lost ground and is losing it rapidly. This transformation has made very little impact on India's so-called intelligentsia, milk fed on London Times, the Economist, New York Times, Washington Post and their counterparts India.


When I tried to raise the question of decline of the American century and its hegemony. I was brusquely cut short. In any case, I had nothing to learn or I felt I could give to this elite audience .I had basically gone to meet one or two former Indian diplomats, whom I respect.


Recently I tried to marry Indian mythology's Bhasmasur with the post World War II nuclear aggrandizement settling into the so-called untested balance, incrementally into prohibitive Mutual Assured Destruction ie MAD.


At the end, I am reproducing my 10 earlier articles on the decline and end of the American century and its hegemony. I am now adding my latest article on all destructive  Bhasmasur ie United States playing a game of chicken almost every day with Russia under a wise but firm Putin, without US warmongers realizing that any mistake or error could end  into Armageddon.


Everyday new platforms are being added like satellite warfare, cyber warfare, total control over what people do, through programs which were exposed by, God bless him, Snowdon. I am told that in USA people who do not agree with the criminal intentions of the leaders dare not discuss and debate the matter on telephones, cell phones or even on social media. They can be easily accessed, warned, accused or even punished. Although I have stopped giving my e-mail at the end of my articles or blogs, there are now very few comments as there used to be from USA, UK and even Turkey. These like most other countries where peoples' almost inner thoughts, personal exchanges, viewpoints, are recorded for appropriate action by the big brother FBI, CIA etc etc.


Not even George Orwell would have imagined of such a control over or human beings in his 1984, or Goebbels the daily lies being spewed by Western leaders and broadcast by corporate and establishment media outlets.


As part of BRICS, as well as bilaterally ,multilaterally, many countries are now leaving the dollar currency regime to do their trade for which they are charged for converting currencies and reconverting dollars into the receiving end currencies .Use of such exchanges in US Dollars and enforcement of the dollar as the reserve currency , forces the nations of the world to keep large amounts of dollars to handle their bilateral trade ,other requirements and investments .It amounts to USD 5 to 6 trillion in US securities which bring little interest or returns. Instead USA and the West use these funds, now without much backing of gold into Stock Markets all over the world, like the game of monopoly in an international casino created by interrelated stock exchanges.


I also reproduce below URLs of two articles about the falling of the second shoe of American economy could happen sometime next year. The first shoe fell in September 2008.


I.M.F. Warns of Global Financial Risk from Fiscal Policies

By LANDON THOMAS Jr. OCT. 12, 2014


WASHINGTON — as global leaders sounded the alarm about a slowing world economy, a more immediate concern drew the attention of policy makers at the International Monetary Fund's semiannual meetings last week: inflated asset prices and increasing levels of debt overseas.

Bond markets in the euro zone are booming, debt in China is at historic highs and the United States stock market, even with its sharp fall last week, has been on a tear.

As economists and politicians heap pressure on global central banks to continue, and even escalate, their unusually loose monetary policies in order to spur global demand, the fear that these measures could provoke another market convulsion is spreading. For more below;


History's greatest Credit Bubble towards the worst-case scenario

November 7, 2014 posted by Doug Noland

Draghi follows Kuroda and king dollar spurs EM contagion fears.

From the perspective of my macro Credit analytical framework, history's greatest Credit Bubble advances almost methodically toward the worst-case scenario. After more than two decades, the Bubble has gone to the heart of contemporary "money" and perceived safe government debt. The Bubble has fully encompassed the world – economies as well as securities and asset markets. And we now have the world's major central banks all trapped in desperate "nuclear-option" "money"-printing operations. Moreover, serious cracks at the "periphery" of the global Bubble now feed "terminal phase" Bubble excess at the "core." Indeed, "hot money" finance exits faltering periphery markets to play Bubbling king dollar securities markets. Euphoria reigns. In many ways, the Bubble that gathered powerful momentum in the Nineties (with king dollar) has come full circle.


When the dollar starts going down there would be great disturbances and serious problems all over the world. You remember the Indian Sebi index came down to 8000. Now it is 26,000. China is not likely to pull the trigger, which has nearly USD 1.3 trillion in securities and other big dollar currency holdings. Fall of dollar will impact China badly ,with little chance of America paying securities in gold. Reportedly, China, whose economy is still owned by public sector up to nearly 50% is also indebted by gigantic loans by public sector banks ,to public and private enterprises. The stimulus is almost at par with the US stimulus. Except that apart from armaments and flowing from it high-tech, US produces not enough of exports. It is trade deficit is still half USD 1 trillion.


K.Gajendra Singh 20November, 2014, Delhi.



                                  FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES                     

Tel/Fax; 43034706                                                                  Amb (Rtd) K Gajendra Singh                                                      

Emails;                                                   A-44, IFS Apartments                                                                     Mayur Vihar –Phase 1,                                                                Delhi 91, India.

                                                                                                          21 November .2014


A Short History of the Decline of the American Century & Its Hegemony (2000 -13)


"Keynes's collective work amounted to a powerful argument that capitalism was by its very nature unstable and prone to collapse. Far from trending toward some magical state of equilibrium, capitalism would inevitably do the opposite. It would lurch over a cliff," --- Hyman Minsky.

"Capitalism has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, that it is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells"- Karl Marx


John Galbraith had a witticism that is apt to this discourse: 'The only purpose of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."


"When there is a general change of conditions, it is as if the entire creation had been changed and the whole world been altered." - Ibn Khaldun

"History is ruled by an inexorable determinism in which the free choice of major historical figures plays a minimal role", Leo Tolstoy 

"History is but glorification of murderers, criminals and robbers." - Karl Popper

The author has kept a watch and written about the decline of the American Century and its hegemony since the first anniversary of 11 September, 2001                               


2.The decline of the American Century   Sept 11, 2002

3. The US Empire –Beginning of the End Game   24 Nov, 2006

4. The Decline and Coming Fall of US Hegemony March 30, 2008

5. Western Military-Capitalist Civilization in Disarray September 25, 2008;

6. Corporate Culture and Greed Sink the American Republic 17 May, 2009

7. Confirmation of Pressure on Dollar and US Decline 8 October, 2009

8. The Looming Mother of all Economic and Social Crisis 11 May, 2010, etc


9. Post Sept 2008 Crippled Economy & US Strategic Decline

Smoke and Storm Signals, 4 July.2011


10. Post Bretton Woods; Emerging Outlines of New International Monetary Order


11. USA; Bhasmasur Gone MAD


Amb (Retd) K Gajendra Singh




Tuesday, November 18, 2014

USA; Bhasmasur Gone MAD

USA; Bhasmasur Gone MAD


"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." What really happened in Beijing to Obama, from 'Salon' , by Patrick Smith , author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." and International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. 


"Gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments." The former Wall Street Oracle Alan Greenspan


Let me first explain what are Bhasmasur and MAD.


In Hindu mythology, Bhasmasur or Bhasmasur (Sanskritभस्मासुर) was an asura or demon who was a devotee of the god Shiva . Bhasmasur's great penance pleased Shiva. When asked what Bhasmasur wanted, he asked for immortality (permanent hegemony) .Only Eternal time could grant that .So Bhasmasur settled for and was granted the power that anyone whose head he touched with his hand would immediately be turned into ashes (Bhasa). Bhasmasur straightaway attempted to touch Shiva's head to possess his consort Parfait .Shiva fled, chased by Bhasmasur relentlessly.


Somehow, Shiva managed to reach god Vishnu for help. Vishnu agreed to help him out and transformed himself into Mohini, an exceedingly beautiful woman. Bhasmasur immediately fell in love with Mohini and asked her to marry him. She told him that she was very fond of dancing, and would marry him only if he could match her dance mudras and moves identically. Bhasmasur agreed and they started dancing. It went on for days. As Bhasmasur matched Mohini aka Vishnu posture by posture, he began to let his guard down. Mohini struck a dance pose where her hand was placed on top of her own head. As Bhasmasur copied her, touching his own head, Bhasmasur was immediately turned into ashes.


Greek's version of Hubris is similar, ie even a wise person granted unlimited power is liable to go mad as is the case with once hyper power, United States of America. Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) means extreme pride or self-confidence. When it offends the Gods of ancient Greece, it is usually punished.


M.A.D ;Mutually Assured destruction.


Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only total destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm.


So far this MAD hypothesis has worked with God's grace ,and it has evolved over time after USSR tested its nuclear weapons a few years after the needless 1945 US nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But as Eric Schlosser reveals in his riveting 2013 book Command and Control, there have been dozens of close calls, from the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to the Titan II missile explosion in Damascus, Ark. And popular films such as Stanley Kubrick's 1964 Dr. Strangelove have played out how it could all go terribly wrong, as when General Jack D. Ripper becomes unhinged at the thought of a "Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" and orders a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union.


A deterrence strategy like MAD is not a long-term sustainable solution because of escalation, accidents and crazies, and efforts have been made over the past two decades to reduce the world's stockpiles, from a peak of around 70,000 in 1986 to about 17,300 today, Can we get to "nuclear zero"?  Quite unlikely!


1962 Cuban crisis


This crisis was followed with abated breath; fear and a feeling of terror .Its details are quite well known. Summary below;


By 1962, both the United States and the Soviet Union had developed the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile from a submerged submarine, which completed the third leg (after land and air) of the nuclear triad weapons strategy necessary to fully implement the MAD doctrine. Having a three-branched nuclear capability eliminated the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack; this, in turn, ensured the credible threat of a devastating retaliatory strike against the aggressor, increasing a nation's nuclear deterrence.


We need not go into the details of the 13 day confrontation in October 1962 between the USSR and Cuba on one side and the United States on the other side. The crisis is generally regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict and is also the first documented instance of mutual assured destruction (MAD) being discussed as a determining factor in a major international arms agreement.


The confrontation ended on October 28, 1962, when US president Kennedy and United Nations Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with Soviet leader Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba.


Secretly, the US also agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter IRBMs, armed with nuclear warheads, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union. The tense negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union , which were carried out through intermediaries , pointed out the necessity of a quick, clear and direct communication between Washington and Moscow. As a result, a direct telephone link between the leaders of the two countries was established.


Who saved the world in 1962; Vasili Arkhipov !


Arguably the most dangerous moment in the crisis was recognized only during the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962 the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the US, was armed with a 15 kiloton nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface.


An argument broke out among three officers on the B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasili Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Commander Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack, or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface. During the conference Robert McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."


This Soviet-American confrontation was synchronous with the 1962 China-India war with the USA's military blockade of Cuba. Historians speculate that the Chinese attack against India coincided with the Cuban missile crisis to draw attention away from the Himalayan War.


Before proceeding further, let me reiterate an observation, which needs verification, that in US and even in Israel (specially in 2006 war with Hezbollah) some of the top military commanders come from the air force, who easily seduce political leaders and strategic experts with their computer generated power point presentations .How bombings and missiles would neutralize enemy defenses and forces and ground troops can then easily mop up the enemy remnants.


During informal afternoon  discussions at India's National Defence College in 1976 , after the air force , gunnery and tank brigadiers had their say , infantry officers would say ; ok, yes , but who and how would the ground troops fight , defeat and take over the ground and then defend it .


In the 2006 war in south Lebanon between the famed Israeli Commandos, highly motivated and trained Hezbollah cadres beat the hell out of Israelis and destroyed many of their so called invincible tanks .An investigation in Tel Aviv headed by a former Judge concluded that Israel, the so called best fighting force in the region did not win the war.


US Bhasmasur in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine

As in the Indian mythology, Washington believes that it has the power to destroy anyone it touches. It has been proved so in the case of Vietnam, and in recent years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and to some extent in Syria and Ukraine, not counting almost all the former Soviet socialist states in East Europe, where a small percentage of its population in league with Washington, Wall Street and the City, London have brought untold misery and suffering on the people, which is unbelievable. To some extent it can be certainly said that the Afghans and Iraqis have hit back and injured Bhasmasura to some extent.


US Marine Col John Murtha,"The US military is broken in Iraq"


This point was clearly exposed in US led 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq and its brutal occupation, when expected fierce resistance for which the Iraqi leadership had drawn up plans made late decorated US Marine Col John Murtha bemoan that US military was broken in Iraq and a political solution must be explored .Since then US presidents dare not officially place boots on the ground as in Libya, Syria or Ukraine. US never intended that Iraqi armed forces be good enough to do real battles .No air support equipment or training .And then promiscuous corruption made Iraqi forces run away from well equipped and better trained Islamic State (IS) Jihadis ( in Turkey and Jordan ) and organizing  transfer from Libya and elsewhere. The so called Kurdish Peshmerga are like fattened chickens unlike PKK fighters with decades if experience of fighting.


The US led and Turkey supported disjointed fight against IS a Charade.


In September, 2013 stand-off on Syria between USA & EU against Russia, Washington blinked .There is a continuing stand-off between the two sides in Ukraine. It has been clearly proved that the Bhasmasur i.e. U.S.-led West with its NATO members is not invincible and the rest of the world, led by Russia can also destroy USA and its allies in Europe.


Look at the current leadership of United States led by Barack Obama, a Western gifted Nobel Peace Prize Lauriat in advance (what a sick joke!) and all the dangerous aggressive actions which he is undertaking at the behest of his handlers, the US corporate interests, led by financiers, bankers, military industrial complex, energy complex and other such rentier classes based on now outdated and sagging model of US dollar as a reserve currency.


Slowly but surely Brics and the rest of the world are coming together. While Putin of Moscow is holding back USA and other demons and hopefully soon through the strengthening of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, with the addition of India, Iran, even Pakistan and the expansion of Brics bank and other such arrangements proposed and led by China, Russia and India and others the power of the dollar as reserve currency without much backing of gold can be reduced to ashes.


The Wall Street Oracle Alan Greenspan finally admits


"Gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments."


The old man sometimes speaks the truth .He had earlier admitted that Iraq was invaded in 2003 for its oil.


Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Greenspan said that the bond-buying program was ultimately a mixed bag. He said that the purchases of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities did help lift asset prices and lower borrowing costs. But it didn't do much for the real economy.


"Effective demand is dead in the water" and the effort to boost it via bond buying "has not worked," said Mr. Greenspan. Boosting asset prices, however, has been "a terrific success."


He observed that history shows central banks can only prick bubbles at great economic cost. "It's only by bringing the economy down can you burst the bubble," and that was a step he wasn't willing to take while helming the Fed, he said.


The question of when officials should begin raising interest rates is "one of those questions I cannot answer," Mr. Greenspan said.


He also said, "I don't think it's possible" for the Fed to end its easy-money policies in a trouble-free manner....


"Recent episodes in which Fed officials hinted at a shift toward higher interest rates have unleashed significant volatility in markets, so there is no reason to suspect that the actual process of boosting rates would be any different, "Mr. Greenspan said.


"I think that real pressure is going to occur not by the initiation by the Federal Reserve, but by the markets themselves," Mr. Greenspan added.


And finally "The Maestro", having personally created the financial cataclysm the world finds itself in following a lifetime of belief in fiat, Keynesian ideology and "fixing" one bubble with an even greater and more destructive asset bubble, has suddenly had an epiphany and now has a very different message from the one he preached during his decades as the head of the Fed.


Mr. Greenspan said gold is a good place to put money these days given its value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments.


What Greenspan failed to add is that it is thanks to his disastrous policies (subsequently adopted by Bernanke and Yellen) that gold is the "place to put money."


The G 20 summit in Brisbane


It was clear how Obama and his poodles have been isolated, although Western media whores and channels continue to tell lies.


Let me reproduce a recent piece about the shrinking of US defence budget .Such wailing is also an attempt not to reduce the US Offence budget .But what will happen if dollar collapses as a result of use of other currencies for international trade , beginning with bilateral trade .What if a few Gulf monarchies sell oil in non-dollar currencies like Chinese Yuan and some others. 


U.S. military readiness for war, competitive edge worsening: officials


15 November , 2014 .(Reuters) - The U.S. military's ability to stay ahead of technology advances by other countries and respond to multiple crises around the world is already in jeopardy and will get worse unless mandatory budget cuts are reversed, top U.S. officials warned on Saturday.


Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told Reuters the Navy would have to cut forces and reduce its ability to position ships around the world if lawmakers did not ease or reverse the cuts, which are due to resume in fiscal 2016.


"Electronic warfare, electronic attack, anti-submarine warfare - all of these higher end areas - will fall further behind because we're just not investing in them," he said in an interview at a conference at the Reagan Presidential Library.


He said the Navy's ability to stay ahead of potential adversaries would "degrade significantly" unless the cuts ended.


Greenert and other U.S. officials are urging Congress to end the cuts known as "sequestration," citing growing strains amid increasing threats, including Russia's aggression in the Crimea region, and increasing Islamic State extremism in Iraq and Syria.


Executives with Lockheed Martin Corp, Huntington Ingalls Industries and Raytheon Co said they were cutting overhead to drive down weapons costs but budget uncertainty limited their ability to make needed investments.


Industry and military officials said the changing political landscape and escalating threats could increase the chances for another short-term agreement to stave off budget cuts.

Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the conference that procurement of new weapons had slowed, even as escalating demands around the world made it difficult to restore the military's readiness for new missions.


"We aren't modernizing as fast as we should in a highly competitive, technical landscape. Almost every element of our forced structure is shrinking while potential threats expand."


Air Force Secretary Deborah James said half of U.S. combat air forces were not at the needed level of training and maintenance to respond to high-end crises. Marine Corps Commandant General Joseph Dunford said only half of Marine Corps forces at home were currently ready to deploy.

Chief Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall said other countries were making rapid advances in areas such as missile technology, counter-space capabilities and fighter jets.


And finally an article how anti-Bhasmasur Moscow with support from China and others are prepared to take on US and the West , if necessary .Hopefully slow erosion of US dollar as Reserve currency would make USA and its poodles reduced to economic and hence military ashes .


On September 1, 2014 the US State Department published a report, in which it was stated that for first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia reached parity with the US in the field of strategic nuclear weapons. Thus, Washington admitted that Moscow regained the status that the Soviet Union had obtained by mid-70′s of the XX century and then lost.


According to the report from the State Department, Russia has 528 carriers of strategic nuclear weapons that carry 1,643 warheads. The United States has 794 vehicles and 1,652 nuclear warheads.

It just so happens that today, Russia's strategic nuclear forces (SNF) are even more advanced in comparison with those of the US, as they ensure parity on warheads with a significantly smaller number of carriers of strategic nuclear weapons. This gap between Russia and the United States may only grow in the future, given the fact that Russian defense officials promised to rearm Russia's SNF with new generation missiles.

The progress was made possible thanks to the treaty on the limitation of nuclear weapons, also known as START-3. The treaty was signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on 8 April 2010 in Prague (came into force on 5 February 2011). In accordance with the document, nuclear warheads of the parties are to be reduced to 1,550 by 2021. The number of carriers (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) is supposed to be cut to 700 units.

It was the first strategic agreement, after the treacherous policy of democrats, in which Russia managed to win significant advantages. In the treaty, the Americans, for the first time in history, undertook to reduce their strategic nuclear potential, while Russia won an opportunity to increase it. Furthermore, the new treaty removed important limitations that existed in the previous START 1 and START 2 treaties. It goes about the size of areas for the deployment of mobile ICBMs, the number of multi charge ICBMs, and the possibility to build railway-based ICBMs. Russia did not make any concessions.


Having written off Moscow as a serious geopolitical rival, flying on the wings of inaccessible military and technological superiority, Washington drove itself into a trap, from which it does not see a way out even in a medium-term perspective.


Recently, a lot has been said about so-called "sixth-generation wars" and high-precision long-range weapons that should ensure victory over enemy without coming into direct contact with its armed forces. This concept is highly questionable (The US failed to achieve victory in such a way both in Iraq and Afghanistan). Yet, this is the point, where Russia enters the parity line as well. The proof is long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.


In today's Russia, many find this hard to believe. This is a common belief for many of those, who still enthusiastically remain in captivity of the myths about the absolute "weakness" of Russia and the absolute "superiority" of the West. The myth was made up in the 90′s under the influence of Boris Yeltsin and his betrayal of Russian national interests. One has to admit that during that time, the myth was real, if one may say so.


Times have changed. One can easily understand the new state of affairs.


For example, let's consider the potential of conventional weapons of Russia and the West in the European Theater of Operations (ETO). In this area, it is generally believed that NATO is a lot stronger than Russia. Yet, a first encounter with reality smashes this misbelief into pieces.

As is known, the main striking force, the core of combat power of the ground forces is tanks. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Armed Forces had about 20,000 tanks in the ETO.


The Americans, in turn, deployed 6,000 heavy Abrams tanks on the territory of the allied group. Despite this, the combined potential of NATO forces in Europe was still significantly inferior to the Soviet potential. To compensate this imbalance, NATO strategists were forced to resort to tactical nuclear weapons (TNW).


In the first half of the 1950s, NATO conducted a research about what kind of forces the bloc should have to show reliable resistance to large-scale ground offensive of superior forces of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. The calculations showed then that one required at least 96 full-fledged divisions for the purpose. Yet, the cost of armament for one of such divisions exceeded $1 billion. Plus, one required two or three more billion to maintain such a large group of troops and build appropriate infrastructure. This burden was clearly beyond the power of the economy of the West.


The solution was found in a move to deploy a group of US tactical nuclear weapons on the continent, and that was done soon. By early 1970s, the US arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons counted about 7,000 units of ammunition. The highest achievement in the area was the creation of weapons of selective action – neutron warheads (for guns of 203-mm and 155-mm caliber, and for Lance missiles) with a capacity from 1 to 10 kilotons. The warheads were seen as the key in combating land forces personnel, particularly Soviet tank crews.


Given the nuclear factor, to reflect "Soviet aggression," NATO required to deploy only 30, rather than 96 divisions, and so they were deployed.


How do things work in this area now? In early 2013, the Americans withdrew the last group of heavy Abrams tanks from Europe. In NATO countries, over the last 20 years, one new tank would replace 10-15 old, yet still capable, tanks. At the same time, Russia was not decommissioning its tanks.


As a result, today Russia is the absolute leader in this regard. In mid-2014, the balance of the Defense Ministry had as many as 18,177 tanks (T-90 – 400 pcs., T-72B – 7,144 pcs., T-80 – 4,744 pcs, T-64 – 4,000 pcs, T-62 – 689 pcs, and T-55 – 1200 pcs.).


Of course, only a few thousand tanks are deployed in permanent readiness units, and most of them remain at storage bases. Yet, NATO has the same picture. Therefore, the decisive superiority of Russian tanks has not gone anywhere since the times of the USSR.


Here is another surprise. As for tactical nuclear weapons, the superiority of modern-day Russia over NATO is even stronger.


The Americans are well aware of this. They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too late.


To date, NATO countries have only 260 tactical nuclear weapons in the ETO. The United States has 200 bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons. They are located on six air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has 60 more atomic bombs. That is pretty much it. Russia, according to conservative estimates, has 5,000 pieces of different classes of TNW – from Iskander warheads to torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads! The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not change the situation against the backdrop of such imbalance. The US is unable to improve it either, as it has destroyed the "Cold War legacy" – tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and nuclear warheads of sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles.


How can Russia - the country that lost the Cold War - be ahead of NATO in terms of military power? One should look into the history of the problem to try to understand.  

It is believed that by the beginning of 1991, the USSR had about 20-22,000 units of tactical nuclear weapons. They are nuclear warheads of air bombs, warheads for tactical missiles "Luna", "Tochka", "Oka", nuclear warheads of antisubmarine weapons of the fleet, special warheads of air defense system missiles, nuclear mines and nuclear artillery shells of the Ground Forces.

This impressive arsenal was the result of forty years of an intensive arms race. Noteworthy, it was not the "totalitarian" USSR that started the arms race, but the liberal and democratic USA, which began developing and testing various types of tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1950s. The first example of a warhead of this class was the warhead for a 280-mm gun with the capacity of 15 kilotons. The warhead was tested in May 1953. Afterwards, nuclear warheads would be produced smaller in size, thus leading to the creation of warheads for self-propelled howitzers of 203-mm and 155-mm caliber that had a capacity from one to ten kilotons. Until recently, they were remaining in the arsenal of US troops in Europe.

Afterwards, the US Armed Forces received the following tactical missiles outfitted with nuclear warheads: Redstone (range 370 km), Corporal (125 kilometers), Sergeant (140 kilometers), Lance (130 kilometers) and several others. In the middle of the 1960s, the USA finalized the development of tactical missiles Pershing-1 (740 kilometers).

In turn, the Soviet military and political leadership decided that the equipment of American forces in Europe with TNW was creating a fundamentally new balance of forces. The USSR took decisive steps to create and deploy multiple types of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons. Already in the early 1960s, tactical missiles T-5, T-7, "Luna" were passed into service. Later, the non-strategic nuclear arsenal was expanded with medium-range missiles RSD-10, P-12, P-14 medium-range bombers Tu-22 and Tu-16, as well as tactical missiles OTR-22, OTR-23 and  tactical ones - P-17, "Tochka", nuclear artillery of 152 mm, 203 mm and 240 mm caliber, tactical aviation aircraft Su-17, Su-24, MiG-21, MiG-23.

Noteworthy, the Soviet leadership had repeatedly offered Western leaders to start negotiations on the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. Yet, NATO would persistently reject all Soviet proposals on this subject. The situation changed considerably only when the Union started shattering as a result of Gorbachev's "perestroika". It was the time, when Washington decided to take advantage of the moment to weaken and disarm its main geopolitical rival.

In September 1991, US President George H. Bush launched an initiative on the reduction and even elimination of certain types of tactical nuclear weapons. Gorbachev, in turn, also announced plans to radically reduce similar weapons in the USSR. Subsequently, the plans received development in the statement from Russian President Boris Yeltsin "On Russia's policy in the field of arms limitation and reduction" from January 29, 1992. The statement pointed out that Russia stopped producing nuclear artillery shells and warheads for land-based missiles and undertook to destroy a stockpile of such weapons. Russia promised to remove tactical nuclear weapons from surface ships, attack submarines and eliminate one-third of those weapons. A half of warheads for anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft munitions was to be destroyed too.

After such reductions, the arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States were to keep 2,500-3,000 tactical nuclear warheads.

However, it turned out otherwise. The illusion of world supremacy played a cruel joke on Washington.

American strategists wrote off the "democratic" Russia after the collapse of the USSR. At the same time, during the Gulf War, US high-precision weapons successfully completed several large-scale combat tasks that had been previously planned for TNW. This prompted Washington to putting all stakes on a technological breakthrough. This led to the creation of "smart" weapons that were becoming more and more expensive. The USA was gradually cutting the production of such weapons, and NATO's high-tech arms proved to be completely inadequate for conducting large-scale combat actions with an enemy that would be at least approximately equal to the West from the point of view of its technological level.

Meanwhile in Russia, experts were quick to agree that against the backdrop of the post-Soviet geostrategic situation, reducing and eliminating tactical nuclear weapons was unacceptable. After all, it is tactical nuclear weapons that serve as a universal equalizer of forces, depriving NATO of its military advantage. In these circumstances, Russia simply borrowed NATO's thesis of the need to compensate enemy superiority in conventional weapons by deploying tactical nuclear arsenal on the European Theater of Operations.

The situation had been developing according to the above-mentioned scenario for over two decades. The West, having discarded Russia, had been cutting its tanks and destroying tactical nuclear weapons. Russia, feeling its own weakness, kept all tanks and tactical nuclear weapons.

As a result, Russia overcome the inertia of collapse and started reviving its power, while the West, being lulled by sweet day-dreams of the liberal "end of history," castrated its armed forces to the point, when they could be good for leading colonial wars with weak and technically backward enemies. The balance of forces in Europe has thus changed in Russia's favor.

When the Americans realized that, it was too late. In December 2010, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, sounded the alarm. The Russians had more tactical nuclear systems than the USA, she said.  According to her, the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons was to be the next step.

In 2010, the Europeans, in the face of foreign ministers of Poland and Sweden, insolently demanded Russia should single-handedly establish two nuclear-free zones - the Kaliningrad region (enclave) and the Kola Peninsula - the territories of priority deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. The regions serve as the main bases for the Baltic and Northern Fleets. In case of the Northern Fleet, the region is a base for most of Russian SNF.

Since then, the Americans have repeatedly offered Russia to follow the flawed way of solving the "problem of tactical nuclear weapons." They stubbornly insist on reaching an agreement to eliminate disparities on stocks of tactical nuclear weapons. They even tried to stipulate a condition for the effect of the START-3 Treaty. Thus, in accordance with Senator Lemieux's amendment (Amendment 4/S.AMDN.4908), the START-3 was to come into force after the Russian side agreed to start negotiations on the so-called liquidation of imbalance of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia and the US.

On February 3, 2011, Barack Obama wrote in a letter to several key senators saying that the United States was going to start negotiations with Russia to address disparity between tactical nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and the United States to reduce the number of tactical nuclear warheads in a verifiable way.  Alas, in 2012, Putin returned to the Kremlin, and the hopes of the West to deceive Russia though unilateral disarmament failed.