"The Kremlin and the world energy war"...

[McKenzie]

...an article written by a guest writer in the Asia Times on 10 January. I was sceptical until I read the whole article and thought the issues through. And the credentials of the author of the article lend credence to what he contends.

DU'ers are savvy enough to make up their own minds about the validity of the commentary. However, consider the implications of these snippets:

<snip1>

Europe is absolutely obliged to rely on Russia as respects energy. So is Asia. There is no way out in the near term, for at least a decade or two. Anywhere in that space of time Russia easily could, if it were obliged by US unilateralism, apply tremendous economic and political pressure to severely damage, or credibly threaten to do such damage, to the economies of the West.

The US and British economies in particular are artificial bubble disasters just waiting to happen, tremendously burdened with enormous debt loads. The dollar definitely appears to have reversed its temporary 2005 gain, now resuming its strategic decline. China has signaled that it will steadily diversify its huge reserves out of dollars.

</snip1>

<snip2>

The US isolation over its invasion of Iraq provides a suitable illustration of what it would face on a global scale if it prompts a new global crisis by continuing to seek the demise of Russian power and influence in its own sphere by the spread of more democratic "regime changes", as the US State Department has just recently said it intends to do. The same is true if the US or Israel take the enormously destabilizing step of attacking Iran - the global repercussions of such a course would be enormous, with the US suffering most badly.

</snip2>

<snip3>

The global order is re-dividing into roughly two de facto blocs - one has the US at its core and the other has Russia-China at its core. Energy is the major dividing line between the two blocs, and as desperation for control of strategic energy resources increases rapidly, so will the sharpness of the dividing line between the two blocs. With energy thus serving as a primary catalyst, the resource-rich Eurasian bloc is attaining significantly more gravitational pull than the American bloc.

</snip3>

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HA10Ag01.html

Now which big, world powers are cozying up to Iran and which big, world powers are banging the drums of war? More importantly, which of the power blocs is likely to win?

I know which one I'd bet on.

[Flabbergasted]

1. I've seen this for a while

[punpirate]

2. Flip side...

... on both military appropriations and war, we've spent more, on average, since the end of the Cold War than we did during the Cold War (in constant dollars).

From Carter's initiatives to reduce oil use in this country until now, we've averaged less than $1 billion per year for research into renewables.

If we spent just ten percent of what we now spend on defense (all sources, published or not) on renewables research and development, that would be about $60 billion per year.

If Iran is attacked by us, how are they likely to respond? Attacks on US troops, or by terrorism on US soil? Which makes the US domestic political situation worse? Which drives us to more militarism and more debt-based military spending?

Who's the idiot here?