Russia General

[oxmox 73]

Quartz: The world’s first pipeline war has officially come to an end

One of the strangest wars of modern times—a seven-year-long pipeline dispute that pitted the United States against Russia for influence in Europe—has ended.

The story goes back to the 1990s, when the US decided to challenge Russia’s domineering hold on Central Asia and the Caucasus by championing the construction of independent oil and natural gas pipelines from these former Soviet hinterlands to the West.

In 2006, the first line—a 1,000-mile oil pipeline—opened from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Mediterranean. Not yet completed was the the natural gas line (later called Nabucco), which would connect up to Central Asia, beginning in Turkmenistan and following roughly the same course to Turkey and on to Europe.

It wasn’t long before the US understood that Turkmenistan wasn’t willing to ship its gas across the Caspian Sea, regardless of any pipeline. There was too much risk of igniting Russia’s ire.

So in the mid-2000s, Washington abruptly shifted Nabucco’s course. The pipeline would now begin not in Central Asia but in the Caucasus—starting once again in Baku. And the goal would no longer be greater independence for Central Asia, but to be an instrument of energy security for Europe.

In 2007, Putin—smarting over Washington’s oil triumph in Baku and not willing to let the US proceed unchecked—announced South Stream, a rival natural gas line to Nabucco.

So began the pipeline war

Serbia became a huge South Stream champion, as did Bulgaria and Hungary. In December 2012, the allied countries held a ceremony in southern Russia with the symbolic welding of the first length of pipe.

But unlike South Stream, whose gas would come from its operator (Russia), Nabucco had to find gas, which turned out to be hard to come by. And it became even harder when the world suddenly changed under Nabucco’s feet: the shale revolution began, resulting in a glut of natural gas around the world. Europe was still reliant on Russian gas, but it was now also receiving a large supply of liquefied natural gas from Qatar.

Nabucco was starting to look a lot like a pipeline without a cause. In June 2013, it finally succumbed when gas producers in Azerbaijan, its source of last resort, decided not to commit any supply to the pipeline. Nabucco was declared dead.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-soviet-union/quartz-the-worlds-first-pipeline-war-has-officially-come-to-an-end-373770.html

I doubt the overall "pipeline war" did come to an end, the Russian/Ukraine conflict is a result of the geopolitical US interests and the plan to displace russian energy trade with the EU. Should be no surprise when Russia is not up with it and reacts harsh. Actually this type of cutthroat competition/geopolitics is a disgrace and can only lead to conflicts.

Edited December 29, 2014 by oxmox

[spooky lynx 73]

@ Spooky, mainly

What is the basic ideal world for a Russian citizen? Do your borders look as they do now? Or do they more closely resemble those of Imperial Russia?

I try to be a realist so I don't think how ideal world should look like. Also people are different and for some ideal world is powered by social-darvinism, for some - ze great world empire etc. But one common thing among people is "Do not intervene into our affairs and stay classy. Do not force your ideology, behaves, culture, family standards." All this is adressed to so called West.

NATO was a response to basic, core Communist Party doctrine as well as the dangers that a permissive environment created for batshit crazy authoritarian regimes. (Lol "Great Patriotic War") The Soviet Union subjugated all of Eastern Europe... Only Albania and Yugoslavia broke from the party line and it only really worked well for one of them... Until their charismatic leader died and the various ethnic groups started slaughtering each other wholesale... Modern events have shown that the Alliance is still relevant in terms of it's original role. When a former Soviet republic starts leaning west, Russian arms and men flow into that country. Should the Pole or Czech not fear that as well? (Or the Finn, or the Estonian, or Latvian, or...)

I'm sorry but could you name any real efforts done for ze great worldwide revolution (dreams of what were widely proclamated at 20's and early 30's)? I'd remind you that even in official ideological doctrine since middle 30's USSR stepped from worldwide socialist revolution to so-called creation of socialism in one dedicated country (USSR itself). On the other side some more or less authoritarian but not USSR-friendly regimes were established in Eastern Europe (Baltics, Romania, Hungary).

As for Eastern Europe - again sorry but we learned the lessons of 'Lol' Great patriotic war very well. And the buffer between us and ole good Europe was needed to prevent any further attack on our soil. Judging on historical perspective of 19th and first half of 20th century when we suffered numerous invasions and wars with Europe this idea is rather smart. Yes, from the East Europe nations' point of view it's not good but at the same time some of that nations were quite happy while participating in the WW2 against us (long before creation of Warsaw pact, being free from Soviet influence). So... take it as a bill for some bad deeds done by you earlier, guys.

Also, Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968.

See my earlier words (sorry if they will cause massive butthurt among our East European forum members). Hungary was among those who invaded us. Killed and tortured our people. Burned our villages. Being satellite (and receiving economic aid and other nice stuff) IMHO is not a huge payment for earlier sins. Chechslovakia quickly rose the hands and started to be a good foothold for Wehrmacht, being one of main weapon suppliers. Slovakian troops were among the invaders in 1941 too. Do you think we should have just forgotten all this? Or maybe should we just use nukes or massive bombings a-la Tokyo/Dresden-style during late time of WW2 while advancing to Germany? Maybe such behave is more democratic than converting former hostile regimes to own satellites?

Or how about how in WWII, when the Polish people launched a general uprising and the Soviet Army simply STOPPED and waited for the Waffen-SS to slaughter them, rather than aid them in any way. Just how many people were murdered in bloody party purges, or killed in ethnic cleansing, or died in the Gulags? (None right? Because that's all Western Revisionist history?) Yes, it's a long time ago, but doesn't Russian media love to call Anti-Russian Ukrainians "Nazis" or "Banderas?" (Yes, Western interests did fund some pretty awful stuff in response to the existential threat the Warsaw Pact presented, propping up Far-Right dictators, brutally incompetent countries like South Vietnam, and of course exploiting the Sino-Soviet split. We were kinda at war then.) The Ultra-Corrupt Governments persistent in post Cold-War Eastern Europe are a DIRECT result of the garbage the Communist system produced. If you can't succeed on your own accord, you have to game the system, lie, cheat, and steal.

Excuse me if I'm not correct but that Warsaw uprising (and the capital is not the whole country) was organized by Polish govt in exile (stationed in UK). Thus we were so called allies but Britain and that Polish govt were never (and will never) any friendly to us. So... why should we help them? Mr. Stalin was smart enough to prevent the creation of pro-British (and thus hostile to USSR) Poland at our borders. For USSR and security of its people socialist Poland was way more better.

Then. Well, I was lucky to have an access to local archives and saw some real cases by NKVD during famous period. You know... That crazy numbers of 'millions shot by Stalin himself'© is quite a BS. One example. The case of city military comissar that failed to organize the draft in spring of 1941 due to his incompetence. Guess what punish he got? Several years of prison and property confiscation. And this was in time just near the war. And such case was not unique. Got my idea?

Then, ethnic cleansings. You mean notorious deportations, right? Okay but imagine that all that massive cases of collaborations among Tatars, Chechens and others were proceeded by usual martial law courts and resulted in usual final - death penalty. Guess how many times the losses among that nations would rise? I can say this would be real catastrophe for them unlike deaths during deportations.

The modern world, at least as I perceive it, would be more interested in a version of events where Russia wanted to play ball with everyone else. (Wouldn't all of you from the rest of the west agree?) Clearly, the West is out to keep Russia under it's boot as it grows wealthy selling oil and steel to Europe. Clearly. Is Russia still at war with the Western Allies? Rather, are the Western Allies still at war with Russia? Don't like what's going on in former Soviet Republics? Golly, maybe the Soviet Union shouldn't have destroyed itself with corruption, graft, militarism and gross stupidity and y'all could be one happy family still.

It's pity to say but from my point of view Cold war is still running. I can say this just because of massive support of separatists at our territory since early 90's and providing help to blatantly anti-Russian agressive nationalist regimes such as Georgia (that started three(!!!) wars for sake of showing who is better nation at the country since 1991!), Moldova (where nationalists got weapons and tried to show who is the real human in the neighborhood but were kicked in the ass and had to run away, like their Georgian comrades).

[beastcat 14]

A little bit less related to the current discussion, but heres something fun russian state TV did:

This is a promo trailer for the news by the way.

[lesscubes 1]

I try to be a realist so I don't think how ideal world should look like. Also people are different and for some ideal world is powered by social-darvinism, for some - ze great world empire etc. But one common thing among people is "Do not intervene into our affairs and stay classy. Do not force your ideology, behaves, culture, family standards." All this is adressed to so called West.

It is a common goal, and one we ignore too often. However intervention and coercion are not exclusive to any one people. Say, for example, Euromaidan was caused by the CIA, MI5, and lets just throw, say, Mossad in there for good measure... Russia intervened in the politics of what the rest, and I mean the rest, of the world recognized as a sovereign state.

As far as forcing culture upon people... Isn't modern communications really responsible for just how much of the west has permeated Russian culture? Film, Radio, and this interweb thing we're arguing with each other over have brought the world closer together. (And farther apart, on a personal level. Damn you facebook!) And, this is conjecture, was there not a gigantic pent-up demand in Soviet Russia for Western cultural imports that was sated after the fall of the USSR?

I'm sorry but could you name any real efforts done for ze great worldwide revolution (dreams of what were widely proclamated at 20's and early 30's)? I'd remind you that even in official ideological doctrine since middle 30's USSR stepped from worldwide socialist revolution to so-called creation of socialism in one dedicated country (USSR itself). On the other side some more or less authoritarian but not USSR-friendly regimes were established in Eastern Europe (Baltics, Romania, Hungary).

As for Eastern Europe - again sorry but we learned the lessons of 'Lol' Great patriotic war very well. And the buffer between us and ole good Europe was needed to prevent any further attack on our soil. Judging on historical perspective of 19th and first half of 20th century when we suffered numerous invasions and wars with Europe this idea is rather smart. Yes, from the East Europe nations' point of view it's not good but at the same time some of that nations were quite happy while participating in the WW2 against us (long before creation of Warsaw pact, being free from Soviet influence). So... take it as a bill for some bad deeds done by you earlier, guys.

I'm not intimately familiar with Party Doctrine. The extent of my learning is from Western sources. I've always been under the impression that realistic, aggressively pursued or not, worldwide socialism was always the goal of the Comintern until it's dissolution in 1943. (When Stalin, really, REALLY needed Allied support.) Now, were those Authoritarian regimes in inter-war Eastern Europe not created by the dissolution of three empires after the First World War? (As an aside, if Western Imperialism is bad (it was) then so it stands that Eastern Imperialism is as well.) Those buffer states the USSR created from the ashes of the Second World War were carved from the remnants of parts of the former Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires, were they not? Also, as an aside, was the Russian Empire not a legitimate rival to the English Empire prior to WWI?

Now, why, exactly, might some of those Eastern European regimes have allied themselves to Nazi Germany? It's easy to explain the Finns and the Baltics, right? Now, if I remember right, the Romanian alliance was formed under heavy pressure from Berlin and a coup. My disparagement of the term "Great Patriotic War" is based in the origins of it. The Wehrmacht didn't cut up Poland alone, the Red Army got it's piece of the pie, did it not?

The "Bill for bad deeds..." Were there any good guys or bad guys in the Geopolitical strugals of that era? There certainly wasn't any consensus among western nations. (And, uh, you know the Americans were busy at home and didn't really have any part in continental Europe until 1917 and the east in 1919?)

See my earlier words (sorry if they will cause massive butthurt among our East European forum members). Hungary was among those who invaded us. Killed and tortured our people. Burned our villages. Being satellite (and receiving economic aid and other nice stuff) IMHO is not a huge payment for earlier sins. Chechslovakia quickly rose the hands and started to be a good foothold for Wehrmacht, being one of main weapon suppliers. Slovakian troops were among the invaders in 1941 too. Do you think we should have just forgotten all this? Or maybe should we just use nukes or massive bombings a-la Tokyo/Dresden-style during late time of WW2 while advancing to Germany? Maybe such behave is more democratic than converting former hostile regimes to own satellites?

The American ideal (Wife, House, car) doesn't play well with the Soviet system. So to me, I can't see much "nice stuff" in post war Eastern Europe... But, I'm willing to admit my bias.

Now, Hungarians, Romanians, and Slovaks did invade Russia. The Czechs themselves had one hell of a resistance movement going against the Germans. They paid dearly for it too. It's unfair to paint them all into the box of collaborator. (Wouldn't you also agree, that another universal goal among people is to try to get home to his family at the end of the day?) Croats and Serbs both fought for and against the Germans. So did Soviets, for that matter. (Ost Battalions and the "Hiwis")

The VVS didn't have a viable strategic bomber, it had Sturmovik's, PE-2's and A-20's, (until it copied the B-29 and built them as Tupolevs after WWII.) it couldn't engage in strategic bombing. Meanwhile, our histories tell us that the Red Army wasn't exactly discriminatory in it's actions as it advanced on Berlin. Maybe that's wrong.

Excuse me if I'm not correct but that Warsaw uprising (and the capital is not the whole country) was organized by Polish govt in exile (stationed in UK). Thus we were so called allies but Britain and that Polish govt were never (and will never) any friendly to us. So... why should we help them? Mr. Stalin was smart enough to prevent the creation of pro-British (and thus hostile to USSR) Poland at our borders. For USSR and security of its people socialist Poland was way more better.

Then. Well, I was lucky to have an access to local archives and saw some real cases by NKVD during famous period. You know... That crazy numbers of 'millions shot by Stalin himself'© is quite a BS. One example. The case of city military comissar that failed to organize the draft in spring of 1941 due to his incompetence. Guess what punish he got? Several years of prison and property confiscation. And this was in time just near the war. And such case was not unique. Got my idea?

Then, ethnic cleansings. You mean notorious deportations, right? Okay but imagine that all that massive cases of collaborations among Tatars, Chechens and others were proceeded by usual martial law courts and resulted in usual final - death penalty. Guess how many times the losses among that nations would rise? I can say this would be real catastrophe for them unlike deaths during deportations.

The Polish Government in Exile was the legitimate government of Poland. Period. There was no "Creation" of a Pro-British regime, it already existed. So yes, the Red Army and Stalin did themselves well to let the Polish Home Army destroy itself in Warsaw. Meanwhile, the Western Allies were slow to react, seeking permission from the USSR to render aid... That didn't go well. Now, The purges. Wasn't Stalin denounced by the party itself after his death for this very thing? Or are the Soviet leaders of the 50's-90's revisionists? Likewise, why did Tartars, Chechens, Cossacks, Ukranians and other non-Russian ethnicities collaborate so much with the Germans? Did they have a reason to do so?

It's pity to say but from my point of view Cold war is still running. I can say this just because of massive support of separatists at our territory since early 90's and providing help to blatantly anti-Russian agressive nationalist regimes such as Georgia (that started three(!!!) wars for sake of showing who is better nation at the country since 1991!), Moldova (where nationalists got weapons and tried to show who is the real human in the neighborhood but were kicked in the ass and had to run away, like their Georgian comrades).

I absolutely agree that the Cold War is back on. Of course, Russian Doctrine now reflects this. Separatism is an internal issue, correct? I don't think the Chechens are terribly fond of infidel Americans either... I can't speak to the Georgians or the Moldovans. My bias tells me that anyone who's country used to have "SSR" in it's name probably has a legitimate beef, with the Russian Federation. It's also still a really, really stupid idea to piss off your neighbors like they did.

I study history out of personal interest, I want to know why the now is what it is. We aren't doing itself any favors living there. Right now, the Russian Federation looks a whole lot like the past. For my part, I wish my country had intervened a little less in the Middle East and South East Asia... But, we're talking about Russia.

Man, that's a hell of a novel there. I need a hobby. Like playing ARMA or something. :o

[Sub-Human 10]

(The Guardian) Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny gets suspended sentence but brother jailed

A Russian court gave Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny a suspended sentence on Tuesday for embezzling money but jailed his brother for three and a half years.

Navalny led mass protests against the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, three years ago, when tens of thousands took to the streets in Moscow and St Petersburg to protest against corruption in Putin’s government and inner circle.

Meanwhile, the police also arrested several Navalny supporters who were protesting outside of the court.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Sub-Human

[surpher 1]

(The Washington Post) Putin is trying to save Russia’s economy with one weird trick

Vladimir Putin wants to have his dollars, spend them too, and invade Ukraine.

That's impossible, of course, but he's trying to make it a little less so with some financial legerdemain that covers up what's really going on. Putin, you see, is forcing Russia's companies to spend their dollars instead—but Russia's government will be on the hook if those firms get into trouble as Russia's economy implodes. So Putin, in other words, is playing a financial shell game to try to buy enough time for oil prices to rebound and bail him out.

[Tonci87 163]

(The Washington Post) Putin is trying to save Russia’s economy with one weird trick

Oh my god, if this is true then the Russian government is creating a bubble. A huge bet essentially. If the Oil price doesn´t go back up again and they don´t find any other means of income then Russia will fall into a recession that could be much worse than the one after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin really needs the oil price to go up again. Keep your eyes open for new trouble in the middle east that would affect oil production. One way to get the price back up is to reduce the supply.

[surpher 1]

(BBC) Russia avoids making Navalny martyr but jails brother

It can take a Russian judge hours, even days, to read out a verdict and pronounce sentence. It took Judge Yelena Korobchenko just 15 minutes. She read quietly, quickly and without emotion.

There was little surprise about the verdict: Russia has a 99% conviction rate. But it was the sentencing that was unexpected.

Alexei Navalny was visibly shocked that his prison sentence for embezzlement was suspended, while his brother Oleg would be going to jail.

[oxmox 73]

Geopolitics & Russians role in Syria (The Guardian)

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

(more background infos posted in the Thread "Syria - What should we do if anything". Iam posting only parts from the report about intersting facts about Russia here.)

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics.

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia.

Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135597-Syria-What-should-we-do-if-anything&p=2847284&viewfull=1#post2847284

Interesting map about european countries and their need of russian natural gas (economist.com/eurogas), actually I miss the Ukraine in the list:

Edited December 30, 2014 by oxmox

[surpher 1]

(BBC) Putin critic Navalny defies house arrest for Moscow protest

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny says he is defying house arrest to attend a protest in central Moscow.

[mistyronin 1181]

Another piece of news about Navalny:

( Al Jazeera ) Navalny says Putin's regime must be destroyed

"I was detained," Navalny said on his Twitter account on Tuesday. "But they won't be able to detain everyone".

[mistyronin 1181]

[ProfTournesol 956]

(BBC) Have 15 years of power gone to Putin's head ?

"Putin had made a deal with the middle classes: their loyalty in return for their personal freedom," explains Russian writer Viktor Erofeyev.

"Suddenly these people started to turn against him, like children against their parents. He was humiliated.

"The West humiliated him, too, because it started to applaud these children. He was furious.

"And when - from his perspective - the West started to 'take' Ukraine, he said no. What followed was a thunderstorm. Not of rain, but of blood."

[oxmox 73]

German Vice President Gabriel: Weakening of Russia "highly dangerous"

Powers which want to see the "other superpower rivals finally on the ground", threaten Europe.

"Those who want to even more destabilize Russia economically and political following completely different interests," warned Gabriel. In Europe and in the US certain forces exist who want to see the "other superpower rival finally on the ground".

But that could not be in german and european interests.

If Russia drops out as a partner in solving conflicts, it would be "highly dangerous for the whole world."

"We want to help to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. But not Russia to its knees," he warned.

Gabriel backs the course of Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who warned about further sanctions. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, recently tightened her criticism about Russia.

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-01/gabriel-russland-sanktionen

Edited January 4, 2015 by oxmox

[Tonci87 163]

I kind of agree with them, bringing Russia to it´s knees can´t be in anybodys interest, however Putin really needs to be given a good harsh lesson so that he never attempts this shit again. I fear that harsh sanctions are the only way to do that. And you must not forgett that the SPD has very good relations to Russia. Don´t forget SPD ex-chancelor Schröder, Putins best German friend.....

[oxmox 73]

Of course germany and other european countries have good relations to Russia, because Russia is the biggest economical partner for the EU. It is the question if "other Powers and their interests" do care about Europe and the issues of european economics. In addition the controversies about unilateralism plays another role in our world.

Edited January 5, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Of course germany and other european countries have good relations to Russia, because Russia is the biggest economical partner for the EU. It is the question if "other Powers and their interests" do care about Europe and the issues of european economics.

Interesting point, but false.

The "biggest economical partner of the EU" is the United States of America, and the second the People's Republic China, not to confuse with the Republic of China ( both powers are against Russia's expansionism ).

Source from the EU Commission General directorate of Trade.

[oxmox 73]

Interesting point, but false.

The "biggest economical partner of the EU" is the United States of America, and the second the People's Republic China, not to confuse with the Republic of China ( both powers are against Russia's expansionism ).

Source from the EU Commission General directorate of Trade.

Within Europe of course not outside of it.

[mistyronin 1181]

Within Europe of course not outside of it.

Nowadays the location of your trading partners are not important, but the balance between benefits and problems they generate.

Russia generates way more problems than benefits. Unlike the USA or PR China, which as I said are the main economical opponents of Russia.

So tho it's better to have benefits from Russia, if the EU has to choose, Russia is the least beneficial of the three World main powers.

Numbers are like Shakira's hips, they don't lie.

[oxmox 73]

There are no three world main powers, there is only one. And when it comes to "generating problems" , there are other powers who are creating problems aswell, this is a way too one sided view.

Yes, other powers seem to question us when it comes to Russia and since we are partners with a very important alliance of course we will comply.

I think the markets should rather decide with whom you do business and not politicians, besides exceptions.

Edited January 5, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

There are no three world main powers, there is only one.

You mean PR China then...

( RT ) China surpasses US as world's largest economy based on key measure

[oxmox 73]

You mean PR China then...

( RT ) China surpasses US as world's largest economy based on key measure

Well, I dont want to be nitpicking, but there is a difference between world power and economical power. Our main partner in our alliance is the first and the only true world power in history.

[mistyronin 1181]

Well, I dont want to be nitpicking, but there is a difference between world power and economical power. Our main partner in our alliance is the first and was the only true world power in history.

I'm afraid I'll be terribly materialistic, but money is power in this World of us. Money buys better and bigger guns, arms more people, etc. etc.

[oxmox 73]

I'm afraid I'll be terribly materialistic, but money is power in this World of us. Money buys better and bigger guns, arms more people, etc. etc.

I understand you and would describe it similar but the true world power exist already. There is of course the outlook that China will be a very powerful rival.

Iam sure this is an interesting read and its just a small section from the book but it describes that there is more than just economical power to be a true global superpower, "The Grand Chessboard" by Brzezinski:

(some points are outdated but overall still a very interesting read)

"In brief, Rome exercised its sway largely through superior military organization and cultural appeal. China relied heavily on an efficient bureaucracy to rule an empire based on shared ethnic identity, reinforcing its control through a highly developed sense of cultural superiority. The Mongol Empire combined advanced military tactics for conquest with an inclination toward assimilation as the basis for rule. The British (as well asthe Spanish, Dutch, and French) gained preeminence as their flag followed their trade, their control likewise reinforced by superior military organization and cultural assertiveness. But none of these empires were truly global. Even Great Britain was not a truly global power. It did not control Europe but only balanced it. A stable Europe was crucial to British international preeminence, and Europe's self-destruction inevitably marked the end of British primacy.

In contrast, the scope and pervasiveness of American global power today are unique. Not only does the United States control all of the world's oceans and seas, but it has developed an assertive military capability for amphibious shore control that enables it to project its power inland in politically significant ways. Its military legions are firmly perched on the western and eastern extremities of Eurasia, and they also control the Persian

Gulf. American vassals and tributaries, some yearning to be embraced by even more formal ties to Washington, dot the entire Eurasian continent, as the map on page 22 shows.

America's economic dynamism provides the necessary precondition for the exercise of global primacy. Initially, immediately after World War II, America's economy stood apart from all others, accounting alone for more than 50 percent of the world's GNP.

More important, America has maintained and has even widened its lead in exploiting the latest scientific breakthroughs for military purposes, thereby creating a technologically peerless military establishment, the only one with effective global reach.

In brief, America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power, militarily, it has anunmatched global reach; economically, it remains the main locomotive of global growth, even if challenged in some aspects by Japan and Germany (neither of which enjoys the other attributes of global might);technologically, it retains the overall lead in the cutting-edge areas of innovation; and culturally,despite some crassness, it enjoys an appeal that is unrivaled, especially among the world's youth—all of which gives the United States a political clout that no other state comes close tomatching. It is the combination of all four that makes America the only comprehensive global superpower."

Edited January 5, 2015 by oxmox

[vilas 477]

@Misty - he talks about German machine industry