Viernes Negro

Lo hemos visto tantas veces en las películas que ya parece parte de nuestro propio folklore: la mesa, el pavo, el rezo preliminar, una lágrima furtiva, miradas que lo dicen todo, la charla amena entre integrantes de un grupo humano, una familia, en lo que para muchos será la única reunión anual. Hablamos del Día de Acción de Gracias, el Thanksgiving.  El momento para agradecer lo que se tiene, lo que nos ha dado la tierra, el entorno, las circunstancias. Muchos se quedarán en la casa paterna esa noche, después de la cena, y al día siguiente irán a los paseos de compras a hacerse pequeños regalos; naderías, claro, que simplemente indican un te quiero, un pienso en vos, esas cosas…

Leemos en Wikipedia: “Se conoce como viernes negro (en inglés Black Friday) al día que inaugura la temporada de compras navideñas con significativas rebajas en muchas tiendas minoristas y grandes almacenes. Es un día después del Día de Acción de Gracias y se celebra el día siguiente al cuarto jueves del mes de noviembre. Esta festividad comenzó en Norteamérica, principalmente en Estados Unidos y en Canadá y, poco a poco y con la ayuda de las nuevas tecnologías y la promoción de este día por parte de las distintas empresas, se ha ido extendiendo por el resto de países del mundo."

Nos va a llegar, chicos, nos va a llegar.

Lo que sigue es material fuertemente pornográfico. Incluye escenas de blackfridaysmo explícito. Si va a ser visto por menores, se recomienda la supervisión de padres o adultos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w7FjW3QeiQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVmmDkWchTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHgQ4qpfqnc

Trinos

El patriarca Bartolomeo 1º besa la cabeza del Papa

Francisco ya empieza a molestar a unos cuantos, fuera y dentro de la Iglesia Católica. Así lo señala una nota de Pablo Ordaz aparecida ayer en el diario español El país:

Título: Un papa que trine y no que truene

Subtítulo: El sector más conservador de la Iglesia empieza a censurar el perfil tan político de Francisco

Texto: Hay días, pocos, en los que el papa Francisco hace de papa convencional y entre el respetable --inclúyase al público en general y a la numerosa prensa internacional que le sigue en sus viajes— cunde entonces una cierta sorpresa tiznada de decepción. Las jornadas en las que, como el sábado en Estambul, Jorge Mario Bergoglio se dedica a hablar del Espíritu Santo o de la carta de San Pablo a los corintios se pueden contar con los dedos de una mano. Desde su llegada a la silla de Pedro, precedida por el gran escándalo de las filtraciones que desembocó en la renuncia de Benedicto XVI, las intervenciones del papa Francisco han contenido siempre un claro mensaje político de denuncia, ya sea hacia dentro de la Iglesia –contra el lujo, la pederastia o la falta de misericordia— o hacia el mundo que le rodea. Sus encendidos discursos contra el sistema económico mundial, la falta de atención a los inmigrantes o la necesidad de una alianza, “más allá de las armas”, contra el terrorismo islamista le han granjeado una atención mediática sin precedentes. Pero también un murmullo de desaprobación creciente, aunque todavía poco audible, entre los sectores más conservadores de la Iglesia.

El martes pasado, durante el vuelo de regreso de Estrasburgo, donde Francisco realizó una critica feroz al “tecnicismo burocrático” de una Unión Europea (UE) que se percibe “cansada y envejecida”, un periodista le preguntó si, a tenor de sus palabras, se le podía considerar “un papa socialdemócrata”. Bergoglio, esbozando una sonrisa, contestó: “¡Querido, eso es un reduccionismo! Yo no sabría clasificarme en un lado u otro, pero todo lo que digo viene del Evangelio, que toma la doctrina social de la Iglesia. Pero gracias por la pregunta. Me ha hecho usted sonreír”. Una sonrisa que, sin embargo, no todos comparten.

Los sectores más conservadores –que van asomando la cabeza a través de ciertos blogs solo para iniciados— prefieren un papa que trine las virtudes de Dios y de su Iglesia y no uno que truene a diario contra los pecados propios y ajenos. O que, puestos a tronar, lo hiciese contra los de la acera de enfrente –parejas en pecado, uniones homosexuales, religiones tradicionalmente antagónicas— y no, como Bergoglio hace a menudo, contra sus propias huestes. Una parte de la Curia –la que vivía feliz discutiendo sobre el sexo de los ángeles en los mejores restaurantes de Roma mientras, por poner un ejemplo, 30 millones de estadounidenses abandonaban la fe católica en los últimos años— no se esperaba un papa, digamos, tan beligerante. Un papa capaz de dejar a los pies de los caballos de la justicia civil a clérigos aficionados a blanquear dinero del banco del Vaticano –monseñor Nunzio Scarano—o a aprovechar su prestigio sacerdotal para desplumar ancianas y abusar sexualmente de menores de edad, como se investiga ahora en Granada.

Un año y medio después de su elección, la actitud del papa Francisco hacia su Iglesia y hacia el mundo sigue levantando oleadas de admiración entre propios y extraños, pero también un mar de fondo cada vez más identificable después de que, durante el pasado sínodo sobre la familia, Bergoglio demostrara que no es solo un constructor de bellos discursos o de imágenes históricas --como la de ayer inclinándose y haciéndose bendecir por el patriarca ortodoxo Bartolomeo I--, sino un papa dispuesto a cambiar la Iglesia.

Desprecio

Quién lo hubiera dicho. La vieja división este-oeste persiste en la Alemania unificada, al menos en la consideración de Rusia y su papel en el mundo, 25 años después de la caída del muro. Curiosamente, es el este (el que supuestamente resultó más perjudicado en la repartija post- II Guerra Mundial), el que banca a los ruskis. Más aún, el que manfiesta, cuando puede, su desprecio por Occidente y sus valores. Leemos en Russia Insider: 

Título: In Germany, Putin Way More Popular in East

Texto: MOSCOW, November 27 (Sputnik) – A quarter of a century after the fall of the Berlin Wall, writes the author Frank Pergande in his article “Against the West”, the differences between the eastern and western parts of Germany are still striking.

In particular, in relation to Russia, in the east of the country the Russian President Putin meets more understanding than in the West.

“Putin — the topic of conversation on the street, in the family and at the table in the pub,” he says.

“One can almost believe that “poor Putin” is being pressed by the West, and in the eyes of the East he has become somewhat of a hero.

Similar to Gorbachev 25 years ago. And it is somewhat of a consensus in the East to show affection to Putin and Russia”.

 At first sight, the author says, such affection may seem strange, given the experiences of East Germans with the Soviet Union and Russia, the horrible heritage of World War II and the legacy of the Russian army.

On the other hand, he questions, how many Germans, either in the East or the West, really know what is behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

“Who knows what happens to the people of Ukraine, who knows about the Crimea, ever been there?

Russia offers a welcome opportunity to express the underlying distrust of the West, its mode of life and values. And to criticize NATO expansion to the East which forces Putin to defend his country.”

“The West on the outside,” he says, “has brilliant colorful storefronts, but on the inside it is a depraved and dishonest society in which, to quote only one of the phrases, the rich are getting richer and the poor get poorer”.

“It's not only Russia currently challenging the West”, says Pergande. “The Western achievements are taken for granted but are quickly forgotten when matters become serious.

Contempt for the "Western" way of life could be seen everywhere. But an alternative model, human happiness prone to dictatorship seems not to lose its appeal. But it exposes itself as it hides under the mask of Putin”.

Focas británicas violan pingüinos

En esa cantera de perlas que son los títulos misceláneos de Russia Today en español (en la columna de la derecha), encontramos una noticia que nos hace ruido:

Título: Los biólogos tocan la alarma: focas matan a marsopas por diversión

Texto: “A pesar de su tierna apariencia, las focas británicas son cada vez más violentas en sus comportamientos depredadores, afirman expertos citados por el portal 'Daily Digest News'.

Según las últimas observaciones, las focas están dando a conocer su lado más oscuro. Esta faceta se manifiesta en comportamientos que van desde la violación de pingüinos hasta la mutilación violenta de marsopas. Los expertos advierten que estos comportamientos violentos, que se han observado a lo largo de las costas del Reino Unido y Holanda, podrían traducirse en ataques a los humanos.”

***

Hasta ahí la breve nota de RT. Aclaremos de entrada que es imposible adjudicar a una “diversión” de las focas la mutilación de marsopas. ¿Quién establece que una foca se está divirtiendo cuando mutila una marsopa? Ahora bien, más notable que la mutilación de marsopas, es la violación de pingüinos por parte de las focas británicas. Que un mamífero viole a un ave nos resulta, de por sí, sospechoso. Pero que una foca británica viole a un ave exclusiva del Hemisferio Sur, como es el pingüino, ya plantea dificultades infranqueables. Por este motivo nos fuimos a la fuente de tamaña novedad. Se trata de una nota de John Tyburski para el Daily Digest News, aparecida anteayer:


Título: Biologists disturbed to find seals in Britain seemingly killing porpoises for fun

Texto: While they look cute and cuddly with their big puppy dog eyes and whiskers, Britain’s seals are becoming more vicious and violent in their predatory behaviors, prompting scientists to ask why.

The cute, Labrador retrievers of the sea, ocean seals, may not be as benevolent as they look. In fact, a dark side to seals is emerging, with behaviors ranging from penguin rape to violent mutilation of porpoises along the coast of Britain and Holland.

Experts warn that these violent behaviors could translate into attacks on human swimmers. While rare, seal attacks are not unheard of. In 2003, British marine biologist Kristy Brown, 28, was drowned by a leopard seal off the Antarctic Peninsula. The seal grabbed her in its jaws and dragged her into the icy deep while she was snorkeling. Other reports of seal attacks include an attempt in 1985 by a leopard seal to drag a man from pack ice into the chilly water and a harbor seal that bit the hand of a five year-old in Canada.

Aggressive behavior in leopard seals is not unusual, but the same sinister activities in other types of seals is a more recent observation. Scientists at the Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies in Holland examined the remains of over 1,000 mutilated porpoises that washed up on the North Sea shorelines over the past 10 years. For many years, the cause of the mutilations remained a mystery.

Some speculated that the porpoises were caught in boat propellers or maimed by scavengers after being caught in fishing nets. Recently, however, scientists have traced the crimes to grey seals through DNA evidence.

“Many of the mutilated porpoises were found on shores used frequently by human bathers and surfers and there would appear to be no reason why humans may not be at risk from grey seal attacks,” said biologist Mardick Leopold, lead author on a new report published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society b.

Approximately 180,000 grey seals reside along the Scottish coastline and surrounding area of the British Isles. They can reach 11 feet long and weigh over 660 lbs, making them Britain’s largest carnivorous animals. For reason’s yet unknown, the seals have begun attacking porpoises that come to the surface of the water to rest. They grab them by the bony beaks and tear blubber from their bodies.

While scuba divers have reported being approached by the grey seals, no attacks on humans have been documented.


El tipo dijo: “penguin rape”, efectivamente. En fin, el misterio continúa.

Ampliaremos.

***

ACTUALIZACIÓN:

Pasó en la Antártida, pero, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8U4mourlc8

Maniobras

Rusia comienza a apretar el acelerador de las palabras y los gestos, después de los discursos de Putin y Lavrov, ya comentados en Astroboy. Las maniobras, suponemos, permitirían: (1) evaluar hasta donde se les frunce el culito a los chicos de la NATO, sobre todo a los patoteritos menores (Hollande, Cameron, etc.); (2) como consecuencia de lo anterior, ver qué gestos contrapone Occidente, y en particular la NATO; (3) por último, apreciar qué tipo de noticias y análisis pasan la férrea censura impuesta por (no a) la prensa occidental, a los efectos de ir preparando a la gilada (esto es, la Humanidad) para los acontecimientos del futuro mediato. 

Veamos primero, como contexto, esta noticia de RT en español del día de hoy:

Putin: "Los intentos de hablar con Rusia en el lenguaje de los ultimátums son estériles"

Texto: Las medidas restrictivas unilaterales impuestas contra Rusia por EE.UU., la UE, Japón, Australia y otros países son ilegítimas y no tienen futuro, afirmó el presidente ruso, Vladímir Putin, en una entrevista con la agencia de noticias turca Anadolu.

Este tipo de presión no solo perjudica directamente la economía, sino que también amenaza la estabilidad internacional, afirmó Putin en una entrevista concedida poco antes de que efectuar su próxima visita oficial a Turquía, donde participará en la quinta reunión del Consejo de Cooperación de Alto Nivel ruso-turco. 

"Los intentos de hablar con Rusia en el lenguaje de los ultimátums y las sanciones son absolutamente inaceptables y no tienen ninguna perspectiva. Con ello, nuestra respuesta siempre ha sido y será equilibrada y va a tener en cuenta los derechos y obligaciones de Rusia en virtud de los tratados internacionales, incluso en el marco de la Organización Mundial del Comercio", declaró el mandatario ruso. 

Asimismo, Putin señaló que los directivos de las principales empresas occidentales que operan en Rusia no ocultan su preocupación por las sanciones y confirman su disposición a seguir cooperando con sus socios rusos. "Esperamos que prevalezca el sentido común. Hacemos un llamamiento a superar esta lógica viciosa de restricciones y amenazas,  a cambiar el rumbo para buscar soluciones mutuamente aceptables a los problemas acumulados", agregó Putin. 

Además, el presidente manifestó que Rusia considera que la lucha contra los terroristas y extremistas en el Norte de África y Oriente Medio, incluida Siria, es una de las prioridades de la comunidad internacional. "Estamos convencidos de que los esfuerzos para contener esta amenaza deben ser aplicados sobre la base de las decisiones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, en el marco de un estricto cumplimiento del derecho internacional, en particular de los principios de la soberanía estatal y la no injerencia en los asuntos internos de los Estados, y que eso debe hacerse de forma transparente y sin ninguna agenda 'oculta'", concluyó Putin.

Al mismo tiempo, RT manda fruta vaporosa con esta nota, también el día de hoy:

Título: Rusia lanza con éxito un misil intercontinental Bulavá desde un submarino nuclear

Texto: Las pruebas del misil balístico intercontinental Bulavá se han saldado con éxito, informa este viernes el Ministerio de Defensa de Rusia. El misil ha sido lanzado exitosamente desde el submarino nuclear de crucero Alexandr Nevski.

Según detalla el Ministerio, las pruebas han sido llevadas a cabo en aguas del mar de Barents. Durante el lanzamiento, el submarino estaba en posición sumergida.

"La trayectoria del misil balístico intercontinental Bulavá fue la planeada y los datos del control objetivo confirmaron que las ojivas del misil llegaron con éxito al campo de tiro de Kurá, en Kamchatka", ha comunicado el portavoz del Ministerio, Ígor Konashénkov.

Ha sido la primera vez que el Alexandr Nevski participó en las pruebas del Bulavá, un misil de un alcance estimado de 8.000 kilómetros que es capaz de dividirse en entre 6 y 10 ojivas hipersónicas independientes de alta maniobrabilidad. El submarino nuclear estratégico entró en servicio en 2013 y forma parte del proyecto Boréi. Cada submarino de esta clase cuenta con 16 lanzadores de misiles. Su armamento incluye también sistemas de defensa aérea portátil y torpedos. Pueden operar a una profundidad de entre 400 y 480 metros y alcanzar una velocidad de 15 nudos en la superficie y de 29 nudos bajo el agua.

Pero lo más interesante viene a continuación. La edición en inglés de RT (la española no, l.p.m.) informa:

Título: Russian battleships in the English Channel, say they’re training

Texto: Russia’s Northern Fleet has been conducting naval training near Dover. Two battleships and two supply vessels worked on operations and communications in conditions of adverse weather and heavy marine traffic.

“Today a squadron of warships and support vessels of the Northern Fleet headed by a large anti-submarine ship, the Severomorsk, crossed the narrowest part of the English Channel and passed into the Bay of the Seine,” said Russia’s defense ministry.

The crews held a series of survival exercises in case of flooding or fire, as well as anti-submarine training.

After the training, in one of the world’s most crowded waterways, where the squadron was constantly shadowed by the British Navy’s HMS Tyne offshore patrol vessel, the task force went further and anchored in the international waters of the Seine Bay to wait out a storm.sh Navy’s HMS Tyne (Image from wikimedia.org)
Both Britain’s and France’s navies confirmed the location of the Russian ships, but denied that the Russians were doing any training.

“They are not holding exercises. They're just waiting in a zone where they are allowed to be several times a year," the French Navy's information service said as cited by Reuters.

"Our information indicates that the ships are transiting and have been delayed by weather conditions. They are not exercising in the Channel, as some Russian headlines would have us believe,” said NATO's military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Jay Janzen.

Russia’s Navy reported that the crews are not going to sit out the storm in an idle manner. Instead, the crews will train in repelling underwater warfare attacks and practice radio-electronic warfare.

The captains of the task force use every opportunity to test their crews should a situation arise.
While sailing in high latitudes, Russian sailors trained by providing assistance to a vessel in distress. They also did electronic communication training and cargo transfers from ship to ship.

When NATO patrol aircrafts approached the task force in North Sea waters, air raid alerts were sounded and crews trained air defense maneuvers.

Combat duty assignments of the large anti-submarine ship, the Severomorsk, specifically practiced the detection and elimination of waterborne targets.

The task group left its homeport of Severomorsk above the Arctic Circle on November 20 and has already covered 1,700 nautical miles, crossing successively the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea before entering the Strait of Dover.

Northern Fleet warships will steam for the Gulf of Aden to protect vessels there from Somalia pirate attacks.

La noticia es corroborada por la marina británica. Al respecto, leemos en Zero Hedge:

Título: Russian Warship Flotilla Enters English Channel For Military Exercises

Texto: The French delivery of two Mistral ships to Russia may be postponed indefinitely (a move which ultimately would cost Hollande over $4 billion in contract breach penalty fees he simply can't afford to pay), but that doesn't mean the Russian navy has been hobbled or is hiding in the corner. To the contrary: according to the following tweet from the UK Ministry of Defense, Russia's navy is getting quite bolder.

What happened?

As Bloomberg reports, at least 4 vessels which departed the Russian Northern Fleet main base on November 20, led by anti-submarine ship Severomorsk, entered English channel for exercises that include anti-sabotage training, damage control in case of fire and water intake, state-run news service RIA Novosti says, citing statement from Navy.

Reuters confirms that a squadron of Russian warships entered the English Channel on Friday to hold exercises, RIA news agency reported, the latest apparent show of military might since ties with the West plunged to Cold War lows over Ukraine.

RIA quoted the Northern Fleet as saying its vessels, led by anti-submarine ship Severomorsk, had passed through the Strait of Dover and were now in international waters in the Seine Bay to wait for a storm to pass. "While it is anchored the crew are undertaking a series of exercises on how to tackle ... infiltrating submarine forces and are training on survival techniques in the case of flooding or fire," RIA quoted the Northern Fleet as saying in a statement. The Russian navy could not reached for comment and the Defence Ministry declined to comment on the report.

Naturally, NATO - afraid of looking even weaker than it is - was quick to downplay the incident since a lack of retaliation would make the defensive alliance appear quite prone to "penetrations" by Russian forces: France's navy confirmed the location of the ships and said it was not unusual to have Russian warships in the Channel. "They are not holding exercises. They’re just waiting in a zone where they can be several times a year," said the French Navy's information service.

Lieutenant-Colonel Jay Janzen, NATO's military spokesman, also said the alliance was aware of the Russian ships' location. "Our information indicates that the ships are transiting and have been delayed by weather conditions. They are not exercising in the Channel, as some Russian headlines would have us believe," he said.

And if they were in fact "exercising" it would simply mean that NATO exercises in the Black Sea miles away from the Russian coast, are finally being met in kind by a Russia which with every passing day is making it clear its "concern" of western reprisals and retaliation to Russian actions, which in turn are a consequence of NATO expansion eastward, is increasingly more negligible.

Es depresión, chicos (2)

Vuelve a bajar el precio del petróleo, esta vez a cerca de U$S 70 el barril (WTI). En Astroboy hemos expuesto todo tipo de teorías al respecto. En líneas generales, se las puede dividir en dos grandes grupos: por un lado están los que piensan que esto es una cuestión política, bajo la forma de un pacto secreto entre los EEUU y Arabia Saudita, destinada a fundir la economía rusa (El rublo volvió a desplomarse hoy al conocerse la noticia de que NADIE, en la OPEP, piensa recortar la producción). Por el otro están los depresionistas, que dicen que la caída en el precio del petróleo obedece a la destrucción de demanda (básicamente, de la demanda China). A este último grupo pertenece Raúl Ilargi Meijer, quien escribe hoy esta nota en su sitio web The Automatic Earth (http://www.theautomaticearth.com/the-price-of-oil-exposes-the-true-state-of-the-economy/):


Título: The Price Of Oil Exposes The True State Of The Economy

Texto: We should be glad the price of oil has fallen the way it has (losing another 6% today as I write this). Not because it makes the gas in our cars a bit cheaper, that’s nothing compared to the other service the price slump provides. That is, it allows us to see how the economy is really doing, without the multilayered veil of propaganda, spin, fixed data and bailouts and handouts for the banking system.

It shows us the huge extent to which consumer spending is falling, how much poorer people have become as stock markets set records. It also shows us how desperate producing nations have become, who have seen a third of their often principal source of revenue fall away in a few months’ time. Nigeria was first in line to devalue its currency, others will follow suit.

OPEC today decided not to cut production, but whatever decision they would have come to, nothing would have made one iota of difference. The fact that prices only started falling again after the decision was made public shows you how senseless financial markets have become, dumbed down by easy money for which no working neurons are required.

OPEC has become a theater piece, and the real world out there is getting colder. Oil producing nations can’t afford to cut their output in some vague attempt, with very uncertain outcome, to raise prices. The only way to make up for their losses is to increase production when and where they can. And some can’t even do that.

Saudi Arabia increased production in 1986 to bring down prices. All it has to do today to achieve the same thing is to not cut production. But the Saudi’s have lost a lot of cloud, along with OPEC, it’s not 1986 anymore. That is due to an extent to American shale oil, but the global financial crisis is a much more important factor.

We are only now truly even just beginning to see how hard that crisis has already hit the Chinese export miracle, and its demand for resources, a major reason behind the oil crash. The US this year imported less oil from OPEC members than it has in 30 years, while Americans drive far less miles per capita and shale has its debt-financed temporary jump. Now, all oil producers, not just shale drillers, turn into Red Queens, trying ever harder just to make up for losses.

The American shale industry, meanwhile, is a driverless truck, with breaks missing and fueled by on cheap speculative capital. The main question underlying US shale is no longer about what’s feasible to drill today, it’s about what can still be financed tomorrow. And the press are really only now waking up to the Ponzi character of the industry.

In a pretty solid piece last week, the Financial Times’ John Dizard concluded with: “Even long-time energy industry people cannot remember an overinvestment cycle lasting as long as the one in unconventional US resources. It is not just the hydrocarbon engineers who have created this bubble; there are the financial engineers who came up with new ways to pay for it.”

While Reuters on November 10 (h/t Yves at NC) talked about giant equity fund KKR’s shale troubles: “KKR, which led the acquisition of oil and gas producer Samson for $7.2 billion in 2011 and has already sold almost half its acreage to cope with lower energy prices, plans to sell its North Dakota Bakken oil deposit worth less than $500 million as part of an ongoing downsizing plan. Samson’s bonds are trading around 70 cents on the dollar, indicating that KKR and its partners’ equity in the company would probably be wiped out were the whole company to be sold now. Samson’s financial woes underscore how private equity’s love affair with North America’s shale revolution comes with risks. The stakes are especially high for KKR, which saw a $45 billion bet on natural gas prices go sour when Texas power utility Energy Future Holdings filed for bankruptcy this year.”
     
And today, Tracy Alloway at FT mentions major banks and their energy-related losses: “Banks including Barclays and Wells Fargo are facing potentially heavy losses on an $850 million loan made to two oil and gas companies, in a sign of how the dramatic slide in the price of oil is beginning to reverberate through the wider economy. [..] if Barclays and Wells attempted to syndicate the $850m loan now, it could go for as little as 60 cents on the dollar.”

That’s just one loan. At 60 cents on the dollar, a $340 million loss. Who knows how many similar, and bigger, loans are out there? Put together, these stories slowly seeping out of the juncture of energy and finance gives the good and willing listener an inkling of an idea of the losses being incurred throughout the global economy, and by the large financiers. There’s a bloodbath brewing in the shadows. Countries can see their revenues cut by a third and move on, perhaps with new leaders, but many companies can’t lose that much income and keep on going, certainly not when they’re heavily leveraged.

The Saudi’s refuse to cut output and say: let America cut. But American oil producers can’t cut even if they would want to, it would blow their debt laden enterprises out of the water, and out of existence. Besides, that energy independence thing plays a big role of course. But with prices continuing to fall, much of that industry will go belly up because credit gets withdrawn.

The amount of money lost in the ‘overinvestment cycle’ will be stupendous, and you don’t need to ask who’s going to end up paying. Pointing to past oil bubbles risks missing the point that the kind of leverage and cheap credit heaped upon shale oil and gas, as Dizard also says, is unprecedented. As Wolf Richter wrote earlier this year, the industry has bled over $100 billion in losses for three years running.

Not because they weren’t selling, but because the costs were – and are – so formidable. There’s more debt going into the ground then there’s oil coming out. Shale was a losing proposition even at $100. But that remained hidden behind the wagers backed by 0.5% loans that fed the land speculation it was based on from the start. WTI fell below $70 today. You can let your 3-year old do the math from there.

I wonder how many people will scratch their heads as they’re filling up their tanks this week and wonder how much of a mixed blessing that cheap gas is. They should. They should ask themselves how and why and how much the plummeting gas price is a reflection of the real state of the global economy, and what that says about their futures. Happy Turkey.

Inminencias

Algo está pasando, o está por pasar, en Ucrania. La OTAN empuja siempre un poquito más hacia la guerra. Rusia ya avisó que empieza a los tiros. Ucrania está al borde de la extinción económica. Ergo, algo tiene que pasar. Leemos en Zero Hedge:

Título: NATO To Deploy Tanks In Eastern Europe Shortly After VP Of Europarliament Says Ukraine-Russia War Imminent

Texto: Just when global financial markets had shrugged off Ukraine as yet another 'storm in a teacup', it appears events are escalating rapidly once again. This morning saw European Parliament's Vice President Saryusz-Wolski warn "Russia's pressure on Ukraine is mounting high, further war imminent," to which Ukraine's President Poroshenko rapidly responded (via Twitter) rather ominously that a "third world war does not scare us," having noted earlier than Ukraine needs to achieve NATO membership. This then promptedNATO's top military commander to warn, he is "very concerned" that Russia's military build-upin the annexed Crimean region could be used as a launchpad for attacks across the whole Black Sea region; leaving the alliance confirming that NATO plans to deploy tanks in Eastern Europe.

The European Parliament Vice President Jacek Saryusz-Wolski tweeted (rather to the point):

“Russia's pressure on Ukraine mounting high, further war imminent.”

To which Ukrainian President Poroshenko replied:

"A 3rd World War does not scare... in fact, nobody is going to start it"

However, it seems the sabre-rattling continues... As Al-Jazeera reports, NATO's top military commander has said he is "very concerned" that Russia's military build-up in the annexed Crimean region could be used as a launchpad for attacks across the whole Black Sea region.

US General Philip Breedlove's comments late on Wednesday came amid fears in Kiev that Russian-backed rebels will try to grab more land in eastern Ukraine to establish a land corridor to Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in March.

"We are very concerned with the militarisation of Crimea," Breedlove said, following meetings with Ukraine's top political and military leaders in Kiev.

"The capabilities that are being installed in Crimea ... are able to exert influence over the entire Black Sea," he said, highlighting the influx of cruise missiles and surface-to-air rockets.

Russia's Defence Ministry said Wednesday that it had deployed a batch of 14 military jets to Crimea as part of a squadron of 30 that will be stationed on the peninsula.

Also on Wednesday, an OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in eastern Ukraine was reportedly attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft ammunition.

"These shots appear to have been fired from separatist-controlled territory," the US Department of State said n a statement on Thursday.

"Any attacks on, or threats to, OSCE monitors or equipment are unacceptable. We call on all parties to refrain from any actions that endanger the safety of the OSCE mission in Ukraine."

Which explains the decision to deploy tanks:

Sputnik: “#NATO confirms plans to deploy tanks in eastern #Europe due to situation in #Ukraine - alliance's spokesman in #Moscow”

And the Russians to respond:

“The United States is pushing Ukraine into the abyss of a civil war which has claimed thousands of lives, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told Asian counterparts on Thursday.”

“American and NATO military forces are moving closer to Russia’s threshold and the US has intensified activity in former Soviet republics," he told an inaugural meeting of the South and South-East Asian Nations Defense Chiefs’ Dialogue in Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital.

It appears the situation is anything but contained...


***

Mientras tanto, leemos este cable de la Agencia TASS (rusa, obvio):

Título: US pushes Ukraine into abyss of civil war — deputy defense minister

Texto: The United States is pushing Ukraine into the abyss of a civil war which has claimed thousands of lives, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told Asian counterparts on Thursday.

“American and NATO military forces are moving closer to Russia’s threshold and the US has intensified activity in former Soviet republics," he told an inaugural meeting of the South and South-East Asian Nations Defense Chiefs’ Dialogue in Colombo, Sri Lanka’s capital.

"The latest example is pushing Ukraine into an abyss through support to Maidan (the protest movement in Kiev’s Central Independence Square - TASS) and an anti-constitutional state coup,” he added.

“The lawfully elected president was ousted from power in a military way,” the minister said. “A fraternal country for Russia was pushed into civil war. Thousands of people were killed,” Antonov said.

“Russia is ready to promote a peaceful settlement in Ukraine through broad nationwide dialogue with all regions and political forces in the country involved,” he went on, calling for "honest, consistent fulfilment of the Minsk peace deals over ceasefire in southeast Ukraine”.

***

Por último, dos cositas: 

(1) Para quienes quieran saber cómo está realmente la situación en Ucrania, no se pierdan este videíto. Recuerden: esto no está ocurriendo ahora en el este de la ex-Ucrania, sino en el Oeste, o sea, contra la frontera polaca:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UioLutg57gE

(2) Bajo el título: "¿Así que no hay nazis en Ucrania?", el amigo The Saker manda en su blog esta fotito de los chicos de Kiev (la bandera azul de la izquierda es el emblema de la OTAN):

Tiro al pie

A medida que decae, el Imperio va mostrando sus costados flacos, sus jirones, sus muecas menos amables al resto del mundo. También, sus crecientes limitaciones. Una de ellas es la política exterior. Pocas veces como ahora, los EEUU han mostrado tantas limitaciones en el elemento humano que les gestiona la política externa. La siguiente historia tiene que ver con la súbita caída en los precios del petróleo que viene ocurriendo desde hace unas semanas. Originalmente calculada para dañar a Rusia, comienza a dañar al mismo Imperio. Veamos esta historia a partir de tres noticias publicadas en el sitio Zero Hedge. La primera nota es del 25 de Septiembre pasado:

Título: A Look Inside The Secret Deal With Saudi Arabia That Unleashed The Syrian Bombing

Texto: For those to whom the recent US campaign against Syria seems a deja vu of last summer's "near-war" attempt to ouster its president Bashar al-Assad, which was stopped in the last minute due to some very forceful Russian intervention and the near breakout of war in the Mediterranean between US and Russian navies, it is because they are. And as a reminder, just like last year, the biggest wildcard in this, and that, direct intervention into sovereign Syrian territory, or as some would call it invasion or even war, was not the US but Saudi Arabia - recall from August of 2013 - "Meet Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan: The Puppetmaster Behind The Syrian War." Bin Sultan was officially let go shortly after the 2013 campaign to replace Syria's leadership with a more "amenable" regime failed if not unofficially (see below), but Saudi ambitions over Syria remained.

That much is revealed by the WSJ today in a piece exposing the backdoor dealings that the US conducted with Saudi Arabia to get the "green light" to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."

In other words, John Kerry came, saw and promised everything he could, up to and including the missing piece of the puzzle - Syria itself on a silver platter - in order to prevent another diplomatic humiliation.

When Mr. Kerry touched down in Jeddah to meet with King Abdullah on Sept. 11, he didn't know for sure what else the Saudis were prepared to do. The Saudis had informed their American counterparts before the visit that they would be ready to commit air power—but only if they were convinced the Americans were serious about a sustained effort in Syria. The Saudis, for their part, weren't sure how far Mr. Obama would be willing to go, according to diplomats.

Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?

But back to the Saudis and how the deal to bomb Syria was cobbled together:
The Americans knew a lot was riding on a Sept. 11 meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia at his summer palace on the Red Sea.

A year earlier, King Abdullah had fumed when President Barack Obama called off strikes against the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. This time, the U.S. needed the king's commitment to support a different Syrian mission—against the extremist group Islamic State—knowing there was little hope of assembling an Arab front without it.

At the palace, Secretary of State John Kerry requested assistance up to and including air strikes, according to U.S. and Gulf officials. "We will provide any support you need," the king said.

But only after the Saudis got the abovementioned assurances that Assad will fall. And to do that they would have to strongarm Obama:

Wary of a repeat of Mr. Obama's earlier reversal, the Saudis and United Arab Emirates decided on a strategy aimed at making it harder for Mr. Obama to change course. "Whatever they ask for, you say 'yes,'" an adviser to the Gulf bloc said of its strategy. "The goal was not to give them any reason to slow down or back out."

Arab participation in the strikes is of more symbolic than military value. The Americans have taken the lead and have dropped far more bombs than their Arab counterparts. But the show of support from a major Sunni state for a campaign against a Sunni militant group, U.S. officials said, made Mr. Obama comfortable with authorizing a campaign he had previously resisted.

To be sure, so far Obama has refrained from directly bombing Assad, it is only a matter of time: "How the alliance fares will depend on how the two sides reconcile their fundamental differences over Syria and other issues. Saudi leaders and members of the moderate Syrian opposition are betting the U.S. could eventually be pulled in the direction of strikes supporting moderate rebel fighters against Mr. Assad in addition to Islamic State. U.S. officials say the administration has no intention of bombing Mr. Assad's forces"... for now.
But why is Saudi Arabia so adamant to remove Assad? Here is the WSJ's take:

For the Saudis, Syria had become a critical frontline in the battle for regional influence with Iran, an Assad ally. As Mr. Assad stepped up his domestic crackdown, the king decided to do whatever was needed to bring the Syrian leader down, Arab diplomats say.

In the last week of August, a U.S. military and State Department delegation flew to Riyadh to lay the ground for a military program to train the moderate Syrian opposition to fight both the Assad regime and Islamic State—something the Saudis have long requested. The U.S. team wanted permission to use Saudi facilities for the training. Top Saudi ministers, after consulting overnight with the king, agreed and offered to foot much of the bill. Mr. Jubeir went to Capitol Hill to pressed key lawmakers to approve legislation authorizing the training.

And once the US once again folded to Saudi demands to attack another sovereign, it was merely a matter of planning:

Hours before the military campaign was set to begin, U.S. officials held a conference call to discuss final preparations. On the call, military officers raised last-minute questions about whether Qatar would take part and whether the countries would make their actions public.
Mr. Kerry was staying in a suite on the 34th floor of New York's Waldorf Astoria hotel, where he was meeting leaders attending United Nations gatherings. He called his Gulf counterparts to make sure they were still onboard. They were.

The UAE, which some defense officials refer to as "Little Sparta" because of its outsized military strength, had the most robust role. One of the UAE's pilots was a woman. Two of the F-15 pilots were members of the Saudi royal family, including Prince Khaled bin Salman, son of the crown prince. In the third wave of the initial attack, half of the attack airplanes in the sky were from Arab countries.

The best news for Obama: it is now just a matter of time to recreate the same false flag that the Saudi-US alliance pushed so hard on the world in the summer of 2013 to justify the first attempt to remove Assad, and once again get the "sympathy" public cote behind him, naturally with the support of the US media.

But how does one know it is once again nothing but a stage? The following blurb should explain everything:

Saudi players in attendance for the Sept. 11 meeting included Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as the king's spymaster last year ran afoul of Mr. Kerry over Syria and Iraq policy.U.S. officials interpreted his presence as a sign the king wanted to make sure the court was united, U.S. officials said.

Actually, his presence is a sign that the same puppetmaster who pulled the strings, and failed, in 2013 to remove Assad, and as noted above was at least officially removed from the stage subsequently, is once again the person in charge of the Syrian campaign, only this time unofficially, and this time has Obama entirely wrapped around his finger.


***

La segunda fue publicada el 11 de Octubre pasado:

Título: Why Oil Is Plunging: The Other Part Of The "Secret Deal" Between The US And Saudi Arabia

Texto: Two weeks ago, we revealed one part of the "Secret Deal" between the US and Saudi Arabia: namely what the US 'brought to the table' as part of its grand alliance strategy in the middle east, which proudly revealed Saudi Arabia to be "aligned" with the US against ISIS, when in reality John Kerry was merely doing Saudi Arabia's will when the WSJ reported that "the process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."

What was not clear is what was the other part: what did the Saudis bring to the table, or said otherwise, how exactly it was that Saudi Arabia would compensate the US for bombing the Assad infrastructure until the hated Syrian leader was toppled, creating a power vacuum in his wake that would allow Syria, Qatar, Jordan and/or Turkey to divide the spoils of war as they saw fit.

A glimpse of the answer was provided earlier in the article "The Oil Weapon: A New Way To Wage War", because at the end of the day it is always about oil, and leverage.

The full answer comes courtesy of Anadolu Agency, which explains not only the big picture involving Saudi Arabia and its biggest asset, oil, but also the latest fracturing of OPEC at the behest of Saudi Arabia...

... which however is merely using "the oil weapon" to target the old slash new Cold War foe #1: Vladimir Putin.

To wit:

Saudi Arabia to pressure Russia, Iran with price of oil

Saudi Arabia will force the price of oil down, in an effort to put political pressure on Iran and Russia, according to the President of Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center.

Saudi Arabia plans to sell oil cheap for political reasons, one analyst says. 

To pressure Iran to limit its nuclear program, and to change Russia's position on Syria, Riyadh will sell oil below the average spot price at $50 to $60 per barrel in the Asian markets and North America, says Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center. The marked decrease in the price of oil in the last three months, to $92 from $115 per barrel, was caused by Saudi Arabia, according to Abanmy. 

With oil demand declining, the ostensible reason for the price drop is to attract new clients, Abanmy said, but the real reason is political. Saudi Arabia wants to get Iran to limit its nuclear energy expansion, and to make Russia change its position of support for the Assad Regime in Syria. Both countries depend heavily on petroleum exports for revenue, and a lower oil price means less money coming in, Abanmy pointed out. The Gulf states will be less affected by the price drop, he added.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is the technical arbiter of the price of oil for Saudi Arabia and the 11 other countries that make up the group, won't be able to affect Saudi Arabia's decision, Abanmy maintained.

The organization's decisions are only recommendations and are not binding for the member oil producing countries, he explained.

Today's Brent closing price: $90. Russia's oil price budget for the period 2015-2017? $100. Which means much more "forced Brent liquidation" is in the cards in the coming weeks as America's suddenly once again very strategic ally, Saudi Arabia, does everything in its power to break Putin.


***

La tercera nota es de hoy: 

Título: US "Secret" Deal With Saudis Backfires After Oil Minister Says US Should Cut First

Texto: Who could have seen this coming? With oil prices holding at 4-year lows, heavily pressuring around half of US shale production economics, the "secret" US deal (see here and here) with Saudi Arabia to crush Russia via oil over-supply in a slumping demand world appears to be backfiring rapidly for John Kerry and his strategery team. Capable of withstanding considerably lower prices for longer, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi proclaimed "no one should cut production and the market will stabilize itself," adding rather ominously (for the US economy and HY default rates), "Why should Saudi Arabia cut? The U.S. is a big producer too now. Should they cut?"

As Reuters reports,

OPEC leader Saudi Arabia signaled on Wednesday it was unlikely to push for a major change in oil output at the producer group's meeting this week, a day after Russia refused to cooperate in any production cut. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said he expected the oil market "to stabilize itself eventually."
...

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh said some OPEC members, although not Iran itself, were gearing up for a battle over market share and insisted that non-OPEC producers needed to participate in any OPEC-led output cut.

"The most important thing for all of us is the unity and solidarity of OPEC, and in this situation I believe we need to have the contribution of non-OPEC producers for managing the market," Zangeneh told reporters.

"Some OPEC members believe that this is the time where we need to defend market share ... All the experts in the market believe we have oversupply in the market and next year we will have more oversupply," he added.

Which led the Saudi Minister to comment...

"Why should Saudi Arabia cut? The U.S. is a big producer too now. Should they cut?"

With prices expected to drop to $60 on no cut, maybe the "unequivocally good" news for the US economy from lower oil prices should be rethunk.

Discurso de Sergei Lavrov

Este es el año de hablar claro, parece. (Excepto para la OTAN, que transita todavía por la nube gaseosa de autobombo y sanata, al menos hasta que los bajen de un hondazo.)  Transcribimos el discurso pronunciado por Sergei Lavrov en ocasión de la 22º Asamblea del Consejo para las Políticas Exterior y de Defensa, hace tres días (22 de Noviembre). Lamentablemente todavía no hay versión castellana del discurso. Acá va: 

"I’m happy to be at this annual Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy (Russian abbreviation SVOP). It is always a great pleasure for me to meet people and feel the intellectual potential, which enables the Council, its leaders and representatives to respond to global developments and analyse them. Their analysis is always free from any hysteria, and its members offer well-grounded and solid arguments, taking a step back, since those caught in the midst of events can hardly adopt an unbiased perspective. We are inevitably influenced by the developments, which makes your observations, analysis, discourse and suggestions even more valuable to us.

As far as I know, this year’s Assembly will focus on prospects for accelerating domestic growth in Russia. There is no doubt that concerted efforts by our society as a whole to bring about comprehensive economic, social and spiritual development are a prerequisite for making Russia’s future sustainable. That said, by virtue of my professional duties, I have to focus on foreign policy issues, which are still relevant for the Assembly’s agenda, since in this interconnected, globalised world, isolating internal development from the outside world is impossible. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin provided a detailed analysis of the international developments at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi, as well as in his interviews during his trip to Asia. For this reason, I won’t offer any conceptual observations, as everything has already been said. Nevertheless, I would like to share with you some considerations based on our day-to-day foreign policy efforts. It is not my intention to deliver a comprehensive or clear outlook, since at this stage all forecasts are provisional, no matter who makes them. Moreover, diplomats seek to influence developments as they unfold, not contemplate them.

Naturally, I will start with Ukraine. Long before the country was plunged into the crisis, there was a feeling in the air that Russia’s relations with the EU and with the West were about to reach their moment of truth. It was clear that we could no longer continue to put issues in our relations on the back burner and that a choice had to be made between a genuine partnership or, as the saying goes, “breaking pots.” It goes without saying that Russia opted for the former alternative, while unfortunately our Western partners settled for the latter, whether consciously or not. In fact, they went all out in Ukraine and supported extremists, thereby giving up their own principles of democratic regime change. What came out of it was an attempt to play chicken with Russia, to see who blinks first. As bullies say, they wanted to Russia to “chicken out” (I can’t find a better word for it), to force us to swallow the humiliation of Russians and native speakers of Russian in Ukraine.

Honourable Leslie Gelb, whom you know all too well, wrote that Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU had nothing to do with inviting Ukraine to join the EU and was aimed in the short term at preventing it from joining the Customs Union. This is what an impartial and unbiased person said. When they deliberately decided to go down the path of escalation in Ukraine, they forgot many things, and had a clear understanding of how such moves would be viewed in Russia. They forgot the advice of, say, Otto von Bismarck, who had said that disparaging the millions-strong great Russian people would be the biggest political mistake.

President Vladimir Putin said the other day that no one in history has yet managed to subjugate Russia to its influence. This is not an assessment, but a statement of fact. Yet such an attempt has been made to quench the thirst for expanding the geopolitical space under Western control, out of a mercantile fear to lose the spoils of what they across the Atlantic had persuaded themselves was the victory in the Cold War.

The plus of today’s situation is that everything has clicked into its place and the calculus behind the West’s actions has been revealed despite its professed readiness to build a security community, a common European home. To quote (singer/song-writer) Bulat Okudzhava, “The past is getting clearer and clearer.” The clarity is becoming more tangible. Today our task is not only to sort out the past (although that must be done), but most importantly, to think about the future.

Talks about Russia’s isolation do not merit serious discussion. I need hardly dwell on this before this audience. Of course, one can damage our economy, and damage is being done, but only by doing harm to those who are taking corresponding measures and, equally important, destroying the system of international economic relations, the principles on which it is based. Formerly, when sanctions were applied (I worked at the Russian mission to the UN at the time) our Western partners, when discussing the DPRK, Iran or other states, said that it was necessary to formulate the restrictions in such a way as to keep within humanitarian limits and not to cause damage to the social sphere and the economy, and to selectively target only the elite. Today everything is the other way around: Western leaders are publicly declaring that the sanctions should destroy the economy and trigger popular protests. So, as regards the conceptual approach to the use of coercive measures the West unequivocally demonstrates that it does not merely seek to change Russian policy (which in itself is illusory), but it seeks to change the regime -- and practically nobody denies this.

President Vladimir Putin, speaking with journalists recently, said that today’s Western leaders have a limited planning horizon. Indeed, it is dangerous when decisions on key problems of the development of the world and humankind as a whole are taken on the basis of short electoral cycles: in the United States the cycle is two years and each time one has to think of or do something to win votes. This is the negative side of the democratic process, but we cannot afford to ignore it. We cannot accept the logic when we are told to resign, relax and take it as a given that everyone has to suffer because there are elections in the United States every two years. This is just not right. We will not resign ourselves to this because the stakes are too high in the fight against terror, the threats of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and many bloody conflicts whose negative impact goes far beyond the framework of the corresponding states and regions. The wish to do something to gain unilateral advantages or to endear oneself to the electorate ahead of another election leads to chaos and confusion in international relations.

We hear the daily repeated mantra that Washington is aware of its own exclusiveness and its duty to bear this burden, to lead the rest of the world. Rudyard Kipling spoke about “the white man’s burden.” I hope that this is not what drives Americans. The world today is not white or black, but multi-coloured and heterogeneous. Leadership in this world can be assured not by persuading oneself of one’ exclusiveness and God-given duty to be responsible for everyone, but only by the ability and craft in forming a consensus. If the US partners committed their power to this goal, this would be priceless, and Russia would be actively helping them.

However, so far, US administrative resources still work only in the NATO framework, and then with substantial reservations, and its writ does not reach beyond the North Atlantic Alliance. One proof of this is the results of US attempts to make the world community follow its line in connection with the anti-Russian sanctions and principles. I have spoken about it more than once and we have ample proof of the fact that American ambassadors and envoys across the world seek meetings at the highest level to argue that the corresponding countries are obliged to punish Russia together with them or else face the consequences. This is done with regard to all countries, including our closest allies (this speaks volumes about the kind of analysts Washington has). An overwhelming majority of the states with which we have a continuing dialogue without any restrictions and isolation, as you see, value Russia’s independent role in the international arena. Not because they like it when somebody challenges the Americans, but because they realise that the world order will not be stable if nobody is allowed to speak his mind (although privately the overwhelming majority do express their opinion, but they do not want to do so publicly for fear of Washington’s reprisals).

Many reasonable analysts understand that there is a widening gap between the global ambitions of the US Administration and the country’s real potential. The world is changing and, as has always happened in history, at some point somebody’s influence and power reach their peak and then somebody begins to develop still faster and more effectively. One should study history and proceed from realities. The seven developing economies headed by BRICS already have a bigger GDP than the Western G7. One should proceed from the facts of life, and not from a misconceived sense of one’s own grandeur.

It has become fashionable to argue that Russia is waging a kind of “hybrid war” in Crimea and in Ukraine. It is an interesting term, but I would apply it above all to the United States and its war strategy – it is truly a hybrid war aimed not so much at defeating the enemy militarily as at changing the regimes in the states that pursue a policy Washington does not like. It is using financial and economic pressure, information attacks, using others on the perimeter of a corresponding state as proxies and of course information and ideological pressure through externally financed non-governmental organisations. Is it not a hybrid process and not what we call war? It would be interesting to discuss the concept of the hybrid war to see who is waging it and is it only about “little green men.”

Apparently the toolkit of our US partners, who have become adept at using it, is much larger.

In attempting to establish their pre-eminence at a time when new economic, financial and political power centres are emerging, the Americans provoke counteraction in keeping with Newton’s third law and contribute to the emergence of structures, mechanisms, and movements that seek alternatives to the American recipes for solving the pressing problems. I am not referring to anti-Americanism, still less about forming coalitions spearheaded against the United States, but only about the natural wish of a growing number of countries to secure their vital interests and do it the way they think right, and not what they are told “from across the pond.” Nobody is going to play anti-US games just to spite the United States. We face attempts and facts of extra-territorial use of US legislation, the kidnapping of our citizens in spite of existing treaties with Washington whereby these issues are to be resolved through law enforcement and judicial bodies.

According to its doctrine of national security, the United States has the right to use force anywhere, anytime without necessarily asking the UN Security Council for approval. A coalition against the Islamic State was formed unbeknownst to the Security Council. I asked Secretary of State John Kerry why have not they gone to the UN Security Council for this.

He told me that if they did, they would have to somehow designate the status of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Of course, they had to because Syria is a sovereign state and still a member of the UN (no one excluded it from UN membership). The secretary of state said it was wrong because the United States is combating terrorism and the al-Assad regime is the most important factor that galvanises terrorists from around the world and acts as a magnet attracting them to this region in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian regime.

I believe this is perverse logic. If we are talking about precedents (the United States adheres to case law), it is worth remembering the chemical disarmament in Syria when the Assad regime was a completely legitimate partner of the United States, Russia, the OPCW and others. The Americans maintain talks with the Taliban as well. Whenever the United States has an opportunity to benefit from something, it acts quite pragmatically. I’m not sure why the ideologically-driven position took the upper hand this time and the United States chose to believe that Assad cannot be a partner. Perhaps, this is not so much an operation against the Islamic State as paving the way for toppling al-Assad under the guise of a counter-terrorist operation.

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote the book, Political Order and Political Decay, in which he argues that the efficiency of public administration in the United States is declining and the traditions of democratic governance are gradually being replaced with feudal fiefdom ruling methods. This is part of the discussion about someone who lives in a glass house and throws stones.

All of this is happening amid the mounting challenges and problems of the modern world. We are seeing a continued "tug of war" in Ukraine. Trouble is brewing on the south border of the EU. I don’t think the Middle Eastern and North African problems will go away all by themselves. The EU has formed a new commission. New foreign actors have emerged, who will face a serious fight for where to send their basic resources: either for the continuation of reckless schemes in Ukraine, Moldova, etc., within the Eastern Partnership (as advocated by an aggressive minority in the EU), or they will listen to the Southern European countries and focus on what’s happening on the other side of the Mediterranean.

This is a major issue for the EU.

So far, those who are not guided by real problems, but rather by a desire to quickly grab things from freshly turned up ground. It is deplorable. Exporting revolutions – be they democratic, communist or others – never brings any good.

State, public and civilisational structures are actually disintegrating in the MENA region. The destructive energy released in the process can scorch states that are located far beyond this region. Terrorists (including the Islamic State) are claiming a national status. Moreover, they are already beginning to create quasi-governmental bodies there that engage in the administrative work.

On this backdrop, minorities, including Christians, are banished. In Europe, these issues are deemed not politically correct. They are ashamed when we invite them to do something about it together at the OSCE. They wonder why would we focus specifically on Christians? How is that special? The OSCE has held a series of events dedicated to keeping memories about the Holocaust and its victims alive. A few years ago, the OSCE started holding events against Islamophobia. We will be offering an analysis of the processes leading to Christianophobia.

On 4-5 December, OSCE ministerial meetings will be held in Basel, where we will present this proposal. The majority of EU member states elude this topic, because they are ashamed to talk about it. Just as they were ashamed to include in what was then the EU constitution drafted by Valery Giscard d'Estaing a phrase that Europe has Christian roots.

If you don’t remember or respect your own roots and traditions, how would you respect the traditions and values of other people? This is straightforward logic. Comparing what’s happening now in the Middle East to a period of religious wars in Europe, Israeli political scientist Avineri said that the current turmoil is unlikely to end with what the West means when it says “democratic reforms.”

The Arab-Israeli conflict is dead in the water. It's hard to play on several boards at a time. The Americans are trying to accomplish this, but it doesn’t work for them. In 2013, they took nine months to sort out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will not go into the reasons, they are known, but they failed at this as well. Now, they asked for more time to try to achieve some progress before the end of 2014, so that the Palestinians wouldn’t go to the UN and sign the Statute of the International Criminal Court, etc. Suddenly, it transpired that negotiations on Iran are underway. The US State Department dumped Palestine to focus on Iran.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and I agreed to talk on this subject some time soon. It’s important to understand that you can’t keep the problem of the Palestinian state deeply frozen forever. Failure to resolve it for nearly 70 years has been a major argument of those who recruit extremists in their ranks, “there’s no justice: it was promised to create two states; the Jewish one was created, but they will never create an Arab state.” Used on a hungry Arab street, these arguments sound quite plausible, and they start calling for a fight for justice using other methods.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi that we need a new version of interdependence. This was a very topical statement. The leading powers must return to the negotiating table and agree on a new framework that takes into account the basic legitimate interests of all the key parties (I can’t tell you what it should be called, but it should be based on the UN Charter), to agree on reasonable self-imposed restrictions and collective risk management in a system of international relations underpinned by democratic values. Our Western partners promote respect for the rule of law, democracy and minority opinion within countries, while failing to stand up for the same values in international affairs. This leaves Russia as a pioneer in promoting democracy, justice and rule of international law. A new world order can only be polycentric and should reflect the diversity of cultures and civilisations in today’s world.

You are aware of Russia’s commitment to ensuring indivisibility of security in international affairs and holding it in international law. I won’t elaborate on this.

I would like to support the point the SVOP has been making that Russia won’t succeed in becoming a major, successful and confident power of the 21st century without developing its eastern regions. Sergei Karaganov was among the first to conceptualise this idea, and I fully agree. Taking Russia’s relations with the Asia Pacific countries to a new level is an absolute priority. Russia worked along these lines at the Beijing APEC meeting and the G20 forum. We will continue moving in this direction in the new environment created by the upcoming launch of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on 1 January 2015.

We have been treated as “subhumans.” For over a decade, Russia has been trying to establish partnership ties with NATO through CSTO. These efforts were not just about putting NATO and CSTO “in the same league.” As a matter of fact, CSTO is focused on catching drug dealers and illegal migrants around the Afghan border, and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the backbone of the international security forces, which, among other things, were tasked with fighting the terrorist threat and eliminating its financing schemes, which involve drug trafficking. We tried everything: we pleaded and then demanded real-time contact, so that once NATO detects a caravan transporting drugs and is unable to stop it, it alerts us across the border, so that this caravan could be intercepted by CSTO forces. They simply refused to talk to us. In private conversations, our NATO well-wishers (and I actually mean this in the positive way) told us that the alliance can’t view CSTO as an equal partner for ideological reasons. Until recently, we saw the same condescending and arrogant attitude with respect to the Eurasian economic integration. And that despite the fact that countries intending to join the EAEU have much more in common in terms of their economies, history and culture than many EU members. This union is not about creating barriers with anyone. We always stress how open this union is expected to be. I strongly believe that it will make a significant contribution to building a bridge between Europe and Asia Pacific.

I can’t fail to mention Russia’s comprehensive partnership with China. Important bilateral decisions have been taken, paving the way to an energy alliance between Russia and China. But there’s more to it. We can now even talk about the emerging technology alliance between the two countries. Russia’s tandem with Beijing is a crucial factor for ensuring international stability and at least some balance in international affairs, as well as ensuring the rule of international law. We will make full use of our relations with India and Vietnam, Russia’s strategic partners, as well as the ASEAN countries. We are also open to expanding cooperation with Japan, if our Japanese neighbours can look at their national interests and stop looking back at some overseas powers.

There is no doubt that the European Union is our largest collective partner. No one intends to “shoot himself in the foot” by renouncing cooperation with Europe, although it is now clear that business as usual is no longer an option. This is what our European partners are telling us, but neither do we want to operate the old way. They believed that Russia owed them something, while we want to be on an equal footing. For this reason, things will never be the same again. That said, I’m confident that we will be able to overcome this period, lessons will be learned and a new foundation for our relations will emerge.

The idea of creating a single economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok can now be heard here and there and is gaining traction. Germany’s Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has said publicly (while we have been saying it for a long time) that the EU and the EAEU should engage in dialogue. The statement President Vladimir Putin made in Brussels in January 2014, when he proposed the first step by launching negotiations on a free-trade zone between the EU and the Customs Union with an eye on 2020, is no longer viewed as something exotic. All of this has already become part of diplomacy and real politics. Although this is so far only a matter of discussion, I strongly believe that we will one day achieve what is called “the integration of integrations.” This is one of the key topics we want to promote within the OSCE at the Ministerial Council in Basel. Russia is about to assume BRICS and SCO presidency. The two organisations will hold their summits in Ufa. These are very promising organisations for the new age. They are not blocks (especially BRICS), but groups where members share the same interests, representing countries from all continents that share common approaches regarding the future of the global economy, finance and politics."