Russia and Iran among five coastal nations forging landmark Caspian Sea deal

Russia and Iran among five coastal nations forging landmark Caspian Sea deal

8/13/18
Vladimir Putin and Hassan Rowhani met on Sunday after a dramatic few days in which both were threatened with punishing economic sanctions by the US. But they were not meeting to agree a united response to this act of “economic warfare”, as Russia describes it. The Russian and Iranian presidents were in the small Kazakh coastal city of Aktau to sign a legal convention on the Caspian Sea. After more than two decades of fraught diplomatic efforts, the five littoral Caspian nations – Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan – agreed a legal framework for sharing the world’s largest inland body of water, which bridges Asia and Europe and is packed with oil, gas and sturgeon. Diplomats describe the document as a regional constitution. On Sunday, the five nations agreed to 24km (15 miles) of sovereign waters in addition to a further 10 nautical miles of fishing area after which there will be common waters. A legally binding convention that prevents Caspian nations from opening their borders to third party aggressors – such as the US or Nato – or allowing any foreign military presence at all on Caspian waters is a triumph for Putin.

Click to expand...

The leaders of Iran, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan should have taken note of what Russia is doing in the Azov Sea it shares with Ukraine.

The Putin regime does not honor maritime treaties. Sea Of Troubles: Azov Emerging As 'Tinderbox' In Russia-Ukraine Conflict

So Russia is the only of these five countries with access to other bodies of water from the Caspian

The Manych Ship Canal is a canal system between the basins of the Sea of Azov, Black Sea, and Caspian Sea. Proposals are being considered to expand the system into a larger Eurasia Canal system. The canal would be a multipurpose water-resources system and an important part of the national transport system serving internal and international Caspian oil traffic, with huge economic potential for the region.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manych_Ship_Canal

Eurasia is rising and its component states are increasingly cooperating to build transportation and trade infrastructure which cannot be easily interfered with or interdicted by the West. Highways, railways, canal systems, pipelines, power plants, cities and other infrastructure are being financed and constructed at a very fast pace throughout Central Asia. Russia will benefit from Eurasian trade and will accordingly be less dependent on the West for commerce and finance. Eurasian economic nationalism is here to stay and the balance of economic and political power is slipping towards Asia. The post WWII US policy of the Grand Area and US/Western economic and political global hegemony are fraying and buckling and the 80+ year old encirclement of Eurasia policy is now bound to fail. Then what? War while Western military hegemony remains dominant or adjustment to and acceptance by the leaders of the West to the new equilibrium where the West is just one of many loci of economic and political power?

The 21st Century is shaping up to be a very interesting one and we should all remember the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times!".

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

'Encirclement' is a Muscovite fallacy.

Rogue Valley said:

'Encirclement' is a Muscovite fallacy.

Click to expand...

This is currently being followed up by Turkey turning to China, the next world order.

Meanwhile, Israel and India have formed a very tight Alliance, with the Saudis in the background. This of course is due to the USA being MIA in the Middle East.

Next year’s farm commodity contracts are already being signed between China and Brazil. South America is now wide to China and Russia. There’s too much more. I use these three overseas links.

i24NEWS - Top stories

The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance

Asia Times | Covering geo-political news and current affairs across Asia

Rogue Valley said:

'Encirclement' is a Muscovite fallacy.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

Here are two "Muscovite" analyses which beg to differ with your fallacy conclusion. Eurasian Encirclement has been a real and followed US/Western policy for 80+ years.

https://www.fpri.org/2016/06/chinas-encirclement-concerns/

https://jamestown.org/program/chinese-russian-defense-and-security-ties-countering-us-encirclement/

Both Felix Chang and Annie Kowalewski are clearly Moscovite agents in disguise!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Rogue Valley:

Here are two "Muscovite" analyses which beg to differ with your fallacy conclusion. Eurasian Encirclement has been a real and followed US/Western policy for 80+ years.

https://www.fpri.org/2016/06/chinas-encirclement-concerns/

https://jamestown.org/program/chinese-russian-defense-and-security-ties-countering-us-encirclement/

Both Felix Chang and Annie Kowalewski are clearly Moscovite agents in disguise!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

You need to keep in mind that "encirclement" is as much a very favoured excuse for pursuing own ambitions of "grandezza" as the "domino theory" for South East Asia was 50 years ago.

With Russia (not what your two cited articles are principally dealing with even where Chinese concerns are part of the equation) one has to see that it's the Muscovite version of "America Great Again".

Putin (and not just he) see the dissolving of the Soviet Union as Russia's greatest national tragedy and catastrophe and want it back. Not as the past political edifice but in its past geographical size and influence.

To achieve that goal they'll ally themselves with just about anyone, from Assad to Teheran and, of course, with China and, if need be, Turkey. The enemy of my enemy................

In addition to all of which pursuing the disruption of the West via cyberwar, fake news propaganda, general disinformation thru official channels as much as thru more or less trained or untrained trolls (as we get to see even here). In turn by now rubbing their hands in glee over such harm to the EU as Brexit and general right wing nationalism constitute, and in the process actively adding to the fires both by means of the above as well as active financial support.

The current rift between the US and Europe and its negative effect on NATO being seen as another Godsend.

Far from blaming all of it on Russia, the meaning of the old concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick" clearly having by now been completely misunderstood your side of the pond as time went by, because it didn't signify brashly stomping all over the place and singing rowdy songs.

And one can't blame all of it on one political camp our side either, where Shrub ambitions of expanding NATO all the way to Mongolia certainly didn't help in alleviating (Russian) feelings, Obama's totally unnecessary assertion of Russia having been downgraded to a third class world power were probably even worse in the end result.

Putin is as much a narcissist as is Trump, he just hides it better. But either way, anyone having had dealings with narcissists knows that to stomp on their exaggerated self-esteem is done at one's own peril. They never forgive.

Finally they'll also stab any supposed ally in the back at the first given opportunity when it may suit their aims.

China knows this very well while, in my perception, the West (both sides of the pond) is galloping with ever increasing speed further into la-la-land.

Evilroddy said:

Rogue Valley: Here are two "Muscovite" analyses which beg to differ with your fallacy conclusion.

Click to expand...

I have visited Russia more than once and never noted any Western military "encirclement" hysteria.

On the contrary, Russian forces could easily be in Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn within a day. Kyiv also.

Russian nuclear-tipped Iskander-B missiles in Kaliningrad can reach 5 NATO capital cities.

Moscow is far stronger in the Arctic militarily than the other four Arctic EEZ nations combined.

Quite frankly, I'm not moved by your tears in the least. The Russian military is no shrinking violet.

Rogue Valley said:

I have visited Russia more than once and never noted any Western military "encirclement" hysteria.

On the contrary, Russian forces could easily be in Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn within a day. Kyiv also.

Russian nuclear-tipped Iskander-B missiles in Kaliningrad can reach 5 NATO capital cities.

Moscow is far stronger in the Arctic militarily than the other four Arctic EEZ nations combined.

Quite frankly, I'm not moved by your tears in the least. The Russian military is no shrinking violet.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

If Russia undertook any of those military adventures (except possibly an attack on Ukraine) it would be at war with all of NATO in a few days. That war Russia would lose absolutely and Russia knows it. Russia is aggressive and ambitious under Putin but it is not suicidal. A conflict with NATO might also quickly escalate to a thermonuclear war so NATO and all of humanity could lose also. Thus those are not offensive military options for sane Russian leaders and military officers to seriously consider. They are more likely concerned with defensive measures and posturing. And I believe you know that.

Far more likely is attempts by Russia to undermine the states in the Russian near-abroad in order to destabilise and weaken them, until they agree to accept Russian regional hegemony. This might also lead in extreme cases to balkanisation in the targetted states where regions or populations attempt to align or even join Russia rather than remaining part of their present-day parent states. This type of attack far better suits Russia's limited conventional military capacity and its defensively designed conventional armed forces. It also allows Russia to use cheaper intelligence and propaganda assets as potent force multipliers in hybrid war strategies and operations which will impose disproportionate costs on the targetted states and NATO as they attempt to counter them.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Chagos said:

You need to keep in mind that "encirclement" is as much a very favoured excuse for pursuing own ambitions of "grandezza" as the "domino theory" for South East Asia was 50 years ago.

With Russia (not what your two cited articles are principally dealing with even where Chinese concerns are part of the equation) one has to see that it's the Muscovite version of "America Great Again".

Putin (and not just he) see the dissolving of the Soviet Union as Russia's greatest national tragedy and catastrophe and want it back. Not as the past political edifice but in its past geographical size and influence.

To achieve that goal they'll ally themselves with just about anyone, from Assad to Teheran and, of course, with China and, if need be, Turkey. The enemy of my enemy................

In addition to all of which pursuing the disruption of the West via cyberwar, fake news propaganda, general disinformation thru official channels as much as thru more or less trained or untrained trolls (as we get to see even here). In turn by now rubbing their hands in glee over such harm to the EU as Brexit and general right wing nationalism constitute, and in the process actively adding to the fires both by means of the above as well as active financial support.

The current rift between the US and Europe and its negative effect on NATO being seen as another Godsend.

Far from blaming all of it on Russia, the meaning of the old concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick" clearly having by now been completely misunderstood your side of the pond as time went by, because it didn't signify brashly stomping all over the place and singing rowdy songs.

And one can't blame all of it on one political camp our side either, where Shrub ambitions of expanding NATO all the way to Mongolia certainly didn't help in alleviating (Russian) feelings, Obama's totally unnecessary assertion of Russia having been downgraded to a third class world power were probably even worse in the end result.

Putin is as much a narcissist as is Trump, he just hides it better. But either way, anyone having had dealings with narcissists knows that to stomp on their exaggerated self-esteem is done at one's own peril. They never forgive.

Finally they'll also stab any supposed ally in the back at the first given opportunity when it may suit their aims.

China knows this very well while, in my perception, the West (both sides of the pond) is galloping with ever increasing speed further into la-la-land.

Click to expand...

Chagos:

Yet another very good post from you which I read and appreciated greatly. Thank you for taking the time to make your points clear and interesting.

The Western/US encirclement is not aimed at Russia exclusively. It is designed to degrade all of Eurasia from achieving the economic and financial dominance which combined with its demographic and resource strength makes Eurasia a potential global juggernaut. Thus China, Iran, now Turkey and several of the "Stans" are in the cross-hairs of this encirclement policy, some for good reason (Russia, Turkey) and some not (Iran, China). Nor is the encirclement just military but technological, financial, legal and political as well. By building internal infrastructure Asians, Turks, Persians and Russians hope to create a powerful economic trading bloc outside of the military, financial and political control of the West.

The Eurasians will need this economic engine to finance and build up the military, surveillance, communications, command and control and space-based clout to re-establish control of littoral Asia from the navies and air/space forces of the US/West. This challenge will likely be an economic one, as the debt-ridden and cash-strapped West will not want to spend the huge sums of public money necessary to counter the more modest sums which Eurasia will be willing to spend to regain control of its coastal waters. I don't think military confrontation except as a response to Western aggression is part of their reckoning for now. Maybe in half a century they might strike a more aggressive stance but for now it's trade, trade, trade which is on Eurasian minds. If there is military conflict, I suspect it will be initiated by Western forces, except in the Russian near-abroad.

This Caspian Agreement is really a milestone for which Iran's Rouhani had to swallow a lot of Persian pride and burn a good deal of his political capital, since the Caspian Sea was once a Persian monopoly; but he has been squeezed into it by continuing sanctions, the US abrogation of the Iran Nuclear Deal and threats of war (both real and potential) from Israel, Britain and especially the US.

Continued next post.

Putin needs the deal so that Iran and Russia can cooperate to get the best prices for their oil and gas exports to China. The other "Stans" will benefit too but I am not well enough acquainted with their economies and politics to evaluate exactly how. Pipelines, Railways, Highways, Power Grids, Power Plants and Urban development will no doubt make the Stans more prosperous.

You are right to point out that Putin should not be trusted, but the West has left second-tier Eurasian states like Iran with no real options by its global strangle hold over technology, commerce, finance, control of sea ways and by its aggressive posturing and threats of direct military attack.

Westphalian has his agenda certainly, but he is right about Eurasia rejecting "Brand America" or more generally "Brand West". Eurasia and soon after the revitalised and expanded BRICS bloc (if it can recover from recent setbacks) will challenge Western economic, financial and military hegemony not by direct confrontation, which is suicidal, but by developing a parallel global commercial and financial structure outside of Western control so that they can do an end-run around the traditional obstacles erected by the West to stifle and crush economic nationalism and independence in developing nations and second-tier states.

Right now Brazil and Argentina are in the control of pro-western de facto juntas but hopefully they will sort themselves out democratically and reassert independent economic policies. Russia is on more sound financial and commercial ground than Western commentators would willingly admit but it is by no means prosperous and its economy is brittle. India is playing coy with the West and Israel but is developing its own highly sophisticated (and quite intrusive) financial system in preparation for greater financial and commercial independence. India will be the key political battleground for the resurgence or the failure of the New BRICS bloc and the West is acting accordingly. China is positioned well and while its economy may slow in its growth, it will still grow for a couple of decades yet, barring war or great disasters. South Africa is a basket-case right now and all of Africa is the second major front in this great emerging struggle to break Western Hegemony. The first round was a western victory of sorts with the destruction of Libya and its large financial reserves which were going to be used to finance an African development bank and infrastructure programme independent of Western control. Iran and its proxies throughout the Middle East will be the next battlefield.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Chagos:

Yet another very good post from you which I read and appreciated greatly. Thank you for taking the time to make your points clear and interesting. .................~

Click to expand...

As we say here, igualmente.

I've skimmed over your post(s), both of them. It's just too late here now for me to adequately address them, so I'll try to find time tomorrow.

Meanwhile have a good one.

Evilroddy said:

If Russia undertook any of those military adventures (except possibly an attack on Ukraine) it would be at war with all of NATO in a few days. That war Russia would lose absolutely and Russia knows it.

Click to expand...

You assume a purely conventional confrontation. NATO could not respond adequately for numerous weeks due to lack of theater forces and long-line logistics. In addition, Russian military doctrine allows small yield nuclear weapons for A2D2 purposes.

Kaliningrad and Belarus provide Moscow with a geographical spear-head and a massive theater staging area.

I would suggest that you take a sabbatical from book learning, and physically tour the Baltic States, Eastern Europe, and the Russian Federation.

Rogue Valley said:

You assume a purely conventional confrontation. NATO could not respond adequately for numerous weeks due to lack of theater forces and long-line logistics. In addition, Russian military doctrine allows small yield nuclear weapons for A2D2 purposes.

Kaliningrad and Belarus provide Moscow with a geographical spear-head and a massive theater staging area.

I would suggest that you take a sabbatical from book learning, and physically tour the Baltic States, Eastern Europe, and the Russian Federation.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

No, I did not assume a conventional war at all. In fact my second paragraph described the kinds of unconventional conflicts which I think could happen.

I am aware of Soviet/Russian military's intention to use NBC warfare for area denial, interdiction and for attacking hostile troop concentrations and urban centres which has existed since almost the start of the Cold War and is nothing new. NATO has also reserved the right to use such tactics as have several of its nuclear armed members unilaterally. Remember the nuclear mines deployed by the British to vaporise Soviet forces on the North German Plain, which they neglected to tell Germany about for quite a few years. So there is parity there. As for Kalingrad that is sovereign Russian territory and so they are free to deploy whatever weapon systems they feel they need to there just as Americans are free to deeply weapons into the Aleutian Islands off Russia's Pacific Coast. Belarus could be seen as synonymous with Poland, the Baltic States, Romania or Bulgaria so there is parity there too.

I would love to travel through Eastern Europe and to see parts of Ukraine and Russia, but such a trip is beyond my meagre means as a school teacher these days. I did travel through Germany and briefly into Czechoslovakia in the late sixties (just before the 68 uprising) and in the early 1970's but I was a preteen then and honestly was bored at the time and don't remember much of those trips. That's as far as I got in the east of Europe but I did travel further east in the Middle East and Asia Minor as a young adult.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

As for Kalingrad that is sovereign Russian territory and so they are free to deploy whatever weapon systems they feel they need to there just as Americans are free to deeply weapons into the Aleutian Islands off Russia's Pacific Coast.

Click to expand...

You acknowledge Russia has the right to utilize weapon systems in Kaliningrad, yet you deny the same right to NATO nations. You label this as 'provocative' and 'encirclement'.

Evilroddy said:

I would love to travel through Eastern Europe and to see parts of Ukraine and Russia, but such a trip is beyond my meagre means as a school teacher these days. I did travel through Germany and briefly into Czechoslovakia in the late sixties (just before the 68 uprising) and in the early 1970's but I was a preteen then and honestly was bored at the time and don't remember much of those trips. That's as far as I got in the east of Europe but I did travel further east in the Middle East and Asia Minor as a young adult.

Click to expand...

I have visited every nation from the three Baltic states to the city of Vladivostok. I have lived in Ukraine and Crimea. I was in Ukraine during Maidan, and I have toured the eastern front.

If I read your post correctly, it has been 40+ years since you have visited this vast theater. Much has changed.

Rogue Valley said:

You acknowledge Russia has the right to utilize weapon systems in Kaliningrad, yet you deny the same right to NATO nations. You label this as 'provocative' and 'encirclement'.



I have visited every nation from the three Baltic states to the city of Vladivostok. I have lived in Ukraine and Crimea. I was in Ukraine during Maidan, and I have toured the eastern front.

If I read your post correctly, it has been 40+ years since you have visited this vast theater. Much has changed.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

Deploy, yes. Utilise as in use, not as a first-strike weapon and only in defense against attack. US ABM bases in Poland and Romania are not on sovereign US territory and NATO is an alliance, not a state with its own territory. So your comparison if I read you right is flawed. If Russia deployed Iskander missiles to Belarus or to an independent Caucuses state I would oppose that too, as I oppose the deployment of Russian kit and personnel to the war-torn Donbas in sovereign Ukraine.

Your extensive travels and residency gives you knowledge and intimate experience which I will never have and I acknowledge that readily. I also acknowledge that my own experience is either very dated or non-existent with respect to Eastern Europe. However your experience has also seemingly given you passion and perhaps biases which seem to drive your prodigious posting here. That focus and the volume of posting creates some doubt in my mind as to why you're doing what you do. I honestly don't know your intentions, which is why I don't comment much on many of your posts, but the singular focus on Russia-related matters or tangents and the diligent and unrelenting vigour makes me wonder if there is an agenda at work here. Of course I will never know.

However this is just a debating site and not the inner sanctum of the UN Security Council so expressing opinions and questioning others' expressed opinions is the name of the game and hurts no one. So no harm no foul, eh?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

US ABM bases in Poland and Romania are not on sovereign US territory and NATO is an alliance, not a state with its own territory. So your comparison if I read you right is flawed.

Click to expand...

A great distinction that you [of course] fail to acknowledge..... the systems in Poland and Romania are defensive systems that utilize SM-3 Block IIA interceptors. The Iskander-B system is strictly an offensive missile system.

Evilroddy said:

Your extensive travels and residency gives you knowledge and intimate experience which I will never have and I acknowledge that readily. I also acknowledge that my own experience is either very dated or non-existent with respect to Eastern Europe. However your experience has also seemingly given you passion and perhaps biases which seem to drive your prodigious posting here. That focus and the volume of posting creates some doubt in my mind as to why you're doing what you do. I honestly don't know your intentions, which is why I don't comment much on many of your posts, but the singular focus on Russia-related matters or tangents and the diligent and unrelenting vigour makes me wonder if there is an agenda at work here. Of course I will never know.

Click to expand...

Simply put, I despise the Putin regime. Many in the West discount/minimize Russia's aggressive nationalist/military tendencies due to distance and nuclear deterrence. Unless they are constantly reminded, Russia and Ukraine are just nations on the map that many couldn't even locate. This isn't some sort of "bias game". It's quite more intimate when you see the carnage close up. I personally knew/know some among the 10,200+ dead, the 24,000+ wounded, the thousands of orphans, the 755 missing, the 64,000 destroyed homes, and the ~1.5 million displaced refugees of the war in eastern Ukraine since 2014 due to Russian military aggression. I've also seen Crimean Tatar refugees being relocated in mainland Ukraine due to Russian persecutions in Crimea. I've also been to Russia and I like the people. They are generally friendly, curious, hospitable, and genuine. I have no grudge against the Russian people writ large (although I do believe the majority prefer authoritarianism - it's a shame that Yeltsin so badly fumbled Russian democracy in its infancy).

For you, this topic is an abstraction or perhaps an academic exercise. You're safe and secure in your ivory tower. My sincere advice to you ..... don't be quick to judge another until you yourself have experienced the suck.

What Rogue fails to acknowledge is that the SM2 and eventually 3 launch systems and missiles are capable of being adapted for use as a medium range offensive system. They have an INF banned range. This is the basis of Russia's contention that the US is violating the INF treaty. Moreover, Russia clearly signalled in 2008 that Iskanders would be deployed as an anti missile defence system system (IE defensive) in order to guarantee Russia's land based strategic nuclear forces.

So we should compare Iskander based on Russian territory with US dual use systems based in Romania and Poland.

I might add also that as Belarus is in the CSTO, two can play military alliance justifications if they wish.

Who here is the aggressor? Not the superpower deploying potentially offensive systems thousands of miles from its borders, a state which unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty and now threatens the INF Treaty too?

Let's get real.

Rogue Valley said:

Simply put, I despise the Putin regime. Many in the West discount/minimize Russia's aggressive nationalist/military tendencies due to distance and nuclear deterrence. Unless they are constantly reminded, Russia and Ukraine are just nations on the map that many couldn't even locate. This isn't some sort of "bias game". It's quite more intimate when you see the carnage close up. I personally knew/know some among the 10,200+ dead, the 24,000+ wounded, the thousands of orphans, the 755 missing, the 64,000 destroyed homes, and the ~1.5 million displaced refugees of the war in eastern Ukraine since 2014 due to Russian military aggression. I've also seen Crimean Tatar refugees being relocated in mainland Ukraine due to Russian persecutions in Crimea. I've also been to Russia and I like the people. They are generally friendly, curious, hospitable, and genuine. I have no grudge against the Russian people writ large (although I do believe the majority prefer authoritarianism - it's a shame that Yeltsin so badly fumbled Russian democracy in its infancy).

For you, this topic is an abstraction or perhaps an academic exercise. You're safe and secure in your ivory tower. My sincere advice to you ..... don't be quick to judge another until you yourself have experienced the suck.

Click to expand...

Oh, but your utterly biased posting record suggests you don't like Russia or Russians at all, nor care about their interests.

Even in this post you signally fail to recognise Kiev's role in the Ukrainan civil war, you refuse to recognise that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans are Russian and want to be part of Russia, and that Kiev's ATO has killed and displaced many in Donbas.

You claim to have lived in Crimea but your posting is extremely partisan and reflects a denial of reality common only to western observers who've never travelled east of London. Now I'm not saying that you haven't lived in Crimea, but your posting does not reconcile to the claims you make in this post about liking Russians. If that were so, you wouldn't take such an utterly one sided and deeply partisan view of Crimea and its vast majority.

An utterly disingenuous appraisal of what was said and what the actual aim of criticising the Kremlin regime at every turn of its way is about and need be about.

It's like accusing anyone who at the time was leery of the Nazi regime and warned against its unfettered activities of hating Germans in general. Or, before the tired accusation of Godwinism appears, staying with Russia and accusing anyone critical of Stalinist doctrines in their time as being possessed of Russophobia.

The quasi-imperialist policy of the Kremlin today has nothing to do with pursuing the best interests of the Russian people, it is about pursuing the interests of a political class that differs in its expansionist dreams from Stalin or any of the Csars (back to and beyond Peter I) merely by degree and manner of manifestation. But in narcissistic delusions of grandeur not at all.

The underlying spin that is successfully spoon-fed to the Russian people being that Russia needs to have the Baltic States back, the Ukraine back (not just wrt Crimea), the Caucasus completely back under its control, heck, all former SSRs back. Not to mention having its former East European satraps back in the stranglehold of old.

All of this in the equally successfully fed delusion that greatness cannot be without any of this and without that greatness the lot of the Russian people is not improvable.

The only thing that stops these antics to re-instate the Russia of the past is the clear message that others will make the cost of any of it too great. On the simple premise that the later precautionary steps are taken, the more it's going to cost all those that have successfully avoided the Kremlin yoke in the past and wish that state of being to remain.

The dishonest claims of Russia being simply defensive and otherwise completely harmless just form the ruse by which the Kremlin wishes to induce the West into forming an appeasement policy similar to that of 1938.

We all know where that one led.

Evilroddy

Sorry, I never got back to these, mainly because I found the prospect of dealing with everyone of your points too daunting. Too daunting in respect of not finding the time to address every single point of your very lengthy posts

Evilroddy said:

The Western/US encirclement is not aimed at Russia exclusively.....................~

Continued next post.

Click to expand...

Evilroddy said:

~....................Putin needs the deal so that Iran and Russia can cooperate to get the best prices for their oil and gas exports to China.

Click to expand...

But just to address the two above:

1) The West is incapable of encircling Russia or the whole of Asia, as Russia and Iran are incapable of encircling the West.

2) Neither Putin nor Iran need this deal to pursue the mentioned interests, but I see no problem in their entering into the same cooperation treaties that the West engages in within itself.

Salient point being (at least for me) that, in view of the colossal disparity of interests, "The Great Eurasian Alliance" will remain a pipe dream. China does not trust Russia and Russia not China, the history of which goes back centuries.

Iran trusts neither.

India does not trust China over its Pakistan support, Pakistan does not trust Russia over its past support for India.

All the other "Stans" know darn well what an embrace by either Russia or China leads to and some of them from first hand experience of the past.

None of which will preclude them (nor should it) from pooling economic assets, geo-political advantages or technological transfer. But only in the pursuit of self-interest that such cooperation signifies, West or East.

The minute such interest is seen as being no longer served, the free for all will start once again.

The potential for that happening in the West is not exactly small either, but decade long common interests decrease the likelihood considerably.