In the ancient debate over the real shape of the world, the handful of dissenters ("heretics") who argued the world was round were eventually and surprisingly proven right. The intuitive dissenters, who based their conclusions on how the earth actually behaved rather than on how everyone else thought it looked, had far more insight than the grandiloquent orthodoxy perpetuating the jargon of a flat earth. Despite appearances, it wasn't flat at all.

Is the geopolitical world virtually a 'flat plane' without genuine obstruction to US-led single-polarity? Or is it 'round', curving outside the hemisphere of supposed 'single-polarity' centered in the West to reveal a second, counteracting pole of truly consequential potency and cohesion centered in the hemisphere of the East, a pole that is even now reconsolidating from there? March 3, 2007

The recent signing by President Bush of the new US-India nuclear deal has most observers in the West proclaiming India to be a true strategic partner of the US. While the newly signed deal will indeed facilitate a greatly increased flow of high-tech transfers from the US to India if the deal ever fully comes to fruition, it most certainly does not signify India's becoming a strategic partner of the US. Additionally, the deal still faces a number of significant hurdles, any one of which could kill it before its final emergence on the world stage.

Unfortunately, that term "strategic partner" is almost indiscriminately tossed about by today's leaders, experts and media. Based on the fundamental facts, rather than on the ill-founded assumption and wishful thinking that abounds in the West, India fits ever more solidly into the rising multifarious East, not into the declining West, as respects its true orientation within the geopolitical order. What are the fundamental facts? December 20, 2006

No one doubts the existence of a number of new rising powers (or "poles") in the East, or that the two primary poles are identified as Russia and China with India rapidly rising as a third pole of mounting importance, or that the rising economies and markets in the East are increasingly attracting the main attention and the tangible interest and respect of the rest of the world. Few would argue that the US and the wider West have little to worry about as a consequence of the unrelenting rise of the new poles in the East. Notably, their dramatic rise is a phenomenon that has been judged as carrying real meaning only in the last three years or so, demonstrating how quickly the geopolitical landscape can change - is changing. These matters are not debatable.

But significant uncertainties still plague the minds of many observers when it comes to a discussion of whether the Russia-China axis will continue to hold together and whether it will further tighten its cohesiveness, whether India will align with Russia-China to form a strategic triad, whether the lesser poles in the East, along with the bulk of the energy-exporting states (poles) around the globe and even key EU states (poles) might be ever more cohesively aligning with Russia-China and whether a tangible arrangement of some kind that encompasses all of them might be coming together, and whether any such arrangement would pose a real challenge to US global dominance anytime soon. These are the key questions that demand sound answers. Nov. 27, 2006

The term "multipolarity" has increasingly been trumpeted by Russia, China, India and many others since the mid-1990’s as the most desirable and equitable configuration for the world order. Multipolarity is seen across much of the globe as the most attractive replacement for US-dominated unipolarity. Does it really matter? Are unipolarity and the US-centric world order really at risk? Indeed, yes.

The fundamental configuration of the world order is rapidly undergoing transformation as US power and influence continue their progressive dilution in all spheres and those of rival centers or poles such as Russia and China are becoming ever more concentrated, thanks in no small measure to their advancing control over global strategic energy resources.

Control over strategic resources has become the primary lever to increased global influence for those powers either rich in such resources or closely allied with those who are.

In the insidious and perceptible rebalancing of global power, moving from inordinate concentration in one pole (the US) to distribution among rival poles (Russia, China and others) we are witnessing the progressive arising of a new world order. However, what will its true configuration turn out to be? Nov. 27, 2006

The arising of any new coherent pole of the East and the thriving of a new cold war between East and West isn't generally accepted as a reality by most observers - not yet, anyway.

Additionally, neither are the rising powers in the East seen by most observers as able to mount a truly serious challenge to US global dominance anytime soon. Despite its current troubles, the US is still generally seen as the Global Colossus that no challenger can successfully 'do battle' with, as it were.

It isn't yet fashionable to speak openly of a world subdividing itself again into two camps - those aligned with the US and those aligned with the Russia-China axis at the core of a new rising, multifarious yet coherent pole of the East - with the dividing line between the two camps consisting of the contest for control over global strategic resources.

Why are the clear developments signifying the building beneath the surface of a Neo Cold War and what will be proven here to be the grave and impending threat posed by the rising East to the current US global position still being widely overlooked, at least publicly, at this advanced juncture in global developments? Nov. 1, 2006

The fact that China’s central bank, as well as nearly all others around the globe, are holding much more tightly the secrets of the exact composition of their reserves, indicates they are engaged in diversification at a pace that they fear might collapse the dollar if the full extent of their efforts became public.

The Washington Times reports today that “A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade…” The U.S. habitually sees itself as far superior to any other nation militarily and technologically.

China, in effect, has employed U.S. arrogance and over-confidence against it, working underneath the sight-blinders the U.S. has fitted for its own intel “eyes”, to make rapid military-technology advances. What kind of advances? Jun. 9, 2005

There exist fundamentally only two visions for our international system - the unipolar one dominated by the last superpower and the multipolar one. Much has been said about the multipolar vision, but a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding still exist with regard to its structure and how it would operate. On the other hand, with respect to the unipolar world order under which we now live, much has been assumed, taken for granted, with respect to its permanence, and with respect to the supposed inability of lesser powers to actually bring an end, somehow, to U.S. global dominance, so as to pave the way for the multipolar world order.

What would a multipolar world order look like? How would it operate? How permanent is the current unipolar world order? Can lesser powers, perhaps acting collectively, really bring an end to U.S. global dominance? Where is the international system at the present time? Is it truly in a fundamental transition period heading toward a complete re-configuration along multipolar lines, or is it merely experiencing a measure of non-fundamental and temporary instability? July 20, 2004

Mr. Rumsfeld caught South Korea's president Roh mostly off guard when he recently announced Pentagon plans to remove 12,500 U.S. troops from South Korea.

That announcment, and the insensitive manner in which it was carried out, appears to be an attempt to weaken a recently victorious and significantly strengthened president Roh, who is not much to Washington's liking. Is Mr. Roh now stuck on the defensive? That is unlikely.

Read about the fact that once the South Koreans recover from the shock of finding out they no longer rate nearly as high as they used to on the U.S. priority list, they will take the initiative to resolve their regional problems diplomatically, with sharply decreased sensitivity to U.S. interests on the Peninsula and the region at large...June 8, 2004

On this planet, there exists only one nation which is truly Eurasian, and that nation is Russia. Covering eleven time zones, Russia extends from Europe on the west to the Asian Kuril Islands in the Sea of Okhotsk on the east. Western Russia is without a doubt European Russia. Central Russia is Central Asian Russia. And Eastern Russia is East Asian Russia. As such, geographically, culturally and economically, Russia exists as both the eastern half of Europe to make Europe complete, and as the top half of Asia, to make Asia complete.

No other nation can lay claim to being thus truly Eurasian in nature. Hence, in the formation of any Eurasian Alliance, only Russia can play the key role to bring such alliance together into a reality. And only Russia can serve as the core of the Alliance, around which the other members must revolve. How so? April 21, 2004

In developments reminiscent of the November 2000 presidential election in the U.S., Taiwan's recent presidential election is currently tied up in the courts, with a recount demanded by the challenger. In a bizarre twist, Mr. Chen, according to the initial tally of votes, won re-election by a mere 30,000 votes only one day after being shot while campaigning.

The current political upheaval on the Island is certainly disconcerting, and there is a growing chance that matters will turn toward a significant enough provocation for China to make serious and threatening military moves..March 30, 2004

The most recent development on the Peninsula, namely, the impeachment of President Roh, fits into a pattern established by a number of other recent developments and trends. It is a pattern in which the two Koreas are rapidly being pulled together toward eventual reunification, on their own terms, significantly discounting U.S. interests on the Peninsula. It is noteworthy that the timeline for reunification is much shorter than most people realize. The severity of the nuclear crisis with respect to North Korea is, not an indication of how distant reunification is, but rather of how imminent it is.

What are the prospects for peaceful reunification? Regardless of whether events turn violent or not, why is the most likely outcome successful reunification, very soon, and without more than a mere passing regard for U.S. interests on the Peninsula? What wider implications does rapid reunification have for the region, including Japan? March 18, 2004