The Russian president's recent visit to India resulted in the concluding of a wide range of economic, energy and military agreements between the two key powers, which are clearly moving much closer to each other. That development is giving pause to those who have wrongly assumed that India was genuinely moving into geopolitical alignment with the US - and it should give them pause. India isn't genuinely aligning with the US in a geopolitical sense, but only leveraging its relations with Washington to acquire crucial advanced technologies to further fuel its rise. A strategic Russia-China-India triad is progressively emerging on the world stage. What is the proof for this assertion? What would be its potency and leverage across the globe? How could impending US policies and actions regarding Iran and North Korea quickly advance the triad to full completion and emergence, with what implications? Why can it be rightfully said that its elemental nucleus is Russian, and what are the implications of that fact for US-led unipolarity? January 27, 2007

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... 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. 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

Russia has found the Achilles Heel of the US Colossus. In concert with its global oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East, all at the impending incalculable expense of the West.

What is increasingly at stake is secure US access to global energy resources - strategic US energy security - because the West's traditional control respecting those global resources is seriously faltering in the face of the strategies undertaken by Russia and its global partners. Oct. 10, 2006

GAZPROM became locked in a commercial battle with Ukraine over the price of gas, but it is widely and correctly understood that the Kremlin’s hand is behind what is quickly being recognized as the final ascent to the summit of a struggle between “East” and “West” for global power, even for dominance, by virtue of control over strategic energy resources. Why can it accurately be said that such a monumental struggle of global proportions is now heating up? What evidence exists to support the insinuation that the world order is polarizing again into two rival blocs, “East” and “West”? Are Kremlin moves a blunder, or are they brilliant? What about the recent moves of the West in general, and the US in particular, in attempting to spread democratic revolutions within Russia’s sphere of influence and in invading and occupying oil-rich Iraq? Is the West blundering into strategic mishap, inadvertently increasing Russia’s global energy importance and opening the door to an obligatory greater reliance upon resource-rich Russia? What will be the outcome of ongoing developments? Jan. 6, 2006

Part III

The Great Game's Incalculable Stakes Won't Let Russia 'Play Nice' with Energy and Resources

East and West are now irreversibly locked in a monumental struggle for control of the globe's coveted strategic resources - this is the revived Great Game and its players are rapidly approaching the moment of truth. The stakes for both sides are colossal and both sides fully recognize that fact. However, neither side likes to explicitly admit the existence of such a monumental struggle that will define which side achieves global ascendancy and which side faces the potential of an energy-based economic checkmate. September 15, 2006

Part IV

The Long-Term Supply Contract: Russia's Tiara is the West's Thorny Crown

President Putin complained at the Valdai Club meeting that consuming nations in the West too strongly focus on their own energy interests and security while simultaneously slighting the interests and security of producers. He noted that consuming nations want suppliers to pledge continuity of supplies for the long-term, "so customers should not be able to turn around and say 'We don't need it now'. Security works both ways. We need assurances, too."

Mr. Putin explicitly stated that Russia and other suppliers want long-term supply contracts with consuming nations so that suppliers know there will be a 'stable demand' for their exports. It can easily be appreciated how achievement of such goals amounts to a tiara or coronet to adorn Russia in its key global energy position. But the very achievement (successfully concluding long-term supply contracts) that constitutes Russia's victory crown simultaneously serves as the thorny crown of the West. How so? September 15, 2006

Part V

Russia and China are 'Cooking Something Up Between Themselves'

Mr. Putin was asked about Russia-China relations and the mounting regional/global clout of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). He expressed great satisfaction and excitement about the path of Russia-China relations, but quickly denied that the two strategic partners are involved in 'cooking anything up between themselves'. In fact, he claimed that the mounting regional and global clout of the SCO has never been planned for or intentionally striven for by the two partners, that it has entirely happened 'by surprise'. And, of course, he claimed once again that neither the SCO nor the deepening Russia-China strategic partnership is 'aimed at the US or NATO'.

But contrary to President Putin's soothing assurances to the West at the recent Valdai Club meeting, Russia and China most certainly do have 'something in the geopolitical oven', and it has been cooking steadily for nearly a decade. In fact, their geopolitical main course is practically ready to be served to the table, so to speak, and directly contrary to Mr. Putin's recent claims they both intended from the beginning for the SCO to eventually play a significant role. One only has to read the Sino-Russian Joint Statements from 1997 forward to see that the two partners embarked upon a carefully conceived and adroitly executed geopolitical course and strategy starting a decade ago, and they have made tremendous progress toward the achievement of the specific goal which they set way back then. September 15, 2006