LyrArc Article Gist
The Russian economy gets an exceptional boost with the behaviour of ruble currency separating from the oil prices. Russia benefits from higher oil prices at the same time as it benefits from a weaker ruble. The ruble has declined 15% since April after more sanctions on Russia. The revenue earned in dollars converts into more rubles for imports and other financing for the Russian economy. At the end of 2017 a barrel of oil brought in 3,835 rubles for Russian sellers, when converted into rubles from U.S. dollars. In October 2018 each barrel brings in 5,262 rubles, an increase of 40%.  Russia deftly managed its emerging market crisis with lower ruble following the crisis in Ukraine by adapting its economy to a lower ruble, lowering imports and using import substitution. Initially Russia split with OPEC and Saudis to produce oil all out, but by 2018 with the Saudi economy hurting and Russia feeling the impact of lower oil prices, an OPEC agreement with Russia has pushed prices higher with production limits. Earlier adaptation by 2016 to the lower ruble, further decline of the ruble in 2018 with sanctions by U.S. for Russian interventions in other countries including the U.S. election meddling, have combined with higher oil prices to strengthen the Russian economy. Russian private and government debt held by foreign investors has fallen since 2016 to 32% in the first quarter, according to Societe Generale. This means Russia is less sensitive to foreign investor exit from the country with political and economic winds changing. Russia's current account surplus increased to $18.3 billion in the first quarter of 2018, up from $14.6 billion in the prior quarter. A weaker ruble has translated into more inflation which reached 5.5% at the end of 2017, above 4% target. Russia's central bank made quarter point increase to 7.5% for the interest rate in September 2017. Overall the management of the emerging market crisis since 2016 as Russia responded to NATO expansion and adopted its own policy is remarkable considering the damage from earlier emerging market crises. Countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and even India are feeling the impact of the current emerging market crisis, each with its own version of the crisis- Argentina with dollar denominated debt, Brazil lacking money in the budget after high pensions, and India with higher energy costs and weaker rupee.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sabotage of two tankers in the Persian Gulf and reports of activity of Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria have led to an American response with the dispatch of a aircraft carrier and other forces to the region.  This report in the NYT says Defense Secretary Shanahan has prepared plans for deployment of American forces in the region with one plan calling for 120,000 troops to be dispatched to the region. As president Trump is against American involvement in land wars in distant places, the force is designed as a precaution in case of an Iranian attack through proxy forces in Syria or Iraq and not for a land operation. National Security Adviser Bolton has taken a strong position on Iran since the days of the Bush administration. The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the sanctions on Iranian oil, are part of a new policy of the Trump administration. The European Union countries have followed a policy of preserving the nuclear deal of 2015, even though the U.S. is pressuring EU countries. The oil sanction have led to a sharp drop in oil exports and is hurting the Iranian economy. President Rouhani of Iran says Iran may withdraw from parts of the Iran nuclear deal and the Iranian response is leading to heightened tensions in the region.  It was only recently that the Democratic party Obama administration pursued the Iranian nuclear deal with opposition from Republicans in Congress and skepticism of Israel. The election of president Trump who says the deal was a bad one has reversed U.S. policy leading to a complete change in policy and a possible confrontation with Iran. U.S. policy can veer back and forth depending on the party or president in power who completely different perceptions of the region. Obama had sharp difference with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a different perception of Iran. Trump and Bolton see Iran as a threat to the U.S. After Iran shipped most of its nuclear fuel out of the country in 2016 in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions under president Obama's nuclear deal it would take over a year for new uranium enrichment facilities to produce the materials for a nuclear bomb, according to this report in the NYT. When the Obama administration negotiated with Iran the window had shrunk to a few months.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama's proposed legislation for the fight against Islamic State proposes a three year effort with use of Special Commandos, but no major ground combat effort. It also rescinds a broad Bush era 2002 legislation for the Iraq war, but leaves in place 2001 legislation for the war against al-Qaeda and affiliates.

LyrArc Article Gist
Erdbrink describes the evolution of trade relations with China which helped Iran during the period of western sanctions. Because of trade with the U.S. and western partners, China was careful to use the Bank of Kunlun, created to handle financial transactions with Iran, for import of oil and export of automobiles and other products.

LyrArc Article Gist
Joffe says one party regimes in the Arab world have let the Palestinian issue fester because it helped them to stay in power. It helped these regimes by diverting attention and hostility to "Palestine" as an issue and creating anti-Americanism. Meanwhile the real issues of economic stagnation and lack of freedoms to debate and decide their future in a pluralistic society were set aside. Arab peoples throughout the Middle East have simply stood up for their own rights and freedoms, free of anti-Americanism and eager for American and European support.

LyrArc Article Gist
Exxon has cut costs of shale oil production by learning new cost efficient ways of getting the oil out of the rock. Exxon states it has cut costs by 20 to 25% for production in the Bakken from shale, making it possible to invest in shale oil production at much lower prices as the learning continues. This will be a factor for oil prices in future years.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ailworth and Faucon describe the ways in which shale oil producers such as Continental Resources in Texas and S. Dakota are responding to the drop in oil prices. One strategy adopted is to put off 60% of the expense of production by not completing the final stages of production of hydraulic fracturing, but keeping the wells ready so that production can quickly be ramped up if prices go to the $60-65 range. EOG Resources, Andarko, Apache, Chesapeake Energy, are also following this strategy. There are about 3000 such wells, not pumping but drilled and ready for hydraulic fracturing, according to RBC Capital Markets estimates. This strategy would mean large shale oil supplies well into the future to keep oil prices low. Production from lower cost wells continues with U.S. oil production climbing to a new high of 9.4 million barrels a day for week ending March 6, 2015, according to federal data. This shows that this is a new situation and the resilience of shale oil supplies may have been underestimated. Another strategy adopted by other large companies such as Exxon is to continue to develop technology by learning to get the oil out of the rock in the most cost efficient way. The capital investment in U.S. shale oil has dropped by $50 billion in 2015 compared to 2014. The number of oil rigs drilling declined to 866 in the U.S. by March 2015, according to Baker Hughes....

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says the Corker-Cardin compromise that requires the U.S. president to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to the U.S. Congress for debate, is the best option for both Democrats and Republicans who are skeptical of such a deal. It says amendments by senators Cruz and Rubio will not be effective. What the Corker-Cardin compromise developed by senators Corker and Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee accomplishes, is letting the American people through their elected representatives get a full and complete debate on the merits and demerits of the deal. Democrats in the Senate are also concerned about their election chances after Mr. Obama leaves office, and will want to have a fair debate of the pros and cons before voting, says the Journal. This debate will bring more light to the questions that worry critics the most- how will compliance by Iran be secured, and can snapback sanctions work if China, Russia and other European nations go the other way. Congressional review puts a higher level of scrutiny for any agreement before it moves forward. A requirement that the government submit a review every 90 days on compliance to Congress also gives president Obama's successor a chance to reassess the situation....

LyrArc Article Gist
Preident Karzai of Afghanistan joins the three way peace talks of the U.S. and Afghanistan's government with the Taliban, with the cooperation of Pakistan.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration makes the decision on June 13, 2013, to supply arms to Syrian opposition forces to the Assad regime and enforce a limited no-fly zone inside Syria. The decision comes as forces of the Assad regime make gains over poorly armed opposition forces and threaten the Syrian opposition's base in the city of Aleppo.

LyrArc Article Gist
A UN Report shows that opium poopy cultivation is growing in Afghanistan and an enormous crop close to last year's record harvest is expected this year. 90% of the world's opium is grown in Afghanistan but it gets so little media attention compared to daily reports of injuries in the war such as on CBC for Canadian soldiers in the war zones and in other reports in American media. Of this about 52% of Afghan opium is grown in Helmand province which is largely controlled by the Taliban who finance their war with tax revenues from the opium farmers. The UN report also shows that most of the increased cultivation is happening in the south and west of the country worst hit by the insurgents. Areas where there is poor security or where there is not much help with seeds irrigation and other help for farming, are the ones that are mostly engaged in increased opium cultivation and areas where there is security and help with seeds and irrigation are the ones that don't cultivate opium. Looking at this state of affairs one would think that Western Europe and the USA which the UN report says must brace themselves for huge influx of this stuff, would rather than families and schools dealing with the problem at home in very difficult circumstances with high teenage use, would find it easier to finance seeds, fertilizer and irrigation and building of infrastructure in the country. However this shift to other farming would be possible if there is security and this requires a new policy in South Asia which reverses decades of policy that aggravated tensions in the region by not having a clear unambiguous direction of supporting peaceful economic development in the region which includes Pakistan and India and Afghanistan and Iran. Policy changed somewhat but a definite steering moving decisively in that direction needed to take place as first British policy in the pre1947 era and then American and British policy in the post 1947 period supported increased tensions in the area. Afghanistan thus ceased to exist as a country devoted to its own economic development but a place where the western powers engaged the soviet union, and then a place where Pakistan's military's policy of strategic depth against India led to the creation and support of the Taliban. By reversing this policy decisively and with direction as clear as daylight the western countries would instead of fighting these insurgents have Indians and Pakistanis work together alongside western country economic experts and agricultural experts to bring the infrastructure, electricity, irrigation, seeds, and fertilizer to these farmers across the whole of Afghanistan. Security would be mainly the responsibility of Indians, Pakistanis and Afghanis, and local leaders and people from the villages as westerners are easy targets of hostile action in a country used to fighting foreigners especially Europeans. That this may ventually happen but is slow to happen today can be attributed to how slow the process of sensible change is, how most people accept the way things are, which itself is a result of earlier policies which are themselves a result of still earlier policies. Thus pre-1947 British policy for Hindu and Muslim areas, is followed by America's Dulles policies turning India and Pakistan into aspects of the Cold War, followed by Reagan policy turning Afghanistan into aspects of the Cold War in reaction to Brezhnev's soviet policy in Kabuli affairs as a tit for tat, and this followed by the Bush policy reacting to the emergence of Saudi discontented volunteers in the Reagan supported Afghan war after Bin Laden's 9/11 attack in New York City. In the background a series of Indian leaders and Pakistan military leaders gave up any sensible steering in the direction of economic development by falling into the Cold war between 2 western factions or into a religious Hindu-Muslim strife war legacy from the earlier periods. What it means is that its hard in the human world we live in to to do anything but react, or be caught in a trap of thinking just the way we have been taught to think, or have accepted things as they are without thinking, with its resultant misery and ignorance and for south asia entrenched poverty. Its only with some grace and the right conditions and after a great deal of suffering which is true for Afghanistan war ruined countryside, Pakistan's poor economic conditions, and India's huge number of poor and economically depressed majority of the population and true also for westerners facing failed policy and failure of vision as economic conditions deteriorate at home....

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and what does it mean for the US in the current protests? The Muslim Brotherhood was started in Egypt in 1928, in the colonial days, by an imam and schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna. The intent was to act as a grassroots organization to promote the reform of Egyptian society through a greater adherence to Islam, by preaching and social services. Scott Shane talks with Reidel of the Brookings Institution and Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Quatar Center about the Brotherhood and Israel. Reidel was the Egypt desk officer at the CIA when Mubarak came to power in 1981, and is an experienced observer of the Muslim world at Brookings. Reidel says if we want democracy in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a big part of this, and we should be engaging and talking to them now. Hamid responds to a question about terrorism by pointing out that the Al Quaeda hates the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood hates Al Quaeda, that for counterterrorism engaging with the Brotherhood would be helpful to the US. On Israel, Hamid says years of accomodation to the real world has brought a knowledge that the Brotherhood has to live in the real world and the geopolitics of the Middle East. Carrie Wickham, a political scientist at Emory University, is author of "Mobilizing Islam," a 2002 book on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. Carrie says it was analogous to evangelical Christians and their goal of sharing the word of God, but Banna also referred to Jihad as a struggle against colonialism and Zionism. Some leaders such as Sayyid Qutb, who was imprisoned by the Egyptian government and executed in 1966, advocated violent jihad, but after the 1970's the Brotherhoods formally renounced violence as a means of achieving power. In 1984 the Brotherhood reached another point in its evolution when it competed in parliamentary elections. And estimates of its actual support begin at about 20% of the electorate. Another development is the relative youthfulness of the April 6th and other movements in Egypt, where two thirds of the people are under 30 years age. The Muslim Brotherhood leaders are much older and hesitated to join the popular movement in its early stages. On the question of the Brotherhood's future evolution and winning a large role in a future government, Carrie says that a system of checks and balances has to be established to ensure that the Brotherhood operates as a democratic party committed to the democratic process. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial on February 4, 2011, emphasizes the need for institutional checks and balances. Carrie says rewriting the constitution and electoral process to ensure that this happens and no one party can take abslute control is crucial. ...