Posts by thedailyjournalist:
- The cyber black market has evolved from a varied landscape of discrete, ad hoc individuals into a network of highly organized groups, often connected with traditional crime groups (e.g., drug cartels, mafias, terrorist cells) and nation-states.
- The cyber black market does not differ much from a traditional market or other typical criminal enterprises; participants communicate through various channels, place their orders, and get products.
- Its evolution mirrors the normal evolution of markets with both innovation and growth.
- For many, the cyber black market can be more profitable than the illegal drug trade.
- As suspicion and “paranoia” spike because of an increase in recent takedowns, more transactions move to darknets; stronger vetting takes place; and greater encryption, obfuscation, and anonymization techniques are employed, restricting access to the most sophisticated parts of the black market.
- The proliferation of as-a-service and point-and-click interfaces lowers the cost to enter the market.
- Law enforcement efforts are improving as more individuals are technologically savvy; suspects are going after bigger targets, and thus are attracting more attention; and more crimes involve a digital component, giving law enforcement more opportunities to encounter crime in cyberspace.
- Still, the cyber black market remains resilient and is growing at an accelerated pace, continually getting more creative and innovative as defenses get stronger, law enforcement gets more sophisticated, and new exploitable technologies and connections appear in the world.
- Products can be highly customized, and players tend to be extremely specialized.
-
CT scan 3D visualisation of the mummified remains of a Sudanese woman, to show the organs. (TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM)
-
Infra-red reflectography of the tattoo found on the mummified remains of a Sudanese woman. (TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM)
-
Photograph of the tattoo found on the mummified remains of a Sudanese woman. (TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM)
U.S. warns China, Sensaku Islands not Crimea
April 4th, 2014
By Reuters.
WASHINGTON: China should not doubt the US commitment to defend its Asian allies and the prospect of economic retaliation should also discourage Beijing from using force to pursue territorial claims in Asia in the way Russia has in Crimea, a senior US official said on Thursday.
Daniel Russel, President Barack Obama’s diplomatic point man for East Asia, said it was difficult to determine what China’s intentions might be, but Russia’s annexation of Crimea had heightened concerns among US allies in the region about the possibility of China using force to pursue its claims.
“The net effect is to put more pressure on China to demonstrate that it remains committed to the peaceful resolution of the problems,” Russel, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Russel said the retaliatory sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States, the European Union and others should have a “chilling effect on anyone in China who might contemplate the Crimea annexation as a model.”
This was especially so given the extent of China’s economic interdependence with the United States and its Asia neighbors, Russel said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, asked about Russel’s comments, said he was confusing two different issues
“No matter whether the Ukraine issue or the South China Sea issue, China has many times expressed its position. Why must this US official mention the two issues in the same breath, and obstinately say these things about China?” Hong told a daily news briefing on Friday.
Russel added that while the United States did not take a position on rival territorial claims in East Asia, China should be in no doubt about Washington’s resolve to defend its allies if necessary.
“The president of the United States and the Obama administration is firmly committed to honoring our defense commitments to our allies,” he said.
While Washington stood by its commitments – which include defense treaties with Japan, the Philippines and South Korea – Russel said there was no reason why the rival territorial claims could not be resolved by peaceful means.
He said he hoped the fact that the Philippines had filed a case against China on Sunday at an arbitration tribunal in The Hague would encourage China to clarify and remove the ambiguity surrounding its own claims.
Russel termed the deployment of large numbers of Chinese vessels in its dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea “problematic” and said that Beijing had taken “what to us appears to be intimidating steps.”
“It is incumbent of all of the claimants to foreswear intimidation, coercion and other non-diplomatic or extra-legal means,” he said.
In Asia, China also has competing territorial claims with Japan and South Korea, as well as with Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan in potentially energy-rich waters.
Obama is due to visit Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines from April 22, when he is expected to stress his commitment to a rebalancing of US strategic and economic focus towards the Asia-Pacific region in the face of an increasingly assertive China.
Comments Off on U.S. warns China, Sensaku Islands not Crimea
Japan’s nuclear stockpile excessive’
March 31st, 2014By Fu Jing.
 |
|
Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives at The World Forum in The Hague on the first day of the two-day Nuclear Security Summit. Robin Van Lonkhuijsen / Agence France-Presse |
China has added its voice to international concerns over Japan’s large stockpile of nuclear materials, saying the Japanese have exceeded their needs in nuclear power.
Such a large stockpile increases security risks, said Chen Kai, secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Nuclear Disarmament Association, said at a briefing on Monday before the plenary of the Nuclear Security Summit.
“The international community has found that Japan has stocked excessive amounts of nuclear material that surpasses its actual necessities of nuclear power,” Chen said.
Also on Monday, US and Japanese officials announced that Japan plans to turn over to the US more than 315 kg of weapons-grade plutonium and a supply of highly enriched uranium.
US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz calls the deal “a very significant nuclear security pledge”.
The material designated for transfer to the US has been kept for decades at a research reactor site in Tokaimura, the site of a 1999 accident that killed two workers who mishandled a highly enriched uranium solution.
After a similar report in February, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying urged Japan to be responsible and tell the truth.
“China supports the US demand for Japan’s return of weapons-grade plutonium. We also urge Japan to take concrete steps to give this batch of nuclear materials back to the US as soon as possible,” Hua said.
At Monday’s summit in the Netherlands, Chen said China’s nuclear materials are safe and under control because of high-security standards that were imposed during previous decades of nuclear power plant construction.
President Xi Jinping, who is attending the summit in The Hague, will constructively support the host’s efforts to improve the level of global nuclear security, Chen said.
“Xi will comprehensively state China’s position in his speech,” Chen said before the summit opened.
Chen Xu, Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands, also spoke ahead of the summit. “We have maintained a constructive attitude in preparing for the summit and really hope it will be a complete success by distilling international consensus and strengthening global cooperation,” he said.
Chen Xu said China has already established a sound record of nuclear security and will continue along that course. “We will not provide any chance for a nuclear terrorist,” he said.
He said China has already submitted its national nuclear report to the summit, explaining in detail its measures for safeguarding nuclear material.
Fifty-three countries and four international organizations were invited to the summit. A joint communique on the prevention of nuclear terrorism is expected to be issued by all the leaders and organizations present at the summit.
In his report on the progress of negotiations in the walk-up to the Nuclear Security Summit, Piet de Klerk, the summit’s chief negotiator, said measures should include reducing stockpiles of hazardous nuclear material around the world, better security for nuclear material and intensifying international cooperation.
The summits were initiated by US President Barack Obama, who pointed out the dangers of nuclear terrorism in a speech he gave in Prague in 2009. The first NSS was held in Washington, DC, in 2010, followed by a second summit in Seoul in March 2012.
Comments Off on Japan’s nuclear stockpile excessive’
Sexual abuses in the Vatican
March 31st, 2014
By the UN.
To read report: Sexual abuses in the Vatican
Comments Off on Sexual abuses in the Vatican
Black Market for hackers worst than ever may surpass illegal drugs in value
March 28th, 2014BY RAND.
In the wake of several highly-publicized arrests and an increase in the ability of law enforcement to take down some markets, access to many of these black markets has become more restricted, with cybercriminals vetting potential partners before offering access to the upper levels. That said, once in, there is very low barrier to entry to participate and profit, according to the report.
RAND researchers conducted more than two dozen interviews with cybersecurity and related experts, including academics, security researchers, news reporters, security vendors and law enforcement officials. The study outlines the characteristics of the cybercrime black markets, with additional consideration given to botnets and their role in the black market, and “zero-day” vulnerabilities (software bugs that are unknown to vendors and without a software patch). Researchers also examine various projections and predictions for how the black market may evolve.
What makes these black markets notable is their resilience and sophistication, Ablon said. Even as consumers and businesses have fortified their activities in reaction to security threats, cybercriminals have adapted. An increase in law enforcement arrests has resulted in hackers going after bigger targets. More and more crimes have a digital component.
The RAND study says there will be more activity in “darknets,” more checking and vetting of participants, more use of crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, greater anonymity capabilities in malware, and more attention to encrypting and protecting communications and transactions. Helped by such markets, the ability to attack will likely outpace the ability to defend.
The study was conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Security Research Division. The division conducts research and analysis on defense and national security topics for the U.S. and allied defense, foreign policy, homeland security and intelligence communities and foundationsand other nongovernmental organizations that support defense and national security analysis.
Comments Off on Black Market for hackers worst than ever may surpass illegal drugs in value
1,300-year-old Egyptian mummy had tattoo of Archangel Michael
March 28th, 2014A mummy of an Egyptian woman dating back to 700 A.D. has been scanned and stripped to reveal a tattoo on her thigh that displays the name of the biblical archangel Michael.
The discovery, announced by researchers at the British Museum over the weekend, was made during a research project that used advanced medical scans, including Computed Tomography (CT) images, to examine Egyptian mummies at a number of hospitals in the United Kingdom last year.
The woman’s body was wrapped in a woolen and linen cloth before burial, and her remains were mummified in the desert heat. As deciphered by curators, the tattoo on her thigh, written in ancient Greek, reads Μιχαήλ, transliterated as M-I-X-A-H-A, or Michael.
Curators at the museum speculate that the tattoo was a symbol worn for religious and spiritual protection, though they declined to offer additional details.
‘Michael is an obvious identity for a tattoo, as this is the most powerful of angels.’
– Maureen Tilley, professor of theology at Fordham University
But other scientists and theologians offered their thoughts on the tattoo’s cultural context.
“There was a sizable Christian population in Egypt in the 700s, perhaps close to a majority of the population,” said Maureen Tilley, professor of theology at Fordham University in New York.
“Like Greeks and Romans across the Mediterranean, the portion of the population that was literate was fascinated by the shapes of letters and delighted in making designs with letters in names. Hence, we have the odd shape of the tattoo composed of the letters.”
Placing the name of a powerful heavenly protector on one’s body by a tattoo or amulet was very common in antiquity, Tilley told Foxnews.com. “Christian women who were pregnant often placed amulets with divine or angelic names on bands on their abdomens to insure a safe delivery of their child,” she said.
“Placing the name on the inner thigh, as with this mummy, may have had some meaning for the hopes of childbirth or protection against sexual violation, as in ‘This body is claimed and protected.’ Michael is an obvious identity for a tattoo, as this is the most powerful of angels.”
Christian Gnostics, religious cultists in that era, were especially interested in the names and functions of intermediary beings between humans and the divine, Tilley noted.
“The Gospel of Truth and the Book of Enoch were both popular among them and have much about an angel whose story sounds very much like that of Archangel Michael in many Christian stories, the angel who led the heavenly army against Satan and the Fallen Angels.”
She added that Christians were not the only ones to use the names of angelic powers in ancient days. “Jews of antiquity were fascinated by the identity and nature of angels,” she said.
Villanova University biology professor Michael Zimmerman, who also has used advanced technologies to study Egyptian mummies, said this kind of find has been sought for years.
“I did participate in an expedition to the Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt’s western desert several years ago,” he told FoxNews.com. “This was an early Christian site (around 200 AD), and the deceased were still being mummified, by simply being dried in the very hot climate.
“We did not see any tattoos on those mummies, so the British Museum find is remarkable.”
The museum, which is located in London, will reveal what it has learned about this and seven other mummies in “Ancient Lives: New Discoveries,” an exhibition scheduled to run from May 22 to Nov. 30.
John Taylor, lead curator of the ancient Egypt and Sudan department at the museum, told a local newspaper over the weekend that the exhibition will tell the story of the lives of eight people from antiquity, portraying them as full human beings, rather than as archeological objects.
Using sophisticated medical imaging usually reserved to study strokes and heart attacks, the research team discovered that these eight ancient individuals, whose remains have been held in the museum for some time, had many of the same traits that modern man does, including dental problems, high cholesterol levels and tattoos.
The exhibition portrays one mummy that dates back to 3,500 BC, as well as the tattooed female, aged between 20 and 35, who lived and died about 1,300 years ago. Researchers pointed out that regular Egyptians – not only the royals – were mummified.
The tattooed mummy, the remains of which were found less than a decade ago, was so well preserved that archaeologists could nearly discern the tattoo on the inner thigh of her right leg with the naked eye. But medical infrared technology helped them see it clearly.
The Vatican’s school of science, the Pontifical Academy of
Comments Off on 1,300-year-old Egyptian mummy had tattoo of Archangel Michael
Intelligence stories late March
March 27th, 2014
By Cybersecurity Intelligence.
Facebook says US Intelligence has corrupted the Internet
Mark Zuckerberg has posted his anti-American spying comments on Facebook. Zuckerberg hit out at the US government over the alleged surveillance and monitoring of web users by the National Security Agency (NSA). He strongly argued that because of documents released by Snowden it is now obvious that the American government via its intelligence services has used bogus Facebook identification to monitor, potentially propagandize and infect many millions of personal computers with software viruses and malware.
Zuckerberg let loose his annoyance with the US government after documents leaked byEdward Snowden explained that intelligence operations had used fake Facebook credentials to mislead web users while they corrupted millions of computers with viruses & malware.
“I’ve been so confused and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the US government. When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you (Facebook users) against criminals, not our own government,” Zuckerberg posted. “I’ve called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future. Unfortunately, it seems like it will take a very long time for true full reform.”
Also recently Tim Berners Lee, the UK inventor of WWW, said that the web requires a legal IT security Magna Carta in the face of growing surveillance and control from the governments. “Our rights are being infringed more and more on every side, and the danger is that we get used to it. So I want to use the 25th anniversary (of the web) for us all to do that, to take the web back into our own hands and define the web we want for the next 25 year,” Lee told the Guardian newspaper in the UK.
The documents leaked by Snowden and the alleged close ties of the technology companies with the US government have sparked a fierce debate among senior executives within technology companies, privacy activists, cryptographers and security researchers. While many consider Snowden to be a hero, some believe him to be misguided geek who has harmed American security through his disclosure of NSA programmes.
European Governments unaware of their own intelligence relationship with NSA
Edward Snowden has opened another can of worms exposing government naivety to cyber surveillance and many government official outside of the US claim ignorance of their nation’s cooperation with the US National Security Agency.
In Germany, when Der Spiegel first reported last June that the NSA was engaged in mass spying aimed at the German population, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other senior officials publicly expressed outrage – only for that paper to then reveal documents showing extensive cooperation between the NSA and the German spy agency BND. In the Netherlands, a cabinet minister was forced to survive a no-confidence vote after he admitted to having wrongfully attributed the collection of metadata from 1.8 million calls to the NSA rather than the Dutch spying agency.
A similar controversy arose in the U.S., when the White House claimed that President Obama was kept unaware of the NSA’s surveillance of Merkel’s personal cell phone and those of other allied leaders. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein claimed the same ignorance, while an unnamed NSA source told a German newspaper that the White House knew.
In the UK, Chris Huhne, a former cabinet minister and member of the national security council until 2012, insisted that ministers were in “utter ignorance” about even the largest GCHQ spying program, known as Tempora, “or its US counterpart, the NSA’s Prism,” as well as “about their extraordinary capability to hoover up and store personal emails, voice contact, social networking activity and even internet searches.” Huhne added, ”The Snowden revelations put a giant question mark into the middle of our surveillance state. It is time our elected representatives insisted on some answers before destroying the values we should protect.”
A classified NSA document published by The Intercept contains an internal NSA interview with an official from the SIGINT Operations Group in NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate. Titled “What Are We After with Our Third Party Relationships? — And What Do They Want from Us, Generally Speaking?”, the discussion explores the NSA’s cooperative relationship with its surveillance partners. Upon being asked whether political shifts within those nations affect the NSA’s relationships, the SIGINT official explains why such changes generally have no effect: because only a handful of military officials in those countries are aware of the spying activities. Few, if any, elected leaders have any knowledge of the surveillance.
These dangers have long been understood. After serving two terms as president, Dwight D. Eisenhower famously worried in his 1961 Farewell Address about the accumulated power of the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry,” warning of what he called the “grave implications” of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
A secret GCHQ memo, reported by the Guardian in October, demonstrates that the agency’s primary motive for concealing its surveillance activities is that disclosure could trigger what it called ”damaging public debate,” as well as legal challenges throughout Europe. Those fears became realized when, in the wake of Snowden revelations, privacy lawsuits against the agency were filed in Europe, GCHQ officials were forced to publicly testify for the first time before Parliament, and an EU Parliamentary inquiry earlier this year concluded NSA/GCHQ activities were likely illegal. The British agency was also concerned about “damage to partner relationships if sensitive information were accidentally released in open court,” given that such disclosures could make citizens in other countries aware, for the first time, of their government’s involvement in mass surveillance.
According to Snowden, British and American spies are acting as malware hackers targeting millions of computers worldwide. Apparently, the NSA have set up fake and propaganda Facebook servers which allows data to be collected and also some to be rewritten to change stories and as propaganda.
The latest Snowden revelation claims that the NSA and GCHQ are expanding a massive programme of state-sponsored malware infection.
The malware allows spies to listen in to targets, watch them in some cases, extract data and destroy computers, according to documents from Snowden.
Russian Spyware Exposed
A 2008 Russian computer virus infected nearly a million PCs around the world including parts of the US, Europe as well as Russia itself according to the details of new research released this month and it ran for three years before it was stopped. Moscow-based Kaspersky Lab, said that at least 400,000 computers across Russia and Europe were infected with the virus, dubbed Agent.BTZ. The operators of Agent.BTZ have since stopped communicating with the virus after infections peaked around 2011.
Kaspersky published its analysis on the attacks because it believes they are likely linked to a sophisticated ongoing operation known as Turla, which is targeting hundreds of government computers across Europe and the United States. http://ow.ly/uZFvh
The largest number of infections by Agent.BTZ was in the Russian Federation, followed by Spain and Italy, Raiu said. Other victims were found in Kazakhstan, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Ukraine.
Details on the attack on the U.S. Central Command, which in 2008 was in charge of the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have been deemed as classified by the Pentagon, so very little has been reported to date.
U.S. officials have said a foreign spy agency was responsible for the 2008 attack, which occurred when an infected flash drive was inserted into a U.S. military laptop at a base in the Middle East. But they have never publicly singled out a particular country.
Some parts of NSA and CIA believe that Agent.BTZ was the work of Russian intelligence. Moscow has never confirmed those suspicions and Russia’s Federal Security Bureau last week declined to comment when asked about their cyber espionage programs.
Over 360 Million Private Details are on Sale
Hold Security www.holdsecurity.com have discovered more than 360 million newly stolen credentials and around 1.25 billion email addresses available for sale on the black market. It includes credentials from more than 360 million accounts and around 1.25 billion email addresses. Just a couple of weeks ago Hold Security reported it has discovered private details for close to 7,800 FTP (File Transfer Protocols) servers being circulated in cybercrime forums in the Deep Web. Apparently, a single hacker as stolen more than 105 million records, probably the largest single data breach ever.
Hold Security discovered a cache of over 300 million credentials still not publicly disclosed, but the total amount of abused credentials available on the black market could be over 450 million, including data related to the previously reported Adobe breach, when details of 2.9 million people globally were stolen in a highly sophisticated cyber attack against Adobe systems.
BYOD is a real Cyber Threat
Organisations that allow employees to bring in their own devices (BYOD), computers and mobiles etc. and use them when they are working find it is causing serious security issues. This is because there is a real lack of knowledge and awareness among the most working staff, of whatever age or experience, of how the engagement with the organisation’s IT systems should operate.
There is a lack of clear strategic and tactically related security expenditure and implementation by the senior management and connections with the IT staff’s issues and systems. You can have the best technical security and the most sophisticated processes in place, but a few or just one member of staff who is unaware of the procedures required can compromise your whole business activity and technology system. However, BYOD has definite advantages (although the argument about IT cost savings is debatable once proper security is taken into account) and allows employees to work from home and whist they are out of the office between meetings et al and should be used but with serious consideration given to the security issues.
BYOD is often not managed properly. Systems can be corrupted and infected. Cyber security should be continually balanced against the risks faced by the organisation. The security should be focused and based on the particular ways in which the organisation is perceived and how it operates. IT security should be the organisations own function and should not be parceled out to an outside security company. Outside reviews and advice and projects can and should be used but the day-to-day security of the system should be the responsibility of the organisation itself, so that ongoing and changing issues are understood.
The particular problem of BYOD is that it can also easily leave you open to cyber malfunction and attacks, which been brought into the organisation literally just that morning.
This issue feeds into a general lack of understanding of legal requirements surrounding data protection and credit card processing and this could land your organisation in an expensive turmoil, legal costs, fines and significant PR issues, tarnishing the picture for a long time. Cyber security requires a well-considered and continual review of security and this should be seen as part of the strategic and tactical understanding of the position and perspective of your organisation within its area of operations.
Classes on Cyber for UK Children
New learning materials would be offered to UK schools to publicize jobs in the cyber sector, the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills said.
Special learning materials for 11 to 14 year-olds and plans for a new higher-level and advanced apprenticeships are among new government plans to increase the cyber security skills of our nation.
The Cyber Security Skills: Business Perspectives and Government’s Next Steps report, includes plans to provide training for teachers to enable them to teach pupils about cyber security. The latest plans said teachers would be given training in how to inform children about this new, evolving subject area.
Universities and science minister David Willetts said: “Today countries that can manage cyber security risks have a clear competitive advantage. By ensuring cyber-security is integral to education at all ages, we will help equip the UK with the professional and technical skills we need for long-term economic growth.”
Speaking on its behalf, Sir David Pepper said a national shortage of cyber skills was “a key issue” for businesses and the government in dealing with “the growing threat from cyber-crime”.
Comments Off on Intelligence stories late March
Is the annexation of Crimea a justified vision of the future?
March 25th, 2014
Contributor Opinion.
Vladimir Putin successfully unlocked the key to annex Crimea, a part of Ukraine, bringing it back under Russian sovereignty. With the EU and US not recognizing the Crimean referendum as legal, economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia by Jose Manuel Barroso, head of the European Commission, as well as Merkel, Obama, Hollande, Cameron – all targeted so far at freezing assets and imposing travel bans on key Putin allies.
Meanwhile, other anti-capitalist countries that consider the U.S. an imperialist dictatorship threatening their own rulership, are drawing their own lessons from the Ukranian crisis. North Korea, just yesterday mimic Russia by preparing its army for an invasion. Nicolas Maduro, uses ‘Putin’s case’ as an excuse to tyrannize Venezuelan protesters who want a country free of oppression and food shortages. “He also calls them Leo Nazis”. But out of all the countries, China raises the most concerns as it may find future excuses to justify invasion.
1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to place its security in the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
4) Are we headed towards a war?
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
7) Does Russia have the right to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
(Questions edited by Claude Nougat)
Mr. Iván Gómez.
(Spanish-born political risk analyst, freelance researcher and writer. has been appointed to high responsibility positions in several multinational corporations such as the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ and Zurich Insurance)
“1. I would transcend the personal enquiry and go beyond. Crimea’s annexation is illegal under International law because it breaks with the United Nations charter on the integrity of states. However, since the right to self determination (also observed by the U.N charter) is, to my view, not clear enough concerning who and when it applies, then, commentators could pull the self determination issue on the Ukranian region of Crimea. Let’s remember that Crimea has joined the Russian Federation in a 2 step process.
1) The turmoil of the past weeks in Kiev has weakened not only the government but also the state structures with the resignation of Yanukovich and the emergence of a weak transitional government. Russia has taken this impasse to militarily occupy Crimea.
2) The new pro-Russian local Crimean authorities have emerged from the chaos and encouraged by the Russian troops patrolling its territories have claimed for Crimea’s self determination right and have set a referendum on the aim of getting independent from Ukraine. The “Yes” vote has won 97% to 3%. Crimea has “de facto” become independent and although it has not been recognized by most of the international community, the weakness of the central Ukrainian government along with the lack of will to intervene in the region militarily (and avoid a clash with Russian troops by the international community), has placed the region under Moscow’s military and political control. Such “de facto” situation has brought Russia to complete the process by issuing a decree in which it recognizes Crimea as part of the national territory.
What it is at stake, in my view, is the legitmation and effectiveness of the International regime emerged from the U.N charter in 1945.
3. There are other trends in the world that resemble Crimea’s case, although, each one has its own particularities.
It is nothing new that there is tension between China and its main geopolitical competitor, Japan (backed by the U.S) over the control of the Pacific strategic routes. And it is nothing new either that Japan has increased its military clout, partly snoozed since the end of Second World War due to its Constitution constraint to use military force.
A similarity with Crimea shows within the framework of the global struggle of the newly emerged powers (Russia, China) to get energy resources and geostrategical positions.
6. In the new chess board, Russia has a strong clout as it controls most of the main gas pipelines that flow towards Eastern and Western Europe. Any sanction on Russia would be responded with retaliations over the availability and distribution of gas. Germany, the big power in Europe would be one of the most affected along with France and Italy. Meanwhile, economic sanctions over Russia would probably not have the same critical effect on the country.
7. No, Russia has no right to annex new territories just by the fact that the U.S has backed similar operations in other parts of the world according to its own interests.
Again, we are attending the dismantling of an International legal and political regime established in 1945 and led by the U.S. The mere fact that the main backers of the regime such as the U.S do not respect the regime itself is a clear sign that we are close to the end of this regime and the emergence (or not) of another regime.
If a new regime is not placed in substitution of the dying one, the world could be pushed once again to “an international anarchy” similar to the one that existed before the Second World War.
A Neo-Realist world scenario in which each state stands by itself would be based on the law imposed by the strongest on the weakest and the lack of validity of the 1945 Declaration of Human Rights.”
Seyed Mostafa Mousavipour.
(His research focus/interest is terrorism, fundamentalism, and sectarian violence in South Asia and the Middle East.)
“Russia has definitely no rights whatsoever to annex part of a country on any conceivable grounds. Although the precedents have been repeatedly set in the past by the US, and Americans had already violated territorial integrity of political entities such as Granada and Panama – to name but two, such an action by Russia – justified on any basis – would be directly undermining the very political, ethical and legal premises the world has fought for in two World Wars and a bevy of other international conflicts. That is, this provocative intervention can churn out chaos that would consume the world order and take the countries back to pre-Westphalian times. Moreover, it could teach other revisionist states such as China a bad lesson that they can annex parts of other countries at will.
Given the traditional realistic rules and tenets, Russian act of irredentism and revanchism could be interpreted in balance of power and security lights. However, such reckless policies that smack of expansionism would trigger disastrous events in the region and the world at large as it could give rise to proxy wars in the region, end up in division of Ukraine, affect dynamics between Russia and the west. The resultant fallout could have impinge heavily on the EU since the provision of European gas by Russia hangs in the balance.
The Ukrainian crisis could also be another ordeal for Obama testing its foreign policy to the breaking point. Having been already bruised by the irate republicans at home over the Syrian crisis, and having the previous debacle during the Georgian episode in mind, the foreign policy of the Obama administration centering on negative diplomacy – economic pressures and heavy sanctions – may not bring such a behemoth as Russia to its knees. American and European sanctions on Russia, in Sergei Lavrov’s words could “backfire” as it would fan the flames of open confrontation between West and East.
To solve the problem, the US has to act more sensibly, as Russia’s action is partially a response to American heightened security and military presence in eastern European countries. That is, by removing the realpolitik threats the US installed in Poland and Czech Republic Russia can come to an understanding with the West.”
Jose Luis Chalhoub Naffah.
“Every nation has a right for self determination and if Crimea decided to hold a referendum, even if it was strongly supported by Russia, so be it, given that the majority of Crimean population is Russian ethnic and speaking. And of course, all this has a high geopolitical basis, based on Russian aspiration against Washington and the EU support for Ukraine´s new government.
In my opinion, President Obama´s stance towards Russia and President Putin has always been very lame and naive, giving Mr Putin so much leverage and influence over international politics lately, i.e, towards Syria, Georgia, and now towards Crimea. Talking about the implications of sanctions towards Russia, in my belief, Russia has much economic and financial position than Italy, and all these fuss about the sanctions will be mere symbolism, having Russia control over gas flow and supply to Europe on more than 80% almost, so these sanctions if ever more aggressive, will for sure backlash and have a boomerang effect for everyone involved, and that’s why there´s no consensus on this 100%. Russia will respond with the strongest weapon it has: energy, and will finally shift its currency system to a basket of currencies if it feels really threatened.
Lets remember Russia has a very strong Stabilization Fund consisting of more than 12 years of oil revenues at 100$ per barrel daily for 10 million barrels a day and more than 300 million cubic feet of gas exports to Europe that makes the Kremlin up until now even with all the internal problems, stronger than most of the European economies altogether.
And talking about the right to annex countries, well the US has been the master in this field so it has no moral rights to teach and impose other nations its will, and overall Washington has the intention of blocking Russia by imposing puppet governments in all the former soviet republics, even more now that by 2015 the Eurasian Union will come into fruition. If there´s any doubt, ask Mr Brezinski, he´ll have a clue on Eurasian intentions for Washington.”
Peter D. Rosenstein.
(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. His background includes teaching; serving as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York; working in the Carter Administration; and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia.)
“1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
I do not support the Crimea’s annexation. I do understand why Russia has an interest in the Crimea and that it is crucial that they have access to the port. I believe that could have been handled with a renewed treaty that the Western powers would have supported. Moving in with the military and then supporting a vote for secession with the Russian military standing guard should be condemned by the civilized world.
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to rest its security on the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
I think that it is crucial that the United States back up its agreements with actions. Those actions in this case will include joint military operations which are now going to take place with the Ukraine. We will need to supply funds and training as requested by the Ukrainian government but that doesn’t mean we will place American ‘boots’ on the ground at this time. If we break our promises to one country we will be suspect by all. But the goal for the West has to be NATO involvement so the United States doesn’t appear to be going it alone.
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
I don’t think China will use this as an excuse to invade the Sensaku Islands. They actually have never needed an excuse to do that if they were so inclined. I believe China is trying to become a more peaceful, if stronger, world partner and at the same time is experiencing great growing pains in their economy and that will take them time to solve. While we see them building their military might we must recognize that the United States over the years has done the same in the name of ‘the stronger we are the more likely we can maintain the peace’. It hasn’t always worked out that way but the world needs to strive for the most normal possible of relations with China and involve them as much as we can in decisions that are made with regard to ‘Global’ issues including those surrounding the environment and climate change.
4) Are we headed towards a war?
No. I don’t believe we are headed towards a war. I believe that Putin saw this as his chance to correct what Khrushchev did when he turned the Crimea over to the Ukraine. Putin will go as far as he can but will try to avoid an all-out war.
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
Yes overall. Obama is in a difficult position as the American people will never approve of putting ‘boots on the ground’ in a situation like this. So Obama has had to try to work with our Allies and NATO in getting them to move with us on sanctions. The Europeans have much more to lose than we do. They get more of their oil and gas from Russia and have a much larger trading interest with them. Also Obama has had to deal with the Congress and a controlling faction of the Republican Party that will try to stymie his every move and do everything, including potentially hurting American interests, if they can make him look bad. Within this framework I think he has done a good job and made the right decisions.
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
Russia will try to bluster their way through any sanctions. They will threaten to withhold gas and oil from Europe and they will make additional military threats to the Ukraine. But in the long run the Russians can’t afford lengthy sanctions. They already will have to make up about $300 million a year in what Crimea will lose from the Ukraine by Russia’s annexation. The Crimea doesn’t have an economy that can support itself and Russia’s economy isn’t healthy enough to take that on for the long term. But there will be much saber rattling from Putin depending on the severity of the sanctions.
7) Does Russia have the rights to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
No. No country has the right to send in troops to annex other countries or parts of other Countries. As Hillary Clinton recently said this is reminiscent of Hitler and we must hope the world has learned something from that and the civilized world will stand together on this.”
Steven Hansen.
(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations.)
“1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
I did not support the breakup of the Soviet Union into unstable states. Crimea in since the late 1700’s has been part of, or administered by, Russia in one way or another.
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to rest its security on the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
It shows you can never trust anyone.
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
Yes and no. Russia did NOT invade per se, but could use the cover it was invited in by the former government (or current depending on your interpretation of the overthrow of a legitimate government in Ukraine).This is by far a hazy situation. my normal stance is change in borders is not an acceptable solution – but recent history has seen changes in borders. However, I do think that what the Russians are doing would be used as a precedent by others.
4) Are we headed towards a war?
Potentially – but it will be triggered by others doing the same think Russia did.
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
I am far from an Obama lover, but i doubt any USA president would have done differently (except maybe Reagan). the USA has lost its ability to play chess and to put uncertainty into its response. If I were the USA president, my actions for the last 8 years would have been different – options today are very limited if one opposes what Russia did. The point for me is that i do NOT oppose what Russia did – as there is a range of historical, ethnic, military issues which support annexation. I would have felt differently had Russia annexed all of Ukraine.
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
The question is off base – Russia has strategic energy assets need by Europe. The question assumes all economies can be measure solely on the basis of GDP. Russia has ways to cripple the European economy (by limiting energy exports) with little additional damage to its own economy.
7) Does Russia have the rights to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
Already answered. in this case, I do not object per se, I have concerns only.”
C. Bonjukian Patten.
(She is a Financial Consultant with my own Bookkeeping/Office Management LLC working in the Greater NYC Area for clients in a cross section of industry.)
“I don’t support the Crimea annexation at all. Russia is playing the world with this “vote on referendum”. It’s BS. What happened is that Putin and Russia invaded the Ukraine and kidnapped the Crimea by force calling it RUSSIAN TERRITORY. There are plenty of American companies that need to have access to Russia because they do business in that country. These sanctions that are being imposed are nothing to help the Ukraine who the US swore to protect once they gave up their nuclear options. We did not do what we said and America and Obama threw the Ukrainians under the bus.
Now, North Korea who overwhelmingly re-elected (total sarcasm) their young DICKtator back into power because if they didn’t he’d seek them out and kill them like he did his own uncle, is looking at America to invade. Wouldn’t that be peachy? NO. It would not and because Obama and the rest of the EU: GERMANY, UK, FRANCE did nothing to help the Ukraine but throw sanctions on Russia; Putin shrugged. He threw sanctions on America and the other countries. Now we are not allies with Russia anymore?
This is a very bad situation. America does not recognize the take over of the Crimea; we are telling Putin’s Russia you did something that the international community deems ILLEGAL! China is looking at other countries that its enemy Japan owns and also Taiwan, who wants nothing to do with China.
America and the EU’s inaction concerning promises made to the Ukraine which borders Russia are going to resound in a huge problem for the future. We still may have to face a WW3 which could end really badly however we cannot allow North Korea to invade America or any other country and we cannot allow that from China either but these countries are looking at the situation between the EU/America and Russia to see who the victor will be.
Frankly speaking; the EU is a disaster with Germany and France as the leading countries speaking for the EU. Here are two countries that are filled with neo Nazi’s and fruitcakes. The Leo Nazi’s from Germany who in the last century took over France, a country full of cup and fruitcakes whom the USA had to bail out of two world wars is now fronting the EU.
That is scary crap”
Adil F Raja.
(He is an independent Political and Security analyst from Pakistan with a diverse background in Governance, International Relations, Special Ops and International Security/Political Consultancy.)
“The theme behind the above quoted questions is most pertinent issue facing global power dynamics with direct implications on the both regional and world security. The Russian move forms the climax of Putin’s regional hegemonic drive which is the realization of the Russian desire to regain the lost glory associated with the Soviet Union.
Strong economies without an integral security paraphernalia, historically have suffered forced subjugation by militarily stronger neighbors. The current Russian actions or perceived Chinese maneuvers questioned above, hence should only come as surprise to the US and EU. The western block enjoyed an almost free run in post USSR global power politics until now.
The essential problem with the US/EU coalition seems to be their universal application of the western brand of democracy which requires conscious participation of the masses. In the wider part of the world, the masses are still heavily subjugated by the state through miscellaneous control mechanisms.
The western brand of democracy, in particular at the EU, is an ideal form of governance, but constitutes of the participating population, who are educated, modern, integrated and aware of their rights.
However, for the vast world, all these qualities are a mere novelty, when it comes to the questions of basic day to day survival.To top it off, the US desire to secure the energy resources of the middle east and hence the military actions those followed in recent past, makes it even more harder to convince any logical mind, that the American brand of “freedom via democracy” is more than the “drive for oil” which in the process have destroyed millions of lives.
Russia holds the energy keys to the EU, which should suffice as an ace on the bargaining table, as and when required. The Russian economy may be a weak case but the influence and proximity of Russia, in the future global energy corridors, will force the West to resort to arbitration. Proxy wars, are the way of this world now, while all powers will keep a leash in escalation of the same to global level.
In the name of national interest, global politics are shaped and supersedes all other pacts and pledges as evident in the past by the behavior of all potent global powers. Public opinions are shaped and moulded by the global cooperate media, at the will of the businessmen who owns them.
Global catastrophe is the last thing any good businessman wants, and hence won’t allow their respective governments to go on an absolute war path in an increasingly interdependent world. However, if a catastrophe is required to generate desired profits, that’s what is designed by the interlocutors. Ironically, it has to be limited in design only, while the human reaction and tragedy surpasses the designed path, almost every time, but who cares, less those who suffer. Such is the way of world…………………………
This is all a part of the chain reaction started by the US led coalition, which started Gulf war, Iraq’s misconceived invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The US, long ago, lost the moral grounds to check the Russian or for that matter the Chinese military actions against their weak neighbors to spread their hegemony.
The path, which follows, leads to the transformation of the present unipolar world, not to bipolar status, but a multipolar one. The Chinese will most definitely flex their muscles in times to come on the Russian model. The US/EU will be forced to compromise in one way or the other. “Might is Right”, will prevail for the time being with interesting times ahead for international relations, where many alliances will be formed and fall………………..”
Tony Greenstein.
(Tony Greenstein has been a political activist for all his adult life, mainly focusing on Palestine, anti-racist and anti-fascist activities. He wrote columns for the Guardian.)
“1) Yes
2) The very question is biased. There was no agreement to come to Ukraine’s help militarily. In any case the situation has changed beyond all recognition. The US and Europe funnelled money to the Opposition to oppose the economic accord with Russia. Russia doesn’t particularly care for being surrounded by a belt of NATO countries anymore than the US looked kindly on Cuba stationing missiles. The US tore up the anti-ballistic missile treaty so Russia has even greater cause for concern.
The previous Ukrainian administration was overthrown. The most prominent in using force was the neo-Nazi Svobada. Clearly it was supplied with weaponry by Europe and the US. The present Ukrainian administration was about to abolish Russian as a second language. The Crimean Russians were seen as the fascists’ enemy so the real question is why the USA supports Ukrainian fascists who are directly descended from those who collaborated with Nazi Germany in the war.
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
Again a biased pro-US hawk’s question. China doesn’t need Russia as an excuse since the islands are theirs. More to the point it is no business of the US. Japan is now ruled by a nationalist Right who would like to repeat Japanese attacks on China but are unable to. The islands are much nearer China than Japan. It is a matter for China not the ‘world’s self-appointed policeman’.
No China won’t attack Taiwan but it is no business of the US which has invaded more countries than Russian and China combined. Iraq was a war crime. We have yet to see Bush in the dock, I forgot the US doesn’t submit to the ICC’s jurisdiction. It makes its own laws.
4) The US Right would like to, even if it meant mutually assured destruction. Not in the short-term but it is probable in the medium term as the US brooks no competition.
5) Did he have a choice? US troops and ships would have been destroyed given that US forces are spread out so widely in the Middle East and Asia.
6) I dispute the basic premise of the question. Russia has adopted a form of state capitalism. It has a strong military and a massive land mass. It supplies the rest of Europe with much of its gas and oil. Italy supplies us with pasta! If the US sanctions Russia economically Russia will default on its debts.
7) No Russia has no such right but again the assumption is wrong. The people of Crimea wished to join Russia. Why was it right in Kosovo but wrong in Ukraine? The real issue is the spread of market capitalism, which knows nothing about human need and is amoral to its core. The behavior of Russia and the US cannot be compared.”
David J. Merkel.
“CFA is Principal of the equity and bond asset management firm Aleph Investments, LLC, and writes The Aleph Blog. Previously, he was the Director of Research for Finacorp Securities, Senior Investment Analyst at Hovde Capital, and a leading commentator at RealMoney.com.)
“1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
No.
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to rest its security on the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
Ukraine didn’t have the money to keep nuclear weapons viable. Ukraine could have made greater efforts to join the EU and NATO earlier. They didn’t do that.
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
They could. They might. But China plays a longer game than Russia, and thinks even more strategically.
All that said, China’s financial system is a mess. Adventurism is not on China’s menu, because their economy is a mess. Don’t believe the published statistics.
4) Are we headed towards a war?
That depends on how stupid the US is. There should be no big war out of this – after all the US did nothing after the invasion of Georgia, and Russia tweaked the nose of the US over Syria.
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
Yes, because the nations near Russia need to take care of themselves. If they are not armed to the teeth, like Israel, that is their fault. Don’t rely on the US to help you, especially under Obama.
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
Those who lead Russia don’t care about its economy. Many of its people will be hurt, but Russia has a persecution complex as it views itself as the Third Rome, protecting its branch of the Orthodox world.
7) Does Russia have the rights to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
No one has that right. Not the US, Russia, China, or anyone. But they may do it. Look at history, and Putin is just an ordinary opportunist, and a clever one, rationally calculating what his opponents may do in response to his actions, and concluding the answer is little.
-=-==-=-=-
I am in favor of the US disentangling itself from the alliances it has entered into. We should not be the global cop. Let the other nations of the world defend themselves. If it means we lose access to resources or business dealings, so be it. If you feel threatened by Russia, you deal with it.”
Bruce Krasting
(He worked on Wall Street for twenty five years. He was an FX trader during the early days of the ‘snake’ and the EMS.Derivatives on currencies were new then with Citi Bank.)
“#1 I believe in the rules of law and the integrity of national boundaries. That being the case I’m apposed to the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
But….Crimea is a very special situation. It is part of Russia. Russia has had a military base there for the last 150 years. The vote in Crimea that overwhelmingly supported the annexation can’t be ignored. The people have spoken, and they do not want to be part of the Ukraine, they want to be Russian.
I believe those voters will regret their vote in a few years, but as of today there is little doubt about what the people wanted. Is the West to ignore this vote? It would appear so, and that would be a mistake.
#2 Should the West provide military support to the Ukraine? Absolutely not. I don’t want one US soldier to die on this soil. And I don’t want to see billions in military sales either.
The US seems to be taking the lead on the Ukraine story. That is a mistake. This is an EU problem. If Germany/France do not lead the effort, then the USA should take a back seat. This is not our fight.
#3 Is China going to flex its muscle soon? Will they step up their efforts on the disputed islands and Taiwan? I’m sure that this is going to happen in the next several years.
China’s economy is in much worse shape than the media is reporting. I think an economic hiccup is in the works. If this happens there will be domestic social problems. What better way to distract an angry public then by waging a war over islands that are ‘owned’ by China’s enemy – Japan.
The Russians are setting a precedent; they can take over land without much consequence. Surely China is watching this and is encouraged by the ‘success’ that Russia has had so far.
#4 We are not headed for war over Crimea. The US people would revolt if our troops started headed in that direction.
Given the location/logistics the West can’t win a ground war in Eastern Europe. Any military reaction by the West would be met by Russia, and the West would lose that fight.
#5 Is Obama doing the “right things”. I don’t think so. The US is leading the sanctions effort. This should be done by the EU, not the USA. If European leaders can’t get their act together, then the US should not be involved.
#6 The sanctions will backfire. Russia will sell its gas to China and turn off the spigot to Europe. Who wins that battle? Russia/China. Who loses? The West. The economic sanctions that have been announced have no teeth. The Russians are laughing at them.
#7 I don’t think that Russia (or any other country) has the right to just annex territory. But if the people in those areas vote 97% to affiliate with Russia, there’s not a damn thing the West can do about it.
My take – Crimea is critical to the Russians. It has the deep-water port AND it is a breadbasket for Russia. But Crimea has problems. It gets the bulk of its water (drinking and irrigation) from the Ukraine. Gas pipelines from the north provide gas and a hydro dam located in the Ukraine provides most of the electricity.
I think Putin’s next step will be to annex the pipelines, water and electric supplies. This will be a major escalation if this happens. I’m waiting for some pro-western politicians in the Ukraine to advocate cutting off Crimea’s water, gas and electric. That will be Putin’s excuse to act.
Question left open:
How involved was the CIA (and other western intelligence agencies) in the Kiev uprisings that started all of this off? The history books will show that the ‘spies’ had a big hand in fomenting the uprising that lead to the shootings. I think that the effort to stimulate protest was done exactly at the time of the Russian Olympics with the sole objective of making Putin/Russia look bad.
If that is the case (I think it is), then how would you feel if you were Putin? I would be mad, and be looking to retaliate. So who really started this fracas? Was it the meddling West? Or was it the (justifiably) angry Russians?
I think there are no clean hands in this story.”
Georgios Protopapas.
(He is Research Associate – Media Analyst at Research Institute of European and American Studies (RIEAS) based in Athens.)
“The president of Russia Vladimir Putin adopted the theory of realism during the crisis between Moscow and Kiew. Putin immediately secured the Russian geopolitical interests in Crimea after the fall of the pro-Russian president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. Crimea’s annexation is considered the natural outcome of the Ukrainian- Russian crisis as the majority of the population in peninsula is Russian and the port of Sevastopol is the home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
The geopolitical position of Ukraine is of great importance for Russia. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in his book “The Grand Chessboard” that “Ukraine is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. If Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia”.
Ukraine’s crisis reminds “Cold War” strategies but the international security system is very different after the fall of Soviet Union. We could suppose that the European periphery continues to be a small area of “Cold War” due to the antagonism between West and Russia for influence. The European security system excludes Russian and a further eastern expansion of the Euro- Atlantic institutions threatens the Russian national security. Russia considers the former Soviet States a traditional sphere of influence and has showed that can protect its national interest in this area at any cost.
However a war between Ukraine and Russia is difficult to start because: Ukraine does not have adequate national armed forces and Moscow has already secured its geopolitical interests in Crimea. Moreover Ukraine’s allies, the European Union and the USA have demonstrated a limited action against Russia. They have condemned Putin’s aggressive policy against Crimea and have imposed financial sanctions to Russia. The European Union encounters significant political and financial problems and Washington does not want another “military adventure”, especially with Russia. Washington and Moscow cooperate in order to resolve Syria’s civil war and to prevent the expansion of Islamic extremist fighters in Middle East and North Caucasus, respectively.
We could assume that the USA president Barack Obama adopted the right decisions as Ukraine seems to be a second priority for the American national interests. Obama has showed that the use of diplomacy is always its first option on the international crisis. The outbreak of the war between Ukraine and Russia involves the risk to provoke NATO’s reaction if the war outcome seriously threatens the European security.
Russia has the tools to undermine the European security exploiting the Russian populations in Baltic States, Caucasus and Moldavia. Putin has attested that use the military power when the Russian national interests are in really danger. Russia does not have ethically the right to annex provinces of a state. However Moscow could invoke that the USA have supported the annexation or the autonomy of provinces of a state in order to promote their geopolitical interests in Balkans and the Middle East ignoring for the changes of the borders.”
Claude Nougat.
(Passionate traveler (80 countries+), Now lives in Italy.25 years experience in UNITED NATIONS (project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia) Before that: banking, editing, free-lance journalism, college teaching (economics), marketing. She now writes novels.)
“1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
No but I can see why we have to live with it. This is pure geo-politics: Putin is playing in his own backyard and Crimea is host to the major Russian military base controlling the Black Sea and access to the Mediterranean.
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to rest its security on the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
It doesn’t show anything really; this kind of treaty is rarely respected, the US Senate certainly didn’t, so there’s nothing amiss here. Historically, treaties are more often ignored or rejected than respected – this is the case here. Again, geo-politics is the answer. The best that can be hoped for is the Ukraine maintains at least some of its basic integrity (the non-Russian part) and becomes a “buffer state” between Putin’s Russia and the EU.
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
What happens on the European theater does not necessarily translate to the East Asia theater. Geo-politics is a better key to understanding what will happen next with China.
4) Are we headed towards a war?
Absolutely not. It’s in nobody’s interest.
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
There’s not much he can do. The sanctions against individuals in Putin’s entourage is a minimum – but there’s no reason why sanctions should be expanded. That’s geo-politics again – or, if you prefer, “real politic” to use a German term.
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
This will not happen. The globalization of markets make it unthinkable that we might be headed towards increased sanctions on either part.
7) Does Russia have the rights to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
No “right” here. What Russia is invoking is another right altogether: the right to defend Russian-speaking people no matter where they live in the (now extinct) Soviet Union. And it has invoked the “right of people to self-determination” as the basis for the referendum in Crimea. A majority of the people presently living in Crimea really do want to go back to “Mother Russia”, they were separated by a Soviet “error” made by Kruschev, some 60 years ago.”
Jaime Ortega Simo.
(President, founder and writer for The Daily Journalist)
“1)Do you support Crimea’s annexation?
In a sense yes, but no. The truth is that the Ukrainian government has treated ethnic Crimean’s as second class citizens since the country became independent in 1990. During Putin’s era, Russian influence in Crimea has allowed for better financial prosperity than that experienced through Boris Yeltsin, and the Russian Oligarchs. Ukraine’s corrupted financial apparatus has negatively impacted Crimea’s monetary policy for years, so is no wonder why Crimean’s also dislike Ukrainian leaders. That said, Putin’s personal agenda, is mixed with the Crimean’s people will to live a better life. Putin is using Crimean’s as dummies to awake his real dream and build a new Russian empire.
If 93% of Crimean’s voted to stay with Russia over the Ukraine, the will of the state should not interfere with people’s desire to do so. Democracy is used to express the spirit of its citizens over the sovereignty of the head of the nation. I don’t agree that bully nations like Russia should rule out abiding international laws and treaties to quench their personal agenda, but is no mystery Crimean’s wanted Russia to take over.
Those that firmly believe in constitutional solutions should not support the rioters behavior that caused the Ukrainian crisis because without the use of democratic procedures activist arbitrarily expelled Viktor Yanukovych from his position. The U.S. and Europe support democracy, but when the Ukrainian government spiraled down in the midst of anarchy, no western country spoke about “constitutional rights!” Its a hypocrites world’
I don’t support the referendum not because its undemocratic (its is), but simply because Russia is not a democracy and annexing Crimea is just another step to regain the fantasy of the USSR, now called the Euro Asian Union.
2) Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to rest its security on the hands of the US. If foreign allies do not supply military aid to countries they promised to protect, what does it show?
In a sense, NATO is entitled to defend Ukraine’s interest because it was signed on a treaty July 9 1997. NATO and Ukraine officially signed an agreement that anyone, even a peripatetic ex-president, can find on NATO’s website. All five states party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons gave Ukraine security assurances in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
That agreement was reaffirmed on August 21, 2009:
“In addition to the regular consultative and cooperative meetings set out in the Charter, the NUC [NATO Ukraine Council] will be convened following a request from Ukraine if Ukraine perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence, or security, in line with paragraph 8 of the Partnership for Peace Framework Document
If NATO does not react to Its promises, it just raises future concerns about their global alliances and what porpoise these serve. NATO’s effect on Russian sovereignty send weak messages to other nations watching (Taiwan, Nepal or Israel).
3) Will China, that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN Security Council, also use Russia as an excuse to invade Sensaku Islands disputed by Japan? Will China go after Taiwan?
China, play’s Russian roulette with the UN because it allows Beijing to explore similar objectives for future occasions. Xi Jinping and Putin might find common ground backstabbing U.S foreign policy behind doors, but Russia and China dispute the Kuril Islands among other territories which have been contended for over the century. So I think it is not good news for Russia if neighboring China plans to annex other countries around the region, and vice-versa. As in the end, both countries will also dispute Siberian provinces and other neighboring countries with both Russian and Chinese influence.
4) Are we headed towards a war?
History shows that war means defiance. Wars are decided not by interest but by belief. If Russia, defies the west without fearing economic sanctions, I believe it’s a step closer to war.
Russia does not care about the G8. In the end, to start wars all it takes a nut-case like Putin to start global conflicts without caring about the consequences his decisions enclose. Hitler, had an ideology that led him to war, that was that every nation spoke Deutsche as the official universal language. Putin has a mission to fulfill, that is the reunification of the USSR. Financial sanctions stop working when crazy people try to fulfill personal missions. Al-Qaeda and radical Islamism show this point clearly.
5) Has Obama adopted the right decisions against Russia?
Obama is possibly the worst decision maker to ever land on Capitol Hill. But he only represents the people who voted for him.
6) Russia has the economic strength of Italy. If the EU, and the US sanction Russia financially, how will Russia respond?
I think next time around, Russia will respond with military action. As we discussed a few weeks ago, Military power can overwrite financial power by using violence and Putin knows this. Wealth can be threatened with military response. But he is not ready yet.
7) Does Russia have the rights to annex other countries considering the US has also supported such things in the past?
The sad part, is historically not many countries have remained unified after a few centuries. Forceful intervention is wrong, but history teaches us that what happened in Crimea, so did the U.S. allow when they interfered in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Somalia’s …conflict , and we can take the ‘rabbit hole’ back to the first civilizations to see the exact same problems observed today.
In the end, it’s a nomads land, in a no man’s world. ”
Comments Off on Is the annexation of Crimea a justified vision of the future?
Emerging and developing nations want freedom on the internet
March 21st, 2014By Pew Research Center.
To read article: Emerging and developing nations want freedom on the internet
Comments Off on Emerging and developing nations want freedom on the internet
European Union Sanctions on Russia
March 18th, 2014European Union Sanctions on Russia
By the office journal of the European Commission.
To read report: European Union Sanctions on Russia
Comments Off on European Union Sanctions on Russia
Sam Woo BBQ great Chinese restaurant in Las Vegas
March 13th, 2014
Sam Woo BBQ great Chinese restaurant in Las Vegas
Sam Woo is a Chinese restaurant located in Las Vegas, open 7 days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 11:oo p.m.
Jonathan Presley 22, student at CSN
“I like their beef dish with ginger and onion.
Their roast duck lo-mein is also very
tasty.”
Ken Yung 32, works for CISCO INT.
“The prices are very affordable and the food in general taste great. Me and my adventurous girlfriend decided to give it a shot, despite the average ratings we found in Yelp. I guess the ratings had to be somehow biased, because the food and the prices were good. I like their pork chop with Beijing sauce.”
Yen Rae 24, works for publishing company.
“I went to Sam Woo BBQ just to try something new among the great diversity of Chinese food in Vegas and went for the Sam Woo Hotpot, which was surprisingly great for the price. Service was also good.”
Location
Sam Woo is located in 4215 Spring Mountain Road, Unit #B 101, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102.
Its located about 5 minutes from Las Vegas Blvd or the Strip.
Their phone number is (702) 368-7628
Ambient
Sam Woo BBQ restaurant, is always kept very clean. Bathrooms and also the kitchen seem to be in good conditions and the air is not polluted from fried odors. Tables are clean. The lighting is good, and doesn’t give that essence of dizziness other restaurant give. The decoration is great, and during the night the restaurant gets very busy. Most of the clientele is Asian, but it does get often a good variety of all-over the world crowd. Its also family friendly and child friendly.
Service
The service is good. Generally the servers bring the food on time. Cups get refilled often without having to call the servers attention every five minutes. You get seated were you want. The servers are friendly and make sure you enjoying your stance. For the most part, servers earn good tips for their service.
Prices
The average price range in Sam Woo BBQ restaurant is affordable for most peoples wallet. Shrimp dishes can be as much as $16.50, but no good shrimp dish worthy of quality in Vegas gets gets any lower. The great thing about Sam Woo BBQ’s menu is that it has an extensive list of dishes, so consumers have lots to pick and choose from. The total overall average price range will round $10.50.
Top 3 The Daily Journalist Dishes.
Roast Duck
Beef fried Chow Mein
Beef chow Fun
Comments Off on Sam Woo BBQ great Chinese restaurant in Las Vegas
Sura BBQ Buffet not the best experience Las Vegas
March 13th, 2014Sura BBQ Buffet not the best experience Las Vegas
Sura BBQ buffet is a Korean restaurant.
Kiang Yu.
“The food was greasy and the service was poor, they verily speak English. Had a hard time choosing.”
Tina Molten
“The buffet looks quite big and fabulous from the outside. But it took forever to get our food, and their orange chicken smelled like fresh marmalade. Wont come back again.
Quisen Somp
“I personally like the decorations, but the place always looks empty and I think that speaks highly for itself.”
Location
4480 W Spring Mountain Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89102
(702) 365-9888
Comments Off on Sura BBQ Buffet not the best experience Las Vegas
The man behind the most dangerous website
March 12th, 2014
By John Cook.
To read report: The man behind the most dangerous website
Comments Off on The man behind the most dangerous website
Composition of influenza virus vaccines
March 7th, 2014
By World Health Organization.
To read report: composition of influenza virus vaccines
Comments Off on Composition of influenza virus vaccines
The war on poverty: 50 years later
March 4th, 2014
A House Budget Committee report.
Read more: war-on-poverty
Comments Off on The war on poverty: 50 years later
Canadian Army Fails to Stonewall Reporter
March 4th, 2014
By The Daily Journalist.
Read document: ca-army-stonewall
Comments Off on Canadian Army Fails to Stonewall Reporter
The 10 Most Intriguing Mysteries of Lost Civilizations
February 24th, 2014By Stephen Wagner.
HOW CAN WE know who we are if we don’t know where we come from? It is clear from many fragments of evidence, traditions and lore that we have an incomplete picture of the earliest days of human civilization. It’s possible that whole civilizations, some with advanced technology, have come and gone. At the very least, human culture reaches much further back in time than conventional history admits. There are many mysteries in our ancient past, but there may be clues to that past around the world in the form of sunken cities, ancient structures, cryptic hieroglyphics, artwork and more.
Here are ten of the most intriguing pieces of the puzzle that is our past. They are shrouded in mystery and varying degrees of doubt, but all are nonetheless fascinating.
1. Egyptian Treasures in the Grand Canyon
The April 5, 1909 edition of the Arizona Gazettefeatured an article entitled “Explorations in Grand Canyon: Remarkable finds indicate ancient people migrated from Orient.” According to the article, the expedition was financed by the Smithsonian Institute and discovered artifacts that would, if verified, stand conventional history on its ear. Inside a cavern “hewn in solid rock by human hands” were found tablets bearing hieroglyphics, copper weapons, statues of Egyptian deities and mummies. Although highly intriguing, the truth of this story is in doubt simply because the site has never been re-found. The Smithsonian disavows all knowledge of the discovery, and several expeditions searching for the cavern have come up empty-handed. Was the article just a hoax? “While it cannot be discounted that the entire story is an elaborate newspaper hoax,” writes researcher/explorer David Hatcher Childress, “the fact that it was on the front page, named the prestigious Smithsonian Institution, and gave a highly detailed story that went on for several pages, lends a great deal to its credibility. It is hard to believe such a story could have come out of thin air.”
More information:
Archeological Coverups
Ancient Egyptian Treasures In The Grand Canyon?
2. Age of the Pyramids and Sphinx
Most Egyptologists believe the Great Sphinx on the Giza plateau is about 4,500 years old. But that number is just that – a belief, a theory, not a fact. As Robert Bauval says in “The Age of the Sphinx,” “there was no inscriptions – not a single one – either carved on a wall or a stela or written on the throngs of papyri” that associates the Sphinx with this time period. So when was it built? John Anthony West challenged the accepted age of the monument when he noted the vertical weathering on its base, which could only have been caused by long exposure to water in the form of heavy rains. In the middle of the desert? Where did the water come from? It so happens that this area of the world experienced such rains – about 10,500 years ago! This would make the Sphinx more than twice its currently accepted age. Bauval and Graham Hancock have calculated that the Great Pyramid likewise dates back to about 10,500 B.C. – predating the Egyptian civilization. This raises the questions: Who built them and why?
More information:
The Age of the Sphinx
The Mystery of the Sphinx
Redating the Sphinx
3. Nazca Lines
The famous Nazca lines can be found in a desert about 200 miles south of Lima, Peru. On a plain measuring approximately 37 miles long and one mile wide are etched lines and figures that have puzzled the scientific world since their discovery in the 1930s. The lines run perfectly straight, some parallel to one another, many intersecting, making the lines look from the air like ancient airport runways. This prompted Erich von Daniken in his book Chariots of the Gods to suggest (ludicrously, we think) that they actually were runways for extraterrestrial craft… as if they would need runways. More intriguing are the gigantic figures of 70-some animals carved into the ground – a monkey, a spider, a hummingbird among others. The puzzle is that these lines and figures are of such a scale that they can only be recognized from a high altitude. (They were rediscovered by accident in the 1930s by an overflying airplane.) So what is their significance? Some believe they have an astronomical purpose, while others think they served in religious ceremonies. A recent theory suggests the lines lead to sources of precious water. The truth is, no one really knows.
4. Location of Atlantis
There are as many theories as to the true location of Atlantis as there are SPAM in your e-mail box. We get the legend of Atlantis from Plato who wrote about the beautiful, technologically advanced continent-sized island back in 370 B.C., but his description of its location was limited and vague. Many, of course, conclude that Atlantis never really existed, but was merely a fable. Those who think it did exist have sought evidence or at least clues in almost every corner of the globe. Edgar Cayce’s famous prophecies said remnants of Atlantis would be found around Bermuda, and in 1969, geometric stone formations were found near Bimini that believers said confirmed Cayce’s prediction. Other proposed locations for Atlantis include Antarctica, Mexico, off the coast of England, possibly even off the coast of Cuba (see below). Writer Alan Alford makes the case that Atlantis was not an island at all, but an exploded planet. The controversy and theories will likely continue until someone uncovers a sign saying: “Atlantis, pop. 58,234.”
More information:
Atlantis: Where is the Lost Continent?
Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found
5. Mayan Calendar
There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the supposed prophecies of the Mayan calendar. More people fear it, perhaps, than feared the ominous predicted catastrophes of the year 2000. All the fretting is based on the finding that the Mayan “Long Count” calendar ends on a date that corresponds to our December 21, 2012. What does this mean? The end of the world through some global cataclysm or war? The beginning of a new era, a new Age for mankind? Such prophecies have a long tradition of not coming to pass. But the only way we’ll find out for sure is to wait and see. Just in case, however, in 2012 you might want to do your Christmas shopping early.
More information:
Mayan Calendar Prophecy
6. Japan’s Underwater Ruins
Off the southern shore of Okinawa, Japan, under 20 to 100 feet of water lie enigmatic structures that may have been built by some ancient, lost civilization. Skeptics say the large, tiered formations are probably natural in origin. “Then, in late summer of the following year,” writes Frank Joseph in an article for Atlantis Rising, “another diver in Okinawa waters was shocked to see a massive arch or gateway of huge stone blocks beautifully fitted together in the manner of prehistoric masonry found among the Inca cities on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, in the Andes Mountains of South America.” This seems to confirm that these are manmade ruins. The architecture includes what appear to be paved streets and crossroads, large altar-like formations, staircases leading to broad plazas and processional ways surmounted by pairs of towering features resembling pylons. If it is a sunken city, it is huge. It’s been suggested that it might be the lost civilization of Mu or Lemuria (see below).
7. Voyages to the Americas
We were all taught that Columbus discovered America; what they meant to teach us, however, was that Columbus began the official European invasion of the Americas. People had “discovered” the continent long before Columbus, of course. What are known as Native Americans arrived here many centuries before Columbus, and there is good evidence that explorers from other civilizations beat Columbus here, too. It is widely accepted that Leif Ericsson successfully sailed to North America in the year 1000. Far stranger, artifacts have been found suggesting that ancient cultures explored the continent. Greek and Roman coins and pottery have been found in the U.S. and Mexico; Egyptian statues of Osis and Isiris were found in Mexico, to say nothing of the Grand Canyon discovery, see above; ancient Hebrew and Asian artifacts have also been found. The truth is, we know very little about early, far-traveling cultures.
More information:
History Mystery: Ancients in America
8. Sunken City off Cuba
In May 2001, an exciting discovery was made by Advanced Digital Communications (ADC), a Canadian company that was mapping the ocean bottom of Cuba’s territorial waters. Sonar readings revealed something unexpected and quite amazing 2,200 feet down: stones laid out in a geometric pattern that looked very much like the ruins of a city. “What we have here is a mystery,” said Paul Weinzweig, of ADC. “Nature couldn’t have built anything so symmetrical. This isn’t natural, but we don’t know what it is.” A great sunken city? It must be Atlantis, was the immediate suggestion of many enthusiasts. National Geographic showed a great deal of interest in the site and was involved in subsequent investigations. In 2003, a minisub dove down to explore the structures. Paulina Zelitsky of ADC said they saw a structure that “looks like it could have been a large urban center. However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence.” Further explorations are forthcoming.
More information:
Sunken City Off Cuba
9. Mu or Lemuria
Nearly as famous as Atlantis is the legendary lost world of Mu, sometimes call Lemuria. According to tradition among many Pacific islands, Mu was an Eden-like tropical paradise located somewhere in the Pacific that sunk, along with all of its beautiful inhabitants, thousands of years ago. Like Atlantis, there is ongoing debate as to whether it really existed and, if so, where. Madame Elena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophy movement in the 1800s, believed it was in the Indian Ocean. The ancient residents of Mu have become a favorite of channelers who bring their enlightened messages to present times.
More information:
Lemuria
10. Caribbean Underwater Pyramids
One of the most intriguing tales of the discovery of ruins of a lost civilization is the story of Dr. Ray Brown. In 1970, while diving near the Bari Islands in the Bahamas, Dr. Brown claimed to have come across a pyramid “shining like a mirror” that he estimated was 120 feet tall, although he could see only the top 90 feet. The pyramid had a colored capstone and was surrounded by the ruins of other buildings. Swimming into a chamber he found a crystal held by two metallic hands. Over the crystal hung a brass rod from the center of the ceiling, at the end of which was a red multifaceted gem of some kind. Brown said he took the crystal, which allegedly has strange, mystical powers.
Brown’s story sounds fictitious – it’s just too spectacular. But it excites the imagination and wonder about all the mysteries that could be down there – lost worlds awaiting rediscovery.
Comments Off on The 10 Most Intriguing Mysteries of Lost Civilizations
1972 Watergate Burglary and Iraq Weapons Purchases during the 1980s
February 24th, 2014
By The Office of the Inspector General.
To read full report: 1972 Watergate Burglary and Iraq Weapons Purchases during the 1980s
Comments Off on 1972 Watergate Burglary and Iraq Weapons Purchases during the 1980s
Were the skeptics correct? Is economic crisis due to the Euro’s Adoption?
February 22nd, 2014
(Edited by Dave Kaiser – Questions by Jaime Ortega)
Before the Euro became European countries official currency of choice, skeptics, including nationalists, independents and provincials, speculated about the long-term effect of such a dramatic decision. They feared the wide-spread adoption of the Euro would deteriorate the economies of countries that accepted this currency and empower larger countries, like France and Germany, to easily manipulate the Euro’s puppet strings.
In the early 90’s, economic skeptics concluded the Euro was a failed copy, plagiarized from the US state system. A few skeptics suggested the Euro had a built-in weakness because it is not the same as “trading from state to state in an already unified country, than country to country with a unified economy.”
Skeptics pointed out that basing an international currency like the Euro on a national currency like the dollar, would result in major international economic problems. They suggested the Euro would weaken, not strengthen the European economy. They argued that huge cultural difference separate trade between European countries like Portugal and Germany, compared to trade between US states, like Arizona and Virginia.
During the Euro’s golden years in the early 2000’s, skeptics were silenced by the progressive growth of the Euro, which easily rivaled the dollar in value.
Today, six years into the global recession it appears there was some truth in those skeptics hesitation, as the Euro has dramatically weakened. To short-cut the failure of the Euro, the IMF and the ECB, has bailed-out many businesses and countries in the union to restore confidence in the Euro and the market.
It seems like the anti-Euro skeptics’ prophecies have come true. German Chancellor Merkel, who was unwilling to bail out Greece, despite their participation in the union, showed that France and Germany are now the two heads of European economic hydra.
This turnaround raises four key questions:
1) Should countries with weaker economies like Spain, Portugal and even Ireland, have remained with their old currency instead joining the Euro?
2) If these countries had remained with their old currency, would they have been less affected by the global financial recession?
3) Are France and Germany the true decision-makers in Europe?
4) Would Europe be in better financial condition today without the Euro?
While these four questions are useful conjecture, a more important question is whether or not, due to the current economic problems being encountered by the EEU, is there a way to reverse the decision to implement the Euro, and what would be the long-term results of such a move?”
Pierre-Antoine Klethi.
European citizen and federalist. Graduated from Sciences-Po Paris (Law department) and Sciences-Po Strasbourg (Public Administration). LL.M candidate in European Law at King’s College London.
“Assessing the adequacy of Eurozone membership requires, first of all, recalling the benefits of the Euro for its users:
– Price stability. Inflation in the Eurozone has been around 2-2.5% for most of the time since its creation. This was a positive change in some Southern European countries where the central bank’s commitment to limit inflation lacked credibility. Let us remember that inflation does not create real wealth!
– Protection against currency speculation. Until the 1990s, many European countries (including France and the UK) had to devaluate every now and then their currency to maintain some competitiveness compared to Germany.
– Protection against price volatility affecting oil and some other commodities. This advantage was particularly visible before the beginning of the financial and economic crisis, when the oil price and the price of some other important food commodities reached unprecedented peaks. A strong Euro mitigated the impact of the volatility of dollar-denominated price.
– A size effect. Prices can be compared across the whole Eurozone, allowing companies to choose the most price-competitive suppliers. Moreover, a huge monetary zone facilitates trade, financial and touristic flows between its members.
– Last but not least, the Euro is a political symbol marking a new step in an ever closer European integration (NB: an ever closer integration does not mean that everything is to be decided at central European level). Moreover, the Euro also continues to symbolise prosperity for a number of citizens in the poorer Member States in Central and Eastern Europe.
That being said, the Eurozone also has weaknesses due to the fact that it is not an optimal currency area.
The 5 main criteria defining the optimality are: labour mobility across the area; openness (free capital mobility, flexible wages and prices); similar economic cycles for all members; a redistribution mechanism to support the members adversely affected by the creation of the area; and similar/common political goals.
The Eurozone economies have a high degree of openness (though flexibility of wages is lacking in many Member States). Moreover, their economies are sufficiently linked to claim that they have similar economic cycles (or, at least, they had them before the beginning of the sovereign debt crisis; in the current situation, this assumption is challengeable). And it is also acceptable to say that Eurozone Member States have, to a certain extent, similar political goals based on common values and the European “Welfare State.”
However, the Eurozone still needs to significantly progress in matters of labour mobility (far too few European workers are active in another country) and in the setting up of a solidarity (redistribution) scheme, which is slowly underway.
The above-mentioned weaknesses in the Eurozone design have had some problematic consequences for Member States with economic structural weaknesses.
So, devaluation is not anymore possible to artificially regain competitiveness compared to countries like Germany. The consequence is that price-competitiveness can only be regained by making adjustments in the real economy, e.g., by cutting wages. Of course, these countries should also think about developing the quality and innovation of their products and services. Indeed, price is not the only factor of competitiveness!
Moreover, these Member States may try to delay hard choices with fiscal interventionism, thereby creating and deepening fiscal imbalances with the risk to eventually end up in a sovereign debt crisis like that experimented by the Eurozone.
So, would these Member States be better off outside the Eurozone, respectively should they never have become member of it? My answer is no.
First, while it is true that they could proceed to adjustments through devaluation and inflation rather than wage cuts, let us note that both methods have exactly the same effect on the spending power: a reduction in real wages.
Secondly, the positive effect on the balance of trade should not be taken for granted. Indeed, exports become more price-competitive, so that their amount shall increase, but as they are sold at a lower price, there is no guarantee that the total value of exports will rise. Furthermore, imports get costlier (leading to inflation) and shall thus decrease, but only within a certain limit since some imports (in particular, oil and some food commodities) are unavoidable, regardless of the price level. So, a positive general effect on the balance of trade is far from certain.
Thirdly, many weaker European economies would have suffered far more during the financial and economic crisis, had they not benefited from the credibility of the ECB and the solidity of the EU and the Euro.
As a closing remark, it may be worth remembering that monetary and fiscal policies have different purposes and origins, and consist in diverse instruments. The Euro is not responsible for tax cheating, housing bubbles (the ECB rates were not as low as those of the Fed), a disproportionate development of the financial sector in some financial centres, or a reckless fiscal policy. Of course, the Eurozone’s functioning can and must be perfected, but the Euro only created a constraining framework which makes structural weaknesses more visible, it did not create them!”
Claude Nougat.
She has 25 years experience in United Nations (project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)
“1. Would Spain and Greece and Portugal have been better off without the Euro? Probably yes, but not much: the idea that if you can control your own currency and devaluate so that your exports sell has some merit, but one should remember that the maneuver is short-term, and has its counterpoint: with a devalued currency, your citizen can’t buy abroad the way they did before, and some pain due to purchasing power contraction is inevitable. Also, those 3 economies, even taken together, cannot counterbalance trends in the bigger EU economies, Germany, France, Italy, and therefore what happens in those 3 countries is what determines the health of the Euro area. And please remember that for Spain, Portugal and Greece, it is the Euro area that is their biggest export market.
2. France and Germany, because of their economic size, are the true decision-makers in the Euro area. But Italy and the original founding members of the EU (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg) still pull more than their economic weight in the Union and their opinions should not be under-rated.
Italy is still largely pro-European, the real worry is the Netherlands that has suddenly and inexplicably turned anti-European, though I expect that is a backlash to the liberal stance the Netherlands had taken in the international community over the past decades, placing it historically in a unique and generous position that it obviously no longer wishes to defend (the Netherlands was open to immigration, it no longer is; and that has had repercussions, I believe, on the Netherland’s European policies as well)
3. Europe would likely NOT be in a better finanancial condition today without the Euro; this is a super-complex question that would require an essay to respond to. I say “likely not”. It can’t be proved. At this general level of analysis, one can only argue intuitively: since the crisis was caused by a financial breakdown of “Wall Street” (the term should be understood in its broadest meaning, covering the whole of the financial world), belonging or not to the Euro makes no difference.
4. There is NO way to reverse the adoption of the Euro and going back to national currencies without creating a much larger crisis than the one we have experienced since 2008. Such a move would effectively paralyze the banking system and make it crash. It would make the sovereign debt crisis of governments like Greece’s look like a Sunday ride.
Those countries leaving the Euro would find themselves totally unable to finance themselves. Which means good-bye to pension systems and health and other social safety network systems, like funds for the unemployed etc. The social mayhem this would cause is unimaginable. Do you want to try? Then explain to the unemployed why there are no longer getting any compensatory payments, to retirees why their pensions have vanished, to the sick and dying why the hospitals have closed down, to those trying to get to work why the bus and subway systems have stopped functioning etc etc. Have fun!
Steven Hansen.
Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect. He consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations.
“As a pragmatist, I always start by looking at where we are – not rethinking the whole issue of the Euro. It involved integration of several economic cultures. However, a disciplined economic approach (Austrian school) like Germany is incompatible with the loose economic (and less disciplined) southern Europe.
Because of the mounting sovereign debt and money flows (southern Europe is net importers and north Europe are net exporters), at this point the Euro is destroying the southern economies (who have weak economies and cannot make adjustments necessary to monetary policy).
This may be the time to break the Euro into at least two separate currencies – and let them float against each other. The debts of each country will be re-denominated into the new currency. The Euro should be broken down into as many currency units as necessary to match the nature of each country.
It would be good if a common market has a common currency – but a currency has more functionality than simply payments for imports and exports. A country cannot control its economy unless it can control monetary policy. No country in the Eurozone can control its own monetary policy.
But Europe is incapable of making hard decisions – and this decision will have a lot of negative effects for northern Europe. The southern currency will devalue against the north. The beneficiary of this action will be the south at the beginning – but once the economies of the south strengthen – in the long term it will benefit all.
But the complexity in breaking the Euro into pieces (or even going back to each country having their own currency) maybe beyond the ability of all the Kings horses and all the king’s men. Any change of the Euro will have significant consequences – and there will be winners and losers. I cannot imagine Germany allowing themselves to be a loser – and the stronger Euro members must lose so the southern Euro states can win.
David J. Merkel.
CFA is Principal of the equity and bond asset management firm Aleph Investments, LLC, and writes The Aleph Blog. Previously, he was the Director of Research for Finacorp Securities.
“The Euro is a political construct. It was not a wise move economically to establish it. It threw peripheral Europe into a boom then a bust. This was necessary to realign the varying European economies into one economy. Was it worth it? Across the Eurozone, you would get different answers, but the powers that be felt that an “ever closer union” was the main goal, even if there would be a lot of hardship.
I think Europe would have been better off without the Euro. Things may be getting better now in the Eurozone, but things would have been better still without the Euro. The cultures of nations in the Eurozone are different, and without cultural unification, governmental and economic unification will still prove difficult.
The jury is out on the Euro. It will be resolved when overly indebted countries delever. I don’t see that anytime soon. (Add in the entitlement crises…)
Mike Guillaume.
He is the co-founder and manager of e.com-ReportWatch and Author of “The Seven Deadly Sins of Capitalism” (www.mikeconomics.net)
“Were the skeptics correct? Is economic crisis due to the Euro’s Adoption?
Much ink has been spilled over the euro and Eurozone troubles. First of all, it is fair to say that before and at the time of its inception skepticism about the new currency prevailed only in the U.S. and among a small number of political circles and economists in the E.U. (European Union), mainly from the fringes of the ultra-right and leftists. Personally, having studied the previous stages of the planned European monetary union (EMU) carefully, I was cautiously optimistic, yet a bit skeptical about a union based on a currency without unified economic, budgetary and fiscal policies. The euro crisis and the totally undemocratic practice of E.U. institutions have turned me into a Euroskeptic. As put in your introductory text, during the euro’s golden years in the early 2000s, skeptics were silenced by the progressive growth of the Euro, which easily rivaled the dollar in value.
To cut it short, and after the EMS, ECU and EMU phases –which, as many in Brussels seem to have forgotten did not prove very successful– the push for a single currency mostly (yet not only) came from French politicians and technocrats. These were both inspired by a desire for further economic union and by a fear of German reunification. Introduced in 1999 in a non-material form, it was launched as a real currency in 2002. That was about building up a monetary union through a currency but without the other components of a real union (i.e. budget, fiscal and economic policies). “A money too far,” as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times.
Eighteen months later, he added: “the European elite, in its arrogance, locked the continent into a monetary system that recreated the rigidities of the gold standard, and –like the gold standard in the 1930s– has turned into a deadly trap.”[1] Transmitted until now via member sStates –mainly through the Franco-German couple, as it is known in the E.U. –Eurocracy’s hubris is now working on its own. Between the two rounds of the 2012 French presidential campaign, the Euro Group’s president said it would be “a dream” to deeply modify the treaty proposed a few months before. Such interferences in member States’ politics were hardly imaginable ten or twenty years ago. The French economists André Orléan and Michel Aglietta once co-wrote a book titled “La Violence de la monnaie”. Though this could be correctly translated as “Violence of Money,” the Eurozone version of the book title would certainly go today as “The violence of a currency” or a shock therapy “à l’Européenne” (the European way).
If Greece –but we might as well take the other “PIIGS”, i.e. Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy as other examples– is not a case study for a shock capitalist therapy in disguise (really?), what is it then? Admittedly, Greek politics and economics stand as bad examples of profligacy and number-fudging; “Rhenish capitalism” is not comparable to tough Friedman-style monetarist economics; the Greek government was democratically elected (um, this is less sure); the political objectives are different (but what are they, really?); etc. Still… Early in 2012, Greece’s GDP was down by 13 percent compared to 2008. By comparison, Britain’s GDP never fell more than 10 percent during the Great Depression in the 1930s. More than a half of the decrease may be attributed to the last years’ Eurozone crisis. In 2014, it will be back to the GDP level before the country joined the euro, meaning that all supposed growth benefits of the adoption of the currency have been written off in a decade.
Adjusting the current-account deficit by spending less would require an additional 25 percent fall in GDP. Adjusting by raising exports would mean a 50 percent% increase of these. With a manufacturing export sector making up 7 percent of economic output and without devaluation (made impossible within the euro), the task is herculean. The E.U.’s cutback dogmatism is far from enabling even a small part of this hypothetical recovery track. In Great Recession style, the average worker’s pay decreased by 25 percent in the year 2011. 100,000 small businesses have gone bust these last two years, while the youth unemployment rate jumped from 25 percent to almost 50 percent.
As a condition to the second bailout package, international creditors and the “Troika” (a name much reminiscent of Soviet style) demanded a 22 percent (twenty-two!) cut in the minimum wage. In many areas, living conditions have become unbearable. “And the ‘rescue’ money often goes to bond investors rather than widows and orphans,” wrote BBC News economics editor Stephanie Flanders less than three weeks before knowing about another longer-term refinancing operation (LTRO) provided by the ECB to 800 European banks for an amount four times bigger than the second Greek bailout. To add insult to injury “the eurozone wants to impose its choice of government on Greece – the eurozone’s first colony,” added Financial Times commentator Wolfgang Münchau. The Greek colonels are long gone, but the results and realities are in Chile or Argentina generals’ policy style.[2]
This raises one of the big questions of our times: will the E.U. elites achieve through peace but at all cost the united Europe that Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoléon, and Hitler before them were not able to achieve by war? That would come at a high social price, and could even backfire in a populist and nationalist backlash.
The oddest thing is that, after four years of –sometimes harsh– austerity policies conducted in a context of global recession (bar the emerging markets) imposed on “weak” economies by Germany, whose leadership is now more undisputed than ever, the euro as a currency remains overvalued in comparison with the dollar and other currencies.
An answer to the four questions raised in your introduction.
1) Should countries with weaker economies like Spain, Portugal and even Ireland, have remained with their old currency instead joining the euro?
The answer is a straight yes. Greece would not have been much helped due to its industrial fabric (or the lack of), but economies like Ireland –yet hampered by the folly of its banks– and even more Spain or Italy (and even France) would have fared much more easily with a full control of their monetary policy. The new currency has helped Germany to hollow out large parts of E.U. developed economies. Thanks to a euro quite cheaper than the former deutsche mark, the powerful German export machine has beaten all value and volume records these last years. To take but one example, more than 60 percent of automobiles and trucks are now made in Germany.
2) If these countries had remained with their old currency, would they have been less affected by the global financial recession?
The answer is not as obvious here yet it is fair to say that both exports and reasonable deficit-spending policies would have helped.
3) Are France and Germany the true decision-makers in Europe?
Despite deceptive appearances, what the euro crisis has brought is the defeat of France as a co-leader. Though a “reluctant hegemon” as The Economist named it[3], Germany leads the way and France is now forced to follow. So much that the newly elected socialist president has had to shift to a more supply-side and austerity-driven policy, breaking his campaign promises.
4) Would Europe be in better financial condition today without the euro?
On the whole, the answer is probably yes here too. The German exporters and economy are almost the sole winners of the euro. Except a bit in northern and western areas, economies have slowed down, austerity policies are based on the low deficit-low debt German model and lead to deeper recession, unemployment (especially youth) is higher than it has ever been.
Moving forward with the euro is very risky, while getting backward would be very expensive. Another typical example of dilemmas E.U. politicians seem to be fond of.”
C. Bonjukian Patten.
Founder and consultant at Bonju Business Solutions LLC.
“I believe that the EU was a mistake especially since there are countries that are not being allowed to participate equally the way other countries are. For instance, and I’m not a big fan of Turkey, but they are not full fledged members of the EU because they refuse to denouce what their government did back in 1915 to 1921 with regards to the genocide of the Armenian people residing in the Armenian occupied lands.
Because France is a leader along with Germany of the EU and France has gone out of its way to accomodate and adopt many Armenians fleeing from Turkey during that time, my maternal grandmother being one of them, they think they can ostricize Turkey because of their alliance with Armenians living in France. While I understand France and its motivation; I disagree with the method.
One country cannot decide that another country is unworthy of being part of a system of government that the rest of Europe is particiapating within.It’s unfair and it flies in the face of what they are trying to achieve which, I believe, is ONE GOVERNMENT MIND encompassing all of Europe; and I think this is insanely stupid on their parts to attempt this endeavor.
The United States was a test country and it’s been around 230 something years and it’s an amazing failure as far as I can see. It’s failures are many and piling up fast, cultures are clashing and continue to clash, racism of color, culture and religion are causing friction in every town, city and state in the union. People cannot live together in peace and harmony and if they can some unpolluted drug is involved in their harmony. The USA was a test that failed utterly and completely and we are still picking up its pieces and it’s shattered beyond repair in my opinon.
The reason we have different countries is obvious; culture, religion, race and all of that comes into play and people are comfortable with what they know. To merge countries into one government – one world order if you will – is ridiculous. Instead of enjoying what other countries offer – enjoy the differences that make us appreciate and respect each other.
From what I gather from my friends in the UK – the EU and the EURO is a big big big mistake. They hate, they complain daily, they don’t want much to do with it. Each of those countries had their own currency and they knew how to work within those parameters.
The EU should disband especially since France and Germany, two countries who should thank the universe for surviving the last century, are in charge? Really? France needed America and UK to bail them out of two World Wars and Germany stormed their borders and occupied their country for several years. It’s amazing that France would be seated next to them at any table. I find it laughable in fact. Germany should be kissing the ground that they weren’t exterminated in the last century.
So for me I can only go by what I heard. EU is bad – get rid of it. Euro stinks – we don’t want it. It doesn’t help anyone. And, really, the idea of a “one world” is not appealing to me. We have enough problems with just our own country.”
Nancy Rubin Stuart.
She is an award-winning author and journalist. She contributed to The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and other publications.
“1. The euro was a bad idea for all of the member countries.
Management of a country’s foreign exchange cannot be divorced from management of its economy. The euro puts member countries in this very bind because the euro is managed centrally for all members while each country is free to manage its own economy.
The southern European countries, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, have badly managed their economies with the result that they have accumulated huge national debts, which are owed to lenders in other countries and are principally repayable in Euro’s and dollars.
When countries have their own currency that currency will lose value relative to other currencies. When this happens the debts to foreign lenders are paid back in the country’s own devalued currency.
A Euro Zone member must pay its debts back in euros which is valued relative to the economic performance for the zone as a whole, not its own economic performance.
In order to preserve the value of the euro the northern European countries have had to bail out the southern countries by guaranteeing their debts which they are doing only on the condition that the latter are inflicting huge economic damage on themselves.
2. The southern European countries would have been less affected by the global financial recession because they would have had the safety valve of deflating their currencies and would not have had to rely on the help of the northern European countries who exacted a very high and unwise price to bail them out.
3. Germany is the true decision-maker in the Euro Zone.
France, itself, has had its own financial problems, although not as severe as the southern European countries, and, while it has not had to rely on Germany’s help, is in the position of facing this as a prospect.
4. Europe would be in better financial condition today with the euro.
The southern European countries would not have had to face Germany’s conditions for help, which have had devastating effects on their economies.
Germany would not be in a situation of having to use its resources and strong economy to help the southern European countries.
There would be huge costs in terms of economic dislocations to reverse the implementation of the euro. But, this may be necessary at some point going forward because the separation of managing a currency and managing an economy is not viable. The one-time cost of reversing the euro may be less than an ongoing crisis every time there is an economic downturn over which an individual country’s ability to act in its own best interest is restricted.”
Jaime Ortega Simo.
President, founder and writer for The Daily Journalist
“A few years before the Euro was officially introduced in Spain’s economy (1999), the Spanish orange and grape export companies received high tariffs in the borders with Andorra, and France. To bypass the law without paying high tariffs, the French border patrol started to accept incentives from Spanish truckers, whom found a successful method to avoid paying the costly legal tolls the French government imposed on trade.
On the other hand, the French nearly did not export as much agricultural products to Spain, so French exports to Spain were not as affected by expensive tariffs. That was until, the truckers from France took matters into their own hands and started an internal war, by sabotaging and burning Spanish products in the French border because of competition.
But French authorities did nothing to stop the increasing rampage. So the Spanish government realized that corruption in the border with France, needed to be stopped, but were powerless to do anything that would solve the problem because France is the highway of the EU for Spanish exports and the EU Committee on International Trade (INTA) was not yet well established to set any regulations. France could paralyze Portuguese and Spanish products into channeling into Europe. That was the start of French and German hegemony over southern European countries, and it was because of their strategical location, connecting basic routes of trade.
Spain came up with sanctions assigned by the Department of Spanish Commerce and Trade to counter the French dilemma, but it was overall insignificant for most French exporters. The Spanish truckers retaliated and also burned and torched French products on Spanish borders.
In fact, it was so bad at one point that truckers from either side, were boycotting and even destroying 20% of export products before these entered either country.
It became an important issue and the former President Jose Maria Aznar met with the then president Jacques Chirac to come up with a solution to this emerging crisis, which affected thousands of truckers and the economy. With or without a Unified Europe Aznar and Chirac, later down the road, had huge political discrepancies as Aznar became a pro-capitalist that connected with George W. Bush’s foreign policies. Something that most Europeans disliked.
The point is that the adoption of the Euro in most Mediterranean and southern European countries, only became popular among the labor class because it allowed somewhat free trade to export agricultural products to other parts of Europe without paying high tariffs.
In complicated cultural landmarks like Spain, a big percentage of middle class people, did not want to unify with Europe because they knew it would diminish their political struggle to fight for pro-regional independent autonomies.
If Europe was unified, it would fracture the cultural bonds many provinces share. Which meant, not only fighting against Spain’s sovereignty, but now against a unified Europe which was “NOT” interested in regional independentist.
Also “Free trade” on a unified EU, meant that transnational corporations from countries like Germany could install commerce’s in Spanish lands bypassing national interest, over “European” interest. Which was impart responsible for the present 40% unemployment rate Spain has suffered for the past few years.
Of course the winners, were the Spanish banks! Banco Santander and BBVA, really benefited from the Euro and continue to this day.
It was the political class and the elites that envisioned a Europe without borders. But the dilemma they encountered was, that If a country like Spain had not been politically unified as a nation since the end of the 17th Century, how can it then be expected to unify now as part of the European Union? It was just unrealistic.
You cannot unify Europe, too many complex variables are involved. Interestingly, Spain’s best shape was not under Aznar or Zapatero, it was under dictator Francisco Franco. He actually did not unify Spanish politics, but forced martial law under one Spanish constitution.
“The success of the stabilization program was attributable to a combination of good luck and good management and the impressive development during this period was referred to as the “Spanish miracle“. Between 1959 and 1974, Spain had the next fastest economic growth rate after Japan. The boom came to an end with the oil shocks of the 1970s and government instability during the transition back to democracy after Franco’s death in 1975.”
We should had never joined the Euro and kept the devalued Peseta. Spain proved already in the past that it can grow financially without Europe’s consent and without any funding from the IMF…And same could be said about other Mediterranean countries.”
Comments Off on Were the skeptics correct? Is economic crisis due to the Euro’s Adoption?
CEO Hookah Lounge the best in Las Vegas
February 22nd, 2014
CEO Hookah Lounge the best in Las Vegas.
CEO Hookah Lounge is one of the best hookah Lounges in the South West. The Lounge not only offers a great variety of hookah blends, but an up-scale ultra lounge, with the most highly-dressed ,along with Ethiopian and Mediterranean food. CEO Hookah Lounge has a full Bar with a variety of drink’s, relaxing lounges in front of various flat screen TVs, and many other fun filled events. For those who enjoy smoking hookah, its a must go place in Las Vegas.
This is what a few locals had to say about CEO Hookah Lounge.
Michael Kernish 24, studies at Lee School of Business UNLV,
“I like CEO Hookah because It’s a chill place and eat some great Mediterranean Food.”
Abel Habesha 27, works at JP Morgan Investment,
” I arrived from Addis Ababa, and I went to CEO Hookah with my friends around midnight to see what the place was all about […] It was definitely a fun place to go, we danced hip hop music and the prices were relatively cheap for other places in Vegas.
Melissa Arben 32, works at Palms Casino,
” When I saw the word CEO, and Hookah I was a little curious about the lounge.”
“My friends after work wanted to go out, so I mentioned CEO Hookah, and we decided to go there.The bar was great and the service was good.”
Location
CEO Hookah is located on 5900 W Flamingo rd. Las Vegas NV. If you enjoy Las Vegas Blvd has to offer, CEO Hookah Lounge is a straight shot when you hit Flamingo from the strip. 7 Minute drive. You can give them a call (702) 778-7755
Ambient
The Lounge is set up to be spacious, and has a squared shape. Its well decorated and the seats and booths are very comfortable. The music just alike their hookah flavors can be a mix of Ethiopian, Mediterranean and Hip-Hop.
The floors are always very clean, and the bar and the kitchen are in impeccable conditions. CEO Hookah also offers a very good blend of different backgrounds from different cultures, which is why many enjoy the lounges diversity.
The temperature room is well moderated and its not like other place where the temperature can interact with your relaxation.
If you’re not a smoker and only up for the drinks, the location is perfect because unlike other Hookah Lounges, CEO Hookah does not produce that ‘dizziness’ many non smokers complain after they have been exposed to several hours of smoke.
The lighting of the restaurant is excellent, and when dancing goes around, you will be tempted to dance. If you’re a single man searching for single ladies, CEO Hookah might be a good option for you. By the way, make sure you dress up nice and stylish.
One of the great add-on’s that great hookah bars have now days, is the addition of flat screen TV’s. CEO Hookah lounge incorporates flat screens to make your stay feel more comfortable.
Service
We heard a few complains about their service, but the people mostly complaining were severely drunk and trying to flirt with the good looking waiters.
The service is great otherwise, and they replace the ‘coals’ often to make sure you’re enjoying your stance while you roam the lounge. The bar tender is also very friendly and makes excellent hard licor shots.
If you like to take out a lady just for the shots, CEO Hookah Lounge might be the best option and for an affordable price. The chef preparing the food is excellent in bringing about the best Mediterranean and Ethiopian food.
Prices
The Hookahs are very affordable considering how nice the lounge is decorated. Most hookah lounges in Las Vegas can be outside of pocket reach for most locals, and the flavor and the hookah’s are normally not that great and taste cheap for the high price you pay. The hookahs at CEO Lounge are great and the flavors don’t taste like ‘you’re about to burn your throat’.
The alcoholic drinks are good as well as affordable, and the food prices for the most part are very tasty and have Mediterranean quality. There is no fee, to get inside CEO Hookah Lounge so you don’t have to worry about cover expenses. We do recommend people to park their cars before 10PM when it starts to get busy.
The Daily Journalist Top “3” dishes at CEO Hookah Lounge
KITFFO $9.99
BOZENA SHIRO $9.99
GODIN TIBS $10.99
Comments Off on CEO Hookah Lounge the best in Las Vegas
Shalimar the best Pakistani restaurant in Las Vegas
February 21st, 2014
Best Pakistani restaurant in Las Vegas.
Quotes
Muhammad Al-kazi 28, Engineer at UNLV,
“I went there 3 months ago, and I really enjoyed their Chicken Tikka Masala with some Garlic Naan and it was very good.”
“Its a very chilled ambient with great food and after class it was exactly what I needed.”
Robert Henrick 54, accountant for Wells Fargo,
” I went with my wife to experience Pakistani, food. We previously had gone to Lahore for a business trip and wanted to treat ourselves to a good Pakistani dish.
“We found Shalimar by accident, and decided to give it a shot. I ordered the Sindhi Chicken Biryani and my wife Wilma ordered the Nihari. The food was excellent and the service was great. A young man, possibly the owner made sure our stance was good.”
Anay Mulsavek 32, Russian Translator for Berlitz,
” The food was very good and the prices were something I could afford.”
“I went back there with my Indian friends and I ordered exactly the same thing, my Indian friend ordered for me. Its a good restaurant.”
Shalimar is by far the best Pakistani restaurant in Las Vegas. The taste and flavor of the food bring about the best of Pakistani and Indian cuisine has to offer. It’s considered by many critics to be one of the best Pakistani restaurants in the South West. We found Yelp and Urban Spoon reviews to be extremely poor and innacurate.
Location
The Restaurant is located on 4001 S Decatur Blvd Las Vegas. And it’s close to the strip, if you take W. Flamingo Blvd. The restaurant is between Tropical Smoothie and Fat Greek. Phone number (702) 202-0333.
Ambient
The size of the restaurant is set to accommodate a large amount of people, and is designed spacious for family use. The restaurant is also well conditioned and presents itself very simple and clean. The restaurant presents itself as very sociable and its common to see native Indian and Pakistanis eating in the restaurant they consider to be “The best Pakistani restaurant in las Vegas”. Bathrooms are also clean and spacious. And the restaurant does not have the smell or spread the odor of kitchen that many South East Asian countries normally present.
Service
The service is very friendly unlike other restaurants located in the area. And the servers are polite, and educated. No complains, were filed and the servers maintain a good report with their clientele. Since its a family oriented restaurant, the costumer service is great.
Prices
Shalimar not only has the best prices in Las Vegas for the food and quality its caters, but is also known for a great place to dine with affordable prices that everyone can enjoy. Average princes in Shalimar range from $15-10, but for that same quality people pay between $45-50 in the best Pakistani and Indian restaurants in New York City and Los Angeles.
1) Senior Citizen discounts
2) 10% Student discounts
3) Gift Certificates accepted
The Daily Journalist top ‘5’ favorites dishes
Chicken Jalfrezi
Chicken Karahi
Prawn Tandoori
Nihari
Shahi Paneer
Comments Off on Shalimar the best Pakistani restaurant in Las Vegas