Putin's North Pole Wish: Steal Santa's Oil

On future Christmas morning the stockings you hung by the fire the night before may be filled with Russian delicacies, Vladimir Putin action figures, and Russian oil vouchers. Russia, under Putin’s increasingly authoritarian control, has now declared ownership of the North Pole, and presumably Santa’s beloved workshop, a region long protected by a division of territory among 5 nations. Why would Russia make such a bold claim for an area dominated by ice, frigid temperatures, and flying reindeer? Quite simply, Santa has been sitting on one of the world’s largest undeveloped oil deposits for all these years and Putin wants to take it away from the right jolly old elf. According to the UK Daily Mail, Putin’s arctic motives are all too clear. The area claimed by Russia is:

a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia….Experts estimate the ridge has ten billion tons of gas and oil deposits and significant sources of diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, nickel, lead and platinum.

No wonder Santa has enough funds to produce toys for every child in the world! Burl Ives’s rendition of “Silver and Gold” in the beloved Rudolph animated Christmas special makes much more sense now that we know Santa’s been hoarding untold treasures on his Arctic estate. It also explains why Mrs. Claus is always cheerful and optimistic despite frigid isolation and no local shopping malls or beauty salons for entertainment.

This is not Russia’s first attempt to claim arctic territory (a previous effort failed 5 years ago), but according to British officials Russia is far more serious about the current claim, which is based on alleged geological links and structural similarities between an underwater North Pole ridge and the Siberian continental shelf. Russia claims that the ridge in dispute, the Lomonosov Ridge, is connected to the Siberian continental shelf and is thus an extension of Russian territory.

The distinction is critical, since the geological link argument was carefully crafted to nullify the existing UN convention. As the Daily Mail reported:

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the U.S., Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland) - are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.

A UN convention says none can claim jurisdiction over the Arctic seabed because the geological structure does not match the surrounding continental shelves.

But Russian scientists have returned from a six-week mission on a nuclear ice-breaker to claim that the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure.

The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.

International geologists have roundly rejected Putin’s claim on scientific grounds, pointing out that by extending the same logic Russia employed to conclude that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, similar arguments could be made that Canada should lay claim to Russia because the two are connected by a shared ocean floor plate:

Ted Nield, of the Geological Society in London, branded Russia's claim nonsensical.

"The notion that geological structures can somehow dictate ownership is deeply peculiar," he said.

"Anyway, the Lomonosov Ridge is not part of a continental shelf - it is the point at which two ocean floor plates under the Arctic Ocean are spreading apart.

Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive moves toward nationalizing Russia’s industries, especially gas, oil, and power production under state control, the world should make it clear to Putin that he must contain his lust for the North Pole’s natural resources and halt any ongoing plans to seize the territory that Russia may be formulating. The U.S. State Department and international authorities labeled Russia’s claim surprising and extraordinary, and believe it will go nowhere. The danger lies in what Putin’s reaction will be when the UN rejects, once again, Russia’s claim to the North Pole and its incredible potential revenue stream. Anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe have loudly and illogically insisted that the Iraq War is a war for oil and claim that a war based on oil needs is immoral. Surely the unpopularity of the Iraq War and President Bush’s subsequently low approval ratings are not lost on Putin in his North Pole strategy considerations.

If Americans think a war over oil would be immoral (although we have left all Iraqi oil under Iraqi control), then Putin has likely already concluded that he could seize the disputed North Pole area with no fear of forceful military response by America. It would be, after all, an actual war over oil, and America’s liberals would give Russia anything it wanted to avoid another (in their eyes) war for oil.

President Bush’s personal summit with Putin in Kennebunkport this weekend promises to be tense and likely unproductive. The issues over which Russia and America are at odds are substantial: Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran; the proposed missile defense shield for Eastern Europe; increased state control over industries and the Russian media; and possibly this new claim to the North Pole. Will the UN and U.S. appease Putin’s Arctic lust to avoid armed confrontation? If so, we must ask ourselves which is better, energy dependence on the Middle East, or energy dependence on Russia? Both options should be unpalatable to the American people, yet we are already enslaved by one to an extent, while the other would like nothing more than to enslave us and exercise direct and unquestionable control over our economy through oil manipulation.

If Russia seizes the North Pole in the coming months or years, U.S. reaction must be swift and decisive to push Russia back behind its current borders. Hitler made claims on territory he desired and based those claims on ethnic and cultural similarities of the populations. Europe appeased him and he eagerly devoured what he had truly lusted after; it was not the people or culture he wanted, it was the industry and natural resources he could assimilate to arm, equip, and transport the German military machine on its march to world domination. Putin’s motives for claiming the North Pole are no less diabolic. Instead of culture or ethnicity, he invokes geological links to declare Russia’s “rights” to the North Pole, but like Hitler his true desire is for resources that are essential to securing his power and his nation’s future domination

On January 1, 2007 I published my list of the top 5 threats facing America in 2007. Number one was internal strife in America because of its potential to paralyze us when faced with imminent threats. Number two was Russia. I have seen nothing that would change my initial assessment. Even the threat of a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the threat Russia poses, as Russian technology, equipment, and UN Security Council veto powers have allowed Iran to reach its presently precarious position threatening Israel and America with Nuclear holocaust. The North Pole issue actually combines the top two threats, as our anti-war left will hesitate to act against Russia when Putin's patience with the UN runs out and he seizes the resources he covets.

Putin must not be appeased, lest “gifts from the North Pole” take on an entirely new and ominous meaning each future Christmas season.

Image credit: "North Pole Idol" courtesy of SantasJournal.com

Technorati Tags:Vladimir Putin, Russia, North Pole, Lomonosov Ridge, Oil Deposits, War for Oil, Natural Resources, Territorial Claims, Arctic Circle

Comparing Lists of Top Threats to the U.S.

In today's Fox News People's Weekly Brief, 15 year CIA veteran Mike Baker provided a list of the top threats facing the U.S. as submitted by PWB readers. Although the list contains some "threats" that I certainly do not rate as imminent (such as Global Warming or the Democratic Party), it is instructive to compare this list with the Spy The News! list of the top 5 threats facing the U.S. in 2007.

Mike's PWB readers and Spy The News! readers certainly share a healthy mistrust of Russia, and especially Mr. Putin, who continues his sabre rattling with new threats against Czechoslavakia and Poland if those nations agree to house components of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense system designed to detect and intercept missiles launched from rogue Middle Eastern nations like Iran. PWB readers ranked Russia #7, while Spy the News! had Russia at #2. It is becoming more obvious with each public exchange of Cold War barbs that whatever friendship President Bush developed with Mr. Putin over the years has been replaced with Putin's increasing nostalgia for the time when Russia was taken seriously because of its threats to "bury" any nation foolish enough to oppose it.

The PWB and Spy The News! lists also include, of course, Iran. PWB readers chose Iran as the #1 threat, but I maintain that because there are still options and opportunities for preventing Iran from fully developing a deployable nuclear weapon, the threat from Iran remains, at least for now, a terrorist threat only. Dollar for dollar, Russia is providing more weapons systems, equipment, and replacement parts to terrorist organizations and terror sponsors than any other nation in the world. While it is true that Iran is shipping those weapons into Iraq and other terrorist operational venues, the weapons are being produced in and sold by Russia or other former Soviet states looking to profit from their proxy war with America and its allies.

China, also standing to benefit greatly in world esteem and profit immensely from the decline of America's wealth and power, not surprisingly also made both lists and is a major supplier of technology to North Korea and Iran. This is not to downplay the threats posed by Iran. Clearly Iran is the most imminent threat in the Middle East. But in the long run, who poses a greater risk to America and its allies, the terrorists themselves or the nation-states that arm, equip, and maintain them? We wage war on one, while granting most favored nation trade status to the other.

Some argue that Putin faces his own Islamic terrorist threat in Chechnya and thus is a natural ally in the War on Terror. This view is too simplistic. Under the former Soviet regime, which produced Putin and the iron fist ideology he yearns for, Islamic terrorism was ruthlessly suppressed. Putin is a Cold War product and views the U.S., not Islamic terrorists, as the single obstacle preventing Russia from achieving global dominance. How long will Russians tolerate the loud and arrogant claims that America won the Cold War and that communism was defeated? National pride is a dangerous force that, once unleashed, typically propels a nation toward cataclysmic war. Hitler tapped into just such feelings of wounded pride and anger stemming from defeat in previous wars.

Putin is centralizing businesses and natural resource industries, threatening Poland and Czechoslovakia, and publicly condemns the U.S. far more than any terrorist groups. Only those unwilling to see the signs will fail to recognize that the path Russia is taking bears ominous similarities to Germany in the 1930's. A global recession that forces Russians to beg their government to take further control, and a scapegoat upon which to blame their economic misfortunes, are the sole ingredients needed for Putin (or another like him) to turn a flickering flame of nationalist pride into a raging wildfire. For Hitler, the Jews were the economic and cultural scapegoats. For Russia, the scapegoat will be the Americans and post Cold War "capitalism."

I invite you to compare the two lists and form your own conclusions. Spy The News! maintains that "Internal Strife" poses the single greatest threat we face in 2007, for the reasons detailed in the original post.

Top 5 National Security Threats for 2007

On this first day of 2007, while most of the nation revels in the arrival of a New Year, it seems the perfect moment to examine the most pressing question facing Americans in 2007: Beyond the obvious constant threat from Islamic-fascist terrorism, what are the gravest risks to national security we face in this New Year?

1. Internal Strife – It may seem incongruous for someone in my profession to rate internal conflict a greater risk than WMD-wielding terrorists or aggressive nation-states with publicly avowed hatred for America. Of course these are significant threats to our safety, and they will be addressed below, yet they pose less danger to America’s safety than our own disagreements over what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is not. Internal strife is our greatest threat because it prevents us from dealing effectively with the tangible physical threats we face. If we could unite in purpose we could defeat any nation or ideology bent on our destruction. We cannot agree on whether to wage a War on Terror, let alone how such a war should be waged. We cannot agree on whether it is a good thing to spread democracy or remove dictators who openly refuse to comply with UN WMD inspections. We cannot agree on whether illegal immigration is a security risk or a boon to businesses. We cannot agree on whether it is a good idea to monitor communications between American citizens and known terrorist operatives in other countries.

The chasm between the two major parties grows wider and public trust in government sinks lower. House members and Senators spend far more time raising money and making campaign appearances than they spend on the duties they were elected to perform. Not surprisingly, young Americans are taught to be ashamed of American history and cynical of its government. This is noticeable most vividly in the plots of most Hollywood action thrillers (a topic for a future post). Hollywood’s favorite villain is nearly always a law enforcement officer (local or federal), our own military, a rogue government official, or most commonly a secret cabal within the U.S. Government. It is no wonder that Americans fear their own government more than they fear terrorists. We seem to have lost the American collective agreement that this country, despite its flaws, is worth preserving, defending, and sharing. Anti-Americanism among Americans is the illegitimate offspring of a mistaken belief that America should be more like the rest of the world.

I am reminded of the scene in It's a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey (played brilliantly by Jimmy Stewart), attends a board meeting where the fate of his father’s building and loan business is to be decided. Mr. Potter, the wealthy, ruthless financier and member of the board moves to dissolve the Bailey Building and Loan. Having already taken over most of the town’s financial institutions and important industries, Potter complains that the Bailey business is “frittering away” money on customers unworthy in Potter’s opinion of the opportunities provided by small loans. As George Bailey witnesses Potter’s greed and low opinion of the common people, George stops and makes a profound statement to the other board members prior to their vote to dissolve the Bailey business. George warns the board, “The people of this town need the Building and Loan if only so they have somewhere to go without having to crawl to Potter.” The remark sobers the board and stuns Potter into silence. The board later votes against Potters motion and preserves the Building and Loan. The world is full of Mr. Potters, leaders who hoard wealth and snatch for more power while those around them starve or suffer. The world needs America if only so people will have somewhere to go to avoid having to live under tyranny, oppression, and ideological captivity.

2. Russia - There is a Mr. Potter in Russia, where private companies formed in the initial glow of an expected capitalist democracy are rapidly being centralized and profits redirected under the thumb of an increasingly authoritarian leader. The bread lines of Cold War Russia have returned as the distinctions between organized crime rings and the Russian government blur ominously. Political opponents or those possessing sensitive knowledge of Putin’s actions have been assassinated, or have fled to other nations for asylum only to later be assassinated. In word and deed, Putin, like Hitler in the 1930s, is working to restore national pride after a humiliating defeat (Cold War), reunite lands once part of an empire (Georgia is on Putin’s mind), find someone to blame for national woes (Anti-Americanism is on the rise under Putin), and silence enemies of the state. Like Hitler, Putin sees other heads of state as weak and easily intimidated. While making speeches about Russia’s cooperation in the War on Terror, President Bush is simultaneously developing ulcers over Russian arms sales to Iran and North Korea and lacks the tenacity of a Churchill to confront the man on his duplicity. It must be particularly galling for Putin, given his KGB background, to constantly read in every international publication that the U.S. won the Cold War. We should not make the mistake of believing our own boasting, even from leaders we admire.

The Cold War can never be concluded until one side or the other abandons its ideology, its weaponry, or both. Putin has abandoned neither. Instead, he embraces authoritarianism and is wrapping himself in the old Soviet flag while fanning the flames of Russian nationalism. Soaring oil and arms revenues are not being directed toward building infrastructure or expanding capitalist ventures, or even to increasing food production for the Russian people. Those revenues are fueling a restoration of Russia’s military prowess, and Putin’s job approval rating is 3 times that of Bush because he is appealing to “a resurgence of the Russian national culture.” In the Cold War, we did not defeat communism, we merely outspent it. Russia now holds enormous leverage in the world’s oil markets and has plenty of excess revenue to equip its military. Whether as direct culprit or willing facilitator through arms sales or intelligence sharing, Russia is in my estimation the nation to fear most in 2007.

3. Iran – Why not fear Iran more than our alleged ally, Russia? Quite simply, there is still an opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and will act unilaterally if necessary to prevent it. Iran’s president has openly called for the annihilation of Israel, has threatened Israel with a glowing fiery destruction, and denies the Holocaust ever occurred. He refuses to allow Iran’s nuclear program to be monitored by the IAEA as required by the UN. While the status of Iraq’s WMD program was clouded by questionable intelligence, the locations and progress of Iran’s nuclear development facilities are boasted of openly by Iran itself. The people of Iran, particularly college students and others with more pro-western views need the United States if only to have somewhere to turn without having to crawl to Ahmadinejad for national pride. In this category too, Russia has consistently stated its opposition to any interference by the United States in Iran, making eventual confrontation with both of these nations inevitable.

4. North Korea - There is a Mr. Potter in North Korea, building additional nuclear arms and equipping his burgeoning army while millions starve in drought and famine conditions. UN sanctions will not alter Kim Jon Il’s course or bring his family dynasty to its demise. North Korea has already demonstrated its relationships with state sponsors of terrorism through rocket purchases from Iran and nuclear technology from Pakistan. Russia also continues to provide updated military technology to North Korea, which promises to “mercilessly punish” any nation that interferes with its nuclear program. Kim Jong Il covets his family’s wealth and prestige above all else and will sell any weapon or WMD technology in his possession with no concern over who is purchasing it or what it will be used for. The North Korean people need the United States if only to offer somewhere to turn to end the humanitarian nightmare and the political madness that is Kim Jong Il.

5. Pakistan – President Musharraf is a frequent target of criticism from Americans who feel he could do more to rid Pakistan’s mountainous regions near the Afghanistan border of terrorists in hiding. Many are convinced Bin Laden is located there but Musharraf lacks the courage or desire to oust him. We should not forget that Pakistan, a technologically advanced nuclear power, is one assassination away from falling into political chaos, with a potential for it to emerge from the leadership vacuum under the control of Islamic-fascists. Musharraf has survived double digit assassination attempts, from within his own security forces as well as known Al Qaeda operatives. Pressing him for gradual reform is appropriate, but we should fear what may rise in his place if his enemies eventually succeed in his murder. President Bush is right to maintain close ties with and a close eye of scrutiny on Musharraf and the internal politics of Pakistan.

These five risks to our security, if not dealt with decisively and with unity in 2007, pose grave threats to our very existence. Internal strife, however, should be our most pressing concern, because if we continue on the path of increasing public dispute over what constitutes a terrorist and how terrorists should be dealt with, we will be rendered impotent to defend ourselves or anyone else from tyranny.

Technorati Tags:
War On Terror Al Qaeda national security terrorism Russia Putin Iran Ahmadinejad Pakistan Musharraf North Korea Kim Jong Il Jimmy Stewart IAEA WMD