John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Russia

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

John Mauldin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:55:00 GMT

Today's Outside the Box comes to us from England. My European partner Niels Jensen from time to time sends me some of the best letters he reads from the hedge fund world. He is an excellent filter for me, and this week's Outside the Box offering is no exception. Below is the November commentary from Eclectica fund manager Hugh Hendry. He challenges the current preoccupation with the falling dollar and China, and posits what would happen if that thinking is wrong? It offers some very thought-provoking ideas. You can contact them for more information at info@eclectica-am.com or visit their website: http://www.eclectica-am.com

Your wondering if we are all turning Japanese analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

by Hugh Hendry
Eclectica Fund Manager

"The power to become habituated to his surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind."

John Maynard Keynes
The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1921

This month I will attempt to answer the entrance examination for the Chinese civil service. That is to say, I will attempt to tell you everything that I know. In doing so, I will argue that this year's rally in inflationary assets, from emerging stock markets to industrial commodities to the fall in the US dollar, could be a FAKE. Let me explain why.

But first, I am indebted to Scott Sumner, professor of economics at the University of Bentley, and his essay on the economic lessons that can be drawn from timelessness in art (see http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=2542). It is a theme that I will constantly revisit in my arguments below.

Sumner is able to take us from the Flemish forger, Van Meegeren, and his horrendous reproductions of the Dutch painter, Vermeer, to the notion that every recession seems unique and special to its protagonists. So just how did Van Meegeren fool the Nazis with paintings that today look so awful, so un-Vermeer? Jonathan Lopez, the noted art historian, argues that a FAKE succeeds owing to its power to sway the contemporary mind. Or in other words, the best forgeries tend to pay homage to the tastes and prejudices of their time. The present is so seductive.

However, forget the art world. Controlling the psyche of this generation of investor is the indelible mark of the falling dollar and the associated fear of inflation. Monetary inflation has been the distinguishing feature of the last ten years, and it is now firmly embedded in the contemporary mind. I am sure I need not remind you that gold, along with just about every other commodity, has at least quadrupled in price since 1999. You already know my explanation for why this has happened.

The spectacular rise in the Chinese trade surplus, predominantly with America, to $320bn per annum at its peak in 2007, and the mercantilist desire to prevent currency appreciation drove the Asians and the sheiks to buy Treasuries and print their own currencies. The ability of fractional reserve banking to leverage this liquidity many times over provided the monetary mo-jo to instigate ever higher commodity prices. In other words, quantitative easing, masquerading as a cheap but fixed currency regime, has succeeded where Japan's orthodox version has failed. The QE succeeded because, amongst other features, it raised the velocity of monetary circulation.

However, it was not always like this. As an example, ten years ago it was unthinkable that the dollar would prove so fragile. Recall that back then, when the euro was first launched in 1999, it promptly lost 31% of its value against the greenback. The subsequent reconstruction of modern China, though, intervened. In order to finance the emergence of a new economic superpower, an abundance of dollars was needed. Have no doubt that had we not had the dollar as a reserve currency, the rise of China would not have been as swift nor as decisive.

The Yellow Brick Road

Consider another economy needing to be rebuilt: that of the United States in 1865, the post Civil War era. The rebirth of the American economy was funded from the monetary rectitude of the gold standard, not from the generosity of a foreign and infinitely expandable paper currency. However, all of this occurred before the discovery of cyanide for heap-leaching and the opening up of the huge South African gold fields. In other words, hard money was in tight supply and the recovery was neither swift nor decisive. Indeed, 30 years later, during the presidential election campaign of 1896, Williams Jennings Bryan was still hotly contesting its merits. He railed against the persistent price deflation and argued that the economy was burdened by a "cross of gold" (see The Eclectica Fund Report, December 2005).

Perhaps I Should Stick to the Twenty-First Century?

My previous investment letter attempted to explain the subtleties of the Triffen dilemma and the dollar's pre-eminent role in regenerating modern day economies. Let me repeat once more: lots of dollars were required, and duly delivered, to build modern China. They did not have to wait on the vagaries of a gold discovery to promote and sustain their economic engine. Instead, they required the willingness of their trade partners to run trade deficits. The US delivered and, partly as a consequence, the Fed's broader trade weighted dollar index has now fallen 20% since its peak in 2002 (the narrower DXY index compiled by the Intercontinental Exchange has fallen more, but excludes the renminbi and overstates the role of the euro). In return, the world has a new $4trn trading partner: China.

Heady stuff, but not without precedent: recall the Marshall Plan, a watershed American aid program that assisted the reconstruction of the Western European economy during the 1950s and 60s. This was further augmented by America's willingness to run trade deficits, the modern day equivalent to a gold discovery, which became necessary to sustain the emergence of the new economic trading bloc. This resulted in the dollar's huge devaluation versus gold in the 1970s. However, back then, the broad trade weighted index kept rising. This time it has fallen sharply.

What an Ungrateful Lot We Are?

The dollar's role as the world's sole reserve currency has both assisted and accelerated the development of world trade. America's trading partners have come to rely upon the bounty of dollars necessary to recycle their trade surpluses and thus finance their growing prosperity. This was done even at the expense of domestic American job losses. Replace the dollar with IMF special drawing rights; I hear your retort. Sure, but have you ever bought a cup of coffee with an accounting identity? And, fundamentally that argument still suffers from the dearth of any other major economy showing any willingness to sacrifice its short term economic standing for the longer-term mutual benefit of having enriched trading partners.

Do not forget that the Chinese could replicate equivalent currency baskets to SDRs at any moment. Instead, they continue to recycle almost three quarters of their trade surplus back into dollars. This is not coercion but simple commercial pragmatism. They know full well that neither Europe nor Japan nor Britain nor Switzerland nor the rest of Asia are willing to sacrifice the implicit loss of manufacturing jobs. They understand that it is only the US that is willing to embrace the benefits of comparative advantage that arise from international trade. Have you ever asked yourself why car prices in America are so low compared with those in Europe? This is my point.

I keep hearing that a dollar devaluation would help matters. I agree; it has. Let me say it again; we have already had the devaluation. That is what the last five years were all about. Now with China rebuilt, and the trade deficit in full retreat (note the -47% contribution from net exports to China's GDP growth in the first 9 months of this year), there are less dollar bills being exported overseas to ungrateful recipients. Is it not time we drop our fascination with the present and consider the future? Is it really inconceivable that the dollar could now strengthen?

Women in Love, Investors in Love. What's the Difference?

Of course this is a minority view. Investors have reacted to last year's deflationary traumas by insisting that it is business as usual. They behave like D.H. Lawrence's coal miner Gerald from the novel Women in Love, who, just days after his father's funeral, steals into his former lover's bedroom and, "...into her he poured all his pent-up darkness and corrosive heat, and he was whole again." Or was he? The trouble is that we are so anchored to the recent past. Investors are fearful of what now seems so familiar and recognisable; at what they perceive as the reckless behaviour of our monetary authorities. "Inflation is a monetary phenomenon" is their Friedmanite dogma. Their salvation can only be found in the safe sanctuary of gold and the embrace of risky assets, but are they truly safe?

This is my home. Don't be so sure about anything, Big Horace. Not about anything in this world.

The Orphan's Home Cycle
Horton Foote

And so, just as the Church of England commissioners became convinced by the cult of equity way back in the whimsical days of 1999 and went 100% long the stock market, investors today recant a new mantra of, "anything but the dollar (A-B-D)". Inflation bets are all the rage. Some would insist that it is their fiduciary duty to protect their clients' capital; I say tell that to the Church of England pension fund, whose assets today are just £461m against liabilities of £813m. Austerity beckons for the clergymen; heaven will have to pay their stipend.

But the spell cast by a contemporary cult is hard to resist. Take another august body, the Harvard Endowment Fund. Not typically renowned as a hotbed of reactionary fervour, the fund is nevertheless radical in its construction and has come to typify the A-B-D stance.

Harvard's position could well be construed as a one-way bet. Almost half of the fund is invested in emerging market equities, commodities, real-estate, private equity and junk bonds. It is as though the rap artist 50 Cent has taken over the advisory board. The fund is going to, "get rich or die tryin'".

We, on the other hand, approach risk by considering the worst possible outcome. For a current pension scheme the greatest torment would be a repeat of last year's final quarter when 30 year Treasuries yielded just 2.5%. This would require a CAGR of 20% or more from the fund's riskier assets at precisely the time that their future returns would seem most questionable; insolvency would beckon. And yet, they blithely run the risk of ruination.

Of course, they are not alone. Another popular argument is that the emerging economies have to urgently diversify their immense dollar reserves. And so the Chinese are colonising the African continent in the pursuit of commodities and the Indian government has just agreed to buy 200 tons of the IMF's gold hoard.

Is this not a reincarnation of the 1980 trade of the brothers Hunt? It is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that China, for all intents and purposes, is already the commodity market. For despite providing less than 8% of global GDP, China accounts for more than half of the world's steel production and more than half of global seaborne iron ore freight. Indeed, this peculiarity is circular in nature. Consider that a modern aluminium plant requires 25% of the project's cost to be spent on buying aluminium in the first place. And remember that investments in fixed capital formation (think new aluminium plants et al.) have made up 95% of Chinese GDP growth this year. China Inc. is Commodities Inc.

Accordingly, China shares the same risk as the world's largest pension schemes. An over- leveraged American consumer does not return to his/her manic buying of old. As William White, former chief economist of the BIS, has argued:

Many countries that relied heavily on exports as a growth strategy are now geared up to provide goods and services to heavily indebted countries that no longer have the will or the means to buy them.

Surely, the Chinese stash of Treasuries is a prudent elimination of the fat tail risk that private sector deleveraging in the west ends up killing the golden goose of the trade surplus. But instead, in exercising good ol' Texan tradition, they have opted, like the Hunt brothers did, to double up. It is the old dice game, Mort Subite, played by the employees of the National Bank of Belgium in the busy lunch time cafes of Brussels in 1910. If the players didn't have time to complete their business, they played a final round with a sudden ending where the loser would be pronounced dead.

Much is made of the comparison between today's balance sheet recession and Japan's demise back in 1989. Despite their bubble never coming close to matching China's prominence in industrial commodities, the loss of Japanese economic growth in the 1990s was nevertheless a major factor in the waterfall crash in commodities. This plunge ultimately saw oil trade for as little as $10 per barrel in the next decade. Just consider how much more devastating the experience would have been had they gone very long the commodity market in 1989 rather than golf courses and Rockefeller Centre. At least the Harvard endowment scheme did not share their enthusiasm for golf. But, this time around, I fear a Mort Subite beckons for the losers in Asia and the pension market.

Last Orders: Inflation or Deflation?

If a poet knows more about a horse than he does about heaven,
he might better stick to the horse... the horse might carry him to heaven.

Charles Ives

I am now going to return to the torturous and binary debate concerning inflation. As you know, I am in the deflation camp for now, and we own a modest amount of government bonds and a series of asymmetric bets which would receive a boost from a return to some form of risk aversion. You could say that I am sticking to my horse.

My intellectual foes, on the other hand, are adamant that long duration government bonds are a short. I even hear that some Wall Street legends are so convinced of the argument made by the likes of Niall Ferguson that they personally own Treasury put options and are actively counselling others to do the same. The argument can be condensed into just two fears.

First, they will suggest that 4.5% is not an adequate return for lending your money to the profligate United States for 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly. Again, I fear it is my accent, but let me stress once more that I do not propose that anyone adopt a buy-and-hold policy for the next thirty years in bonds. However, a nominal rate of 4.5% might prove very profitable over the coming year should breakeven inflation expectations head south again.

Second, the bears contend, a lower Chinese trade surplus will eliminate a very large source of Treasury buyers at a time of burgeoning supply. Again, we find ourselves agreeing vigorously. However, it is our contention that US savings are heading north over the months and years to come. And an America that saves is an America that does not run a current account deficit. It is an American that can finance its own spending domestically. The US produced a small surplus back in the 1990-91 recession, so why not again?

As a consequence the Chinese surplus is set to fall further and, with fewer dollars needing to be recycled to maintain the currency peg, their demand for Treasuries will continue to shrink. Now this is potentially a huge headache owing to the massive projected American budget deficits for this year and next, and the Treasury's desire to extend the maturity of the existing stock of government bonds which is becoming perilously short dated. Some estimate new issuance of around $2.5trn for the upcoming year. Perhaps, it is better that we buy those Treasury put options after all?

American Gothic

Or is it? I have quoted Don Coxe's definition of a bull market before and I intend to do so again. "The most exciting returns are to be had from an asset class where those who know it best, love it least." On this point, America has fallen out of love with its own currency and bond market. Foreigners own over half of the outstanding Treasury stock. But, like I said, I think events could reignite some of the natives' old amour.

It is almost like declaring an enthusiasm for Say's Law. Think of it this way, a greater supply of Treasuries would be a very obvious by-product of weaker than anticipated economic growth. And in this environment risk aversion stimulates the investment desire for risk free assets. So, in a round about way, there are circumstances when supply and demand can match in the bond market. But weaker economic growth? Surely the governments' interventions this year have remedied the economy?

The surprise might concern the role that rising leverage has played in boosting GDP and in anchoring investors' expectations to an unrealistic level of nominal GDP. Over the last decade, each marginal dollar of debt has generated less and less marginal income. We knew that there would be a "zero-hour" for the economy when the creation of new debt would not contribute to GDP growth. The government's reaction to last year's demand shock has been to increase its own leverage. But, with the economy operating at its zero-hour, we believe this incremental leverage will actually have a negative impact. That is to say, the public sector will fail in its attempt to bring the economy back to its previous level of nominal GDP. In this scenario, the outcome will disappoint the market's expectations, which are rampantly bullish as evidenced by this year's dramatic re-pricing of risk assets.

This zero-hour for America has perhaps arrived sooner than many had anticipated. It was heralded by the Japanese experience. Japan is the bogeyman that confronts all academic thinkers, regardless of creed, from Krugman to Ferguson, as well as all who would choose to intervene in the workings of the economy. In a debate I had with Mr. Ferguson in London last month, he claimed that Japan was an extreme outlier and could be ignored. Really?

No sex, no drugs, no wine, no woman, no fun, no sin, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger.
Everyone avoids me like a psyched loan-ranger
That's why I'm turning Japanese,
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I really think so

The Vapors, 1980

Japan has championed both Friedman and Keynes. They have built bridges to nowhere and dropped Yen notes from helicopters for twenty years and still they have nothing to show for it. Clearly the additional return from Yen debt in Japan is close to zero and it exposes the nightmare of interventionists everywhere: it may just be that there are no policy remedies for a debt deflation. So to elaborate further, our chances of financial success are greatest under conditions where investors believe government spending will succeed but in reality it fails.

However, where will the demand for all of this additional government debt come from? Let us review the Fed's Z1 numbers. The US has household wealth of some $67trn. Of that, $20trn is accounted for by real estate and is perhaps out of bounds for our purposes. But $8trn is held in the form of private pensions and insurance funds. And yet, remarkably, these institutions presently allocate just $630bn to Treasuries et al. Households have a further $22trn in time deposits and other financial assets. But again they own just $500bn of Treasuries, and commercial banks own a tiny $130bn or, 1% of their total asset base of $12trn.

Consider that in 1952, at the very end of the supernova bond bull market formed from the ashes of the Great Depression and the Liberty Bonds that financed the Second World War, US banks held 40% of their gross assets in Treasuries. That is a potential $5trn of demand from this one source alone, albeit spread out over a number of years. And again, the Japan experience lends support. Japanese financial institutions have quadrupled the percentage of their assets held in JGBs. Furthermore, their households have lifted their government bond weightings five-fold over the last ten years. Should the same pattern repeat itself stateside, American households would need to buy another $2.5trn, but again, over ten years.

And let us not forget that a trend of rising prices allied to the most basic human emotion of avarice encouraged commercial banks and other financial institutions to buy $3.2trn of questionable mortgage backed securities in 2004, $1.9trn in 2005, $2.2trn in 2006 and $2.1trn in 2007. So it is not inconceivable, at least in my mind, that financial institutions, and notable amongst them the nation's pension and endowment schemes, could be motivated by another basic human emotion, namely fear for their own survival, to snap up all these new government bonds. Perhaps in the end supply will create its own demand.

Again, it all really comes down to your take on the ratio of total debt-to-GDP. If you believe, like I do, that it peaked in 2007 then the repercussions are enormous. The leverage does not necessarily have to come down (after peaking in 1932 at 300% it troughed 20 years later at 150%). Rather, it may well be that low interest rates allow the mountain of debt to continue to be serviced. This has been the Japanese experience to date. However, everything in our economic life exists at the margin, and the consequences of just maintaining the leverage constant would be a very low delta in nominal GDP growth. Consider that the Japanese, under these very circumstances, have managed to grow nominal GDP at just 1% compound since 1990.

In Bernie We Trust?

This is why China's mad dash for commodities and its investment splurge this year is so worrying. In my marketing presentations I show a picture of Madoff superimposed on a dollar bill and ask, "...in Bernie we trust?" My point is that if the hedge fund fraudster had been given the responsibility for US GDP accounting, he would surely have overstated the figure. And in a similar way, the rise in leverage has probably misrepresented the truly recurring nature of nominal GDP. Now, if we repeat the Japanese experience then it is possible that nominal US GDP will rise from $14trn today to perhaps just $16trn in ten years time. Along similar lines, the German government does not anticipate its economy exceeding its previous GDP high until 2014. And yet it is as though the other surplus countries are behaving like Bernie's former investors who, believing in the stated NAV and its promise of more of the same (i.e., predictable and attractive compound growth rates), were happy to spend lavishly. The Chinese are building capacity to meet a world where US nominal GDP is $25trn in ten years time. I fear they could be in for a nasty shock.

What Do I Mean?

Consider the steel market. The homogeneous nature of steel, as well as other factors such as its price-to-density, allows for the export of the finished good across trade boundaries. Now with China having been on such an expansionary tear, it may not surprise you to hear that finished Chinese steel prices today trade below their production cost. Furthermore, import license applications to sell steel in the US, the world's largest export market, rose 24% last month. Now, mostly this comes from Mexican and Korean producers, but clearly there is the implicit threat that their Chinese competitors might also be tempted.

But the Economy is Growing?

Clearly it would be inappropriate to annualise the production of the US steel industry in the fourth quarter of last year when capacity utilisation plummeted to just 32%. So consider, instead, the annual run rate this year from January to August. This was a period of stabilisation in tandem with the cash-for-clunkers program, which boosted the industry's largest customer, the car sector. It is quite chilling to note that steel production in America is on a par with output back in 1938, when GDP was a mere 7% of its current size. The industry's run rate dropped to a paltry 13% during the Great Depression. However, output only troughed at its 1908 level; a twenty year retracement that is a far cry from our 70 year retracement. So the physical developments in the western steel markets should raise some concern. However, with an active steel futures market in China turning over $15bn a day (consult the Bloomberg page <RBTA CMDY CT>), speculative fears concerning the dollar have overcome the paucity of industrial demand in the west.

Of course, it is not just steel. Consider the aluminium market. We recently had a very bearish meeting with the Norwegian company Norsk Hydro. Admittedly, their strong petro-currency does not help and you have to discount the solace I seek in finding people even more miserable than myself. Even so, the aluminium situation mimics that of steel, but with an even mightier inventory overhang. Four and a half million tons reside at the London Metal Exchange, perhaps 20% of world ex-China annual capacity. It is probable that 75% of this surplus stock is accounted for by financial players exploiting a contango.

Does Life Imitate Art?

The advocates of Prechter's socio-economics would not be surprised to hear that the Romanian writer Herta Mueller has been awarded this year's Nobel Prize for literature for her work depicting "the landscape of the dispossessed". In a Los Angeles Times review of her book, The Appointment, they noted,

"...it is sometimes difficult to tell whether we are reading about people driven mad by a mad regime or people who may not have had all their marbles in the first place."

My partner, Mr. Lee, reflected on this as he sat in the chilly offices of Norsk Hydro last week watching the snow fall outside. The Norwegians continued with their tale of woe: a couple of million tonnes of inventory remains unaccounted for on the world stage and are believed to be hidden in cheaper warehouses in Russia. The rationale behind this is the same as the rationale used by LME speculators. Furthermore, the big Russian players like Rusal are under intense pressure from Putin not to cut capacity (check out 'Putin bitch slaps Deripaska' on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprlM5R3Hbg), and are rumoured to be surviving only by not paying their electricity bills.

To make matters even worse, the Chinese have stopped importing and are eager to ramp up domestic aluminium production. They havethe capacity to produce another 13mt annually, which is equivalent to 52% of global production. Lastly, there is the fact that Rio Tinto bought Alcan right at the very top of the cycle, though they dare not admit it is a terrible business.

Poor Old Norsk Hydro?

Who would want to share a stage with so many mad villains? The Norwegians noted that construction demand had just taken another leg down as buildings started pre-crisis are now finished whilst no further pipeline exists outside of China. Even Ryanair are talking about suspending their aggressive growth plans and may delay the purchase of more planes.

The Norwegians suffer the most pain at present, but if the dollar were to strengthen Alcoa could conceivably go bust. Their dollar cost is the company's only competitive advantage. Let us not forget Alcoa has the most exposure to aircraft construction and still has $10bn of gross debt lording over an almost equivalent market cap. Imagine that we have not even considered their pension liabilities. Yet the Alcoa CDS trades at 200 basis points, down from its high of 1200 earlier this year. Why?!

"May sorrow break these chains of my sufferings, for pity's sake"

Lascia ch'io pianga
Handel

Now remember I have been describing a positive macro scenario: a world in which low interest rates make the debt load manageable and that we muddle through with lower growth rates in nominal GDP. But clearly the consequences for corporate profitability are very poor. The alarming thing is that my opponents (see Ferguson et al.) believe that government bond yields are going much higher. Effectively, the world's bond vigilantes are going to punish the Fed and tighten monetary policy. It is almost as if the world's greatest speculators are agitating for their own demise. It is my contention that the leverage of the economy is only tenable if interest rates stay low and yet, whilst I believe some of them agree, they still fervently expect a rise.

Je consens, ou plutôt j'aspire à ma ruine.

Pierre Corneille
Polyeucte, 1642

Do not forget that the US does not share the distinction of the British or Australian housing markets. According to FSA data, 55% of UK mortgages are fixed rate and 45% are floating. The latter have, of course, collapsed and have proven a boon for disposable income. We must remember, however, that British fixed rates are determined by two and three year swap rates; so effectively the entire stock of UK mortgages are determined by the central bank and could be thought of as floating. In the US, however, things are very different. Total single-family mortgages outstanding are $11trn but $9trn is fixed to the prevailing 30 year Treasury yield. Banks just do not offer variable rate or teaser mortgages anymore. You might say that the American housing market hangs by the tender threads of the bond market's generosity. Lose it, and let us say that the markets demand 6% yields on 30 year durations and mortgage rates would then shoot back up to 7%. And, I would argue, the economy would come to a crashing halt. Do speculators really want this to happen?

Perhaps I am describing a pressure cooker. The private sector's debt may be sustained by maintaining low nominal interest rates.But the pressure from so much issuance at a time of great reluctance from financial institutions to purchase bonds could break the stalemate. And with it the ominous precedent of 1931, outlined in our February report, when a back up in ten year Treasury yields from 3.1% to 4.4% undoubtedly accelerated the rate of deflation in the US economy.

A Crisis in the Kremlin

John Mauldin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:26:00 GMT

Earlier this week, I sent out a piece that talked about the dangers of ignoring the big picture - even for the "bottom up" investor. Every once in a while, we all have to step away from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, housing prices and other indicators to look at what's going to influence these factors in the long term.

Today I give you a video about Russia and how a plan to fix the economy might throw off the political balance of power. I regard Moscow's situation as a valuable lesson for our country - also in the throes of an economic crisis - and for investors affected by global markets. Click here to watch this great video by my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. You can also sign up to get free weekly intelligence from them, so you don't have to depend on my occasional mail-out.

John Mauldin

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

John Mauldin — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:13:00 GMT

I've mentioned a couple of schools of thought before: those who look at the big picture and those who pore over the details. Often, the major product is the result of its minor pieces. If you use good meat, good buns, and good vegetables- you're going to turn out a pretty good hamburger. The same goes for cars, businesses and portfolios.

One industry in which this methodology really doesn't seem to work is information. Mainstream sources of information almost always fail to connect the world's events. They do a great job telling you that former Iranian president Rafsanjani addressed his supporters, that anti-Ahmadinejad protestors outside chanted "Death to Russia", and that Israel sent a submarine through the Suez Canal. But they don't show how the incidents fit together in the geopolitical landscape, nor what they mean for the relationships between global powers. They give you the meat, the buns and the vegetables, but there's no hamburger.

This week I'm sending you an article AND a video on the Iran situation, from my friend George Friedman and his team of intelligence analysts at STRATFOR. Click here to watch "Rethinking Iran" and read the article below (They complement each other nicely). George connects the pieces and draws conclusions – so you can make better-informed decisions regarding investments, assets and travels around the world.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

July 20, 2009

By George Friedman

The Iranian Political Configuration

There are two factions claiming to speak for the people. Rafsanjani represents the first faction. During his sermon, he spoke for the tradition of the founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who took power during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Rafjsanjani argued that Khomeini wanted an Islamic republic faithful to the will of the people, albeit within the confines of Islamic law. Rafsanjani argued that he was the true heir to the Islamic revolution. He added that Khomeini's successor — the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — had violated the principles of the revolution when he accepted that Rafsanjani's archenemy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had won Iran's recent presidential election. (There is enormous irony in foreigners describing Rafsanjani as a moderate reformer who supports greater liberalization. Though he has long cultivated this image in the West, in 30 years of public political life it is hard to see a time when he has supported Western-style liberal democracy.)

The other faction is led by Ahmadinejad, who takes the position that Rafsanjani in particular — along with the generation of leaders who ascended to power during the first phase of the Islamic republic — has betrayed the Iranian people. Rather than serving the people, Ahmadinejad claims they have used their positions to become so wealthy that they dominate the Iranian economy and have made the reforms needed to revitalize the Iranian economy impossible. According to Ahmadinejad's charges, these elements now blame Ahmadinejad for Iran's economic failings when the root of these failings is their own corruption. Ahmadinejad claims that the recent presidential election represents a national rejection of the status quo. He adds that claims of fraud represent attempts by Rafsanjani — who he portrays as defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's sponsor — and his ilk to protect their positions from Ahmadinejad.

Iran is therefore experiencing a generational dispute, with each side claiming to speak both for the people and for the Khomeini tradition. There is the older generation — symbolized by Rafsanjani — that has prospered during the last 30 years. Having worked with Khomeini, this generation sees itself as his true heir. Then, there is the younger generation. Known as "students" during the revolution, this group did the demonstrating and bore the brunt of the shah's security force counterattacks. It argues that Khomeini would be appalled at what Rafsanjani and his generation have done to Iran.

This debate is, of course, more complex than this. Khamenei, a key associate of Khomeini, appears to support Ahmadinejad's position. And Ahmadinejad hardly speaks for all of the poor as he would like to claim. The lines of political disputes are never drawn as neatly as we would like. Ultimately, Rafsanjani's opposition to the recent election did not have as much to do with concerns (valid or not) over voter fraud. It had everything to do with the fact that the outcome threatened his personal position. Which brings us back to the question of why Rafsanjani's followers were chanting Death to Russia.

Examining the Anomalous Chant

For months prior to the election, Ahmadinejad's allies warned that the United States was planning a "color" revolution. Color revolutions, like the one in Ukraine, occurred widely in the former Soviet Union after its collapse, and these revolutions followed certain steps. An opposition political party was organized to mount an electoral challenge to the establishment. Then, an election occurred that was either fraudulent or claimed by the opposition as having been fraudulent. Next, widespread peaceful protests against the regime (all using a national color as the symbol of the revolution) took place, followed by the collapse of the government through a variety of paths. Ultimately, the opposition — which was invariably pro-Western and particularly pro-American — took power.

Moscow openly claimed that Western intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, organized and funded the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. These agencies allegedly used nongovernmental organizations (human rights groups, pro-democracy groups, etc.) to delegitimize the existing regime, repudiate the outcome of the election regardless of its validity and impose what the Russians regarded as a pro-American puppet regime. The Russians saw Ukraine's Orange Revolution as the break point in their relationship with the West, with the creation of a pro-American, pro-NATO regime in Ukraine representing a direct attack on Russian national security. The Americans argued that to the contrary, they had done nothing but facilitate a democratic movement that opposed the existing regime for its own reasons, demanding that rigged elections be repudiated.

In warning that the United States was planning a color revolution in Iran, Ahmadinejad took the Russian position. Namely, he was arguing that behind the cover of national self-determination, human rights and commitment to democratic institutions, the United States was funding an Iranian opposition movement on the order of those active in the former Soviet Union. Regardless of whether the opposition actually had more votes, this opposition movement would immediately regard an Ahmadinejad win as the result of fraud. Large demonstrations would ensue, and if they were left unopposed the Islamic republic would come under threat.

In doing this, Ahmadinejad's faction positioned itself against the actuality that such a rising would occur. If it did, Ahmadinejad could claim that the demonstrators were — wittingly or not — operating on behalf of the United States, thus delegitimizing the demonstrators. In so doing, he could discredit supporters of the demonstrators as not tough enough on the United States, a useful charge against Rafsanjani, whom the West long has held up as an Iranian moderate.

Interestingly, while demonstrations were at their height, Ahmadinejad chose to attend — albeit a day late — a multinational Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference in Moscow on the Tuesday after the election. It was very odd that he would leave Iran during the greatest postelection unrest; we assumed he had decided to demonstrate to Iranians that he didn't take the demonstrations seriously.

The charge that seems to be emerging on the Rafsanjani side is that Ahmadinejad's fears of a color revolution were not simply political, but were encouraged by the Russians. It was the Russians who had been talking to Ahmadinejad and his lieutenants on a host of issues, who warned him about the possibility of a color revolution. More important, the Russians helped prepare Ahmadinejad for the unrest that would come — and given the Russian experience, how to manage it. Though we speculate here, if this theory is correct, it could explain some of the efficiency with which Ahmadinejad shut down cell phone and other communications during the postelection unrest, as he may have had Russian advisers.

Rafsanjani's followers were not shouting Death to Russia without a reason, at least in their own minds. They are certainly charging that Ahmadinejad took advice from the Russians, and went to Russia in the midst of political unrest for consultations. Rafsanjani's charge may or may not be true. Either way, there is no question that Ahmadinejad did claim that the United States was planning a color revolution in Iran. If he believed that charge, it would have been irrational not to reach out to the Russians. But whether or not the CIA was involved, the Russians might well have provided Ahmadinejad with intelligence of such a plot and helped shape his response, and thereby may have created a closer relationship with him.

How Iran's internal struggle will work itself out remains unclear. But one dimension is shaping up: Ahmadinejad is trying to position Rafsanjani as leading a pro-American faction intent on a color revolution, while Rafsanjani is trying to position Ahmadinejad as part of a pro-Russian faction. In this argument, the claim that Ahmadinejad had some degree of advice or collaboration with the Russians is credible, just as the claim that Rafsanjani maintained some channels with the Americans is credible. And this makes an internal dispute geopolitically significant.

The Iranian Struggle in a Geopolitical Context

At the moment, Ahmadinejad appears to have the upper hand. Khamenei has certified his re-election. The crowds have dissipated; nothing even close to the numbers of the first few days has since materialized. For Ahmadinejad to lose, Rafsanjani would have to mobilize much of the clergy — many of whom are seemingly content to let Rafsanjani be the brunt of Ahmadinejad's attacks — in return for leaving their own interests and fortunes intact. There are things that could bring Ahmadinejad down and put Rafsanjani in control, but all of them would require Khamenei to endorse social and political instability, which he will not do.

If the Russians have in fact intervened in Iran to the extent of providing intelligence to Ahmadinejad and advice to him during his visit on how to handle the postelection unrest (as the chants suggest), then Russian influence in Iran is not surging — it has surged. In some measure, Ahmadinejad would owe his position to Russian warnings and advice. There is little gratitude in the world of international affairs, but Ahmadinejad has enemies, and the Russians would have proved their utility in helping contain those enemies.

From the Russian point of view, Ahmadinejad would be a superb asset — even if not truly under their control. His very existence focuses American attention on Iran, not on Russia. It follows, then, that Russia would have made a strategic decision to involve itself in the postelection unrest, and that for the purposes of its own negotiations with Washington, Moscow will follow through to protect the Iranian state to the extent possible. The Russians have already denied U.S. requests for assistance on Iran. But if Moscow has intervened in Iran to help safeguard Ahmadinejad's position, then the potential increases for Russia to provide Iran with the S-300 strategic air defense systems that it has been dangling in front of Tehran for more than a decade.

If the United States perceives an entente between Moscow and Tehran emerging, then the entire dynamic of the region shifts and the United States must change its game. The threat to Washington's interests becomes more intense as the potential of a Russian S-300 sale to Iran increases, and the need to disrupt the Russian-Iranian entente would become all the more important. U.S. influence in Iran already has declined substantially, and Ahmadinejad is more distrustful and hostile than ever of the United States after having to deal with the postelection unrest. If a Russian-Iranian entente emerges out of all this — which at the moment is merely a possibility, not an imminent reality — then the United States would have some serious strategic problems on its hands.

Revisiting Assumptions on Iran

For the past few years, STRATFOR has assumed that a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran was unlikely. Iran was not as advanced in its nuclear program as some claimed, and the complexities of any attack were greater than assumed. The threat of an attack was thus a U.S. bargaining chip, much as Iran's nuclear program itself was an Iranian bargaining chip for use in achieving Tehran's objectives in Iraq and the wider region. To this point, our net assessment has been accurate.

At this point, however, we need to stop and reconsider. If Iran and Russia begin serious cooperation, Washington's existing dilemma with Iran's nuclear ambitions and its ongoing standoff with the Russians would fuse to become a single, integrated problem. This is something the United States would find difficult to manage. Washington's primary goal would become preventing this from happening.

Ahmadinejad has long argued that the United States was never about to attack Iran, and that charges by Rafsanjani and others that he has pursued a reckless foreign policy were groundless. But with the Death to Russia chants and signaling of increased Russian support for Iran, the United States may begin to reconsider its approach to the region.

Iran's clerical elite does not want to go to war. They therefore can only view with alarm the recent ostentatious transiting of the Suez Canal into the Red Sea by Israeli submarines and corvettes. This transiting did not happen without U.S. approval. Moreover, in spite of U.S. opposition to expanded Israeli settlements and Israeli refusals to comply with this opposition, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be visiting Israel in two weeks. The Israelis have said that there must be a deadline on negotiations with Iran over the nuclear program when the next G-8 meeting takes place in September; a deadline that the G-8 has already approved. The consequences if Iran ignores the deadline were left open-ended.

All of this can fit into our old model of psychological warfare, as representing a bid to manipulate Iranian politics by making Ahmadinejad's leadership look too risky. It could also be the United States signaling to the Russians that stakes in the region are rising. It is not clear that the United States has reconsidered its strategy on Iran in the wake of the postelection demonstrations. But if Rafsanjani's claim of Russian support for Ahmadinejad is true, a massive re-evaluation of U.S. policy could ensue, assuming one hasn't already started — prompting a reconsideration of the military option.

All of this assumes that there is substance behind a mob chanting "Death to Russia." There appears to be, but of course, Ahmadinejad's enemies would want to magnify that substance to its limits and beyond. This is why we are not ready to simply abandon our previous net assessment of Iran, even though it is definitely time to rethink it.

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

John Mauldin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:46:44 GMT

This week saw a 2-day summit between the United States and Russia that looks to be the first in a trend of subtle push and pull that will shape economic agendas for both states. Just as at the height of the Cold War, these two superpowers are jockeying for global attention and prospective untapped markets. But while the communication between the two is at the same volume and frequency as it was back in the days of Kennedy and Khrushchev, the tone has taken on a different level - as Obama flexes his newly appointed muscle and plants a possible seed of discontent between Medvedev and Putin concerning the future of the former USSR.

Hands-down the most important thing in Russia is energy. It's not the headline on CNN these days, but come less than 6 months from now the cold European winters will make natural gas supply lines and shipping an unavoidable talking point. Today's U.S./Russia relationship lays the groundwork for the future of global energy markets.

I'm sending you an article by my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR, a global intelligence firm, discussing what's really going on between the U.S. and Russia - at the summit and in the coming months. If energy markets matter to you - and they do, regardless of how you're invested - then you need to understand this pivotal global relationship. Also, STRATFOR is offering special rates to Outside the Box readers. Click here to read more and be sure to take advantage of these low rates for priceless intelligence to help you in your future financial planning.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

July 7, 2009

By George Friedman

The Fundamental Issues

There are dozens of contentious issues between the United States and Russia, but in our mind three issues are fundamental.

First, there is the question of whether Poland will become a base from which the United States can contain Russian power, or from the Russian point of view, threaten the former Soviet Union. The ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that the United States has slated for Poland does not directly affect that issue, though it symbolizes it. It represents the U.S. use of Polish territory for strategic purposes, and it is something the Russians oppose not so much for the system's direct or specific threat — which is minimal — but for what it symbolizes about the Americans' status in Poland. The Russians hoped to get Obama to follow the policy at the summit that he alluded to during his campaign for the U.S. presidency: namely, removing the BMD program from Poland to reduce tensions with Russia.

Second, there is the question of Iran. This is a strategic matter for the United States, perhaps even more pressing since the recent Iranian election. The United States badly needs to isolate Iran effectively, something impossible without Russian cooperation. Moscow has refused to join Washington on this issue, in part because it is so important to the United States. Given its importance to the Americans, the Russians see Iran as a lever with which they can try to control U.S. actions elsewhere. The Americans do not want to see Russian support, and particularly arms sales, to Iran. Given that, the Russians don't want to close off the possibility of supporting Iran. The United States wanted to see some Russian commitments on Iran at the summit.

And third, there is the question of U.S. relations with former Soviet countries other than Russia, and the expressed U.S. desire to see NATO expand to include Ukraine and Georgia. The Russians insist that any such expansion threatens Russian national security and understandings with previous U.S. administrations. The United States insists that no such understandings exist, that NATO expansion doesn't threaten Russia, and that the expansion will continue. The Russians were hoping the Americans would back off on this issue at the summit.

Of some importance, but not as fundamental as the previous issues, was the question of whether Russia will allow U.S. arms shipments to Afghanistan through Russian territory. This issue became important last winter when Taliban attacks on U.S. supply routes through Pakistan intensified, putting the viability of those routes in question. In recent months the Russians have accepted the transit of nonlethal materiel through Russia, but not arms.

Even before the summit, the Russians made a concession on this point, giving the United States the right to transit military equipment via Russian airspace. This was a significant policy change designed to demonstrate Russia's flexibility. At the same time, the step is not as significant as it appeared. The move cost the Russians little under the circumstances, and is easily revoked. And while the United States might use the route, the route is always subject to Russian pressure, meaning the United States is not going to allow a strategic dependence to develop. Moreover, the U.S. need is not as apparent now as it was a few months ago. And finally, a Talibanized Afghanistan is not in the Russian interest. That Russia did not grant the U.S. request last February merely reveals how bad U.S.-Russian relations were at the time. Conversely, the Russian concession on the issue signals that U.S.-Russian relations have improved. The concession was all the more significant in that it came after Obama praised Medvedev for his openness and criticized Putin as having one foot in the Cold War, clearly an attempt to play the two Russian leaders off each other.

What the Summit Produced

Much more significantly, the United States did not agree to withdraw the BMD system from Poland at the summit. Washington did not say that removal is impossible, but instead delayed that discussion until at least September, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Moscow. A joint review of all of the world's missile capabilities was established at the summit, and this joint review will consider Iranian — and North Korean — missiles. The Polish BMD system will be addressed in that context. In other words, Washington did not concede on the point, but it did not close off discussions. The Russians accordingly did not get what they wanted on the missiles at the summit; they got even less of what they wanted in the broader strategic sense of a neutralized Poland.

The Russians in turn made no visible concessions on Iran. Apart from studying the Iranians' missile systems, the Russians made no pledge to join in sanctions on Iran, nor did they join in any criticism of the current crackdown in Iran. The United States had once offered to trade Polish BMDs for Russian cooperation on Iran, an idea rejected by the Russians since the BMD system in Poland wasn't worth the leverage Moscow has with Iran. Certainly without the Polish BMD withdrawal, there was going to be no movement on Iran.

NATO expansion is where some U.S. concession might have emerged. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama said, "State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is why this principle must apply to all nations – including Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For either country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."

On the surface, this reiterated the old U.S. position, which was that NATO expansion was between NATO and individual nations of the former Soviet Union, and did not — and should not — concern Moscow. The terms of expanding, reforming and contributing to NATO remained the same. But immediately after the Obama-Putin meeting, Russian sources began claiming that an understanding on NATO expansion was reached, and that the Americans conceded the point. We see some evidence for this in the speech — the U.S. public position almost never has included mention of public support or reforms.

In many ways, however, this is splitting hairs. The French and Germans have long insisted that any NATO expansion should be limited to countries with strong public support for expansion, and which meet certain military thresholds that Georgia and Ukraine clearly do not meet (and could not meet even with a decade of hard work). Since NATO expansion requires unanimous support from all members, Russia was more interested in having the United States freeze its relations with other former Soviet states at their current level. Russian sources indicate that they did indeed get reassurances of such a freeze, but it takes an eager imagination to glean that from Obama's public statement.

Therefore, we come away with the sense that the summit changed little, but that it certainly didn't cause any deterioration, which could have happened. Having a summit that causes no damage is an achievement in itself.

The Kennedy Trap

Perhaps the most important part of the summit was that Obama does not seem to have fallen into the Kennedy trap. Part of the lack of serious resolutions at the summit undoubtedly resulted from Obama's unwillingness to be excessively accommodating to the Russians. With all of the comparisons to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit being bruited about, Obama clearly had at least one overriding goal in Moscow: to not be weak. Obama tried to show his skills even before the summit, playing Medvedev and Putin against each other. No matter how obvious and clumsy that might have been, it served a public purpose by making it clear that Obama was not in awe of either of them. Creating processes rather than solutions also was part of that strategy.

It appears, however, that the Russians did fall into the Kennedy trap a bit. The eagerness of Putin's advisers to tout U.S. concession on Ukraine and Georgia after their meeting in spite of scant public evidence of such concessions gives us the sense that Putin wanted to show that he achieved something Medvedev couldn't. There may well be a growing rivalry between Medvedev and Putin, and Obama might well have played off it.

But that is for the gossip columns. The important news from the summit was as follows: First, no one screwed up, and second, U.S.-Russian relations did not get worse — and might actually have improved.

No far-reaching strategic agreements were attained, but strategic improvements in the future were not excluded. Obama played his role without faltering, and there may be some smidgen of tension between the two personalities running Russia. As far as summits go, we have seen far worse and much better. But given the vitriol of past U.S.-Soviet/Russian relations, routine is hardly a negative outcome.

In the meantime, BMD remains under development in Poland, there is no U.S.-Russian agreement on Iran and, as far as we can confirm at present, no major shift in U.S. policy on Ukraine and Georgia has occurred. This summit will not be long remembered, but then Obama did not want the word "disastrous" attached to this summit as it had been to Kennedy's first Soviet summit.

We wish there were more exciting things to report about the summit, but sometimes there simply aren't. And sometimes the routine might turn out significant, but we doubt that in this case. The geopolitical divide between the United States and Russia is as deep as ever, even if some of the sharper edges have been rounded. Ultimately, little progress was made in finding ways to bridge the two countries' divergent interests. And the burning issues — particularly Poland and Iran — continue to burn.

The Geography of Recession

John Mauldin — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:16:46 GMT

Dear Friends:

One of the first things you learn about analyzing a company is how to dissect a balance sheet. What assets and liabilities can be deployed by a company to create equity over time? I've enclosed a fascinating variant on this process. Take a look at how STRATFOR has analyzed the "geographic balance sheets" of the US, Russia, China, and Europe to understand why different countries' economies have suffered to varying degrees from the current economic crisis.

As investors, it's precisely this type of outside-the-box thinking that can provide us profitable opportunities, and it's precisely this type of outside-the-box thinking that makes STRATFOR such an important part of my investment decision making. The key to investment profits is thinking differently and thinking earlier than the next guy. STRATFOR's work exemplifies both these traits.

I've arranged for a special deal on a STRATFOR Membership for my readers, which you can click here to take advantage of. Many of you are invested in alternative strategies, but I want to make sure that you also employ alternative thinking strategies. So take a look at these different "country balance sheets" as you formulate your plans.

Your Mapping It Out Analyst,

John Mauldin

The Geography of Recession

By Peter Zeihan

The United States and the Free Market

The most important aspect of the United States is not simply its sheer size, but the size of its usable land. Russia and China may both be similar-sized in absolute terms, but the vast majority of Russian and Chinese land is useless for agriculture, habitation or development. In contrast, courtesy of the Midwest, the United States boasts the world's largest contiguous mass of arable land — and that mass does not include the hardly inconsequential chunks of usable territory on both the West and East coasts.

Second is the American maritime transport system. The Mississippi River, linked as it is to the Red, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee rivers, comprises the largest interconnected network of navigable rivers in the world. In the San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound/New York Bay, the United States has three of the world's largest and best natural harbors. The series of barrier islands a few miles off the shores of Texas and the East Coast form a water-based highway — an Intercoastal Waterway — that shields American coastal shipping from all but the worst that the elements can throw at ships and ports.

The real beauty is that the two overlap with near perfect symmetry. The Intercoastal Waterway and most of the bays link up with agricultural regions and their own local river systems (such as the series of rivers that descend from the Appalachians to the East Coast), while the Greater Mississippi river network is the circulatory system of the Midwest. Even without the addition of canals, it is possible for ships to reach nearly any part of the Midwest from nearly any part of the Gulf or East coasts. The result is not just a massive ability to grow a massive amount of crops — and not just the ability to easily and cheaply move the crops to local, regional and global markets — but also the ability to use that same transport network for any other economic purpose without having to worry about food supplies.

The implications of such a confluence are deep and sustained. Where most countries need to scrape together capital to build roads and rail to establish the very foundation of an economy, transport capability, geography granted the United States a near-perfect system at no cost. That frees up U.S. capital for other pursuits and almost condemns the United States to be capital-rich. Any additional infrastructure the United States constructs is icing on the cake. (The cake itself is free — and, incidentally, the United States had so much free capital that it was able to go on to build one of the best road-and-rail networks anyway, resulting in even greater economic advantages over competitors.)

Third, geography has also ensured that the United States has very little local competition. To the north, Canada is both much colder and much more mountainous than the United States. Canada's only navigable maritime network — the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway —is shared with the United States, and most of its usable land is hard by the American border. Often this makes it more economically advantageous for Canadian provinces to integrate with their neighbor to the south than with their co-nationals to the east and west.

Similarly, Mexico has only small chunks of land, separated by deserts and mountains, that are useful for much more than subsistence agriculture; most of Mexican territory is either too dry, too tropical or too mountainous. And Mexico completely lacks any meaningful river system for maritime transport. Add in a largely desert border, and Mexico as a country is not a meaningful threat to American security (which hardly means that there are not serious and ongoing concerns in the American-Mexican relationship).

With geography empowering the United States and hindering Canada and Mexico, the United States does not need to maintain a large standing military force to counter either. The Canadian border is almost completely unguarded, and the Mexican border is no more than a fence in most locations — a far cry from the sort of military standoffs that have marked more adversarial borders in human history. Not only are Canada and Mexico not major threats, but the U.S. transport network allows the United States the luxury of being able to quickly move a smaller force to deal with occasional problems rather than requiring it to station large static forces on its borders.

Like the transport network, this also helps the U.S. focus its resources on other things.

Taken together, the integrated transport network, large tracts of usable land and lack of a need for a standing military have one critical implication: The U.S. government tends to take a hands-off approach to economic management, because geography has not cursed the United States with any endemic problems. This may mean that the United States — and especially its government — comes across as disorganized, but it shifts massive amounts of labor and capital to the private sector, which for the most part allows resources to flow to wherever they will achieve the most efficient and productive results.

Laissez-faire capitalism has its flaws. Inequality and social stress are just two of many less-than-desirable side effects. The side effects most relevant to the current situation are, of course, the speculative bubbles that cause recessions when they pop. But in terms of long-term economic efficiency and growth, a free capital system is unrivaled. For the United States, the end result has proved clear: The United States has exited each decade since post-Civil War Reconstruction more powerful than it was when it entered it. While there are many forces in the modern world that threaten various aspects of U.S. economic standing, there is not one that actually threatens the U.S. base geographic advantages.

Is the United States in recession? Of course. Will it be forever? Of course not. So long as U.S. geographic advantages remain intact, it takes no small amount of paranoia and pessimism to envision anything but long-term economic expansion for such a chunk of territory. In fact, there are a number of factors hinting that the United States may even be on the cusp of recovery.

Russia and the State

If in economic terms the United States has everything going for it geographically, then Russia is just the opposite. The Russian steppe lies deep in the interior of the Eurasian landmass, and as such is subject to climatic conditions much more hostile to human habitation and agriculture than is the American Midwest. Even in those blessed good years when crops are abundant in Russia, it has no river network to allow for easy transport of products.

Russia has no good warm-water ports to facilitate international trade (and has spent much of its history seeking access to one). Russia does have long rivers, but they are not interconnected as the Mississippi is with its tributaries, instead flowing north to the Arctic Ocean, which can support no more than a token population. The one exception is the Volga, which is critical to Western Russian commerce but flows to the Caspian, a storm-wracked and landlocked sea whose delta freezes in the winter (along with the entire Volga itself). Developing such unforgiving lands requires a massive outlay of funds simply to build the road and rail networks necessary to achieve the most basic of economic development. The cost is so extreme that Russia's first ever intercontinental road was not completed until the 21st century, and it is little more than a two-lane path for much of its length. Between the lack of ports and the relatively low population densities, little of Russia's transport system beyond the St. Petersburg/Moscow corridor approaches anything that hints of economic rationality.

Russia also has no meaningful external borders. It sits on the eastern end of the North European Plain, which stretches all the way to Normandy, France, and Russia's connections to the Asian steppe flow deep into China. Because Russia lacks a decent internal transport network that can rapidly move armies from place to place, geography forces Russia to defend itself following two strategies. First, it requires massive standing armies on all of its borders. Second, it dictates that Russia continually push its boundaries outward to buffer its core against external threats.

Both strategies compromise Russian economic development even further. The large standing armies are a continual drain on state coffers and the country's labor pool; their cost was a critical economic factor in the Soviet fall. The expansionist strategy not only absorbs large populations that do not wish to be part of the Russian state and so must constantly be policed — the core rationale for Russia's robust security services — but also inflates Russia's infrastructure development costs by increasing the amount of relatively useless territory Moscow is responsible for.

Russia's labor and capital resources are woefully inadequate to overcome the state's needs and vulnerabilities, which are legion. These endemic problems force Russia toward central planning; the full harnessing of all economic resources available is required if Russia is to achieve even a modicum of security and stability. One of the many results of this is severe economic inefficiency and a general dearth of an internal consumer market. Because capital and other resources can be flung forcefully at problems, however, active management can achieve specific national goals more readily than a hands-off, American-style model. This often gives the impression of significant progress in areas the Kremlin chooses to highlight.

But such achievements are largely limited to wherever the state happens to be directing its attention. In all other sectors, the lack of attention results in atrophy or criminalization. This is particularly true in modern Russia, where the ruling elite comprises just a handful of people, starkly limiting the amount of planning and oversight possible. And unless management is perfect in perception and execution, any mistakes are quickly magnified into national catastrophes. It is therefore no surprise to STRATFOR that the Russian economy has now fallen the furthest of any major economy during the current recession.

China and Separatism

China also faces significant hurdles, albeit none as daunting as Russia's challenges. China's core is the farmland of the Yellow River basin in the north of the country, a river that is not readily navigable and is remarkably flood prone. Simply avoiding periodic starvation requires a high level of state planning and coordination. (Wrestling a large river is not the easiest thing one can do.) Additionally, the southern half of the country has a subtropical climate, riddling it with diseases that the southerners are resistant to but the northerners are not. This compromises the north's political control of the south.

Central control is also threatened by China's maritime geography. China boasts two other rivers, but they do not link to each other or the Yellow naturally. And China's best ports are at the mouths of these two rivers: Shanghai at the mouth of the Yangtze and Hong Kong/Macau/Guangzhou at the mouth of the Pearl. The Yellow boasts no significant ocean port. The end result is that other regional centers can and do develop economic means independent of Beijing.

With geography complicating northern rule and supporting southern economic independence, Beijing's age-old problem has been trying to keep China in one piece. Beijing has to underwrite massive (and expensive) development programs to stitch the country together with a common infrastructure, the most visible of which is the Grand Canal that links the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The cost of such linkages instantly guarantees that while China may have a shot at being unified, it will always be capital-poor.

Beijing also has to provide its autonomy-minded regions with an economic incentive to remain part of Greater China, and "simple" infrastructure will not cut it. Modern China has turned to a state-centered finance model for this. Under the model, all of the scarce capital that is available is funneled to the state, which divvies it out via a handful of large state banks. These state banks then grant loans to various firms and local governments at below the cost of raising the capital. This provides a powerful economic stimulus that achieves maximum employment and growth — think of what you could do with a near-endless supply of loans at below 0 percent interest — but comes at the cost of encouraging projects that are loss-making, as no one is ever called to account for failures. (They can just get a new loan.) The resultant growth is rapid, but it is also unsustainable. It is no wonder, then, that the central government has chosen to keep its $2 trillion of currency reserves in dollar-based assets; the rate of return is greater, the value holds over a long period, and Beijing doesn't have to worry about the United States seceding.

Because the domestic market is considerably limited by the poor-capital nature of the country, most producers choose to tap export markets to generate income. In times of plenty this works fairly well, but when Chinese goods are not needed, the entire Chinese system can seize up. Lack of exports reduces capital availability, which constrains loan availability. This in turn not only damages the ability of firms to employ China's legions of citizens, but it also removes the primary reason the disparate Chinese regions pay homage to Beijing. China's geography hardwires in a series of economic challenges that weaken the coherence of the state and make China dependent upon uninterrupted access to foreign markets to maintain state unity. As a result, China has not been a unified entity for the vast majority of its history, but instead a cauldron of competing regions that cleave along many different fault lines: coastal versus interior, Han versus minority, north versus south.

China's survival technique for the current recession is simple. Because exports, which account for roughly half of China's economic activity, have sunk by half, Beijing is throwing the equivalent of the financial kitchen sink at the problem. China has force-fed more loans through the banks in the first four months of 2009 than it did in the entirety of 2008. The long-term result could well bury China beneath a mountain of bad loans — a similar strategy resulted in Japan's 1991 crash, from which Tokyo has yet to recover. But for now it is holding the country together. The bottom line remains, however: China's recovery is completely dependent upon external demand for its production, and the most it can do on its own is tread water.

Discordant Europe

Europe faces an imbroglio somewhat similar to China's.

Europe has a number of rivers that are easily navigable, providing a wealth of trade and development opportunities. But none of them interlinks with the others, retarding political unification. Europe has even more good harbors than the United States, but they are not evenly spread throughout the Continent, making some states capital-rich and others capital-poor. Europe boasts one huge piece of arable land on the North European Plain, but it is long and thin, and so occupied by no fewer than seven distinct ethnic groups.

These groups have constantly struggled — as have the various groups up and down Europe's seemingly endless list of river valleys — but none has been able to emerge dominant, due to the webwork of mountains and peninsulas that make it nigh impossible to fully root out any particular group. And Europe's wealth of islands close to the Continent, with Great Britain being only the most obvious, guarantee constant intervention to ensure that mainland Europe never unifies under a single power.

Every part of Europe has a radically different geography than the other parts, and thus the economic models the Europeans have adopted have little in common. The United Kingdom, with few immediate security threats and decent rivers and ports, has an almost American-style laissez-faire system. France, with three unconnected rivers lying wholly in its own territory, is a somewhat self-contained world, making economic nationalism its credo. Not only do the rivers in Germany not connect, but Berlin has to share them with other states. The Jutland Peninsula interrupts the coastline of Germany, which finds its sea access limited by the Danes, the Swedes and the British. Germany must plan in great detail to maximize its resource use to build an infrastructure that can compensate for its geographic deficiencies and link together its good — but disparate — geographic blessings. The result is a state that somewhat favors free enterprise, but within the limits framed by national needs.

And the list of differences goes on: Spain has long coasts and is arid; Austria is landlocked and quite wet; most of Greece is almost too mountainous to build on; it doesn't get flatter than the Netherlands; tiny Estonia faces frozen seas in the winter; mammoth Italy has never even seen an icebreaker. Even if there were a supranational authority in Europe that could tax or regulate the banking sector or plan transnational responses, the propriety of any singular policy would be questionable at best.

Such stark regional differences give rise to such variant policies that many European states have a severe (and understandable) trust deficit when it comes to any hint of anything supranational. We are not simply taking about the European Union here, but rather a general distrust of anything cross-border in nature. One of the many outcomes of this is a preference for using local banks rather than stock exchanges for raising capital. After all, local banks tend to use local capital and are subject to local regulations, while stock exchanges tend to be internationalized in all respects. Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece and Austria get more than 90 percent of their financing from banks, the United Kingdom 84 percent and Germany 76 percent — while for the United States it is only 40 percent.

And this has proved unfortunate in the extreme for today's Europe. The current recession has its roots in a financial crisis that has most dramatically impacted banks, and European banks have proved far from immune. Until Europe's banks recover, Europe will remain mired in recession. And since there cannot be a Pan-European solution, Europe's recession could well prove to be the worst of all this time around.

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

John Mauldin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:31:00 GMT

I've been in this business a long time. Some days it feels like a very long time. But never in all the years that I've been in the financial markets have I felt like business per se has less impact on my investment decisions. Let me explain.

GM shares have gone from being a claim on earnings from car sales to being a call option on whether the US government will extend another lifeline. Banks' capital structures have gone from being the province of Boards of Directors and CFOs to the "expertise" of Congressional committees and appointed regulators. Used to be when I thought about Financial Centers New York and London came to mind. Instead now I have to think about Washington and Brussels.

My friend George Friedman and his team at STRATFOR are where I turn when I need help thinking about these new realities. George's team provides me context and understanding of the environment in which financial developments are going to take place. I may tweak him about his ties, but if you saw George speak at my conference in La Jolla, you know that he's an absolutely compelling speaker. And it's small wonder that his latest book spent those weeks on the New York Times bestseller list too.

Below you'll find STRATFOR's 2Q Forecast. I hope you find it as helpful as I do in formulating my plans. What I can tell you with certainty is that if you're not taking into account the impact of geopolitical events on the markets, it's no different than trading agricultural futures without a weather forecast. George and his team provide their Members - myself included - with forecasts and on-going analysis that's invaluable in understanding the seachange in the global economy. And in exchange for me not teasing him any more, he's offering my readers a special rate on a STRATFOR Membership. Click here to join STRATFOR at this special rate and get access to a full year of the same geopolitical intelligence I use in my strategic planning. You'll be glad you did.

Yours, John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

Editor’s note: STRATFOR arranges its primary forecasts — in this case the document below — topically rather than geographically. Thus, the entirety of our South Asia and Global Economy coverage for the quarterly is included in this primary forecast. Those portions of the Middle East and Eurasia forecasts that are not included in this forecast have been appended with the other regional sections.

Executive Summary

STRATFOR’s 2009 annual forecast focused on three broad trends: the global recession, the Russian resurgence and the evolution of the jihadist war.

There are number of indications that the U.S. economy is showing signs of life, but it will be weeks — if not months — before these glimmers may assemble into a firm recovery. At that point, it would be a minimum of an additional three months before a U.S. recovery could foster a global recovery. This means that for the second quarter, STRATFOR is able to take a pass on this part of our forecast. Either this quarter will be the dark before the dawn, or it will be the dark before midnight. Either way, it will be dark. A noticeable recovery will have to wait until the third quarter.

In the first quarter, Russia was convinced that it had the new U.S. president and his administration right where it wanted them: so obsessed with the Afghan war that Russia could demand anything it wanted in exchange for allowing military supplies to enter Afghanistan from the north. Russia miscalculated. It seems the Obama administration puts something above fighting the Afghan war on its priority list: limiting Russia’s resurgence. The second quarter will be Russia’s time to consolidate the advances it has made over the course of the past four years, before the Americans can gain any capacity from their planned Iraqi drawdown. Washington will be looking for ways to bolster allies against Moscow, with a somewhat ambivalent Turkey taking center stage.

Finally there is the jihadist war itself. The U.S. divide-and-conquer strategy has worked reasonably well in Iraq: Some Sunni militants, rather than shooting at U.S. forces, are now being integrated (after a fashion) into the fragile yet strengthening Iraqi federal government. This is allowing the United States to remove some forces from Iraq, and thus to surge some into Afghanistan. The American intent is to rework the divide-and-conquer trick on the Taliban. However, this tactic is not likely to be replicable for a mixture of historical, demographic and geographic reasons. The most likely reason for the plan to not succeed is because in Iraq, the “good” Sunnis the Americans courted were locals — nationalists under pressure from Shiite Iran — while the “bad” Sunnis were foreign Islamists. In Afghanistan, there is no neat factional split within the Taliban. So for the Americans, the next three months will be about trying to force a square peg into a round hole. There will be little if any progress, and the Pakistani government’s lack of enthusiasm for the conflict will allow the region’s militants to expand the scope of the war.

Primary Forecast

Global trend: The Economy

Undoubtedly, there is plenty of bad news — stock market surges tend to be the first major sign that the U.S. economy is healing, but the stock market cannot seem to find its feet, and employment remains well off ideal levels. Yet in the latter half of the first quarter, there were several developments indicating that the credit chokehold that caused the American recession to go global has begun to slacken. The availability of credit is the critical issue when evaluating this recession. Until firms and consumers can reliably borrow, economic growth cannot recover.

There are limited signs that credit is indeed loosening, and that some life is creeping back into the U.S. economy. Recent changes in accounting rules in the United States and Europe should grant banks the confidence they need to resume lending, independent of anything the governments might attempt. The Obama stimulus package — albeit far from perfect for actually stimulating the economy — is beginning to take effect. Retail sales have been surprisingly buoyant and since consumer spending comprises 70 percent of the American economy, this is a critical factor. Even more important is the fact that the stock of inventories has dropped for six consecutive months (September 2008 to February 2009, the latest month for which data is available) in the steepest decline on record. With inventories low, producers will soon be getting orders. That is how economic recoveries begin. There are even flickers of activity in the most moribund U.S. economic sector: housing.

But even if the United States economy is indeed showing signs of life, four caveats must kept in mind.

First, even a robust resumption in U.S. growth will not begin on any specific date. Instead, there will be increasingly bright glimmers of light here and there that will not be fully recognized until six months after the fact. It appears that the second quarter may be a transition quarter for the United States, with the more noticeable growth happening later in the year.

Second, the future of the American automotive industry his shifted from bleak to dark, with General Motors Corp. in particular planning for imminent bankruptcy (and GM is not the worst off of the Detroit Three). The dislocations caused by this industry’s implosion will be felt far and wide and even if they somehow do not delay the recovery, they are certain to have a material impact on how serious the average American views the recession as being.

Third, a resumption in growth in the United States historically does not mean an immediate rebound in either income or employment figures — both tend to be lagging indicators — particularly if the automotive industry breaks apart. Therefore, even if the recession does let up in the second quarter and growth turns nominally positive, that does not mean that most Americans will feel like the situation has improved. Bear in mind that it did not become conventional wisdom that the United States’ 2001 recession — which actually ended in October 2001 — had ended until 2004. Dispelling Americans’ mental gloom required more than two years of strong and sustained growth.

Fourth, while STRATFOR is certain that the U.S. economy will lead the world out of recession — the roughly $10 trillion American consumer market will demand products from, and thus generate growth in, Asia and Europe — STRATFOR is equally certain that there will be a lag of one to three quarters between a U.S. recovery and a global recovery. Most of Asia has suffered export plunges of at least 50 percent, and industrial output is down by a third the world over. Even if the Americans already have eaten through existing inventory, it will take some time for foreign suppliers to spin their industrial bases back up. The global system does not turn on a dime.

This means in the quarter ahead STRATFOR actually gets to opt out of taking a hard stance on this issue. If the United States does not recover, the world will remain mired in recession. If the United States begins to recover, the world will remain mired in recession and will begin pulling out later in the year. Either way, the second quarter is not going to be a comfortable time; it just might be slightly less uncomfortable for the Americans.

Internationally, there will be only one force aside from the U.S. economy to watch: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was recapitalized at the April G-20 summit to handle the growing need for bailouts. The IMF’s assistance programs can be split into two parts. First, traditional structural adjustment programs will provide funds to states that have made poor economic decisions. These states then fall under the IMF’s tutelage, and they must make often-wrenching changes to how their systems are run. States tapping this sort of loan program include Ukraine, Hungary, Iceland, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. These states in essence are on a sort of life support while undergoing economic surgery.

The second kind of program — introduced in March — is a bridge loan for states that have been doing a decent job of economic management but are affected by factors related to the recession that lie utterly beyond their control. This second type of program does not require any meaningful changes to a state’s economic management as (in the IMF’s eyes) they have not done anything wrong, and could perhaps be extended to countries like South Korea, Brazil, Mexico and Poland. It is this second sort of program that will have a deeper effect on the system in the short run as it will allow larger states to maintain economic activity independent of the United States, somewhat blunting the effects of the recession without threatening social stability. It is also going to absorb the lion’s share of the IMF’s funding; the first program negotiated under this system — a $40 billion line of credit to Mexico — is two-thirds as large as the combined total of the more traditional loans granted since the crisis began.

Global trend: The Russian resurgence

In STRATFOR’s 2009 annual forecast, we outlined how a dominant issue for the year would be Russia’s effort to force the United States to make a strategic bargain: Russia would grant U.S. forces a northern supply route into Afghanistan in exchange for an expunging of Western influence from the former Soviet space. At a series of summits in the first week of April, the Obama administration broadly rebuffed Russia’s demands, and the two states are sliding quickly into confrontational stances.

From the U.S. point of view, Russia has overreached and has failed to consolidate its position in the key former Soviet spheres it assumed were under its control. From the Russian point of view, the U.S. refusal to accept Russia’s superior position has forced Moscow to redouble its consolidation efforts in order to erode Washington’s confidence and limit Washington’s future options inside the former Soviet sphere.

Russia will make three major consolidation efforts during the next three months. First and most important, Moscow will try to manipulate Ukraine to remove pro-Western elements such as Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko from power. Second, Moscow will undermine the Georgian government to destabilize pro-Western elements there. Georgia, unlike Ukraine, is solidly pro-Western, so Russia is satisfied simply to destabilize or neutralize it rather than transform it into something useful to Moscow. The deck is stacked in the Kremlin’s favor in both states due to Russia’s overwhelming energy, intelligence, political, economic and cultural influence, as well as geographic proximity.

But it is the third consolidation attempt where things will get tricky: Armenia.

Turkey and Russia’s spheres of influence overlap in many regions, including the Caucasus. Not only is Russia very active in Georgia, but Turkey — as part of its efforts to relaunch long-dormant geopolitical ambitions — is trying to normalize relations with Armenia. Turkey ended relations with Armenia in 1993 after Armenia began its war with neighboring Azerbaijan over the secessionist Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh located inside Azerbaijan — and the Turkish-Azerbaijani relationship has only strengthened (especially against Armenia) since then.

However, the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia would open the Caucasus to a flood of Turkish political and economic influence. Until now, Moscow has actually facilitated this process, thinking that a grateful Turkey would not side with Europe and particularly the United States in containing Russian influence. Now that U.S. President Barack Obama has personally forged a partnership with the Turks, the Kremlin is not so sure.

The restoration of ties between Turkey and Armenia was rumored to occur in the first week of April, though now dates for the event range from May to October. Russia has many levers, including energy, which it can use to counter Turkey’s orientation toward the Americans, including Moscow’s power to decide whether its protectorate of Armenia will go forward with any deal with Ankara.

The wild card in talks between Turkey and Armenia is Azerbaijan. Baku — which considers Yerevan its worst enemy — feels that its close ally Turkey has abandoned it and wants to ensure its interests are not overlooked in any deal between Turkey and Armenia. Baku is considering two means of scuttling the talks, both with the intent of severing growing Turkish-Armenian ties: appealing to Russia (the logic being that Turkey does not wish to simply trade energy-rich Azerbaijan for energy-poor Armenia), or directly attacking Armenian-held territory (triggering a war in which Turkey would feel forced to take sides).

Global trend: The U.S.-jihadist war

While STRATFOR maintains that the overall strategic threat posed by the transnational jihadist movement continues to wane, the U.S.-jihadist war, which stretches from Iraq to the Indian subcontinent, remains a dominant theme for 2009.

The United States has no choice but to wrap up the war in Iraq so that it can devote more resources to the war in Afghanistan, but the transition from the Middle East to South Asia will not be easy. A fragile power-sharing deal among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish power groups remains intact, and violence levels are still low. Yet, as STRATFOR expected, the United States is facing difficulties ensuring that the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government is integrating into the security apparatus members of the Sunni militia forces that split off from al Qaeda and allied with the United States. Shiite-Sunni tensions will continue to simmer. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), while a much-weakened force, may still appeal to dissident Sunnis — which may allow AQI to regain space and carry out more attacks.

Kurdish-Arab tensions are also likely to escalate over the next several months. Kurdish claims to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and constant political maneuvering among Sunnis, Kurds and Shia (most notably involving the Iraqi prime minister) could ignite the dispute over Kirkuk’s future for political gain. In addition, political infighting within the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) is likely to worsen as PUK leader and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani prepares for his succession.

The United States will try to improve its chances of holding Iraq together internally by laying the groundwork for a more constructive relationship with Iraq’s Persian neighbors. On the surface, the U.S.-Iranian relationship is improving: Obama has made clear his intent to engage Iran; his administration has agreed to direct, multilateral talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue; and Iran is participating in U.S.-led summits on Afghanistan. But beyond the rhetoric, little has changed between Tehran and Washington. Iran is more likely to ratchet up ambiguity and Western anxiety over its nuclear program than make concessions to Washington. Like AQI, Iran’s influence may have slipped, but it has not evaporated: Iran’s influence with Shiite militants remains strong enough to upset the delicate Sunni-Shiite balance the Americans are counting on holding.

Iran is also unhappy with the developing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that calls for engaging with “moderate” members of the Taliban — a radical Sunni force that Tehran regards as a strategic threat. Tehran will keep up appearances in the diplomatic sphere but will continue to keep its distance from Washington on any issues of substance in the near term. Iranian presidential elections will be held in June, but regardless of which camp the winner comes from — hard-line, moderate or reformist — Iran’s foreign policy goals and concerns are unlikely to shift significantly.

Meanwhile, Washington will shift its focus to South Asia even though there are evidently many loose ends to tie up in the Middle East. The developing U.S. strategy for this region will focus on bolstering the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, negotiating with moderate Taliban and diversifying supply routes to deny Pakistan some of the leverage it holds in this war. However, this plan suffers from a number of strategic flaws.

The second quarter will be a trying one for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The initial surge of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan will not be in place until summer’s end. Though European NATO members have contributed additional forces to help secure the country for elections in August, most are temporary commitments and do little to alter the overall U.S. and NATO force structure being directed at a native guerrilla force with superior local knowledge and intelligence. This puts NATO on its heels in combating Taliban and al Qaeda forces, which will use this spring fighting season to shape the battlefield, carrying out operations in the countryside that aim to expand their territorial control and launching complex attacks in urban centers that aim to degrade the confidence of Afghan civilians and security forces.

American attempts to elicit cooperation from Pakistan through aid packages are unlikely to affect Pakistani behavior significantly in the near term. Though Pakistan is threatened by a separate Taliban insurgency at home, it prefers negotiations over force on its side of the border. This gap between U.S. and Pakistani policy in managing the insurgency will become more evident in the coming weeks and months as Pakistan fends off U.S. attempts to overhaul the Pakistani intelligence apparatus and makes agreements that undermine the writ of the Pakistani state in its northwest periphery. Pakistan’s preference to avoid combat will allow Taliban forces to concentrate their attacks on the U.S. and NATO supply routes that originate in the port of Karachi.

The United States had attempted to diversify its supply lines by opening up a northern route that enters Afghanistan through Russian-dominated Central Asia, but talks have frozen as U.S.-Russian relations deteriorate. The United States is now almost completely dependent on Pakistan; the logistical burden is rising with support for the troop surge, and the militants feel emboldened as Pakistan feels it can use a lighter touch in combating them.

India’s concerns will rise as little progress is made in the war.

As STRATFOR forecasted in the 2009 annual, New Delhi has refrained from taking overt military action against Pakistan after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks for fear of destabilizing Pakistan further and giving regional jihadists an excuse to focus their attention on India. Yet the gradual unraveling of command and control within the Pakistani military establishment has enabled many more of Islamabad’s Islamist militant proxies operating in Pakistan and India to team up with transnational jihadists to carry out deadlier and more strategically targeted attacks. Though the timing is uncertain, India is likely to witness another large-scale Islamist militant attack on its soil that will once again escalate cross-border tensions on the subcontinent.

India has thus far stayed on the sidelines of U.S. dealings with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its involvement is largely limited to two items: first, making clear to Washington that Kashmir is not up for debate as Washington attempts to rehabilitate Pakistan, and second, increasing its presence in Afghanistan, devoting effort to reconstruction projects and perhaps providing covert support to anti-Taliban groups in the north (in part to counter a U.S. strategy to engage “pragmatic” Taliban). Much like the Iranians and the Russians, India has no interest in engaging Taliban forces who share a Pashtun link with the Pakistanis.

India is currently in the midst of a general election that will conclude in mid-May. No party is likely to win a clear majority, and it will be up to the incumbent Congress party and the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to cobble together a ruling coalition of smaller regional parties. STRATFOR will not attempt to predict the outcome of this uncertain election, which will largely be based on the populist votes of India’s lower classes, but should the BJP manage to overcome its setbacks and take the lead, Indian restraint against Pakistan would not be assured in the event of another large-scale militant attack.

Part Two: Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Regional Breakouts

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

John Mauldin — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Dear Friends:

A long-time religious land bridge between the Islamic and Western worlds, Turkey now finds itself an economic gatekeeper, a US-backed contender for the EU and the only key that could unlock Europe from dependence on Russian resources. The value of your dollar is intrinsically linked to last week’s summits—the most important multinational summits in history.

I’d like to share with you an article by my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR. It delves into the Summits (G20, NATO, bilaterals) and explores the connections between finance and geopolitics. In this case, it boils down to two string-holding puppeteers: Germany and Russia. Germany, the largest exporter in the world, is happy to up its production while the US spreads its dollar paper-thin by contributing to an IMF fund that will bail out countries who will in turn spend their money in Germany’s already tremendous export sector. Russia, the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, too stands to benefit from US contributions to the IMF pot, as their slice of the pie gets bigger with the pan—as long as Turkey keeps her pipes closed.

The decisions made and policies enacted at the Summits trickle down to you and me. To make sense of it all, I encourage you to read STRATFOR. George has arranged a special offer for my readers: click here to take advantage of a 2-for-1 deal; you get a 2-year Membership for the 1-year price of $349. STRATFOR is the best global intelligence service in the world, and their unbiased coverage of the G20, NATO, and other extracurricular summits is unmatched by anyone else.

Yours,
John Mauldin

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

By George Friedman
April 6, 2009

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Let's begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany's. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers' meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany's unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can't afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama's first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that "consensus."

Turkey and Obama's Deeper Game

But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

The Russian Dimension

Let's diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week's meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren't essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn't been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia's position is precarious and Azerbaijan's route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany's dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany's energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia's junior partner.

This is why Obama's most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey's emergence as a major player in NATO's political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey's accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won't yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

The Obama Administration and the Former Soviet Union

John Mauldin — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:09:23 GMT

Dear Friends:

Who's afraid of the Russian bear? As Russia makes a grab for power and influence, the rest of the world watches to see how the United States and her still-new president will react. As an investor, it's important that you're aware of global politics, as the ramifications reach beyond diplomatic relations and straight into the markets.

I've included a piece from my friend George Friedman's company, STRATFOR, on The Obama Administration and the Former Soviet Union. It's the seventh in a series that explores how key countries have interacted with the United States in the past, and how their relationships with Washington will likely be defined during the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. It's a must-read for informed investors.

George has very kindly arranged for a special offer on a STRATFOR Membership just for my readers. I strongly encourage you to take advantage of this offer. Now more than ever, you need a wide lens on the world, as politics shapes the economy. There's no one better than George and his team at Stratfor at telling you what you need to know and why. I know you'll find them as valuable as I do.

Yours,
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Part 7: The Obama Administration and the Former Soviet Union

Editor's Note: This is the seventh piece in a series that explores how key countries in various regions have interacted with the United States in the past, and how their relationships with Washington will likely be defined during the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration seems to be largely focused on South Asia and the Middle East. Yet one of Washington's biggest challenges will come from its old foe: Russia. Obama's team must make some major decisions regarding Russia and American influence in Eurasia — decisions that will affect not only U.S.-Russian relations but also future dynamics in Europe, the former Soviet Union and many other regions.

Russia's Geographic Position

In a nutshell, Russia is a large, untenable landmass that not only is difficult to hold together but also sees itself surrounded by enemies and other great (or potentially great) powers. The country's core — where most of its population and commerce are concentrated — actually consists of only the Moscow-St. Petersburg corridor and the surrounding European Russian regions up to the Ural Mountains. The only geographic barrier separating this core from both Europe and the Middle East is distance. The core is also disconnected from Russia's wealth of resources, which lie beyond the Ural Mountains in Siberia — making the use of Russian resources very difficult and pricey, given the costs of transport and of operating in Siberia's marshlands and frozen tundra.

Russia — the largest country in terms of landmass — has difficulty being a land power because of its sheer size. Its land and sea borders are impossible to defend effectively, leaving the country very vulnerable to invasion. Because Russia is surrounded by countless countries and superpowers, it is constantly concerned about security. Its main focus, of course, is protecting its core; its south and east are its secondary focus. In order to fully protect itself, Russia must have a buffer zone surrounding it almost entirely, keeping other powers and threats at bay. This means Russia must conquer (or at least influence) a ring of states surrounding European Russia, the Caucasus and non-European Russia. This imperative led to the organization of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact bloc, and it is now driving Russia to reassert control over the former Soviet states.

Russia wants to be a world power, but it must protect itself before extending its reach beyond its immediate sphere of influence. And since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has lost a lot of ground, with Western powers (particularly NATO and the European Union) expanding into its realm. Therefore, Russia faces the task of reasserting control over its former Soviet states while pushing Western influence out of those states.

The Bush Administration and Russia

At the beginning of the Bush administration, it seemed as if a new era of U.S.-Russian relations was dawning. When U.S. President George W. Bush met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush said he "looked the man in the eye" and "was able to get a sense of his soul." Putin (now Russian prime minister) was the first head of state to call Bush after the 9/11 attacks in the United States, and he was quick to offer Russia's support.

But there was an inherent problem with this new friendship: Neither country truly trusted the other, no matter the rhetoric. Russia had too much work to do in order to secure its strength and its future, and the United States never wanted to see a strong Russia again. At the time, Russia was a weak, fractured and crumbling state that needed time to consolidate internally. Furthermore, once it was stronger (which would take years), Russia needed the United States to be preoccupied enough to allow Moscow to resurge onto the international scene. This opportunity would arise when the United States became too bogged down with its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent Russia from pushing back against Western influence in its border regions.

But while the Bush administration was focused on its wars, it did not allow Russia free rein in Eurasia. Bush pledged to those states in Russia's sphere — especially Poland, Ukraine and Georgia — that the United States would protect them from their former Soviet master. Under the Bush administration, Washington did much to secure these states and solidify Western influence there, but there are four moves in particular that stand out in Moscow's mind:

The Bush administration started its strategic moves into the former Soviet sphere by placing military bases in Central Asia in 2001. The bases were meant to support the U.S. effort in Afghanistan, but they also served to infiltrate a territory where the West had not had much influence. Involved in one war and about to begin another, the United States was not thinking foremost about countering a resurgent Russia. But the war in Afghanistan gave Washington an excuse to achieve its long-term goal of capping Russia's influence in Central Asia, where Russia had long been the sole power (although the West and China had dabbled in the region). Now, the United States was setting up permanent ties in the region (and military ones at that).
Next, starting in 2002, Washington entered negotiations with many Central and Eastern European states about placing ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems on their soil. Washington's rationale was that they would protect against a strike from Iran. The move would place U.S. military installations in Central Europe, essentially moving the Warsaw Pact line from Germany eastward.
In 2004, the United States ushered the three former Soviet Baltic states — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — into NATO. This put NATO on Russia's border and a stone's throw from St. Petersburg — a nightmare for Moscow.
The United States then demonstrated its commitment to Georgia and Ukraine after the two former Soviet states had their pro-Western revolutions (the 2003 Georgian Rose Revolution and the 2004 Ukrainian Orange Revolution). It did this by pushing for the two states to be quickly put on the path toward membership in Western organizations like NATO. The United States fiercely maintained this push despite the fact that other NATO members did not want to face Russia's ire should they agree to accept the two states as members. At present, the debate over further NATO expansion is heavily contested among its members, who allowed the Baltics to come in while Russia was still passive and weak but have had second thoughts about Georgia and Ukraine since Russia has become stronger and more assertive.

While Russia perceived them as genuine threats, these four moves actually helped Russia counter the United States. There was no question about who was behind them or whether Washington had NATO's unanimous support. Moscow knew the moves were all led by Washington, which had discounted much of NATO's concern over riling a resurgent Russia. Moscow also realized the power of fracturing the trans-Atlantic alliance into three main parts, each with its own strategic interests — the United States, Western Europe and Central/Eastern Europe. This awareness also helped Russia fracture the European Union.

From the Kremlin's point of view, the Bush administration betrayed it by heralding American-Russian friendship while making the first moves to undermine a Russian resurgence. Bush drew many lines in the sand and agitated Russia almost to the point of igniting a new Cold War — at least in Moscow's view, though it certainly contributed to the tensions by reasserting itself on the international stage. Russia understood what the Bush administration was attempting to achieve — a permanent break in Russia's influence abroad so that it could never call itself a world power again. Moscow also understood that the United States was using an old Cold War handbook to find Russia's pressure points.

Today, with the Obama administration in place, Moscow wonders if priorities have truly changed in Washington and, if they have, how it can use this transition to regain control in its near abroad and fully achieve its geopolitical goals.

Russia's Goals

Though Russia has many things it would love to demand of the new Obama administration, there are four key areas of concern: NATO's expansion and influence in former Soviet states, renegotiating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), U.S. BMD in Europe and the U.S. presence in Central Asia. The first two issues are the most critical for Russia, which believes it must preserve its buffers and maintain nuclear parity with the United States if it intends to survive as a nation-state.

Beginning in 1999, when it accepted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as new members, NATO expanded into former Warsaw Pact states. These particular states were not exactly pro-Russian and were looking for heavyweight protection against Russia. It was a NATO expansion in 2004 — when Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and the former Soviet states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia joined the alliance — that shook Moscow to its core.

Today, the even more critical former Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia are on the path toward NATO membership. If either of these states actually became part of the alliance, NATO would be positioned to undermine Russia's fundamental ability to defend itself and would be able to strike at the country's core. Moscow is looking for a firm agreement from Washington that it will not expand to Ukraine or Georgia — as well as an understanding that, although the Baltic states are members of NATO, Russia still wields more influence in these three small, difficult-to-defend Eastern European countries.

One state that is not yet on NATO's agenda but may be at some point is Finland. This state has long maintained neutrality to avoid having to choose sides against Russia, its largest trading partner and with whom it shares its longest border. Finland's Scandinavian neighbor, Sweden, is considering joining NATO and, if it does, Finland could follow suit. Although Russia does not view Finland as a potential NATO threat, Moscow could move quickly to block its membership in the alliance by leveraging the many tools at its disposal (trade, energy, security) if it ever looked like it might become one.

The 1991 START treaty was a Cold War-era arms reduction treaty that was highly specific and contained rigorous declaration, inspection and verification mechanisms. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington has become disillusioned with this sort of arms agreement, concerned as it is about being locked into bilateral arrangements with one country while another — China, say — starts ramping up its nuclear arsenal. But this does not mean that the transparency of the START framework does not have value, and both the Kremlin and the White House are interested in further reductions (even beyond those called for by 2012 in the 2003 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty).
Russia considers arms control of central importance. With a decaying arsenal, the Kremlin relies on treaties like START to lock the Pentagon into a bilateral strategic balance. Russia simply does not have the resources (money or technical skills) to compete in another arms race. For Russia, a renegotiation of START, which expires at the end of 2009, is all about long-term survival; nuclear balance has come to play an increasingly central role in ensuring Russian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The other two issues on Russia's agenda — U.S. BMD efforts in Europe and U.S. meddling in Central Asia — are not as critical as the first two, but they are being packaged into some sort of grand agreement in negotiations now under way between Moscow and Washington. For Russia, the BMD installations slated for Poland and the Czech Republic are more about the precedent they set for U.S. military troops on the ground in former Warsaw Pact territory than about the strategic nuclear balance.

Russia is deeply concerned about the long-term impact of BMD on the Russian nuclear deterrent, but the Polish installation with 10 interceptors would have little effect on Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles directed at the United States (which would travel over the Arctic). Nevertheless, Poland is a country with which Russia has legitimate concerns, and the BMD issue is one in which Moscow can easily appear to be the aggrieved party (it was Washington, after all, that withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). But the issue is symptomatic rather than central to the Kremlin's larger concerns.

Then there is Central Asia, where Russia wants to remove U.S. influence from its southern region. The United States no longer has a strong hold inside any Central Asian state, though it does have a base in Kyrgyzstan (as of this writing) and is currently using most of the Central Asian states as transport routes into Afghanistan — with Russia's permission. But Moscow wants it understood that Central Asia is its turf and that the United States is there with Russia's permission and can be ejected at any time. Central Asia is a tougher region for the Americans to project into, but it is becoming more important to the United States as the Obama administration reconsiders its strategy in South Asia.

Russia's Expectations and Concerns

Russia is viewing this new American administration with the same reservations it had when it viewed the old one. Moscow simply feels it was burned by Bush, and the Obama administration has come in at a time when the United States could use Russia's help. With Pakistan increasingly unreliable, the United States needs other supply routes into Afghanistan, and going through Russia and its former Soviet turf in Central Asia is the best alternative. At the same time, Russia has supported Iran in helping it develop its nuclear facilities and providing air-defense missile systems — in effect, giving Iran just the tools it needs to bargain with the United States and making Iran itself a bargaining chip for Russia to use for its own needs.

Of course, asking Russia for either concession would come with a price. It is Russia's time to place its goals on the table and ask for real actions by the new American administration in reversing or at least freezing certain Bush policies. In return, Russia would be more than happy to help the United States with its war in Afghanistan and cease supporting Iran, as long as such tactics would help Russia meet its own geopolitical objectives while keeping the United States at least partially distracted.

The Obama administration started to make overtures to Russia even before taking office, sending envoys led by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to Moscow for negotiations. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have said they are open to renegotiating START and possibly freezing the BMD plan, and they have already relayed to Ukraine and Georgia that NATO membership will most likely not happen. In return, Russia has allowed small shipments of supplies to start rolling from Latvia through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan into Afghanistan, and it is helping negotiate airspace rights for the United States over Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

But for any further commitment, Moscow wants tangible assurances from Washington that its major concerns — particularly NATO expansion and START renegotiation — will be addressed. The Kremlin does not trust the new White House and understands it can be betrayed at any moment, especially as the United States becomes less bogged down in Iraq. Russia is also concerned about how much the United States is willing to give up for its war in Afghanistan. Russia knows that, at the moment, the war in Afghanistan is a top priority for the Obama administration, but Moscow also knows that the U.S. attention span is short and that Russia's window of opportunity is correspondingly narrow.

Current negotiations will come to a head in April, when Obama sits down for the first time with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and finally allows the Kremlin to gauge where this new administration is and where it is willing to go. Russia believes both countries are at a unique place in history: each could give a little to the other over the short term, before some future and unavoidable confrontation, or Obama could decide to take on this resurgent and stronger Russia, even if it meant sacrificing other U.S. priorities, such as Afghanistan and Iran.

Either way, the decisions facing the Kremlin and the Obama administration are ones that will shape a renewed global rivalry.

Global Trend: The Russian Resurgence

John Mauldin — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:07:20 GMT

If the Russian Bear has indeed emerged from its post-Soviet hibernation to regain global prominence, that means big things for your portfolio. From the punishingly obvious war with Georgia last summer, to the more subtle - but equally powerful - shut off of natural gas to Ukraine and Europe, Russia is making it abundantly clear that they want to be global players again. To get a read on how this is all going to play out, I turn to my friend George Friedman, the founder of global intelligence firm Stratfor.

Stratfor just published its 2009 Annual Forecast, and I count on George's team of analysts because they're the very best in the business. And apparently the "secret" is getting out because I can't turn on CNN or read Forbes or listen to any of a dozen radio stations without hearing George being interviewed about his new book, The Next 100 Years. As an investor, I'm interested in both the near- and the long-term, and nobody matches the insights that George and his team provide.

I've included the "Russian Resurgence" section of Stratfor's 2009 Forecast below. Read it, and you'll see why you should join Stratfor and get the entire forecast as part of your Membership. George has also kindly offered my readers a free copy of his new book if you join now. I heartily recommend that you consider Stratfor for global intelligence for the next year and the next 100 years.

John Mauldin

Global Trend: The Russian Resurgence

Russian power is in long-term decline. Compared to the Soviet Union in 1989, the Russian Federation has less than half the population, one-third the economic bulk, lower commodity production and vastly decreased industrial output. Demographically, Russia is both shrinking and aging at rates that have not been seen outside of wartime since the time of the Black Death. The educational system has stalled, so Russia is facing an impending slide in labor quantity and quality, which will make it difficult if not outright impossible for Russia to keep up with its advancing neighbors. The long-term prognosis is, at best, very poor.

But "long-term" is the operative term. Russian power today must not be measured in the terms that will dominate its existence in the future. Instead, it must be assessed dispassionately in relative terms against its neighbors and competitors. Of those neighbors, only China can compare to Russia regarding military and economic capability, and the two states are bending over backward to avoid an adversarial relationship. True, in 2009 Russia faces the most dire economic challenges since the 1998 ruble crash and debt default, but so do all the states in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Europe and the Baltics. In fact, since Russia maintains more reserve funds and currency reserves than all the states in this arc combined, Russia even maintains a financial edge over the competition. And even with the global recession placing very real limits on what Moscow can achieve financially — both at home and abroad — Russia has myriad tools that place countries of interest to it at the Kremlin's mercy. The Kremlin (rightly) fears that Russia's days are numbered, but it has a simple plan: Re-establish as large of a buffer zone around the Russian core as possible while the balance of power remains in Russia's favor.

For Russia, most of the post-Cold War era was a chronicle of retreat from previous prominence, culminating in the West's decision in 2008 to recognize the independence of the former Serbian province of Kosovo — a decision that Russia campaigned long and hard to prevent. But in August 2008, Russia invaded its former territory of Georgia and proved to the world that Russian power was far from spent, marking the inflection point on the question of Russia's resurgence. The year 2009 will be about Russia using its military, intelligence and energy might to extend its influence back into its periphery.

Russia's primary target in 2009 is Ukraine, a country uniquely critical to Russia's geopolitical position and uniquely vulnerable to Russia's energy, intelligence and military tools — and then there is the influence Russia can wield over Ukraine's large Russian-speaking population. Russia has many other regions that it wants to bring into its fold while it can still act decisively — the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Baltics and Poland — but Ukraine is at the top of the list.

Ukraine occupies a piece of territory that is completely integrated into Russia's agricultural, industrial, energy and transport networks. Its physical position makes it crucial to Russia's ability to project power. A Ukraine at odds with Russia constrains Russia's position in the Caucasus, limits Russian power in Europe, threatens the entire Russian core and puts Moscow within spitting distance of a hostile border. A defiant Ukraine not only forces Russia to be purely defensive, but actually makes Russian territory indefensible from the west and south, as there are no natural boundaries to hide behind. In contrast, an acquiescent Ukraine allows Russia to project power outward into Central Europe and gives Russia greater access to the Black Sea and thus the Mediterranean and outside world.

Russia lost the territory in 1992 with the Soviet collapse, but managed to keep Ukraine a political no-mans-land. In 2004, however, the Orange Revolution brought to power a government not just oriented toward the West but downright hostile to Moscow. This sparked a panic in the Kremlin that prompted a foreign policy leading to Russia's resurgence. That resurgence is now stable enough that the Kremlin feels it can return Ukraine to the Russian orbit — forcibly, if necessary.

Russia has no shortage of tools to use on Ukraine to mold it into a shape more amenable to Russian interests. Russia backs and bankrolls Viktor Yanukovich, Yulia Timoshenko and Rinat Akhmetov — three of Ukraine's four most powerful political forces. Russia supplies Ukraine with two-thirds of its natural gas and four-fifths of its energy needs, and is not shy about using that control to damage the government. Ukraine is integrated into the Russian industrial heartland, and Russian firms directly control large portions of the Ukrainian metals industries. Russian control over several of Ukraine's ports links several Ukrainian oligarchs — and some Ukrainian organized crime syndicates — directly to the Kremlin.

Ukraine is not well equipped to resist Russia's efforts. The United States has been working with Ukrainian intelligence (which is currently under President Viktor Yushchenko), sparking a fierce battle within the Ukrainian intelligence services, which spun off from the KGB. Yushchenko is trying to purge ex-KGB forces and put in younger, American-trained staff members, but the Russian intelligence surge into the country since 2004 has been massive and is hard to counteract. Other Western intelligence agencies are simply too far behind to make much of a difference; only the Turks have made a notable effort. The rest of the "Western" moves are largely limited to bureaucratized American processes, largely financial and social, which simply are no match for the powerful, multi-vectored effort that Russia is making.

Russia is perfectly capable of achieving its goals in Ukraine on its own. The natural gas crisis at the start of 2009 is a testament to Russian capability, but Moscow has shown that it is willing to accept a deal that will make Ukraine more malleable. Specifically, the United States is attempting to forge a means of supplying its growing troop commitment in Afghanistan without becoming more dependent upon Pakistan. Russia is willing to allow American supplies to transit Russia and Russian-influenced Central Asia. But the price is Yushchenko's ouster and an agreement that the United States will not parlay its transit routes across Central Asia into actual influence over the region. And just in case the United States decides to push for more, Russia has established a network of options in the Middle East to complicate American efforts there should the need arise (for more information, see the Middle East section of the Annual Forecast), and is even putting some flags in the ground in Latin America.

Under the Obama administration, American foreign policy's initial focus is on fighting the Afghan war. So the question regarding the Russian resurgence is not what the Americans will give the Russians, but how much and how publicly. This will give the United States greater leverage in dealing with what it has identified as its prime concern, but at the cost of both creating a greater challenge in the future and undermining the strength of the Transatlantic alliance structure.

The Next 100 Years

John Mauldin — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:19:40 GMT

Much of the world is focused on the next 100 days—what Obama is going to do. That's important. But today in a special Outside the Box from my good friend George Freidman of Stratfor We will look out a bit further George is just about to release his latest book, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. (Even pre-release it's already at #11 on Amazon's non-fiction bestseller list!) Here's my quick summary; and to cut to the chase, it's just fascinating.

What reads like a geopolitical thriller gives a thought-provoking glimpse into what the world will look like in the coming century. George's strength is his ability to take geopolitical patterns and use them to forecast future events, sometimes with startling and counterintuitive results.

For example, he forecasts:

By the middle of this century, Poland and Turkey will be major international players
Russia will be a regional power – after emerging from a second cold war
Space-based solar power will completely change the global energy dynamic
The border areas between the US and Mexico are going to be in play again, like 150 years ago
Shrinking labor pools will cause countries to compete for immigrants rather than fighting to keep them out

I confess when George first told me about these ideas, I raised an eyebrow. But after reading the book, and going through the analysis, I find myself sometimes nodding in agreement and other times not being sure what I was reading. But like all the analysis reviews I do, I pay as much attention to the methods, the logic, and the arguments as the conclusions. Do that, and what seems hard to believe all of a sudden makes sense.

Don't let short-term fears blind you to long term opportunities. George's company, Stratfor, is my source for this kind of geopolitical analysis on an on-going basis. I've included the full introduction to the book below; and I heartily recommend that you click here for a special offer on a Stratfor Membership that includes a copy of George's upcoming book.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Next 100 Years

By George Friedman

OVERTURE
An Introduction to the American Age

Imagine that you were alive in the summer of 1900, living in London, then the capital of the world. Europe ruled the Eastern Hemisphere. There was hardly a place that, if not ruled directly, was not indirectly controlled from a European capital. Europe was at peace and enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Indeed, European interdependence due to trade and investment was so great that serious people were claiming that war had become impossible—and if not impossible, would end within weeks of beginning—because global financial markets couldn't withstand the strain. The future seemed fixed: a peaceful, prosperous Europe would rule the world.

Imagine yourself now in the summer of 1920. Europe had been torn apart by an agonizing war. The continent was in tatters. The Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, and Ottoman empires were gone and millions had died in a war that lasted for years. The war ended when an American army of a million men intervened—an army that came and then just as quickly left. Communism dominated Russia, but it was not clear that it could survive. Countries that had been on the periphery of European power, like the United States and Japan, suddenly emerged as great powers. But one thing was certain—the peace treaty that had been imposed on Germany guaranteed that it would not soon reemerge.

Imagine the summer of 1940. Germany had not only reemerged but conquered France and dominated Europe. Communism had survived and the Soviet Union now was allied with Nazi Germany. Great Britain alone stood against Germany, and from the point of view of most reasonable people, the war was over. If there was not to be a thousand-year Reich, then certainly Europe's fate had been decided for a century. Germany would dominate Europe and inherit its empire.

Imagine now the summer of 1960. Germany had been crushed in the war, defeated less than five years later. Europe was occupied, split down the middle by the United States and the Soviet Union. The European empires were collapsing, and the United States and Soviet Union were competing over who would be their heir. The United States had the Soviet Union surrounded and, with an overwhelming arsenal of nuclear weapons, could annihilate it in hours. The United States had emerged as the global superpower. It dominated all of the world's oceans, and with its nuclear force could dictate terms to anyone in the world. Stalemate was the best the Soviets could hope for—unless the Soviets invaded Germany and conquered Europe. That was the war everyone was preparing for. And in the back of everyone's mind, the Maoist Chinese, seen as fanatical, were the other danger.

Now imagine the summer of 1980. The United States had been defeated in a seven-year war—not by the Soviet Union, but by communist North Vietnam. The nation was seen, and saw itself, as being in retreat. Expelled from Vietnam, it was then expelled from Iran as well, where the oil fields, which it no longer controlled, seemed about to fall into the hands of the Soviet Union. To contain the Soviet Union, the United States had formed an alliance with Maoist China—the American president and the Chinese chairman holding an amiable meeting in Beijing. Only this alliance seemed able to contain the powerful Soviet Union, which appeared to be surging.

Imagine now the summer of 2000. The Soviet Union had completely collapsed. China was still communist in name but had become capitalist in practice. NATO had advanced into Eastern Europe and even into the former Soviet Union. The world was prosperous and peaceful. Everyone knew that geopolitical considerations had become secondary to economic considerations, and the only problems were regional ones in basket cases like Haiti or Kosovo.

Then came September 11, 2001, and the world turned on its head again. At a certain level, when it comes to the future, the only thing one can be sure of is that common sense will be wrong. There is no magic twenty-year cycle; there is no simplistic force governing this pattern. It is simply that the things that appear to be so permanent and dominant at any given moment in history can change with stunning rapidity. Eras come and go. In international relations, the way the world looks right now is not at all how it will look in twenty years . . . or even less. The fall of the Soviet Union was hard to imagine, and that is exactly the point. Conventional political analysis suffers from a profound failure of imagination. It imagines passing clouds to be permanent and is blind to powerful, long- term shifts taking place in full view of the world.

If we were at the beginning of the twentieth century, it would be impossible to forecast the particular events I've just listed. But there are some things that could have been—and, in fact, were—forecast. For example, it was obvious that Germany, having united in 1871, was a major power in an insecure position (trapped between Russia and France) and wanted to redefine the European and global systems. Most of the conflicts in the first half of the twentieth century were about Germany's status in Europe. While the times and places of wars couldn't be forecast, the probability that there would be a war could be and was forecast by many Europeans.

The harder part of this equation would be forecasting that the wars would be so devastating and that after the first and second world wars were over, Europe would lose its empire. But there were those, particularly after the invention of dynamite, who predicted that war would now be catastrophic. If the forecasting on technology had been combined with the forecasting on geopolitics, the shattering of Europe might well have been predicted. Certainly the rise of the United States and Russia was predicted in the nineteenth century. Both Alexis de Tocqueville and Friedrich Nietzsche forecast the preeminence of these two countries. So, standing at the beginning of the twentieth century, it would have been possible to forecast its general outlines, with discipline and some luck.

The Twenty-First Century

Standing at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we need to identify the single pivotal event for this century, the equivalent of German unification for the twentieth century. After the debris of the European empire is cleared away, as well as what's left of the Soviet Union, one power remains standing and overwhelmingly powerful. That power is the United States. Certainly, as is usually the case, the United States currently appears to be making a mess of things around the world. But it's important not to be confused by the passing chaos. The United States is economically, militarily, and politically the most powerful country in the world, and there is no real challenger to that power. Like the Spanish-American War, a hundred years from now the war between the United States and the radical Islamists will be little remembered regardless of the prevailing sentiment of this time.

Ever since the Civil War, the United States has been on an extraordinary economic surge. It has turned from a marginal developing nation into an economy bigger than the next four countries combined. Militarily, it has gone from being an insignificant force to dominating the globe. Politically, the United States touches virtually everything, sometimes intentionally and sometimes simply because of its presence. As you read this book, it will seem that it is America- centric, written from an American point of view. That may be true, but the argument I'm making is that the world does, in fact, pivot around the United States.

This is not only due to American power. It also has to do with a fundamental shift in the way the world works. For the past five hundred years, Europe was the center of the international system, its empires creating a single global system for the first time in human history. The main highway to Europe was the North Atlantic. Whoever controlled the North Atlantic controlled access to Europe—and Europe's access to the world. The basic geography of global politics was locked into place.

Then, in the early 1980s, something remarkable happened. For the first time in history, transpacific trade equaled transatlantic trade. With Europe reduced to a collection of secondary powers after World War II, and the shift in trade patterns, the North Atlantic was no longer the single key to anything. Now whatever country controlled both the North Atlantic and the Pacific could control, if it wished, the world's trading system, and therefore the global economy. In the twenty-first century, any nation located on both oceans has a tremendous advantage.

Given the cost of building naval power and the huge cost of deploying it around the world, the power native to both oceans became the preeminent actor in the international system for the same reason that Britain dominated the nineteenth century: it lived on the sea it had to control. In this way, North America has replaced Europe as the center of gravity in the world, and whoever dominates North America is virtually assured of being the dominant global power. For the twenty-first century at least, that will be the United States.

The inherent power of the United States coupled with its geographic position makes the United States the pivotal actor of the twenty-first century. That certainly doesn't make it loved. On the contrary, its power makes it feared. The history of the twenty-first century, therefore, particularly the first half, will revolve around two opposing struggles. One will be secondary powers forming coalitions to try to contain and control the United States. The second will be the United States acting preemptively to prevent an effective coalition from forming.

If we view the beginning of the twenty-first century as the dawn of the American Age (superseding the European Age), we see that it began with a group of Muslims seeking to re- create the Caliphate—the great Islamic empire that once ran from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Inevitably, they had to strike at the United States in an attempt to draw the world's primary power into war, trying to demonstrate its weakness in order to trigger an Islamic uprising. The United States responded by invading the Islamic world. But its goal wasn't victory. It wasn't even clear what victory would mean. Its goal was simply to disrupt the Islamic world and set it against itself, so that an Islamic empire could not emerge.

The United States doesn't need to win wars. It needs to simply disrupt things so the other side can't build up sufficient strength to challenge it. On one level, the twenty-first century will see a series of confrontations involving lesser powers trying to build coalitions to control American behavior and the United States' mounting military operations to disrupt them. The twenty-first century will see even more war than the twentieth century, but the wars will be much less catastrophic, because of both technological changes and the nature of the geopolitical challenge.

As we've seen, the changes that lead to the next era are always shockingly unexpected, and the first twenty years of this new century will be no exception. The U.S.–Islamist war is already ending and the next conflict is in sight. Russia is re-creating its old sphere of influence, and that sphere of influence will inevitably challenge the United States. The Russians will be moving westward on the great northern European plain. As Russia reconstructs its power, it will encounter the U.S.-dominated NATO in the three Baltic countries—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—as well as in Poland. There will be other points of friction in the early twenty-first century, but this new cold war will supply the flash points after the U.S.–Islamist war dies down.

The Russians can't avoid trying to reassert power, and the United States can't avoid trying to resist. But in the end Russia can't win. Its deep internal problems, massively declining population, and poor infrastructure ultimately make Russia's long- term survival prospects bleak. And the second cold war, less frightening and much less global than the first, will end as the first did, with the collapse of Russia.

There are many who predict that China is the next challenger to the United States, not Russia. I don't agree with that view for three reasons. First, when you look at a map of China closely, you see that it is really a very isolated country physically. With Siberia in the north, the Himalayas and jungles to the south, and most of China's population in the eastern part of the country, the Chinese aren't going to easily expand. Second, China has not been a major naval power for centuries, and building a navy requires a long time not only to build ships but to create well-trained and experienced sailors.

Third, there is a deeper reason for not worrying about China. China is inherently unstable. Whenever it opens its borders to the outside world, the coastal region becomes prosperous, but the vast majority of Chinese in the interior remain impoverished. This leads to tension, conflict, and instability. It also leads to economic decisions made for political reasons, resulting in inefficiency and corruption. This is not the first time that China has opened itself to foreign trade, and it will not be the last time that it becomes unstable as a result. Nor will it be the last time that a figure like Mao emerges to close the country off from the outside, equalize the wealth—or poverty—and begin the cycle anew. There are some who believe that the trends of the last thirty years will continue indefinitely. I believe the Chinese cycle will move to its next and inevitable phase in the coming decade. Far from being a challenger, China is a country the United States will be trying to bolster and hold together as a counterweight to the Russians. Current Chinese economic dynamism does not translate into long-term success.

In the middle of the century, other powers will emerge, countries that aren't thought of as great powers today, but that I expect will become more powerful and assertive over the next few decades. Three stand out in particular. The first is Japan. It's the second- largest economy in the world and the most vulnerable, being highly dependent on the importation of raw materials, since it has almost none of its own. With a history of militarism, Japan will not remain the marginal pacifistic power it has been. It cannot. Its own deep population problems and abhorrence of large- scale immigration will force it to look for new workers in other countries. Japan's vulnerabilities, which I've written about in the past and which the Japanese have managed better than I've expected up until this point, in the end will force a shift in policy.

Then there is Turkey, currently the seventeenth-largest economy in the world. Historically, when a major Islamic empire has emerged, it has been dominated by the Turks. The Ottomans collapsed at the end of World War I, leaving modern Turkey in its wake. But Turkey is a stable platform in the midst of chaos. The Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Arab world to the south are all unstable. As Turkey's power grows—and its economy and military are already the most powerful in the region—so will Turkish influence.

Finally there is Poland. Poland hasn't been a great power since the sixteenth century. But it once was—and, I think, will be again. Two factors make this possible. First will be the decline of Germany. Its economy is large and still growing, but it has lost the dynamism it has had for two centuries. In addition, its population is going to fall dramatically in the next fifty years, further undermining its economic power. Second, as the Russians press on the Poles from the east, the Germans won't have an appetite for a third war with Russia. The United States, however, will back Poland, providing it with massive economic and technical support. Wars—when your country isn't destroyed—stimulate economic growth, and Poland will become the leading power in a coalition of states facing the Russians.

Japan, Turkey, and Poland will each be facing a United States even more confident than it was after the second fall of the Soviet Union. That will be an explosive situation. As we will see during the course of this book, the relationships among these four countries will greatly affect the twenty-first century, leading, ultimately, to the next global war. This war will be fought differently from any in history—with weapons that are today in the realm of science fiction. But as I will try to outline, this mid-twenty-first century conflict will grow out of the dynamic forces born in the early part of the new century.

Tremendous technical advances will come out of this war, as they did out of World War II, and one of them will be especially critical. All sides will be looking for new forms of energy to substitute for hydrocarbons, for many obvious reasons. Solar power is theoretically the most efficient energy source on earth, but solar power requires massive arrays of receivers. Those receivers take up a lot of space on the earth's surface and have many negative environmental impacts—not to mention being subject to the disruptive cycles of night and day. During the coming global war, however, concepts developed prior to the war for space- based electrical generation, beamed to earth in the form of microwave radiation, will be rapidly translated from prototype to reality. Getting a free ride on the back of military space launch capability, the new energy source will be underwritten in much the same way as the Internet or the railroads were, by government support. And that will kick off a massive economic boom.

But underlying all of this will be the single most important fact of the twenty-first century: the end of the population explosion. By 2050, advanced industrial countries will be losing population at a dramatic rate. By 2100, even the most underdeveloped countries will have reached birthrates that will stabilize their populations. The entire global system has been built since 1750 on the expectation of continually expanding populations. More workers, more consumers, more soldiers—this was always the expectation. In the twenty-first century, however, that will cease to be true. The entire system of production will shift. The shift will force the world into a greater dependence on technology—particularly robots that will substitute for human labor, and intensified genetic research (not so much for the purpose of extending life but to make people productive longer).

What will be the more immediate result of a shrinking world population? Quite simply, in the first half of the century, the population bust will create a major labor shortage in advanced industrial countries. Today, developed countries see the problem as keeping immigrants out. Later in the first half of the twenty-first century, the problem will be persuading them to come. Countries will go so far as to pay people to move there. This will include the United States, which will be competing for increasingly scarce immigrants and will be doing everything it can to induce Mexicans to come to the United States—an ironic but inevitable shift.

These changes will lead to the final crisis of the twenty-first century. Mexico currently is the fifteenth-largest economy in the world. As the Europeans slip out, the Mexicans, like the Turks, will rise in the rankings until by the late twenty-first century they will be one of the major economic powers in the world. During the great migration north encouraged by the United States, the population balance in the old Mexican Cession (that is, the areas of the United States taken from Mexico in the nineteenth century) will shift dramatically until much of the region is predominantly Mexican.

The social reality will be viewed by the Mexican government simply as rectification of historical defeats. By 2080 I expect there to be a serious confrontation between the United States and an increasingly powerful and assertive Mexico. That confrontation may well have unforeseen consequences for the United States, and will likely not end by 2100.

Much of what I've said here may seem pretty hard to fathom. The idea that the twenty-first century will culminate in a confrontation between Mexico and the United States is certainly hard to imagine in 2009, as is a powerful Turkey or Poland. But go back to the beginning of this chapter, when I described how the world looked at twenty-year intervals during the twentieth century, and you can see what I'm driving at: common sense is the one thing that will certainly be wrong. Obviously, the more granular the description, the less reliable it gets. It is impossible to forecast precise details of a coming century—apart from the fact that I'll be long dead by then and won't know what mistakes I made.

But it's my contention that it is indeed possible to see the broad outlines of what is going to happen, and to try to give it some definition, however speculative that definition might be. That's what this book is about.

Forecasting a Hundred Years Ahead

Before I delve into any details of global wars, population trends, or technological shifts, it is important that I address my method—that is, precisely how I can forecast what I do. I don't intend to be taken seriously on the details of the war in 2050 that I forecast. But I do want to be taken seriously in terms of how wars will be fought then, about the centrality of American power, about the likelihood of other countries challenging that power, and about some of the countries I think will—and won't—challenge that power.

And doing that takes some justification. The idea of a U.S.–Mexican confrontation and even war will leave most reasonable people dubious, but I would like to demonstrate why and how these assertions can be made. One point I've already made is that reasonable people are incapable of anticipating the future. The old New Left slogan "Be Practical, Demand the Impossible" needs to be changed: "Be Practical, Expect the Impossible." This idea is at the heart of my method. From another, more substantial perspective, this is called geopolitics.

Geopolitics is not simply a pretentious way of saying "international relations." It is a method for thinking about the world and forecasting what will happen down the road. Economists talk about an invisible hand, in which the self-interested, short-term activities of people lead to what Adam Smith called "the wealth of nations." Geopolitics applies the concept of the invisible hand to the behavior of nations and other international actors. The pursuit of short-term self-interest by nations and by their leaders leads, if not to the wealth of nations, then at least to predictable behavior and, therefore, the ability to forecast the shape of the future international system.

Geopolitics and economics both assume that the players are rational, at least in the sense of knowing their own short-term self-interest. As rational actors, reality provides them with limited choices. It is assumed that, on the whole, people and nations will pursue their self-interest, if not flawlessly, then at least not randomly. Think of a chess game. On the surface, it appears that each player has twenty potential opening moves. In fact, there are many fewer because most of these moves are so bad that they quickly lead to defeat. The better you are at chess, the more clearly you see your options, and the fewer moves there actually are available. The better the player, the more predictable the moves. The grandmaster plays with absolute predictable precision—until that one brilliant, unexpected stroke.

Nations behave the same way. The millions or hundreds of millions of people who make up a nation are constrained by reality. They generate leaders who would not become leaders if they were irrational. Climbing to the top of millions of people is not something fools often do. Leaders understand their menu of next moves and execute them, if not flawlessly, then at least pretty well. An occasional master will come along with a stunningly unexpected and successful move, but for the most part, the act of governance is simply executing the necessary and logical next step. When politicians run a country's foreign policy, they operate the same way. If a leader dies and is replaced, another emerges and more likely than not continues what the first one was doing.

I am not arguing that political leaders are geniuses, scholars, or even gentlemen and ladies. Simply, political leaders know how to be leaders or they wouldn't have emerged as such. It is the delight of all societies to belittle their political leaders, and leaders surely do make mistakes. But the mistakes they make, when carefully examined, are rarely stupid. More likely, mistakes are forced on them by circumstance. We would all like to believe that we— or our favorite candidate—would never have acted so stupidly. It is rarely true. Geopolitics therefore does not take the individual leader very seriously, any more than economics takes the individual businessman too seriously. Both are players who know how to manage a process but are not free to break the very rigid rules of their professions.

Politicians are therefore rarely free actors. Their actions are determined by circumstances, and public policy is a response to reality. Within narrow margins, political decisions can matter. But the most brilliant leader of Iceland will never turn it into a world power, while the stupidest leader of Rome at its height could not undermine Rome's fundamental power. Geopolitics is not about the right and wrong of things, it is not about the virtues or vices of politicians, and it is not about foreign policy debates. Geopolitics is about broad impersonal forces that constrain nations and human beings and compel them to act in certain ways.

The key to understanding economics is accepting that there are always unintended consequences. Actions people take for their own good reasons have results they don't envision or intend. The same is true with geopolitics. It is doubtful that the village of Rome, when it started its expansion in the seventh century BC, had a master plan for conquering the Mediterranean world five hundred years later. But the first action its inhabitants took against neighboring villages set in motion a process that was both constrained by reality and filled with unintended consequences. Rome wasn't planned, and neither did it just happen.

Geopolitical forecasting, therefore, doesn't assume that everything is predetermined. It does mean that what people think they are doing, what they hope to achieve, and what the final outcome is are not the same things. Nations and politicians pursue their immediate ends, as constrained by reality as a grandmaster is constrained by the chessboard, the pieces, and the rules. Sometimes they increase the power of the nation. Sometimes they lead the nation to catastrophe. It is rare that the final outcome will be what they initially intended to achieve.

Geopolitics assumes two things. First, it assumes that humans organize themselves into units larger than families, and that by doing this, they must engage in politics. It also assumes that humans have a natural loyalty to the things they were born into, the people and the places. Loyalty to a tribe, a city, or a nation is natural to people. In our time, national identity matters a great deal. Geopolitics teaches that the relationship between these nations is a vital dimension of human life, and that means that war is ubiquitous. Second, geopolitics assumes that the character of a nation is determined to a great extent by geography, as is the relationship between nations. We use the term geography broadly. It includes the physical characteristics of a location, but it goes beyond that to look at the effects of a place on individuals and communities. In antiquity, the difference between Sparta and Athens was the difference between a landlocked city and a maritime empire. Athens was wealthy and cosmopolitan, while Sparta was poor, provincial, and very tough. A Spartan was very different from an Athenian in both culture and politics.

If you understand those assumptions, then it is possible to think about large numbers of human beings, linked together through natural human bonds, constrained by geography, acting in certain ways. The United States is the United States and therefore must behave in a certain way. The same goes for Japan or Turkey or Mexico. When you drill down and see the forces that are shaping nations, you can see that the menu from which they choose is limited.

The twenty-first century will be like all other centuries. There will be wars, there will be poverty, there will be triumphs and defeats. There will be tragedy and good luck. People will go to work, make money, have children, fall in love, and come to hate. That is the one thing that is not cyclical. It is the permanent human condition. But the twenty-first century will be extraordinary in two senses: it will be the beginning of a new age, and it will see a new global power astride the world. That doesn't happen very often. We are now in an America-centric age. To understand this age, we must understand the United States, not only because it is so powerful but because its culture will permeate the world and define it. Just as French culture and British culture were definitive during their times of power, so American culture, as young and barbaric as it is, will define the way the world thinks and lives. So studying the twenty-first century means studying the United States.

If there were only one argument I could make about the twenty-first century, it would be that the European Age has ended and that the North American Age has begun, and that North America will be dominated by the United States for the next hundred years. The events of the twenty-first century will pivot around the United States. That doesn't guarantee that the United States is necessarily a just or moral regime. It certainly does not mean that America has yet developed a mature civilization. It does mean that in many ways the history of the United States will be the history of the twenty-first century.

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

John Mauldin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:12:49 GMT

Dear Friends:

There are plenty of sources out there that are happy to tell you what's happening in the world, and much of it matters. But oftentimes, what's much more important is the dog that didn't bark. Remember Enron's undisclosed subsidiaries? Or the off-balance sheet holdings of just about every financial services firm?

Sherlock Holmes uses the dog that didn't bark to solve the mystery -- the dog had to know the intruder. My friend George Friedman's company, Stratfor, uses the dog that didn't bark to highlight issues that are equally critical to the global economy -- that aren't being discussed. Traditional sources let me mitigate known risks. Stratfor tells me about the risks and opportunities I might not even be aware of.

I'm including an example below: Stratfor's "EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About." As this analysis demonstrates, normal reporting on what was discussed might be helpful, but it's the "missing topics" -- those that the media misses -- that you really need to think about.

George has arranged for a special offer on a Stratfor Membership just for my readers. Click here to join now, and you'll get Stratfor's 2009 Annual Forecast as part of your Membership. Plus George has a new book (and it's fascinating!) coming out in January which he'll send you as well. I highly encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity.

Your dogged by bear-markets analyst,

John Mauldin

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

Summary

The European Union summit is being held Dec. 11-12. Climate change, the Lisbon Treaty and the EU response to the global economic crisis are high on the agenda for the meeting. Absent from the agenda are ideas on dealing with a resurgent Russia, the energy crisis that could start after Russia implements higher natural gas prices for most EU member states Jan. 1, and the institutional flaws underlying the economic crisis sweeping through the bloc.

Analysis

EU leaders are meeting for the last time in 2008 on Dec. 11-12. The three main issues on the agenda for the 27 heads of government meeting in Brussels are the EU stimulus package passed in response to the global economic crisis; the Lisbon Treaty, which has languished in limbo since its rejection in an Irish referendum in June; and Europe's climate package. Prior to the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed "cautious optimism" that agreement could be reached on the climate package, initially a German proposal that has come under criticism from various quarters.

While a handful on its own, the agenda is more notable for the issues not being discussed -- namely, how to deal with a resurgent Russia; the potential energy crisis stemming from Russian natural gas price increases for most EU member states starting Jan. 1; and the institutional deficiencies underlying the economic crisis sweeping the continent.

Related Special Topic Pages

The issue of the climate change and energy package is notable, and any progress -- particularly in midst of the economic crisis -- would be impressive considering the uphill battle. Referred to as 20-20-20, the initiative aims to reduce the European Union's carbon emissions by 20 percent, increase its use of renewable fuels to 20 percent of total energy demand and reduce total EU energy demand by 20 percent, all by the year 2020. However, with the economic crisis in full swing, the emphasis on climate change is dubious. The Lisbon Treaty is also on the agenda, and the EU member states are expected to approve assurances to Ireland on neutrality, taxation, commissioner assignments among member states and controversial rules like abortion -- all key sticking points during the Irish referendum.

The leaders do plan to address the bloc's 200 billion euro (US$263 billion) stimulus package, but the plan is more of a face-lift than a real solution to the underlying institutional problems within the European Union. As it stands now, the stimulus plan is a patchwork of national stimulus packages that accounts for only 0.6 percent of the total EU gross domestic product (GDP), whereas the European Commission hopes member states will commit 1.5 percent to the plan. Some within the commission are calling for Germany, the most powerful European economy and one of the few with a balanced budget, to pick up the slack amounting to 0.9 percent of the bloc's GDP (which would be around $170 billion). That is most definitely not on Berlin's agenda.

The EU member states are discussing this plan mainly because the broader, institutional issues are impossible to agree on. Such questions include how to protect the exposed EU member states outside the eurozone (for example, the Baltics, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) against currency devaluation, or whether to create some sort of unified tax regime that would give the European Union an actual fund from which to draw large amounts of cash during a financial crisis. There are also issues of a continent-wide banking regulatory regime, and of expanding the European Central Bank's powers. These questions seem prescient in light of the lack of a coherent, unified EU response to the economic crisis.

The main obstacles to answering these questions are the historical lack of willingness to devolve powers to the bloc from the nation-state level, and Germany's resistance to any "economic government" plan that would rely on German economic might for financial backing. Germany therefore is comfortable with the current plan as long as it does not ask Berlin for any financing beyond its current commitment.

Next is the issue of Europe's relationship with Russia. EU member states are divided on how to talk to Russia about security. France and Germany lead the relatively appeasing line, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom lead the group stressing a firm stance. The issue is clear for Poland and the Czech Republic: As they are likely targets of further Russian maneuvers, they believe the Russian resurgence must be countered. But France is much more interested in leaving all its diplomatic avenues open, while Germany does not want to antagonize its main source of energy imports and is historically open to independent accommodations with Russia.

Which brings us to the elephant that will be in the room with the 27 European heads of state at the summit: Russia's planned Jan. 1 natural gas price increases. EU member states depend on Russian imports for a quarter of their total natural gas needs. Russian natural gas behemoth Gazprom announced in July that it would raise the natural gas prices it charges EU member states from $420 per thousand cubic meters (tcm) to $720 per tcm. But many European countries have already notified Gazprom that they will not be able to pay the new price. The current financial crisis obviously makes such a drastic increase problematic, particularly for Central European economies that both depend on Russian natural gas for most of their energy supply and already are running huge trade deficits because of energy imports.

Gazprom announced Nov. 12 that it might consider scrapping its planned price increases, but any such move most likely will be used as a tool for political manipulation. The Kremlin has been known to use energy as a political tool in the past, and without a coherent, unified effort, the Europeans will be easy to pick off one by one.

Obama's Challenge

John Mauldin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:47:00 GMT

With the election of a new US President, everyone is focused on the "First 100 Days." How Obama transitions into the presidency impacts not just the U.S. but the entire global system. What happens to U.S. relations with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? What's going to happen at Treasury and to all the programs addressing the financial crisis? What's going to emerge from the next G20 summit?

You need to read the analysis below, written by my good friend George Friedman at Stratfor. He details the immediate issues facing the president-elect, including one of the stickiest: Europe's desire for a global banking regulatory regimen. How will Obama respond to European pressure? George has built his company Stratfor and its reputation on forecasting the future, and I'm amazed at how often he's right -- on broad themes and specific events.

As we move into the next 100 days, George is way ahead of us with a book called The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21^st Century. I've read an advance copy, and it's absolutely fascinating. In it, he maps out what geopolitical changes the world will see in the next hundred years: the rise of Mexico (and war with the U.S.!), Poland and Turkey returning to great-power status, and a second Cold War, among others. I can tell you, his arguments are as absolutely compelling as the conclusions are provocative.

George has arranged a special pre-publication offer for my readers. Click here to take advantage of a Stratfor Membership that also includes a free copy of George's new book. For insight into the next 100 days and the next 100 years, I'm relying on George Friedman and his team at Stratfor. I know you'll find as much value in George's forecasts as I do.

John Mauldin

Obama's Challenge

November 5, 2008 | 1202 GMT
By George Friedman

Obama's Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama's followers could conceal how he -- like Bush -- is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama's first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush -- who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn't. Building a political base requires modifying one's agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker -- an institution in American politics -- will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn't filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.

Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran's primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies -- particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can't afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama's pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.

The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama's victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don't have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama's Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan -- something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate -- and reach a political accord -- with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama's own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.

The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama's election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention -- and U.S. power -- to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can't afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their "near abroad."

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles' heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama's allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama's foreign policy -- and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election -- was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them -- namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn't subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran -- something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq -- gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama's foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies' interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can't know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can't finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That's what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It's frequently the best part of a presidency.

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

John Mauldin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:57:08 GMT

Really hear what I'm about to tell you. The center of gravity of the world economic system has moved from New York to Washington. Let me illustrate what I mean so you understand just how profound this is. Banks used to compete against banks. US carmakers competed against each other and the Japanese. And the New York financial markets told you how they're doing against each other.

Understand what's happening now. The US Treasury has become the only "customer" that matters. The Treasury is now the customer—and investor -- with the $750+ billion checkbook. The Treasury is now the "investment banker" of last resort, arranging and financing mergers. Banks are competing against insurance companies for their slice of the bailout pie. Chrysler and GM (and the Michigan Congressional delegation) are looking to Washington, not Goldman or Merrill, to facilitate a merger. This is a seismic shift.

As investors, we have to start looking at the world in a completely different way, and getting our information from different sources. A company's 10-K is almost irrelevant if all it includes is financial statements and market outlooks. What matters now are the "exogenous" factors: government guarantees of the commercial paper market, currency interventions, direct capital infusions, etc. And how does a company describe in its Management Outlook that "Yes, our company is too big to fail."

In this environment, it's more important than ever to read unbiased geopolitical intelligence and analysis of government moves, and that's what my friend George Friedman at Stratfor offers. I'm enclosing below his team's Fourth Quarter Forecast. George's team analyzes US government policy as well as the moves that are being taken by central banks and governments around the world as the private sector gets taken public all across the globe. You will not be able to understand market moves if you don't understand who the real movers are now.

I'm sending you Stratfor's Fourth Quarter Forecast, and I strongly encourage you to join Stratfor and get access to all their daily intelligence. George has arranged a special offer on a Stratfor Membership for my readers: click here to take advantage of this opportunity. In this new era, I use Stratfor daily to give me a wide-lens, global view of politics and economics. I know you'll gain as much from reading Stratfor as I do.

John Mauldin

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

October 23, 2008 | 1502 GMT

Three issues will dominate the final quarter of 2008: the global financial crisis, U.S. self-absorption and the Russian resurgence.

The financial crisis has its roots in an American liquidity meltdown. But as the days flow by, it will become obvious that the crisis is evolving as it spreads to the rest of the world, and its impact will be harsher and require more time for recovery elsewhere. For in the United States, actions have already been taken to rectify the liquidity imbalances, and although plenty can still go wrong and a recession is probably inevitable, the system is beginning to mend. In Europe, however, the liquidity shortage has unearthed a deep banking debacle.

Remediation is only now being started, and the problem is only now being identified, much less evaluated. The American recession will probably be over by year's end, but Europe's will likely stretch through most of 2009. And in East Asia, where the problem is neither liquidity nor banking but loss of export demand, recovery cannot even begin until the West begins demanding Asian goods en masse. The United States might have set the crisis running, but it will be Europe and Asia that really give it its legs.

Print Version:
To download a PDF of this piece Click here.

In the midst of a presidential election, a lame-duck administration, a recession and ongoing efforts to stabilize Iraq, Washington is essentially in lockdown. It has neither the capacity for nor the interest in dealing with anything that is not on a very short list of topics. Mitigating the recession is now at the top of that list, with Iraq second in line. In Iraq, U.S. policy has mutated somewhat. Until now, Washington was forced to deal with Iran, as Iran maintained the ability to scuttle any progress in Iraq. But now Iran, for various reasons, has largely moved away from its policy of stoking militia fires in Iraq. It would be a stretch to say that all concern about Iran's ability to set Iraq on fire has evaporated, but Washington certainly feels it can shape Iraq into more or less whatever it wishes so long as it does not flagrantly cross any red lines. This does not mean for a second that things are easy; creating a functional state out of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations is a lengthy and possibly fruitless task. However, Iran's apparent inability to create chaos in Iraq has drawn some of the desperation out of U.S. policy.

Finally, and to a certain degree integrated into the financial crisis and American preoccupation, comes the issue of Russia's rise. In the third quarter Russia proved that it remains capable -- militarily and politically -- of invading a neighbor, the former Soviet state of Georgia. While not immune to global financial chaos, Russia is far better prepared than most states to weather the storm; even after massive investment outflows, Russia still holds more than $700 billion in reserve funds and a fat budget surplus. Moscow has a limited window in which to act before the United States withdraws from Iraq and turns its attention northward, so Russia will be using the time to sow as many problems for the United States as possible. Russian plans are already in the works for Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, in that order. And to keep the pressure on and the momentum going, Russia is expected to make a new thrust -- more political and economic than military -- in Ukraine. Under the cover of the financial crisis (which is hitting Europe much harder than the United States) and American preoccupation, the chances of Russia successfully expanding its influence definitely qualify as betting odds.

Note to readers: Our fourth-quarter forecast is intended to be a supplement to our annual forecast and third-quarter forecast. Within each section of this quarterly we have extracted the critical trends identified in our previous forecasts and indicated where we have been right or wrong and what is coming in the next three months. We have also examined new trends that have evolved from regional developments, independent of the earlier forecasts.

Global Economy

Ultimately, Stratfor delayed the release of our fourth-quarter forecast due to the winds of change ripping through the U.S. financial industry. With so much uncertainty, it was impossible to peer minutes, much less months, into the future. But now, though the dust is far from settled, the outlines are in place for an American-led financial rescue package that puts the crisis into a context that allows for forecasting.

This section will not serve as an overview on how the crisis came about (we have written a history and tactical forecast on the financial crisis elsewhere), but it will outline the broad picture Stratfor sees in the weeks going forward.

Regional trend: The United States is in a liquidity crisis, but the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Overwhelming state intervention will ensure that the United States recovers quickly from an impending, and probably inevitable, recession.

In the United States, the crisis is ultimately one of liquidity. Underneath all the froth, the American banking system remains stable. Yes, there are some questionable assets that have initiated panic, but on the whole American banks are solid. Before the political process in Washington took over the system and in essence made it impossible for banks to close, only 13 banks had gone under. During the recession of the early 1980s, several hundred went bust per year.

Liquidity crises are relatively -- and we emphasize the word "relatively" -- easy to fix. They "only" require injections of capital into the system, which the U.S. government has done on a mammoth scale, in order to restart lending and thus normal economic activity. At the time of this writing, banks have already increased their lending rates from the crisis lows, and we see the panic beginning to lift within weeks. For the United States, there will almost certainly be a short recession, but the way out has already been sketched.

Regional trend: With Europe dealing with a deeply entrenched banking crisis and Asia facing a plunge in exports, the financial contagion will be more deeply felt outside the United States than within.

When the U.S. liquidity crisis slammed into Europe it had identical impacts -- at first. But within a few days, it became apparent that Europe has other problems. Unlike the United States, Europe has a banking system with many portions that are not very healthy. Austrian, Swedish and Italian banks are overexposed to Central Europe, which is now in a credit hangover. German banks' corporatist links have left them with questionable assets far greater in value than anything American subprime practices generated. Irish and Spanish banks face much deeper subprime problems relative to their economic size than American banks. And the list goes on and on. So while the United States has a liquidity crisis that can be addressed "relatively" easily, Europe faces a banking debacle that has been uncovered by the liquidity crisis -- and dealing with that banking debacle is likely to take more than a year.

These crises have not really affected Asia directly, for Asian states are built upon massive and artificial flows of liquidity. States routinely funnel more liquidity into their systems than even the U.S. Federal Reserve is doing with its record-breaking operations to combat the American liquidity crisis. So even with the United States and Europe struggling, there are very few liquidity problems in China or Japan.

The Asian problem will be neither liquidity nor banking, but exports. The United States faces a short recession and the Europeans likely a long one. For Asian economies, the problem will be a plunge in Western demand for Asian exports that will hit these economies at their most sensitive point: employment. China and Japan keep their systems flush with liquidity in order to ensure maximum employment regardless of profitability. As Western growth slows, demand for Asian goods will drop, and the Asians will have to either shut factories down or subsidize them to keep operations active. Luckily -- and we are not sure that "luckily" is the correct word -- this will take some time. We do not expect East Asia to really slide into crisis mode until late in the fourth quarter, but the crisis will strike the region to its very core.

Regional trend: Inflation is on the rise on a global scale.

High inflation was the primary economic issue for countries across the globe for the first nine months of 2008. Overextension, combined with a deepening economic crunch, will finally turn this trend on its head in the final quarter. Across the developed world, demand is dropping, and that cannot help but put a cap on commodity prices.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis' contagion will contribute to a significant decline in the price of oil and defuse much of the "geopolitical heat" in the markets.

Let us close this section with a few words on oil. Stratfor has been saying for some time that the high oil prices of the last three years are not rooted in fundamentals or even in reality in general, so we stopped forecasting any specific prices. In our last quarterly forecast, we said the price of oil would drop (and it did), but we were focused more on causes rooted in geopolitical risk rather than the effects of the financial crisis. At present, much of the speculative froth and fervor that had built up prices has been dying down. In its place is a growing realization that the United States and Europe are in recession, while East Asia is about to slip into recession. With the world's three largest economies using less energy, prices are certain to slide. This realization is dawning only now, when prices have already dropped from their highs by 50 percent. The hype is mostly gone; all that remain are universally bearish fundamentals. The price drop to date is just the beginning -- and several countries, including Venezuela and Russia, stand to lose a lot from a precipitous drop in oil prices.

Former Soviet Union

Regional trend: Russia is re-emerging and will take advantage of the imbalance in U.S. power that has resulted from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia's third quarter was dominated by the war with Georgia, which was Moscow's coming-out party to prove that it could dominate and/or crush its neighbor unless the United States rushed to the smaller country's aid. The Kremlin had been making technical preparations for such a war for years, but timing was an issue. Moscow was forced to act in the third quarter because of the possibility that the United States might be freed from its entanglements with Iran and in Iraq. Since the war in August, the ripple effects of Russia's bold move have been felt throughout the world, but they are most defined in Russia's periphery. As each country re-examines its relations with Russia, Moscow is taking stock of the levers it has carefully placed in its periphery and around the world and considering who it can pressure, or even break.

Regional trend: Following the Russo-Georgian war, each former Soviet state -- and much of the rest of the world -- is redefining its relationship with or perception of Russia. Moscow will next turn its focus to Ukraine, which will become the center of the Kremlin's universe in the fourth quarter.

The center of Russia's focus for the fourth quarter is Ukraine, which Moscow sees as the cornerstone of its ability to reach into Europe and protect itself from Western encroachment. Since the 2004 Orange Revolution, Ukraine has been unstable and chaotic in its attempts to push away from its former master, Russia, and toward the West. Moscow has encouraged Ukraine's instability as a means of preventing the former Soviet state from aligning fully with the West, but now is the time to pull Kiev firmly back into the Russian fold.

Russia will use countless levers to influence Ukraine's inner dynamics, including: the Russian security services' high degree of infiltration in Ukraine; the country's complete dependence on Russian energy; Ukraine's financial and economic turmoil; Russia's control over most of the Ukrainian oligarchs; the interconnection between the two countries' organized crime systems; Russian military forces on Ukraine's soil; and the mere fact that approximately half the Ukrainian population considers itself beholden to Russia.

But the largest opportunity for Moscow will come in the December snap elections, scheduled after the Ukrainian government collapsed (again) in October. Elections in Ukraine are never certain to take place, but the dynamic surrounding possible elections in the country will remain whether or not the polls actually take place. The pro-Western Orange Coalition has already broken up over Kiev's relationship with Russia, and those coalition partners who are leaning back toward Moscow, along with the pro-Russia parties, are in a healthy lead in public opinion polls. Ukraine has never been predictable, but it also has never seen an election or governmental shift while Russia's full focus is on ensuring that Ukraine stays as far away from the West as possible.

A few other former Soviet states are on Moscow's agenda, though they are not as high-priority as Ukraine. Georgia's government is still seeing the fallout from the war, and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's future is unclear. Russia has allowed Saakashvili to remain in office because he is a spent force, but the Kremlin has a line of political forces in place to remove him should he gain strength. Russia and Belarus spent much of the third quarter arguing over energy prices, bank credits, missile defense and Minsk's delay in recognizing the independence of Georgian breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The fourth quarter will be a test for Belarus as it decides whether to bend to Moscow's will or risk reaching out to the West and being crushed by Russia in the process.

Russia is also active in the Baltic states. An upcoming election is likely to leave Lithuania with a government more amenable to Moscow, but it remains to be seen how this new government will fit in with Lithuania's historical allies -- Poland, Estonia and Latvia, which are all vehemently anti-Russian -- and how Moscow can use the new government to divide that allied bloc. Azerbaijan is weighing its future relations with Moscow, since Russia has proven it can cut off the country's energy flow, which in turn cuts off its cash source. Baku will work to balance its desire to maintain good relations with Moscow and its desire to keep Western cash flowing in.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis is ripping through Russia, but it is not crippling the country. Rather, the Kremlin is using the situation to assert more control over regulations, banks, businesses and the oligarchs inside Russia while looking for opportunities abroad.

Market economies do not work in general in a country like Russia. Since the Russo-Georgian war, the Russian stock markets have been on a wild roller-coaster ride, and Russian companies have seen massive foreign investment flight. This has left those companies and their oligarchs looking for funding in their own pockets or from the state. But unlike most countries, Russia is not in danger of collapsing financially, because it sits on massive amounts of foreign currency reserves, built up over the past decade from soaring energy prices.

Instead, the Kremlin is using the unstable financial situation to reassert the primacy of the Russian state by weeding out small- and medium-sized institutions that were never really under government control. The Kremlin is also using the situation to force the oligarchs to pour their own cash -- which they had stored abroad, far from the Kremlin's grasp -- into the system in order to keep the markets stable and the oligarchs' companies afloat.

This proves just how much control Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has over this class of billionaires, and it bodes an end to the oligarchic tradition that ruled Russia during most of the 1990s and well into the following decade. The oligarchs are no longer independent power brokers, but simply another tool -- and a very wealthy one -- for Putin and the Kremlin. The fourth quarter will start revealing who can keep up with the Kremlin's demands and who will fall. A massive realignment inside Russia's business sector is under way, though the Kremlin is orchestrating all of it in order to strengthen and prove its power within the country -- and over those who thought they could keep their cash outside the motherland.

Russia can now also meddle in, prop up, buy or influence financial systems around the world. It is reaching out with its vast amounts of cash to "help" other countries hit hard by the financial meltdown -- though in typical Kremlin style, Moscow is extending aid to states it considers politically valuable. In the past, the Kremlin used oligarchs' cash to do this covertly, but since that cash is needed at home, the government is openly targeting other countries' institutions. Russia is getting involved in the financial situations in Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia, to name a few. But the Kremlin must balance this desire to take advantage of financial tremors around the world with its need to keep the domestic situation stable and plan for the future of Russia's resurgence, amid concerns that its cash flow could soon dry up as energy prices tumble.

Regional trend: As Russia reasserts itself against the West, it has many levers with which to counter the United States in regions such as the Middle East and Latin America. However, Russia's ability to divide the United States' allies in Europe will give it the most success.

Since the war with Georgia, Russia has shown that it is interested in countering the United States' status as global hegemon by strengthening its relationships throughout the world. Moscow has also proved to Washington that it has levers in place to erode the United States' position in the Middle East (which is Washington's primary focus) and in Latin America (which is in the United States' backyard). But Russia will not push its ability to meddle with Middle Eastern countries like Iran too far; Moscow does not want a strong Tehran in the long run, and Washington could seriously lash back at the Russians. Moscow also knows that its actions in Latin America are mainly symbolic in that the efforts needed for real military, energy, grassroots or political moves would be enormous and would not benefit Russia much. However, this does not mean Moscow's friendship is not incredibly important to those in Latin America looking for their own leverage against Washington.

It is in Europe where Russia's moves against the West will be felt the most. In short, the Europeans are splitting apart and much of it has to do with Russia -- a situation Moscow is trying to magnify. Russia is already using Europe's economic instability to pit the countries against each other. But Moscow is also undermining NATO, a fact that will be highlighted when the alliance meets in December to discuss Russia and the possibility of extending membership action plans to Georgia and Ukraine. Germany has already staunchly come out against this Washington-initiated plan and is also discussing the possibility of a private security agreement with Russia, a major shift toward Berlin's usual role when Europe is split. But Russia also has its customary levers, like energy, to use in Europe; energy deals with Germany, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Ukraine will still be up in the air in the next quarter.

Middle East

Regional trend: The United States has successfully forced the countries that made al Qaeda possible into the American alliance structure. It will now use that structure to clamp down on those still resisting American power. In doing so, it might inadvertently trigger tensions with Israel.

Regional trend: The Russo-Georgian war interrupted a window of opportunity for the Iranians and the United States to make headway in their negotiations over Iraq. With a U.S. political transition approaching, these negotiations will remain in limbo through the next quarter.

In writing our third-quarter forecast, Stratfor had many reasons to be optimistic about several major trends in the Middle East. We calculated that as the U.S. election season wound down, the United States and Iran would be approaching the endgame in their negotiations over Iraq. After all, Iran's supreme interest in consolidating Shiite control over Iraq, the United States' strategic interest in freeing up its forces from Iraq, and the winding down of violence in Iraq over the past year -- made possible in part by Iran's cooperation in taming its Shiite militant proxies -- laid the foundation for the United States and Iran to reach a rapprochement sooner rather than later.

For our fourth-quarter forecast, however, we are far less optimistic about the United States and Iran coming to any sort of final understanding, at least in the short term. Following the Russo-Georgian war that took place in the third quarter, the United States more urgently wants to end the war in Iraq in order to free up U.S. forces for more pressing concerns in Eurasia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater. The Iranians, on the other hand, have all the more reason to stall in talks with Washington. Iran knows that in the face of a resurgent Russia, the United States will worry about Moscow using the Middle East as another theater for challenging the West, namely by providing advanced weapons systems to a country like Iran. With the added leverage of Russian backing, the Iranians could push for a better deal with the Americans.

But while Iran stalls, the United States is losing interest. It appears that Washington does not feel nearly as pressured as it previously did to deal with the Iranians over Iraq, and the political and military reality in Iraq has shifted substantially over the past two years. In October 2006, a month prior to U.S. congressional elections, Iran significantly escalated Shiite militia attacks in Iraq in an attempt to force a U.S. withdrawal, and it could have used its Shiite militant proxies to trigger a civil war. Now, however, these militias either have been fully integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus (as in the case of the Badr Brigade) or have disintegrated to the point where they are no longer an effective force (as in the case of the Mehdi Army). Much of Iran's current ability to wield influence in Iraq comes through its political and economic links as well as from small groups of well-trained special operations units, such as Hezbollah in Iraq.

While the United States still has a strategic interest in reaching some level of understanding with the Iranians over Iraq, it no longer faces an immediate threat of Iran triggering civil war in the country. This gives Washington a lot more leverage in dealing with Iran, as well as more time and space to concentrate on other, more pressing issues.

In the coming quarter, Iran will not be the United States' main focus in Iraq; Washington will be too preoccupied with its own political transition, and the Iranians will need some time to work out their next steps in Iraq with a new U.S. administration. Instead, the United States will be heavily involved in the internal Iraqi political scene, working to undermine Iranian influence in Baghdad by exploiting deep rifts within the Shiite political community and reasserting Sunni political strength in provincial elections, which are to be held before Jan. 31, 2009. The surrounding Arab states, for the most part, will be in lockstep with the United States in pursuing this strategy.

Iran will use its remaining militant proxies to try and influence the results of the upcoming elections, mainly through bribes and assassination attempts against select candidates. Infighting among Shiite parties, particularly in the south, is expected to flare as Iran tries to accuse the United States of destabilizing Iraq -- a move meant to bolster Iraqi opposition to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which would provide the legal basis for U.S. troop presence beyond December, when a U.N. mandate runs out. With Iraqi politicians holding out for political and security guarantees from the incoming U.S. administration, it will be difficult for the United States to get the SOFA signed by the December deadline. But Washington is still on course to maintain a military presence in Iraq that is large enough to counterbalance Iran for at least the medium term.

While Iran will be looking to boost its leverage in relation to the West this quarter, it is unlikely to find a dependable ally in Moscow. The Russians have signaled in several different ways that they could step up arms deals and covert operations in the Middle East to undermine Western interests. But with the Israelis and the Turks playing defense and Moscow exhibiting more of a cautious attitude in its actions against the United States in this region, we expect Russian activity in the Middle East this quarter to be more talk than action.

Regional trend: Syria has found a role in the tightening Arab-U.S. alliance, and it will take concrete steps toward a peace deal with Israel that will both reassert Syrian influence in Lebanon and defang Hezbollah.

In our previous quarterly forecast, we anticipated rapid progress in Syria-Israel peace negotiations. The talks were moving at a healthy pace in the first part of the quarter, but paused after the Russo-Georgian war as Syria saw the opportunity to boost its negotiating leverage by reaching out to the Russians. Syria will continue to flirt with Moscow, but Israel and Turkey (which is mediating the peace talks) have been holding their own negotiations with the Russians and have so far kept the Russians at bay. Syria is still in many ways committed to these peace talks, but any major progress is unlikely until Israel puts its political house in order this quarter. Israeli political horse-trading is in full swing, and early elections could still be called, but Stratfor's bet is that Kadima leader Tzipi Livni will form a coalition and stave off early elections to prevent a political comeback by the far-right Likud party, allowing for progress later in the quarter on the Israel-Syria talks.

While Israel sorts out these issues, the Syrian regime will move ahead in its plans to reassert its hegemony over Lebanon. Any peace deal with Israel would inevitably include a guarantee of Syrian domination over Lebanon in exchange for the dismantling of Hezbollah's military arm to secure the Israeli northern frontier. Though the peace talks with Israel are currently in flux, the Syrians are wasting no time laying the groundwork for a possible military intervention in Lebanon by instigating attacks through militant proxies. Syria will take its time in implementing this strategy. Attacks on both sides of the Lebanese-Syrian border are likely to escalate, but the Syrians are unlikely to make any overt moves in Lebanon this quarter. Syria will also be on guard for Iranian attempts to destabilize the Syrian regime as Iran's main militant proxy, Hezbollah, gets backed into a corner.

Regional trend: Turkey is emerging as a major regional power and in 2008 will begin to exert influence throughout its periphery -- most notably in northern Iraq.

Our annual forecast on Turkey's regional expansion is on track and was reinforced this past quarter by Russia's actions in Georgia. Turkey is a traditional stakeholder in the Caucasus and does not like the idea of the Russians throwing punches in this region, especially when doing so threatens Turkey's economic standing as the main energy hub for Europe. The Turks, therefore, are in a diplomatic frenzy to reassert their influence in the Caucasus, even going so far as to kick-start the normalization process with longtime foe Armenia. Using adroit diplomacy, Turkey will work aggressively this quarter to block Russian destabilizing actions in the Middle East and hold its ground against Moscow in the Caucasus. Turkey is not looking for a fight with Moscow, but it wants to show that it will not be toothless in the face of further Russian aggression. (Indeed, Turkey is the state with the most tools to counteract Russian expansionism.)

Energy diplomacy will be a big theme this quarter, as the Turks will use their relations with Azerbaijan, Iran and even Armenia to promote themselves as the alternative to Russia in the Caucasus. Both Armenia and Iran will be tempted by the idea of establishing potentially lucrative energy links with Turkey to access the European market, though any such deals would face substantial political obstacles.

In northern Iraq, Turkey will become more aggressive in pursuing Kurdish rebels and implementing an informal buffer zone along the Turkish-Iraqi border. Turkish actions in northern Iraq will serve more than Ankara's internal security interests; Turkey also has deep political interests in keeping Iraqi Kurdistan and the Kirkuk issue in check as negotiations in Baghdad intensify this quarter.

Europe

Regional trend: After exactly 60 years of trying to reshape itself under the aegis of the European Union, Europe in 2008 will return to an earlier geopolitical arrangement: the Concert of Powers.

The decade-long Stratfor forecast that the European Union will slowly evolve from a Pan-Continental government to a glorified free trade zone is on track. Europe has indeed returned to an arrangement more reminiscent of the Concert of Powers, with France and Germany squabbling over leadership, newcomer Poland rising in status as the next leader and the traditional power of the United Kingdom missing in action. This has played out on all levels, both within the European Union and in foreign relations. Russia has seized the opportunity to magnify the cracks in the European Union, while the United States is now locked into alliances with actors that are constantly disagreeing, weakening Washington's ability to rally forces around any particular agenda -- particularly in dealing with the Russians.

Regional trend: As the traditional geopolitical arrangement similar to the Concert of Powers returns, Europe is being wrecked domestically, economically, institutionally and internationally. This trend in the fourth quarter is caused partly by the return of the old relationships, but also by the global financial crisis and a resurgent Russia.

Regional Trend: The financial crisis will continue to shatter Europe economically, as each state fends for itself in the absence of a Pan-EU decision.

Nearly every European country entered the fourth quarter in a recession, and this situation will not change through at least the end of the year. The European Central Bank (ECB) has done a decent job thus far, but it cannot regulate banks in Europe, so each state will have to come up with its own rules -- further undermining the ECB and the European Union. An EU-wide plan is simply impossible, because there is no institution able to enforce such a decision and each state is primarily concerned with itself.

Bailouts have become routine in Europe, but the fourth quarter will be about European governments attempting to prevent banks from actually failing, which could break the entire system. The less economically and financially advanced countries, which happen to be mainly on the eastern side of the Continent, are most at risk. Central and Eastern Europe are highly dependent on foreign banks and capital -- capital that will be called home, mainly to Western Europe, to help stabilize its native banking systems. The countries most vulnerable to economic crashes are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. France and Italy are also vulnerable but are better able to handle the crisis due to the sheer size of their economies.

In the fourth quarter, many countries will be reassessing the benefits and drawbacks to being part of the European Union, and nations that are considering joining the eurozone will weigh their priorities as well. European countries will also be reassessing their budgets, with many cuts in programs and funding on the table. This could lead to even more political and social volatility in all European countries. These potential cuts and thin wallets are coming in the most financially stressful season for Europe, as energy costs are high due to cold weather and Europe's largest energy supplier, Russia, is preparing to raise energy prices at the end of the year. European leaders are facing many very difficult and dangerous decisions that will shape not only the fourth quarter, but the years to come.

Regional trend: Europe is divided -- politically, economically and regarding security -- on how to respond to a resurging Russia.

The topic of Russia, and particularly how to respond to Moscow after the Russo-Georgian war, is dividing Europe even further. Politically, many Western European countries have been looking for ways to neutralize the Russian threat. Some nations, like the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic states (though Lithuania could soon reverse its opinion on Russia), are preparing to confront Moscow, while others are strengthening their ties with Russia in order to avoid becoming casualties of Moscow's next moves.

Economically, Europe is divided because the squeeze it is feeling from the global financial crisis is being compounded by Russian moves in the financial sector. Moscow has moved its cash around in a bid to influence financial institutions in certain strategic countries. Russia is also in negotiations with much of Central and Eastern Europe over energy supplies and prices for the next year, and Moscow has told most countries to prepare for excruciatingly steep price hikes. This puts Moscow in a position of great strength from which to negotiate with the countries that need lower energy prices during the current financial crisis.

The Europeans are also divided over how their security alliances should respond to a resurging Russia. The West (especially Washington) failed to respond meaningfully to the Russo-Georgian war -- a fact that Moscow hopes to use to prove the inherent weakness of the West's security club, NATO. Berlin and Paris have already publicly recognized the weakness and believe that this is not the time to stand up to Russia, as NATO is entrenched in Afghanistan and the United States has the additional burden of Iraq. These two European heavyweights are leading the resistance against Washington over extending NATO membership plans to the former Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine. Countries like Poland and the Baltics are still behind the U.S. plans, but going into the December summit, NATO members -- especially those in Europe -- are anything but in agreement.

Latin America

Regional trend: Aiming to sow instability in the U.S. backyard, Russia will focus much of its attention on Latin America, where a number of Cold War-era tactics are likely to come into play.

The Russian invasion of Georgia in the third quarter was a wake-up call to the West that Russia was resurging. Shortly after the war, Russia arrived on the scene in Latin America. Having promised at least $1 billion in arms aid to Venezuela and reopened dialogue with Cuba over a return to Cold War-era alliances, Russia clearly intends to direct Washington's attention toward the U.S. southern flank. No longer constrained by a need to promote an international communist ideology to gain a foothold in the region, Russia will focus more on generating instability in Latin America -- a pastime that could lead to a resurgence of Soviet-era militias.

Several Latin American states, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador, show promise as Russian allies. States that are vulnerable to Russian maneuvering include, at the very least, Colombia, Peru and Mexico. With economic troubles on the rise across the region, this list could expand, and with a lame-duck administration and no clear Latin America policy to begin with, the U.S. government will be slow to respond this quarter.

Cuba is critical to the question of Russian resurgence not just for its historical relations with Russia, but also for its strategic location at the mouth of the Caribbean. Cuba is trying to both encourage the United States to lift the trade embargo as well as urge Russia to actually put its money where its mouth is in promised investments. Which way Cuba swings will depend on whether the incoming U.S. administration gives any indication that the embargo could be lifted. Otherwise, the Russians will have a greater political opening in Cuba to exploit. For the fourth quarter, however, Cuba will mostly spend its time feeling out Washington's and Moscow's intentions without making any big moves.

Regional trend: The U.S. financial crisis will contribute to a long-term economic downturn in Latin America.

The impact of the global financial crisis on Latin America boils down to two basic factors: the shrinking credit market and falling commodity prices. Latin America is largely dependent on foreign capital for the infrastructural and industrial development that allows the region to produce the primary materials it relies on for income. The relative boom of the past decade rode high on the back of increased industrial production the world over, which created higher demand for Latin American minerals, and on rising food prices, which injected cash into agriculture-dominated economies such as Argentina's.

But as the global economy slows in the wake of the financial crisis, there will be lowered demand for primary materials. This will have a combined effect. For importer states, lower commodity prices, especially on food, are welcome news. But for major commodity producers, such as Venezuela (oil) and Argentina (agriculture), this spells disaster for local economies and government budgets. Though the region is less exposed to the U.S. financial crisis than either Europe or Asia, Latin America is facing an overall economic slowdown. Though widespread financial collapse is unlikely to occur in the fourth quarter, the strains will become apparent.

Regional trend: Brazil is rising as the continental hegemon of South America.

With more oil and natural gas discoveries announced in the past quarter, Brazil is still on track to become a regional superpower in the coming decade, but it will face some challenges in this upcoming quarter. Though blessed with substantial monetary reserves, Brazil faces a slowdown along with the rest of Latin America as the global economy shrinks and access to international credit withers.

Regional trend: Crises are brewing in Latin America's left-wing bloc.

This trend continued unabated in the third quarter, although the only state in which tensions came to a head was Bolivia. The evolution of Bolivian lowland pro-autonomy groups toward a more activist role will be defined next quarter. Though they could be willing to make peace with Bolivian President Evo Morales' government, the odds are not good. In the fourth quarter, Morales will try to push through the enactment of a constitutional referendum that would cement his socialist policies. The opposition will use this opportunity to stage further unrest.

In Argentina, the economy is suffering under President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's administration. A lifting of price controls on the edges of the economy could continue, but comprehensive reform is unlikely. Over the next quarter, the agricultural sector will ratchet up pressure on the government to reduce price caps so that it can operate profitably. But falling commodity prices, while helping to contain rising inflation, cut into government income, making it all the more difficult for Buenos Aires to adequately address its economic ailments. The credit crunch has already led Argentina to call off its initial offer to pay back debt to the Paris Club. Other signs of fiscal strain will become evident over the next quarter, bringing Argentina closer to a day when it will once again no longer be able to service its debt or prevent an economic crisis.

Meanwhile, in Venezuela, municipal and state-level elections are slated for Nov. 23. While domestic opposition against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is strengthening, the president has already taken action -- by barring more than 200 opposition politicians -- to ensure he makes it through these elections in one piece. Once the elections are over, economic issues will come to the fore. We will likely see a grasping at straws for energy, but this will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as credit shrinks and oil prices continue to fall. Although the economy will probably hold for the next quarter, the cracks will be evident. The Russians will remain active in Venezuela, particularly in military cooperation, and signs that Chavez is a conduit for Russian arms transfers to the rest of the region could also come to light.

Regional trend: Mexico is facing a moment of truth in the government's war against the drug cartels.

Mexico's security situation is deteriorating. The third quarter showed an emerging trend of public opinion turning against the violence -- although not necessarily against Mexican President Felipe Calderon. As violence rises, and particularly if civilian casualties become more prevalent, public outcry will increase over the next quarter. For now, the public's discontent is working in the government's favor. But there is a slight possibility that Mexico's citizens will decide the war has failed and start pressuring Calderon. This could erode Mexico's ability to use all its forces against the cartels for fear of backlash. In the past quarter, we did not see any indications that Mexico City felt pressured enough to strike a truce with the cartels to save the country's territorial core, nor any evidence of the cartels striking a truce with each other to place the government on the defensive. But these scenarios are not impossible as the security situation continues spiraling out of control.

Mexico is also particularly vulnerable to Russian covert activity. If the Russians become more active in Mexico, organized criminal activity is likely to increase, though this will be difficult to distinguish from ongoing cartel activity. We will be watching for any signs of an uptick in organizational capacity or tempo of operations in groups like the Popular Revolutionary Army, as the potential exists for Russia to tap into such left-wing organizations to create security problems on the southern U.S. border.

South Asia

Regional trend: The Pakistani army/state will hold together even as confusion and distractions in Islamabad greatly reduce the government's ability (and willingness) to rein in jihadists. Pakistan will be forced to decide whether it is more afraid of NATO forces or of its own militants. It will opt to target the militants, however halfheartedly, rather than make a stand against NATO's incursions into territory that is nominally under Islamabad's writ.

As the jihadist insurgency spread deeper into the Pakistani interior, U.S.-Pakistani relations came to a head in the third quarter, with Pakistani forces taking direct shots at U.S. forces along the Pakistani-Afghan border. But as we expected, the Pakistanis could not go too far in pushing back U.S. forces. Toward the end of the quarter, it became clear that the Pakistani political and military leadership was at least making some attempt to comply with U.S. demands and purge Pakistan's intelligence apparatus, the Inter-Services Intelligence, of jihadist sympathizers while committing more firmly to military operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the tribal areas.

But there is still a lot more work to be done in this theater. With U.S. Gen. David Petraeus now at the helm of Central Command, the evolving U.S. strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan will likely entail devoting more U.S. forces to Afghanistan and engaging in complex political negotiations with certain Taliban factions, similar to the U.S. policy pursued in Iraq.

For the next quarter, however, little is expected to change on the ground militarily. The United States simply will not have sufficient forces to make a meaningful difference in the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater in the short term. While U.S. forces can escalate cross-border operations into Pakistan, the levels of intrusion will not grow if the United States lacks the forces to back them up. The region also will be entering the winter months, when the fighting on both sides is expected to drop significantly, giving the Taliban and al Qaeda more time to recuperate. Though the United States has announced its intention to continue conducting offensive operations through the winter, the operations will still be limited in scale.

During the winter lull, the bigger focus will be on working toward a negotiated settlement with select factions of the Taliban. Talks involving the Taliban, the Karzai government, the Tajik-dominated opposition, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, NATO and the United States will intensify in coming months. This process will be about identifying elements within the Taliban movement that would be willing to do business at a time when the Taliban feels it has the upper hand and thus is not under significant pressure to negotiate. Nonetheless, the mere idea of negotiations taking place will cause existing rifts within the jihadist insurgency to widen. The United States will rely heavily on Saudi Arabia to use its political and financial clout with the Taliban to ensure progress on the negotiating front.

The Pakistanis, on the other hand, will be too consumed with domestic ailments to contribute in any significant way to U.S. efforts in fighting the insurgency. Pakistan's civilian government is caught between fighting anti-Islamabad jihadist forces and working with pro-Islamabad Afghan Taliban. Continued unilateral cross-border U.S. strikes against al Qaeda and its Pashtun allies in Pakistan will further constrain Islamabad's options as domestic dissent continues to rise. Compounding matters is the fact that Pakistan is sliding toward bankruptcy and is now dependent on bailouts and bartering tactics to make it through this quarter without collapsing financially. Pressure from the insurgency and the deteriorating economic situation will further threaten Pakistan's internal stability and raise the potential for a rift to emerge between the civilian government and the army. Overall, Pakistan will institutionally remain in disarray, and fragmentation of the state will worsen in the coming quarter.

Regional trend: India's roller-coaster policies on everything from tax regimes to special economic zones to basic infrastructure are proving that the idea of "Shining India" is a myth and will lead to waning foreign investment.

The global financial crisis that spread in the third quarter only reinforced our forecast that India's attractiveness to foreign investors would significantly wane this year. Though India's banking sector is fairly insulated and not as vulnerable to the financial crisis as those of other Asian countries, it is more than likely to experience a drop in capital inflows and foreign direct investment in the medium to longer term as foreign companies, particularly those based in the United States, are forced to cut back on their overseas operations.

Though India is unlikely to feel a devastating economic impact in the short term, its problems stemming from the financial crisis will be mainly political. Rising inflationary pressures will only add to the opposition's strength in stifling the ruling Congress party at a time when India is also dealing with heightened religious tension and increasingly frequent, albeit low intensity, attacks by more localized Islamist militant cells. On the foreign policy front, India also will be largely politically hamstrung. Securing the civilian nuclear deal with the United States was a huge feat for India's Congress in addressing the country's energy security, and it puts India on a path toward greater strategic cooperation with the global superpower. At the same time, New Delhi cannot politically afford to take any big or overt steps in line with U.S. foreign policy for some time, though it will be closely watching for signs of a complete security and economic meltdown in Pakistan in search of both threats and opportunities.

India also will be keeping its eye on Bangladesh, where national elections are supposed to be held Dec. 18. With the Bangladeshi military tightening its grip over the government, the country's two main rival political leaders have threatened to boycott the polls, raising the potential for the elections to be delayed. Without the participation of these two leaders, there is a high probability of Bangladesh returning to its usual state of political violence and chaos ahead of the polls.

India also has security concerns to its south in Sri Lanka, where the military has made significant advances in its war of attrition against Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam rebels in the north. While the military's successes are often exaggerated, it stands a decent chance of overtaking Tiger strongholds in the strategic Jaffna Peninsula to the north. The Tigers will be cornered at that point, but they will not be a vanquished force. The Sri Lankan military has made comparable advances into Tiger-held territory in the past, only to see the Tigers make a significant comeback after several years. As they continue to get beaten in the north, the Tigers will make a stronger attempt to carry out attacks inside Colombo in an attempt to prove to their constituency that they are still viable.

East Asia

Regional trend: The Chinese government postponed any key reforms in 2008 until after the Olympics in August, but as Beijing now begins tackling these issues, it is confronted by a global financial crisis that will convolute all its reform plans.

Thus far, the Olympics have dominated 2008 in China, with Beijing consumed with quashing any disruptions or embarrassments that would cast a shadow over the country during its time in the global spotlight. While Beijing was distracted, issues like economic and social disparity, corruption and rising domestic frustrations festered. Beijing was convinced that as soon as the Olympics were over, it could finally address these issues with full force. But the reforms China makes will not necessarily be the ones it originally planned, as the global economic slowdown will interfere.

Many key debates are raging behind the scenes of China's central government over issues like rural development, informal and state banking, the central bank's short- and long-term lending rates, the yuan's exchange, price controls, the growth of small- to medium-sized businesses, international trade and the export sector, and energy supply and policy. These debates have put a dangerous amount of stress on the Communist Party of China and the country's top leadership.

The largest debate has been over to what degree to redistribute wealth, particularly between the wealthy coastlands and the much poorer internal regions of the country. The divide between China's mostly poor rural masses and its wealthier urban elite has generated considerable tension, causing worry among the nation's leaders about social stability and sustainable economic growth. Attempts at massive renovations and development projects in the interior, meant to boost agriculture's role in the Chinese economy, were supposed to trigger a series of policy actions that would play out through the end of the year.

But the global financial crisis will force Beijing to focus on ensuring internal stability, employment, business operations and the ability to hold onto its own cash, and this means Beijing must turn its attention back to the coast, the country's moneymaker. China is in a conundrum: It needs to redistribute wealth to guarantee internal stability, but it cannot do that if the wealth is not coming in. The financial meltdown's effects in the West are impacting China's export sector and putting at risk China's businesses (which are already seeing thin profit margins) and laborers (who are on the brink of financial ruin and unemployment). China will have to basically run in place; the economy might look like it is growing, but the trickle-down effect will be barely sustainable.

China will respond by promoting growth through cheap credit and big public spending, as it is afraid of unemployment getting out of control. It will be more important for China to use its reserves to contain the internal situation than to contribute funds to other countries, including the United States. China needs all the excess liquidity in its system to go toward appeasing the social groups most likely to be affected negatively by the economic slowdown.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis will also hit East Asia's other two economic powerhouses, Japan and South Korea, along with the smaller Southeast Asian states -- though the major effects will not be seen until the end of the year.

Japan and South Korea are both powerful economies, and both are in dire economic trouble. Japan has massive reserves, but its debt is enormous, its exports are faltering, and now the yen is rising rapidly as the carry trade unwinds, further damaging the export sector. Japan will print money frantically to slow the yen's rise, but will only see moderate success because the crisis is already far too deep. Japan is facing a major recession -- if not the disastrous economic dislocation that awaits it if it proves incapable of reforming its system.

South Korea is also in dire straits. Its economy is hurting because of the won's rapid loss of value as investors withdraw from risky assets. The weakened won will hurt South Korean businesses that are struggling to manage costs while exports fall. Market uncertainty, inflation, poor consumer sentiment and a declining currency will cause South Korean businesses to suffer unless the country is willing to repeatedly dip into its foreign currency reserves to combat the slowdown.

Most of the Asian states have plenty of liquidity due to the nature of their financial systems. The Southeast Asian countries are nervous about their fates but are not thoroughly linked to the outside world, so their economic troubles will have little impact on the rest of the globe. But these nations have not become the hotbed of economic growth they were expected to be; some never recovered from 1997 crisis, while others, like Vietnam, will not see money influxes now. Southeast Asian countries are also highly interlinked through their supply lines and trade, so when one or two economies struggle or slow, the others are hit as well. The credit crunch is causing cash and investment to flow away from them, and their export sectors are flagging. Two states that will be hit hard by this are Singapore and Malaysia, both of which have re-exports making up a large chunk of their exports. This means that even if their strong exports continue, these countries' dependence on others to use them as a subprocessing hub could sting them when other exporters' activities slow. Southeast Asian nations are expected to feel the crush of loss of credit -- just not to the extent of Japan or China. But the ripples of this crisis will likely cause economic slowdowns that could exacerbate social tensions in the region, making for a lot of noise in the fourth quarter.

Africa

Regional trend: In contrast to previous years, there will be little direct involvement from the major outside (or even inside) players in Africa. The one exception will be if Russia has any capacity to meddle in Africa this next quarter. However, Africa is not high on Moscow's list of priorities.

The second- and third-quarter forecasts for Africa predicted that the continent would not see any meaningful direct involvement from the traditional players, whether from the continent or beyond. This situation will continue through the end of the year (though for different reasons than before), with only one possible exception. Most of the big foreign players in Africa -- the United States, France, China, India and Japan -- are completely entangled in the global financial crisis and do not really have the wherewithal to handle any new engagements in Africa.

Moreover, the portfolio investment that Africa recently attracted as a "frontier market" will be constrained as global investors seek to stabilize their investment returns. Startup and junior mining interests will find it difficult to secure financing for mining projects, and while major mining companies will be able to find sufficient financing, slowing demand for commodities will mean that African economies will slow -- or, more to the point, there will be less money for the governments to keep. Interest in Africa's energy and mining sectors will remain high, but cost factors will make investors more selective.

The one possible exception to this trend could be Russia. During the Soviet days, Russia supported liberation movements and governments in Africa (as in Latin America), which it used as proxies against U.S. interests. Thus, Russia already has access to a deep set of networks constructed in Africa during the Cold War. Russia began moving in on Africa during the third quarter, when it began negotiations with the Somalian government on providing military and technical assistance and decided to send a naval vessel to strengthen maritime security off Somalia's piracy-plagued coast. African countries that cooperated with the Soviets during the Cold War did so less out of ideology and more to acquire weaponry, funding and training to fight their own battles. These conflicts and tensions are ongoing in several countries besides Somalia (such Guinea, Mali and Angola) and could help Russia renew both overt and covert relationships in Africa.

Within Africa, the major players are too busy with internal politics to get involved in issues between countries on the continent. Nigeria is still trying to manage the Niger Delta, South Africa is busy laying the groundwork for elections, and in Angola the government is concerned with consolidating its grip on power at home and either co-opting or silencing its opponents.

In Nigeria, the 2007 pact that gave the Ijaw tribe in the Niger Delta the vice presidency and led to a decrease in attacks against the region's energy infrastructure will be tested -- but not overturned -- in the fourth quarter. Northern-backed President Umaru Yaradua will move to consolidate his position in Abuja by naming a new Cabinet and purging his government of ministers appointed by his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo. Yaradua's moves will catch the attention of the Ijaw in the south, however, and should they believe they have lost their gains in Abuja -- for instance, if Vice President Goodluck Jonathan loses his influence -- all bets for energy security in the Niger Delta are off.

The wild card is Yaradua's frail health. If it forces him to step down, a struggle over succession will ensue, and the Ijaw will use their key weapon -- militant proxies that launch attacks in the Niger Delta energy sector -- to secure their interests in Abuja. A battle threatening all energy production throughout the Niger Delta would also raise the stakes higher than they were in 2007, demanding a military solution rather than a combination of diplomacy and economic incentives. The carnage that would result from Abuja trying to impose a military solution in the Niger Delta would be extensive.

In South Africa, the transfer of power from former President Thabo Mbeki to African National Congress President Jacob Zuma will accelerate, though elections likely will not be held early. (National elections are due by mid-2009, when Zuma most likely will push to re-establish South Africa's regional influence.) Until then, it is just regular politicking and electioneering in the country, and this will not significantly alter South Africa's policies or its relative quietude on the continent.

Angola faces more immediate concerns, including lingering tensions with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) political party and rebels in its oil-rich Cabinda province. Angola will try to stamp out these rebels in the fourth quarter, following the ruling party's authoritative victory in recent parliamentary elections. The country must also be prepared to face a hostile regime in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The United States could move to counter a possible Russian resurgence in south-central Africa by supporting the Rwandan-backed insurgency in the DRC, which in turn could move to topple the pro-Angolan government of President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa. Installing a pro-U.S. government in the DRC could then allow the insurgents to use DRC territory to destabilize the pro-Russian Angolan government. Should the Russian arms dealers come calling, they could enflame such a conflict, embroiling Angola, the DRC and Rwanda.

The New President and the Global Landscape

John Mauldin — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:26:38 GMT

In times of crisis, those with psychological fortitude discover opportunities that most people miss. A friend of mine in Houston tells me of unending piles of tree limbs broken down by the hurricane. The homeowner laments his disaster; the tree trimmer and the roofer order a new Mercedes. Most of the world sees a Wall St. meltdown. Buffett takes the opening to deploy billions from his cash hoard. They're all seeing the same thing, but they're reacting differently based on different visions of the future.

I've included a piece today from my friend George Friedman over at Stratfor about the landscape the next US President will face. This article is a perfect example of why I rely on Stratfor for my geopolitical intelligence. The newspapers and other media do better or lesser jobs of telling me about what's happening right now. But that's not what an investor needs. What I need - and I recommend for you - is an analysis of what we're going to be facing. That's where George and his team absolutely excel.

For at least the next month, the public conversation is going to be completely dominated by the November election and the political maneuvering to address the financial crisis. There will be tremendous drama. There will be dizzying swings back and forth in emotions, expectations, and more than likely the markets. And if you focus on it, you'll miss the real opportunities to position yourself for the emergence. George has made a special offer on a Stratfor Membership available to my readers, and I strongly encourage you to click here to take advantage of this opportunity. Now is the time to get positioned for future opportunities, while everybody else is wallowing in the here and now.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The New President and the Global Landscape

By George Friedman

It has often been said that presidential elections are all about the economy. That just isn't true. Harry Truman's election was all about Korea. John Kennedy's election focused on missiles, Cuba and Berlin. Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's elections were heavily about Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's first election pivoted on Iran. George W. Bush's second election was about Iraq. We won't argue that presidential elections are all about foreign policy, but they are not all about the economy. The 2008 election will certainly contain a massive component of foreign policy.

We have no wish to advise you how to vote. That's your decision. What we want to do is try to describe what the world will look like to the new president and consider how each candidate is likely to respond to the world. In trying to consider whether to vote for John McCain or Barack Obama, it is obviously necessary to consider their stands on foreign policy issues. But we have to be cautious about campaign assertions. Kennedy claimed that the Soviets had achieved superiority in missiles over the United States, knowing full well that there was no missile gap. Johnson attacked Barry Goldwater for wanting to escalate the war in Vietnam at the same time he was planning an escalation. Nixon won the 1968 presidential election by claiming that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. What a candidate says is not always an indicator of what the candidate is thinking.

It gets even trickier when you consider that many of the most important foreign policy issues are not even imagined during the election campaign. Truman did not expect that his second term would be dominated by a war in Korea. Kennedy did not expect to be remembered for the Cuban missile crisis. Jimmy Carter never imagined in 1976 that his presidency would be wrecked by the fall of the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis. George H. W. Bush didn't expect to be presiding over the collapse of communism or a war over Kuwait. George W. Bush (regardless of conspiracy theories) never expected his entire presidency to be defined by 9/11. If you read all of these presidents' position papers in detail, you would never get a hint as to what the really important foreign policy issues would be in their presidencies.

Between the unreliability of campaign promises and the unexpected in foreign affairs, predicting what presidents will do is a complex business. The decisions a president must make once in office are neither scripted nor conveniently timed. They frequently present themselves to the president and require decisions in hours that can permanently define his (or her) administration. Ultimately, voters must judge, by whatever means they might choose, whether the candidate has the virtue needed to make those decisions well.

Virtue, as we are using it here, is a term that comes from Machiavelli. It means the opposite of its conventional usage. A virtuous leader is one who is clever, cunning, decisive, ruthless and, above all, effective. Virtue is the ability to face the unexpected and make the right decision, without position papers, time to reflect or even enough information. The virtuous leader can do that. Others cannot. It is a gut call for a voter, and a tough one.

This does not mean that all we can do is guess about a candidate's nature. There are three things we can draw on. First, there is the political tradition the candidate comes from. There are more things connecting Republican and Democratic foreign policy than some would like to think, but there are also clear differences. Since each candidate comes from a different political tradition -- as do his advisers -- these traditions can point to how each candidate might react to events in the world. Second, there are indications in the positions the candidates take on ongoing events that everyone knows about, such as Iraq. Having pointed out times in which candidates have been deceptive, we still believe there is value in looking at their positions and seeing whether they are coherent and relevant. Finally, we can look at the future and try to predict what the world will look like over the next four years. In other words, we can try to limit the surprises as much as possible.

In order to try to draw this presidential campaign into some degree of focus on foreign policy, we will proceed in three steps. First, we will try to outline the foreign policy issues that we think will confront the new president, with the understanding that history might well throw in a surprise. Second, we will sketch the traditions and positions of both Obama and McCain to try to predict how they would respond to these events. Finally, after the foreign policy debate is over, we will try to analyze what they actually said within the framework we created.

Let me emphasize that this is not a partisan exercise. The best guarantee of objectivity is that there are members of our staff who are passionately (we might even say irrationally) committed to each of the candidates. They will be standing by to crush any perceived unfairness. It is Stratfor's core belief that it is possible to write about foreign policy, and even an election, without becoming partisan or polemical. It is a difficult task and we doubt we can satisfy everyone, but it is our goal and commitment.

The Post 9/11 World

Ever since 9/11 U.S. foreign policy has focused on the Islamic world. Starting in late 2002, the focus narrowed to Iraq. When the 2008 campaign for president began a year ago, it appeared Iraq would define the election almost to the exclusion of all other matters. Clearly, this is no longer the case, pointing to the dynamism of foreign affairs and opening the door to a range of other issues.

Iraq remains an issue, but it interacts with a range of other issues. Among these are the future of U.S.-Iranian relations; U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan and the availability of troops in Iraq for that mission; the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations and their impact on Afghanistan; the future of U.S.-Russian relations and the extent to which they will interfere in the region; resources available to contain Russian expansion; the future of the U.S. relationship with the Europeans and with NATO in the context of growing Russian power and the war in Afghanistan; Israel's role, caught as it is between Russia and Iran; and a host of only marginally related issues. Iraq may be subsiding, but that simply complicates the world facing the new president.

The list of problems facing the new president will be substantially larger than the problems facing George W. Bush, in breadth if not in intensity. The resources he will have to work with, military, political and economic, will not be larger for the first year at least. In terms of military capacity, much will hang on the degree to which Iraq continues to bog down more than a dozen U.S. brigade combat teams. Even thereafter, the core problem facing the next president will be the allocation of limited resources to an expanding number of challenges. The days when it was all about Iraq is over. It is now all about how to make the rubber band stretch without breaking.

Iraq remains the place to begin, however, since the shifts there help define the world the new president will face. To understand the international landscape the new president will face, it is essential to begin by understanding what happened in Iraq, and why Iraq is no longer the defining issue of this campaign.

A Stabilized Iraq and the U.S. Troop Dilemma

In 2006, it appeared that the situation in Iraq was both out of control and hopeless. Sunni insurgents were waging war against the United States, Shiite militias were taking shots at the Americans as well, and Sunnis and Shia were waging a war against each other. There seemed to be no way to bring the war to anything resembling a satisfactory solution.

When the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it appeared inevitable that the United States would begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. U.S expectations aside, this was the expectation by all parties in Iraq. Given that the United States was not expected to remain a decisive force in Iraq, all Iraqi parties discounted the Americans and maneuvered for position in anticipation of a post-American Iraq. The Iranians in particular saw an opportunity to limit a Sunni return to Iraq's security forces, thus reshaping the geopolitics of the region. U.S. fighting with Iraqi Sunnis intensified in preparation for the anticipated American withdrawal.

Bush's decision to increase forces rather than withdraw them dramatically changed the psychology of Iraq. It was assumed he had lost control of the situation. Bush's decision to surge forces in Iraq, regardless by how many troops, established two things. First, Bush remained in control of U.S. policy. Second, the assumption that the Americans were leaving was untrue. And suddenly, no one was certain that there would be a vacuum to be filled.

The deployment of forces proved helpful, as did the change in how the troops were used; recent leaks indicate that new weapon systems also played a key role. The most important factor, however, was the realization that the Americans were not leaving on Bush's watch. Since no one was sure who the next U.S. president would be, or what his policies might be, it was thus uncertain that the Americans would leave at all.

Everyone in Iraq suddenly recalculated. If the Americans weren't leaving, one option would be to make a deal with Bush, seen as weak and looking for historical validation. Alternatively, they could wait for Bush's successor. Iran remembers -- without fondness -- its decision not to seal a deal with Carter, instead preferring to wait for Reagan. Similarly, seeing foreign jihadists encroaching in Sunni regions and the Shia shaping the government in Baghdad, the Sunni insurgents began a fundamental reconsideration of their strategy.

Apart from reversing Iraq's expectations about the United States, part of Washington's general strategy was supplementing military operations with previously unthinkable political negotiations. First, the United States began talking to Iraq's Sunni nationalist insurgents, and found common ground with them. Neither the Sunni nationalists nor the United States liked the jihadists, and both wanted the Shia to form a coalition government. Second, back-channel U.S.-Iranian talks clearly took place. The Iranians realized that the possibility of a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad was evaporating. Iran's greatest fear was a Sunni Iraqi government armed and backed by the United States, recreating a version of the Hussein regime that had waged war with Iran for almost a decade. The Iranians decided that a neutral, coalition government was the best they could achieve, so they reined in the Shiite militia.

The net result of this was that the jihadists were marginalized and broken, and an uneasy coalition government was created in Baghdad, balanced between Iran and the United States. The Americans failed to create a pro-American government in Baghdad, but had blocked the emergence of a pro-Iranian government. Iraqi society remained fragmented and fragile, but a degree of peace unthinkable in 2006 had been created.

The first problem facing the next U.S. president will be deciding when and how many U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Unlike 2006, this issue will not be framed by Iraq alone. First, there will be the urgency of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Second, there will be the need to create a substantial strategic reserve to deal with potential requirements in Pakistan, and just as important, responding to events in the former Soviet Union like the recent conflict in Georgia.

At the same time, too precipitous a U.S. withdrawal not only could destabilize the situation internally in Iraq, it could convince Iran that its dream of a pro-Iranian Iraq is not out of the question. In short, too rapid a withdrawal could lead to resumption of war in Iraq. But too slow a withdrawal could make the situation in Afghanistan untenable and open the door for other crises.

The foreign policy test for the next U.S. president will be calibrating three urgent requirements with a military force that is exhausted by five years of warfare in Iraq and seven in Afghanistan. This force was not significantly expanded since Sept. 11, making this the first global war the United States has ever fought without a substantial military expansion. Nothing the new president does will change this reality for several years, so he will be forced immediately into juggling insufficient forces without the option of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq unless he is prepared to accept the consequences, particularly of a more powerful Iran.

The Nuclear Chip and a Stable U.S.-Iranian Understanding

The nuclear issue has divided the United States and Iran for several years. The issue seems to come and go depending on events elsewhere. Thus, what was enormously urgent just prior to the Russo-Georgian war became much less pressing during and after it. This is not unreasonable in our point of view, because we regard Iran as much farther from nuclear weapons than others might, and we suspect that the Bush administration agrees given its recent indifference to the question.

Certainly, Iran is enriching uranium, and with that uranium, it could possibly explode a nuclear device. But the gap between a nuclear device and weapon is substantial, and all the enriched uranium in the world will not give the Iranians a weapon. To have a weapon, it must be ruggedized and miniaturized to fit on a rocket or to be carried on an attack aircraft. The technologies needed for that range from material science to advanced electronics to quality assurance. Creating a weapon is a huge project. In our view, Iran does not have the depth of integrated technical skills needed to achieve that goal.

As for North Korea, for Iran a very public nuclear program is a bargaining chip designed to extract concessions, particularly from the Americans. The Iranians have continued the program very publicly in spite of threats of Israeli and American attacks because it made the United States less likely to dismiss Iranian wishes in Tehran's true area of strategic interest, Iraq.

The United States must draw down its forces in Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. The Iranians have no liking for the Taliban, having nearly gone to war with them in 1998, and having aided the United States in Afghanistan in 2001. The United States needs Iran's commitment to a neutral Iraq to withdraw U.S. forces since Iran could destabilize Iraq overnight, though Tehran's ability to spin up Shiite proxies in Iraq has declined over the past year.

Therefore, the next president very quickly will face the question of how to deal with Iran. The Bush administration solution -- relying on quiet understandings alongside public hostility -- is one model. It is not necessarily a bad one, so long as forces remain in Iraq to control the situation. If the first decision the new U.S. president will have to make is how to transfer forces in Iraq elsewhere, the second decision will be how to achieve a more stable understanding with Iran.

This is particularly pressing in the context of a more assertive Russia that might reach out to Iran. The United States will need Iran more than Iran needs the United States under these circumstances. Washington will need Iran to abstain from action in Iraq but to act in Afghanistan. More significantly, the United States will need Iran not to enter into an understanding with Russia. The next president will have to figure out how to achieve all these things without giving away more than he needs to, and without losing his domestic political base in the process.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban

The U.S. president also will have to come up with an Afghan policy, which really doesn't exist at this moment. The United States and its NATO allies have deployed about 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. To benchmark this, the Russians deployed around 120,000 by the mid-1980s, and were unable to pacify the country. Therefore the possibility of 60,000 troops -- or even a few additional brigades on top of that -- pacifying Afghanistan is minimal. The primary task of troops in Afghanistan now is to defend the Kabul regime and other major cities, and to try to keep the major roads open. More troops will make this easier, but by itself, it will not end the war.

The problem in Afghanistan is twofold. First, the Taliban defeated their rivals in Afghanistan during the civil war of the 1990s because they were the most cohesive force in the country, were politically adept and enjoyed Pakistani support. The Taliban's victory was not accidental; and all other things being equal, without the U.S. presence, they could win again. The United States never defeated the Taliban. Instead, the Taliban refused to engage in massed warfare against American airpower, retreated, dispersed and regrouped. In most senses, it is the same force that won the Afghan civil war.

The United States can probably block the Taliban from taking the cities, but to do more it must do three things. First, it must deny the Taliban sanctuary and lines of supply running from Pakistan. These two elements allowed the mujahideen to outlast the Soviets. They helped bring the Taliban to power. And they are fueling the Taliban today. Second, the United States must form effective coalitions with tribal groups hostile to the Taliban. To do this it needs the help of Iran, and more important, Washington must convince the tribes that it will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely -- not an easy task. And third -- the hardest task for the new president -- the United States will have to engage the Taliban themselves, or at least important factions in the Taliban movement, in a political process. When we recall that the United States negotiated with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, this is not as far-fetched as it appears.

The most challenging aspect to deal with in all this is Pakistan. The United States has two issues in the South Asian country. The first is the presence of al Qaeda in northern Pakistan. Al Qaeda has not carried out a successful operation in the United States since 2001, nor in Europe since 2005. Groups who use the al Qaeda label continue to operate in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they use the name to legitimize or celebrate their activities -- they are not the same people who carried out 9/11. Most of al Qaeda prime's operatives are dead or scattered, and its main leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are not functional. The United States would love to capture bin Laden so as to close the books on al Qaeda, but the level of effort needed -- assuming he is even alive -- might outstrip U.S. capabilities.

The most difficult step politically for the new U.S. president will be to close the book on al Qaeda. This does not mean that a new group of operatives won't grow from the same soil, and it doesn't mean that Islamist terrorism is dead by any means. But it does mean that the particular entity the United States has been pursuing has effectively been destroyed, and the parts regenerating under its name are not as dangerous. Asserting victory will be extremely difficult for the new U.S. president. But without that step, a massive friction point between the United States and Pakistan will persist -- one that isn't justified geopolitically and undermines a much more pressing goal.

The United States needs the Pakistani army to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, or failing that, permit the United States to attack them without hindrance from the Pakistani military. Either of these are nightmarishly difficult things for a Pakistani government to agree to, and harder still to carry out. Nevertheless, without cutting the line of supply to Pakistan, like Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Afghanistan cannot be pacified. Therefore, the new president will face the daunting task of persuading or coercing the Pakistanis to carry out an action that will massively destabilize their country without allowing the United States to get bogged down in a Pakistan it cannot hope to stabilize.

At the same time, the United States must begin the political process of creating some sort of coalition in Afghanistan that it can live with. The fact of the matter is that the United States has no long-term interest in Afghanistan except in ensuring that radical jihadists with global operational reach are not given sanctuary there. Getting an agreement to that effect will be hard. Guaranteeing compliance will be virtually impossible. Nevertheless, that is the task the next president must undertake.

There are too many moving parts in Afghanistan to be sanguine about the outcome. It is a much more complex situation than Iraq, if for no other reason than because the Taliban are a far more effective fighting force than anything the United States encountered in Iraq, the terrain far more unfavorable for the U.S. military, and the political actors much more cynical about American capabilities.

The next U.S. president will have to make a painful decision. He must either order a long-term holding action designed to protect the Karzai government, launch a major offensive that includes Pakistan but has insufficient forces, or withdraw. Geopolitically, withdrawal makes a great deal of sense. Psychologically, it could unhinge the region and regenerate al Qaeda-like forces. Politically, it would not be something a new president could do. But as he ponders Iraq, the future president will have to address Afghanistan. And as he ponders Afghanistan, he will have to think about the Russians.

The Russian Resurgence

When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the Russians were allied with the United States. They facilitated the U.S. relationship with the Northern Alliance, and arranged for air bases in Central Asia. The American view of Russia was formed in the 1990s. It was seen as disintegrating, weak and ultimately insignificant to the global balance. The United States expanded NATO into the former Soviet Union in the Baltic states and said it wanted to expand it into Ukraine and Georgia. The Russians made it clear that they regarded this as a direct threat to their national security, resulting in the 2008 Georgian conflict.

The question now is where U.S.-Russian relations are going. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union a geopolitical catastrophe. After Ukraine and Georgia, it is clear he does not trust the United States and that he intends to reassert his sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. Georgia was lesson one. The current political crisis in Ukraine is the second lesson unfolding.

The re-emergence of a Russian empire in some form or another represents a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world. The Islamic world is divided and in chaos. It cannot coalesce into the caliphate that al Qaeda wanted to create by triggering a wave of revolutions in the Islamic world. Islamic terrorism remains a threat, but the geopolitical threat of a unifying Islamic power is not going to happen.

Russia is a different matter. The Soviet Union and the Russian empire both posed strategic threats because they could threaten Europe, the Middle East and China simultaneously. While this overstates the threat, it does provide some context. A united Eurasia is always powerful, and threatens to dominate the Eastern Hemisphere. Therefore, preventing Russia from reasserting its power in the former Soviet Union should take precedence over all other considerations.

The problem is that the United States and NATO together presently do not have the force needed to stop the Russians. The Russian army is not particularly powerful or effective, but it is facing forces that are far less powerful and effective. The United States has its forces tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan so that when the war in Georgia broke out, sending ground forces was simply not an option. The Russians are extremely aware of this window of opportunity, and are clearly taking advantage of it.

The Russians have two main advantages in this aside from American resource deficits. First, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas; German energy dependence on Moscow is particularly acute. The Europeans are in no military or economic position to take any steps against the Russians, as the resulting disruption would be disastrous. Second, as the United States maneuvers with Iran, the Russians can provide support to Iran, politically and in terms of military technology, that not only would challenge the United States, it might embolden the Iranians to try for a better deal in Iraq by destabilizing Iraq again. Finally, the Russians can pose lesser challenges in the Caribbean with Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, as well as potentially supporting Middle Eastern terrorist groups and left-wing Latin American groups.

At this moment, the Russians have far more options than the Americans have. Therefore, the new U.S. president will have to design a policy for dealing with the Russians with few options at hand. This is where his decisions on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan will intersect and compete with his decisions on Russia. Ideally, the United States would put forces in the Baltics -- which are part of NATO -- as well as in Ukraine and Georgia. But that is not an option and won't be for more than a year under the best of circumstances.

The United States therefore must attempt a diplomatic solution with Russia with very few sticks. The new president will need to try to devise a package of carrots -- e.g., economic incentives -- plus the long-term threat of a confrontation with the United States to persuade Moscow not to use its window of opportunity to reassert Russian regional hegemony. Since regional hegemony allows Russia to control its own destiny, the carrots will have to be very tempting, while the threat has to be particularly daunting. The president's task will be crafting the package and then convincing the Russians it has value.

European Disunity and Military Weakness

One of the problems the United States will face in these negotiations will be the Europeans. There is no such thing as a European foreign policy; there are only the foreign policies of the separate countries. The Germans, for example, do not want a confrontation with Russia under any circumstances. The United Kingdom, by contrast, is more willing to take a confrontational approach to Moscow. And the European military capability, massed and focused, is meager. The Europeans have badly neglected their military over the past 15 years. What deployable, expeditionary forces they have are committed to the campaign in Afghanistan. That means that in dealing with Russia, the Americans do not have united European support and certainly no meaningful military weight. This will make any diplomacy with the Russians extremely difficult.

One of the issues the new president eventually will have to face is the value of NATO and the Europeans as a whole. This was an academic matter while the Russians were prostrate. With the Russians becoming active, it will become an urgent issue. NATO expansion -- and NATO itself -- has lived in a world in which it faced no military threats. Therefore, it did not have to look at itself militarily. After Georgia, NATO's military power becomes very important, and without European commitment, NATO's military power independent of the United States -- and the ability to deploy it -- becomes minimal. If Germany opts out of confrontation, then NATO will be paralyzed legally, since it requires consensus, and geographically. For the United States alone cannot protect the Baltics without German participation.

The president really will have one choice affecting Europe: Accept the resurgence of Russia, or resist. If the president resists, he will have to limit his commitment to the Islamic world severely, rebalance the size and shape of the U.S. military and revitalize and galvanize NATO. If he cannot do all of those things, he will face some stark choices in Europe.

Israel, Turkey, China, and Latin America

Russian pressure is already reshaping aspects of the global system. The Israelis have approached Georgia very differently from the United States. They halted weapon sales to Georgia the week before the war, and have made it clear to Moscow that Israel does not intend to challenge Russia. The Russians met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad immediately after the war. This signaled the Israelis that Moscow was prepared to support Syria with weapons and with Russian naval ships in the port of Tartus if Israel supports Georgia, and other countries in the former Soviet Union, we assume. The Israelis appear to have let the Russians know that they would not do so, separating themselves from the U.S. position. The next president will have to re-examine the U.S. relationship with Israel if this breach continues to widen.

In the same way, the United States will have to address its relationship with Turkey. A long-term ally, Turkey has participated logistically in the Iraq occupation, but has not been enthusiastic. Turkey's economy is booming, its military is substantial and Turkish regional influence is growing. Turkey is extremely wary of being caught in a new Cold War between Russia and the United States, but this will be difficult to avoid. Turkey's interests are very threatened by a Russian resurgence, and Turkey is the U.S. ally with the most tools for countering Russia. Both sides will pressure Ankara mercilessly. More than Israel, Turkey will be critical both in the Islamic world and with the Russians. The new president will have to address U.S.-Turkish relations both in context and independent of Russia fairly quickly.

In some ways, China is the great beneficiary of all of this. In the early days of the Bush administration, there were some confrontations with China. As the war in Iraq calmed down, Washington seemed to be increasing its criticisms of China, perhaps even tacitly supporting Tibetan independence. With the re-emergence of Russia, the United States is now completely distracted. Contrary to perceptions, China is not a global military power. Its army is primarily locked in by geography and its navy is in no way an effective blue-water force. For its part, the United States is in no position to land troops on mainland China. Therefore, there is no U.S. geopolitical competition with China. The next president will have to deal with economic issues with China, but in the end, China will sell goods to the United States, and the United States will buy them.

Latin America has been a region of minimal interest to the United States in the last decade or longer. So long as no global power was using its territory, the United States did not care what presidents Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua -- or even the Castros in Cuba -- were doing. But with the Russians back in the Caribbean, at least symbolically, all of these countries suddenly become more important. At the moment, the United States has no Latin American policy worth noting; the new president will have to develop one.

Quite apart from the Russians, the future U.S. president will need to address Mexico. The security situation in Mexico is deteriorating substantially, and the U.S.-Mexican border remains porous. The cartels stretch from Mexico to the streets of American cities where their customers live. What happens in Mexico, apart from immigration issues, is obviously of interest to the United States. If the current trajectory continues, at some point in his administration, the new U.S. president will have to address Mexico -- potentially in terms never before considered.

The U.S. Defense Budget

The single issue touching on all of these is the U.S. defense budget. The focus of defense spending over the past eight years has been the Army and Marine Corps -- albeit with great reluctance. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was not an advocate of a heavy Army, favoring light forces and air power, but reality forced his successors to reallocate resources. In spite of this, the size of the Army remained the same -- and insufficient for the broader challenges emerging.

The focus of defense spending was Fourth Generation warfare, essentially counterinsurgency. It became dogma in the military that we would not see peer-to-peer warfare for a long time. The re-emergence of Russia, however, obviously raises the specter of peer-to-peer warfare, which in turn means money for the Air Force as well as naval rearmament. All of these programs will take a decade or more to implement, so if Russia is to be a full-blown challenge by 2020, spending must begin now.

If we assume that the United States will not simply pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but will also commit troops to allies on Russia's periphery while retaining a strategic reserve -- able to, for example, protect the U.S.-Mexican border -- then we are assuming substantially increased spending on ground forces. But that will not be enough. The budgets for the Air Force and Navy will also have to begin rising.

U.S. national strategy is expressed in the defense budget. Every strategic decision the president makes has to be expressed in budget dollars with congressional approval. Without that, all of this is theoretical. The next president will have to start drafting his first defense budget shortly after taking office. If he chooses to engage all of the challenges, he must be prepared to increase defense spending. If he is not prepared to do that, he must concede that some areas of the world are beyond management. And he will have to decide which areas these are. In light of the foregoing, as we head toward the debate, 10 questions should be asked of the candidates:

If the United States removes its forces from Iraq slowly as both of you advocate, where will the troops come from to deal with Afghanistan and protect allies in the former Soviet Union?
The Russians sent 120,000 troops to Afghanistan and failed to pacify the country. How many troops do you think are necessary?
Do you believe al Qaeda prime is still active and worth pursuing?
Do you believe the Iranians are capable of producing a deliverable nuclear weapon during your term in office?
How do you plan to persuade the Pakistani government to go after the Taliban, and what support can you provide them if they do?
Do you believe the United States should station troops in the Baltic states, in Ukraine and Georgia as well as in other friendly countries to protect them from Russia?
Do you feel that NATO remains a viable alliance, and are the Europeans carrying enough of the burden?
Do you believe that Mexico represents a national security issue for the United States?
Do you believe that China represents a strategic challenge to the United States?
Do you feel that there has been tension between the United States and Israel over the Georgia issue?

The Russian Resurgence and the New-Old Front

John Mauldin — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:30:34 GMT

It's been a hell of a few weeks, so let's start with a little much-needed levity. Two friends, a Trader and an Investor, walk up to the roulette wheel in a casino. They watch a guy hogging the table hit on his first spin. Then his second. Third, boom. Four in a row! The guy has an enormous stack of chips which he lets ride again on a fifth spin. 00. He's wiped out and skulks off to the bar.

The two friends are excited because now it's their turn. The Trader says he's going to follow exactly the same pattern as the guy they just watched, BUT he's going to pocket his money after four spins. The Investor tells him to hold off for a minute. He wants to first buy stock in the casino....

Like most good jokes, there's a kernel of truth. When everything is in turmoil, you can't focus on the instances; you have to focus on the underlying foundations. Roulette isn't about guessing red or black; it's about understanding statistics. Today in a Special Outside the Box, we look at some potential problems from Russia that could impact the US and Latin America. It comes from George Friedman's company, Stratfor, the source I rely on for my geopolitical analysis. Peter Zeihan is one of the very sharpest thinkers in George's shop, as you'll see. The basic definition of public capital markets in the US and Europe is fundamentally different than in a country like Russia. If you don't understand the geopolitical lens through which a state views its capital markets, then you're making roulette bets instead of investments.

George is kind enough to have a special offer on a Stratfor Membership for my readers. I encourage you to click here to take advantage of this opportunity. Whether it's energy, public equities, or debt, the world's markets are inextricably intertwined. And that means you've got to understand the lay of the land. No one does a better job of providing the geopolitical drivers behind "the statistics" than Stratfor.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Russian Resurgence and the New-Old Front

By Peter Zeihan

Russia is attempting to reforge its Cold War-era influence in its near abroad. This is not simply an issue of nostalgia, but a perfectly logical and predictable reaction to the Russian environment. Russia lacks easily definable, easily defendable borders. There is no redoubt to which the Russians can withdraw, and the only security they know comes from establishing buffers — buffers which tend to be lost in times of crisis. The alternative is for Russia to simply trust other states to leave it alone. Considering Russia's history of occupations, from the Mongol horde to Napoleonic France to Hitler's Germany, it is not difficult to surmise why the Russians tend to choose a more activist set of policies.

As such, the country tends to expand and contract like a beating heart — gobbling up nearby territories in times of strength, and then contracting and losing those territories in times of weakness. Rather than what Westerners think of as a traditional nation-state, Russia has always been a multiethnic empire, heavily stocked with non-Russian (and even non-Orthodox) minorities. Keeping those minorities from damaging central control requires a strong internal security and intelligence arm, and hence we get the Cheka, the KGB, and now the FSB.

Nature of the Budding Conflict

Combine a security policy thoroughly wedded to expansion with an internal stabilization policy that institutionalizes terror, and it is understandable why most of Russia's neighbors do not like Moscow very much. A fair portion of Western history revolves around the formation and shifting of coalitions to manage Russian insecurities.

In the American case specifically, the issue is one of continental control. The United States is the only country in the world that effectively controls an entire continent. Mexico and Canada have been sufficiently intimidated so that they can operate independently only in a very limited sense. (Technically, Australia controls a continent, but with the some 85 percent of its territory unusable, it is more accurate in geopolitical terms to think of it as a small archipelago with some very long bridges.) This grants the United States not only a potentially massive internal market, but also the ability to project power without the fear of facing rearguard security threats. U.S. forces can be focused almost entirely on offensive operations, whereas potential competitors in Eurasia must constantly be on their guard about the neighbors.

The only thing that could threaten U.S. security would be the rise of a Eurasian continental hegemon. For the past 60 years, Russia (or the Soviet Union) has been the only entity that has had a chance of achieving that, largely due to its geographic reach. U.S. strategy for coping with this is simple: containment, or the creation of a network of allies to hedge in Russian political, economic and military expansion. NATO is the most obvious manifestation of this policy imperative, while the Sino-Soviet split is the most dramatic one.

Containment requires that United States counter Russian expansionism at every turn, crafting a new coalition wherever Russia attempts to break out of the strategic ring, and if necessary committing direct U.S. forces to the effort. The Korean and Vietnam wars — both traumatic periods in American history — were manifestations of this effort, as were the Berlin airlift and the backing of Islamist militants in Afghanistan (who incidentally went on to form al Qaeda).

The Georgian war in August was simply the first effort by a resurging Russia to pulse out, expand its security buffer and, ideally, in the Kremlin's plans, break out of the post-Cold War noose that other powers have tied. The Americans (and others) will react as they did during the Cold War: by building coalitions to constrain Russian expansion. In Europe, the challenges will be to keep the Germans on board and to keep NATO cohesive. In the Caucasus, the United States will need to deftly manage its Turkish alliance and find a means of engaging Iran. In China and Japan, economic conflicts will undoubtedly take a backseat to security cooperation.

Russia and the United States will struggle in all of these areas, consisting as they do the Russian borderlands. Most of the locations will feel familiar, as Russia's near abroad has been Russia's near abroad for nearly 300 years. Those locations — the Baltics, Austria, Ukraine, Serbia, Turkey, Central Asia and Mongolia — that defined Russia's conflicts in times gone by will surface again. Such is the tapestry of history: the major powers seeking advantage in the same places over and over again.

The New Old-Front

But not all of those fronts are in Eurasia. So long as U.S. power projection puts the Russians on the defensive, it is only a matter of time before something along the cordon cracks and the Russians are either fighting a land war or facing a local insurrection. Russia must keep U.S. efforts dispersed and captured by events as far away from the Russian periphery as possible — preferably where Russian strengths can exploit American weakness.

So where is that?

Geography dictates that U.S. strength involves coalition building based on mutual interest and long-range force projection, and internal U.S. harmony is such that America's intelligence and security agencies have no need to shine. Unlike Russia, the United States does not have large, unruly, resentful, conquered populations to keep in line. In contrast, recall that the multiethnic nature of the Russian state requires a powerful security and intelligence apparatus. No place better reflects Russia's intelligence strengths and America's intelligence weakness than Latin America.

The United States faces no traditional security threats in its backyard. South America is in essence a hollow continent, populated only on the edges and thus lacking a deep enough hinterland to ever coalesce into a single hegemonic power. Central America and southern Mexico are similarly fractured, primarily due to rugged terrain. Northern Mexico (like Canada) is too economically dependent upon the United States to seriously consider anything more vibrant than ideological hostility toward Washington. Faced with this kind of local competition, the United States simply does not worry too much about the rest of the Western Hemisphere — except when someone comes to visit.

Stretching back to the time of the Monroe Doctrine, Washington's Latin American policy has been very simple. The United States does not feel threatened by any local power, but it feels inordinately threatened by any Eastern Hemispheric power that could ally with a local entity. Latin American entities cannot greatly harm American interests themselves, but they can be used as fulcrums by hostile states further abroad to strike at the core of the United States' power: its undisputed command of North America.

It is a fairly straightforward exercise to predict where Russian activity will reach its deepest. One only needs to revisit Cold War history. Future Russian efforts can be broken down into three broad categories: naval interdiction, drug facilitation and direct territorial challenge.

Naval Interdiction

Naval interdiction represents the longest sustained fear of American policymakers. Among the earliest U.S. foreign efforts after securing the mainland was asserting control over the various waterways used for approaching North America. Key in this American geopolitical imperative is the neutralization of Cuba. All the naval power-projection capabilities in the world mean very little if Cuba is both hostile and serving as a basing ground for an extra-hemispheric power.

The U.S. Gulf Coast is not only the heart of the country's energy industry, but the body of water that allows the United States to function as a unified polity and economy. The Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi river basins all drain to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. The economic strength of these basins depends upon access to oceanic shipping. A hostile power in Cuba could fairly easily seal both the Straits of Florida and the Yucatan Channel, reducing the Gulf of Mexico to little more than a lake.

Building on the idea of naval interdiction, there is another key asset the Soviets targeted at which the Russians are sure to attempt a reprise: the Panama Canal. For both economic and military reasons, it is enormously convenient to not have to sail around the Americas, especially because U.S. economic and military power is based on maritime power and access. In the Cold War, the Soviets established friendly relations with Nicaragua and arranged for a favorable political evolution on the Caribbean island of Grenada. Like Cuba, these two locations are of dubious importance by themselves. But take them together — and add in a Soviet air base at each location as well as in Cuba — and there is a triangle of Soviet airpower that can threaten access to the Panama Canal.

Drug Facilitation

The next stage — drug facilitation — is somewhat trickier. South America is a wide and varying land with very little to offer Russian interests. Most of the states are commodity providers, much like the Soviet Union was and Russia is today, so they are seen as economic competitors. Politically, they are useful as anti-American bastions, so the Kremlin encourages such behavior whenever possible. But even if every country in South America were run by anti-American governments, it would not overly concern Washington; these states, alone or en masse, lack the ability to threaten American interests … in all ways but one.

The drug trade undermines American society from within, generating massive costs for social stability, law enforcement, the health system and trade. During the Cold War, the Soviets dabbled with narcotics producers and smugglers, from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to the highland coca farmers of Bolivia. It is not so much that the Soviets encouraged the drug trade directly, but that they encouraged any group they saw as ideologically useful.

Stratfor expects future Russian involvement in such activities to eclipse those of the past. After the Soviet fall, many FSB agents were forced to find new means to financially support themselves. (Remember it was not until 1999 that Vladimir Putin took over the Russian government and began treating Russian intelligence like a bona fide state asset again.) The Soviet fall led many FSB agents, who already possessed more than a passing familiarity with things such as smuggling and organized crime, directly into the heart of such activities. Most of those agents are — formally or not — back in the service of the Russian government, now with a decade of gritty experience on the less savory side of intelligence under their belts. And they now have a deeply personal financial interest in the outcome of future operations.

Drug groups do not need cash from the Russians, but they do need weaponry and a touch of training — needs which dovetail perfectly with the Russians' strengths. Obviously, Russian state involvement in such areas will be far from overt; it just does not do to ship weapons to the FARC or to one side of the brewing Bolivian civil war with CNN watching. But this is a challenge the Russians are good at meeting. One of Russia's current deputy prime ministers, Igor Sechin, was the USSR's point man for weapons smuggling to much of Latin America and the Middle East. This really is old hat for them.

U.S. Stability

Finally, there is the issue of direct threats to U.S. stability, and this point rests solely on Mexico. With more than 100 million people, a growing economy and Atlantic and Pacific ports, Mexico is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that could theoretically (which is hardly to say inevitably) threaten U.S. dominance in North America. During the Cold War, Russian intelligence gave Mexico more than its share of jolts in efforts to cause chronic problems for the United States. In fact, the Mexico City KGB station was, and remains today, the biggest in the world. The Mexico City riots of 1968 were in part Soviet-inspired, and while ultimately unsuccessful at overthrowing the Mexican government, they remain a testament to the reach of Soviet intelligence. The security problems that would be created by the presence of a hostile state the size of Mexico on the southern U.S. border are as obvious as they would be dangerous.

As with involvement in drug activities, which incidentally are likely to overlap in Mexico, Stratfor expects Russia to be particularly active in destabilizing Mexico in the years ahead. But while an anti-American state is still a Russian goal, it is not their only option. The Mexican drug cartels have reached such strength that the Mexican government's control over large portions of the country is an open question. Failure of the Mexican state is something that must be considered even before the Russians get involved. And simply doing with the Mexican cartels what the Soviets once did with anti-American militant groups the world over could suffice to tip the balance.

In many regards, Mexico as a failed state would be a worse result for Washington than a hostile united Mexico. A hostile Mexico could be intimidated, sanctioned or even invaded, effectively browbeaten into submission. But a failed Mexico would not restrict the drug trade at all. The border would be chaos, and the implications of that go well beyond drugs. One of the United States' largest trading partners could well devolve into a seething anarchy that could not help but leak into the U.S. proper.

Whether Mexico becomes staunchly anti-American or devolves into the violent chaos of a failed state does not matter much to the Russians. Either one would threaten the United States with a staggering problem that no amount of resources could quickly or easily fix. And the Russians right now are shopping around for staggering problems with which to threaten the United States.

In terms of cost-benefit analysis, all of these options are no-brainers. Threatening naval interdiction simply requires a few jets. Encouraging the drug trade can be done with a few weapons shipments. Destabilizing a country just requires some creativity. However, countering such activities requires a massive outlay of intelligence and military assets — often into areas that are politically and militarily hostile, if not outright inaccessible. In many ways, this is containment in reverse.

Old Opportunities, New Twists

In Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega has proven so enthusiastic in his nostalgia for Cold War alignments that Nicaragua has already recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the two territories in the former Soviet state (and U.S. ally) of Georgia that Russia went to war to protect. That makes Nicaragua the only country in the world other than Russia to recognize the breakaway regions. Moscow is quite obviously pleased — and was undoubtedly working the system behind the scenes.

In Bolivia, President Evo Morales is attempting to rewrite the laws that govern his country's wealth distribution in favor of his poor supporters in the indigenous highlands. Now, a belt of conflict separates those highlands, which are roughly centered at the pro-Morales city of Cochabamba, from the wealthier, more Europeanized lowlands. A civil war is brewing — a conflict that is just screaming for outside interference, as similar fights did during the Cold War. It is likely only a matter of time before the headlines become splattered with pictures of Kalashnikov-wielding Cochabambinos decrying American imperialism.

Yet while the winds of history are blowing in the same old channels, there certainly are variations on the theme. The Mexican cartels, for one, were radically weaker beasts the last time around, and their current strength and disruptive capabilities present the Russians with new options.

So does Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a man so anti-American he seems to be even a few steps ahead of Kremlin propagandists. In recent days, Chavez has already hosted long-range Russian strategic bombers and evicted the U.S. ambassador. A glance at a map indicates that Venezuela is a far superior basing point than Grenada for threatening the Panama Canal. Additionally, Chavez's Venezuela has already indicated both its willingness to get militarily involved in the Bolivian conflict and its willingness to act as a weapons smuggler via links to the FARC — and that without any heretofore detected Russian involvement. The opportunities for smuggling networks — both old and new — using Venezuela as a base are robust.

Not all changes since the Cold War are good for Russia, however. Cuba is not as blindly pro-Russian as it once was. While Russian hurricane aid to Cuba is a bid to reopen old doors, the Cubans are noticeably hesitant. Between the ailing of Fidel Castro and the presence of the world's largest market within spitting distance, the emerging Cuban regime is not going to reflexively side with the Russians for peanuts. In Soviet times, Cuba traded massive Soviet subsidies in exchange for its allegiance. A few planeloads of hurricane aid simply won't pay the bills in Havana, and it is still unclear how much money the Russians are willing to come up with.

There is also the question of Brazil. Long gone is the dysfunctional state; Brazil is now an emerging industrial powerhouse with an energy company, Petroleo Brasileiro, of skill levels that outshine anything the Russians have yet conquered in that sphere. While Brazilian rhetoric has always claimed that Brazil was just about to come of age, it now happens to be true. A rising Brazil is feeling its strength and tentatively pushing its influence into the border states of Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia, as well as into regional rivals Venezuela and Argentina. Russian intervention tends to appeal to those who do not feel they have meaningful control over their own neighborhoods. Brazil no longer fits into that category, and it will not appreciate Russia's mucking around in its neighborhood.

A few weeks ago, Stratfor published a piece called “The New Era” detailing how U.S. involvement in the Iraq war was winding to a close. We received many comments from readers applauding our optimism. We are afraid that we were misinterpreted. “New” does not mean “bright” or “better,” but simply different. And the dawning struggle in Latin America is an example of the sort of “different” that the United States can look forward to in the years ahead. Buckle up.

Your Grinning-and-Bearing-It Analyst,

John Mauldin

John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Russia

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

The Yellow Brick Road

Perhaps I Should Stick to the Twenty-First Century?

What an Ungrateful Lot We Are?

Women in Love, Investors in Love. What's the Difference?

Last Orders: Inflation or Deflation?

American Gothic

In Bernie We Trust?

What Do I Mean?

But the Economy is Growing?

Does Life Imitate Art?

Poor Old Norsk Hydro?

A Crisis in the Kremlin

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered

The Iranian Political Configuration

Examining the Anomalous Chant

The Iranian Struggle in a Geopolitical Context

Revisiting Assumptions on Iran

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

The Fundamental Issues

What the Summit Produced

The Kennedy Trap

The Geography of Recession

The Geography of Recession

The United States and the Free Market

Russia and the State

China and Separatism

Discordant Europe

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

Second Quarter Forecast 2009: Global Trends

Executive Summary

Primary Forecast

Global trend: The Economy

Global trend: The Russian resurgence

Global trend: The U.S.-jihadist war

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Turkey and Obama's Deeper Game

The Russian Dimension

The Obama Administration and the Former Soviet Union

Part 7: The Obama Administration and the Former Soviet Union

Russia's Geographic Position

The Bush Administration and Russia

Russia's Goals

Russia's Expectations and Concerns

Global Trend: The Russian Resurgence

Global Trend: The Russian Resurgence

The Next 100 Years

The Next 100 Years

OVERTURE An Introduction to the American Age

The Twenty-First Century

Forecasting a Hundred Years Ahead

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

Summary

Analysis

Obama's Challenge

Obama's Challenge

Obama's Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

The Afghan Dilemma

The Russian Question

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Hard Road Ahead

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

Global Economy

Former Soviet Union

Middle East

Europe

Latin America

South Asia

East Asia

Africa

The New President and the Global Landscape

OVERTURE
An Introduction to the American Age