Since the fall of the Eastern Block under the USSR, there has been one thing people reached a consensus about: it is the fact that the US has taken the lead now. Since then, the US has been crying out around like a street fighter arrogantly with the assurance that there is no one to challenge him and uttering his threatening "Have I heard someone disagreeing me?" Let alone anyone disagreeing, it is apparent that there is even no one daring enough to talk in his presence.  One cannot imagine a person challenging him with "Hold your horses! What are you up to?", besides there is a group of supporters who applauds him and joins by saying "Yes, yes, hit them and beat them! You can even harm them better. If you like I can give you a hand in it. OK, you hold them I will beat, and then I will hold and you will beat!"

The sovereignty of the US as the one leading power disturbs the world except some countries. Apart from England, all the European countries, countries of the Eastern Block, Russia, China and Japan are discontent with this fact. These countries are not content since they do not follow a policy of surrender in their foreign affairs and do not seek their interest at the cost of others' failures and are sensible enough to establish long-standing and honourable relations.

One of the most important reasons behind this discontent is the ease the USA is at in applying force. In the face of this attitude of the US, the countries face a limited "either/or" situation that suggests solutions like: "You'll either do what I tell you to do or I'll beat you!" Russia is being criticised because of the force practised upon the Chechen. Chechen people are the citizens under the framework of the Russian Federation and Russia is using force against those people of her own who attack public places like theatres, schools, metro stations and against those who support these people. On the other hand, the US is practicing its force and terror upon other countries and other people. There is a vast difference between the two things. Of course, there can never be a justification for killing people whatever the reason is. However, we live in a world that tempts us to think this way!

One reason why the EU was established, though it is overshadowed, was to create a third centre of power in a bi-polar world shared by the US and the USSR. The UN and NATO were in fact the bodies of the US, and there were many people in Europe that did not like this. Both of these institutions were established with the leadership of the US and they were protecting the interests of the US underhandedly. Although the UN achieved to establish a certain balance in time, it also gradually ceased to exist as an influential and controlling body. But it is a fact that when the common interests of G7 and Russia are concerned, it still works as an active body of control, which makes me recall Orwell's famous dictum: "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than the others."

It has been understood that the EU cannot form a political and military unity against the US. And without doubt it is the biggest monetary power against the US which is validated by fact that Euro/Dollar balance has improved in favour of Euro since it became the common monetary system in Europe. While 1 Euro was 0.85 USD initially, now it is about 1.30 USD; and its value will certainly increase in time. However the increase is impeded by both the EU and the US since it will increase the cost of the European products and ultimately cause a loss of interest in these products, which means a further loss of status on part of the US. The previous name for the EU was EMU (M stood for Monetary), in other words the initial aim was to establish an economic collaboration. But now the main idea is being "united" just as it is in the case of the United States of America and United Soviet Socialist Republics, which implies that they targeted to build a political, military and economic body. Now this target does not seem to be an easily achievable one because not only the members are not on very good terms with each other but also they cannot take decisions and create joint action plans since there is no super-national federative power like the one in the US.

What the increasing value of Euro suggests is that there is a great amount of people who do not approve the US hegemony in the world. They were feeling the need to have a powerful, stable and trustable monetary system which would replace the US dollar.  Euro gave them the thing what they wanted. First Venezuela and then Iraq announced that they could export oil in euro rather than dollar. There are so similar points of these two countries:  Both of them are the most important oil exporting countries. And both made the decision to consider euro as the basic value. Right after this decision, out of the blue Venezuela experienced a civil disorder. The strike of the lorry drivers became the leading event that caused the government to withdraw.  And the people in Iraq did not revolt against a violent person like Saddam even though they knew he would cause bloodshed. Despite the constant provocations, they remained loyal to him. Seeing that a civil war could not be waged, the US decided to attack Iraq. The US forces still look for "massive weapons" they can find if they dig further and further until Texas. Maybe the US could also invade Venezuela, but it did not need to since an early bird catches the wolf in Latin American countries, which means coup d'etat in Venezuela has already eased the process for the US.

An unrecognised summit in Kazakhstan was being held at the very time when the NATO members met in Istanbul for a summit. Who joined this summit? The Russian, Kazaks, Chinese, Mongolian, Afghans.  But isn't it under the US invasion? Yes, definitely!

When you open a map and unite these five countries by using a colour-pencil, a very interesting demographic info pops out: the total area, total population, total energy (oil, natural gas, coal) and natural sources (mines), or military and nuclear institutions, space research institutes, educated people and qualified labour.

Kazakhstan is one of the biggest countries in the Soviet Union. Spacecraft bases are in Kazakhstan. The amount the US contributed to Kazakhstan after the collapse of the USSR is ten times the amount it did to Russia. Kazakhstan is important.

On the other hand, Russian people now suffer from their country's state while they once used to be the citizens of a super power. They are very unhappy about the things they have to do and suffer due to the economy of their country. It is a big problem for them to see that their women are called "Natasha" which happened to mean a "prostitute" But Russia is still a potential world power since it has all the means to be one: qualified labour, the richness of the natural sources and the good means of transportation are among its assets. What it needs is just a high level of technology and a disciplined management. Gorbachov could not manage well enough; Yeltsin was alcoholic and depressive, and Putin is aggressive but he is a disciplined leader. Moreover he has the support of his people, he promises for them a country that would become a world power without being communist. And that is what the Russian people are desperately looking for.

Russia seems to have withheld the borders with Byelorussia and Ukraine, the borders with Azerbaijan have ceased to exist, and the problem with the Kazaks over the Hazar Sea seems to be solved. They are also on very friendly terms with Uzbekistan and Turkmanistan. They are not likely to get on well with the remaining three republics from the ex-USSR, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. In Armenia there is just mafia and cognac, in Georgia just wine. What Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan can offer is just cheap and unqualified labour. Russia is after gaining the three important countries: China, Mongolia, Afghanistan,

Why is Afghanistan so important? Having a cursory look at the map will give you a quick answer: The transportation of Mid-Asian oil and natural gas is vital, and Afghanistan is a neighbour to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; there is only Pakistan between the seas via which the oil can be easily and cheaply transported. And the border line of Iran with Afghanistan and Pakistan is very feasible.

 
So, Russia is gathering its team rapidly, and more importantly, is doing it not by use of force but by calling for volunteers. In near future, it would be no surprise if Russia challenges the US. Russia is now a capitalist country and it is not bound to be a threat to the "free world" Thus, for those who believe that there should be a balancing power against the US; Russia is to be encouraged to improve its state.

The world needs a power to balance the power of the US. Will this be one country or a united country, we will live and see!

Now Russia is claimed to have a nuclear weapon which cannot be copied. Of course it is an interesting claim, a technology that is owned by no one, and will be owned by no one! 

What makes a madman to stop being mad is another madman! If this will stop the global madness, then it is not a very bad idea! I wish there was no need for militarization. May be after the Cold War and after the collapse of the Eastern Block what people believed to come true was this; we have seen that our dream has become a nightmare.

As I said: we live in a world that tempts us to think this way!