An update to the ongoing saga of the Mig-29 jets that Russia is gifting to Lebanon. If you remember, at first blush this looked like a major act of Russian largesse, the gifting of 10 MIG-29 fighters to Lebanon. This would be a strategic boon for Lebanon situated in a region where neighborhood skirmishes are common and with neighboring Israel having absolute air superiority. However, then it turned out that this supposed gift of a Lebanese strategic air defense were essentially useless as they were too corroded to fly. So a new deal was hurriedly worked out and Russia will now provide Lebanon with10 Mi-24 helicopter gunships instead.

While such helicopter gunships will indeed assist Lebanon to defend itself in case of dire need, it is hardly state of the art equipment. The Russians have had Mi-24’s in service since the 70’s. These gunships saw service by the Ethiopians, by the Vietnamese in their war against Cambodia and were utilized with deadly effect in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, until the US provided the Afghans with Stinger heat-seeking missiles to combat them. Should the Lebanese need to deploy such gun ships in the case of a war against Israel for example, then we don’t believe it would give Lebanon much of an edge, even if the Mi-24’s are in a good enough state of repair to be deployed. What looks like a Russian act of strategic largesse is a gift without many teeth in an arms transaction of almost humorous dimensions.

Russia has agreed to supply Lebanon with Mi-24 helicopter gunships instead of the MIG-29 fighter jets originally agreed, the office of Lebanese President Michel Sleiman said on Saturday.

“The Russian authorities agreed to replace the MIG-29 fighters, initially foreseen in their military aid, with Mi-24 helicopters as the Lebanese army urgently needs this type of aircraft equipped with rockets and sophisticated means of defense,” a statement said.

Sleiman on Thursday held talks with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow, in the first ever visit by a Lebanese head of state to Russia.

News | Russia to supply Lebanon helicopters

Internet security is a transnational issue which is why you see unlikely allies such as the US and Russia link hands and attempt to improve matters. How serious is the issue? Enough to have people taking notice of the more high profile attacks. Earlier this year, some of the plans for a new fighter aircraft being developed by the US, UK, Netherlands and Israel were stolen when hackers broke into American computers. Two years ago, it was revealed that hackers thought to be linked to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army had breached computer security systems at the Pentagon and Whitehall. There were also large-scale cyber-attacks during last year’s conflict between Russia and Georgia while the Estonian government was made impotent temporarily after an internet assault in 2007.

All of this has resulted in a series of secret meetings involving the US, Russia and the UN to develop broad countermeasures.  There are still issues though with none of the parties overly keen to document their systems and share them, but much like the discussions on mutual nuclear disarmament these  meetings mark how serious the concerns are and shows a least a temporary thawing in the Russia-US relationship

American officials have been holding secret talks with Russia and the United Nations in an attempt to strengthen internet security and rein in the growing threat of cyberwarfare.

The effort, first reported in the New York Times, is a virtual version of the nuclear arms talks being held between the two nations in Geneva – but rather than focusing on bombs and missiles, the discussions are aimed at curbing the increasing level of attacks taking place online.

With a rising tide of strikes by hackers on major institutions – including banks, businesses, government agencies and the military – diplomats are attempting to forge an international consensus on how to deal with cybersecurity problems.

“Both sides are making positive noises,” James Lewis, a senior fellow at the centre for strategic and international studies and a cyber security expert, told the Guardian. “We've never seen that before.”

Russia and US in secret talks to fight net crime | Technology | The Guardian

Our reports are following a pattern so far this week, On Monday we delved into the causes of the current vocal opposition to president Obama by the far right coalition protesters, aka Tea Party, Birther et al. On Tuesday, we discussed how President Obama dropping plans for the missile shield was nothing more than an act of theater staged, at least in part, so as to bolster Russia’s pride. Today, we can see how seemingly random acts connect together.

Russia is beside itself with excitement that there are, what they term, ‘dissenters’ protesting on the streets of Washington. To them they are hopeful for something akin to a Tiananmen Square or a Iranian-style Velvet Revolution. It also makes Russia feel all smug about some of the criticisms it has faced from the US about dialing back civil freedoms with recent changes to the Russian constitution. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is visiting the US next week and has requested the chance to meet with these US ‘dissenters’ to discuss their grievances. He is hoping for the ultimate photo op and PR opportunity. It is ironic that people protesting against faux-communism in the US attract the interest of Russia. Now the prospect of meeting a real Red will make the Tea Party folk froth at the mouth.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says he would like to meet with “dissidents” when he visits the U.S. next week.

Russian news agencies quote him as telling a group of visiting foreign experts that “I believe there are dissidents in the United States.”

ITAR-Tass quotes him as saying: “Let them tell me what problems the United States has. That won’t be bad, considering the Soviet experience.”

It wasn’t immediately clear if the comment Tuesday was a subtle dig at the U.S., which has frequently criticized Russia for backsliding on democracy.

 AP News: Reports: Medvedev wants to meet US ‘dissidents’

Sometimes, international relations resemble the theater of the absurd. Everyone knows their role, the acts are scripted, but the audience has difficulty determining what is real and what staged. Such is the case when it comes to President Obama’s roll-back of the Bush policy on the European missile shield. The Republicans cried foul, leading some of the popular but not astute commentators to allege that Obama has bent in the face of Russian pressure and put the US at risks. The howls of the tea party supporters will no doubt echo on the streets again shortly.

However, if you actually watch what happened in reality, rather than how it is dressed for the audience, this was a very astute move for the US. Firstly, the Republicans objections are in the most scripted t0 appeal to the Russians. There are some Republican representatives who really think this was a policy misstep, but frankly there are some Republican representatives will believe whatever a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh says. That is one of the challenges of the current opposition as it absent an intelligentsia to correct such thinking. Anyway, the Republicans in the know howl protest, which makes Russia feel all warm and fuzzy about how they cowed the Americans. This leads the Russians to the conclusion that there is no immediate need to beard America further and ship the contested S300  missiles to Iran. Here is how the Republican protests played out in the press for effect:

“Scrapping the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more than empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe,” the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, told Fox News.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina, said: “It will empower the Russians and it will scare the crap out of the Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and Georgians. It is a huge mistake.”

Jon Kyl, Republican senator for Arizona, called Obama’s decision “dangerous and short-sighted”. In a statement, Kyl, the Senate minority whip, said: “Not only does this decision leave America vulnerable to the growing Iranian long-range missile threat, it also turns back the clock to the days of the cold war, when eastern Europe was considered the domain of Russia.”This will be a bitter disappointment, indeed, even a warning to the people of eastern Europe. The message the administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views ‘resetting’ relations with Russia more important.”

Republicans condemn Barack Obama’s missile decision | World news | guardian.co.uk

However, the US Defense Department had already decided, despite the bait and switch for the Russian’s benefit, that the threat from Iran was more likely short and medium range missiles. This is why President Obama slipped in to his speech that the shield would be adapted to a naval platform and deployed close-up in the region. This makes all the US allies in the Middle East, and especially Israel feel a whole lot safer. It also sends a much stronger message to Iran as the missile shield in now right on top of them. If that isn’t enough to convince you that you have been tricked by the show, take into account that the US Defence Department had already decided a mobile missile shield was a more effective solution, and had ordered it built as we reported earlier this  month. Tricky switcheroo, but the real message is not missed by the players involved just, sadly, by the populist commentators and their media channels.

The 47,500-pound interceptor could be flown to NATO bases when required on Boeing-built C-17 cargo planes, swiftly put up on a 60-foot trailer stand and removed when safe, according to the report.

“If a fixed site is going to be just too hard to get implemented, politically or otherwise, we didn’t want people to think that the only way you needed to use a GBI was in a fixed silo,” Greg Hyslop, Boeing’s vice president and general manager for missile defense, told Reuters at a US Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama.

Boeing had just started briefing the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency on the proposal, Hyslop said. The project could be completed by 2015, and would probably cost less than had been planned for the silo-based interceptors, he said

Boeing unveils new anti-missile idea for Europe | International | Jerusalem Post

The confused (and duplicitous) logic of the Defense Department | The Daily Clarity

There was a recent story that slipped through the press mainly unnoticed, that made us do a double take. In a case of either stunning duplicity or mind-blowing idiocy, the Defense Department is pursuing a weaponry acquisition route far more controversial than their original path, while presenting it to the populace as a conflict reducing tactic. To follow along with this rather torturous logic, you will need to concentrate. Under then President Bush, the US planned to place a fixed missile interceptor base in Eastern Europe so as to protect itself and allies from any missile attack from Iran. This caused Russia, and particularly Putin, to have an attack of the vapors. The last thing Russia wants is a US missile base right on its border regardless of any alleged defense only capacity. It became a major friction point between the two superpowers, and led each to saber rattle at each other on the global stage.

The along came President Obama and Secretary of State, Clinton with their reset button to placate Russia’s wounded pride. Behind the headlines everyone seemed happy,  as the US appeared  to have backed down on the missile site.  However, this left several parties none too happy. One being the Poles, who anticipated a large inflow of  US funds as the base was built. They are still out of luck; one just hopes they didn’t spend any of the imagined windfall. Another aggrieved party was the weapons manufacturers who lost out on a very large and lucrative contract.

The other unhappy party was of course the Defense Department . They have a constant appetite for shiny things that go bang, and especially big shiny things that make a very large bang and might scare other standing armies. The Defense Department is caught in a time warp, and stills thinks it will end up in a  Cold War Russia war scenario. It should therefore be no surprise that Defense and the weapons manufacturer came up with a way around the seeming impasse.

Enter stage left, a small story that didn’t garner much attention, but was a subtle and vitally important plot twist. Boeing has just announced it building a mobile missile interceptor base that can be flown around the world on one of its cargo planes, and deployed on an as required basis. The Defense Department is naturally delighted at the prospect. However, this is where the trickery lies. What possible way can a mobile, rapid-deployment missile interceptor system make America’s already suspicious”allies” less concerned? Think about it. A fixed system is more easily identified, permanent counter measures can be established, and the locale monitored. The Russians objected to a fixed system as a threat, a mobile system that could pop-up anywhere would be an even greater danger for them. It would be much more difficult to defend against, and gives the US a flexible defence sytem that the Russians fear may one day be directed at them. Once again,  the Defense Department tries to pull the wool over the eyes of casual observers, by a crude attempt at a sleight  of hand. Somehow, and no pun intended, we just don’t see this plan flying…

In a bid to allay Russian fears of possible US missile-defense sites in Europe, Boeing has unveiled a proposal to build a mobile interceptor missile, Reuters reported Thursday.

The 47,500-pound interceptor could be flown to NATO bases when required on Boeing-built C-17 cargo planes, swiftly put up on a 60-foot trailer stand and removed when safe, according to the report.

“If a fixed site is going to be just too hard to get implemented, politically or otherwise, we didn’t want people to think that the only way you needed to use a GBI was in a fixed silo,” Greg Hyslop, Boeing’s vice president and general manager for missile defense, told Reuters at a US Army-sponsored missile-defense conference in Huntsville, Alabama.

Boeing had just started briefing the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency on the proposal, Hyslop said. The project could be completed by 2015, and would probably cost less than had been planned for the silo-based interceptors, he said

Boeing unveils new anti-missile idea for Europe | International | Jerusalem Post

There are only just over 4 million people in Moldova. It is a small land-locked country in Eastern Europe, and one of the poorest. Despite these limitations, it has managed to produce two ex-citizens that regularly hit the front pages, and generally not in a popular light.

Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was born and raised there before moving to Israel in his teens. Lieberman is known for his rather extreme views about Israel and her neighbors. You can read about some of his more controversial views here,  but they include such gems as bombing the Aswan dam to flood Egypt and pushing Palestinians back into the sea. He is also currently facing investigation for corruption.  However, despite his rather checkered history, and due to the often fragmented and dysfunctional Israeli electoral system that  generally sees a new coalition Knesset every two years, he still holds one of the highest offices there.

Moldova also managed to be the birthplace of another unusual character, Orly Taitz. She is, and this gets a little difficult to follow, a Moldova born, once Israeli resident ,and now US located,  political activist. She has rather an unsual world view and an obsession with President Obama. She was one of the originators of the ‘birther’ movement that allege Obama is Kenyan, and so not eligible for the Presidency. She somewhat got disowned even by the ‘birthers’ as going too far, however, when she said in a MSNBC interview thet her detractors were “Obama’s brownshirts.”  However, that is not her only theory as relate to the President. She has at various time alleged:

• That Obama is a proponent of extreme socialism and an agent of radical Islam
• A number of homosexuals from Obama’s former church have died mysteriously
• Obama has dozens of social security numbers, and his passport is inaccurate.
• Taitz claims that a person who was cooperating with the FBI in connection with Obama’s passport died mysteriously, “shot in the head”.
• A Kenyan birth certificate with the name “Barack Obama” is authentic.
• Obama or someone connected to him has made threats to Taitz’s life, including vandalizing her car

Now she is on the rampage again, and is causing quite the stir in Israel and with the Russian media. Though she has fairly much been confined to the lunatic fringe by most American commentators after alleging that Hugo Chavez owns the software that runs American voting machines. As they say, when it comes to Orly Taitz, ‘Oy vey!’

She believes Obama poses a threat to Israel not only because of his support of radical Islamic groups such as Hamas, but also because of his “radical socialist” policies, that will bring the United States to “totalitarianism and Stalinism.” According to Taitz, these policies “pose a threat to all democracies, not only Israel.”

Taitz, who argues that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is building internment camps for “anti-Obama dissidents,” said that on the road in the United States “people have shown me they want to have guns so they aren’t rounded up into FEMA camps,” a scenario which she says the Obama administration is planning.

Over the last two weeks, Taitz has been featured in a segment on Channel 10 television’s popular nightly news show “London and Kirschenbaum,” filmed a segment for the far-right Arutz 7 Web site and recorded a show for their radio channel, was featured in a three-page article in mass circulation daily Ma’ariv, and was the subject of a feature on Channel 1 TV.

Israel’s Russian press has also taken notice, and interviewed Taitz for a feature for Russian radio and Israel’s Russian-language Channel 9. Taitz will also be the subject of a lengthy article in “Vesty,” Israel’s largest Russian-language newspaper.

Orly Taitz: Obama policies are ‘clear and present danger to Israel’ – Haaretz – Israel News

There were great hopes that a new Russia would become more open over time, that perhaps the systemic insecurity of the Soviet-era would disperse organically. Sadly, the continuing roll backs in personal freedoms in Russia are showing that trend is highly unlikely. The new constitution was drafted in  a period of high expectations, but Putin has  over the last 8 years slowly changed it law by law to a point where it appears that absolute state control could once again be a reality for the Russian people. Putin, the grand architect of all these changes, is adding more restraints to maintain his stranglehold on power. He has extended the term for the Presidency, done away with juries in certain violence against the state crimes,  and broadened the definition of treason. His latest tactic to extend the reach of the state security services and reignite the Soviet-era paranoia among the Russian people sees the government take on new sweeping sweeping powers to spy on its own citizens with a new decree gave intelligence services unlimited access to read all mail without a warrant. It appears the desires of the state to protect its internal security are once again dominating any agendas for personal freedom.

The decree, reminiscent of Soviet-era domestic spying tactics, allows security services – including the FSB, Foreign Intelligence Service and police, as well as customs, drug and prison agencies – to obtain information on senders and addressees from the postal service.

It also foresees FSB agents – the successors to the Soviet-era KGB – setting up monitoring sites at all the country’s post offices.

Kremlin critics denounced the measure as a return to Stalinist tactics of surveillance.

“We are returning to a totalitarian regime,” said Lev Ponomaryov, a leading human rights activist. “It reminds one of Soviet times. And the worst thing is, the people don’t care.”

The communications ministry, which issued the decree, denied it violated the constitutional right to privacy.

“This document carries a technical character,” a ministry spokesman said, denying that security services would see their powers broadened with the decree. “It does not infringe the rights of postal recipients or human rights.”

Kremlin gives itself powers to spy on all Russian mail – Telegraph

A couple of days ago we reported how Russia had bowed to Israeli pressure not to supply MIG-31′s to Syria. It appears as if the inducement to cease the Syria shipment was not a case of Russia diplomatic largesse, but rather so as to obtain access to Israeli drone aircraft technology. Under the $50 million deal, Israel Aerospace Industries will supply Russia with UAV’s  including the Bird-Eye 400 mini, the I-view MK150 tactical,  and the Searcher Mk II medium-range UAV. Russia saw the effectiveness of these drones when it had to combat them in its recent conflict in Georgia. The fact that this technology had been sold to Georgia by Israel was a bone of great contention. However, it appears in diplomacy and politics, this was only a temporary spat,  and one easily made up by writing a similar deal with Moscow.

The scale of the Israeli arms exporting industry is often under appreciated, We reported that  “…Israel is the third largest arms exporter [at the time of the report]  in the world. In 2006, for example, Israel exported $4.2 Billion worth of arms to other countries.”

The Israel-Russian contract does not come without criticism from some quarters in Israel that have a historic distrust of Russia, and suspect that the drones may be reverse-engineered in Russia,  and the technology end up in the hands of Israel’s enemies, such as Iran. Time will tell, but for now Russia has what it wants, and ironically  only had to sacrifice its own Syrian military contract as a price for access. Russia obviously feels that this cost is not too much to advance its own interests:

Russia’s interest in Israeli drones surfaced in late 2008 following the war in Georgia, during which Tbilisi operated Israeli-made drones. At the time, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau, visited Moscow and received assurances that Russia would not sell the S300 defense missile system to Iran, and would consider halting the sale of MiG-31s to Syria.

Russia was supposed to sell eight MiG-31s to Syria, according to a report in the Kommersant newspaper. The $500m. deal was signed in early 2007, but work on the project was halted in April.

The contract was supposed to be the first export deal for the MiG-31E, a heavy twin-engine interceptor capable of flying at nearly three times the speed of sound and simultaneously firing at several targets at ranges of up to 180 km.

The aircraft was designed in the 1980s for tackling low-flying cruise missiles and other difficult targets- Israel to speed up UAV order to Russia | Israel | Jerusalem Post

The concept of a unified Europe (UE rather than the EU) has long been an ideal to some, and a potential nightmare for others. To those who imagine a common currency, open borders, a mobile workforce, shared resources, and more, the stretch to a single government in place of sovereign state governance  seems not that improbable. However it also raises the specter for others of a single military, potentially under a unified command, and with a joint commitment to obligatory defense of the collectives’ territory. This makes the bear in Moscow angry enough to wake and sharpen its claws. Russia has always been fearful of attempts to encircle it, and believes that many in Europe would slowly strangle it by luring its neighbors to power centers in the West. Therefore the latest developments will be giving the Russian bear a few sleepless nights.

Despite deep Russian misgivings, the European Union and six former Soviet republics formally agreed on Thursday to pursue a new partnership meant to draw the eastern nations closer into the EU orbit.

The agreement approved by presidents, premiers and their deputies from 33 nations is meant to extend the EU’s political and economic ties in exchange for commitments to democracy from beneficiary nations. But already riled by NATO’s eastward outreach, Moscow views the so-called “Eastern Partnership” plan with suspicion.

Kremlin ally Mikhail Margelov, the chairman of the International Affairs committee in Russia’s upper parliament house, said Thursday the Prague meeting was a geopolitically motivated effort by the West to increase its influence over former Soviet republics, Russian news agencies reported –  Mobile News Network.

Russia does not appreciate any one trying to influence the countries that it believes are in reality still  its thrall states. However, many of the former Republics having tasted the lash under the Soviet era master would be keen to change allegiance.  It will also put Russia’s human rights policies under scrutiny. Suffice to say there will be a lot of diplomatic pressure being applied by Moscow on its former Soviets, and lots of threats of economic respisal in the case of disobedience. Interesting times for Russia and its former minions.

We have been tracking this story in the Russian State media for a while, but now it appears the story has gone mainstream. Hopefully, the US population will enjoy good times in 2009, as a leading Russian academic and the trainer of future Russian diplomats, predicts civil war and the disintegration of the US by 2010. The Wall Street Journal recently reported the story for US consumption:

“For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he’s been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. “It’s a record,” says Prof. Panarin. “But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger.”

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it’s his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin’s views also fit neatly with the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin’s ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country’s top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin’s English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin’s apocalyptic vision “reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today,” says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. “It’s much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union.”

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin’s predictions. “Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people,” says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin’s theories don’t hold water.

Mr. Panarin’s résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are “classified.”

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

“When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise,” he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. “They didn’t believe me.”

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

“It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time.” A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. “It’s not there for no reason,” he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The article prompted a question about the White House’s reaction to Prof. Panarin’s forecast at a December news conference. “I’ll have to decline to comment,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino’s response was significant. “The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully,” he says.”

The professor says he’s convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union — 15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.