Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Once Again, George Bush Has Betrayed Us

Filed under: Russia

cartoon7.jpg

Some time ago, we warned of the need to take aggressive steps to block Russia, which can't produce enough of the stuff on its own, from getting unfettered access to Australian "yellowcake" uranium.

In the event, not only did the U.S. government fail to oppose Australia inking a deal with Russia, it issued statements of lukewarm support, and the deal with the government of John Howard went through. As Steve Shalhorn, chief executive of the Australian arm of Greenpeace, observed, even if Russia keeps its promise not to use the uranium for warlike purposes "the primary danger is that supplying Australian uranium to Russian nuclear plants, it frees up Russia to do whatever it pleases with its own deposits." That's to say nothing, of course, of the sheer idiocy of trusting a proud KGB spy and professional liar to keep his word. As The Australian reported: "Russian journalist Grigory Pasko, once jailed for revealing that Russia was illegally dumping radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan, said Australia could not accept Russia's guarantees, despite it having signed the NPT."

As blogger Robert Amsterdam has noted, "Mr Putin stands shoulder to shoulder with Iran. I don't believe for a moment that Australian uranium will be used for totally peaceful purposes." Amsterdam also points out that the deal is fundamentally anti-democratic not only because Russia is one of the world's leading anti-democratic forces but because a clear majority of the Australian people themselves opposed the deal.

Russia has recently embarked upon an outrageous practice of launching nuclear bombers on threatening flight plans near NATO states (the U.S., Canada Norway and Great Britain have all been buzzed, trying to probe NATO defenses and intimidate its populations, leading them to scramble fighters to ward off the threat), while no such gestures are being made by NATO towards Russia. It's clear that Russia wants a new cold war, and yet what we are seeing from the Bush administration, which could easily have quashed this deal if it had wished to do so, is nothing short of the enabling of dictatorship and undermining U.S. security. Bush betrayed us at the very start by "looking into the eyes" of Putin and finding him to have a trustworthy soul rather than by leading the world in opposition to his rise, and Bush's outrageous policies towards Russia have continued to include even inviting Russian war criminals into the White House for photo ops. With each day that passes Bush makes it more and more impossible for those of us who would otherwise support him to do anything other than back away, consigning his presidency to the dustbin of failure. It says something quintessentially sad about our times that a yahoo from Greenpeace is a more effective spokesman for democracy and American national security than the President of the United States.

We can only pray that the coming change of stewardship in the Oval Office will bring forth a true leader with enough vision not to walk down the same path already trodden so ingloriously by such figures as Neville Chamberlain.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Russian says:

Kim, you are a silly girl. Russia is a selfsufficient country. The USSR was able to produce both A-bombs and H-bombs without buying Australian uranium. Russia is able too. Or she may get it from uranium-rich Kazakhstan and Kyrgizstan.
As long as 6 years ago Russia was selling uranium from her dismantled warheads to the USA.
Russians have enough of "the stuff". They may to have chosen Australia because they like the Australian "customer service". It is just a business matter. If you can not buy your beer from "Safeway", you go to the "Seven-Eleven".


La Russophobe says:

RUSSIAN:

You really are a lying, idiotic Russian blockhead and a sexist pig. The fact that you need to resort to pathetic personal abuse, and offer NO LINKS with evidence to support your "points," proves how totally worthless your comment is before you even begin.

If Russia doesn't need Australian uranium, why is it buying it? It just wants to do Australia a favor? Customer service? You've spent way too much time studying in Russian "schools" and reading Russian "newspapers." Where did you get your brain, K-mart? Blue light special? Our prior post documents the unquestionable fact that Russia does not have enough uranium for both its weapons and energy programs, and you have cited NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. Your statement is pure propaganda and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads it. Why don't you read this

http://www.siberianlight.net/2007/06/06/australia-to-export-uranium-to-russia/

and then go call Andy Young a "silly little boy."

Kazakhstan isn't a slave state of Russia now, you may have missed the fact that it has received its independence and currently is attacking Russia for causing rockets to crash on its territory, endangering its citizens.


pedro martinez says:

I think I have the explanation!

Uranium enrichment is like oil refining. It is a bottleneck in the process; no matter how much uranium (or oil) there is, production depends on the enrichment (or refining) capacity.

Well, Russia has "two-fifths of the world's uranium enrichment capacity":
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a53eHLmelsNk&refer=home

Uranium producers like Australia and Canada, as well as nuclear fuel markets such as the U.S. and Japan, actually need Russia in this regard -- to keep the nuclear fuel cycle going!


La Russophobe says:

PEDRO:

Thanks for the comment. The article you link to states:

"Russia, which has two-fifths of the world's uranium enrichment capacity, needs the metal to process into atomic fuel for a planned 42 extra domestic nuclear reactors by 2030."

So Russia clearly wants this material for its domestic needs, as it relies heavily on nuclear energy for domestic electricity. To the extent it sells material, the worry is that it will sell it to Iran and other U.S. enemies.

Your article also makes the point that Russia's reaching out to Australia is an indication that it doesn't have reliable relations with Kazhakhstan. This is yet more evidence that we have significant leverage over Russia which we are not fully utilizing, and the Bush administration is to blame.


pedro martinez says:

Well, you can't really take "two-fifths of the world's uranium enrichment capacity" lightly like that. Russia is a major player and a lot of countries are dependent on it for nuclear fuel.

That said, Russia's uranium mining industry is really top-secret and no one really knows how much uranium Russia really has! Take a look at this report by Doug Casey:

"... Even fewer investors realize that Russia might be world's largest holder of uranium. That's understandable given the country doesn't show up on most official lists of uranium reserves. But that has more to do with politics than geology.

Our research shows that Russia contains a staggering amount of yellowcake. Although the country mined a meager 7.3 million pounds in 2005, there is much more lurking below ground.

Numerous deposits containing more than 20 million pounds of uranium are known within the country. But here's the kicker: The two largest established projects have hundreds of millions of pounds. Streltsovsk in the Lake Baikal region hosts 283 million pounds. And the Aldansky uranium district in South Sakha/Yakutia boasts an astonishing 749 million pounds.

By contrast, Cameco's Cigar Lake and McArthur River mines – the largest in Canada – contain combined reserves of 621 million pounds, or just 60 percent the size of Russia's two giants."

LR, this is far more complicated than you or I think, but I can assure you that any master plan to starve Russia of uranium is pure nonsense. On paper, using the "official" statistics, you might be able to create a scenario where Russia runs out of "uranium," but the real chances of this are zero, Australian uranium or naught.

Blame know-it-all Russophobes RA and GP for creating uproar on a subject they know nothing about and wasting your time.



La Russophobe says:

PEDRO:

It'd really be nice if you actually read this post before commenting on it. The WHOLE POINT is that Russia may sell enriched uranium it buys from Australia to other countries who are enemies of the US, like China and Iran.

And it's an obvious fact that Russia doesn't have enough domestic uranium to satisfy its needs THAT IS WHY IT US BUYING IT FROM AUSTRALIA.

Your incomplete quote from your source is grossly misleading, irresponsible and disqualifies you from serious consideration.

Moreover, if nobody knows how much uranium Russia has, then maybe it has even less than the Russophobes think and we have even more leverage than appears. Please at least try to think before you post your nonsense.


Artfldgr says:

If Russia doesn't need Australian uranium, why is it buying it?

Regardless of whether it needs it or not (Russians point being a nothing since it contributes nothing), such things come with fancy paper and such that needs to be signed. And people in the west believe in those papers. Russias history is that it ignores the things it signs when it suits them. however, by doing this russia gets to say… “See, we are following the rules” and what they have gets to go where they want unaccounted for.

Its like the lottery in the west. Everyone thought that the lottery would go to the schools. And so the school budget would get large and our children would do well. but that was a shill. The lottery handed 100 million to schools, and the school budget from the state was lowered by 100 million… so nothing happened in the schools, but the state got 100 million more to bribe us with our own money. It’s the exact same thing with the yellow cake.

Russia may or may not have available uranium ore… but it sure is easier to buy mostly purified stuff.. this made more so when your state is in purgatory and expertise is now with the mob not the state, and infrastructure sucks.

However, there is another issue I didn’t see… and that’s the fact that there are many regimes that are now turning. And they need the protection from 3g warfare that nuclear weapons creates (which is why there is now a cold war and never peace). Chavez needs that deterent to keep the US from doing something if he starts using the new ak101/dragunov/grenade launch factory to feed revolutionaries across south America. in fact they hit mexico gas line yesterday)

If iran gets the bomb, then the door gets propped open for weapons to move over land from russia/china into the middle east and from their into Africa. Turkey, iraq, iran, and afganistan create a wall preventing material from moving. Ships are open to being boarded, searched, and sunk… no wonder russia doesn’t like that they might not be able to move stuff over the inland sea to iran. And that makes sense of why to bomb spain to get a socialist state in place… that way they can control inspections if iran falls and they have to get things through the straight.

Its all old fashioned goal strategy coupled with whats allowed and workable… not the other way around… in these games just look at a map, then work it…

Another thing to think about is that by buying stuff from Australia it reduces the amount of yellow cake available in the west. If they can buy enough of it, they will reduce the wests ability to have it. then the price will go up if they pull the oil plug. As the west will see building nuclear reactors as a fast fix to denial of oil and other energy. In this way, they may even get the west to go into their arsenals to feed the need.

After all, if they think that this is their projected capacity, and something wacko happens (like blowing up gas lines in mexico, oil lines in Alaska, 100 year contracts of sale, or chavez et all just sying no), then we will attempt to build lots of reactors… and then what will be that price of yellow cake they stockpiled?

Not saying that’s it… but tactically it could be part of it.

Tactically speaking, there are quite a number of scenarios that would cause such a situation… though monetary manipulation would be to me the favored one given their new love of loot.

And there are other tactical things… for instance.. when the states didn’t mix their uranium’s, each ore could be sourced by its isotopes and such. so just as its possible to trace steel back and other things, its also possible to know the source of things in similar ways.

In false flag warfare, a third state letting off a dirty bomb and such would then open up the inquiry where it came from. isotopes and things that are too costly to remove, would then point the source of the mine…

Now if you mix Australian yellow cake, with others… and you shake liberally… then make your what not… then what? From where then can you trace the system back?

Identifying the source of stolen nuclear materials
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JanFeb07/Smith.html


The idea is that by mixing many sources that you buy (but don’t need) you blow away the fingerprint of where it came from…

To quote:
For example, Livermore representatives signed a five-year agreement in January 2006 with KazAtomProm, the national atomic energy enterprise in Kazakhstan. KazAtomProm has long provided uranium ores to Russia and other nations of the former Soviet Union. With legal and technical support from NNSA, DHS funded the Laboratory to contract with KazAtomProm to provide Livermore with uranium ore samples and data.

So you can see why, perhaps russia or china using Kazakhstan sources might be problematical… they are sharing fingerprints.

Again.. I can’t assert that this is what they are doing… other than what analysis tells me, and analysis does not give certainty. Which is why only the tin hats know for sure…

However given their history… the facts in exposed archives… and such… this is probably the reason why they are doing this. not that they will use it, but that they have it if they want to use it.

If something goes off somewhere in the world. Wont it look better for them if the finger print traces it back to stuff from Australia? Then what? they will then be able to claim what they want, and its he said she said, and no one will be able to tell.

Historically speaking their greatest weapons have been half truths, and ambiguity.









Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/373