Moscow’s Mediterranean Might

The growth of Russian power in the Mediterranean has grown too pronounced to be ignored. On land and sea, Moscow has established a dramatic military and diplomatic presence that threatens peace and stability throughout the region.

The comfortable illusion that the U.S. Navy’s 6^th fleet reigns supreme in that crucial portion of the globe has been dispelled, as Putin not only adds his own vessels to the area, but works with China to form a dramatic increase in influence.

Both the sharp reduction in size of the U.S. Navy since 1990, and the as of yet unexplained tilt by the former Obama Administration towards Iran served to worsen the increasing threat.

Retired Italian Admiral Luigi Binelle Mantelli, quoted in the Euoberver believes that Moscow has gained a clear advantage on land and sea. “Russia is the pre-eminent naval power in the Mediterranean … [and] it has earned this role in the field…. In recent years, Russia has displayed a level of assertiveness that recalls the US during the golden days…[NATO is] no longer the deterring organization able and eager to show its muscles in the Mediterranean arena, as it did in the good old times.”

Moscow’s goal of gaining the upper hand in the Mediterranean Sea has motivated much of its actions in the region. A prime reason for Russia’s support of Syria’s dictator, for example, has been the protection of its key naval base in the Syrian port at Tartus.

Possible Side Effects of Kamagra In normal condition, mild side effects are there and can comprise upset belly, headache and facial levitra generika flushing. As a result, the alliance gets viagra 50mg online broken. In more info here online cialis normal language it is the inability to maintain an erection during the time of intercourse. Do not hesitate if you are facing any psychological, emotional or physical problems buy cialis cheap it will definitely affect your sex life at all.

As December and 2020 drew to a close, the U.S. State Department summarized Putin’s growing strength in the area. It noted that “Russia continues to threaten Mediterranean stability In Syria, Russia supports the Assad regime whose war against its own people has added to regional instability, led to a protracted humanitarian crisis, and displaced half the population. In Greece, we saw Russian diplomats expelled from the country in 2018 for undermining the Prespes agreement and meddling in Greek Orthodox religious affairs. Wealthy Russians – many with connections to the Kremlin – have laundered billions of dollars through the Republic of Cyprus and Malta, distorting their domestic markets and spreading corruption. In Libya, Russia supported an assault on the Libyan capital, Tripoli, killing civilians and undermining the UN’s efforts to bring peace to the country. It also continues to violate the UN arms embargo; blocked sanctions at the UN Security Council on Mohamed al-Kani, along with the Kaniyat militia, whose egregious violations of human rights are well documented; printed counterfeit Libyan dinars that have destabilized the Libyan economy; and via its proxy, Wagner, fuels the conflict.  The Libyan government’s release of two Wagner operatives caught undermining Libyan politics is just another example of how Russia uses mercenaries and political shenanigans rather than open democratic means to advance its interests.  The list goes on. Russia… only acts to advance its own interests to the detriment of the entire region.”

The Mediterranean Advisory Group of the Konrad Adenauer Stifung organization warns of the lack of coherent Western response to Moscow’s actions.

“As the West still debates whether Putin has a strategy for the region, it has yet to come up with its own strategic response to counter Russia’s influence in the region. Meanwhile, Moscow’s goals in the region appear to span beyond Syria, with Moscow’s growing alliance with Iran and its expanding influence in North Africa. Moscow is reinforcing its position in North Africa by consolidating and strengthening its traditional alliance with Algeria, and developing stronger relationships with Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia.

As Moscow continues its advance across the Middle East and North Africa, the US and different European countries disagree on what approach to take towards Russia and the region.”

Photo: Russian Navy’s Admiral Essen during maneuvers in the Mediterranean (Russian Defense Ministry)

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/