Several volcanoes may have severily damaged Neanderthals

This is the hypothesis proposed by Liuvob Golovanova in the latest issue of Current Anthropology, according to Science News.

Golovanova's team has found two different volcanic ash layers in the Neanderthal  site of Mezmaiskaya, in the North Caucasus, the first one is dated to c. 45 Ka ago and the second one to c. 40 Ka ago. This one seems to have sealed the fate of Neanderthals in the Caucasus. 

Some time later, c. 38-37 Ka ago, items that are mostly associated with Homo sapiens, such as perforated shell ornaments, bone points and other items, appear at the site. 

A similar situation is found, as far as I know, in the not too distant site of Kostenki, in southern Russia. The 40 Ka eruption is also associated with the cold episode known as HE4 and has been related to the expansion of Aurignacian culture in SW Europe. 

However it must be noted that in the same issue, geologist Biagio Giacio, challenges Golovanova's account, mentioning the presence of artifacts under the ash layer in several Mediterranean locations. I presume that these are the same sites that Julien Riel-Salvatore has been digging in Southern Italy, of Uluzzian culture. 

Riel-Salvatore stands today at his blog by his published claims of Uluzzian being a Neanderthal industry, mostly because of the existence of a Mousterian (probably Neanderthal) buffer in Central Italy arguably preventing Sapiens influences from arriving,  but other researchers have already proposed that it is of H. sapiens manufacture because of it srather unmistakable Upper Paleolithic style, including bone tools (unknown to have been ever made by Neanderthals), and specially the presence of perforated decorations. 

The debate continues. 

Ref. L.V. Golovanova et al. Significance of ecological factors in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Current Anthropology. Vol. 51, October 2010, p. 655. doi:10.1086/656185.

Could Russian subs help close the Louisiana oil leak?

Today seems a day of mystery news that one doesn't really know what to do with them. After mentioning the apparently severe but otherwise unheard of political conflict in Puerto Rico, now I stumble with another strange and rather hidden news item at BBC: the captain of a special high depth Mir submarine claims they could close the Louisiana oil leak but clarifies that top level institutional decisions would be needed.

The two Mir submarines are nowadays searching for methane hydrates (an alternative source of energy) in the depths of Lake Baikal, the deepest lake on Earth, and have previously worked in the Arctic. He speaks confident of their capabilities but laments that there seems to be no interest in asking the Russians for help at all.

Puzzling to say the least.

USA seems set to attack Iran

The last few days have left us with a spat of contradictory news on the conflict around Iran and its nuclear ambitions. First Brazil and Turkey managed to strike a deal that was tailored to US demands so far on this matter and which counted with the support of Russia, a key UN security council veto-holding power and a major nuclear power itself. The US reaction however has been very hostile, claiming that they had already reached an agreement with Russia and China on further sanctions, including intercepting ships sailing to/from Iran in search of nuclear fuel or components.

They pretext that the agreement comes six months late and that Iran does not renounce to regular uranium enriching, which it is entitled to by the NPT, but the obvious reasons are that the USA wants to increase and not decrease the tension with Iran, in line with what their Zionist masters (the only nuclear power of the region) demand and, also, that it wants to trample the diplomatic movements of Brazil (already under US factual siege in Latin America), Turkey (becoming too independent for Washington's and Tel Aviv's likes) and Russia.

This new block of sanctions proposed by the USA are all but an open declaration of war, because the bulk of the naval intervention would fall to US/NATO hands, who are the interested party and who have a whole fleet in the area.

If Washington's position prevails (and so far it usually does), we should expect rapid escalation towards open war. While the USA is unlikely to occupy Iran right away (too costly and too likely to backfire), a terrible protracted unequal conflict, similar to the situation that Iraq was subjected to in the 1990s and early 2000s of total blockade, takeover of airspace and calculated bombings, is the most likely outcome. If the fundamentalist regime does not fall to that, then outright war is also within the possibilities but probably at a later moment, just like happened in Iraq under Bush Jr.

At the moment the UN security council is made up mostly of US satellites (UK, France, Austria, Japan, Mexico, Gabon, Nigeria, Uganda, Bosnia-Herzegovina), what makes the possibility of defeating US proposals by regular vote something almost unthinkable. This leaves Russia and China, who have the right of veto, as the key players.

China, maybe more concerned right now on what is happening at its own borders (Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Thailand, Korea), has not yet said a word. So Russia seems the most crucial player in this standoff. It's not a comfortable position considering how strong are Zionist interests in Russia too but, as of late, Russia has acted with determination and success against Zionist plans in Georgia, is gaining influence in West Asia (Syria, Turkey and of course cornered Iran).

Clinton has said that they had already persuaded Russia and China to back up their new sanctions package but Russia has spoken with ambiguous words backing the Brazil-Turkey bartered deal.

It's difficult to understand all clues in this complex multilateral situation but I'd say that Russia needs to back up Turkey specially, which is clearly sliding away from US influence, and does not want in any case yet another US engineered war in its West Asian backyard. Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia are already more than enough. I imagine that, unless the USA offers a lot (something like Taiwan), the interest of China is also to back Russia, Iran, Turkey and Brazil in the UN. China, deeply concerned about its own access to West Asian oil resources, does not want more US military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

On the other hand, US attitude is clearly set up for a remake of the Iraq blockade, eventually leading to an outright invasion. This is totally consistent with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rallying of friendly Arab dictatorships into its military alliance system and the government change and potential disintegration of Pakistan. Ideally, for the Pentagon and the White House (and of course for AIPAC, J-street and all the Zionist International), all the area should become submissive to the USA (and Israel), furthering the grip not just in Arab/Muslim nationalist ambitions but also on the access to resources of rising star China and setting advanced positions closer to the soft belly of Russia: Central Asia.

Of course, neutralizing the initiative of free-thinker powers such as Brazil and Turkey is also part of the plan. So, in the best case, expect the new deal to be boycotted by the USA and never gain the seal of approval of the UN Security Council, keeping the situation as it is: an active siege of Iran.

References:
· Thierry Meissan, Strategy Shift in the Middle East (Voltaire Net)
· BBC: Iran hit by fresh UN nuclear sanctions threat
· Al Jazeera: Brazil criticises USA over Iran

Geopolitics of today (or "BRICs are heavy")

I finally made a satisfactory map that reflects as well as possible the imperfect multipolarity of today's geopolitics:

Click to expand

Legend:

• Red shades: The Empire (dark red: USA and dependencies, bright red: other NATO members, other "central" US allies and their colonies, pink: other important US allies/EU members, stripes: under military occupation).
• Turquoise: Russia (stripes: under military occupation), Cyan: main allies
• Blue: China, lighter blue shades: under Chinese influence
• Orange: India, lighter orange shades: under Indian influence
• Green: Brazil, light green: other Mercosur countries, dark green: ALBA
• Dark Grey: other regional powers
• Regular Grey: other countries

Notice that I could not mark all US/NATO allies on risk of almost all the map becoming pink and that way maybe exaggerating the influence of The Empire even more. On the other hand I may have maxed the areas of influence of China (excepting Pakistan) and India. Many countries, of course, play multilateral diplomacy and try to keep a pretense of independence, what makes more difficult to decide what side are they in. The use of similar colors for Brazil/Mercosur and ALBA is somewhat justified but was mostly chosen to underline the differences between the USA/NATO bloc and the "Latin-Americanist" powers in the American continent. Anyhow, the latest developments in Honduras, Colombia and Haiti have clearly pushed Venezuela and Brazil closer in a joint bid to support the independence of Latin American and Caribbean nations, which obviously plays in their interest rather than in that of the USA, as imperialist power.


Overview:

There are two basic elements in the reality reflected in this map: The Empire and the BRIC.

The Empire is incredibly large (even if I tended to reflect only its strongest influence) and is clearly based on naval hegemony, which is supported by proportionally large navies, not just from the USA but also from France, UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and Japan in particular.

BRIC is an acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. Even if it's an informal group, it has no other entity that reflect the four major powers that are still independent from The Empire. Each one of them has its own geostrategical interests and also different cultures and political systems. The only thing in common they may have is that they all are more or less confronted with The Empire... with one exception: India.


India:

It seems that India and China perceive each other as most direct rivals. Also India has a large maritime facade and hence clear naval interests in the Indian Ocean specially, which is also the ocean where The Empire has an arguably weaker presence. However India has with good reason distrusted The Empire in the past and instead kept stronger ties with the former USSR. The China-USA entente and the conflicts with Pakistan (an ally of both USA and China) on Kashmir, led the South Asian republic to act that way. However it has played both sides and has always kept major ties with Israel and other members of the Western bloc.

In the current circumstances, India still keeps good relations with Russia but the approach between Moscow and Beijing is pushing the old friend somewhat apart and throwing India in the arms of The Empire.


China and Russia:

But, of course, the most important power of all BRIC countries is nowadays China. And it is the growing conflict between China and the USA what really describes the scene. We can't still talk of a new Cold War, very specially because the Chinese take due care in no pushing the conflict to military but economic and diplomatic terms but, in any case, the conflict is clear and growing stronger, as knows anyone who reads the news.

China however is relatively weak in the military aspect, even if less so than in the past, and hence its growing alliance with the decadent but heavily armed Russia is of crucial importance. The "thirdworldized" Russia with loads of ICBM nukes, offers China an almost ideal ally: China does not dispute Russia its political and military clout on Central Asia but rips many of the economic benefits, not just of Central Asia but also of Siberia. It also offers China a military shield that prevents a direct conflict with The Empire.

On its side Russia also feels threatened by The Empire, which has been growing towards its borders and even threatens it with new missile deployments. The latest developments (defeat of Georgia, pro-Russian government in Ukraine, restive Turkey) may imply that Russia is scoring some goals but still it does feel threatened by NATO and siding with China is the best alternative it has (as together they control most of non-tropical Asia, while divided they would only play in the hands of their common rival).

China's worries are mostly a fear of being blockaded out of the oil supplies from the Middle East. Hence it's following two parallel strategies: on one side, cooperation with Russia to keep The Empire out of Central Asia (and as much as possible of The Middle East as well, for example protecting Iran) and, on the other side, securing as much as possible the shipping lines to West Asia (for which it has recently obtained bases in Bangladesh and Sri-Lanka).

In parallel, China is painfully working to weaken the imperial bloc in its immediate area of East Asia itself (seducing South Korea and even Japan and Taiwan as much as possible, supporting little Cambodia against Thailand, etc.), as well as gaining random friends in Polynesia and Africa and, specially, making business even where The Empire makes military alliances.


Brazil:

The other BRIC power is Brazil, whose confrontation with the USA has been growing hot in the last year. Brazil has been playing, even more than China, a soft diplomatic game, gradually strengthening its position both internally and internationally. While it has got its bad moments with the Bolivarian bloc led by Venezuela, the crisis of Honduras seems to have eventually opened its eyes. And if that did not, the growing US military presence in Colombia and the unbelievable massive invasion of Haiti have put things clear for Brazil: there's no room for two powers in America... unless they fight each other. Surely Brazil would like to grow in power more gradually and without conflicts but it seems that those days are now gone and The Empire is striking back. That situation obviously pushes the Bolivarian bloc (the ALBA) and the Brazilian-led bloc (Mercosur) into each other's arms.

The latest growing tensions around the Falklands/Malvinas disputed archipelago, as well as the repeated protests of Venezuela against the US-Colombia-Netherlands siege, show that the issue is serious.

However Brazil in comparison with the Asian BRIC countries has three disadvantages:

• Like India, it is a naval oriented country with a large maritime facade. Hence it's potentially more exposed to the Imperial naval hegemony. But, unlike India it's much closer to the USA and its area of immediate interests.
  
• It competes with the largest global power for Latin America, which the USA still considers its "backyard".
  
• It is the only BRIC power that has no nuclear weapons. It might develop them (as did India not long ago) but that would mean breaching international agreements (NPT) and giving hence a pretext to the USA to behave even more aggressively.
  

On the other hand it has some major advantages:

• Latin America in general is fed up with the USA and is clearly willing to try something new. Brazil has the potential of playing a leading role in this aspect and the recent formation of a distinct Latin American and Caribbean association without the USA nor Spain is a clear step in this direction.
  
• Not only Latin America but eventually even large parts of Africa, very specially South Africa (particularly sympathetic to Brazil and India, and leader of a large bloc, not represented in the map) and the former Portuguese colonies, could be interested in some sort of cooperation with Brazil and other Latin American nations with common goals of emancipation and development.
• The legitimacy of the people: unlike the other US rivals (China and Russia) and unlike most US allies (vassals) in the region, Brazil and its allies (excepting Cuba) are clear democracies, with more or less "progressive" leaning. Machiavelli himself would applaud that as a great asset.
• Oil: Venezuela seems to have become the largest oil reserve in the World, replacing Saudi Arabia in this position. Brazil itself has discovered large deposits offshore and there are others in Cuba, Haiti and the Falklands, fueling the confrontation with the USA and Britain. But also allowing for some decent bargaining as well.
  

The Empire:

The Imperial bloc lead by the USA has clear advantages: the largest share by far of the global GDP, a huge military, presence almost anywhere on Earth, lots of nukes, total naval hegemony... But it has also some disadvantages, namely: overextension, huge debt (largely caused by military overexpending), being dominated by a small oligarchy with very peculiar interests, often conflicting with those of the people and even The Empire itself (particularly Zionism), and now a brutal overproduction crisis that might well seal its fate once for all.

Overgrowth crisis are not alien to large empires. Rome itself faced one after consolidation and languished for centuries in it, while the British Empire decayed largely because it was too large to be defended against its own peoples. But the closest parallel is surely the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and Philip II, who similarly were forced to overexpend in military adventures, often ill fated, almost everywhere (Germany, the Mediterranean, Britain...). At the time there was no larger empire and the Habsburgs thought they had no rival... but soon they had to experience a harsh reality check and declare bankrupticy, as well as making huge concessions to their rivals.

This is in fact what The Empire is facing today: the crisis is, as we all know, far from over and it is affecting severely both major pillars of the bloc: the USA and EU. It is primarily an structural overproduction crisis but it's also a debt crisis (with China getting rid of less and less solid US bonds) and an overextension crisis as well.

Just count the unfinished major wars The Empire is involved in: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia-plus, Yemen, Somalia. Not to mention the never accoplished threat of attacking Iran, the extreme instability of most US vassals in Latin America (Colombia, Mexico, Honduras and poor occupied Haiti at least), which can any day turn against their master by popular acclamation, and those of other regions (Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and even some European countries like Greece).

And then count the cost: the nominal US public debt is of almost 8 trillion USD but, in fact, more than 5 trillion are excluded from these accounts. Only counting the nominal fraction, the US public debt has never been so high since the late 1950s (as percentage of GDP, c. 70%) and, when we count all the real debt, it's as high as at the height of WWII (again as percentage of GDP, c. 115%). This kind of heavy indebtment, paid with the booty of conquest maybe but not without serious economic implications, is again another striking parallel with the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and successors, very specially as most of it is wasted in both cases in military expenses.

But, of course, The Empire remains as of today as a mighty power, the only real superpower on Earth. Meanwhile, the Frances, Englands and Ottoman Empires of our day (the BRIC and particularly China) bid their time as much as they can avoiding direct confrontation as much as possible.

And this is the scenario we have now. Though admittedly it may well be obsolete in a decade or less.


Addendum: naval might:

Aircraft carriers may well reflect with some approximation the real naval might of each of the powers at play. They are as follows:

NATO and allies:

• USA: 11 ships in use, 1 projected
• Britain: 2 ships in use, 2 projected
• Italy: 2 ships in use
• Spain: 2 ships in use
• France: 1 ship in use
• Australia: 2 ships projected
  
• Japan: 2 ships projected
• Thailand: 1 ship projected

Total Empire: 18 aircraft carriers in use, 9 projected

BRIC:

• India: 1 ship in use, 2 projected
• Russia: 1 ship in use
• Brazil: 1 ship in use
• China: 1 ship projected
  

Total BRIC: 3 aircraft carriers in use, 4 projected


Sources: most data freely adapted from diverse Wikipedia articles and maps. See also this post on the China-US competition, this one on the latest US invasion of Haiti and its geostrategical implications and maybe this one on how Venezuela is being surrounded by US military deployment.

Note: of course, the secondary title is a silly wordplay with the superb record of L7, Bricks Are Heavy.

Early European was mtDNA U2

A skeleton from the Markina Gora site (Kostenki XIV, Don basin, Russia) has seen its mtDNA sequenced by Svante Paabo's team, being classified as U2.

The researchers have developed a novel method that allows them to discern with apparent safety what is ancient DNA and what is contamination from modern handling. This method promises to revolutionize ancient DNA research.

Haplogroup U2 is relatively rare nowadays in Europe, being most common in South and Central Asia. Nevertheless it is also found across Europe at low frequencies and is believed to be old enough as for this finding to be consistent.

It is, of course, part of haplogroup U (in turn derived from macro-haplogroup R) and also part of the major subclade U2'3'4'7'8'9 (cf. PhyloTree) or, in other words, U(xU1,U5,U6).

Reconstruction of Markina Gora man by M. M. Gerasimov (source)

Markina Gora man is dated to c. 30,000 years ago.

Source: BBC News (a quite informative article).

Research paper: Johannes Krause et al., A Complete mtDNA Genome of an Early Modern Human from Kostenki, Russia. Current Biology, 2009 (paywall).

Political terror rules Russia

Interesting interview today in Gara newspaper (in Spanish) to Svetlana Gannushkina, speaker of the human rights NGO Memorial, honored with a Sajarov price, on the terrible situation in Chechnya and Russia in general. Some excerpts:

Political murders are the norm, not the exception.

We are witnessing a Chechenization of all Russia.

Svetlana Gannushkina (Memorial)

On Chechnya:

[Razman Kadirov] and his men do whatever they want. There is no law. And fear has become part of the Chechnyan mentality. It is what happened in the times of Stalin, of Hitler, of Mussolini: people begin to love their oppressors and fear each other, just like in the old times.

In Chechnya we can't even speak of corruption as such. The term "corruption" means a collaboration between the political power and criminal organizations. In Chechnya there is no difference at all between the political and the criminal power: they are the same thing.

On the murder of Natalia Estemirova:

They went then to ask the neighbors and a woman said that at 9am they had brought Natalia into a car by force, while she cried she was being kidnapped. See how is fear that this woman, who knew Natalia and her work, did not dare to call anybody, not even Natalia's daughter, whom she also knew personally.

At the Kremlin:

Recently several representatives of human rights organizations were received by President Medvedev. We told him about the murders and he compared them to common crime. We don't say that the life one person is more valuable than other's, but political murders reveal the situation of society. The difference is huge because these reveal that power is allied with the criminals. And not just murders: the fact that they create false evidence like weapons or drugs in order to inculpate you, something that doesn't just happen in Chechnya but in all Russia, shows that something is very much rotten. It destroys all institutions and the legal system.

Interview Ahmed Zakayev, exiled PM of Chechnya

Again I find a most interesting interview at Gara newspaper, this time with the leader of the Chechen government in exile, A. Zakayev. I translate it here to English as I think it is quite interesting:

Gara: 20 years have passed since the Berlin Wall was demolished and 10 since the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Would have changed anything if Gorbachev would have managed to fully implement the Perestroika?

Zakayev: No doubt. The catastrophe of Chechnya began with the collapse of the USSR, Yeltsin recognized the republics that broke apart (Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan...) but decreed that the Republic of Chechnya-Ingushetia would remain under control of Moscow. If Gorvachev would have managed to introduce all his reforms, both economical and political, today the USSR would be something like the European Union.

G: You were Minister of Culture in the government of Djokhar Dudayev until his death in 1996. What kind of leader was he?

Z: Many lies have been said of him. He has been called "bandit", "fanatic", "intransigent"... But in fact Dudayev was an intelligent and dialogant person, nothing like the image that Moscow has been trying to "sell". In November 1994 promised me that he would do everything possible to prevent the war and in December he received a telegram from the Kremlin calling for a negotiation round at Vladikavkaz (North Ossetia). Against the opinion of many in his cabinet, who were against any sort of negotiation, Dudayev confirmed his assistance. But Moscow canceled the meeting and the war began soon after that.

G: In any case, you won the First Chechen War (1994-96), and enjoyed then of som form of self-rule until the second war began. How was that period?

Z: I beleive that you should re-formulate your question. Who told you that we won the war? 80% of Grozny was destroyed but I never saw even a single broken window in Moscow. Those three years were some of the darkest ones in the history of Cechnya: more than 100,000 people died and as many were left homeless too. The Republic was completely ruined, people lived at the edge of desperation because mere survival was a huge challenge. In the peace agreement, the indemnizations to be paid by Moscow were determined, but none was ever fulfilled. We were the true victims of that war and even then it was said that we had won.

The Chechnyan government of that time, including myself, was guilty of excessive relaxation. In such situation it was easy for Moscow to manipulate its members. The situation reminded of how an adult in kindergarten manages the children at whim: conducting them, making them argue...

Sergei Primakov, the then Foreign Minister of Russia, anounced that they would break relations with anyone recognizing the independence of Chechnya. Nobody did, nor was there any European organization that would send a single ruble to Chechnya.

G: Can you describe in further detail that interference from Moscow?

Z: Since the very moment when the ceasefire was signed in September 1996, Russia began getting ready for the next war. It was not the end of a conflict but the beginning of the preparations for another one. The Russian secret services initiated a campaign to divide the Chechnyan people and prepare everything for the war to come.

They soon realized that the most effective way to split Chechnyan society was through religion. It was then when the Arabs began arriving to the country. All them brought money, money that never reached the leader of the Republic, who was then Masjadov, but that ended in the pockets of whoever was able to raise a combat unit. Most of them were opposed to the government.

A second area of intervention were the media. In the First Chechnyan War, journalists from all around the world had direct access to the country and said the truth about what happened there. Moscow wanted to prevent that at any cost, and the murders and kidnaps of journalists became common currency, in order to scare them. Then it came the turn of NGOs, beginning by the Red Cross itself.

Finally it was necessary for Russia to supress those who wanted to invest in Chechnya without passing through Moscow. I recall now those British Telecom engineers who arrived to the Republic to restore telephone lines: they were kidnapped and beheaded.

Our only achievement in that period was to prevent civil war among Chechnyans, something that Moscow wanted to provoke through the usual means.

G: You have denounced the alleged "close cooperation" between Arabs and Russians. Which are the grounds for that claim?

Z: In the USSR years there were many more foreigners from the Middle East than from anywhere else. Chechnyans are traditionally Sufi Muslims, while Wahabbism is a current only recently imported by Arabs and Russians, outside of genuine Islam. If all that money that came with the Arabs would have dropped directly from Moscow, Chechens would not have accepted it because it would mean treason. There were like 1500 Arabs in Chechnya and all of them had a visa stamp at Moscow. No one of them had entered the Republic illegally as it was claimed. The Kremlin knew perfectly who went to Chechnya and what for.

G: Do you still mantain that Putin killed Litvinenko?

Z: For Moscow there is people who just must be suppressed, regardless of whether these are Aslan Masjadov, Sergei Litvinenko or Anna Politovskaya. And Putin is so cynic that he doesn't even bother hiding that! They killed Politovskaya in October 7th, Putin's birthday. The press talked a lot about the "gift" for the Russian President. Putin was in a foreign country but did not took long for him to declare that, effectively, he did not like Politovskaya but that he had no connection with the murder.

G: When Litvinenko died you made another declaration in which you described him as "meaningless traitor" and when you said that there was no evidence that connected him with the FSB. Putin never thought that the British would find out that this death had been caused by polonium.

Z: Everybody knows who Putin is. We all know that he was the one who ordered the kids of Beslan killed, gas the crowds at Dubrovka Theater or blow up those apartment buildings that were the pretext for the Second Chechnyan War. What is most scary is that Putin is still a key piece of international politics, who is treated with respect by so many European leaders. Chechnya will be the first one, Georgia the second one and I can assure you that the third one will be Ukraine.

G: Last February, the president of pro-Russian Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov offered you to return to Grozny. In what stage are the negotiations at this moment?

Z: The press has speculated a lot about the negotiations on my suppossed return to Cechnya. I have been in fact in discrete but continuous contacts with representatives of the Russian Government since 2001. In the last two meetings in Oslo and London with Abdurajmanov (Kadyrov's delegate), I insisted in making public these meetings if what we want is in fact to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. On this day anyhow the conditions for my return to Chechnya do not exist. Returning to Chechnya now would be becoming accomplice of a regime whose decissions are made in Moscow.

G: Which is the current situation of insurgency, both in Chechnya and the rest of the Caucasus?

Z: Doku Umarov (self-proclaimed "Emir of North Caucasus") is just another victim of the provocations of the FSB but not for that reason can I agree with his ideology nor his view of the conflict. Suicide bombings are totally alien to Chechnyans. Dudayev and Masjadov said that in the past and we have been repeating the same for all these 20 years: at the beginning of the 1990s, Russia had a problem with Chechnya, 20 years later the problem is spread from the Caspian to the Black Sea. This is the result of trying to solve a political problem by force.
.

Dark hands of the East

A couple of news items from Al Jazeera:

1. Kremlin critic 'shot in custody': Magomed Yevloyev, director of ingushetiya.ru, a major indepenent news source on the Caucasus was shot dead after being arrested by police.

2. Uncovering Turkey's dark past: article on the judicial research of Turkish terror gang Ergenkon, that has been behind many state crimes in this country. A major issue is that while the judiciary is researching this death squad's crimes in Turkey proper, it seems that most of its crimes happened in Kurdistan, and these are not looked upon with the same interest. Also it would seem like the research is intended to prevent that Ergenekon could be involved in triggering a military coup against the Islamist government.

Medvedev's birth chart

I have been searching for Dmitry Medvedev's natal chart and all I could found was a generalist noon chart. Nobody seems to have the slightest idea on what's the birth time of the new President or Russia. Astrologers, at least those writing in English, seem infinitely more concerned about Obama's ascendant (Scorpio for me) and Moon sign (Gemini, that's very clear in his face) than about anything related to Russia's new formal leader (yes, we all know that Putin is still hanging around - but doesn't make Medvedev's astrology less interesting).

Actually Medvedev's natal chart rises the same kind of incognites as Obama's: which Ascendant and which of two signs the Moon is in. As with Obama, I have (always tentatively) solved the Moon issue first: he reminds me somewhat of my father (Taurus Sun conj. Mercury and Uranus, Virgo Moon conj. Neptune), much more than to any of my Virgoan friends. He doesn't remind me of anyone with Aries Moon that I know anyhow, so I pretty much decided soon that Taurus Moon is the right choice.

But what about Ascendant? First I toyed with something close to Putin's ascendant, even if he doesn't look Scorpian at all - then figured out about Libra, Taurus... but really it doesn't seem to fit with what I know of these signs. Also I growed painfully aware that his face reminds me more and more of my own. Not just that, I just looked at the mirror and really Medvedev came to my mind. I'm more handsome probably and luckily I don't have that Mercurian pointed out nose of him but still... Part of the resemblance could due be to his Virgo stellium sitting on mine (check my chart if you wish) but I'm not really Virgoan-looking anyhow. And one trait seems decissive: his pointed (^ ^) eyebrows that would suggest Martian (or Plutonian) influence. I also have that trait even if more moderately.

So I resolved to check the Aries rising hypothesis. On first sight it doesn't look impressive: not any of the 10th or 11th house placements that one would expect of a president - but it's also true that he is a secondary figure and that his position is all but solid. So I checked the transits for his career events (that's the sort of stuff a professional astrologer would do for what is called chart correction, when the birth time is uncertain or plainly unknown). They resulted pretty well, with meaningful transits (Venus, Jupiter) through his MC/10th house at these times. I'm no professional nor I know his detailed biography, so I really can't go much further.

I fine tuned it a bit more, resulting in a stronger earth great trine involving his midheaven and (surprise!) a Mars-Pluto-based yod to his ascendant. And here is what I got:

Click on thumbnail to expand.

Of course I can't be sure that he has that precise ascendant, nor even Aries rising - but I am quite certain that he has marked Martian influence in it in any case.

I won't go farther comenting this hpothetical birth chart anyhow but I do welcome all sort of comments.

Also notice please I have no affiliation with this guy other than astrological coincidences - and I'm very intrigued to see how he manages that intensely innovative Virgo stellium and the opposition from Saturn. I am also intrigued on why Putin chose him as succesor when they are so different: no doubt he's an able man but that doesn't seem enough.