Markets Politicized - Perspective on Russia

globalintelhub's picture

The situation with Russia should give investors and traders a reason to brush up on their history, as current events take root in things that happened 50, 100, and 200 years ago.  To understand this, can provide perspective, during an information war, where it's not easy for some to separate facts from beliefs and propoganda (on both sides).  The relationship between US and Russia has always been interesting, as we shall explore.

The cultural divide

The US and Russia have very similar cultures.  Both; superpowers, with a vast countryside, dominated mostly by white Christians.  Both have vast resources, difficult to invade, and both have been the victim of European and other external politics.  Of course Russian culture is much older, and has a different set of influences and experiences than the US, situated in North America.  

There's probably more misinformation in between the two cultures than any other, because for 60 years both have spent significant effort in propoganda.  So it's difficult for most Westerners to be objective on this topic.

One theory on the divide between the two similar cultures was the decision for Russia to accept Christian Orthodoxy, started by Peter the Great (thus creating a divide between their Catholic neighbors, such as Poland, Croatia, Latvia and others).  If you look the dividing lines of political and economic alliances in Europe, historically, there seems to be a correlation with the dominant religion.  Not that any of these countries are of significant importance, but if all examined through this eyeglass, it seems that differing ideologies happen to be divided along these lines.  Many of the anti-Russia US hawks for example, are either of jewish or catholic heritage.

The American Revolution

One interesting fact not reported much was Russian support for America during the American Revolution, both directly and by financing France, and through diplomatic and trade ties.  Not that Russia was doing the US any favors in that time, it simply supported their situation, and that they had an interest to not support the British.  But it should not be forgotten, that Russian support was crucial for the Americans in their struggle against the British.


Ironically, considering the current US policy about Crimea, the Alaska purchase happened due to circumstances during the Crimean war:

After the Crimean War (1853-1856) Russia felt concern that the British would seize Russian America if a war broke out, strengthening the British in the north Pacific. To avoid this and to raise money, Russia offered in 1859 to sell the territory. In 1867 the United States purchased the whole of Russian America (Alaska) in the Alaska Purchase. All the Russian administrators and military left Alaska but some missionaries stayed on because they had converted many natives to the Russian Orthodox faith.[20]

US annexations

The larger territory of the current United States was largely purchased or annexed (skipping the original 13 colonies which is a whole different issue).  Since the Revolutionay War, the US has aquired most of its territory by this method.  In that time the US was a new country.  These new aquisitions were exploited by the US, and helped fuel the US industrial revolution, and finally, what enabled the US to build a war machine during the 1940's.

World War 2

World War 2 was the defining moment in American history when the US rose to superpower status, eventually creating the US Dollar as the dominant currency for trade in the world.  Before World War 2 (and more so before WW1) the US was largely isolationist, not seeing the relevance of foreign affairs.  But due to a number of circumstances, and the influence of the British (again, ironically) the US entered WW2 which changed world history.  It should be remembered however, that this was a new idea.  Before WW2 the US Army was largely comprised of Calvary soldiers on horseback.  There was no real Army capable of fighting in that time, the US was not prepared for war.  There was not a significant Navy, and certainly no advanced military technology, and no nukes.  While most of the world was at war, the US was able to convert its industry, organized by powerful US corporations, to build munitions instead of consumer goods and other products (guns vs. butter).  This gave the US the advantage, finally 'winning' the war, and leaving many nations indebted to the US.  This is important because this is the origin of American power, and many of these relationships, such as US-German relations, and US-Japan relations, exist to this day, because of WW2.

Since WW2, most countries choose to use the US "Petrodollar" - for a number of reasons.  But the system is very fragile; as we can see from its origins.  For example the deciding factor of 'winning' WW2 was the Manhatten Project, composed of many refugee German scientists.  Historians have explored that Germany was in fact working on a similar bomb, but due to their extensive obligations in their operations, were not able to complete it.  That, and other advanced technology being developed by Nazi scientists, certainly would have created a different world, economically speaking.

European influence

Both the US and Russia have been largely influenced by Europe, both in trade and politics.  But differently, Russia has been invaded many times by aggressive forces, which the US has not (aside from Canadians burning down the White House but this was not militarily significant).  Yes, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but only because Roosevelt threatened to cut of their oil supply.  And it certainly was not an 'invasion' - such as happened to Russia during WW2.  In many ways, Russia is more the victim; or at least to say has experienced more hardship as a nation, due to circumstances beyond their control, mostly created by outside influences.  

Origins of the Cold War

Henry Kissinger had recommended to Nixon that one of the most important strategic alliances for the US to pursue was with Russia.  His logic was that both countries were culturally similar (more so than for example China) and that a deal with Russia would have cemted both countries long term supremacy and boosted trade.  This was never pursued (and maybe never considered) in favor of a hostile policy thus creating the cold war, but it allowed huge spending into the military industrial complex.  Since then, the US instead chose to have a special relationship with China, which is now on the verge of a major financial bubble.

During this era, the CIA did and intensive analysis of the potential military risk of Russian aggression.  The CIA concluded that the Russians have no intention and no capability of posing any risk to the US.  But in a press conference, Rumsfeld eloquently said that "Just because we didn't find any threat or capability, doesn't mean they don't have one" and based on this reasoning, we entered the cold war.  

This information indicates, it was US hawks that initiated an aggressive policy against Russia first.  General Patton has pleaded with his commanders to fight the Russians in Germany.  Although the cultures are similar, there seems to be some genetic mistrust (or can be explained in a number of different ways, but its not rational).  In any case, billions have been spent on propoganda demonizing Russians that they are 'criminals' - according to one prominent propoganda film, Communism is an "International Criminal Conspiracy" (although it was Wall Street that financed the Bolshevik Revolution).

It would be extremely politically inappropriate to mention Israel in this context.

Nuclear Age

Since WW2, real war between two states has become impractical, between nuclear powers.  Even with other states, the alliance with a nuclear power then makes war just as impractical.  The new war can only involve minor tit for tat conflicts, or be economic.  Possibly for this reason, policy makers and scholars in Russia have started incorporating a policy of 'tanks not banks'.  This also may explain why the US has not annexed any territory since WW2, and many other policy shifts.

Markets Politicized

Supposedly, free markets operate based on free and open trade.  By imposing sanctions, limiting the use of the SWIFT system, and blocking Visa transactions, it changes the dynamics of the market, irrespective of the potential harm to targeted parties (although many analysts conclude sanctions will harm the West more than Russia).  Russian banks and oligarchs probably own at least a few shares of almost all US issues.  A certain majority of Russians are NFA members, RAs, etc.  Our economies are intertwined, all economies are intertwined, a policy forwarded by those such as Thomas Friedman.  

If sanctions include the asset freezes of any company owned by a Russian, does that include Bank of America, Caterpiller, McDonalds, etc.?  What about holdings of the oligarchs, Russian banks, citizens, inside the US?

Russian position

As one commentator said, the US is playing marbles, and the Russians are playing Chess.  The following video is a must watch, vivid analysis of the Russian position.  It's no indication that this will or will not happen, but in this case, they are holding all the economic cards:

The situation in Crimea, which has nothing to do with the west, is irrelevant for the West.  The relationship with Russia participating in the Western economic system is a net benefit to the West.  Russian businesses operate in the US, UK, Germany (not to mention supplying energy to the EU) and invest in the West.  They are great customers.  Obviously the current administration never worked in the real economy, learning the expression that "The customer is always right."  Since Crimea was previously part of Russia, and its mostly Russian speaking, Russians living there, this is really a non-event.  

West position

Not understanding all this, the West has created a situation where many will question the legitimacy of Western markets.  Making the economy political changes the dynamics of the market.  If we traders and investors spend our energy analyzing the markets to make decisions, and then to have our assets seized or a company we invest in, then it seems we are all in the wrong business.  Certainly that is not the idea of capitalism, or free markets.  Like during the 2008 credit crisis, when we explored the idea of losses are socialized and profits privatized, this is a very bad omen for not only the asset values, but also the proper functioning of the market.  

Don't forget 1991 and 1998

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, trillions of dollars flowed into the West, creating and economic boom for a decade.  Oligarchs seized control of previously state owned assets and many of them invested in the West.  Trade opened, and the West did business in Russia.  One of the dominant Forex trading platforms is from Kazan, Russia (Meta Trader).  The economic effects of this event have only been slightly examined - however it can be said they were significant.

Then, in 1998, Russia devalued the Ruble and defaulted on some of its obligations, in a period of economic reorganization.  The 1998 event is significant because it almost collapsed the world financial system - not by intention, but because of volatility created, which the largest hedge fund in the world at that time, LTCM, was exposed to.  Specifically, LTCM was not exposed so much to Russia directly (they were) but it created a chain of events that created havoc in the derivatives market, opening but bond and option spreads to unseen levels, and destroying liquidity (similar to what happened in 2008 which was a US issue).


It would not be difficult for Russia to start pricing goods in non-USD.  Certainly, the US is not going to nuclear war to protect the Petrodollar, as was done in Iraq, Libya, and others.  Russia is a huge consumer of USD, not only for reserves, but for trade.  Russia has a very strong position, it likes the relationship with the USD, but if Russia feels that its becoming a net loser, it will not think twice about using Gold, Euros, Rubles, or some new Russian Bitcoin.  Also it will have a tremendous negative impact on US markets, as Russian money flows out, and trade encouters problems.

Any event such as this can create huge volatility in the USD and other US markets.  At that time, it's possible the US will react with further political moves to protect the USD (such as Nixon did, not honoring payments in Gold for USD creating modern Forex) including but not limited to, limiting the sale of USD.

Clearly, none of the suggested policies would be profitable.  There's more money to be made by trading, than through taxes and government restrictions, price controls, capital controls, and other regulations.  Dodd-Frank destroyed the retail Forex market in the US.  This situation can have far more damage.  But traders and investors should be vigilant, understand what's at stake, and understand the potential market impacts; either to profit, or to protect their portfolios.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Idi_ocracy's picture

I have to say I have never understood why Russia and America have insisted on being enemies, they have no overlapping territorial claims, there have been no conflicts of any kind between them prior to world war 2. Russia has resources, Americans need resources. They could both have a mutually beneficial relationship. The natural enemy of both is China because China has masses of people and very little room or resources for them. When the SHTF Siberia is going to look very tempting to the Chinese.

Kayman's picture

"They could both have a mutually beneficial relationship."

I'm thinking maybe Obama could sell them Alaska back once all the oil has been depleted.


Rafferty's picture

It would take me too long to list all the factual errors in this article. And the style?  My head is swimming from all the adjectives. It's called bloviating.

Rafferty's picture

"dominated mostly by white Christians"


Really?  Not since 1913 in the USA and still doesn't apply in Russia, although Putin seems to be getting there.

ebworthen's picture

There is a war against Christians and Whites in the U.S.

ebworthen's picture

The U.S. is being plain stupid to re-stoke the Cold War.

Crimea and Ukraine are none of our business.

Talk of Russia threatening the Baltic states is nonsense.

Millions upon millions of Russians, Women and Children not just soldiers, have died defending their homeland against Western Europeans.

They are not, and will never, allow NATO and Western European incursion into the homeland, and it is utter stupidity to attempt it.

RMolineaux's picture

This essay contains many errors of fact and interpretation, especially in its historical summaries.  It is naive and shallow.  To say that Americans and Russians had some sort of genetic antagonism is plain silly.  Most of the cold war theatre was drummed up by corporate and religious interests in the US, who saw in Communist ideology an enormous threat to their accumulated wealth and elitist status.

Rafferty's picture

And the MIC grew fat on the fear that the Commies were always just about to invade.

q99x2's picture

Wonder what Fonestar's opinion would be on some Russian Bitcoin?

basho's picture

we are in the times of tectonic geopolitical moves and the last thing anyone is thinking about is traders especially traders connected with the west. the west sees it in terms of $$. russia doesn't. that's the difference. russians talk about the russian 'soul'. the west does not have that concept. therefore it doesn't know how to handle Putin or Russia. the neo-con a**holes have opened pandora's box. and the more you tease and poke the bear, the worse it is going to get and it's not going to be military because the u.s. is no longer making the rules. it's about a multi-polar world and with india and china on the side of the bear, not to mention iran, egypt and maybe the saudis and afghanis, and we haven't heard from s. america yet this box ain't going to be closed by some half-baked NATO war games with the poles and other wannabe rambos or that senile mccain handing out sandwiches at maidan. i don't think you know who you're dealing with. anybody read Putin's autobio?

Ifigenia's picture

America since the 90s, after the demise of URRS lost the sense of reality and is totally dominate by hubris till 2008. Than fear and restless come in to guide their foreign relation.

Even here in Europe, except for the elites and 1% which live on US protection, quite a lot of conscience people became to note why Warsaw Pact was finish and soviets troops retreated and Nato continue to exist and expand to the East. Simultaneously, NATO was use to attack Yugoslavia and later even Afghanistan? Why Europe is still occupy by americans troops. Who menace us, europeans? I dont think we are allies of americans, we are just occupy countries, just like Japan or South Korea, with more degree of autonomy.

In the old days, when a read Indian papers or Latin Americans one, they called us poodles of USA, i thought they were liars and hate our alliance and want to break it. Now, those yesterthoughts made me feel how ingenuous i was.

apu123's picture

This article is in need of a few corrections.  Peter the Great did not usher in Orthodoxy, that happened with Prince Vladimir of Kiev all most 1000 years prior.  A case could be made that the Apostle Andrew or that Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius were the originators.  The latter two are responsible for the translation of the Bible into Cyrillic and gave the Slavs a written language.....Cyrillic.  Peter actually eroded traditional Orthodox culture in favor of western culture that he admired.  The Russians in many ways see themselves as the heirs to Byzantine culture and to the Romans, hence Moscow being referred to as the Third Rome.

Additionally, Russians have for most of their history been more concerned with invasions from steppe horsemen, like the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan and his successors.  While they have fought some wars with likes of Poland, Sweden and Lithuania, France and Germany are historically recent opponents.

Russia also has a history of stepping in to help other Slavic people, like the Ukrainians, Moldavians and Bulgars.  I think WW1 was kicked off due to the repression of Serbs after Franz Ferdinand was killed.  If you are going to try and explain current events based on history, religion and culture it is important to get your facts in the ballpark.

Optimusprime's picture

+1.  You saved me the trouble, and did a better job than I had planned.  Still, overall an interesting piece, and the interview with Sinclair, with his devastating point about Russia's strong position relative to their ability to accept payment for energy in anything besides dollars, makes this a five-star DESPITE the glib howlers.

Kayman's picture

This is at least the second time Sinclair's piece has been put forword- the best part of this article but getting a little stale.

Ifigenia's picture

ww1 had too many and complex causes than "the repression of Serbs after Franz Ferdinand was killed". V.g., the rivalry between German Empire and British Empire, alliance between Russia and France to contra-balance German Empire. Autro-Hungary empire against Russia in the Balkans, etc.

FearLess_FLY's picture

"For example the deciding factor of 'winning' WW2 was the Manhatten Project"

Statements like this almost caused me to stop reading your article.

All in all, you did enlighten me as to the continuity of Russia and U.S. progression.

ebear's picture

"Statements like this almost caused me to stop reading your article."

You get what you (or the Tylers) pay for.

One of the major advantages of the Net is that anyone can get published.

One of the major disadvantages of the Net is that anyone can get published.

angryBuddhist's picture

While I believe that Russia will not dump their holdings of US T-Bills (for now), even if they do, the amount that they hold will not have much effect long term on our position here in the States. There is another far more dangerous possibility though. Should Russia AND China together dump their collective holdings of T-Bills, then this would have a massive affect on the very status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

At the present time, this would be equally bad for China as it is the equivalent of mutual assured destruction for everyone involved. What IS looming on the horizon is the fact that China is most likely getting ready to go over the cliff financially speaking when the up and coming massive wave of bankruptcies hits them over the next year or so.

When this happens, it could very likely be at that time that China will be willing to do ANYTHING to stave off the death of their currency. Taking this into account, perhaps the only play left on the table for them would to indeed dump all their T-Bill holdings and hurt the dollar as much as possible and as a result mitigate much of the damage that will ensue as a result of these bankruptcies.

Combine this effort with the fact that Russia will most likely follow suit and the two form a much stronger alliance for trade between them, then the outcome of this would most certainly change the pecking order of things on the planet.

Winston Churchill's picture

Think a little out of the box.

China has gotten most everythingg that can be gotten out of the trading relationship

with the USA and the USD. The US consumer is on his deathbed right now.

Time for a massive clearout Of China's balance sheet mal investment before turning to new

markets.The Chinese have more experience in ditching fiat than anyone else,what

if this is a geopolitical move rather than an econimic crisis.

The physical assets are far more important than the fiat they are valued in.

ebear's picture

"Think a little out of the box."

Thinking outside the box is the new box. 

Ifigenia's picture

the new box that most americans dare not go.

RafterManFMJ's picture

Before WW2 "There was not a significant Navy, and certainly no advanced military technology, and no nukes"

Um, yeah. The US Navy was pretty weak, what with all those carriers, battleships, cruisers, and Naval Aviation...

And we did have some of the most advanced systems at the time, RADAR, sonar, advances fuses for artillery and AA, primitive computers.

No nukes - got that one right at least.

Here, try this:

TrustWho's picture

Most of the advanced systems you speak were from the British. In 1939/40, Churchill/Britain gave USA all of their technology for ships and support. Americans must give the British their due as this really ended their empire and tranferred it to USA.

DOGGONE's picture

Hidden, massive truth is available to tell the people, and impress them!

Real Homes, Real Dow

whidbey-2's picture

Backgrounding in intelligence is useful for planning, and subversion, but when the living actors today are unware of history, as were most world actors in the last centrury: history and cultural have little bearing on  modern US/Russian affairs.

Russian motives in Crimea are linked to seapower and its current relevance to world affairs (which is realigning around debt). Putin has the  streering wheel presently and he can do what he wants for a while.  Obama is a reactor who leads by guess and his own notions of fairness which do involve history - and his convictions on social equility and fairness. Obama is not aware of what is at hand. He wants to reset the world on new path to things he wants to rewrite, but which are historically irrelevant in the face of massive global debt. He has no capcity for political/economic analysis or leadership. We are the makers of this confusion by having elected a leader who has no understading of current affairs, backed by Congress that died in as a political institution in the 1950s.

 We are involved in a struggle to maintain the EU/NATO, but the EU will probabily not survive as an economic unit due to its own ignorance of global economics. Looks like we are facing a period of extreme tensions and conflicting strategy. Regional wars with nuclear weapons seem possible but not winable in any sense.

 This piece is worse than useless, it is misleading of the current events making history.

Sabibaby's picture

."We are involved in a struggle to maintain the EU/NATO, but the EU will probabily not survive as an economic unit due to its own ignorance of global economics."

Nobody has ever been able to bring Europe together and you better believe history and culture come into this. Putin respects history and culture because it makes his nation and people strong instead of being like mindless drones. The popularity he gains within makes him appear stronger on the world stage and more of the world respects him, or if they don't his opposition voices their opinion flagrantly and appear fools on the world stage. 

Kayman's picture

You state:

1."the deciding factor of 'winning' WW2 was the Manhatten Project,"      I don't know where to begin with such an inane statement.

2.' which the US has not (aside from Canadians burning down the White House but this was not militarily significant)."        Canada did not exist when the British burned the White House...

3. "Yes, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but only because Roosevelt threatened to cut of their oil supply."      Once again, inane.  And Roosevelt didn't threaten to cut off the oil- he did.

I had to stop reading this drivel.  In general, few Americans understand the Russian fear over protecting their homeland from invasion.

  And damn few people, in the West, understand that  Germany would not have been beaten without the military stupidity of Hitler invading Russia. And the Russian response to Hitler was brute force, technological superiority (especially the mass-produced T34 tank and the Katyusha rocket launcher, not to mention a rifle that could fire right through the plate of a German tank). 

With Soviet (mainly Russian) deaths in the area of 20-25 million people there are still a lot of parents and grandparents with memories of Nazis slaughtering their families. Don't forget that while NATO may appear as a protector of all that is good to many a European, to a Russian NATO still has Germany as a member.



ILLILLILLI's picture

Need to throw in Winston Churchills adventurism and Hitlers reticence to decimate the troops massed at Dunkirk, too.

Had Hitler listened to his generals and destroyed the British army, the Germans would not have been forced to fight on two fronts.

Kayman's picture

The German tanks advanced so quickly through France that they outran their supplies, especially fuel.  And it was the inability to destroy Britain from the air that stopped Hitler from invading Britain. British airplanes saved Britain not the returning of the British Expeditionary Force.

In the beginning of WWII the second front  was North Africa when Hitler had to step in to save Mussolini's ass.  Hitler had to move scarce resourses from the Eastern Front, especially airplanes, to protect German convoys in the Mediterranean. Hundreds of German planes were lost bombing Malta alone.

It was 4 years after Dunkirk that the commonly discussed "Second Front" started on the beaches of Normandy.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

"Had Hitler listened to his generals and destroyed the British army, the Germans would not have been forced to fight on two fronts."

Yep, one of the fishiest episodes in world history.

Along w/ Germany's atomic project being sabotaged from within.  Almost like there were people pulling the strings of both sides... Hmmm...

Rafferty's picture

Hitler never wanted war with Britain.  This explains Dunkirk and the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain.  It's a long and very dirty story.

Winston Churchill's picture

All history as taught today is propaganda.

Glubb Pashas "The Fate of Empires" is a great,and short, read.

The USA's 250 years are up, a decade early,but close enough for government work.

Rafferty's picture

Your namesake stated shortly after the war that 'history will be kind to us, gentlemen.  Because we will write that history'.

yt75's picture

"as were most world actors in the last centrury"


Uh ? where did you get that ?


Besides, whether you want it or not, history (or the way it is perceived, as important as history itself) is part of what makes who you are.


For instance current hysterical propaganda regarding "shale renaissance" "US as new Saudi Arabia" is only possible due to the common myth "first oil shock =arab embargo", OPEC cartel, and all this junk.

yt75's picture

Yes there is indeed the time necessary to set up the infrastructure (and cost associated).

But even before that, there is the possible volume(as in flow) from US shale, and it is far, very far from being able to replace Russian gas in Europe.


See for instance (EIA figures) :


yt75's picture

Behind all this, the biggest myth remains :


"first oil shock (73) = Yom Kippur/Arab embargo= geopolitical story= nothing to do with geologic constraints"


When the real story was  :

- end 1970 : US production peak, the energy crisis starts from there, with some heating fuel shortages for instance (some articles can be found on NYT archive on that), and :
- Nixon name James Akins to go check what is going on.
- Akins goes around all US producers, saying this won't be communicated to the media, but needs to be known, national security question
- The results are bad : no additional capacity at all, production will only go down, the results are also presentede to the OECD
- The reserves of Alaska, North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, are known at that time, but to be developed the barrel price needs to be higher
- In parallel this is also the period of "rebalance" between oil majors and countries on each barrel revenus (Ghadaffi being the first to push 55/50 for instance), and creation of national oil companies.
- there is also the dropping of B Woods in 71 and associated $ devaluation, also putting a "bullish" pressure on oil price.
- So to be able to start Alaska, GOM, North Sea, and have some "outside OPEC" market share, the barrel price needs to go up (always good for oil majors anyway) and this is also US diplomacy strategy
- For instance Akins, then US ambassador in Saudi Arabia, is the one talking about $4 or $5 a barrel in an OAPEC meeting in Algiers in 1972
- Yom Kippur starts during an OPEC meeting in Vienna, which was about barrel revenus percentages, and barrel price rise.
- The declaration of the embargo pushes the barrel up on the spots markets (that just have been set up)
- But the embargo remains quite limited (not from Iran, not from Iraq, only towards a few countries)
- It remains fictive from Saudi Arabia towards the US : tankers kept on going from KSA, through Barhain to make it more discrete, towards the US Army in Vietnam in particular.
- Akins is very clear about that in below documentary interviews (which unfortunately only exists in French and German to my knowledge, and interviews are voiced over) :
For instance after 24:10, where he says that two senators were starting having rather "strong voices" about "doing something", he asked the permission to tell them what was going on, got it, told them, they shat up and there was never any leak. The first oil schock "episode" starts at 18:00
(the "embargo story" was in fact very "pratical", both for the US to "cover up" US peak towards US public opinion or western one in general, but also for major Arab producers to show "the arab street" that they were doing something for the Palestinians).

Note : About Akins, see for instance :

And then the second oil shock (79) result of Iranian revolution, and leading to the "Carter doctrine"(more or less defined and written by Brzezinski , more than less in fact)

, with then the Reagan corollary and creation of CENTCOM, with a rather clear emblema :


Followed by the counter oil shock (for a big part the result of Reagan administration pushing the Saudis to produce more in order to bring the USSR down), about this for instance :

yt75's picture

-3 ! lol :)

Basic truths hurt obviously ;)