Russia Needs To Embrace Ethiopia…Now!

Strategic Context

Ethiopia was the world’s second-fastest-growing economy in 2015 at a rate of 8.7% growth, and its top trading partners are China, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Ethiopia primarily exports energy and agricultural products in exchange for importing refined fuel and industrial-electrical machinery, both pairs of which are valuable businesses that Russia is sorely missing out on. As Moscow searches for reliable non-Western economic partners and seeks to enhance the commercial viability of its Crimean merchant vessels, its presence in Syria and affiliated post-Daesh reconstruction plans there, and the Russian industrial zone in the second Suez Canal, it would do well to consider expanding its north-south maritime trading corridor to include the Ethiopian marketplace.

China has already invested billions of dollars in building a railroad between the port of Djibouti and the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa which is expected to open up later this year, and it’s also constructing a similar transport corridor (LAPSSET) through the south beginning at the Kenyan port of Lamu. This East African initiative is also Chinese-built and will be able to accommodate twice as much cargo as the region’s presently busiest port of Mombasa, with the BBC estimating that its capacity will eventually reach the jaw-dropping figure of 20 million containers per year.

These two projects will unlock Ethiopia’s vast economic potential and save Russian companies from excessive start-up costs in accessing the world’s most populous landlocked market. Moreover, China plans to ensure the Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway’s international security through its first-ever overseas military deployment in the former, which will complementarily safeguard both the maritime and mainland components of this pivotal Silk Road node. Russia can thus utilize China’s enormous infrastructure investments in affordably capitalizing off of what otherwise would have been a prohibitively expensive market to access. Therefore, what follows is a listing of the three industries that Russia should endeavor to tap into, including a review of their economic potential, foreign competitors, and strategic opportunities for access.

Oil And Natural Gas

Russian strategic investments in Ethiopia’s promising energy sector could open the door for a more robust partnership between the two historically friendly states and should thus represent the focus of Moscow’s reengagement with Addis Ababa. Most of Ethiopia’s resources are concentrated in the eastern Somali Region’s Ogaden Basin, which includes an estimated 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 133 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

China just recently announced that it will invest over $4 billion in a gas pipeline to Djibouti and a liquefaction plant at the port terminal, while Kenya signed a memorandum of understanding with Ethiopia for exporting its oil through the LAPSSET Corridor. The second initiative is still at the drawing board and nothing legally binding has been agreed to thus far, which excitedly gives Russian companies a competitive opening to involve themselves in the process, whether as it relates to LAPSSET or perhaps to a totally new oil export route alongside the Chinese-built gas pipeline to Djibouti.

Furthermore, it mustn’t be forgotten that Russia has world-class experience in oil and natural gas extraction, pipeline construction, and project management, and that it would be an invaluable partner for Ethiopia as the traditionally agricultural country rapidly modernizes into a manufacturing stronghold. Bringing Russia on board in some capacity could be strategically beneficial for Ethiopia in the long term, and after confidence-building measures have been undertaken in this industry, they could then spread to other ones, too.

Security

While the Chinese military deployment in Djibouti protects the Addis Ababa railway’s maritime terminus and bottleneck location, there’s no such international security guarantee present along the Horn of Africa’s interior locations. This is troublesome because the railroad and any future pipeline routes to Djibouti must pass through the Somali Region, the one part of Ethiopia most intensely beset by ethnic, religious, and separatist conflict potential.

The heavy-handed military presence in this large, sparsely populated corner of the country has largely succeeded in keeping the peace and preventing the neighboring Al Shabaab terrorist group from carrying out the sort of atrocities that it regularly commits in Somalia. Nonetheless, it’s uncertain just how efficient the Ethiopian Armed Forces could be here if they become distracted by peripheral crises with Eritrea, Sudan, and/or South Sudan, to say nothing of the Hybrid War that could break out in the centrally positioned and most populous region of Oromia over expanded Identity Federalism demands.

Russian technical and training expertise could therefore fill a gaping void in Ethiopia’s security needs by equipping the military with state-of-the-art capabilities in defending its borders and promptly responding to asymmetrical internal threats.

Conventional military exports could help thaw the Soviet-era partnership that has remained largely frozen since the end of the Cold War, and the type of aircraft and weaponry that were used to devastating anti-terrorist effect during the Syrian operation could function as an ideal solution for forcibly dealing with a Daesh-like terrorist surge in the Somali Region.

Not to be neglected, Russia’s expert community could also play an irreplaceable role. If Democratic Security experts teamed up with their special forces counterparts in teaching the Ethiopians how to counter the phased transition from Color Revolutions to Unconventional Wars, then the African giant could better insulate itself from Hybrid War threats and react more confidently whenever its many foreign adversaries try to provoke asymmetrical conflict within its borders. The unparalleled trust that this would create between the Russian and Ethiopian “deep states” (the permanent military-intelligence-diplomatic bureaucracies) would go a far way towards accelerating their belatedly renewed partnership.

Agriculture

Over 40% Ethiopia’s GDP, around 73% of its population, and 84% of its exports are tied to the agricultural industry, meaning that the country will still remain largely agrarian in the medium term despite its rapid industrialization drive. Ethiopia’s exports in this sector mostly amount to coffee, livestock products, fruits, and vegetables – all of which are in high demand in Russia after Moscow’s retaliatory actions against the EU sanctions. Even if that spat gets cleared up in the next couple of years, the Russian leadership has evidently made it a point to seek out non-Western replacements as part of its forward-looking strategy in preventing future overdependence on any single supplier.

Ethiopia’s agricultural advantages are that it has plenty of fertile soil and ample water supplies coupled with a hard-working and low-wage labor force. The Gulf Kingdoms have already recognized the promise that Ethiopia provides and have invested heavily in farming out their foodstuffs there. Russia would be wise to follow in their footsteps by capitalizing off of the comparatively low cost of entry and potentially limitless yields in this sphere, as well as working to generate consistent business in the country for its profitable fertilizer exports.

Due to the Gulf Kingdoms’ attention to this field, it can circumstantially be concluded that foreign-supported Salafist terrorists will probably not operate in these domains or interfere with their trade out of fear of inadvertently targeting their most likely patrons’ investments. The most agriculturally productive regions of the country are in the north and west, which are less Muslim-populated than the other half of Ethiopia and thus less at risk from militarized radicalism. Despite this, the danger remains that the ever-present threat of ethnic, political, or refugee violence (like in the agriculturally productive Gambella Region) could pose a latent risk to any Russian investments in this sector.

Concluding Thoughts

In the global context of the New Cold War and the accelerated trend towards multipolarity, Russia urgently needs a reliable anchor in Africa in order to establish a concrete and visible presence on the continent.

Ethiopia satisfies this strategic imperative and is the most logical partner for Russia to reach out to because of its relative closeness to Russia’s Black Sea shore, location just past the Sea Lines of Communication linking Crimea, Syria, and the Russian investment zone in the Suez Canal, and nearly 100-million-person marketplace. On top of all of this, the country is inexpensively accessible due to China’s Horn of Africa Silk Road railway between Djibouti and the capital of Addis Ababa.

Russia stands to gain handsomely in the energy, security, and agricultural sectors if it harnesses the political-economic will to strengthen its full-spectrum engagement with Ethiopia, but the only obstacle standing in the way of this profitable partnership is a lack of awareness about these exciting opportunities.

Source

My Note: While reading this interesting article, I paused for a while to ask myself whether a Russian / Soviet leader has ever made a visit to Ethiopia, a country that gave to Russia the likes of Alexander Pushkin and Peter Ustinov. The answer: NEVER! Amazing!

The great Russian military officer, explorer, writer, and leader of the imiaslavie movement in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Alexander Bulatovich, wrote in the 1896-98 report, ETHIOPIA THROUGH RUSSIAN EYES the following words concerning Ethiopia, Egypt and Russia:

“For the Abyssinians, the Egyptian, Arab, and, finally, European civilization which they have gradually adopted has not been pernicious: borrowing the fruits of these civilizations, and in turn conquering and annexing neighboring tribes and passing on to them her culture, Abyssinia did not obliterate from the face of the earth, did not destroy the uniqueness of any one of the conquered tribes, but rather gave them all the possibility of preserving their individual characteristics.

Thus Christian Abyssinia plays an important role in world progress as a transmission point of European civilization to wild central African peoples.

The high civilizing mission of Abyssinia, its centuries-old, almost uninterrupted struggle for faith and freedom against the surrounding Moslems, the nearness of her people to the Russian people in creed, won for her the favor of the Russian people.

Not just educated Russians know of her and sympathize with her, but also the common folk who saw black Christians, devout and often living in poverty, in Jerusalem.

We see much in common in the cultural problems of Abyssinia with our affairs in the East; and we cannot help but wish that our co-religionist nation would assimilate the best achievements of European civilization, while preserving for itself freedom, independence, and that scrap of land which its ancestors owned and which our greedy white brothers want to take.”

Russian Bell, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Around 1890 to 1900 or just before the Illuminaty-conspired Russian Bolshevik October revolution, there was a great activity between the Russians and the Ethiopians.

This massive bell was a gift from Czar Nicholas II, the last Czar of Russia. It is displayed on the grounds of St. George’s Cathedral.

___

This Is As Serious As It Gets: President Trump Has The Paper Trail Evidence

President Trump has been provided the evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation

There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.

The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.

Continue reading…

The Enablers of Obama’s Wiretapping Scandal

As the news of the potential wiretapping of the Trump campaign has finally found its way into the headlines and the never-ending leaks emanating from the Obama Administration holdovers continue to be exploited, whatever national chaos and retribution that may ensue rests not only on the shoulders of the perpetrators but on enablers in a sycophantic mainstream media and a feckless Republican Party.

Since 1989 and the election of George H.W. Bush, the vast majority of Republicans elected to national office have chosen to worship the twin gods of civility and compromise rather than vigorously defend and promote liberty, free enterprise and limited government. Meanwhile, their political adversaries, the Democratic Party and the Left (now one and the same) had no such compunctions as they were determined to achieve their ends regardless of the means. Among the means were endless intimidation, extortion and ridicule of the Republicans in Congress or either of the two George Bushes. All this without fear of retaliation or even the slightest hint of a vigorous defense or response.

In conjunction with their accomplices in the mainstream media, Democrats quickly ascertained that any outrageous accusation on their part, such as that Republicans are determined to starve children, would eventuate in the near complete surrender of any opposition to their proposed policies — all of which are now embedded in American society. Further, rather than support their colleagues in the Party who were oftentimes the victims of specious and malicious accusations, the spineless elites in the Republican Party sacrificed their members on the altar of civility and faux integrity.

Having experienced so much success with these tactics, it is little wonder that after nearly three decades the Democrats’ overconfidence could be their potential long-term downfall.

That eventual bridge too far may well be the wiretapping of the Trump campaign by the Obama Administration and the putting in place of the apparatus for the subsequent leaking of hitherto confidential information by the Obama holdovers in an effort to delay, marginalize, or destroy the Trump Administration.

Apparently, Barack Obama and his minions were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would win. Or if by any remote chance she did not, the assumption seemingly was that Trump and the Republicans would be their usual spineless selves and succumb to the customary intimidation tactics and would never retaliate once in office. Additionally, the Democrats could count on the mainstream media never exposing their treachery.

Despite all their voluminous opposition research and Trump’s own words, the Obama-Clinton cabal, brimming with overconfidence, refused to accept the reality that he was not a prototypical Republican or someone easily extorted. Any cursory review of his business career and tactics would have disabused them of that mindset. Had Obama not been so arrogant, he would have realized if his administration pushed for the wiretapping of his political rival in a contested election campaign that Hillary had better damn well win or Trump could and would retaliate once in office. As the President of the United States can declassify and make public anything he so chooses, Obama’s allies in the media would not be able to sweep the potential scandal under the rug.

That hypothetical eventuality may have come to pass as President Trump has decided to use the power of his office to expose the potential duplicity and unscrupulous behavior of the Obama Administration in the wiretapping of his campaign. A story first reported last November in an expose by the website Heat Street and followed up by The Guardian (UK) in January.

There is another component in this intrigue that is part and parcel of the overall Obama deviousness. On January 12, 2017, a week before Trump was inaugurated, in a dramatic reversal of a longstanding policy, Obama issued an executive order allowing the NSA to share with 16 other agencies, filled with Obama holdovers, vast amount of data gathered on private American citizens. Data collected without warrants, court orders or congressional authorizations. Thus, assuring that innumerable leaks, such as those surrounding General Mike Flynn and others in the Trump Administration, could occur.

The wiretapping and the deliberate strategy to undermine one’s successor are perhaps the most egregious political actions by any president in American history, far surpassing Watergate or the Teapot Dome scandals. In fact, they are tactics that would have been applauded by some of the despots of the past century.

Complicit in this skullduggery is the mainstream media. For the past forty years, they have been virtually unquestioning in their dealings with the Democrats while vilifying the Republicans at every turn. They became, in essence, the Praetorian Guard for the Democratic Party, allowing its members to get away with virtually anything. The latest example is the mainstream media’s willfully choosing to ignore the wiretapping reports already in the alternative and foreign media while gleefully accepting the leaks in their collusion with the Democratic Party elites.

There is little doubt that the media in this nation is now more polarized than ever. As its traditional income sources evaporate, the mainstream media is increasingly dependent on web traffic for advertising revenue. Therefore, the incentive is either to produce and promote sensationalism or publish stories tailored for a specific audience regardless of the overall veracity in reporting.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review recently explored this phenomenon (as he noted the following at the Washington Post):

(Ben Domenech) told me the Post has a giant screen on the wall of the newsroom that displays in real-time their web traffic. Ben noted that nearly all the most read stories were anti-Trump. He asked whether we can rely on the press to be objective when market incentives are for Trump-bashing all the time.

The media in the United States is now split between the anti-Trump and pro-Trump venues. During the previous 8 years, the mainstream media was almost exclusively pro-Obama primarily because of ideology and today they are almost exclusively anti-Trump primarily because of revenue. As a counterweight, there is now a significant pro-Trump media, chiefly on the internet, which also relies on web traffic for their livelihood. The schism is now a fait accompli and will not be reversed anytime soon. Unfortunately, the anti-Trump media is still dominant but seemingly hellbent on losing that status, as they have tossed to the wind many years ago any pretense of objectivity.

Barack Obama and his henchmen would not have been emboldened in their ostensible machinations to undermine an election and then a presidency if it were not for the fecklessness of the Republican Party and the blind eye as well as the tacit support of the mainstream media.

Source…

___