This article was written and reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford and Pasquale Augustine

LA JOLLA, Calif. — Power Behind Closed Doors has had some great opportunities to interview notable professors doing amazing work in far away places. Without referring directly to our past articles, did you ever wonder what happens to those guys who visit places that US. says don’t go to? Take the story of our Dr. Silver Fox who might have done just that recently.

We have all heard the stories of people being whisked away to debrief with the spooky, black-coat, sunglasses government officials. Lately, we’ve even heard whispers of "detention camps." Oh My! Does that really happen or is it just an urban myth, coming from the conspiracy theorists? Now we are not confirming or denying any such allegations, but Power Behind Closed Doors does believe that they can "report on the myth."

Now again, how about this possible Dr. Fox and a possible key note speech in a one of these possible countries such as Cuba . Did anyone take notice of the abnormal stamps on his passport?

Lets say for the sake of argument someone did. The question Power Behind Closed Doors ponders is "how long does it take them to get picked up and questioned?" We also ponder other questions like "how do the spooks actually go about doing it? Is it as dramatic as the movies with people in trench coats and meetings in dark corners. What about all this pushing into cars? Really now, wouldn’t it be simpler to start with a phone call?"

Are these urban legends just the work of creative conspiracy theorists or do they have a grain or truth? And if so how big is that grain?

We believe that it must start with a phone call: a very pleasant phone call from a trusted agency. A very charming female voice says, "I would just like to hear your story and tour your facilities." We feel sure that she must end that conversation and other with the appeal to national pride, "Your country needs you."

And how could you, Joe American, say no? And why would you? Joe, you are not a conspiracy theorist, are you? We should have an unwavering trust of our government, right? And so why would a professor whose only fault is loving to talk and learn about lasers say no when a similar question was posed to him.

The Power Behind Closed Doors will keep you advised of the possible unraveling of the urban legend and if detention camps are included in that grain of truth. Because, you aren’t really afraid of the big, bad wolf are you?

Lets look to Canadians, French, and Aussies for some help.

The Power Behind Closed Doors staff would like to ask its readers to help solve a riddle. Ready? What is the single most popular unasked question in the US? Here’s a hint: The Australians are asking it and the French are asking the exact same question. Last hint: it is weirdly connected at the Copenhagen conference.

Here is the wave that is hitting many shores and political scientists are tracking it with their mouths glued tight. In the halls of congress we find fewer and fewer so called political leaders who will address the riddle, which is crossing America from sea to shinning sea. So we now present it to our readers. Are we citizens of a single country with only a single national identity, based on geographical boundaries or are we instead only part of a larger human body that overrides all? The existence of national identity comes with the currently very unpopular sidekick, national sovereignty. How do people define themselves? Can there even be a common national identity anymore? What is "An American?”

This debate is at the heart one of the hottest questions being asked right now around the world and yet, it is taboo in the US.

If you tried to ask any of your friends or colleagues this question at your last holiday party you could have watched as you become the last one standing in the room. Power Behind Closed Doors feels that it should be added to the list of unspoken rules of polite society; never talk religion or politics AND NOW national identity.

To give us some perspective, let’s look around. Certainly this past year has seen the identity crisis brewing in Australia. The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has suggested that there be a test given to measure whether new immigrants can be granted Australian citizenship. Grasp of the English language, as well knowledge of the country’s history are in large part most of what would be on the test, if a test were to be given. In addition, Australia has recently been grappling with the concept of what it means to be Australian, with that country’s unique past as a prison colony usurping the already present aboriginals; it does seem ironic that they pass judgment as to what makes new immigrants acceptable. Ironic or not, Australians have some of the most restrictive requirements on citizenship in the world.

But the question doesn’t just stop being posed at the Australian borders. France too has recently been asking itself what it means to be a French citizen. Is it pitting those who feel that long-forgotten values are taboo against those of liberty, equality and fraternity. In France as in Australia, the debate is framed with questions on language, history and culture. Unlike any other country currently surveyed however, the French government has gone out of its way to host a debate on the subject at the national level, using television and the internet to ask for and broadcast comments from its citizenry.

Now lets look at our closest neighbor and historic ally, Canada. We get our answer in an interview with a well known businessmen and representative of the country who also sits on several boards, Robin Elford. Well known for his business sense in Western Canada working through all manner of real estate transactions in his business career as well as appreciating and living in and around the resource rich rugged-bush country on the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Robin Elford has developed a depth of business acumen and logic, as well as an extreme appreciation of the Canadian bush and the natural resources that abound throughout the western and northern hinterland that can only come by living and working closely with the land as many Canadians do. Thus he is in a unique position to understand the Canadian Psyche from a business and personal point of view.

When asked "What does it mean to be Canadian?" Robin explained:

"To be Canadian is to explain one of the most accommodating national identities the world has known. It is a country that began as both an English colony and a French settlement." Robin contends that "Canada’s identity is the view of embracing, negotiating and collaborating with the peoples of this Earth and they are proud to be in the global "leading roll" of human rights and equality. The history of Canadian prosperity extends nowadays to protecting the right for our planet. Humanity is a single word to describe us all. The rights of one of us extends to all. Our position to collaborate includes the earth, to which we are all bound and accountable to."

It is a necessity that we are all are forced to dig for answers on these questions, because of international pressures. The government has to define its national identity, but its people have to be able to talk about this. Otherwise, how can the country much less the government find the pathway through international agreements?

This is what is being debated generally any time there is a call for international cooperation. The Copenhagen Summit could be seen as an example. The Summit was an amazing event in the world of Political Science. Each country’s economic progress requires energy and energy production required to sustain an economy’s health produces pollution. Regulating global pollution levels requires regulating individual country’s economy. Global regulation requires that the individual country to give up some of its sovereignty. This question has been framed in the mainstream news cycle as a battle between money-mongrels-production-at-all-cost versus liberal, apologizing, one-world governmentalists.

Now, that we have seen what other countries say, what about us? It seems that most Americans know better than to even answer the question much less ask it, for fear that they will be sued. We must remember that a free society has laws, which can be beneficial to all or can be twisted against its citizens.

Is that an answer by itself? If it is, it might explain some of our country’s problems?

The United States traditionally seen as being a "melting pot." How do you define an identity without stepping on someone’s toes? Is it the fear of being sued? Or what about the idea of the "American Dream?" Some people feel that this is a key part of our definition. A country founded by people coming to this land to seek a better life through hard work in order to provide for their family. Is this still a common belief for newly or one-time immigrants. Is that dream still possible anymore? The current economic turmoil has left many people without jobs, without homes, without hope in our government. Do we still have faith in the American Dream?

Look at our current employment rates. Anyone looking for a job knows it is a tough place out there right now. Anyone looking for a career knows it is a necessity to have a college education. But public school prices are soaring. How do we have the American Dream when you leave school with tens of thousands of dollars in debt? And don’t even think about buying a house.

Right now our faith in the government is faltering. Most people point to the most recent MA election of a republican to a recent democratic senate seat. Does our faltering faith in our government create a national identity crisis? Or does it bring us together to create solutions? To making changes and not support things we don’t believe in?

We are at a point now where it is more important than ever to define what it means to be "an American," when we enter into international talks such as Copenhagen Conference and especially with legislation such as healthcare for all Americans. How can we enter into the debates, when we don’t know who we are as a people and our goals for our society?

Are we are people afraid of asking tough questions because we don’t want to be sued? Are we a people of hope? And no matter what we are, how do you turn those theories into action?

LA JOLLA, Calif, — Power Behind Close Doors has recently uncovered a new and interesting phenomenon emanating from many western university campuses. It involves a large grass-roots organization and the numbers are increasing. They are a group of bright and enthusiastic American citizens — “the New Veterans” — a disciplined group of young servicemen and women who have seen the Good & Bad of the post WWII world at a young age.

This unique collection brings together an emotionally bonded warrior group of men and women. The New Veterans are capable of organizing into a powerful and much needed winning, progressive, third party majority in America. The numbers are notable and growing. As of 2007, these New Veterans number 23.6 million. Included in that number are 1,800,000 female veterans. These large numbers are due to America’s many and continuous involvements in international military conflicts since 1945.

As one graduate student recently said, “America has been at war for some 68 years. This fact is very hard to comprehend. How many Veterans does 68 years of war produce? I do recognize it as a fact and it directly relates to our two-party system. Our system is changing, and it has become gradually less effective due to the lack of competent people going to Washington. How do I say that? Our elected officials aren’t doing their job and I take as proof the approval rating for Federal government. Take for example Congress’s approval rating which as of July has RISEN to 39 percent. Our President just new, has only a 59 percent approval rating. These rates are an improvement over last year! Therefore, it is becoming obvious that there is a need for a new political posture. I speak for University and College students. I also say this also based on the actual existence of the Warriors class. If we did have competent people in Washington, why would we have such heavy numbers of Veterans and growing?”

The Power Behind Closed Doors thinks that the real question is, “Is any one listening in America and is anyone willing to participate and become involved?”

The answer is apparently a resounding no. Generally speaking, American Veterans are not supposed to become active. Although they have been a large body of civilians, they have never organized before in the political sense. Large numbers were surely the case in WWII. Traditionally American Veterans were not supposed to become active as an organized political force.

Many students and student organizations are now becoming aware that these new Warriors are coming in an almost endless stream. They are coming into the educational system after having served in many undefined and ongoing active military operations. These new Warriors now know the horror of their life of combat, death, destruction and casualties in far away, unnamed places fought for unknown reasons. Their basic question is, “How come the government didn’t support us on the same level they supported the WWII effort?” Where is the support for equipment, follow-up medical care, public awareness and moral support? This is a powerful question with significant political ramifications. You can’t treat people who are sent out to fight for their country in that way.

The Power Behind Closed Doors listened as another student-Warrior said, in a somewhat agitated state, “You can’t tell me that we wanted to win. No one out there fighting was sure if we were supposed to win or lose.”

After talking to many students, it is easy to understand that this new group of dynamic college students can and are becoming a potential independent political force under a self-motivated banner titled, The American Warrior Class. This is a most interesting title. This is a most interesting title because this group will provide a vehicle for like-minded people to meet, share ideas, brainstorm, strategize, develop new approaches to public policy, and to spin off subgroups to raise public awareness of, and campaign about, specific national issues. Think About It.

In another case, a WWII Veteran, who was educated under the GI Bill, said, “It must be remembered that the government and the military totally supported all of its military forces during WWII and I mean in an unlimited sense. What ever we wanted we got. There was no limit.”

Many political writers have used the traditional concept that “Real Political Power” emanates from unseen grassroots movements, which is now being considered on university campuses as The American Warrior Class. It can be considered as an alternate to the current political system, which does not provide the new American Warrior Class any hope for the future. Hope is a big deal. After all, we really live for the future. We have to point out here too, Americans work to ensure American leadership.

There is an interesting comparison and relationship between WWII veterans vs. Post WWII veterans. A good question to ask ourselves is “are these two groups the same?” Apparently, not; there is a dividing line.

Take, for example, the educational opportunities for both groups of veterans. The WWII Veterans, starting in 1947, entered the university system en masse. They were driven by the opportunity to obtain an advanced education, which was beyond their reach prior to WWII. University degrees were extremely hard to attain and relatively rare. These veterans returned to civilian life after a four-year degree and time to re-assimilate. They returned to civilian life with a high confidence level in the traditional American two-party system. They therefore represented no threat to either party.

In terms of present-day reality, the post WWII veterans have faced a world of continued military actions, not wars, without much public support. “Military actions” versus “wars” is a big difference. Wars are declared after both houses of government have debated and weighed-in on whether or not the entire country is willing to take the responsibility for the consequences of war. “Military actions” imply and demand less responsibility. This means actual and real world differences in support to post WWII veterans. Everyone remembers how the government denied the maladies surrounding the use of Agent Orange and even more recently the deplorable situation with the sub-standard treatment given to Veterans at Veterans hospitals such as Walter Reed due to under funding. The Power Behind Closed Doors believes that it is evident that the American Public tends to sit back and just observe events anymore. Americans just hold out hope that normal political system will find solutions to America’s problems. What confounds us at The Power Behind Closed Doors, is that we believe that hope combined with inaction is un-American. What makes more sense to us is hope combined with action. That seems much more American.

It also seems that most American’s want to maintain America’s superpower status. This attitude appears to be counterproductive and totally confusing.

It is becoming increasingly evident to most Warriors, especially after returning from overseas assignments, is that the public has no idea as to what is happening in the world in terms of American military actions and actually the public has a complete lack of interest. Is this really the case or all Americans just living in La-La Land?

To quote famous Carthaginian historical political quotation that directly applies to American military leadership and policy is, “You know how to win victory, Hannibal, but you do not know how to use it.”

This is the quotation, which haunts many of the New Warriors because it addresses the basic concept that winning wars or battles does not solve real problems, like how to properly manage the various countries America has invaded in order that they prosper. Throughout history, actually winning the battle solves one problem, but creates many new ones.

In a front-page article published August 2, 2009 by the front page of Sunday’s San Diego Union Newspaper ran, “Student veterans taking up residence on San Diego State University’s (SDSU) Fraternity Row.” The article made the point that “different bands of brothers share common ground.” What this means is that The Warriors have established a foothold or beach head on a large western university campus. By establishing a Veterans House on SDSU Fraternity Row the university believes it is the nation’s only fraternity-styled home for American’s Warriors. Liewer also reported that the Veterans House will serve as a social hub for the 500 member Student Veterans Organization including the university’s Reserve Officer’s Training Corps Program.

The authors of Behind Closed Doors all support this grass roots beginning of a national Warrior Class. Simper Fi.

Power Behind Closed Doors asks one simple question. What will the American Warrior Class do and when will they do it. The third party door is open and only the Warriors and their supporters can step through it.

James Madison summarized the 3rd Party concept when he said,

“When the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism and non-skeptical acceptance of ideas decreases.”

Not a bad thought.

This article was reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford and Pasquale Augustine. It was written by McCombs.

LA JOLLA, Calif. — Power Behind Closed Doors recently interviewed Dana Stewart, an expert in the field of alternative energy and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation.

Why do we seem to be feed only two choices in the energy industry: the economically sound or the ecologically devastating? According to Stewart, we can and should make our own energy, and we should clean it up ourselves.

Wind turbines like this one in Hull might not be the answer (Media credit/dsearls via Flickr)

Take for example, two diametrically opposed energy sources. Stewart says that a recent brouhaha that has erupted over the merits of Wind Farms versus Mountaintop Coal mining. She believes that neither energy sources are real answers to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Instead, these industries spend enormous sums of money to market and convince the general public of the "greenness" of their individual products and processes. She believes that both of these concepts are severely damaging to the overall environment.

Stewart said that destruction of the environment by coal mining of any type is well-known, and sites the history of coal slurry disasters, some of the biggest disasters in the nation’s history. To her, “Clean Coal” doesn’t exist and wind’s not the solution either.

Wind farms, an industry that until recently was viewed as the epitome of ecologically responsible green technology, have efects on the environment in terms of their equipment manufacturing process, field installation and the actual operating experience.

"Take California for example,” said Stewart, "where 4,000 windmills produce less than 1 percent of the energy used — an inefficient manner, causing additional polluting, and of course (it) results in higher energy costs. An overview would indicate that these are the wrong design in the wrong places at the wrong time".

Stewart said it is possible to solve over 95 percent of America’s pollution and energy problems without toxic chemicals. “One of the keys to success is the concept of Point-of-Purchase Power,” she said, “which means building–integrated energy systems, and producing what is needed as closely as possible to where it will be used. I believe that this is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to achieve the U.S. national security objective of energy independence which can be stated as."

Of course, only public opinion can change public policy.

Says Stewart: We need “a 12-step program to prevent the worst hangover from our addiction to fossil fuels that has ever been imagined."

1. Endless Energy Technology has been available for decades, and even centuries and more. It is therefore believed that it is possible to be energy independent from fossil fuels – yesterday.
2. There are two “golden bullets” for Perpetual Power — solar and biomass fuels from wastes.
3. Pay yourself for your power with Point-of-Purchase systems. These power systems can be adapted anywhere, to virtually any home or business. These are home-based, farm-based, business-based energy systems. They include small and safe, viable and sustainable, clean energy generation. This, of course, reduces demand for energy from utilities, and will alleviate grid crashes and brown-outs. It will also significantly reduce the need for more power towers.
4. Individual energy independence is being incentivized. Funding needs to be continued for more to participate. The billions of dollars spent for oil exploration and extraction can be redirected.
5. Biomass fuels were used on farms throughout World War II. They were made from wood and farm wastes. Crop waste disposal is a major expense for farms which can be turned into a profit center. Green and wood wastes from forest fires and hurricane debris can be pelletized for clean electric power fuel in non-polluting facilities.
6. Food is medicine. As of now it takes 9 tons of petroleum to make 1 ton of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Think of the savings if we use bio-compost! That alone could make us energy independent. Buy organic foods, or compost and grow your own, for safety and for health. Fish and livestock can be raised organically. Vote with your wallets.
7. All water and soil restoration can be accomplished through biological and mechanical means.
8. Stronger fuel standards can be mandated. All energy generation facilities can be made non-polluting. This can happen at wartime speed. And it must.
9. Chemicals have no place in our food and water. The costs of “upstream” manufacturing pollutants, and “downstream” contaminations, must be factored in to perceive, and achieve, the real savings of an energy system. This is where wind farms and nuclear power facilities fail.
10. Environmental technologies can offer millions of more jobs at all skill levels. Renewable resources can provide all of the green building materials we need.
11. Everyone in the world is going to need to do everything they can to make the world healthy.
12. Stay positive.

Stewart said that it is time for a united effort to truly “go green to make green” and to restore the Earth. Power Behind Closed Doors applauds her dedication.

But with all the responsibilities on the shoulders of Americans already, with work and family demands, how can we move ahead?

We need to, as a country, find a feasible way to end our dependence on foreign resources and end the energy crisis. Everyone can agree that we don’t want to pillage the planet. Are any global environmental pacts, including the current Copenhagen Deal, the way to go? Binding agreements set off waves of alarm bells to those against a one-world, one government approach. Giving up sovereignty for the greater good has benefits and costs. Can we ever set a global standard that reflect true progress? Then will we be able to use the most efficient, most economical technologies to peruse this goal?

It is possible, and is being done at the University of California San Diego, the leading college in the country for sustainability. UCSD has also received one of the largest chunks of the solar stimulus plan, because of its proven ability to create change and a profit. Now how does the rest of the country and business turn a goal into a profitable market?

Dana L. Stewart is chairwoman and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation and A Development Alternatives Network and Alliance. She is also the marketing director for Golden State Solar Electric and a board adviser for the Universities Media Alliance. She can be reached at adanacompany@yahoo.com.

This article was written and reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford and Pasquale Augustine.

LA JOLLA, Calif. — We’re very happy to have Dr. John F. Asmus, noted professor at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) with us for this story. Asmus brings to The Power Behind Closed Doors staff an exceptional technical and political background as an Internationally known expert in the dark and mysterious world of Laser Technology.

After a diverse career between working for the government and various businesses, Asmus invented the technology to use lasers to restore art and is one of the few people in the world allowed to touch the Mona Lisa. We have known Dr. Asmus for a long time and acknowledge one of his government recognized abilities a s a “Keen Observer of Events.” Asmus is constantly traveling to other countries technical laser conferences which he attends as an active participant. UCSD has always appreciated his abilities as an international representative of UCSD.

Recently Asmus told us that he had received an invitation to deliver the keynote address at the international conference, “Il Reunion International: Optica, Vida y Patrimonio” at the Capitolio Nacional in Havana, Cuba. American travel to Cuba, a one party communist state, has been restricted, and travel there has been almost nonexistent. This conference appeared to be an excellent opportunity for Asmus to see, firsthand, what Cuba is like and how the average Cuban is doing under the current political system.

Asmus’ first observation, before he started his adventure, was to realize the strong and somewhat emotional feeling in unison among his wife, family, friends, and associates. They all pleaded with him to ignore the invitation. Everyone believed that if he went it would be the last time anyone would see him.

In terms of the conference Asmus said that the invitation was completely unexpected . Not only on the fact that he, an American, was invited to give the Key Note Speech at a Cuban Conference but the fact that Cuba itself would be hosting an international conference on laser technologies for the conservation, restoration, analysis, and presentation of the artistic and cultural heritage of the countries comprising the Western Hemisphere.

Asmus said that he had been completely surprise the previous year when he discovered Argentinean and Greek art conservators employing Cuban-manufactured lasers in their work. “For years following my 1980s work in Xi’an it had been his expectation that economical Chinese lasers would become the world standard in conservation studios” he said, reminiscing about his restoration of the Emperor Qin Terracotta Army. Initially, Asmus said that he was bemused by the idea of economical Cuban lasers competing in the world’s high-tech commercial market, although this thought seemed to be purely based off the ongoing Political Embargo the United States has had on Cuba. Eventually, Asmus discerned that the Cuban success in the commercial laser field was due to a spin-off of Fidel Castro’s medical treatment initiatives of the 1960s and 70s.

Upon arriving at the Capitolio National for the laser conference, Asmus had an opportunity to scan the conference program. There was at least one paper by a Cuban author on almost every current topic that is featured at the laser-society conferences held in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Asmus said that, “Later that week, it turned out that Cuban presentations were of the highest caliber although like all conferences, others were superficial and elementary” he said.

The second startling feature of the program was the geographical representation. Latin Americans were to be expected. However, almost every European country was represented, as well as a scattering of representatives from other countries. Asmus was the only American who attended the conference.

Asums’ third revelation was the degree of Russian influence, both direct and indirect, which was prevalent at the conference’s technical and social activities. This is in spite of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world economic recession, the termination of massive Soviet assistance to Cuba, and the travel distance between the two countries.

As for the conference, a feeling of deja vu swept over Asmus as the program revealed familiar names such as Vadim, Parfenov, Kaloshin, Shevchenko, Irina, Shikunova, Vladimir, Kurlov, Volkov, Viktor, Loschenov, Galina, and Nemova. Chatting with these authors at coffee breaks led to many new revelations. Mentors, collaborators, past publications and scientific issues as well as mutual friends of a bygone era were recalled. Although Asmus had never met these people, he discovered that their resumes bore eerie similarities. Asmus was well aware that that fifty-five years ago this world had been the focus of his professional career.

At one level the Havana laser conference resembled the end of a spy movie or novel where the opposing operatives meet and reminisce about their respective roles and tactics in playing the game. Some sort of bond can develop between contentious old “Cold Warriors” in reliving the moves and counter moves; in recognizing the implementation of similar strategies. Nevertheless, one significant difference in outcome bubbled up. Several of the Soviet Cold War scientists whose research Asmus had tracked during his Washington years had immigrated to countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, and Brazil. Toward the end of the conference Asmus found himself chatting with Professor Maxim Tomilin of St. Petersburg State University. It appeared that they had attended all of the same meetings on the merits of neutral particle beams, charged particle beams, excimer lasers, blue-green lasers, etc., only on opposite sides of the world.

Since its inception in Venice 37 years ago, laser-implemented art conservation has been spreading across much of the globe. A major factor has been academic and professional exchanges involving Western European, Chinese, and American conservation scientists. While this was taking place many failed to notice that the Soviet Union was filling a void that opened upon the departure of the US from Cuba. While we in America were focused on cigars and missiles in Cuba, Cuba’s best and brightest were going to the Soviet Union for advanced studies. The Cuban laser accomplishment is one fruit of that protracted academic exchange. The successful laser-implemented restoration of the H.M.S. Swift by Dr. Alberto Orsetti, and the ongoing laser restoration of the fascist interrogation cells in Argentina (as historical memorials) by Professor Gabriel Bilmes are examples of their reducing the science into practice.

Asmus commented that during a coffee break during the conference, “both Dr. Tomilin and I agreed that the new blood in the field was discovering possibilities far beyond our imaginations.” This can be seen in the joint Mexican-Cuban initiative that has developed an automated laser system that selectively blasts thorns from the agave plant, thereby improving both the efficiency and quality of Tequila production. Better tequila, now who can complain about that?

Blast, based in Boston, has a bureau in San Diego with entertainment and political reporting.

This article was written and reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford, and Pasquale Augustine.

In a last minute change in posture, President Barack Obama recently decided to go to Russia to “reset” the generally confusing political relationship between Russia and the United States.

Outsiders could perceive that the U.S. State Department attitude has been that Russia can be ignored because it is not in the game and is just another distraction for the U.S. This position is a complete and utter rejection of the world of reality which we live in, including the misuse of the word “distraction.” Russia can never be ignored nor should she be. This general Washington attitude about Russia tends to be an unrealistic assumption , and does not consider what the long-term and potential tragic consequences that this idea could render for the international community. A recent media comment stated a realistic assessment as, “Russia is too big of a country to ignore including the fact that European History has been tied to Russia, sometimes with disastrous results.”

As for the Summit, Andrei Klimov, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Foreign Affairs Commission said prior to the official Summit meeting, “Unfortunately, our agenda contains too many difficult issues; I’ll be surprised if we can solve any of them.” In the Intel World this is considered a very strong position statement. In another confusing statement, President Obama, on Russian TV said, “It (Russia) remains one of the most powerful countries in the world.” If this is true then how can the State Department ignore Russia and consider it as a weak country not worthy of American attention and/or support. Although, on the other hand America does need Russian support for creating a viable European image including the building of much needed political and public support for America.

Thus, at the end of the meeting, the public was told that two agreements were signed. One agreement involving the cutback in nuclear arms to 1,700 warheads per country within seven years. The second, a mutual agreement which gives the U.S. the right to fly over Russia to deliver troops and supplies to Afghanistan. This is estimated to save the United States $133 million in current day fuel costs.

As a conclusion to the meeting President Obama reinforced Russia’s nuclear arms position during his speech at the New Economic School in Moscow when he stated, “President Medvedev and I made progress” the word progress does not mean resolution “on negotiating a new Treaty that will substantially reduce our warheads and delivery systems. We also renewed our commitment to clean, safe and peaceful nuclear energy, which must be a right for all nations that live up to their responsibilities under the NPT. We also agreed to increase cooperation on nuclear security, which is essential to achieving the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material within four years.”

It is interesting to note that both the Russian and American media understanding from summit is that both parties have reached a major breakthrough in terms of limiting nuclear arms to a new low level where nuclear weapons are not considered a threat to any country. This is hard to believe since the U.S. and Russia together have approximately 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons, which the State Department reported in 2009 as 3,909 Russian warheads vs. America’s 5,576 warheads. Are we to believe that this is the primary subject? Or is the real concern, the proliferation of nuclear arms in Iran and North Korea, a problem which neither Russia or the U.S. want to face directly.

A most interesting analysis of the so-called Arms Agreement has been made by Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association when he called the agreement,”An overdue, if very modest, step toward riding each side of obsolete and expensive cold war legacy weapons.” John Bolton added his thoughts when he said,

“The number they are proposing for delivery vehicles is shockingly low.” Aren’t these comments the main objective that both sides really wanted? To initiate a media program in both countries in order to obtain public credit for eliminating old useless nuclear weapons including unreliable missile systems. This agreement does not preclude the fact that the world needs to realize that it still faces large stockpiles of new high performance, multi-headed nuclear weapons and delivery systems? THINK ABOUT IT. Is this a subject Political Intrigue or Reality?

In terms of an overview President Obama made light of the positive cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in assessing the threat of ballistic missiles from other countries. He said, “I’m pleased that President Medvedev and I agreed upon a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st Century, from Iran and North Korea.” As we can see, this was an interesting comment to make considering just three weeks ago, right after the election of Iran’s new president, Russia and Iran both sat at the same table, as official members, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) annual meeting. At this meeting President Medvedev officially expressed his support of the newly elected Iranian President. It is also interesting to note that the Charter for this organization says its goal is, “To pursue joint security, energy and development goals, including enhanced cooperation against terrorism, Islamist extremism and separatism.” The word “Separatism” is of real concern in terms of Putin’s vision of a new Great Russia. Therefore it is now official that Russia and Iran support each other in their “security efforts” in an organization that rejected the entrance of U.S. as a mere observer status. How will it be that Russia shares the same ideals for security as Iran while supporting the US in a so called, “Joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges?” One answer comes from the Intel World which states from long experience, “All is not what it appears too be.” Only time will answer questions like these. As Peter Baker in the Wall Street Journal recently said, “They made promises of cooperation that ultimately might prove easier to translate into words than reality.”

This current agreement may be reminiscent of similar ones made in the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush presidencies. In summary it is oblivious that although agreements were reached on the decision to reduce nuclear missiles many issues have been left open as points to agree to disagree. After President Obama’s meeting with Prime Minister Putin President Obama said, “On areas where we disagree, like Georgia, I don’t anticipate a meeting of the minds anytime soon.”

The second day of the meeting involved President Obama meeting with Russian business leaders to stress better economic ties between the United States and Russia. This is a reasonable subject to open, assuming that the U.S. has an economic system to negotiate with. It is also interesting that the Secretary of Commerce was the only person to accompany President Obama to Russia. Secretary Locke’s remarked at the Business Summit that, “Now is the time to further United States and Russian integration with the world economy.” We continue to hear words like “World Economy” not “American Economy.”

Secretary Locke also commented that, “Likewise, we consider it very much in the interest of Russia to further integrate into the world economy. We support Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization and encourage Russia to pursue opportunities to increase its bilateral trade and investment with the United States as well as other countries.” Russia had been on the waiting list to enter the WTO for several years although the week before the Summit Prime Minister Putin withdrew Russia’s application. This is a key Russian strategy decision which America should not overlook.

The logical question now would be why did Putin remove Russia from the application process only a week before the Summit with the U.S.? Russia is continuing to give conflicting signs of what it wishes to do. Is no one paying any attention to what Putin is saying?

In summary, one question must be asked: will this Summit have the desired effect of starting the so called “reset” of the long troubled relationship between Russia and the United States? Keep in mind that the U.S. won the Cold War and Russia lost. In winning the Cold War we created a “Big Bad Enemy” which is not going to be subservient to the U.S. In addition, Russia and the United States have very different cultural views with the result of a distorted view of the U.S. which has become embedded in the Russian public. How will Russia overcome this view that it has had of the United States for so long? Will it happen in a few short meetings, years, or ever? Will it be too much to overcome or will we be able to work through them to have two strong countries who no longer fight for power, but instead share and grow from it.

It has been said by many wise men including Julius Caesar that, “Power is the Name of the Game.”

Think about it.