"Imagine a situation in which a good acquaintance - but not a close friend - suggests that you start a joint venture that requires you to invest all your savings. If you hesitate, he whips out a revolver and threatens to shoot your close relatives. This is how Russia's most recent suggestion for co-operation with the United States on a joint anti-ballistic missile defense system comes across. But the main point is that if the United States were to accept the Russian offer, it would have to entirely reject its present strategy of intercepting enemy warheads in space using missiles with a range of more than 2000 kilometers. In addition, the joint project would mean that the billions of dollars that the United States had already spent on its unilateral anti-system would be for naught. The other problematic aspect of Russia's proposal is that it would require an unusually high level of trust in each other to make this new relationship work. And Russia has done everything in its power to undermine this trust. A case in point: Ivanov has promised that if the United States does not cancel its plans to place a radar in the Chech Republic and elements of anti-missile batteries in Poland, Russia will deploy Iskander rockets in Kaliningrad aimed at U.S. installations  in Europe. If Russia deploys these weapons, it will violate the terms of the Treaty  on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This in turn could lead to a new stand off with Europe. On the surface, Moscow has offered to create a joint global anti-missile system that would significantly improve U.S.-Russian relations. But Moscow has threatened a new military stand-off if Washington refuses its proposal anf if it develops its anti-missile system in Europe. Thus, Moscow has proposed an absolutely meaningless and unrealistic initiative that will only distract and irritate Washington at a time when the Kremlin is frantically looking for U.S. support for Putin's successor."

Alexander Golts. Columnist on Defense issues for Moscow's English language newpaper.
excerpt from  recently published column titled; "An Anti-Missile Proposal Doomed to Fail."


ABUJA: 419 CAPITAL.

 If you are ever asked to name the new capital of Nigeria and you mention Abuja, I am afraid to tell you that you are wrong simply because Abuja is not the capital of Nigeria. Or to be more precise, de jure, you may be right, but de facto, you are wrong.  The reason for making this assertion will be stated in this article. But first, it is worth mentioning that the issue of the relocation of Nigeria's capital from Lagos to Abuja was addressed briefly in one of my previous articles titled "A battle cry to restore the poor state of the nation. (Part 1) (nigeriansinamerica.com)" However, because of the importance of this issue and the effect of this decision on Nigerians and Nigeria's economy, I have decided to devote a whole article to this topic in order to treat it comprehensively.

 Undoubtedly, the costliest decision the North and the military have ever made was the choice of Abuja as the new capital of Nigeria. This is another case in point that the north has succeeded in manipulating the country to its own selfish interest at a great cost to the rest of the country. As could be recalled, the decision to relocate the capital was taken by Murtala Muhammed sometime in 1975. The official reasons given by the northern military government for relocating the capital from Lagos were the following:

(I)  Security reason - Lagos due to its location was vulnerable to attack from the ocean.

(II) Lagos was too congested.

(III)Because of its location at the edge of the country, it's not very convenient and expensive for other Nigerians to come to Lagos.

(IV) Lagos belongs to the Yorubas; one of the major tribes in Nigeria.

Let us examine these reasons one by one together objectively and verify whether they hold water or not.