What is remarkable? To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. mainstream media have never mentioned the SCO even once in more than five years! From 2001 to 2003, the U.S. political establishment was busy, preparing a preemptive war in Iraq, and from 2003 to this day, it has been preoccupied with the war itself to crush the guerrillas, mostly from among Sunni, who number 6 million, that is, about 1/1000 of the population of the earth, and who are armed as guerrillas were armed a century ago. The U.S. mainstream media have dropped some bits of information about China's purchase of Russia's conventional weapons or about Sino-Russian joint military exercises. But what does the key word "cooperation" mean in the name of a Sino-Russian permanent organization, the SCO? What if this cooperation leads to the fusion of twenty years of Russian experience and of twenty years of Chinese experience in the development of post-nuclear superweapons?

A "majority of the Russian people" do not have even that minimal aversion to the cooperation with China, which minimal aversion could be expected because China is a dictatorship, no less based on absolute power than Stalin's Russia was. In response, let me quote "Russia Reform Monitor," which I received on Jan. 5, 2006: POLL FINDS RUSSIANS LONGING FOR SOVIET POWER. Sixty-six percent of Russians regret the Soviet Union's collapse, according to a new poll by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTaIOM). The survey, covered by Interfax, found that seventy-four percent of those respondents linked to their stance to regret over the collapse of a powerful state, while 23 percent regretted losing "the gains of socialism." Only 15 percent said there was nothing in the Soviet Union's history to be proud of, while 76 percent said that the Soviet collapse "destroyed everything people trusted and were proud of."

Well, if "a majority of the Palestinian people" are for Hamas, why should not "a majority of the Russian people" be for the Soviet dictatorship?

While "a majority of the American people" are against the Chinese dictatorship (though the words "dictator" and "dictatorship" are not permitted freely to apply to China by the U.S. mainstream media), "a majority of the Russian people" are for the dictatorship even in Russia, and hence they cannot have any aversion to the Sino-Russian cooperation leading to the Sino-Russian world dictatorship via their jointly developed post-nuclear superweapons.

The question is: can Hu and Putin trust each other? The advantages of such cooperation are obvious: the two countries will be able to cooperate in the development of post-nuclear superweapons and confront the world more quickly with their ultimatum (surrender unconditionally or be annihilated). But what about either of them being the fatal threat to the other?

Putin's motivation as one of the two major partners of the SCO is transparent. After the Mongol invasion of the 13th century and with the exception of Japan in the 20th century, all military threats to Russia came from the West. For his part, Stalin grabbed on the crest of WW2, a big hunk of Europe-up to East Germany. The uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia after Stalin's death were viciously crushed. The result? The greater Western fear of and hostility to Russia. Finally, Russia lost even Ukraine. To many Russians, Ukraine was a beautiful poetic part of Russia. The great writer having the Ukrainian name Gogol, born and bred in Ukraine, and having become famous after publishing his lyrical tales, set in Ukraine, was a Russian nationalist, alluding (poetically) to Russia's forthcoming world domination. Will "Drank nach Φsten" ("Drive Eastward") continue-with the help of NATO?

On the other hand, if the cooperation between China and Russia results in post-nuclear superweapons, the SCO will become globally omnipotent.

But what about its two major members' mutual mortal danger?

This takes us back to the alliance between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia from 1939 and up to 1941, when Hitler invaded his ally. Stalin believed that, given their alliance, they would become the sovereigns of the world.

Stalin was right. The cooperation of the two countries, both free from conventional war, could lead to their joint nuclear weapons, that is, Hitler-Stalin's world domination, while the U.S. Manhattan Project wouldn't even begin.

Indeed, the Manhattan Project began in all earnest only after Hitler declared war on the United States late in 1941. Pyotr Kapitsa, the favorite Russian disciple of Rutherford, the British founder of nuclear physics, made in 1941 a report (published in the Soviet press) describing possible nuclear weapons in detail. But all the resources were consumed by the war.

Yes, Hitler attacked Stalin (which Hitler had predicted in "Mein Kampf"), that is, destroyed himself. Germany was also engaged in conventional war to such an extent that she could not allocate sufficient resources for the development of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the four years of the war in Russia, which Hitler lost anyway, enabled the Anglo-American coalition to develop its military potential, including nuclear weapons, to land in Europe and advance on Germany, while Soviet troops invaded it from the east. It was a total rout of Germany, complete with Hitler's suicide.

When Hitler had been explaining in his letter to Mussolini the cause of his sudden attack on Stalin next morning, Hitler said that he, Hitler, did not trust Stalin, and to be on the safe side, he had to attack Stalin first.

If and when China and Russia have post-nuclear superweapons in their joint SCO possession, each side will have Hitler's temptation to destroy is ally "before he destroys us."

However, they may keep in mind Hitler's negative example, the moral of which is: "Do not destroy your ally before you have jointly destroyed your enemies."

If the SCO jointly develops post-nuclear superweapons to annihilate the West or enforce, by the threat of annihilation, its unconditional surrender, the further development of SCO relations ("who whom," as Lenin used to say) will be purely academic history for the West if any history will be studied in the colony once called the West except the history of the glorious global victory of communism as predicted by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hu, and Putin until Hu destroys Putin, or vice versa.

Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.