We are about to see whether the successful use of sanctions against Iran can be repeated, and whether they will have sufficient impact to make the Russia of Vladimir Putin draw back from the Ukraine crisis.

Europe and the United States are expected to announce Monday the form of sanctions they intend to apply if Russia goes ahead with the annexation of Crimea after the Sunday referendum in the Black Sea peninsula, which has been part of Ukraine since 1954.

As reports came through of Russian troops massing on Ukraine's border, German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week told the Bundestag, Germany's Parliament, any decision by the Kremlin to change borders by force would meet a very robust response.

"We would not only see it, also as neighbors of Russia, as a threat. And it would not only change the European Union's relationship with Russia," she told Parliament. "No, this would also cause massive damage to Russia, economically and politically."

The monthly minimum wage in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin will go up by between 11.4 percent and 12.3 percent from Tuesday, the semi-official China News Service reported, as the government continues efforts to boost domestic demand.

The central government has repeatedly pledged to increase workers' share of national income, pushing up wages steadily for more than a decade. It accelerated hikes in 2010 as an economic boom spread to the hinterland and fueled competition for labor.

In the latest hikes, wages will increase the most in Shanghai by 12.3 percent to 1,820 yuan ($290) a month from 1,620 yuan, and 21.4 percent on an hourly basis to 17 yuan from 14 yuan, according to the report on the website www.chinanews.com.

While everyone was gushing over the spectacle on TV of a pro-HFT guy and anti-HFT guy go at it, yesterday afternoon we reported what was by far the most important news of the day, one which was lost on virtually everyone if only until this morning, when we reported that "Monetary Blockade Of Russia Begins: JPMorgan Blocks Russian Money Transfer "Under Pretext" Of Sanctions." This morning the story has finally blown up to front page status, which it deserves, where it currently graces the FT with "Russian threat to retaliate over JPMorgan block." And unlike previous responses to Russian sanctions by the West, which were largely taken as a joke by the Russian establishment, this time Russia is furious: according to Bloomberg, the Russian foreign ministry described the JPM decision as "illegal and absurd." And as Ukraine found out last month, you don't want Russia angry.

More:

The biggest U.S. bank thwarted a remittance from the Russian embassy in Astana, Kazakhstan, to Sogaz Insurance Group "under the pretext of anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the United States," the ministry said yesterday in a statement on its website. Sogaz lists OAO Bank Rossiya, a St. Petersburg-based lender facing U.S. sanctions over the Ukrainian crisis, as a strategic partner on its website.

Interfering with the transaction was an "absolutely unacceptable, illegal and absurd decision," Alexander Lukashevich, a ministry spokesman, said in the statement.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced the action against Bank Rossiya last month as part of a broadening of sanctions that targeted government officials and allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose associates own Rossiya. The embassy's transaction was for less than $5,000 dollars, a person with knowledge of the dispute said, asking not to be identified because such transfers aren't public.

Did JPMorgan just move the second Cold War into semi-hot status? Very possibly:

"Any hostile actions against the Russian diplomatic mission are not only a grossest violation of international law, but are also fraught with countermeasures that unavoidably will affect activities of the embassy and consulates of the U.S. in Russia," Lukashevich said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has sharply reacted to the "illegal and absurd" blocking of a Russian diplomatic transaction by US bank JPMorgan Chase due to "sanctions." Moscow warned that such moves might backfire for the US diplomatic mission in Russia.

JPMorgan Chase blocked a money transfer on behalf of the Russian Embassy in Kazakhstan to insurance company SOGAZ, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich said in a Tuesday statement. The bank cited sanctions imposed by the US government against some Russian politicians and companies in connection with the situation in Ukraine, he said.

Lukashevich condemned the move as an "absolutely unacceptable, illegal and absurd decision," saying that the sanctions were merely a "pretense."

It didn't take long for Russia to launch the first retaliatory salvo against the unexpected JPMorgan "act of aggression." Moments ago Bloomberg just reported that Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia and all of Eastern Europe, just halted the issuance of consumer loans in foreign currency. Bloomberg adds that "Sberbank, Russia's biggest lender, holds 43.3% of nation's consumer deposits, 32.7% of consumer loans and 32.1% of corporate loans."

Why is this important? Well, it is possible that the biggest Russian bank is running low on foreign reserves with which to issue non-ruble loans, which is rather unlikely for a bank which is defacto part of the Russian financial system. Still, it would be problematic if Russia is indeed telegraphing its commodity-export driven economy is suddenly low on Dollars and/or Europe's artificial, life-supported currency.

And then there is another possibility: as we explained yesterday, "what JPM may have just done is launch a preemptive strike which would have the equivalent culmination of a SWIFT blockade of Russia, the same way Iran was neutralized from the Petrodollar and was promptly forced to begin transacting in Rubles, Yuan and, of course, gold in exchange for goods and services either imported or exported." And this: "One wonders: is JPM truly that intent in preserving its "pristine" reputation of not transacting with "evil Russians", that it will gladly light the fuse that takes away Russia's choice whether or not to depart the petrodollar voluntarily, and makes it a compulsory outcome, which incidentally will merely accelerate the formalization of the Eurasian axis of China, Russia and India."

Judging by the first retaliation, which just showed what Russia thinks of the petrodollar regime by voluntarily isolating itself from it, this is certainly a growing possibility.

In The Unknown Known, Oscar-winning documentarian Errol Morris (The Fog of War) turns his infamous interrotron on former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

He was one of the key architects of the U.S. response to the attacks of September 11^th under President George W. Bush, which included wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The title of Morris' documentary, out April 4, is taken from a controversial response Rumsfeld gave in February 2002 when, as Secretary of Defense, he was prodded about the lack of evidence concerning "reports" propagated by the Bush administration that Iraq was supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.

There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know."

South Korea's and the U.S.' attempts to deter North Korean aggression have failed and the threat of armed conflict between the two Koreas is growing, a U.S. expert believes.

Patrick Cronin of the U.S. Center for a New American Security makes the claim in a report released Thursday under the title "If Deterrence Fails: Rethinking Conflict on the Korean Peninsula."

"Kim Jong-un might go to violent new lengths should he think his survival is in jeopardy," the report warns.

"Planning assumptions for responding to provocations or upheaval in North Korea downplay the possibility of escalation and war," it says. "There exists the real peril of near-term deterrence failure affecting South Korea."

The BRICS's support for Russia shows the Western-dominated post-Cold War order is eroding.

There's been no shortage of reports and commentaries on the crisis in Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia's role in it. Yet one of the more notable recent developments in the crisis has received surprisingly little attention.

Namely, the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has unanimously and, in many ways, forcefully backed Russia's position on Crimea. The Diplomat has reported on China's cautious and India's more enthusiastic backing of Russia before. However, the BRICS grouping as a whole has also stood by the Kremlin.

Indeed, they made this quite clear during a BRICS foreign minister meeting that took place on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague last week. Just prior to the meeting, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop suggested that Australia might ban Russia's participation in the G20 summit it will be hosting later this year as a means of pressuring Vladimir Putin on Ukraine.

The BRICS foreign ministers warned Australia against this course of action in the statement they released following their meeting last week. "The Ministers noted with concern the recent media statement on the forthcoming G20 Summit to be held in Brisbane in November 2014," the statement said. "The custodianship of the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can unilaterally determine its nature and character."

By the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had become a has-been power whose glory days as the world's superpower were well behind them.

They had been supplanted the French, the British, and the Russian empires in all matters of economic, military, and diplomatic strength. Much of this was due to the Ottoman Empire's massive debt burden.

In 1868, the Ottoman government spent 17% of its entire tax revenue just to pay interest on the debt. And they were well past the point of no return where they had to borrow money just to pay interest on the money they had already borrowed. The increased debt meant the interest payments also increased. And three years later in 1871, the government was spending 32% of its tax revenue just to pay interest.

By 1877, the Ottoman government was spending 52% of its tax revenue just to pay interest. And at that point they were finished. They defaulted that year.

This is a common story throughout history.

Sometime this year, a team of deepwater oil engineers will probably start drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The team will likely be made up of Russians and Americans working for two of the biggest energy companies in the world: Houston-basedExxonMobil (XOM) and Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft.

As relations between Russia and the West sour over Russia's apparent annexation of Crimea, ties between U.S. and Russian energy companies have never been stronger. The closest partners are Exxon and Rosneft. Not only are they exploring for oil together in the Arctic as part of a $500 billion joint venture formed in 2011, the two companies are planning to frack shale fields in Siberia, drill a well in the Black Sea, and start construction on a natural gas export terminal in eastern Russia. Exxon has such a good relationship with the Russians, last summer President Vladimir Putin awarded Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson the Order of Friendship during an economic forum in St. Petersburg.

In the two decades since the Cold War ended, the U.S. and Russia have forged some marginal partnerships in a handful of areas. Russian and American astronauts work together on the International Space Station. The Russian military helps the U.S. get equipment in and out of Afghanistan. But the strongest area of cooperation has come in the energy industry, where U.S. oil majors such as Exxon and Chevron(CVX) have entered into a number of joint ventures with Russia's state-owned energy giants Rosneft and Gazprom.