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.

The Treasury was badly advised on the sale, relying on firms accused of unethical practices and corporate greed

Thatcher would have screamed, "What! Flogging off her majesty's mail, cheap and to a bunch of spivs?" She always refused to sell Royal Mail. Her latterday apostle on Earth, Margaret Hodge, said as much on Tuesday. As the public accounts committee chairman, she savaged the business secretary, Vince Cable, for last winter's sale of Royal Mail. He had promised: "There is no way we will sell Royal Mail on the cheap." He sold it on the cheap. Hodge called him "clueless".

There was always something odd about last October's Royal Mail privatisation. Both Michael Heseltine and Peter Mandelson had tried it and failed. Driven by the Treasury's need for cash, Cable seemed rushed and nervy. The ground was rolled with a massive relief of pension liabilities, a 30% rise in stamp prices, and post offices detached from the business.

A chief executive was hired, and by May last year the business engineered a 60% surge in profit. It was clearly being gold-plated. So why was it sold as tin? Cable chose Lazards, Goldman Sachs and five other banks to advise on the sale. As anyone who has witnessed these events will attest, they are carnivals of cash.

• NSA used 'back door' to search Americans' communications
• Director of national intelligence confirms use of new legal rule
• Data collected under 'Prism' and 'Upstream' programs

US intelligence chiefs have confirmed that the National Security Agency has used a "back door" in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans' communications.

The NSA's collection programs are ostensibly targeted at foreigners, but in August the Guardian revealed a secret rule change allowing NSA analysts to search for Americans' details within the databases.

Now, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed for the first time the use of this legal authority to search for data related to "US persons".

"There have been queries, using US person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-US persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States," Clapper wrote in the letter, which has been obtained by the Guardian.

"These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment."

Former investigators who thought they'd put convicted U.S. spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard in the slammer for life lashed out today at news that the Obama administration is using his release as a bargaining chip in Mideast peace talks.

"How do you do this after Snowden?" fumed the former top prosecutor who won Pollard's conviction, Joseph diGenova.

DiGenova was referring to former National Security Agency contractor and admitted classified documents thief Edward Snowden, on the lam in Russia since last June.

The FBI and Naval Criminal Investigative Service never fully assessed the exact amount of classified military and intelligence files Pollard sold to Israeli agents for more than $600,000 beginning in the mid-1980s until his 1985 arrest, ABC News sources involved in the investigation said. But Pollard himself once estimated that he forked over 360 cubic feet of documents, which the sources said pertained to much more than Israel and included secrets about U.S. intelligence capabilities that made it into the hands of spies in Russia, South Africa and other countries.

"Nobody who has seen the classified damage assessment thinks Pollard ought to be freed," diGenova told ABC News.