War in North Korea?

I said some time ago (years actually) that the United States is facing two choices: war with China; or surrender of its position as global financial king. Two stark choices with no grey area. Why? That answer is a little more complicated.

Since the Berlin Wall fell in the 90's the Chinese have adopted a deliberate policy to out play the Americans at their own game - capitalism. Essentially, the Chinese are mimicking the path the US took to super power status. Firstly, they became very disciplined and kept their cost of production of goods and services to the bare bone, thereby capturing the lion's share of global manufacturing trade. Secondly, they stayed out of wars. Security for China became a gradual building of their military capabilities without the expense of fighting wars in the process. Thirdly, they became a lender to nations all over the world, thus spreading their political and economic influence to the point they are indispensable. Much like the early American policies of industrialization, free trade, open seas, and non-interventionism. Now China is what the US used to be, and the US has become what the British Empire was. We all know what happened to the Empire.

China's dominant financial position globally has allowed it to lead in the development of BRICS, Eurasia, and its own version of the IMF. In other words, the Chinese, along with Russia have turned the world economic, and therefore political, order on its head. The US is now attempting to pivot. US encouragement of Britain exiting the EU is a good example. The US is  desperately trying to  create a viable trading bloc to counter Eurasia/BRICS. It is apparent that their answer is a British Commonwealth 2.0 -  ie: US, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. In a strange little clue, former Vice-President Biden, after making his final remarks on the make election loss, whispered "God save the Queen" as he walked from a still live mike. The truth is that no combination of countries can stand up to the resources, demographics, etc of the combined Eurasia/BRICS.

The US has had some successes putting dents in BRICS though. Most notably in South America. The pro-Russian leaderships in Brazil and Argentina have been replace by more western oriented leaders. Also, the President of South Africa is under intense pressure to resign, including resignation of his finance minister. So far that hasn't worked, and South Africa has a new finance minister. While these are victories for the US, and have somewhat stymied the Chinese/Russian momentum, they are no where near enough to hobble Eurasia.

The real dent in the Eurasian shield, however, must be made in China. That brings us North Korea - China's proverbial guard dog on its southern border. Trump has offered the Chinese a carrot and stick approach on North Korea. If the Chinese denuclearize North Korea the US will offer it better trade terms and not label it a currency manipulator.(which is closer to blackmail, because either you are a currency manipulator or you aren't) The Chinese, having just seen the stick approach offered to Russia in Syria, are taking the Americans seriously. They have a mutual defence pact with North Korea, as does Russia. An attack on one is an attack on all. That's why 150,000 Chinese troops have been moved to the border with North Korea. Russia has also stockpiled troops on its small border with North Korea. They are there to defend North Korea should it be required, and not to stem refugees as the western media has been playing it.

Meanwhile the Americans are moving a carrier strike group to the shores off North Korea. In addition, new intelligence has a total of two other aircraft carriers joining the group within the next ten days - about the time joint US/South Korean forces finish their massive annual war games. The US also has positioned massive air power at its various bases throughout the region.

The question is: Will all this result in war. The answer is yes. It is not a matter of North Koreas nuclear program, or Syria's "rabid dictator", or Russia's "meddling" in Europe, or China's "sea grab" in the South China Sea. No it's not any of these things. They are just stuff to spin to get the US people worked up and scared. The reason is Empire - either there will be one or their won't. The US simply cannot allow itself to lose at the economic game it set up. The only way to stop that is to create a world war that defeats China and Russia, but mostly China. After that, if there is a world left, the US will redraw the economic rules once again to keep them on top. While China and Russia stockpile gold, either to underpin their currencies or to pay for a major war, the US maintains the same course of ruinous debt, now even moving to strip the only real safeguards from their securities markets - a safeguard designed to stop a repeat of the Great Depression. So, if you've been thinking the world has been on its head, and kind of crazy the last while, well that's a reasonable interpretation of the chaos caused by the moves underway.

Nobody can say with certainty what will happen when the "Great American Armada" approaches North Korea. Traditionally, armadas haven't faired well in this kind of scenario. The North Koreans did give a bit of a hint though. During their massive military parade to honour the "Day of the Sun" the speaker stated North Korea will use its "own style" of nuclear war if necessary. One has to interpret that as an unconventional use of nuclear weapons. It may well be that the missiles and launching platforms paraded last weekend are a bit of a ruse. North Korea is well adept at deception. It may well be something far simpler, which the US may not be able to neutralize easily with their own missiles. Perhaps tunneling or submarines acting as delivery vehicles, rather than missiles. After all, how hard would it be for North Korea to retrofit some of its subs with a nuclear war head making them the delivery vehicles. A sub only has to get so close off shore to detonate itself and destroy an American city without launching a single missile. Ditto for the American Armada. A sub close by detonates and takes the works down. Three aircraft carriers is a real tempting target for them. So are we heading for war in North Korea, and elsewhere? The answer is yes. Unfortunately, the Americans are unable to accept the consequences of being economically outplayed, and are willing to take the whole house down with them. My sole hope is that technological superiority on one side or the other will prevent total waste being wrought over our planet.

I'm Sorry Russia

There is something very wrong, and possibly very evil going on in our world today. Aside from all the conflicts spawned by greed and the desire to control in our world, there is some all too real revisionist history happening. When people, let alone governments, try to recreate history it's an ominous sign. A sign of hatred. Of deep hatred. That's what is happening right now in our world when it comes to the Russian (then Soviet) victory over Germany in World War Two.

The Soviet Union suffered 25 million killed in World War Two. By comparison, the other allied countries suffered:

United kingdom           450,900
United States                418,500
India                         2, 087,000
China                       15,000,000
Poland                       5,700,000
Yugoslavia                1,363,500
Dutch East Indies      3,500,000

and there are many more.

The Soviet Red Army suffered the most military deaths of any nation in World War Two at 9,750,000. Almost twice as many as the nearest country, its enemy, Germany. The Soviet people, comprised today of Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus bled the German army white. Of all the German military deaths of World War Two, 2,742,909 were caused by the Soviet army on the Eastern Front. By way of comparison, only 534,683 were killed by all other allies put together on all other fronts. In this way it's clear to see that the vast majority of the German armed forces were wiped out by the Soviets between 1941-1945. For that sacrifice the world owes the old Soviet Union, or Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus our undying gratitude. No question. To believe otherwise is to disrespect the sacrifice of a generation.

However, that seems to be all the rage these days in the West. And, I'm having a very hard time with that. There are a few reasons. First off, we owe the families, mostly Russian, our eternal respect for the generations of young men and women lost. The families broken to bits. The loves lost. The communities, towns, cities destroyed. They took the steel punch of German Nazism for the rest of us. We set foot back in Normandy when the German army was essentially already defeated. Secondly, to white wash the heroic struggle of the Russian people is to invite a repetition of the same savage crime. We preach this constantly with the Holocaust - rightly so. However, it's as if the greater sacrifice of Russia is somehow less and open to some sort of political interpretation. Lastly, it speaks to who we are, not who they are. It says we are so superficial, so petulant, that we can allow such a sacrifice to be degraded to suit our present political needs or wants.

That leads me to the Victory Day celebrations and parade in Moscow in about a week from now. Countries like my own (Canada), Britain, the US, etc are boycotting the celebrations and parade marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of Germany. As a son of a vet who fought in that war against the Nazis I find this new Western revisionism very hard to swallow. As a retired infantry vet myself I am ashamed by it. The disrespect is unconscionable. It is dark and it is evil. It goes against everything I believe in and hold as dear. The West should hold its head in collective shame. Not just the leadership, but also the people. It's a disgrace. I'm writing this post just to let the Russian people know that not everyone agrees with this slight. Not everyone sees sacrifice through the lens of political expediency. That the sacrifice of your people is recognized and honoured by anyone with any education and knowledge of history - even though it was just a short while ago. Mostly, I just wanted to say: "I'm sorry Russia".

Why Stratfor is Wrong on the US's Future

Stratfor, a US "geo-strategic " global intelligence company, recently published its "Decade Forecast:2015-2025" here . The essential nuts and bolts premise of this forecast is the US will remain the unchallenged global super power, while Russia, China etc fragment under social chaos and democratic forces. It even predicts Poland will become the dominant player in Europe... I kid you not. Stratfor, in all its conclusions couldn't be more wrong.

First, and probably most important, Stratfor's conclusions are based on the current system of world commerce and consumption. It brags that the US still produces 22% of the world's economic activity. That may be true, but it misses the key point - all that is about to change. Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC countires) are establishing a singular trading bloc among themselves. Importantly, the bloc's transactions are to conducted in respective national currencies - not pegged to the US dollar or even using the US dollar. In effect, they are recreating the world economy to the exclusion of the US and major European powers.

The practical effect of this monumental shift can be seen already today. In the last three months BRIC has announced a new world bank that will challenge the world bank (that operates in US dollars) for global supremacy in sovereign lending to countries in need, or between themselves for major projects. One such project is the new canal to be built in Nicaragua, financed by China, and guaranteed military protection by Russia. Again, neutralizing the US controlled Panama canal. Then, last week, the BRIC countries announced they would be creating a supra-national parliament that in essence would mimic the European Parliament. Also, in the last while, countries like Egypt, Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, etc have been gravitating to the new BRIC economic bloc - not wanting to be left out in the cold.

But what does the new bloc have that will unseat US dominance? One word: markets. With the creation of the new bloc, the US and Europe will lose significant markets for their businesses. The loss of those markets cannot be replaced. The US and Europe will be faced with massive deflation in their economies as a result, large scale recession if not depression, and the very social unrest Stratfor predicts for China and Russia will instead be taking place in the US and Europe.

Here are some real numbers that tell the tale. By 2025 the populations (markets) of the new bloc will be approximately 3.1 billion. By contrast, the North American/European bloc will have a population of 1.1 billion. That is if the current western trade partnerships remain intact in the face of closed markets in the new bloc. Consider, for example, Australia, which does massive trade with China. Australia will be forced to decide whether its political/military alliance to the West outweighs its economic survival. Other countries, particularly in Europe, face the same tough choices. By way of example, France has lost a few defence contracts lately with India - Russia being the benefactor.

Here are some even more staggering numbers. In a word: debt. The ability to borrow to consume. The necessary requirement to grow and drive any economy. You can check the current numbers of all countries here . There are two sets of shocking numbers - gross government debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product - annual) and debt per person. The three main countries power the new bloc shake out this way:

China -          20.9% (debt vs GDP)            $1,489.00 (per person)

Russia -        14.6%                                     $2,297.00

India -          68.1%                                     $  946.00

The main powers in the Western block look like this:

US -             107%                                     $58,604.00

Japan -         242 %                                    $99,725.00

Germany -     78%                                     $35,881.00

UK -              95%                                     $38,938.00

The lesson here is two fold. Firstly, the debt per person and overall gross sovereign debt of the powering nations behind the new bloc are minuscule, and they are ripe for growth. Secondly, in the case of India, its large gross debt as a percentage of GDP, yet minute personal debt, means once it economy is properly stimulated its Debt vs GDP ratio will fall drastically. None of these things can be said for the Western bloc. In a phrase: the West is maxed out. It has nowhere to grow, and certainly no ability to dominate the new bloc politically, militarily, or economically. Stratfor is just plain wrong. Very wrong. Surprisingly wrong. Money and markets do not have a soul. It has no national agenda or pride. It only exists on numbers. Those numbers heavily weigh to the favour of the new BRIC alliance. Just as assuredly, they condemn the West to a time of severe and fast decline.

Order of Canada and a Newfoundland Separatist

It was 25 April 2010, and I was taking in a NTV show called meeting remarkable people. I did not know, nor had I heard of the gentleman being interviewed. He was, however, wearing an Order of Canada pin on his lapel. The show was a replay and apparently was aired in 2008 before Mr Williams officially executed the "ABC" strategy of dealing with the federal government. For those of you that don't know, the ABC strategy means "Anything But Conservative". The guest spoke of this stategy and how he believed the Premier was on the right track. He said years of talking to Ottawa to straighten out the long standing issues Newfoundland had were going no where fast, and this strategy was a solid effort to turn the heat up. Fair enough.

Quebec has the BQ, and they are nothing but a regional protest movement - albeit on the payroll of Canada. Alberta had the Reform Party - again regional protest. So why shouldn't Newfoundland take a similar strategy and, while not having an actual party representing them in protest, send a message by definately not voting for or with the Conservatives. Many would consider that not only fair, but also a semi-unique exercise of provincial influence in national affairs.

Here is the kicker. This well-educated gentleman then goes on to state that he was all in favour of Newfoundland going its own way as it "never really fit into the Canadian model". His evidence of this was the fact that Newfoundland had an unemployment rate of 14%, that the ferry service was poor, and that other Canadians made Newfie jokes. Well, I have to tell you I could not believe the words coming from his mouth, and my mind immediately went to " how does a joker like this get an Order of Canada?". It is common knowledge that at the end of the Second World War the British Empire was dissolving - primarily due to the cost of the war. Newfoundland was left facing a future as an independent country or a province of Canada. A hard choice for a people with strong ties to Britain, and a fierce pride in their own traditions and culture to be sure. What people, like the man on the show, seem to always refuse to see or speak to is where would Newfoundland be today if it had not joined Canada.

Well, in fairness, he did bring up the examples of Iceland and Ireland as two successful island nations that went their own way. As noted earlier, the show was recorded in 2008, before the great market meltdown. Iceland, which has lost many people to emmigration since its independence, completely melted down. They had to take humiliating loans from the Dutch and British just to stop the complete collapse of their banking system. They are grossly indebted and even unable to pay back a relatively small debt of $5 billion dollars. Then of course there is Ireland. Well, the foolishness of this statement should be readily apparent - especially to someone from Newfoundland. The great many Newfoundlanders are of Irish descent, your's truely included, and if it were such an iconic nation-state people would not have to literally die to get out of it. They were starving to death. They were in an unending civil war. They had massive unemployment. The Irish populated many of the "new" countries. All of this points to a country that has had its problems through out history - including today. Again, the financial collapse of 2009 caused the collapse of many Irish banks, and massive unemployment. Joining the EU and its status as a tax free zone for banking helped make Ireland in recent history, however there are now many countries that  have banking havens, and the Irish advantage appears to be fading - quickly.

So, judging by his comments, the gentleman wants Newfoundland to be a country with a crippled banking system, massive unemployment, massive emmigration, but atleast we can say she is ours...Come to think of it, wasn't that the condition Newfoundland was in when it joined Canada. My own Grandmother had to leave Newfoundland, along with her five sisters, for Montreal after her father was knocked off his boat by the boom and drowned off Long Tickle. Two of her older brothers were already there working, as were many from the Bonivista area. From a family of fifteen one brother remained. They were third generation Newfoundlanders. The reason they went to Montreal was the same reason people today are going to northern Alberta - work that pays. Newfoundlanders helped build many parts of Canada. They have always been welcomed and loved in any part of Canada that I have been to. The dollars raised in the rest of the country have often gone back to help out on the Island, and even today fuel much of the economic boom occuring here. Not one Canadian bank folded during the meltdown of 2009, and Canada is in a strong position throughout the world. How is it then that this gentleman doesn't think Newfoundland fits with the Canadian model.

Perhaps, in 2008 when the story was first aired, he was intoxicated by $145 a barrel oil. That although Newfoundland had been relying on the rest of the country for many years, now that it had to contribute back, it was time to cut the anchor rope and sail off. Although there are legitimate issues Newfoundland has, especially the going over it has been getting from Quebec Hydro, it has no better fit than Canada. Newfoundlands's future depends on modernizing and diversifying it's economy - much like Saskatchewan did. The trade, income and expertise to do that comes from its place in Canada. The stronger our union, the stronger our international position to the betterment of our people. Instead of looking at others to criticize for our position it is time to look in the mirror at those that are in charge of shaping the economy here.

To the gentleman wearing the Order of Canada lapel - please take it off. You do the people of Newfoundland a disservice. It is not always about "standing up for Newfoundland". We need to work hard for what we want. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Shed the complex.