Russia's failings in Ukraine

 The Russian invasion of Ukraine has three primary goals: geo-strategic; strategic; and tactical. The geo-strategic goal is decouple Russia from the Western economy and integrate heavily with China and other Eurasia leaning nations. The invasion of Ukraine resulted in massive sanctions as promised by Western powers, and as a result Russian President Putin was able to get his population on board with decoupling. Putin's moves to bolster the Ruble by requiring for purchases of oil and gas is a good example of this. On the geo-strategic front it is clear that Russia has won the war.

The picture is a lot less clear on the strategic/tactical front. On the strategic front, Russia's primary goals are clearly to make Crimea sustainable as an unsinkable air craft carrier that dominates the Black Sea. To achieve that goal Russia must, at a minimum, secure Kherson and Zaporizhzia  oblasts (provinces). Unfortunately for Russia, the war in Ukraine has shown that Crimea is very vulnerable if Odessa oblast is not secure. The strikes on Russia's Black Sea Fleet, and air bases located on Crimea make it crystal clear that securing Crimea means securing Odessa oblast. To this end Russia has not put as much as a dent on Odessa, and it must be said that strategically they are failing here. 

The other areas of strategic necessity are the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics, which are collectively known as the Donbass (region). The Donbass gives Russia strategic depth on its southern flank which is critical to protecting its underbelly. Donetsk Republic contains massive gas and oil fields (mostly untapped as yet) which a Eurasian Russia would want in its back pocket rather than the West's. For all the above reasons, the oblasts that are strategically necessary for Russia are: Crimea; Kherson; Zaporizhzia; Donetsk; and Lugansk. Another city that is very important for Russia to capture is Kharkov/Kharkiv.  Kharkov is Ukraine's largest city and it is located right on the Russian border. As such, Kharkov offers a main supply and logistic hub to any forces (Western included) to invade Russian territory. With the notable exception of Kharkov and Odessa oblasts, Russia has secured, or is securing the remainder of the oblasts. It has therefore been roughly 70% successful strategically. 

The tactical picture, however, has been a nightmare for Russia. Starting with the Russian air force. Recall US heavy bombers carpet bombing the Taliban which paved the way for the Northern Alliance to advance and defeat the Taliban (short term). So, where are the Russian heavy bombers and the carpet bombing of Ukrainian formations? Russia has 125 strategic bombers, but is not carpet bombing Ukrainian forces. That is the number one tactical failure. Why is the Ukrainian air force able to still fly planes and helicopters over Ukrainian air space? Russia has 1533 fighter jets, but is unable to establish air superiority over Ukraine. That is the second tactical failure. Why has Ukraine been able to strike Russian air fields, bases, ammo depots, ships, and important bridges with their missile systems? Russian air defence has at least 410 launchers of the S-400 variety. That doesn't include the S-300, Pantsir, or other systems. It seems here that Russia is reluctant to use the S-400 system in an effort to keep that system cloaked from NATO. However, the failure of Russian air defence systems has been a very serious third tactical failure for Russia.

The failure of the Russian Navy to make much if any impact on the war is notable. The Black Sea Fleet has not been decisive in any way during the conflict, despite the fact Ukraine no longer has a navy. Not to mention the Moskva, the flag ship of the Black Sea fleet, that was destroyed by the failure of the aforementioned Russian air defences in Crimea. A fourth tactical failure for Russia. The list goes on. 

In some ways it is amazing that Russia has been able to make the progress it has. That progress is largely attributable to the arm of the Russian Army that has not failed - the artillery and missile forces. Russian fire power has dominated the battle space. Other units that have distinguished themselves are: airborne forces; Chechen forces; and Spetsnaz forces to name a few.

In a sense, Russia has been the author of its own tactical failures in Ukraine. It's the old "half-pregnant" strategy that dooms every military in history that has tried it. Unfortunately, it looks like political objectives are knee capping military operations. Russia entered this war because, as US President Biden said, "it has no choice". Ukraine was preparing to invade and put down the self-declared independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Either Russia acted or it watched Ukraine take strategic territory back. It's the "how" it reacted militarily that has caused all the issues for the Russian military since. Rather than using an air war, for at least a month as the US did in Iraq, the Russian military attacked with almost no air war first. That can be considered akin to charging trenches without artillery first...

The initial goal was to topple the Ukrainian government in a lightening strike on Kiev. That is what the columns form Belarus and Belgorod areas were meant to do. The massive forces tied up in this operation, political gamble if you like, could and should have been deployed in the south of Ukraine to undermine the rear of the Ukrainian defences in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. This is only common sense militarily. The soft under belly of Ukraine if you will. All bridges on the Dnieper River should have been destroyed by air and missile forces, in the first hours of the war, to cut Ukraine in half and deny reinforcement and resupply to Ukrainian units trapped in the east. These are military goals and are not based on wishy washy political gambles. 

Whether Putin took advice from others or not, the responsibility for the tactical failures of his military rest on his shoulders. Even to this day all the bridges across the Dnieper River remain intact. NATO is able to funnel heavy weapons and ammo to Ukrainian troops in the east almost unfettered. Without specific intelligence it is hard to determine whether or not the Russian Army argued for a more focused, less political armed intervention in Ukraine. It does, however, have the feel of a political gamble gone bad. It does have the feel of a cat and mouse game, similar to the approach of intelligence forces that Putin once belonged to, than steel fist of a military campaign. In a war of annihilation, which this is becoming, political considerations get thrown to the way side - especially when your geo-strategic goals have already been met. To do less is to show your sworn enemy that you are weak, as evidenced by the massive escalation in Western military support for Ukraine. Weakness, or the perception of it, may lead to all the wolves closing in for the kill.

Trump is not Stupid

It's fashionable, even expected, to pour scorn on the current President of the United States - Donald Trump. Of course, he brings It upon himself with his unmatched egotistical meanderings. That being said, there is a definite method behind his madness that eludes most political commentators. What Trump is very deliberately doing, albeit from many different directions, is attacking China's attempt to replace the United States as the preeminent economy with the world's new reserve currency.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, China has taken a different tact in its march to world supremacy - the economic route. It transformed itself from an insulated and agrarian society to essentially a quasi-capitalistic sweat shop. For decades the Chinese people slaved in factories to produce the cheapest possible products for primarily American multi-nationals. America became almost deindustrialized as a result. However, the American services economy grew exponentially as a result of cheap Chinese imports. It looked like a win-win for the US and Chinese economies.

However, the Chinese government saved a substantial amount of the funds it earned at the hands of its citizens, and reinvested the funds in US real estate, stocks, bonds and currencies. It did the same in many other countries in the world as well. It has stocked up on massive quantities of gold to back its national currency. It has created its own version of the World Monetary Fund. To make a long story short, the Chinese used discipline to place themselves in the position to replace both the US dollar and the American economy as the primary economic pillars of the world today.

So great has the Chinese effort been, that it now can challenge the US dollar as the primary economic, political, and even military tool in the world. Just very recently China has concluded deals with Russia and Iran to purchase oil and other goods in their national currencies, excluding the US dollar as a necessity for trade. Even more perilous for the Us is China's ambition to create the same agreements throughout Asia, Africa, South America, and even Europe. In a nutshell, the American Empire is under direct threat by a "communist" country that has beat them at their own game. The solution? Change the game.

Enter Donald Trump. What the majority of the world seems to be missing is that Trump is not some lunatic fanning his ego with schizophrenic economic and military policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, he is directing the disassembling of the world order the United States created, because they are losing their own game. His strategy is clear: isolate China by any means. Whether its fanciful deals to bribe North Korea's regime away from China's wing, threats of war against Venezuela's government, appeasing Russia to try and sway it away from Beijing, the result is the same: isolate China. By isolating China Trump hopes to stop China's ambitious "Belt and Road" project and stymie a Eurasian takeover of the world economy. It's that simple. Trump's speech in Poland in 2017 very clearly reinforces that belief:

"The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert it and destroy it?"

This was just a part of his "Churchillian-type" speech to the people of the West from the capital of Poland in 2017, but it raises some immediate and obvious questions: Is there a threat to the survival of the West that we are unaware of; is it necessary to defend them at "any cost"; and is our civilization under immediate threat of extinction? You could be forgiven for thinking these words were some kind of attempt by Trump to sound Churchillian or Kennedy-like in the depths of the Cold War, but the truth is we aren't in the depth of a Cold War are we? At least not one we are aware of in any case. What we are in is the final stages of American dominance of global affairs using economic tools to foist itself upon the peoples of the world. So if that qualifies as the end of civilization, well, then I suppose we are almost there.

The truth is, like any other politician, Trump is the front man for those in the back ground, or "backroom" as we say here in Canada. It's worth noting that at one point or another his entire cabinet seems to reflect every branch of the US military. It's also worth noting that he threatens countries with maximum consequences, but holds out credence for those that follow his line. So it has been worth watching as he pursues a trade war with China, despite China's attempts to placate him. China now appears to have learned the lesson that they are in fact the strategic target of the US, and as such Trump will go all the way with them. What we in the rest of the world need to understand about Trump is that he is not the "dotard" of the political realm, but rather a very deliberate person doing a very calculated thing, with every intention of taking it all the way. "All the way" means if the economic war does not bring China, and by ricochet Eurasia, to its knees then actual war will follow - "...at any cost?".

Trump is, as they say, dumb as a fox. While the world may be dazzled by his approach, it should not fail to see his aim. Trump, and specifically those behind Trump (read the US "Military Industrial Complex") aim to preserve US hegemony over the world, and to do so they must rip apart the current world order they built and replace it with another. So, belittle and scoff at Trump all you want, but be warned he is most definitely not the court jester you may imagine him to be.  

Is the US a World Dictator?

Is the United States a world dictator? It's a question I've been wrestling with for some time. Being situated next door to the US, but as a separate country, Canadians get a fairly unique view on the matter. We aren't encumbered, or most of us are not, with wrapping ourselves in an American flag. In fact most Canadians are only quite happy to distinguish themselves from our American cousins to the south. Our foreign policy has typically been based on international law. For example we refused to take part in bombing Syria as we were not invited to do so by the Syrian government or the UN. We refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq for the same reasons. However, under our last Prime Minister, Harper, and apparently under our new Prime Minister, that has somewhat changed. My country has become far more vassal-like which is disturbing and upsetting.

Simply put, the United States has been subjecting the rest of the world to its economic and military will since that cement wall came down in Germany. Slowly at first, but since Bush it has been a dam burst. The US has attacked, militarily and especially financially, countries counter to any semblance of international law. It has become readily apparent that the US considers international law whatever it deems it to be - in other words international law is American law. Nations are defined primarily on their ability to assert their own law within their borders. If a country can't do that it loses sovereignty over areas of its country, and it quickly devolves into a state without borders or control - a failed or non-state.

Some examples of very disturbing, unilateral American actions include: unilateral withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile defence treaty with Russia; the imposing of economic sanctions against individuals and countries at will; the promotion of escalating tensions by accepting new NATO members of nations that border Russia; encouraging "regime" change in sovereign countries like Venezuela; needlessly provoking conflicts with China, Iran, and North Korea; unilaterally leaving trade agreements like NAFTA or environmental agreements like the Paris Accord; and the list goes on. All these instances have one thing in common though - belligerence. The US government is strutting about the world like a drunk man in a bar, taking swings and pushing people in a desperate quest for a fight.

I realize this sounds harsh, but how else can you credibly describe it? Let's take a moment. When is the last time North Korea, Iran or Venezuela militarily attacked another country - let alone the US? When is the last time Russia, as Russia, invaded another country - let alone the US? How about China? India just invaded a southern part of China which the two sides claim. China has held back from attacking India even though a part of its country has been occupied. That is restraint. What are the odds that the US was behind the scenes on this one? They have a "interest" in dividing the two Eurasian and BRICS partners. That will come out in due time no doubt. The bottom line is the US has not been seriously threatened by any of these countries. Even the US Generals I've listed to have stated North Korea's threats of retaliation (note "retaliation") are not serious given their vast superiority in fire power. So why the aggressive US stance in the world?

Frankly, the US's problems are not military, but rather financial. Russia, China, and Iran are now trading in their own currencies. In short order those trades will be backed by gold bullion - including trades in oil. As these vast markets trade in their own currencies, and/or gold bullion, the US petro dollar, established by Nixon with Saudi Arabia in the 1970's, will be undermined - thus undermining its position as the world reserve currency. In other words, it will no longer be needed in the fastest growing and most important markets in the world. As its demand falters so goes its value, and US dominance at home and abroad. That is really what you are witnessing play out on the world stage right now. It's a very big game of chess to try and preserve the "American century". The goals are quite obvious: alienate Iran from Iraq; alienate Syria from Iran; alienate India from China; alienate Russia from Europe; and eventually alienate China from all the above. A divide and conquer strategy, by any means, to; stop the Eurasian economic block from forming. If the Eurasian block, or the "Silk Road" as China terms it, does not successfully form the threat to the US dollar from gold backed currencies is removed.

The biggest question in the room is this: do the ends justify the means? Or, what does it benefit a man to win the world, but lose his soul? That's a question a lot of American should be asking themselves. What if the US wins? We have a world subjugated into virtual economic dictatorship by the US houses of Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? Isn't the United States supposed to be the country that was founded on freedom and liberty when it rebelled against... wait fir it ... the dictatorship of the English Crown? Isn't freedom the most defining value most Americans associate with their nationality? Yet, those very same people are prepared to see the rest of the people on this earth denied that same freedom in the name of "American national interest"? That very notion sticks in the back of the throat as a stone too large to swallow.

Yes, the US government is acting as though it were a world dictator. Of that nobody can have any serious doubt. It does so without the concern over the impact it may have on the other nations and their people. It does so without the implied or express consent of those people. It meats out sanctions and military action against nations without regard to the suffering of others. In essence it has become the bully of the world. If you believe that we reap what we sow, then the US may well be in for a rocky road in the near future. Just like those early American patriots that rebelled against an oppressive King, nations capable of fighting back against the thwarting of their sovereign rights will do so. Unfortunately for us all, the result can only be a devastating world war that leaves no part of the earth untouched.

Our Time of Chaos

It's a new year, but it might as well be an extension of the year just passed. A year that saw the beginnings of a cataclysmic split between the global elites and the citizens of this earth. A movement of defiance. A global movement of defiance that is. In other words, a revolution. Sounds extreme I realize, but sit back and absorb what has taken place and where it must all lead.

Think of the world today as a "reaction". For every action their is a reaction as the old saying goes. What is the world of today reacting to? Well that's evident enough - the world of yesterday. Perhaps a better word is "movement" rather than "world". The movement of yesterday was a movement promising one world government, or as Bush senior out it "a new world order". Bush junior clarified it when he boldly stated: " you're either with us or against us". A force that could not be interrupted or delayed. A manifest destiny. A new world order according to, and ruled by, the United States and to a much lesser extent other worldly allies.

In many respects the movement really took its first bold baby steps with the Canada - US Free Trade Agreement signed by US president Ronald Reagan and his Canadian counterpart Brian Mulroney. The goal was to reduce and/or eliminate restrictions on capitalism. The fact that such actions would cause significant dislocation in some areas within each country were for the most part ignored. The truth is that at that time the countries economies were very closely tied so that upheaval was never that much of a threat, but then Mexico jumped in. Then China jumped in. And so it goes. The point is that the fat cat societies of the world, and their populations, had become very accustomed to a certain way of life and certain comforts. Comforts that the rest of the world, the vast majority, could never dream of attaining. World free trade agreements offered them that hope.

What Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, and Obama offered was the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. A transfer of wealth from the old world to the underdeveloped world. In fact, these great icons of capitalism acted as the greatest socialists of all time. Socialism is after all a transfer of wealth from those that have it to those that don't. The result was massive imports of cheap goods from these underdeveloped countries that swamped and drowned the industrial bases of the first world. All of which was perfectly foreseeable, and all of which served a purpose - a one world economy or new world order. I say "economy" because integrated economies require integrated policies and standards, which necessarily causes integration, which makes political segregation unnecessary and even unhelpful. The economics will dictate the politics in other words.

Of course all this is premised on the idea that people are really not that different. That nationalities are artificial. That languages are unimportant. That cultures are racist incumbrancers to unity. Essentially, human beings are as interchangeable as parts on your car, and it really doesn't matter where they are made. They will do as they are programmed to do. This is where the fallacy of the one world economy, one world government, new world order fails the test of history and human nature, and that failure is the "reaction" we are beginning to experience today.

The truth, despite what you hear daily on your television, is that economics was meant to serve mankind - not the other way around. The human being is the central figure in our existence - not the dollar. Economic was only ever meant to do one thing, and that was to regulate consumption of resources. Obviously no world could survive for any period of time if every person just took as much as they wanted from it. There is only so much food, so much water, so much shelter, etc. Putting a price on those resources curbed their consumption - rationed them if you will. It's been that way since the beginning of time in one form or another. So economic models, in today's case capitalism, were a means to an end. Today the world is in a state where the economic model has become the end and human beings have become the means. Granted it has been that way for some time - which has caused such things as communist revolutions, etc. However, people always had their religion, customs, cultures and nationalities to take comfort in. To insulate themselves with. The new world order began to strip those last vestiges of dignity and security from people - and they rebelled. That is today.

Where there is rebellion there is chaos before there is resolution. In fact chaos is the first result of any revolutionary movement. Or to put it less "radically", chaos is the natural result of the "reaction" to the elite's push to global governance and control. 2016 saw the first few examples: Brexit; the rise of Russia and China; and of course the now infamous Trump win in the US. In the case of Brexit and Trump the "elite or establishment" campaigned viciously to stop both movements. All the polls predicted the movements would fail. The mainstream media predicted they would fail. They were all wrong. The people voted to "get their countries back". They voted for a return to the days before Reagan started signing free trade agreements. They wanted control of their economic, political, and sovereign institutions back. They rebelled against what the new world order had told them was just and right. They placed the world onto the path of the unknown. The vortex of chaos.

There can only be one result of this "reaction" or "revolt" if you will. The result can only be war. Not a war of hearts and minds, because it appears that war has been lost by the one world types, but a war of retribution. In other words, the establishment will attempt to cause significant retribution on the people of the world to show us the "error of our ways". I expect that war to take the form of serious economic consequences including stock market and currency collapses. I also expect part of the establishments retribution to include real war - unfortunately. Trump has insinuated a desire to take on Iran  and China which could be helped along by the establishment. Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself. If Trump is viewed by Americans as the leader of the anti-establishment movement then it seems logical they would do everything they can to give him all the rope necessary. That will include support in the US Houses for aggressive actions internationally which will have devastating results, and more importantly to them prove to people that this revolt is unwise.

Because none of us has a crystal ball we can't predict exactly how it will all play out. We look around us at the world today, and instinctively we know things are very wrong. We sense that the world is heading to a very dark place. Yet, we're not sure exactly where that place is or how dark it is. That is the chaos. The time just before the storm when the winds are just beginning to pick up and the skies are clouding over, but its destructive result isn't yet known or experienced. Our time of chaos.

Trump - Back to the Future

The year was 1987, and then US President Reagan put the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement before the US Congress for ratification - almost 30 years ago now. It was an agreement that didn't involve Mexico and the ramifications for the US were minimal at best. If anything, it would be and was the Canadian economy that had to rationalize itself to the mightier economy down south. However, on Jan 1, 1994 the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, or as Donald Trump would say: "the worst trade agreement in the history of the world." Truth is that NAFTA was only the worst trade agreement for the US, because it involved a more "productive" economy in Mexico. The US then found itself rationalizing its economy to Mexico's. Specifically, the auto industry fled to Mexico along with its jobs. China added to the misery with its mass importation of goods to the US, which made the corporate masters at the New York stock exchange happy, but further crucified the US internal economy.

Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.

Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.

However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's finance system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.

Trump now plans to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and  that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.

Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.

Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.

Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will  be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is.  This alone raises some serious judgement issues.

There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent  surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.

Trump - Back to the Future

The year was 1987, and then US President Reagan put the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement before the US Congress for ratification - almost 30 years ago now. It was an agreement that didn't involve Mexico and the ramifications for the US were minimal at best. If anything, it would be and was the Canadian economy that had to rationalize itself to the mightier economy down south. However, on Jan 1, 1994 the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, or as Donald Trump would say: "the worst trade agreement in the history of the world." Truth is that NAFTA was only the worst trade agreement for the US, because it involved a more "productive" economy in Mexico. The US then found itself rationalizing its economy to Mexico's. Specifically, the auto industry fled to Mexico along with its jobs. China added to the misery with its mass importation of goods to the US, which made the corporate masters at the New York stock exchange happy, but further crucified the US internal economy.

Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.

Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.

However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's fiancé system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.

Now, in main stream, Trump's plan is to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and  that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.

Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.

Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.

Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will  be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is.  This alone raises some serious judgement issues.

There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent  surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.  

After ISIS.

As the Syrian army, with support from Hezbollah and Russia crushes ISIS in Aleppo,  and as the Iraqi Army with support from Shite Militias and the US squeezes ISIS in Mosul, the next step becomes the big question. Will the US respect the wishes of the Syrian government and leave the Syria battle to its government and the Russian military, or will the US ignore the sovereign rights of the Syrian government and push to install a Kurdistan from North Eastern Syria and North Western Iraq? That is really the $1 million question. Will things escalate between Russia and the US on this battlefield or will there be a recognition of traditional spheres of influence.

Traditionally and historically, Turkey has done everything within its power to thwart a Kurdish state. Whether it be decades long intelligence/military operations against the Kurds within Turkey itself, or whether it be actual uninvited military incursions into Syria and/or Iraq to attack Kurdish fighting elements, the Turkish position has always been against the development of any Kurdish state. Given that the Kurds are claiming a good portion of South Eastern Turkey as part of the new Kurdistan one can somewhat understand the Turkish policy toward the Kurds. However, the result has been ongoing turmoil within the region for decades.

As it stands now the main force of the Syrian army, and allies, are focused around the Aleppo area in a time consuming fight in that city. The Turkish army has invaded and driven south toward the Al Raqqa area, although not to the city itself. Instead the Turks have pivoted east to take on the Kurds and drive them to at least behind the Euphrates River that runs through central Syria. At first the US had agreed to the Kurds withdrawing, but that seems to have changed and the Kurds are standing their ground. Meantime, the bulk of Iraqi forces are surrounding Mosul from three sides, but thus far leaving the western side of the city relatively open - which could allow the ISIS elements and others in the city to retreat westward to Syria. Curiously, a large contingent of Shite militia are attempting to cut off that exit by flanking Mosul, however Turkey has since warned them not to take the strategic city between Mosul and Al Raqqa that would cut off the ISIS retreat. All very complicated.

Bottom line is that within three months both Mosul and Aleppo will be liberated from ISIS and other Islamic forces. The race will then be on to take ISIS's capital Raqqa. Currently the Kurds, with their American allies, are closer than anyone else - other than the Turks. And that brings the Turkish role to the forefront. First point: Turkey is only in Syria because Russia allowed it to be so. Shortly after Turkey reconciled with Russia that country's army militarily intervened from the north, and secured its border with Syria. That effectively sealed any chance ISIS could resupply or sell oil to the north without Turkey's approval, and if Turkey approved such an action its relationship with Russia would be over before it started. So Russia's plan for Turkey was to seal the border first. Mission accomplished. In return, Turkey got the green light to go after the Kurds from Russia, but not the US.

Phase two, which hasn't happened just yet, will be Turkey sweeping into Raqqa before the Kurds and the US can. The Syrian army is out of position to move on Raqqa before anyone else does, because they are still fighting to the south along the Lebanon border. They must also retake Dayr az Zawr located strategically south of Raqqa and on the wrong side of the Euphrates River for anything other than a cross river assault - which would involve massive casualties and every chance of a serious defeat. So bank on it that Russia has already got Turkey to take on Raqqa. It suits both of their purposes.

Once that battle takes place, and the remnants of ISIS are trapped on the Syrian-Iraqi border, the focus turns to restoring the territorial integrity of not just Syria, but also Iraq. The area is rich in oil reserves - a wealth that both countries will need to rebuild their war-torn countries. However, American oil companies have strong ties and contracts with the Kurds in northern Iraq,  and are likely expecting the same kind of concessions in north eastern Syria. It is at this point in the conflict when push will come to shove. Russia will have no choice to back the Syrian military in recovering all their territory, and that means driving the Kurds from all of Syria. That will also involve driving all the Americans out of Syria to. Considering the US has opened an air force base in north east Syria, in Kurdish controlled territory, it is easy to see how this battle will escalate. Likely, the only factor that could stop an actual military confrontation between the US and Russia in eastern Syria would be the election of Donald Trump. He has pledged to work with Russia on destroying ISIS and my analysis of him is that he's a deal maker that would seed Syria because the it is Russia's sphere of influence. That is the only action that could stop a direct escalation between Russia and the US.

In case you haven't heard, Russia has mobilized its sole aircraft carrier, along with warships and submarines to the coast of Syria. It is also expanding the facilities of its Syrian air base. The Chinese have also declared they are prepared to intervene militarily on Syria's side. What we are witnessing right now is not the Russians preparing for immanent action in Syria. They are instead prepositioning resources for a much larger battle with the US and its allies. The Americans are doing the same thing by position naval forces off the coast near Syria, and massively reinforcing the air base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If Trump does not win the US Presidential election, and reverse the show down in Syria, then these prepositioned forces will engage each other. That's why they're there. They're not there to take on rebels, or ISIS or Hezbollah, or Kurds or the Syrian army.

It has to be said that a lot rides on the result of that politicians gone wild election to the south of our country. On the one hand a deal maker who is not opposed to pulling the US back from the "policeman of the world" self-appointed status it has generally abused for the last two decades. He may be a chauvinistic you know what, but he may not be a blood thirsty imperialist - so that's ok by me if the choice comes down to it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been shown to be an instrument of the big corporations that are driving America's foreign policy, and also driving it to placing it and the rest of us in the world in mortal danger. So, my fingers and toes are crossed that the egotistical chauvinist isolationist wins in a few days from now, and not the corrupt insider doing the bidding of those that not only do not respect humanity, but in fact see it as a mere inconvenience in a quest to have the world as they see it.

Steps from Armageddon

Unfortunately, it now appears the world is heading to that long prophesized war in the Middle East that we have all feared - the battle of Armageddon. The Bible describes it as a massive war in the Middle East where millions of soldiers are consumed. It begins with Russia coming out of communism (Godlessness) and doing God's bidding by taking on the forces of the Eagle (the US). It predicts that Russia will defeat the combined might of the US at the battle of Armageddon, including the Israeli army, and then there will be a large earthquake which will consume the Russian forces there. Forgive me if the biblical interpretations aren't 100%, but you get the idea.

As a young fellow I used to wonder how the "Bear" (Russia) could possibly end up in the Middle East with massive armies. It didn't seem to make sense, However, today, we are mere moments from that exact circumstance. There is no denying it any further.

In my opinion the war in Syria and Ukraine and elsewhere around the globe has to do with one thing, and one thing only - the US dollar. Simplistic as that may sound, it has been obvious as the nose on your face that China and Russia have managed to undermine American world economic dominance. The replacing of the US dollar with the Chinese Yuan, or a Yuan backed world currency, has been an ongoing issue since at least 2010 when it was first publicly advocated at the Davos world economic forum in Switzerland. China's moves since then have shown a steady path toward that goal. The Eurasian economic, and in many ways military bloc, have developed to the strategic level. The Chinese and Russians are using their reserves of US dollars to purchase hard assets (ie: Chicago Stock Exchange, Canadian tar sands, etc), and more importantly to subsidize the economic consequences of their actions. For example, while the West applied massive sanctions against Russia for the Ukraine situation, Russia simply turned to China for financial backing. The Chinese used their US reserves for the purpose. And so it goes.

The truth of the matter is this: the West has lost the economic war. It's over. It has been for awhile. The West is simply "dog paddling". Signs of this are: negative interest rates by Western central banks; zero or near zero inflation rates and economic growth; and the inability of traditional stimuli to fire up economies. It's over. We simply sit on the very cusp of complete economic collapse. The same applies to the Eurasian economies, except they are far less indebted than we are (Russia's government debt to GDP ratio is 16%, Canada is 86.51 %, the US 102.98%)  That part of the war is lost. The US/Saudi deal of the 1970's that allowed the US dollar to replace gold as the reserve currency is also undone. Saudi has been made redundant by technology for oil recovery, and by Russian and American production. In other words, the American cartel on oil has been irreversibly broken.

So all this leads us to today. One economically decaying super power facing the inevitable consequences of its own economic lack of discipline facing the rising contenders. The battlefield is switching to arms from dollars. The battlefields are the Middle East and the Pacific Rim. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, one a NATO ally, the other a US oil ally, are mere hours from starting the events that will lead to the battle that "consumes millions". A Turkish invasion of northern Syria is guaranteed. Today Saudi Arabia transferred fighter jets to Turkey to assist. That alliance also points to the almost certain invasion of southern Iraq by Saudi Arabia. That in turn will lead to the direct intervention of Iran against Saudi. If you ever watched Harry Potter, this is the real game of "Wizard's Chess". The Americans will come with their full military might to intervene (if you believe the Bible - which I do). Israel will for the most part stay pat and watch it unfold. However, even Israel will be turned on once the Americans have been defeated (if you believe the Bible - which I do).

The only question really left in my mind is: " Is this a bad thing, or is this simply God's will?". If it's God's will, and the Bible certainly says it is, then it's not a bad thing. Myself, I kind of hoped that humanity could rise above this kind of result, but that simply doesn't appear to be the case.

On the March to World War III

As hard as it is to believe, and as hard as it is to comprehend, we are quickly moving toward World War III. It's strange in a way that the causes and signs of the impending war are wrapped like an onion - in many layers. This post is dedicated to unwrapping some of those layers, and giving people a point of reference for what's happening to their world before their very eyes.

1.  Economic Dominance equals Power.

Since the mid 1970's the US has dominated world power when it struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to have all world oil transactions conducted in US dollars. That caused currencies around the world to be valued against the US dollar rather than the previous gold standard. In recent decades the Russians and Chinese have positioned themselves to challenge Saudi's oil domination for exports and American domination in manufacturing and commerce. In 2010 the Russians and Chinese began aggressively pushing for a new world reserve currency that better reflected the strength of the world's economies (specifically the amount of debt countries carried).

After decades of  a cheap manufacturing/labour policy in China, the US had become a "fat cat" living on the glories of past economic discipline. Its national debt, much of it held by China, has come as a result of capitalism's weakest flank - the race to the bottom of the "lowest possible price". US corporations built their profits on it over the last 25 years, and the Chinese were only too happy to accommodate American corporations greed. China has now turned those profits, held in US dollars (in the trillions) into a weapon, or what is commonly referred to as the "Chinese Nuke". While maneuvering to have their Yuan installed as the world reserve currency, and thereby overtaking the US in economic and political dominance in the world, China has held the threat of mass de-dollarization , and a fire sale of US debt, over the Americans head.  In essence, the Chinese have placed the US, and the rest of the Western world in checkmate using capitalism - which is ironic considering it remains a communist country.

That leaves the Western world with two choices: 1. Accept that China and Russia have beaten them at their own game, and turn over world economic and political power; or 2. Engage China and Russia with the only possible advantage they still have - armed force.

2. Bi-Polar World

As a key part of its strategy to deny the US sole world power status, China and Russia have focused a great deal of their wealth on creating the "BRIC Alliance" or "Eurasia"(which I prefer). The core partners in this alliance are Russia, China, India and Iran. The lesser partners are Iraq, Syria, Cuba, South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil. Together they reflect the most demographically prolific regions in the world, which means they have the greatest markets to consume products, which further means that denying those markets to the West is fatal to Western trading and therefore quality of life and power. Having these regions trade together without the US dollar also necessarily relegates the US dollar to second place behind the Chines Yuan. The result is a bi-polar world. Two massive economies separated from each other - one built to grown and thrive on inter-trade and one destined to die from debt and lack of markets to support that debt.

A key developing feature of this new trading reality is military cooperation. Key to this is the gravitation of India into the Eurasian military sphere. Not only is Russia exporting its latest technology to China, India, and other Eurasian partners, but constant large scale military exercises between these countries have proliferated over the last few years. The relationships, both military and economic, now intertwine the Eurasian Community, and leave no doubt that their national interests lay with each other - not the West.


3. Might is Right.

The US is not reacting well to losing its international "top-dog" status. In fact, it has laid down the gauntlet - a bi-polar world is unacceptable. As it is incapable of attacking the Eurasian alliance financially, as to do so would immediately result in economic chaos for the West, it has chosen a military path in what can only be seen as a large scale, and very dangerous game of chicken. Notable challenges to Russia have included sponsored revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and to some extent former Soviet Republics on Russia's southern borders. Notable challenges to China have come in the form of economic warfare in Africa, and direct military and diplomatic measures in the South China Sea, and to a lesser extent South Korea. A large scale, but dubious economic challenge aimed at China is of course the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP) which excludes China, and is obviously intended to entice its neighbors toward the rewards of importing and trading with the American market.

Currently the epicenter of the "might will make right doctrine" is being played out in Syria, Iraq, and to a lesser extent Yemen. An escalating game of chess there is leading the "two solitudes" toward actual war. In a sense, it's a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - between Sunni and Shia. In reality, it's the purposeful use of centuries old hatreds between the two, with the goal of forcing either Eurasia or the West to accept the other's view of a "Brand New World Order". To that end, everyone is all in. Russia, despite having attempted to keep the conflict between the West and Eurasia on economic grounds (as its military is in rebuild mode with a finish date of 2020), has moved strategic and tactical forces into Syria. It has also promised to do the same for Iraq should the Iraqi government request it.

Turkey, a NATO partner, has shot down one Russian bomber, allowed ISIS forces to use its territory to conduct a "regime change war" against Syria, and now just days ago invaded Northern Iraq with a combat team of tans and infantry. According to the Iraqi government, the US has informed it that up to 90,000 Saudi troops and 10,000 US troops will be entering Iraq to "fight terrorists". In reality, both Saudi and the US have been accused of aiding, directly and/or indirectly, ISIS and other groups to overthrow the Shia governments of Iraq and Syria. Iran, the primary Shia power in the area, is already fighting in Syria, and would immediately enter Iraq, likely at the request of the Iraqi government, to fight any Saudi invasion of Iraqi territory.

In summary, it's quite easy to see where all this is leading - first the proxy powers and then the main powers. Neither side will blink. The die has been cast by both.

4. The Fall Out.

The result of the escalation we've seen is very predictable on the Middle East. Given the massive military buildup of Iranian and Saudi forces, we can expect so see a very quick and very deadly battle between the two. A battle played out from Iran to Egypt involving millions of troops, massive armour, and more importantly missile forces. While Saudi has the clear advantage in air forces, Iran has a clear advantage in missile technology to deal with them, so a land forces/ conventional war like early World War II is the likely result. In such a case, millions of fatalities can be expected. That is without the direct intervention of any super powers.

However, with Russia already in theater in Syria, and American bases scattered throughout the region, it would be naive to believe they would not be engaged. The clear advantage in such a scenario is to the Russians. Russia is closer to the area, so deployment of conventional forces there is much easier, and less fraught with intervention, than the US moving forces across the Atlantic or Pacific in large numbers. Also, in such a scenario, the US would have to deal with China on a stand alone basis in the Pacific area. Not an easy task considering China's conventional and strategic forces.

Then there is the "home front factor". In such a scenario Western Europe is bound to be drawn in immediately against Russia. It is very, very doubtful that western civilian populations have any stomach for war against the Russian people - no matter the sell to support it. Having lost untold millions in recent memory to large scale war, and the destruction of their countries, most Europeans are likely to rise up against such a proposition. Equally volatile is the American population. Notoriously inward looking, most Americans are consumed with their own country and have no stomach for foreign wars or any kind that involve casualties - let alone a war that would cause mass casualties in the US itself.

So, while the powers to be in the West maneuver toward world war, it is highly doubtful the population would support such an action. Conversely, the Chinese in particular have no such issues. The financial collapse of 2008 required 200 million Chines be sent back to their villages from urban centres in China, without so much as a peep. Such an action in the Western world would have resulted in revolt. So, that is the playing field. In all scenarios, the West can not win the battle it is formulating. It is unlikely that anyone would win from such a war, but it is certain that if there would be a victor that it will not be the US or the West.

5. What Should Happen.

In the ideal world, which could be this one, the West ought to admit economic defeat and take its place in a new bi-polar world. The rules of the game were set by the West, and the loss of that game ought to be accepted by the West. To change the rules to suit your own purpose simply destroys not just your credibility, but also that of the "world system" itself. History has ebbs and flows. Empires rise and fall. Economic systems collapse and are rebuilt. We know all of this from a simple study of our own recent history. It is the nature of the beast. To fight that result as if somehow your empire is more noble than any other of the past is arrogance beyond the pale.

The rationing of whatever resources the world has that we feel the need to consume has always been dictated by the efficient production and consumption of those resources - whatever the system. If the Chinese, Russian, Indian, etc countries are now in a stronger position to carry forward with that leadership in consumption, well, that's just natural selection really. They've shown discipline in consumption while we have not.

In the end, the only way to avoid what is playing itself out now in the world, the US and the West in general needs to accept that the Eurasian countries have worked their way up to likely dominate world trade and to some extent power. Perhaps it is a chance for all of us to renegotiate, or rediscover, the respect for sovereign nations and people that has been woefully discarded. Would that not make for a much better world for all of us? I believe it would. We don't need a Walmart to survive or be fulfilled.We do however need this planet.  



  

ISIS - Frankenstein or Bait?

ISIS, the Sunni Islamic militant force, is the birth child of a marriage between Saudi Arabia's regional ambition and the United States' geo-strategic interests. It's really that simple. It's ramifications are not quite so simple.

The Americans have always been aware that having Sunnis in charge of a country keeps the lid on things - to their benefit. It's been an ongoing theme now for almost 80 years. Saudi Arabia is the "world headquarters" for the Sunni sect. It has the strategic alliance with the US. It has the money because of that alliance, and it uses the money to arm itself and its Sunni allies. The same is true for Iran - with the exception of who is in charge since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 1990's. There is a common thread throughout this history. It cannot seriously be denied. It's obvious. The United States lies behind Saudi Arabia, and American controlled Sunni governments are kept in power to preserve that alliance.

In recent times, there are two classic examples of Sunni leaders that were brought down by US military power at the behest of Saudi Arabia - Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Both challenged Saudi Arabia's control of the Middle East, and both were overthrown with the decisive assistance, or actual military intervention of the US. Each publicly stated the US would never overthrow them, because to do so would mean Al Qaeda would take over. Both were wrong. It begs the question, why were both so convinced that the US would not overthrow them and let Al Qaeda, a Sunni militant movement, take over?

The answer lies in US "strategic interests", not just in the Middle East, but beyond. ISIS, the new version of Al Qaeda, is challenging for control of Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. In Yemen, ISIS is fighting the Shia Houthi, who have overthrown the Saudi-supported Sunni leader there. In Iraq and Syria, ISIS is aiming for full control of both countries, and the overthrow of their Shia leadership. ISIS is even attempting to destabilize Hezbollah (Shia) in Lebanon, and challenge Sunni Hamas over control in the Gaza strip. In effect and reality, ISIS is the foreign legion of Saudi Arabia and therefore the US.

Now, people will say that ISIS is a threat to the West. That simply is not true. ISIS is a threat to Shia governments in the Middle East, and too-moderate Sunni governments, but has no chance of harming Western civilization. Some will sight the deaths in Canada and Europe at the hands of ISIS as proof that our civilization is under threat, and draconian laws are necessary to stop them. That simply is not true. In fact, all ISIS did was activate two people, in the case of France three, to conduct targeted hits in Western countries that caused fury - but no national damage. It was not there, then it was there, and now it is not. A bogey man so too speak. Enough of a scare that people would get behind their military intervening in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Not enough to do any sort of damage whatsoever to the security of these Western countries. A slight of hand if you will.

It challenges the mind to think that the combined air might of Western countries could not reduce ISIS in Syria and Iraq into dust within a few weeks at most. It did so when ISIS went rogue and tried to take Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq's north. ISIS was almost immediately stopped dead in its tracks. Of course, the Kurdish lands in northern Iraq have become almost a US protectorate - and US oil company haven. But, in the rest of Iraq, it seems the air campaign has almost no effect on ISIS operations.

Now, just yesterday the major Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to ISIS. And, today, thousands of Shia militia men are gathering to try and take it back. Ramadi is important for several reasons. Firstly, it is very close to Baghdad and provides a major base of operations for ISIS to attack Baghdad itself. Secondly, it is a major psychological blow to Iraq's Shia government and its people. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it is a direct threat to Iran. It is a threat that Iran will no longer be able to ignore. Hence, Iran's Minister of Defence arrived in Baghdad today for "talks". Iran's allies in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iraq are being seriously threatened by ISIS, on behalf of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the US. Its back is now close to being up against the wall. If it fails to militarily intervene in Iraq decisively, and early enough, it risks having the ISIS hordes on its own border. If it does intervene now it risks a counter military intervention by Saudi Arabia in Iraq. It's all in the calculation. Unfortunately for the world, it appears now the calculations are pointing toward war with Iraq being the primary battleground.

So, is ISIS a Frankenstein created by Saudi Arabia, out of control, and allowed by the US, or is it bait to lure Iran into a decisive war and its ultimate defeat. One thing is certain, it's not both. ISIS is not a Frankenstein that once created has left the control of its master, and is rampaging across the Middle East out of control. No. ISIS is a tool to undermine Shia influence in the Middle East. To destroy it. To establish once and for all that Sunnis are to dominate power over all the Middle East, and especially the Shia. It's an ancient battle of the two Islamic sects. Each considers the other heretics. Each believes heretics must die. ISIS is a weapon. A weapon of mass destruction. An invitation to much greater mass destruction on a regional level, and then perhaps a global level. ISIS is bait to lure Iran into war, and then presumably Russia, China, India, etc. ISIS is also a weapon to lure the US into a war against Iran in the "defence" of Saudi Arabia. It's a playbook if you will for a world war.  ISIS is a weapon in the hands of men that don't want peace or stability in the world. In that way, ISIS is a menace to all of us.

  

Canada's New Moth to Flame Foreign Policy

The Conservative government in Ottawa is dragging the Canadian people into the fire that is the geo-strategic war between the United States and Eurasia. It is not a place that Canadian have traditionally wanted to be in, nor is it a place they want to be in now - yet it's happening.

The first step in the march toward becoming America's "little brother", rather than "cousin", came during the initial Ukrainian conflict with the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Prime Minister Harper quickly jumped in on the side of the never elected, but mutinously in-placed "Maiden" government. A collection of protest groups, organized it is allegedly by western governments, and dominated by neo-Nazi groups like "Aydar", "Right Sector", and the like. Real like torch burning, swastika waving neo-Nazi's. The kind of people that would make my father spin in his grave having spent five years of his youth fighting this kind of scum. He took pride in playing a part to wiping them out. And now, so many years later, like a dormant virus the neo-Nazi's reemerge in Ukraine.

Next, we as a country intervene, albeit in a small way, in the conflict in Syria. Or, loosely defined as the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia being played out in Syria. Some will jump in and say wait a minute, we started by bombing ISIS in Iraq, and just now moved that into Syria. True enough, but the fire started in Syria, and it's now returned. The bottom line for Canada is why are we intervening with even one singular soldier in this conflict? Saudi Arabia is no different than ISIS. The major difference between the two is Saudi Arabia uses swords to cut off the heads or limbs of those it condemns of breaching the Koran, while ISIS uses knives. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. The west rightly condemns ISIS for it's brutal implementation of  ultra-orthodox Islamic law, but doesn't utter a singular word against Saudi Arabia for the exact same crimes. Geo-strategic selective vision at it's worst.

Back to our new "Evil Empire Russia" foreign policy. All things Russian are now viewed as all things repugnant - including to our great shame, the boycotting of the Russian celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory Day against the Nazis. Despite being elected by the Russian people with double the plurality that our own Prime Minister has ever received in a decade of his governance, we refer to the Russian President now as the head of a mafia, a Godfather of the Russian Mafia, a murderer of the media, a controlling evil manipulator of his own people and the world, etc. We demonize the man. He is the new enemy, therefore he must lose all "humanness". Meanwhile, the government of Canada ignores the massive list of war crimes documented and committed against the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as if somehow it never happened. It's bizarre. The Ukraine army leveled entire villages, towns, and relentlessly shelled and even fired ballistic missiles, into the major cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were slaughtered by modern, high explosive munitions. Tens of thousands were maimed for life. Hundreds of thousands have been left homeless and as refugees. Their crime? Wanting to get the hell out of Ukraine with their land. Also known as self-determination - a right guaranteed under the UN Charter.

Yet, despite the ugly, brutal truth of the Ukraine government's slaughter of its "own" people in the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk over the last year or so, the Canadian government now sees fit to send "trainers" to Ukraine to help retrain an army that lost horribly at the hands of its "own" people. Not to say they didn't have some help along the way, but none the less, our government is going to assist in the rebuilding of the Ukraine army. An army guilty of horrendous war crimes. That means the Canadian people are assisting as well, as long as we remain silent on the issue.

Prime Minister Harper seems to be a guy that can't help being that Cold War leader he always wanted to be, but was born too late for. It's just hard to see it any other way. We stayed out of Iraq, because we had a Prime Minister who understood Canadians don't want to follow the US from one war to another. We're not into it. We like our wars on ice. We don't support dictators, no matter which geo-strategic side they're on. We shake our collective heads at the American government as it goes around the world trying to be "world cop". Live and let live in peace, for all. That is our policy. That is our wish. Now, that is our dream. Canada has lost its way. It's role as honest broker in the Middle East, which we always cherished, has been reduced to our just recently retired Foreign Minister being egged in a Palestinian refugee camp. We've been snubbed at the UN from Security Council roles. We have lost any appearance of being an honest broker for disputes between Eurasia and the US. In a word, we have lost "respect". With that loss of respect we have lost the trust of those who we now stand opposed to. We no longer enjoy the position that Pearson and others engineered for us on the world stage. We no longer stand for the "right". Now, like a moth lured excitedly to the flame, we jump at every opportunity to prove we are anything but a friend of peace.

Sorry to the world. It's a government, not a people.



 

Operation Megiddo

Looking at the world today, it's not hard to see the ancient Biblical predictions of the final great battle in the Valley of Megiddo (Northern Israel) taking shape.In fact, it's quite obvious to even the casual observer of international politics, let alone serious students of the geo-strategic. On the one hand, it's kind of scary we are heading down this path. On the other hand, if you believe in the Bible, it's all apart of God's plan, and to judge it any other way is to put yourself before God. In both instances, we are all heading toward that date with destiny  - so it appears.

Watching the rise of China, the demonetization of Russia, the arming and slaughter within the Arab countries, the internal maneuvering of the United States, and the placement of profit over humanity on a world-wide scale, one can only conclude that all these things must come to a central boiling point. For every action there is a reaction, and sooner or later those reactions are going to culminate in a blood letting. I suppose, in that way, we as a species are pretty predictable, and therefore Revelation, as written in the Bible, is a common sense result of a humanity consumed with itself. In other words we are authors of our own demise. Unable to detach ourselves from the superficial. Seemingly unable to restrain ourselves in a disciplined way from consuming every resource, every beautiful thing on the planet we inherited. Acting as it were as children without a parent to constrain us.

Wherever we look in the world today, our humanity is being sacrificed on the alters of self-serving arrogance. Africa is being torn apart by disease, starvation, corruption, and war. All of which is fully within the reach of humanity to stop - and all of which has not been stopped. The most militarily powerful countries in the world are mobilizing their armies, and those of their proxies. Our TV scenes are full of images of children, women and men being killed by military actions all over the world. Whether it be Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq, Libya, or any other place the story remains the same - detachment. It's somewhere else, who cares. It's not our problem. It's off to Walmart we go. It seems as if the collective human spirit, that force that can do almost anything, has chosen to cocoon in self-interest while the forces of those driving us to the Valley of Megiddo march on. In a sense, humanity seems resigned to sacrifice itself for pleasure, comfort and contentment.

Watching this unfold in slow motion is a bit of a tribulation in itself. Coming to the realization that governments like the United States are intent on either controlling the world, or destroying it if that's not possible, is troubling.  Seeing countries like China and Russia respond in like measure is equally troubling. On the one hand there is the argument that their actions are in self-defence against a power intent on consuming or controlling them. On the other hand there is the lesson Jesus taught us, which is to turn the other cheek. To love your enemy. I suppose if everyone followed Jesus' teachings we wouldn't have this march toward Megiddo. There would be no conflict. It takes two to tango, and if one keeps turning the other cheek then the other must eventually resign itself to peace. But, apparently, only the perfect man was able to achieve that standard, and the rest of us are that much less - to our detriment.

With a full blown war in the Middle East now just on the horizon, and the posturing of primarily American forces in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, we stand on the cusp of the Valley of Megiddo. We can see it from here clearly - if we turn our head in that direction. But can we? We seem consumed with self-righteousness. We have allowed ourselves to become the judge, jury and executioner of our fellow man. We are not our brother's keeper. We lean more toward Cain. We cannot see the goodness each of us possess. Whether it be the man with long hair, beard and black pajamas in Syria or Iraq, the battered soldiers on either side in Ukraine, the determination and discipline of a Chinese or North Korean soldier, the defensive spirit of the Israeli volunteer army, the pride in the step of the Russian soldier, or the sincerity of an American with fighting spirit. We can't honour, and respect our difference. We can't bring ourselves to see that all people have qualities that in their own way are beautiful. Instead, we turn a blind eye to those qualities in our quest to be right. Not righteous, but self-righteous. Sitting in judgement. Consumed with purpose. Even when we instinctively know that purpose leads us to the Valley of Megiddo.



 

The Bush Doctrine and Today

After the 911 attacks on the US, then President Bush declared the right to preemptive military strikes against countries before they actually committed an aggression against the United States. At the time, and until this day, very little attention has been paid to the "Bush Doctrine" announced back in those panicky days. Yet, those simple words have transformed the world. Diplomacy died on the vine of National Interest. International law became passe. So it was then with the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is now almost everywhere in the world.

The most recent case, unfolding as I write, is the military blockading, bombing and soon to be invasion of Yemen. Ditto for Canada's newly announced policy of bombing within Syria. It was only a matter of months ago the federal government stated it would not send war planes into Syria without either a UN mandate, or an invitation from the Syrian government. Now, we will, and the rationale is section 51 of the UN Charter, and the declaration that Syria is either unable or unwilling to control the conflict within its own borders. That somehow, by bombing ISIS in Syria is a key to Canadian self-defence. It's true that ISIS inspired lone wolves have committed two acts of terror on Canadian soil resulting in two innocent deaths. It's also true that many hundreds more die or are maimed in car accidents daily in Canada. Somehow the idea that little black pajama men with daggers will swim to Canada enmasse to decapitate citizens is, well, just foolish. Yet, it's all possible under the Bush Doctrine. The doctrine of punch first, ask questions later.

Now a similar, and predictable confrontation is playing out just south of the Suez Canal in Yemen - for the moment. As Iran and Saudi Arabia play out their mutual hatred of each other on a regional basis, the Bush Doctrine unfolds yet again. Saudi claims to perceive an urgent need to restore to power a Sunni president, as the legitimately elected head of Yemen. Saudi is not exactly known for its zeal for democracy. What Saudi is known for is a draconian, barbaric oil state, that is ruled by one family - no elections.. no descent. A ruthless, dark place where no democratic fruit is allowed to grow. The truth is, quite simply put, Saudi refuses to allow the Shia Houthi, who are aligned with Iran, to take over at the expense of their guy. International law be dammed. The son of the Bush Doctrine.

When then president Bush declared the US's right to act unilaterally in world affairs, the US recreated the jungle. It took mankind back to the dark ages, only this time with weapons of mass destruction. It removed the need to be responsible and restrained in the exercise of power. It opened the Pandora's Box of "National Interest". As the saying goes, "two can play that game", and in the context of the world, many can play that game. That is exactly what we see unfolding before our very eyes. In every continent in the world - excepting Australia. In every "hot spot" in the world. Even within countries. We don't have to obey rules. We make the rules. Might is right, and we will prevail. Welcome back to the Stone Age. This is the state of our world today. A place where mutual respect is as barren as the desserts of Saudi Arabia, and where the innocent blood flows as it has throughout our history. We never learn that power exercised without restraint is poison to us all.

World Economy War One

If World War One was the first time humanity witnessed the brutal, inhumane destruction of a generation by the tools of war, then what we are witnessing today is the first of a potentially similar world economic war. Now, many would argue that the Cold War was a world-scale economic war that communism lost vs. capitalism. However, that would be a simplification of both the means and the ends. For example, my take on the end of the Cold War is that Russia and China merely conducted a strategic withdrawl to regroup, approach the issue in an economic way as opposed to military-type way, to end up where we are today.

Whatever your take on that might be, the bottom line is the world is dividing into two economic camps - one dominated by the US and one dominated by a Russia/China alliance. Economically, the Russo/Sino alliance has all the momentum and strategic strength to win this match hands down. I covered the bones of that here and here . Today it seems all these things are coming to a head - rapidly. It appears the US is not prepared to allow the new Eurasia alliance to peacefully transform the capitalist system to its needs and benefit. In other words, the US is not prepared to peacefully allow others to play its own game on it. That, simply put, sums it up.

Two years ago I had a close chat with my brother on these very events now transpiring. At the time he asked what I saw the outcome being of a trade war like we have today. I said that depended mostly on the Americans. Would they play nice or go "cowboy"? If they went cowboy,  I explained, then prepare for war. It seems that's where we are at. Up until now most of the American actions have been by proxy. That is to say, the US has covertly, and overtly funded and armed certain groups, in certain regions, to take on certain governments so as to reduce Eurasian regional influence. Probably the most notorious example at the moment is the Syrian war, and the resulting birth of ISIS. It strongly resembles the CIA funded war in Afghanistan, and the subsequent birth of Al-Qaeda. Both were attempts to undermine/topple Russian interests covertly. Both resulted in the birth of organized Islamic groups dedicated to even harsher economic and cultural separation of the region from US influence. Ditto transpiring in Libya, portions of Africa, etc.

The game became very real when the US decided to intervene in a somewhat similar fashion in Ukraine. Having overthrown the democratically elected, although unpopular, president of Ukraine, the US quickly stepped in to organize everything from its government to its economic bail-out. In other words, the US  took on Ukraine as a client state on the very border of Russia. Hence the whole "cowboy" thing. A very dangerous and irresponsible "in-your-face" move by the US that opened Pandora's Box. The Russians responded, as you knew they would, and so it goes. The major difference here is the US are no longer playing games with some two-bit dictator far a flung. No, this time they have gone directly to the fence of their enemy. A nuclear armed enemy. An enemy that is as advanced in every way as the US. One of two major players in the economic alliance that aims to reduce US economic power, and thus influence, throughout the world. No more dancing around proxies. The powers to be are in each other's face.

So where do we go from here. It seems fairly obvious the US, or any western country's population has failed to cotton on to where they are being led. Not a clue. Barely any coverage in the media, except that this terrorist or that terrorist is a threat to this or that nation's security. It's as if men in black pajamas and cloaked women in similarly coloured get ups will be throwing themselves, wave after wave, onto the shores of western countries. Any reference to Russia is cloaked in similar paranoia and fear. China is currently being only nibbled at on the fringes, because frankly the West can't afford to upset China financially. So, in effect, people in the West are sleepwalking into certain financial disaster, and possibly worse. A scenario that has repeated itself through out history, and the result has always been the same - tragedy for the human race.

The truth is, we can only project what might be the result of an all out world economic war. We can only surmise, if we dare to, what catastrophic effects would be heaped on our families, our communities, and our countries. Why can't we see it clearer? The easy answer is: we have never witnessed it before like this. We've seen depressions, and recessions. However, we've never seen complete destruction of economic systems. That's something that is hard to wrap the mind around for most. The best analogy perhaps is the First World War.  Slaughter had never happened before on this scale.The men left for the front lines in a hurry in 1914. Up for the challenge and afraid to miss the big show. They found out all too quickly that the massive slaughter that occurred on those front lines was not any kind of great struggle for a higher cause. What they found was humanity turning on itself in a global slaughter of a generation. Four years later, after unimaginable horror and destruction, the phrase was "never again". Eleven years later mankind did it all over again. When that one was over we had a new phrase: " Lest we Forget". Sometimes ... often times, it seems that our desire to dominate each other is never fully satisfied.

Russia's Weakness is the West's Gain

There was a time, back when, that the Soviet Union was feared and respected. That fear and respect created and maintained what we refer to as the Cold War. It divided the world in a sense, but it also provided a peculiar sense of stability. Each side was aware of where the lines not to cross were located, and neither side dared make a serious attempt to undermine them. There was no question of a strong, forceful Soviet response. Therein lies the problem for modern day Russia.

To be frank, Russia's handling of the Ukraine crisis on its own border displays the sort of weakness one would normally associate with the bluster of North Korea. Strong words but no action to back it up. Russian special forces quickly moved into Crimea before the West could stop them. But that was pretty much it. The Crimean assault was really a "sneaky" move rather than a forceful move of principle. There was no grand declaration of principle by the Russian government, other than it would defend the rights of Russian speaking people's - which it quickly abandoned in Donetsk and Luhansk republics prolonging the war there and massively increasing civilian and military casualties. Russian support for the separatist forces in East Ukraine was again of the "sneaky" variety. Weapons, ammunition, advisers, and some special forces. A grey war if you will.

The problem with a grey war is that each side is left with the ability to interpret it as it will. In other words, Ukraine can scream Russia is invading it, while Russia can respond that it has no troops there. There is no serious projection of power, and serious statement made to the other side. They are playing "footsies" with each other. The message is that of weakness. Russia is being dictated to by the West and simply responding defensively. It does not project the image of an equal. It actually reinforces Obama's arrogant comment that Russia is a "regional power". Now, Russia is not a regional power, to be clear. Iran is a regional power, as is Saudi Arabia. Russia is a world power. But, Russia's weak response to Western infiltration of the buffer zone known as Ukraine tends to back Obama's message.

Another well publicized event took place in Estonia where us mechanized troops paraded within 300 meters of the Russian border. Ditto for similar flippant moves by Lithuania and even Finland. Now, despite prohibitions against foreign troops in accordance with the Minsk Accord, the United States is sending a full airborne battalion to Ukraine to "train" Ukraine forces. Britain is sending 75 troops for a similar mission. The response from Russia is...nothing.


If Russia wants the role of super power in the world, or even at the very least top dog in its own neighborhood, it needs to seriously project strength. That means incorporating a "doctrine" which will be defended at any time and any place. The doctrine must be in strict defence of its sphere of influence - otherwise, it doesn't have one. Without a sphere of influence its not even a regional power, but rather a state power. Hard to imagine for a country with the history and tradition of Russia. The truth is, the world really needs Russia to be that strong player in the world. The world desperately needs balance. The US has proven that as the sole power projecting strength in the world, it has failed to recognize the need to restrain its own ambitions. In other words, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, we live in a world that has no stability, because the rules have been thrown out the proverbial window. That is a failure by the US, but its also a failure of countries like Russia and China.

All of this is why I support the rise of a Eurasian bloc that includes countries like Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the like. It creates the counter balance so desperately needed in the world. Of course the Americans view this in the opposite light. So be it. All people in the world deserve a stable environment, not just Americans. In short, it's past time that Russia project serious strength. Allowing other nations to encroach on its borders is a sign of weakness, not strategy. It's being interpreted that way by its enemies as well. All of which creates a less stable world for the rest of us - including 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.