Are Putin's Days Numbered?

 Are Putin's Days Numbered?

Russia has been at limited war with Ukraine for over 4 years. There is no end in sight. Why? The answer to that question sits squarely on the President of Russia's shoulders. 

In 2015, separatist forces, backed by Russian direct military support, encircled what was left of Ukraine's best military units in the Battle of Debatsevo, Donbass. At that exact moment in time Russia had a choice to make: chase the battered remnants of the Ukrainian Army out of the rest of Donestk and Lugansk Oblasts; or cease the pursuit and make peace. Despite warnings from "The Rifleman", the famous commander of separatist forces in the Donetsk Oblast { allegedly also a senior Russian intelligence officer}, that failing to pursue the Ukrainians would lead to the Russians facing a far more built up Ukrainian Army in a near certain future conflict, Putin chose to withdraw support for any further advance. He famously harkened on the shared brotherhood of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, and advocated that peace could be found in constitutional amendments that granted the peoples of Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts rights to autonomy within Ukraine. This was Putin's first and most egregious mistake of this war.

His second mistake was to agree to the first Minsk Accord, and then the Second a year later. Both were obviously designed to give Ukraine time to rebuild its military, and fortify regions of the Donbass it still controlled. This was later admitted to by former German Angela Merkel, but it was obvious to any person schooled in the art of diplomacy and war. Putin would obviously fit that title.

The obvious became the evident when in February, 2022 Russia was forced to commit to a "Special Military Operation" to defend the newly created "Republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk. The Ukrainian Army had deployed its newly created, NATO funded and trained, army to the borders of Donetsk and Lugansk, and from all appearances the Ukrainians were ready to take back the territories. Putin chose to boldly confront NATO over this, and chose to lay the real gauntlet down. Russia, he said, was no longer prepared to be pushed around by NATO, and its never ending eastern expansion toward Russia's borders. He demanded a new treaty that rolled back NATO's presence and influence along Russia's borders, or he would defend them by force. It appeared at the time that Putin was reasserting Russia's deterrence. A bold move, and a necessary one given the disrespecting of Russia's core national interests by NATO.

The problem with Putin's stand was that he was apparently bluffing. After NATO refused to respect, or even acknowledge Russia's strategic concerns, Putin ordered the Russian military to invade Ukraine. This is mistake number three. Putin ordered the Russian Army into combat at the end of February. A time when the ground was still hard enough to support tanks and mechanized vehicles. However, as every Russian knows, its isn't long after that when those same fields turn to mud and stop armored movement. Parts of the Russian Army became bogged down in mud, while tanks that took to the roads were ambushed by US supplied shoulder fired antitank missiles. The portion of the Russian army that entered from Belarus made better progress and soon occupied neighboring communities of Kiev. The situation looked desperate for Ukraine, and its bargaining position was at an all time low. 

Then Putin makes his 4th bad decision. He again reverts back to the "brotherly peoples" story and in Ankara, Turkey he comes to an agreement with Ukrainian President Zelensky to end the Special Military Operation. Taking a quick and relatively easy way out of the invasion appealed to Putin's "low cost" strategy of war and diplomacy. Without anything being required of the Ukrainians to prove good faith, he volunteered a Russian Army withdrawal from Kiev and the territory to its north. No sooner had the Russians completed this show of good faith, the Ukrainians denied there was ever a deal and continued the war. 

The proof is clear. Putin's conduct of diplomacy and warfare was a near complete failure by 2022. However, in many ways, his failures since then have been even worse. Putin, it appeared, was all bluff. The US and NATO began calling Russia a "paper tiger". A toothless old beast. A relic of history. They called the Russian Army weak given the months and sometimes years it took them to take a single city- let alone having to withdraw from Kherson because they could not keep it supplied. In the beginning of the war US President Biden claimed he could not supply Ukraine with fighter jets, because he didn't want to start World War 3. Two years later all of NATO was supplying Ukraine with fighter jets. What did Putin do? Nothing. He huffed and he puffed, but did nothing. Ditto for tanks and artillery. Ditto for long range and cruise missiles. Nothing.

Sweden and Finland became so emboldened by Russia's nonresponse that hey joined NATO without fear for the consequences. The EU and NATO publicly acknowledged the funding of Ukraine's war that was and is killing thousands of Russians. What did Putin do? Nothing. He threatened, but each time that threat was empty. It was never carried out. Russia's power as a deterrent to stabilize competing forces in the world was crushed. US President Trump decided it was a good time for him to feed on the bones of Russia's sphere of influence. Moldova was overtaken by the EU. Georgia nearly repeated that fate. Armenia decided to ally itself separately from Russia, and closer to NATO. The Syrian government was overthrown. The Venezuela government was decapitated. Iran was attacked by the US, which remains the case today. The Cuban government has been threatened with invasion. It all comes back to the doorsteps of one man - Putin.

His poor judgement and appreciation of the situation has cost Russia dearly. The war that he constantly tried to avoid by appeasement has resulted in a long proxy war that has cost untold amount of Russian lives, and resources. It has cornered both Russia and China, and undermined the economic community of BRICS. In short, it has diminished the reputation that Russia not too long ago enjoyed of being the great nation that defeated Nazi Germany. Even today, simple steps could be taken to end the war in Ukraine quickly in Russia's favor. For example: Only a handful of bridges span the Dnieper River that connects Eastern and Western Ukraine. Destroying these bridges would halt almost all supply of weapons and resources from NATO to Ukrainian Army formations fighting in Eastern Ukraine. This could have happened at any time in the last 4 years. It would have saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Many of those Russian. Putin failed to order this. In effect, he has prolonged the war and emboldened Russia's enemies by his failure to do what is obvious and necessary.

I once admired Russian President as a statesman. His ability to stabilize and grow Russia was impressive. However, it appears he forgot his own history. Afterall, it was the failure to put down the Chechen revolt that helped bring him into power as the strong man Russians love, and it was his ruthless pursuit of the second Chechen War that cemented him in the hearts of Russians. He now appears to be like the ineffective leader who oversaw the Chechens defeat the Russian Army, and no longer the strong man who acted to succeed. Is it any wonder why Putin's days could be numbered?

The Ukraine War - It's not what you think

 The world is a stage and we are but mere actors. Never has this saying been more true than today.  We are witnessing the making of "heroes" and "villains" in Ukraine and Russia right now. The Ukrainian President has been pumped by western media as some kind of modern day Churchill as he, with no military experience, "personally directs the defence of Kiev" from within the city. A hero, and potentially a martyr all in one. We have the Ukrainian military being hailed for putting up a "heroic" defence against the Russians. And, of course, we have Russian President Putin painted variously as the bad guy, evil guy, insane guy, ... you get the idea. Good guys vs bad guys, black vs white, demonize vs canonize - such is the evil pit that the world has evolved into.

We see this very painting of people here in Canada as well. Far from the flames of the Ukrainian war. Truckers are heroes. Truckers are terrorists. One Liberal cabinet member just referred to truckers in the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa as, wait for it, "terrorists".  We have just come through two years of what can only be described as the worst violation of civil rights in Canadian history - mass vaccination requirements, lockdowns and mandates - all designed to get Canadians used to the suspension of their constitutional rights as some sort of natural right the federal government, and provincial governments can exercise at will. The Canadian government even invoked the Emergency Measures Act, renamed by Mulroney but then known as the War Measures Act, to suppress an act of defiance and civil disobedience via protests on Parliament Hill. Rights you thought were sacred two years ago evaporated in a woke moment. It has been the same throughout most of the world.

So how does Ukraine fit into this? Well, three words: World Economic Forum. The WEF is a multi-national private organization born in Germany, now with its headquarters in Davos, Switzerland. It's primary purpose, like other German fathers of the same vision (Marx and Engels most recently), is to turn the world into a one government utopia where humans have no rights to property, religion, beliefs other than the WEF's, etc. In the words of the nominal head of the organization, the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". If that sounds a lot like another German phrase, the Third Reich, you can be forgiven. Both have their origins in Germany, both seek world dominance, both sought to conquer/control Europe (ie EU), both sought to conquer Russia/Soviet Union after gaining control of Europe, both believe in genetic manipulation of the human species, you get the idea. They don't call themselves Nazis anymore. The new term they love to use is "Globalists". 

The Globalists aim to conquer states from within, that is to say they mentor and put in place leaders and politicians that they control. (don't believe me? watch the video here. Interestingly, Schwab even refers to Putin as one of his guys. This takes us to the "we are all actors" part. What is really happening in the Russo/Ukraine war, and more importantly, what is the purpose of it.

The primary point woman from Europe is Ursula Von Der Leyen, a German (again) physician and politician (first woman to serve as Minister of Defence in Germany). Some of her mentors shown below:

In case you aren't familiar, the top picture is her with Henry Kissinger, and the lower picture is her with Schwab. Her job in all of this is to direct European states, and people, to prepare them for war against Russia. As you may have noticed from the emergency session to grant Ukraine EU membership, the European Parliament was decked out like some kind of Ukrainian birthday party. The new Chancellor of  Germany is newly elected Olaf Scholz - pictured below (with Schwab):

For the WEF, and its backers, the most important aspect of their plans is what can loosely be called the "schedule". The schedule is used to determine the length of time politicians stay in office, the bringing up of "young politicians" as Schwab refers to them in the video link above, the stacking of governments to implement its policies, and finally the beginning of the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". That is commonly referred to as Agenda 2030, which means eight years remain. In those eight years they have to destroy our current beliefs in bodily autonomy, freedom of thought and speech, ownership of private property, privacy, and nation states. They list as some of the primary goals of Agenda 2030 as people will own nothing; all commerce will be conducted by drones; a "handful of countries" will dominate all others; the amalgamation of people's physical/digital/economic identities, and others.  Here is the link to the WEF's own video on the matter here.

The war in Ukraine should thus be thought of as the initiating event that forces the world onto the WEF's schedule for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Putin's role, if you will, is to destroy the patsy state of Ukraine in order to occupy it and create a new iron curtain. Likely to follow in very short order are Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. You can view it as the WEF fixing the mistakes of Hitler's invasion of the USSR by having the Russians use up their men killing Ukrainian men - which is after all what bled the German Army white in WW II. Then, because Germany under Merkel (another of the politicians Schwab listed) agreed to tie Germany's energy needs so tightly to Russia, the sanctioning of Russia will "force" Putin to turn the tap off to Europe and create a massive economic shock to the world economy. It will also sour people toward the dependence on fossil fuels for energy. As a result, Russia will be at war with NATO, but not a nuclear war. Instead it is likely to be a war of conventional destruction previously unknown to mankind. Perhaps that is why the WEF includes travel to Mars as one of its goals - Dark Fleet anyone? 

China will join Russia in a war against NATO and its allies. The world will be carved into two blocks Eurasia and Atlantia. China will bury the hatchet with India, and India will join Eurasia. This will be a war of, in a sense, extermination. The Globalists (WEF) aim to reduce the human population of earth to around 500 million people - that's 7 billion deaths required. The Globalists refer to this as "creative destruction".  In a sense, their strategy mimics the Russian/Soviet war of 1941-45 - which they referred to as a "war of annihilation". 

The end result of the collapse of the financial system, the war of annihilation, and the collapse of the human value system will create a need to "build back better". This is where the WEF's agenda gets implemented. Make no mistake, nothing less than this can achieve their stated aims. For example, private property rights are guaranteed in the US constitution and have formed the basis for western life since the beginning. That means the US constitution must be destroyed in order to implement the "you will own nothing" aim. How do you destroy the US constitution without invading the US and conquering it? You destroy it from within. That means firstly you denigrate what it means to be American and have rights. Have we seen that happening in the US?  How about some examples of many: burning US flags; removing patriotic statutes (like Abraham Lincoln); labelling half the populations as deplorables; suspending rights during Covid; invalidating the US electoral system; politicizing the police and courts; moving to disarm civilian populations; etc. All of this is already happening in the US. 

The war in Ukraine is simply a manifestation of a controlled establishment that fully intends to extinguish the rights, and in many cases the lives, of  people all around the world. It is only a first step, and the remaining steps will be much worse than what we are currently seeing. This is by design and with purpose. This may sound like a "conspiracy theory" to you, but don't forget who made the term "conspiracy theory" a term for mocking - the establishment via the media. People lie but the evidence does not. Look about you. Look at your country and see what has happened to your values, rights, and nations over the last three decades. Ask yourself why it was the the most right wing, patriotic people like Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney who instigated and implemented free trade agreements between nations, which resulted in the unnecessary transfer of wealth from wealthier countries to less fortunate. The very definition of such a transfer of wealth from the fortunate to the unfortunate is socialism in its purest form. Yes, the world is but a stage and we are mere actors. We don't have to be slaves to it though.

Going To War With Russia

As sad, and painful, as it is to contemplate, let alone say, it appears the West is going to war with Russia. Yes Russia. The firing of US National Security Advisor McMaster today, and most significantly his replacement with John Bolton point to a direct confrontation against Iran. Bolton has always advocated war with Iran, but never really been in a position to make good on the threat. Now he has been invited to join US President Trump's cabinet - a cabinet already dominated by US Generals (for the most part retired). Trump now has what any clear analysis would point to - a war cabinet.

In a game of one-up-man-ship, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been blowing the proverbial bridges between Russia and the western world to pieces in the last several weeks with comments that have really been beyond the pale. He suggested that Russian President Putin was the person that gave the go ahead for the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy in England. He then absolutely blew that out of the water by claiming yesterday that holding the World Soccer Cup in Russia was akin to Hitler's 1936 Olympics. This last point I personally took huge exception to, because the fact is the 25 million or so Soviets that died actually fighting Hitler saved England fro German invasion - an invasion that England would have lost hands down. In truth, Johnson might just as well of accused modern day Israel of being a Nazi state. That's just how bizarre Johnson's attack on Russia was. And perhaps more importantly in the scheme of things, how incendiary the attack was.

What is becoming clear is that the US, and its western allies, are laying the groundwork for a massive war, perhaps a world war, with Eurasia and its allies in the Middle East. With the appointment of Bolton on the same day as Trump signed the first trade action against China (and he emphasized it was the first of many) the signs are very clear. The West is going to war with the East. The likely initial targets are Syria, and Iran. Any attack on Iran is a declaration of war on Russia. Iran after all is not just an important ally to Russia, but it sits right on the border with Russia. In other words, Russia would be pulled into such a war out of self-defence if for no other reason.

Bearing Russia's position in mind, think back to last week when Russia announced a number of new generation weapons it stated were untouchable by Western anti-missile capabilities. It is quite obvious that Russia is attempting to dissuade the West from its intended push against one of Russia's most strategic interests - Iran. It's also quite evident from Trump's gestures today that he is completely unmoved by Russia's message. That can only mean one thing - we are going to war. When I say we, I mean the West. As someone who has served, and the son of a World War II veteran I am disgusted by Western aggression toward Eurasia. Yes, I said Western aggression. Have a look around at all the conflicts going on. They're all going on around Russia's or China's backyard - not so much in the West...

Nobody knows for certain how this will play its deadly hand out. One thing is for certain, scrapping of the Iran Nuclear Agreement appears imminent. Also, a reigniting of the Saudi/Iran conflict is sure to follow. The West will need an easily understandable excuse to attack Iran, and that can only be one of three things really: an attack on Israel; coming to the aid of Saudi; or a North Korea style action against Iran having a nuclear weapon once the aforementioned agreement is unilaterally cancelled.

This won't be a picnic for the West though. Leave a direct conflict with Russia and China out of the equation for the moment. Consider that a Saudi/Iran conflict, or an Israeli/Iran conflict would have the affect of tripling oil prices over night. Then consider a massive sell off on the stock market. Factor in the US Federal Reserves increases in its over night lending rates. All these things, and quite a few economic problems not mentioned here, would plummet the Western economies into a cataclysmic spiral. The markets are very jittery as it is, sensing as they do that things have gone quite far off the tracks. Many people have said to me that such an economic collapse would cause Eurasia to fall as well, but I always answer that statement like this: "Remember in 2008 when the market collapsed? China sent 250 million people home to their villages, without a job, and that was that. There was no revolt, or any social turmoil. If that happened in the US or any Western economy, there would be civil insurrection almost over night. Therein lies the difference. While China would be hurt, it can sustain the blow. The Western world cannot. In other words, a war of economic attrition."

I don't know if there is anything the ordinary citizen can do to forestall this madness - as one American recently said to me: "all I can do is vote". But, I suggest if you like the world in one piece and you are concerned about the end of humanity, get out and say something. Be accountable to yourself, to humanity, and the world. Don't be a sheeple.

Is Putin hurting Russia?

A strong Russia, or perhaps a strong Eurasia, is in the interest of a peaceful world. That may not be the most politically correct position to take as a writer in the West, but I'm convinced of it. Growing up in the Cold War era wasn't easy on the nerves as the great powers from each side starred each other down, but with age comes wisdom, and for me that means an unshakeable belief that nations are people - people are possessed with "want" - and want creates tension. In other words, we as a species aren't happy unless we can control and consume everything we choose, and when we choose it.

Enter modern day Russia. Enter Putin. Ostensibly, Vladimir Putin is serving the function of President of Russia, but in the bigger picture his role (and responsibility) is far greater than that. He, and Russia, are the major force behind a greater Eurasia. You can call it the "Silk Road" or whatever you like, but in reality Eurasia represents a deterrent to American unilateralism (or domination if you like). Putin's job has been to use oil money to rebuild Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and he has done so with great discipline. The question, however, is whether he can place Russia in the shoes of the Soviet Union and re-establish a multi-polar world. That question is both burning and unanswered.

Just like most things in life, Putin's great strengths are also in many ways Russia's great weaknesses. On the one hand, Putin is a master of the concept "don't use a hammer to kill a fly", but on the other hand he is failing to realize that great statesmanship may necessitate the use of a hammer to send a message to the rest of the flies. In other words, a taking of one's place with authority. His decision to allow Russian athletes to compete at the Olympics while Russia itself was humiliated as a sort of "non-country" is a case in point. Putin had all sorts of reasons for sending his athletes, but he failed his country horribly by doing so. A great power, or even just a self-respecting power, does not allow other nations to disrespect its colours. That is as old as humans' presence on this earth. Yet, Russian athletes were subjected to just that in South Korea. It was the Russian men's hockey team that refused to allow that humiliation to taint them, yet their "unlawful" singing of the Russian national anthem was more an act of defiance than a proclamation. That is a key difference. Great nations do not commit acts of defiance, because to do so is to admit they are unequal - as defiance is the act of the weaker while principled decision is the role of the strongest.

It's important to note, and their must be many in Russia that would agree with this, that a country is meant to be run as a country and not an intelligence agency. Putin, out of necessity and likely habit, has run Russia like an intelligence agent - harkening on his old career no doubt. While those skills may have been well placed in placing Russia back to a position of strength, they now hold Russia back from its position as a great power, and without Russia being a great power America is free to continue its relatively unopposed world rule. The best current example of that is Syria.

Syria is really more of a Putin failure than it is an American success. Putin is deathly afraid of  "another Afghanistan". Afghanistan rings in the Russian ears as Vietnam rang in American ears before Ronald Reagan. Reagan, however, used his popularity  to move the American people past the Vietnam era, and pushed them into global military supremacy. Think what you will of Reagan, but that was an act of great leadership. Unfortunately, it appears Putin is not as confident in his ability to lead the Russian people past their Afghanistan mindset and into their place as an equal super power. Instead he prefers to sit himself, and Russia, in the shadows of international conflicts. His approach is that of an experienced intelligence officer - careful, targeted, and effective. What's wrong with that you might say.

It boils down to this: It's a totally predictable weakness. Great nations make great gestures. The prerequisite of a great nation status is that you will fully commit to the defence of your allies. Now just this week Putin claimed he would do just that, but it's been taken as just talk. And he has often wondered publicly why the West doesn't listen to him. Well the answer is quite simple - they don't respect him. Talk is cheap. The willingness to sacrifice is strength. Putin has not proven by action that he is willing to sacrifice for hos allies or even his country (ie. the recent Olympics). He's going along to get along. Sure Russia has intervened with primarily safe air force assets to stop the overthrow of Assad in Syria, but what else has it accomplished? Syria sits divided, with a now dug in American military presence insuring it remains that way. Instead of taking decisive military action at the very beginning of the conflict, which in this case would have meant sending armed divisions into Syria back in 2013, Putin took the least costly option possible and now faces a direct confrontation with the US to make Syria whole again. Ditto for Ukraine - another frozen conflict and another broken ally.

Indeed, the answer to Putin's public ruminations about the West not listening to his dire warnings lies in his mirror. When unfettered strength has been called for he has used measured responses rather than decisive strength. He has failed to set the tone that would demand respect. You don't pick your battles as the leader of a great nation. Rather, you forcefully engage those that bring battle to your doorstep. If it's war then it's war. If it's peace then it's peace. Israel is a good example of this. The reason the world listens to Israel is because they know that Israel will act - and forcefully so. There is no such feeling now for Russia. That lack of respect is something that is severely undermining the idea of a multi-polar world, and without a multi-polar world then why does Russia even matter? For Putin, the person who  is in place at this time in world history to make it happen, the mission is forget your KGB mentality and be a great statesman of a great power.

War With China

There are only so many coincidences in politics, and even less so in international politics. Today we stand on the precipice of  a war with China - all the coincidences point to it.

India

The Indian military's move into tiny Bhutan, which is located between India and China, is the latest hostile act between the two neighbors. The Indian army allegedly moved troops into the western part of Bhutan at the request of Bhutan's government in order to halt Chinese road construction on what it considers to be its sovereign territory. Each side has its own view of who's territory or claim is the truest, but the bottom line is China now has a mounting, perhaps imminent conflict on its southern border with India. As the Indian deployment in Bhutan remains ongoing, both sides have assembled forces on the border waiting to engage each other should the need rise.

The South China Sea

China's claim to the South China Sea has caused rifts with its neighbors - many of them in fact. From a purely legal point of view, China's claims to the Sea are out of whack with international law which delineates maritime boundaries between nations. The only possible way China can legitimately claim the South China Sea is to prove its has been a part of China. However, putting the legitimacy of the claim aside for the moment, let's take into account what is happening "on the ground" there. The United States navy has been conducting "freedom of navigation" drills, one tiny frigate at a time, in the Sea for months now - three since Trump became president of the US. In addition, the US has mounted aerial challenges to China's claim with mainly electronic surveillance aircraft. These challenges have been met with intercepting Chinese jet fighters. The naval challenges have not been met on the seas to any extent.

Taiwan

Taiwan has been a thorn in the side of China since anti-communist forces retreated to the island after the Chinese civil war. The US, in order to keep the peace presumably, has respected the "one China" policy that views Taiwan as essentially a part of China. However, that has not stopped the US from selling massive amounts of arms to Taiwan, and formally guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from China - essentially a country to country defence treaty. That policy hasn't changed under Trump. Instead, the Trump administration caused a furor when it suggested it may not recognize the long standing "one China" policy. It quickly changed its mind when China became enraged with the suggestion. However, the US did continue to sign multi-billion arms deals with Taiwan for the latest in military hardware.

North Korea

By far the most pressing issue between the two super powers is that of North Korea. Having been levelled by the US air force during the Korean War of the 1950's, North Korea seems completely unprepared to surrender its nuclear weapons, and/or nuclear program. It claims self-defence, and views the massive military exercises between the US and South Korea as evidence of an ongoing hostility toward it. And on it goes. What has been completely lost in this whole conflict, at least in the mass media and therefore with most of the general public, is that China and North Korea have a "NATO-like" defence treaty known as the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty. The treaty was signed in 1961, renews every 20 years automatically, and Article 2 requires each side to come to the defence of the other in case attacked by an enemy or coalition of enemies. In other words, war with North Korea means war with China.

Now, there can be no doubt that the US government is fully aware of China's obligations to North Korea, yet the US is dramatically escalating the conflict with North Korea. US President Trump has even gone so far as to threaten North Korea with "fire and fury the world has never seen". What the US government is conveniently leaving out of its pronouncements is that, should it attack North Korea, it will immediately be at war with China. That's a revelation that may well alter any war licence the American people might grant their politicians. After all, it is questionable whether North Korea poses a serious threat to the existence of the US, but there is no question that China could end that existence via nuclear war - at least there shouldn't be.

Connecting the Dots

The pressure being placed on China at multiple fronts is very similar to the pressure being placed on Russia at multiple fronts. One similarity is these areas of conflicts are on China's and Russia's borders for the most part - with the exception of Syria. Just this week the top US military types were claiming "thousands would die", but those thousands would be in North Korea and not the United States. So, it seems safe to say, that the deliberate US strategy is to engage China and Russia, in an aggressive fashion, on those countries borders. A second similarity is the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems by the US on both Chinese and Russian borders. In the case of China, the THADD system set up in South Korea to nominally defend it against ballistic missile attack from North Korea. In the case of Russia, the construction of a "missile shield" in former Soviet bloc countries to thwart potential Iranian missiles. These deployments, however, clearly effect the ground based retaliatory measures either China or Russia could take in the event of a nuclear war - back to the whole only so many coincidences thing.

Just in case you believe all these geopolitical moves have a single thing to do with "saving the world for democracy" or "fighting rouge regimes", pause, take a deep breath, and think. China is eclipsing the US as the dominant world power - a movement that has been happening slowly but surely since the early 1990's. China and Russia are in the midst of building their own world economy - Eurasia, BRICS, and the Silk Road - and this is perceived by the US as a direct threat to its "place in the world". To emphasize the point, in response to this weeks US sanctions against Russia, Russian President Putin announced his country would be dramatically ramping up its "settlement of trades" aim. Essentially, dropping the US currency as the means for trading internationally. China will likely not be far behind. The plain, obvious and simple truth is the move toward wars with China and Russia is all about business. Not the kind of business you often hear about with accusations of the "military industrial complex" looking to make more arms sales. No, not that. It's the war for economic supremacy, or better put the war to maintain economic supremacy. That's all this is about. Don't wrap yourself in a flag over it. If you have to wrap yourself in anything pick a dollar.

My final thought on the machinations happening around the world right now is this: God must be very disappointed in his creation at this time.  

Is Russia being outplayed in Syria?

Make no mistake, the Syrian war is about to become an international conflict in a major way. The proverbial "wizard's chess" is in full play. With the chemical weapons explosion that occurred in Northern Syria this week the dogs of war are moving quickly, and some players are frankly coming into the light.

Take Israel for instance. Israel's approach until now has been to kill two birds with one stone. There really isn't a better scenario for Israel than Islamic militants killing Syrians soldiers, and vice a versa. That's been going on for years now, and both of these enemies of Israel have now been significantly weakened by the experience. That's the good news for Israel. The bad news is that Russia and particularly Iran have decided to move in and help save Syrian President Assad, and frankly Syria itself, from becoming another part of the Islamic State. Perhaps this eventuality was not foreseen by the architects of the Syrian civil war, or perhaps it was. In any case, the Russian/Iranian involvement has raised the stakes of Israel or the US intervening to new heights.

Two very significant incidents have developed this week with Israel and the Syrian conflict. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, Jared Kushner, Trump's Jewish son-in-law, has managed to force Trump's Steve Brannon out of the National Security Council. That's a big one if you want to clear the way for a strike on Syria, and this a move against Russia. This author has expressed concern from the beginning that Trump's appointment of Kushner as Special Advisor on the Middle East created an obvious conflict of interest given his religious back ground, and the view he may take of Israeli actions. Then, literally just hours later, came the news that the Israeli Cabinet is meeting this Sunday to discuss a "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. This after several airstrikes on Syria in the last few weeks. It is clear that given the Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah success on the ground in Syria that Israel wants the US, and others to join it in taking down the Assad government by force.

Trump himself, having suffered near paralysis in attempting to govern the US as President, appears to be moving toward the "establishment" position on Syria that he had so vehemently rejected. His reasoning that the chemical "attack" gives him no choice is almost laughable. Consider that several mass casualty incidents have happened in the last few weeks by the American air force on schools and mosques in both Syria and Iraq. In Mosul alone, last week, over 200 people, yes including many children and babies, were blown to pieces when the mosque they were attending was struck by a US bomb. Is it somehow okay they were slaughtered by being blown to bits rather than suffocated by gas as happened in Syria? Or is it that because it was a US bomb it was somehow less of an indictment than a Syrian bomb? This entire argument enters the theatre of the absurd - which is where this reasoning of Trump's best rests.

The truth is that all the evidence in Syria has pointed toward a serious, and permanent US intervention and partitioning of Syria for some time now. Trump's shift in position is merely him aligning with the forces that were already at play in Syria. That's good news for them, but potentially catastrophic news for the rest of the world. The question is, though, will Russia rise to the occasion or be relegated back to the backbenches?

Much has been made of the Russian intervention in Syria, and too some extent with good reason. Russia has firmly tilted the balance in favour of the Syrian government with its air forces, and its strategic anti-missile forces in particular. With the S-400 batteries Russia moved into Syria, the Russian air defence forces can impose an almost complete air defence umbrella over all of Syria - except its most North eastern region. Those systems are capable of taking out any US, Turkish or Israeli aircraft, as well as their missiles - including cruise missiles fired from the US fleet off Syria's coast. In addition, Russian naval units have their own cruise missiles, and anti-ship missiles deployed with their naval units off the Syrian coast.

The real question for Russia is this: Are you serious about Syria or not? Some would say that Russia's commitment to defend Syria proves they are serious, and to some degree that is obvious. However, what is Russia actually willing to commit to on the ground? This is where they are being out-flanked by the US, Turks, and soon to be Israelis. Russia has a relatively small ground force in Syria, which leaves it very vulnerable and reliant on the somewhat unreliable Syrian army. Putin has failed to match the foreign forces in Syria by committing Russian divisions to the fight. Where the US has just assigned a good part of the 82nd airborne to the fight in Iraq, but mostly for Raqqah, the Russians have not matched it with their own airborne. And so it goes. It appears Russian President Putin's defensive posture is focused on the Russian border with Europe as NATO builds a small deterrent there, and not on saving Syria for the Russian sphere of influence.

If Russia is more committed to Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah than their troop numbers show, will Russia defend Syria against a US and/or Israeli strike against it? Certainly it could if it wanted to. The S-400 is a state of the art defence system. The Russian naval group is armed to the teeth, and Iran has offered Russia one of its airbases nearby to for its air forces. Is Russia prepared to allow Israel to oust Iran from its position of influence in Syria, and also by ricochet Lebanon?

There are many moves afoot right now - including major moves with China and North Korea. However, the strategic position of Russia and Iran in the Middle East is what is at stake right now. Make no mistake. If Putin gets cold feet and allows the US to run rough shod over Syria, even more than it has already, Russia's credibility as a super power in the region is over ... ditto Iran. If that happens then Obama will have been right to refer to Russia as a "regional power". Of course, that would defy Russia's strength and history, but only time will tell how far Putin will go to protect that. Will Russia impose its own no-fly zone over Syria backed by its S-400's and air force? Will Russia commit meaningful forces to the ground fight so as not to be out flanked at every turn by Western- backed militaries?  Nobody knows for sure except Russian President Putin himself. As much as it is Syria's time of truth, it is also very much Russia's. In a game of poke chest a super power doesn't turn and walk away.






 

The Coup in Washington

The old Chinese proverb "may you live in interesting times" rings so very true these days. A "populist" billionaire is elected as a "man of the people" in the United States, and sends the internal organs of the American elite into convulsion. It's hard to watch what is loosely called the land of the free, and remain uncommitted to one side or the other - by design perhaps. With every passing day the venom grows, the accusations become more shrill, and President Trump becomes more destabilized. It's the type of "regime change" actions we routinely witness the United States commit in the rest of the world now being visited on its own, by its own.

Make no mistake, what is happening in the United Sates right now has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, or any other foreign country. Nor is it some sort of spontaneous movement against a "crazed despot". What we are witnessing is the very calculated destabilization of the American presidency by those that are sworn to uphold the American constitution, and those that aren't sworn but claim to uphold it. In other words, an internal insurrection.

To be fair, Trump seemed to anticipate this sort of reaction to his election - even well before election day. He shrewdly calculated that the American establishment would use all their means to thwart him, and even unseat him. So, right back to the early days of the campaign, he began marshalling people toward a common set of causes in order to create what he termed as "the greatest movement in US history" -  a"Trump Nation" if you will. He was so successful that the US political establishment quickly realized that should they try and impede him that Trump would appeal to his base, which was primarily Republican voters, and they would place decisive pressure on those Republican Senators and members of Congress that stood in his way. In fact, it is quite clear that Trump is not really a Republican at all, but an independent who chose to use the Republican Party as a vehicle to gain office. And his plan succeeded perfectly.

However, since the election, things have changed. It is quite obvious now that the US establishment are not prepared to accept the results of the election - ironically what they accused Trump of preparing to do should he have lost the election. Instead they have chosen to launch a campaign against President Trump, from a multitude of sources, to first destabilize his presidency by eroding his support with his base, and then.. well we'll get to that.

As bizarre as it might seem to be to accuse governmental organizations within the United States of acting to over throw their own duly elected President, it must be said that all the evidence points to that fact. It becomes obvious when you look at previous US intelligence operations in other countries to see the same MO here. The damaging internal intelligence leaks. The 24-7 vicious media attacks. All designed to decimate the credibility of President Trump in the eyes of "Trump Nation" - the source of Trump's power, and incite hatred  and contempt towards the man. Once his credibility has been sufficiently destroyed they will move to replace him.

There are a number of solid pieces of evidence that clearly demonstrate they are maneuvering to distance VP Pence from Trump as we speak. For example, the recent firing of Trump's national security advisor. It has been made clear, especially in the media, that the reason he was fired was for "lying to VP Pence" over his contacts with Russia. Within days of that spin, Pence is jettisoned off to an international security conference in Europe where he is portrayed as "the voice of reason" by the US media. His diplomatic skills are emphasized. There are no peculiar and unflattering pictures of him published. In other words he is being promoted, but by whom?

The choice of Pence as running mate for Trump was often described by the US media as a nod to the Republican establishment, but many people thought it could also prove to be his undoing. Short term gain for long term pain. You will notice that throughout the Republican campaign, and the actual election, not one negative story about Pence has been filed. Why? Through two years of campaigning the media could not find any dirt on Pence? Seems very unlikely. The answer is clear - they're protecting him. Why have they protected him from the get go, and are now not just protecting him, but also promoting him? Cause he's their man. The man they intend to take over from Trump when they move to remove him. The vehicle of removal? With the obvious vilification of Trump by the media on the issue of Russia it seems this will be the chosen route for seeking his impeachment. However, it would seem that impeaching the man before he has barely attained the throne might not be the most prudent course. Then again, when it comes to loss of control, perhaps expediency will trump prudency.   

The US political establishment, and the US security establishment walk hand in hand. Never let that simple fact be lost on you. Therefore, when the political establishment is threatened with a loss of control so is the intelligence establishment. Nobody expected Trump to become President Trump (well some of us did call it) and what we're witnessing now is a sort of emergency surgery by the US establishment. They always had Pence as their go to card, but likely never believed they would need it - if the coverage by CNN is any example.

The bottom line is that the duly elected President of the United States is facing a coup from within the US political, security and media establishments. A very distasteful travesty to be perpetuated upon the "leader of the free world". The expediency of breaking the rules is always tempting to those in power, but it also has devastating consequences that are normally unintended. Whoever chose the expedient assassination of John F. Kennedy likely didn't fully realize that the assassination would create permanent, deep seeded distrust about the American government with the American people. It severely undermined the credibility of the establishment, and has fostered a now almost impenetrable distrust of all the government agencies within government.

Today the preferred method of dealing with these sort of situations is character assassination and not actual assassination. However, the reaction to this action may well be the same. Now many within the US establishment are attempting to show Russian President Putin as the puppet master behind Trump's rise to power. That may be true, or it may not be true. One thing is for certain though, Putin has to be the happiest camper on the block with Trump's election. The Divided States is now more divide than ever - bypassing the Vietnam War era. If something were to happen to President Trump the only real benefactor would be Putin. The internal unrest that would result from a coup against Trump would rip the US apart as "Trump Nation" lost its proverbial mind over his ouster. If he isn't ousted, and the US establishment simply continues to create an atmosphere of chaos within the country, Putin wins here too. Putin would certainly be the man sitting in the nose bleed section, devouring his popcorn as the US imploded. Looking at it from that perspective is even more worrisome, yet all too real to be ignored. Putin may have helped Trump get elected, but he may have done it in careful consideration of the reaction by the establishment to a Trump victory and not any possible sweet deals he could get as a result of his assistance. This seems far more likely to me.

If I had a message for the US establishment it would be: careful what you wish for. For every action there is a reaction, and the unintended consequences of surgery may be fatal for their place they have become accustomed to. Certainly that is what history has shown - in the US or elsewhere. The far better approach is to allow the man to exercise the responsibility he earned by winning the election. Rely and trust in your democratic process. Put aside your ambitions and ego. Let nature take its course. Do not open Pandora's Box. Be careful what you wish for.  If I had a message for President Trump it would be: whoever is feeding you lines that your electoral college seat count is the highest since Reagan's victory is giving you "bad advice" for an intended purpose. I'm a proud Canadian, and happy this isn't transpiring in my country, but this world is for all of us to be responsible for. Coups are not responsible exercises of power. This one, in that way, is no different.

Putin Plays the West

It's early days in the battle I often refer to as the "Gold War". Russia and China, having announced their intention to form a new Eurasian economic order, inclusive of India and other BRIC nations, are now fending off blows from the West. The Russian ruble, currently pegged to the US dollar, has been taking a hammering as the US and more specifically its ally Saudi Arabia, glut the world oil market forcing a massive decline in the price per barrel. One has to assume it's part of the "price" Obama said Russia would pay for its intervention to materially support Eastern Ukraine (Novorossyia) separatist forces. That's just on the face of it though.

Consider and remember that China is the bank and Russia is the sword of the new Eurasian alliance. The goal of that alliance is not to do well under the US dollar, but to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency with either a new currency or the Chinese yuan. That is important. Both China and Russia have large reserves of foreign currency - in Russia's case nearly $500 billion.

Then consider Russian President Putin. He rose through Russia's power ranks as an intelligence officer. That is one of three important pieces of the pie. That means: he uses deception and part truths to achieve an end; he is disciplined and demands the same of others in his circle; he is ruthless and flexible in achieving his goals; and he will never crack. Secondly, he is a judo master. That means he uses movement and blocking to defend against blows, but most importantly he uses the energy of his enemy as his own to defeat an attack. That part is critically important to remember. Finally, he is Russian. Russians have a proud place in world history due to the massive and brutal sacrifices they have made along the way. The most recent of which was the 25 million Russians who died during World War Two while ensnaring most of Hitler's armies, and giving the other allies time to organize and become engaged. Russians are used to sacrifice, and are super sensitive about the "Motherland" being prosecuted by foreigners.

Putin is using all three of these elements. He is using the Motherland as the force behind him, that will hold him upright in battle. He is using judo to block, move, and use the energy of his foes. He remains disciplined to his cause while apparently allowing his foe to walk into, no run into, his trap.

Why did Putin move into Crimea, and then support (with deniability) Eastern Ukraine separatists? What purpose does a "frozen conflict", as some call it, serve? Well, it's simply a means to an end. On the one hand it's defensive as the US took over influence of Ukraine, on Russia's border. On the other hand it's reason to invite economic conflict with the US. Putin had to know the US would not go to physical war with Russia over Ukraine - especially the quasi occupation of just a part of Ukraine. So the natural deduction would be financial sanctions to try and remove Russia from the US's new ally's territory. The territory of Ukraine being it's only real strategic value. However, its real value to Putin is to not let the US and to a lesser extent Europe escape from a financial battle.

When Obama rushed in to "make Russia pay" for its actions in Ukraine, Putin must have been smiling. Every sanction the US placed against Russia was matched by Western Europe. Western Europe is dependent on Russia for economic survival. The US can't replace the European loss of market in Russia, so anything other than a very short sanction period means severe financial harm for Europe - especially Germany. As Europe slides into recession and worst, Russia can now sit by and watch as Europeans blame US sanctions for destroying their markets. While the US projects strength in Europe with sanctions and military posturing, Europeans suffer the effects. Not dissimilar to the US of Europe as battlegrounds of past wars.

With every new economic sanction waged against Russia, Putin can turn to his own people and make the case that "Western partners" are too unstable and immature to have trading relations with. All the more need for an Eurasian alliance of like-minded, stable countries who want peace and brotherly love. The more the US pushes the faster it loses. Like quick sand.

Today Putin announced that Russia has $500 billion in foreign currency. Enough, according to him, to defend the ruble for two years. However, this is the intelligence officer's half truth. While it may be true that the reserves will defend the ruble, is the purpose to defend the ruble, or is the purpose to use up the foreign currency before Russia and China switch to a gold based currency standard, thus making the US dollar irrelevant as the world reserve currency. I suggest they're using up what they have while it still has a value to them. It gives them 2 years, as Putin partially said, to transform their monetary systems to gold based. After that, they don't care.

Lastly, the US and Saudi flooding of the oil market is also working for Putin and China. China gets to stock its strategic oil reserves on the cheap. Saudi and other major oil producers are losing massive revenue that they can't replace, and they are not meant to transition into the new Eurasian/BRIC alliance - meaning they won't have anywhere of significance to sell their oil in 2 years, and will be infighting with the US and other partners for market share. Meanwhile, in the Eurasian/BRIC alliance Russia, Iran and Venezuela will be selling their oil to China, South America and Africa in a stable market which has no competitors, and controls three quarters of the world's population.

So, the best way to view the events of today is to remember that the intelligence officer's mantra is "kill at least two birds with one stone". Cheap oil hurts Russia in the interim, but it solidifies the need for a stable market place in people's minds. Russian peoples minds. Chinese peoples minds. Etc. Where is the stable market? Well obviously not the US as they "ride like cowboys into the China shop", or US allies that let them. As the US proverbially throws a punch at it, Russia proverbially uses that energy to reach its final goal. For the rest of us, it means be prepared to be the collateral damage. Protect yourself, and your investments as best you can, because when big powers fight the little guy is not on the radar.  

The War of the Pipelines: Russia vs US

The escalation of the Syrian conflict is about many things, but chemical warfare is not one of them. Primarily, the "proxy war" in Syria is about geo-economic control. Those that have, those that want to keep it, and those that want it. It's pretty much the same game that has played out through out history. The only real difference is the capacity of many sides to end humanity in the process - which makes the responsible use of the game's rules essential.

The Russians have the natural gas monopoly over Europe. They have a strategic and economic advantage they want to keep. It allows them to exercise extreme influence over countries that used to belong to the USSR or the Eastern Bloc - like Poland, the Ukraine and others. It gives them a strong hand in negotiating with other western European countries like Germany in particular. The Americans are in a different situation. Their geo-political interests are in weakening Russia and China's economic strength thereby maintaining their own international influence and control. They regularly "duke it out" in minor conflicts all over the world - most recently in Africa and of long standing the Middle East. Critically, in this international game of chess, they never make it between themselves - until now.

The region encompassing Syria, Iraq, and Turkey has historically been the land bridge between West and the East. That makes it strategically important to control, or at least deny to the other side. Qatar has a giant reserve of natural gas (at least 30 trillion cubic feet) that it wants to export by pipeline to Europe. The Saudi's want to do the same. In 2009 President Assad of Syria refused to sign a pipeline agreement to build a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. Turkey's established goal is to be the centre of all pipelines between Europe and the Saudi area. Assad's established goal is the same for Syria. Assad is in control of Syria. Russia is in control of Assad. Russia doesn't want to lose control of the European gas market. It's using Assad to make sure any such proposal remains just that - a proposal. Instead, Assad signed onto an Iran, Iraq, Syria pipeline proposal. Iran is a minor natural gas producer and imports most of its gas from Russia. Such a pipeline then tends to be a regional pipeline that doesn't threaten Russia's position in Europe.

However, using that old slogan, it is not in the "national interests" of the US, or its Saudi allies, or even its Israeli allies, to allow this to happen. It’s also not in the interests of Russia, or its Iranian allies, or its Syrian allies to allow the Saudi-US challenge to be successful.

In fact it is so crucial to both the US, and some of its European and middle-eastern allies that an insurgency was propagated on Syria - to replace Assad's government. Here, so far, it has been Saudi Arabia vs. Iran as each camp’s local powers use their pawns to duke it out. Iran using its Shia alliances including the Alawites of Syria, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Iranian forces. Saudi using its Sunni allies in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and even Lebanon. In addition, Saudi has brought in Al-Qaeda forces and even Chechens that it finances. To underscore that point, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with President Putin. He used a carrot/stick approach with him. On the one hand he was willing to offer Russia $15 billion in military contracts, and a new partnership in natural gas exports. On the other hand he made it clear that the "new Syrian" government would be under Saudi control and he controlled the Chechens meaning he could create peace for the Russian Olympics – or presumably the reverse. Putin was naturally infuriated by the stick approach, and the challenge to Russian influence and control in Syria and the European market. He turned it down.

Now we are left with the inevitable result of this poke in the chest game - war or humiliation. There is no more middle ground. One superpower or the other is going to lose and the result will effect the world. Already we have seen the US bring massive naval and air assets into the region. Today it was reported the US Sixth Fleet carrier task force is moving in to join the five to six ships already there, not including subs. Britain and France also have large air and naval presences there. Now we learn Russia is sending 12 ships into the region to join the fleet already there, and today a spy ship was added to the number. That does not include the air assets of Saudi or Israel, nor does it include the ballistic missile forces of Iran or Syria.

The US build makes a mockery of the US position that they are simply going to launch 100-200 cruise missiles into Syria. Their missile frigates already in place could manage that. No, it appears the US is going in to take control of the situation by destroying Syria's air defence forces, bombing Syrian military units, imposing a no-fly zone, and changing the regime just like Libya. No question. Nowhere near the force built up is required for a limited strike. In the last several months the US has also placed Patriot anti-missile batteries surrounding Syria in Jordan, Israel, and Turkey. The mission, obviously pre-planned, is to control Syrian airspace and destroy the regime militarily. As the Saudi prince said, Saudi Arabia will control the new government in Syria, and it looks as though the Saudi armed and funded militants on the ground in Syria are meant to be that force.

All this may just make most in the West roll their eyes and say "oh the US is thumping out another dictator, and who cares?" This time is different though. This time Russia sees its vital interests not just being threatened, but actually in danger of being destroyed. That us why Russia's navy are stepping in, and that is why things have never been more dangerous. The proxy war has had its mask removed; the players are now facing each other in a fight that could be disastrous for the world. Neither is prepared to back down for the same reason - national interest. It's fashionable to say religions cause wars, but in reality it is "national interests" as defined by those that define. In this case the national interests are pipelines and control. The suffering of the Syrian people has absolutely nothing to do with it.