Why Russia is winning the War in Ukraine

 

In order to know whether or not Russia is winning its war in Ukraine one has to figure out what the goal of the war is. Afterall, regardless of casualties and loss of equipment and resources, the primary objective of any conflict is its original mission. The best way to think of Russian strategy in Ukraine is to view it as one of those famous Russian egg dolls that have successively smaller dolls within it. 

Russia's stated goal in Ukraine is to de-nazify, de-militarize, and annex territory from Ukraine. The word annex in this case means the formal recognition by Ukraine of Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the recognition of the Donbass as an independent republic - which would presumably vote to join Russia. Those are the stated goals. The next obvious goal, which is not stated, is the annexation of the Kherson region to protect Crimea's water supply and form a land bridge to Crimea. The next much less obvious goal would be the Russian occupation and annexation of all Eastern Ukraine - including Odessa. This would make what's left of Ukraine an impoverished, landlocked no-mans land between Europe and Russia. All of these stated and non-stated goals are either obvious or can be logically deducted from Russia's military movements.

The smallest, and least visible goal,  the smallest of the dolls, is the most important of them all - kicking off the "newest world order". To understand this one must focus on the thought and strategy of Vladimir Putin. Putin is a judo master, and as such the philosophy of Judo rules his strategic thought. The primary principle of Judo is to use the opponents own force or weight to defeat him. Putin's use of this strategy is evident on the domestic and international stages. In this case, Putin has used NATO's (US) strategy to contain Russia (and China), with its push to Russia's borders, as momentum to "Judo throw it" if you will. The encroachment on Russia's traditional buffer zones, being those states on Russia's borders, has given Putin the reasoning needed to convince the Russian people that he must act. Remember the "we have no where to retreat" speech. 

At this point, Putin has grabbed the proverbial collar of the West - being the starting of the Ukrainian war. The US and Europe continued to push Putin with large weapon shipments to Ukraine, and massive sanction packages aimed at destroying the Russian economy. The force of these sanctions was meant to throw Russia to the ground, but instead Putin used that very force against his opponent. He began with steps to stop bank runs in Russia, shut down the Russian stock exchange to avoid a similar run, and essentially planted his feat firmly on the ground. Then, with European countries threatening to ban all Russian exports, including oil and natural gas, Putin completed his throw and threw the US and Europe to the proverbial ground - rubble only payment for natural gas and all other exports from Russia. That was the point of the war in Ukraine - the death of the US hegemony and by necessity the US dollar. 

Previous to the war in Ukraine Russia had made agreements with the Chinese to use yuan and rubbles for internal trade. Since the war, Russia has been making agreements with India, Pakistan, Iran and others to conduct trade in national currencies - not the US dollar. From hereon in the largest markets in the world, China and India, will not need US dollars for trade in natural resources, and that means the US dollar has lost at least half its worth in real terms. Even Saudi Arabia, with a staggering 70% of its oil exported to Asia, is realizing that it must pick a side in this global divide. It has now begun negotiating with China to sell the oil in Yuan - not US dollars. This breaks an agreement it has has since the 1970s with the US to sell its oil in US dollars exclusively. The need for US dollars has propelled the dollar to the most sought after and valuable currency in the world, and that in turn has propelled the US economy. All that is about to change in a very radical way. 

The take away here is that, while on the face of it the war in Ukraine is being described and thought of as a proxy war between Russia and NATO, in reality it is meant to be the catalyst for a bi-polar world - one on the rise (Eurasia) and one on the decline (Atlantia). A massive shift propelled by the elites of the world - in all nations. A deliberate move to consolidate the world's many countries into two camps. One often hears the phrase "divide and conquer". You can properly think of this as the age of "consolidate and conquer". It's the phase before the move to one world government. As US President recently said: "There will be a New World Order, and America must lead it". This is what we are truly witnessing today. Not Russia bad Ukraine good. Not China and India must pick a side. Not any of the rhetoric designed to baffle and indoctrinate the ordinary person. So, if you consider that Putin, and by extension Russia, are playing their roles in the creation of this "New World Order", then you know that Russia is winning the war in Ukraine.

Russia's Battle Plan in Ukraine

Three weeks ago to the day Russia launched a multi-force, multi-direction, and multi-purpose invasion of Ukraine. The Russian government called it a "Special Military Operation", much like the Ukrainian government called their military crackdown on Donbass separatists an "Anti-Terrorist Operation". One can't help wonder if the Russians weren't having a bit of fun with that one. Bottom line is, as was predicted here, the Russians did invade Ukraine on multi-fronts to: isolate the Ukraine army positioned against Donbass separatist forces, encircle Kiev, and occupy the Russian "L" stretching from Cherniv to Odessa on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River. 

The question at the moment is this: what happened to the plan? Any person with any military experience knows the old saying: "a plan only survives until first contact with the enemy". That is clearly the Russian experience in Ukraine. The problems with the Ukrainian campaign began at the top. Russian President Putin was using his military as a tool of politics, and that was and remains his major mistake. Much like the US government's political objectives in the Vietnam war, which in many ways tied the hands of its forces and caused many unnecessary casualties, Putin started this war with clear political objectives in mind. It is clear that these political objectives included: non-use of serious weapons in civilian areas; non-use of strategic bombers for carpet bombing; non-use of naval borne cruise missiles of guns for shelling; the list goes on. Essentially, Putin was trying to present the Ukrainian government with a fait a compli so that sober minds would realize resistance was futile and they would capitulate.

That was the best case scenario. Instead of conducting an air campaign like the US did in Iraq (for a month and a half), the Russian military moved in after mere hours of missile and air strikes. The result was that Russia did not destroy Ukraine's air defences and air force completely before entering ground forces, and perhaps more importantly did not cripple Ukrainian's will to fight. There may have been  geo-political/strategic reasons for this, or there may have been political calculations, but the bottom line is that Russian planes and helicopters were vulnerable, and remain so. That means, necessarily, Russian ground troops suffered unnecessary casualties from Ukrainian artillery and tanks. So the Russian command gave up prudent military doctrine to satisfy the political goal of not alienating eastern Ukrainian civilians for a post conflict order. In other words, it got too cute.

The Russian Navy has also been conspicuous by its absence in the campaign. It has complete dominance in that area of the Black Sea, yet has only fired six cruise missiles at an air base. You can also throw in the Russian strategic resources like heavy bombers and massive electronic warfare assets which have basically remain unused. All these forces would have made a massive difference in the three weeks of battle thus far. While not using the navy or strategic bombers may be incorporated under the strategy of not alienating the population, or political reasons  in other words, the very limited use of electronic warfare is more likely strategic in nature. Russian strategic thought is to keep its capabilities close to its chest until the big war happens, ie: World War III (hopefully that never happens). A good example of this is the recent discovery that Russia has decoy missiles in its barrages of missiles that fool the enemy's anti-missile systems, which was unknown until then. 

The primary difference between an American war and a Russian war today seems to be the Russians are trying to placate a population before they occupy them, while the Americans level the place and face uprisings thereafter (ie: Iraq, Afghanistan; etc). That doesn't mean the Russians won't face the same in any case. Certainly the main stream media, and social media, have portrayed the Russians as leveling Ukraine. However, from a military perspective, this is far from the truth. From a strictly military perspective Russia would be guilty of not using all its strategic and heavy forces to ensure its troops didn't take unnecessary casualties, and objectives wouldn't be impeded. Certainly the US or NATO would never be accused of that.

The US has a strategy of  "battle space dominance". The idea is that its forces must dominate every aspect of the battle space on air, land and sea. That strategy has been woefully lacking in the Russian's Ukraine campaign. Ukrainian tanks, and especially artillery have been relatively unbothered moving around Ukraine. NATO has managed to transfer anti-tank, and anti-air man-held portable missile systems to Ukraine without any issue. The systems have found their way to the individual fronts. Here there are collective failures in intelligence, and forces designed to restrict battle space. That may have been the reason two senior Russian intelligence officials were detained by their government. It may also point to a lack of precision weapons and/or drones that can interdict these supplies en route, or it maybe a case of sacrificing soldiers and tanks on the ground to keep military capabilities hidden from NATO forces. Don't forget the Russians sacrifice in WWII, like one rifle for two men. That dedication to "Mother Russia" is still there. Whatever the case, Russian troops and Russian objectives are paying the price on the ground. Unfortunately for the Russian military, troops morale may well suffer when they realize weapons that could be employed to limit their chances of being killed are not being used.

The last week of the campaign has changed somewhat. It appears now that Putin's grand gesture to the Ukraine has been replaced with some military imperative. Strategic missiles were used to destroy a Ukrainian base on the Polish border housing foreign volunteers, and more than likely NATO arms. Russian ships fired off a few more cruise missiles near Odessa. The cities of Mariupol and Kharkiv/Kharkov have been facing methodical military bombardment. This is the way of war. Ask the people of Mosul, Bagdad, Tripoli, Benghazi, Aleppo, the list goes on and on. If your military chooses to put its positions in a city, don't be surprised when the city is levelled to defeat you. My own father fought in the city of Ortona, Italy in WWII, and the place was levelled. He was at Monte Casino too, which was a beautiful historical monument that German paratroopers decided to make a defensive position. The US air force bombed it into oblivion - no questions asked. This is the ugly truth of war, no matter how many "Karens" scream about it. The self-righteous, hypocritical posturing of the US and some other countries is frankly upchuck worthy - especially amongst military people who know the truth of war.  

 It is now the beginning of the third week of the war in Ukraine, and news is "leaking" out that Russia and Ukraine are close to signing a peace agreement which pretty much includes all the demands Putin put on Ukraine before the war started. That being said, it seems inconceivable that Russia would sacrifice so much for so little. Even if Ukraine agreed to formally cede the Donbass and Crimea to Russia, it still leaves Russia without a land bridge to Crimea, and Russia already effectively controlled both anyway. Therefore, given the Russians already fully occupy the Kherson region we may see a referendum there on Kherson as an independent republic or a part of a Donbass/Kherson republic, or a part of Russia. If Russia is preparing to sign a deal, then an attack on Odessa would be out, Odessa would remain as Ukraine's only sea port. It also seems counterintuitive that Russia would miss the chance to take all of eastern Ukraine, making the Dnipro River the new "Iron Curtain". Afterall, once you have gone all in you may look very weak to leave with nothing of much strategic or even tactical consequence. Such a face to your enemy will likely embolden them to come for your throat. That, after all, kind of defeats Russia's stated objective of deterring NATO aggression against it. 

Dangerous Diplomacy in Syria

When does diplomacy become dangerous? The answer: when it is not sincere. Now that may sound a tad naïve, but give me a moment of your time to explain. The purpose of diplomacy is to allow nations to settle differences through talk rather than war. It can work, and it can fail miserably. The most often cited case of diplomacy failing is the now infamous peace plan brokered by British Prime Minister Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler just prior to the outbreak of World War Two, and Chamberlain's famous words "Peace in our time". More often than not diplomacy solves small issues between nations, while the more serious, or strategic issues generally have ended in military action.

In todays world we have all kinds of "diplomacy" happening every day, and all day long, but we also have wars raging during the same period. In fact, diplomacy has been reduced to acts of one-up-man-ship for some theoretical "moral high ground" rather than its intended purpose of resolving disputes. The peril that results from this kind of behaviour leaves mankind with no real dispute mechanism other than war, or the "Law of the Jungle" - might is right and the end justifies the means.

Just recently I had the unfortunate privilege of watching the Israeli military Chief of Staff give a brief interview regarding a possible Kurdish state being formed from the countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Although that push to create a Kurdish state from these countries is not news, his particular delight in the idea, and his "too cute for words" pronouncement that Israel wouldn't be opposed to such a development, as he smiled into the camera, was in a word shocking. It wasn't shocking because he believed in the idea, but rather it was shocking because he showed no respect for the territorial integrity of the three nations already at war for their survival. In other words, while Israel sits somewhat quietly on the sides of these conflicts, feigning if you will diplomacy, in reality Israel isn't uninvolved or sincere.

Similarly, while the United States sits at one UN Security Council meeting after another, in many cases over Syria, and attempts to diplomatically pressure the Syrian government and its allies, one of its senior Generals recently pronounced that the Syrian army and its allies would not be permitted to cross the Euphrates River to enter Eastern Syria. Take a moment and consider that General's pronouncement. The Syrian army would not be permitted to enter the eastern half of its own country... Where in the rules of international law could this statement be rooted? The idea that a sovereign power cannot exercise sovereignty over its own territory is an affront to the very foundation of nationhood. An exception to this rule can me made in cases of genocide, such as Rwanda, but that is clearly not the case in Syria.

In fact, with the establishment of at least two US airbases in eastern Syria, and according to the Turkish government at least ten US bases of all types in the same area, it is clear that the American government is occupying eastern Syria in order to reinforce the Kurdish annexation of that area in order to establish a Kurdish state. The impending independence vote of the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, an area also heavily aligned with the US government, reinforces the notion. Yet, and here comes the dangerous diplomacy, the Americans continue to posture internationally that they want a peaceful settlement of the Syrian civil war.

The question then becomes, obviously, how sincere are the US diplomatic pronouncements about peace in Syria? The answer quite clearly is they are not serious what-so-ever. That leads to a greater problem: if the US is not serious about its diplomacy in Syria, then is it serious in its diplomacy toward Iran, North Korea, or even Russia and China? Should these countries take American diplomacy seriously at all, or should they rely on military means to resolve their inevitable national clashes of interests? Therein lies the danger of diplomacy without sincerity, and diplomacy that ignores its fundamental foundation which is international law. How nations must act toward other nations.

Real diplomacy has resolved some of the world's most anxious moments. The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. There was also the fall of the Berlin Wall. These were crisis that, once resolved by diplomacy, gave nations a chance to move forward without the direct use of force. Yes, they had their origins in force, but sincerity and adherence to international law overcame the threat of war, because the nations involved sincerely did not want such a confrontation. That is missing today. On a daily basis we here one side or the other threatening nuclear war, or "limited" nuclear strikes as doable. The aim is not to restore international law, or for that matter international order. The goal quite clearly appears to be the reverse - "strategic interests or national interests" trump (pardon the pun) the law of nations. The same type of scenario the world witnessed just before World War Two and the "peace in our time" declaration. It was not "appeasement" that didn't work in 1939, but the sincerity behind the "appeasement". The exact same conditions exist today. So, yes, dangerous diplomacy is alive and well, and ruling the hearts of men and women who lead their nations, but conveniently toss the lessons of history to the side - at all our peril.

Omar Khadr is not a Terrorist

Omar Khadr was not a terrorist then, and isn't one now. He was never a terrorist. Yes, I get that might leave some frothing, but the truth needs to be spoken.

At the age of ten Khadr was taken, along with other male family members, by his father to live in a Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Then 911 happened. At the time the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan, with a small faction known as the "Northern Alliance" fighting a losing battle with them for that control. Post 911 the US government demanded the Taliban government of Afghanistan, yes I said "government of Afghanistan" because that is what they were in 2001, hand over 911 mastermind Osama Bin Laden to them. The Afghan government refused on the traditional Islamic grounds that he was an "invited guest" in their country, and they were therefor obligated not to hand him over. At least that's what they said.

Bottom line is that didn't wash with the US and a small coalition of countries, and under a UN mandate they went to war with Afghanistan. It was a war. Not a policing action. Not an anti-terrorist operation. So let's agree on that point, because it is important. The United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and others went to war with the ruling power in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, US President George Bush, and many US politicians, claimed that if you supported the terrorists you were in fact a terrorist yourself. That was pretty convenient for the US government as they then treated Taliban (then the Afghan Armed Forces) as enemy combatants, or more accurately "unlawful combatants".

In reality, the captured Taliban forces in Afghanistan were really prisoners of war. By skirting the use of the proper term "prisoner of war", and by housing these people in Cuba, the US was able to skirt international and for that matter their domestic law. That allowed the US to, as former US President Obama said: "we tortured a few folks." Bush and company referred to it as "enhanced interrogation".

On July 27, 2002, Omar Khadr was involved in a battle against US Delta force soldiers. A battle for his life. One small battle, or more accurately "fire fight" in the midst of a far larger war. He was severely injured with two massive bullet exit wounds to his chest, and a lost eye - among other injuries. In the midst of the chaos he is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed a US medic, and cost another US serviceman an eye. For this act he was charged with a war crime. But was it a war crime? Battle is chaos no matter what you might think. The old saying that the plan only lasts as long as the first contact with the enemy holds true. In order for this act to be considered a war crime he would have to be deliberately attempting to kill a marked medic. In any case, whether he did or didn't commit a war crime is not the issue here.

The issue here is whether he is a "terrorist" or a "prisoner of war". Certainly the US medic who saved his life on that day did not consider him as a terrorist:

"This is a human life. This is war. This is something that most people can't fathom, and they want to be real quick to give an opinion just because it makes them feel good about themselves ... but there's more to this story than just talking points."

The Canadian Press story then goes on to summarize Donnie Bumanglag's take on the circumstances:

"At the time, he is clear that Speer and Morris were grown men who had signed on the line to become elite professional soldiers, knowing the risks of their jobs. On the other hand, Bumanglag also makes it clear he empathizes with the young Canadian who was taken by his father to another country and thrown into an ideologically motivated war over which he had no control."

You can't put it any more truthfully, or correctly then that. You can read Donnie Bumanglag, the medic who saved Khadr's life, here . I highly recommend it. As a retired infantry soldier/officer, I admire Bumanlang's professionalism for calling it as it was. Strip away the whole political spin job of if you're not with us you are a terrorist - as Bush put it. Understand that professional soldiers are volunteers. I was one myself. You sign up. You know your health and life are at risk. You know when you go into combat that it is war. You know that an enemy that surrenders is a prisoner of war, and entitled to Geneva Convention protection - just as we would expect for our own. It is only the opportunistic, and morally bankrupt political class, that have in turn influenced some of the same in the military class, to see a bogey man when in fact you ought to see a prisoner of war.

Bottom line is this, Khadr did not, to the best of my knowledge: massacre civilians; hijack an aircraft; kill athletes at an Olympics; or any other normally terrorist associated acts. How pathetic, and insecure in ourselves do we have to be to label other people as terrorist because they fight on the battlefield for what they believe? Is that what we have become in Canada? Simple minded, unquestioning, and brain washed by US propaganda used to justify breaking international law in the treatment of prisoners? Has our collective soul become that poisoned? It sure seems that way.

The polls show a majority were against the actions of our Prime Minister when he did the right thing by upholding values we as Canadians have always upheld - until we became brain washed that is. Now the Conservatives are going to the US to try and humiliate our government to score political points. That is just too morally corrupt to even speak about. It's as if we can't enforce our own Constitution, because it might upset the US government's sense of moral superiority. That's what it boils down to. You're either with us or against us. Your national values are of no consideration. All options are on the table. There is no right or wrong way. Just our way. This is a war on terror, and we define terrorists as those that oppose us. In case you haven't noticed, every other tin pot country in the world began labelling opponents to them as "terrorists". It's the new catch all phrase. Every time it is used it loses its original meaning - those that terrorize. Was a 15 year old kid, facing a US Delta Force unit in a fire fight, being a terrorist? Or was he more likely a child soldier scared shitless? Common sense should tell you that he wasn't "terrorizing" anyone at all, and in fact he was likely the only one "terrorized" in that firefight.

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, there is no question that Omar Khadr was never a terrorist. He was a child soldier at best. He fought in self-defence against one of the most elite special forces units (Delta Force). A mismatch if there ever was one. You could say he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could say he was brain washed by his father, and 5 years in Taliban Afghanistan. You could say he fought in self-defence for his life. One thing you cannot say with any credibility at all is this 15 year old kid, as he was then, was a terrorist. To say otherwise is to make comment on your own conditioned reasoning.


Omar Khadr as a 15 year old "terrorist"

Omar Khadr's Settlement

The case of Omar Khadr has created a lot of upset in certain circles in Canada. As a teenager, Khadr was spirited off to Afghanistan, by his father, to take up the fight against the US military in that country. Clearly brain washed, Khadr was a 15 year old left by his father to fight a grown man's war. During a fire fight with American troops he stands accused (and convicted in the US) of throwing a grenade that killed a US combat medic. He was captured barely alive and, after having sustained severe wounds, including the loss of an eye, was spirited off to an the Bagram Air base. Here he was treated for his wounds, extensively interrogated, and then extradited to the infamous Gitmo prison in Cuba. That's the gist of the story that most Canadians associate with him.

That back story is not the reason Khadr just received $10.5 million dollars from the Canadian government, along with an official apology. It has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. The reason Khadr was compensated so lavishly in an arbitration settlement by the Canadian government was not to "reward a terrorist", as some politicians and self-interested groups are putting it. Far from it. The reason he received what he got was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Canadian government had violated his Charter rights by using agents of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Agency) to interrogate him in Cuba, who then passed that information to their US counterparts, which resulted in him remaining in a situation that not only violated the Geneva Convention, but also the Charter. The reason it violated the Charter was the participation of the Canadian government, against its own citizen, in a process that involved torture and suspension of any and all human rights.

This is from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2010:


 "Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international obligations and
contributed to K's ongoing detention as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the
person, guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of     fundamental justice.... The Charter applies to the participation of the Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law....There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K's liberties and security of the person.

The interrogation of a youth without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogation would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth."

 I found it insightful, given the Supreme Court of Canada's finding in favour of Khadr, to view Khadr's submissions to the Court, which included a very disturbing excerpt from an interview conducted with him by CSIS agents. I place this in here to give the story some balance, and because it sheds a light on why the Supreme Court made the decision it did.

CSIS:  You look tired. Okay, so I brought you a burger. It’s very hot though. What’s
 happening?
OMAR:  [indiscernible]
CSIS:  Pardon me?
OMAR:  … something that’s very important, but I’m afraid to say it.
CSIS:  Okay, take your time and could you do me a favour today while we’re talking? Just
 make sure you talk nice and loud, so I can keep that air conditioning on so we’re cool.
OMAR:  There’s something that I’m scared to say.
DFAIT:  You don’t have to be scared of anything from us.
CSIS:  What are you scared to say?
OMAR:  Promise me you’re going to protect me.
CSIS:   Why don’t you just tell us what it is you have to say?
OMAR:  Promise me you are going to protect me from the Americans.
CSIS:  From the Americans?
OMAR:  Yes.
CSIS:  Okay, what’s going on with the Americans?
OMAR:  Promise me that you are going to protect me if I tell you.
CSIS:  Well we can’t protect you if we don’t know what it is that you have to say directly.
OMAR:  Promise me you’re going to protect me if I tell you.
CSIS:  Well, the only thing I’ll promise is that I’ll listen to you, and I’ll talk to the
 Americans for you here.
OMAR:  And after you go?
CSIS:  Pardon me?
OMAR:  And after you go?
CSIS:  And after I go, then I’ll listen to what you know, then I’ll come back and talk to you
 again. Make sure everything’s alright. Tell me what’s changed from yesterday.
OMAR:   I’m scared to tell you.
CSIS:   Well, I’ll tell you, there’s not much we can do, unless I know what you’re talking
 about.
OMAR:  Everything that I said to the Americans was not right, I just said that because they
 tortured me very badly in Bagram. So I had to say what I said.

The conversation shows, quite clearly, a terrified youth. It is important to remember that.

Now the Conservative Party, and some veterans among others, have spoken out publicly against any financial settlement with Khadr - this group also includes former Prime Minister Harper. Ironically, the Supreme Court found that it was the deliberate actions of the Harper government that led directly, and profoundly to the violation of Khadr's Charter rights. It was the political decision of the then Prime Minister to align himself completely and without hesitation to the American invasion of Afghanistan and other US military foreign interventions. The attitude that prevailed was that when it came to "terrorism" there were no boundaries restraining the western powers and how they responded. The Khadr story is simply a footnote of that policy. Essentially, the Harper government's policy was the end justified the means. That was the US policy as well, which resulted in torture being used against prisoners.

Bottom line is this, the ends do not justify the means. The Charter of Rights enshrines that very view. Our governments in Canada, federal and provincial, have their hands tied by the Charter so as not to violate the freedoms and rights we as Canadians take for granted. Those rights and freedoms are so much a part of who we are as a people that any violation of them is really a violation of us - or that is how it should be treated. Unfortunately, during the ongoing wars in the Middle East, Canadians have become numb in many cases, and fail to respect that people from the areas of war are just that - people. A really good example of this was the recent "celebration" of a Canadian soldier's sniper shot that killed an insurgent in Afghanistan. I was left with the very disturbing impression that Canadians viewed this "achievement" in the same way one might view the killing of an animal in a hunt. It is a reoccurring theme that has somehow permeated our core beliefs since the start of all these Middle Eastern wars - that people from this area are somehow "inhuman" and not viewed with the same humanness as say the soccer mom down the street. The Harper government's treatment fit that billing, and the Supreme Court of Canada saw it in that light.

As Canadians we've been here before. It wasn't that long ago that all people of Japanese ancestry were herded into concentration camps for the duration of the Second world War - in Canada. It wasn't that long ago that Aboriginal people were herded into residential schools - in Canada. We are not as Lilly white and pure as we like to see ourselves. We have a history of sacrificing other peoples rights to suit our own agendas - as ugly and disturbing as that is to admit. Omar Khadr is just the latest case of the ends justify the means. The latest victim. Luckily for Khadr we now have the Charter, which we did not back in the aforementioned cases, and he had recourse. He used that recourse. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with him, and wholly condemned the federal government's actions.

Mr. Harper, and the rest of the people who believe the end justifies the means, and justice is allocated based on the colour of your skin, have been served a message by the highest court - the days of the ends justify the means are over. Nothing can be more serious for a citizen, other than death, than to have their dignity stripped from them by a government that violates the very code meant to protect them from such actions. It is the social contact of all humans across the planet - we agree to be governed by you within these limits. It's often referred to as a constitution. The federal government violated Khadr's and it paid the price for it. Not enough Canadians stood up against their government to stop it from happening, and so we will all pay that bill. No matter who you think you are, or what you think of another, you are only ever their equal, and the Charter ensures it stays that way. Thank God.    

Russia and the US are Wrong in Syria

The United States is wrong in Syria, and the Middle East in general. Wrapping naked ambition in the cloak of national interest only serves to accentuate the gross abuse of power it wields there. There is no recognizable high ground, or moral imperative, that the US can trot out to justify its flagrant disregard for the rules of international law and state craft. It has to be said, and it must be said by people of good conscience, that the US is behaving like a barbaric, unrestrained colonial empire from the pages of our world's darkest history.

Having covertly, but obviously, supported the Islamic State in its attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, the US now finds itself in the position of "Plan B". Plan B means upping its support for the Kurds to split Syria in half while green lighting Saudi Arabia and its allies into a coalition directly opposing Iran. In other words, having failed to overthrow Assad, the US is now aiming to make the new battlefield Iran itself. The newly named Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia said as much when he stated the upcoming battlefield would be in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia. In effect, the US has established Saudi Arabia as the attack dog of the Middle East.

Saudi has been very aggressive in its war of regional influence with Iran over the last year. It invaded Yemen after to counter an Iranian-friendly Houthi uprising deposed the Saudi-friendly president of the country. It led an "Arab NATO" exercise of 350,000 troops aimed directly at invading Syria. It has just recently led an economic and geographic blockade of the Iranian-friendly Qatar. On and on it goes. Essentially, the US is now employing Saudi directly in the region, which means Iran will become even more involved in the region, and so it goes. Bottom-line is this, the US is escalating the world's path to war in the Middle East like a child playing with matches in the fire works factory.

This is not a case of Iranian aggressive action against its neighbors. Nor is it the case that Russia is attempting to physically extend its influence or power in the region. The battle ground in Syria is an excellent case in point. The US and its allies were not invited by the Syrian government to militarily intervene in the conflict there. Prior to the Islamic State's armed insurrection in Syria the country was firmly in the grip of Russian and Iranian influence. That was the status quo, and has been for decades. There was no attempt by Syria to expand its influence. In fact, years before, Syria completely withdrew its military from Lebanon. In other words, there were no grounds for any country becoming involved militarily on Syrian soil.

Israel, which has up to recently been fairly prepared to remain on the sidelines while its enemies killed each other, has become more and more involved in the regional fight. Its air force has conducted numerous attacks on the Syrian army in the last year with apparent impunity. Furthermore, and in a sign of things to come, its ministers have made comments insinuating a coming invasion of Lebanon to take on Hezbollah - another Iranian ally in the region. Hezbollah has not been conducting any military assaults on Israel, but it has been an invited military ally of Assad in the current conflict.

It is a fair conclusion that prior to Russia's direct military intervention in Syria, with Iran and Hezbollah in tow, that the US, Israel, and Saudi were prepared sit back and covertly support the various Islamic militant groups that were tearing Syria apart. However, after the Russian led alliance stopped, and then reversed, theses groups battle field successes, all bets were off. It is all a matter of record now. No imputation of fact or speculation is required.

While the US has grossly abused its power and position to drive the world to the brink of war, the Russians are not without fault - just for the opposite reason. The Russians have been far too uncommitted for a country that purports to lead the bloc which seeks a multi-polar world. Russia is failing both Syria and its vision of a multi-polar world by not forcefully coming to the aid of an ally in crisis. By the way, China could also be included in that criticism. Both Russia and China have very large militaries, and both have the capacity to employ those forces far from home. Before now, well before now, the Russians should have deployed forces on a divisional level to assist in the destruction of militant groups in Syria.

Unfortunately, for regional and world stability, the Russians have decided to give Syria piece meal assistance rather than decisive support. Instead of a division or two of Russian troops rolling over the militant groups, and ending the war there swiftly and decisively, the Russians committed some air force support, but left control of the ground to Syria's army and Hezbollah. A minimal risk scenario for Russia, but not the actions of a world power intent on creating a multi-polar world. In effect, a timid response. That has left the door open to the US on the ground in Syria, and the US has taken advantage of that.

Less than a year ago there were essentially no US forces on the ground in Syria. Today the US has established at least one base, if not more, in Kurdish held Eastern Syria. Ditto for the southern border of Iraq and Syria, where the US has now established a base with missile artillery that has an effective range of 300 km. Now, instead of the Russians having to simply rid Syria of militant ground forces, they must engage American forces directly to free Syria from uninvited guests. The prospect of having to engage US forces that have invited themselves onto Syrian territory raises the spectre of a Russian-American direct conflict.

Make no mistake, the current crisis in Syria and now the Middle East in general, is as much a fault of Russian inaction as it is of US intervention. This cannot be overstated. The Americans no longer take Russian threats over Syria seriously, because Russia has failed to adequately respond to US and Israeli strikes against the Syrian armed forces. The US and Israel have been able to impose military action upon a key Russian ally with no consequences whatsoever. This is where the blame for Syria's destruction and the danger for our world meet. A habitually aggressive superpower vs a habitually over cautious superpower creates an imbalance that leads to conflict on a global scale. Russia by its lack of serious military commitment in Syria is for all intense and purposes appeasing the US, and in doing so emboldening the US to go ever further with its plans for the Middle East - and the world in general.

The only solution for the crisis of balance we face in the world is for the Russian and Chinese governments to become resolute in their responsibilities as world powers. That doesn't mean Russia and China should become overly aggressive with their militaries,  but a minimum requirement of a super power is to safeguard its weaker allies against the aggressions of another state - particularly another super power state. If Russia and China fail to take decisive action in Syria, and force the Americans out by facts on the ground, it won't be long before we will have the following wars: an Israeli invasion of Lebanon; a Saudi led war on Iran; and God knows what from there. The Russians and Chinese have a responsibility to act so this does not occur - for the world's sake. Balance in world affairs, in line with the rule of international law, must be restored to this place we call home, or the natural consequence may be that none of us have a home anymore. 

War in North Korea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Edge of World War III

It's ironic, in a way, that my country of Canada is today celebrating a bloody victory over Germany during World War I at Vimy Ridge, meanwhile the current world desperately races to repeat a similar but worse slaughter. Sad and ironic.

The United States, hand-in-hand with Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had planned to take over Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon to erase Iranian influence in the region. Saudi Arabia's job was to take out the Iranian allied Houthi in Yemen. The American and Israelis left the job of Syria to Islamic militants. Lebanon hasn't happened yet, but that will likely be left to the Israelis. That was the plan. Once that was finished the goal no doubt was to turn the sights on Iran itself. All this had the benefit of not just an American dominated and controlled Middle East, but also a relegated and isolated Russia, which in turn would isolate China. A grand strategy if you will.

However, as they say, a plan only lasts as long as its first contact with the enemy. Saudi Arabia, with American assistance, was able to oust the Houthi government in Yemen, but has been unable to proceed much past that. The traditional Houthi lands of Yemen remain in Houthi control and the Saudis are bogged down in a hopeless quagmire. The Sunni Islamic State was unable to capture Iraq as Iran intervened just as they were at the gates of Bagdad. A Sunni victory in Iraq would have brought that country into US control, rather than the current state of Iraq as a Shia friendly government to Iran. As the Islamic State retreated out of Iraq, Russia intervened in Syria. Again, the Islamic State was right at the doorsteps - this time in Damascus. As it became clear to the Americans, that ISIS could not take Iraq, they jumped on the band wagon to destroy ISIS so they could stay in the game.

So much for Plan A, the Americans turned to plan B. Plan B calls for a direct American invasion of Syria, in conjunction with Turkey and Israel (perhaps even with the Saudis). While the partition of Syria seems to be the goal at the moment, it may well be a ruse. The US has been shipping equipment and men to Lebanon and Jordan on the quiet. However, as an example, that quiet was shaken yesterday as 20 US tanks and infantry had to intervene at the Syrian/Jordan border to rescue their new allied militia, which had become encircled by ISIS. In other words, the US has assembled significant forces in Jordan. Earlier this week there were reports of US ships delivering equipment and men to Lebanon. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that the US has moved most of the 82nd Airborne into the Syrian theatre, as well as special forces nd artillery units. This buildup is being complimented by two new US air bases in Eastern Syria. All in all, the US are preparing to take all of Syria - not just a simple partition of it.

On the Russian border, US and allied forces have been mobilizing from one end to the other. A move that serves the purpose of tying Russian forces down on their own border, thereby limiting their flexibility to respond to such conflicts as Syria, and establishing a force to attack Russia with. In other words, the West is attempting to pin Russia down while it manoeuvers to destroy its influence and power in the Middle East. If Russia sits back in a defensive posture, and allows the US to impose its will on the Middle East, then Russia will be next. It's only a matter of time.

As worrisome as all this is, the US is also acting against China. A US carrier task force, also referred to as a "strike force" is enroute to the waters off  North Korea. US President Trump has stated that if China will not reign in North Korea, well, then the Americans will. It seems that Trump is making good on his threat. We can expect a strike on North Korea's nuclear program, including arms, but also on the massive artillery forces poised to level Seoul, capital of South Korea. It has been estimated that the North could level Seoul with conventional artillery in hours - if not less. That ability has always been the North's greatest guarantee of non-intervention by the US. However, with a strike looming, it makes sense that the US would also be planning a massive bombing campaign of those artillery forces north of Seoul.

China, meanwhile, can not simply stand by idly while this happens. It has been targeted by the US itself for its claims in the South China Sea. All this must be in the US calculations. It's safe to say that if the Americans conduct the assault on North Korea that is expected, they will also in effect be going to war with China. Engaging China militarily also means engaging China economically, and the US has no hope of winning that one. It is very probable that China will release the "Chinese nuke", which is dumping all its American debt and currency on the market at once, thereby crashing the world economy. Even a simple strike on North Korea, that results in the North leveling Seoul, would more than likely be enough to crash the world's stock exchanges and currency markets.

I wonder if the Western world, with our fat cat life styles and Walmart mentalities, can fathom the result of an international financial collapse? The reality is most people will not even commit their minds for a moment to consider it. Ditto for the massive destruction caused by a conventional or nuclear war. Yet, we sit right on the precipice of it all. Watching as if somehow it wasn't our responsibility to think or speak of it, or against it. A great gaggle of sheep herded to the slaughterhouse doors, but taking comfort that there are other sheep before us, closer to the executioner's axe, and therefore we're okay for the moment. It can't happen to us. We're safe and sheltered from it all. It's really a damning commentary on us all to be frank. With all our education, technology and civilization we can't muster a better way than hoping the executioner gets tired before the sheep in front of us turns into us.

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.






 

Syria is for Syrians

You could be excused for thinking the world has taken a madness pill, and jumped off the deep end. Whether it is the schizophrenic American political scene, the deep and divisive European internal political battles, the Middle East in turmoil, or the fact that the stock markets continue on as if nothing is happening, the place has lost the plot. Speaking of lost the plot, this post focuses on the almost unbelievable actions of foreign nations in Syria, and what may well come next.

Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:

"Article 1

The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."

The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.

Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.

So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:

As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.

They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to  the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.

That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:

 
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of  North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.

What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.

It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.

The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.

The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized  world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.      

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.

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.

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.