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.

The Eurasia War - Wizard's Chess

 "We have nowhere left to retreat" - Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation. These words were meant for the Russian people, and not as a plea to the rest of the world. Putin is invoking the patriotic spirit of Russians, and framing the coming war as an act of self-defence (which it might be) so that he has those same people behind him for the big move. The move he has dreamed of since he witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not just about Donetsk or Lugansk Republics, or even Ukraine. This is about recreating the Russia of old. 

Putin has named several factors as strategic imperatives for Russia. A key one is having NATO nations on his borders. He points to Ukraine as a possible NATO member, but there are three countries on his eastern flank, within hours of Moscow, that are NATO members already: Estonia (population 1.3 million); Latvia (population 1.9 million); and Lithuania (population 2.7 million). Collectively known as the Baltic States, they give NATO a staging ground in behind Russia's western border, and are therefore problematic for Moscow. Those countries have, respectively, the following NATO troops stationed in them: 800; 1200; and 1200. Currently they represent an irritant at most, but their potential to become much more for NATO is the danger for Russia.

Most analysts are looking at Russia's position as solely focused on Ukraine, but this would be a foolish miscalculation. Firstly, Russia needs to send a very strong message to countries like Finland, Sweden, Georgia and others that it is prepared to destroy countries that imperil its strategic stability. A minor shuffle into eastern Ukraine would have no such affect, and might in fact do the opposite. Russia knows, like anyone knows, that if there is going to be a big cost then you might as well go for the gusto. The "gusto" in this case is not just eastern Ukraine, not just Ukraine, but the Baltic states and likely Moldova - or at least parts of it. The following map shows that such a move gives Russia the smallest western border to defend amongst all the options. (blue line)

Essentially the new western border of Russia will extend from Kaliningrad in the north to the Pro-Russian Transnistria in the south. It will reduce the number of countries accessing the Black Sea to Russia, Turkey, Romania and Hungary. Romania and Hungary are NATO countries, but now they will have Russian divisions stationed at their border, and they do remember when they were occupied, so their inclination to poke the bear will likely be zero. That leaves Turkey, also a NATO member, but a member whose western based economy is in freefall and whose currency is devaluating on a daily basis - leaving it vulnerable to China and Russia. 

Russia has also been moving large forces from the far east, near China, to their western border. Those troops have not yet arrived. This indicates that Russia intends on taking very serious military action, decisive military action, and it also indicates Russia is very comfortable leaving China with a less guarded border. 

That brings us to Eurasia. Russia and China have been planning a separate economic system from the West for decades. They have been stockpiling gold as their system will be a gold-backed trade/currency system. They have signed strategic economic and arms agreements. They are in a sense creating anew world order that intends to completely sideline the West economically, and if necessary militarily. The United States has fed this ambition by sanctioning Russia to the point where Russia, and importantly its citizens, have gotten used to being apart from Western goods and services. It is, therefore, almost amusing that the United States is threating Russia with expulsion from the SWIFT economic settlement system. Intentionally, or unintentionally, the US is playing right into Russia hands, and therefore China's. The West's reaction to a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Moldova will be the moment both China and Russia have been waiting for to initiate their Eurasian project, and they can say they had no choice, because the US threw them out of SWIFT. Things to come.

In the mean time look for a one fell swoop Russian assault, due to an Ukrainian assault in the Donbass, likely during the Beijing Olympics. Ukraine has been banging the pot internationally that Russia has 100,000 troops near its border, but what Ukraine has been reticent to say is that half the Ukrainian military is now on the the borders of the Donbass region. The danger for Ukraine is that half its army is in very real danger of being enveloped by Russian forces almost as soon as hostilities start. The following map shows the general area that one half of Ukraine's troops are concentrated in (blue circle), and the likely approaches of Russian, and possibly Belorussian troops. It's quite easy to see how quickly they will be isolated, or as the Russians like to call it: "a caldron". A second flanking will be to isolate Kiev from the West and place the entire country in a free fall within days of an invasion. 

 It should not be forgotten that Russia stated, just months ago, that a Ukrainian military intervention in the Donbass would be the end of Ukraine as a state.

We should find out if this is the big Eurasian move or not within the next month or so, but all signs point to it. Keep in mind that both China, Russia, and even North Korea are ahead of the West in developing strategically decisive hyper-sonic missiles. Russia and China have also now had the time to modernize their militaries. In a sense they are ready to go, and their hypersonic advantage may be short lived. It will be in that calculus that the fate of the world as we know it will rest. 

  

War in Ukraine 2.0

 War is coming back to Ukraine, and potentially surrounding countries as well. Back in 2014, when it was quite obvious the Western powers initiated a civil war in Ukraine, during the Olympics, to topple a President who backed off joining the EU, Russia responded by seizing Crimea and aiding separatist forces in the Lugansk and Donetsk republics in Ukraine. It was a tit - for - tat power grab by the Russians, but key to this was that it was a response to the initiation by the Americans of an "in your face" alteration to the balance of power in the region. 

The Russians claim that, in 1991, when they dismantled the Soviet Union, the United States had given their word that NATO would not expand eastward. Whether that is true or not, and the Russians never got in writing for whatever reason, the truth is that over the next thirty years NATO has expanded eastward to the point that NATO forces are right on the border of Russia itself. Historically Russia has never allowed an enemy to be on its borders without going to war over it. Now Russia finds itself having three small Baltic States as NATO members, and possible jumping off points for an invasion of Russia, or at the very least bases for offensive weapons systems. The distance from the southern border of Latvia to Moscow is just under 600 kilometers, and from Estonia a mere 140 kilometers to Putin's hometown of St. Petersburg. It's an intolerable strategic situation for any world power - the Americans would be no different (Cuba crisis).

Apart from its northwestern flank, Russia has a buffer state, which is in talks to become a part of Russia, which somewhat insulates its central flank. Even there, Ukraine-like movements had been attempting to overthrow the Belorussian President with similar motivations and alliances. In fact, it would likely have been successful if Russia had not learned from the Ukrainian lesson, and this time immediately intervened overtly and covertly to stop it. The southern flank, which has been the most pressing, is the most potentially explosive of all. 

The Ukrainian government has taken what can best be described as a "bull in the china shop" strategy in dealing with Russia. Despite being warned by Russia that any Ukrainian attempt to retake Donetsk and Lugansk Republics by force would see the end of Ukraine as a national entity, and despite knowing that Russian missiles and electronic warfare would destroy Ukraine's military infrastructure in less than an hour, the Ukrainian government continues to pursue a policy of bluff and hysteria. The goal of the Ukrainian government is to trap the Western powers in a war with Russia, much like the approach taken by Winston Churchill to involve the Americans in World War Two. To this point in time the Americans are using Ukraine as a stick to beat the Russians with, but that is all. As US President Biden said: "no American troops to Ukraine" in case of war. 

From Russia's perspective, all things centre around Crimea - the unsinkable aircraft carrier that protects their southern flank with Europe. While the Russians have built a massive bridge from the mainland to Crimea, an exposed position if there ever was one, they have struggled to supply it with the most important commodity of all - water. Shortly after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the Ukrainian government built a dam over the only water supply route to Crimea, which could be considered a crime against humanity as it primarily targeted the civilian population there. As a result, the massive drainage conduit to Crimea has gone dry, and become overgrown with all types of vegetation. The picture below shows the dam and the clogging of the drainage conduit.

 

Sooner or later, and it now appears sooner than later, Russia will have to act militarily to secure this water supply to Crimea. It cannot have a core strategic interest so exposed. From its perspective there can be no choice. 

Ukraine meanwhile, having had years to rebuild its military, has amassed half of its military, compromising all its battle ready units on the battle lines around Donetsk and Lugansk Republics. The obvious message Ukrainian message is a final battle for the Republics is coming. Many media outlets have been floating dates for such an outbreak in hostilities to happen as late January or February of 2022. Western media  outlets have suggested that is the time frame Russia will invade Ukraine, but it could just as easily be the dates Ukraine intends to send its military in, which would cause a Russian reaction. The irony of the dates put forward shut not be lost on anyone. The winter Olympics in China begin in February of 2022. The revolution in Ukraine began during the winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. The timing is likely not a coincidence. The West has refused to send any diplomatic members to the games in China, and an invasion by Ukraine, and the response by Russia allows the West to ruin China's games and place the blame on a Russia to a distracted public.

Against this backdrop we have serious moves happening in Eurasia. Russian President Putin was just in India, arm in arm with its President who declared that India had no closer friend than Russia. Just days later the Chief of Staff of the Indian military died when his helicopter crashed in India. Russia and China also just concluded a major defence alliance.  Now Russia has sent a "proposal" to NATO which would roll back strategic advantages for NATO in former Warsaw Pact members countries, including the stationing of missiles and troops therein, and ban others from joining NATO. Apparently the proposal is signed by the Russian side with blank spots for NATO to sign. In other words, it's not a proposal, but rather an ultimatum. The question remains: what are the consequences of not agreeing to the Russian ultimatum. 

They could be something as simple as a demonstration of Russia's military power, like knocking Ukraine out of existence in short order. It could also be something much bigger. It could be that Russia's hypersonic missile systems are sufficient to attack western interests and at this point the West is unable to respond to that. Most estimates put American development of hypersonic missiles well behind both the Russians and the Chinese. As the word hypersonic implies, there is no time to defend. For Russia to be making the ultimatum to NATO that it has, it must have the ability to strike with impunity. That could include all of NATO's GPS satellites, without which NATO would be finished. It could include many things. It must also have the backing of China, who literally covers Russia's rear. It must also have at least the neutrality of India. Given Russia has made the move, it's a safe bet that all those factors have been satisfied.

The only thing left to do is wait. Will Ukraine be the willing sacrifice to start a new cold or hot war? Will Russia, China and others, having been sanctioned by the West, start their new gold based system of commerce - abandoning or being thrown out of the SWIFT system for international payments? Will China have the excuse it needs to take back Taiwan? The game of chicken is about to come to its logical end, and we can but watch.  

  

Trump is not Stupid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going To War With Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War With China

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

India

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

The South China Sea

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

Taiwan

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

North Korea

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

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

Connecting the Dots

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

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

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

Is the US a World Dictator?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.






 

The Trump Wars

The United States is at war - with itself at the moment. Donald John Trump, the 45th President of the United States, wants to reverse all the wrongs he sees plaguing his country. Fair enough. New leaders often come in with the strongest of intentions. Nothing new there. This time it's different though. It is said that politics is the game of rich men. Trump won the presidency without having to cut deals with the US establishment. In doing so he cut them out of the power equation they have been used to holding, and that has become dangerous. Only a rich man could do it. One who could fund his own campaign. One who could pay for his own mistakes. That is Trump, and that's exactly what he did.

Now we have the aftermath. An unprecedented situation in western political history which many would welcome, but which also holds real danger for all. Trump is not controlled by the US elite. He now has the power in many ways to act unilaterally on the international scene - including deploying US forces into conflict.  The Chinese refer to politics as war without bloodshed, and to war as politics with bloodshed. A very accurate way to measure the dynamics of mankind. Today we are at the point of war without bloodshed - at least in the West. In the near future we will be immersed in politics with bloodshed - unfortunately for us all.

A troubling sign of  this was Trump's election campaign, and the constant reference to Iran as a pariah state. Another was a similar view of China. In my mind though, the Iran war is more immanent than the Chinese conflict. The reason for that conclusion? In a word - Israel. Trump has made his son-in-law his strategic adviser on the Middle East. His son-in-law is Jewish. That creates an immediate problem of perception. For instance, what if his son-in-law was Saudi or Palestinian? The optics are quite obvious - the strategic advice is more than likely to be slanted in one direction. That creates real danger for the world. It leaves him open to influence.

On the campaign trail, a bombastic Trump promised the crowds that he would "rip up" the Iranian nuclear deal which is just months old. That in itself is troubling. Even more troubling is the fact that such an act is fully inline with Israel's policy on the agreement. Just remember that without a nuclear deal Israel was pressing for a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. It appears that is now back on the table. They aren't talking about it publicly yet, but a curious, foreboding message was just released from the Israeli Prime Minister. The video message is directed at the Iranian people, and not the Iranian government he says. In it he calls the Israeli and Iranian people friends who are being separated by a religious dictatorship (regime). At one point, in the two minute video, he let's slip that the Iranian people will not he under the yoke of this regime much longer. The inference is clear. Iran is on the cusp of being "liberated". Regime change. War is coming, and he is asking the Iranian people to view Israel as a liberator.

That simple insinuation says a few things. Firstly, it says that the Israeli Prime Minister knows there is a war coming with Iran - otherwise he wouldn't have put the words in that context. It also jives with the new US President's view toward Iran. Trump has promised to stop the US's foreign wars, and essentially make the US a pre-World War One isolationist power, so is there a contradiction in his view of Iran? Consider that Israel was prepared to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities prior to the nuclear agreement, but former President Obama would not "green light" that operation. Israel was held back. Now, however, the water on the beans has changed. Trump, it appears, is fully prepared to allow Israel a free hand in dealing with Iran. And that is very dangerous indeed.

It is now almost certain that Israel with attempt to bomb Iran. It's just as certain the Trump will turn a blind eye to it, with a quiet promise the US will back Israel if things get ugly. It's curious that just last week two unidentified drones were spotted over Iran's capital city - one was shot down. It's also interesting that during the same time Russia moved state of the art s-400 anti missile systems into the Moscow area, and placed them on "combat alert". The war of words with China dramatically escalated, as well, to the point Trump threatened China with a naval blockade. China, in turn, said it would not be deterred in the South China Sea by "word bombs" from the US. Clearly the world is moving dramatically toward conflict - armed conflict more likely than not. I suggest the first concrete step in that conflict will be Israel bombing Iran - sadly.

On the face of things it seems odd that Trump would be seeking to repair relations with Russia on the one hand, but raise the spectre of war with Russia's two most important allies, China and Iran, on the other hand. There seems to be a disconnect there. Of course, Trump is accused by his detractors as having many different disconnects on many different issues, so perhaps this is just another case. Or perhaps it is a ruse. Perhaps it's an attempt to split Russia away from China like Hitler tried to do with Britain and Europe. In any event, Russia is not about to abandon its eternal alliance with China, and strategically important alliance with Iran, to make nice with the Americans. That is not going to happen. So when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran and Israel go to war, it would seem inevitable that the US would back Israel and Russia/China would back Iran. Such a situation, if you can put the thought of nuclear destruction out of your mind for a moment, would give Trump the ammunition he needs to block China's access to many markets - a key plank in his way of thinking. Made in America, not made in China, is his goal. It fits pretty nicely.

One last very key point. The US is more divided as a country now than it has been since their civil war. Trump is not the cause, but he is the symptom. As Lincoln said: "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Has there ever been a clearer example of that than today's United States? The US, as a country, is in desperate need of a unifying cause. The US loves to unite for causes. In today's case, Trump is looking to use a war for that purpose. Dislike of Iran is almost universal in the US. It's almost a safe bet that the American people would rally around that - especially if Israel was attacked in retaliation for the bombing of its nuclear facilities. You can hear it now: "USA...USA..USA". Unfortunately, a war for the United States has become almost a national imperative. A patriotic duty to keep the country from breaking apart at the seams. The fact that such a war will almost certainly lead to a wider conflict with Russia and China will likely not mean a lot to a people in desperate need of a unifying cause.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

Our Time of Chaos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump - Back to the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump - Back to the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danger Close For Trump

Donald Trump won the US election handily early this morning. He rode a wave that he didn't create, but was wise enough to see - the disaffected. The people in the US that feel their country was lost due to trade agreements, and foreign trade to Asia, that effectively stripped the United States of its industrial might - and the jobs that went with it. The people who have become war weary after 13 years of straight war in never ending guerilla wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. The constant state of war that George Orwell noted in his book 1984.

The US people rejected their establishment. Both the political and to some extent the financial establishment. They are deeply angered as they watch their country slip from a model to the world (in their eyes) to a wreck on the way to the bottom. In other words they acted out. They lashed out. They made a statement. Contrary to some of the ludicrous mass media analysis that framed the vote as racist (white men acting racist) and/or sexist, the Trump election was the result of his "movement" coming together to throw out the US political establishment - Republican and Democrat. It was an easily foreseeable result given the explosive tension in the US, the anti-establishment movement enveloping the Western world, and the establishment's "let them eat cake" approach to a twenty first century educated populace. The Clintons obvious ties to the odious and dark political "elite" made Hillary Clinton the wrong woman, at the wrong time, to become the first female President of the United States. Not rocket science.

That brings us to today, and the next six weeks or so before Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. If you believe that there is a political establishment that crosses party lines and looks after its own, then you must believe they aren't happy at the possibility of losing control of the country to a man they consider a "loose cannon". Of course, by loose cannon they mean they can't control him. For them that is a big problem, and that means the next six weeks may be dangerous for the world.

Trump on the face of it appears to be a pragmatic person looking for pragmatic results. It seems obvious to me that as a family man, with a large collection of kids and grandkids, that Trump's motivation for seeking the office of President at the age of 70 is his concern for the future those family members may face in the US. That's my own take, my gut feeling on him. He has made it clear he wants to mend fences with countries like Russia, although perhaps not so much for Iran (which is potentially dangerous in itself), and there has been a concerted effort by powerful elements within the US establishment and government to promote hostilities with Russia and China. The question is this: Will those forces attempt to use Obama's last six weeks in office to start a conflict that Trump will have no choice but to continue when he is sworn in?

A conflict that derails his agenda for a pragmatic world peace. An amicable agreement on spheres of influence, etc. For example, an American strike on  Syrian forces that sees the Russian military shoot down one or more US fighter aircraft. Of course there are many other such scenarios that could green light an American conflict and leave Trump powerless to produce peaceful pragmatism. Furthermore, such a conflict would derail Trump's plans for cancelling trade agreements as the US and those same countries would be allies in any large conflict, and the feasibility of cutting off a fighting ally would be almost nil.

My point is that the next six weeks are "danger close". They are vulnerable to manipulation of international events to maintain a global agenda of successive free trade agreements that marginalize the sovereignty of nations and lay the path for continuing the New World Order of the Bush era. They won't sit back idly while Trump undoes their work, and they won't be able to realistically attack him directly right now as his "movement" has the political capital of a big agenda in the making. Some people believe that Mike Pence somehow represents a modern day Lyndon Johnson scenario. I doubt that as the public is not the relatively naïve public of the 60's.

No, what Trump and his people need to be watchful for is suddenly aggressive escalation of American military actions in either the Middle East, Ukraine or China. Personally, if such a move is made to derail Trump's agenda before he hits office, I believe that Syria holds that distinct potential. It's a place where American and Russian military hardware is operational in close proximity. It's also a place where the US has already painted Russia as the bogeyman in the siege of Aleppo. That despite attempting to do the almost identical thing with their Iraqi allies in Mosul, Iraq. My point is this: Things are dangerous right now in the political vacuum of the exchange of power in the US. There are very powerful forces that don't want to see any peace with Russia or China. My estimate is they will act to make sure that doesn't happen, and they only have six precious weeks to instigate against it. That's why things are danger close for President-Elect Trump right now.