As leadership races go, the race to replace Stephen Harper has been a very low key affair - with a few exceptions. It is a peculiar mix of back room types, previous ministers and even a flashy billionaire for good measure. There has been some very controversial, bordering on out right racist comments made by a number of the front runners - which have marred the race with a distasteful brush. Comments like "Canadian values" tests, bans based on race, and the list goes on. Comments that do not belong in Canadian society let alone a race to lead one of Canada's two contending political parties. A disgraceful race to the guttural bottom.
There is Bernier from Quebec who was sprinkled with pixy dust way back by then Prime Minister Mulroney. Carefully groomed through the ranks, Bernier was seen as a Quebec star apparent until he left confidential national security notes in his Hells Angels girlfriend's bedroom. He was demoted out of Cabinet for that "little mishap", placed in a very quiet place, and kept out of the lime light so he could be brought back at a time like this. Aside from his major mistakes, Bernier is a non-starter outside Quebec. Look to Bernier as a king maker for an Ontario-based contender.
Then there is Kevin O'Leary, the out spoken and somewhat detested billionaire who has made a public career out of running people into the ground - not exactly appealing. Apart from his corrosive personality, O'Leary brings a jump to the race as he does his best to impersonate Donald Trump - for better or worse. The truth is by the time the next Canadian election will be held, the already notorious Trump will be viewed in a much dimmer light. Hardly the role model to lead your party into an election in Canada. For that reason, and that reason alone O'Leary should be ruled out.
The person I initially thought would have the best shot at leadership was Kellie Leitch. Well educated, and well known in Conservative circles, Leitch has all the connections to get her to the top. However, and it always struck me odd, the unwritten rules really forbid a backroom-type from running for the front room, yet that is exactly what Leitch is doing. Even more odd, even bizarre, is her choice of the "Canadian values" flag as her standard. She has really caused herself some significant brand damage with that position - the kind of damage that sticks and never goes away.
Which brings me to the best choice for a brand new leader - Erin O'Toole. O'Toole is an experienced politician. He took the absolutely poisoned Department of Veterans Affairs over from Julian Fantino - a man who managed to completely isolate the Conservatives military vote. In reality, O'Toole's rescue of Veterans Affairs shows he can take a severely damaged brand, and turn things around completely. That is the true test of a good politician and leader. O'Toole is also from Ontario, where the Conservatives need to win big. He is unassuming, down to earth, friendly, but also serious. He inspires trust - a key necessity for the Conservatives. He is also the perfect contrast to Trudeau. He is not flash and dash with no substance. It cannot be emphasized enough that the perfect foil to Trudeau's terrible performance will be key in the next election.
Now having stated that Erin O'Toole should be the next leader of the Conservative Party, I wonder if the Party itself can see the forest for the trees. Will it be another case of a pre-set leadership race, with pre-planned alliances giving us the all too predictable result - as has been the case in the past? Will Bernier cross the floor to Leitch to crown her, and she in turn make him her Quebec lieutenant? Or could it be visa versa? Time will tell, but the Conservatives need to make the right decision this time. No Harper like candidate (read Leitch or O'Leary). No Quebec-first candidate (read Bernier). No Mr. Nice Guy but no substance candidate (like the ex-Speaker). What they need is a reasonable and trustable person, who has a good record in government with no associated negative baggage. That bill fits Erin O'Toole perfectly. If the Conservative Party of Canada has learned anything, the next Conservative Party leader will be Erin O'Toole.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Syria is for Syrians
You could be excused for thinking the world has taken a madness pill, and jumped off the deep end. Whether it is the schizophrenic American political scene, the deep and divisive European internal political battles, the Middle East in turmoil, or the fact that the stock markets continue on as if nothing is happening, the place has lost the plot. Speaking of lost the plot, this post focuses on the almost unbelievable actions of foreign nations in Syria, and what may well come next.
Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:
"Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.
Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.
So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:
As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.
They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.
That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.
What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.
It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.
The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.
The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.
Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:
"Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.
Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.
So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:
As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.
They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.
That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.
What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.
It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.
The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.
The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
The Coup in Washington
The old Chinese proverb "may you live in interesting times" rings so very true these days. A "populist" billionaire is elected as a "man of the people" in the United States, and sends the internal organs of the American elite into convulsion. It's hard to watch what is loosely called the land of the free, and remain uncommitted to one side or the other - by design perhaps. With every passing day the venom grows, the accusations become more shrill, and President Trump becomes more destabilized. It's the type of "regime change" actions we routinely witness the United States commit in the rest of the world now being visited on its own, by its own.
Make no mistake, what is happening in the United Sates right now has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, or any other foreign country. Nor is it some sort of spontaneous movement against a "crazed despot". What we are witnessing is the very calculated destabilization of the American presidency by those that are sworn to uphold the American constitution, and those that aren't sworn but claim to uphold it. In other words, an internal insurrection.
To be fair, Trump seemed to anticipate this sort of reaction to his election - even well before election day. He shrewdly calculated that the American establishment would use all their means to thwart him, and even unseat him. So, right back to the early days of the campaign, he began marshalling people toward a common set of causes in order to create what he termed as "the greatest movement in US history" - a"Trump Nation" if you will. He was so successful that the US political establishment quickly realized that should they try and impede him that Trump would appeal to his base, which was primarily Republican voters, and they would place decisive pressure on those Republican Senators and members of Congress that stood in his way. In fact, it is quite clear that Trump is not really a Republican at all, but an independent who chose to use the Republican Party as a vehicle to gain office. And his plan succeeded perfectly.
However, since the election, things have changed. It is quite obvious now that the US establishment are not prepared to accept the results of the election - ironically what they accused Trump of preparing to do should he have lost the election. Instead they have chosen to launch a campaign against President Trump, from a multitude of sources, to first destabilize his presidency by eroding his support with his base, and then.. well we'll get to that.
As bizarre as it might seem to be to accuse governmental organizations within the United States of acting to over throw their own duly elected President, it must be said that all the evidence points to that fact. It becomes obvious when you look at previous US intelligence operations in other countries to see the same MO here. The damaging internal intelligence leaks. The 24-7 vicious media attacks. All designed to decimate the credibility of President Trump in the eyes of "Trump Nation" - the source of Trump's power, and incite hatred and contempt towards the man. Once his credibility has been sufficiently destroyed they will move to replace him.
There are a number of solid pieces of evidence that clearly demonstrate they are maneuvering to distance VP Pence from Trump as we speak. For example, the recent firing of Trump's national security advisor. It has been made clear, especially in the media, that the reason he was fired was for "lying to VP Pence" over his contacts with Russia. Within days of that spin, Pence is jettisoned off to an international security conference in Europe where he is portrayed as "the voice of reason" by the US media. His diplomatic skills are emphasized. There are no peculiar and unflattering pictures of him published. In other words he is being promoted, but by whom?
The choice of Pence as running mate for Trump was often described by the US media as a nod to the Republican establishment, but many people thought it could also prove to be his undoing. Short term gain for long term pain. You will notice that throughout the Republican campaign, and the actual election, not one negative story about Pence has been filed. Why? Through two years of campaigning the media could not find any dirt on Pence? Seems very unlikely. The answer is clear - they're protecting him. Why have they protected him from the get go, and are now not just protecting him, but also promoting him? Cause he's their man. The man they intend to take over from Trump when they move to remove him. The vehicle of removal? With the obvious vilification of Trump by the media on the issue of Russia it seems this will be the chosen route for seeking his impeachment. However, it would seem that impeaching the man before he has barely attained the throne might not be the most prudent course. Then again, when it comes to loss of control, perhaps expediency will trump prudency.
The US political establishment, and the US security establishment walk hand in hand. Never let that simple fact be lost on you. Therefore, when the political establishment is threatened with a loss of control so is the intelligence establishment. Nobody expected Trump to become President Trump (well some of us did call it) and what we're witnessing now is a sort of emergency surgery by the US establishment. They always had Pence as their go to card, but likely never believed they would need it - if the coverage by CNN is any example.
The bottom line is that the duly elected President of the United States is facing a coup from within the US political, security and media establishments. A very distasteful travesty to be perpetuated upon the "leader of the free world". The expediency of breaking the rules is always tempting to those in power, but it also has devastating consequences that are normally unintended. Whoever chose the expedient assassination of John F. Kennedy likely didn't fully realize that the assassination would create permanent, deep seeded distrust about the American government with the American people. It severely undermined the credibility of the establishment, and has fostered a now almost impenetrable distrust of all the government agencies within government.
Today the preferred method of dealing with these sort of situations is character assassination and not actual assassination. However, the reaction to this action may well be the same. Now many within the US establishment are attempting to show Russian President Putin as the puppet master behind Trump's rise to power. That may be true, or it may not be true. One thing is for certain though, Putin has to be the happiest camper on the block with Trump's election. The Divided States is now more divide than ever - bypassing the Vietnam War era. If something were to happen to President Trump the only real benefactor would be Putin. The internal unrest that would result from a coup against Trump would rip the US apart as "Trump Nation" lost its proverbial mind over his ouster. If he isn't ousted, and the US establishment simply continues to create an atmosphere of chaos within the country, Putin wins here too. Putin would certainly be the man sitting in the nose bleed section, devouring his popcorn as the US imploded. Looking at it from that perspective is even more worrisome, yet all too real to be ignored. Putin may have helped Trump get elected, but he may have done it in careful consideration of the reaction by the establishment to a Trump victory and not any possible sweet deals he could get as a result of his assistance. This seems far more likely to me.
If I had a message for the US establishment it would be: careful what you wish for. For every action there is a reaction, and the unintended consequences of surgery may be fatal for their place they have become accustomed to. Certainly that is what history has shown - in the US or elsewhere. The far better approach is to allow the man to exercise the responsibility he earned by winning the election. Rely and trust in your democratic process. Put aside your ambitions and ego. Let nature take its course. Do not open Pandora's Box. Be careful what you wish for. If I had a message for President Trump it would be: whoever is feeding you lines that your electoral college seat count is the highest since Reagan's victory is giving you "bad advice" for an intended purpose. I'm a proud Canadian, and happy this isn't transpiring in my country, but this world is for all of us to be responsible for. Coups are not responsible exercises of power. This one, in that way, is no different.
Make no mistake, what is happening in the United Sates right now has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, or any other foreign country. Nor is it some sort of spontaneous movement against a "crazed despot". What we are witnessing is the very calculated destabilization of the American presidency by those that are sworn to uphold the American constitution, and those that aren't sworn but claim to uphold it. In other words, an internal insurrection.
To be fair, Trump seemed to anticipate this sort of reaction to his election - even well before election day. He shrewdly calculated that the American establishment would use all their means to thwart him, and even unseat him. So, right back to the early days of the campaign, he began marshalling people toward a common set of causes in order to create what he termed as "the greatest movement in US history" - a"Trump Nation" if you will. He was so successful that the US political establishment quickly realized that should they try and impede him that Trump would appeal to his base, which was primarily Republican voters, and they would place decisive pressure on those Republican Senators and members of Congress that stood in his way. In fact, it is quite clear that Trump is not really a Republican at all, but an independent who chose to use the Republican Party as a vehicle to gain office. And his plan succeeded perfectly.
However, since the election, things have changed. It is quite obvious now that the US establishment are not prepared to accept the results of the election - ironically what they accused Trump of preparing to do should he have lost the election. Instead they have chosen to launch a campaign against President Trump, from a multitude of sources, to first destabilize his presidency by eroding his support with his base, and then.. well we'll get to that.
As bizarre as it might seem to be to accuse governmental organizations within the United States of acting to over throw their own duly elected President, it must be said that all the evidence points to that fact. It becomes obvious when you look at previous US intelligence operations in other countries to see the same MO here. The damaging internal intelligence leaks. The 24-7 vicious media attacks. All designed to decimate the credibility of President Trump in the eyes of "Trump Nation" - the source of Trump's power, and incite hatred and contempt towards the man. Once his credibility has been sufficiently destroyed they will move to replace him.
There are a number of solid pieces of evidence that clearly demonstrate they are maneuvering to distance VP Pence from Trump as we speak. For example, the recent firing of Trump's national security advisor. It has been made clear, especially in the media, that the reason he was fired was for "lying to VP Pence" over his contacts with Russia. Within days of that spin, Pence is jettisoned off to an international security conference in Europe where he is portrayed as "the voice of reason" by the US media. His diplomatic skills are emphasized. There are no peculiar and unflattering pictures of him published. In other words he is being promoted, but by whom?
The choice of Pence as running mate for Trump was often described by the US media as a nod to the Republican establishment, but many people thought it could also prove to be his undoing. Short term gain for long term pain. You will notice that throughout the Republican campaign, and the actual election, not one negative story about Pence has been filed. Why? Through two years of campaigning the media could not find any dirt on Pence? Seems very unlikely. The answer is clear - they're protecting him. Why have they protected him from the get go, and are now not just protecting him, but also promoting him? Cause he's their man. The man they intend to take over from Trump when they move to remove him. The vehicle of removal? With the obvious vilification of Trump by the media on the issue of Russia it seems this will be the chosen route for seeking his impeachment. However, it would seem that impeaching the man before he has barely attained the throne might not be the most prudent course. Then again, when it comes to loss of control, perhaps expediency will trump prudency.
The US political establishment, and the US security establishment walk hand in hand. Never let that simple fact be lost on you. Therefore, when the political establishment is threatened with a loss of control so is the intelligence establishment. Nobody expected Trump to become President Trump (well some of us did call it) and what we're witnessing now is a sort of emergency surgery by the US establishment. They always had Pence as their go to card, but likely never believed they would need it - if the coverage by CNN is any example.
The bottom line is that the duly elected President of the United States is facing a coup from within the US political, security and media establishments. A very distasteful travesty to be perpetuated upon the "leader of the free world". The expediency of breaking the rules is always tempting to those in power, but it also has devastating consequences that are normally unintended. Whoever chose the expedient assassination of John F. Kennedy likely didn't fully realize that the assassination would create permanent, deep seeded distrust about the American government with the American people. It severely undermined the credibility of the establishment, and has fostered a now almost impenetrable distrust of all the government agencies within government.
Today the preferred method of dealing with these sort of situations is character assassination and not actual assassination. However, the reaction to this action may well be the same. Now many within the US establishment are attempting to show Russian President Putin as the puppet master behind Trump's rise to power. That may be true, or it may not be true. One thing is for certain though, Putin has to be the happiest camper on the block with Trump's election. The Divided States is now more divide than ever - bypassing the Vietnam War era. If something were to happen to President Trump the only real benefactor would be Putin. The internal unrest that would result from a coup against Trump would rip the US apart as "Trump Nation" lost its proverbial mind over his ouster. If he isn't ousted, and the US establishment simply continues to create an atmosphere of chaos within the country, Putin wins here too. Putin would certainly be the man sitting in the nose bleed section, devouring his popcorn as the US imploded. Looking at it from that perspective is even more worrisome, yet all too real to be ignored. Putin may have helped Trump get elected, but he may have done it in careful consideration of the reaction by the establishment to a Trump victory and not any possible sweet deals he could get as a result of his assistance. This seems far more likely to me.
If I had a message for the US establishment it would be: careful what you wish for. For every action there is a reaction, and the unintended consequences of surgery may be fatal for their place they have become accustomed to. Certainly that is what history has shown - in the US or elsewhere. The far better approach is to allow the man to exercise the responsibility he earned by winning the election. Rely and trust in your democratic process. Put aside your ambitions and ego. Let nature take its course. Do not open Pandora's Box. Be careful what you wish for. If I had a message for President Trump it would be: whoever is feeding you lines that your electoral college seat count is the highest since Reagan's victory is giving you "bad advice" for an intended purpose. I'm a proud Canadian, and happy this isn't transpiring in my country, but this world is for all of us to be responsible for. Coups are not responsible exercises of power. This one, in that way, is no different.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Russia's duty in Eastern Ukraine
As far as civil wars go, the war in Eastern Ukraine is as ugly and hateful as any. It started with a popular revolt in the republics of Lugansk and Donetsk against the removal of the Ukrainian president by popular revolt in Western Ukraine - during the Sochi Olympics. Back then unarmed civilians were standing in front of tanks and armoured personnel carriers to stop Ukrainian troops from entering their cities and towns. People took over government buildings and protested against the government in Kiev. We're a long way from those days now.
With backing from the United States, the Ukrainian government turned its army on the rebels in both Republics. In response, Russia assisted the rebels with arms, intelligence and some allege men. In any case, the popular unrest against the coup in Kiev turned into a war for the two republics independence. Shockingly, and brutally, the Ukrainian government ordered its own military forces to attack the towns and cities of Donetsk and Lugansk, and the death toll of civilians ran into the thousands. The Ukrainian government never seriously looked to negotiate with the people of Eastern Ukraine. They simply tried to put them down. That's were anger over the coup turned into pure hatred. A blood hatred. Too many lives were touched by death and destruction at the hands of their own government to ever forgive.
Today, as I write this, the guns of war have shattered what was always a shaky ceasefire known as the Minsk Accord. Minsk was always destined to failure as it never fully took into account the blood hate in Ukraine. I wrote about it back then here . The truth is neither side wants a thing to do with the other. The Ukrainian government is acting as though the people in Eastern Ukraine are trying to steal their territory, and the people who reside there have no right to self-determination. Not a very European view, which the new government there claims to be.
The Ukrainian army has been conducting a "creeping" offensive almost since Minsk was signed, but in recent days that has accelerated dramatically. They have been moving into small towns and areas that were agreed to be no man's land, or left alone by both sides. They were in the de-militarized zone that divided the two sides along the complete front lines. The forces of Donetsk and Lugansk, I call them NAF or Novorossiya Armed Forces, after the name the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics gave their new political entity (Novorossiya = New Russia), are responding to these incursions now. Massive artillery duels between the two sides have escalated dramatically. Civilian areas are being leveled once again, and Ukrainian tanks have been filmed in the "de-militarized" zone near the city of Donetsk.
It appears that a freshly rearmed Ukraine, with masses of new military recruits, is again planning on asserting itself on the two republics. That being the case, where are the guarantor nations of the Minsk Agreement? Russia, Germany and France brokered the deal, but they aren't forcing the Ukrainian government to restrain itself. In fact, they haven't been able to get Ukraine to live up to any of the required steps outlined in the Minsk Agreement. Instead, Minsk has served as a shaky truce at best - often violated over the last three years, but not to the degree it has been today.
Russia, Germany and France have the responsibility to enforce Minsk. Not just the truce aspect of Minsk, but also the structural requirements that the Ukraine government was meant to do under the agreement. While Russia would not have much influence to bring to bare on the government in Kiev, Germany and France certainly could. The United States certainly could. Instead, these governments, including my own in Canada, have turned this into a rearming and retraining exercise of the Ukrainian military - essentially treating Ukraine as a member of the NATO alliance. In other words, there has been no good faith given to the Minsk Agreement, and the sole focus has been meeting force with force.
Russia has a role to play in all this that it has refused, and that is to occupy the two republics. The Ukrainian government feels it has a free hand in attacking when and how it chooses, and most of the casualties that result are civilians. This has to stop. The only way to stop the Ukrainian government from attacking its own civilians in the republics is to place a barrier in front of them that will deliver a much more serious blow to them that they could inflict on the other side. The Russian army would and should constitute such a barrier. I say that not to wave the Russian flag, but in serious reflection on reality. Russia will not, understandably, allow foreign armies enmasse on its border. Nobody would. It would take an army to stop the two sides from killing each other. The majority of both republics either identify themselves as Russian or are Russian speakers. The Russians in these circumstances would be trusted by the people of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Russian military intervention in the republics is necessary, pragmatic, and humane. The Western world needs to come to this conclusion, and support it before all out carnage raises its ugly head there again. The stupid, outdated ideas of Russian imperialism and all that nonsense need to be put to the side. The Russian government must also wake up and smell the coffee. Russia claims to be a source of major influence in the world, and a leader in a new multi-polar world. If that is to be the case, then Russia must exert itself correspondingly if it wants to be taken seriously.
Of course, Russia itself is in the middle of a rearmament program, and in that sense it may not want to bite off more than it can chew - which in a sense is understandable. However, when mass slaughter is happening on your won border, and people of your decent are the victims of a government that shells its own people, then it is incumbent on you to act decisively. By way of example, the Turkish incursion into Syria to establish a "safe zone". Russia could, and should do the same in Donetsk and Lugansk. A safe zone that protects those people from being slaughtered at random by their own government. That isn't being imperialistic or ambitious. It is being humane and showing leadership. It is plain and obvious, that after three years of Minsk, the Ukraine government simply can't resist the temptation to put down the people of Donetsk and Lugansk by force. No further evidence is required. Russia sitting on its hands makes Russia look weak on its own border, and with its fellow Slavs. So, Mr. Putin, show the leadership a leader of the multi-polar world must, and make Donetsk and Lugansk a "safe zone" for the people that live there. Don't they deserve that much?
With backing from the United States, the Ukrainian government turned its army on the rebels in both Republics. In response, Russia assisted the rebels with arms, intelligence and some allege men. In any case, the popular unrest against the coup in Kiev turned into a war for the two republics independence. Shockingly, and brutally, the Ukrainian government ordered its own military forces to attack the towns and cities of Donetsk and Lugansk, and the death toll of civilians ran into the thousands. The Ukrainian government never seriously looked to negotiate with the people of Eastern Ukraine. They simply tried to put them down. That's were anger over the coup turned into pure hatred. A blood hatred. Too many lives were touched by death and destruction at the hands of their own government to ever forgive.
Today, as I write this, the guns of war have shattered what was always a shaky ceasefire known as the Minsk Accord. Minsk was always destined to failure as it never fully took into account the blood hate in Ukraine. I wrote about it back then here . The truth is neither side wants a thing to do with the other. The Ukrainian government is acting as though the people in Eastern Ukraine are trying to steal their territory, and the people who reside there have no right to self-determination. Not a very European view, which the new government there claims to be.
The Ukrainian army has been conducting a "creeping" offensive almost since Minsk was signed, but in recent days that has accelerated dramatically. They have been moving into small towns and areas that were agreed to be no man's land, or left alone by both sides. They were in the de-militarized zone that divided the two sides along the complete front lines. The forces of Donetsk and Lugansk, I call them NAF or Novorossiya Armed Forces, after the name the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics gave their new political entity (Novorossiya = New Russia), are responding to these incursions now. Massive artillery duels between the two sides have escalated dramatically. Civilian areas are being leveled once again, and Ukrainian tanks have been filmed in the "de-militarized" zone near the city of Donetsk.
It appears that a freshly rearmed Ukraine, with masses of new military recruits, is again planning on asserting itself on the two republics. That being the case, where are the guarantor nations of the Minsk Agreement? Russia, Germany and France brokered the deal, but they aren't forcing the Ukrainian government to restrain itself. In fact, they haven't been able to get Ukraine to live up to any of the required steps outlined in the Minsk Agreement. Instead, Minsk has served as a shaky truce at best - often violated over the last three years, but not to the degree it has been today.
Russia, Germany and France have the responsibility to enforce Minsk. Not just the truce aspect of Minsk, but also the structural requirements that the Ukraine government was meant to do under the agreement. While Russia would not have much influence to bring to bare on the government in Kiev, Germany and France certainly could. The United States certainly could. Instead, these governments, including my own in Canada, have turned this into a rearming and retraining exercise of the Ukrainian military - essentially treating Ukraine as a member of the NATO alliance. In other words, there has been no good faith given to the Minsk Agreement, and the sole focus has been meeting force with force.
Russia has a role to play in all this that it has refused, and that is to occupy the two republics. The Ukrainian government feels it has a free hand in attacking when and how it chooses, and most of the casualties that result are civilians. This has to stop. The only way to stop the Ukrainian government from attacking its own civilians in the republics is to place a barrier in front of them that will deliver a much more serious blow to them that they could inflict on the other side. The Russian army would and should constitute such a barrier. I say that not to wave the Russian flag, but in serious reflection on reality. Russia will not, understandably, allow foreign armies enmasse on its border. Nobody would. It would take an army to stop the two sides from killing each other. The majority of both republics either identify themselves as Russian or are Russian speakers. The Russians in these circumstances would be trusted by the people of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Russian military intervention in the republics is necessary, pragmatic, and humane. The Western world needs to come to this conclusion, and support it before all out carnage raises its ugly head there again. The stupid, outdated ideas of Russian imperialism and all that nonsense need to be put to the side. The Russian government must also wake up and smell the coffee. Russia claims to be a source of major influence in the world, and a leader in a new multi-polar world. If that is to be the case, then Russia must exert itself correspondingly if it wants to be taken seriously.
Of course, Russia itself is in the middle of a rearmament program, and in that sense it may not want to bite off more than it can chew - which in a sense is understandable. However, when mass slaughter is happening on your won border, and people of your decent are the victims of a government that shells its own people, then it is incumbent on you to act decisively. By way of example, the Turkish incursion into Syria to establish a "safe zone". Russia could, and should do the same in Donetsk and Lugansk. A safe zone that protects those people from being slaughtered at random by their own government. That isn't being imperialistic or ambitious. It is being humane and showing leadership. It is plain and obvious, that after three years of Minsk, the Ukraine government simply can't resist the temptation to put down the people of Donetsk and Lugansk by force. No further evidence is required. Russia sitting on its hands makes Russia look weak on its own border, and with its fellow Slavs. So, Mr. Putin, show the leadership a leader of the multi-polar world must, and make Donetsk and Lugansk a "safe zone" for the people that live there. Don't they deserve that much?
Sunday, January 22, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Russia is Dead Wrong on Turkey
The question of Turkey as a reliable international partner has swum around my mind for some time now. There was the infamous case of the Israeli commandos landing on an aid ship destined for Gaza, in which several people were killed. Turkish President Erdogan immediately broke a long standing relationship with Israel, and even threatened to have future such convoys escorted by the Turkish navy. Presumably, he was prepared to go to war with Israel over the issue of the Palestinians in Gaza. Considering the ramifications of that action on Turkey, Israel and the world community, it must be said that Erdogan operates on the slippery end of sanity and/or judgement. In other words, he is a hot head with an ego the size of his country, and judgement normally associated with school children fighting in the playground. It may also be adduced that he is a war monger waiting for the chance for that one big war that will give him glory in the history books of Turkey.
Little has happened to change my assessment of either Erdogan or Turkey from that time til now. Erdogan has lashed out at its largest trading partner Germany, and now has a very chilly relationship there. Turkey itself is on the cusp of being forever banned from entry into the European Union. However, the real eye opener has come in the form of the Syrian War. The first major incident, other than all the shouting from the sidelines, was the shooting down of a Russian bomber in Northern Syria. It was clearly an ambush by two Turkish fighters on a Russian fighter bomber which was not designed to really defend itself against such an attack, because it is primarily a bomber and not a fighter. The pilot was killed parachuting to the ground by Turkish supported militants in Syria.
Then there was the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria under the pretext of ridding its border of Syrian terrorists. Of course it just happened to be coincidental that the Kurds were taking over Northern Syria, and the Kurds want to establish their own country which is to include a bite size piece of South Eastern Turkey. Erdogan said at the time, fresh from surviving a coup against him, that Turkey was only securing its border and was not attempting to cause Syria's president to lose power. All well and good Russia likely thought. We have a "partner" to help us get rid of all these terrorists and rebels in Syria. However, just a few weeks ago, Erdogan was caught on camera at a relatively private event, stating that Turkey was in Syria to get rid of its President Assad, and that it had no other purpose but that.
Well that was no doubt a bit of a shock to Russia who was in the process of renewing relations with Turkey. There were hurried assurances from the Russian foreign ministry that they would seek clarification from Erdogan, and public statements saying the Russian government would "rely on the previous official position of the Turkish government. Perhaps not surprisingly, Erdogan never came out and publicly qualified his remarks. Instead the whole matter was left to quietly go away so to speak. Yet, a comment such as that can never go away. It rests, now quietly, at the heart of Turkish involvement in Syria. The Russian government seemed to want to paper over the issue and carry on with its primary focus of defeating the militants/terrorists. But can it be papered over, or is it a snake in the grass waiting to strike at the right moment?
Yesterday the world witnessed the very public execution of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey on live TV. It struck me that the occasion was almost set up for such a purpose. The most obvious question of course is why was there no security for the Ambassador? That is the responsibility of the country in which an ambassador is located. There was none. The Turkish police officer was able to simply walk up behind the Ambassador, directly in the TV cameras eye, and wait like the executioner for his moment. It had all the callings of one of those grotesque ISIS execution videos. After he killed the Ambassador the assassin pounced around in front of the TV uttering calls to remember Aleppo and Syria. Bottom line is it was all too easy, and all too public to be anything other than state arranged. The Turkish government even began immediately blaming the Gulen movement - their sworn enemies outed in that Turkish coup. All too convenient. All to staged.
That brings us to the press conference today between the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Minister's condolences to the Russian people for the killing of its ambassador was so "business-like" that it chilled the blood. But that was just the beginning. After the obligatory comments of how they all agree on the need to defeat this, that, and the other thing, the press were allowed one question of each foreign minister. The Iranian journalist asked what the three countries had agreed to as measures to stop third parties supporting the militants/terrorists in Syria. It was all going fine until the Turkish Foreign Minister indignantly piped in that the freezing of support for militants/terrorists had to include Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and that may have been Turkey's way of defending itself for supporting Turkmen militants/terrorists in Northern Syria. Whatever the case, it became quickly crystal clear that the Turks were prepared to throw aside their "team work" at the very smallest of challenges.
In other words the Turks cannot be trusted. The Americans can't trust them and the Russians can't trust them. That's the way they want it. The strong defender of their neighborhood. Beholding to no body, and loyal to nobody. A regional super power that must be dealt with in the region as if it was militarily equal to the US or Russia. In a strange way though, Turkey may be right. Both Russia and the US are entangled all over the map and stretched thin combatting each other's various moves. With Turkey focusing its strength solely in the "neighborhood" perhaps they have achieved that goal of regional super power. Of course, if things go hot, and either Russia or the US decide to move into the area in force, Turkey will quickly find out its true position, but in the mean time there it is.
The question for Russia is how long does it plan to dance the dance of a thousand veils with Turkey? Is Turkey causing more problems than it is solving? Or perhaps more importantly, how long will you let Turkey embarrass you internationally? It's not many countries that could shoot down a super power's military aircraft, and kill its pilot, and then have their ambassador publicly executed on international television, and get away with it. The press conference today was quite clear, working with Turkey is like herding alley cats. Unfortunately for Russia, such behaviour by the Turks does nothing to enhance Russia's international reputation. Actually the reverse is true. Russia's image is being tarnished by its association, for whatever reasons, with Turkey. Is that purposeful on Turkey's part? Hard to say. One thing is true though, there are only so many coincidences in international politics, and Turkey is not immune from that rule. The Kremlin has made a grave mistake in throwing an arm of brotherhood over Turkey's shoulder. It is not a brother, but rather a poison chalice. It becomes clearer every day. If Russia is wise it will let that cup pass from its lip.
Little has happened to change my assessment of either Erdogan or Turkey from that time til now. Erdogan has lashed out at its largest trading partner Germany, and now has a very chilly relationship there. Turkey itself is on the cusp of being forever banned from entry into the European Union. However, the real eye opener has come in the form of the Syrian War. The first major incident, other than all the shouting from the sidelines, was the shooting down of a Russian bomber in Northern Syria. It was clearly an ambush by two Turkish fighters on a Russian fighter bomber which was not designed to really defend itself against such an attack, because it is primarily a bomber and not a fighter. The pilot was killed parachuting to the ground by Turkish supported militants in Syria.
Then there was the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria under the pretext of ridding its border of Syrian terrorists. Of course it just happened to be coincidental that the Kurds were taking over Northern Syria, and the Kurds want to establish their own country which is to include a bite size piece of South Eastern Turkey. Erdogan said at the time, fresh from surviving a coup against him, that Turkey was only securing its border and was not attempting to cause Syria's president to lose power. All well and good Russia likely thought. We have a "partner" to help us get rid of all these terrorists and rebels in Syria. However, just a few weeks ago, Erdogan was caught on camera at a relatively private event, stating that Turkey was in Syria to get rid of its President Assad, and that it had no other purpose but that.
Well that was no doubt a bit of a shock to Russia who was in the process of renewing relations with Turkey. There were hurried assurances from the Russian foreign ministry that they would seek clarification from Erdogan, and public statements saying the Russian government would "rely on the previous official position of the Turkish government. Perhaps not surprisingly, Erdogan never came out and publicly qualified his remarks. Instead the whole matter was left to quietly go away so to speak. Yet, a comment such as that can never go away. It rests, now quietly, at the heart of Turkish involvement in Syria. The Russian government seemed to want to paper over the issue and carry on with its primary focus of defeating the militants/terrorists. But can it be papered over, or is it a snake in the grass waiting to strike at the right moment?
Yesterday the world witnessed the very public execution of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey on live TV. It struck me that the occasion was almost set up for such a purpose. The most obvious question of course is why was there no security for the Ambassador? That is the responsibility of the country in which an ambassador is located. There was none. The Turkish police officer was able to simply walk up behind the Ambassador, directly in the TV cameras eye, and wait like the executioner for his moment. It had all the callings of one of those grotesque ISIS execution videos. After he killed the Ambassador the assassin pounced around in front of the TV uttering calls to remember Aleppo and Syria. Bottom line is it was all too easy, and all too public to be anything other than state arranged. The Turkish government even began immediately blaming the Gulen movement - their sworn enemies outed in that Turkish coup. All too convenient. All to staged.
That brings us to the press conference today between the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Minister's condolences to the Russian people for the killing of its ambassador was so "business-like" that it chilled the blood. But that was just the beginning. After the obligatory comments of how they all agree on the need to defeat this, that, and the other thing, the press were allowed one question of each foreign minister. The Iranian journalist asked what the three countries had agreed to as measures to stop third parties supporting the militants/terrorists in Syria. It was all going fine until the Turkish Foreign Minister indignantly piped in that the freezing of support for militants/terrorists had to include Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and that may have been Turkey's way of defending itself for supporting Turkmen militants/terrorists in Northern Syria. Whatever the case, it became quickly crystal clear that the Turks were prepared to throw aside their "team work" at the very smallest of challenges.
In other words the Turks cannot be trusted. The Americans can't trust them and the Russians can't trust them. That's the way they want it. The strong defender of their neighborhood. Beholding to no body, and loyal to nobody. A regional super power that must be dealt with in the region as if it was militarily equal to the US or Russia. In a strange way though, Turkey may be right. Both Russia and the US are entangled all over the map and stretched thin combatting each other's various moves. With Turkey focusing its strength solely in the "neighborhood" perhaps they have achieved that goal of regional super power. Of course, if things go hot, and either Russia or the US decide to move into the area in force, Turkey will quickly find out its true position, but in the mean time there it is.
The question for Russia is how long does it plan to dance the dance of a thousand veils with Turkey? Is Turkey causing more problems than it is solving? Or perhaps more importantly, how long will you let Turkey embarrass you internationally? It's not many countries that could shoot down a super power's military aircraft, and kill its pilot, and then have their ambassador publicly executed on international television, and get away with it. The press conference today was quite clear, working with Turkey is like herding alley cats. Unfortunately for Russia, such behaviour by the Turks does nothing to enhance Russia's international reputation. Actually the reverse is true. Russia's image is being tarnished by its association, for whatever reasons, with Turkey. Is that purposeful on Turkey's part? Hard to say. One thing is true though, there are only so many coincidences in international politics, and Turkey is not immune from that rule. The Kremlin has made a grave mistake in throwing an arm of brotherhood over Turkey's shoulder. It is not a brother, but rather a poison chalice. It becomes clearer every day. If Russia is wise it will let that cup pass from its lip.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
German U-boat Coverup in Canada
On May 9, 2016, I filed an access to information request with the federal government (specifically Transport Canada). The purpose of that request was to assist in research on the two U-boat wrecks discovered near Muskrat Falls in Labrador. It seemed straightforward enough. It's been 71 years since those u-boats made their way up the Churchill River. However, my first sign of trouble came when I received their first response. You can read it below:
The federal government wanted some serious time to prepare a fairly simple request. Well, I thought, perhaps they will do a very thorough job and we can get some answers to this deep mystery resting on the bottom of the Churchill River. Wrong again. On October 16, 2016, some six months later, I received a bunch of blacked out media emails, and generally just garbage. The release was of no value whatsoever - with one exception. Curiously it wasn't information that was released that caused any interest, but the official reasoning for not releasing the information I know they have that caught my attention. It reads like this:
"Mr. Cabana, you will note that certain information has been withheld from disclosure pursuant to:
15. (1) INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE
15. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information."
Wow, that was a mouthful. So, in other words, the federal government cannot release any information on two sunken U-boats near Muskrat Falls, even after 71 years, because it could hurt our allies. That in itself is a huge red flag. Seriously, there are u-boats sunk all over the world. They are dived on, and in some cases they have been raised. So why are the two U-boats at Muskrat Falls so top secret?
My theory on this is quite simple. I cannot speak to the one U-boat because the diver has not shared any of his pictures or sonars of it, and the provincial government blacked out the images they had on their files of it. In other words, I can't confirm that wreck is a U-boat - although some of the provincial government emails indicated it was. However, the other U-boat I can guarantee is a "black boat" U-boat, either U-180 or U-851. I previously presented the evidence on that find in this post . If you haven't read it, then take a moment and give it a look. Furthermore, all available intelligence on these U-boats is their last missions both occurred toward early fall of 1944.
At that time, August of 1944 to be exact, Martin Bormann met with the major corporations of Nazi Germany, advised them the war was over, and instructed them to create international offshoots to hide money and resources before the Reich collapsed. Simultaneously, he was involved in secret talks with Allen Dulles, head of the US OSS (now CIA) which on it's face involves the recruitment of German scientists to the US after the war. However, and it's a big however, it seems they may have been discussing more than just post war employment for German scientists. My theory is the most pressing thing they were negotiating was uranium. Uranium the US did not have, and uranium the US needed to develop an atomic bomb before Japan and/or Russia did.
Bottom-line to my theory, and it is a theory, is the U-boats laying near Muskrat Falls secretly transported uranium to the US via its base in Goose Bay, Labrador. After delivering their load at the dock on the base they then proceeded up the Churchill River during the dark and scuttled their U-boats once there. There is really no other reason for a German U-boat to be that far inland. If the crew simply wanted to be out of the war, as folk lore has it, they would have scuttled their boat right on the Labrador coast where they could be sheltered by the Moravian communities, and where almost no allied presence to speak of was available. It would make no sense militarily to take the risk of crossing Lake Melville, and traversing the Churchill River, right next to the largest allied air transit base in North America during WW II. In fact, it would have been fool hardy.
My theory goes one step further. Why would the Germans be sending uranium to help the US build an atomic bomb while still fighting the Americans in Europe - albeit in Germany at that point? Logically they were striking a not so conditional surrender - secretly of course. The quid pro quo was uranium, technology and scientists for post war protection of German corporations assets and Nazi brass - including more than likely Hitler. A deal with the devil no question, but a deal that suited several purposes. The Americans got their nuclear and technology resources that place them well for after the war. The German elite got a promise of essentially exile in South America - free of foreign intelligence interference. In coming to this agreement they both became allies in one thing - fighting the Soviet Union. The Germans realized the Soviets were about to militarily dominate them, and the Americans didn't want post war competition in shaping the world. Getting the US to nuclear status first suited everyone's interests.
Both u-180 and u-851 were carrying secret cargos to Japan: in u-180's case it was uranium; and in U-851's case the payload remains unconfirmed as to whether it was uranium or mercury. Both U-boats are the only ones left in their class that remain unaccounted for. Both disappeared in late summer and early fall of 1944 in the Atlantic. U-180 maintained radio silence the moment it left its French base in mid August. U-234, the U-boat that deliberately surrendered to the US and not Canada at the war's end (also carrying uranium) maintained radio silence its entire voyage across the Atlantic. There is an excellent documentary on U-234 called "Hitler's Last U-boat" which is available on You Tube.
In any case, as with most mysteries, some questions can be answered by a process of elimination. The official records say U-180 left with three other U-boats - all destined to Japan with uranium and technology. The other two U-boats maintained contact with Germany. The escorts that took them all through the Bay of Biscay maintained the U-boats all made it through the mine fields as they were at the appropriate depth. There were no explosions from underwater mines detonating, nor any debris field from a stricken U-boat. The French government has never attempted to locate and raise or contain a U-boat wreck right off its shore that was full of uranium. Why not would be a good question. The Norwegian government had a similar situation with the sunken u-864 which had the dubious honour of being the only submarine sunk by another submarine in World War Two. It was also full of mercury. The story is here . Yet, no word of France looking for a similar situation off its coast... It's as if France knows U-180 is not sitting on the bottom of its coast leaching uranium into its waters.
Sometimes words say something. Sometimes the lack of words say something. It's for all of us to decide what is the truth that lays below the waves of the Churchill River near Muskrat Falls, and the secret role they played that altered the course of World war II and the post war era.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Newfoundland and Labrador is Irredeemable
"There's a reason our people left there". That strange little thought crept into my mind as the family and I traversed the Rocky Mountains on the way to a new life in Newfoundland and Labrador. That was March, 2010. Returning to the home of my Grandmother (or Nan as they say here). We were excited, but yet that little thought, perhaps little message, always stuck with me.
It wasn't long after we arrived that I engaged with the local PC's as I had been with the Conservatives since 1991. Danny Williams was premier, and the place was unabashedly nationalistic (which I could've done without). However, he suddenly resigned as soon as he'd pushed through Muskrat Falls, and the party was calling for contenders - although in reality it was fulfilling a backroom deal to put Kathy Dunderdale in place (not so affectionately referred to as "Danny Williams' flack jacket - meaning she was to take all the "bullets" from his actions). I put my name up to run because I was convinced Williams' Lower Churchill scheme was the financial death nail for the province. For my trouble I was roundly accused of being an uppity "come from away" and/or "mainlander". And still am.
I realized quickly that corruption was rampant throughout the PC party, and tried to warn people. They would not listen. In fact, Paddy Daley, a local radio "shock-jock" host even stated that Ministers demanding pay back donations was "just the way it is". The same host would later refer to me as "a dangerous zealot" for opposing the Muskrat Falls development. Curiously, he now advocates for donation free politics and puts across many of my views from our discussions on Muskrat Falls without much acknowledgement they were never his. In any case, the point is that the political culture of the province was so rampant with corruption that people never took it as such. It was just "the way it's always been".
Once the people of the province started getting the idea that they shouldn't go along with corruption, and they became concerned about Muskrat Falls, they turfed the PCs out and elected the Liberals. The Liberals promised the moon and the stars to people, and the people ate it up. Less the half a year later the province was in open revolt because the Liberals broke every promise they made - blaming the PCs for ruining the province and that the provinces economic position was something "nobody could have seen coming". This a typical saying here. Nobody could see it coming. The reality is anyone with half a brain could see it coming from a thousand miles away let alone one. It was that obvious right from the very beginning, but people just refused to see it. They refused to educate themselves on it. They said we trust the government. We trust the "experts" the government paid and paraded. It was so obvious what was happening yet apparently too difficult to believe by most.
Then, while the fight over finances and the Muskrat Falls project raged, the government, media, and people in general went after the "known Critics" (as the government labelled those of us in opposition to their plans). It got personal. It became an effort to debase those that stood in their place for the truth, and the actual real issues of the direction the province was headed in were tossed to the wind. The best way I can describe it is from a scene in a children's movie called Ice Age. It's the part where the small group of animals desperately try and stop the DoDo birds from going "lemming mode" until they are all extinct. It's this part:
And a week before that statement the Nunatsiavut President said this: (you can find the press release here
"The concerns over methylmercury contamination is rea, and to proceed with flooding without fully clearing will clearly violate of human and indigenous rights. This project has to be stopped now before it's too late."
After meeting with the Premier for eight hours or so, the Nunatsiavut Government position became:
"As part of their response to the review of the engineering reports, the three leaders reiterated the principles that were committed to during the October 25 meeting, namely: that the protection of human health and well-being would be paramount in decision-making related to the Muskrat Falls project; and – with respect to first-phase impoundment – water levels would be raised to the minimum acceptable level if such impoundment was deemed necessary, and drawn back down to normal levels as soon as the risk of ice damage had passed...
The leaders also insisted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actively communicate with them on Nalcor’s management of this issue, including regular and timely information on all facets of initial flooding, to demonstrate that concrete actions are being taken to minimize impacts to human health." (you can read it here)
As you can see, the Aboriginal leaders completely capitulated, even at the risk of their own people being poisoned further with methylmercury. The claim that the government would "actively communicate" with them prior to flooding was proven totally laughable when the news release was put out after flooding of the reservoir was actually taking place. By the time the release was published flooding of the reservoir had already caused water levels to increase by 7 feet. It's just another example of the hundreds of examples I've witnessed here in the last six years of this province's political establishment, including Aboriginal, selling people a bill of goods that is so obviously flawed that they can't even keep a short term story straight.
What does all this lead to. Well, there is the issue of the province's finances. The death nail if you will. The collective gross debt of the government, including Nalcor's debt, is in the $29 billion range. The governing Liberals came out yesterday and said the province would be back to surplus by 2023-24. What that means is they will be borrowing for another six or seven years, and that is if you take them at their word - which hasn't turned out well in the past. Nevertheless, an additional 6 years of borrowing to fund the government's operations and its capital budget will see about another $12 billion added to the province's gross debt for a grand total of $41 billion dollars - not including any further cost over runs with Muskrat Falls.
As astounding as that number is for 510,000 souls to carry it doesn't end there. You will find on this blog any number of posts that refer to this province's "demographic time bomb". The truth is that not only does the province have the highest gas prices in the western hemisphere (North and South America), but it has the fast aging population in the Western World. As it is today, only 30% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make enough money each year that they must pay taxes. The cumulative effect of all these different factors means that this province financially is a "dead man walking". There is no way out. There is no plan. There is only accountability for a lost decade of spending left, and that accountability will rest on a very small percentage of the province's population. In other words, anyone with half a brain that earns a decent income, and can transfer that expertise outside the province will.
So, bottom line, this province is politically and economically irredeemable. In other words, it can not be fixed. Politically the people refuse to do more than complain incessantly. They do not rise up in a way that would force the political establishment to reform itself. They seek simply to get whatever crumbs they can out of it. It is that simple. That sums up the political culture here, and that is why people of actual integrity are viewed with suspicion and tagged with innuendo. Ditto financially. The various boards of trade swooned over the previous governments, and the current one, to get their hands on that oil money that flowed freely from the government's coffers. They rewarded first the Pc and now Liberal party with generous donations to get their feet in the door. They set up and financed PR campaigns to promote the Muskrat Falls project and marginalize those that wisely opposed it. And now? Now they are crying so loudly it is almost laughable. Cut civil servants, and spending on programs and what ever you can they scream, but don't cut our little bit of the gravy...ok? This is Newfoundland and Labrador in the nut shell.
No doubt, and I can hear it now: "You are so negative"; "If you don't like it get out"; and "Mainlanders trying to tell us what to do." That's the culture of unaccountability that pervades society here. Whether it's something as large as Muskrat Falls or something as small as blaming a neighbor for all your troubles. It is everywhere here. And that is the great undoing of this place. The refusal to learn from past mistakes. The refusal to be held accountable for past mistakes. The refusal to be responsible. It is inescapable, and it is everywhere in this province. It is the fatal flaw of Shakespearean lore. The province eagerly awaits its next pied piper. It's next saviour. That is what truly makes Newfoundland and Labrador irredeemable. This will be my last post on Newfoundland and Labrador politics, economics, or anything of the sort. It is futile to waste the energy God gave you in a lost cause.
It wasn't long after we arrived that I engaged with the local PC's as I had been with the Conservatives since 1991. Danny Williams was premier, and the place was unabashedly nationalistic (which I could've done without). However, he suddenly resigned as soon as he'd pushed through Muskrat Falls, and the party was calling for contenders - although in reality it was fulfilling a backroom deal to put Kathy Dunderdale in place (not so affectionately referred to as "Danny Williams' flack jacket - meaning she was to take all the "bullets" from his actions). I put my name up to run because I was convinced Williams' Lower Churchill scheme was the financial death nail for the province. For my trouble I was roundly accused of being an uppity "come from away" and/or "mainlander". And still am.
I realized quickly that corruption was rampant throughout the PC party, and tried to warn people. They would not listen. In fact, Paddy Daley, a local radio "shock-jock" host even stated that Ministers demanding pay back donations was "just the way it is". The same host would later refer to me as "a dangerous zealot" for opposing the Muskrat Falls development. Curiously, he now advocates for donation free politics and puts across many of my views from our discussions on Muskrat Falls without much acknowledgement they were never his. In any case, the point is that the political culture of the province was so rampant with corruption that people never took it as such. It was just "the way it's always been".
Once the people of the province started getting the idea that they shouldn't go along with corruption, and they became concerned about Muskrat Falls, they turfed the PCs out and elected the Liberals. The Liberals promised the moon and the stars to people, and the people ate it up. Less the half a year later the province was in open revolt because the Liberals broke every promise they made - blaming the PCs for ruining the province and that the provinces economic position was something "nobody could have seen coming". This a typical saying here. Nobody could see it coming. The reality is anyone with half a brain could see it coming from a thousand miles away let alone one. It was that obvious right from the very beginning, but people just refused to see it. They refused to educate themselves on it. They said we trust the government. We trust the "experts" the government paid and paraded. It was so obvious what was happening yet apparently too difficult to believe by most.
Then, while the fight over finances and the Muskrat Falls project raged, the government, media, and people in general went after the "known Critics" (as the government labelled those of us in opposition to their plans). It got personal. It became an effort to debase those that stood in their place for the truth, and the actual real issues of the direction the province was headed in were tossed to the wind. The best way I can describe it is from a scene in a children's movie called Ice Age. It's the part where the small group of animals desperately try and stop the DoDo birds from going "lemming mode" until they are all extinct. It's this part:
It may not be the most serious way to put it, but you get the point. A small group of people who could clearly see what the government was doing, and the peoples complicit agreement with it, were ignored and marginalized as everyone around them took a flying leap.
You would think that eventually people would catch on - preferably before it's too late, however, that never happened. In fact it is still going on. The most recent case of the protests in Labrador. Just days before the Aboriginal leaders met with the new Liberal government to "try and stop" the flooding of the reservoir, and thereby avoid methylmercury poisoning of their people, the Nunatsiavut Government (Inuit) President said this:
"Unless all vegetation and soil is removed the threat to our health, culture and way of life remains. Nalcor should also be directed to delay plans to begin initial flooding...to allow for the removal of trees, vegetation and topsoil. Initial flooding is expected to take place within days, and once you flood the land the damage has been done. There is no turning back".
That was October 20, 2016. You can read the release here
And a week before that statement the Nunatsiavut President said this: (you can find the press release here
"The concerns over methylmercury contamination is rea, and to proceed with flooding without fully clearing will clearly violate of human and indigenous rights. This project has to be stopped now before it's too late."
After meeting with the Premier for eight hours or so, the Nunatsiavut Government position became:
"As part of their response to the review of the engineering reports, the three leaders reiterated the principles that were committed to during the October 25 meeting, namely: that the protection of human health and well-being would be paramount in decision-making related to the Muskrat Falls project; and – with respect to first-phase impoundment – water levels would be raised to the minimum acceptable level if such impoundment was deemed necessary, and drawn back down to normal levels as soon as the risk of ice damage had passed...
The leaders also insisted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actively communicate with them on Nalcor’s management of this issue, including regular and timely information on all facets of initial flooding, to demonstrate that concrete actions are being taken to minimize impacts to human health." (you can read it here)
As you can see, the Aboriginal leaders completely capitulated, even at the risk of their own people being poisoned further with methylmercury. The claim that the government would "actively communicate" with them prior to flooding was proven totally laughable when the news release was put out after flooding of the reservoir was actually taking place. By the time the release was published flooding of the reservoir had already caused water levels to increase by 7 feet. It's just another example of the hundreds of examples I've witnessed here in the last six years of this province's political establishment, including Aboriginal, selling people a bill of goods that is so obviously flawed that they can't even keep a short term story straight.
What does all this lead to. Well, there is the issue of the province's finances. The death nail if you will. The collective gross debt of the government, including Nalcor's debt, is in the $29 billion range. The governing Liberals came out yesterday and said the province would be back to surplus by 2023-24. What that means is they will be borrowing for another six or seven years, and that is if you take them at their word - which hasn't turned out well in the past. Nevertheless, an additional 6 years of borrowing to fund the government's operations and its capital budget will see about another $12 billion added to the province's gross debt for a grand total of $41 billion dollars - not including any further cost over runs with Muskrat Falls.
As astounding as that number is for 510,000 souls to carry it doesn't end there. You will find on this blog any number of posts that refer to this province's "demographic time bomb". The truth is that not only does the province have the highest gas prices in the western hemisphere (North and South America), but it has the fast aging population in the Western World. As it is today, only 30% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make enough money each year that they must pay taxes. The cumulative effect of all these different factors means that this province financially is a "dead man walking". There is no way out. There is no plan. There is only accountability for a lost decade of spending left, and that accountability will rest on a very small percentage of the province's population. In other words, anyone with half a brain that earns a decent income, and can transfer that expertise outside the province will.
So, bottom line, this province is politically and economically irredeemable. In other words, it can not be fixed. Politically the people refuse to do more than complain incessantly. They do not rise up in a way that would force the political establishment to reform itself. They seek simply to get whatever crumbs they can out of it. It is that simple. That sums up the political culture here, and that is why people of actual integrity are viewed with suspicion and tagged with innuendo. Ditto financially. The various boards of trade swooned over the previous governments, and the current one, to get their hands on that oil money that flowed freely from the government's coffers. They rewarded first the Pc and now Liberal party with generous donations to get their feet in the door. They set up and financed PR campaigns to promote the Muskrat Falls project and marginalize those that wisely opposed it. And now? Now they are crying so loudly it is almost laughable. Cut civil servants, and spending on programs and what ever you can they scream, but don't cut our little bit of the gravy...ok? This is Newfoundland and Labrador in the nut shell.
No doubt, and I can hear it now: "You are so negative"; "If you don't like it get out"; and "Mainlanders trying to tell us what to do." That's the culture of unaccountability that pervades society here. Whether it's something as large as Muskrat Falls or something as small as blaming a neighbor for all your troubles. It is everywhere here. And that is the great undoing of this place. The refusal to learn from past mistakes. The refusal to be held accountable for past mistakes. The refusal to be responsible. It is inescapable, and it is everywhere in this province. It is the fatal flaw of Shakespearean lore. The province eagerly awaits its next pied piper. It's next saviour. That is what truly makes Newfoundland and Labrador irredeemable. This will be my last post on Newfoundland and Labrador politics, economics, or anything of the sort. It is futile to waste the energy God gave you in a lost cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)