from Full Spectrum Survival:
by Brandon Smith, Alt Market:
It is difficult to gauge and understand geopolitical and economic events without first comprehending the fact that much of what happens in the world is engineered to happen and with a specific encompassing goal in mind. If you subscribe to the theory that all is random “chaos” and outcomes are circumstantial or coincidental, then you will be lost in the dark on most things. If you think a globalist “conspiracy” would require “too much control” or foresight, I would point out that organized conspiracy by people in power is a matter of history, not of theory. If such cabals were prevalent in the past, it is rather foolish to dismiss the reality that they are prevalent today.
In my articles “The Economic End Game Explained” and “The Economic End Game Continues,” I outline considerable evidence supporting the following conclusion: International financiers and political puppets in Western AND Eastern countries share a deep rooted ideology called “globalism” or the “new world order.” This ideology demands total centralization of economy and government resulting in a single global fiscal authority, a single global monetary system and a one world ruling structure. Obviously, such a pursuit would take extensive time and planning. It is a long term project, with moments of accelerated change.
The globalists refer to the process of their intended change as the “global economic reset.” A reset of the world’s economic processes is not so far fetched as skeptics like to argue. When an organized group of ideologues maintains control over the currency production and interest rates of most nations on the planet, it would hardly be difficult to manipulate politicians, manipulate legislation or even scientifically conjure financial bubbles and collapses. By extension, it would also be simple to trigger international conflicts if needed.
But why would war be a necessary ingredient to globalization?
War is the ultimate distraction, the ultimate divider and, perhaps ironically, the ultimate consolidator. In the past century, war always seems to follow or coincide with economic crisis events that are later exposed as products of the banking elites and their aggressive monetary policies. And, in the aftermath of these wars, supranational institutions are often founded (like the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund) as “solutions” to preventing mass tragedies from ever happening again. War is a social steroid promoting mutation, usually in an unhealthy way.
In recent years the concept of “world war” has given way to a more insidious trend of constant and sporadic regional wars. In most cases these regional wars have helped to contribute to the steady downfall of the U.S. through accumulating national debts as well as international distrust or hatred. In fact, one might conclude that if we were to look at the macro-picture of the vast array of regional wars being perpetrated by the globalists we would see that all of them combined are amounting to a kind of world war in a different form.
That said, the globalists will need a new and far larger catalyst for their reset, and soon. Why? Because a sizable distraction is essential to the next phase of the ongoing collapse. A pervasive scapegoat is needed; one that can be blamed for almost any negative scenario. This draws public attention away from the globalists themselves as the culprits behind fiscal crisis, maybe so much so that it will take decades before the mainstream ever questions what actually happened, if they ever question anything at all.
The fear generated through an uncertain war also acts as a form of psychological alchemy, transmuting the collective public mindset to accept centralization they never would have accepted otherwise.
Here is the issue at hand — central banks are seeking a monetary reset more than anything else. A monetary reset demands massive debt, followed by massive stimulus, followed by fiscal tightening, then massive inflation, followed by currency implosion that opens the door to a replacement structure (most likely in the form of blockchain technology and cyrptocurrency). The credit crisis of 2008 conveniently provided at least two of these elements so far, vast debt and stimulus measures. Today, we are beginning to witness the fiscal tightening phase of this process.
As I have been warning since before the Fed taper of QE, the central bank trend will lead to a removal of stimulus support, facilitating a crushing blow to bonds and equities markets. Now, interestingly enough, the Bank for International Settlements is warning of the same thing as 2017 comes to a close. It should be noted that this is not the first time the BIS warned of an impending crash; they also predicted with keen timing the derivatives and credit crash back in 2007. This was, of course, too little too late for the masses to react in any positive way, though.
Their latest warning arrives on the heels of the December Federal Reserve meeting at which it is widely expected that the central bank will raise interest rates yet again while taking the next step towards reducing their balance sheet. Many mainstream and alternative economists doubted the taper of QE and doubted the hiking of interest rates. They were wrong. Just as the doubts over the Fed balance sheet reductions are wrong. The pullback in these measures will invariably strike bonds and equities in a negative way. Time is running out.
But, the banking elites have taken steps. For example, they have in place a perfect distraction in the form of the Trump Administration. With Trump loudly and proudly taking credit for the stock market bull run over the course of the past year, who do you think the public will blame when those same markets go south as the central bank pulls the rug out? Probably not the Fed or the establishment banks.
Trump has also in an odd way created the perfect rationale for the Fed as they increase interest rates and end the cheap money that has been feeding stocks for so long. With the passage of Trump’s tax “reform” plan, the fed can now argue that interest rates MUST be raised in order to create incentives for treasury investment and to pay for Trump’s intended public works programs and military expansion goals. Meaning, the fed can claim it is not culpable for any negative effects from removing cheap capital from the table because Trump’s actions demanded it.
I would also point out that in most cases in history the Fed has lowered interest rates immediately following tax cuts and reforms. They did this after Reagan’s tax reforms in 1981 and in 1986, as well as after George W. Bush’s tax reforms in 2001. Juxtapose that with 2018, as the Fed intends to continue RAISING interest rates in the wake of Trump’s tax reforms. Meaning, they are taking the opposite action from what they have often done in the past. Something to think about…
Trump’s tax plan itself is primarily a distraction from the real problem. First, when comparing tax brackets from this past year to the intended tax brackets for next year under the Trump reforms, there is almost no change whatsoever for
the average American. The only major reductions in taxes are, no surprise, in the form of corporate tax cuts; reducing the corporate tax ceiling from 35 percent to 20 percent. This is trickle-down economics at best, and not a solution to a single problem facing the public and the country in terms of the flailing economy.
Second, why are we talking about income tax “reform” when we should be talking about abolishing the income tax and the Federal Reserve altogether? Whatever happened to that dialogue? It has disappeared down the memory hole.
Read More @ Alt-Market.com
by Andrew West, Freedom OutPost:
Fears of a new Cold War between the US and Russia have been renewed as of late, and things are taking a turn toward the terrifying just after Christmas.
Russia’s attempts to infiltrate and meddle in the 2016 US election will surely be repeated in 2020, marking a new plateau in the eastern superpower’s brazenness in the fields of espionage and anti-diplomacy.
Now it appears as though this same high-level effort is being employed in the Kremlin’s military efforts, with even more striking results.
by Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:
In the ongoing quest to become a nuclear superpower, North Korea has been making some impressive strides, worrying analysts. But one of their tests failed by all measures less than a year ago, as one of their first targets may have been themselves.
On April 28, 2017, a North Korean ballistic missile crashed and hit the urban city of Tokchon, roughly 40 miles north of Pyongyang, The Diplomat reported. This ballistic missile test that went horribly wrong was not previously known, but likely resulted in at least some casualties and considerable damage to buildings.
North Korea launched a single Hwasong-12/KN17 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) from Pukchang Airfield in South Pyongan Province (the Korean People’s Army’s Air and Anti-Air Force Unit 447 in Ryongak-dong, Sunchon City, to be more precise). That missile failed shortly after launch causing it to strike in the Chongsin-dong.
According to a U.S. government source with knowledge of North Korea’s weapons programs who spoke to The Diplomat, the missile’s first stage engines failed after approximately one minute of powered flight, resulting in catastrophic failure. The missile never flew higher than approximately 70 kilometers. The location of the missile’s eventual impact was revealed exclusively to The Diplomat and evidence of the incident can be independently corroborated in commercially available satellite imagery from April and May 2017. –The Diplomat
In April, most of the reports of the circumstances of this particular failed launch were sparse. Most noted only that North Korea launched a single missile that failed in flight. U.S. Pacific Command stated that the missile was launched from “near” Pukchang Airfield, a previously unused launch site for North Korean ballistic missile testing. As The Diplomat reported in June, contrary to other reports at the time, the three missiles tested in April were not anti-ship ballistic missiles, but a new type ofintermediate-range ballistic missile.
The Diplomat cross-referenced the failed missile’s approximate landing site with Google Earth and other satellite imaging to find that the suspected landing area did indeed seem to show signs of “considerable damage to a complex of industrial or agricultural buildings.” Several structures appeared damaged in satellite images, reportedly by debris from the failed launch.
Read More @ SHTFPlan.com
by Turd Ferguson, TF Metals Report:
Just as how little is made of the US supporting Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria, no one ever cares to report upon the neo-nazi elements of the groups we support in Ukraine, either. Thank goodness we have John and Steve to do the work the rest of the western media wants to avoid.
As we urge every week, PLEASE be sure to listen to this podcast. Nowhere else will you find this level of reasoned, studies and OBJECTIVE analysis.
by Pepe Escobar, Asia Times:
he Munich Security Conference is supposed to be an annual lofty gathering of global politicians, and military and intelligence experts. Theoretically, they discuss serious security matters under a cool professional eye in an informed setting.
Yet, in these times of doom and gloom, what the 54th conference yielded was another Russophobia show – a direct connection to the “Russiagate” soap opera in Washington.
Must-reads from across Asia – directly to your inbox
In fact, the 2018 Munich Security Report was entitled, To The Brink – And Back? In it, the Conference Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger did not mince his words. “The world has gotten closer – much too close! – to the brink of a significant conflict,” he said.
That was not a particularly subtly code for Cold War 2.0, which could fast develop into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. The report also singled out the doctrine of the United States President Donald as the work of a “hostile revisionist power,” attacking the “building blocks of [the] international order.”
But then, when the talks began, ingrained perceptions took over with Russia as a lethal threat to NATO, and vice-versa.
A graphic illustration was supplied by Nicholas Burns, the former US Ambassador to NATO. “Will NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia?” he asked.
“I think the answer is positive. The NATO defense ministers have determined that they increase their findings. We have troops in Poland and three Baltic countries. I think NATO is unified. We have to continue the sanctions against Russia,” he added.
Naturally, there was a reaction to this sort of rhetoric. Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Senate, put forward his country’s case.
“The only approach that Russia thinks is right is that security is indivisible,” Kosachev said. “It must be shared by everyone. Cooperation in the field of security should not be divided into blocks.
“NATO’s continued existence provokes new threats, rather than overcoming them. This conference has always been anti-Russian. Unfortunately, they try to blame Russia for all the problems facing the West,” Kosachev added.
There was certainly a long list of Russia-bashing statements, featuring the NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, the Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and the US National Security Advisor General HR McMaster. Even the German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, accused Russia and China of trying to “undermine” the European Union.
All that was left for the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to do was to stress that recent indictments, alleging that the Kremlin interfered in US politics, were evidence-free “blather.” Indeed, Russiagate has been debunked, among others, by the distinguished investigative journalist Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com.
NATO, of course, does nothing without Washington’s approval. The much-hyped Russia-NATO showdown is quite an uneven affair. The 2017 Russian defense budget was around $70 billion, which is one-tenth of the US budget.
This year, NATO’s Aegis Ashore System, which is capable of firing Tomahawk surface-to-surface intermediate-range cruise missiles, will be deployed in Poland. The EU country will also host Anaconda, the largest NATO military exercise since the end of the Cold War, featuring at least 100,000 troops.
Munich did nothing to appease Cold War 2.0 fears. In fact, it brought back distant memories of those long forgotten days of ‘Soviet Commies eating children for breakfast.’
The appalling mediocrity of those intervening speaks for itself.
Munich also happened just as the International Institute for Strategic Studies released its Military Balance report, where once again Western security agencies show their disbelief regarding Russia and China’s military advances.
Read More @ ATimes.com
from Russia Insider:
3 Ukraine sailors wounded according to Moscow which says Ukrainian ships refused to stop. Ukraine is to hold presidential elections in March, Poroshenko is trailing badly
Russia has confirmed its vessels have used weapons to stop Ukrainian ships that had entered Russian waters in the Black Sea illegally. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded and have been given medical assistance.
Russia has fired at a group of three Ukrainian vessels that entered its territorial waters near Crimea, the Russian Security Service (FSB) has confirmed. The ships were then seized and will be towed to the Crimean port of Kerch.
by James ONeill, New Eastern Outlook:
On 14 August 2020 the United Nations Security Council voted overwhelmingly to reject a United States attempt to extend the UN sanctions upon Iran that were imposed as part of the nuclear deal negotiated between the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Iran in 2015.
The United States, which had been one of the original signatories to the Iran nuclear deal was one of only two members of the United Nations Security Council (the other being non-permanent member the Dominican Republic) to vote in favour of its own motion to extend sanctions on Iran.
A majority of voters polled by Rasmussen agree with President Trump’s statement that “It is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. We will fight where it is to our benefit, and only fight to win.”
According to the poll, 58% agree with the above statement, 20% disagree, and 22% were unsure.
As Rasmussen notes, “Even 55% of Democrats agree with the statement,” adding the caveat: “Rasmussen Reports did not identify Trump as the source of the quotation in its question.”
by Nick Giambruno, International Man:
When I visited the memorial at Pearl Harbor, I briefly wondered if the Japanese were simply suicidal.
Why start an uncertain battle with a much more powerful opponent?
Japan’s leaders knew the US military was far superior when they attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941. The attack killed over 2,400 people and brought the US into World War 2.
But Japan’s leaders had a powerful reason to gamble with their nation’s fate…
Access to energy.
For Japan—an island nation totally dependent on imports—access to oil was a matter of life and death. The country needed to secure its energy supply. That made attacking Pearl Harbor a practical proposition.
Turns out, the Japanese thought not attacking Pearl Harbor was suicidal.
In the early ’40s, Japan had big plans to dominate East Asia. The imperial Japanese military was on the march. And the US was the only country that could stop it.
The US wanted to block Tokyo and protect its geopolitical position in the region. So it moved to restrict Japan’s access to oil, which Japan needed to feed its economy and war machine.
Not surprisingly, the Japanese considered this hostile and aggressive. The US government didn’t expect it to provoke an attack, though.
The Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at the time, Dean Acheson, said, “No rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country.”
The Japanese disagreed.
They knew they would run out of vital commodities soon. So they had two choices… let the US slowly strangle their country and ultimately surrender… or take their chances on a risky war against a vastly superior opponent.
In Japan’s samurai culture, surrender was the ultimate disgrace.
Death in battle was better. So they chose option two. It was the only honorable choice.
Japan’s leaders thought the Pearl Harbor attack could knock the US Navy out of the Pacific for at least six months. This would give Japan a sizable window to secure its energy sources without US interference—and to fortify its military positions across the Pacific.
By the time the US could respond, it would face a deeply embedded opponent and decide it was best to leave East Asia to Japan.
That was Tokyo’s plan, at least.
In reality, Japan did successfully capture Singapore from the British. It was an enormous victory. Winston Churchill called it the “worst disaster” in British military history.
And, after a string of big wins during their six-month window, the Japanese were entrenched. They appeared unbeatable. Their leaders hoped this would sap US morale so much that Washington would seek a compromise.
But President Roosevelt did not want to compromise.
Many believe he was actually waiting for the perfect pretext to sell a hesitant US public on another world war. Some even claim the US had deciphered Japan’s military code and knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming.
In any case, the Japanese could not have been more wrong. Ultimately, their decision to strike Pearl Harbor culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, total defeat, and unconditional surrender. Even today, the US still maintains military bases in Japan.
Today, Japan is in the midst of another energy security crisis.
Right now, it depends on imports for over 90% of its energy needs. Tokyo won’t go to war over it this time. But this crisis could lead to enormous profits in the world’s most hated resource market.
Earlier this year I traveled over 25,000 miles to Japan—and Kazakhstan—to find out how to profit from this historic opportunity.
Read More @ InternationalMan.com
by Aaron Kesel, Activist Post:
If that title didn’t capture your attention, I don’t know what will. No that isn’t clickbait, the military has been working on developing artificial intelligence for some time. But now the machines have surpassed humans, again winning a dogfight – a term used to describe an air battle between jets. And if that’s not enough, the military wants self-healing robots straight out of The Terminator, which by the way was the villain.
According to Defense One, artificial intelligence (A.I.) beat a fighter jet pilot for the second time. The military held a simulation between A.I. pilots and a human pilot, and found that one specific A.I. beat others and the human in five rounds.
by Geoffrey Grider, Now The End Begins:
On Monday, a Saudi-led military coalition battling Tehran-backed rebels in Yemen said it reserved the “right to respond” to the missile attack on Riyadh at the weekend, calling it a “blatant military aggression by the Iranian regime which may amount to an act of war”. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir also warned Tehran.
SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN TRADED FIERCE ACCUSATIONS OVER YEMEN ON MONDAY, WITH RIYADH SAYING A REBEL MISSILE ATTACK “MAY AMOUNT TO AN ACT OF WAR” AND TEHRAN ACCUSING ITS RIVAL OF WAR CRIMES.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The tensions between the Saudi kingdom and the terror-state of Iran have gotten to the brink very quickly. Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen fired a SCUD missile well in the Saudi airspace and hit near their airport in Riyadh. What has the Saudi’s so upset is that this is the farthest-traveling missile they have ever fired, and the Saudis know they need to send a message. Because if they don’t, the next missile could very well be nuclear.
Tensions have been rising between Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and predominantly Shiite Iran, which are opposed in disputes and conflicts across the Middle East from Yemen and Syria to Qatar and Lebanon.
On Monday, a Saudi-led military coalition battling Tehran-backed rebels in Yemen said it reserved the “right to respond” to the missile attack on Riyadh at the weekend, calling it a “blatant military aggression by the Iranian regime which may amount to an act of war”. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir also warned Tehran.
“Iranian interventions in the region are detrimental to the security of neighbouring countries and affect international peace and security. We will not allow any infringement on our national security,” Jubeir tweeted.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif issued dismissive tweets over the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in response.
SAUDI ARABIA BLAMES IRAN FOR MISSILE ATTACK:
“KSA bombs Yemen to smithereens, killing 1000s of innocents including babies, spreads cholera and famine, but of course blames Iran,” he wrote. “KSA is engaged in wars of aggression, regional bullying, destabilising behaviour & risky provocations. It blames Iran for the consequences.”
Saudi forces on Saturday intercepted and destroyed the ballistic missile near Riyadh’s international airport after it was reportedly fired by Shiite Huthi rebels from Yemen. It was the first attempted missile strike by the rebels to reach Riyadh and threaten air traffic, underscoring the growing threat posed by the conflict on Saudi Arabia’s southern border.
The coalition on Monday sealed off air, sea and land borders in Yemen, where it has been battling rebels in support of President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi’s internationally recognised government since 2015.
An Iranian foreign ministry statement quoted spokesman Bahram Ghassemi as saying the accusations by the coalition were “unjust, irresponsible, destructive and provocative”. Ghassemi said the missile was fired by the Huthis in response “to war crimes and several years of aggression by the Saudis”.
The missile attack, he said, was “an independent action in response to this aggression,” and Iran had nothing to do with it.
CRITICS HAVE ACCUSED THE COALITION OF NOT DOING ENOUGH TO PREVENT CIVILIAN DEATHS IN ITS AIR WAR IN YEMEN, WHERE MORE THAN 8,650 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED SINCE THE INTERVENTION BEGAN.
Repeated attempts to bring about a negotiated settlement to the conflict have failed, including a series of UN-backed peace talks. Saudi Arabia has blamed the Huthis for the failed efforts, and on Monday offered rewards totalling $440 million for information on 40 senior officials among the rebels.
Topping the list, with a $30-million reward for tips leading to his capture, was the group’s leader Abdulmalik al-Huthi. The Huthis, allied with Yemen’s ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh in the conflict, have captured the capital Sanaa, forcing Hadi’s government to operate from the southern city of Aden.
Analysts said it was unclear how far Saudi Arabia would be willing to go in the escalating confrontation.
The kingdom is in the midst of an unprecedented purge of its upper ranks, with dozens of senior figures arrested at the weekend, as 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidates his hold on power.
PRINCE MOHAMMED, WHO IS ALSO DEFENCE MINISTER, IS SEEN AS A KEY SUPPORTER OF THE INTERVENTION IN YEMEN.
Analyst Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute said it was unclear whether the Saudi leadership had “thought through an escalation of the scale they’re hinting at”. Compounding concerns of an escalation, she said, is that US President Donald Trump’s administration has also taken a hard line against Iran “and may not send a deterrent message to Saudi”.
Read More @ NowTheEndBegins.com
by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:
Russia is reportedly developing and testing underwater nuclear drones.
The nuclear torpedos could reportedly set off tidal waves to destroy coastal areas.
from The Saker:
Something rather unprecedented just happened in Syria: US backed “good terrorist” forces attempted a surprise attack against Syrian government forces stationed to the north and northeast of the city of Hama. What makes this attack unique is that it took place inside a so-called “de-escalation zone” and that it appears that one of the key goals of the attack was to encircle in a pincer-movement and subsequently capture a platoon of Russian military police officers deployed to monitor and enforce the special status of this zone. The Russian military police forces, composed mainly of soldiers from the Caucasus region, fought against a much larger enemy force and had to call for assistance. For the first time, at least officially, Russian special operations forces were deployed to rescue and extract their comrades. At the same time, the Russians sent in a number of close air support aircraft who reportedly killed several hundred “good” terrorists and beat back the attack (Russian sources speak of the destruction of 850 fighters, 11 tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, 46 armed pickup trucks, five mortars, 20 freighter trucks and 38 ammo supply points; you can see photos of the destroyed personnel and equipment here). What also makes this event unique is the official reaction of the Russians to this event
Head of the Main Operations Department at Russia’s General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi declared that:
“Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra and joining them units that don’t want to comply with the cessation of hostilities terms, launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in Idlib de-escalation zone from 8 am on September 19 (…) According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir ez-Zor“.
Today, other Russian officials have added a not-so-veiled threat to this accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry’s spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov has declared that:
Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed (…) Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary.
This is unprecedented on many levels. First, the Russians clearly believe that this attempt to kill or capture a platoon of the Russian military police was planned by the United States. The fact that they are making this accusation officially shows the degree of irritation felt by the Russians about the duplicity of the Americans. Second, this is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that Russian Spetsnaz forces had to be sent in to rescue a surrounded Russian subunit. All Spetsnaz operators survived, but three of them were wounded in the operation (the Russians are not saying how badly). The close air support by very low flying SU-25 aircraft was obviously coordinated by Spetsnaz forward air controllers and probably saved the day. In other words, this was a close call and things could have ended much more badly (just imagine what the Takfiri crazies would have done, on video, to any captured Russian serviceman!). Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a “de-confliction” zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.
The big question now is “do the Russians mean it?” or are they just whining with real determination to hit back if needed.
There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. So the Russians are not in a position of force. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else’s country. This might seem paradoxical, but the Russians fear war but they are ready for it. In contrast to the Russians, the Americans don’t fear war, but neither are they ready for it. In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control.
Remember how Hillary promised that she would unilaterally impose a so-called “no-fly” zone over Syria? She promised not only to deploy US aircraft above Russian forces in Syria, but she also promised that she would force the Russian Aerospace forces out of the Syrian skies. Thank God, this crazy witch was not elected, but it appears that folks with the same arrogant and,frankly, completely irresponsible point of view are now back in power under Trump.
My fear now is that the incompetent, arrogant, not too bright and generally ignorant commanders at the Pentagon and the CIA will simply ignore clear warning signs coming from the Russians, including the public announcement that the Kremlin has given the authority to use force to protect Russian personnel to the local Russian commanders in Syria. In plain English, this means that if they are attacked the Russians in Syria do not need to consult with Moscow before using force to protect themselves. By the way, such rules of engagement are pretty common, there is nothing earth shattering here, but the fact that they were made public is, again, a message to the AngloZionist and the “good” terrorist they use to try to conquer Syria.
This time around we (the world) were lucky. The Syrians fought hard and the “good” terrorists were probably surprised by the ruthless determination of the Russian military police forces (in reality, mostly Chechen special forces) and of the Spetsnaz operators. It is one thing to fight Syrian conscripts, quite another to deal with these hardened warriors. But the next time around the outcome could be different.
The bigger picture is also one which gives me a great deal of concern. The Syrians, with Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian help, have freed Deir ez-Zor and have crossed the Euphrates river and are moving further East. In plain English this means that the US and Daesh have lost the war and that the last region of Syrian from which the AngloZionists can hope to partition the country (their current “plan B”) and establish a permanent US military presence is now threatened by the Syrian advance. The distance between the US forces currently deployed in northeastern Syria and Syrian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian forces is becoming shorter and shorter each day. I can just imagine how, say, Iranian or Hezbollah forces which are already “smelling” the nearby presence of US forces are drooling with hunger for the moment they will finally be able to get their hands on their old and most hated foe. I feel sincerely sorry for the first US unit to make contact with the Iranians or Hezbollah forces.
Right now the Americans are hiding behind the Kurds, but sooner or later the Iranians or Hezbollah will find them. As for the Kurds, their situation in Syria is precarious, to put it mildly: they are surrounded on all sides by the Turks, the Syrians and the Iranians and their only more or less stable zone of control is in Iraq. The Americans understand that perfectly, hence their desperate attempts to stop the Syrians.
This is a very dangerous situation: even though CENTCOM and NATO are by far the “biggest guys on the block”, in Syria the Americans are cornered, their corner is shrinking fast and it remains entirely unclear how this process can be stopped. Hence the attack on the de-confliction zone we just witnessed.
I hope that eventually the Americans will do what they did in al-Taif and simply pack, declare victory and leave. That would be the only rational thing to do. But after listening to Trump at the UN I don’t get the feeling that being rational is at the top of the US priority list. That’s all rather frightening.