73469 Views April 11, 2017 406 Comments
The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian
airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to
examine it in some detail. I will try to do this today with the hope to
be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless
have profound consequences. But first, let’s begin by looking at what
actually happened.
The pretext:
I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that
Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical
weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find
the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war
against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing
Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).
Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does
not have. He decides
to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and
cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the
Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.
And now the Americans are probing a possible
Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you
should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:
1.
a
classical US-executed false flag
2.
a Syrian
strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly
chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to
believe in coincidences. I don’t. Unless,
3.
the US
fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the
US knew that toxic gas was stored.
What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop
chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored
at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any
munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for
US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the
sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a
chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.
Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is
obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical
weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.
Also, and just for the record, the US had been
considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read
everything about this plan here and here.
The attack:
American and Russian sources both agree on the
following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al
Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians
on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours
advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.
The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets.
The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The
others are “unaccounted for”. Here I think that it is indisputable that
the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway
is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one
taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations
within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended
target. That is a fact.
It is also indisputable that there were no chemical
munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian
reporters, had to wear any protective gear.
The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use
any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain
mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot
even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a
memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere
with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa).
While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no
reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they
were built in 2014.
The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no
basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously
malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what
happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:
Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the
Syrians hard and this entire attack was just “for show” and the USN
deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would
make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of
damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe
in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis
below.
Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot
down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these
cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target
(thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were
specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types
and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal
sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be
seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don’t
know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the
attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to
“fry” and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do
believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the
Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which
reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than
half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in
the destruction of 36 missiles. What I am sure of is that 36 advanced
cruise missile do not “just disappear”. There are two reasons why the
Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles:
first, it provides them “plausible deninability” (at least for the general
public, there is no doubt that US signal intelligence units did detect
the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and
very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it
allowed them to keep their air defense missiles for the protection of their
own forces. Can the Russian really do
this?
Take a look at this image, taken from a Russian website, which appears to have been made by the company Kret
which produces some of the key Russian electronic warfare systems. Do you
notice that on the left hand side, right under the AWACs aircraft you can
clearly see a Tomahawk type missile turning around and eventually exploding at
sea?
How this is done is open to conjecture. All that we
are told is that the missile is given a “false target” but for our purposes
this really does not matter. What matters is that the Russians have
basically leaked the information that they are capable of turning cruise
missiles around. There are other possibilities such as an directed energy
beams which basically fries or, at least, confuses the terrain following and or
inertial navigation systems. Some have suggested a “kill switch” which
would shut down the entire missile. Maybe. Again, this really
doesn’t matter for our purposes. What matters is that the Russian have
the means to spoof, redirect or destroy US cruise missiles. It sure
appears to be that for the first time these systems were used in anger.
[Sidebar: for those interested in seeing what such a
system looks like here is a short video made by the Russians themselves showing
how such a system is deployed and operated:
In terms of technical details, or we are told that
this system can jam any airborne object at a distance of 200km]
I would note that those who say that the Russian air
defense systems did not work don’t know what they are talking about. Not
only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight
operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked
with the protection of the Syrian Air Space. That is a task for the
Syrian air defenses. The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to
protect Russian personnel and equipment. This is why the
Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes. And this is hardly surprising
as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the
Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel.
However, this might be changing. Now the
Russians have withdrawn from their agreement with the USA and, even more importantly,
have have declared that the Syrians urgently need more advanced air defense
capabilities. Currently the Syrians operate very few advanced Russian air
defense systems, most of their gear is old.
Legal aspects of the attack:
The US attack happened in direct violation of US law,
of international law and of the UN charter. First, I would say that there
is strong legal evidence that the US attack violated the US Constitution,
Presidential War Powers Act and the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF)
resolution. But since I don’t really care about this aspect of Trump’s
criminal behavior, I will just refer you to two pretty good analyses of this
issue (see here and here) and just simply summarize the argument of those who
say that what Trump did was legal. It boils down to this: “yeah, it’s
illegal, but all US Presidents have been doing it for so long that they have
thereby created a legal precedent which, uh, makes it legal after all“.
I don’t think this kind of “defense” is worthy of a reply or rebuttal. So
now let’s turn to international law.
Most people think that crimes against humanity or
genocide must be the ultimate crime under international law. They are
wrong. The ultimate crime is aggression. This is the conclusion of the
Nuremberg Trial on this topic:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not
only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated
evil of the whole.
So, following the long and prestigious list of other
US Presidents before him, Donald Trump is now a war criminal. In fact, he
is a “supreme war criminal”. It only took him 77 days to achieve this
status, probably some kind of a record.
As for the UN Charter, at least for articles (1, 2, 33, 39) ban the kind of aggression the
USA took against Syria.
I think that there is no need to dwell on the total
illegality of this attack. I would just underscore the supreme irony of a
country basically built by and run by lawyers (just see how many of them there
are in Congress) whose general population seems to be totally indifferent to
the fact that their elected representatives act in a completely illegal
manner. All that most American people care about is whether the illegal
action brings victory or not. But if it does, absolutely nobody
cares. You disagree? Tell me, how many peace demonstrations were
there in the USA about the totally illegal US aggression on Yugoslavia?
Exactly. QED.
Political consequences (internal)
My son perfectly summed up what Trump’s actions have
resulted in: “those who hated him still hate him while those who supported
him now also hate him“. Wow! How did Trump and his advisors
fail to predict that? Instead of fulfilling his numerous campaign
promises (and his own Twitter statements) Trump decided to suddenly make a 180
and totally betray everything he stood for. I can’t think of a dumber
action, I really can’t. I have to say that Trump now appears to make
Dubya look smart. But there is much, much worse.
The worst aspect of this clusterf**k is how utterly
immoral this makes Trump appear. Think of it – first Trump abjectly
betrayed Flynn. Then he betrayed Bannon.
[Sidebar: I mostly liked Flynn. I had no use for
Bannon at all. But the fact is that they were not my best friends, they
were Trump’s best friends. And instead of standing up
for them, he sacrificed them to the always bloodthirsty Neocons in the hope of
appeasing them. This is what I wrote about this stupid and deeply immoral
betrayal the day it happened:
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend
and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.? Today, Trump has shown us his true face.
Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared
cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the
resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an
amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone,
completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior
types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about
reality.
The worst aspect of that is that by betraying people
left and right Trump has now shown that you cannot trust him, that he will
backstab you with no hesitation whatsoever. Would you ever take a risk
for a guy like that? Contrast that with Putin who is “notorious” for
standing by his friends and allies even when they do something really
wrong! There is a reason why the AngloZionists could not break Putin and
why it only took them one month to neuter Trump: Putin is made of titanium,
Trump is just an overcooked noodle]
And now Trump has betrayed HIMSELF by turning against
everything he, himself, stood for. This is almost Shakespearean in its
pathetic and tragic aspects!
During his campaign Trump made a lot of excellent
promises and he did inspire millions of Americans to support him. I
personally believe that he was sincere in his intentions, and I don’t buy the
“it was all an act” theory at all. Just look at the total panic of the
Neocons at the prospects of a Trump victory and tell me this was all
fake. No, I think that Trump was sincere. But when confronted with
the ruthless opposition of the Neocons and the US deep state, Trump snapped and
instantly broke because he is clearly completely spineless and has the ethics
and morals of a trailer park prostitute.
So what we really have is a sad and pathetic version
of Obama. A kind of Obama 2.0 if you want. The man inspired millions, he
promised change you can believe in, and he delivered absolutely nothing except
for an abject subservience to the real masters and owners of the United States:
the Neocons and the deep state.
Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the
very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising
him. And nobody is calling him a “Putin agent” any more. None of which
will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way. He chose a
quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days. How totally stupid
of him. He apparently also chose the option of an “attack for show” to
begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history,
probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in
the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show? A few
flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will
return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters.
Pathetic if you ask me.
Ever since he got into the White House, Trump has been
acting like your prototypical appeaser (it makes me wonder if his father was an
alcoholic). How a guy like him ever made in business is a mystery to me,
but what is now clear is that the Neocons totally submitted him and that they
will now turn him into political roadkill.
I am afraid that the next four years (or less!) will
turn into a neverending Purim celebration…
Political consequences (external)
Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US
collaboration with Russia of any kind. Worse, he has also destroyed any
hopes of being able to defeat Daesh. Why? Because if you really
believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want
to sell you bridges all over the world. It ain’t happening. What is
much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just
as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton. Let me
explain.
The following are the measures with Russia has taken
following the US attack on Syria:
1.
Denunciation
at UN (to be expected, no big deal)
2.
Decision
to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will
give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)
3.
Decision
to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will
have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)
4.
Decision
to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won’t be able
to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something)
The combination of decisions 2, 3 and 4 does not
mean that the Russians will shoot the next time, not by itself. The
Russians will still be restricted by their own rules of engagement and by
political decisions. But this will dramatically affect the US decision-making
since from now on there will be no guarantee that the Russians will not shoot
either. The Russians basically own the Syrian airspace already.
What they want to do next is to give a similar capability to the Syrians.
Not only will that allow the Syrians to defend themselves against any future US
or Israeli attacks, it will provide the Russians plausible deniabilty the day
they decide to shoot down a US aircraft or drone. Finally, the Russians
are rushing back some of their most advanced ships towards the Syrian
coast. So after giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, the Russians are
now returning to a Obama-times like posture in Syria. Bravo Trump, well
done!
Yes, I know, Tillerson is expected to meet Lavrov this
week. This was discussed ad nauseam on Russian TV and
the consensus is that the only reason why the Russians did not cancel this
meeting is because they don’t want, on general principle, to be the ones to
refuse to speak to the other side. Fine. Considering that we are
talking about a potential international thermonuclear war, I can see the
point. Still, I would have preferred to say Lavrov telling Tillerson to
go and get lost. Why? Because I have come to the conclusion that
any and all types of dialog with the United States are simply a meaningless and
useless waste of time. For one thing, there is no US policy on
anything. Over the past week or so we saw both Nikki Haley and Rex
Tillerson completely contradict themselves over and over again: “no we don’t
want to overthrow Assad. Yes we do want to overthrow Assad. Yes we
do. No we don’t“. This is almost painful and embarrassing to
watch. This just goes to show that just like the Obama Administration,
the Trump people are “недоговороспособны” or
“not agreement capable”. I explain this term in this analysis (written about Obama! Not Trump):
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage
at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally
“not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement.
While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so
much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and
abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev
regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the
Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a
nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme
diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and
lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which
breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains
capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as
“not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an
entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to
an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating
diagnostic.
This is bad. Really bad. This means that
the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober
and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with. What this also means is
that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have
now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either
alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States.
That applies only to the official Kremlin.
Independent Russian analysts are not shy about expressing their total contempt
and disgust for Trump. Some of them are suggesting that Trump decided to
show how “tough” he is in preparation for the Tillerson trip to Moscow.
If that is the case, then he is badly miscalculating. For one thing, a
lot of them as saying that what Trump has engaged in is “показуха” – a totally fake shows of force which really shows
nothing. What is certain is that demonstrations of force are very much
frowned upon on the Russian culture which strongly believes that a really tough
guy does not have to look the part.
[Sidebar: if John Wayne is the prototypical American
hero, Danilo Bagrov, from the movies “Brother” and its sequel “Brother 2” is the prototypical
Russian hero: rather shy, softly spoken, of modest means, a times charmingly
clumsy and naive, but in reality “the toughest of us all” (as he is called by
another character in the sequel (if you have not seen these two movies, I
highly recommend them though I don’t know if they exist with English subtitles
(dubbing them would be a crime)).
American hero and Russian hero
What is sure is that the John Wayne types would never
survive in the Russian street, they would be immediately perceived as fake,
weak and showing off to try to conceal their lack of strength and they would be
crushed and humiliated. Nowadays when Americans adopt what I call the
“Delta Force/Blackwater style” (pointy beard, long hair, dark sunglasses, and a
ton of muscles etc.) they look comical by Russian standards, Russian
special forces (and I have met a lot of them) *never* look the part if only
because they try hard not to look it].
Personally I don’t think that impressing the Russians
was Trump’s plan. Nor do I believe, like some, that launching that attack
during the visit of Chinese Premier Xi was a deliberate affront or some kind of
“message”. In fact, I don’t think that there was much of a plan at all
beyond showing that Trump is “tough” and no friend of Putin. That’s
it. I think that the so-called “elites” in charge running the USA are
infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible. I
don’t buy the “managed chaos” theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the
Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their
dis-order. Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it’s not
part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire
which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant.
I have already explained in my previous analysis why Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS is a non-starter and I won’t
bother repeating it all here. What I will say is that Erdogan’s
endorsement of Trump’s attack is equally stupid and self-defeating. I
really wonder what Erdogan is hoping to achieve. Not only did the Americans
almost kill him in a coup attempt, they are now working on creating a
semi-independent Kurdistan right on the border with Turkey. Yes, I know,
Erdogan wants to get rid of Assad, fair enough, but does he really believe that
Trump will be able to remove Assad from power? And what if Assad is
removed, will Turkey really be better off once the Emirate of Takfiristan is
declared in Syria? I very much hope that after the referendum Erdogan will
recover some sense of reality.
What about the Israelis, do they really believe that
dealing with Assad is worse than dealing with this Caliphate of
Takfiristan?! But then, we can expect anything from folks with such a
long history of making really bad decisions.
Still, it really looks like the all have gone
completely insane!
Then there is the embarrassing standing ovation coming
out of Europe and the Ukraine. I really am embarrassed for them.
They are rejoicing at the attempted removal of one of the last mentally sane
and secular regimes in the Middle-East. Don’t these European “leaders”
realize that if Syria is replaced by a Caliphate of Takfiristan all hell will
really brake loose for Europe? I am amazed
at how blind these people are…
The US’ “subtle hint” to the DPRK and China
Now let’s look at what happened from the point of view
of China and the DPRK. First, as I mentioned, I don’t think that Xi felt
that the attack during his visit to the USA was a slap or an affront.
From another civilized country, maybe. But not from the USA.
The Chinese are absolutely under no illusion of the total lack of
sophistication and even basic manners of US Presidents. That is not to
say that they were not outraged and very concerned. It goes without
saying that they also noticed the “coincidence” that The USN has canceled
planned port calls in Australia for the USS Carl Vinson and is instead sending
the aircraft carrier and attached group towards the Korean Peninsula.
They also noticed that this move has been given maximal visibility in the US
propaganda machine. One “show of force” in Syria is now followed by
another “show of force” in East Asia.
Typical, isn’t it?
If anything, this move will only strengthen the
informal but very strong and deep partnership between China and Russia.
Just like the Russians, the Chinese will keep on smiling and make very nice
statements about international peace and security, negotiations, etc. But
everybody who matters in China will understand that the real message of out
Washington DC is simple: “now it’s Assad – but you could be next”.
Which leaves the DPRK. I am no mind-reader and
no psychologist, but I ask myself the following question: what is worse – if
the Americans fail to really scare Kim Jong-un or if they successfully
do? I don’t have the answer, but considering the past behavior of the
DPRK leaders I would strongly suggest that both scaring them and failing to
scare them are very dangerous options. The notion of “scare” should not
be included in any policies dealing with the DPRK. But instead of that,
the dummies in DC are now leaking a story (whether true or not) that the US
intelligence agencies have finalized plans to, I kid you not, “eliminate Kim Jong-un“. And just to make sure that the message gets
through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC
threatens the DPRK with war.
Have they all really gone totally insane in Washington
DC?
Do I really need to explain here why war with the DPRK
is a terrible idea, even if it had no nuclear weapons?
Conclusion: what happens next?
Simply reply: I don’t know. But let me explain
why I don’t know. In all my years of training and work as a military
analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called
a “rational actor”. The Soviets sure where. As where the
Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to
question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and
self-defeating actions. You tell me – how does deterrence work on a
person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite
imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain
stupidity)? I don’t know. To answer that question a what is needed
is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional
and suicidal types.
Some readers might think that this is hyperbole.
I assure you that this is not. I am dead serious. Not only do I
find the Trump administration “not agreement capable”, I find it completely
detached from reality. Delusional in other words. You think Kim
Jong-un with nukes is bad? What about Obama or Trump with nukes?
Ain’t they much, much scarier?
So what can the world do?
First, the easy answer: the Europeans. They can
do nothing. They are irrelevant. They don’t even exist. At
least not in the political sense.
Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely
amazing level of courage. Look at what the Bolivian representative
at the UNSC dared to do:
Bolivia: a profile in courage
And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country
like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent. No
wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.
What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.
But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and
China. So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and,
paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and
most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).
This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back
into some semi-sane mental state than Russia. All Russia has are superb
military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the
USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot
abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war
with the USA over Syria. The problem is not Assad. The problem is
that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect
Syria against Daesh. If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is
next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the
Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia
understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is
that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might
turn nuclear very fast. So here is my central thesis:
You don’t want Russia to stop the USA by purely
military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be
counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with
rational actors. Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody
else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world’s policeman, neither is
she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a
silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do
that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling
little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true
since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the
kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really
fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and
primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some
tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally
different beast than what it used to be. I have no doubt at all that the
US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese
mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a
very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close
the gap with the USA and Russia in record time. So any notions of the USA
using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely
terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans
believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we
are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the “Chinese communist
peasants” with their carrier battle groups. What the fail to realize is
that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger
and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier
destruction operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple
question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one
(or several) US Navy carriers? Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China
well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands? Really?
You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike
Group? Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from
behind Russia. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly
running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White House, one
who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that
would not be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to
think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia. But he
can’t. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will
fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over
again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians
1.
The
Russians are afraid of war. The
Americans are not.
2.
The
Russians are ready for war. The
Americans are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and
every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with
Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of
weakness. This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture
which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in
diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences
between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference
the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems. As
soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a
huge marketing campaign to describe it as the “bestest of the bestest” “in the
world” (always, “in the world” as if somebody bothered to research this or even
compare). They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how
invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now, in
retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth
aircraft. The Russians do the exact opposite. First, they try to
classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system,
they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is
quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth! There have
been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real
Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts! Finally, when the
Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export
model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to
India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later
with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing. Ask yourself: did you
ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in
Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970s capable of “flying under
water” as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad
one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin
Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA.
India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies.
Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON/FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in
Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has
already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks.
It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor
out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid
four more years of “Obama-style nightmare” it is for China to step in and tell
the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like
between various bad options. Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest
of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other
that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it
appears that Trump has “figured out” that one way to be smart (or so he thinks)
in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack
Syria). That won’t work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing
in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will
have total power again and they won’t have to prove that they are tough by
doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than
President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that
triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
Is she the last hope for the USA?
The next four years will be terrible, I am sorry to
say. Our next hope – however thin – for somebody sane in the White House
might be for 2020. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will run on a campaign promise of
peace and truly draining the swamp? Maybe “America first” will mean
something if Gabbard says it? Right now she seems to be pretty much the only
one refusing the accept the “Assad did it” nonsense. So maybe she can provide the mix of peace and
progressive social policies so many Americans really want? Maybe she
could become the first woman President for all the right, rather then wrong,
reasons. I don’t know. 2020 is still very, very far away, let’s just hope
we all make it to that date before some imbecile in DC decides that war with
Russia is a good idea.
What is certain is that the Democrat vs. Republican
and Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy only serves to perpetuate a system which
manages to betray the values of BOTH the Left and the
Right. This is paradoxical because it is pretty darn clear that most
Americans want their country to be at peace, to stop being constantly at war,
and with civilized social and labor standards. Sure, the hardcore
libertarians still believe that laisser-faire is a great
solution, even if that hands all the power to corporations and even if that
leaves the individual citizen defenseless against the oligarchy. But bet
you that even hardcore libertarians would prefer “statism” (as they would say)
with peace than “statism” with war. Likewise, many hardcore progressives
want to severely limit the freedoms of many Americans (small business
entrepreneurs, gun owners), but even they would prefer peace without rules and regulations
than war without rules and regulations. So I think that the possibly
unifying platform could be expressed in the notion of “peace and civil
rights”. That is something which the vast majority of Americans can agree
upon. Even the Black Lives Matter folks should agree to that kind of
“peace and civil rights platform”. That, I think, ought to be the
priority of the Federal government – dismantle the war machine and dismantle
the state repression machine: a full pull-out of US forces deployed worldwide
combined with a full restoration of civil and human rights as they were before
the 9/11 false flag. And let the States deal with all the other issues.
Alas, I am afraid that the plutocracy in power will
never allow that. The way the crushed Trump in one month tells me that
they will do that to anybody who is not one of their own. So while hope
is always a good thing, and while I like dreaming of a better future, I am not
holding my breath. I find a sudden and brutal collapse of the Anglo-Zionist
Empire followed by a break-up of the USA (as described here) far more likely.
We better prepare ourselves for some very tough times
ahead.
Our only consolation is that all the dramatic events
taking place right now in the USA are signs of weakness. The US elites
are turning on each other and while the Neocons have broken Trump, this will
not stop the fratricidal war inside the US plutocracy. Look at the
big picture, at how the empire is cracking at every seam and remember that all
this is taking place because we are winning.
Imperialism will die, discredited and hated by all
those who will have to live through the upcoming collapse of the US-based
AngloZionist Empire. Hopefully this time it will be the last empire in
history and mankind will have learned its lesson (it would be about time!).
The Saker
No comments:
Post a Comment