syria destruction
© Mikhail Alaeddin / Sputnik
Hvis de første måneder af 2017 var en tid med stort håb i kølvandet på Hillary Clintons historiske nederlag, så slutter året på en dyster, næste faretruende måde. Ikke alene har sumpen let, hurtigt og totalt druknet Trump, men det AngloZionistiske imperium vakler efter det ydmygende nederlag i Syrien og de Neokonservative bearbejder nu hele vores planet med en endeløs strøm af trusler. Desuden har Trump Administrationen nu frigivet en National Security Strategysom der klart viser, at Imperiet er i "fuld paranoid" mode. Det er tydeligt, at de Neokonservative nu er tilbage med fuldstændig kontrol i det Hvide Hus, Kongressen og USA's koncernmedier. Okay, måske er tingene ikke helt så dårlige, som hvis Hillary var blevet valgt, men de er slemme nok til, at man kan spørge, om en større krig er uundgåelig indenfor det næste år.

Hvis man går efter, det de siger, så har de Neokonservative alle de følgende lande på deres sigtekorn:
  1. Afghanistan (massiv vækst allerede lovet)
  2. Syrien (trusler om et USA-Israelsk angreb; angreb på Irans og Hezbollahs styrker i Syrien)
  3. Rusland (afkobling fra SWIFT; tyveri af Russiske besiddelser i USA; angreb på russiske styrker i Syrien)
  4. Iran (annulering af atomaftalen, angreb på Irans styrker i Syrien)
  5. Donbass (Støtte i fuld målestok af Ukronazi angreb på Novorussia)
  6. DPRK (direkte og åbenlys militær aggression; luft og søblokade)
  7. Venezuela (militær intervention "til forsvar for demokratiet, menneskerettigheder, frihed og civilisation")

Kommentar: Delvist oversat af fra Will 2018 be a year of war and more US aggression

There are, of course, many more countries currently threatened by the US to various degrees, but the seven above are all good candidates for US aggression.

Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably futile. If anything, the recent disaster triggered by the US recognition of Jerusalem clearly proves that the US is run by people as least as stupid and ignorant as they are evil and arrogant, possibly even more so. The sad reality we now live in is one where a nuclear superpower lack the minimal intelligence needed to act in defense of its own national security interests, and that is really frightening.

Comment: They may not actually be acting in their own defense, but that's the narrative they'll try to sell.

Last week I took a look at the mindset of what I called the "ideological drone". If we now look at the mindset of the US national security establishment we will immediately notice that it is almost exactly the same as that of the ideological drone. The biggest difference between them might be that the ideological drone assumes that his/her leaders are sane and mostly honest people, whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.

Take the example of Syria. All the US decision makers are fully aware of the following facts:
  1. Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc is their creation and they tried everything to save these terrorists.
  2. The joint Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah effort defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc in-spite of AngloZionist support and attacks on Syrian forces.
  3. The AngloZionist forces are in Syria completely illegally.
Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely amazing, think of it - the entire planet knows full well what really took place in Syria, but Uncle Sam decrees that black is white, water is dry and what is true is false. And the most amazing thing is that they know that everybody knows, yet they don't care one bit. Why? Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
  1. We can buy anybody
  2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
  3. Those we cannot bully we kill
  4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do
Besides people with intelligence there is another type of person who has completely disappeared from the US national security establishment: someone with honor/courage/integrity. Let's take a perfect example: Tillerson.

There is no way we can make the argument that Tillerson is an idiot. The man has proven many times over that he is intelligent and quite talented. And yet, he is Nikki Haley's doormat. Nikki Haley - there is the real imbecile! But not Tillerson. Yet Tillerson lacks the basic honor/courage/integrity to demand that this terminal imbecile be immediately fired or, if that does not happen, to leave and slam the door really loud. Nope, the man just sits there and takes humiliation after humiliation. Oh sure, he will probably resign soon, but when his resignation comes it will have no value, it will be a non-event, just the sad and pathetic conclusion to a completely failed stint as Secretary of State.

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

Imbeciles and cowards. I also happen to think that they are traitors to their country and their people. Patriots they are not.

Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them. That is the setup we are dealing with. As Trump would tweet "not good".

Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.

And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action, especially for clueless people. Furthermore, one simple way to look at risks is to say that risks are a factor of probability times consequences: R = P x C.

I don't think that US decision-makers actually formally think that way, but on a gut level this is rather straightforward, even for ideological drone types. If we assume that this is the case, we can now revisit our 7 countries listed above as seen by Neocon decision makers (not me! I already outlined how I saw the risks of attacking these countries in this article written this summer):

. Possible/Likely Consequences Probability Risk
Afghanistan (surge) more body bags high low
Syria (military intervention & attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria) Iranian & Hezbollah counter-attacks high high
Russia 1 (economic attack: SWIFT & theft of assets)Russia 2 (shooting of Russian aircraft in Syria) non-military response military response highmedium unknownfor memedium
Iran (renege on nuclear deal) non-military response high low
Donbass (US backed attack on Novorussia) Russian intervention medium low
DPRK (attack; blockade) Nuclear war in Asia unknown unknown
Venezuela (direct military intervention) quagmire high high

A couple of points here:

Afghanistan: is rather straightforward and least controversial: there will be a surge in Afghanistan, it will result in more body bags, it will achieve nothing, cost a shitload and nobody cares.

Comment: Afghanistan is a strategic country for the US and if need be, are likely to employ ISIS to help them keep position there.

Syria: very tempting, but the big risk is this: that US forces will find themselves face to face with Iranian and Hezbollah forces who have been dreaming about this day for decades and who will make maximal political use of the US forces they will capture or kill. Frankly, to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option. Ask the Israelis.

Russia option 1: rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal (that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this, but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.

Russia option 2: the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in 2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US do - attack a Russian S-400 battery? The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35. Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hypermaneuverability, electronic warfare, passive engagement, etc.). This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?

What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Iran: Trump has announced that he wants out of the deal and while technically and legally he cannot do that, it's not like he will care one bit. The US has long given up any pretense at respecting any kind of law, including international law. Also, since Trump is clearly Israel's shabbos-goy I think that we can safely assume that this will happen.

Comment: Nuclear deal aside, it appears now that the US is more interested in regime change and are employing the same tactics as they did in Syria.

Donbass: will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already! Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo) strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming, re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the Neocon point of view:

Possible outcomes US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.

The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course. Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already. Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any category. The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.

Comment: With the US arming the "Ukronazis" now in the open, it does appear to be heading in that direction.

DPRK: that is the big unknown here. With some opponents, you know for an absolute fact that their people will fight down to the very last man if needed (Iranians, Russians, Hezbollah). But authoritarian regimes tend to have a pretty low breaking point unless, of course, they convince their own people that they are not fighting for a specific political regime, but for their country. I think that nobody knows for sure what the North Koreans will do if attacked, but I see no sign to simply assume that the North Koreans won't fight. From what I hear, the memories of the ruthless attacks against North Koreans by US forces during the previous war on the Korean Peninsula are still very very real. Here is what an intelligence officer in the region wrote to me recently:
The Trump Administration's bluster is pathetic. If this were a movie, and not real life, it would be funny (it's still funny, but being in *******, I don't fully appreciate it). The sad thing is that central casting couldn't create a better foil for NK propaganda: in every way, including physically, he fits their caricature of the evil, imperial arch-capitalist Yankee businessman. It'd be like if Hitler came back to life and off-handedly threatened to destroy the US every other day (and had the capability to do so).
If this specialist is correct, and I have no reason to believe that he is not, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the possible dislike the North Korean people might have for their ruling elites is dwarfed by their hatred for the United States.
[Sidebar: he also had some interesting comments about my own assessment of the consequences of a war on the Korean Peninsula. Here is what he wrote to me:

"Japan is a major target, for a number of reasons. The biggest is that there are a lot of US bases there that would be used to bring-in additional US troops/direct the war, but there's also the fact that North Korea (and most South Koreans, actually), straight-up hates Japan. I won't go into a history lesson (which you probably already know), but there is no love lost. Even if the war was confined to the Peninsula, which it won't be, the global economy would take a major hit, because a ridiculous amount of global supply chain runs through South Korea (which on its own, bounces between the 15th and 10th largest economy in the world). Off the top of my head, I think Incheon (just west of Seoul) is the busiest airport in at least the region - it's a major international hub, and Busan and Incheon are some of the busiest ports in the world -
I want to say Busan is top 5, even busier than the Japanese ports. All the Chinese goods that go to America flow through the Sea of Japan - those will have to be re-routed. And a lot of the components that go in fancy electronics are actually made in SK, prior to final assembly in China - so that will be an issue. So even if we're the only ones to go down, it'll be bad news for the global economy. Your assessment of the artillery and special forces threat mirrors mine. One of the things I always thought was funny was how people disparage "World War 2 artillery." As a whole, "World War 2 artillery" has probably killed more people than any weapon system in modern history (unless you say something really general like "knife" or "gun"). It's not like you'll be any less dead if your house is hit with a 152 as opposed to a J-DAM."]
And here is the deal, if you attack a small and defenseless country you can basically ignore the consequences of making the wrong guess, but when dealing with a country like the DPRK this is a miscalculation which no sane politician or military commander would ever take the risk of making. But delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards - would either one of them show the kind of caution needed when dealing with such a major threat?! I frankly don't think so. In fact, I see no reason to believe that at all. Remember the "cakewalk in Iraq"? This term, coined by one of my former teachers at SAIS, Ken Adelman, is a wonderful illustration of the Neocon mindest: pure ideology and to hell with caution. We all know that this "cakewalk" ended up costing the Iraqi and American people: well over one million deaths for the former, well over five trillion dollars for the latter. Some cakewalk indeed... The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans. Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire? You tell me!

Venezuela: as much hatred as there is for Venezuela in the US elites, this country is not a lucrative target or, let me rephrase that, it is a great target to subvert but probably not a good one to intervene in. Violence in Venezuela is directly in the US interests but a direct military intervention is probably not. My contacts tell me that the Venezuelan military is an unholy (and rather corrupt) mess, but they also tell me that the popular will to resist the "Yankees" is so strong that a any military intervention will immediately trigger an ugly guerrilla war (not to mention a political backlash in the rest of Latin America). The truth is the US probably has the means to militarily intervene in Venezuela, but they also have much better options.

Now let's sum this all up.

The chances are high that in 2018 the US will
  • Escalate the war in Afghanistan
  • Renege on the nuclear deal with Iran
  • Back an Ukronazi attack on Novorussia
It is quite possible that the US will also
  • Shoot down a Russian aircraft over Syria
I find it unlikely that the US will
  • Invade Syria
  • Invade Venezuela
I am unable to evaluate whether the US will:
  • Disconnect Russia from SWIFT or seize Russian assets
  • Attack the DPRK
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational. That is a huge assumption to make, but one which was fundamentally true during the Cold War. Today I find myself inclined to think that psychologists are probably better suited to make predictions about the actions of the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire than military analysts. Furthermore, history shows us that the combination of delusional imbeciles and dishonorable cowards is what typically brings down empires, we saw a very good example of that with the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

With the latest Trump fiasco I have personally given up any hope of ever seeing a US President capable of making a positive contribution to the welfare of the people of the US or the rest of the planet. The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say.