I wrote a couple of days ago that we should expect and look for 2021 to be a year defined by war. I want to expand on that here because I feel that is now somewhat inevitable. Everything I read recently points to a disaster in the making. And it has to be now. Why?
Well, starting with the broad brush before getting into the fine detail, it is obvious that Western economies are on the brink of collapse, including what has been for the best part of a century the most dominant economy in the world, that of the United States of America. Additionally, and for the same period of time, the West has been the most dominant military power bloc in the world, enabling those nations to ride roughshod over what used to be called ‘The Third World’, composed of underdeveloped or developing nations.
All that is about to change.
Whether the West can see and also acknowledge that state of affairs or not, the rest of the world can. The only reason Western nations have been able to dominate both militarily and economically – and that has been only by threats more than actually successful military action, and the resulting theft of subjugated or bullied nation’s natural resources – the long term costs of maintaining that falsely elevated position has resulted in the hollowing out of the West’s home economies and the consequent impoverishment of its peoples. I still don’t think that Western peoples, as a whole, are able yet to see this is what has happened. Yes, they know full well they are being screwed, but what is behind that and the instilled belief – through media propaganda – that it has to be the fault of contending external forces which therefore need to be subdued, is the mainly blinkered view they still largely possess.
Those largely non-governmental forces that drive the economies of the West – and hold the power to install puppets in high position to ensure their wishes are carried out – they know, of course, since it is their plan in the first place. This has led to the West being governed by either well-meaning buffoons or outright charlatans – the buffoons epitomised by both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson (among others), and the charlatans by Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron (among others). There is always an exception to the rule and I think that New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern may be that exception. But then New Zealand is so small and remotely located that it is a Western outlier anyway.
Aside: That is not to disparage New Zealand in any way – I think NZ is a fine country, and was my first thought destination some 40 years ago when I was considering a safer place to live (I rejected NZ in favour of the large land mass of Australia, which was less likely to sink beneath the waves of the Pacific in due course). Just as an end-note to that, 40 years ago I was fresh out of the UK military and Russia (it was still Soviet Russia back then) was not even on my horizon of potential future homes. With what I know today, and what has occurred in intervening times, if I still had at least half a lifetime to live I would be working toward learning Russian Cyrillic, obtaining Russian citizenship, and hiding myself somewhere in the vast mostly empty expanse of Russian territory (almost twice the size of the US, with less than half the population) – and soon to be the safest place on Earth with perhaps the greatest chance of survivability through what has to occur for mankind as this century further unfolds.
Four years ago I railed against Donald Trump as being one of the new crop of buffoons, but overarching that was the fact that as an alternative to the chosen warmonger contender, Hillary Clinton, he was a no-brainer choice for US leader. Over the past four years of his presidency I have seen a profound change in Donald Trump. He is a changed man. It can be seen in his eyes and his demeanour in recent photographs. I guess the position he holds will inevitably do that to a person. Yes, he may still be a buffoon but he is a shrewd buffoon and he knows that something is afoot. I think the fact that he is not fighting tooth and nail, though still holding on, for an overturn of the rigged recent election – and, importantly, has signalled he will return in 2024 – speaks to the fact that he is fully aware of the precarious nature of the USA as a viable entity and that he sees an opportunity to be there to pick up the pieces of what is left of his country in four years time. That coincides with my views too – though I am less sure there will actually be anything left to put back together in 2024. America appears ready to replace the now wiser, honed by reality, buffoon with a hollowed out shell of a person interested only is shielding himself from criminal proceedings and willing to carry out whatever are the wishes of the masters.
Can the West last until 2024?
There is a rank, fetid smell of decomposition hovering over Western nations, pretty much all of which are already embattled in internal strife resulting from the inequalities of the system that has fed the corporate and military sectors at the expense of the common citizen. So, even if the West does manage to stagger on for another four years it will not be the same living entity that it once was. That has to be something preying on the minds of those who drive that entity. They must know the time is up and that their plans for global domination have come unstuck. Hence, firstly, the plan for a ‘Great Reset’ – and that is perhaps a long term goal. But there has to be a breaking down before that can even attempt to be realised. Note: I am trying to follow their thoughts here, not actually agreeing with any of it.
So, do they (these drivers) allow an uncontrolled breakdown – the default situation we largely see being enacted right now (although there could be an element of organised pushing for it to appear uncontrolled, simply to add weight to the argument for the necessity for a more totalitarian eventual safe harbour) – or do they force the issue by bringing on a devastating global war (which would have the added advantage of further ballooning their profits on the downward slide to a global low-point)?
A further consideration, and one that figures most prominently in my thinking, is that the longer they leave things to take their own course, the weaker the West becomes and the stronger those forces that would contend Western military aggression will undoubtedly become. The West, through its own complacency, is now starting from a position that is most definitely behind the game. Russia has arguably the best equipped and most ready military capacity of any nation in the world. But that transition will not be complete (we are given to understand) until around the mid 2020’s. China is rapidly expanding its own military forces and now has a navy that can almost match, ship for ship, that of the US. By 2024 that balance could well become a deficit imbalance for the West. Iran too, not to mention North Korea can only grow stronger by the day, as the West further weakens. By 2024, those who the West sees as their opponents – though this is only something that exists in Western minds – no such threat exists in anything other than a defensive capacity – will have achieved at least military parity with the West and probably more than that.
Also, as I have said many times before, the US military is scattered all across the world and is powerless to launch any sizable land-based force of any significance anywhere and cannot afford to relinquish any out its many outposts to form such a force without losing ground and consequent influence. So any proposed conflict would of necessity be waged from the air and sea, with the ultimate option – that of Mutually Assured Destruction – no doubt in mind to be employed as perhaps a last resort. The West does not appear to have any other options or capabilities as we enter this third decade of the 21st century. And the longer they wait, the shorter and tighter the options become – no matter how much debt-based money they throw at the problem.
So, in the final analysis, the West must go early and go hard. All the pointers in the last few months and particularly the last few days, indicate that is what they will do. I don’t think there will be a rehearsal. What is happening is the overtures to the curtain rising for the first act – to be played perhaps in the coming months of January/February 2021 – preceded only by the firming up and appointment of the lead players. Will it be Donald? Or will it be Joe (or Kamala)?
Speaking of the imminence of such an alarming event, let me also say that whenever it does take place – and I am sure that it will, whether in the next few months or later – it will all be over quite quickly. There can be no massive land invasion, which is what traditionally takes place and which tends to elongate the duration of conflicts. No, this will be a war to establish supremacy of military power – which means that it is most likely to end in a stalemate, even if the final solution of nuclear armaments are used. It will also be a war of missiles – since no other weapon can establish supremacy in the absence of land warfare – and missiles are the preeminent weapon of the day. Missiles are also very, very expensive, at a cost of several millions of dollars a pop, and they cannot be easily or quickly replaced. What you come with is what you fight with, and there are limited stocks. So, whatever damage you can do to your opponents with the stocks you have is pretty much the only damage you will be able to inflict. Such a conflict cannot foreseeably last for more than a few weeks, even allowing for the precursory manoeuvres to position, redeploy and to resupply your forces.
OK, that may be something of an oversimplification, and there is scope for land conflict – especially in Europe on Russia’s borders – where aggressor armies will be well overpowered and destroyed by Russia’s advanced weaponry, if such a move was attempted. The same goes for any attempt to invade Iran or the DPRK. Any other outcome is pure fantasy in Western minds. Though that does not mean it won’t happen. But it will be as quickly over as the more distant naval/air conflict on China’s borders.
I should, at this point, add a rider that I am not an expert in modern military affairs, just an ordinary citizen who has attempted to keep abreast of developments as they are reported. So, you should bear that in mind when making your own assessment of what I have said here.
Let me just finally outline for you the indicators that I see lining this situation up for so close a beginning. As I said earlier there are many indicators of that in recent times which add to the arguments I have already proposed.
Firstly, no argument can be brought to deny that it is the expressed intention of the Western lead nation, the US, to dominate and subjugate the rest of the world to its way of thinking. That is enshrined in their legal system. It is also why they pour more money – to the detriment of their people’s welfare – into military hardware and activity, than most other world nations combined. I am not going to supply chapter and verse evidential references to that. It is a well established fact and easily determined. Many of my own works have in the past provided pointers to such evidence.
It is also an established fact that none of those nations labelled ‘aggressors’ by the West have actually demonstrated any form of aggression against Western interests either now or in the past, but have themselves often continuously been subjected to Western aggression themselves for centuries.
It is an easily determined fact that elements of the West, chiefly the US, UK, Israel, and from time to time others, are more than willing to invade, provoke, bully, and falsely accuse nations who will not bend to Western influences – chiefly to steal from them, weaken them and coerce them, for no valid reason. Also to goad them into retaliatory, preemptive, actions as an excuse for the West to continue and increase their aggressive stance.
These things are the generalised ploys of the West. They become particularised in the case of Russia, whose borders with Europe are ever closer challenged by NATO forces, increasingly strengthened, while at the same time Russia and its associates are criminally sanctioned by the West for no realistic reason. Think the NordStream 2 project. Think the various dubious accusations raised against Russia – the Skripals, Navalny. All of them provocative setups. Think the interference in Belarus to falsely discredit its President and foment unrest – and, further back, the same in Ukraine. Think the wooing of the Baltic states and other once soviet satellite states. Provocative containment and pressure – it’s all part of the plot. But the West is wary of Russia. They know full well that Russia is now ahead of the game in terms of military strength and will not let down its guardianship of its long held sovereignty. All the West can do is to pick away at that resolve in the hopes of provoking a desired reaction or perhaps internal strife.
Then there is Israel – darling of the West, and some would say its driver. Israel is constantly provocative towards all its Arab neighbours. Openly bombing many areas of Syria in recent days – not only to annoy Syria but also its partner Iran. Israel has also reportedly just sent a submarine to the Straits of Hormuz in direct provocation of Iran. The US has recently sent a nuclear submarine there for the same reasons. Then there is the clear determination of Israel to eliminate its Palestinian problem. That, I think, is also mainly to provoke some retaliatory action by other Arab nations. The US military remains only in Syria and Iraq, illegally in both cases, for those same reasons and also to continue its theft of oil revenue.
The US continues and increases its support for what it calls the nation of Taiwan. No such nation exists. Taiwan and its surrounding waters are still the recognised sovereignty of China. There can be only one reason for such Western provocations – the goading of China into making a retaliatory move to recover control of its sovereign land and waters, that can be utilised for commencement of hostilities.
These are not all the jabs of the West against its perceived opponents by any means. I haven’t even covered South America, nor the DPRK, but you can take it as read that the US in particular clearly wants a simple excuse to start a war. Another large scale conflict is the US’ only hope, vague as it is, to keep itself together through a new wave of patriotism in a final push towards world dominion. The world cannot allow that to happen.
I believe I have said enough now.
It was almost a year ago, as I write, on January 3, 2020, that the US made its cruel attempt to begin a conflagration with Iran through the murder of that nation’s top military figure, Qasem Soleimani, by a military drone at Baghdad international airport in Iraq. For that atrocity, as a down-payment on retribution not yet completed, they received a bloody nose in a missile strike on the airbase from which the drone was deployed. A strike which injured more than a hundred US personnel (deaths unknown but possibly coinciding with the number of ‘headaches’ reported – there is no truth to that statement, it’s just on my karma wishlist) and virtually destroyed the drone facility – every single missile used in the attack finding its target. Little has been heard of US drones in Iraq since that time and no US comeback has been forthcoming. The US has obviously gained a little more respect for the capabilities of Iran’s defences.
Still, one wonders what provocations the heartless US military has up its sleeve, scheduled for January 2021? They can’t afford not to do something. And I, for one, am getting fed up with waiting for all this to resolve itself so all that remain can get on with getting on together or alternatively all bow out of the picture in a collapse of the species.