The Axe Pakistan-Turkey-Saudi Arabia. Muslim countries get together.

 

Just a few weeks ago, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a Nuclear Deal. This was long before President Trump mentioned the possibility of a Nuclear Deal with Saudi Arabia on condition that Saudi Arabia recognized Israel. It did not go through for obvious reasons, at a time when Israel is taking over Muslim Holy sites in Jerusalem. 

Turkey is also a NATO country. Would Article 5 of the NATO agreement be implemented. This can have potentially catastrophic consequences. There are two ways to prevent a disaster. One - getting Turkey out of NATO or two - creating a new agreement for Europe without Turkey by breaking away from NATO.

Whatever happens will have to happen very fast to avoid another World War. The present deal draws the lines between Friends and Foes. We still have to hear from non aligned regional countries that will be massively affected should such a war happen.

Germany, once again, will have the strongest Armed Forces in Europe

 

As new plans are being drawn, the Federal Republic of Germany will have once again the strongest Armed Forces in Europe.

It has become self-evident that Pax Americana will be replaced with Pax Deutschland. Germany as the strongest and wealthier country in Europe, will be in charge of European security and economics.

German superiority will be ascertained once again. Germany is taking significant stepts to overhaul its military. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has pledged to build Europe´s strongest army. An ambitious goal for a country that has long dealt with underfunding and neglect. Conscription is the key towards German rearmament. The aim is to vastly increase manpower of the German Armed Forces. The initial plan is to have more than 500,000 troops ready for combat. Mandatory enlistment is on the cards. All men of 18 years of age will be obliged to complete forms for military service. Men of military age will be also obliged to be subjected to regular health check ups showing that they are fit to go to war.

At this point in time, World War Two is very much in the mind of the German Peoples. They are willing to fight for Germany, but they are not willing to fight for NATO. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. They are willing to defend Germany, but they are not willing to fight somebody else´s wars.

The question that arises is how long will it take for Germany to become, once again, the strongest military force in Europe. Present estimates indicate that this will not happen before 2030. Having said that, the present politicial status quo is by no means guaranted. A different government with different agendas might make it happen long before 2030. An European Union controlled by Germany is very much a possibility. Without firing a single shot, Germany could achieved what Adof Hitler did not achieve in the 1930s and 1940s. 

In fact, Adolf Hitler predicted that a strongest Germany would rise when the then powers USA and Soviet Union confronted each other. The Soviet Union is no more since 1991, but the reasoning is very much the same. The German people that were bombarded with messages of guilt for so long might now restore militaristic thinking across Germany and German military traditions will be equally restored.

Will Ukraine be Yugoslavia 2025?

Will Ukraine be Yugoslavia 2025?

Henry Kissinger stated that he saw the partition of the Ukraine as the only solution to achive lasting peace by separating the two sides - non Russians and ethnic Russians that live in the present Ukraine. Western Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine fough on opposite sides during World War Two. 

Data:  Western and eastern Ukraine represent distinct regions with contrasting historical, cultural, and economic characteristics. Western Ukraine generally includes regions like Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Zakarpattia, formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), has a strong industrial and Russian-speaking identity, with a history tied to the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

The meeting in Washington will be about parties that have different agendas. Trade, Defense and Geopolitical Interests will be on the table.

Not long ago Ursula von der Leyen negotiated an agreement with President Trump, agreement that was very much disliked by German politicans of all political colours that asked for the resignation of the President of the European Commission. In France, the French Prime Minister himself expressed strong opposition to such a deal that is defined by many as an act of surrender to American interest.

Given the troubles several European countries are facing at home, EU politicians are desperately trying to get something that they can call a win. President Trump has the aces. He conditioned American support to the signing of a trade agreement.

At the end of the meeting in Alaska, the sides mentioned their intention to improve trade relationships. President Trump himself needs a win. Some week ago, he made an agreement with Ukraine indicating that Ukraine will give USA access to Ukraine mineral resources in exchange for military support. What President Trump and President Putin agreed in Alaska was not reported. I suspect that trade and a peace agreement come as a package and that the Yugoslavia Option is on the table.

Rachel Reeves and the 5% for Defence expenditure

 

Having seen what we have seen until now when it comes to monies and politics, can you trust the British Prime Minister and his promises about Defence?

I asked and asked again. Can we trust statements made at the latest NATO gathering? Political speeches and posturing do not pay for massive investments and massive borrowing and massive borrowing is already an issue when Britain´s credit rating is at stake. If things become any worse and interest paid on public debt keeps going up, how long before we head for a financial crash?

Any reforms are now compromised for the duration of the present administration and strikes are just beginning. How long will Rachel Reeves be able to keep the boat afloat? There are three ways to get resources and each has a price. We can raise taxes. We can borrow. We can reduce services. For each of the three there is a political cost to pay. Raising taxes can be popular with the left of the Labour Party, but deeply unpopular for the business community and, ultimately, will lead to higher prices of utilities and goods. Borrowing will lean to higher interest paid for public debt. Cutting services will not be popular with members of the public. None of them will be a vote winner in the present environment. 

But what that means for British standing? How reliable can a country that cannot pay its debts be? If one of the core members of NATO cannot afford to deliver what it promises, what does it say about NATO itself?

Kier Starmer is very much willing to increase the blackhole ten times over or more

 

The expression "it does not add up" exists for a reason. So what we are being told clases with reality then you have to say that "it does not add up".

For months and even today in Prime Minister Question Time, Keir Starmer kept repeating the mantra about the 22 billion blackhole generated by the previous Conservative Administration.

Now, you look at the shopping list presented in the last few days and you realize that the numbers Keir Starmer is dealing with "do not add aup". More than 10 billion for Mauritius. More than 5 billion for Ukraine - in fact we have lost the count of all the monies sent to Ukraine and this includes also equipment for military use. About 22 billion Pound for a project promoted by Ed Milliband regarding the environment (not mentioning planning application changes that will allow developers to wipe out entire greenbelt areas) But the list of investments promised goes on and on. But not a word in terms of where the monies for those investments are coming from.

Keir Starmer keeps saying that Conservative criticism is unwarranted, and especially one specific benefit like the Winter Allowance that is less than peanuts compared to all other promises made by the Labour governement including nationalisation of railways services (not just the network, but also the trains that deliver such services) and the possible nationalisation of utility companies like Thames Water, a giant that is in financial troubles).

It is difficult to follow the Prime Minister and-or other members of the Cabinet that go around promised this, that and the other thing. Prime Minister, where is the money coming from?

John Healey came with announcements about the creation of 6 ammunition factories and the building of 12 nuclear submarines, the production of tens of thousands of drones promised to Ukraine, and much more.

Then we went the news that Helen Hayes MP is due to contact Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to ask for a financial plan to support struggling local authorities. Once again, where will the money come from if money is being sent left, right, up and down in every possible direction. Just cancelling the Winter Allowance and cutting benefits for the disabled and the unemployed will not do the trick. We are talking about hundreds of billions of Pound and especially after the news that NATO does not 3% investment in defense, but 3.5% investment in defense.

With every passing day, the Labour government keeps adding items to the shopping list and as Paul Samuelson, the American Economist, put it, it is either butter or cannons. Whatever you investing in one thing is the monies that you have to reduce somewhere else. We have not even reached the Autum Budget.

Once again the Secretary for Defense John Healey MP promised to increase tenfold the number of drones sent to Ukraine. The cost of building and sending those drones, will it come from the monies said to be invested in improving Britain´s state of readiness for war?

Are you an accountant or somebody that has some expertise in auditing accounts? Would you like to audit the Labour government´s accounts? I am sure that it could be an experience that you could not possibly ever forget. Has Rachel Reeves something to say about all the promises made? I am sure that Rachel Reeves herself is rather stressed up. Imagine having to change the books every time the Prime Minister or other Members of the Cabinet make promises that force you to recalculate the way you plan to run finances. From the time you get to bed until the time you get up, everything will have changed. I am sure that when she wakes up in the morning, she does not experience nice feelings. It is much more like a nightmare.

Now, Sue Grey, the woman chosen by Keir Starmer to be Chief of Staff, did not last long. She resigned and went as fast as she had come in. Well, if you are an intelligent and clever operator, you can see from a mile how things are going to be, and it has been a nightmare. And the nightmare is just beginning. 

 

Friedrich Merz: One country´s actions can trigger a chain reaction

When Merz predecessor, Angela Merkel, decided to open Germany´s borders, she could not foresee the problems that her approach would create. Suddenly, there were conflicts all over the EU when countries like Poland and Hungary rejected her open borders policies. She lived to regret her decision when she publicly stated "Multikulti ist Tot" and mass migration became so intense that it threatens Schengen Treaty arrangements. In her case, her decision did not involve engaging Germany in an all out war.

Friedrich Merz decision to authorize the use of German long range weapons against the Russian Federation is a completely different cup of tea with catastrophic consequences. Berlin has been told, over and over again (by Berlin I mean the German authorities) that such measure will in effect mean a declaration of war against the Russian Federation and that, therefore, the Russian Federation will be entitled to attack Germany. What Friedrich Merz has done, unitelaterally, is to put every single NATO country on a direct collision course with the Russian Federation.  Now, how can the Russian Federation attack Germany? Nuclear War.

Herr Merz got elected with less than 24% of the vote, taking into account that CDU did not get 24% of the vote. CDU/CSU got about 24% of the vote. His coalition partner - SPD - got 16% of the vote. It remains to be known what the German public actually thinks about Friedrich Merz statement and about the consequences of such statement. 

Friedrich Merz took such decision not as a NATO member. This was not a NATO decision. It was Germany´s decision, but it is a far reaching decision that will undermine Europe. I would say that such decision is not supported by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 refers to defense, not offense. 

Now, Chancellor Merz sent a Panzer group to Lithuania, a country that is pretty close to the Russian Federation. It is easy to see that if there is war between the Russian Federation and Germany then German forces in Lithuania will be targetted. 

We have not seen any reactions from other European countries. Do other countries want to be involved in an all out war? Like Angela Merkel, Friedrich Merz had no consultations with other European countries regarding the statement that he just made. Is this a German thing? i.e. making decisions that will affect everybody else, without even asking what other people in the European Union think about it?

This confirms my belief that Britain´s exit from the European Union was a very good thing. I also believe that dismantling NATO would be the next good thing. Why? Because one country can create a disaster for everybody else. So, if Germany wants war with the Russian Federation, Germany alone can pay the price of such a disastrous decision.

As always, Europeans create wars and US lives are spent to rescue them

 

Europeans created wars and US had to intervene to rescue them. World War One? World War Two? 

How many of those protesting on the streets will be willing to join the Armed Forces to go and die?

So, now the new American government is telling them that the US is not willing to engage in WWIII.

Suddendly, quite a few warmongers will fall quiet. How was the Good Friday Agreement negotiated? How was the Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel negotiated? You need to talk to the sides involved in the conflict. Politicians and media want you to believe a lie and accuse US of selling out when it fact all US is trying to is to bring the sides to the negotiating table.

I have got many reasons to criticize the US, but the intention to bring the parties together to end the war is not one of them. Dealing with reality is the best thing that anyone can do. The longer the conflict goes on the greater the chances of having a catastrophe in Europe.

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending peacekeepers to Ukraine has not gone down well

 

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers did not go down well, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz made an early exit from the gathering in France, saying that it was extremely premature to talk about sending troops anywhere before any peace settlement had been agreed.

But this was not all, for obvious reasons, Germany does not want to send troops anywhere in Europe when there is even the slightest possibility of a conflict of major proportions. Given the perception that the Russian Federation might send a big number of troops via Belarus, that could threaten Polish borders and seize Kiev in no time, Poland does not think either that this could be a good idea. Spain under General Franco did not get involved in World War Two. There is no appetite whatsoever for any involvement. 

For the moment and in the foreseeable future, there will be no EU participation in any negotiation. USA and the Russian Federation are the only two players involved and statements made by Volodomir Zelensky that no peace agreement would be possible without Ukraine´s participation and calls for the formation of an EU Army have little weight. In the end, if Ukraine were to reject a settlement agreed by the USA and the Russian Federation, USA could unilaterally decide to cease military and financial support. At this point in time, many EU countries that happen to be members of NATO might be thinking about the possibility of a reduction of American military presence in Europe.  

US: NATO countries that send troops to Ukraine will not be protected by Article 5

For decades, the USA has been used and abused bz countries that have consistently cut down defense expenditure, expecting American soldiers to protect them, instead of building up their own defense capabilities. The US Secretary of Defense made it clear that countries will no longer be expected to invest 2 per cent but 5 per cent of their national budgets, to beef up their own military industries and Armed Forces.

With regards to Ukraine, he told NATO members and politicians that the way forward is peace with realism. Ukraine´s previous borders will not be restored and territorial concessions will have to be made. Ukraine will not be a NATO Member and any force, including European Forces and Non European Forces will not be protected by Article 5 if they enter Ukraine.

USA must give prioritz to the defense of its own borders and other threats in the Asia Pacific Region.

Link to talk about the issues Sunday, 16 February, 2025 from 2000 to 2200 GMT

Subjects to be treated on Sunday 16 February 2025 on Meetup via Zoom. Link bellow.

US NATO Forum

 

Danemark: in the big scheme of things, Danemark does not even exist

The image of a Danish representative signing a sort of mutual defense agreement between Danemark and Ukraine by shaking hands with Zelensky the Ukrainian dictator (Zelensky was elected President but his mandate expired months ago and there have been no elections in Ukraine) shows how ridiculous political leaders can be.

The issue brought to the fore was the status of Greenland, a Danish territory with 57,000 inhabitants, that will have an independence referendum in April 2025. 

Danemark itself is affected by what has become a common issue across many so called Developed Countries: a negative birthrate. Because the country is desperate to maintain a status quo come what may, attitudes towards migrants have changed and so have the stances of Danish political parties.

The public announcement about the USA buying or taking over Greenland for strategic purposes is no mean fit. Historically, Danemark lost territories to Germany and when it was supposed to cede Norway to Sweeden, Norway became independent. Bit by bit, Danemark keeps losing and losing. Greenland is not demographically relevant but it has significative natural resources that could not go amiss for countries like the USA that happens to be the head of the North Atlantic Alliance to which Danemark still belongs to.

American military presence in Germany, the powerful neighbour, should be noted, being Germany covered by American military bases. You can never be too far from an American military installation. Calls by Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron to respect territorial integrity, should the USA decide to use any of the two proposed alternatives, cannot be more than posturing. The EU is not ready to finance its own NATO nor has the capabilities to do so. 

Keir Starmer planning to cut down British Armed Forces by 20,000

 

Plans announced as part of a Defence Review indicate that the British government led by Keir Starmer is planning to cut down the size of the British Armed Forces by 20,000 (down from present level of 73,000 including all branches). 

It must be said that barely 40,000 are actual trained combattant personnel. Such is the state of the British Armed Forces.

Manpower or lack of it is a very serious issue, but also material resources are critically absent. All of which renders Britain totally incapable in case of a real conflict involving Air Force, Navy and Army and other branches of the services.

Statements made by David Lammy beggar belief. The Foreign Secretary does not have a clue about what is he is actually saying and has no knowledge whatsoever when it comes to military matters. President Trump, during his first mandate as American President, made abondantly clear that each NATO member country should do its part. This is not just about Article 5. It is about Article 3 that commits every NATO member country to be self-reliant when it comes to self-preservation. Changes proposed by the Labour government goes in exactly the opposite direction, weakening Britain even more.

We must look beyond statements made by politicians regarding state of readiness. Britain is only ready to lose and budget constraints are not reassuring. It takes years to recruit and train military personnel. No matter how much money you have got, time is of the essence and time for Britain is running out.

When everybody is celebrating war.....

 

When more and more people who will not be fighting any wars are jumping in promoting war, you know that something will be going awfully wrong.

Mark Rutter, as many other war promoters who will be watching war, comfortably sitted in their offices or living rooms, could not care less about those who are going to die, including his own compatriots that rejected him in free elections.

The images coming from Gaza give you an idea of how many European cities will look should there be war in Europe. This is something that all those listening to Mark Rutter should internalize. Will David Lammy ever put on an uniform and head for war? Never. They can say 'we will stand. as many times as they wish, but the fact is that they will never stand where it matters. People fighting the war themselves understand the full meaning of what is going on. Mark Rutter will continue getting his monies paid into his bank accounts without ever having to face the possibility of being shot in the battlefield.

However, should a European War happen, then the battlefield will come to us. London, Brussels, Berlin, Paris and many other European cities will be part of the battlefield and your home, the one you have been working for and paying for for so many years will be turn to rubble with you and your family inside. Or perhaps you will be at work in an office or factory when the nuclear blast comes.

German Coalition: Vote of Confidence due to take place in January will actually take place on December 16th 2024

 

The days of Olaf Scholz as German Chancellor could be numbered. 

The vote originally planned for January 2025 is due to take place on December 16th, 2024 and the Federal Election will actually take place in February.

This can change quite a lot in German politics at a time when urgent measures are needed to sort out German economics.

Germany was remarklably absent from a top meeting about the Environment. The German government has more pressing concerns when the Green Party barely has a calculated 10 per cent support across Germany and in three state elections only managed to get 7 representatives elected out of 120 in Saxony and none in Thuringen and none in Brandenburg.

As part of a deal to get a coalition together, hawkish Annalena Baerbock got chosen as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The fact that she could be on her way out within weeks would be a step forward towards peace in Europe.But the outcome of the Federal Election will tell the story and possibly write a new script.

The outsted Finance Minister Christian Lindner wanted to stop sending money to Ukraine by sending Taurus missiles instead. To have a member of FDP, a Junior member of the coalition, dictating foreign policy would have been a serious error of judgment. Olaf Scholz was asking to change rules to allow more borrowing. Christian Lindner refused to change the rules abour borrowing and decided to blackmail the German Chancellor to force him to adopt an idea he is very much against because of the dangerous implications of having Germany as the initiator of a European-wide conflict. FDP has no foot to stand on.

But money is in short supply and recent announcements about major German industrial players talking about factory closures and lays offs does not help. Energy and migration are bound to become even more important subjects. Increasing the Defense Budget? Where are the monies going to come from? NATO quotas could simply be unreachable. Listening to individuals like Ursula von der Layen or Emmanuel Macron might make somebody think that there are resources aplenty. Well, no. France is running huge deficits and Germany faces borrowing limitations. Any monies sent Eastwards come from borrowing. Will Germany and France - like Britain - go for tax rises? What effect would tax rises produce when unemployment is rising? What political effects will rising unemployment produce?

 

Israel vs Iran: is this the real show?

 Is Israel versus Iran the real show?

We hear the news and see mass media flooded with articles about the dangers of widespread war in the Middle East and Asia Minor. We hear the news about North Koreans joining the fight in Ukraine. It is difficult to ascertain the real dimension of what we have been told. 

The real issue of widespred war in the Middle East and Asia Minor are not Israel or Iran, for that matter. The real issue are the vast amounts of oil and gas spread across the entire region. Kuwair, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and so forth. If the Middle East and Asia Minor were to go up in smoke this will be a catastrophe for the world economy as a whole and there would be massive political consequences.

Both Israel and Iran have to play according to the rules. The United States of America might care about Iran, but the USA cares more about money and as long as money is being made the lives of hundreds of thousands don't matter at all, but the monies being made by shareholders matter more than human lives.

As long as the business of war keeps going and does not get out of control threatening the value of shares it is business as usual. Don't attack nuclear facilities! Don't attack oil reserves! Don't do anything that could ruin the business of war. Both Israel and Iran have to play for their own public and therefore they have to do something to prove that they are doing something.

We are dealing with Jews that do not give a damn about Jews, people for whom their own people matter very little as long as they get what they want. We are dealing with the Bernie Madoffs of geopolitics. Benjamin Netanyahu is a Bernie Madoff of geopolitics. The massacres carried out by Israel will continue. Israel has a license to kill as long as the business of war goes on as usual and monies are being made, but the Bernie Madoff also know that there are limitations. When Iran threatens to attack all those who help Israel there are direct references to oil and gas countries in the region. So any action against Iran has to be limited not to push Iran to attack the real targets in the Middle East and Asia Minor. We know how things are now under the present US Administration and I reckon that things will not change dramatically under a new US Administration because the interests are the same and the people actually running the circus are the same.

With regards to North Korea, I reckon that Ukraine is for North Korea what the Spain's Civil War was for the Wehrmacht: a training ground. North Korea has been in isolation and has not had any opporunity to test its Army in real battles. Although the number of North Korean troops is minimal, Ukraine can provide valuable opportunities. It also sends the message of unity: boys, we are all in it together. Military cooperation at every level. About 3,000 North Korean troops will not make any major difference in the conduct of the war, from a Russian standpoint as the Russian Federation has mobilized hundreds of thousands of troops.

Much of what Western politicians say is no more than chit chat, a propaganda effort to justify the existence of people who are absolutely irrelevant. NATO is a business to keep money rolling in for shareholders. Any monies that go into the pockets of shareholders are not monies that serve the general public. They are not invested in health, education, transport, infra-structure and so forth. The most important problems remain forever unsolved and this is why we have got the problems that we have got with more and more people facing miserable lives.  

Labour's 1997 historic majority led to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a war in Europe is a different cup of tea

 

Tony Blair / Prime Minister

Labour's historic majority in 1997 led straight to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Years later, we face the prospect of yet another war - although much more catastrophic if it ever happens.

In one of his initial appearances, Keir Starmer told the country and the world that he will allow the use of British weapons to attack the Russian Federation.

No interpretation needed. It is all too clear in which direction the wind is blowing.

And this is the same Labour Leader that opposed National Service. When conscription letters arrive telling young untrained men and women that they have to fight a war, I wonder what the public response will be.

Be assured that Keir Starmer will have no hesitation in terms of sending untrained British citizens to war, because reality tells that the British Armed Forces have been severely weaknened and do not have the manpower nor the equipment for any long term war.

It is not secret that Britain as well as other NATO countries expect that the USA will send young Americans to the slaughter house to defend European countries that have been entirely negligent when it comes to compliance of NATO Article 3 that demands that each member has to be able to defend itself.

Britain has done very little to beef up its Armed Forces. In fact, the now former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps could hardly explain why what he called an increase in defense expenditure was what actually a reduction in real terms. He couldn't because it was a reduction.

British morale is at an all time low affecting recruitment. Reports about more than 64% of those serving members of the Armed Forces living in substandard accommodation do not help. Let's see what Keir Starmer has to say about beefing up the Armed Forces because if he does not pay attention to the Armed Forces then we will know that all the rhetoric is based on thin air. 

Big mouth Western politicians are leading Europe towards an unprecedented catastrophy.

The report coming from the Russian Federation and given what Emmanuel Macron and David Cameron and others have said speaks for itself. If anybody threatens the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation will react decisively and nuclear exercises are in full swing.

Olaf Scholz: Hesitating man or man deeply aware of the dire consequences of knee jerk reactions

 

An article on The Guardian newspaper qualifies the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz as 'hesitant', supposedly a label for somebody seen as weak or indecisive because he is not fully committing Germany to yeat another war in Europe.

As a German, Olaf Scholz is extremely aware of the consequences of war. He might not have been around during World War II, but he certanly knows about what happened in Germany all the way until 1945 and after that.

Despite all odd, Germany prospered and with a lot of hard work managed to reach an enviable position, leading those who were supposed to be the conquering nations, the winning nations, after World War II.

The recipe for German success? Ingenuity, creativity and a lot of work done from the very beginning in the worst of circumstances. Germany started the way to recovery and excellence as an occupied and devided country. It capital city was not more. Berlin was divided by the victors and for a time Bonn became the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany. Much of its territory had been lost. Much of it was taken by Poland, Prussia was chopped to bits. The DDR was born, the so called Polish corridor - German land - was given to Poland and much of the eastern side of German was also given to Poland. Eastern Prussia was taken by the Soviet Union and is now part of the Russian Federation.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was much celebrated as was celebrated the end of the DDR and the reunification of Germany, a reunification that is very much incomplete as vast expanses of German land are still in other countries.

Olaf Scholz explicitly said that despite the fact that Germany is part of NATO - in fact is still under American occupation and its contitution was not designed by Germans. It was imposed by the USA that maintains a substantial military pressence in the Federal Republic of Germany. So Germany is still an occupied country.

The German Chancellor has to move with extreme caution. He is the head of a coalition that is intrinsically weak and SPD won an election without winning a big number of votes. It was the debacle of CDU/CSU that fell so massively what made it possible for SPD to win an election with less than 30 per cent of the votes cast.

A new party now has more than 21 per cent of electoral support and, unlike SPD that is only represented in 11 of 16 Federal States, Alternative für Deutchland has captured the imagination of German voters to the point that in the last days of the then Chancellor Angela Merkel many elected representatives of CDU were working together with Alternative für Deutchland.

The present German Chancellor knows full well that if things take a turn for the worst the present coalition will not survive. He also knows that after decades of constant lecturing and self-imposed and imposed guilt, the German peoples themselves are reluctant to engage in yet another European war that would be fought not because of German interests, but of American interests that go against German interests. The German peoples are not willing to throw away decades of hard work and prosperity to please the invaders that fragmented Germany and left Germany in ruins.

On the way to World War Three: This is not the end, not the beginning of the end. It is maybe the end of the beginning

 

Although, officially, the beginning of World War Two was September 3rd, 1939, in actual fact the World War Two started a lot earlier. 

In the early 1930s, Japan was battling it out with China. In 1936, the Spanish Civil War was yet another step. In 1938, the then Czchecoslovakia so much of its territory taken away. So other things were happening long before German troops launched the atttack against Poland.

Palestine, Ukraine and Yemen are just part of the picture. They are steps towards World War Three. All sides, as it usually the case, try to interpret the opponents' movements, according to what they think is the opponents agenda.

The war in Palestine is a war of extermination. The general idea is to get of Palestinians on the way to the creation of the bigger Israel. When Palestinians are out of the way, or even before that, Israel will use any justification to attack its neighbours. Ir is already waging war against Syria and Lebanon and other countries will be attacked.

The conflict in Ukraine has served to clarify the contradictions of a presumed unified European Union. The European Union is a political project and the controversies in terms of lack of support clearly show that behind the facade of unity there are dangerous differences when countries are asked to choose between the political project and their own national interests.

The conflict in Ukraine is only about winning. In the same manner, that Israel has no intention of allowing Palestinians to have a political solution, in Ukraine there is no political solution. So this is war for years to come and in the process other conflicts will appear, conflicts we have been hearing about as possibilities.

We have repeatedly heard the British Prime Minister, the Secretary for Defense and many other major and minor political personalities talking about doing the walking. The fact remains that in the event of any major conflict Britain is desperately ill equipped. One government after another has totally disregarded the need for Britain to be prepared. They have done the talking, but they haven't done the walking. Britain has barely 40,000 people fit for war of a total of about 73,000 - counting administration staff and cleaning personnel. Britain is not even capable of guarding its own borders or patrolling its own territorial waters.We hear talk about long term projects that mention 2035. Well, what has Britain got today in 2023? 

European politicians talk about their fears of yet another President Trump's presidency. Why? Because they fear that USA will walk away from NATO. Why? Because NATO is the USA. If you look at all other NATO members, they don't have the capacity to wage yet another World War. Germany's development was stiffled on purpose. Germany has been prevented from developing its true potential and German politicians will have to make a huge effort to convince German voters that they need to part with more of their tax monies to build infrasture to prepare the country for war. Germany's bridges and Germany's road have not been built to endure tanks and heavy equipment. But this, as important as it is, is practically nothing compared to the fact that Germany does not have neither the material resources nor the emotional preparedness for war. Decades of blame and apologizing for World War Two have left Germany disabled to even defend itself from aggression. And let us remember that Germany is - even it is poor present state - the biggest economy in Europe.

There are two certain possibilities - vertical escalation and horizontal escalation. Vertical escalation means the use of much more advanced weapons. Horizontal escalation means the spread of war beyond the present boundaries, but there is yet another possibility - vertical and horizontal escalation. Lets see how many countries have the capacity to combine both. Look at both sides of the divide to know what will happen next.

Does Mike Pence understand what he is proposing when he talks about Americans being sent to die in Ukraine?

 

As seasoned American politician and as former Vice President of the USA, Mike Pence should understand the messages that he is sending to the American public and to the world.

Talking about American ready to die in Ukraine, he is not just talking about Americans. He is inviting the World to face World War Three and the use of nuclear weapons that could well fall on American soil transforming Washington, New York and other major cities into modern copies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan, it was all about Americans and few other participating countries that also had losses. Europe is a completely different cup of tea. If any Americans get directly involved in the fighting, all NATO countries will be involved and this precisely because an issue of numbers will involved Nuclear Weapons. 

We understand that Mike Pence is biding to become the next Republican Presidential Candidate but if he is showing such careless approach in political speeches made before he even becomes a candidate then what kind of President could he possibly be when he has the finger on the nuclear button. 

Americans should listen very carefully to what those who stand to fight for the nomination of Presidential Candidates and ultimately for the Presidency are actually saying. His words show total disregard for the certain risks of getting NATO directly involved in the conflict.

Many have criticized the Organisation of the United Nations and in fact the United States of America has disregarded the Organization of the United Nations more than once and has carried out military adventures without the approval of the Organization of the United Nations. But even taken such record into account, any such military adventures will terminate the Organisation of the United Nations. We are talking about Permanent Members of the Security Council of the Organization of the United Nations taking sides against each other. World War One signal the end of the League of Nations. World War Three will signal the end of the Organization of the United Nations.

One could say that if there was World War Three, the world would no longer need any such kind of organisation as the world as we know it today will no longer exist. 

United Kingdom: Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

 

Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

Never mind the speeches and the reschuffles. Never mind the change of faces in the Cabinet. What is the British Prime Minister actually doing to prepare Britain for war?

All we hear is about filling up Royal Air Force bases with illegal migrants caught in the Channel or setting up barges that might be a fire hazard.

All we hear is about sending equipment of dubious military value to a theatre of war that might be the Sarajevo of the Twenty-First Century. The last we heard from the British government was a minimal salary increase of about 5% for those serving in the British Armed Forces. We also heard about a Tank Project that resulted in failure after failure.

Rishi Sunak is an accountant. He is no war leader. He is not even a politician as he dropped into politics coming from the world of high finances without any military background or the capacity to understand what it means to lead a country at war. His counterpart, Keir Starmer, is no war leader either. He is a man who came from a legal background without any military background whatsoever. So even the presumed replacement does not know how to lead a country at war.

All we hear is bla, bla, bla at NATO meetings that are no more than social gatherings including some failed Secretaries of State ie Ursula von der Leyen, the enemy of the German Armed Forces. As Defense Secretary she was atrocious to the point that many in Germany celebrated the fact that she was appointed President of the European Commission. 

The one man that knew something about war left the Cabinet. Ben Wallace MP was a military man with a military career and he knew what he was talking about, but he was dismissed by an old man with diminishing intellectual capabilities called Joe Biden. In fact, when there was talk about considering possible candidates, Joe Biden personally dismissed Ben Wallace MP and he did not want him not even as a possible candidate. Who replaced Ben Wallace MP. Grant Shapps MP, a man whose profund knowledge can be summarized as 'my family escaped from National Socialist Germany'. Being the descendant of people persecuted by National Socialist Germany is no proven skill in military matters that involve preparing a country for war.