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.  

Henry Kissinger: Why he is right and why he is wrong

 

Henry Kissinger: Why he is right and why he is wrong

With regards to what Kenry Kissinger proposer to get out of the present impasse in Ukraine, there are arguments in favour and arguments against what he proposes.

Sometimes the solution is determined by circumstances on the ground that make any other alternative impossible. If you take North Korea and South Korea as an example, you could say that having North Korea, South Korea and a demilitarised buffer zone in between was the best that could be achieved given the balance of forces on the ground that made any other option unavailable.

With regards to Ukraine, specifically, there are realities on the ground that need to be recognized. Although there is a country called Ukraine with clearly defined geographic limits when it comes to people the situation is pretty blurred. You have areas where Ukrainian elements are the fundamental majority. There are areas when there is a more or less balanced mix of ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. There are areas where ethnic Russians are the distinct majority. This has been reflected in electoral results long before the present crisis occurred. I was speaking with a Polish lady today and she was telling that her parents were Polish because they were born in Ukraine in regions that used to be part of Poland when they were born. I guess there is the same kind of dilemma for people of many other ethnic backgrounds and nationalities because European borders have been changing and countries that existed at one point no longer exist today. 

There was something called Yugoslavia not long ago. Now, there are several countries that shared a common past for decades that suddenly are no longer part of the same unit. You have got Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegobina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, et cetera. People that were German by birth because at the time of their birth a given region was part of Germany saw changes first hand when the said region became part of Poland as part of the political arrangements at the end of World War Two. This has happened and is going to continue happening in the future as what we believed to be the status quo - something that would last forever and ever - was transient.

If the idea is to dismantle Ukraine geographically, this might be an alternative but poses many dangers. If the idea is to keep Ukraine geographically as one item this also poses many dangers. In fact, the present crisis did not start in 2022. It actually started in 2014 with all the comings and goings of Ukrainian internal politics. One side of Ukraine wanted to go West and another side of Ukraine did not want to go West. Frictions led to internal conflict, internal conflict led to Civil War and ultimately ended up being a war that went beyond present national boundaries.

Perhaps Henry Kissinger's proposal is to implement in Ukraine a similar path to the one followed by Yugoslavia where different ethnic groups followed different paths. It sounds reasonable, but there are also pitfalls. You would have two major powers side to side with nothing in between. You would have one side of Ukraine very much attached to the West and another side of Ukraine very much attached to the Russian Federation, with huge grievances and mistrust and nothing in between. Even with a buffer zone that it will be very difficult to police and maintain there is no guarantees for a lasting peace.

Another possibility would be to treat the whole of Ukraine as a buffer zone between NATO countries and the Russian Federation. Can this be achieved? In an unstable country like Ukraine, with high levels of corruption, there are no guarantees either that internal operators and external operators will not seek to undermine any agreement made to turn Ukraine into a buffer zone.

For the moment, the only solution is a conflict that will go on and on, a permanent economic disaster, in a country ravaged by war. The next question that needs to be raised is 'Will Ukraine be able to survive as a country or will it finally cease to exist like Yugoslavia?' Neighbouring country have territorial claims as Ukraine was made up of regions that used to belong to neighbouring countries.

 

President Donald Trump: Some pluses along the way

President Donald Trump: Some pluses along the way

I was one of those who criticised US involvement in Syria that I saw as counterproductive because it meant an illegal intervention in the sovereign territory of another country that would also delay the resolution of a very bloody conflict. Supporting rebels and targeting government forces that were trying to restore control could only benefit Islamic State-linked guerrillas.

The news that the US is reducing or ceasing its operations in Syria is welcomed news because it allows the administration to focus on vital issues. 

North Korea had been a constant concern. The increasing number of missile launches with rockets that reached as far as Japan was a major issue that had to be resolved. President Trump not only managed to persuade North Korea to stop missile launches. It also managed to open the way to create goodwill between the two sides in the conflict in the Korean Peninsula and cancelled a vast expenditure item in the US Defence budget by getting rid of annual military exercises in the region.

The building of a wall to prevent illegal immigration is a fundamental step in terms of National Security. Legal immigration is allowed but the closing of gates that allow regular passage of illegals and drugs is an absolute necessity. In a budget measured in trillions of Dollars, 5 billion Dollars is just peanuts to deal with a very serious problem.

I might disagree with other items of US Foreign Policy, but I totally agree and I fully support measures to support a peaceful way in the Korean Peninsula, a reduction of US intervention in Syria and the construction of the wall for very valid reasons including National Security. Illegal immigration, drugs and other forms of criminality associated with drugs are extremely serious matters.

President Donald Trump is not closed for business. Quite the opposite. He hasn't closed the door to other countries in the Americas. A new deal with Mexico and Canada will be beneficial for all those involved. Asking for fairness is not extreme. 

With regards to Britain, the EU and the relationship with the USA, it is fair to say that taxes applied on US imports are absolutely unfair. Why should an American car be taxed more than an EU made car? Many in the EU talk against protectionism when the EU is nothing more than a gigantic protectionist block that not only damages the US economy but also the economies of many Developing Countries. The anomaly is such that Britain is applying EU Tariffs on products that Britain needs and doesn't produce. Asking for fairness, once again, is not extreme.

USA/Russia: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are gleamour of hope

USA/Russia: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are gleamour of hope

For those of us that remember the old days - 1962 included - despite all comments about how bad things are at the moment, things could not be any worse in 1962 when Kennedy and Khrushev almost went to blows over the issue of missiles in Cuba. The fact that a President is ready to walk his half of the way to do what needs to be done is refreshing and the words of Winston Churchill about 'jaw jaw better than war war' come loud and clear.

A few weeks ago, North Korea was launching missiles and violating the air space of Japan. Today, North Korea is no longer launching missiles across neighbouring countries nor threatening to attack the USA. Who managed to put an end to the military fever that could have started a major conflict? President Donald Trump. He confounded both friends and foes and talked directly to the North Korean President.

Now, President Donald Trump is talking with Vladimir Putin because once again 'jaw jaw is better than war war' and being criticised for wanting to deal with all issues in a business-like manner. Who is attacking President Trump? The criminals that prefer war and conflict are attacking President Trump, the prostitutes of the mass media and of the establishment that sold their souls to Satan in the pursuit of money by whatever means.

President Donald Trump talks about a strong USA but also talks about dialogue as the main tools to resolve any disputes. By the way, isn't dialogue the way proposed by the Organisation of the United Nations created in 1945 as the main way to resolve disputes? By talking to friends and foes directly, President Trump is applying a fundamental principle of the Organisation of the United Nations.

I would suggest that all those pseudo journalists and politicians that want wars and conflicts should be forcefully enlisted and sent to the battlefield. That will cure them. Put the said journalists and politicians on the firing line to change their ways.

North Korea: There is a lot more to think about apart from who is right and who is wrong

North Korea: There is a lot more to think about apart from who is right and who is wrong

While the mass media and exchanges in Internet Social Media are about who is right and who is wrong, there are much more fundamental issues to talk about.

We should reflect on the potential repercussions of military action and about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

More than 150,000 Chinese soldiers are being deployed right now along the border between China and North Korea. Tank units of the Russian Army are being deployed near the border between Russia and North Korea.

The expectation is that should nuclear facilities in North Korea are hit by the USA there is going to be widespread panic and hundreds of thousands of North Korea are going to be fleeing towards neighbouring countries including China and Russia.

But there is yet another element in the equation. When some years ago, there was a nuclear accident at Chernobyl, many countries including some faraway from Chernobyl suffered the consequences of the radiation waves coming out of Chernobyl.

Should nuclear installations in North Korea be hit, the potential for a regional catastrophe is very high. It is being said that radiation waves will hit Vladivostok within two hours. What will be the political and military consequences if radiation waves spread around one of the most populated areas of the planet? How will ordinary people react? My instinct tells me that there is going to be widespread rage that could push neighbouring countries over the edge on the path to all-out war and that alliance politics will create a major military conflict that could engulf the entire region.

This is not about what North Korea says or what USA says. This is not about who is right and who is wrong. This is not about soundbites. This is about what it could really happen if things get totally out of control.

President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation is absolutely right about the potential for a worldwide disaster. With the words of Sergei Ivanov still ringing in my ears stating that if there is war in Europe it is not going to be a nuclear war but a conventional war, I look at the Law of Unintended Consequences. What guarantees are there to avoid Nuclear War if all the major players in the region and members of the Security Council of the Organisation of the United Nations are involved in a major military conflict?

I think that the escalation of a regional conflict can have unpredictable consequences in the same manner that an event in Sarajevo triggered events that led to World War One and in the same manner that the invasion of Poland on September 1st 1939 started a chain reaction that led to World War Two, events in a small Asian country have the potential to create a massive conflict that could reach every single country in the world. Why? Because the World of today is much more interconnected, the kind of conflict we would be about to witness could have have catastrophic economic repercussions that could certainly lead to widespread political upheaval.

Like I wrote at the beginning, the issue at this point is not who is right and who is wrong. If what I think that could happen happens, it will not matter who is right and who is wrong.

North Korean missile flew over Japanese populated areas

North Korean missile flew over Japanese populated areas

It if had fallen and killed Japanese civilians, Nuclear War would be with us already.

Time for Jaw Jaw is running out and time for Bomb Bomb is almost upon us. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Whether North Korea has or doesn't have Nuclear Weapons is not the issue. Many countries have Nuclear Weapons but they are not launching missiles across the territories of their neighbours.

North Korea Vs USA or the trigger to end all games?

North Korea VS USA or the trigger to end all games?

When you see wild animals foraging inside urban areas, looking for whatever edible that they can find, you know the game is over. More and more urban areas are taking over ecosystems and many species are on the way to extinction.

When you hear that a country like the United Kingdom can only feed 59% of its population and has to import the remaining 41% of the food that it consumes, there are alarm bells. It is not vast areas of Africa that are being affected by 'not enough water, not enough food'. Robert Malthus spoke about population rises and talk about War, Starvation and Disease being demographic control factors.

When you think where the World is heading to with vast expanses of our oceans becoming deserts totally deprived of life, when you see animals that die of asphyxia due to contaminants including plastics, you know the game is over.

Maybe this new chapter of International Affairs is a necessity. Planet Earth has had enough and whatever is happening regarding International Affairs is part of a chain of events that will lead to widespread depopulation.

One can foresee that if two of the most populated countries in the Asia region - India and China - and most of the Western World were to be affected by massive doses of radiation combined with social, economic and political disintegration and upheaval that will spread across the entire World, the World as we know it today will come to an end and that it will take an extraordinary amount of time to rebuild whatever is destroyed.

The World as we know it today will no longer be recognisable. There will be new poles of economic and military power and rapports that we take for granted today will no longer be a reality. For a very long time organisations like the Organisation of the United Nations will not be around. All Human Rights Legislation will be part of the history books. The strong will prevail - or shall say the survivors will prevail? Will this be a new opportunity for thousands of others species to survive? Will this lead to the rise of new species via mutations? If the World suddenly becomes worse than Chernobyl, will Humans survive as a species or affected by strong radiation will they become infertile and simply vanish into thin air?

An article published on The Independent Newspaper refers to rising infertility, something that many believe is related to our lifestyle.Are we Humans about to experience a Dinosaurs moment? If our food becomes contaminated or is so scarce that the lack of food leads to mass starvation, if the economic system built to support a growing population is no more, we have reasons to worry about Nuclear bombs but we have even more reasons to fear the consequences of chaos across the entire Planet. Without viable economics, political instability and violence with be rule and not the exception.

Like chess players, World Leaders should focus on the long term implications of a military confrontation of such kind. If the Rule of Law becomes one of the main casualties, the words "Sauve qui peut" will be the norm.