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.

Ukraine: When we have non entities making idiotic statements, it is practically impossible to reach peace

Germany breathed with relief when Ursula von der Leyen became President of the European Union Commission. She would no longer be able to ruin the German Armed Forces as Defense Secretary. Then we have got fifth or seventh rank politicians of Finland and the Baltic Republics - non entities - make warmongering statements and talking about going to war. Look at history. When were Finland or the Baltic Republics big decision makers in European Affairs? Never. They were colonies or about to be colonies of other European countries. Why? They do not have the size or the military might of other European countries. When it comes to European Wars, which countries write the headlines?

The media give a lot of space of statements made by leaders of Eastern European countries that are empty spaces when it comes to decision making. They want to fight wars. With what? Toothpicks? They do not have the numbers, do not have the money, do not have the infrastructure and do not have the mental strength to fight any wars. When it comes to wars on the continent, which countries have been at the top? Germany, France and Russia. The rest do not count. Borders have come and gone because of these three countries.

Since World War Two, Europe became an appendix of the USA. They could decide nothing and they could do nothing without the USA. Not much has changed. One European country has more American bases on its territory that any other country in the entire World and this country is Germany. Why? Because it was the way to ensure that Germany did not become Germany again. NATO was not created to protect Europe. NATO was created to control Germany. Because of present events, Germany has decided to put itself on the way back to being a European Master, but it might come at a cost even when 600 Billion Euros is not much money when it comes to real military might. Poland is the only country that is reportedly standing up to Germany in military terms. But will Poland have the stomach to stand up to Germany? People talking about Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Poland. What they do not talk about is that Poland, given that Poland was a militaristic state during World War Two, was not in such state of weakness to justify the speed with which Poland collapsed.

When it comes to France, France was better equipped, had better quality military equipment, had greater numbers, but even so it fell in a matter of weeks. What did Germany have? Superior soldiers that although fewer in numbers had what it takes to conquer. People talk about the brilliancy of the panzers in a mechanised war. Reality was much different. Much of the German Armies during World War Two still moved around with horses and this includes the French Campaign in 1940. France and Poland were defeated by the German Spirit. It was a fact since Roman Times, a smaller number of troops, better organised, could defeated greater armies. A country is the people. People occupy a territory, but the country is the people who live in it. I do not support Jus Soli. I support Jus Sanguini. A Fox is a Fox and a Rabbit is a Rabbit. A Rabbit does not become a Fox simply because it is born in a different country.

 

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.  

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.

Teaching children about fairness is the wrong thing to do. The world is about power.

The world is about power. Not fairness.

We have spent generations after generations teaching children about fairness and giving them a very idealitic view of the world that is not real. The world is run by opposites and a status quo is established when all parties know that there is a risk when trying to go beyond that status quo. This is why borders tend to be respected but borders can suddenly change as a consequence of a conflict. If a party is not strong enough to prevent a change of borders then it becomes a conflict leading to a fait accompli and a new status quo is established.

The history of the world is a history of changing boundaries and conflicts. Is there a country that wasn't born because of conflict? Wars of aggression, wars of independence, wars, wars, wars. The United States of America celebrate today the 4th of July and the Declaration of Independence, but even after the 1776 Declaration of Independence fighting went on. So the creation and further expansion of the United States of America happened because of wars. Bloodshed allowed the expansion of the United States of America.

The same can be said of many other countries and this tends to be the rule rather than the exception and it is still happening and will continue to happen.

When you look at the map of the British Empire, after a series of expansions came contraction. Territorial acquisitions overseas were lost and even the borders within the British Isles changed. Until 1920, the United Kingdom comprised also the entirety of the islando of Ireland. Since 1920, as a consequence of a treaty, the Republic of Ireland with its capital Dublin was established and Ulster/Northern Ireland in the north remained as a integral part of the United Kingdom. Should movements towards the independence of Scotland eventually succeed or if suddenly Ulster becomes part of a united Ireland because of the Sinn Fein/Ira electoral successes in Northern Ireland caused by both a sudden change of the mood between communities or simply because of demographics - Catholic families tend to have more children, once again the borders of the United Kingdom will be redrawn. One thing we can take from history is that the presumptions in terms of borders can suddenly change. Yugoslavia is a perfect of example of a country that imploded leading to many different countries. In the case of Yugoslavia, the fact is that Yugoslavia itself was from the beginning like pieces of a puzzle. You can go as far as the Austro-Hungarian Empire that included regions or entire countries in terms of countries that are a reality today. Austria and Italy - throughout the history of Europe have exchanged regions. France and Germany's example - Alsace and Lorena - at one time part of Germany and now part of France. Britany and Normandy - once part of the British Empire are now part of France. And we could mention many other cases not just in Europe but across the world. At one point Bolivia had costal waters and that was the case until a conflict between Peru, Bolivia and Chile left Bolivia isolated and having to pay a fee to have access to the Pacific Ocean.

When it comes to Palestine we have yet another example of changing borders and changing owners. The history of Palestine is a history of conflicts between empires and between countries. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed many countries were born, one of them Iraq that itself comprises three distinctive regions. For a brief period Palestine was in the hands of the British until partition led to the creation of the State of Israel and fighting continued between Palestinians and newcomers from Europe that continued the process of expansion taking land from within Palestine and from neighbouring countries. How long will the status quo last? Presumably as long as the parties involved are strong enough to maintain such status quo and this is not a guarantee for any lasting peace.

Going back to Europe, Poland keeps asking Germany for war reparations in spite of the fact that much of the Germany that was before World War Two and before World War One was taken over by Poland and this include a huge chunk of Easter Germany including Danzig and Memel. Danzig is now known as Gdansk. The birthplace of Immanuel Kant, Konisberg is now Kaliningrag in what used to be Eastern Prussia. 

We don't know the outcome of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine - another country that was made up with bit and pieces taken from other countries including Poland, Hungary and Russia. In fact, the present conflict is very much the consequence of the way Ukraine was made with Western Ukraine in direct conflict with Eastern Ukraine - one predominantly Polish and Hungarian and the other predominantly Russian. The conflict is a mix of geopolitical divisions and ethnic divisions.

Borders can change and borders will change. So we can expect that there will be conflict along the way and further bloodshed can be guaranteed. Whether China decides to recover what is know today as Taiwan remains to be seen but there is certainly the prospect of yet another conflict as the multipolar world replaces the bipolar world created by World War Two.

Ukraine: If mobilization continues, there is the certain risk of Britain and Europe being engulfed in a very destructive war

 

World War One was seen as the war that would put an end to all wars in Europe. Then came World War Two. 

World War Two was a progression that started with the Spanish Civil War, when the future foes had the time and space to put into practice what they were going to do later on.

Even in September 1939, World War Two merely involved a few countries in isolated areas. In Europe, it was about Germany, Poland, Britain and France. In Asia, Japan was making advances in continental Asia. Not a hint of what was going to happen a few months later. In 1940, the pinnacle was the invasion of France - one of the countries that declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939, but soon most of Western Europe had been either invaded or was at war.

Therefore, these are the early days of World War Three, a new conflict that will certainly involve the whole of Europe as when it starts in earnest no one will escape from it. Lamentably, governments continue making steps that bring World War Three closer to home. Adding logs to the fire will not extinguish the fire. Quite the opposite. The location - once again - of nuclear stockpiles on Britain soil will certainly make Britain a first strike target.

Funnily enough, when a Conservative MP mentioned the idea of re-introducing Military Service in the UK the Labour Party Opposition was dead against such an idea. If there is war, the number of British military personnel actually trained and fit for war is minimal and most of the civilian population has been softened by years of neglect.

If you have children above the age of 16, rest assured that your children will be called to serve and die in war. At the moment they might busy themselves with pop music and entertainment, watching videos on Internet, and so forth, and are totally unaware of what is coming to them.

Ukraine. Will sending obsolete equipment help or hamper war effforts at the same time that raises the stakes?

There is an awareness that equipment sent is obsolete or surplus and that also banned weapons are being sent to a theatre of war thus increasing the risk that all weapons will be allowed including nuclear and chemical weapons.

Let us remember in which year we are: 2023. When were the F16s introduced? 17 August 1978. NATO is sending flying coffins.

The longer the confllict goes on the greater the risk of greater involvement and we must also think about the issue of population movements that can seriously affect host countries. Even if at the beginning of the exodus host countries are willing to show solidarity, sooner than later welcoming attitudes turn to contempt and fatigue.

Poland itself has proposed a referendum on migration to challenge EU policies on migration. Hungary has been pretty open about its unhappiness about huge numbers of migrants coming to Hungary. Within the EU, countries hold different views about migration and especailly after decades of mass migration not just from within Europe, but from far away. 

Migration has political consequences because in the end it is all about social stability and economics. The Covid Pandemic led to lockdown that had a negative widespread effect. This combined with the energy crisis and migration has not made life any easier and suddenly we are having to cope with inflation that is more than double what the Bank of England was expected to manage.

Politicians have a way of manipulating facts regarding migration, pandemics, and any other factors involved, causes and consequences, in a way to suit their own political agendas and this is not helpful at all because, on top of lack of data, they add confusion and instability. This is especially serious when elections are on the horizon. Rationality dies to be replaced by irrationality reinforced by lack of knowledge.

Ukraine: Henry Kissinger understands that diplomacy will do what armies cannot do and vice versa

 

Henry Kissinger understands, better that anybody else, that diplomacy will do what armies cannot do and vice versa.

Since the end of the Twentieth Century, Gun Ho policies have led the USA nowhere and one adventure after another has ended in disaster.

It took more than 20 years to fight a war that started with George Bush Jr and finished with Jo Biden in a rather inconclusive manner with Taliban once again in control of Afghanistan. Iraq was completely destabilised entire regions leading to a series of ongoing regional conflicts that have made the world less safe.

When it comes to Ukraine, USA is faring no better in a war by proxy that threatens to totally destroy Ukraine. It is costly for American taxpayers and it is costly for Ukraine in human lives, in a country in which those who went to the front are surrendering in throws and those who were supposed to go the front are hiding to avoid conscription.

Henry Kissinger proposed partition with Ukraine keeping areas that are not ethnically Russian. Taking the fuel away from the fire, the fire has nothing else to keep it going. With utmost regularity, the Biden Administration is having to ask Congress for vast amounts of money - not to keep the costly apparatus of the US administration, but to finance yet another war.

There is also the fact that it will take just the actions of a single NATO country to start World War Three in Europe. Poland is the likely candidate to do such a thing if Poland ever deploys Polish troops inside Ukraine.The Biden Administration is running out of time to prevent the USA from being dragged into World War Three by the Polish government.

Henry Kissinger's proposal was aimed at preventing what now seems inevitable. President Zelensky is doing everything possible to enrage the Russian Federation and by doing this President Zelensky could up like the rebels of Bay of Pigs in Fidel Castro's Cuba. If you antagonise those who publicly support you their support is not going to last too long.

NATO is not a united front and they have conflicting interests. The EU is not a united front and members have conflicting interests. Once again, Winter is around the corner. With falling temperatures, energy consumption will once again go up and energy prices will once again be on the way up putting economies - once again - to the test. It is easy to talk about capping prices in days of plenty with high temperatures. When temperatures drop, prices will go up and this will be felt across Europe.

Giving diplomacy a chance will go a long way to prevent an even major disaster in a European continent  with so many countries in recession.

What is an asylum seeker? Those crossing the channel are not asylum seekers

If you are in trouble, you approach a British Embassy or British representation in your country of origin or claim asylum at a port of entry ie airport, harbour. Those entering the country illegally are not asylum seekers. They are criminals. Where do they come from? They mostly come from France. Did they ask for asylum in France? No, they did not. If they had applied for asylum in France they would be coming with proper documentation because France is not a country at war.

This is the reality, the proven facts, and the rest is left-wing propaganda aimed at undermining the United Kingdom. We have no personal records of the ones entering the country illegally. They could well be organised criminals. They could well be individuals coming to cause harm. This is why illegal migration is a time-bomb. We don't know who they are, we don't know where they are coming from and we don't know what they are up to.

We are simply putting British communities in jeopardy. Every ten years we have got a national census. What is the point of spending money in national censuses, what is the point of having passports and borders if we are going to allow individuals to enter without any documentation?

1945/2023: different times, same justification

 After the bloody battles in the Pacific, President Truman took a momentous decision to prevent a huge number of American casualties during the assault on the Japanese mainland. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman took care of American interests. Today, Secretary Blinken says that the Russian Federation will use nuclear weapons to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine. Well, the Russian Federation will follow the American example do what is best for Russian interests.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan recovered and went on to become one of the great nations of the Developed World. The war in Afghanistan lasted twenty years. The longest war of the century until now. The conflict in Ukraine has lasted more than a year and the Russian Federation might decide that enough is enough and do what USA did in 1945.

This a real possibility and all those seeking to prolong the conflict by supporting one of the sides in the conflict must take this into consideration. If nuclear devices are detonated in Ukraine, bordering countries will the first to be affected. The power of modern nuclear devices is vastly superior and therefore the level of destruction will be much greater and, as the world revolves, air and water will be contaminated. Those who remember the effects of Chernobyl should think about what is coming their way.

At this point, all warmongering attitudes and provision of armament should come to a halt. The likes of Warsaw that suffered under the German assault of 1939 with conventional weapons should take into account the destruction caused by an invisible enemy called nuclear radiation. The consequences of destruction caused by conventional weapons can be dealt with in the short term. The consequences of radiation pollution will last for many years to come rendering entire areas totally uninhabitable. Although Japan ultimately recovered, the legacy was thousands of lives affected for many generations to come. Cancer, birth defects and the like.

If Secretary Blinken is really and trully concerned and if he believes that the use of nuclear weapons is a certain possibility, he should advice President Biden that a strategy change is needed. The more fuel is added to the fire the closer we get to a nuclear reality. 

Politics can change at very short notice and so can geopolitics

Keir Starmer

What happened in the last 48 hours is the equivalent of a political earthquake. Two political figures - Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have been sidelined or so is that the forces that put them out of the way want to believe.

Nicola Sturgeon was not so much important as the Scottish leader that moved to break down the United Kingdom. She has been the tool used by those in charge of the European Union to put hurdles across the way of the Conservative governmenty in Westminster. She has been the outspoken defender of the EU against the British government. Who will have the political caliber to replace her and will the replacement follow the orders of the European Union? This remains to be seen.

No one apart from Nicola Sturgeon has the profile to play such a role and the Alba Party led by Alex Salmond will surely capitalize on her departure, in spite of the fact that Alex Salmond has been one of those targetted as part of the anti-Russia campaign. 

Some say that the Labour Party in Scotland will benefit, but this remains to be seen. The Labour Party is considered to be a London Metropolitan Party, not a national party, not a defender of Scottish interests at all and whoever has hopes regarding independence will not support the Labour Party.

The command given to Keir Starmer was to erradicate the left of the Labour Party that has been traditionally supportive of Palestine and very critical of Israeli policies in the occupied territories. Keir Starmer might not be Jewish, but his wife is Jewish and daughter of a Rabbi and their children are raised as Jews. Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007. The couples's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother. Victoria worked as a solicitor and now work in the National Health Service in occupational health. Victoria is originally from Poland and Keir Starmer stated that 'on her father's side there are mitzvahs, synagoques - there's all the traditions'. And also, presumably, all the related geopolitical allegiances that come with it.

Therefore, you don't have to struggle to guess what his views in terms of geopolitics and regarding the State of Israel actually are and this is why just a few hours ago he declared that Jeremy Corbyn will be excluded from the Labour Party and not allowed to stand as a Candidate in Islington, a seat that Jeremy Corbyn has represented for a very long time.    

In recent elections, the Conservative Party won control of the so called Red Wall, turning traditional Labour seats into Conservative seats. I wonder how traditional Labour and in particular Labour areas that have a predominantly Islamic population will react. Keir Starmer is a Metropolitan Londoner. It will be hard to persuade non Londoners and especially Northerners and Middle England. In the north, Andy Burnham, despite his retiscence to declare his aspirations regarding the leadership, has the right age, the right amount of experience and the right profile and as Mayor of Manchester can claim that he is not a privileged Southeasterner when a sizeable number of voters claim that Westminster has forgotten the rest of the country. In this regard, Keir Starmer's allegiance to Israel, his total contempt for the cause of Palestine, his inability to define what a woman is (surely he knows what a woman is, but he is afraid of straight answers that could put him on a collision course with segments of his own political party). To gain some support he will have to stop being a lawyer and become a politician. He will have to show courage and take real risks.

In terms of public image, he hasn't done extremely well. Kneeling down for the cameras was not his best moment. Emulating Boris Johnson by travelling to Kiev was not his best move either. His at best lukewarm support for the trade union movement did not dress him with flying colours either and it must be remarked that some critically important segments of the trade union movement no longer support the Labour Party. Will his charge against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters win him many votes? Given the present political environment, the next General Election is for Keir Starmer to lose. Having said that, as we never expected Nicola Sturgeon to fall from power so ungratiously and so dramatically, it remains to be seen if Keir Starmer will be Labour leader in 2024. Will Jeremy Corbyn's supporters accept the invitation to leave the Labour Party? Will the Trade Unions that still support the Labour Party continue to support the Labour Party? What if the Labour Party is once again divided? Worse still, what if Labour voters as it has happened in recent times, decide to abstain?  

Rishi Sunak must be in UK: With no financial resources there cannot be a consistent environmental policy

 

The matters of government to deal with the energy crisis are more important than attending a talking shop and posing for pictures.

No sooner than Rishi Sunak was appointed Prime Minister, the usual culprits accused the Prime Minister for not attending an international gathering. Well, there are more urgent priorities to deal with at home to prevent a catastrophe.

At this very minute, 350,000 NHS staff are being balloted for strike. Why does Labour and others think that this is about? The strike if it happens should take place sometime in November so the authorities have some time to articulate a consistent response. Where should the Prime Minister be? At some talking shop about the environment or dealing with the National Health Service? No country can deal with environment when its economy is in a dangerous situation and therefore the priority is to deal with the economy now.

Regarding energy, the Green Party might celebrate the fact the Rishi Sunak has once again ban fracking, but funnily enough the Green Party has no immediate solutions to solve the energy crisis that is affecting Britain and coincidentally is the source of a financial, social and political crisis also on the Continent. It can take 40 years to build some of the alternatives and we need energy now. One way or another we are going to depend on fossil fuels because we need fossil fuels to build the alternatives proposed. Wind turbines are not made with wind power and nuclear plants are not made with wind power. The amounts of energy needed vastly surpass any amount of energy that can be produced with wind power. Electric vehicles are build with energy produced with fossil fuels.

Poland might enjoy the pleasures of 17th Century life-styles without electricity in the very near future, but do we want that in Britain in 2022. The possibility of having to deal with blackouts is very real. Can we have a digital economy with blackouts? Will lack of lighting make our lives better and safer? When our cities are plunged into the dark, it will be Christmas time for all kinds of criminals wanting to operate with impunity. 

Moscow and London: How signals are interpreted

 

How signals are interpreted

In 1991, the Soviet Union came to an end and this was very much the consequence of the efforts to remain ahead during the so called Cold War. The Soviet Union had to invest a vast amount of resources to remain significant in the arms race and it came the point when it could no longer afford to keep up because it did not have the financial muscle to do so.

The resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet President is very much the end as soon after the Soviet Union disintegrated, leaving the USA as the one major superpower without any close competitors as China itself was far from being what China is today - economically, technologically and militarily. It could be said that the USA could attack Yugoslavia and dismember Yugoslavia without a UN mandate and without any real opposition and this is something that could not have happened if the Soviet Union had been around with the power to prevent such attack.

Having said that, 2022 is a different story. The Russian Federation is much more powerful than the Soviet Union for several reasons and one of them is the fact that the Russian Federation like China are much more homogenous countries with less ethnic and political contradictions. The Russian intelligence networks was magnifically helped by the fact that former Warsaw Pacto countries and regions were integrated into the European Union. If you were to look for an image to represent what has happened the Trojan Horse comes to mind.

The USA has used Britain as an extension of the USA in Europe and beyond. The USA has used Britain to justify USA agendas before the American people. If Tony Blair had not joined forces with George Bush Junior, it would have been difficult for the American President to sell his agenda to the American people. Britain has been used as a junior partner and as a propaganda tool and Britain has had to pay a very high price for it. It happened in Iraq and it happened in Afghanistan and it is happening in Europe. Inflation and financial difficulties that Britain is facing don't come out of nowhere. They are the direct result of sanctions and other measures taken against the Russian Federation that have had a boomerang effect not just in Europe, but worldwide. What happens when oil prices measured in US Dollars go up? Britain will pay higher prices not just because of market prices going up, but also because the loss of value of Pound means that Britain will need a lot more Dollars to pay for energy supplies and this has a direct impact on the British economy. If the Treasury cannot keep up with increasing expenditure and if the private sector in Britain has to translate cost into prices charged to consumers, industrial unrest is already on the horizon.

Just a few days ago, the British government was offering salary increases of 3% when inflation was already at 9% and more. Active workers will suffer and pensioners will suffer when the government is not able to adjust salaries and pensions taking into account the rate of inflation. The private sector already hit very badly by Covid, hit now both by inflation and consumption reduction will face an even harsher economic environment.

Liz Truss as Foreign Secretary said that she was in favour of cutting down the manpower of the British Armed Forces at a time when tensions are rising and there is the prospect of open conflict with both the Russian Federation and China. While would the UK be talking about cutting down its military capabilities? While is she asking other countries to increase their defense budget? My educated guess is that Britain does not have what it takes to beef up its Armed Forces and is therefore asking others to invest more to level the field in terms of what NATO can do or not do. President Donald Trump raised the concern that USA was the one feeling the pain created by military expenditure while other NATO members were not doing enough. Chancellor Olaf Scholz talked about hundred billions of EUROs to beef up German military capabilities, but how does this fit in with the fact that Germany is facing serious issues when it comes not just to the availability of energy sources, but also to the cost of existing energy sources. When both big economic players like Bayer and Thyssen-Krupp and the trade unions talk about the risk of economic collapse, what will Olaf Scholz be willing to sacrifice to beef up the German military capabilities? When you look East, Poland was offering to send their outdated Mig fighter jets to Ukraine if the USA could give Poland F35s in exchange, something that was rejected outrightly by the USA. What about other countries of the NATO block and what about those who are not members of NATO? Do they have the financial muscle to beef up their military capabilities or will they always depend on what USA or Britain can give them? Germany made many promises, but has delivered none of them.

Behind the speeches, this is the reality and today the British Primer Minister Boris Johnson fell not because of the scandals involving sexual misconduct of Conservative MPs. He fell because of economic realities. What were Conservative MPs talking about? VAT and Corporation Tax. Britain has been overspending for several reasons, including the fight against COVID when caution regarding budget was put aside to deal with a national emergency. On top of that, there is another national emergency created by British geopolitical decisions that have backfired. 

Look at the economy. For decades, Britain had remained relatively stable with very low interest rates and a significantly higher rate of employment and low prices in the shops. As the CEO of Poundland explained, he used to pay about 2,000 Pound for a container and now the price has jumped and it costs 20,000 Pound to bring imported products to the United Kingdom. Add to that fixed overheads and utilities and economic margins are dramatically reduced. This is not sustainable and on top of it the devaluation of the Pound compared to the US Dollar will make imports ever more expensive. Put aside Poundland and the situation many importers and exporters face and focus on food supplies. If Britain imports 60 per cent of what Britain consumes, then the costs of food will rise exponentially combining importation, transportation and distribution and costs involved in retail operations. Retail costs have been reducing by reducing manpower at the shops. You see today that the number of employees employed by retailers has been reduced with the introduction of automation. Automation reduces the numbers of jobs across the board whether we are talking about banking and financial institution, retailers and even transport. Much of the dispute affecting transport and leading to strikes is due to the declared intention of cutting jobs to cut costs. Having said that, if jobs been eliminated in one segment of activity are not created in other areas, the welfare bill will have to rise to pay for unemployment benefits and other social benefits in a country in which the number of non active population is rising while the number of those active at work is falling. This happens naturally because of an ageing population, but it is accelerated when people who are still fit to remain active lose their jobs.

What happened to the Soviet Union will happen to Britain. There is a time when your economy is not strong enough and everything is translated into accumulated and rising debt and when this happens there are social and political consequences.

 

Britain: Gun Ho mentality is making a bad situation worse

The crise in Eastern Europe is set to carry on and on and on, increasing the chances of an even worse conflict to occur. Those in charge of dealing with the situation are visibly acting out of their depth and without any real understanding of the consequences of what they are doing.

Mass media are blissfully ignorant in terms of what is involved and keep the propaganda machine alive with a series of headlines that apart from being absolutely pathetic and often misguiding tend to create hatred and animosity.

In the meantime, the range of issues that continue to erode the foundations of the European Union keeps growing. It is just a matter of time when issues related to refugees generate political upheaval in the host countries. Just days ago, Lech Walesa stated that Poland and Hungary should leave the European Union since both countries are losing out because of their membership of the European Union. There are obvious disparities and differences in terms of aims within the European Union. France and Germany have their own approach to the crisis in Eastern Europe with regards to the stances of other EU countries. Unity is in very short supply and the cracks are becoming ever more visible.

While USA and others use Ukraine in a proxy war against the Russian Federation, they know full well that given the cost of a direct confrontation they would not want such direct confrontation. In the meantime, they all agree that China is a much greater threat and China is closely following events in Europe while it prepares itself to recover Chinese territories in Asia. China is no longer the retiscent China of the past. China is more than willing to engage in military conflict and incursions close to Japan and to Australia are much more than posturing. After the shambolic end of military operations in Afghanistan, there is little appetite for what would be a massive military conflict that will involve both Europe and Asia.

In Britain, what is the state of British military capabilities? Britain struggled in Iraq and struggled in Afghanistan being limited now to skirmishes across the Middle East. Britain does not have the manpower it would need for an all-out war that would very likely include the British mainland. It would take 15 minutes for a nuclear missile launched from Kaliningrad to reach London. There has been some research about the impact of a nuclear strike in London, but we must assume that should there be an all-out war all the main British cities will be targetted as a well as military installations, communications, energy production and distribution and we could not discount that there will be acts of sabotage within the United Kingdom.

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.

 

Mass Media Blackout: Purpose? Not to allow the general public to know what is really happening.

 

At this point in time, all information coming out of Ukraine is fragmentary to say the least. On the one hand there is the propaganda war telling you that the conflict has stalled and giving images to fit in with the narrative and on the other is the data about advances inside Ukraine that is losing access to the Black Sea and therefore any intervention via the Black Sea is now a non possibility.

The map shows very clearly that all the talk about resistance is merely talk. Liquid courage not based on reality. Why would Ukrainian forces be blowing up bridges unless they were losing? You don't blow up your own bridges when you are winning. Seventy or so years ago, the French blew up bridges that would allow a rapid German invasion, but failed to destroy the ones that were used by German forces to advance very quickly towards Paris. At the time, remembering what happened to Warsaw, the French authorities declared Paris an open city so that Paris was not bombed.

 Away from the Black Sea there is Poland as the only way in if anybody wanted to get in, but getting in comes at the price of losing neutrality status and entering a new and much more dangerous phase in the conflict. Although some would like to enter, for Poland it is a very simple choice: if access is granted then Poland becomes the next immediate target and that will engulf Baltic Republics that are hanging on the sides without any means to repel an attack that will certainly come if a chain reaction based on NATO structure is unavoidable. The fate of all other countries all the way towards Britain would be sealed.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace and Dominic Raab MP have explicitly said that they don't want a no-fly zone, let alone an intervention that could make Britain a target and unleash World War Three. If the numbers published by the so called West are to be believe, a massive wave of refugees has already entered Poland and from then onwards it will be coming to Western Europe, including France, Germany and ultimately Britain.

Right now, France is accusing Britain of not doing enough to deal with refugees. This comes on top of the issues affecting what is happening on the Channel region. Can Germany handle any more refugees? What about Hungary? As it happened before with Iraq, neighbouring countries will take the brunt. Olaf Scholz promised to invest not less than 200 billion EURO to beef up German armed forces. Having hundreds of thousands of refugees reaching Germany, on top of the existing refugee issues is not good news for the fledging German coalition. What about France that faces the first round of Presidential Elections in April?

Refugees in Britain? Britain can hardly afford social housing to cover present needs. Hundreds of thousands coming in on top of what is happening right now? Will the British government be taking over expensive private property to house refugees?

 

 

Israel: Those who live by the sword die by the sword

 

The idea of a Promised Land turned into a nightmare

Even before 1948, the year when what we know as the State of Israel came to be, Palestine was in flames. Palestine was the possession of many empires including the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The Crusaders went to Palestine presumably to liberate it from the ones they called the Infidels - translation of those who professed another faith that wasn't their faith. Murder, rape, and destruction have for a very long time been common currency in Palestine and given what we know such lamentable state of affairs is not going to come to an end any time soon. Tonight, once again, violence has spread across Palestine. Peace in Palestine is never an ever lasting reality and, as always, those who live by the sword die by the sword. For centuries, Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together without any formal state. Oh, yes, they were not always at war. The coexisted. Under British rule Palestine was a Protectorate and there was rule of law, but a precarious peace was not meant to last as events in Europe triggered a process that to put an end to the Protectorate and led to the partition of Palestine. 

Until the start of World War Two - officially started on September 3, 1939 - two days after Germany invaded Poland - National Socialist Germany was initially in favour of the idea of sending Jewish populations to Palestine and the so called Zionist Movement was very much in favour of it as they wanted Jews to go to what they called the Promised Land. But the start of World War Two frustrated many plans. 

By the end of World War Two, once again, the Zionist Movement renewed its efforts and finally in 1948 the partition of Palestine took place and the State of Israel was born, but not all Jews chose to go to Palestine. Many of those who were leaving Europe chose to go to other countries i.e. the USA. After what they had been through before the war and after the war, quite a few were not willing to face any more so much hardship. The State of Israel of 1948 was nothing compared to today's Israel as conflict after conflict the State of Israel took more and more land from its neighbours and expansion has never really stopped. Such expansion at the expense of local populations could only lead to confrontation and this is exactly what we are witnessing today.  Instead of an ever lasting peace, it has created an ever lasting war that has been affecting other parts of the world for a very long time.

Palestine never existed as a state, but as territories of other states

 

Regardless of the judgement of the International Court of Justice, there never was a State of Palestine. There were territories that belonged to other states that went to war against Israel and having lost wars against Israel they lost part of the lands that they controlled. Talking about war crimes is an idiocy. The said wars happened a long time ago and for decades lands taken from Arab states have been controlled by Israel.

The Organisation of the United Nations has no right to go around telling what can be done or cannot be done. It can only make statements that more often than not are no more than empty words because reality on the ground takes precedence. Any settlement can only be kept or changed by force and force is something that the Organisation of the United Nations doesn't have. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not, the Golan Heights - for example - are part of the State of Israel having belonged in the past to Syria. The sames goes for Gaza and West Bank. In a treaty signed by Israel and Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula was recovered by Egypt. 

Whether the rest of the world accepts Jerusalem as capital of Israel is irrelevant. Who controls Jerusalem? Israel. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that as long as Jerusalem is controlled by Israel and is an integral part of the State of Israel whatever the world says about it will not change an iota. All the talk about Jerusalem being an international city is bollocks.

World history is full of 'this belongs to me and this belongs to you'. Looking at the map of Europe itself, national borders have changed after a series of conflicts. The Europe of Metternich is a clear example. Looking at the map of the Americas much of a similar nature can be said. Much of the south of today's United States are occupied territories. They used to belong to Mexico and to other countries including Spain. The Louisiana was bought from France. 

The Six-Day War was a time of territorial acquisitions for Israel. Egypt, Syria and others waged war against Israel and lost. Their intention had been to wipe out of the recently formed State of Israel. So, they lost. Bad luck. Are they called 'occupied territories' because Syria and others didn't sign a peace treaty with Israel? Well, for all we know, for decades the attackers have not been at war with Israel and this led to a status quo. With peace settlements or without peace settlements, the reality on the ground is that for decades acquired territories have been under Israeli rule and wil presumably be under Israeli rule for the foreseable future.

There is an unhealthy war of words that is not conducive to peaceful coexistence. If the rest of the world were to be treated according to the same standards Israel is measured with, there wouldn't be peace anywhere. European countries would be at war with each other trying to recover 'occupied territories'. Is it about Danzig and Memel or Gdansk? What about huge chunks of Germany given to Poland and others? What about parts of Italy and Austria that are now part of neighboring countries? What about the status of Baltic Republics? Are we going to suddenly start ignoring reality?

I heard a Member of the House of Lords talk about what is happening today in the Soviet Union. Really? Apparently the noble Lord is not aware of the fact that the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991. It is all too good to talk about the UN Plan for the partition of Palestine, but it is useless talk. 

Much of what Western politicians talk via mass media is sheer nonsense when it comes to geopolitics. Just a few days ago, there was a military coup in Myanmar (Burma). Suddenly, we heard them talking about taking action against the military in Burma. They talk as if they owned Burma which, of course, they don't. Burma, apart from being a sovereign nation is a sovereign nation with close ties with China. China and some European countries have huge economic interests in Burma. The UN, the USA, or whoever else, can protest about the status of Muslim minorities in Burma until they become red in the face. Nothing is going to change.

In the meantime, those who pretend to have a say about what is happening elsewhere should pay closer attention to what is actually happening in their own countries. 

 

 

European Union: Poland's troubles are just the beginning.

European Union: Poland troubles are just the beginning

Recent internal elections in SPD in Germany have led to new problems for Angela Merkel. The new leadership of SPD is demanding further concessions that Angela Merkel has dimmed unacceptable and this could mean the end of the ruling coalition. The German Chancellor who is no longer the leader of her own poilitcal party -CDU - knows that additional financial burdens that come on top of having to supply additional monies for the European Union will have a political cost that she cannot afford. 

SPD is making more financial demands, regardless of the fact that SPD lost the 2017 Federal Elections and has lost in every single state election that came afterwards -= Bavaria, Brandenburg, Saxony and Hesse in which Alternative für Deutschland and Grünen made huge advances. Alternative für Deutschland is the official German Opposition in the Bundestag and commands support in every single one of the sixteen regional parliaments in Germany.

It has been reported that it could take up to a year to approve the European Union budget and German taxpayers are in no mood to increase financial contributions via higher taxes or increased borrowing. If the German coalition falls, Angela Merkel could become the Chancellor in a minority government or even fall from power to be replaced by the present leader of CDU.

This comes as more and more CDU politicians are choosing to work together with Alternative für Deutschland despite threats issued by Angela Merkel herself to deter CDU membrers from effectively joining Alternative für Deutschland at local level. Let's remember that Germany is the driving force within the European Union and that her main partner - France - is facing times of great political uncertainty.

The landslide victory of the Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom must have come as a bucket of cold water not just for Germany but for others within the ruling elites of the European Union who are now threatening to refuse to approve the Withdrawal Agreement that they themselves negotiated with the Conservative Government. The mere possibility of a No Deal outcome is what Germany's CDU fears most. They know that Germany will have to face pressures coming not just from the USA that doesn't want EU unfair trade practices but also from an invigorated United Kingdom. Germany sees its position as net expoeter threatened and this means less votes if the German economy falters.

If Poland were to leave the European Union soon to be followed by others, one wonders what could be worse: the political and psychological implications of mone countries leaving the European Union or the financial consequences. Just a few weeks ago, President Macron blocked the accession of Albania and North Macedonia arguing that it would no be advisable to incorporate new countries without implementing urgent reforms before such accession is even contemplated. Adding more countries that will be net receivers of EU funding is a recipe for disaster at a time when the main funders of the European Union are facing troubles of their own.