Hermann Göring: No German cities will ever be bombed = NATO: we can attack the Russian Federation, but the Russian Federation will never attack us.

 

The concept of invincibility is still very much amongst us and we see it in the speeches and statements made by politicians and mass media personalities. We see in news reports and commentary about the conflict in Ukraine.

All the talk about using long range missiles is based on the concept of invincibility and of 'it cannot happen to us'.

Reality is exactly the opposite. A war by proxy can really and truly become a direct military involvement that could see Berlin, London, Paris, Warsaw and many other cities turned into ash and debris with no living soul in them.

We are not in the 1930s and 1940s. We are in 2024. The distances have become a lot shorter. What could be done in months and weeks can now be done in minutes.

It takes 15 minutes for a 100 megaton nuclear device to reach London and there will be scarcely the time to evacuate a city of more than 8 million people during the night and of more than 9 million people during the day. Not that policians, military men, mass media and civilians could take any notice of what could land on top of them all. They have got the same of awareness the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had in 1945. They believe - once again - in the concept of invincibility.  

One only has to read what those posting messages on social media say to know how convinced they are, believing that they can attack somebody else without a care in the world.

Understanbly, people have no personal memories of World War One or World War Two. The scenes of devastation is something that they can see in pictures, but they never had any personal experience of it. I guess those have an idea of what could happen to Europe are now being massacred by Israel and seeing their cities and towns turned into rubble with no living soul in them. It takes time for those who have not been exposed to total destruction to understand they themselves could suffer a similar fate.

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: RAF actions in the Black Sea region will trigger war between UK and the Russian Federation

Black Sea is a battlefield and the British government is pushing Britain towards war. Any direct intervention is much more than provocation. It is an act of war. The British Prime Minister will a have a lot to explain if suddenly bombs start dropping in the United Kingdom because of an incident in the Black Sea Region.

This is not the Twentieth Century. This is the Twenty-first Century, a century in which a nuclear missile flying from Kaliningrad can reach London in 15 minutes, a missile that cannot be intercepted. Does Rishi Sunak think that this is a price worth paying?

During World War Two, the Wehrmacht did not have the capacity to launch nuclear missiles. No matter how damaging V1 and V2 were and in spite of the fact that they had to travel a lot shorter distances, they are nothing compared to a nuclear missile. To think that all main British cities could be wiped out in less than half a hour is a sobering thought.

Rishi Sunak broke a record by becoming the first Asian British Prime Minister - regardless of the fact that he was not elected by the British Electorate and was not elected by members of the Conservative Party, but appointed by Members of Parliament without the consent of members of the Conservative Party.

But if the Prime Minister happen to be in London when a missile attack takes place, not even the Prime Minister will have the time to leave London if London is attacked. He and more than 8 million Britons will perish.

Now lets look at the first direct consequences. There will be no British government and no Parliament. London will be a non existing city and people outside London will have to take over to manage whatever is left of Britain as a country. Democracy and elections will be a thing of the past for a very long time.

The first concern will be how to avoid a civil war caused by absence of authority. As the French saying goes, it will a case of 'sauve qui peut'. With London's population decimated and political authorities out of the way, chaos will immediately take over. For whoever manages to survive the impact of a nuclear device, life will not be easy. If radiation does not immediately kill any survivors of the first impact, many will suffer the consequences translated into all kind of diseases including incurable cancer. Riots and looting carried out by both desperate peoples and opportunists will make the entire city unsafe. All medical facilities and emergency services will no longer exist.

Somebody said that the next war will have similarities with regards to the previous wars, but that in essence it will be a different kind of war. In the 1930, France was preparing for yet another war of trenches similar to what happened during World War One and was totally unprepared for Blitzkrieg. As a direct consequence of the lack of preparedness, France was defeated in a few weeks. We don't know what fate has ready for us in the next war.

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.

Can the Gulf Stream be used as a weapon for war?

The Gulf Stream could be more powerful that many nuclear weapons exploding at the same time. 

We know that the Gulf Stream controls temperatures in Europe. By redirecting the Gulf Stream or making the Gulf Stream collapse, NATO will be finished and most of Europe will be neutralized for many years to come with massive loss of European population.

By neutralizing Europe - or in other words if Europe ceases to exist - the balance of forces across the world can suddenly be altered for good. 

Every world war is similar in some ways to the previous world war and also different in some ways. In 1939, the French believed that their Armed Forces were marvellous as they were the victors of 1914-1918. They fought and lost World War Two using the same conventional strategies of World War One with no communications, no proper command, in a war they believe was going to be like World War Two. They event sent the biggest numbers and the most capable forces towards Belgium and were caught up in a bag, leaving the way open for German forces to advance to Paris with little resistance.

Today, the world relies on nuclear weapons. Are nuclear weapons the biggest threat. Climate is the biggest threat. Climate is more powerful than nuclear weapons and has more lasting consequences. What can change climate dramatically? The sea. The sea is a weapon for war that can destroy hundreds of millions very quickly and neutralize enemies for many years to come. If the sea were to be used for war, Europe would be no more.

Brexit: Politics is the history of what ifs

Brexit: Politics is the history of what ifs

The expression 'if somebody is not safe, nobody is safe' couldn't be truer at this point in time in British politics.

While many minds - perhaps too many minds - are focused on economics, let's not lose sight of the political implications.

For quite a few the issue is not how many billions will be won or how many millions will be lost. It is a much more emotional issue and it goes down to the definition of what Britain has been for centuries.

When things went badly wrong on the continent, Britain as an outsider played a fundamental role. A chained Britain will. not be able to play such a role. This means that if things go badly wrong again on the continent there would be nothing that could prevent a catastrophe.

Quite a few times in history idealism started something that led to a major development and in the end destroyed tens of millions of lives.

Messiah attitudes have replaced common sense. One currency, one government, and one army with critical decisions being made by a selected few.

Politicians and mass media have completely overlooked what is actually happening in the 28 EU countries.

I was asked what is my ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to persuade people to put idealism aside and use rationality instead of idealism.Many ill fated endeavours started with smiling crowds, clapping hands and marching bands and when the music was over and the smiling crowds and clapping hands disappeared we were left with the stench of dead bodies and devastated cities. 

Many of the pilars of the present EU are not stable countries. In fact, political developments in those countries could dramatically alter the face of the continent in the very near future. If countries that are very much in control of the European Union are not stable then European Union will be a very powerful monster mentally deranged. Political. circumstances can change rapidly and dramatically.

Who is going to be powerful enough to challenge a deranged monster? Listening to Guy Verhofstadt talking about an EU army, about moving Eastwards and challenging the Russian Federation rings quite a few bells. If this ever happens, every single nation in the European continent will be driven head on towards a wall. Haven't we learnt anything from the politics of alliances in Europe and the catastrophic consequences of such politics of alliances? What was World War One about? I don't mention World War Two because in fact World War Two was the direct consequence of World War One or merely the continuation of World War One because of the unfinished business and injustices created by the Treaty of Versailles.

Independent nations with governments that are directly and duly accountable to their peoples have always been the answer. A big monster with remote governance in which responsibilities gets diluted is a recipe for disaster and especially when different languages separate the parts like in some gigantic Tower of Babel.