Tag: war

Russia expels US diplomats

This is a warning to the Trump administration: do not permit NATO to extend an invitation to Georgia:

Speaking late on Sunday, the Russian president said that the time for retaliation has come: “we’ve been waiting for quite a long time that maybe something would change for the better, we had hopes that the situation would change. But it looks like, it’s not going to change in the near future… I decided that it is time for us to show that we will not leave anything unanswered.”

Putin added that “the personnel of the US diplomatic missions in Russia will be cut by 755 people and will now equal the number of the Russian diplomatic personnel in the United States, 455 people on each side” Putin said, adding that “because over a thousand employees, diplomats and technical personnel have been working and are still working in Russia, and 755 of them will have to cease their work in the Russian Federation. It’s considerable.”

Putin also told the Russian audience that “the American side has made a move which, it is important to note, hasn’t been provoked by anything, to worsen Russian-US relations. [It includes] unlawful restrictions, attempts to influence other states of the world, including our allies, who are interested in developing and keeping relations with Russia.”

Target USA

The mainland USA is now in range of a North Korean ICBM:

North Korea fired a missile on Friday that experts said was capable of striking Los Angeles and other U.S. cities and the United States and South Korea responded by staging a joint missile exercise, the South Korean news agency Yonhap said.

The Trump administration, which has branded North Korea the “most urgent and dangerous threat to peace,” condemned the launch as reckless.

“By threatening the world, these weapons and tests further isolate North Korea, weaken its economy, and deprive its people,” President Donald Trump said in a statement. “The United States will take all necessary steps to ensure the security of the American homeland and protect our allies in the region.”

The unusual late-night launch added to exasperation in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo over Pyongyang’s continuing development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Friday’s test prompted U.S. and South Korean military officials to discuss military response options…. The launch from North Korea’s northern Jangang province took place at 11:41 p.m. (1441 GMT), an official at South Korea’s Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the missile flew for about 45 minutes before apparently landing in the waters of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japanese broadcaster NHK, citing a military official, said the missile reached an altitude of more than 3,000 km (1,860 miles). The South Korean military said the missile was believed to be an ICBM-class, flying more than 1,000 km (620 miles) and reaching an altitude of 3,700 km (2,300 miles). In Washington, the Pentagon also said it had assessed that the missile was an ICBM.

U.S. officials said the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon spy agency, has determined that North Korea will be able to field a reliable nuclear-capable ICBM by next year, earlier than previously thought.

Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies said the launch showed Los Angeles was within range of a North Korean missile, with Chicago, New York and Washington, just out of reach.

“They may not have demonstrated the full range. The computer models suggest it can hit all of those targets,” he said.

The U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists said its calculations showed the missile could have been capable of going as far into the United States as Denver and Chicago.

The potential cost of dealing with a nuclear North Korea is only going to go up from here. The question is, are Russia and China on board with a US attempt to remove the North Korean threat or is a nuclear North Korea simply something that the world will have to accept, as it has accepted a nuclear Pakistan, Israel, and Iran.

There are no good options here, only varying degress of slightly less bad. I don’t know if Trump will actually dare to grasp the nettle, but I think he’s much more likely to do so than Bush, Clinton, or Obama were.

Border battles in the EU

Diversity and vibrancy suddenly don’t appear to be strengthening trans-European ties anymore:

AUSTRIA has warned it will send soldiers to close the border with Italy in 24 hours if Rome decides to take the “nuclear option” and grant visas to almost 100,000 migrants stranded in the Mediterranean country.

Austria is threatening to close the Brennan mountain pass border with Italy. Desperate Italian officials have said they are considering allowing thousands of migrants out of the country and into the rest of Europe, as they struggle to cope with the 10,000 people arriving every day.

Austria, which shares a border with Italy via Brenner, an Alpine mountain pass, has reacted to the proposals with fury, saying it would immediately introduce border controls in the region.

Yesterday during a border visit, Austria’s Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said: “Italy granting humanitarian visas to migrants is unacceptable. In that case, we would immediately introduce controls in Brenner.

Let’s see. Option 1: border war with Austria. Option 2: send the invaders back. This really doesn’t seem to be a very difficult decision.

This isn’t an entirely new development. Switzerland already has troops in position on the border just north of Como; they sent a tank battalion to the Como-Chiasso border last year. Which, one assumes, is why we didn’t see pictures of invaders swarming up through Switzerland towards Germany despite it being an obvious route.

Mailvox: “May he rot in Hell”

It is being widely reported that Sen. John McCain is terminal with brain cancer. One reader is entirely unsympathetic.

John McCain is dying from the same type of brain tumor that my father is – a Glioblastoma. There is an indirect but pertinent relationship between my father and the dear senator that extends beyond their shared terminal illness.

In early to mid elementary-school ages, I remember my father deploying numerous times to Bosnia/Herzegovania/Kosovo.  At the time, I didn’t understand why it was necessary.  I’m no genius and no one really explained it to me outside of the “America is for freedom” concept.  Almost 20 years later, with a skeptics intuition, I smell bullshit.

My father is a Physician’s Assistant which requires a master’s degree in medicine.  His only health issues in the past were kinetically related because he played soccer and basketball.  We also have no family history of any cancer at all.  He took care of himself; no smoking, regular exercise, good diet.

So it came as a shock to us when we learned he had a brain tumor that was likely to be his end.  When he met with the private oncologist who operates her private practice near a military base we were stunned by what she told us.  Over 70 percent of the patients she sees with Glioblastomas were or are military members who have had exposure to burn-pits.

What’s a burn-pit?  In a base of operations overseas there is no garbage service.  No one makes you differentiate your organic vs recyclable garbage.  You throw everything into a big pit that is set on fire.  This really isn’t a big deal as long as you’re not burning anything hazardous.  Plastic and paper and shit will make you cough, but it’s not likely to give you long-time health problems.  But what if you throw in depleted Uranium casings?

That’s right.  Our military uses depleted uranium ammunition because it’s effective at peircing armor and thick walls.  And what do they do with the remaining ordinance?  They throw it into a fucking fire right next to the camp.

What does John McCain have to do with this?  He’s an acolyte for the Prince of Lies.  Here’s an excerpt of a NYT Q&A w/ McCain concerning his initial disapporval of the Bosnian intervention and his ultimate betrayal of that “belief”:

Q. You, as much as anyone in Congress, know the high costs of war, and yet you and Senator Bob Dole, in a politically unpopular move, pushed for a Senate endorsement of the Bosnia mission. Why did you consider this important?


A. I had been a long-time skeptic, if not outright opponent, of our Bosnia policy. Senator Dole and I and others were strong proponents of lifting the arms embargo. But when the president made his commitment, committing not just Bill Clinton but the United States of America, the entire situation changed. There were significant negative costs associated with repudiating such a commitment — one, the credibility of the United States, two, the lasting viability of NATO, and three, the assurances of leaders of the participants in the war that the conflict would be reignited. I have no doubt that the Congress has the authority to cut off funding, but that was not going to happen. When you vote to cut off funding, with American troops already there, whether you intend to or not you send a message to those troops that you don’t support what they’re doing.

Apparently not funding a war that you supposedly disagree with is now treasonous because you can’t have the perception that the people you’re ordering to fight the war are doing something for an immoral pretense.

John McCain was just diagnosed with the same brain tumor my father was.  I firmly believe that had my father not been exposed to that radiation he would be happy and healthy.  He’s now teetering on a knife’s edge.

The God Emperor has released a statement that asks for thoughts and prayers for Johnny on the trigger.

I will not waste my prayers for John. May he rot in Hell.

Death comes for us all in time. I wonder if the senator has any regrets about his conduct during his time on Earth, or if he is hoping to hear “well done, thou good and faithful servant”, from the Father of Lies.

A dangerous game in Syria

Fortunately, the Russians aren’t biting as the US attempts to slow down the Syrian army’s destruction of ISIS and reclamation of its territory. The Saker explains the dynamic.

The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country. They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed. Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and, especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences. Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a “firm” “reaction” to the Russian “aggression” and a “defense” of the US “allies” in the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a “tepid” war with Russia: an escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not a full-scale “hot” WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at least some kind of purpose (to protect “our European friends and allies” from the “Russian threat”): the already terminally spineless EU politicians would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he made “America” “great” again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would *finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn’t – but the Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).

Does the Russian strategy work?

To reply to this, don’t look at what the Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation. Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term. Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct strategy.

I submit that to evaluate whether Putin’s policies are effective or not, to see whether he has “sold out” or “caved in” you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and come back to re-visit it in 6 months.

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level. This is basically the single main reason why both Napoleon and Hitler lost their wars against Russia: an almost exclusive focus on the short term and tactical. In contrast, the Russians are the undisputed masters of operational art (in a purely military sense) and, just like the Chinese, they tend to always keep their eyes on the long-term horizon. Just look at the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24: everybody bemoaned the lack of “forceful” reaction from Moscow. And then, six months later – what do we have? Exactly.

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a “firm” response. They like to “send messages” and they firmly believe that doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the appearance of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don’t think that way. They don’t care about instant gratification, they care only about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From a Russian perspective, sending “messages” or taking symbolic actions (like all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don’t like to use force which they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets them closer to a specific goal.

It’s rather fascinating how the Russians, rather like George Washington, keep “losing” the direct engagements, but somehow end up in the superior position a month or two later. But that’s why strategy and operations matter more than tactical brilliance.

Anti-white hate crime

Trump supporter stabbed nine times in California:

The pro-Trump supporter Tony Forman was right in the middle of a recent protest in Cathay where emotions ran hot over the sanctuary city controversy, but nothing like the violence that’s left Foreman now fighting for his life.

“This was politically motivated. That’s a concern because he is a good friend of mine,” Omar Navarro said. “I’m just really shocked someone would do this. What happened to free speech?”

Navarro is running to unseat the long time Democrat Maxine Waters in the 43rd District of the U.S. Congress, and there are also accusations coming from others.

The stabbing attack on Foreman is a hate crime because of his outspoken support for President Trump and the conservative agenda. “We don’t know if it is politically motivated or racially motivated, but we do know there were some racial slurs for him being white that were said to him,” Tim Gionet, a friend of Foreman, said.

Santa Monica police did not mention a politically motivated crime, only confirming they arrested  two suspects.

As I have pointed out in recent darkstreams, it is time to take your own rhetoric seriously. This is a cultural cold war that is in the process of turning hot. Prepare accordingly. If you’re going to take part in protests and public events, be equipped and prepared for the possibility of violence and don’t operate under the mistaken impression that the police are going to somehow magically protect you.

Destroying mosques over there

While they build them over here. The Great Mosque of al-Nuri is no more.

The United States and Iraq said ISIS blew up a historic mosque in Mosul that was the ideological heart of the terror group and the birthplace of its self-declared caliphate. ISIS, through its news agency, said US warplanes were responsible for the loss late Wednesday of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.

US officials told CNN the ISIS claim was “1,000% false.” Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the ISIS act amounts to “an official announcement of their defeat.” His military commanders said militants blew the mosque up after troops closed in.

I don’t really care who destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri. What I would like to know is why the West’s military forces are destroying mosques over there, where they belong, and not over here, where they do not. And even from the Muslim perspective, is an ugly community center building in London or Toronto really much of a substitute for a historic 800-year-old structure?

The only real question is if “backwards” or “retarded” is the more appropriate term for the West’s current military response to the third great wave of Islamic expansion. And here is a question: if ISIS shows so little respect for the architectural history and traditions of Islamic culture, why do you think its enthusiasts will show any more for the architectural history and traditions of the West?

Detroit cop stabbing

Feds looking into Flint airport stabbing as ‘possible act of terrorism’. Canadian born suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar”.


Police say an airport officer was stabbed in the neck Wednesday morning at Bishop International Airport in Flint. The officer was taken to the hospital. Michigan State Police said the officer is in critical condition. Police identified the injured officer as Lt. Jeff Neville. Bishop International Airport was evacuated and is closed.


No doubt the policeman will be relieved to be reminded that Islam is a religion of peace and Jihad means an internal struggle. Remember, cops being stabbed by Muslims only makes us stronger. And immigrants who live off government handouts and shut down airports are good for the economy.

Happy Father’s Day

Congratulations, gentlemen. You have accomplished the first part of your primary duty as a man.

Now for the hard part. Raising your sons and daughters to be ready for the challenges ahead.

John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

That was then. This is the Current Year. Raise your sons to study politics and war. Raise your daughters to be the wives and mothers of warriors.

Mailvox: Breivik: saint or monster?

A Norwegian asks about St. Breivik:

What I still not have clear for me, is your standing concerning AB Breivik, and that actually troubles me somehow. I am self a Norwegian, I live in Oslo, and what happened 22/7/11 made a deep and difficult impression on my mind. Breivik shot down in cold blood 69 people on that island, and the majority of the victims were  teenagers (children, I could say), which «guilt» was to be an offspring of a member of the social democrat party (Arbeiderpartiet). I have indirectly heard an eyewitness reporting about a child scared to death, and with blood pouring from a wound in the throat while slowly dying.

For me, Breivik doesn’t represent any positive and decent quality, and he neither represent any legitimate way of doing resistance against a fallen political class and elite. Maybe I have misunderstood, but if you somehow make a hero out of Breivik, that makes it so difficult for me to do what I much would like to do: to make you one of several good teachers in my life.

Somehow I can look at Breivik (and other terrorists) as (almost impersonal) expressions of tidal waves in our history. But simultaneously, I can do nothing else than look at their actual actions as utterly horrific. As I see it (and feel it), no one devout to God would never ever could have done what Breivik did, and no one would neither could defend his actions.

First, let me say that I have family members who are a) devout Christians, b) good men, and c) are responsible for killing considerably more people than Anders Breivik. I also have a number of friends whose confirmed kills are in double-digits. Nor am I at all persuaded by the notion that the God who loved David, who slew “his ten thousands”, or the Jesus who praised the faith of the Roman centurion, is anywhere nearly as appalled by war as most men would like to believe.

From a philosophical perspective, I tend to regard the Norwegians, and the “Norwegians”, killed by Breivik as having been more culpable on average than the average Japanese, Korean, or Chinese infantryman were. And don’t forget, the Viet Cong were no more professional soldiers than were the Quisling Youth on Utoya, and most of them were even younger.

Breivik did not target innocents. He didn’t attack teenagers at a pop concert or families enjoying a night out on a public promenade. He struck a highly effective blow against the political machine that is still actively engaged in attacking his people and attempting to eradicate them. If you don’t believe violence is a legitimate way of resisting invasion, if you don’t think that making war on those making war on you is permissible, that’s your prerogative, but your opinion is both ahistorical and irrelevant.

The fact is that Anders Breivik not only gave up his freedom to strike back at the quislings who are actively seeking to destroy your nation and your people, but he did so alone, and in the full knowledge that he would be hated for it by many of the very people he sought to save.

You may recall that someone once said something about the quality of the love that such a self-sacrifice requires. Can you honestly say that it was nothing but simple hatred that inspired him?

Of course, those who are not religious cannot fathom that kind of love, which is why they simply deem him mad, and a monster, and try to avoid thinking about the future. I don’t expect you to simply accept my perspective, but it might give you some food for further thought. While he did a terrible thing, it is far more terrible that he was put into a position where he felt the need to do it in the first place. Focus your anger, and your disgust, for those who knowingly created the untenable situation.

In any event, my expectation is that if the West, and Norway, survive the ongoing clash of civilizations, Breivik will be considered its first hero. And if it does not, well, then Breivik will be regarded in much the same way that Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard are presently regarded in New Orleans, as an evil monster who was “on the wrong side of humanity.”

And just to be clear for the excessively slow, although I am not a Catholic, I am aware that Mr. Breivik has not died, been beatified, or canonized. Nor do I believe in praying to intercessors.

UPDATE: It is clear to me that a few readers here simply do not understand what war is. I direct your attention to Clausewitz and ask you this: was Breivik practicing “politics by other means” or not?