Tag: war

Redefinitions

“Democracy” now means “Globo-satanry“, just as “America” now means “an identity with which anyone can identify”:

Tucker kept asking him why Americans should go fight and die for democracy in the Ukraine, and he just kept saying that it’s our duty to defend democracy. He also said that Joe Biden isn’t doing global democracy hard enough, and that the failure to establish democracy in Afghanistan is proof that we need to go to war with Russia.

He further said that he is not actually talking about going to war with Russia, he just wants to send troops to the Ukraine to stop a war with Russia.

It’s all just such bullshit. As any long-time reader of this site is aware, the democratically-elected president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a coup organized by the US State Department and the EU in 2014. These people were literally paying Ukrainian thugs and neo-Nazis 50 euros a day to riot and attack the cops. Then there was a conspiracy involving the shooting of ZOG-backed rioters by a secret assassin who was never arrested. The people organizing the protests said that the government had ordered the assassinations, and the rioters rushed the government buildings and overthrew the elected government. Then a new entirely Jewish government was established by the West.

Everyone knows this happened. Everyone knows that the current government of the Ukraine was not put in power by elections. But they just lie about it.

This word-witchery is how the globo-satanists can declare, with a straight face, that the US military must defend the borders of a) Taiwan, b) Ukraine, and c) Poland while simultaneously being prevented from defending the borders of the United States.

The Barbarossa Question

I tend to agree with the historical revisionists concerning the planned Soviet invasion of Germany, but I disagree that the burden of proof is on them any more than it is on the traditionalists. The fact that one is the first to reach a conclusion does not indicate that the conclusion is the most accurate one.

In the years 1939-1941, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with the idea that war would be inevitable. Stalin had been preparing for that inevitability both before and during those years: This is evidenced from many developments, from the economy, to propaganda, to Red Army deployments at the border. With his poker game conception, the only question that remained is who would become Stalin’s main adversary? After the fall of France – which happened so swiftly that it baffled and enraged Stalin – it became more and more obvious that the main adversary would be Hitler. Rather than picking up the scraps of two foes who had battled each-other to exhaustion, he would now have to face Hitler alone on the European continent

There were good reasons for Stalin to fear encirclement, but even the Soviet defensive strategy contained fundamentally offensive operations which included defeating and conquering the enemy on his own territory. The neglect of defensive lines, the offensive posture of Soviet divisions, Stalin lambasting the Maginot defense strategy of the French, the brutal imposition of the Stalinist system on the conquered territories in the years 1939-1940 all point to Stalin not being afraid of the Germans. Instead it points that he was confident enough to fend them off and counter-strike in case of an attack.

There have been many Soviet war plans, many of which can be regarded to be contingency plans in case of an attack. Germans had these too even before Operation Barbarossa was decided upon. The May war plan was the plan that contained proposals for the Soviets to strike first. To date, the revisionists, especially Ewan Mawdsley, have mostly compared the May war plan with other Soviet war plans, while I attempted to compare the May war plan with the mobilization plan of 1941 and saw many similarities. MP-41 predates German deployments to the Soviet border. The completion of MP-41 would have enabled the Soviets to carry out the May war plan. The biggest issue as I have already highlighted was the date at which the Soviets would launch their preemptive strike.

Stalin’s rhetoric and behavior in the months February-May cannot possibly be construed as him waging a campaign of appeasement against the Germans. Soviet deployments, along with aggressive propaganda campaigns that intended to fuel hatred against Germans, interrogation reports of captured soviet soldiers saying that they were expected to attack soon and the stepping-up of military production all point to Stalin intending to strike against Hitler. Stalin may have become concerned in June when Germans completed their deployments, probably a lot faster than he expected. But at that point, it was too late to shift all his armies from an offensive to a defensive posture. Alternatively, Stalin may have remained confident for his armies abilities to hold off the Germans at the border in order to launch a counter-attack. Zhukov’s and Timoshenko’s directives on 25 June to counter-strike and capture Poland and East-Prussia certainly points in that direction.

So did Stalin intend to invade Germany? Yes I think that he did. But it needs to be stated that both traditionalists as well as revisionists operate on circumstantial evidence alone, granted the burden of proof is on the revisionists. I hope to have convinced the reader that the evidence points into the direction of Stalin preparing to invade Germany.

Frankly, I think the author gives too much credence to the “see no logic” traditional crowd. Anyone who pays any serious attention to history knows that the Soviets were determined to avoid the situation they faced in 1917; the Bolsheviks were – and remain – experts in the strategy of “let’s you and him fight”.

The obvious reason that Stalin wasn’t ready, and therefore the reason Hitler was able to strike first, was because Germany defeated France at least one year sooner than anyone had any reason to believe possible. And the scale of the Soviet preparations, which were considerably larger than those of Operation Barbarossa, was both why it took Stalin longer and why he didn’t expect the Germans to consider themselves ready to attack him when they did.

DISCUSS ON SG

When “Refugees” Become “Invaders”

It’s fascinating to see how one million “Syrians” invading Europe are “refugees” and 1.7 million “Mexicans” invading the USA are “immigrants”, but a few thousand Middle Easterners trying to enter the EU through the Belarussian-Polish border are “invaders” who justify 15,000 troops being sent to stop them.

There are now thousands of desperate people camped out along the Polish border, with the EU saying they were lured to Belarus on false promises of passage to Europe then marched to the border and forced to make illegal crossings.

Poland said more than 250 people attempted the crossing between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, with dozens making it. Around 50 were found and arrested near the town of Białowieża early today, with more being sought.

‘It was not a calm night. Indeed, there were many attempts to breach the Polish border,’ Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak told broadcaster PR1.

Polish private radio RMF said around 200 people had tried to breach the border on Tuesday afternoon, and a second group of around 60 had tried after midnight.

Blaszczak said all those who tried to cross were detained, and that the force of Polish soldiers stationed at the border had been strengthened to 15,000 from 12,000.

Three EU diplomats told Reuters on late on Tuesday that the bloc was close imposing more sanctions on Belarus over the escalating crisis, targeting around 30 individuals and entities including the Belarusian foreign minister.

Since Belarus is formally tied to Russia and Poland is a junior member of the European Union that is a neocon lapdog answering to Biden administration official Victoria Nuland, it’s fairly obvious that this situation, like the Ukrainian situation, is being used as yet another attempt to justify a neocon revenge war with Russia.

After all, they’ve got to use the US military while they still have sufficient influence over it.

Whatever happened to all that “poor huddled masses” rhetoric?

The lesson, as always, is this: Migration is War.

An Empire in Decline

It might seem a little strange that the Chinese media is still discussing the English empire in terms of decline, given that everyone recognizes the empire “on which the sun never sets” is no more. Except it is apparent that in doing so, they are actually referring to the declining imperial USA, as the Russian media clearly understands.

The United States must come to terms with the reality that it no longer enjoys “military primacy” in the Western Pacific, and confront the “ugly” reality that it may lose a military conflict with China over Taiwan, Graham Allison, professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School, has warned.

In a piece for The National Interest, Allison pointed to recent analyses on the possibility of war over Taiwan by a number of senior current and former officials, including ex-Vice Joint Chiefs Chairman James Winnefeld and former-CIA Director Michael Morell, who recently concluded that the Chinese military could deliver a fait accompli on Taiwan before Washington even mustered its forces.

Col. Bob Work, former deputy secretary of defence under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, has expressed even greater pessimism, stating publicly (Allison’s paraphrasing) that “in the most realistic war games the Pentagon has been able to design simulating war over Taiwan, the score is eighteen to zero. And the eighteen is not Team USA.”

The reasons for this are twofold, according to Allison. The first, as former Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis said in his 2018 National Defence Strategy, is that the US no longer enjoys its post-Cold War “dominant superiority in every operating domain,” including the ability to “generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. Today, every domain is contested – air, land, sea, space and cyberspace.”

The second, Allison notes, relates to China’s radical advances in its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities – consisting of everything from anti-ship and anti-air missile systems to long range ballistic and cruise missiles, electronic warfare and interceptor aircraft.

This loss of global imperial hegemony is actually good for Americans, as the rise of the nationalist regional powers increases the chances that Americans will finally begin to recognize that their democracy is a fraud, they no longer rule themselves, and they have not done so for some time now.

One need not be a particular fan of China, Russia, or Iran to observe that their rise is detrimental to America’s enemies.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Dangerous and Ineffective Strategy

A British East Asian specialist appears to be less than confident in Taiwan island’s strategic approach to remaining de facto independent of the mainland.

Taiwan is pursuing a strategy against China that I term “provocation diplomacy.” That is, seeking to deliberately provoke China by driving wedges in Beijing’s relationships with other countries with the aim of procuring support for itself. It’s a strategy that is premised on a public relations blitz. Taipei is seeking to get as many anti-China politicians to visit it, which have included various legislators, most prominently former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott; encouraging direct violations of the One-China policy to forcibly downgrade China’s ties with countries, as has happened with Lithuania; giving direct access to mass media, such as CNN this week, and aggressive social media strategies, all with the goal of gaining more support in provoking Beijing into a response.

That subsequent response from China then often appears threatening or, how the US likes to describe it, “coercive,” which then subsequently rallies more support in Taipei’s favour. The ultimate goal is to undermine China’s red line, or “salami slice” it and make it more politically difficult for Xi Jinping to make the island capitulate on his terms.

However, it also rests on two fundamental assumptions, both of which are dangerous gambles. Firstly, the belief that China will not seriously contemplate military action against Taiwan due to the potential devastating consequences that would flow from it. And secondly, that in such a scenario, the United States would come militarily to Taiwan’s support, meaning the first is less likely to happen. This latter assumption appears to have been encouraged by what appeared to be an ambiguous statement, or gaffe, from Joe Biden last week when he said the US has a “commitment” to defending Taiwan. Media commentary, however, was split on how exactly to interpret this.

As of now, Beijing’s reactions have consisted of blustering a lot and making angry responses towards the countries associated with Taipei’s stunts. China talks a lot about its “red lines” and about enforcing its One-China policy. It also carries out military exercises in the Strait between it and Taiwan but, so far, it has not made any decisive move which will discourage Taipei from its current course.

But that doesn’t mean China will do nothing. Xi Jinping’s confidence in the idea of reunification, as expressed in his keynote speech two weeks ago, comes across as firm, unwavering and unfazed, a different depiction altogether to the fiery state media rhetoric. He did not threaten military action, nor did he give the impression Taiwan was “slipping away” from Beijing, so it might have to resort to desperate measures. Instead, he expressed hope in an inevitable, peaceful, reunification. Yet this all poses more questions than what it answers: how exactly will this happen? How can China achieve this? When?

One thing that should be noted about China is that it invariably chooses the right time to “strike” and has a potency for taking swift and often calculated risks in accordance with its national interests. As one example, Beijing used the West’s distraction over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the social distancing measures that were in place, to impose the national security law in Hong Kong. Previously, the scale of the protests and violence would have made that impossible.

A year on, the protest movement was effectively over, with the leading figures in jail or exiled, and most of the opposition disbanded.

Many of the strategies used by protest leaders in Hong Kong are similar to what Taiwan is doing now. They sought to gain publicity through provoking Beijing, and appealing to the world and the mainstream media to help. Their calculus? That China would institute a violent crackdown to stop them, which would be costly and result in Beijing’s isolation and more US intervention, similar to what Taipei assumes now.

This gives us some clues, if not concrete evidence, of where things will go next.

The contrast between the strategy of the Taiwanese leadership and the strategy of Lee Kwan Yew in guiding Singapore to independence could hardly be more stark. Granted, Yew wanted Singapore to be a part of Malaysia while the ruling DPP does not want Taiwan to be a part of China, but that significant difference notwithstanding, Yew’s wise strategy was guided by a fundamental understanding of the military and demographic weakness of his own position.

The DPP’s strategy appears to be guided, instead, by a delusional pair of false assumptions. This is a preposterous mistake, especially given that Xi Jinping is almost certainly the most friendly Chinese leader with whom the Taiwanese will ever have the chance to negotiate reunification. The empire, divided in 1945, will unite, the only serious questions concern the timing and the terms.

DISCUSS ON SG

US Military Capacity: Weak

Even without taking the adverse reactions and the loss of troops to the vaccine mandates into account, the US military does not have the capacity to fight a war against both China and Russia:

Capacity Score: Weak

Historical evidence shows that, on average, the Army needs 21 Brigade Combat Teams to fight one major regional conflict (MRC). Based on a conversion of roughly 3.5 BCTs per division, the Army deployed 21 BCTs in Korea, 25 in Vietnam, 14 in the Persian Gulf War, and approximately four in Operation Iraqi Freedom— an average of 16 BCTs (or 21 if the much smaller Operation Iraqi Freedom initial invasion operation is excluded). In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Obama Administration recommended a force capable of deploying 45 Active BCTs. Previous government force-sizing documents discuss Army force structure in terms of divisions and consistently advocate for 10–11 divisions, which equates to roughly 37 Active BCTs.

Considering the varying recommendations of 35–45 BCTs and the actual experience of nearly 21 BCTs deployed per major engagement, our assessment is that 42 BCTs would be needed to fight two MRCs. Taking into account the need for a strategic reserve, the Army force should also include an additional 20 percent of the 42 BCTs, resulting in an over-all requirement of 50 BCTs.

Previous editions of the Index had counted four Army National Guard BCTs in the overall count of available BCTs. Because the Army re-ports that no Army National Guard BCTs are at the highest state of readiness, they are no longer counted in this edition of the Index. The Army has 31 Regular Army BCTs compared to a two-MRC construct requirement of 50.

Granted, it’s a neocon-funded study by the Heritage Foundation which is almost certainly intended to justify increased military spending, but that doesn’t change the fact that the number of Brigade Combat Teams available now is only sufficient to address one major regional conflict, and there is no chance that either China or Russia are going to permit the USA to play divide-and-conquer any longer.

China Bets on Surrender

Now that the USA’s “strategic ambiguity” is no more, China is openly putting pressure on the Taiwanese leadership to prepare for a quick surrender:

The Tsai Ing-wen authority has said that the island will defend itself “to the very last day” if the Chinese mainland attacks. Most people know they are bluffing. A recent Wall Street Journal report quoted several experts as assessing that Taiwan’s military has “poor preparation and low morale”. Also, “adult men in Taiwan don’t actually want to fight”. The article doubted the island would stand much chance against China’s People’s Liberation Army. The report also advised that the Taiwan military could become far more effective by training with the US.

How could it be possible to boost the low morale of the Taiwan military by training with the US army? In 2003, I asked a former soldier in Taiwan “whether the island is able to defend itself if a war breaks out?” He made it very clear that the answer is “no”. I then asked him how long he thinks the island could hold, he answered that, “Maybe dozens of hours.” That was a long time ago. Today, the military capability comparison between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan is completely different from that of 18 years ago.

From my point of view, first of all, the mainland doesn’t want to fight a war. It has the will to safeguard peace and take war as the last resort. Second, the Democratic Progressive Party authorities dare not fight. They are making bluffs, but they know very well that the island’s military forces are weak. They cannot withstand even a single blow. If there is a war, Taiwan will be surely defeated and collapse….

My prediction is that a war in the Taiwan Straits may eventually be avoided. That is when the strong military pressure of the mainland bows down the will of pro-independence forces in Taiwan island. The situation is changing. The goodwill and patience of the mainland is not to be consumed by DPP authorities endlessly. If the Taiwan question escalates so that it can only be solved through military means, the sudden surrender of Taiwan authorities who dare not fight is within everyone’s expectation.

That’s my expectation as well. As the rule of lies has made it ever more clear that nothing that comes out of the mouths of the rulers of the West should be trusted, more and more people around the world are grasping that what we perceived to be reality in the past was never anything more than an illusion meant to cause us to defeat ourselves through fear.

At this point, the only thing protecting Taiwan island is the mainland’s desire to avoid harming the population and the techno-industrial infrastructure.

DISCUSS ON SG

Wanna Bet?

The US Department of Defense appears to be determined to sacrifice Ukrainian independence.

No country can veto Ukraine’s wish to join NATO, America’s top security official has said. Lloyd Austin’s statement comes after Moscow warned Kiev that joining the bloc would go beyond “red lines” and may prompt “active measures.” Ukraine is free to decide its future and foreign policy, with no foreign entity having a say in its aspiration to join the NATO alliance, the US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Tuesday.

“Ukraine… has a right to decide its own future foreign policy and we expect that they will be able to do that without any outside interference,” Austin said at a joint press conference with his Ukrainian counterpart Andrey Taran in Kiev.

No third country has a veto over NATO’s membership decisions.

The statement apparently came in response to a harsh warning against Ukraine ever joining NATO, voiced by Moscow a day earlier. Speaking to French journalists for a program called ‘Vladimir Putin: Master of the Game,’ the Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Kiev’s accession to NATO would be “the worst-case scenario.”

Russia has made it very, very clear that any Ukrainian attempt to join NATO will be met by an immediate invasion and occupation of the country. And outmoded rhetorical appeals to “freedom” and “democracy” and “self-determination” by the USA are no longer even remotely credible anymore in light of 20 years of foreign invasions, failed occupations, and fraudulent presidential elections.

The election of Donald Trump saved Ukraine from invasion. The stealing of the 2020 election from him may doom Ukraine to Russian occupation, which is particularly stupid because Russia doesn’t want to occupy Ukraine. But they will do it if necessary, because they want US troops and US missiles on their borders even less.

Like it or not, Russia not only can, but absolutely will, veto further NATO expansion.

DISCUSS ON SG

This is Not Your Grandfather’s Military

The USA is no longer the United States of America, it is the United States of Diversity. And diversity is not exactly a strength when it comes to IQ or military capabilities:

The loss of a US Navy ship to a massive blaze was “a completely avoidable catastrophe,” but management lapses on multiple levels, including the failure to activate a firefighting system, made the task impossible, a report claims.
Some three dozen officers aboard the USS ‘Bonhomme Richard’ were named as responsible for the loss of the ship, which caught fire near a San Diego naval base in July 2020, according to a 400-page investigation report obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday. While one particular sailor, Seaman Apprentice Ryan Mays, was charged earlier this year for initially starting the conflagration, the report alleges that the vessel could still have been salvaged if not for the commanders and the crew’s lack of basic training and skills.

“Although the fire was started by an act of arson, the ship was lost due to an inability to extinguish the fire,” the report said, as quoted by the AP. It concluded that “repeated failures” by an “inadequately prepared crew” led to an “ineffective fire response.”

The report, prepared by Vice Admiral Scott Conn, outlined major lapses in training and preparedness, poor communication and coordination between personnel, bad equipment maintenance and broader breakdowns in the overall command-and-control structure on the vessel.

For instance, the investigators found that while the ship was fitted with a firefighting foam system that could have slowed the spread of the fire, no one on board was aware of how to put the system into operation, that is to push a certain button.

“No member of the crew interviewed considered this action or had specific knowledge as to the location of the button or its function,” the report said. Even if the sailors had prior knowledge of the intricate mechanism, it’s not clear if they succeeded in stopping the flames. The report claims that about 87% of all fire stations on board were plagued by equipment issues or had not been inspected at all.

This is why Ukraine will not be joining NATO and why Taiwan will be reunifying with the mainland. The US military is no longer a global superpower, it is now merely the largest, if not necessarily the most formidable, of the regional powers. While it still has the ability to intervene outside of its zone of control, it no longer has the ability to do so with any real degree of confidence in doing so successfully.

If Great Britain is any guide, it will take at least 10 years, and probably at least one more major military failure, before Americans and other US citizens begin to accept this decline in relative military power and adjust US foreign policy accordingly.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Hidden War

Archbishop Vignano, who is the closest thing that Catholics currently have to a real Pope, denounces the wicked alliance of the Deep State with the Deep Church:

It now seems clear to me that we are facing a siege on both the social and religious front. The so-called emergency pandemic has been utilized as a false pretext to impose the vaccination and Green pass in many nations of the world in a simultaneous and coordinated way… They support them in this wicked plan and go so far as to condemn those who do not accept being subjected to inoculation with an experimental gene serum, with unknown side effects, that does not impart any immunity from the virus, to say nothing of the moral implications related to the presence of genetic material derived from aborted fetuses, which for a Catholic is a more than sufficient reason to refuse the vaccine. We are war, a war that is not openly declared, that is not fought with conventional weapons, but a war all the same… The alliance is not between state and church. But it is between the deep state and deep church.

“The vaccine victims are sacrificed at the altar of Moloch…. [The elitists] present themselves as representatives of the people but in fact they act against the people. Without any constraint, without limits either from above, since they have canceled the divine origin of the power of those who govern nor from below, since they do not allow citizens to elect their own representatives unless they are certain can manipulate the vote to their own advantage.”

The spiritual war has gone hot. It’s vital to understand that you are engulfed by it, and neither innocence nor naivete will prevent you from de facto choosing a side, even if you don’t truly understand what you are doing. This isn’t a court of law or a game, and there isn’t anything fair about it.

DISCUSS ON SG