The butchier-than-thou vibe of the last GOP debate reached its apogee when Chris Christie proclaimed his no-fly zone over Syria and then threatened to shoot Russian planes out of the sky. Rand Paul was impressed. “If you want World War Three,” he said, “there’s your candidate.”
Actually, on the fifth anniversary of the Arab “Spring”, I get the feeling World War Three is coming with or without Chris Christie – for the same reasons that World Wars One and Two came: the order enforcers can no longer enforce order, and the provocateurs know it, and in that kind of environment stray peripheral threads can unravel the entire geopolitical quilt.
I too get the feeling that WW3 is coming. Everything just seems to be getting uglier and uglier.
Since mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war games – as many as 16 times, under different scenarios – pitting NATO against Russia. All scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations yielded the same victor: Russia.
Why are they running so many war games? Legendary US Colonel Douglas Macgregor:
In early September he circulated a PowerPoint presentation showing that in a head-to-head confrontation pitting the equivalent of a U.S. armored division against a likely Russian adversary, the U.S. division would be defeated.
“Defeated isn’t the right word,” Macgregor told me last week. “The right word is annihilated.” The 21-slide presentation features four battle scenarios, all of them against a Russian adversary in the Baltics — what one currently serving war planner on the Joint Chiefs staff calls “the most likely warfighting scenario we will face outside of the Middle East.
Russia is a defensive empire, that is, most wars or series of wars were not started by Russians but by enemies attacking or massing on Russia’s borders. After 800 years of almost non-stop aggression by Europeans, Russia does not tolerate any enemy massing on her borders in what appears as a preparation for invasion or the creation of large scales basing areas as would be a US neo-con dominated Ukraine.This is also coupled with the Russian approach of not abandoning Russians (ethnic or cultural) and allies, as opposed to Anglo society where back stabbing allies when the opportunity to earn exists, is a prized skill.
As such, this is a spiral approach. Any escalation by the foreigners will lead to a direct escalation by Russia and not deescalation. Balance of power does not work when Russia feels her survival threatened. Enough of an enemy escalation in the hope of forcing Russia to back off will generate an exact opposite effect in generating a first strike and total war, as Russia feels her life and existence is threatened by the enemy.
And with the EU empire showing ever-increasing signs of disintegration, what better way to unite Europe than a war against some external enemy? These people are probably mad enough to do that. As I wrote nearly 2 years ago:
And in a time when nationalism is on the rise throughout Europe, and the European economy is sliding into depression, what better way to rekindle the faltering dream of European unity than to discover an ‘enemy at the gates’, and use that threat to push hard for ‘even closer union’ against ‘our common enemy’?
As the EU is presently conceived, it represents not so much a permanent monument to post-war reconciliation as a continuation of the mentality of the Cold War. The great danger, we are told, in abandoning our membership is that we would be isolated – adrift in a hostile world without the collective strength of our European partners. This is the language of competing power blocs to which the second half of the last century had become accustomed. The assumption was that the world would remain divided into megalithic rival camps for military protection and economic advantage.
About the only US presidential candidate (apart from Rand Paul) who isn’t beating the war drum is, oddly enough, Donald Trump. Which may be one of the reasons why Vladimir Putin singled him out for praise a few days ago. Russia Insider again:
Let’s also address the fact that maybe Putin said something flattering about Trump because Trump is the only presidential candidate (and this includes Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders) who hasn’t been threatening his country. Trump, along with maybe Rand Paul, doesn’t support worsening relations with Russia.
It’s pretty apparent from the Republican debates that pretty much all the candidates from the clown car that is the GOP have completely jumped the rails. Same goes for the Dems. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger and Bernie Sanders has nothing new to offer on the foreign policy front. When it comes to our relations with Russia, Trump may be our only sane option.
Could The Donald be the man to avert WW3?