The Armageddon Option

I was watching some US TV channel today that was discussing Email2, and there was a Democrat operative trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to draw attention away from this latest bunch of 650,000 emails and put the focus back on Trump, and in particular Trump’s “documented” ties to Russia.

As far as I can see, the idea is that the Russians hacked Hillary Clinton’s server (Email1) and passed them to Wikileaks, and so the whole attack on Hillary’s campaign is really Russian subversion of US democracy, and amounts almost to an act of war.

My guess is that if it ever looks like Donald Trump might win the election, Obama will start a war with Russia, declare a state of emergency, and rally Americans behind the only person who can stand up to Putin, now that it’s been proved conclusively that Donald Trump is a Soviet Russian sleeper agent: Hillary Clinton.

The Russians seem to be taking it seriously.

PUTIN’S WAR CRY: Russian leader says ‘we will fight UNTIL THE END’ as WW3 fears escalate

VLADIMIR Putin has urged Russians to “fight until the end” as tensions continue to mount between the West and the Kremlin.

A week or so back a Russian fleet sailed through the English Channel en route for the Mediterranean.  Yesterday a Russian sub followed them. Three days ago there was an “air miss” between US and Russian warplanes over Syria. And British troops have been deployed on the Russian border.

With Hillary Clinton’s campaign seemingly tanking under the Email2 furore, it may be necessary for Obama to invoke the armageddon option later this week. What happens if last week’s “air miss” is followed by this week’s downing of a US or Russian jet over Syria? The US mainstream media will drop the election, and focus on the “outbreak of war”, with Donald Trump – proven Russian sleeper agent – now cast in the role of American traitor.

What can Putin do to prevent this happening?  An interesting report caught my eye yesterday:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially rejected a request from his nation’s Defense Ministry to endorse a resumption of Russian airstrikes against the Syrian city of Aleppo, after 10 straight days of no Russian airstrikes being conducted.

Russia launched a brief ceasefire in Aleppo last week, and extended it for four days. Even after it officially expired, they have not resumed strikes against the city, with officials saying they want to convince Western nations to separate the moderate rebel factions within East Aleppo from the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

“10 straight days of no Russian airstrikes” is interesting. Also interesting that Putin has rejected a request to resume them. And one obvious reason (to me at least) is that Putin doesn’t want to give Obama any excuse to start a war.

There really ought to be 10 more days of no Russian airstrikes. In fact, Putin might even withdraw all Russian air power from Syria for the next 10 days. No possibility whatsoever of any more “air misses” that way.

The period of maximum danger is this week. Putin has to do everything possible to prevent a war starting this week. Next week it won’t matter.

It’s not that I think WW3 is imminent. It’s just that I think that a Democratic US president who’s desperate to get a Democrat into the White House next week will be quite prepared to start a war with Russia to do so. The “war” will only have to last a few days until Hillary Clinton is swept into office by a stampeded US electorate. After she’s been elected, the “war” will come to a speedy end, having served its purpose.

I’m not the only person thinking along these lines. Last week talk radio host Michael Savage was saying he expected US jets to be taking on Russian jets over Syria this (past) weekend. It didn’t happen, but it still might.

He also said he expected that US jets would prevail because “we’ve got better planes and better pilots.” I’m not so sure about that. The problem with US defence procurement seems to be that it comes in late, way over budget, and often doesn’t work very well. The Russians seem to do it all much more quickly, cheaply, and effectively. It’s for this reason that Paul Craig Roberts has been saying for years that if Russia ever goes to war with NATO, it will defeat it in days.

Rush Limbaugh was even toying with the thought today:

RUSH:  Right.  So your point is that we are in a position or situation here that is fraught with danger with the Russians, because they’re ready.  They are loaded and ready, and they’re taunting us, and we’ve got people toying around with things in the geopolitical sense.  For example: Blaming the Russians for the WikiLeaks stuff.

I should add that I don’t see Russia as any real threat. It’s not the Soviet Union any more. It’s not trying to export Communism any more.  They’ve been trying since about 1990 to reach an accommodation with the West (which they’ll get if Trump is elected), but they’ve been too useful as an old Cold War enemy to let that happen.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Armageddon Option

  1. ” And British troops have been deployed on the Russian border.”

    If this is what I’m thinking of, it’s a bit like the Antis’ “no safe level” claims. I think it’s a single “clump” (dunno the proper military term) of 800 military personnel — probably about half of them armed with anything more than a peashooter — not exactly “A Threat To Mother Russia.”

    I don’t think we’re in that much danger at the moment: From my viewpoint here in the US, we’re not about to start a shooting game beyond perhaps a single “mistake” or somesuch with Russia at this point just for the sake of electoral politics, particularly since, even with the new leaks, Clinton has such a significant lead. Unless there are a helluva lot of closet-Trump-voters who show up on election day in a half dozen key states, Clinton is under no threat.

    Sad to say, the first election with a major party female running for prez will probably be decided almost completely on the basis of rampant sexism: if the polls I”ve seen are accurate, males are going for Trump at about 55% while females are going for Clinton at about 70%. And even more unfortunately, it’s happening at a time when having a female as president may actually be strongly counterproductive in and of itself in terms of international politics. Putin is a classic “chauvinist pig” who could very well fall into the trap of thinking a woman president will be “weak” because she’s a woman: he could make some strong moves into Eastern Europe because of that thinking. And Hillary, BECAUSE she’s “the first female president,” will actually respond far more strongly than a male president likely would… simply because she’ll feel the historic need to prove that a female president can be as “tough” as a male president. Put that combo of Putin and Clinton together and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

    To a lesser, but possibly still significant, extent, we’ve got the sexism of North Korea and the Muslim cultures (and perhaps even China in South Seas dispute). Any of those that make the mistake of thinking they can push militarily because they’re going up against a woman will be very sadly mistaken… and a totally out of control war could easily and very quickly result: there would be NO ONE in the US government or military who would dare to give even the slightest question or hesitation to any aggressive act suggested or commanded by Hillary: it would be total and instant political/career death for them. With Trump on the other hand… Any move he’d make that would ever be in even the SLIGHTEST bit questionable would immediately run into staunch resistance and noncooperation and “bureaucratic snafus” that would keep his finger a million miles from that Big Red Button or anything close to it.

    So, not only is Hillary a no-no for me from her general antismoking and taxation perspectives (Remember: she engineered what turned out to likely be the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD with the SCHIP tax increase of over 2,000% on loose tobacco and small cigars) (I put this question to the hundred of tax experts, historians, and Antismokers over on Quora last week and not a single one of them were able to produce a percentage tax increase on anything that even approached that 2,000% — excluding of course increases from a base of zero, i.e. taxing something not previously taxed at all.)

    … so… not only will I vote against her just on those bases, but also from the “Peace Studies” basis of my background: I truly think she’ll be a far FAR more dangerous person to have in the White House at this particular point in history.

    – MJM, who thinks the CURRENT worries about Russia are overblown, but who thinks that FUTURE worries, if Clinton is elected, are being seriously underestimated.

  2. Chester Draws says:

    The Russian military is cheap. Cheap and very nasty.

    One on one US gear is always better. Their training too.

  3. Steven says:

    I don’t think for one moment that Russia is the problem.The problem as I see it is the eu.With their expansionist plans and by that I mean hovering on Russia’s borders,how do you expect Russia to respond.

  4. garyk30 says:

    The U S President ca not ‘declare’ a war.
    Only our Congress can do that.

  5. Pingback: Choose Baccy… ‘Roof!’ … LoL… – Library of Libraries

  6. Clicky says:

  7. Frank Davis says:

    Hillary’s campaign is in freefall.
    The former Secretary of State dropped 13 points in 9 days in the daily ABC News-WaPo tracking poll.

    It’s really getting to her.
    She can’t stop tweeting about Russia.

    Trump must answer “serious” questions about his ties to Russia.

  8. Pingback: Smoking Causes Trumpinoma | Frank Davis

  9. Pingback: The Donald Unpresidented | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.