Eso’s Chronicles 247/ 33

Addendum 8—1^st Post-WW4 Event

© Eso A.B.

 

Given that in my previous post, I stated that the U.S. appears to have agreed to pull out of Europe and Asia, because though its military might may deter aggression against it, it is not strong enough, given modern weapons, to deter the destruction of its own or Europe’s infrastructure if it itself were to become the aggressor. The recent posturing by the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East gave rise to suspicions that indeed the West had chosen the aggressor’s path. This is also the reason why the sudden pull back from an outright attack on Syria and hence on Iran makes suspect that it was met with a warning by the powers native to Europe and Asia that was no less determined to prevent such an attack.

 

Not surprisingly, the U.S. change of mind not to press war (it may be interpreted to be a 2^nd version of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/230972/German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact , renamed as the Kerry-Lavrov Pact 75 years later, has upset many of its allies who had mistakenly believed that nothing could deter the U.S. from attacking if it so decided. Their mistake was to make-believe that the U.S. was not—for delusionary reasons—vulnerable. Now they know differently, which changes many things, and is cause for resetting many expectations as to the developments in the future.

 

It is not surprising; therefore, that many high officials of the U.S. and EU governments are currently in the Middle East and Eastern Europe giving reassurances. In this context, the following statement by US Defence Secretary Chuck Hegel, is interesting:

 

"Going forward, the Department of Defense will place even more emphasis on building the capacity of our partners in order to complement our strong military presence in the region." http://rt.com/news/us-mideast-iran-nuclear-hagel-878/

 

A nice try, but… it does not acknowledge the vulnerability (presumed by this author) of the country that stands behind “our strong military presence”. An admission of vulnerability, if not made in earlier times even in secret, is taken for granted today by every analyst, because time has done its levelling best to put everyone’s military hardware on a more or less equal footing. As for the “partners”, these are the six oil exporting nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Bahrain, one of the nations of said Council or Congress (aka Manama Dialogue security forum) and the host to the conference may indeed buy additional military equipment from the U.S. military industrial complex. However, the same reasons why the U.S. paid attention to Russian cautioning are also operative with regard to Bahrain. As the readers who may be sceptical with regard to this writer’s reasoning know best: We will believe only if we witness a demonstration of the ‘truth’; that is to say, a demonstration is pending and awaiting its day. All this writer can say to this is: We will see: after all, the predecessor to the suspected Kerry-Lavrov Pact is infamous for soon being betrayed.

 

Indeed, with the U.S. shifting “… its military attention, not to mention the bulk of its assets, to Asia,” as the RT article states, and because the secret agreement between Russia (and China) and the U.S. has not been officially announced, a demonstration may be an event one or all of six nations may expect to be the guinea pigs for. Just what form and shape a demonstration will take is for military experts to decide, but this author has always been impressed with the ability by some nuclear weapons to cause surges of electromagnetic pulse that may target a nation’s electric systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse , knocking out unprotected power grids. If such weapons may emit a directed  pulse, the demonstration may be a ‘test’ that deliberately ‘goes wrong’ yet provides the ‘proof’ for those who suspect but are uncertain of the existence of a secret treaty. Who will risk the prolonged (it may be years) recovery of one’s infrastructure?

 

The statements by Chuck Hegel are well within the bounds of face saving posturing—if such posturing is part of the agreement “with Iran”. It hurts no one if the cat scrapes the sand in his box obsessively: “We have deployed our most advanced fighter aircraft throughout the region, including F-22s, to ensure that we can quickly respond to contingencies,” he [the cat] said. “Coupled with our unique munitions, no target is beyond our reach.”

 

What the response of the F-22s may be to a ‘contingency’ that blows all the fuses and burns the electrical wiring of Saudi Arabia and Israel will be is unknown, but we may guess: nothing special, except for the panic in the offices of government historians that the first and last shot of WW4 went as unnoticed as the nonaggression pact proves itself (this time) to be trustworthy.

 

Still, we may expect that the Great Powers, knowing that a ‘test’ (just as a military manoeuvre) may metamorphose into the ‘real’ thing, will be watching events closely and tensely. The U.S. Defense Secretary has already told the world that all 40 naval vessels that were transferred to the Middle East are spending their time criss-crossing he Hormuz Straight and other bodies of water; while Russia advises the news media that it is withdrawing its naval fleet, even as everyone knows that ‘withdrawal’ is an ancient battle tactic; even as China, with its planned futuristic military base on the moon not yet ready http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/12/06/13/32/china-to-turn-moon-into-death-star , has  satellites or ‘death stars’ armed with missiles circling the globe for sure.

 

Eso’s Chronicles 246/ 32

Addendum 7—WW4

© Eso A.B.

In my blog 240/ “Addendum 3—Ecce Russia!” I ventured to suggest that Russia’s President Putin recently issued an ultimatum to the United States, re: stay out of Syria and Iran or else….

By all appearances the U.S. heard the message and desisted. How else is one to explain the sudden deflation of the war rhetoric, and the sudden unhappiness of Saudi Arabia and Israel, the two major hawks of war, both appearing disappointed  and threatening who knows what unilateral actions of their own.

If one listens the article contributed by Thierry Meyssan “The Abdication of Iran” at Voltairnet.com http://www.voltairenet.org/en one is led to think that the price of peace was that Iran was coerced into submission by the U.S. and Russia, both. Nevertheless, the events may have been more complex that that, because at the same time, not only did Russia stop the West from thrusting a spear into its own belly, but compromised the interests of Iran in such a way that, though it was needed to persuade the country to submit to certain U.S. demands, it was able to pull Iran back into its sphere of influence. That is to say, if Iran abdicated to the West, it could not do so without the acquiescence of Russia. Yet why would Russia acquiesce to the abdication of Iran to the West?

The answer is to be found in the fact, that it itself was put under threats by the west, especially by being surrounded by missile batteries ostensibly directed at Iran, but actually directed at Russia. Given this situation, Russia had no alternative but force the West to show its hand. Instead of a royal flush, all America held was a pair of aces, which was not enough of a trump to prevent, in case of a war, the infrastructure of its power lines from being knocked out, which would reduce the activities of it as a country to a standstill. In other words, all things considered, the West decided that it will not fight a war that leads to Armageddon.

This result is apparently understood by a broad circle of geopolitical strategists. For example, just a few days ago: a) NATO issued a statement that its forces will not stay in Afghanistan if the U.S. forces do not stay. I.E., Europe has no intention to confront either the Russian or Chinese military forces on its own; b) President Karzai of Afghanistan gave the U.S. something of an ultimatum of his own: no more drones, which suggest that Karzai is onto the fact that as a consequence of Putin’s challenge echoes are heard also in the East. If the West will not fight WW3 with Russia, why should it fight it with China? c) Europe and NATO issued an announcement that its forces will not remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 if Afghanistan does not permit the U.S. forces to stay in its country http://www.nation.com.pk/national/04-Dec-2013/karzai-failure-to-sign-pact-would-end-mission-nato ; d) it did not take long for China to announce that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25062525 it extended its air defense zone over East China Sea; and it was not many more days before it sent its only aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Straights. e) The Defense Department of the U.S. itself has issued an announcement that in five years time the military expenses would be reduced by 100 billion dollards. In other words, though unacknowledged by the Western Media, the news is going around that consumer economics has brought our planet to such a point that WW3 is at a practicalend and deterrence prevents WW4 from being fought.

As readers will know, it is my belief that WW2 and WW3 occurred within the brackets {[( )]} of WW1, which began a little more than a thousand years ago when the Goths (formerly Vikings) were forced out of the Black Sea area and reestablished themselves in the northwest of Europe, then began a prolonged war to recapture the East it had been forced to leave. The early wars of WW1&2 began as the Crusades. The last wars of WW3 are known as Wars of Arab Awakening or ‘Democracy Crusades’. These last of these wars centered on Syria with an aim to seize one of the flanks of Iran, then take advantage of the strategic location to make further inroads against the East. In short, by Russia calling the West’s bluff, WW1, WW2, and WW3 may now be considered as ended; and WW4 (unless…*) has been averted.

The short circuiting of WW4 brings to an end a major geopolitical threat waged against our planet by the West. It removes, once and for all, the U.S. sphere of influence from Europe and Asia, and returns these continents to the influence of Russia and China. The loss of these continents to the U.S. is acknowledged at this very time by the trip of the U.S. Vice-President Biden to China http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/05/21769284-biden-i-was-very-direct-with-china-president-over-air-defense-zone. No doubt, none of this could have happened without previous and secret agreements between the Russians and the Chinese as to the power arrangement over the area of their two adjoining continents.

Though military posturing may continue for some time http://rt.com/news/us-mideast-iran-nuclear-hagel-878/, we should expect significant changes in the tactics of European and Far East Asian countries. A notable event has already occurred when Ukraine chose to remain within the economic zone of Russia. Similar realignments of position are likely to occur in Moldova, the Baltic countries, and the German-Russian economic cooperation is likely to be renewed. Though the public may be puzzled over these changes, it can be brought to an understanding through the long overdue revelations about Europe’s ‘hidden’ history. This writers ‘rewrite’ of Oedipus Rex, re “Oedipus Rex Rewritten” may play a role in it, as its redacted ‘modern’ version is clearly designed to abolish the death penalty for the highest government officials of the West.

While it is too early to predict how these changes will revise the map http://htekidsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/World-Map-1.gif , we may venture a guess: 1) Russia will draw its borders along a line that begins at Vladivastok, moves west across northern China, then curves down the eastern border of Afghanistan, then curves west again along the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Iraq, on to the Mediterranean, then along the eastern borders of Egypt, Sudan, then the southern borders of Chad and Cameron, to the Atlantic Ocean, and then in a broad curve that moves north and embraces Europe to Russia’s own part of the Arctic Circle. China, for its part, may include in its sphere everything to its immediate east and south as far as and including Indonesia and Australia, and may include Madagascar and the southern half of Africa. As to the continent of South America, it may be left for the future to decide whether it attaches to the North American continent or prefers to retain its links with Europe.

* Saudi Arabia and Israel are two countries which find this realignment onerous to say the least, which is reason to be wary that they may instigate an incident that, they hope, may lead to broader conflict.