Eso’s Chronicles 317 / 4  
It’s Not Over Until It’s Over
© Eso A.B.
All comments appearing within brackets [ ] are editorial in origin.

A KNAZ KUGUSHEV ‘DEVICE’?

It does not take a genius, or if it does, the geniuses are many, because those who perceive that democracy is done for http://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalism-and-the-decline-of-democracy/5375401 are in the thousands. Moreover, those among the top leadership who do not know where, what, and when happened is illustrated by President Obama’s stumble on whether there was or was not a Referendum in Kosovo before NATO took it from Serbia.

Now, when Russia has held a Referendum in Crimea and the Crimean’s overwhelmingly voted to separate from the Ukraine, the West bluffs before the world that unless Russia … then the West will call its cards.

The question is, therefore, what are the cards held by the West that allows it to call Russia’s ‘bluff’? Is it a ‘royal flush’? All aces?

I have advocated for years in these blogs that the West has been playing a game of False Flags for centuries, ever since the First Crusade in 1204. Its victory in that Crusade gave it two aces to show and a mystery for the hidden cards. President Obama is using the aces to bluff once more, when he asks that Russia should pull its forces back from the borders of the Ukraine, because if it does not, the U.S. and NATO will pile more sanctions on Russia. According to Manlio Dinucci at http://www.voltairenet.org/article182862.html , the “…the Alliance is noiselessly deploying its imperial apparatus”. That ‘imperial apparatus’ according to Dinucci is a "missile defense", which is in effect a tactic aimed at intimidating Russia.

The trouble with this tactic is that over the centuries the Russians have learned this particular game well and have prepared themselves to either win or make a ‘draw’ comes the next play. President Obama acknowledged as much when in a television interview he stated that “Russia must pull back troops from Ukraine border” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26787051 . President Obama also told CBS News that Russia may be making "an effort to intimidate Ukraine, or it may be that [Russia has] additional plans." What may be its plans?

As I wrote a couple of blogs back, I had a distant uncle on my mother’s side of the family who (Kugushev) had both of his legs amputated when on a cold night during the Crimean War (1853-1856) he had to stand  up to his thighs in cold water at Sevastopol. Another of my forebears, knaz Alexander Kugushev helped the tsar to expand his power by expanding Russia’s power into Bashkiria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkortostan , Russia. This is one reason why I take a personal interest in what is happening in Crimea http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/ukraine-crimean-war-history.html , though in spite of all that history, I do not speak Russian and due to altogether different historical events have lived most of my life far away from the region.

Let us assume that Russia does not pull back its troops. If it does not and Denucci is correct, then they stay put because it will not be intimidated by the U.S. and NATO. Nevertheless, is the U.S. and NATO prepared to follow though on its threat and install ‘missile defense’?

If I were knaz Kugushev (incidentally, one of the knazes who was the only knaz to survive Stalin’s purges), I would take the threat seriously, and have a serious riposte for a response. What may that response be?

Again, it does not take a ‘genius’, but a little bit of thought and memory. A few blogs back, I mentioned an interview with an intelligence officer, Dimitri Khalezov, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAV_BUQoGBw , in the Soviet nuclear forces. Mr. Khalezov speculates that the 9/11 event was brought off through the use of ‘nuclear devices’ and illustrates how these may have ‘worked’.

If Mr. Khalezov’s speculation is on target, then he gave a clue that the danger for humankind does not come from ‘nuclear bombs’, but ‘nuclear devices’, which are not delivered missiles, but by some clandestine means, including diplomatic currier. Given such a possibility, can it be true that no one has thought of burying such ‘devices’ under most cities the world over for ‘just in case’ events?

President Obama admits as much when he said that he is more concerned about a nuclear weapon explosion in NYC than in Russia http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/president-obama-im-more-concerned-about-a-nuke-in-new-york-t . Can it be that he was thinking what I am thinking? ….That Knaz Kugushev would surely have thought of such a strategy and would not have let an opportunity to make use of it as a tactic pass by?

Eso’s Chronicles 208/ 8
WW3 On Pussyfeet (8)
© Eso A.B.

Usually violent harm comes to the body from the outside be it a sword, an axe, a bullet, shrapnel, atomic blast, meteor, or a curse. There are times, however, when the violence from outside enters our inside, and then, somewhat like cancer, causes our body to collapse around it.

One such inside from outside violent matter is gas, nerve gas, specifically Sarin. Because it is odorless and easily mixes with water, it is an ideal invasive agent. Depending on its concentration, the death can be the result of quick asphyxiation or slow convulsive choking.

Just today the U.S. announced that it is taking preparatory steps for a war on Syria , because it blames, without direct proof (except for the word of the big corporation financed “Doctors Without Borders”) , that Syria has used Sarin in retaliation for attacks by so-called SLA or Syrian Liberation Army, which in effect is made up of Islamic ‘crusaders’ against Islamic secular powers. The U.S., which has turned Capitalism into a religion is taking the side of the SLA with the aim of accomplishing a ‘regime change’ against Syria’s Assad government.

If indeed Syria has used Sarin, it apparently is because the SLA was joined and is being led by advance U.S., Israeli, and Jordanian forces since August 15 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-23/us-refines-military-options-ahead-syrian-strikes. It is conceivable that these invasive forces within Syria have begun their premeditated ‘false flag’ operations beginning with the Sarin attack (blame Syria for it, of course), now soon likely to be supplemented by cruise missiles.

Be that as it may, the current international tensions present all small and middling state capitals with imminent danger of an attack by a nuclear device.

How so? The question is not difficult to answer.

Consider that you are an empire and an ally of yours (Syria under the wing of Russia and China) is facing an imminent attack. What would you do? Would you attack the immediate threatening powers, who would you strike back?

The answer is you would attack some innocent state with no nuclear devices of its own. You would most likely target some ‘small and middling state capital’. Again, the reason is easy to discern.

Why would a large empire attack its direct enemy first, if an attack on an innocent and unawares bystander would better serve its purpose?

What if, for example, a pre-installed nuclear device  were to be exploded, say in a major Canadian, German, French, Spanish, Italian, or Turkish city? Or you would chose a capital city in the Batics or, for that matter, the Hawaiian Islands, or the Ukraine?

Who could definitively prove where such devices originated from?

And who could prevent the inhabitants of major world cities from panicking and making an attempt to flee their urban environment?

Would this not initiate chaos in many if not all cities of the world?

And what if such pre-installed nuclear devices exist in not only one, but many cities and several are exploded at the same time?

Of course, this writer is nowhere near any nuclear buttons, but at the same time, he hears the war of words and the anxiety implicit in statements by leaders , who fear that an enemy—so far held at arms length—suddenly pushes a button that finds them as unprepared for an attack as, say, in this case, the innocent bystanders. As we well know from WW2, Hitler perhaps hoped that Great Brittain would not enter the fray when he attacked Poland, nevertheless, if England had remained on the sidelines, the victory of WW2 would more than likely have gone to Nazi Germany than Soviet Russia. Indeed, Stalin held to the presumption that his ‘deal’ with Hitler would keep the Nazi leader from attacking him. Had not Hitler made grave mistakes and if England had not entered the war, Stalin would indeed have died in a bunker of his own.

In any event, this writer suspects that if and when WW3 breaks out, the leadership of no country will be found in the capital cities of their respective countries.