BREAKING! Peter Thiel CONFRONTED Over Epstein Ties!
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Friday, November 22, 2024
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Friday, November 9, 2018
“Let’s Have a War with Russia!” I’d Rather Be Ruled by Autistic Hamsters
The United States seems to be contemplating war with Russia, Iran, China, or all three as Washington pushes NATO ever closer to Russia, leaves the nuclear-missile treaty and tries to destroy both countries and China economically. Why the push for war?
Simple. Asia is awakening. China (from which I have just returned) grows economically at a scorching pace–and all power rests on economic power. China is a large country, America a medium-sized one. America’s roughly two hundred million whites do virtually all of the scientific work on which national power depends. China has a billion increasingly educated Han Chinese, a five-to-one advantage. China’s stated aim is to unite Eurasia among other places in one vast commercial union. Washington’s pugnacity has pushed China, Iran, and Russia together. The chain of nations, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey all totter between looking east and looking west. If Washington doesn’t stop this growth, the American Empire will be marginalized within decades.
What would a war with Russia look like, even assuming that it didn’t go nuclear? A great military thinker–me, actually–once said that military stupidity comes in three levels: normally stupid; really really stupid; and invading Russia. Throughout history it has proved a poor career move.
The US military has not won a war since 1945, with the exception of the First Gulf War, which the LAPD could have won. It lost decisively in Vietnam. It got run out of Lebanon with 241 dead Marines as its only accomplishment. After seventeen years it shows no signs of defeating barely armed Afghan peasants. Iraq has been a complete botch, achieving none of its goals, control of the oil, permanent bases, and a puppet government. Just now the military is losing in Syria.
Nothing short of genius can account for losing so consistently given the enormous resources available to American forces. In light of this very low level of military competence, maybe wars are not our best choice of hobby.
What sort of war is envisaged? The United States cannot fight a sizable land war. Iran can. Russia can. The American military means air power and little else. The Army hasn’t fought a serious war since 1973, the fleet since 1945. In long periods of inaction, things deteriorate because they do not seem important. Crucial supplies cease to exist, spare parts aren’t there, the logistics train quietly becomes inoperable. Money goes instead to pricey weapons of little practical use.
The Army recruits from a soft millennial population. America is no longer a country of tough rural kids. Social engineering has rotted the ranks. Conscription is politically impossible. The Army cannot defeat Afghans even with the advantages of unlimited air power, artillery, gunships, medevac, helicopters, and drones.
A military that never fights a war that it has to win, that never encounters an enemy that can dangerously hit back, inevitably deteriorates.
Militaries come to believe their own propaganda. So, apparently, do the feral mollycoddles in the White House and New York. The American military’s normal procedure is to overestimate American power, underestimate the enemy, and misunderstand the kind of war it is getting into. Should Washington decide on war with Iran, or Russia (unless by a surprise nuclear strike) there will be the usual talk of the most powerful, best trained, best equipped etc., and how the Ivans and towelheads will melt away in days, a cakewalk. Bet me.
Militaries have a very poor record of predicting outcomes of wars. This might provoke thought. The American Civil War was expected to be over in an afternoon; this was wrong by 650,000 dead and four years. When Napoleon invaded Russia, he did not expect Russians to occupy Paris. Germany thought that WWI would be over in weeks; in fact a ghastly war of attrition lasting four years. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was not intentionally inviting GIs to the geisha houses of Tokyo. When Germany invaded Poland, occupation of Germany by Russia and America was low on its list of expectations. When France re-invaded Vietnam, it did not foresee Dien Bien Phu and utter defeat. When America invaded Vietnam, it did not expect a decade-long losing war. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect to lose to Afghans in sandals. When America invaded Afghanistan, having seen what had happened to Russia, it did not expect the same result.
We do not know what a war with Iran, or Russia, or China would look like or what the Iranians might do. An overconfident military and an inexperienced government in Washington will predictably predict a short war and speak of precision weapons and surgical strikes. The Navy will guarantee that it can keep the Straits open, and speak of its advanced technology. The expectation will be that there will be nothing unexpected. The white House will believe that Iran will lie there and be bombed without response. Russia? The nukes will fall on the European countries from which the attack came. Germany might ponder this carefully.
America could of course destroy much of Iran and kill millions of the defenseless. This is what America now calls “war.” It would be amusing to see what would happen if the Air Force had to fight an enemy that could fight back, but this would mean only Russia or, perhaps, to some extent, China. It is a coward’s way of war and, to judge by South Vietnam and Afghanistan, not very effective. Killing lots of people and winning a war are not the same thing.
What if Iran did stop petroleum traffic in the Persian Gulf with, say, missiles mounted on pickup trucks. Is this possible? I don’t know. Neither, I suspect, does the Navy–which will insist that it can handle mere pickup trucks with its superb this and that, its best trained, best equipped, the only hyperpower, and so on. But tankers are not going to run even a small risk of going up in flames.
How long would the Straits have to be closed with the world screaming for oil before Washington, desperate, its vanity bruised, full of huge egos, would have to do something stupid to save face?
Further, American leadership is of dangerously low quality. An essentially absentee Congress, the sordidness and criminality of the Clintons, Trump’s utter crassness and shady past, the submission to Israel, the widespread and never punished corruption. In this sorry brew no one seems interested in the well-being of the county, only unseemly grasping at benefits for the arms industry, big oil, Wall Street, Tel Aviv, and the Empire. Note that wars generate huge profits for the arms makers, and the longer the war can be kept going, neither winning nor losing, the greater the profits. War against Iran would be a magnificent profit center. Since American casualties are extremely low, permanent war has few downsides.
At the top of government we have an unprepossessing bunch that would make Kaiser Wilhelm’s court seem wholesome. Their chief characteristics are pathological aggressiveness and a severe case of Beltway Bubble Syndrome. There is Trump with his weird eruptions. The ever-combative Nikki Haley. Mike Pompeo, threatening Iran, threatening Venezuela, threatening North Korea. John Bolton of the codpiece mustaches, always counseling a war he won’t fight in, a draft dodger with something to prove.
The life of millions depends on this freak show? I need a drink.
Comment by Dennis: Slowly, but surely we move in the direction of Armageddon. Maybe not in our life time, but maybe so. Our rejection of God as nations, and the augment of iniquity in the hands of the American Empire through its wars, both economic and military, besides the spiritual pollution semenated through the media, is causing the world to take note and at the time appointed the prophectic day will come.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Forbidden Questions?
By Andrew J. Bacevich, TomDispatch, May 7, 2017
Donald Trump’s election has elicited impassioned affirmations of a renewed commitment to unvarnished truth-telling from the prestige media. The common theme: you know you can’t trust him, but trust us to keep dogging him on your behalf. The New York Times has even unveiled a portentous new promotional slogan: “The truth is now more important than ever.” For its part, the Washington Post grimly warns that “democracy dies in darkness,” and is offering itself as a source of illumination now that the rotund figure of the 45th president has produced the political equivalent of a total eclipse of the sun. Meanwhile, National Public Radio fundraising campaigns are sounding an increasingly panicky note: give, listener, lest you be personally responsible for the demise of the Republic that we are bravely fighting to save from extinction.
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump’s ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that’s hardly the case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes–well, that’s more akin to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; “extraordinary” stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion–all served with a side dish of that day’s quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism’s stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as “now more important than ever” ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media’s current obsession with Donald Trump–his every utterance or tweet treated as “breaking news!”–just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation’s political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to which you’re not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the “mission”: Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order–the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change–affect the U.S. approach to doing so?
2. American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington’s stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?
3. America’s empire of bases: The U.S. military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops: In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.” Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation’s political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief: Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief: A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White House “disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on Terrorism”: What precisely is Washington’s present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of strategy–not to mention an agreed upon definition of “success”–doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history–having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land: What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a “two-state solution” offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death: When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn’t the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II): If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans: Why can’t Europe, “whole and free,” its population and economy considerably larger than Russia’s, defend itself? It’s altogether commendable that U.S. policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all “special relationships”: The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz: American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I): American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong–in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II): Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III): The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with U.S. assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.” Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action–typically advocating military intervention–argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn’t those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues–none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political mainstream–bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.
It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Monday, January 16, 2017
At Paris Meeting, Major Powers to Warn Trump Over Middle East Peace
Reuters announced last week that the major powers will send a message to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday. The message concerns Trump's plan to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. World leaders in Europe, China, Russia and elsewhere believe that a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians is the only way forward. If the U.S. insists on moving its embassy to Jerusalem peace efforts would be derailed.
From Bible prophecy we see that 10 nations will agree with the Antichrist and make war with Babylon. I have argued that modern day Babylon could very well be the U.S.A. If America takes this step to further strengthen Israel's rights over the lands obtained in the 1967 6-Day War, this would isolate her further from the rest of the world. Eventually the Bible says that the ten nations of the former Roman Empire will
give their power and strength unto the beast (the Antichrist).[1]
The beast will lead the 10 nations against Israel in the Battle of Armageddon. The Bible says,
And the ten horns (kings or nations) which thou saw upon the beast, these shall hate the whore (American Capitalistic Corporate Empire), and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God has put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God be fulfilled. And the woman (the whore) which thou saw is that great city, (the American Capitalistic Corporate Empire) which reigns over the kings of the earth.[2]
If my perspective is correct, then this announcement would be in accord with what Bible prophecy predicts. America and Israel becoming further isolated from the rest of the world and pushing the other nations into the arms of the beast (Antichrist) which eventually leads to Babylon's destruction at the hand of the beast and his ten supporting nations.
In Ezekiel 38 and 39 we see a northern European nation leading an invasion of Israel with the help of Turkey and Iran, presently two of the strongest military forces in the Middle East, and some other nations.
Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog (Russia), the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords: Persia (Iran), Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah (Turkey) of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.[3]
Saudi Arabia, a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East, is caught by surprise and questions the motives for the invasion along with Tarshish (Great Britain) and its young lions, or its former colonies: Canada, Australia, India, and U.S.A.
Sheba, and Dedan, (Saudi Arabia) and the merchants of Tarshish (Great Britain), with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?[4]
Ezekiel 39 has similarities to Revelation 19, so they could very well be talking of the same events. I will be going over these points more thoroughly in my next book on Bible Prophecy. In the mean time take a look at Where is America in Bible Prophecy, where I argue that America could be Babylon the Whore.
[1] Revelation 17:13
[3] Ezekiel 38:2-6
[4] Ezekiel 38:13
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Russian Carrier Is Bound for Syria, Flexing Muscle but Risking Malfunction
MOSCOW–The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s lone, rather geriatric aircraft carrier, steamed through the English Channel toward the Mediterranean Sea on Friday in the Kremlin’s latest attempt to reassert its lost superpower status.
Belching thick black smoke, the Soviet-era warship, previously known more as a threat to its crew than anything else, led a battle group of eight vessels, including an oceangoing tug that traditionally accompanies the carrier, which has a reputation for breaking down. The flotilla is expected to deploy off Syria in late October to bolster the military operations propping up President Bashar al-Assad, Russia’s main Arab ally.
If the 15 warplanes on board the Admiral Kuznetsov join the bombardment of Syria, the carrier will have its first active combat role since it was launched more than three decades ago as part of a last gasp by the fading Soviet Union to challenge American naval power.
That is seemingly the intent of the carrier’s current mission–the latest move by President Vladimir V. Putin to flex Russian military muscle abroad and project power anywhere in the world by dispatching a floating air base.
In addition, the battle group adds to Russia’s military leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the United States and other Western powers over the future of Syria. Russia has also repeatedly used the Syrian war as a kind of infomercial for its weapons sales.
For the moment, Russia has suspended combat operations in Aleppo, Syria, to give rebel fighters and civilians a chance to escape the siege. Driving the opposition from Aleppo would pave the way for Mr. Assad to rule over some manner of rump state; there is little optimism for a permanent truce.
“The deployment is mainly intended to park an 800-pound gorilla off Syria’s coast to intimidate all comers,” said Cliff Kupchan, the chairman of the Eurasia Group, a Washington-based political risk consultancy.
“If–or when–diplomacy fails, the will to defend eastern Aleppo will be diminished,” he said.
Many military analysts see the Admiral Kuznetsov as merely a 200-pound gorilla, and consider it a gamble to play gunboat diplomacy with a lumbering tub fit for the scrap heap. The latest excursion is only the eighth long-distance mission for the aircraft carrier, which has been something of a lemon from the start.
The carrier underwent repairs from 1996 to 1998, from 2001 to 2004, and in 2008, and its deck and electronic plant were replaced in the past two years, according to Russian news reports.
It is expected back in dry dock after the Syria deployment because its propulsion system needs to be replaced.
Whenever it went to sea over the years, the Admiral Kuznetsov was prone to accidents.
The United States Navy came to its aid during one Mediterranean training exercise in 1996, when the machinery used to distill fresh water from seawater malfunctioned, leaving its crew of nearly 2,000 sailors with a severe shortage of fresh water. The carrier polluted the Irish Sea at one point with a gigantic oil spill, and a fire on board killed a crew member in 2009.
The warship will hug the Syrian coastline, allowing planes to perform bombing runs and return to the ship’s deck before running out of fuel, according to an unidentified source cited by the Tass news agency.
The deployment will include the first of the new MiG-29K/KUB fighters, a modernized version of that MiG jet, and the Su-33a, as well as 15 helicopters, according to Tass. “This is a potent force,” said Prokhor Tebin, a Russian who writes a blog about the country’s navy.
The carrier deployment is the latest in a series of stepped-up Russian naval maneuvers.
Since 2015, the intensity of Russian submarine patrols has increased by almost 50 percent. Russian warplanes have buzzed several United States Navy ships and flown patrols that skirt territorial waters. And Russian submarines and spy planes are operating close to crucial undersea cables that carry almost all internet communications globally.
Russian submarines launched cruise missiles last year for the first time in a war, hitting targets in Syria. Though the defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, recently acknowledged that the war had revealed some unspecified “defects” in the production of military hardware, the Kremlin made a show this month of deploying nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles capable of reaching European capitals from Kaliningrad, Russia’s enclave on the Baltic Sea.
Before a long recession forced cutbacks in the military budget for the coming three years, the Kremlin had announced an extensive military modernization campaign including new intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as air defense systems, aircraft and tanks.
“Russia need not be America’s military or economic equal to pose a real challenge to Western interests,” Anna Borshchevskaya wrote in an analysis for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Dennis Edwards:
In Ezekiel 38 the Bible predicts an invasion of Israel in the last days. Many Bible eschatologists believe this battle could be the same predicted in Daniel 11 and the precursor of Revelation 19 which could very well be the same battle as Ezekiel 39. In the map on the left is one proposed invasion plan taking the names from Ezekiel 38 and trying to find today's equivalent modern day nations. Here we see Russia, Turkey, Iran, Libya.
The fact that Russia is beefing up its presence in the Middle East as the above article indicates could be an indication that we are indeed running down the road toward this event.
In the image on the left some of the other possible countries have been added. But since Morocco is closely tied in the USA, it may very well not be included. You may notice that Gomer seems to indicate part of eastern Europe. But besides Russia, Turkey is one of the countries with the biggest standing armies in the Middle East. The recent attempted coup against the Turkish leader has caused Turkey to befriend Russia once again in spite of the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO and has been in line to enter the European Union for many years.
Again the map at the left is very similar to the first map we looked at. This map puts Gomer and Togamah, the names mentioned in Ezekiel 38, as consisting of Turkey. Eastern Europe is not included in the invading force here. Ethiopia has been added, as its name appears in the original text.
Since Iraq has been destroyed by war, both Russia, which is Magog, and Iran, which is Persia, could quickly pass through en route to Israel. Turkey could also use the passage through Iraq and Syria. How Libya and Ethiopia would participate is unclear. Maybe they are additional armies that Russia will call upon for support.
This last map again shows Gomer coming from Europe, while also including Gomer as part of Turkey. Turkey, Iran, Russia, Libya are all included.
So there is some debate about who exactly will make up the invading forces in the invasion of Israel in the last days. Jesus called the days before his coming the Great Tribulation. He said if the days weren't very short, there would no flesh be saved, which could mean that mankind would annihilate itself. Only the supernatural intervention of God Himself in the Battle of Armageddon described in Revelation 19, which may very well be the Battle described in Ezekiel 39, will save the world from total destruction. We could very well be moving toward these events. How far away or close they may be, we don't know. But slowly and surely mankind seems bent on forgetting God and bringing on its own destruction.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
War talk is back on Russian TV as Gorbachev warns of danger
Moscow: Russian state television is back on a war footing as a prime-time news program warns that the US wants to provoke a conflict, and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warns of danger.
This time, the ramped-up rhetoric follows the collapse of ceasefire efforts in Syria with both the US and Russia accusing each other of sinking diplomacy.
Moscow has since increased its military presence in the Mediterranean and Baltic regions and suspended a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the US.
“Offensive behaviour toward Russia has a nuclear dimension,” Russian state TV presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said in his Vesti Nedelyi program on Sunday. “Moscow would react with nerves of iron to a Plan B,” he said, referring to any possible US military strike in Syria.
Russia on October 8 vetoed a French-proposed United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an end to air attacks on the northern Syrian city of Aleppo where the Assad and Russian regimes say they are fighting terrorists.
In a signal of the renewed rupture, French President Francois Hollande said in an interview released on Monday that he hasn’t yet decided whether he’ll meet with Putin when the Russian leader goes to Paris on October 19.
“The world has got to a dangerous phase,” former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview with state news service RIA Novosti on Monday.
Russia deployed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria and reinforced its presence by sending three missile ships to the Mediterranean. It confirmed Western media reports it has stationed Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Poland’s defence minister said the action caused the “highest concern”.
Both the Iskander and the Kaliber missiles carried by these ships can be fitted with nuclear warheads, Kiselyov said on.
The sudden escalation puts the relationship back into the deep freeze it was in at the peak of the crisis over Ukraine in 2014, which also sparked a wave of hostility in state media.
The rise in tensions could lead to new sanctions against the Kremlin, with some members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party seeking to penalise Moscow over Syria.
The Obama administration suggested that Russian actions in Syria could amount to war crimes and blamed Russia for cyber attacks aimed at disrupting the US election.
The result will be the “ossification of US-Russian relations at an abysmally low level,” said Chris Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk consultancy. “Deep mistrust of Putin will now be structural and unanimous among US policy makers.”
Alexei Pushkov, a senator who headed the lower house of Parliament’s foreign affairs committee until recently, in a Twitter post raised the spectre of a confrontation like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which brought the US and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war over the stationing of Soviet missiles on the Caribbean island.
Russia won’t back down, said Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Parliament. The risk of military clashes between the US-led coalition and Russian military in Syria “is rising every day,” he said.For Putin, the only strategy is to raise the bets, said Eurasia’s Kupchan. “He’s masterfully playing a weak hand, to the detriment of US security and economic interests.”
Monday, September 5, 2016
Britain, Russia Hope to Improve Strained Relations
(Reuters) Britain and Russia said on Sunday they hope to improve their relations through dialogue following the first meeting between new British Prime Minister Theresa May and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Dennis - If the Antichrist is going to be the ruler of Gog and Magog (Russia),[Ezekiel 38:1-17] then the Antichrist must be a formidable world leader before hand. The Bible says the Antichrist will be the author or promoter of the Holy Covenant which is agreed to worldwide and seems to provide for peace in the Middle East and for Israel to construct a Temple on the Temple Mount. [Daniel 11:21-45]
Putin has been winning the world's confidence in spite of America's criticisms. Now that Britain has decided to go it alone outside of the EU, she can make bilateral agreements without the consent of Europe. The Bible tells us specifically that ten nations, which may in fact be from the former Roman Empire, both east and west, will make alliances with the Antichrist government. [Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Revelation 17:12-13] The ten toes of Daniel 2, the ten horns of Daniel 7 and the ten kings of Revelation 17 are talking about the same ten nations of the end-time who make a pact with the Antichrist world government. The agreement they make will lead to the eventual destruction of Babylon the Whore, which seems to be an accurate description of the present day American Empire. [Revelation 17-18]
So the fact that Britain and Russia are trying to improve relations through dialogue goes perfectly with Bible prophecy. Prophecy seems to indicate that ten leading nations from the former Roman Empire will cooperate with Russia, eventually destroying America and themselves being affected by the catastrophic results of nuclear war. Only the divine intervention by Jesus Christ Himself at the second coming will save the world from total annihilation. [ Matthew 24:1-31]
I am not saying here that Putin is the Antichrist. However, I am saying that for Russia to produce a coalition of nations with them at the head in the future that will fight against America; that this announcement would support what the prophecies seem to indicate will happen, if our understanding is correct. By allowing her foreign policy to be decided in favor of Israeli hegemony, and Israeli oppression of Palestinians, America has her hand in an inescapable trap. The sad ending is that the Israeli trap will bring America to her down fall and lead the whole world into WWIII.[Revelation 16, Ezekiel 39:1-7]
For those interested, I will soon be releasing my book Where is America in Bible Prophecy with scriptural arguments for my reasoning. Don't miss it.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Russia Asserts Its Military Might in Syria
MOSCOW–Russia flexed its muscles again over Syria on Friday, for the first time launching cruise missiles at targets from warships in the Mediterranean Sea days after beginning bombing runs from a base in Iran.
Taken together, the new military moves appeared to be a demonstration that Russia has the ability to strike from virtually all directions in a region where it has been reasserting its power–from Iran, from warships in the Caspian Sea, from its base in the Syrian coastal province of Latakia and now from the Mediterranean.
The United States also asserted its military might in a new way, scrambling its aircraft to protect its forces, and those it is supporting, from Syrian government airstrikes. The Pentagon issued a blunt warning to the Syrian government after its warplanes struck a Kurdish-controlled region where American military personnel were on the ground.
“The Syrian regime would be well advised not to interfere with coalition forces or our partners,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.
Talks appear to have stalled between Russia and the United States on a proposal to carry out joint operations in Syria against militant groups both countries consider terrorist. Russian and Syrian government airstrikes have intensified lately, with no progress on the horizon for a political solution to end the war.
While both Russia and the United States say they share the goal of defeating the Islamic State group in Syria, they are waging parallel but separate wars against the militant group while simultaneously backing opposite sides in the conflict between Russia’s ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and his other opponents, including rebels backed by the United States.
Russian air power, which entered the war last fall, has helped Mr. Assad hold on to power and make advances against rebels.
The war is also providing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a public proving ground–and a showcase to his adversaries–for new, sophisticated weaponry.
The Russian cruise missiles are not a game-changer in the war. But the long-range bombers flying from Iran, and the heavier payloads they can carry, pose a new threat to insurgents and civilians.
The Russian Ministry of Defense said Friday that two ships from the country’s Black Sea Fleet, the Zelyony Dol and the Serpukhov, fired three missiles from positions off the coast of Syria in the eastern Mediterranean.
The Kalibr missiles are a new addition to Russia’s arsenal, similar to American Tomahawk cruise missiles. And like Tomahawks, they are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
But taken in the context of the dozens of strikes that Russia carries out daily, the three missile attacks were hardly significant. The ministry said the missiles hit a garrison, a command center and a weapons depot belonging to the Levant Conquest Front, until recently called the Nusra Front and officially affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Far more important militarily is the decision to fly the long-range bombers from Iran rather than from Moscow as it had before; if it continues, this could result in a more devastating air war over a long period of time.
The United States, too, engaged in saber-rattling on Friday.
The Pentagon said it had scrambled aircraft over northeastern Syria in a warning to the government after Syrian warplanes hit areas controlled by Kurdish fighters that are working with the American military to fight the Islamic State. The government and the Kurdish-led forces have had only occasional skirmishes, maintaining a kind of de facto truce, and the government airstrikes came amid their most serious clashes yet.
Scrambling the jets was the most robust American response yet to Syrian government airstrikes, although Syrian and Russian attacks have repeatedly hit predominantly Arab rebel groups backed by the United States, as well as hospitals, schools and civilian areas. The American move prompted grumbling from opponents of Mr. Assad, who said that the United States appeared ready to offer stronger protection to its Kurdish-led allies than to other rebel groups or civilians.
Two SU-24 bombers struck Thursday near the city of Hasakah in north-central Syria, said Captain Davis, the Pentagon spokesman. No members of the American military were harmed in the strikes, he said.
The episode prompted the United States to contact the Russian military, which indicated that its planes had not participated in the strikes, Captain Davis said. American officials urged the Russians to contact the Syrian government with a blunt message: “United States aircraft would defend troops on the ground if threatened,” Captain Davis said.
He said American forces on the ground in Syria also tried to contact the Syrian pilots directly using a standard ground-to-air frequency. “They did not answer,” he said.
Captain Davis declined to specify how many Americans were on the ground near where the Syrian strikes occurred, saying only that it was “a small number.” Over all, the United States has said there are about 300 members of the Special Forces operating in Syria to train, advise and assist their partners fighting on the ground.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Pike's Amazing Predictions Of Three World Wars
http://www.rense.com/general80/pike.htm
2-1-8
Albert Pike received a vision, which he described in a letter that he wrote to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871. This letter graphically outlined plans for three world wars that were seen as necessary to bring about the One World Order, and we can marvel at how accurately it has predicted events that have already taken place. Pike's Letter to Mazzini It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr's book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote: "The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925". It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled. To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion. Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations. "The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions." 2 Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War. "The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3 After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China. (Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.) "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustionWe shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4 Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
