World War III Watch

All May Not Be Lost

Sep 23, 2024

“Imagine, if you will, that Mexico has invaded Texas with the full support of the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian governments. Their weapons are supplied by these countries and their drone and missile attacks on the U.S. are coordinated by Russian technology. The Seven Mile Bridge in Florida has been attacked. The U.S. Mexican border is dotted with Russian troops on bases with nuclear missiles aimed at U.S. Cities.”(1)

At minimum, a tricky situation. And indicative of significant Russian confidence or, less charitably, overweening arrogance. What would Russia hope to gain by this behaviour? What might be the antidote? If an entity is intent on pushing every button and ignoring every red line, is it possible to extricate oneself from the situation without coming to blows? Putin is in the process of finding out and, so far, the portents are not promising.

I've dealt with the history of the Ukraine imbroglio on several previous occasions and I don't propose a rehash here. Whilst ignorance of context was endemic in the early stages of this latest chapter of the conflict and Putin was widely characterised as the Devil Incarnate, there are now signs of a more evidence-based appraisal – amongst the Awake, at any rate. The Leftists and the neocons - formally sworn enemies - plus the Brits, who are gung-ho in extremis, all still parrot the party line, but Establishment credibility has been flushed through the S-bend and their cherished narratives are coming under intense scrutiny. There are now a number of commentators emboldened enough to state the bleeding obvious.

Which is that this war has never been about the sanctity of territorial borders or good versus evil. Uncle Tom Cobley and all in the West have not been arming Zelensky's armies and intervening in-country because they are answering a moral calling, nor are they striving to protect the NATO nations from Putin's imperialistic ambitions. National sovereignty is only important to them when it aligns with their own interests – hence the raft of colour revolutions that ripped through the Arab World in 2011, the US-initiated coup in Ukraine itself in 2014 and the many and various recent attempts to overthrown governments in Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Israel and elsewhere. Not to mention corrupt elections in the US, France and Spain. And Putin has been at pains to reassure all who had ears to hear that he has no designs upon Europe.

This war has always been about defeating Russia and (eventually) seizing her natural resources, whilst simultaneously liberating anything that isn't nailed down in Ukraine. That's it – period. There is no noble cause and, in truth, there hardly ever is, because the ruling elites in the West possess no nobility; just venality, narcissism and an unquenchable thirst for power. Russia's resources would be the jewel in the globalist crown and Ukraine isn't known as the 'breadbasket of Europe' for nothing. And there's a wider game afoot also, one that is proceeding unacknowledged; can the Hegemon keep its foot on the throat of much of the globe, or is the unipolar world about to die a death?

Once again, it's important to be specific as to terms. When referring to the US, one is referring to the elites who live there and who use its resources in furtherance of their own specific interests, not some abstract concept of the nation itself. The same applies to the UK, the EU or NATO; the elites are going to do what they want, when they want. Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, doesn't answer to us – his strings are pulled by his masters. Decisions are made in the interests of a cabal, not on the basis of what is most beneficial to the people. For the globalist elite, the national interest is a thing of the past. Sure, they'll invoke it, but it'll only be served if it (temporarily) aligns with their own agenda.

We, the people, have no reason to be involved in Ukraine. We had no burning reason to topple a duly elected, Russia-friendly president in 2014, just as the Russian people would have had no interest in mounting a colour revolution in Canada so that a president who was more amenable to Moscow could be installed. Look at where Ukraine is. Why on earth wouldn't it be on good terms with Russia, as opposed to Washington? It's border with the former is over 2,000 kilometres long. But, of course, the doctrine of US exceptionalism trumps all other concerns. The rest of NATO then hangs on to the American coattails and battle is joined. Whatever explanations that are offered are of the deceptive variety.

US-led Western arrogance has been at stratospheric levels. NATO has expanded onto Russia's doorstep, despite repeated assurances that it would not. Additionally, the current US National Security Strategy depicts Russia as a “national security threat” simply because Russia is a 'competitor' in Central Asia, a region of the world that is home to Russians and very much not home to Americans.(1) Nonetheless, breaking up Russia has been the largely unstated policy for the past three decades, as Putin is well aware:

“The Western goal is to weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our nation. They are openly stating that, since they managed to break up the Soviet Union in 1991, now it’s time to split Russia into many separate regions that will be at each other’s throats.”(2)

Our elites believe that ordinary Russians would be fine with their country being torn asunder and reconfigured as statelets which would be easy prey for the vultures on Wall Street. If the US is to establish primacy in the world's most populated and prosperous region – Eurasia – then Russia has to go. And the US definitely does want to to dominate the continent and destroy Russia; it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. The Americans have been floating the prospect of a third World War for a decade or more via US-owned media in Europe, specifically for that purpose.

One of the architects of the Ukrainian coup in 2014 published an article seven months later entitled “Waiting for World War III: How the World will change”, in which he advocated for an enlarged Ukraine (at the expense of its neighbours, including Russia) to be achieved militarily, and talked up the positive effect of another global conflict, which would result in a divided Russia and a Ukraine in the EU. Apparently, a multipolar world is only possible once Russia has been atomised. Then the world can be re-ordered into various supranational entities with most of Russia under the control of the Chinese.(3) Thus, in the interim,

“...the end goal of the US and NATO is to divide and pacify the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space…The ultimate goal of the US is to prevent any alternatives from emerging in Europe and Eurasia to Euro-Atlantic integration. This is why the destruction of Russia is one of its strategic objectives….”(4)

All of which, I would suggest, changes our perspective somewhat and goes a considerable distance towards explaining why the West is meddling. There is no particular attempt to justify the attempt to take down Russia, possibly because our elites believe their reasoning to be self-evident – which it is, but not on a moral level. It's simply the law of the playground bully. They talk about the much-maligned 'Axis of Evil', a designation that has never included Russia, not that you'd know it. They seem to think that we share their antipathy, yet the contentious relationship between DC and Moscow is not the result of Russian misbehaviour; it is simply the inevitable consequence of the elites' hubris. Putin can read the tea leaves:

“In order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.”(5)

This is why, when the Soviet Union imploded, the West pursued “a strategy of destruction.”(6) Whereas the likes of Poland was jump-started by billions in aid from the G7 and the IMF (amongst other Western institutions), Russia was left twisting in the wind. Jeffrey Sachs bore witness to the plan as an advisor to the Russian government. The US State Department, via its puppet Yeltsin who was regularly reporting back to CIA cut-out NED (National Endowment for Democracy), conducted a fire sale of Russian state assets to the tune of $2 trillion, transferring the Russian people's wealth into private, Western hands.(7) It's what they do when transitioning a country into a vassal state.

The goal wasn't to partner with Russia, but to force it to disintegrate into “small, digestible chunks”,(8) to be presided over by US puppets. It very nearly happened in 1998, when the ruble had lost 99.9% of its value and the state could not service its debt. Then Yeltsin appointed Putin and Russia clawed itself back from the brink.

“President Putin achieved the almost impossible. First of all, he removed the oligarchs from power politically in a way that was highly publicized. He ensured that wages, salaries and, above all, pensions were gradually paid again – regularly and in accordance with the law. In doing so, he created a basis for later trust. As a result, the foundations were laid in all areas of life and the economy, which enabled the subsequent upswing.”(9)

Our illustrious leaders' collective nose was pushed firmly out of joint but, under Bush Jnr, there was a dialling down of hostilities. The two presidents seemed to get along, Bush was wholly focussed on his 'War on Terror' and he stated that he found Putin “very straightforward and trustworthy.”(10) He even honoured him with his own nickname, the somewhat effeminate-sounding Pootie Poot.(11)

Figure 1

Normal service was resumed towards the end of Bush's second term, when Putin felt compelled to register his disquiet at the placing of US missiles in Eastern Europe and was mocked for his trouble. He was further rewarded with a US-orchestrated attack by Georgia on its breakaway territories, which enjoyed Russian patronage. A pretext was established; NATO could pretend that Georgia and (by inference) Ukraine needed its protection from Putin's aggression and so, in 2008, the alliance promised that they would be admitted as members at some future point.

That same year, the Russians proposed a new pan-European security architecture, which was rejected on the grounds that it would weaken NATO, an organisation whose raison d'être is protecting Europe - from Russia. Putin kept trying to salve the wounds, but his proposals were repeatedly rejected – in 2010, an EU-Russia Free Trade Zone was dismissed out of hand. It was apparent that the working relationship between the Hegemon and Russia was now in cold storage.

The US had returned to the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Russia's future was not as a partner. It would not be tolerated. So, Putin rebuilt the Russian military with funds provided by the state's economic resurgence. 2014 came and went, Minsk I and II were abrogated and, one suspects, any residual faith that Putin might have had in Western diplomacy finally dissipated. And the Americans attempted to achieve their ends by economic means, reasoning that a lack of funds would curtail the Russians' military spending and ameliorate the state's outsize Eurasian influence. No profits from gas sales, no prospect of remaining a regional power and Eurasia falls. As most of the world's natural resources lie beneath the soil in that part of the world and the Russia bogeyman would no longer be able to provide protection, the US would be free to do what it wanted without obstruction.

So, they targeted Russian energy sales, the theory being that – in John McCain's words – “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.”(12) Take away the ability to convert gas into rubles and the country falls apart. That was the elites' pet theory, at any rate, which seems a little harsh considering Russia's performance in the last world war. Societal cohesion in the face of an onslaught wasn't a fatal flaw in the 1940s, but who knows? Maybe our leaders have a point, maybe not. I suspect the latter, as magical thinking does seem to be prevalent amongst ideologues.

The plan went something like this. Russia was a major supplier of cheap gas both to Asia and to all parts of Europe. The US State Department characterised this state of affairs as Russian energy diplomacy, a soft power influence made possible by European dependency on Russian gas. At around the turn of the current century, the vast majority of Europe's needs were met by this single source. It was a win-win; natural gas is cheap to harvest and can be delivered through pipelines with minimal fuss. And cheap energy is the key to prosperity.

The alternative to Russian gas was LNG (liquefied natural gas), but the technological challenges inherent in the liquefying process makes it much more expensive. The US had LNG by the fleet-load, but the Europeans had no appetite for economic hari-kari and were resistant to American blandishments. They would have to be brought to heel, because Putin's energy policy had elevated Russia's Eurasian influence and the potential for his humiliation was receding at a rate of knots. Russia could (and did) play hardball at times and the US State Department was not amused – Eurasia was supposed to be their sandbox, not Putin's.

So, the Americans came up with a counter-strategy, based around 'energy diversification'. If Europe still wanted to remain on good terms with the Hegemon, they would be obliged to buy the much more expensive US LNG. Pressure was gradually applied – from around 2006 onwards – with milestones built into the process of gradually weaning themselves off Russian gas. Naturally, this came at a cost to the European NATO members, but they were just pawns in an American game, allies or not. The goal was to undermine Russian influence in the region and, eventually, to bankrupt Putin.

Unfortunately, successive politicians in Central and Eastern Europe have found that adopting policies that do not benefit their people is not a vote-winner. Populist parties espousing sensible energy policies have therefore been in the eye of the political storm and continue to be so, but the US show must go on - hence, the long drawn out and, thusfar, unsuccessful attempt to entirely embargo Russian gas. Yes, Europe consumes less of it than previously, but by the end of the second quarter, 2024, Russia was still supplying more gas to EU countries than any other country, including the US.(13) And not even the Pentagon was squeaky clean, as it was found to be complicit in sanctions evasion by buying Russian oil from a Greek go-between, as reported by The Washington Post.(14)

This unfortunate state of affairs cannot be remedied because the second part of the plan – the provision of another, cheaper source of energy to supplement the LNG – has not been implemented. That's because the Donbas and Crimea are where it's at and access to it isn't possible right now, nor has it been for a decade, ever since the counter-coup in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution in 2014. This is a major problem, a running sore. That Putin has foiled them, even though Russia did not recognise the legitimacy of the breakaway republics until just before his troops crossed the border, is intolerable.

Russia's influence is not limited to Eurasia, either. In the Middle East and in Africa, Putin is backstopping various regimes which find themselves in the Pentagon's cross-hairs. The Syrian adventure, intended to overthrow Assad, was ultimately unsuccessful, in large part because of Russian support for the regime, which included provision of an air defence system that forestalled an American bombing offensive.(15)

In Africa, French and American influence is increasingly being rejected. Since 2020, six countries have flipped to a pro-Russian position.(16) The new military governments in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger – ruling with popular support – expelled French troops and turned to the Wagner Group for training and protection.(17) Niger also expelled US troops from their Africa Command bases, bases which are integral to surveillance across Central Africa.(18) The Russians moved into one of these bases before the US had even left.(19) And Putin cannily forgave $23 billion in debt owed by various African countries and offered 'regime survival packages' in exchange for access to mineral resources.(20)

Figure 2

The West is losing its grip on the continent, which is a bonus for Africans, but a poke in the eye for the US, whose elites have managed to poison the well whilst remaining seemingly oblivious:

“Americans see America in the romantic context of Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” while the “Third World” sees the U.S. as a monster, in which the taints, the sickness, colonialism/neo-colonialism and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions. The “non-aligned” nations are in realignment.”(21)

Instead of being raped of their resources and treated with disdain, the Global South has gravitated towards Eurasian institutions – such as BRICS – which treat them as valuable members. In Gabon, whose own coup occurred in August 2023, 30% of the population live on less than a dollar a day, despite an abundance of natural resources.(22) It's a similar story in Mali, Sudan, Chad, Burkina Faso and Niger. There is a fundamental disconnect between what the standard of living should be and what it is and that disparity is largely the result of Western greed and lack of empathy. Russia's leader is holding out the promise of something different. His stated intention is to help create a

“…more just multipolar world, and that the ideology of exclusivity, as well as the neo-colonial system, which made it possible to exploit the resources of the world, will inevitably become a thing of the past.”(23)

The Russians are perceived to be honest brokers, focussed on eradicating the Islamist terrorism that plagues the region and on supporting governments which enjoy a popular mandate. This contrasts sharply with the record of the French and Americans, who were sometimes credibly accused of supporting the terrorists they claimed to be fighting.(24) But none of this would be possible if Russia was borassic. Without Putin's support, unipolarity would be back in fashion and the Africans could revert to their prior status. This is what America's string-pullers have always wanted – share and share alike is not a foundational conviction in sociopaths - and the Russians (rather than the Chinese) are in the way.

The Americans can see the solution well enough. There are two pinch points, locations where Russia can be most usefully targeted. The first was the Nordstream pipelines into Germany (and then onwards into Western Europe). We all know what happened to that. The second is Russia's control over the Donbas and the Crimea/Black Sea region. This part of the plan was going swimmingly prior to 2014 as, between 2011 and 2013, Chevron signed a $10 billion deal with state-owned Naftogaz, owner of the pipeline architecture in Ukraine (25) and partner of Burisma, which was one of the largest privately-owned energy company in Ukraine and owner of mining rights in the Crimea and the Donbas.

Dozens of Western energy companies followed suit, signing multi-billion dollar contracts with Naftogaz, having been assured that Naftogaz would be privatised and that Russia would be banished from Ukraine in the near-future, at which point the extraction of the shale reserves would commence. The energy companies would make a killing and the cheap energy that was produced would supplant Russian gas, de-stressing NATO economies and initiating the beginning of the end for the Russian state. Thus, unipolarity is maintained and Eurasia falls to the Hegemon. Hence, the coup in 2014 and the installation of a malleable, pro-Western puppet.

But the plan fell apart almost immediately, an eventuality that might have been anticipated by individuals with a less blinkered world view. Russia's Black Sea Naval Base is in Sevastopol in Crimea and the chances of Putin allowing it to be re-tooled as a NATO base were vanishingly small. Additionally, the Donbas had always been the red-headed stepchild to the sophisticates in Kiev and the west of Ukraine; expecting the oblasts to accept the overthrow of a duly elected president was, perhaps, a little naïve.

And so, Putin seized the Crimea (ethnically, 76% Russian and only 7.7% Ukrainian),(26) and the Donbas voted to secede. All of the riches that had been promised were now behind enemy lines. Europe's third largest unexploited shale fields were now inaccessible and the plan to take down Gazprom – the Russian state-owned energy corporation – lay in tatters.

This is the background to the conflagration that erupted in February 2022. Finally, there was going to be a return on the many years and billions of dollars that had been invested in the Ukrainian military and the Donbas – initially – would be back under Ukrainian control. Crimea would then follow and, all the while, true intentions could be hidden behind the façade of nobility. But, as we know, this new plan hasn't gone as intended, either.

Partly, that's because our esteemed leaders don't seem to be able to take Putin at his word. They don't pay attention to his speeches, which are exercises in strategic transparency. Perhaps they struggle with the concept of 'doing what you say you're going to do', as it is diametrically opposed to their own approach, but they can't seem to be able to work out why all their best-laid plans have come to naught. On the battlefield, this myopia is particularly intense as, to a layperson such as myself, one doesn't need a MENSA IQ to see that a bankrupt nation of perhaps 20 million people, wholly reliant on outside sources for money and materiel, will not defeat a solvent nation of nearly 150 million which manufactures a surplus of all things military.

But they still seem to believe that they are having Putin over at every turn. He agrees to the Minsk agreements, yet they were only a way of buying time for the re-arming and training of the Ukrainian Army. Russia is targeted by the biggest sanctions storm in history. NATO is financing the Ukrainian war effort (and has boots on the ground), which is costing the Russians thousands of lives. Zelensky was going to attrit the Russians into submission. We were consistently told that the war was going badly for Putin, that the Russian people were growing restless, that Prigozhin's rebellion would garner support. But very little of what we have been assured has turned out to be true.

Russia is stronger today than at any time in its recent history. The sanctions were anticipated and circumvented. The Russian economy is going gangbusters (especially when contrasted to the West), it has no net debt, its military is now capable and experienced, NATO's best weapons and tactics have been countered and much of the world outside the Western goldfish bowl is supportive of Putin, not condemnatory. Western military stockpiles are in dire need of replenishment, a task that cannot be fully accomplished for years, not months. It is likely that the Russians cautious, attritional tactics convinced the genii at the Pentagon that the Ukrainians were winning and persuaded them that throwing good money after bad was a sound strategy, but that was never the case.

And so still our leaders labour under delusions, inevitably so given their characters. Those who reach the top in a system as corrupt as the West's has become don't achieve prominence as a result of competence and performance. Ideologues, by definition, are not critical thinkers. Evidence that contradicts their belief system must be ignored and they will simply continue full speed ahead with the same, unaddressed glitches in their personal source code. They don't think like you and I, so applying any logical reasoning to an assessment of what they will do next is of limited utility. They won't necessarily take the sensible, logical way forward.

A sensible assessment might take account of the motivation of those involved, the better to divine the chances of success. Who has most skin in the game? Who is more likely to stay the course? In that regard, a brief examination of the draft situation in Ukraine, Russia and the West might be instructive.

The Ukrainians elected a president who ran on a promise to negotiate with the Russians and resolve the impasse in the Donbas. Over 70% of the population voted him into office, at which point he reneged (with some 'encouragement' from the Azov Battalion, amongst others) and proceeded to escalate tensions. The Russians invaded after a week of heavy shelling by the Ukrainian Army, who had also massed troops at the border. That Ukraine was going to attempt an invasion of the breakaway republics was an open secret – it had even been proclaimed in parliament.

So, if a Ukrainian of fighting age held the view that Zelensky's war had no mandate from the people, he would undoubtedly be correct. If he came to the conclusion that Putin was seeking to consolidate a de facto schism in the eastern, Russian-speaking territories, he might surmise that he didn't have a dog in the fight. He might also realise that his president was as determined as the West is to fight to the last Ukrainian and that he would be foolish to sacrifice himself on the altar of neocons and globalists thousands of miles away, in a battle that cannot be won.

By contrast, a Russian might well see the contest in existential terms. If he was knowledgeable as to the West's long term intentions (because he'd listened to Putin's speeches), he might believe that he had to fight so that his country would continue to exist. He might take issue with NATO missiles stationed on Ukraine's border, pointing at Moscow. He may very well understand why his own leader is acting as he is, as what he is doing makes sense.

A military-aged Westerner – not the migrant army imported by every 'enlightened' democracy in the Western hemisphere – might well hear the recent talk of instituting a draft and react fiercely. Were I to be this such an individual, I would certainly be sitting this one out. A draft is a serious undertaking, as it is the government's attempt to force a segment of its population to fight, and possibly die, for its country. Not only is that an ethically-challenged proposition from the get-go, it also requires that the conflict be in response to an existential threat to the country itself, not something that is 'in the national interest' according to someone else, or which is clearly a conflict that should have been body-swerved.

In short, the contingent with the most motivation is almost certainly the Russian one and I wouldn't be throwing epithets like 'draft dodger' around at anybody else. This is not a war that needs to be fought by Ukraine or the West and the prospect of being thrown into the meat grinder to no purpose, in the service of the globalists' greed, is not one that any thinking man should contemplate. There is no honour in dying for Big Business. Many Ukrainian men have come to similar conclusions and either left the country or gone into hiding; not because they are cowards, but because they know they are simply cannon fodder, disposable individuals who will be sacrificed in yet another suicidal enterprise, just so that the money from the West keeps flowing.

Those unfortunate enough to have been corralled and sent to the front do not have the requisite fortitude. Morale has cratered. Many of the soldiers are poorly trained and afraid to even fire their weapons.(27) Even CNN seems to have noticed that something is amiss, producing a rare piece of journalism entitled “Outgunned and outnumbered, Ukraine's military is struggling with low morale and desertion”,(28) which revealed an unsustainable military situation:

“Not all mobilized soldiers are leaving their positions, but the majority are. When new guys come here, they see how difficult it is. They see a lot of enemy drones, artillery and mortars...They go to the positions once and if they survive, they never return. They either leave their positions, refuse to go into battle, or try to find a way to leave the army.”(29)

In the first four months of 2024, almost 19,000 conscripts were prosecuted for either abandoning their posts or for outright desertion,(30) even though many officers did not report desertions in the hope of enticing the soldiers to return. The recent Kursk gambit has not improved matters, as the transfer of elites units from the front line in the Donbas has merely accelerated the collapse of the front. On September 1^st, the 500,000^th Ukrainian soldier's obituary was published and at least that many more have been wounded or are missing.(31)

The country's infrastructure has been largely destroyed and millions have fled the country, most intending never to return. The Russians have also been targeting training centres with some success and have reinforced in the north from reserves, rather than from the front line and these forces are beating back the motley collection of Ukrainian and foreign troops who have crossed into Russia. The Kursk nuclear plant was a possible target and would have been a valuable bargaining chip, but the Ukrainians didn't get that far and are now being beaten back. Russia is also on the verge of capturing the city of Pokrovsk, at which point the Donbas and large portions of eastern Ukraine will fall to the Russians, who are now in the process of calling up another 180,000 troops, bringing the total of active servicemen to 1,500,000, for an overall total of 2.3 million military personnel, including reserves.(32)

The key to understanding what our leaders' next move is likely to be lies in answering the following question; how can Ukraine regain control of the Donbas and Crimea? That is the main objective, with a side dish of possible regime change in Moscow. It can't be done militarily, as Ukraine cannot win. The West convinced itself that it could when Putin only put 150,000 men in the field for his Special Military Operation. Our fearless leaders imagined that the 700,000 men under arms in the Ukrainian military would roll over the Russians in short order.

They should, perhaps, have had a re-think when the Russians got within hailing distance of Kiev within days but, characteristically, they didn't. But, ever since the summer of 2022 – when Putin finally realised that there was nobody sensible to negotiate with – a Ukrainian defeat has been inevitable. He withdrew to sound defensive lines, called up more troops, manufactured more materiel and let his enemy destroy itself in symbolic attacks. Then, once the vaunted summer offensive of 2023 ran out of steam, he carefully went on the attack.

Zelensky won't sue for peace because the West won't let him – unless he finally goes rogue, which would be extremely unwise. The string-pullers know that Putin will not now surrender the Donbas and Crimea and that is the whole game, right there. If they can't get hold of that shale, then the jig is up. Not just in Ukraine; also in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The Hegemon eventually becomes a regional power and no longer calls the shots. However, while they think that there is still a way to win, no matter how abhorrent and destructive it might be, they will pursue it. And I believe that they think there is a way.

What if they could make Putin sue for peace, retreat to the border and give back Crimea. How could they accomplish that? What would make Putin agree to a humiliating climbdown of that magnitude? I think that this is the calculation that Biden handlers are now in the process of making and they're not making any secret of it and it concerns the use of long-range weapons, used to strike deep inside Russia.

What we are witnessing is, I suspect, highly orchestrated kabuki theatre. Zelensky's job is to continually harass Biden with never-ending demands to use the West's own long-range missiles on targets deep within Russia. Biden gets to 'exercise caution' and fob him off – for a while. In the meantime, both NATO and the EU signal their agreement with this new strategy,(33) despite Putin telling them in no uncertain terms that a green light to Zelensky will trigger a wider war;'

“...the Ukrainian army is not capable of [independently] carrying out strikes using Western modern, long-range precision systems. It cannot do this. This is possible only with the use of intelligence from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This data is only available from satellites of the European Union or the United States, in other words, from NATO satellites. That's the first point. The second and very important, perhaps key point is that only NATO servicemen can make flight assignments to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. So this is not about whether or not to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia using these weapons, but of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. If such a decision is taken, it will mean nothing short of direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries, in the war in Ukraine.”(34)

He is being somewhat economical with the actualité, as he knows that NATO soldiers have been providing such services for months, but he clearly views a potential escalation as unacceptable. It may very well be that his specificity is viewed as more of an opportunity than a warning. Now Biden's handlers know exactly what they have to do to get their war. They are certainly setting the stage, with Starmer jetting into DC to try and ‘persuade’ Biden to relent – or so we are told.

So, it's crunch time. Our elites don't necessarily want war, but they do want to retrieve the Donbas and Crimea. If they calculate that allowing Zelensky to launch long range strikes into Russia (this being the dynamic they wish us to believe) will force Putin to the negotiating table, then I would imagine they will want to go right ahead. If they think that they can cross that particular red line and get away with it then they will. The Americans who will make the call are, after all, some distance from the front line and are not in imminent danger. Further, a laser focus on reality is not what they are renowned for. But Putin will follow through if they push him too far.

But it's pretty much all they've got left in the locker. There is no sign of NATO preparedness, no mobilisation and no obvious precautions are being taken. It sure doesn't feel like war is days away, but doubling-down is in the elites' DNA. It's what they do, always. In this instance, their entire geopolitical strategy goes up in smoke unless they can reconstitute Ukraine in its pre-2014 configuration. My guess is that they are not prepared to abandon a more than thirty year project just like that. Especially if it boosts their self-selected arch nemesis. But there is, perhaps, a fly in the ointment – Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin.

There is evidence to suggest that the military has told Biden that they won't be complying with orders to escalate in Ukraine which, if true, would constitute yet another coup-like action, this time in a way that may actually advantage us. The conversation was said to have taken place just prior to the meeting with Starmer, which looked like it had been called to confirm the green light to Zelensky, but which instead resolved nothing. It is just possible that there is some substance to the story and that the Pentagon has, effectively, taken charge of US policy for Ukraine.(35) If that is the case, there will be no approval for Zelensky and somebody, somewhere, has sidelined the politicians – who had spent most of last week normalising escalation – and pulled us back from the brink.

It would also mean that there are cracks in the Deep State monolith. Perhaps, if there was to be a schism, the military was always the most likely renegade, being the point of the spear and, historically at least, a repository of calculating common sense. Perhaps, watching on while civilian ideologues gambolled headlong into a confrontation with the world's foremost nuclear power was not something they were prepared to do.

But if they truly have nixxed a war with Russia, it's difficult to see what the Blob does next. There doesn't seem to have ever been a Plan B, but they're going to have to come up with one pretty damn quick. My feeling is that the elites were relying upon a September Surprise, the better to distract from what they're going to attempt to pull off in November. If that option has been kicked to the kerb, we may start reading about monkeypox or bird flu again.

I can't imagine that the string-pullers are simply going to throw their hands in the air and admit defeat. It may be that they still try to provoke the Russians with off-the-books paramilitaries or via the good offices of the reliably malevolent CIA. They might also have a clear out at the Pentagon or sack Austin. If there is a ongoing behind-the-scenes struggle, it may not yet be decisively settled. Perhaps the Deep State can manufacture a workaround and still force the issue, so if we have been granted a reprieve, it may only be temporary.

There will be some desperate actors who will be unwilling to accept that the grand plan has been derailed at the last minute and who can't contemplate a future in which they are no longer the top dogs. We will see. If we start hearing talk of ceasefires and negotiations perhaps we will be on the way out of the woods. In the meantime, every day that passes without a green light should be celebrated.

Citations

(1) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/08/edward-curtin/somethings-coming-we-dont-know-what-it-is-but-it-is-going-to-be-bad/

(2) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/71

(3)https://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-plan-break-up-russia/5797480

(4) https://shakeri.net/1163/partitioning-russia-world-war-iii/

(5) https://shakeri.net/1163/partitioning-russia-world-war-iii/

(6)