Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | May 18, 2017

What Would Winston Churchill Do? (Chapter 12)

ENGLISH MILITARY PROWESS

Most pundits and analysts would agree that Great Britain today is a bit down on the heels. And maybe she is just regaining her Independence from the Evil German project the European Union has descended into, so she is feeling a little more confident again. But her claims to greatness are either past or premature gloating. Because today’s Great Britain is certainly not a major World Leading military power, any longer – so that title has to be discarded deep inside History’s round file.

Unless we do something drastic about it…

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 8.48.11 AM

 

And yet there is a constant refrain from British political leaders of how Britain is still a major military force to be reckoned with in the world and this allows the country to punch above its middle ranking economic and political power status.

The Prime Minister Theresa May has constantly stressed how Britain is a leading member of NATO and spends 2% of UK GDP on defense. Indeed, in her new role as President Trump’s cheerleader in-chief she has taken it upon herself to start lecturing other European members of NATO about their military capabilities. British Defence Secretaries over the decades have boasted that Britain has global military power projection capabilities, while other commentators talk of Britain’s military as “the guardian of the Gulf” or a reliable and steadfast military partner of the United States or upholding the rule of law abroad, the scourge of dictators like Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Some Military Generals and Strategists ask these following questions:

“In reality, is Britain in any position to lecture other European countries on their militaries?”

“Is this just more delusional rhetoric from the British State which is quick to lecture others without ensuring its own house is in order, or there is truth in this heady & aspirational thinking?”

“In reality is Britain still a major military power?”

“We ask this questions because, when the broad sweep of 20th century military history is taken into account, the British military has never really been an effective fighting force, according to some…”

Some who will remain unnamed for now…

What a bunch of hogwash.

This is the defeatist attitude and the loser talk that the Duke of Windsor, the abdicated Nazi sympathizing King of England, spewed. And look where it got him.

So to see that there are still defeatists today is not that unusual. But then there are defeatists everywhere.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 9.51.04 AM

 

And such are the views of General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the former chiefs of the four services, should give everyone who promotes the idea of Britain as an effective, major military power, pause for thought. Back in September 2016 General Barrons stated that due to nearly a few decades worth of stringent cuts to the UK defence budget Britain’s military had “withered” and would not even be capable of defending the UK against a serious military attack, let alone fight in conventional wars. In a forthright and refreshingly honest ten page memo to the Tory British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, the General made clear that: “Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force — let alone both concurrently — could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort.” So, in the expert opinion of the former head of the UK’s Joint Forces Command the British military would be wholly inadequate in protecting the UK against an external military force acting with hostile intent. The first duty of any military is to be able to secure and defend the homeland of its country. If the UK military are not even up to this task, how can they be called a major military power and how can Theresa May with any credibility lecture other countries about their defense preparations when the UK military could not even defend the UK in the event of a major military attack?

Looking over recent conflicts of the early 21st century that the British military have been involved in does not inspire much confidence in the operational performance of and strategic leadership of the UK military.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 12.42.35 AM

 

Iraq is an absolute disaster and has become a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamist extremist terrorist groups, and even for a world spreading cancer of ISIS, the Islamic State or the Caliphate that is now in 39 countries already because of our lack of response, and continuous retrenchment. The Caliphate is exploiting the vacuum left behind our anemic foreign policy and that of our weakened American Cousins that since the Clinton days of the State Department were mostly worried about enriching themselves than helping the stability and security of the World. The fish stinks from the top and as Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, gave the clue of using her US government position for personal gain & private enrichment – everybody else felt that it was a free for all, and every man and woman for himself and herself – and that was the end of any semblance of order, with billions if not Trillions going unaccountable and lost from the Federal government.

And inside Iraq today the situation presents a far bigger security headache than what it was prior to the UK-US invasion of 2003, that was ostensibly geared to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein. Now many prognosticators and far too many old Middle Eastern hands, from the security agencies, are pining for those quiet good old days of So-damn Saddam.

Meanwhile Afghanistan is not much better, at all.

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 1.42.23 PM

 

It was truly shocking, disappointing and deeply upsetting that after all the time, money, lives and resources expended by the British military in securing Helmand province that once the British army largely withdrew the province was once again overrun by Taliban forces.

As Major Richard Streatfeild, who spent seven months in Sangin in 2009 and 2010 with the Rifles, said it was “hugely disappointing” to see Sangin under threat again.

“I won’t deny, on a personal level, it does make you wonder – was it worth it?” he said. “Because if the people we were trying to free Afghanistan from, are now able to just take it back within two years — that shows that something went badly wrong at the operational and strategic level.”

Quite.

Perhaps from a cold headed analysis of the performance of the British military in various theatres of war throughout the 20th century and most certainly early 21st century it would reveal that on an operational and strategic level the British military is not a major global military force as the British Government would have their public believe.

Yet as Mrs Thatcher said of spin:

“Such is presentation” — “How different from reality.”

But the situation with the depleted American Military is just the same.., and that is why the revisionist powers are now making land grabs and territorial gains unopposed everywhere they can throw a compass at…

And because average Americans also tend to take their being the Major Military Power of the world, and the fundamental stability of the international system and it’s seeming placid order — for granted — they might suffer the same delusional logic that the British Forces suffer today.

A far greater flash & bang, than actual results on the ground, from the use of force, and a weakening of all the Armed Services has resulted. And the World Order is falling – and all that while still complaining about the burden the United States carries in preserving that elusive and unstable stability.

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 11.37.04 AM

 

Of course some Americans Patriots already know that History shows that world orders do collapse in unexpected, rapid, and violent ways, but average people just don’t think that much, when they watch the latest never ending game on TV. They are simply occupied with the football scores, or the hockey pucks getting in the net between the legs of the goalie or the endless reality shows and entertaining TV plots of the hard working clueless, boobsy, and gender fluid Kardashian family.

Indeed some people say today that long term survival of this Civilization is beyond their comprehension or their intellectual grasp, nor do they care much about it — because they have plenty of bread & circuses to keep them riveted to the stupid box TV broadcasting 24.’7 all manners of garbage and mind rot into their homes and offices. And of course on top of that they have video and computer games and the all knowable, infinite gambling, and titillating porn infused, Internet, to stimulate their senses, ad infinitum…

But I don’t believe that.

The American Public is erudite and knowing to the point of being able to discern the Good from the Bad amongst those wishing to become their Leaders, even going as far as to devalue the opinion of the paid Media and the professional Pundits. The Americans don’t buy the Propaganda that has seen many nations destroyed from within, because they are taught from very early on, a tremendous distrust of the Experts and the Government, and are therefore natural Guardians of Liberty and Freedom. And as befitting a revolutionary populace – they are armed to boot.

So, although it is easy to say that they do not have much History – they have a strong sense of reality in that they understand Living History and they know their place in it far better than most other nations on this earth.

And maybe they do not care to recall that as the late 18th century, Artful Peace and Prosperity, were the high point of the Enlightenment in Europe, before the continent fell suddenly into the abyss of the Napoleonic Wars, but we shouldn’t care too much about it either…

Because back then it was pomp & circumstance without substance. Society revolved around a tremendous inequality and all the leaders were involved in society balls and chamber music, that were all the rage, so everybody was surprised when all hell broke loose and they all had to run and hide hopelessly in their basements along with their valued harpsichords, and their mistresses, hoping to save their musical merriment and their peccadillos, if not their lives.

 

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-1-47-51-pm

 

Similarly, in the first decade of the 20th century, the world’s smartest minds and all the experts – politicians and statesmen alike – had predicted an end to war and to the great-power conflicts, as revolutions in communications, transportations, and trade, knit the competing economies and their Peoples closer and closer together, in common peace, and interdependence.

Yet the most devastating war in history came a short four years later. And it was started between the two nations that had the strongest economic and commercial ties to each other nonetheless.

Follow this up with the jazzy and roaring 20’s. The era of unparalleled wealth creation, art, and civilization, mixed up with a dab of debauchery and Great Gatsby cynicism, spread amongst lazy people basking in the apparent calm of the postwar 1920s, that soon became the crisis-ridden 1930s, and then it led straight into another world war, whose ferocity, destructiveness, and inhumanity, had never been seen before.

Seems that with each successive World Conflict we seem to excel in the imaginative uses of death & destruction, and we surpass ourselves in whatever Evil we had managed to experience in the earlier wars…

And today with far more devastating weapons we are sure to top that world war two evil doing — soonest.

So pray tell, where exactly do You think that we are in this classic scenario today?

And how close to the war we are at this intersectional point in history?

Do you know?

Do you even care to venture a guess?

Tell me if you know.

Tell me, because, as always, our Leaders, claim that it is impossible to know.

I know…

But am not telling, because it makes a huge difference, if we are a fortnight, or a year or three, away from a global crisis, and war. And we don’t want to create a self fulfilling prophesy either. Nor do we want to hasten the inevitable preparations for it… and it’s ushering in an era of sad behaviors and mayhem.

Yet one thing I can say is that we are much closer than further from that moment – so let’s be alarmed now, in order to wake-up, prepare, and fight, so as not to get caught with our pants down.

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 2.05.04 PM

 

Tell me because that knowledge is gold and diamonds and rainbows and black storm clouds, and a field of slain unicorns and a bloody heap of newborn babies, all rolled into one.

Tell me because we are somewhere on that path, and that is unmistakable.

And while it is too soon to know what effect anyone’s presidency will have on these trends, early signs suggest that the new administration is more likely to hasten us toward crisis than slow or reverse these trends. The further accommodation of Russia can only embolden Vladimir Putin, and the tough talk with China will likely lead Beijing to test the new administration’s resolve militarily. Whether the President is ready for such a confrontation is entirely unclear. For the moment, he seems not to have thought much about the future ramifications of his rhetoric and his actions, but I do believe that He is strategic in his thinking.

Only, perhaps not strategic enough, in the classical Geopolitical sense of the graduates of the War College or West Point. But his business acumen is brilliant and sometimes that can be enough. Couple that, with proper Strategic advise of the Churchillian kind, that will allow for filling in the gaps of his knowledge of the Grand Game, so that he can play like a Master.

Surely Trump knows that China and Russia are classic revisionist powers, and fierce antagonists, hating each other far more than hating anyone else. And although both enmity powers have never enjoyed greater security from external and internal threats emanating from foreign powers, than they do today — Russia from its traditional enemies to the west, and China from its traditional enemy in the east, they are both keenly dissatisfied with the current global configuration of power.

Go Figure…

Today they both seek to restore the hegemonic dominance they once enjoyed in their respective regions, but are also advancing global agendas for their geopolitical supremacy.

Why?

Nobody knows besides the fact that nature abhors a vacuum and they sense one developing through the withdrawal and retrenchment of the United States from our Strategic spheres of Influence.

For China, that means dominance of East and SouthEast Asia, with countries like Japan, South Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia both acquiescing to Beijing’s will, and acting in conformity with China’s strategic, economic, and political preferences. That includes American influence withdrawn to the eastern Pacific, behind the Hawaiian Islands. For Russia, it means hegemonic influence in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which Moscow has traditionally regarded as either part of its empire or part of its sphere of influence. Both Beijing and Moscow seek to redress what they regard as an unfair distribution of power, influence, and honor, in the U.S.-led postwar global order.

And as centralized autocracies, both feel threatened by the dominant democratic powers in the international system, and by the growing democracies near their borders.

And as it turns out, both of these revisionist powers regard the United States as the principal obstacle to their ambitions, and therefore both seek to weaken the American-led international security order, that stands in the way of their achieving what they regard as their rightful destinies.

And until fairly recently, Russia and China have faced considerable, almost insuperable, obstacles in achieving their objectives. The chief obstacle had been the power and coherence of the international order itself and its principal promoter and defender. The American-led system of political and military alliances, especially in the two critical regions of Europe and East Asia, has presented China and Russia with what Dean Acheson once referred to as “situations of strength” that have required them to pursue their ambitions cautiously and, since the end of the Cold War, to deter serious efforts to disrupt the international system. The system has checked their ambitions in both positive and negative ways. During the era of American primacy, China and Russia have participated in and for the most part been beneficiaries of the open international economic system the United States created and helps sustain; so long as that system functions, they have had more to gain by playing in it than by challenging and overturning it.

The political and strategic aspects of the order, however, have worked to their detriment. The growth and vibrancy of democratic government in the two decades following the collapse of Soviet communism posed a continual threat to the ability of rulers in Beijing and Moscow to maintain control, and since the end of the Cold War they have regarded every advance of democratic institutions—especially the geographical advance of liberal democracies close to their borders—as an existential threat. That’s for good reason: Autocratic powers since the days of Klemens von Metternich have always feared the contagion of liberalism. The mere existence of democracies on their borders, the global free flow of information they cannot control, the dangerous connection between free market capitalism and political freedom—all pose a threat to rulers who depend on keeping resistive forces in their own countries in check. The continual challenge to the legitimacy of their rule posed by the U.S.-supported democratic order has therefore naturally made them hostile both to that order and to the United States.

But, until recently, a preponderance of domestic and international forces has dissuaded them from confronting the order directly. Chinese rulers have had to worry about what an unsuccessful confrontation with the United States might do to their legitimacy at home. Even Vlad the Impaler Putin, has only pushed against open doors, in Syria, and Ukraine, where the United States responded passively to his probes. He has been far more cautious when confronted by even marginal U.S. and European opposition, in the Baltic states.

During the era of American primacy and supremacy, China and Russia have participated in and for the most part been the greatest beneficiaries of the open international economic system, the United States created and helps sustain. And so long as that system functions, they have always had more to gain by playing in it, than by challenging and overturning it.

Still the greatest check on Chinese and Russian ambitions has been the military and not the economic power of the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia. NATO is where the buck stops and not the World Trade Agreements…

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 11.25.46 AM

 

As for imperial China, and its new ambitions for the Middle Kingdom, although increasingly powerful, has had to contemplate facing the combined military and economic strength of the world’s superpower and some very formidable regional powers linked by alliance or common strategic interests. This alliance groupage includes Japan, India, and South Korea, as well as smaller but still potent nations like Vietnam and Australia.

On the other hand, Russia has had to face the United States and its NATO allies on all fronts all around it’s territories. And when united, these U.S.-led alliances present a daunting challenge to a revisionist power that can call on few allies of its own for assistance.

Even were the Chinese to score an early victory in a conflict, such as the military subjection of Taiwan or a naval battle in the South, or East China Sea, they would have to contend over time with the combined industrial productive capacities of some of the world’s richest and most technologically advanced nations and the likely cutoff of access to foreign markets on which their own economy depends.

A weaker Russia, with its depleted population and oil- and gas-dependent economy, would face an even greater challenge.

For decades, the strong global position enjoyed by the United States and its allies has discouraged any serious challenge. So long as the United States was perceived as a dependable ally, Chinese and Russian leaders feared that aggressive moves would backfire and possibly bring their regimes down. This is what the political scientist William Wohlforth once described as the inherent stability of the unipolar order: As dissatisfied regional powers sought to challenge the status quo, their alarmed neighbors turned to the distant American superpower to contain their ambitions. And it worked. The United States stepped up, and Russia and China largely backed down—or were preempted before acting at all.

Faced with these obstacles, the best option for the two revisionist great powers has always been to hope for or, if possible, engineer a weakening of the U.S.-supported world order from within, either by separating the United States from its allies or by raising doubts about the U.S. commitment and thereby encouraging would-be allies and partners to forgo the strategic protection of the liberal world order and seek accommodation with its challengers.

The present system has therefore depended not only on American power but on coherence and unity at the heart of the democratic world. The United States has had to play its part as the principal guarantor of the order, especially in the military and strategic realm, but the order’s ideological and economic core—the democracies of Europe and East Asia and the Pacific—has also had to remain relatively healthy and confident.

In recent years, both pillars have been shaken loose of their foundations…

The democratic order has weakened and fractured at its core. Difficult economic conditions, the recrudescence of nationalism and tribalism, weak and uncertain political leadership and unresponsive mainstream political parties, and a new era of communications that seems to strengthen rather than weaken tribalism have together produced a crisis of confidence not only in the democracies but in what might be called the liberal enlightenment project. That project elevated universal principles of individual rights and common humanity over ethnic, racial, religious, national, or tribal differences. It looked to a growing economic interdependence to create common interests across boundaries and to the establishment of international institutions to smooth differences and facilitate cooperation among nations. Instead, the past decade has seen the rise of tribalism and nationalism, an increasing focus on the Other in all societies, and a loss of confidence in government, in the capitalist system, and in democracy.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 9.18.44 AM

 

We are witnessing the opposite of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history.” History is returning with a vengeance and with it all the darker aspects of the human soul, including, for many, the perennial human yearning for a strong leader to provide firm guidance in a time of confusion and incoherence.

This crisis of the enlightenment project may have been inevitable, a recurring phenomenon produced by inherent flaws in both capitalism and democracy. In the 1930s, economic crisis and rising nationalism led many to doubt whether either democracy or capitalism was preferable to alternatives such as fascism and communism. And it is no coincidence that the crisis of confidence in liberalism accompanied a simultaneous breakdown of the strategic order. Then, the question was whether the United States as the outside power would step in and save or remake an order that Britain and France were no longer able or willing to sustain. Now, the question is whether the United States is willing to continue upholding the order that it created and which depends entirely on American power or whether Americans are prepared to take the risk—if they even understand the risk—of letting the order collapse into chaos and conflict.
That willingness has been in doubt for some time, well before the election of Trump and even before the election of Barack Obama. Increasingly in the quarter century after the end of the Cold War, Americans have been wondering why they bear such an unusual and outsized responsibility for preserving global order when their own interests are not always clearly served—and when the United States seems to be making all the sacrifices while others benefit.

Few remember the reasons why the United States took on this abnormal role after the calamitous two world wars of the 20th century. The millennial generation born after the end of the Cold War can hardly be expected to understand the lasting significance of the political, economic, and security structures established after World War II. Nor are they likely to learn much about it in high school and college textbooks obsessed with noting the evils and follies of American “imperialism.” Both the crises of the first half of the 20th century and its solution in 1945 have been forgotten.

As a consequence, the American public’s patience with the difficulties and costs inherent in playing that global role have worn thin. Whereas previous unsuccessful and costly wars, in Korea in 1950 and Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, and previous economic downturns, such as with the energy crisis and crippling “stagflation” of the mid- to late 1970s, did not have the effect of turning Americans against global involvement, the unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and indeed in the whole of North Africa and the Middle East – have. It seems that today’s replay of the “Barbary Wars” has had the same effect on the American Public that the original Barbary wars had…

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 9.22.46 AM

 

And we can blame the last five terrible Presidents along with the constant chronic cannabis smoking Obama, who pursued a Stoner’s dilemma as represented in his ambivalent and fully undecided approach towards global involvement. Yet for all five — the core strategy of America was retrenchment. But with Barack, it went into an extreme level of absurdity. As seen in all of his actions and all of his statements, he critiqued and repudiated previous American strategy and thus reinforced a national mood of passivity and just watching the news, but not being an active player in the world stage. Indeed as any stoner would attest – he would be favoring a much less active role in the world and a much narrower definition of American interests – because he simply didn’t care and couldn’t be bothered to give a damn. Evidence of this is that the Obama administration responded to the George W. Bush administration’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan not by restoring American power and influence but by further reducing them. Although the administration promised to “rebalance” American foreign policy to Asia and the Pacific, in practice that meant reducing global commitments and accommodating revisionist powers at the expense of all the long held agreements for the guarantee of the Integrity and the Security of our very own Allies. And that is the straw that broke the Camel’s back: The question of our Allies’ security and sovereignty that the US failed to protect…

That is the death signal of the Empire and in Barack’s reflexive dismissal of the ideology of Winston Churchill as was evidently represented in his approach to redecorating the Oval Office by removing the Great Man’s bust – speaks volumes of Barack’s latent fury and underappreciation of the responsibility of his office.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 9.19.50 AM

 

Bailing out the boat is not easy, when the boat is swamped – yet the Obama administration’s early attempt to “reset” relations with Russia struck the first blow to America’s reputation as a reliable ally. Coming just after the Russian invasion of Georgia, it appeared to reward Moscow’s aggression. The reset also came at the expense of U.S. allies in Central Europe, as programs of military cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic were jettisoned to appease the Kremlin. This attempt at accommodation, moreover, came just as Russian policy toward the West—not to mention Putin’s repressive policies toward his own people—was hardening. Far from eliciting better behavior by Russia, the reset emboldened Putin to push harder. Then, in 2014, the West’s inadequate response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea, though better than the Bush administration’s anemic response to the invasion of Georgia (Europe and the United States at least imposed sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine), still indicated reluctance on the part of the U.S. administration to force Russia back in its declared sphere of interest. Obama, in fact, publicly acknowledged Russia’s privileged position in Ukraine even as the United States and Europe sought to protect that country’s sovereignty. In Syria, the administration practically invited Russian intervention through Washington’s passivity, and certainly did nothing to discourage it, thus reinforcing the growing impression of an America in retreat across the Middle East (an impression initially created by the unnecessary and unwise withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq). Subsequent Russian actions that increased the refugee flow from Syria into Europe also brought no American response, despite the evident damage of those refugee flows to European democratic institutions. The signal sent by the Obama administration was that none of this was really America’s problem.

In East Asia, the Obama administration undermined its otherwise commendable efforts to assert America’s continuing interest and influence. The so-called “pivot” proved to be mostly rhetoric. Inadequate overall defense spending precluded the necessary increases in America’s regional military presence in a meaningful way, and the administration allowed a critical economic component, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to die in Congress, chiefly a victim of its own party’s opposition. The pivot also suffered from the general perception of American retreat and retrenchment, encouraged both by presidential rhetoric and by administration policies, especially in the Middle East. The premature, unnecessary, and strategically costly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, followed by the accommodating agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, and then by the failure to hold the line on threats to use force against Syria’s president, was noticed around the world.

Despite the Obama administration’s insistence that American strategy should be geared toward Asia, U.S. allies have been left wondering how reliable the U.S. commitment might be when facing the challenge posed by China. The Obama administration erred in imagining that it could retrench globally while reassuring allies in Asia that the United States remained a reliable partner.

The effect on the two great revisionist powers, meanwhile, has been to encourage greater efforts at revision. In recent years, both powers have been more active in challenging the order, and one reason has been the growing perception that the United States is losing both the will and the capacity to sustain it. The psychological and political effect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the United States, which has been to weaken support for America’s global engagement across the board, has provided an opening.

It is a myth, prevalent among liberal democracies, that revisionist powers can be pacified by acquiescence to their demands. American retrenchment, by this logic, ought to reduce tensions and competition. Unfortunately, the opposite is more often the case. The more secure revisionist powers feel, the more ambitious they are in seeking to change the system to their advantage because the resistance to change appears to be lessening. Just look at both China and Russia: Never in the past two centuries have they enjoyed greater security from external attack than they do today. Yet both remain dissatisfied and have become increasingly aggressive in pressing what they perceive to be their growing advantage in a system where the United States no longer puts up as much resistance as it used to.

The two great powers have differed, so far, chiefly in their methods. China has until now been the more careful, cautious, and patient of the two, seeking influence primarily through its great economic clout and using its growing military power chiefly as a source of deterrence and regional intimidation. It has not resorted to the outright use of force yet, although its actions in the South China Sea are military in nature, with strategic objectives. And while Beijing has been wary of using military force until now, it would be a mistake to assume it will continue show such restraint in the future—possibly the near future. Revisionist great powers with growing military capabilities invariably make use of those capabilities when they believe the possible gains outweigh the risks and costs. If the Chinese perceive America’s commitment to its allies and its position in the region to be weakening, or its capacity to make good on those commitments to be declining, then they will be more inclined to attempt to use the power they are acquiring in order to achieve their objectives. As the trend lines draw closer, this is where the first crisis is likely to take place.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 9.16.11 AM

 

Russia has been far more aggressive. It has invaded two neighboring states—Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014—and in both cases hived off significant portions of those two nations’ sovereign territory. Given the intensity with which the United States and its allies would have responded to such actions during the four decades of the Cold War, their relative lack of a response must have sent quite a signal to the Kremlin—and to others around the world. Moscow then followed by sending substantial forces into Syria. It has used its dominance of European energy markets as a weapon. It has used cyber-warfare against neighboring states. It has engaged in extensive information warfare on a global scale.

More recently, the Russian government has deployed a PR and certainly a soft power “weapon” that the Chinese either lack or have so far chosen not to deploy. That is the ability to interfere directly in Western electoral processes, both to influence their outcomes and more generally to discredit the democratic system. Russia funds right-wing populist parties across Europe, including in France; uses its media outlets to support favored candidates and attack others; has disseminated “fake news” to influence voters, most recently in Italy’s referendum; and has hacked private communications in order to embarrass those it wishes to defeat. This past year, Russia for the first time employed this powerful weapon against the United States, by allegedly interfering in the American electoral process.

Although Russia, by any measure, is the weaker of the two great powers, it has so far had more success than China in accomplishing its objective of dividing and disrupting the West, through its interference in Western democratic political systems, its information warfare, and its role in creating increased refugee flows from Syria into Europe. All of these have contributed to the sapping of European strength, and confidence in their sovereign governments, in their political systems, and in their established political parties. Russia’s military intervention in Syria, when contrasted with American passivity in that conflict, has truly exacerbated all the existing doubts about America’s staying power in the region.

Even Beijing, until recently, has succeeded mostly in driving American allies closer to the United States out of concern for growing Chinese power — but that was their early miscalculation and it could change quickly, especially now that they realize their mistake and watch as the United States continues on its present trajectory in the Pacific…

 

Screen Shot 2016-07-10 at 3.20.29 PM

 

There are signs that regional powers are already recalculating: East Asian countries are contemplating regional trade agreements that need not include the United States or, in the case of the Philippines, are actively courting China, while a number of nations in Eastern and Central Europe are moving closer to Russia, both strategically and ideologically. We could soon face a situation where both great revisionist powers are acting aggressively, including by military means, posing extreme challenges to American and global security in two regions at once.

All this comes as Americans continue to signal their reluctance to uphold the world order they created after World War II.

And now President Donald Trump who was not the only major political figure in this past election season to call for a much narrower definition of American interests and a lessening of the burdens of America’s global leadership, has come to exercise the mantle of Leadership for the Western Civilization, we are at an inflection point. All parts of the American political spectrum, seek disengagement. President Obama and Bernie Sanders both expressed a version of “America First.” The candidate who spoke often of America’s “indispensable” global role lost, and even Hillary Clinton felt compelled to jettison her earlier support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it was a sucker punch to the American public.

And even though at the very least, there should be doubts about the American public’s willingness to continue supporting the international alliance structure, denying the revisionist powers their desired spheres of influence and regional hegemony, and upholding democratic and free market norms in the international system – is a must today if you even want to consider yourself a contender and participant in the Grand Game.

But we all know that there is a war of civilization going on.

Don’t we know it?

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 1.40.48 PM

 

It is a war and is not a game, but even if it were a game after all, and coming as it does at a time of growing great-power competition, this narrowing definition of American interests and it’s disengagement from the Grand Game and World Affairs will likely take away all of our winnings from this high stakes poker game, and also hasten a return to the instability and clashes of previous eras, that will require us to play for keeps if we are not to lose our very own existence.

I speak thus because the weakness at the core of the democratic world and the shedding by the United States of global responsibilities have already encouraged a more aggressive revisionism by the dissatisfied powers, and by the ideologically more virulent enemies that seek to place us out of the game permanently and forever. And if you are a student of History you know that can be achieved easily and forever, if the other Ten Thousand empires are to be remembered at all, through Herodotus’ Histories.

That, our defeatist attitude of today has in turn, further sapped the democratic world’s confidence and willingness to resist, the virulent Islam and all the other cataclysmic ideologies of darkness – is evident of the Democratic party of America that caters to all these dark matter forces hoping to appear as a vote getter of the minorities, and completely failing to see the dynamic forces of History arrayed against us.

Please do not flinch, but I am sorry to tell you, that History suggests that this is a downward spiral from which it will be very difficult to recover, absent a rather dramatic shift of course by the United States of America.
The weakness at the core of the democratic world and the shedding by the United States of global responsibilities have already encouraged a more aggressive revisionism by the dissatisfied powers.

That shift may come too late today same as it was in the 1920s, and not the 1930s, that the democratic powers made the most important and ultimately fatal decisions for their future. After the 20’s the Second World War became inevitable. Same as the American disillusionment and cynicism with the First World War, led the United States to reject playing a major strategic role in preserving the peace in Europe and Asia, even though America was the only nation powerful enough to play that role at that time. Surely the weak Leaders and leading US politicians of that time ought to be blamed here, because the withdrawal of the United States helped undermine the will of Britain and France, and encouraged Germany in Europe, and Japan in Asia, to take increasingly aggressive actions to achieve regional dominance.

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 3.59.34 PM

 

Still most American Leaders were convinced that nothing that happened in Europe or Asia could affect their security. It took the first two years of Britain fighting alone and defending Western Civilization all by itself during the first part of the Second World War, before the dastardly attack on Pearl harbor convinced America that they needed to show up and fight. Yet to the appeasers even that was a mistake. The “return to normalcy” of the 1920 election seemed safe and innocent at the time, but the essentially selfish policies pursued by the world’s strongest power in the following decades after the first World War, helped set the stage for the calamities of the 1930s, and the horrors of the bloodiest War in history of the 1940’s, the Second World War.

But the lesson lost here is that by the time the war crises began to erupt, it was already too late to avoid paying the high price of global conflict.

It is in such times, that it has always been tempting to believe that geopolitical competition can be channeled or even resolved through mutual efforts at cooperation and accommodation via Soft Power. The idea, recently proposed by Niall Ferguson, that the world can be ruled jointly by the United States, Russia, and China, is not a new one. Such condominiums have been proposed and attempted in every era when the dominant power or powers in the international system sought to fend off challenges from the dissatisfied revisionist powers. It has rarely worked. Revisionist great powers are not easy to satisfy short of complete capitulation. Their sphere of influence is never quite large enough to satisfy their pride or their expanding need for security. In fact, their very expansion creates insecurity, by frightening neighbors and leading them to band together against the rising power.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-01-at-5-37-50-pm

 

The satiated power that Otto von Bismarck spoke of is rare. The German leaders who succeeded him were not satisfied even with being the strongest power in Europe. In their efforts to grow still stronger, they produced coalitions against them, making their fear of “encirclement” a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Hapsburgs, and the AustroHungarian empire never failed this test… See where that got them.

This is a common trait of rising powers—their actions produce the very insecurity they claim to want to redress. They harbor grievances against the existing order (both Germany and Japan considered themselves the “have-not” nations), but their grievances cannot be satisfied so long as the existing order remains in place. Marginal concession is not enough, but the powers upholding the existing order will not make more than marginal concessions unless they are compelled to by superior strength. Japan, the aggrieved “have-not” nation of the 1930s, did not satisfy itself by taking Manchuria in 1931.

Germany, the aggrieved victim of Versailles, did not satisfy itself by bringing the Germans of the Sudetenland back into the fold. They demanded much more, and they could not persuade the democratic powers to give them what they wanted without resorting to war.

Yet we know that granting the revisionist powers, new spheres of influence is not a recipe for peace and tranquility, but rather an invitation to inevitable conflict.
Granting the revisionist powers spheres of influence is not a recipe for peace and tranquility but rather an invitation to inevitable conflict. Appeasers always get more than they bargained for. Dishonor, submission, and a war to follow — is usually their only gain.

Russia’s historical sphere of influence does not end in Ukraine. I tell you — it only begins in Ukraine, and it extends to all the Baltic States, to the Balkans, and to the heart of Central Asia just as much as Central Europe. And within Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, other nations do not enjoy autonomy or even sovereignty. There was no independent Poland under the Russian Empire nor under the Soviet Union. For China to gain its desired sphere of influence in East Asia will mean that, when it chooses, it can close the region off to the United States—not only militarily but politically and economically, too.

 

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-2-16-05-pm

 

China will, of course, inevitably exercise great sway in its own region, as will Russia. The United States cannot and should not prevent China from being an economic powerhouse. Nor should it wish for the collapse of Russia. The United States should even welcome competition of a certain kind. Great powers compete across multiple planes—economic, ideological, and political, as well as military. Competition in most spheres is necessary and even healthy. Within the liberal order, China can compete economically and successfully with the United States; Russia can thrive in the international economic order upheld by the democratic system, even if it is not itself democratic.

But military and strategic competition is different. The security situation undergirds everything else. It remains true today as it has since World War II that only the United States has the capacity and the unique geographical advantages to provide global security and relative stability. There is no stable balance of power in Europe or Asia without the United States. And while we can talk about “soft power” and “smart power,” they have been and always will be of limited value when confronting raw military power. Despite all of the loose talk of American decline, it is in the military realm where U.S. advantages remain clearest. Even in other great powers’ backyards, the United States retains the capacity, along with its powerful allies, to deter challenges to the security order. But without a U.S. willingness to maintain the balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers. Part of that willingness entails defense spending commensurate with America’s continuing global role.

For the United States to accept a return to spheres of influence would not calm the international waters. It would merely return the world to the condition it was in at the end of the 19th century, with competing great powers clashing over inevitably intersecting and overlapping spheres. These unsettled, disordered conditions produced the fertile ground for the two destructive world wars of the first half of the 20th century. The collapse of the British-dominated world order on the oceans, the disruption of the uneasy balance of power on the European continent as a powerful unified Germany took shape, and the rise of Japanese power in East Asia all contributed to a highly competitive international environment in which dissatisfied great powers took the opportunity to pursue their ambitions in the absence of any power or group of powers to unite in checking them. The result was an unprecedented global calamity and an orgy of death and mayhem on an epic scale.

It has been the great accomplishment of the U.S.-led world order in the 70 years since the end of World War II that this kind of competition has been held in check and great power conflicts have been avoided. It will be more than a shame if Americans were to destroy what they created—and not because it was no longer possible to sustain it, but simply because they chose to stop trying.

Just think of how far we have all come today. Yet we have far more we have to go before we sleep…

Please do not forget the betrayal that led to the fall of the “City” in 1453.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 2.23.24 PM

 

And that is the fork on the road that we should take today. Because the road hard as is leading up, moving steeply towards World Leadership all over again. And we have to take to the hills and the mountains, in order to regain that rightful position again — some day soon.

With empty coffers and emptier armories — we have to use subterfuge and cunning, and the rich resource of bluster, to outmaneuver them all. And because our enemies are legion and are thriving at our own expense, we should cut off their money flows.

And to do that we have to make the world trade reposition itself so that it will deposit the Surpluses to the United States of America and not to the increasingly ambitious communist pariahs and Islamic World Jihadist powers who fuel their crazy Caliphate dreams through our own petrodollars. Let’s cut them off at the knees and see how long the Saudi Wahabis will stay in power along with the two great revisionist power leaders, the Russian and the Chinese power dwellers.

We can either make for a complete nightmare of beasts and strange creatures that attack and devour the very Western Civilization that we are tasked to protect and save from Extinction – or we can exterminate the rodents and the cockroaches through muscular trade and economic Surpluses and Diplomatic finesse, pushed through the muzzles of the gunboats and the drones’ missiles.

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 4.00.29 PM

 

The other major problem, is the declining testosterone, the loss of confidence, and the lack of capacity, and will that the democratic world, and especially the United States, exhibit today. And that causes us to be unable to even maintain the dominant position we have held in the international system since 1945. And as those two lines move closer, and as the declining will and capacity of the United States and its allies to maintain the present world order — meet the youthful strength, the increasing desire, and the adolescent capacity of the Islamic cancer to spread – we find ourselves at the throes of Hades. On the other hand, as the revisionist powers seek to unseat us and change the World Order System we guard — we will reach the moment at which the existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has three times in the last century, and innumerable times in our past History.

And then we shall be remembered in the History books as alternatively powerful and weak, but very little will survive of our Truth and of our Beauty. Just look at Istanbul today and try to discern the Imperial Greco Roman Landmarks, or the greatest Christian Cathedral the world has ever known, or the People’s monuments to Free Thinking, to great Philosophical ideals, or to Reason, and to the worshipful Christianity of a strong Moral Republic, and the memory of the Rule of Law preserved amongst Free People, and their aspirations for a Democratic Republic with an Emperor at it’s helm… All of it has been effaced and it’s long lasting history as the seat of the Roman Empire for more than a Thousand years has been fully erased in favor of an Asiatic doctrinaire and dogmatic barbaric faith of Islam.

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 2.24.11 PM

 

Sadly all of that past glory has been erased and effaced from the fabric of that most ancient of Great Imperial Cities. So now we have to contend with the same in our recent past as well, because it is all now lost in a sea of submission to Islamic dogma and subterfuge of corruption, that Koran promotes as intellectual and bodily human slavery. This is the Istanbul, now monument to the virulent and hateful form of Islam, the Gazi, the Jihad, and all that jazz. As for the temples and the cathedrals, they have all been converted to mosques and Islamic museums. If only “Agia Sophia” could speak to tell the tale of what would happen to you, when Islam takes over America — many of you would sit up straight to listen.

Thus is how Statesmanship conducted, Civilization created, and History recorded.

And History is always written in the hopes of preserving our Memory from decay.

And maybe that will be changed too, and then maybe the future generations of students will learn that Islam and the Barbary Pirates, were truly the ones that built America… Or some similar horseshoe like that coming from the mouth of an Islamic President.

But that dishonor shall not pass. It will not pass. Not if we have anything to say about it.

Are you with me, Patriots, or with the ISIS and the Stupid Caliphate, and those of you and the Dems who are pining for the return to the Dark Ages?

Is that really what You want?

PS:

Here is where Winston Churchill clearly and vehemently disagrees with the way things are going and recommends to change all that, through strong & decisive action.

I hope President Trump is listening.

 

 

To be continued…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: