With the December 2021 “Ultimatum” by Russia clear in mind, what will be the consequences if President Biden, and the United States does not take this message seriously? What can we expect to happen? Well this article explores this scenario, as all indications are that they are continuing to play “their games”;

Say one thing, do the complete opposite, and narrate bullshit all over the many, many propaganda outlets that they control.

It might play well in the American heartland, but China and Russia are both DEADLY SERIOUS. This time it’s when “the bullet hits the bone”.

The American Response…

On the surface, we see [1] a signed pledge that the Untied States will not target either Russia or China with it’s nuclear missiles.

And, you do know, this is meaningless, though it has got a lot of positive press.

Funny how the “news” fails to acknowledge that the United States has a history of repeatedly breaking contracts, agreements and pledges at will. And also that there’s no verification put into place, or changes in American Geo-political military movements or posturings. Just words. Very well promoted words. But meaningless words with no verification systems, or evidence of any further physical actions.

Then we have [2] a color revolution in Kazakhstan. Which is a big nation wedged and jutting into both Russia and China. On The Saker, Andrei suggests that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions that this is a United States backed color revolution. I disagree.

Why do I say that?

Well MoA says it best…

In early 2019 the Pentagon financed think tank RAND published an extensive plan for soft attacks on Russia.

Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.

The 350 pages long report recommended certain steps to be taken by the U.S. to contain Russia. As its summary says:

Recognizing that some level of competition with Russia is inevitable, this report seeks to define areas where the United States can do so to its advantage. We examine a range of nonviolent measures that could exploit Russia’s actual vulnerabilities and anxieties as a way of stressing Russia’s military and economy and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad. The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose, although they might contribute to both. Rather, these steps are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, leading Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage, and causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.

RAND lists economical, geopolitical, ideological and informational as well as military measures the U.S. should take to weaken Russia.

Since the report came out the first four of the six ‘geopolitical measures’ listed in chapter 4 of the report have been implemented.

The U.S. is now implementing measure 5 which aims to ‘reduce Russia’s influence in Central Asia’.

Kazakhstan, Russia’s southern neighbor, was part of the Soviet Union. It is a mineral rich, landlocked country three times the size of Texas but with less than 20 million inhabitants. A significant part of its people are Russians and the Russian language is in common use. The country is an important link in the strategic Belt and Road Initiative between China and Europe.

Executive branch

chief of state: President Kasym-Zhomart TOKAYEV (since 20 March 2019); note - Nursultan NAZARBAYEV, who was president since 24 April 1990 (and in power since 22 June 1989 under the Soviet period), resigned on 20 March 2019; NAZARBAYEV retained the title and powers of "First President"; TOKAYEV completed NAZARBAYEV's term, which was shortened due to the early election of 9 June 2019, and then continued as president following his election victory

Over the last decade there have been several uprisings (2011, 2016 and 2019) in Kazakhstan. These were mostly caused by uneven distribution of income from its minerals including oil and gas. The oligarchs in the capital of Astana / Nur-Sultan live well while the provinces which produce the minerals, like Mangistauskaya in the south-west, have seen few developments.

Recently the price for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), used by many cars in Kazakhstan, went up after the government had liberalized the market. This caused another round of country wide protests:

The string of rallies that has torn through Kazakhstan since January 2 began in the western oil town of Zhanaozen, ostensibly triggered by anger over a sudden spike in the price of car fuel. Similar impromptu gatherings then quickly spread to nearby villages in the Mangystau region and then in multiple other locations in the west, in cities like Aktau, Atyrau and Aktobe. By January 4, people had come out onto the streets in numbers in locations many hundreds of kilometers away, in the southern towns of Taraz, Shymkent and Kyzyl-Orda, in the north, in the cities of Uralsk and Kostanai, as well as in Almaty and Nur-Sultan, the capital, among other places.

Few saw scenes as fiery as those in Almaty, though.

Clashes in Almaty continued throughout the night into January 5. After being dispersed by police from Republic Square, part of the crowd headed around two kilometers downhill, to another historic location in the city, Astana Square, where the seat of government used to be located in Soviet times.

While there is little reliable way to gauge the scale of the demonstrations, a combination of on-the-ground reporting and video footage appears to indicate that these protests may be even larger than those that brought the country to a near-standstill in 2016.

While the grievances that sparked the first rallies in Zhanaozen were to do with fuel prices, the sometimes rowdy demonstrations that have followed appear to be of a more general nature. Chants of “shal ket!” (“old man go!”), usually understood as a reference to former President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who continues to wield significant sway from behind the scenes, have been heard at many of the demos.

The protests escalated soon with gangs of armed protesters taking control of government buildings and setting them on fire. There were also attempts to take control of radio and TV stations as well as the airport. Police, which generally did little to intervene, were gunned down.

The actions in Almaty, the country’s largest city and former capital, are certainly not spontaneous reactions by a crowd of poor laborers but controlled actions by well trained groups of armed ‘rebels’.

Peter Leonard @Peter__Leonard - 9:18 UTC · 6 Jan 2022
Kazakhstan: Very important and intriguing detail with strong shades of Kyrgyzstan 2020. Peaceful people initiate rallies, but shady and violent individuals turn up to sow trouble, and it is never remotely clear who they are or where they came from /1 https://t.co/qYSlUUrMVx

From one account I heard, a similar dynamic played out in Almaty on Wednesday morning. A relatively small and mild gathering formed on Republic Square, opposite city hall. All of a sudden hundreds of extremely aggressive men turned up, threatening all and sundry #Kazakhstan /2

They threatened and attacked journalists standing nearby, ordering anybody who took photographs to delete the images. It was clearly this cohort that was responsible for much of the destruction. And it is a mystery (to me) who they were /3

We have seen similar formations during the U.S. instigated uprisings in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Belarus.

NEXTA, the U.S. financed regime change media network in Poland which last year directed the failed color revolution attempt in Belarus, announced the U.S. demands:

NEXTA @nexta_tv - 13:52 UTC · Jan 5, 2022
Demands of the Protesters in #Kazakhstan
1. Immediate release of all political prisoners
2. Full resignation of president and government
3. Political reforms: 
Creation of a Provisional Government of reputable and public citizens. Withdrawal from all alliances with #Russia

A more reliable source confirms these:

Maxim A. Suchkov @m_suchkov - 14:43 UST · Jan 5, 2022
The list of demands of protestors in #Kazakhstan that's been circulating is interesting, to put it mildly.
While most demands focus on bolstering social & economic support & countering corruption points #1, 7, 10, 13, 16 expose the roots of protest & who's driving them

#1 demands that #Kazakhstan should leave Eurasian Economic union.
#7 demands legalization of polygamy "for certain groups of the population" & prohibition on marriage with foreigners
#10 demands independence for Mangystau region &^that revenues of oil companies remain in Mangystau

Caveat: this list been circulating a lot on telegram - could be fake or not representative of what protestors want, thou it appears protestors are a diverse group that includes genuinely disgruntled people, political manipulators, "prof revolutionaries" (that were in UKR & BEL), etc

The government of Kazakhstan has since lowered the LPG prices. On January 5 President Tokayev relived the ‘First President’ Nazarbayev of his position as chairman of the Security Council and promised to act tough on armed protesters.

Kazakhstan is part of the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as well as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). On the morning of January 5 Tokayev had a phone call with the presidents of Russia and Belarus. He has mobilized airborne units of the armed forces of Kazakhstan. On the evening of January 5 he requested support from the CSTO against the ‘foreign directed terrorists’ which are fighting the security forces.

Russia, Belarus and other CSTO members have dedicated quick reaction forces reserved for such interventions. These will now be mobilized to regain government control in Kazakhstan. Russian CSTO forces are currently on their way to Kazakhstan. Belorussian and Armenian troops will follow soon.

They are in for some tough time:

Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ ❄ @CalibreObscura - 19:50 UTC · Jan 5, 2022
#Kazakhstan: Captured arms from the National Security Committee (equivalent to Russian FSB) building by protestors in #Almaty: At least 2 PG-7V projectiles, possible boxed Glock pistol & (possibly) more in numerous scattered crates, various kit.
Anti-Armour capability in 48hrs...

During the last decades the U.S. and its allies had been relatively quiet about the dictatorial leadership in Kazakhstan.

Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled - 14:18 UTC · Jan 5, 2022
NATO's cheerleading corner of FSU "experts" already working hard to spin Kazakhstan uprisings as somehow Putin's fault or indictment of Putin—but note how quiet our media-NGO complex has been the past 20 years re: the regime's human rights abuses, corruption & "authoritarianism"

Chevron is the largest oil producer in Kazakhstan and the former British prime minister Tony Blair has previously been giving advice to then President Nursultan Nazarbayev on how to avoid an uproar over dead protesters:

In a letter to Nursultan Nazarbayev, obtained by The Telegraph, Mr Blair told the Kazakh president that the deaths of 14 protesters “tragic though they were, should not obscure the enormous progress” his country had made.

Mr Blair, who is paid millions of pounds a year to give advice to Mr Nazarbayev, goes on to suggest key passages to insert into a speech the president was giving at the University of Cambridge, to defend the action.

Times however are different now as Kazakhstan has continued to strengthen its relations with Russia and China.

The CIA offshoot National Endowment for Democracy is financing some 20 ‘civil society’ regime change programs in Kazakhstan with about $50,000 per annum each. The involved organizations  currently seem to be mostly quiet but are a sure sign that the U.S. is playing a role behind the scenes. On December 16 details of upcoming demonstrations were announced by the U.S. embassy in Kazakhstan.

I however believe that Russia has prepared for such eventualities. They will not affect its plans and demands.

What is difficult to discern though is what is really happening behind the scenes in Astana/Nur-Sultan. Has Tokayev, who was previously seen as a mere puppet of Nazarbayev, really replaced him? His control of the security forces is somewhat in doubt:

Liveuamap @Liveuamap - 19:18 UTC · Jan 5, 2022
Tokayev dismissed the head of his security guard Saken Isabekov. Also, the President dismissed the Deputy Head of the State Security Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan from his post

But the outcome of the whole game is quite predictable:

Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled - 14:31 UTC · Jan 5, 2022
The grim likelihood, given all the various "revolutions" in the FSU the past 20 years, is that Kazakhstan's street protests [will be] instrumentalized by a powerful clan to replace the ruling oligarchy with a new oligarchy.

The CSTO troops which are now landing in Almaty will take a few days to end the rebellion. The outcome is not in doubt.

Moscow, not Washington DC, will have a big say in who will come out at the top.

It is quite possible (but not guaranteed) that the results of the whole affair will, like the failed U.S. regime change attempts in Belarus, not weaken but strengthen Russia:

Dmitri Trenin @DmitriTrenin - 7:57 UTC · 6 Jan 2022
#Kazakhstan is another test, after #Belarus, of RUS ability to help stabilize its formal allies w/o alienating their populations. As 1st action by CSTO since founding in 1999, it is major test for bloc. Lots of potential pitfalls around, but can be big boon if Moscow succeeds.

And because of that…

Russian troops formerly on the Ukraine border are now being moved into Kazakhstan.

What great luck for the United States.

What a coincidence!

So there you have it.

There’s a very high probability that the United States continues to play Geo-Poltitical “games”. And it’s a dangerous game that they are playing. On the surface, say the nice things, run the “news” media machine talking about wonderful futures and rainbows, meanwhile the bad stuff continues unabated.

Here’s a couple of articles that discuss this matter…

“This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech [the Conference host] will not turn on the red light over there.”

“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.”

“It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”

“[The Parties] shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.

“The Parties shall not use the territories of other Sates with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

“The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

“The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

“The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

“The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

“The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.”

“The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities.

“In order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council.

“The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries.

“The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region).

“The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. ….

“The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

“All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

“The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.”

…

WE’VE SEEN THE ULTIMATUM, WHAT IS THE “OR ELSE”?

We are making it clear that we are ready to talk about changing from a military or a military-technical scenario to a political process that really will strengthen the military security… of all the countries in the OCSE, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space. We’ve told them that if that doesn’t work out, we will create counter-threats; then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions and positioned such weapons systems.

Мы как раз даем понять, что мы готовы разговаривать о том, чтобы военный сценарий или военно-технический сценарий перевести в некий политический процесс, который реально укрепит военную безопасность <…> всех государств на пространстве ОБСЕ, Евроатлантики, Евразии. А если этого не получится, то мы уже обозначили им (НАТО – прим. ТАСС), тогда мы тоже перейдем в вот этот режим создания контругроз, но тогда будет поздно нас спрашивать, почему мы приняли такие решения, почему мы разместили такие системы.

— Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko quoted by TASS

Moscow has issued an ultimatum to USA/NATO. It is this: seriously negotiate on the issues laid out here and here. Some of them are non-negotiable.

Ultimatums always have an “Or Else” clause. What is the “or else” in this case? I don’t know but I’ve been thinking and reading other peoples’ thoughts and some ideas/guesses/suppositions follow. They are the order that they occurred to me. Whether Moscow has such a list in front of it or not, it certainly has many “counter-threats” it can use.

Why now? Two possible answers, each of which may be true. US/NATO have been using “salami tactics” against Russia for years; Moscow has decided that a second Ukraine crisis in one year is one thin slice too many. Second: Moscow may judge that, in the USA’s precipitous decline, this will be the last chance that there will be sufficient central authority to form a genuine agreement; an agreement that will avoid a catastrophic war. (The so-called Thucydides Trap).

Of course I don’t know what Putin & Co will do and we do have to factor in the existence of a new international player: Putin, Xi and Partners. Xi has just made it clear that Beijing supports Moscow’s “core interests”. It is likely that any “counter-threats” will be coordinated. The Tabaquis have responded as expected but maybe (let’s hope so) Washington is taking it more seriously.

Other commentaries I think are worth reading: Martyanov, Bernhard, Saker, Doctorow. The Western media is worthless as a source of independent thinking (typical clichéfest from the BBC – bolstered by The Misquotation) but maybe the WaPo shows that the wind is starting to blow from a different quarter: “The Cold War is over. Why do we still treat Russia like the Evil Empire?“

To my CSIS readers: the world is at a grave inflection point and the West had better concentrate its attention. Moscow and Beijing don’t depend on me for advice and I’m not talking to them: regard this as one of the briefing notes that I used to write. 

Moscow is serious and it does have real “counter-threats”.

MILITARY MEASURES

• Moscow could publish a list of targets in NATO countries that can and will be hit by nuclear or non-nuclear standoff weapons in the event of hostilities. These would likely include headquarters, airbases, port facilities, logistics facilities, ammunition dumps, military bases, munitions factories and so on.

• Moscow could station medium and short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad and Belarus. The latter requires agreement from Minsk but Belarus President Lukashenka has hinted that it will be granted. Moscow could then make it clear that they are aimed at NATO targets.

• Moscow could station Iskanders and have lots of aircraft in the air with Kinzhals and let it be known that they are aimed at NATO targets.

• Moscow could make a sudden strike by stand-off weapons and special forces that destroys the Azov Battalion in Eastern Ukraine. Moscow would see two advantages: 1) it would remove the principal threat to the LDNR and 2) it would change the correlation of forces in Kiev. It would also be a live demonstration of Russia’s tremendous military power.

• Moscow could remind the West of the meaning of Soviet Marshal Ogarkov’s observation that precision weapons have, to a degree, made nuclear weapons obsolete. A prescient remark, somewhat ahead of its time 35 years ago, but realised now by Russia’s arsenal of hypersonic precision missiles.

• The Russian Navy operates the quietest submarines in the world; Moscow could could make and publish a movie of the movements of some NATO ship as seen through the periscope.

• I believe (suspect/guess) that the Russian Armed Forces have the capability to blind Aegis-equipped ships. Moscow could do so in public in a way that cannot be denied. Without Aegis, the US surface navy is just targets. Objection: this is a war-winning secret and should not be lightly used. Unless, of course, the Russian Armed Forces have something even more effective.

• Moscow could form more shock forces like the First Guards Tank Army.

• Russia has large and very powerful airborne forces – much stronger than the light infantry of other countries, they are capable of seizing and holding territory against all but heavy armoured attacks. And they’re being increased. Moscow could demonstrate their capability in an exercise showing a sudden seizing of key enemy facilities like a port or major airfield, inviting NATO representatives to watch from the target area.

• The Russian Armed Forces could do some obvious targetting of the next NATO element to come close to Russia’s borders; they could aggressively ping ships and aircraft that get too close and publicise it.

• Moscow could make a public demonstration of what Poseidons can do and show in a convincing way that they are at sea off the US coast. Ditto with Burevestnik. In short Moscow could directly threaten the US mainland with non-nuclear weapons. Something that no one has been able to do since 1814.

• Moscow could reveal some new wonder weapons (several have been revealed this week: super torpedo, Okhotnik dropping PGM, RPV shooting down helicopter target.)

• Does the Club-K Container Missile System actually exist? (If so, Moscow could give a public demonstration, if not pretend that it does). Either way, Moscow could publicly state that they will be all over the place and sell them to countries threatened by USA/NATO.

DIPLOMATIC/INTERNATIONAL MEASURES

• Moscow could publicly transfer some key military technologies to China with licence to build them there.

• Moscow could make a formal military treaty with China with an “Article 5” provision.

• Moscow could make a formal military treaty with Belarus including significant stationed strike forces.

• Moscow could station forces in Central Asian neighbours.

• Russia and Chinese warships accompanied by long-range strike aircraft could do a “freedom of navigation” cruise in the Gulf of Mexico.

• Moscow could recall ambassadors, reduce foreign missions, restrict movement of diplomats in Russia.

• Moscow could ban all foreign NGOs immediately without going through the present process.

• Moscow could recognise LDNR and sign defence treaties.

• Moscow could work on Turkey, Hungary and other dissident EU/NATO members.

• Moscow could give military aid to or station weapons in Western Hemisphere countries.

• Beijing could do something in its part of the world to show its agreement and coordination with Moscow raising the threat of a two front conflict.

ECONOMIC MEASURES

• Moscow could close airspace to civil airlines of the countries that sanction Russia.

• Moscow could declare that Russian exports must now be paid for in Rubles, gold, Renminbi or Euros (Euros? It depends).

• Moscow could announce that Nord Stream 2 will be abandoned if certification if delayed past a certain date. (Personally, I am amused by how many people think that shutting it down would cause more harm to Russia than to Germany: for the first it’s only money and Russia has plenty of that; for the second….)

• Moscow could stop all sales of anything to USA (rocket motors and oil especially).

• Moscow could announce that no more gas contracts to countries that sanction it will be made after the current ones end. This is a first step. See below.

• As a second and more severe step, Moscow could break all contracts with countries that sanction Russia on the grounds that a state of hostility exists. That is, all oil and gas deliveries stop immediately.

• Moscow could announce that no more gas will be shipped to or through Ukraine on the grounds that a state of hostility exists.

• Russia and China could roll out their counter-SWIFT ASAP.

SUBVERSIVE MEASURES

• Moscow could stir up trouble in eastern Ukraine (Novorossiya) supporting secession movements.

• Moscow could order special forces to attack key nazi organisations throughout Ukraine.

• Moscow could order special forces to attack military facilities throughout Ukraine.

*********************************************

But I’m sure that whatever “counter-threats” Moscow comes up with will be powerful and surprise the West. My recommendation is that USA/NATO take the ultimatums seriously.

After all, the Russian proposals really are mutually beneficial – their theme is that nobody should threaten anybody and if anybody should feel threatened, there should be serious talks to resolve the issue.

Security is mutual:

if all feel secure, then all are secure;

if one feels insecure, then none is secure.

As we now see: when Russia feels threatened by what USA/NATO do, it can threaten back. Better to live in a world in which nobody is threatening anybody and everybody feels secure.

George Kennan foresaw this a quarter of a century ago:

I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.

…

Meanwhile…

The American psychopaths are not stopping for shit. They are not taking the message seriously and are still continuing their piss-poor games. They are more than idiots. Shit! They deserve what is coming for them.

…

According to military expert Konstantin Sivkov, British and German special forces tried to enter the territory of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). However, the Western saboteurs failed, as their operation was prevented by employees of the DPR border service. The analyst noted that the border guards managed to detain foreign special forces without a fight.

"The Americans are going to make a provocation and disappear. One thing is important: now there is actually another wave of hysteria about the fact that Russia is going to attack Ukraine. We are talking about the fact that they are purposefully going to put the Russian Federation in a position where it will be forced to take military measures.",- said the expert on the air of "Solovyov LIVE".

Sivkov is sure that such attempts at penetration should not be ignored. According to the analyst, such provocations are part of a plan to destabilize the situation in the Donbas. Similar actions are also directed against Russia. Washington wants Moscow to start a war, Sivkov believes.

Other Sources

Escobar and Martyanov have also put up pieces on Kazak situation. Reading the three gives a good picture. Martyanov gives the end result of US shenanigans. A report I read elsewhere said a number of armed protesters were eliminated.. Those suckers who work for US "interests" become pawns who are simply eliminated from the game. I like that term. It is also a bit of a contradiction as those pawns a simply ordinary people who have been suckered in to sacrifice their lives to further US "interests".

There is a fungus that takes control of a flies brain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Jw5ib-s_I US reminds me of that fungus.

Escobar https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/01/06/steppe-on-fire-kazakhstan-color-revolution/

Martyanov https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/01/so-kremlin-confirms.html

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 6 2022 10:57 utc | 8

From Strategic Culture

From HERE…

…Now compare it to what I learned from two different, high-ranking intel sources.

The first source was explicit: the whole Kazakh adventure is being sponsored by MI6 to create a new Maidan right before the Russia/US-NATO talks in Geneva and Brussels next week, to prevent any kind of agreement. Significantly, the “rebels” maintained their national coordination even after the internet was disconnected.

The second source is more nuanced: the usual suspects are trying to force Russia to back down against the collective West by creating a major distraction in their Eastern front, as part of a rolling strategy of chaos all along Russia’s borders. That may be a clever diversionary tactic, but Russian military intel is watching. Closely.

And for the sake of the “usual suspects”, this better may not be interpreted – ominously – was a war provocation.

Summary

So the response from the US to the Russian non-ultimatum ultimatum is to speed up their plans already in place to destabilize Russia? It’s clear that they’re not taking Russia’s red lines seriously and as Putin the other day stated there is nowhere left for Russia to retreat to.

Russia’s back is against the wall and their only option is to either cave in or go to war because the US is not taking no for an answer. 

Posted by: Down South | Jan 6 2022 10:17 utc | 4

The Untied States is still playing “it’s games”. The warnings from both Russia and China are not being taken seriously.

When Russia told the United States to “get off my front porch, get out of my front yard, and stay away from my back yard”, the United States simply said “Ok”, and then went on top of the roof and is trying to go down the chimney.

This WILL NOT end up well.

“The trajectory is not optimistic,” Chomsky says. “The worst case is the increasing provocative actions towards China. That’s very dangerous.”

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

The internet is a funny place. One button takes you to interesting places, and another takes your down a black hole of lies and manipulation.

For instance, I saw this little guy. Must have had one Hell of a hard life. Rescued, and is now with a family that loves him and who will take care of him and appreciate him. Poor guy. He has seen some shit. I’ll tell you what.

Yeah. This little guy has seen some shit.

On the other hand, I just read a great knee-slapper of a fantasy from the American neocon publication “Foreign Affairs“. It is titled “Washington is preparing for the wrong war with China.” While they correctly warn that it would be a mistake to get involved in defending Taiwan from China, they are wholly incorrect on their reasoning.

Caitlan Johnson, an astute social and political columnist, writes:

” …going to war with Russia or China over who governs Taiwan or Ukraine would only be supported by crazy morons. People often object to this position saying... 

‘So you’re saying we should just let China/Russia invade Taiwan/Ukraine??’ 

And the answer is ...

"Yes. Of course we should. What are you a fucking idiot?'”

There are many such articles. Overall the promoted mainstream media trend seems to be…

• The USA getting involved in a war over Taiwan serves no benefit to the USA.
• That the war would be a long, drawn out affair.
• The war would be similar to the war in Afghanistan where billions of dollars will be spent fighting a war on Chinese soil.
• But overall, in the long term the USA would benefit because it is “exceptional”.

Ugh.

True moronic pieces, but judging from the likes and forwards, it must really ring a bell and resonate with Americans.

It would take Beijing decades to overcome the losses incurred from a war to take Taiwan, even if Beijing triumphs. 

The United States and our western allies, on the other hand, would remain at full military power, dominate the international business markets, and have the moral high ground to keep China hemmed in like nothing that presently exists. 

Xi would be seen as an unquestioned aggressor, even by other Asian regimes, and the fallout against China could knock them back decades. 

Our security would be vastly improved from what it is today – and incalculably higher than if we foolishly tried to fight a war with China.

-The Guardian

Like I said. These people are living in a fantasy world.

Here, for shits and giggles, I am going to tear into one of their “articles” and pull out and highlight some terrible inaccuracies.

Buckle up.

Let’s go through this article paragraph by paragraph.

The United States is getting serious about the threat of war with China. The U.S. Department of Defense has labeled China its primary adversary, civilian leaders have directed the military to develop credible plans to defend Taiwan, and President Joe Biden has strongly implied that the United States would not allow that island democracy to be conquered.

All absolutely true. The United States has taken a strong war stance and is beating the war drums very loudly.

Yet Washington may be preparing for the wrong kind of war. Defense planners appear to believe that they can win a short conflict in the Taiwan Strait merely by blunting a Chinese invasion. Chinese leaders, for their part, seem to envision rapid, paralyzing strikes that break Taiwanese resistance and present the United States with a fait accompli. Both sides would prefer a splendid little war in the western Pacific, but that is not the sort of war they would get.

Both sides anticipate a short war.

The Chinese are planning a military exercise that would be over within hours.

The American and Taiwanese anticipate a short war also, but one that would be drawn out on the order of weeks to pull in American and Allied forces from Japan, Korea and Australia to fight the Chinese on Taiwan soil. they also believe that China would not consider this action as an invasion. And thus it would be a regional battle on Taiwan and on the South China Sea. A Pretty ENORMOUS assumption.

A war over Taiwan is likely to be long rather than short, regional rather than local, and much easier to start than to end. It would expand and escalate, as both countries look for paths to victory in a conflict neither side can afford to lose. It would also present severe dilemmas for peacemaking and high risks of going nuclear. If Washington doesn’t start preparing to wage, and then end, a protracted conflict now, it could face catastrophe once the shooting starts.

Nope. No. No. No.

What would the United States do to China if China started bombing Hawaii, put manpower, missiles, and tanks on Hawaii and took over the cities there?

America would launch missiles at Beijing. That's what America would do.

It would NOT send forces for a "long war" on Hawaii.

And so I am a telling youse guys that any American attacks, landings, or military actions of any kinds, type or manner will result in equal and measured attacks against American CITIES inside of America.

Let’s continue…

IMPENDING SLUGFEST

A U.S.-Chinese war over Taiwan would begin with a bang. China’s military doctrine emphasizes coordinated operations to “paralyze the enemy in one stroke.” In the most worrying scenario, Beijing would launch a surprise missile attack, hammering not only Taiwan’s defenses but also the naval and air forces that the United States has concentrated at a few large bases in the western Pacific. Simultaneous Chinese cyberattacks and antisatellite operations would sow chaos and hinder any effective U.S. or Taiwanese response. And the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would race through the window of opportunity, staging amphibious and airborne assaults that would overwhelm Taiwanese resistance. By the time the United States was ready to fight, the war would effectively be over.

All true.

However, the scale of the takeover would be beyond all this kind of fighting. The Chinese and the Taiwanese are brothers. They speak the same language, and both consider themselves Chinese.

It will be a silent coup.

One day you have Taiwan, the next day, you have China. And everyone will be trying to figure out what happened.

The Pentagon’s planning increasingly revolves around preventing this scenario, by hardening and dispersing the U.S. military presence in Asia, encouraging Taiwan to field asymmetric capabilities that can inflict a severe toll on Chinese attackers, and developing the ability to blunt the PLA’s offensive capabilities and sink an invasion fleet. This planning is predicated on the critical assumption that the early weeks, if not days, of fighting would determine whether a free Taiwan survives.

I agree that this seems to be the American military strategy.

Yet whatever happens at the outset, a conflict almost certainly wouldn’t end quickly. Most great-power wars since the Industrial Revolution have lasted longer than expected, because modern states have the resources to fight on even when they suffer heavy losses. Moreover, in hegemonic wars—clashes for dominance between the world’s strongest states—the stakes are high, and the price of defeat may seem prohibitive. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, wars between leading powers—the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the world wars—were protracted slugfests. A U.S.-Chinese war would likely follow this pattern.

Yes. The American cities of Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, New York, and San Francisco would be glowing for months afterwards.

If Washington doesn’t prepare for conflict now, it could face catastrophe once the shooting starts.

If the United States managed to beat back a Chinese assault against Taiwan, Beijing wouldn’t simply give up. Starting a war over Taiwan would be an existential gamble: admitting defeat would jeopardize the regime’s legitimacy and President Xi Jinping’s hold on power. It would also leave China more vulnerable to its enemies and destroy its dreams of regional primacy. Continuing a hard fight against the United States would be a nasty prospect, but quitting while China was behind would seem even worse.

This is all dreaming nonsense by a writer who has absolutely no clue as to how the Chinese think. 

Taiwan is Chinese. Period. They speak the Chinese language, they hold Chinese residency, they own Chinese passports, and they have relatives throughout the mainland China. 

Any action regarding it, win, lose or draw will be favorable in the eyes of the Chinese people.

Washington would also be inclined to fight on if the war were not going well. Like Beijing, it would view a war over Taiwan as a fight for regional dominance. The fact that such a war would probably begin with a Pearl Harbor–style missile attack on U.S. bases would make it even harder for an outraged American populace and its leaders to accept defeat. Even if the United States failed to prevent Chinese forces from seizing Taiwan, it couldn’t easily bow out of the war. Quitting without first severely damaging Chinese air and naval power in Asia would badly weaken Washington’s reputation, as well as its ability to defend remaining allies in the region.

Again nonsense. 

Once the shooting starts there will be ZERO American presence in the Pacific. It will all be over. All the bases will be radioactive craters.

Both sides would have the capacity to keep fighting, moreover. The United States could summon ships, planes, and submarines from other theaters and use its command of the Pacific beyond the first island chain—which runs from Japan in the north through Taiwan and the Philippines to the south—to conduct sustained attacks on Chinese forces. For its part, China could dispatch its surviving air, naval, and missile forces for a second and third assault on Taiwan and press its maritime militia of coast guard and fishing vessels into service. Both the United States and China would emerge from these initial clashes bloodied but not exhausted, increasing the likelihood of a long, ugly war.

Again, such idiocy!

China and Russia are as one. Both share military equipment, data and operations. Any war against China would be one against Russia as well.

China would take over the Pacific.
Russia would take over the Atlantic.
Iran would take over the Mediterranean.

NATO would be in ruins.
America would be smouldering.
Australia would have enormous craters.
Japan would meekly tremble an back down with it's gaping craters.
Korea would be busy dealing with it's own problems.

Iraq it will NOT be.

BIGGER, LONGER, MESSIER

When great-power wars drag on, they get bigger, messier, and more intractable. Any conflict between the United States and China is likely to force both countries to mobilize their economies for war. After the initial salvos, both sides would hurry to replace munitions, ships, submarines, and aircraft lost in the early days of fighting. This race would strain both countries’ industrial bases, require the reorientation of their economies, and invite nationalist appeals—or government compulsion—to mobilize the populace to support a long fight.

China can do this. It has already mobilized.

America cannot. You can see this with the joke of a COVID response. America is terribly balkanized and has zero ability to do anything. heck! They can't even build a wall on the Mexican border, a walk-bridge in Florida, or repair highway bridges.

America has a make-believe economy based on an artificially inflated dollar. Were a war to break out, the value of the USD would become zero.

Long wars also escalate as the combatants look for new sources of leverage. Belligerents open new fronts and rope additional allies into the fight. They expand their range of targets and worry less about civilian casualties. Sometimes they explicitly target civilians, whether by bombing cities or torpedoing civilian ships. And they use naval blockades, sanctions, and embargoes to starve the enemy into submission. As China and the United States unloaded on each other with nearly every tool at their disposal, a local war could turn into a whole-of-society brawl that spans multiple regions.

Yes. The moment that the United States starts bombing China, all Hell would break lose. No American cities would survive.

Bigger wars demand more grandiose aims. The greater the sacrifices required to win, the better the ultimate peace deal must be to justify those sacrifices. What began as a U.S. campaign to defend Taiwan could easily turn into an effort to render China incapable of new aggression by completely destroying its offensive military power. Conversely, as the United States inflicted more damage on China, Beijing’s war aims could grow from conquering Taiwan to pushing Washington out of the western Pacific altogether.

The intro sentence is correct, the rest is fantasy. 

There will be no American air power, no American naval power, and no American leadership. Instead, there will domestic turmoil, destruction, and while the "war" for Taiwan was envisioned as another long-duration war, it would instead be the death-blow to the United States as a nation.

All of this would make forging peace more difficult. The expansion of war aims narrows the diplomatic space for a settlement and produces severe bloodshed that fuels intense hatred and mistrust. Even if U.S. and Chinese leaders grew weary of fighting, they might still struggle to find a mutually acceptable peace.

More nonsense.

China, and Russia, can survive war. America cannot.

America is a mess, or haven’t you all been paying attention? video 2.2MB

GOING NUCLEAR

A war between China and the United States would differ from previous hegemonic wars in one fundamental respect: both sides have nuclear weapons. This would create disincentives to all-out escalation, but it could also, paradoxically, compound the dangers inherent in a long war.

There would be no escalation. It would be nuclear from the onset.

This is Chinese military doctrine.

For starters, both sides might feel free to shoot off their conventional arsenals under the assumption that their nuclear arsenals would shield them from crippling retaliation. Scholars call this the “stability-instability paradox,” whereby blind faith in nuclear deterrence risks unleashing a massive conventional war.

Chinese military writings often suggest that the PLA could wipe out U.S. bases and aircraft carriers in East Asia while China’s nuclear arsenal deterred U.S. attacks on the Chinese mainland.

On the flip side, some American strategists have called for pounding Chinese mainland bases at the outset of a conflict in the belief that U.S. nuclear superiority would deter China from responding in kind. Far from preventing a major war, nuclear weapons could catalyze one.

Unrealistic.

Chinese military doctrine is to release nuclear fury the moment their land is attacked.

They DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

Once that war is underway, it could plausibly go nuclear in three distinct ways. Whichever side is losing might use tactical nuclear weapons—low-yield warheads that could destroy specific military targets without obliterating the other side’s homeland—to turn the tide.

That was how the Pentagon planned to halt a Soviet invasion of central Europe during the Cold War, and it is what North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia have suggested they would do if they were losing a war today.

If China crippled U.S. conventional forces in East Asia, the United States would have to decide whether to save Taiwan by using tactical nuclear weapons against Chinese ports, airfields, or invasion fleets. This is no fantasy: the U.S. military is already developing nuclear-tipped, submarine-launched cruise missiles that could be used for such purposes.

Yes it would go nuclear, but not on the terms determined by the United States.

A local war could turn into a whole-of-society brawl that spans multiple regions.

China might also use nuclear weapons to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The PLA has embarked on an unprecedented expansion of its nuclear arsenal, and PLA officers have written that China could use nuclear weapons if a conventional war threatened the survival of its government or nuclear arsenal—which would almost surely be the case if Beijing was losing a war over Taiwan. Perhaps these unofficial claims are bluffs. Yet it is not difficult to imagine that if China faced the prospect of humiliating defeat, it might fire off a nuclear weapon (perhaps at or near the huge U.S. military base on Guam) to regain a tactical advantage or shock Washington into a cease-fire.

Such ignorance! 

I wonder if they actually believe this garbage, or are just fabricating a fantasy for cash dollars.

As the conflict drags on, either side could also use the ultimate weapon to end a grinding war of attrition. During the Korean War, American leaders repeatedly contemplated dropping nuclear bombs on China to force it to accept a cease-fire. Today, both countries would have the option of using limited nuclear strikes to compel a stubborn opponent to concede. The incentives to do so could be strong, given that whichever side pulls the nuclear trigger first might gain a major advantage.

There will be no escalation.  

It will be nuclear from the get-go, and Russia and China will control the entire event sequence. America would be trying desperately to catch up.

A final route to nuclear war is inadvertent escalation. Each side, knowing that escalation is a risk, may try to limit the other’s nuclear options. The United States could, for instance, try to sink China’s ballistic missile submarines before they hide in the deep waters beyond the first island chain.

Yet such an attack could put China in a “use it or lose it” situation with regard to its nuclear forces, especially if the United States also struck China’s land-based missiles and communication systems, which intermingle conventional and nuclear forces. In this scenario, China’s leaders might use their nuclear weapons rather than risk losing that option altogether.

There will be no escalation. 

It will be nuclear from the get-go, and Russia and China will control the entire event sequence. America would be trying desperately to catch up.

AVOIDING ARMAGEDDON

There is no easy way to prepare for a long war whose course and dynamics are inherently unpredictable. Yet the United States and its allies can do four things to get ready for whatever comes—and, hopefully, prevent the worst from happening.

First, Washington can win the race to reload.

China will be much less likely to go to war if it knows it will be outgunned as the conflict drags on. Washington and Taipei should therefore aggressively stockpile ammunition and supplies.

For the United States, the critical assets are missiles capable of sinking China’s most valuable ships and aircraft from afar. For Taiwan, the key weapons are short-range missiles, mortars, mines, and rocket launchers that can decimate invasion fleets.

Both nations also need to be ready to churn out new weapons in wartime. Taiwanese factories will be obvious targets for Chinese missiles, so the United States should enlist the industrial might of other allies. Japan’s shipbuilding capacity, for example, could be retooled to produce simple missile barges rapidly and on a massive scale.

Crazy fantasy.

So the United States plans on out-manufacturing the manufacturing powerhouse. Uh huh. What a fantasy.

Second, the United States and Taiwan can demonstrate their ability to hang tough. In a long war, China could try to strangle Taiwan with a blockade, bombard it into submission, or take down U.S. and Taiwanese electrical grids and telecommunications networks with cyberattacks. It could use conventionally armed, hypersonic missiles to attack targets in the U.S. homeland and flood the United States with disinformation.

Countering such measures will require defensive preparations, such as securing critical networks; expanding Taiwan’s system of civilian shelters; and enlarging the island’s stockpiles of fuel, food, and medical supplies.

Complete ignorance of reality.

The ignorance of the actual on-the-street realities of Taiwan, and the proud American trans-gender forces is stunning.

China might use nuclear weapons to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Breaking a Chinese campaign of coercion also requires threatening Beijing with painful retaliation.

A third objective, therefore, is to own the escalation ladder. By preparing to blockade Chinese commerce and cut Beijing off from markets and technology in wartime, the United States and its allies can threaten to turn an extended conflict into an economic catastrophe for China.

By preparing to sink Chinese naval vessels anywhere in the western Pacific and destroy Chinese military infrastructure in other regions, Washington can threaten a generation’s worth of Chinese military modernization. And by developing the means to hit Chinese ports, airfields, and armadas with tactical nuclear weapons, the United States can deter China from initiating limited nuclear attacks.

Washington should confront Beijing with a basic proposition: the longer a war lasts, the more devastation China will suffer.

Bye Bye USA.

They FUCKING KNOW THAT.

And the way to prevent that from happening is to destroy the top 40 American cities.

It will be pretty fucking hard without cities, people, and an angry world ready to tear Americans limp to limb.

Because controlling escalation will be essential, the United States also needs options that allow it to dial up the punishment without necessarily dialing up the violence. By subtly demonstrating that it has the cyber-capabilities to cripple China’s critical infrastructure and domestic security system, for example, the United States can threaten to bring the war home to Beijing. Similarly, by improving its ability to suppress Chinese air defenses near Taiwan with cyberattacks, electronic warfare, and directed-energy weapons, the United States can increase its freedom of action while limiting the amount of physical destruction it wreaks on the mainland.

China is not Iraq. Look at a map why don't you.

Any escalatory moves risk ratcheting up the intensity of a conflict. So the final preparation Washington must make is to define victory down. A war between nuclear-armed great powers would not end with regime change or one side occupying the other’s capital. It would end with a negotiated compromise. The simplest settlement would be a return to the status quo: China stops attacking Taiwan in exchange for a pledge that the island will not seek formal independence and that the United States will not endorse it. To sweeten the deal, Washington could offer to keep its forces off Taiwan and out of the Taiwan Strait. Xi would be able to tell the Chinese people that he taught his enemies a lesson. The United States would have saved a strategically positioned democracy. That may not be a satisfying end to a hard-fought conflict. But in a long war between great powers, protecting vital U.S. interests while avoiding Armageddon is good enough.

As I said, this is a fantasy piece. 

Any one actually taking this article seriously is a FUCKING IDIOT. And if they are in powerful policy making decisions then they DESERVE the "heat" that will come straight towards them.

Conclusions

I pulled out a laughable “article” that is apparently being taken seriously inside the Washington Beltway. I point out the pretty amazing errors in it, and lay down the law of ready vs. perception.

So here is a quick review of reality.

Chinese citizenry is 1600 million people. Every single one of them learned how to fire guns, operate weapons and perform military operations in first grade and throughout their youth. If you think that they would agree to any kind of assault you are out of your God Damn mind.

The entire population of the USA is only 330 million, of that only 1.3 million are in the Armed Forces. Which are spread out all over the globe.

Here’s a Chinese third grade mortar crew

When did you all learn how to fire mortars, arm and hit targets on military operations? The Chinese learn in third grade. video 6MB

You know, I get many comments that I do not publish. One of the comments that I have since deleted, but I will paraphrase here. It went like this…

"Playing pretend soldiers are nice and cute, but America is a warrior culture, with a long and glorious history. You simply cannot equate the Chinese play soldiers against a real modern and well-trained fighting force like the United States has."

Fifth grade students learning how to disable tanks

When did you learn how to do this? Do you really think that America’s great military can actually take on China? Video 16MB

You have to see things as the really are, not what you want to believe.

Here’s America today. How do you think it will be able to handle a war with a unified Russia and China? I do not. And you, if you were really honest with yourself wouldn’t either. Video 2.2MB

Everyone is questioning if America is still functioning.

It’s obvious. And no, a war is not going to make things better. it will make things far, far worse. video 2MB

Meanwhile…

The American psychopaths are not stopping for shit. Here’s on the Russian Front.

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5e184bafa1bb8700b26a3e2f/sivkov-pogranichniki-dnr-sorvali-specoperaciiu-nemeckogo-specnaza-v-donbasse-61c43c3ac6858e66417f572b?&

According to military expert Konstantin Sivkov, British and German special forces tried to enter the territory of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). However, the Western saboteurs failed, as their operation was prevented by employees of the DPR border service. The analyst noted that the border guards managed to detain foreign special forces without a fight.

"The Americans are going to make a provocation and disappear. One thing is important: now there is actually another wave of hysteria about the fact that Russia is going to attack Ukraine. We are talking about the fact that they are purposefully going to put the Russian Federation in a position where it will be forced to take military measures.",- said the expert on the air of "Solovyov LIVE".

Sivkov is sure that such attempts at penetration should not be ignored. According to the analyst, such provocations are part of a plan to destabilize the situation in the Donbas. Similar actions are also directed against Russia. Washington wants Moscow to start a war, Sivkov believes.

Final Key Points…

In US war games, any war with Russia escalates to nuclear then to total destruction. Russia seems to be saying accept these demands or we’ll have a crisis the equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I feel concerned that both sides, esp the US do not understand how rapidly a conflict could go nuclear or how unwinnable and destructive that war would be. Even though Biden and Putin recently acknowledged such a war would be unwinnable, the US actions do not show show they really believe that.

But neither is true, and I am telling you all something quite different…

This is BECAUSE Taiwan is part of China. So anyone attacking Taiwan will be attacking China. And China has a long-standing policy to produce measured responses.

Destroy one VTOL carrier, and watch yours get destroyed.

Launch one Bio-weapon attack against the Chinese people, and watch yours suffer from a substantive Bio-weapon attack.

Attack a Chinese city, watch yours get destroyed.

This is because it is it's long-standing Chinese military doctrine. 

That is the sole purpose of the hyper-velocity ICBM flights. It is to tell the Jack-asses in the United States that China WILL destroy American cities, and that there are no defenses that America can use. That has never changed.

This is because it's the SEO doctrine and all members will act together as one. This too has been telegraphed to the Western "leadership". Just because it is not in the mainstream media does not mean that the "leadership" is not aware of it.

Taken together, points [3], plus [4], plus [5] means…

This is a dangerous, dangerous “game” those fools in Washington DC are playing.

The Chinese are determined to fight to KILL.

It all starts in first grade.

So you think you can take on 1600 million soldiers? America’s military is 1.4 million troops. Or 1/100 of the size. You dunderheads! Are you fucking out of your God Damn mind? video 5MB

And a final RETORT

From a comment (that I did not publish) but is worthy to include here…

“MM is wrong because…

• America is exceptional. It is blessed by God.
• America is far stronger economically than China.
• China has fallen into the “debt trap” with over 3 trillion dollars worth of debt.
• America has a far stronger society than China. China is weak and it’s people are ready to overturn it once the central government crumbles.
• The BRI is a sham to overthrow the world.
• America has more and better factories than China.
• The World loves America and hates China.
• China only copies. It does not innovate.
• China enslaves the minorities and has enormous prison concentration camps.
• America has never lost a war.
• America is a military culture.

Therefore, China doesn’t have a chance.”

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

As a student of history, I am amazed at how story after story repeats itself over and over and over. One of the themes that seems to be prevalent is the idea that one can be safe and secure behind high wall, moats, oceans, or huge enormous military forces. It isn’t true. History has shown time and time again, that what you think is your greatest invincibility, is actually your greatest weakness. Who am I referring to? Why the United States. Of course!

It’s an especially dumb day for anti-China propaganda. The Biden administration has imposed trade restrictions on 34 Chinese institutions on the unsubstantiated allegation that they are developing “brain control weaponry“, a claim the mass media have been all too happy to uncritically pass on to the public. Between that and the ridiculous reporting on Russian Havana Syndrome ray guns it’s like they’re literally trying to get everyone to wear tinfoil hats.

Then there’s the Tucker Carlson guest who just told Carlson’s massive audience that the US military needs to be full of “Type A men who want to sit on a throne of Chinese skulls.” It’s highly disturbing how much the mass media have been talking about war with China like it’s a foregone conclusion lately, almost as though they’re working to normalize that horrifying idea.

There’s also this new article for The Hill, hilariously titled “‘Allies’ China and Russia are ganging up on America”, about how the poor widdle US empire is being bullied by mean old Xi and Putin’s increasingly tight-knit collaboration. It is authored by Gordon Chang, who has been wrongly predicting the imminent collapse of China for decades, and is plainly absurd because the Moscow-Beijing alignment is in reality nothing other than the natural consequence of two nations realizing the need to work together against the globe-spanning power structure that is trying to bully them into submission.

The US military budget has once again increased despite the US ending a war this year, and despite its facing no real threats from any nation to its easily-defended shores. The increase has been largely justified by the need to “counter China” and includes billions in funding for the ongoing construction of long-range missile systems on the first island chain near the Chinese mainland, explicitly for the purpose of threatening China. One need only imagine what would happen if China began constructing a chain of long-range missile systems off a US coastline to understand who the actual aggressor is between these two powers.

-Caitlin Johnstone

The United States

For the last two centuries, America has been considered invincible. It was surround by the enormous “moats” of the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, a formidable military, and a manufacturing capability that was (by far) better than any other nation in the world. It’s people were robust and willing to fight for their nations, and the nations to the North and South were mere client surrogates. They were willing to do whatever the United States said.

Many inside America still believe this. They still believe that this is still the case.

They are WRONG.

Times have changed.

They believe this myth; That the United States can bomb the Dejesus out of any nation it likes, and will suffer zero consequences of it. Whether it is Syria, Iraq, Liberia, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, or even now the Ukraine or Taiwan. And no one will fight back at the American homeland. No one will attack back. At worst, maybe an improvised munition on the road or a burst or two from a cheaply made AK-47.

Nothing to worry about!

And I am here to tell you that the NEXT war will be on American soil. It is engineered that way. And it’s going to hurt. Really, really, bad.

Let me tell you a history story.

Did you know that there was once a great nation the size of America that existed after the fall of Rome. And no, I’m not talking about the British Empire. I am talking about the Abbasid Caliphate.

Consider the frightening similarities.

• The United States = the Abbasid Caliphate.
• Washington DC = Baghdad

Consider The Mongol Sack of Baghdad in 1258

By Eamonn Gearon, MA, Johns Hopkins University

The Mongol conquest of the Abbasid Caliphate culminated in the horrific sack of Baghdad that effectively ended the Islamic Golden Age.

The Islamic Golden Age—from the 8th to the mid-13th century—was one of the greatest periods of human flourishment in knowledge and progress, with Baghdad as its focal point.

Just like America.

A truly global repository of human knowledge, this Arab-Muslim imperial capital also welcomed—indeed encouraged—scholars from across the known world.

Just like America.

As its wealth and fame grew, more and more scholars and engineers were drawn to the city from all over civilization.

Just like America.

But in January 1258, a vast Mongol army reached the city’s perimeter and demanded that the caliph—al-Musta’sim, the nominal spiritual authority of the Islamic world—surrender.

History of Baghdad: The Greatest City in the World

If you can imagine the shock waves, were Washington DC razed to the ground tomorrow, you’d be getting close to the horror that was about to accompany the Sack of Baghdad in 1258.

Founded 500 years earlier, Baghdad’s population had reached one million within a century, making it the world’s largest, most prosperous, and celebrated city.

If one thinks of London in 1897—the year when Queen Victoria celebrated her Golden Jubilee—the English city on the Thames was by then the largest and most important city on earth. In 1897, London was peerless in the world, with nowhere else coming close to matching its power and influence. It was the capital, and the fulcrum, of the British Empire.

If you can imagine the shock waves, were London razed to the ground tomorrow, you would be close to the horror that was about to accompany the Sack of Baghdad in 1258.

This is a transcript from the video series Turning Points in Middle Eastern History. Watch it now, Wondrium.

A Devastating Moment in History for Muslims in the Middle East

For many historians, the arrival of the Mongols into the heart of the Muslim faith and empire is the single most devastating moment in the history of the Muslim Middle East.

It’s easy to see why—and hard to argue otherwise—because the Sack of Baghdad would mark the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

Rather than submit, the Abbasid caliph challenged the Mongols to attempt to storm his city, if they dared.

The nomadic army from Asia—led by Hulagu Khan, one of Genghis Khan’s grandsons—did indeed dare.

Doing what they are most famous for, the Mongols thrashed Baghdad.

In 10 days of unremitting violence and destruction, Baghdad and its inhabitants were completely and utterly vanquished.

Almost without exception, the population was either put to the sword or sold into slavery.

The River Tigris ran red—to cite one of the most over-quoted, and overwrought phrases in history—with the blood of slaughtered men, women, and children.

After this, every building of note in Baghdad—including mosques, palaces, and markets—was utterly destroyed, among them the world-famous House of Wisdom.

Hundreds of thousands of priceless manuscripts and books were tossed into the river, clogging the arterial waterway with so many texts, according to eyewitnesses, that soldiers could ride on horseback from one side to the other.

Of course, the river turned from red to black with ink.

Who Were the Mongols?

The Sack of Baghdad fits, like a hinge, almost exactly in the middle of two defining dates in the history of Islam, from the founding of the faith in the year 622 to the end of the last caliphate in 1924.

Even by the standards of the day, the destruction was shocking, and the results long-lasting, if not permanent.

The Mongols’ name during this period in history was a byword for destruction.

Who were they and where did they come from?

Is there any reason to think that they were any more destructive than other peoples at the time?

The Mongols, an ethnic group, originating in north and central Asia, were typically pastoral peoples, whose nomadic lifestyle inevitably brought them into conflict with more settled populations.

Probably the best example of how settled peoples tried to restrict their otherwise free movement is the Great Wall of China. The wall was essentially built to hold back incursions of their Mongolian neighbors to the north.

This preference for nomadism over a settled existence is central to the view of the Mongols as especially destructive.

As one writer put it, while Muslims built cities—Baghdad and Cairo, for example—Mongols destroyed them. Does this mean that the Mongols were inherently more ruthless or violent than Muslims or crusading Christians? Not necessarily. Rather, it shows that their priority, in terms of conquest, was for land, for grazing—for space even—rather than for cities and confinement.

As one writer put it, while Muslims built cities—Baghdad and Cairo, for example—Mongols destroyed them.

One thing that came out of the Mongols’ lack of interest in seizing cities was their enhanced mobility.

Often living on a diet of mare’s milk—or blood, if the mares were not lactating—Mongol custom meant that they never washed their clothes. This, along with a heavy fat diet—both milk and meat—no doubt accounted for the Mongols’ reputation as a very smelly, as well as scary, foe.

The Fierce Mongol Warriors

Contemporary chroniclers tell us that Mongol warriors were most comfortable in the saddle, literally, it seems.

If they had to move more than a hundred yards, or so, they’d jump on a horse and ride. Also, all warriors owned numerous mounts, allowing them to cover larger distances than more traditional cavalry found in the Near East and Europe. While they rode light into battle, the Mongols used harnessed oxen to pull their heavier and more cumbersome possessions from place to place.

An important facet of the Mongol way of war and conquest was their use of terror as a tactic. The banging of metal pots and the rattling of bells was the usual way of announcing the start of a battle. This created such a din that defenders of a city under siege would find it almost impossible to hear their officers’ commands.

Whenever they entered new territory, the Mongols would offer the local rulers an opportunity to surrender. But in the language of many a salesman, this was a one-time offer.

For those foolish enough not to surrender immediately, conquest and destruction without quarter would be their lot, and the people of Baghdad knew this.

Setting the Scene for Catastrophe Before the Sack of Baghdad

In 1206, just 52 years before the Sack of Baghdad, the Mongol Empire was formed and led by the legendary Genghis Khan.

Khan is originally a Mongolian word that means military leader, or sovereign, a king, in English. Being accepted as the Great Khan effectively elevated Genghis to the status of an emperor. His grandsons now ruled the Mongolian Empire.

In addition to Hulagu Khan, who led the attack against Baghdad, there was Kublai Khan, conqueror of China, and Mongke Khan, who became the Great Khan and sent his brother Hulagu to Baghdad.

Hulagu marched at the head of perhaps the largest Mongolian army ever assembled, consisting of as many as 150,000 troops, with Baghdad one of several goals for this mission. First, Hulagu was told to subdue southern Iran, which he did.

Next, he was to destroy the infamous Assassins.

A breakaway Nizari-Ismaili-Shia sect, founded in the 11th century, the Assassins had achieved infamy for the political assassinations—hence, the term we use today—carried out by certain of their number.

Although it was known that the Assassins were based at the castle of Alamut in northwestern Iran, many of their adversaries thought they were somehow invincible because of the stealth they typically employed.

Hulagu Khan proved this was not the case.

After destroying the Assassins and their castle fortress at Alamut, Baghdad was the next stop on his list.

The majority of Hulagu Khan’s men were Mongolian warriors, but the force also contained Christians, including soldiers led by the king of Armenia, Frankish Crusaders from the Principality of Antioch, and Georgians.

The majority of Hulagu Khan’s men were Mongolian warriors, but the force also contained Christians, including soldiers led by the king of Armenia, Frankish Crusaders from the Principality of Antioch, and Georgians. There were also Muslim soldiers from various Turkic and Persian tribes, and 1,000 Chinese engineers—artillery specialists, who were always in demand when the need arose to reduce walls to rubble.

The Abbasid Caliphate

The Abbasids—the third Islamic caliphate to rule the Muslim Middle East since the death of Muhammad—had risen to power in 750, after overthrowing their rivals, the Damascus-based Umayyads.

Taking their name from one of Muhammad’s uncles, Abbas, the Abbasids quickly took control of almost all Umayyad lands, and so found themselves ruling over an enormous empire that covered the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, Syria, Iraq, Persia and beyond to modern Afghanistan.

A new Abbasid caliphate deserved a new capital, which they established in Baghdad, in 762, and immediately built it into an imperial city worthy of their greatness.

A new Abbasid caliphate deserved a new capital, which they established in Baghdad, in 762, and immediately built it into an imperial city worthy of their greatness.

Within a couple of generations, Baghdad had attracted some of the world’s greatest scholars.

Alongside Persian scholarship and cultural traditions—and Arab authority—one saw people from other parts of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Numerous Jews and Christians also pursued studies there.

Baghdad: A City of Learning

Among innumerable libraries and other centers of learning in ancient Baghdad, the greatest of them all was founded by the early Abbasid caliphs.

Called the Bayt al-Hikma—or House of Wisdom—this was the place that the best scholars and professors aspired to reach—not just Muslims from the Islamic world.

Imagine if you will, all of America’s Ivy League Colleges rolled into one; add to those the science and technological power of Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Stanford, and Berkley, then add Oxford and Cambridge to the mix, and the world’s great non-English-speaking universities. It comes close to what the House of Wisdom was like—except it was even more influential.

Imagine if you will all of America’s Ivy League Colleges rolled into one; add to those the science and technological power of Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Stanford, and Berkley, then add Oxford and Cambridge to the mix, and the world’s great non-English-speaking universities. It comes close to what the House of Wisdom was like—except it was even more influential.

There were two distinct sides to scholarship in Baghdad. One was translation work, with texts from India, Persia, and Greece gathered in huge numbers.

Texts originally composed in Persian, Sanskrit, Greek, Syriac, and Chinese were all eagerly rendered into Arabic.

Combined with this extensive translation work, however, was a wealth of original scholarship, funded and encouraged by the caliphs.

The arts and sciences alike were covered, so that advances were made in almost every imaginable subject, including mathematics, medicine, astronomy, physics, cartography, zoology, and poetry.

A Weak-Willed Caliph in Thirteenth-Century Baghdad

In the year 1242, al-Musta’sim became the 37th caliph in the Abbasid line. Baghdad’s glory days were behind it.

By this stage, the Abbasid caliphs were largely figureheads, propped up by outside forces.

If they were important at all, it was as the inheritors of Islamic orthodoxy and as beacons of cultural greatness, but not as a political power to be obeyed nor a military force to be feared.

Indeed, the Abbasids already were in the habit of paying an annual tribute to the Mongols. Despite this, the city was still large and prosperous.

A weak-willed, even dissolute character, al-Musta’sim was happier hanging out with musicians and drinking wine than he was ruling…

Alas for Baghdad, the court of history doesn’t rate the caliph as the greatest of his line.

A weak-willed, even dissolute character, al-Musta’sim was happier hanging out with musicians and drinking wine than he was ruling an already weakened empire.

In 1251, the Abbasids sent a delegation to pay homage on the coronation of Hulagu’s brother, Mongke, when he became the Great Khan, but this was no longer considered enough.

Mongols Demand Submission by Abbasid Caliph al-Mustasim

Mongke insisted that the Abbasid Caliph al-Musta’sim come in person to Karakorum, the 13th century capital of the Mongol Empire, in the north of modern Mongolia, to fully submit to Mongol rule.

The Caliph al-Musta’sim refused to do so.

The final showdown between the Mongols and the Abbasids was set.

With the Mongol horde marching on Baghdad, a clash was inevitable, although this wouldn’t be the first encounter between the Abbasids and the Mongols.

In the recent past, the Abbasids had managed a couple of small-scale military victories against Mongol forces.

However, these were soon overturned and weren’t part of any trend of a militarily resurgent Abbasid Empire.

Their days of martial glory were long gone.

Adding fuel to the fire, al-Musta’sim is said to have slighted Shia Muslims by various acts and decrees.

He should have known better, as his grand vizier, or senior advisor, was himself a Shia Muslim.

This vizier is said to have sided with the Mongols, encouraging their takeover of the city, perhaps imagining that he’d be given control of Baghdad by a grateful Hulagu.

If this is what he thought, he didn’t know anything about Hulagu.

A Difficult Decision for the Caliph to Surrender to the Mongols

The caliph was faced with a choice between surrendering to the Mongol leader and presumably saving his city, or building up his army, and riding out to meet the invading warriors in combat.

It likely never crossed the caliph’s mind that he should probably surrender rather than send threats to Hulagu.

Al-Musta’sim discovered a third option: Doing nothing.

Baghdad was surrounded, and al-Musta’sim realized too late that the Mongol army was far larger and stronger than he’d been told.

The rest of the Muslim world wasn’t about to rush to his rescue either.

The siege of Baghdad began on January 29, 1258.

The Mongols quickly built a palisade and ditch and brought siege engines, such as covered battering rams that protected their men from the defenders’ arrows and other missiles, and catapults to attack the city’s walls.

At this stage, al-Musta’sim made a last-ditch attempt to negotiate with Hulagu and was rebuffed.

Al-Musta’sim surrendered Baghdad to Hulagu five days later, on February 10.

Adding to the distress of those inside the city, Hulagu and his horde didn’t make any attempt to enter the city for three days.

The stress must have been awful.

A Glimmer of Compassion for Baghdad Christians

Late in life, Hulagu became a Buddhist.

At this moment, however, the only sign of compassion he showed was towards Baghdad’s Nestorian Christian community.

Nestorianism was a form of Christianity that church authorities had declared heretical in the 5th century.

It stressed that the divine and human aspects of Jesus’s nature were separate.

Many Nestorians had moved to Persia, where they’d lived ever since.

Hulagu, upon entering Baghdad, told the Nestorians to lock themselves in their church and ordered his men not to touch them.

What was the reason for this act of kindness before the bloodbath that was to follow?

Simply that Hulagu’s mother and his favorite wife were both Nestorian Christians.

Mongols Execute Baghdad Notables

About 3,000 of Baghdad’s notables—including officials, members of the Abbasid family, and the caliph himself—pleaded for clemency. But all 3,000 were put to death without compunction…

With the Nestorians secure, Hulagu allowed his army an unfettered week of rape, pillage, and murder to celebrate their victory.

About 3,000 of Baghdad’s notables—including officials, members of the Abbasid family, and the caliph himself—pleaded for clemency.

But all 3,000 were put to death without compunction; all, that is, except for the caliph. He was held prisoner for a little while longer, perhaps in part so that he could see the full extent of what befell his capital.

Estimates of the death toll range from 90,000 at the lowest end to one million at the other. Apart from being a conveniently round number, the population of Baghdad was around a million, and the historical record tells us not everyone was killed.

Whatever the actual number, it included the army that had dared resist Hulagu’s advance, and the civilians, who had no choice either way.

Men, women, and children down to babes in arms were put to the sword or clubbed to death. Little mercy was shown unless it was of a quick rather than a lingering death.

Death of a Caliph

The Caliph al-Musta’sim was forced to watch these murders and the plundering of his treasury and palaces. Hulagu taunted him that, with so much gold and so many jewels, he’d have been better off spending some of these riches on building up a bigger army.

As for how the caliph met his end, one account says he was locked in his treasury, surrounded by his wealth, and left alone to starve to death. As colorful as this account is, it doesn’t sound likely, given the widespread looting that took place, nor is it corroborated by any sources.

A more plausible account, as reported by several chroniclers, goes like this: Hulagu had been warned by his astronomers that royal blood shouldn’t be spilled onto the earth. If it were, the earth would reject it, and earthquakes and natural destruction would follow.

If we consider his record, one might not think Hulagu an especially cautious man. However, in this case, he plotted the safer course.

The caliph was rolled in carpets, which would catch any blood spilled, and then he was trampled to death by his own cavalry. Obviously upset at the foolishness and idiocy of their own leadership.

For the first time since the death of Muhammad, 636 years earlier, Islam had no Caliph whose name could be quoted in Friday prayers.

Destruction of the City of Baghdad

If you’re looking for an example of a city razed to the ground, Baghdad in 1258 would be a good choice.

Apart from the human casualties, there was the destruction of the 500-year old city itself. Fires were set so that the fragrant scent of sandalwood and other aromatics was smelled up to 30 miles away. If you’re looking for an example of a city razed to the ground, Baghdad in 1258 would be a good choice. After a week, Hulagu ordered his camp out of the city, and moved upwind, away from the stench of rotting corpses.

Hulagu left Baghdad a broken and depopulated city.

Even if those left alive had wanted to rebuild, they lacked the numbers, the resources, and the skills to do so. The death and destruction were such that it would be more than a decade before anyone from Baghdad performed the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.

In attacking Baghdad, Hulagu also destroyed the network of canals that irrigated the arable land thereabouts. Famine and plague followed the Mongol horde to Baghdad as elsewhere. Their scorched-earth tactics make it easy to see why they’re often tagged with a reputation as the most destructive of all the great empires.

Common Questions About the Sack of Baghdad

The United States will be sacked and burned to the ground because the American leadership refuses to coexist on equal terms with the rest of the world.

There will be no mercy given to any wealthy oligarchs, or leadership of any kind associated with the collapsing United States.

The massive monuments, libraries, and history of America will be unequivocally destroyed.

The United States will be broken up into smaller "nations" and each one will possess a new form of governance. No thread of the failed American "democracy" will endure.

Conclusion

Today, the United States is no longer geographically isolated and protected. The huge distances between their “targeted enemies” no longer makes an difference. No longer can leadership in Washington DC order attacks against Asia and believe in absolute confidence that their offices, their homes, and their daily routines will continue as always.

No longer an the United States have staff sitting inside military bases in safety while they direct remote drone strikes by robot. In the future, they will be pulverized into oblivion.

What we are witnessing today is the same exact ignorance and ego of the leadership of the United States what we saw with the Abbasid Caliphate, and I argue that it’s destruction will be just as harsh, and just as long lasting.

While I urge pleas to everyone to stop this madness, and to step out of the “echo chambers” that they inhabit. No one is doing so. Such as this old dinosaur in Washington DC that wants to destroy China because it is using “mind control weapons” to control the American people!

Pretty fucking piss-poor “mind control” weapons if you ask me. Most of America can’t wait to bomb China into dust.

And you all know, the fear-mongering that is raising the fears of Americans isn’t doing much else. China and Russia are plowing ahead. Just like the Mongols did. They know that they are in a position of superiority. And whether it happens today, or in five years, the future of America depends on it’s leadership.

How do you think they are going to handle this historical moment?

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.