The majority of Americans believe it is likely that the US will be involved in a world war during the coming decade. Under President Joe Biden, the US is preparing for great power wars with Russia and China, engaged in multiple Middle East conflicts, and posturing for a confrontation with Iran and North Korea.
According to a new YouGov poll, 61% of Americans responded that it is very or somewhat likely that a world war would break out in the next five to ten years. About two-thirds of people responding to the poll said they believe the war will turn into a nuclear conflict.
When asked what countries would be aligned against the US, a majority of Americans said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and China. Americans identified NATO members such as France and the UK, as well as Israel and Ukraine, as allies in the coming world war.
Americans are not overly optimistic about the potential conflict. A slight majority believe the US and its allies would defeat Russia. While under half of respondents said the US would lose a war with Russia or against an alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
While most Americans believe a global conflict is on the horizon, they are not interested in fighting the war. More than twice as many respondents said they would refuse service even if drafted than stated, they would volunteer if the war broke out. Americans responded that they were more likely to serve in non-combat roles or if the homeland was threatened.
Exhibit 1: Friday, March 22, 2024. It’s War. The Kremlin, via Peskov, finally admits it, on the record.
The money quote:
“Russia cannot allow the existence on its borders of a state that has a documented intention to use any methods to take Crimea away from it, not to mention the territory of new regions.”
Translation: the Hegemon-constructed Kiev mongrel is doomed, one way or another. The Kremlin signal: “We haven’t even started” starts now.
Exhibit 2: Friday afternoon, a few hours after Peskov. Confirmed by a serious European – not Russian – source. The first counter-signal.
Regular troops from France, Germany and Poland have arrived, by rail and air, to Cherkassy, south of Kiev. A substantial force. No numbers leaked. They are being housed in schools. For all practical purposes, this is a NATO force.
That signals, “Let the games begin”. From a Russian point of view, Mr. Khinzal’s business cards are set to be in great demand.
Exhibit 3: Friday evening. Terror attack on Crocus City, a music venue northwest of Moscow. A heavily trained commando shoots people on sight, point blank, in cold blood, then sets a concert hall on fire. The definitive counter-signal: with the battlefield collapsing, all that’s left is terrorism in Moscow.
And just as terror was striking Moscow, the US and the UK, in southwest Asia, was bombing Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, with at least five strikes.
Some nifty coordination. Yemen has just clinched a strategic deal in Oman with Russia-China for no-hassle navigation in the Red Sea, and is among the top candidates for BRICS+ expansion at the summit in Kazan next October.
Israel has continued signaling that it is preparing to launch a major new operation against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon following months of tit-for-tat escalation. Some 80,000 Israeli residents whose homes are near the border have remained evacuated since October and November, and are essentially internally displaced. Because of this, pressure has mounted on Israeli leaders to do something that would allow their return, and ensure the security of Israel’s north.
Israeli media, particularly YNet Newsreported on Sunday that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is preparing “contingency plans” for a wide-scale attack on Lebanon. Israeli Army Northern Command head Major General Ori Gordin in a meeting with settler leaders from northern Israel stated, “We are preparing contingency plans to launch an attack in Lebanon. Our commitment, mine, is to change the security situation so that the residents can be returned home.”
Via AFP
YNet further unveiled plans to initiate the army’s “Operation Steady Anchor” which aims to protect civilians during the expected escalation in fighting. Hezbollah is widely estimated to possess over 150,000 rockets – some of which can likely reach Haifa and Tel Aviv.
The operation involves setting up dozens of mass shelters utilizing fortified abandoned buildings and underground parking garages. This is to protect civilians in the instance of a mass Hezbollah rocket barrage. The shelters will be equipped to allow families to take refuge anywhere from a few hours to up to several days.
In another key sign of Tel Aviv’s war preparations, the IDF has been conducing a logistics supply drill focused on its northern bases and positions, and in preparation for a Lebanon offensive This has included practice runs delivering ammo, equipment, water, and fuel to simulated “maneuvering forces” operating in southern Lebanon.
There are indeed plans for a conventional Western intervention in Ukraine despite their leaders’ denials over the past two weeks, but they’ve yet to fully form and their execution can’t be taken for granted, but they also can’t be ruled out either.
The debate that French President Macron provoked over whether NATO should conventionally intervene in Ukraine exposed the existence of two distinct schools of thought on this issue inside of Europe. France, the Baltic States, and Poland appear to be in favor of “non-combat deployments” there for demining and training missions, which could be carried out through a “coalition of the willing”, while the rest of the bloc supports Germany’s stance that this shouldn’t happen under any circumstances.
“Scholz’s Slip Of The Tongue Spilled The Beans On Ukraine’s Worst-Kept Secret”, however, since he inadvertently revealed that there are already British and French troops there helping Ukraine with “target control”. The subsequently leaked Bundeswehr recording about bombing the Crimean Bridge confirmed that the Americans are there too. Nevertheless, what’s being proposed by Paris is a formalization of these deployments along with their gradual expansion in a “non-combat” capacity.
Nobody should be fooled into thinking that France and the other four that appear to be in favor of this scenario are solely interested in demining and training missions. Rather, their intent seems to be to prepare these on-the-ground forces for surging eastward in the event that the worst-case scenario from Kiev’s perspective materializes whereby the frontline collapses and Russia starts steamrolling westward. These NATO members would then try to draw a red line in the sand as far as possible to save Ukraine.
Germany’s approach is altogether different in that it prefers to formally stay out of the fray in order to focus on building “Fortress Europe”…
What if a conversation between Russian officials discussing the explosion of a bridge in Germany had been revealed? Would Western press coverage also treat the leak as something more serious than threats of military attack?
On March 1, the editor-in-chief of the Rossiya Segodnya group, journalist Margarita Simonyan, revealed, on her Telegram channel, a 38-minute audio in which officers from the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) discussed the possibility of sending missiles long-range Taurus to Ukraine and whether they would be able to reach the Crimean bridge in the Kerch Strait, which connects the peninsula to the mainland and is Russian territory.
The Russian press, naturally, made much of the revelation. This forced the mainstream Western media – especially German ones – to report the leak. But whoever thought that a miracle would happen, that is, that the Western press would finally raise the issue of NATO’s military threats against Russia… well, those people are simply very naive.
The Western mass media, as always, tried to manipulate the news and hide the main issue.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, Die Welt and Der Spiegel published 39 articles on the topic on their respective websites between the time the news was revealed and the evening of March 6th (when I write these lines).
The two North American newspapers did not want to highlight the matter. The Post published two reports and the Times only one. The three expressed concern about the fragility of German intelligence security systems in the face of Russian espionage.
In early February, I posted a poll on X asking whether I should write a geopolitical piece on the Russo-Ukrainian war, adding to my series mapping a worst-case scenario for the war. While the vote count for this particular poll was not very high, an overwhelming majority supported this notion.
Before conducting the poll, developments in Ukraine in December and January had led me to ponder the outcome, or endgame, of the war. In September 2022, I had established an alternative to the western narrative of the war, spewed relentlessly by our media. In it, I argued that
Ukrainian losses are massive, passing Russian losses possibly 5-10 times.
The Russian army has not collapsed, but it may have become the strongest it has been since WWII.
The West (NATO) is fighting a proxy-war in Ukraine with the possible aim of regime change in Russia.
Russia is about to create a war-machine not seen in Europe for a very long time, which it could use to unleash a devastating attack against Ukrainian (NATO) forces during the winter.
The massive force Russia is amassing and the all-but-halted progress of Ukrainian forces, tells me that we are most likely approaching a turning point in the war. In the worst case, this implies that Ukraine has already lost. Even in the best case (excluding peace) this means that the war will drag on and become a resource race between NATO and Russia.
Now, essentially all of this, except the Russian winter-offensive (2022/23) have been proven true. Ukraine has effectively lost the war, or a least she cannot win it in any plausible scenario. Just a few days ago, French President Emmanuel Macron attempted a game-changer, by “not ruling out” NATO boots in Ukraine…
EU warships have set off for the Red Sea, where the US navy is waging its largest conflict since the end of WWII in support of Israel
(Photo Credit: Getty Images)
A high-ranking Yemeni official has warned the EU against “supporting the American devil to protect [Israel]” following the formal launch of the Aspides naval mission in the Red Sea.
“For Europeans, do not play with fire. Take a lesson from Britain,” Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, a senior member of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, said via social media on 20 February.
“You do not need the support of the American devil in protecting the occupying entity so that it can exterminate the people of Gaza with no disturbance,” Houthi added, stressing that “international navigation is safe.”
His message followed an announcement by Brussels of the official launch of the EU naval operation codenamed Aspides – Greek for shield.
“I welcome today’s decision … Europe will ensure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, working alongside our international partners. Beyond crisis response, it’s a step towards a stronger European presence at sea to protect our European interests,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said via social media.
France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium have said they will contribute ships to the EU mission in support of Israel.
The bloc’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, described the mission as “bold action to protect the commercial and security interests of the EU and the international community.”
With a mandate initially set for one year, Aspides will see the deployment of EU warships and airborne early warning systems to the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and surrounding waters. According to officials in Brussels, the mission will be exclusively defensive, and its forces will not partake in US-led attacks against Yemen.
The Israel-Hezbollah war is expanding, which was on display Monday as Israel for the first time struck near a large city which is deep inside Lebanon, far away from the border, in the region of Ghaziyeh.
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari has confirmed in a statement that military was behind large airstrikes that rocked a town just south of Sidon earlier in the day. Hagari the strikes targeted Hezbollah weapons depots, and also served as a response to an explosive-laden that struck northern Israel previously on Monday. Video captured the moment of the massive airstrikes:
Happening now: More footage from Israel’s bombing of Lebanese civilian areas 45 kms from the border. It is clearly visible that these are homes in a residential area. Sidon is under the control of the Lebanese army, which receives financial assistance from the US govt. pic.twitter.com/ebTde3HvWG
Sidon is the third largest city in Lebanon, and the region that was attack liesat least 45-60 kilometers from the Israeli border. So far the tit-for-tat strikes which stretch back to early October, following the Hamas terror attack on southern Israel, have been confined to southern Lebanon. Fighting has by and large stayed to within kilometers of the border on either side.
“Israeli jets attacked near Sidon on Monday, Israeli media reported, citing the Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Akhbar newspaper,” regional media also confirms. “The two strikes occurred in the region of Ghaziyeh some 60 km from Israel’s northern border.”
Videos of the strikes show a huge fireball erupt high into the air…
Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong is predicting political turmoil, civilian unrest, war and a big economic downturn in 2024 in a new report called “The Year from Political Hell.” It’s not just a US election year, but it is an election year for more than half of the world. This is a global phenomenon which no one can be sure of the outcome. Armstrong explains, “This is not just the United States election. This is what you hear on the news locally. However, step outside this country, and, for example, Indonesia just voted in a leftist government. You have the EU going for elections. You have on May 2nd all the local elections in Britian. You have Russian elections on May 7th. 60% of the world is going to the polls in 2024 to vote for a new government. You might as well throw them into a tumbler, shake well and see what comes out. I mean it’s all over the place.”
On the war front, get ready for more mass killing, and don’t be surprised if it goes nuclear. Armstrong predicts, “There will be nuclear weapons. The neocons keep telling people on Capitol Hill that Russia would never use a nuke because they know we would use them back. That is nonsense! If you are about ready to conquer somebody, and this is all they’ve got left, they are pushing the button. . . . These people, all they want is war. They don’t care. They really do not care. They don’t care about the economy. They don’t care about anything.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued some shocking words over the weekend which the Kremlin will likely take as a threat. “NATO is not looking for war with Russia. But we have to prepare ourselves for a confrontation that could last decades,” he told German daily Welt am Sonntag on Saturday. His words also reflect a new emphasis and drive among NATO planners for European countries to urgently invest more heavily in defense and domestic weapons production, as is happening for example in Germany and France.
So far, defense leaders and officials from NATO countries have tended to speak about a time frame of the conflict lasting “years” – but to hear Stoltenberg tell the West it must brace for a war going on for “decades” is somewhat unprecedented.
“If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is no guarantee that Russian aggression will not spread to other countries,” Stoltenberg continued, echoing an assumption that’s been a persistent talking point out of Zelensky and his Western backers.
EPA via Shutterstock
He urged that to prevent this future scenario, the allies must ramp up support to Ukraine and member states must invest in NATO military infrastructure. “Deterrence only works if it is credible. As long as we invest in our own security and remain united, we will continue to deter any form of aggression,” Stoltenberg said.
Interestingly the words followed on the heels of the Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin wherein the Russian leader appeared to appeal directly to the US government saying he is ‘ready’ for sincere talks to end the war. “We are willing to negotiate,” Putin had told Carlson and said in reference to the Biden administration: “You should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to the negotiating table.”
In a recent statement posted to social media, Tucker Carlson explained succinctly his many reasons for traveling to Russia to interview President Vladimir Putin. His decision, mired in an avalanche of outrage from leftist media talking heads and a multitude of western politicians, was inspired by Carlson’s concern that Americans have been misdirected by corporate propaganda leaving the public completely uneducated on the war in Ukraine and what tensions with the East might lead to.
I agree. In fact, I don’t think the majority of Americans have a clue what the real consequences of a global war with Russia and its allies would look like. Even if the conflict never resulted in shots fired and stayed confined to the realm of economic warfare, the US and most of Europe would be devastated by the effects.
Carlson specifically mentioned dangers to the status of the US dollar, and I suspect this comment probably mystified a great number of people. Most of the population cannot fathom the idea of a US dollar implosion set in motion by a foreign dump of the greenback as the world reserve currency. They really do believe the dollar is invincible.
The most delusional people are, unfortunately, those within mainstream economic circles. They just can’t seem to grasp that the west is in the midst of financial collapse already, and war would accelerate the effects to levels not seen since the Great Depression.
I have been warning about this outcome for many years. I think I have made my position clear in the past; I suspect the conflict between east and west has been carefully engineered over the course of a decade or more, and Russia is not innocent in this affair.
Today’s ‘contemplation’ is derived from a conversation on a Facebook Group post I was recently involved with[1]. I’ve been reluctant to write anything regarding the current Russian/Ukraine conflict due to the extreme polemic and emotional aspects such events create, especially in the early moments when people are reacting rather than reflecting[2], and the propaganda on all sides has been ramped up to warp speed. Nonetheless, here it is:
War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
So the Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong song goes[3], and this is especially true in times of overshoot given the drain on resources (which have for some time been encountering significant diminishing returns) that modern warfare entails. It is self-evident that military adventurism is heavily resource dependent, and a World War or even a significant increase in a ‘Cold War’ between geopolitical rivals will expedite the coming collapse of our global, industrialised societies as assuredly as a gargantuan ramping up of the industrial processes required to try and replace our fossil fuel-intensive energy needs with non-renewable, renewables[4] that many, even well-intentioned ‘environmentalists’, advocate for[5].
But depending upon one’s perspective, war can be quite good. In fact, fantastic. It is one of the longest lasting means throughout pre/history for a complex society’s ruling elite to maintain and expand power, gain access to resources, and with our current debt-/credit-based fiat currency monetary system and concentration of industrial/corporate ownership ensure gargantuan profits for a select few[6].
Many in the West have jumped upon the patriotic bandwagon to vilify Russian/Putin ‘aggression’ (conveniently ignoring/denying the ongoing aggression of their own elite over the years). This is not surprising given the slanted narratives they are provided by our politicians and their media mouthpieces on a regular basis to garner our support[7]. We are fed lies constantly through both omission and commission. Propaganda is everywhere, all the time[8].
There is a very good argument to be made (based upon history and context) that it has been the West’s ever-expanding encroachment towards Russian borders that has precipitated much of this[9]; to say little about the US-orchestrated coup[10] that led to the current West-leaning Ukrainian regime. And, quite naturally, there has been a full court press on to counter these arguments from US/NATO advocates[11]. The idea that it is unpatriotic to criticise or counter war ‘efforts’ is rampant. The ‘you are with us or against us’ mentality is everywhere. Of course it is nothing new to leverage our ‘natural’ tendency (what some refer to as tribal instincts) of patriotic feelings towards our nation state and her allies; it occurs both in and out of war time[12].
Is Russia innocent in any of this? Absolutely not; they are a nation-state based upon a ruling elite whose primary motivation is the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems to maintain their revenue streams and power/prestige like every other. The West’s elite (who are driven by the same motivation) have challenged the East’s elite and many innocents (the vast majority of the rest of us) are caught in the middle of this power play.
These people don’t give a shit about you or me except in terms of extracting labour and wealth to support them. But on some level they also need our consent to participate in such actions given how significantly outnumbered they are. This consent is, for the most part, manufactured by leveraging our fear of the ‘other’ and our sense of ‘patriotism’ — in this vein, we are sold all sorts of emotional narratives about ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘liberty’, ‘duty’, ‘evil’, ‘tyranny’, etc..
It’s all bullshit but because of our tendency to defer to authority[13] and to identify with the elite we imagine it is ‘us’, the ‘average person’, that the ‘other’ hates and wants to fight[14]. We end up standing with our elite ruling class and support/cheerlead their pillaging of the nation’s treasury (both ‘wealth’ and natural resources) to engage in war…while it is them who are profiting given they own the industries and financial institutions that have to provide the ‘loans’ and armaments. It’s all based on lies and manipulation. It is a racket, plain and simple, just as US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler argued[15].
In the meantime, it pushes us further into overshoot through its significant resource drawdowns and sink overloading — to say little about the environmental impacts should this go nuclear.
The best thing the vast, vast majority of us could do is not choose a ‘side’ but walk away from this insanity by not supporting it at all. Refuse to participate. Refuse to repeat their propaganda. Refuse their lies and manipulation. Don’t be a pawn in their game. Reduce drastically your consumption. Reduce your dependency upon long-distance supply chains. Relocalise as much as possible. Build your community’s self-sufficiency and -resiliency. Grow your own food. Trade with your neighbours. Support each other, not the ruling class whose interests and motivations have nothing to do with you, your family, or your local community (unless of course its sitting on natural resources they want).
Refuse to remain in the Matrix as much as possible.
[2] Not that discussing cornucopian techno-fixes to our dependency upon fossil fuels with some is not — it can be very contentious, especially when one is attacked for being a fossil fuel shill/cheerleader for simply highlighting the problems that arise with alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.
[3] Although originally sung by The Temptations in 1969 and then rerecorded in 1970 featuring Edwin Starr, I personally was introduced to the song during my formative years of the 1980s and know it as a Frankie Goes to Hollywood one.
[4] Non-renewable, renewables is a term I have seen increasingly used by people to describe more accurately our energy harnessing technologies of solar photovoltaic, wind, and wave energy. The natural sources we are attempting to harness energy from are, for all intents and purposes, ‘renewable’ but the technologies used to harness and convert this energy to something humanity can use are not given their reliance upon finite resources, particularly the fossil fuel platform but also the many earth-based minerals that go into the components.
[5] From mining to mineral processing to transportation to reclamation and/or waste disposal, these complex energy-harvesting technologies require much in the way of finite resources and energy inputs, and add significantly to the overloading of our planetary sinks.
Russia has condemned the Friday night large-scale US strikes on Syria and Iraq, saying it was an illegal ‘aggression’ and that an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting must be convened to address it.
Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Saturday of the American operation which killed some 40 people, including civilians, that it “once again demonstrated to the world the aggressive nature of US policy in the Middle East and Washington’s complete disregard for international law.”
AFP via Getty Images
According to TASS, “A UN Security Council meeting in connection with the US strikes is scheduled for February 5”; however, the UN has yet to confirm or publish details of the upcoming emergency session.
Additionally Moscow’s ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, said: “We just demanded an urgent sitting of the UN Security Council over the threat to peace and safety created by US strikes on Syria and Iraq.”
The Pentagon said it struck over 85 targets in Iraq and Syria, and there are likely more bombing waves to come in the next days.
In fresh Saturday remarks, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said“This is the start of our response.” Some unnamed US officials have even said the operation could continue for days or even weeks, in response to the Sunday drone attack on the Jordanian border base which killed three Americans.
While Russia has over several years repeatedly condemned US operations over Syria, and especially the troop occupation in the northeast, it has never responded with an anti-air intercept, or at least this has never been publicly disclosed.
But this remains a possibility so long as major US aerial operations continue. Russian jets and convoy patrols are present especially in Syria’s northwest, but have also been known to stretch near Deir Ezzor, the other side of which the Pentagon has a presence.
Aerial View of Haifa oil refineries. Photo: Meronim, CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed.
It was the sign that got to me. I was standing with protesters outside the Burlington (VT) City Hall at a rally organized by Jewish Voice for Peace. To my left I spotted a man, grim-faced and silent, holding aloft a piece of cardboard with these words scratched in black:
“Jews against Genocide.”
“So it has finally come to this,” I said to myself.
Why, I wondered, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Biden administration risk their standing in the world and ignore calls for a ceasefire? Did they have an unspoken agenda?
As a chronicler of the endless post-9/11 wars in the Middle East, I concluded that the end game was likely connected to oil and natural gas, discovered off the coast of Gaza, Israel and Lebanon in 2000 and 2010 and estimated to be worth $500 billion. The discovery promised to fuel massive development schemes involving the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Also at stake was the transformation of the eastern Mediterranean into a heavily militarized energy corridor that could supply Europe with its energy needs as the war in Ukraine dragged on.
Here was the tinderbox waiting to explode that I had predicted in 2022. Now it was exploding before our very eyes. And at what cost in human lives?
Map of the Eastern Mediterranean region showing the area included in the USGS Levant Basin Province assessment. Photo credit: USGS.
Reflections on the Israeli War on Gaza
The year 1975 was my last in beautiful, cosmopolitan Beirut, Lebanon, before it descended into 15 years of brutal civil war, killing 100,000 people.
The bloodbath in Israel will change the world. We wait for the facts before we write and take this incident as an opportunity to analyze bloodbaths of the past. Lies that changed the world – not for the better.
Introduction
The attack on Israel shocks anyone with a heart. The images defy description. Last weekend, Israelis were slaughtered, now it’s the Palestinians’ turn. Mindless revenge follows a seemingly mindless attack.
This is not the first time that images of a bloodbath have been burned into the consciousness of the world’s population, only to be exploited to stir up fear and justify wars that have claimed the lives of millions of civilians.
The situation is more than confusing. The parties: Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Palestinians, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and (as always) the United States. In addition to a Palestinian people who have been victimized for decades, there are countless candidates who offer themselves as backers.
The opinions now being passed around are based on emotions and not on facts. Nevertheless, within a very short time a big culprit must be found, who is suitable to be hated by the shocked public. The New York Times already found it last Sunday: Iran.
“If you don’t question everything, analysis leads to wrong results.”
Emotions are not suitable for analyzing geopolitics. We wait for facts, analyze, think and only then take up the pen.
In the meantime, we deal with events that were presented to the world population as facts, but were lies that changed our world forever for the worse.
We do this to cool and sharpen the reader’s eye. If you don’t question everything, analysis will lead to the wrong conclusion. However, questioning everything also means asking forbidden questions.
(Photo Credit: Getty Images)
