Time to Prepare For War?

[cmonkey]

I have been following Chris Martenson's analysis of the tensions between Russia and the West for the past year or so and I believe his latest article is spot on.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/9206 ... repare-war

Western war hawks have done nothing but poke sticks at Russia for the past few years and it seems the sticks are getting sharper. War plane intercepts, NATO military drills and war rhetoric are flying high right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/ ... index.html


It seems 1914ish all over again with a teetering British Empire (USA this time) about to be taken out behind the woodshed for all of its schoolyard bully tactics.

[chenda]

Interesting article - but do you subscribe to him ? What does he say about preparation ?

[DSKla]

I can't see a full-scale war being popular at home, since most Americans don't understand and don't care about the Ukraine situation. It would take a Russian action, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attack, to really get people behind it. And i don't see what we could possibly gain. We're talking about millions of lives and the risk of someone pulling the nuclear trigger, for what?

I'd like to believe most Americans feel the same way. The cost is not worth whatever meager benefits we'd get. I don't believe there'd be any at all.

My buddy, who was born in Ukraine and speaks fluent Russian, is shipping out in a few weeks for Army SF Selection. Talk about bad timing for him. Or good, depending on what kind of action he was hoping for. "Security advisors" are already over there.

Edit: clearly I am talking about a shooting war. It's possible there would be more support for a war in terms of finance, energy, cyber, etc. It's also possible the government scould engage in some or all of these activities without ever acknowledging that it constitutes "war," just as they retaliated in cyber form against North Korea for hacking Sony.

[chenda]

@DSKla There would inevitably have to be a intense propaganda war in the west to win public support- or at least public acquiescence. And Western audiences are perhaps less easily duped and more skeptical then in 1914, or 1950. But it only takes a few well-marketed 'outgrageous incidents' to get the masses on board. (Remember the ravaged Belgian nuns)

Most people are against war, but people in power tend to find it far more appealing...

[Dragline]

I would bet there will be a war in the next presidential term, but I'm not sure it would be in Ukraine. The heir-apparent Democratic candidate and most of the Republican candidates seem pre-disposed to empire expansion, or at least maintenance through conflict, in conformity with the popular narratives of the New World Order and/or Pax Americana.

With Russia, its more like a return to the Cold War than 1914. Fighting through proxies and provocation.

[jacob]

@DSKla There would inevitably have to be a intense propaganda war in the west to win public support- or at least public acquiescence.

This has already been going on for about a year. Compare the media in the US/UK/Willing allies(<- countries who stand poorly on their own), the media in Germany and France, and the media in Russia and you will get very very different numbers and descriptions.

What has changed since 1914 is the ordinary people (like ourselves) now have easy access to everybody's propaganda and so it gets a lot easier to average out the hype. What hasn't changed is that many are still only paying attention to the side they agree with---this latter group in particular probably can't locate the Ukraine on a map just like they can't locate Iraq on a map.---But that didn't stop the nationalism.

In any case, this is nothing but The Great Game as it applies to the gas pipelines that supply Europe's winter heating needs now that they're running out of North Sea fields at 4%+/year ... kinda makes me want to turn in my membership card to the human race.

This chart explains a LOT in terms of foreign policy of the various players. Each are looking out for #1.

[sky]

In Europe, no one really listens to what American politicians and generals say, because Americans are seen as naive and unaware of the undercurrents of European politics. The West has already written off Ukraine, that happened when they let Russia recover its navy bases in the Crim. I suspect that NATO was informed by the Russians on their plans to take their bases again, and NATO stepped back and let it happen. I'm shocked, shocked that the Russians are in the Ukraine! If you want to hear strong rhetoric, listen to what the Polish politicians say about Russia.

There will continue to be war in Syria and Iraq for some time. The US will not directly enter the war again unless some insane chieftan decides to invade Israel. If the US enters Syria that will trigger payback time from the Russians.

My biggest concern would be for new political weirdness in Germany, the source of all destructive political ideologies. There seems to be some odd Russia-love happening there. That would be self-destructive for Germany, but some German politicians may believe that they can merge economies with Russia and come out on top. It would never come to fruition because all other European countries would try to sabotage it. But the Germans are sometimes stupid that way.

[cmonkey]

I am not so convinced this doesn't end in a shooting war of some sort, but clearly I hope I'm wrong. Russia and China in particular have been positioning themselves for an eventual end to American imperialism, which at this point is really just a house of cards being propped up by one thing - reserve currency. Blow that over (which they are doing) and the cards come down. Hot heads in the Pentagon and Congress clearly don't want that to happen and would absolutely believe they could wipe the floor with anyone that challenges them. That is the reason, IMO, that the West is poking Russia so much (that and his putting an end to a US invasion of Syria).

We aren't poking China as much because of the tight economic ties, but they have begun distancing themselves as well, with military drills and negations that bypass dollar reserve currency.

The truth is, we haven't faced anyone with a "modern" military since probably Korea, if not WW2. Picking on resource rich, developing nations is a bit different than running a war against an advanced nation. I am not convinced we'd win, at which point American imperialism ends and everything changes.

This interview explains a lot of what I believe to be the cause of the war positioning - http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php ... mival=6001

[Chad]

Nice analysis of Russian invasion options.

http://mashable.com/2015/03/12/russias- ... scale-war/

Too expensive and difficult for everyone considering the meager rewards. Doesn't mean a war won't happen, just very unlikely.

Unfortunately, Dragline is right. Lots of politicians acting
tough in the U.S. Old hawks and young morons. It will be amazing if we don't go into Iran. We don't seem to have any real statesmen left.

[leeholsen]

Unfortunately, Dragline is right. Lots of politicians acting
tough in the U.S. Old hawks and young morons. It will be amazing if we don't go into Iran. We don't seem to have any real statesmen left.

I agree, but my opinion of wars and conflicts over the past 100 years is countries avoid conflict until they absolutely have to and then mess up keeping the hammer down to finish the job.

both iran and Russia will be making huge gains in their desires for a while still before someone actually pulls the trigger to make them stop.

[Chad]

I'm not sure we do agree. Though, I could be wrong.

I'm suggesting we shouldn't pull the trigger on Russia or Iran. Russia's current gains are exceedingly minor. Crimea isn't exactly a huge win for them. They now have more mouths to feed as their economy crashes,their southern ports are still bottled up by the Bosporus Strait, and they are in a long-term armed conflict with a country that doesn't really threaten them, but they can't easily subdue.

Iran on the other hand is really the natural ally of the US in the middle east. That doesn't mean we should be best buds right now, but over time they will likely move towards a more open government. The generation that directly experienced the US backing a cruel dictator like the Shah are passing away, while a younger generation is more eager to embrace the benefits of modern civilization. This along with the fact they have real history, as a real civilization means they don't have to reach for religion as a civilization building block. Though, they did do that to over throw the Shah.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie ... ted-states

Nothing is guaranteed, but I would prefer we continue to use our soft power rather than our hard power, which isn't guaranteed either (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are prime examples). We are better at the soft power anyway (Cold War), it just takes time.

Also, the real war is economic. If we don't shoot ourselves in the foot by spending trillions on new useless wars and get our political system even remotely sane again, we probably win the economics wars without any real challenge.