Ukrainian ceasefire Q&A/FAQ and RFC

There are so many rumors and opinions about the latest ceasefire for Novorussia agreed between the Novorussian leaders and the Junta reps that I have decided to make a small survey of the issues in the format of a Q&A/FAQ.  I will write up a real analysis next week.  I also will use this opportunity to explain a few thing about what my own personal position is.  So here goes:

Q: Do you support or oppose the latest peaceplan?

A: Neither.  First, I still have not seen the 14 points actually agreed upon and, most importantly, I don't believe that this plan will hold.

Q: Why not?

A: Because it is opposed by all the following groups: the USA, NATO, the Ukie Nazis, most of the Novorussian field commanders and a large segment of the Russian nationalist ideologues in Russia.  Furthermore, Poroshenko is so weak that he probably cannot impose his will on others.  Finally, the Ukies and their western supporters have so reneged on every agreement they signed/

Q: So you think that this agreement is irrelevent?

A: No, not at all.  For one thing, it's perfect timing took a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-Russian crowd at the NATO summit which, after all, did not result in anything more than hot air and empty threats.

Q: Are you saying that this is a victory for Russia?  

A: Hardly, but it has been an effective way to temporarily defuse a potentially dangerous situation.  Also, the very fact that neither the EU or NATO or the US were even present in Minsk is a very powerful symbol of the fact that the "indispensable nation" and it instruments of colonial domination are not indispensable after all.

Q: But will this ceasefire not allow the Junta Repression Force (JRF) to regroup?

Ukrainian solider - Russian solider

A: Yes, but that is not that relevant because of the size of its strategic depth the Junta can to reorganize and regroup anyway.  Most the JRF units close to the front are so beat up that "regrouping" will not help very much.  At best ("best" for the JRF of course), this ceasefire will turn a hasty retreat into a more or less organized withdrawal followed by a much needed break.  But the key thing to always remember is this: wars are won by willpower, by moral strength, by a fighting spirit.  Unlike the Russians, the Ukies have had their fighting spirit completely broken by the NAF.  Check out the picture circulating on the RuNet which I have posted above.  It shows a wounded Russian solider (from the 08.08.08 iirc) war against Georgia and a Ukrainian solider captured in Novorussia (who had been made famous by his militaristic and neo-Nazis videos posted on the Ukie social media).  This montage shows something crucial: just compare the determined and undefeated expression of the severely wounded Russia private with the totally broken and terrified expression of the Ukrainian "paratrooper".  The difference here is not "Russian" vs "Ukrainian" in an ethnic sense (there is no such thing as an "ethnic Russian" or an "ethnic Ukrainian" - they are all ethnically mixed), but the difference in the fighting spirit of the Russian solider and the Ukrainian one.  And no amount of US/NATO aid can change this: unlike the Ukie, the Russian knows what he is fighting for and he is determined.

Q: What about Mariupol?

A: What about it?  The city is still surrounded and the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) will not retreat.  All this ceasefire does is "freeze" the situation around this city.  If anything, the Ukies will use it to cut and run.

Q: Will the NAF benefit ceasefire?

A: Yes.  There are several "cauldrons" in the NAF rear which are a pain, well, in the rear, which will hopefully be flushed out by a mutual agreement to have the JRF units to move out and leave their weapons behind.  If not, then please remember that the NAF control all of the Novorussian/Russian border and that the "voentorg" (cover delivery of weapons and specialists) will continue unabated.

Q: Are you saying that all is good and we should rejoice?

A: Not at all.  First, there are clear signs of infighting in Novorussia.  Not only was Strelkov apparently blackmailed out of control, but there have been rumors of an attempted coup by Antiufeev yesterday.  The Novorussians denied this info, others say that the coup failed, but there is no doubt that there are real tensions inside Novorussia now and that while some support the current strategy of negotiations (we can refer to them as the "Zakharchenko clan") others clearly oppose it (we can refer to them as the "Mozgovoi clan"). Likewise, in Russia there are those who favor this strategy (most of the "near-Kremlin" circles "околокремлевские круги" - I explain this term here) and those who oppose it (Dugin, Colonel Cassad, el-Miurid, and many other generally para-Marxist bloggers and activists).

Q: So you agree that this is bad for Novorussia?

A: No, I did not say that either.  I think that this is probably an inevitable and possibly indispensable temporary phase in this conflict with is neither a triumph nor a disaster, but something which is a natural consequence of the situation on the ground.

Q: What do you mean?

A: Contrary to most commentators here, I do not believe that the NAF have been "treacherously stopped in what could have been their triumphant march on Kiev".  The amazing successes in the south have totally obscured in the minds of many the undeniable fact that the JRF forces north of Luganks are still big, powerful and holding their ground, that the Ukies even managed a (small and useless) counter-offensive in the region of Dukuchaevsk and that, contrary to initial reports, the Donetsk airport is still not under full NAF control.  Those who had imagined that the NAF would soon move on and take Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk or even Kiev just don't understand the military situation.  Right now, the NAF can't even take back Slaviansk, nevermind reconquer all of Novorussia.

Q: What about the notion that Russian and Ukie oligarchs are the real force behind this deal?

A:  What oligarchs?  Akhmetov has not only lost Donetsk forever, even the material infrastructure of this assets is now in ruins.  Kolomoiski has had this assets in Crimea nationalized and he is now locked in a struggle with both Akhmetov and Poroshenko.  As for the Russian oligarchs - they have exactly zero needs for anything in the Donbass and they are way too smart to invest anything in such a dangerous, unstable and ruined region.  At least in the short term, only the Russian state will provide help for political reasons, but the Russian oligarchs have much safer and lucrative options than the ruined Donbass.

Q: Okay, then what about the accusation that rather then allowing the creation of a viable and independent Novorussia, Putin has created yet another Transnistria?

A:  What is this thesis based on?  On a 14 point plan which nobody has seen and which will be soon broken anyway?

Q: No, on the fact that instead of fighting Poroshenko and the Nazis, the Novorussians have been forced to negotiate with them.

A: Oh come on!  How many times will I have to explain that, unlike westerners, Russians have no problems at all talking to their enemies?  Study the history of the Tatar-Mongol invasions of Russia when the Russian Princes were always talking "negotiating" with the Khans of the Golden Horde, and yet that never prevented them from rising up and fighting them regularly.  Russians are much more Asians than Europeans and in Asia talking to your enemy is normal, it is an integral part of warfare.  If in the West talking or negotiating with your enemy is a sign of weakness, in Asia it is not talking or negotiating with your enemy which is a sign of weakness.

Q: So what do you think Putin want in this war?

A: What he always said he wanted: a united, independent, neutral, prosperous and friendly Ukraine, in other words - "regime change" in Kiev.

Q: So will he "sell out" Novorussia to achieve this goal?

A: I don't know.  Unlike so many armchair generals who apparently also moonlight as telepaths and prophets, I cannot read Putin's mind or predict the future.  What I can say is that so far I see no signs of Putin betraying or "selling out" anybody.  In fact, it takes an amazing degree of blindness or intellectual dishonesty not to notice that the first and immediate consequence of what many assume was a  Kremlin-ordered change in the Novorussian leadership has been a huge and successful offensive which crushed the JRF.  If Putin wanted to "sell out" Novorussia to the Nazis, he could have easily done so just before that counter-offensive was launched.

Q: So you really love and trust Putin, don't you?

A: No, but I will admit that what I have seen this man do for Russia and the world fills me with sincere admiration, often bordering an awe, and that I see absolutely no signs of him changing course.  What I see is a leader whose methods and strategies are simply too subtle and complex for most "armchair heads of states" to understand.  The very same Putin-bashing crowd which now is hysterically yelling about betrayal was saying exactly the same things about Syria when Putin single handedly stopped the US attack on it.  And when the Russians told the Syrian to get rid of their (dangerous and useless) chemical weapons the same Putin-bashers were yelling from the top of their lungs that this was the ultimate proof of Russian back-stabbing.  Now Assad has, if not won the civil war, but conducted a successful reelection and the West is now eating humble-pie and pondering how to best get Assad's help in Iraq.  So while I don't "love" Putin, I sure despise the Putin-bashers not only for their short-sightedness and lack of expertise, but for their mind-blowing intellectual dishonesty.  They are like a broken record constantly repeating "Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed, Putin betrayed".  In Russia this kind of rabid nationalists are called "горе патриоты" or "sorrow-patriots".  They are the kind that never actually do anything useful, but are the most vociferous about what should be done.  I want to make it clear that I am not referring to Strelkov, Mozgovoi or any other real patriot who happens to disagree with Putin.  I am referring to those for whom Putin-bashing is an end in itself and who basically don't give a damn as long as they get to bash the man.

Q: Still, Novorussia wants independence while Putin wants a united Ukraine.  Don't you see the contradiction here?

A: Of course I do.  So?  That does not mean that one side is "bad" and the other one "good", it just shows the truth of the US saying that "where I sit is where I stand".  The real question is how this contradiction will be resolved.  So far I don't know and I reserve judgment precisely because, unlike the "professional and full-time Putin bashers" I like to base my opinions on fact, not telepathy or prophetic visions.

Q: You constantly speak of "Putin bashers" - that is offensive to many!

A: Guess what?  I am not a nice guy.  I am an direct guy who calls it as he sees it and if that offends anybody, they are welcome to hug a teddy-bear and go sob on their bed.  My message to them is - grow-up and remember that I owe you nothing.  This is my blog and I write it for adults who value truthfulness and honesty over sugar-coated affirmations.

Q: What about Poroshenko - has he not won a huge break if not victory?

A: Yesterday I was watching the latest edition of the  priceless Ukie propaganda show "Shuster Live" and it felt like I was watching a funeral.  The host and all the guest were in a somber, sorrowful and quasi-depressed mode.  Though they did not want to admit the magnitude of the beating which their "invincible Ukrainian army" just had taken, it was pretty darn clear that flag-waving was no more the order of the day.  One Ukie official even said "when we are talking about 30 to 40 thousand armed men then we *have to* talk to tehse "terrorists"" - it was hilarious, really.  So no. Poroshenko, far from having "won" anything, is in real deep trouble.  For starters, his own Prime Minister - Iatseniuk - is absolutely outraged about the deal and makes no bones about it.  Ditto for Timoshenko.  I won't even go into the Nazi freaks.  The fact is that the protecting Poroshenko will now become a major headache for the local CIA station in Kiev: the guy is in HUGE trouble and his only hope is that during the next elections he will look less bad and less crazy then the rest of them.  That is assuming these elections are held and that Iarosh or Tiagnibok do not simply seize power and execute Poroshenko for "high crimes, treason or being an FSB agent" (he is not, but how cares?!).  The regime is so much on the defense that even though everybody knows that this plan is really Putin's plan, the Junta is engaged in a massive PR effort to convince the public that this is really Poroshenko's plan.  The Russians, typically, just smile and are happy to give him the credit (remember, this is Asia - different rules apply).

Q: So what will happen next?

A: As I said, I am not a prophet.  But what I know is this: Putin clearly has full control of Russia and Novorussia - what he says happens, he can deliver.  Poroshenko has no control over anything, not even "his" own" ruling coalition.  There is no real power in Banderastan right not, not even the local CIA station.  For this simple reason I do not see how the ceasefire could hold.  Then I don't see much change in the military balance either.  The NAF is far more capable than the JRF whose only advantage lies in the huge strategic depth of this territory.  The JRF used to (past tense!) have a huge advantage in hardware and manpower, but even this is changing now.  In terms of hardware, most of the best hardware they had is now either lost or in NAF hands.  Yes, they still have huge reserves, but of old and terribly maintained equipment.  As for manpower, the Junta clearly has more and more difficulties finding enough men to compensate for its huge losses.  Just ask yourself a basic question: if you were  Ukie, even a nationalist, would you want to join to JRF and go fight the NAF?  Exactly.  Yes, NATO has promised 15 million dollars.  That would buy the Ukies, what, maybe 10 old and used T-72 or 3 T-80?  This is a joke, really.  But even if the US provides 150 millions in covert aid - this will not affect the balance, nevermind tipping it.  As for the NAF, it is doing well and will probably get even more men and modern gear through the "voentorg", but it cannot push too far.  As one NAF commander said, "so far we have been liberators, but we don't want to become occupiers".  The rule of thumb is simple: the further west the NAF goes, the less support it will get and the more it will expose itself to guerrilla warfare lead by a local insurgency.  A far smarter strategy is to sit tight and watch the Ukies go after each other.

Q: Why do you think that will happen?

A: Because no matter what all this still holds true: the Ukraine was always an artificial country, Banderastan is even worse.  There is no real power in control, even the Junta is "kinda" in power only.  The country is economically dead dead dead.  The economic crisis is only at it's very early stages, and from now on it's only going to get worse.  Socially, the people are increasingly mad, disillusioned and feel lied to and, at the same time, less and less afraid to speak up.  The Nazis are by far the most united and best armed group in the country, except for a theoretical "Ukrainian military" which, at least so far, has no leader and is therefore is not united (might this change in the future? Maybe).  Basically, any person who took Social Sciences 101 in college will tell you that the Ukies will now turn on each other, God willing just with words and ideas, but violence is most likely.  For the NAF it is far better to wait until Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov or even Odessa turn into lawless  cities which nobody really controls then to try to take them by force now.  There is even a real possibility that the NAF might be seen as a liberator in these cities if chaos there reaches a "Mad Max" level.

Q: What if NATO sends in forces to prop-up the Junta?

A: LOL!  First, I would strongly advise our AngloZionist "partners" (as they say in Russia) to first consult with their German, French and Polish colleagues to see if the latter have pleasant memories of being in charge of the Ukraine.  Second, I would remind our AngloZionist partners that their move into Iraq and Afghanistan was supposed to be a love fest which would pay for itself.  Third, I would also suggest to them that if they did not like Maliki, they might not like Iarosh either.  Of course, sending a symbolic force to some maneuvers with whatever is left of the Ukie military is a good idea - it's called "showing the flag" - but to try to do something meaningful by trying to use NATO military forces inside the Ukraine would be very, very, dangerous even if Russia does nothing at all to make things worse.

Q: What about the EU?

A: I think that it lost it's willpower (not that it ever had much!).  That ridiculous performance by Hollande has already come crushing down: turns out that his loud statement was an "individual opinion" with no legal meaning.  Now, of course, the EU Kindergartgen (Poland, Lithuania, etc.) will keep on being what it is, a Kindergarten, but the adults (Germany, France, etc.) are showing signs of getting fed up.  I don't expect them to make a 180 overnight, no, but I just expect them to stop pro-actively making things worse.  One of the possible signs of that might be a decrease in the role of the EU and an increase in the role of the OSCE.

Q: And what about Uncle Sam?

A: He is totally stuck in his only mode: demands, threats, condemnation, demands, threats, condemnation, etc. etc. etc. Normally "aggression" is part of that mantra, except that neither the US nor NATO have what it takes to militarily attack Russia.  As for the AngloZionist 'deep state' it will continue to try subvert and economically cripple Russia, but as long as Putin is on the Kremlin I don't see that strategy succeeding either.

Q: Sounds like you are optimistic.

A: If so, then only very very cautiously so.  I don't see a big drama, much less so a disaster, in what just happened, I think that Russia holds all the good cards in this game, and I see no danger for the people of Novorussia.  To those who wanted to ride on a tank straight to the Maidan I can only say that even though I very much share their hopes and dreams, politics is the art of the possible and that smart politics are often slow and time-consuming politics.  Maximalism is good for teenagers, not heads of state whose decision affect the lives of millions of people.  Thus my temporary and provisional conclusion is this: so far, so good, things are better than they seemed to be only 2 months ago and I see no reason to expect a major reversal in the foreseeable future.

Q: What do you consider the biggest danger for Novorussia right now?

A: Political infighting.  I don't know if this is possible right now, but I would like to see the emergence of an undisputed Novorussian leader who would have the official and full support of Strelkov, Zakharchenko, Borodai, Mozgovoi, Kononov, Khodakovski, Tsarev, Bolotov, Gubarev and all the other political and military leaders.  This has to be a truly Novorussian leader, not just a "Putin proconsul", a person capable of negotiating with Putin for the interests of the people of Novorussia.  I don't mean to suggest that these negotiations cannot be friendly, if only because there can be no Novorussia against Russia, but this leader needs to represent the interests of the Novorussian people, and not the Russian people whose interests are (very well) represented by Putin himself.  Right now, the main reason why Putin has so much power in Novorussia is primarily because there is still no real Novorussian political leadership.  There is a Novorussian military leadership, and even they probably have to more or less do what the Russian military tells them to do.  Far from being weakened by the emergence of such a truly independent and truly Novorussian leader, I think that the Russian-Novorussian alliance would be greatly strengthened by it.  Novorussia should not, and cannot, be micro-managed from the Kremlin.  In other words, what I hope is for a "Novorussian Nasrallah" who would be a loyal and faithful but sovereign and independent ally of Putin (like Nasrallah is for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), but not a poodle like Blair or Hollande.  Novorussia needs a spokesman and negotiator who could really have a mandate to speak for the people of Novorussia.  Until that happens, I will always be worried for the future of the people of Novorussia.

*******

That's it for now.  I hope that with this self-made Q&A/FAQ I have replied to many, if not most, of the questions, comments and emails I simply had no time to respond to in the past.  I also hope to have set the record straight about my own views which have been constantly and systematically mis-represented by either dishonest or plain stupid individuals.  If I am succeeded in terminally offending and discouraging the Putin-haters - good.  I am tired of dealing with their illiterate rants.  Ditto for Saker-haters (- : told you: I am not a nice guy :-), to whom I will add this personal message: stop telling me what I am supposed to do, say, think or write.  This blog is like an AA meeting: "take what you like and leave the rest".  But don't expect me to change and don't expect me to change my views unless you can show me by facts and logic that I am wrong (in which case I will gratefully welcome the opportunity correct my mistake).  Rants just annoy me, especially racist ones, but they won't make me turn into a clone of you.

Sorry if I forgot many good questions or points and please feel free to post more comments or questions, and I will try to answer those which a) do not misrepresent my views (no more strawman) or b) which I have not already answered ad nauseam elsewhere.  To those of you who have - correctly - detected my irritation and/or frustration with certain comments I will simply say "guilty as charged" (- : told you: I am definitely not a nice guy :-).  I won't even bother justifying myself, either you can or you cannot imagine how frustrating it is for me to deal with, shall we say, some "personality types".  But either way there is nothing I could add to affect that.  To the many kind, supportive, respectful, generous, educated, wise, interesting, funny, sophisticated, compassionate, intelligent, principled, honest, honorable and otherwise wonderful members of our community I want to express my most heartfelt and sincere gratitude: I simple don't know how I could have made it through these terrible and tragic months without your help, support and kindness. 

RFC: Now let's get a good brainstorming session going about any and all the topics above.

Cheers and kind regards,

The Saker

Very interesting hypothesis about the events in Syria - request for comments

JohnM has just posted an interesting commentary about the current events in Syria which, I think, deserves to be fully quoted.  Here is what he wrote:

What I'm thinking is that as part of an Assad/Russia deal with the "non-Islamic rebels" (label is arbitrary and largely inaccurate) is this current battle between generally (this is a VERY fluid and fuzzy dividing line) the foreign fighters versus the local fighters. This deal (if it exists) is very nebulous, involves a lot of ifs and its desired outcome is a big Goat Rodeo. Just the sort of stuff they live on in this area (both geographic and on the foreign policy level).

As part of coming in from the cold, the local based fighters are told to clean their house (get rid of the foreign nut job extremists) and then a deal can be done. Amnesties, changes to the constitution (damn if I know what their constitution states or even if they have one), perhaps some kind of political structure akin to Lebanon, power sharing (probably limited and local considering the Kurds would have to be part of this) and to be capped off with elections for various and all positions would be on the table. This would be supervised by say Russia, China and the West in the form of say Germany and/or even the US.

Obama gets a capstone for his presidency (already in tatters, so he needs something). Russia gets prestige and some roll back of extremism on it's southern flank. China gets business. Europe gets business and pipelines. Assad get's some peace, some rehabilitation with whatever PR he wants or needs, depending on how he plays it. Saudi gets the stick up its ass.

What to watch over the next couple of months will be Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi. Turkey will have to come visibly into line on this since I foresee some kind of federated Syria with a large amount of autonomy for the Kurds (very thorny problem). Turkey also has to deal with the foreign fighters on their soil, those running from Syria and the high horse they have climbed onto when they changed their foreign policy 2 to 3 years back. Jordan has kept a relatively low profile but has similar problems. Iraq will have to deal with the extremists (call them whatever you wish, they're certifiable) coming back and raising Hell. Some of this is already manifesting itself (visibly to the western media at least) in Fallujah with the Tribes splitting overtly with AQI. Saudi (and Israel) will scream, pout and make threats. It remains to be seen how far they will push it. 

Now my naturally pessimistic inclinations usually make me doubt any hypothesis in which a previously irrational party suddenly begins to act in a rational way.  In this case, that previously irrational party would be both the FSA and the USA.  However, this skepticism of mine is counter-balanced by the fact that the G8 agreement reached in Lough Erne had something very similar unambiguously spelled out.  I quoted the text of the agreement on my blog, with the key words in red and my comments in blue:

We are deeply concerned by the growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria,and also by the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict. Syria must belong to all Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organisations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other non-state actors linked to terrorism (amazing sentence!  The insurgency and the government of Syria are called upon to JOINTLY *destroy* the very forces which the USA wants to arm?  That the government would be more than happy to destroy or expel al-Nusra is clear, but the FSA?  Is the G8 really calling for a civil war inside the insurgency!?).

At the time nobody paid attention to these words, but the fact is that this text was signed by the G8 and that it seemed to suggest exactly what we see taking place today.  Of course, what is taking place today might not be the result of the G8 agreement at all, but simply the inevitable outcome of a conflict whose dynamics are pretty much pre-ordained.  If we assume that not all anti-Assad forces are composed of Takfiri reptiles and if we assume that Assad is willing to work with anybody sane (and I think that both of these assumptions are reasonable), then the logical thing would be for all non-Takfiri forces to join their efforts against the crazies.  What is certain is that the Takfiri infection has now reached Fallujah in Iraq which, in turn, is putting in motion some kind of US/Iraqi/Iranian reaction as nobody can afford yielding a strategic city to a horde of crazed Wahabis.  Objectively, the US, Iran and Syria should be working together against the Takfiri crazies throughout the region.  The big "IF" is whether there is anybody with the brains and the balls in the White House to understand that and act on it.

Still, the notion is tempting, to say the least.  I think of how often the Russians say "every Wahabi which Assad kills is one that we won't have to kill in the Caucasus" and I wonder if somebody in Washington DC can come to terms with the notion that "every Wahabi which Assad kills is one that we won't have to kill in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Yemen/etc.".

I think that John is totally correct when he says that the impact of this change in dynamics (assuming it continues) on the neighboring countries will be crucial.  Honestly, I think that the Turks acted with a mind-boggling stupidity and now they have to come to terms that there will be a price to pay for their arrogance.  Their options are bad: either deal with the Kurds or deal with the Takfiri liver-eaters.  I think that the better deal is obvious: deal with the Kurds.  First, the Kurds are *rational* and then even have a common enemy (the Wahabi crazies).  Second, it is about time for the Turks to finally begin seeking a long-term agreement with the Kurds or risk loosing it all.  If the Turks really believe that they can "control" the Kurds by pure force they are kidding themselves and from a negotiating point of view they are much better off negotiating with the Kurds now, when the Kurds are also in a difficult situation, than later when the Kurds might find themselves in a strong position both in Iraq and in Syria (both of these regimes have indicated that are willing to work out a deal with the Kurds).

Anyway - am want to throw out this hypothesis: could it be that what we are seeing in Syria is a strategic shift in alliances and that the next phase of the war will be one of the KSA, the Gulf monarchies and the various al-Qaeda franchises will end up fighting against the USA, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Kurds?

If not - what do you think is going on?

Cheers,

The Saker

New directions for my blog and key issues to be analyzed - RFC

Dear friends,

After taking some time off to think things over I have tentatively come up with a general plan for this blog and I now want to share it with you.

The main difference with the previous orientation of this blog is that I want to switch from what was mainly a clearinghouse for information taken elsewhere interspersed with occasional original analyses to a more balanced mix of original analysis and highly relevant articles taken from outside the Imperial Homeland (after all, why duplicate the mostly excellent efforts of Counterpunch, Antiwar, Informationclearinghouse and many others?)

Originally, my aim had been to raise the alarm and show that all indicators and warnings were pointing to an upcoming "dawn of darkness" (aggression on Iran, Fascism in the USA, Neocon wars all over the Middle-East, etc.). I will now simply assume that my readers already understand this and instead of "preaching to the choir" I instead directly focus on the main aspects of the events unfolding before our eyes.

I have identified a number of key areas which, in my opinion, deserve a special scrutiny:

Internal US political developments: barring a highly unlikely miracle, an openly Fascist president will succeed Bush the Lesser in 2008 (see my article on this issue here). When it becomes clear to most Americans that their country is ruled by a Soviet style Nomenklatura composed as much of Democrats as of Republicans a period of civil unrests will begin which will be brutally crushed by the huge internal security/police/prison complex which has been built over the past decades and basic civil rights will be abolished under the pretext of some emergency.

External US policies: the Neocons will further strengthen their control over US policies in general, and foreign policy in particular. Even self-evident US national interests will be totally subordinated to the Likud's view of Israeli national interests. As a result, the US foreign policy will be highly aggressive in the entire Middle-East resulting in more violent conflicts. The USA will also follow a radically anti-Russian stance in all aspects of its foreign policy, even when that places US national interests at risk.

Developments in Europe: the new "Imperial" agenda of the USA will be made far worse by the gradual takeover by crypto-Neocon politicians in Europe. If Dubya lost a 'poodle' with Blair's departure he is now getting an entire kennel of poodles with the likes of Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, etc. The European public opinion will be outraged by this and massive civil disturbances will result.

Israel's crucial choice: Israel is facing an absolutely crucial, truly existential, choice. It has to choose between persisting in being a "Jewish state" or it can decided to become a real democracy. The fact is that due to a long series of huge miscalculations on the part of the Israeli elites a two state solution is now impossible. Jimmy Carter is quite correct when he says that the alternatives are peace or Apartheid, his mistake is that he limits his analysis to the Occupied Territories whereas this choice is exactly the same for Israel proper. As long as Israel persists in being an "ethnic state" there will be no democracy and no peace and the only way to finally end this conflict is to have a one man one vote multi-ethnic and multi-religious state of Israel. Since the vast majority of Israelis, terrified of their Arab and Palestinian neighbors, are not willing to even discuss such a solution, the bloodshed can only become much worse in the years to come.

The real 'axis of evil': four countries will play a particularly dangerous and outright 'evil' role in the Middle-East: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and, of course, Israel (the latter running the show). While Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are breeding grounds for Wahabi/Salafi extremism, Turkey and Israel are Fascist (regional) superpowers which will, with full US backing, attempt to use the former two in their struggle against Shias all over the Middle-east.

Wars in the Middle-East: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue and will be "enhanced" with the inevitable Imperial aggression against Iran. There is also a strong possibility of a US/Israeli fueled civil war in Lebanon. The war in Iraq will draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The war Iran will be the Empire's "Stalingrad" in a sense that it will mark the "beginning of the end" for the Empire, albeit at a huge cost for the entire Middle-East. Initially, the Empire, aided by its faithful corporate propaganda machine, will appear highly successful and the Iranian response will appear weak but within less than 60 days following the beginning of the attack the collapse of the US policy in the Middle-East will become evident. It will take many years for the Empire to fully collapse, but from the day of the attack on Iran its decline will be inexorable.

A collapsing US economy: the costs of the Imperial wars, the fall of the dollar, the rise in the price of oil, the inevitable consequences of US economic deregulation, the breakdown of the social infrastructure inside the US will all contribute to a general collapse of the US economy resulting in even more violence abroad and in the Imperial Homeland.

A clueless American peace movement: with a few notable exceptions the US peace movement is clueless and lacks a unifying vision to seriously challenge the US Nomenklatura. The fact is that most Americans have now been thoroughly brainwashed by the corporate media and while they are able to generally oppose the Neocon policies they cannot identify, or meaningfully challenge, the forces and mechanisms which make them possible in the first place. Their is, of course, an intellectual elite in the antiwar movement, mainly on the left, which has a far better grasp of the nature of the beast, so to speak, but it is small, divided and out of touch with the prevailing 'redneck' culture which has been carefully nurtured by the US elites.

A resurgent Russia: under the leadership of Vladimir Putin and his likely successor, Sergei Ivanov, Russia will regain a lot of its former power. The state apparatus in general, and the armed forces and intelligence agencies (SVR, GRU, FSB) in particular, will jointly work to reduce US influence in the so-called "near abroad" (the countries for the former Soviet Union bordering Russia) where US Imperial stooges will run into trouble economically, politically and socially. The Empire will be too busy elsewhere to make much of a difference in this process. The new Russian power will also be felt in Eastern and even, to a lesser degree, in Western Europe. Russia, in partnership with China, will gradually seek to diminish US influence in the international scene.

The collapse of the Monroe doctrine: lead by the example of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, Latin American countries will free themselves from the capitalist economic model, will assert their economic and political autonomy from the Empire and will gradually isolate US stooges, such as Colombia, in Latin America. As in the former Soviet Union, the USA will be too busy handling other crises to successfully oppose this process.

These are, in my opinion, the key areas upon which I want to concentrate in the future.

I would very much like to hear your reactions to this analysis and to my new plans for this blog.

One of my hope would be that the readers of this blog would offer most suggestions, questions, comments and criticisms which, in turn, would result in more interesting discussions. This blog should become as much as forum as an information source.

Please drop me an email, or post here, to let me know what you think, ok?

Kind regards,

The Saker