If the war in ukraine is being shut down (whatever)
submitted by prototype to whatever 4 months ago
9 comments
In reference to https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=679094af4e32e
If this is happening, it is because they want to wind down ukraine.
If the intelligence agencies and military are throwing in the towel in ukraine, that indicates we are either pivoting to the middle east, or we're pivoting to fighting china in the near-term.
As theres no anti-chinese talk coming from the new administration theres two angles to be considered.
Either they don't want to tip their hand, and a move on taiwan and china is coming soon, or they intend to move on iran or another middle eastern nation.
Sanctions and trade war indicate the former, rather than the latter. In either case, moving on the pacific, or the middle east, it would lead to economic hostilities with china.
So a move is definitely in the works.
You don't change leadership in the pentagon and close ranks (new blood) unless you want to make sure everything is 'watertight' before action. This is that.
The push to consolidate canada (unrealistic) and rework trade with mexico indicates 1. something hostile in the pipeline which foreign nations would have incentive to disrupt, namely domestically in the u.s., and likely through the gangs and third-world populations that they draw from.
Big, unrealistic propositions like the canadian and mexican alliances (however you want to phrase or label that) only come if big moves are in the works. Canada and mexico have long been middle-players, the former acting as a geo-economic and geo-political levers for both british and chinese interests, and mexico as a the same for other interests.
Ignoring what is coming out of their leaders mouths, mexico now has an israeli aligned president, and canada is changing leadership, at least superficially.
We can surmise the u.s., rather than the paper tiger it has acted like, intends to thoroughl;y defend taiwan, at least in the short term (2-3 years), and intends to attack chinese interests by proxy, especially in the middle east.
This aligns with a previous post saying if the u.s. regime 'elected' a leftwing executive
it would be an indicator they intended to doubledown and push as far as possible with the
ukrainian war in order to bankrupt and isolate russia. On the otherhand if the u.s. security state selected a rightwing (argueable) figure, it would indicate a pivot from ukraine to the middle east.
As the asian sphere has been supplying man-power and weapons to the russian-ukrainian war, the security state has determined it is at best a stalemate situation that risks larger global conflagration, of which victory was at best uncertain in the near-term, hence the pivot.
Instead the move now becomes obvious. 1. pivot from russia, to iran. 2. protect pacific interests in the short term (over the course of this administration) while at the same time building up domestic weapons and advanced chip capacity to severe our dependence on china and taiwan for advanced components. 3. Put pressure on china to exhaust itself and overextend in and around the middle east and pacific (or turtle and under-respond, thus undermining chinese confidence in its own leadership, and thus attack its political stability), or force them to make premature moves in africa and south america to begin the process of severing economic ties with the u.s.
This aligns with the idea that the u.s. understands the dollar is being slowly isolated, and its status on the ballot, at a time when we are severely overextended. It indicates the pull out is feigning strategic weakness, and in order to invite the chinese to overextend (as well as others), it appears the base withdrawals are a combination of cost saving measure, and a ploy to get opposition to fill-the-gaps at their own expense.
I'd expect therefore to see base shut downs in things like argentina, as well as the u.s. intentionally putting on the pressure for south american nations to *allow* chinese interests to build and attain control of s. american ports.
Someone in the CFR's war room realized by letting the russians control the most arable land in the world (ukraine) uncontested, it gives them more independence from china. If china slowly severes ties from the u.s. and the u.s. dollar, russian gas (and thus fertilizer), combine with arable land, balances the power in the BRICs basket, setting up competing interests between the various partners.
A comparable move would be inviting explicit talks, with u.s. blessing, to carve up syria between turkey, saudi arabia, and jordan.
The egyptians would be left out in the cold, forced to contest or treat with israel. The sauds would face the singular opportunity of their lifetime to choose sides, jordan would be stuck in the middle and in a panic, have to look for protection, and the russians, with turkey in the mix, would have to manage the squabble or play hands off and look completely impotent in the face of offers for-and-against from all sides *to* all sides, coming from israel, britain et al, the u.s., and china.
On a completely unrelated note I learned something fascinating: the c17 is the center of the u.s. air force's mobility and logistics.
