Via The Vineyard Of The Saker blog,

Introduction:

By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don't think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) "moved" this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the "vectors" of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of "unknown unknowns" (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.



The main event and the main actors

A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world's only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don't think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

The USA The Ukrainian Junta The Novorussians (DNR+LNR) Russia The EU NATO China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial. So let's take them one by one:



1 - The USA



Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(...) the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.



Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (...) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (...) But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.



Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US "deep-staters" have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that. Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)

Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev Boot the Russians out of Crimea Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier Create a Cold War v2 in Europe Further devastate the EU economies Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony" Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies Politically isolate Russia Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar Justify huge military/security budgets I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:

Achieved - black

Still possible - too early to call - blue

Compromised - pink

Failed - red

Current "score card": 1 "achieved", 5 "possible, 2 "compromised" and 3 "failed".

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev Boot the Russians out of Crimea Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier Create a Cold War v2 in Europe Further devastate the EU economies Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony" Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies Politically isolate Russia Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar Justify huge military/security budgets

New score card: 6 "achieved", 1 "possible", 1 "compromised" and 3 "failed"



At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of "failed" is very good for such a short period of time. However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia. Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again. This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.



This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia "needed" the Ukraine. Russia does not, and she knows that . As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.



The US is now facing a paradox: "victory" in the Ukraine, "victory" in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia. Worse, these "victories" came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold. But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).



Can the US stay the course next year? That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same. It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious. Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different. Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others. Finally, just as some banks are considered "too big to fail" the US policy towards the Ukraine is "too crazy to correct" thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now. Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to "declare victory and leave" (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess. There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause. This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it's last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.



Why would the US want to do that? Imagine this:



A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine



The Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again. This time, they are more numerous, better equipped and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American "advisers" and retired US Army officers. Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack. Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded. At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene. The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would "solve" nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia. Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea. Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.



If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don't stand a chance and everybody knows that. The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces. Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian "invasion" and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea). Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further. In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could. They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).



Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA. The Americans would have their 'proof' of Russian imperial "aggression" and declare that the EU needs "protection" from the "Russian bear". The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a "wonderful" arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time. Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the "aggressor". Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against "Russian agents" (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as "saboteurs" and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.



In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that "the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian" and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA. For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.



Now let's look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.



2 - The Ukrainian Junta



For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the "holes in the dam" harder and harder to plug. An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable. Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable. So what can the junta do?



Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov. The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief. These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests. As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire. They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power. Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible "surprises" ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border). We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass. These are the folks who spoke a "barbecue of insects" in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video). In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.



Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters. If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the wordview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

Russians don't get to speak

All together we will stop Russian terrorism

God's speaks through the people's voice

Fuck off Eurasian bastard!

May each slave wake up in a coffin

Getting a Russian passport makes you a Eurasian faggot

Don't pass by - kill!

I have to explain the last one: what you see is a "Colorado beetle" (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon. In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him. Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God's voice, the Russians are "Eurasians" who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as "Nazi" is perfectly justified).



But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.



The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada. It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter). For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort. Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!). Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a "return on investment"? When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war - is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?



As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community's "indicators and warnings" should be "flashing red" and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later). But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.



3 - The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)



The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them. It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta's death squads. And yet this miracle happened. How much did Russia really help? I would argue that not that much at all.



Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town. Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias. It never happened.



There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian "zag" left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to "sell out" Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev). Here is how this version goes: Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts. Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect. The Kremlin's policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.



Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this "Kremlin sells out Novorussia" does explain a lot. But it fails in many crucial aspects:

It fails to explain why following Strelkov's removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.

It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.

It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.

It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it's leaders if she intended to trade it away.

But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career. Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin. I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that. I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let's just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.



For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a "let's not stop before we win" party. These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back. This party of what I could also call "let the strength of arms decide" has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin's demands. Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).



I won't even bother discussing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities. What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one - Russia - imposes her will. In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion. They tried, and they failed.



So what's next?



The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as "their" war is but a minor skirmish for the big players. Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough. Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already). Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).



For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a "spokesman for Novorussia" in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason). In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion. I don't think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.



As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck. They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back. Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all. This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options. Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.



4 - Russia



So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either. In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her. Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America. Third, Russia is trying to de-fang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system. Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power. Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable. That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely. You think I am exaggerating?



Let me show you two videos. One a commentary by the most senior journalist in Russia - Dimitri Kiselev - while the other one is a video report shown to President Putin at the end of the year by the Ministry of Defense during a conference on the status of the Russian military and later posted on the Ministry of Defenses' website.



First the political context:







And second, the military's preparations for war:







Combine the two and you will clearly see that a) nobody in Russia has any illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war). And to leave no doubt in anybody's mind, Russia has also revised her 2010 military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to protect her.



When in Mach of this year I wrote that Russia was ready for war I got a lot of replies accusing me of being over-the-top. Today the writing is all over the wall: Russia does not want war, but she is definitely preparing for it.



I would, however, argue that the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external. Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" and which Putin even called the "5th column". And make no mistake here, we are not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalnii in the streets of Moscow. We are talking about powerful, rich, influential people who for decades (since Gorbachev's times, or even before) have infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in the government of Prime Minister Medvedev. True, these pro-AngloZionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks and they have been weakened by Putin's relentless assault on their power, but what does "weaker" really mean in our context? According to Mikhail Khazin the Eurasian Sovereignists and the Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power. That's right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers, especially in her economy. Putin knows that and he is therefore in a race against time to de-couple Russia from the economic and financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to hurt Russia.



How much does this 5th column account for the apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?



I honestly don't know. Neither does anybody else who is not a true Kremlin insider. In some cases, such as the Minsk agreements, I think that this apparent "zag" was an true expression of Russian political goals. But when I see that Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!) I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian national interests. But we will never know for sure. All we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the control of the helm. In practical terms this means that next year Russia will mostly stay the course. Why? Because time is on Russia's side. For Russia every month, week or day which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West is one day won for preparation internal reform. It is also one more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial policies.



The single most important political development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance (RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of Russia. I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.



5 - The EU



2014 was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States. From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland's famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the political and economic seppuku against South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the murderers of the passengers of MH17 - the EU has proven to all that it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United States. There is no EU to speak of. It is a US controlled territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power all the EU nations have bowed. And in this system, countries such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in subservience to the USA.



From the latest statements of Putin and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nulands opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of "geopolitical Conchita Wurst" not worthy of any respect or credibility.



Truly, the EU and its Eurobureaucratic elites have passed a point of no return. If in the past they could still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter. As a system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further expected of it until it collapses. The riots which have taken place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both. In a way, we could say that the EU is run by a Soviet-style nomenklatura which lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people. Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and revolutions. I am personally convinced that an explosion of anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering the Mediterranean. But unlike the Russians, the Europeans prefer their revolution in the warm weather. So maybe next summer?



6 -NATO



The Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my reasons for stating that, please see here). I recently explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth repeating this once more today:

One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile". A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 ( SS-20 ). As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000

This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction "spearhead" force of 10'000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72'000. And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5'000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US control over Europe. As early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO's true goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" (notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites, Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in 1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian ethnic groups).



Little has changed since, except that with the "Soviet threat" gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that it now wants to find it in the "need to protect European democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear". In other words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one notch below a full-scale war. In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence. Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the "interception" of Russian aircraft in international airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia wanted to do that in the first place!).



NATO will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that. The flow of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire's corporate media will report them as if they had a factual connection to reality. Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don't want in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe, and the Americans are already fully in charge.



7 - China



It is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the Ukrainian war. Anybody doubting this claim should read the Vineyard of the Saker White Paper written by Larchmonter 445 entitled The Russia-China Double Helix. To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep their own "hands" (their armed forces) and their own "heads" (their political leadership) but to share a common "torso" (their economies, natural and human resources, their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which allows a society to prosper). I call this the Russia-China Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then that - it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take the risk to become inseparable. An alliance, a treaty, can be broken or withdrawn from. But once your "internal organs" are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or for worse. What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining sovereign and independent. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course of history by this monumental decision.



The two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs and vice versa. China needs Russian raw materials, especially energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants, etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the ICBM). Russia needs two things from China: money and "Walmart" (consumer goods). Together these two giants not only have immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on the planet. And, to make things even better, Russia and China are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO. Taken together these two countries are already far more powerful than the AngloZionist Empire and that trend will only grow.

A Russian, a Russian Asian and a Chinese solider

Of course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine. Remember - each country keeps its own "hands" so long as the other is not directly threatened. But in the Pacific Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even creating joint command centers.



In the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and restructure the Russian economy. The Chinese have now officially declared that. It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution - Russia will sell Siberia's riches to China while China will protect Russia from the West. Again, this is truly a historic development whose importance cannot be overstated.

* * *

Adding up all these vectors



So let's add it all up now.

In summary:

The USA now has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet. China uniting with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to back down now or even to change course. The Americans probably realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their Nazi "Banderastan" is just a matter of time. In other words, the Empire is now in a "use them or lose them" situation and "fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian" is now the best option for the US 1%ers. The Ukrainian Junta members are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the US bidding and trigger a huge crisis. The Novorussians are stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in the middle. Russia needs to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as possible. The EU will remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever. NATO will play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much tensions as possible without triggering an actual conflict. China will do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged against her.