Strategy

Follow-up on WWIII Post

So a couple days ago I wrote a piece entitled Beginning of WWIII.

In it I neglected to mention whether I actually consider large scale war as a possibility, yet the article may have implied that I did.  On a scale of likelihood from 1-10 that the Ukrainian destabilization will lead to war I’m currently thinking 4, but this could change quickly. I do believe there is a real chance this one could escalate.  The Current international situation seems precariously similar to the pre WWI entanglement of alliances, debt, and pressure points that are potential catalysts for escalation, key among them in my mind being Syria, Ukraine and the East China Sea.  Instead of anarchists and communists running around there are “radicals” and “fundamentalists”, “protesters” and “freedom fighters”.

In Ukraine there are a confluence of interests between different powers.  The Crimean Peninsula is a strategically vital position for Russia. It mediates the transport of a large amount of Russian oil and goods.  They have had a controlling interest in the region since before the Crimean War in the 1850s (where we can also note Britain’s and France’s interest in the region).   From a military/economic standpoint it is of great strategic importance to retain control of that region.

NATO on the other hand, seemingly lead by US military-industrial-complex interests, have had a long term agenda to destabilize former Soviet sphere regions, and encircle Russia, and they are finally on their doorstep.

The EU has an interest in gaining the Ukraine as another dependent and resource.  Specifically, the EU central bank would stand to benefit a great deal by having a place to expand into, and sell  money to at interest.

And where would Ukraine get its initial investment to be able to buy into the EU? Well from the IMF, the vulture-capital superpower that is offering a 35 billion dollar loan so long as the Ukrainian coup-de-tat government plays ball.  Russia had only offered 15 billion to the previous government.

It should be noted that the coup-de-tat government’s new acting president is a former EU central banker, and was literally spoken about as the first choice for the US state department back in December in a coup-de-tat situation in Ukraine.

International money and oil interests seem to be converging here. Russia is doing more than saber rattling. Does that mean there will be a military escalation of the influential, behind-the-scenes powers? No. More likely it spells some kind of civil war in Ukraine, a kind of cold-war revisited tactic.

A worthwhile question to ask yourself is whether this large scale game of risk actually benefits anybody? If so, whom? Does any so-called nation-state stand to benefit from this in the long term?

Further exploration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgGva1aFPw

Watch the above beginning at 23 min.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/2012-us-elections-obamney-vs-rombama.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_hryvnia

A Parable On Leverage

(Paraphrased from Richard Grove, where I first heard it):

What if I was to tell you that if I were to face eight chess grandmasters simultaneously I could defeat at least half of them? Would you bet on me, or against me?  Consider this, I would be able to essentially pit one grandmaster against the other, by mirroring the moves made by one, and using it against the other, thereby being able to defeat at least half of my opponents despite using only my opponents minds and energy as the tool for my success.