Hanoi 2.0 – the total withdrawal

Already Hillary Clinton threw the glove too early at China when she wrote in November 2011; ”When the war in Iraq ends and the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the United States faces a turning point in the US Pacific Ocean.” Hillary Clinton revealed the US plans which could be interpreted as the United States doing as they please and that no morality is necessary to apply to any emerging situation for the US to take the right to intervene in any part of the world.

Trump was the president who almost completed the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Obama was the president who started the withdrawal. What we see is not the result of left-right politics, what we see is the result of an ”America first” policy, which almost all politicians in the United States agree on. Everyone knew that they would withdraw. But if they had taken their time with a sequential withdrawal, it would not have been any better, as far as I can see. Because then the soldiers who remained would have been slaughtered, or at least the risk of that happening would be significant. I mostly object to that the United States and Biden did not warn their allies about the withdrawal. The reason was probably that they did not want to alert the Taliban about the American withdrawal. The US administration had to choose between pulling off the patch quick or slow. I always pull off my patches quickly because it’s milder that way.

The withdrawal came now, because Biden is aiming for a war against Iran via mainly Syria and on Syrian soil first, as also Trump had set his mind on. Trump certainly reduced the troops in Afghanistan from 15,000 to an absolute minimum of 2,500 men. There was only one last remnant of American troops left to bring home for Biden. Plus, the US militarily allied (what a joke) countries’ military forces briefly remained in the country. Several of the allied countries were completely unprepared for the sudden withdrawal by the United States. But American lives must be secured in their own war against the Taliban. It is not optimal to attack Iran with ground forces deployed on Afghan territory.

The United States is not primarily out to ”steal” the Iranian oil. They are trying to prevent a total Chinese hegemony in the Persian Gulf, because the United States needs the oil from the Persian Gulf. China does more business in the Persian Gulf than any other country, and even Saudi-Arabia has committed itself more economically to China than to the United States. But Saudi-Arabia’s US military technology are not necessarily compatible with Chinese military technology. Saudi-Arabia is not likely starting over and instead buying Chinese military technology. Except for maybe drones and some other, less advanced technology then. The United States gets at least a third of its oil from the Persian Gulf and has probably always done so. The fracking in Texas was just a staged scenery, in the regard that they have a very limited amount of oil reserves left. Maybe the gasoline oil in Texas will be sufficient until 2024 if it is to supply the entire United States.

It did not take long before some hawk in Israel acted on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. because a war against Iran led by the United States, Israel wants and has wanted ever since Trump’s term as president and the Netanyahu era. It makes me suspect that Israel does not have its own strategic nuclear weapons after all.

“Artificially intelligent Israeli-made drones securing UAE oil fields” Headline; WIN August 17, 2021

“Bennett to discuss Iranian threat with Biden in Washington” Headline; WIN August 18, 2021

More puzzle pieces that confirm an impending war will surely follow.

If there comes another big war in the pacific, I hope for the US to win. If there comes a war in Syria to continue in Iran to counter the Chinese influence in the Persian Gulf, I am not so certain I want the US to win.


Mimers brunn

World Israel News (WIN)

Merkel visiting the White House for the last time

On Thursday, July 15, 2021, a US president received German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the last time in the White House and, not surprisingly, the meeting was partly about the Nordstream II gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.

“We have reached different conclusions about what the project entails,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after the meeting.

Joe Biden nevertheless pointed out that they agree upon that Russia will not be allowed to use the gas pipeline as a way of exerting pressure on neighboring countries.

Source; Sveriges radio

Oh, how sweet. Biden and Merkel sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. What does their statements mean then? I can tell you what it does not imply. This does not mean that the project will end, and it does not mean that Biden has not given the Nordstream II project its blessing.

”… What the project entails.” What does it tell us? Probably that the project will be realized and one should not discuss the realization of the project, but only what the project entails for the two concerned, Germany and the US.

And ”Russia will not be allowed to use the gas pipeline as a means of exerting pressure on neighboring countries.” Does that mean that the project will be realized then?

This means that Merkel passes to Biden, who passes back to Merkel who scooooores!!!! The course is fixed and the war against Iran will continue to be pursued. Syria is the country where Boots on the Ground will take place. Kremlin is kept happy so that Russia will not use its air base in Latakia and its naval base in Tartous to attack US forces during the vulnerable and delicate initial phase, or otherwise will not disrupt the process and thereby spoiling the US opening move. As an icing on the cake, Russia can, with mild coerciveness, put pressure on Assad not to intervene against the Americans when they arrive.

Sure enough, a treaty over the gas pipeline is close, according to a Sveriges radio article July 20, 2021. But to be honest, one of the reasons for this Merkel-Biden agreement can also have something to do with growing and overt neo-nazi movements in Germany making Germany destined for Hell. But it is not the only or the main reason from Biden’s perspective.

The German-American companionship that began with some sort of ’declarations of love’ between George W. Bush and Angela Merkel some day when Merkel was in the United States beforehand, is also possibly the reason why Russia more or less simultaneously with Merkel’s US visit threatened the Taliban, i.e. Afghanistan, with a beating. Sveriges radio commented on this in July 14, 2021, saying, quote;

”Russia warns the Taliban of threatening the security of its allies in Central Asia. The announcement comes after a delegation visited Moscow last week. The Russian Foreign Ministry also calls on the Taliban to start negotiations to create a transitional government before it is too late.” End quote.

Four days later there was another quote;

”The Taliban’s advance in Afghanistan could leave room for China while the United States withdraws from the region. During the week, China offered to take on the role as a new mediator in Afghanistan.” End quotes; Sveriges radio

This Merkel visit to the United States and what they talked about there is possibly also the reason why Russia simultaneously with the visit, leaked information that Putin was plotting to get Donald Trump elected through what is known as the Russiagate. Listen to the choice of words in the presentation of the leaked Russian information from the Kremlin to the newspaper The Guardian;

“Putin had a plot to put Trump in the White House.”

Does that mean Putin is on his way out? Or is it the journalists’ own interpretations of the information they received, that Putin himself (but apparently not the Kremlin) plotted to get Donald Trump elected?

Deutsche Welle published a video in which George W. Bush was interviewed after Merkel’s visit to the former president. The video has the title; ’She did what’s best for Germany’ – George W. Bush on Angela Merkel’s legacy.

Probably she did. But how it rained in Germany! Is she not a Christian? You’d think that she would make a conclusion from this coincidence, as a Christian. Apparently she is not a very good Christian.

With regard to the heavy rainfall and flooding in Germany in mid July 2021. It should be interesting to see how well the Germans will be able to negotiate with Ukraine over the purchase of grains, crops and potatoes considering the Germans’ well known ambitions to enforce the Nordstream II pipeline in the Baltic Sea. That might not end too well my German friends. Well, there is always Poland. Nordstream II is extremely unfavorable to the Ukrainians because the Russians can bypass gas that otherwise would have run through Ukrainian gas pipelines to above all Germany. To do like the Germans do and cut Ukraine out of any strategic leverage as a nation, leaves Ukraine in a seriously dangerous position. Now Germany might reap what they sowed.

Added note:

[Simultaneously with Merkel’s visit to the United States, the western and south-western parts of Germany were drowned in up to three-meter-high rivers of rain, killing hundreds of people. It happens to be the worst in the industrialized Ruhr area around the river Rhine, where rainfall always gathers to. This will probably affect us Swedes economically in the short run and many, many other nations too. Roger’s note]

Roger M. Klang

This lesson is further updated








Strategy games on life and death at the Copper age

A 5,000 year old murder mystery

As a bonus, I solve a five-thousand-year-old murder mystery in a way that would have been accepted at the time when forensics was a virtually non-existent tool. At least in the Middle Ages, the authorities had to rely on, or chose to rely on, confessions through torture methods in the absence of evidence. If your name was Cecil and you had the job as head of the intelligence service for the Crown and Elizabeth the I in service of England at the 16th century and you had earned your post through meritorious cognitive talents and handsteady actions, you could be more cunning than that and trick the Catholic stooges out of information using the crown’s aides who pretended to be kinsmen of Catholicism.

There are four main theories as to why ”Ötzi”, the Austrian discovered ice man who was found in the Alps in the 1990s, was murdered 5000 years ago in the “copper age”. The copper age marks the transition between the stone age and the bronze age. Ötzi was naturally mummified centuries before the first blue-blooded Egyptian was mummified. I believe in the theory that Ötzi had a rival in his own relatively large village, but I think it is possible to penetrate into the murder plot and speculate further on the methods of the murder, and on how the plot turned out. Ötzi was a distinguished person in his clan, which is a known fact because he died with an exclusive copper ax in his possession. The fact that the ax was not stolen indicates that it was one of his own who murdered him.

With a little help from modern science, if I have not proved it so in any case, I have probated a certain causal course of events that preceded and led to a regal murder, and I have shed light on the power positioning that probably followed on the regal murder. All the indicators point in the same direction. It was probably an internal power struggle over the chief position, between two slightly older antagonists in what is today’s Italy.

The author


The mummified murdered ice man ”Ötzi” was discovered on the Austrian side of the Alps, lying with his head towards the mountain ridge another 5000 years after the murder. There is a church stone in Austria, which describes the murder in detail. A church stone which, incidentally, has not always been a church stone, since Christianity did not exist 5000 years ago. Viking Age run stones were used in similar ways in Swedish churches, as paving, so it was common to do so after the Viking Age in Sweden, and one can assume that it was just as common in Austria if we presume that there were engraved pagan stones available.


a) Ötzi was found on the Austrian side of the Alps lying on a mountain top with his head towards the mountain ridge.
b) Ötzi was shot with an arrow in the back wryly upwards from below and the arrow had cut an artery after which Ötzi bled to death.
c) The distance between the archer who killed Ötzi and Ötzi himself was relatively large, the arrow did not hit his body with full force but stopped a bit from the heart.
d) The arrow was pulled out of the body and there was no trace of it when they found the body, but the tip of the arrow remained inside Ötzi’s body.
e) Several of Ötzi’s arrows from his arrow quiver had been broken off at the site.
f) When they found Ötzi’s body in the 1990s, they discovered an exclusive copper ax lying five meters away from the body, which could only have belonged to an important man during the Copper Age.
g) Ötzi was murdered 5000 years ago during the short copper age in “Italy”.
h) The investigated stomach contents in Ötzi indicate that Ötzi came wandering from the “Italian” side walking to the Austrian side. It is also known because of the stomach contents that Ötzi climbed the mountain in the springtime.
i) Ötzi had wounds on his body from a fight a few days earlier.
j) Metal ore was mined at the Austrian side of Inndalen in the era.
k) There is an engraved pagan stone that later has been used as building material in an Austrian church, which describes the murder in detail.

Hypotheses A, B, C, D (and E)

A) One of the theories is that Ötzi was ritually murdered in the mountains.

What contradicts this theory is that Ötzi had wounds to the body, which had begun to heal, from a battle a few days earlier. And also the fact that Ötzi was on one of the mountain ridges when he was murdered, and consequently was in the only place in the mountains where you could comfortably lie and wait and look for him without risk of detection a number of people, indicates that it was deliberate murder, not ritual murder. Another thing that struck me was that a ritual murder would hardly have been committed on an alpine peak where no one was there to witness it. I think we can disregard the theory that it was a ritual murder, for a number of reasons, as most scientists also believe.

B) A second theory is that Ötzi was murdered by a rival clan in another community. [I contextually distinguish between rival clans in other communities and rival family constellations in their own village.]

I do not believe this either that a clan on Ötzi’s side of the Alps or the opposite side of the Alps were the perpetrators. If, for example, we assume that the rival clan lived on the opposite side of the Alps, then it would seem strange that such a clan, on the other side of the Alps, would first have learned that the man who was obviously their enemy – Ötzi – planned to come to their side and in addition know that he would travel alone, and then climb the Alps and ambush the (supposedly) alone Ötzi somewhere at the border of Ötzi’s territory. Now, Ötzi may have been beaten in the diametrically opposed clan area in “Austria” or “Italy”, of course, and in that case, theory B is not impossible. I will hereafter refer to Austria and Italy when I speak of “border states” or geographical division with the mountains as dividers. But as you will see if you read on, I think that Ötzi came from Italy because the probable approach (at least I would have ambushed him that way) at the actual murder a short time after Ötzi got wounded, logically imply that Ötzi crossed the mountain ridge from the Italian side.

He was found on the Austrian side and must therefore have been beaten in Italy sometime before the murder of him, and probably by a bellicose party of Ötzi’s own “clan members” from his own place of residence, if my theory of the approach for the murder itself is true. Continue reading.

If the murderers came from a rival clan in another community from the same side of the mountains as Ötzi, then they would have taken Ötzi’s copper ax after the murder. Likewise, they would have taken the copper ax if they came from a rival clan from across the mountains.

C) Inner clan rivalry, i.e. rival family constellations in their own village.

This (C) is the third and most probable theory, which can be deduced from my text.

D) Is that Ötzi would have been some kind of customs officer murdered by smugglers.

I am very skeptical to this, especially as he died alone! Why would a customs officer who runs the risk of encountering dangerous smugglers be alone when working? Everyone must have known that it was harsh times, especially a customs person. Furthermore, the distance between the archer who killed Ötzi and Ötzi himself was relatively large. The arrow had penetrated into the back wryly from below and stopped before the heart, but cut an artery so that Ötzi bled to death. If it had been smugglers who killed a customs official (if we suspect Ötzi of being that) then the copper ax would have been stolen. But that was not the case, the copper ax was not stolen, it remained five meters away from the body when the 5000-year-old mummy was discovered. Although a customs official would hardly have had a copper ax in his possession for more than a day, so we can probably strike that scenario.

Then there is a fifth hypothesis, an ad hoc theory, which is not very likely either;

E) It was customs officers who murdered Ötzi.

If it had been customs men who murdered Ötzi, the copper ax would have been confiscated.

The murder mystery

Now that we have established the most probable theory (C) inner clan rivalry, we can move on. Here’s how I think the murder happened: The fact that the lethal arrow didn’t hit Ötzi with full force, and that it hit him in the back, suggests that Ötzi was trying to escape and thus put some distance between himself and the archer. The fact that the arrow hit the chest wryly from below in his back indicates that the murderers (in pluralis!) ambushed Ötzi right behind the mountain ridge that Ötzi passed, on the Austrian side so that they could scout for him with a clear view without risk of being detected from a long distance or be discovered from the tracks left by the murderers in the snow when Ötzi came up the crest from the Italian side. If you come from the same side of the mountains as Ötzi, then by taking a detour and ambush him on the other side of the mountains you do not reveal yourself by leaving footprints in the snow, which you do when you ambush someone on the same side of the mountain. Of course, it is necessary to take a detour from the Italian side to the ambush place in Austria, but there is nothing contradictory in such a method, on the contrary, it is logical, practical and probable. But we know that Ötzi climbed the mountain in the springtime, so leaving traces in the snow was perhaps not the biggest problem for the killers. The plotter had placed some men on the other side of the top behind a stone or under camouflage on the Austrian side, so that Ötzi could not escape in several directions if the environment allowed that. At least I would have tried to arrange it that way, but it is entirely dependent on the environment on the mountain at the regular hiking trail at the time. Ötzi saw the men where his nose first pointed a little further down the mountain on the Austrian side and turned and ran upwards, whereupon he was shot in the back by the archman. It is known that Ötzi was shot in the back wryly from below. And this happened on the Austrian side where Ötzi was found with his head towards the mountain crest. If the body had slipped in the snow during these five millennias, chances are that the heavier upper body would have been heading downwards. Ötzi should thus have traveled from the Italian side. Once we have determined that Ötzi came from Italy, we can make conclusions that would otherwise have been considered a little bit wild. Go on reading!

But why did Ötzi have wounds to his body from a few days earlier? And why didn’t the killers take the valuable ax with them, and why did the killer pull out the arrow shaft? And why did Ötzi think he would go safe alone on his hike? He went alone, because if any of Ötzi’s men (supposedly) had managed to escape, the obvious benefits to the murderers of leaving the ax would be lost, otherwise Ötzi’s men would also have been killed and become mummified or skeletons and they would have found them at the same time they found Ötzi 5000 years later. And why is there a church stone in Austria that describes the murder in detail if the murder was so secret that the murderers left the ax? I have a good answer to all of this.

On the Austrian side of Inndalen, metal ore was mined from which metal was extracted, and the area was already quite densely populated. I think that Ötzi was an Italian gentleman who was about to hold a clan marriage with some prominent person from the Austrian side. An intermarriage was extremely important, because on the Austrian side they had a well-developed metal industry. The clan marriage was rejected by some rival on the Italian side, who had hitherto kept a low tone or at least tried to keep it within a relatively narrow circle. I think this because Ötzi took the risk of traveling alone across the border, probably in a manner that he thought was stealthy. I think Ötzi was already losing his role as clan leader for a relatively large village, otherwise he would not plan to leave his village alone at a fateful time, for a marriage arrangement, probably what he thought was a secret one until the wedding was supposed to take place. After all, he must have planned his journey if mine and other scientists assumptions that Ötzi’s death was preceded by an internal conflict is sound. Then the antagonist could send some men to ambush Ötzi, when he got the information about Ötzi’s departure. The antagonist could hardly have received the information from Ötzi about Ötzi’s planned departure, which points to simultaneous intrigues (alternatively a reverse causality – that the simultaneous intrigues made Ötzi not give the information to the antagonist – the result will be the same). Approaches like this and the supposed wedding arrangement suggest that neither Ötzi nor his antagonist were any youngsters, but they were family fathers with adult children, if it is a correct assumption. It was one of Ötzi’s own children that Ötzi wanted to wedlock with some Austrian nobelman or woman, otherwise he would not have traveled over the Alps himself. Ötzi may not have had many trusted people at the time of his departure because he chose to travel alone. It may therefore be that Ötzi knew that there was an informant in his own circle of friends. Or he needed every man in his own village. And given that Ötzi’s antagonist had trusted men to spare for two separate assault sites, it seems contradictory that Ötzi exposed himself so much by traveling alone. But if Ötzi was a risk taker, an A-personality, a player with leadership qualities which was probably the case, both hypotheses seem to be true – he needed every man in the village and therefore traveled alone as the risk taker he was, much like that of successful soldiers and officers in war, taking risks not to commit “selbstmord aus angst vor dem tod” (suicide from fear of death), as German soldiers said during World War II. So it is not I who have said that leaders with leadership qualities are risk-taking A-personalities. In addition, the village must have consisted of at least 100 people in order for someone to be able to mobilize at least a dozen men without noticing that these men had left the village at least one day in advance before Ötzi did so. In addition, they must have taken a detour so that they wouldn’t leave traces at the usual climbing route where Ötzi would travel. And as mentioned – the only place they could ambush Ötzi in the Alps was therefore on a mountain ridge, otherwise it would become obvious that the killers had gone before and how many they were. The fact that Ötzi traveled in the springtime indicates that Ötzi wanted to get the marriage completed before the next winter, so that he would gain influence in the metal clan or at least access to metals and a strengthened position in his village before it would no longer be possible to cross the Alps. But whatever matter anyone may have on the other side of the mountains, it is likely that they would have traveled in the spring, summer or fall, intrigues or not intrigues in the village.

Ötzi’s half-healed wounds indicate that his antagonist had taken the safe option before the unsafe option and prepared for an ambush on Ötzi at two different places, first in the forest on the Italian side and then on the ridge, but failed on the first occasion where Ötzi fled. According to studies of Ötzi’s intestinal system and stomach, it appears that Ötzi first climbed the mountain, only to turn and walk down again, and then walk up again on the same path as he went down. It can only indicate two things, together or separately:

a) Ötzi had his family in the village and he feared for their lives.
b) Ötzi feared what awaited him at the ridge.

It is likely that Ötzi chose to continue over the mountain ridge at night, but it is also likely that Ötzi traveled across the Alps at full moon, which you can assume that everyone did at the time. The fact that he first turned and went down, without being attacked downside, also indicates that no one bothered to follow Ötzi after the first attack. This reinforces my partial theory of two separate assaults by different perpetrators but with the same antagonist still in the village, and it also confirms some scientists’ theory that it was precisely an internal clan struggle that was the underlying cause behind Ötzi’s death, otherwise he would have had no reason to first walk up the mountain and then down and then up again, and he was injured in a fight a few days earlier. The Italians were the only ones who knew that Ötzi would pass where he passed at that particular time and place. A handful of men ambushed and murdered Ötzi as described. They had to leave the copper ax because Ötzi was a clan leader and the clan was in Italy where they would retire later, otherwise they would probably have been punished for regal killing. I bet Ötzi feared an attack on the peak of the Alps, after the first assault that probably took place in a forest because he escaped the archers at that time. But Ötzi was not just anyone, he was a clan leader and a brave man, and the road to the “top” was the quickest and fastest if the murderers pursued him. The murderers coldhammered calculated that Ötzi was most likely to do so, since they knew Ötzi. Ötzi couldn’t turn back because he knew who it was that had made an assault on him and he knew that this area would be the first area for them to scout. Besides, it wasn’t an option to come back emptyhanded. His only chance was to continue the fastest route to Austria and seek help from his new-found allies there.

The killers pulled out the arrow in Ötzi’s back to leave as few traces as possible, perhaps fearing that the Italian woodcraft on the arrow shaft or feathers would reveal them. In the heat of the moment, they did not realize that precisely this would cast shadows on them if Ötzi’s body was discovered. Why? Let’s turn the steak and see it from the eyes of a criminologist: Someone had tried to hide his identity (the murderer) by pulling out the arrow (the tip remained inside the victim’s body). These perpetrators left the precious copper ax untouched, so it was hardly from stinginess they pulled out the arrow. Nor was it from fear of being left without ammunition that they pulled out the arrow, as Ötzi’s killer broke off several of Ötzi’s arrows on the spot. Had there been one or more robbers, he/she would not have bothered to pull out the arrow, but they would have taken the copper ax. But now it was some of Ötzi’s tribal members from their own village, and then it seems logical, in the eyes of a criminologist, for the perpetrators to pull out the arrow but leave the copper ax. This is a good indication (which also reveals the motive for the murder) as I said, but it is no evidence. (As if evidence would be a requirement for police action at the Neolithic era, when one has such a strong indication. Evidence at that time was scarce.) And the approach can certainly be confirmed by any police officer, prosecutor, lawyer, judge and committee of any kind, being a criminal’s (in this case, a regal murderer’s) typical approach.

The church stone in Austria with the engravement of the murder then? Why didn’t the murderers take the ax if they were so happy to brag through engraved stones with ocher? I explain the church stone with the fact that the murderers were successful in climbing the social ladder after the murder. The church stone was thus created after the situation had stabilized for the new clan leaders, perhaps one or more generations afterwards, when the murderers had built up their empire and the murder had transformed into a heroic act. But in order for it to be true, an intermarriage arrangement must still have taken place sometime later between someone in the new clan and the Austrians, since the engraved stone was found in a church in Austria.

The alternative explanation for the handcrafted church stone (which was not initially a church stone since it was made 5,000 years ago) is a bit far-fetched, namely that the murder was revealed when the body was found by the Austrians 5,000 years ago, and it was found that an arrow had caused Ötzi’s death – all according to my criminologist’s reasoning – and that it coincided that the body could not be carried home because of a snowstorm which subsequently covered the body with snow and ice which never melted again and thus made it impossible to find the body again. Until a little more than a decade ago. The copper ax was located some distance from the body (five meters), and with a little luck it could have been hidden in snow when the body was first found in the era. Everything depends on how exactly a storm strikes, or how nature appeared at the time when the body was supposedly found 5,000 years ago, partly because the ax must be hidden in snow without any traces left, but partly the body must still be discoverable in the snow. The copper ax is the first thing a rescue team would have been looking for in the era. One can imagine even more wild speculations about Austrian murderers who switched sides, but then we would be talking conspiracy theories.

My indicated theory, incidentally, means that the civilization in Europe did not have its cradle in Italy or Greece.

Roger Mikael Klang

Australian bushfires 2019-2020, Lesson fortyfive

I suspect organized incendiaries, like we had in Västergötland and Småland in Sweden in 2018. Even though it was just as hot in the whole of Sweden that year, the many separated fires started only in those two regions. In Småland it was even concentrated around one community. By looking at the satellite image below one can easily conclude that the fires in Australia all originates from populated places. It’s suspicious that all these fires starts almost all at once, and as it seems, all in Australia and not the other parts of the pacific area.

I think we can be pretty sure what group of people started our fires here in Sweden. In Australia however it is not so easy to single out one group of incendiaries. There are two groups. There is a country called China which can stand behind such atrocities of organized arson over the whole of Australia simultaneously. But nowhere else in the pacific area? I’d be inclined to think that the radical muslims in Australian communities are not so organized to be able to pull off such a stunt in the short amount of time they had to start all the existing fires. Not by themselves anyway, and not without the Australian government knowing about it. The little dots of fire in the albeit manipulated and colored satellite image below indicates many arsonists.

The thing is that Australia, or at least certain individuals in Australia, in the late 2019 put in a higher gear in both politics and media, as they have become tougher against Beijing. That’s what it seems like anyway. In november 2019, Australian 60 minutes, made two tough reportages of which both had the prong aimed at Beijing China.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: CHINESE SPY SPILLS SECRET TO EXPOSE COMMUNIST ESPIONAGE, was about a former Chinese spy that wanted to defect to Australia. His only weapon was the truth. He said in the interview that he knew that the only possible way to receive an Australian citizenship was to cooperate truthfully with the Australian authorities. He also knew that he was going to die should he be compromized by the Chinese in Australia or if he was sent back to China with his family. The producer’s name was Grace Tobin.

Only days before that reportage the Australian 60 minutes did an important reportage, INVESTIGATION: WHY IS CHINA ON THE MOVE IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC. It was a reportage that was a real threat to Chinas interests and plans for the whole region of both the South China Sea and several strategic islands in the Pacific Ocean. The reportage was much about the allegations of corruption against the president of the Solomon Islands involving the Chinese, who was accused by Daniel Sudaini, the premier of Malaita. Malaita is one of Solomon Islands’ largest and most populous provinces.

They talk in Australia about what China calls ”The Blue Economic Passage” which is supposed to go through the island of Kiribati down to Antarctica passed the Eastern waters of Australia. The Australians believe the name is just a cover story for a comprehensive plan to dominate the region. In the Solomon Island there is a gold mine now signed over to China. And in Bouganville in Papua New Guinea there is a gigantic gold/copper mine that Beijing is really interested in. But in Papua Guinea they are still open for other offers.

Now, about the fires in 2019-2020. They are not yet (mid January 2020) the largest fires in Australian history, but they are the most devastating and closer to urban populations than ever before.  Bushfires in Australia can occur all year-round, though the severity and the “bushfire season” varies by region. That is why these fires are so suspicious since they occure all over populated Australia at almost one and the same instance, as seen in the image below. They are taking place in 6 territories simultaneously. Only in the fires of 2006-2007 did something similar happen, then in five territories. Of course it could happen that all over the continent there were thousands of thunder clouds at once since lightning normally is the number one incendiary for bushfires. Were there?


My conclusion

I suspect that Beijing now is feeling safe enough to ”cut Australia loose and sink it”. But they may have acted just a little bit premature out of anger towards the Australian journalists and politicians. What we do know is that bushfires at this scale is by far the cheapest and simplest way to brake the Australian economy. We also know that there is a power struggle going on between China and the US in and around the South China Sea and that the US as well as China have high stakes in the Persian Gulf right now and the US needs Australia as a dairy supplier to the US Navy, now more than ever since the US is losing more and more markets in the region with China’s growing influence. Yes I said dairy supplier. The US Navy and the US Marines march on their stomach, and they can be stopped if they cannot. The US needs access to the harbor in Darwin, as I have discussed in a previous lesson.

Roger M. Klang, defense political spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden


Iran and the S-300 surface-to-air missile system. Lesson fortyfour

Russia has sold or is selling S-300 air defense systems to Iran.

Iran has at least five bases on the Strait of Hormuz. The bases are located at Bandar Abbas, Bandar Lengeh, Sirik, Kish Island and Abu Musa, the latter two being islands.

The Americans have several air bases near or in the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. The bases are called Isa Airbase (Bahrain), Al Udeid (Qatar) and Al Minhad and Al Dhafra (UAE).

In addition, the Americans have a naval base in Bahrain, and one on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and a base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa. They also have a large base with combat personnel on the British island of Ascension 2,500 km west of Africa halfway to Brazil in South America.

According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the sale of the S-300 air defense system will stabilize the situation in the Middle East. But more likely it will do just the opposite, destabilizing the situation in the Middle East. Israel felt an urge to take action against Iranian nuclear facilities in the near future before Iran had deployed air defense systems. The Iranian news organization Tasnim reported on July 19, 2016 that Iran had obtained the first S-300 PMU-2 air defense systems which Russia sold to them.

If Israel does not strike while they can, if Iran becomes a nuclear weapons country with operational nuclear weapons with sufficient range and accuracy, then because of the Iranian mullahs’ unpredictability, it could turn into a disaster for Israel, or at least develop into a cold war between Israel and Iran. The Iranians have not been late in involving other stakeholders in the conflict, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, which risks tipping over the balance of power to Israel’s disadvantage and strengthen Iran’s position in the region. That would probably lead to a new Arab war against Israel. It could also mean that more states in the region would try to develop nuclear weapons.

Nor is there anything to guarantee that Russia will not sell the nuclear weapons carrier missiles to Iran, once Iran has received and deployed its air defense systems. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasizes that the weapons are defensive and pose no threat to neighboring countries, including Israel. Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz made a statement; “Instead of demanding that Iran cease its terrorist acts in the Middle East and the world, it now allows the country to acquire advanced weapons that will only lead to increased aggression.”

Iran also supplies crude oil to Russia in exchange for grain and building materials. In this way, we are already being affected in our part of the world as Russia exports its surplus of oil to strengthen its economy. The so-called P5 + 1 group, consisting of the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, reached an agreement in July 2015 on Iran’s nuclear program, which meant that Russia and Iran stood as winners. President Putin said in a statement on the Kremlin’s website that the world could take a relieved breath. In Israel, the sentiments were of another kind. The country’s Prime Minister Netanyahu did not mince words and called the agreement a big mistake of historical proportions. The sanctions against Iran were supposed to be lifted. The agreement meant that;

A) Iran would scale down its nuclear program while opening the doors for UN inspectors to all its nuclear facilities, including military ones.
B) The arms embargo against Iran was stated to remain for five years.
C) In addition, according to the IAEA, a roadmap had been signed to investigate Iran’s previous nuclear activities.
D) But even if a contract was in the clear, it would take months before it could take effect. The US Congress and Iran’s parliament would now approve the agreement.
E) The West’s sanctions against Iran, which isolated the country financially, could be lifted and several billion dollars of Iran’s frozen assets thawed thereafter.

Whether or not the sanctions under Obama really were lifted is an assessment question for anyone to figure out for himself.

Source; Euromaidan Press, April 2015; SR; Ekot, July 2015


Do you think that Hezbollah with Iran’s help can tip the balance in the Middle East? And if they do, will there be another “Yom Kippur”? If you don’t know what Yom Kippur is I suggest that you read up about it. But I can tell you that it was the Arab war against the Israelis in October 1973 and it is also a Jewish Holiday, which they named the war after since the Arabs attacked Israel on the last day of the yearly Jewish fasting. The Jews were taken by surprise back then in the year of 1973.

Roger M. Klang, defense political spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden