The Abysmal gap. Lesson ten

The abysmal gap between military geostrategists’ views on the world as being a battlefield over strategic hotspots, straits, sea routes, military bases and commodity assets, versus diplomats’ view of geostrategy as a frictional meeting between headstrong dynamic people, is probably the reason for the existence of military attache officials who combine the best of both worlds. Military attaches are usually younger and always low in rank. I can only assume it is the diplomats who rule in the house of diplomats. They shouldn’t be so skird of professionals.

There is thus a difference between geostrategy (military thinking) and geopolitics (diplomatic thinking).

Geopolitics revolves around economics and policies.

Geostrategy is inevitable facts; who has what and where, and who wins a conflict with this what?

Geopolitics also involve commodities and, to some extent, natural resources. Geostrategy involves natural resources and where they’re at. But there is no absolute division between the two different fields of strategy.

Almost any fool can conduct geopolitical work. But conducting the work of a geostrategic task is often a privilege for a few briefed men, often high ranking militaries, government leaders and industrialists within a closed circle of people. Nothing is initiated by chance at the top level. On the other hand, the intentions of others and decisive events often gets randomized in crazy interactions.

It is enough that only one party is aware that they have a geostrategic superiority. If they do, then it is possible for them to go out and make geopolitics of it. A fog of war is usually created by the protagonists at selected occasions in any given conflict. But sooner or later, the conflict will return to the origin of the conflict – the geostrategy i.e. the strategic hotspots and natural resources.

There is no way to tell which is more influential. I guess you could say in the short run it is geopolitics and in the long run it is geostrategy, but that is a truth with modification. Look at the start of the first World war, it was a continued power struggle between nations, but it started suddenly with a single fired gun against Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Then look at the start of the second World war, it was conducted from the state of Germany on the highest level and was foreseeable.

Everybody does not agree with me about what makes up a geostrategical task and what makes up a geopolitical task. Some wouldn’t even separate the two into dual significations. This is my definition.

 

Homework:

How would you define geopolitics and geostrategy, are they the same?

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

Mowing the lawn. Lesson nine

Exactly how is Trump going to make America great again? He does not lead through example, that is for sure. What do I mean with that? Well he said that America in the past has been stupid to tell the world what their country’s intentions were.

If you do not take responsibility for what your intentions are, if you do not tell the people what your intentions as a state and as a state leader are, then per definition you cannot lead through example because your people do not have a clue what your intentions are. Ergo, there is no example to follow. Do you see what I mean?

But I lead through example! I tell the world what I intend to do and then I do it. Even a guy like Putin does that. Even Hitler did that. But not Trump, and he is proud of not doing it. Donald, if you are not leading through example you are not leading! And if you are not leading, then you cannot make America great again. It is as simple as that.

I think that every lie and deception springs out of a personal perversion or at least a leniency for a perversion. All the lyings by the so called statesmen of the world is only a cover-up for their personal perversions. Of course there is only one totally perversion free person in history, Jesus Christ. But the lies that come from some persons are much worse than the average liars lies. And when that person is in office it gets bad. If you are in a clinch with and then surrender to Trump, he will screw you over a thousand times if he could make a dime on it. On the other hand if you don’t surrender to Trump he may screw you over anyway, but at least you are standing up. The man has got no honor. He is like emperor Nero. If you are standing up and looking down on his bald spot, he will have you executed. It may be just a tall tale, but watch the figurative similarities, considering both Trump’s and Nero’s decadence.

There are three kinds of world leaders today and always have been. The first kind is someone like Donald Trump who in foreign policy says one thing and does another thing, sometimes simultaneously. This kind of leader consistently shuffle the cards before they are dealt. The second kind of leaders are like Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler. They say what they intend to do and then they do it. But what they do is not God’s will. The third kind of leaders also mediate what they intend to do and then they do it. But what they do is God’s will. The third kind of leaders are rarely existing in the world. And that is remarkable, that good people, of which there are plenty of among ordinary people, apparently finds it hard to make it to the top wherever you have your residence in the world. It makes me wonder what tools successful politicians in general use to make it to the top, and also how they stay in office?

Donald Trump wrote this in his book ”Crippled America” from 2015; ”Does anybody reading this believe that I’m concerned about making other countries feel good? They used to fear us. They used to want to be us. We were respected.”

Thank you for that clarity, businessman Donald! That doesn’t sound like a good business investment. It shows you cannot be trusted, by non-Americans, ever. If you cannot be trusted, who in their right mind, can you strike a deal with outside of America? I can answer the question myself – the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. All others have to prepare for the worst from totalitarian regional or global powers like Russia and China. Unless God intervenes, and strikes a blow to America for embarking on the wrong road, perhaps. We have put a lot of money and some casualties into your country’s war with the Talibans in Afghanistan. For what?

Homework:

No homework today. But you women, please speak up about where you stand on Trump. I don’t care if you are for him or against him, just speak up. I value your voice. I hope you valued mine.

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

The American base in Darwin, Australia Lesson eight

There are around 800 American bases deployed around the World. But many of these locations have only minor staff and many are logistic to its nature, and most staffmembers are desktop workers and pencil pushers. However the Americans have quite a few fighting military bases around the World.

The US has got several well integrated installations in Australia. Pine Gap is the commonly used name for an Australian Earth station approximately 18 kilometres i.e. 11 miles South-West of the town of Alice Springs, Northern Territory in the centre of Australia. Pine Gap is operated by both Australia and the United States. Its longer name is Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG). It consists mainly of desktop workers.

But there is another American base in Australia. This American base in Australia I think we have to shed light on. The base as such, wich is located in Darwin at Australia’s North-West coast, does not give you any information of how many Marines Darwin can harbor. Darwin’s port can take in at least one WASP-class vessel. Darwin is a quite small Community, a city but not a big city by American standards, only about 130,000 inhabitants. More about Darwin further down.

If you bring the American troops home the World will be overrun by the Chinese and the Russians in no time, and the US is still dependent on oil from the Middle East to a level of more than a quarter of its oil-consumption (2016). The US would get none oil if the Chinese had their will. The US can hope for and plot for a regime change in Venezuela to create a boost in oil-production in that particular country in order to increase oil imports from that country to the US if the new regime is friendly to the US. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. And Canada has lots of extra oil that they export mainly to the US.

I think that China is too weak in its nuclear capacity to survive a war with the US. China relies on Russia’s nuclear capacity and Russia relies on China’s conventional army. They have a marriage of reasoning. But believe this, they do not trust each other!

Kremlin thinks that Russia should be in par with China since Russia has a bigger nuclear capacity. But China’s bigger economy wins in the every day life. Russia is slowly losing its grip of the Russian Far East to the Chinese. That among other things is why Putin has agreed to develop his nation’s economic ties with Japan, sell some oil to the Japanese to level out the Chinese influence in the Russian Far East. Putin doesn’t want to put all his eggs in one and the same basket, namely China.

Russia’s biggest motivator is China. Russia’s little escapades in the Baltic Sea are a luxury they sometimes can engage in. Its Southern borders and its Eastern border are much more important. They just don’t want us to know that. However Russia is strongly enforcing development economically and militarily in the region of the Kola peninsula at Barents Sea in their North.

Does China have a bad geographic location in case of a conventional war with the US? Not necessarily. America can to my knowledge only accommodate some three thousand marines in total in barracks located at the relatively small community of Darwin in the North of Australia fairly close to the Malacca strait. And even this small number puts a strain on Darwin’s community (you know, unmarried girls). And the port of Darwin is quite limited. LPD:s and LHD:s like San Antonio class or Wasp class visiting Darwin can only do this one by one it seems. Also, Darwin was attacked by air by the Japanese in World war two. Wouldn’t we see a rerun, and this time the crime would be committed by the Chinese? It is true, Obama talked about shipping 25 000 marines to Darwin. Yeah, good luck! They would have to close Darwin down when all the young girls have left for America. As if the Darwiners aren’t pissed off enough as it is. Probably.

Homework:

As we have established in my ”Strategic school introduction” and in an earlier Lesson one ”The importance of Uganda in big politics”, the Americans fear a possible axis between China, Russia and Japan.

1. Do you see a growing axis between China, Russia and Japan?
2. How will that play out you think?
3. Will the US be left in the wake of a new world order?
4. Are the Americans rational in their fear or is Japan going to continue to be benevolent towards the US of A?

Search for information on the Internet for this task! For example you can search for ”Putin, Russian Far East, China, Shinzo Abe, Japan” and then maybe you will get some relevant information.

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

Strait of Hormuz Lesson seven

Fact evidence: In late October 2018, Israels prime minister Netanyahu visited Oman under friendly terms. Not long after, following this, Trump said that ”Saudi-Arabia is on the clock”. Unfortunately I can no longer find the source to the Saudi-Arabia-is-on-the-clock statement, but I distinctly remember it word for word.

Very interesting. But I don’t expect that Oman will cave in to Israel! Israelis cannot project the necessary power in the Strait of Hormuz region to be able to do that. If Oman will cave in they will do it because the guy in the background is putting pressure on the country. I am of course talking about Trump.

And speaking about Saudi-Arabia. The United States is starting to export more goods than they receive oil in the other direction. The amount of oil the US receive from Saudi-Arabia 2018 is down 1/3 since 2015 while the exports to the country stays the same. So you probably have to look for the explanation there. The US has no interest in sustaining the state of Saudi-Arabia if they don’t get to import their oil. The numbers 1/3 comes from the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK 2015 compared with the numbers in the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK 2018-2019.

The Strait of Hormuz is 21 nautical miles (24 miles or 39 km) in width at its narrowest place. In 2011 an average of 14 tankers per day passed out of the Persian Gulf through the strait, carrying 17 million barrels of crude oil. That is 35 percent of the worlds seaborn oil shipments and 20 percent of the oil traded worldwide. Some say 40 percent of all oil traded worldwide. More than 85 percent of this oil goes to Asian countries, with Japan, India, South Korea and China the biggest buyers. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz throughout the years.

This doesn’t mean that Saudi-Arabia will become a target militarily. It is much more likely that Iran will become a target. But I think we can expect that the US will strive to put pressure on especially the Saudis to not cut back any more on the oil sales to the US and preferrably increase the oil sales quota to the US. They hope to accomplish this by projecting more power against the Iranians and by dwarfing the Chinese influence in the nearby region and, hopefully, in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. They attempt all of this nowadays with the projection of military power rather than with conventions, national aid and business agreements which previous political administrations may have relied on more.

This dwarfing of the chinese Navy in the Gulf of Oman can be done by confining the Chinese Navy within the South China Sea. As long as America has the ability to project power at sea more than China has, the US can decide the rules of the game. But the difference between the streangth of the American Navy and the Chinese Navy on the other hand, is more than anything revolving around America’s Aircraft carrier groups superiority in number and capacity that dwarf the Chinese number and capacity.

China has an airbase at Gwadar in western Pakistan near by the Gulf of Oman. If China can continue on with a construction of new airbases in foreign countries in and around the region, then America’s superiority with their aircraft carrier groups will be leveled out in actual capacity compared to the Chinese. But the USAF currently has airbases in several Arab countries on the west coast of the Persian Gulf opposite Iran.

Should Iran allow China to construct airbases in their country, then the Chinese could place these airbases wisely, meaning more optimal for defense of Iranian oil-installations and self-defense than the Americans can do and have done. As a bonus the Chinese airbases would be more suitable for attacks against to Iran possibly hostile oil-nations in the north and west of the Persian Gulf.

The Royal Navy seized an Iranian oil-tanker, Grace 1, on july 4:th 2019. As retaliation the Iranians have at present date (july 2019) hijacked several oil-tankers over the past month. One was Swedish owned but flagged a British piece of cloth since it was registered in Britain as so many ships are. It is interesting that the Royal Navy’s initial hijacking of the Iranian oil-tanker took place at Gibraltar and not at the Strait of Hormuz or in the Persian Gulf.

It is equally interesting that the British says that they ”suspected” quote on quote, that the Iranian oil-tanker was carrying crude to Syria and that is why it had to be seized by the British and also that the British seized the tanker in the name of the EU. What about Brexit now? This smells warmongering. According to shipping data Grace 1 sailed to the Mediterranean around Africa, probably to avoid the, for such a large supertanker, unloading and refilling of its oil at the Suez Canal which would have meant exposing their cargo to potential seizure by Egypt.

And it is also interesting that the British hijacking took place on America’s independence day. A coincidence? No, that is how the big boys talk to each others when they want to deliver a message. 364 to 1 is the odds if you want to contest that!

Many years ago Britain was the leading nation in state sponsored piracy. And they still are. Royal Navy still has a protocol for boarding other nations civilian ships. It is not an easy thing to board a ship with a hostile crew onboard.

 

Homework:

1. Trump said that ”Saudi-Arabia is on the clock”. Can you think of any scenarios if the Saudis don’t comply with America? What will happen in the region you think?
2. Do you think that in the long run Iran will gain influence or that they will lose influence should the US threaten with war and then abstain from realize it? And if Iran gain influence, will there be a war? Will there be a war if Iran dwindle in power and there is a real threat of a serious upheaval in Iran?
3. For the overambitious; How do you think that China if possible will try to profit from these different scenarios, given the tense situation in the South China Sea? Pick one scenario that you think is the most realistic and suggest China’s politics:

• Saudis don’t comply.
• Saudis don’t comply and Iran gain influence in the region.
• Saudis don’t comply and Iran lose influence because of US war rattling.
• Saudis don’t comply while civil unrest in Iran.

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

 

Why Germany cannot repeat its WWII performance Lesson six

This is why Germany cannot repeat the performance of dominating its surrounding world like Nazi-Germany did approximately 1935-1944. Lesson six;

Peak oil has long since occurred in Ploiesti, Romania, where the Germans got most of their oil during World War II.

Lend-Lease. The Allied Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union which made the Soviet Union superior to Nazi-Germany in materiel and also economically during most of World War II. Supplies and military equipment were shipped in convoys around Nordkap in Norway to Murmansk and Archangels. Supplies and military equipment were also shipped from the US to Vladivostok in southeastern Russia with Soviet flagged ships. A Persian Corridor was also available to support the Soviet Union.

From the East, however, there will never be any Lend-Lease going to the western countries. The Germans’ interest in expanding their borders westward is minimal.

Moscow seems to be just the right distance from western Europe to keep Russia from defeat, seen in a historical perspective. Since then that distance has increased. Circumstances may have altered with the development of new materiel like long distance weapons and satellite sensors.

Italy and Spain are no longer fascist states.

Hypothetical German hopes of securing a future fuel supply (and they also, among other things, need a Chrome supply transported by railways westward from Turkey) by taking the oil fields in the Caucasus at Baku and the Caspian sea are vane. Perhaps some Germans hope, as they did in Nazi-Germany with oil from Romania, to seize the oil fields at Caucasus and subsequently load the fuel on barges that can traffic the Danube River. But importing oil from North Africa through the straits in western Turkey and up into the Danube River is certainly seen as an alternative for Germany.

Germany buys an unknown percentual proportion of its oil from Russia, and they buy a lot of gas, gas that runs through the Nordstream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. They have tied theirselves quite a bit to Russia’s supplies of gas and oil to Germany.

Germany can extract liquid fuel from their oil shale and lignite coal, but not nearly enough for the German logistics chain, the motorized army and the air force.

I have put together a 35-point axiom, which can be used to determine a possible outcome in case of a major war. Of these 35 points, Nazi Germany had 17 crucial advantages against 6 for the Soviet Union, and yet Germany lost the war. My conclusion is that this is mostly due to the Soviet endurance through the Allies Lend-Lease, as well as the bombings of Germany including bombings against German-occupied/allied industrial areas and petroleum industries.

(Seventeen German advantages marked *)

1) have a better air force *
2) have a better or more extensive air defense *
3) are more thoroughly trained *
4) have logistic advantages *
5) have the right kind of materiel and equipment in the right amount and constellation, civilian as well as military *
6) have material quality advantages for heavier materiel *
7) have information, intelligence and surveillance advantages *
8) have technological communication advantages *
9) have better and more encryption variables *
10) have a superior leadership and educational doctrine *
11) have the opportunity to choose their battles and where they will take place *
12) have the best country climate *
13) have physically stronger, more sustainable soldiers (mainly concerns voluntary defense/professional soldiers) *
14) have better motivated soldiers *
15) have a better and more sustainable financial system *
16) have a better ability to quickly rebuild ruined industry and destroyed infrastructure (at least when the war looks like in WWII it’s a contest) *
17) have better infrastructure in their home country *

(Six Russian advantages marked ¤)

18) have a weather or season advantage during their warfare, or have weather-resistant clothing for their soldiers, cold-resistant equipment, functional food supplies and indoor accommodation opportunities in severe cold, etc. Deep snow can make transportation and transfer difficult for those who are not equipped and trained, deep mud is even worse, it may cause the most problem for an attacker.¤
19) have a bigger and faster production¤
20) gets financial and material help from the outside world¤
21) have access to oil and oil refineries and kerosene¤
22) have the most (ice free) commercial ports and access to safe shipping routs¤
23) have plenty of or appropriately placed fake targets so that the enemy’s surveillance and attack aircraft will correctly assess the location of the wrong target¤

(Twelve indeterminable or double acting/double edged)

24) are better equipped
25) are better protected and defended by, for example, mines and artillery in a defensive action and artillery during an offensive action
26) are more protected and harder to detect by using better camouflage
27) have better tools, e.g. have night vision devices as standard if you look at the situation today, or have electrolyte powder and potassium permanganate and antibiotics and low-cost performance enhancers, etc.
28) have advantages in terms of fire against targets
29) have better armor on combat vehicles with an advantage of better impact concerning fire against targets
30) have geographic advantages for either defense alt. an offensive (forest areas, steppes, transverse rivers etc.) ¤ *
31) In addition, the best long-range heavy-duty vehicles, adapted for the ground conditions and the accessibility of the offensive (compare with multiplied tactics) ¤ *
32) have a shorter production chain
33) have greater potential/ability to protect industry and infrastructure * ¤
34) have commodity assets within gripping distance ¤ *
35) have the most friendly minded neighboring states or least hostile neighbors

Nazi Germany had 17 of these above listed 35 possible advantages. Opposed are six advantages for Russia, and twelve indeterminable.

Perseverance is obviously such an important factor that it overrides all other factors if you can hold off a quick victory for the opposing side. How else can you explain a German loss even though the Germans had 17 advantages against 6 for the Soviet Union?

The shorter logistics chain (No. 4 above) may not be considered to be a German advantage. However, east Preussia had a partially strategic advantageous starting point at the start of the war, even though east Prussia lacked commodity resources. This advantage Preussia had because Stalin relocated parts of Russia’s industries from western Russia to the east of the Ural Mountains in the summer of 1941.

Another German advantage (not mentioned in the list above) was initially the surprise of the attacker. Although this is usually neutralized relatively quickly it wasn’t in this war. But a Russian advantage at a later stage was that they could maintain and even increase sufficient reinforcements and resources, which the Germans could not hope to maintain for their part.

The Germans can not count on making a reprisal of the overall plan for the daring attack through the Ardennes as in the attack on France in 1940.

Germany lacks nuclear weapon capacity while Russia, the United States, Great Britain and France all have it. But Germany can acquire it, hypothetically speaking.

Lastly, let me remind you that Germany’s constitution today explicitly prohibits Germany from entering into strategic defense alliances with non-NATO countries. For the protocol, I can say that I support this.

Homework:

No homework today

 

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