Why there WILL be a major war, and why it’s going to cost a lot of American blood

Joe Biden, the senile old Satan, the Donald Trump follow up, thinks he is going to be able to avoid the coming world war at our expence as a state. Biden is a good little president, he just wants a LIMITED war. Oh how Godly isn’t Biden? I’ll tell you how good he is, not Godly enough to speak about ”God’s chosen nation”, just as didn’t president Trump. Why is that? Because they drained out God in their politics, actually already with Bush the younger. That’s because they cannot defend what they are doing any longer. They are just another rouge state today. But not just any rouge state, they are the mightiest rouge state, militarily speaking. Not morally speaking.

Biden recently said the following:

Quote; ”If you take a look at, you know, gas prices and you take a look at oil prices, that is a consequence of, thus far, the refusal of Russia or the OPEC nations to pump more oil. And we’ll see what happens on that score sooner than later.” End quote.

Biden knows, or has now learned in any case, that you can not fully switch to the production of an electric vehicle park in most places in the US, or anywhere in the world for that matter, which politicians and statesmen have fantasized about in free fall for a while now. This is what Biden says now:

Quote; “Well, on the surface, it seems like an irony, but the truth of the matter is – You’ve all known, everyone knows that the idea we’re going to be able to move to renewable energy over night and not have – from this moment on, not using oil or not using gas or not using hydrogen is just not rational.” End quote.

Biden’s administration has approved 339 permits per month to drill for oil on federal land. So it seems to me that I’m right that America’s installed oil resources are rapidly running out. However, I believe that, since he only granted a permit for oil drilling far out in the Gulf of Mexico where oil is still believed to exist, there can never be a really viable solution. As an example, I can mention that the experimental oil rig “Perdido” is hardly economically profitable. In my book “World policies, how it works” I wrote:

In comparison, the giant American oil rig “Perdido”, which is located 300 km off-shore in the Mexican Gulf, can pump up maybe 86,000 barrels of oil per day. The oil rig itself cost 3,000,000,000 dollars to build. That means a liter price of 4 dollars or 15 dollars per gallon if the oil rig stands for fifteen years. And that’s not counting profit margins, salaries for the oil rig’s personnel and maintenance or production stop, nor do I estimate the deconstruction costs. But on the other hand it is a low estimation of the oil rig’s total lifespan. Imagine that, 15 dollars per gallon! The numbers suggest that Perdido is only an experimental platform. But Perdido is extremely remote.

It is also interesting that he mentions “Hydrogen” a bit like in passing in the video.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the United States and China are in a deadlock. The United States owns the sea routes for warships and several friendly ports to the oil in the Persian Gulf, but China has Taiwan and South Korea in its grip and thus they have more than 75% of the world’s semiconductor industry within reach. Do not think, as the Americans do or have done, that Taiwan’s strategic status is about the Chinese butt being hurt. Even the Japanese have understood. Japan realizes its strategic disadvantage and in November 2021 signed a contract to allow Taiwan’s and the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer, TSMC, to open a branch in Japan together with SONY Group. Japan currently imports 64% of its semiconductor components.

China’s naval warships simply do not have the range to reach even the island of Sri Lanka in the southern part of India. Both China and the United States depend on friendly ports and fuel oil for warships. The United States’ allied Australia has its grip on the oil in East Timor, which has historically cost the small island nation blood before it was even a nation.

The Chinese have a more recent, lousy track record with unfavorable loans, which as a rule has meant that poorer nations have bowed under the debt pressure and been forced to set aside ports to transfer them to Chinese ownership/control. Awareness of this has increased among poor nations, but most of them have already learned the hard way.

A quote; “Up to 90% of the semiconductors applied by US technological companies – including Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm – rely on Taiwanese manufacturing.” End quote.

Another quote; ”Today, only 16 percent of the semiconductors used in China are produced in-country, and only half of these are made by Chinese firms. China is very dependent on foreign suppliers for advanced chips.” End quote.

Soon there will be a major war for real. When the United States goes all out for a war against Iran, China will devour Taiwan and perhaps South Korea. At the same time, Russia will devour Ukraine if they do not understand Blinken’s flirtation and the United States’ offer to serve Sweden and perhaps parts of the Nordic region on a platter. Kremlins do not seem to have understood that it is quote; “playbook”, and Biden has a soft spot for Ukraine. Biden hardly has a soft spot for Sweden.

Blinken recently proclaimed regarding Russia and Ukraine, quote in quote;

“But, we do know it is playbook.”

Playbook means in English.

A book containing a team’s plans for a game, especially in American football.

It may be that the Kremlin has understood Blinken’s “But, we do know it is playbook.” nod to Putin. Otherwise, Putin would not build up with 110,000 troops at the border with Ukraine, he would stack up the odds in Syria and Iran.

Of course, the American administration knows who I am. Blinken probably knows that I’m not into sports. And I certainly do not know American football terminology. This statement by Blinken is thus all the more suspicious. Except I looked it up. But judging by Putin’s reaction a little later on in the video where Blinken said this, Putin was taken on the bedside by the US Naval activities in the Black Sea. But Putin quickly seized the opportunity and condemned the US “unplanned exercises” in the Black Sea and, as usual, turned the whole course of events to his favor. However, I can bet that the US Naval activities in the Black Sea came only AFTER Putin’s troop contractions. Otherwise, it would be even more suspicious what the Americans are doing. It’s a little strange that the US Navy and USAF are sending nuclear weapons platforms to the Black Sea, both navy and B-52s. Why?

But perhaps Putin does not see it eye to eye. As far as I know, there are no nuclear weapons on surface ships in the US Navy anymore. But maybe Putin meant submarines?

After watching the video again, I understood that Putin was referring only to the B-52s and not to the warships, but at the same time he took the opportunity to sow the seeds of suspicion by expressing himself vaguely. All the more reason to believe that Putin was taken by the bedside. Check out the causality is my suggestion, who was there first with what. What are the Americans’ motives for sending strategic B-52s? Especially as Blinken says, quote;

“And as we made clear, any escalatorial or aggressive actions would be of great concern to the United States”. End quote.

The whole thing does not seem to be a deescalation, but it seems to be an escalation.

Sources:

World Israel News (WIN)

United With israel (UWI)

Mirror imaging. Lesson thirtytwo

Russia argues that NATOs Kosovo mission in the 1990s was identical to Russia’s takeover of the Crimea. But the Kosovo mission was only implemented after lasting discussions which involved the entire NATO which dealt with a far reaching and long-lasting crisis that caused the UN Security Council to perceive the Kosovo conflict as a threat to international peace and security.

In the Crimea, however, there was no previous crisis, there were no attempts to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government and the UN was not involved, and finally no attempt was made to mediate. In Kosovo, international efforts were made to find a solution over a period of 3,000 days. In the Crimea, Russia annexed parts of Ukraine’s territory in less than 30 days.

Russia has tried to justify its illegal and illegitimate annexation partly by referring to the referendum that took place in the Crimea. But the referendum was incompatible with Ukrainian law and was held under an illegal occupation force, without freedom of expression or media access for the opposition, and without credible international monitoring of the election.

Russia claims that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. Ukrainian President Poroshenko was elected with a clear majority in an election that the OSCE election organization characterized;

”clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms.”

The only areas in which serious restrictions were reported were in areas that were controlled by the pro-russian separatists who undertook; “Increasing attempts to derail the process.” Official Russian administrators continue to claim that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by Nazis and fascists. But in the parliamentary elections, the parties that Russia claimed to be facsist got far less than 5 percent of the votes required for these parties to take their seats in Parliament. The voters in Ukraine voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of parliamentarians reflects it.

In short, the Ukrainian President and Parliament are legitimate while the separatists’ actions were not.

Source; North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Homework:

Is there any possibility that Russia can soak this up? Can you think of a credible pro-russian counterargument if you are pro-russian? Don’t waste my time with pseudo arguments!

Can you add any credible arguments against Russia if you are pro-ukrainian?

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

The Kola peninsula. Lesson thirty

Despite its large land mass and the fact that Russia has ports in all four directions, the number of ports are relatively small. The usefulness of the Russian ports are also often limited due to both climatic conditions and the long transport distances.

In the north, only the larger ports in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk have international status, and of these, only Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula in the furthest north can handle regular traffic all year round. At the Arkhangelsk area in the bay south of the Kola Peninsula, a thick, impenetrable ice is formed in the winter.

A statistical assumption is that the Russian revenue for the ports in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea is four times as large as that for the ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk in the Barents Sea.

The above was written by FOI associates Tomas Malmlöf & Johan Tejpar in their FOI publication ”Ett skepp kommer lastat” published in 2013.

 

Military in Kola

The following information is from 2015 and it gives a picture of the importance Russia attribute to the Barents region. These are bases planned and/or existing in 2015:

The Alakurtti airbase with the Marine bombardiers.

The newly deployed 80:th independent motorised rifle infantry brigade, one of Russias two Arctic brigades at Alakurtti.

The other newly deployed brigade, the Arctic 200:th independent mechanized infantry brigade, is located in Pechenga, former finnish Petsamo, and it is adjacent to Norway.

13 Airbases and 10 air defense radar stations have been constructed or were to be constructed on Russia’s Arctic coast, according to PISM (Polish Institute of International Affairs).

They also have an Air defense division, a coastal missile defense and a missile regiment. At least they were supposed to be built in the Kola peninsula in 2015.

A deployed S-500 Triumph in Kola can cover the Swedish airbase Kallax in Luleå, if the S-500 is deployed near the Finnish border. But it is not optimal, to try to shoot down cargo-airplanes approaching Kallax, with the S-500 system deployed in Russia. If you fly under a certain altitude while coming in to land at Kallax the Russian radarbeam is going to fail to detect you because your flying in radar shadow. We are talking about altitudes under ~9,000 m, so it is not realistic to think that an S-500 can do the job since the cargo-airplane under any circumstances will come in to land under an altitude of 9,000 m, thus under the radar horizon. Both the 400 km range variant of the S-400 and the 600 km range S-500 are optimized for interception of ballistic missiles, not shooting down airplanes, for these reasons. There are other S-400 variants with shorter range for shooting down enemy aircrafts. Air defense missile systems are used or should best be used for defensive purposes. It’s not an offensive weapon.

 

Not even the exit and the entrance to the Baltic Sea through the Danish Great Belt and the Swedish-Danish Öresund or even the Kiel canal plays any absolute role if Russia are developing the infrastructure in the Murmansk region, with its ports, its navy and its Airports.

NATO can lock in Russia in the Baltic region, if Russia tries something fatal in the Baltic region, leading to issues. Has the Murmansk railway to Severomorsk been kept in condition? Has the Port of Severomorsk been developed? Has the airport in Murmansk been developed? And so on.

The actions speak for themselves, according to the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), 16 deep-water ports will be built on Russia’s Arctic coast.

Of course reality is that NATO is probably not going to blockade Russia in the Baltic region, because to many NATO countries are dependent on Russian energy. The Netherlands with its port in Rotterdam is a European energy hub. What remains are sanctions, but how effective would that be? Thus, there would only be one solution if Russia attack the Baltic states – war.

Homework:

What do you think? Do you think the biggest implications with a bypass of the Baltic region will be military and economically coercive in the Barents and/or in the Baltic region, or do you think the implications will be just economical? Explain your conclusions please.

Sources;

PISM (Polish Institute of International Affairs), 2015.

The FOI publication ”Ett skepp kommer lastat”, published in 2013. Cited with permission.

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

4) To be or NATO be. Lesson twentynine

Putin visited Finland in June-July 2016 in conjunction with Russia’s up to date biggest readiness control exercise, which was carried out on August 25-31, 2016. It was an informal visit, and according to Russia, they didn’t sign any agreements. Sauli Niinistö and Putin discussed “the relations between Finland and Russia and the situation in Europe”. Before that Putin and the Finnish president Sauli Niinistö met as recently as March 2016 in Moscow.

Nato held a summit in the first week of July 2016, where it was agreed to deploy four reinforced battalions in the Baltic countries and in Poland, which Russia naturally opposed.

At a previous meeting in Finland the Moderate (Moderaterna = alleged right wing political party in Sweden) Karin Enström, Vice Chairman of the Swedish Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized Niinistö for meeting with Putin. Niinistö replied that Sweden does not keep up with what is happening in the world and that, e.g. The United States has an active dialogue with Russia. But you have to understand that Finland is cornered by Russia and that it was no coincidence that Putin took a trip over the border in conjunction with the Russian mass mobilization. What were discussed there can determine Sweden’s fate.

The country that wants to annex the Baltics and is located in the east, gain a huge advantage, if they undisturbed under false pretences that no Natoland is going to be affected, first can seize the large Swedish island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea. If they seize Gotland they can create a total A2AD (Anti Access/Area Denial) over large parts of Scandinavia and the whole of the Baltic Sea with advanced long range air defense systems.

I think that Russia will try to find cracks in the Swedish-Finnish relations. They hope that one country will not apply for NATO membership without the other country also doing so, and that there will therefore be no membership for any of the countries. In one way, the True Finns (political right wing party in Finland) are dangerous which have worked to strip the Swedish-speaking part of the Finnish people of their civil rights. It may come back to haunt them. I believe that Finland is more dependent on hooking on a Swedish membership than Sweden is dependent on hooking on a Finnish membership. Finland, with NATO’s eyes, can probably be more easily sacrificed than Sweden. It can put Finland in a difficult situation if Sweden joins the NATO organization without a co-signing together with Finland. It’s what happened when Sweden joined the EU. The Finns haven’t forgotten.

In the above diagram you can see who the weakest link in the chain is. It’s Germany. For my part, although Sweden is not a member of NATO, I am prepared to help defend a NATO nation in the Nordic region, if it is small, like the Baltic States or Iceland. But promises of military aid without first showing that you are really prepared to follow up on it are not worth much. So I am ready, if I were an authorized statesman, to let our Visby-class corvettes and our submarines, from time to time patrol the waters of the Baltic States in peacetime. I have already made a Baltic ex officer assurances and thus I cannot back down.

I am also ready to support Finland in different ways. But it doesn’t matter what I say, or even what our defense minister Peter Hultqvist says, if we do not have a plan for how the help should be executed in peacetime and in wartime or if we don’t have the means to help in any decisive way. We are not alone in not having a plan. NATO lacks or lacked a functioning plan since the United States doesn’t have any land-based persevering deterrent like medium-range ballistic missile systems with versatile types of war heads, like the Russian Iskander-M, which is deployed in Kaliningrad. The United States has phased out most of its tactical nuclear arsenal and the one that is available is not land-based, it is air and sea based.

This is the fourth and last lesson concerning Sweden, Finland and NATO. I hope I haven’t left the Finns with a grudge towards this patriotic Swede. I am prepared to help the Finns with whatever help we can allow ourselves to give to them, even officers and fighting units in Swedish uniform. A hypothetic war in the twentytwenties will be much more qualitatively materiel focused than in the Russo-Finnish winterwar in 1939-1940, and I am afraid that we are not going to be willing to supply the advanced materiel the Finns are going to need without also controlling its contributive forms. That means that wherever there is advanced Swedish equipment, it is going to be operated by Swedish personnel under Swedish command. At least if I have anything to say about it.

But first we need a solid plan and binding agreements.

Homework:

Can Sweden and Finland prevent that Russia could find cracks in our Swedish-Finnish relations? If so, how?

Please motivate your answer!

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

3) To be or NATO be. Lesson twentyeight

I don’t think that an attack against Sweden will be of a military nature, but the attack will come in the form of a prolonged cyber operation and/or through an economic conspiracy against us. The only thing that can discourage the Russians from committing a cyber attack on Sweden is if we have an ability to attack Russia with the same means.

Georgia’s president Mikhail Saakashvili believed that NATO would intervene if Russia attacked Georgia militarily. But Georgia is more isolated localized geographically because there are only two access roads by land from the Nato country Turkey. Plus, the airport at Georgia’s capital Tbilisi is isolated. In addition, Turkey has a long history of turncoat policy regardless of the consequences for northern NATO countries and others, and it is the Turks who controls the straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus into the Black Sea. A NATO intervention was hardly possible.

Georgia 2008 was the famous “litmus test”. It will of course be more of a risk-taking for Russia to attack Sweden before we can join NATO than it was to attack the isolated Georgia. But players come in plenty. Professor Rolf Tamnes, Norwegian historian and professor at the Department of Defense Studies (Institutt for forsvarsstudier – IFS), emphasizes that Russia does not trust Swedish non-alignment, since the extensive cuts in the Swedish defense force is considered as an incentive to seek external help, for example from NATO and the United States.

Apparently, it is not clear abroad what Swedish “non-alignment” stands for. In my opinion, it stands for freedom to choose alliance partners according to our own preferences. We should make this clear to the world, even if the outside world then will reject us even more, because uncertainties benefit us even less. We are sitting in the fox trap regardless.

How may Russia evaluate their geo-economic field and balance it with the geomilitary field?

1) Russia prefer to look at it as if the outside world is dependent on what they have to offer in the form of Russian gas and oil, but I believe that they realize that Germany may make themselves independent from the geostrategic Gazprom and thus Russia. They must keep the Germans happy.
2) It is almost a required condition that Russia is able to simultaneously attack the entire Baltics and parts of Scandinavia not to mention Iceland, if they intend to be able to count on free passage through Öresund, Kattegat and Skagerack, and they must be able to keep their main trading countries, e.g. the Netherlands and France.
3) This in turn requires that the United States first, nearly lose its superpower status. We therefore have no interest whatsoever in the United States losing its superpower status.

But I think that Sweden as a state must grant access to our territory for US troops on Swedish soil if we are to join NATO. It is not enough to receive a Naval ship visit from time to time, which we could also do as a non-aligned country in peacetime. I am not particularly happy to let 5,000 American hungry hearts invade a Swedish small town or one of our Baltic Sea islands in peacetime. Maybe we can do as Norway and let the US stock up materiel in Swedish bunker rooms?

Homework:

The US may have bases in Sweden as a requirement for a Swedish membership. Above all, an air defense base on one of our Baltic Sea islands and access to our airbases and ports. Otherwise the US will never have the time window to intervene in Scandinavia and even less in the Baltic countries, before Russia has swallowed parts of us. If the United States cannot intervene in time on our latitudes and longitudes, then it makes no sense for us to join NATO and we will probably then be denied membership.

But there is also the possibility to accomodate American service members families and thus unburden some pressure on our communities and our society as a whole. Let them contribute to our society and at the same time make it possible for them to use public services such as hospitals and schools at the same low cost as for Swedes. The schools should even be free of charge. I have absolutely no problems with Americans as a people.

Do you agree or not agree? Please motivate your position.

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