Great analysis, Jeff! You mentioned “Soviet America” and I decided to translate a fragment from 1976 interview given by Solzhenitsyn to British radio: “With strange feeling we, people from Soviet Union, observe the current West: as if we are not neighbours on the Planet, not contemporaries… we are looking from your future at our past 70 years ago, that suddenly repeats itself. Same things, we see same things: the universal worship of adult society for the opinions of their children; the feverish fascination of many young people with insignificant small ideas; the fear of professors to be out of fashion; the irresponsibility of journalists for throwing words; universal sympathy for extreme revolutionaries; the dumbness of people with strong objections; the passive doom of the majority; the weakness of governments and the paralysis of defensive reactions of society; spiritual confusion, turning into a political disaster. The next events are ahead, but they are already close, and from bitter memory we can easily "predict" them to you.”
timing with Syria is too coincidental. Korea alongside Ukraine all up to the 3 hot spots where west and east meets in power. It's preparing for some type of confrontation in my opinion. 2025 will be chaotic
I'm not a Korea Expert, but I did study under a Brezinski/Mackinder acolyte in university. Heartland Theory and The Grand Chessboard explain exactly why these things are happening in the Eurasian Political Pivots. Much as the 20th Century overextended the Brits and caused them to need to delegate the military power of the empire to the Americans, so is the 21st overextending the Americans, causing them to delegate to their vassals.
The drive for profitability, wealth acquisition, accumulation and the hoarding of said wealth after its creation, seems to be the problem and driving force of all the devastating conflict, if we don't change our ways, were all toast.. A good place to start would be for certain super rich and powerful people (anonymous sources) to stop looking at, and reducing the world to a grand chessboard.
@@Buf-g6m Agreed, unfortunately the ruling class has never done that in recorded history unless forced. They may have taken Marx out of the schools in the West, but the ruling classes are certainly studying him and all the successful ML(M) revolutions of the past with an eye towards influencing the dialectic in their favor. The rate of profit and capital accumulation may continue to fall but unfortunately the empire has been through all of this before and been able to reset the deck chairs each time. We should be doing the same study of their methods. It's all one long empire stretching back to the Romans and Greeks in the minds of these people. The war for control of the Eurasian Land Mass by the Maritime Empires has been going on uninterrupted ever since.
To a neutral observer, the term "imperialist power" is a neutral term, and not affiliated with any particular power, but rather revealed by the actions of powers. Therefore the WW2 "carving up" of the Korean Peninsula was an act of imperialist powers (USA, GB, SU), who simply clashed soon after the "mutual old enemy" (fascist powers) had been defeated. Both "sides" intended to use the local populations on useful areas of the map for future expansion, and each side had the own "good side/bad side" narrative. Who lost out, due a loss of own power? The peoples who lived on the area of interests of the outside powers. *The people of Korea, who have been divided and ruled over ever since WW2, after having previously been the playball of empires which surrounded them (European empires with interests in China and the Far East, Russia, Japan, and the later joined by the USA).* *Staging areas and the "marching routes" of empires.* Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1] The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refuelling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area) In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual build-up of British and Empire forces, as well as the orderly arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety. Such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often referred to using colloquial expressions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner. It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events, in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves (Spykman = "crush zones"), as cause/effect of the own policies. *Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones.* When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, or the "marching route" of an empire, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar. Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939) from whoever would sign them away to Communist takeover? It removed the British/French staging area in Poland in case of his own communist expansion southwards into Asia or eastwards into China (2nd Tournament of Shadows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or opened an exposed flank in the Baltic States, or Black Sea region, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area". Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones, when expanding elsewhere. A few examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently witnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shadow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, as they now are, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy. Taiwan, was *always* a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off the coast of China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific as quarter century later, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favourites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build up Taiwan as a staging area for its own future interests as its Pacific Rim "outer boundary" on China's doorstep. Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1991 (Wolfowitz Doctrine advocating US global primacy): Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand. Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary). These wars are ALWAYS accompanied by a host of excuses, justifications, evtl. "false flags" or simply plain lies, and "WMDs" was not the first time such lies were used to deceive. Another was "Remember the Maine", which used an accident as an MSM narrative was created to point fingers at the "bad guys" (Spain). In reality, the US "marching route" WAS already previously set: form the US East Coast with its old money and industry, via the Caribean, the (to be completed) Panama Canal, US West Coats developments, Hawaii, Philippines, and so on. A look at a large-scale map will help in seeing such "marching routes", and why the "excuses/justifications" are ancillary in order to deceive those who'd have to fight to enlarge the empire. Last but not least: those who want to "rule the world" are ALWAYS going to point the finger at others, who are equally creating one of two bases for themselves, extraterritorially. Even if they themselves have thousands of such areas, bases, aligned partners, etc. the BIG FINGER will point at any so slight "other side" and then the army of flag- and banners wavers will pick up from there, defending the empire with words. Objectivity has never been a core value of the typical fanboy or empire apologist.
Poland's martial law had a lot to do with Gierek getting into hock with the Paris Club and when they called the loans in he adopted austerity as they demanded, dropping living standards and polarising society. I think this is an important departure from South Korea's model.
*The POWER of divide-and-rule. "First they came for..."* Father Niemöller's appeal to our morality, was of course also an appeal to honor basic principle's in logic and reason, which is the "balance of power". The logic of such politics is, that the bigger power comes for the others one-by-one, but is not going to inform the masses of the end plan. Therefore the logic is unity FIRST, regardless of any individual FEELINGS (appeals to emotions). First they came for Spain (Footnote 1), because I did not live here and was distracted by the BLACK LEGEND and therefore did not care. Then, they came for tiny little Colombia, but I did not care because I was mesmerized by my own dreams of grandeur (Footnote 1). Then, they came for Central European monarchies, but I did not care because I did not live here and wasn't a monarchist and therefore did not do anything. Finally, they came for the British Empire, (footnote 2), and there was nobody left to forge a "pattern of relationships" with (footnote 3)... Of course, what many don't realize is that the "Father Niemöller"-logic was a much a statement regarding the "balance of power" than it was regarding moral values: when "they" come for the last one, in its hour of weakness, there will be nobody else to turn to. The Lordships apparently misjudging the concept of balance of power, which was shifting from a purely European concept, towards a rapidly becoming necessary global concept. The entire concept of a balance of power is a neutral study, and any liberal "friendships" have no bearing on the greed of expansive forces of a commercial or financial manner, as London would find out after World War 2 (footnote 4). With regards to this systemic logic of cutting out one's feelings in order to protect oneself: first, the system U.S.A. came for the system Spain, but the system European empires were too divided to care. The end for European empires came fifty years later, when there was nobody left to speak for them. With regards to the U.S.A. in its interactions with European powers: observation reveals that Washington, D.C. did not sign long term binding agreements of geopolitical and grand strategy nature with any European power. In the late-19th century, only London had the clout to forge a European alliance against U.S. expansion, so here is where Washington D.C. inserted the main "lever" of influence (strategy); but perceptions here were misguided. They came with promises and nice deals to favourites... Zoom out of the small picture (How the Nazis used the divide-and-rule technique enter Berlin in order to rule Germany), to the big picture: How the USA used the same technique, to RULE THE WORLD. Zoom in (Germany of the 1920s/ealry 1930s). Zoom out (see the entire globe). *Ignore your feelings, and see the technique.* -------------------------------------------- Footnote 1 The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China": This gateway was in the form of the already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines (partial purchase of infrastructure) and Guam and protection for the seaways in between, as future axis of advance. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull as a fitting allegory. To achieve all of this Washington, D.C. needed European indifference for the cause of a weak failing empire from within their own European midst (Darwinism). Of course Europe was divided, but had they united to stand in solidarity with Madrid, then a war could have been averted. *The BIG PICTURE "march route" of the empire. Zoom out, and see the marching route of imperialist expansion, from the US east coast, to the Far East...* -------------------------------------------- Footnote 2 "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] Zoom past "WW1 and WW2" and what happened AFTER this "story" ended. ----------------------------------------------- Footnote 3 "In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[wiki] "Saving the world" is of course an appeal to emotion. Siphoning off the world's wealth is covered up by the storyline millions chant as "slogans" and adhere to with "banner waving" (teams of ingroups). The quiet part is kept quiet, which is how the divide-and-rule technique is used to create IMbalances of power, is kept quiet. Keep other systems apart with lies, promises, and own policies. Look at the various memoranda, diaries, and strategy papers, and "SEE" the MOTIVATIONS. ----------------------------------------------- Footnote 4 *The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbors.* For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires (Rome around "0" and the rising American Century 2000 years later) was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). For the *"divider,"* the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important *why* the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact *that* the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. *"How"* and *"that"* are different premises... Zoom out. Look past the various stories, documentaries, Hollywood movies, and "see" the technique, which is 2000 years old.
Wiki says the biggest battle : Stalingrad, cost the Soviet Union 1.3 - 2.6 million, and the smallest battle : 73 Easting, cost the USA 1 person. I thought a battle implied there was some kind of resistance by the losing side, in this case the enemy had no effective weapons and ran away inflicting 1 casualty. Kinda degrades the word 'battle' imo.
Great analysis. I don't believe events in Europe or West Asia were directly linked. The issue probably are internal including presence of large US military contingent. Also, the ceasefire was between US and North Korea, leaving South Korea little agency.
Masuda Hajimu, Cold War Crucible: the Korean Conflict and the Postwar World (2015) and Michael Pembroke Korea: Where the American Century Began (2018). KJ also has other recommendations in his articles.
I like your channel a lot. I wish more Australians had your intellect. What I mean by that by comparison is say, Brisbane council spending all its money, not on community needs but by spending it on the coming Olympics in 3032. Number one, the Olympics do not make money anymore in our times, see Paris 2024. Seriously olympics with no Russia or Belarus and by the look of it no China in 3032 for sure. Moreover, my belief is nuclear war will occur on or before 2032.
Head over to jeffrich.substack.com for my history guide to the post-1945 world order and why the partition of Eurasia may be crumbling today
Great analysis, Jeff! You mentioned “Soviet America” and I decided to translate a fragment from 1976 interview given by Solzhenitsyn to British radio: “With strange feeling we, people from Soviet Union, observe the current West: as if we are not neighbours on the Planet, not contemporaries… we are looking from your future at our past 70 years ago, that suddenly repeats itself. Same things, we see same things: the universal worship of adult society for the opinions of their children; the feverish fascination of many young people with insignificant small ideas; the fear of professors to be out of fashion; the irresponsibility of journalists for throwing words; universal sympathy for extreme revolutionaries; the dumbness of people with strong objections; the passive doom of the majority; the weakness of governments and the paralysis of defensive reactions of society; spiritual confusion, turning into a political disaster. The next events are ahead, but they are already close, and from bitter memory we can easily "predict" them to you.”
Jeffs always got something useful to add, so when i see i click, keep chiming in mate, or bloke.
timing with Syria is too coincidental.
Korea alongside Ukraine all up to the 3 hot spots where west and east meets in power. It's preparing for some type of confrontation in my opinion. 2025 will be chaotic
The only hope would be for all the vassal states in between, to liberate themselves it seems.
Biden starting as many dumpster fires as he can before leaving office
Thanks
thank you
I'm not a Korea Expert, but I did study under a Brezinski/Mackinder acolyte in university. Heartland Theory and The Grand Chessboard explain exactly why these things are happening in the Eurasian Political Pivots. Much as the 20th Century overextended the Brits and caused them to need to delegate the military power of the empire to the Americans, so is the 21st overextending the Americans, causing them to delegate to their vassals.
The drive for profitability, wealth acquisition, accumulation and the hoarding of said wealth after its creation, seems to be the problem and driving force of all the devastating conflict, if we don't change our ways, were all toast..
A good place to start would be for certain super rich and powerful people
(anonymous sources) to stop looking at, and reducing the world to a grand chessboard.
@@Buf-g6m Agreed, unfortunately the ruling class has never done that in recorded history unless forced. They may have taken Marx out of the schools in the West, but the ruling classes are certainly studying him and all the successful ML(M) revolutions of the past with an eye towards influencing the dialectic in their favor. The rate of profit and capital accumulation may continue to fall but unfortunately the empire has been through all of this before and been able to reset the deck chairs each time.
We should be doing the same study of their methods. It's all one long empire stretching back to the Romans and Greeks in the minds of these people. The war for control of the Eurasian Land Mass by the Maritime Empires has been going on uninterrupted ever since.
To a neutral observer, the term "imperialist power" is a neutral term, and not affiliated with any particular power, but rather revealed by the actions of powers. Therefore the WW2 "carving up" of the Korean Peninsula was an act of imperialist powers (USA, GB, SU), who simply clashed soon after the "mutual old enemy" (fascist powers) had been defeated. Both "sides" intended to use the local populations on useful areas of the map for future expansion, and each side had the own "good side/bad side" narrative. Who lost out, due a loss of own power? The peoples who lived on the area of interests of the outside powers.
*The people of Korea, who have been divided and ruled over ever since WW2, after having previously been the playball of empires which surrounded them (European empires with interests in China and the Far East, Russia, Japan, and the later joined by the USA).*
*Staging areas and the "marching routes" of empires.*
Definition: "In military uses, a staging area is a place where troops or equipment in transit are assembled or processed.[1]
The US Department of Defense uses these definitions: (DOD) 1. Amphibious or airborne-A general locality between the mounting area and the objective of an amphibious or airborne expedition, through which the expedition or parts thereof pass after mounting, for refuelling, regrouping of ships, and/or exercise, inspection, and redistribution of troops. (DOD) 2. Other movements-A general locality established for the concentration of troop units and transient personnel between movements over the lines of communications ...[2] Often and historically this military staging area has been termed a point d'appui ... Unlike normal bases, the facilities of a staging area are temporary, mainly because for a certain time it will hold much more troops and material than would be reasonable in peacetime. Militaries use staging areas to deploy military units, aircraft and warships plus their materiel ahead of an attack or invasion. In former times this used to be generally the border area of one's own country, but in recent wars (Gulf War, Kosovo War, Iraq War) it may also be the border area of another unrelated country granting access." (source: military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Staging_area)
In the last part, the description is not entirely correct, since globally available staging areas are not a modern phenomena. In former times empires always employed such "direct or indirect" staging areas far away from the own heartlands as points on the axis of advance of their own empires. A "staging area" is not defined in extent: in the battlefield context of "battlefield tactics" it could be a town or field for the assembly of troops and vehicles, but in its largest form in grand strategy it can be entire countries or whole islands for massive armies, navies or air forces. The advantage of a staging area meant "no storming of beaches facing direct enemy fire", and probably the most famous example of such a staging area was the UK during World War 2, used for the gradual build-up of British and Empire forces, as well as the orderly arrival of allies like the US armed forces before D-Day in 1944: all in relative safety.
Such staging areas are often termed "unsinkable aircraft carriers". Staging areas are often referred to using colloquial expressions, or human body parts, in order to facilitate understanding of the concept: for example, Napoleon coined the term "pistol pointing at the heart of England" (heartland of the enemy) for Antwerp as jumping off point for a large invasion fleet, and therefore explains the reason why Belgium was created and given a permanent neutral status within a "concert" of nations, as a way to help avoid future wars by understanding the fears of another power, and addressing these fears in a decent manner. It is a part of military strategy, and since a large part of history of empires deals with military strategies, it is also necessary to delve into the subject matter, analyse historical events, in order not to become mislead or the "useful tool" in the propaganda campaigns of the present.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_and_concepts
Staging areas will be found on the regions of the planet where states have interests, as the US DoD definition already alludes to by pointing out the Iraq War (staging areas = Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They are often located in the fracture zones these empires create themselves (Spykman = "crush zones"), as cause/effect of the own policies.
*Once one understands the axis of advance of empires, or where these interests are, one also understands the strategies and other sides' counter-strategies and why some regions of the planet historically turned into war zones, others not, or some future regions might become war zones.* When coupling the concepts of "staging areas" and the "axis of advance" of empires, or the "marching route" of an empire, it becomes clear why British and Free French forces landed on Madagascar in 1942, in order to prevent it from becoming a Japanese staging area, in case the Japanese Empire intended to expand into the Indian Ocean. Apart from the direct "colonies" or "overseas territories" there are also the staging areas offered by "friendly nation status" afforded by treaties: the "oldest alliance in the world" as Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and based on treaties going back to 1294, stated that under any attack on British territory, that Portugal would "aid" (and vice-versa), and such a form of aid could be offering Portugal as "staging area" for the assembly of Empire forces in case of any attack by a third country, on Gibraltar.
Why Stalin wanted the Limitrophe States (1939) from whoever would sign them away to Communist takeover? It removed the British/French staging area in Poland in case of his own communist expansion southwards into Asia or eastwards into China (2nd Tournament of Shadows) "triggered" a British Empire flank attack or opened an exposed flank in the Baltic States, or Black Sea region, using a friendly power like Poland as a "staging area". Of course, a strategist like Stalin would much rather have these countries as his own buffer zones, when expanding elsewhere.
A few examples make it clear how creating such "staging areas" are a premier basis of expansion, whilst removing such possibilities from rivals are the other: the counter strategy, as recently witnessed in the Solomon Islands (standoff between China and the USA and allies). The territories are again becoming vital in the "shadow tournaments" (geopolitics), in view of BRICS expanding into South America, as they now are, and any future potential military angle to BRICS is already being contested today (all therefore being preventive actions). It also becomes clear why simply creating a neutral country won't work in case the "axis of advance" of the empires are not also addressed via treaties or accords (non aggression pacts, etc.). In other words, it won't help simply creating a neutral country, if these neutral countries then simply offer the "shields" empires intend to advance behind, by setting up their staging areas behind such neutral states or "barrier zones". It will lead to tension in the "spiral model" of diplomacy.
Taiwan, was *always* a staging area for empires, in a strategic location off the coast of China. The only thing which changed was the hegemons. First for Japan after 1895, because it facilitated the Japanese Empire's advance into China and the Pacific as quarter century later, and today for the USA since US troops are already stationed here even though it is legally still a part of China (International Law). Regardless of emotions, laws are not buffets from which one can cherry pick "favourites" and discard "icky laws" one doesn't like: one either abides by laws, or one doesn't. The side "pushing until something snaps" is clear, as the USA wishes to build up Taiwan as a staging area for its own future interests as its Pacific Rim "outer boundary" on China's doorstep.
Ukraine, and "NATO encroachment" after 1991 (Wolfowitz Doctrine advocating US global primacy):
Empires in advance are always looking for such potential staging areas, and here the recent Ukraine and Taiwan question (post 2000) point out which empires were "pushing" as their strategy, and which empires took a defensive stand.
Empires in defense of own homelands would always choose war to avoid a peacetime setup of such a staging area (see War of 1812 as a preventive US attack on Canada as potential "staging area" for the British Empire as exemplary). These wars are ALWAYS accompanied by a host of excuses, justifications, evtl. "false flags" or simply plain lies, and "WMDs" was not the first time such lies were used to deceive. Another was "Remember the Maine", which used an accident as an MSM narrative was created to point fingers at the "bad guys" (Spain). In reality, the US "marching route" WAS already previously set: form the US East Coast with its old money and industry, via the Caribean, the (to be completed) Panama Canal, US West Coats developments, Hawaii, Philippines, and so on. A look at a large-scale map will help in seeing such "marching routes", and why the "excuses/justifications" are ancillary in order to deceive those who'd have to fight to enlarge the empire.
Last but not least: those who want to "rule the world" are ALWAYS going to point the finger at others, who are equally creating one of two bases for themselves, extraterritorially. Even if they themselves have thousands of such areas, bases, aligned partners, etc. the BIG FINGER will point at any so slight "other side" and then the army of flag- and banners wavers will pick up from there, defending the empire with words. Objectivity has never been a core value of the typical fanboy or empire apologist.
Poland's martial law had a lot to do with Gierek getting into hock with the Paris Club and when they called the loans in he adopted austerity as they demanded, dropping living standards and polarising society. I think this is an important departure from South Korea's model.
*The POWER of divide-and-rule. "First they came for..."*
Father Niemöller's appeal to our morality, was of course also an appeal to honor basic principle's in logic and reason, which is the "balance of power". The logic of such politics is, that the bigger power comes for the others one-by-one, but is not going to inform the masses of the end plan. Therefore the logic is unity FIRST, regardless of any individual FEELINGS (appeals to emotions).
First they came for Spain (Footnote 1), because I did not live here and was distracted by the BLACK LEGEND and therefore did not care. Then, they came for tiny little Colombia, but I did not care because I was mesmerized by my own dreams of grandeur (Footnote 1). Then, they came for Central European monarchies, but I did not care because I did not live here and wasn't a monarchist and therefore did not do anything. Finally, they came for the British Empire, (footnote 2), and there was nobody left to forge a "pattern of relationships" with (footnote 3)...
Of course, what many don't realize is that the "Father Niemöller"-logic was a much a statement regarding the "balance of power" than it was regarding moral values: when "they" come for the last one, in its hour of weakness, there will be nobody else to turn to. The Lordships apparently misjudging the concept of balance of power, which was shifting from a purely European concept, towards a rapidly becoming necessary global concept. The entire concept of a balance of power is a neutral study, and any liberal "friendships" have no bearing on the greed of expansive forces of a commercial or financial manner, as London would find out after World War 2 (footnote 4). With regards to this systemic logic of cutting out one's feelings in order to protect oneself: first, the system U.S.A. came for the system Spain, but the system European empires were too divided to care. The end for European empires came fifty years later, when there was nobody left to speak for them.
With regards to the U.S.A. in its interactions with European powers: observation reveals that Washington, D.C. did not sign long term binding agreements of geopolitical and grand strategy nature with any European power. In the late-19th century, only London had the clout to forge a European alliance against U.S. expansion, so here is where Washington D.C. inserted the main "lever" of influence (strategy); but perceptions here were misguided.
They came with promises and nice deals to favourites...
Zoom out of the small picture (How the Nazis used the divide-and-rule technique enter Berlin in order to rule Germany), to the big picture: How the USA used the same technique, to RULE THE WORLD.
Zoom in (Germany of the 1920s/ealry 1930s).
Zoom out (see the entire globe).
*Ignore your feelings, and see the technique.*
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 1
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China": This gateway was in the form of the already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines (partial purchase of infrastructure) and Guam and protection for the seaways in between, as future axis of advance. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull as a fitting allegory. To achieve all of this Washington, D.C. needed European indifference for the cause of a weak failing empire from within their own European midst (Darwinism). Of course Europe was divided, but had they united to stand in solidarity with Madrid, then a war could have been averted. *The BIG PICTURE "march route" of the empire. Zoom out, and see the marching route of imperialist expansion, from the US east coast, to the Far East...*
--------------------------------------------
Footnote 2
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Zoom past "WW1 and WW2" and what happened AFTER this "story" ended.
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 3
"In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."[wiki]
"Saving the world" is of course an appeal to emotion.
Siphoning off the world's wealth is covered up by the storyline millions chant as "slogans" and adhere to with "banner waving" (teams of ingroups). The quiet part is kept quiet, which is how the divide-and-rule technique is used to create IMbalances of power, is kept quiet. Keep other systems apart with lies, promises, and own policies. Look at the various memoranda, diaries, and strategy papers, and "SEE" the MOTIVATIONS.
-----------------------------------------------
Footnote 4
*The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbors.* For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires (Rome around "0" and the rising American Century 2000 years later) was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). For the *"divider,"* the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important *why* the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact *that* the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
*"How"* and *"that"* are different premises...
Zoom out. Look past the various stories, documentaries, Hollywood movies, and "see" the technique, which is 2000 years old.
Kim Jong Un for Nobel Peace Prize, for restraint against SK provocations.
Wiki says the biggest battle : Stalingrad, cost the Soviet Union 1.3 - 2.6 million, and the smallest battle : 73 Easting, cost the USA 1 person.
I thought a battle implied there was some kind of resistance by the losing side, in this case the enemy had no effective weapons and ran away inflicting 1 casualty.
Kinda degrades the word 'battle' imo.
Great analysis. I don't believe events in Europe or West Asia were directly linked. The issue probably are internal including presence of large US military contingent. Also, the ceasefire was between US and North Korea, leaving South Korea little agency.
Hi, can you give the title of the book you mention on Korea since 1945 please?
Masuda Hajimu, Cold War Crucible: the Korean Conflict and the Postwar World (2015) and Michael Pembroke Korea: Where the American Century Began (2018). KJ also has other recommendations in his articles.
@@theburningarchive many thanks.
I like your channel a lot. I wish more Australians had your intellect. What I mean by that by comparison is say, Brisbane council spending all its money, not on community needs but by spending it on the coming Olympics in 3032. Number one, the Olympics do not make money anymore in our times, see Paris 2024. Seriously olympics with no Russia or Belarus and by the look of it no China in 3032 for sure. Moreover, my belief is nuclear war will occur on or before 2032.