Civil Defense Perspectives January 2023 (vol. 38 #1)
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 set off a chain reaction that changed the global geopolitical landscape forever, writes Simplicius The Thinker (https://tinyurl.com/euwts8fn). “The USSR represented a balance of powers between global blocs, a multipolarity of sorts, which inherently fostered a deterrence system preventing one bloc or the other from exerting too much influence and bringing too many key geographical areas under one or the other’s control.”
After 1991, the U.S. was the “world’s only superpower.” But geographically, it has a problem. It is one of the “lands of outer or insular crescent.” Eurasia is the World Island and the “center of global power” as described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard (https://tinyurl.com/3tw4afxn). This was based on the work of Halford Mackinder, the founding father of “geopolitics” and “geostrategy.” Mackinder wrote:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
The Heartland contains 50% of the world’s resources. Russia alone has the world’s largest forests for timber, and Lake Baikal holds one-fifth of the entire world’s fresh water supply.
The basic idea of the World Island has evolved and been adapted by such writers as Russia’s Aleksandr Dugin— “colloquially (and erroneously) called ‘Putin’s brain/mysticist,’” according to Simplicius. In his work, Dugin characterizes Russia as the land power of “Eternal Rome,’” fighting against the Atlanticist sea powers (UK/US) of “Eternal Carthage.”
Destroying Russia, the center of the World Island, as a sovereign power appears to be the objective of globalists.
As part of the USSR, the “Eurasian Balkans” (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan—the “Stans”) blocked the way into the Heartland. Independent, they became vulnerable and weak. Peripheral to the Stans is the Arab world, which the USSR has frequently supported.
Simplicius outlines what he considers to be U.S. efforts to destabilize the Middle East, as part of the Wolfowitz Doctrine to prevent the emergence of another rival to U.S. power.
In a famous interview, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO forces, General Wesley Clark, spoke of a memo he was given immediately after 9/11 about how the U.S. military would take out “seven countries in five years” (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran). Simplicius notes how those countries align with a direct route straight into that “backdoor” of the “Heartland” zone.
The real purpose of U.S. support of Ukraine appears to be to weaken Russia as much as possible. Ret. Gen. Keith Kellogg, former advisor to Mike Pence, said it was “the acme of professionalism” to use Ukraine to fight Russia because that “takes a strategic adversary off the table” without “using any U.S. troops.” And then “we can focus” on “our primary adversary, which is China” (https://tinyurl.com/5h9e5z6u).
As discussed in Jordan Peterson’s interview of Sen. Mike Lee (tinyurl.com/27djmy46), there is no clear definition of victory in Ukraine, and removing Vladimir Putin is unlikely to lead to a better regime. Might the Russian Federation splinter into pieces, with dispersed nuclear weapons?
While he may have destroyed democracy, some credit Putin with saving Russia in 1999–2004 by stopping the implosion of what was left of the USSR. He reputedly stopped widespread social unrest, converted Chechens from archenemies of Russia to the one of her best allies, and curbed oligarchs.
Looking at the results of “two decades of America’s violent attempts at gatecrashing the Heartland’s vulnerable rear entrance,” Francis Fukuyama has recanted, Simplicius states. One of the earliest and staunchest supporters of the neoconservative movement, and one of the founding signatories of the Project for the New American Century, he wrote that neoconservatives “believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support” (Simplicius, op. cit.).
Rivals for the Heartland
Putin has said that if NATO (the U.S.) does not prevail in the Ukraine, we are likely to see a “multipolar” world instead of a unipolar one led by the U.S. Russia is moving closer to China, Turkey, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia.
A tripartite Russia-China-Persia axis is not the one U.S. planners focused on. Rather, the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment has been heavily invested in preventing the formation of a new collective security architecture in Europe centered on Russia and Germany rather than the U.S., writes William Schryver. Russo-German reconciliation and economic collaboration had to be prevented at all costs. The U.S. repeatedly opposed and openly threatened the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which were sabotaged in September 2022 (tinyurl.com/2p8uenm4).
Reporter Seymour Hersh concluded that the U.S. was responsible (https://tinyurl.com/4275wbvk). While the White House called Hersh’s report “false and complete fiction,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the result “a tremendous strategic opportunity” to remove Europe’s dependence on Russian energy (https://tinyurl.com/3yrptbwj).
It also removed the only means by which Russia could negotiate an end to the war (https://tinyurl.com/567vtpjv).
The nearly 90% of the world that does not support the U.S. on Ukraine is working on its own arrangements for trade and security. The organizing economic engine, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is an ambitious plan to connect Asia and more than 100 nations with 21st-century economic infrastructure, from highways and high-speed rail lines to power generation, energy pipelines, communication systems, cities, ports, and more. The plan is to serve most of the 5 billion people in Eurasia, 30 times more than the 150 million people Eisenhower’s interstate highway project helped, with the goal that all of the participating nations will be enriched. This Mackinder-feared Eurasian integration puts the U.S. outside the world’s most dynamic trading bloc. Ukraine may be the turning point, showing the hollowness of U.S. systems (https://tinyurl.com/5n6duf8y).
Anti-European Policy
The original version of the Defense Planning Guidance document was authored by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992. It speaks of a new world order in which the sole superpower would have only temporary alliances. The UN and even NATO would be increasingly sidelined. The Wolfowitz Doctrine theorizes the need for the U.S. to block the emergence of any potential competitor to U.S. hegemony, especially “advanced industrial nations” such as Germany and Japan—and the European Union.
In 2000, Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski, speaking at a large Ukrainian-U.S. symposium in Washington, pledged to support independent Ukraine, to provoke Russia to go to war with it, and ultimately to finance the destruction of the resurgent rival of the U.S. These commitments were implemented in the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022.
The rise in energy prices in the EU and its increasing scarcity threaten not only the heating and transportation of individuals, but the survival of all their industries. If this phenomenon continues, the economy of the EU will suddenly collapse, taking its population back at least a century.
Thierry Meyssan predicts that the architects of U.S. policy, followers of Leo Strauss, will “go all the way” to destroy Europe unless European citizens stop them (tinyurl.com/2r9xb9xu).
Europe’s Last Chance
For 70 years, Europe meant “no more war,” write Ulrike Guérot and Hauke Ritz (https://tinyurl.com/4tjzbh8c). The plan envisioned construction of a cooperative, pan-continental peace order, the European House from Lisbon to Vladivostok, backed by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. However, it was never taken seriously. The EU allowed the U.S. to determine Europe’s strategic interests. Today, the U.S. still acts as if the unipolar moment after the fall of the Berlin Wall still persists. Its worldview “disregards classical diplomacy and divides the world in friend and foe, democracy and dictatorship, Good and Evil.” In contrast, Entspannungspolitik envisaged a consensual and economically prosperous relationship with Russia.
“Without Siberian raw materials or the Chinese market, there can be no lasting prosperity for Europe,” the authors state. Europe needs a strategic capacity to act independently from the U.S. “Ultimately, lasting peace in Europe can only be achieved with, not against Russia.”
Call It World War E
The “E” is for Economics, writes Mathew Crawford (https://tinyurl.com/yc7b4ut7). “Economics is ultimately what all the other wars are about, one way or another.” Figuring out who is friend and who is foe is complicated, he states.
“I suspect that the powers in the U.S., along with the corporations that play on a global scale, are doing to Europe what European proto-megacorps once did to Africa, Asia, South America, and elsewhere, which is to enforce total financial subjugation.”
He asks, “Will the European economy be crushed first?”
He wonders whether Putin just announced World War III, “or has it already been going on for years?”
“How hard is this topic to discuss among friends given the emotion of eight different vectors of partisan bias on everything Russia? Is the difficulty associated with discussing Russia really just an erected barrier to discussing World War E? Perhaps that’s the only way to sell the relinquishing of national sovereignty to a corporate-sponsored NGO?”
In summary, Crawford states: “World War E is The Club against everyone else.” We do not know who all is in The Club.
Crawford frequently quotes David Rockefeller: “We are on the edge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries,” Rockefeller said.
What’s Up with the Balloons?
After providing a major diversion, “Chinese spy balloons” have vanished from the media, though not from the atmosphere.
Balloons are not new. The Defense Post featured an article about American balloons on Jul 6, 2022 (https://tinyurl.com/j6vbkh6j). The balloons, capable of flying at up to 90,000 feet (27.4 kilometers), would reportedly become a part of a surveillance network for tracking hypersonic weapons.
According to Threat Journal, the U.S. Dept. of Defense’s Covert Long-Dwell Stratospheric Architecture (COLD STAR) program would add inflatables to the Pentagon’s extensive ground-based, airborne, and space-based surveillance network. Tracking a fast-moving object coming from over the horizon requires a high-altitude platform (https://tinyurl.com/4dbdm979).
China has the world’s most advanced hypersonic wind tunnel facility. It has constructed working glide vehicles that can travel at Mach 10. It has married ultra high-tech tracking devices to low-tech balloons to monitor U.S. Navy ships in the South China Sea (https://tinyurl.com/3tpacxk4).
Ret. Gen. Jack Keane argues that China is probing America’s defenses against threats coming from different directions. The balloons have been mostly in the south, while systems looking for bombers and ICBMs are watching for threats coming over the pole from the north (https://tinyurl.com/mraww58x).
Since March 2021, the U.S. has catalogued 247 reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs). In the prior 17 years, there had been 263. Of 366 analyzed reports, 163 were characterized as balloons (Nature 2/23/23).
Rumors of War
Because of the Ukraine conflict, Russian arms manufacturers are switching to a six-day working week. Shifts at defense enterprises may also be extended to 12 hours (https://tinyurl.com/4c78bhmr).
Authorities are equipping shelters in apartment buildings and shopping centers in the Moscow region, which should protect about 15 million residents (https://tinyurl.com/2p8htp3v).
The World Health Organization (WHO) has updated its critical medicines list for radiological and nuclear emergencies. These include stable iodine to reduce thyroid uptake of radioactive iodine; chelating and decorporating agents (Prussian blue, applied to remove radioactive cesium from the body, and calcium- / zinc-DTPA used to treat internal contamination with transuranium radionuclides); cytokines used for mitigation of damage to the bone marrow in case of acute radiation syndrome; and medicines used to treat vomiting, diarrhea, and infections (https://tinyurl.com/bdh7wjv3).
