The Fall of Assad and Syria What does it mean for the U.S., Israel and the West?

 The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was an embarrassment of monumental proportions. It not only left the Taliban back in charge of the government and the people (especially the women) worst off, Al Qaeda was still militarily and politically operational. We left so much military equipment behind, that Afghanistan went from being a country of no military significance to being one of the most powerful countries in the region!    

To add insult to injury, it now appears that Al Qaida will emerge as the controlling power in post Assad Syria. It's worth mentioning, that while we were battling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for 20 years, following the cowardly attack on 9/11, the U.S. was arming and supporting Al Qaida's efforts, albeit under the names "Jabhat al-Nusra Front" and "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham'  (aka"HTS" ) in Syria to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Of course, ISIS/ISIL is back. They've already reoccupied the Syrian city of Homs and look to further expand. To give you an idea as to their intentions, all one needs to do is look at their name--- the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. On September 24, 2014, the Obama Administration officially announced they would be more "hands on" in Syria in order to oust ISIS.  

At about the same time, the CIA began using Syria as one of its base of operations, starting from the mid-1990s and extending well into the 2000's, for its "extraordinary renditions" (aka "unofficial kidnappings") of so-called "ghost detainees" (ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters, cleric, and supporters) for the purpose of extreme interrogation methods.

In 2008, the CIA formed the "Damascus Community School" to lure anti-Assad groups, officials, and civilians (such as teachers and professors) away from the pro-Soviet orbit. They also started funded and training various paramilitary units to oppose Assad, as well as pro-Iranian terrorist organizations. It should be mentioned that the CIA has been active in Syria since 1949 when it helped plan the March Coup of 1949. Syria was the CIA's first "test case" for overthrowing governments not seen as favorable to U.S. national interests.

Using the code name "Operation Inherent Resolve" (my how they do love their secret code names), the U.S. vowed to fight ISIS through the Syrian Free Army (aka "Revolutionary Commando Army" or "RCA") and the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Front, led by the Kurdish "Popular Protection Units", which are regarded as a terrorist organization by Qatar and Turkey (one nation's terrorists is another nation's liberators). Other groups involved in the fighting include Syrian National Army and the Turkish Armed Forces.

Now, why would we underwrite groups to overthrow the government of President Bashar Assad? The answer is really simply. Syria has been Russia's regional ally for decades. Syria is to Russia what Israel is to the United States. Of course, the U.S. made the usual allegations about the people fighting for their democracy and so forth, the truth was to simply remove the pro-Russian Assad Government, secure access to Syrian oil and gas, and further isolate Iran.

Iran is the center piece in this regional game of chess. The neocons goal all along has been to take control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and destabilize Syria.  Then, with our Arab allies, isolate and ultimately strangle the Iranian government. Well, Iraq is free of Saddam but it's far from stable. However, like the Russians before us,  we were handed our eviction notice by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while Iran remains still standing.  

In fact, Iran is hard at work developing a nuclear bomb and delivery system to "wipe Israel off the map, even at the cost of Iran being vaporized.  In addition, the Iranians have helped to underwrite and arm terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Boko Harem in Africa, and terrorist organizations in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere. 

The only glimmer about the Assad Government's fall is that Russia is without its primary regional ally. The problem is that Al Qaeda, which has already launched rockets at Israel while fighting the Syrian military, will now be that much closer to Israel and will have another shot at a Islamic State.

Israel has used the chaos in the aftermath of President Bashar Assad's departure, to expand its presence from the 1973 UN imposed buffer zone with Syria by redeploying its troops from the top of the Golan Heights to new positions just a few miles on the other side of the Golan mountains, thus pushing Al Qaeda's Iranian supplied missiles a little further back. 

Not unexpectedly, the rest of the Arab world, including some of its nominal "friends" like Jordan and Egypt, to object, claiming that Israel is attempting to permanently occupy Syrian territory.  Of course, it didn't help that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said precisely that was Israel's intent. 

Although Russia has been engaged in a protracted war with Ukraine, designed to keep it bogged down, deplete its military and economy, and (hopefully) weaken Putin's hold on the government, Russia did make a attempt to aid their old comrade, Assad, despite a chorus from the West (led by the U.S. State Department) alleging "interference". Why is it that the U.S. and West can aid allies but nobody else can?

While Assad wasn't necessarily a good guy, at least as far as U.S. interests were concerned, he did provide a stabilizing presence. Much like Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq (even after having his wings clipped following "Operation Desert Storm",  Saddam provided Iraq and the region with political and military stability while keeping the religious extremists in check albeit under his iron fist. Hussein's removal and U.S. failure to have a post-Saddam plan in place, ultimately resulted in a backlash against U.S. occupation and its puppet government, the suppression of the majority Shiite, and radical Islam. 

For those unfamiliar with the political situation in Iraq and why a majority religious group would be held in check, it's because Saddam Hussein was part of the Sunni minority. Saddam ensured that Sunni tribal chieftains and members of his family (including uncles and cousins) were given positions of power while key members of the government and military were also Sunnis.  

The suppressed Shiites were often brutally treated (as were the Kurdish and Christian populations). It's worth mentioning that Saddam had only one Christian as part of his secular administration, Tariq Aziz, who was Deputy prime Minister. Aziz was a member of the Chaldean Catholic Church, a sect of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Kurds and Yazidis had no one in Saddam's government.

Like Hussein, Assad managed to keep religious fanatics  at bay and limit Iran's influence (he also throttled Turkey's expansionist ambitions. However, like the Turks, he was no friend of Kurds and only tolerated the Yazidi as well as the Christians).  Now, that's all changed thanks in large part to neo-con arrogance and a shortsighted U.S. foreign policy. So, what happens next?

As with most events of this sort, there will likely be a prolonged and bloody battle for final control of the country. Syria will, no doubt, end up divided with two dominant players jockeying for position behind the scenes.  The first will of course be the U.S. and its proxy, Israel. The other will be Iran and its puppet terrorists organizations, and behind it Russia and China. The trouble, I think, is that the neo-cons and Iranians are playing two very different and dangerous games.

The U.S. is, as always, thinking in terms of regime change. Its objective is the ultimate control of Iran's ample oil and gas production, and control of the region. China is playing a similar game by buying up rights to resources all over the world. It knows that whoever controls key resources such as fresh water, farmland, and strategic minerals needed for technology, wins. We are banking that the control of oil and gas will ultimately trump China's objectives.

Iran, however, is less interested in who among the non-believers control what. It's outlook is strictly religious. It sees as its sole objective to restore or impose a strict global Islamic Caliphate, to aid in the coming of the 12th Imam (a messiah or prophet of sorts) and the destruction of Israel at any cost, even that of its own survival.

The thing about religious zealotry is that you can only bargain with it in the short term, You can never compromise with it over the long term. Why? Because from its perspective, it is God's sole arbiter on Earth. How can God be negotiated with or bought off? There is only submit or perish.

President Assad's departure will create a void more severe than did Saddam Hussein's by creating a similar strategy as to the neocon's, but in reverse. It's mortal enemy, Iraq, is no longer a threat. The Shiites are now in charge, which is good for Iran. After 20 years of war, Afghanistan remains. The Taliban is still in charge. The "Great Satan"---the United States---has been defeated in their eyes, and our unorganized departure has left them stronger than they were in the beginning.

 Despite the decimation of its leadership, Al Qaida remains , and now it's on the verge of controlling a large swath of Syria. ISIS/ISIL too presents a serious threat.  Iran's proxies are closer to Israel than ever, and therefore Iran's missiles won't require the development and deployment of a long range delivery system. In fact, Al Qaida has already shown that it can easily hit Israel's Galilee area from their positions in northern Syria.

Israel's occupation of the far side of the Golan Heights, which has been demilitarized since the Syrian defeat in the 1973 Yom Kipper War, is understandable from a military security perspective. Additionally, there is some bad blood between many of the rebels now in control of Syria. How that will play out remains a serious question with the very real possibility of a renewed civil war.

It provides a badly needed extra buffer zone, but at what cost? The ire of the Arab world, including its tentative friends? Even its historic allies in the West, principally the EU/NATO and even the U.S., have accused the Israelis of deliberate "genocide" of the Gazians  (although Hamas has done far worse to them, and bear in mind, Hamas started this fight with a massacre of 1200+ Israeli civilians on October 7, 2024).

Now, Turkey, a major power of the EU and NATO, has hinted at intervention if Israel doesn't back off. If that happens, what then? The prime directive of NATO is "an attack on one is an attack on all". Could little ole Israel find itself facing NATO and the Arab world, and if so, what about the United States? It's the linchpin of NATO. Meanwhile, the various factions will duke it out for greater control and old scores will be settled as it always tends to happen in a power vacuum.  This is what's at stake now that Assad's government has fallen and U.S. foreign policy continues to blunder forward with outdated objectives.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever site you found us on, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Who are the rebels in Syria?

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)

5 things to watch as Syria confronts a new future

Islamic State

Syrian Democratic Forces

US intervention in the Syrian civil war

 

Revolutionary Commando Army

CIA activities in Syria

 

A Retrospective of Another Opinion's Top Articles for 2022

Starting with our first article on Another Opinion, published back in 2005, we have done a year end review of our most popular top articles. It's an opportunity to review what was trending at the time and what you, our dear readers, was most interested in.  In keeping with that tradition, we will start with number five.

COVID has been with us for what seems an eternity, and with it Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, and the never ending vaccines. Also tied to Dr. Fauci and COVID was whether was (or is) any relationship between the Chinese and the origin of the COVID virus, as well as its possible weaponization against the West. 

We also took a look at the profits being made off the vaccines by Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech which equated to a total of $93.5 million dollars every single day (or to put it in perspective, $65,000 every minute of every day). Lastly, we examined the possibility that these vaccines would morph into some kind of government control along the lines of new form of police state (no vaccination card no admission to grocery store or no job).

Our fourth article covered similar ground except the focus was on the obscene profits Big Pharma was making, not just on the COVID vaccines, but on ordinary prescriptions and healthcare in general. As we just covered in our most recent article, the U.S. healthcare system is ranked among the worst of all the developed nations in the world. We have the fewest available hospital beds, the highest medical costs, highest infant mortality rates, and lowest life expectancy of any industrialized nation.   

If that wasn't bad enough, nearly 2/3 of Congress (that's the House and Senate) gets money from Big Pharma. $7.1 million went to Republicans while Democrats received $6.6 million. Meanwhile, in 2021 Big Pharma spent an additional $263 million dollars to lobby Congress!  Also, because of cutbacks in government funding, Big Pharma now provides the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) with 75% of its drug review funding.

So what did they get for their money? How about no capping of drug prices, more control over what your physician prescribes, limiting the time your doctor gets to spend with you, and higher hospital bills for shorter stays. They also got more restrictions on converting higher cost "name brand" drugs into cheaper generic counterparts (under federal law, lower cost prescription medication has to be issued over the more expensive brand names unless there is a medical reason that would prevent a substitute).

Finally, Big Pharma has continued to step up its marketing of many drugs directly to public in order to encourage potential patients to request specific medication and boost sales. Big Pharma also expanded its all out offensive against holistic healthcare (common in Asia, Africa and Latin America).

This also includes preventative treatments and homeopathic healthcare which is an accepted practice in Europe and most of the world.  The outcome would be to make an already dependent and overmedicated population ever more dependent on what some call "controlled poisons" when discussing most prescriptions.

Our third most popular article was about Cancel Culture and the fight against freedom of expression and speech (among others).  Talk show host Joe Rogan made a comment on one of his podcast about disapproving of Biden's call for mandatory mask usage and requiring everyone to get COVID vaccines. It was just his personal opinion. Well that started a "firestorm" of protests from the Left. Apparently Rogan's comments weren't "politically correct". 

The Cancel Culture tries its level best to shame, bully, or intimidate anyone who says or does something which happens to offend them that day. Unfortunately they've been somewhat successful, causing individuals, groups, or even occasionally a corporation to back off. A few have even hired "consultants" to help them make sure that they're content is "PC"!

Nevertheless, the ultimate result has been to make individuals and others hesitant about what they say or do out of fear of backlash. It has caused people to measure everything they say or do. Libraries and bookstores have stopped carrying certain books or carry sanitized version of them. Same goes for movies.

Some TV stations will air censored version of movies or not broadcast older movies because of how some groups were portrayed or because all the actors were white; there were no individuals "of color". No so-called "diversity". But, at the same time, certain radio stations will play songs which encourages rape, violence, murder (especially of police officers) and just about every other depravity you can imagine and call it creative "entertainment" or racial expression. Heck, they even give out awards for this garbage!

It's reminiscent of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or China's "Culture Revolution" in 1966 under Mao Zedong. Whatever the state or party disapproved of was deemed as not socially acceptable (ie: not "politically correct"). As a result, certain books and movies were forbidden or destroyed while radio stations and newspapers were ransacked or shut down with thousands beaten, jailed, or murdered.  

Businesses were boycotted and many were fired from their jobs for holding "contrary" ideological positions. Some individuals were labeled "social misfits" or a threat to the state and sent to "reeducation camps" (a euphemism used for concentration camps). The horror of Kristallnacht (or "Night of Broken Glass") was borne out of this mentality. 

There are lots of things I don't like, disagree with, or disapprove of, be it movies, books, music, or media content. However, in a truly free society, each of us have the right to freedom of speech and expression. If I have an issue with it, I simply walk away, turn the channel, or don't buy what they're selling. It's me exercising my freedom of association and using the power of the marketplace.

Our second most popular article for 2022 was the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Our focus was on why President Putin invaded his southern neighbor. There's been a long history between Russia and Ukraine dating back to the Kievan Rus in 832, but that didn't spark the invasion.

Following the end of WWII, Soviet Russia created a buffer state composed of Eastern European nations it had liberated from the Nazis and pro-Nazis. It was Stalin's intention that Russia would never again be threatened by the West (Sweden's King Charles XII in 1707, Napoleon had invaded in 1812 and Hitler in 1941). However, with the USSR's implosion starting in 1989, these states were left to their destinies.

In 1990 then President Mikhail Gorbachev was assured by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would "not advance one inch eastward", and yet by the end of the 20th Century, all of them belonged to NATO. This meant the Russia faced NATO tanks, troops, ships, and missiles all along its western frontier. The one exception was Ukraine, which at the time included the valuable Crimea with Russia's second largest military and naval bases at Sevastopol on the Black Sea.  It also had something else. Vast oil and gas resources.

The United States and some EU countries helped orchestrate a coup to remove President Petro Poroshenko and his pro-Moscow government with pro-Western Volodymyr Zelenskyy (to help "spread democracy" no doubt).  Some claim that in exchange for Western support a deal was made for access to the oil and gas rich Black Sea.

Almost immediately Zelenskyy began saber rattling about full membership in NATO, which, if granted, would completely surround Russia on the west and put Sevastopol not only in danger, but would threaten Russia's access to the Mediterranean Sea.  Putin continued to warn Ukraine, the West, and the United States that NATO in Ukraine would not be tolerated.

When it became apparent that NATO would approve Ukraine's application for full admission, Russia moved to secure the Crimea and protect its military installations, as well as its control of its oil and gas reserves. When that failed to make Ukraine back off, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since then, the world has turned against Putin (with one lone exception, the Belarus).

Meanwhile, despite a full court press, Russian troops have failed to fully subjacent Ukraine which has militarily exhausted the former Super Power. As a result, Russian troops have focused on securing the pro-Russian Donbas provinces in Eastern Ukraine.  How this war will turn out is anybody's guess.

Some are predicting an eventual chemical, biological, or tactical nuclear strike, which seems unlikely. Others suggest a coup against Putin, which is possibility. There have been massive protests throughout Russia and a growing unrest among senior officers in the Russian military while in Ukraine, thanks to Western media and U.S. public relations and marketing firms, Zelenskyy has achieved near mythic status. Meanwhile, Western (mostly U.S.) energy companies are keeping a close eye on events.

Finally, our most viewed article for 2022 was, in part, about the sudden and dramatic rise in food and gas prices, but at its core it was about the growing power of the Corporatocracy and ruling Oligarchy which has seized control of America.

We pointed out how just five corporations control over 95% of everything you read, watch, or hear. It even controls your entertainment, from music and movies to video games. We discussed how four companies control practically everything (65%) we buy at the store, from clothes and electronics to food. 

We told you that four corporations own 85% of all meat processed in America while three controlled 66% of all pork.  just 15 cent of every dollar spent went to the farmer (most food production, however, comes from giant corporate farms owned by mega corporations, which are heavily subsided by the government.  When it comes to fertilizers, 65.8% of the market is owned by four companies.

Take a look at technology. Only five companies own 80% of the market. When it comes to energy---oil and gas mainly---a relatively small group runs it all, while suppressing alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.  Meanwhile, there's only about 30 companies which totally dominate the our financial markets.  Globally, they are about a dozen. Most of them are Chinese owned.

These companies are part of (indeed the core of) the global Corporatocracy which runs the world. They certainly run the government of the United States. It's senior board members are part of ruling oligarchy (or as some prefer, kleptocracy) that call the shots in Congress, the White House, and the Judicial system. Their lobbyists write our laws that we are told to obey.  It has nothing to do with "socialism" or "communism", although those names are bandied about to make us fear them. Why? Because they fear the people---us.

We've provided a link to these articles below so you can re-read them or perhaps read them for the first time in the same order as above.  We hope you found these, as well as our others articles informative and useful. Ever since our first article was published in July of 2005, we've tried our best to provide you, our dear readers, with accurate non-partisan information. No slant. Just facts. We even include links to our sources in case you want to delve deeper.

If you enjoy our work, please pass it along. We don't have a marketing department and therefore depend on you to help spread the word. We also ask that you "like" us on whatever platform you're using so our articles can stay in front of people. A lot of these platforms don't like what we have to say since it goes against their corporate line (toeing the line has never been one of my strong suits).

Finally, we would like to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read Another Opinion. We sincerely couldn't do it without your help. Have a happy, healthy, and safe New Year in 2023. Take care everyone.

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Dr. Fauci: The Man, Myth,Legend...and Schemer?

Big Pharma: A Monopoly in Need of a Cure

Joe Rogan and Cancel Culture: Freedom For Some But Not All

Understanding the Real Reason Why Russia Invaded the Ukraine

 

Who Wants to Play Monopoly?

 

 

What's Next for Putin and the People of Ukraine?

What's next for Russian President Vladimir Putin? I guess that all depends on who you ask and where you get your news. There's no doubt that Russian news sources are largely controlled by the Russian government. But then, the Western media are just as guilty of their own propaganda. After all, the same corporations which control 96+% of everything we read. watch, and hear also controls Washington.

With that in mind, Russian news sources report that the Russian military is holding their own, if not actually winning in what's now become a war of attrition. Meanwhile, in the West we're told that the Ukrainians are giving the Russian troops a good old fashioned butt kicking (naturally with Western aid).

Russian tanks and mobile units are being decimated while Russian planes and helicopters are being shot down with impunity. As for the much ballyhooed Black Sea Fleet, it's been rendered impotent. We're even told that the Russian military to running on empty when it comes to keeping their war machine supplied with fuel, replacement parts, ammo, and even food, water, and medicine.

Video footage (often provided through the Ukrainian Government) of captured Russian troops are repleve with stories of being randomly drafted, given little or no training, and simply dropped off at random sites in the Ukraine and to await instructions which never seem to come. Many just wonder into the nearest Ukrainian town or village and simply surrender to the first Ukrainians they see...military or civilian.  In short, they're there to use up Ukrainian ammunition as cannon fodder and live (for the moment) targets.

Meanwhile, there seems to be no shortage of scenes of smoldering or abandoned T-90 tanks, or planes and helicopters being shot down on social media outlets, yet curiously few scenes of the obligatory dead Russian soldiers and pilots which are displayed as proof of victory.

It's hard to believe that the arch nemesis of "all that's holy and scared", at least according to Western governments (most notably the United States) during the 45 years long Cold War is being thumped by a second tier military like Ukraine.  Starting in the 1950's, Americans lived in fear of ruthless Soviet expansion throughout the world likened to a game of dominos.

In school, we were taught to hide under our desks or along the hallway wall in case of a nuclear sneak attack (which hung over us and our parents like a sword of Damocles). Looking back, I guess that was so the survivors knew where to find the little piles of our ashes. We were told to "drop and cover" behind sidewalk curves or drive to the nearest fallout shelter, which were usually located downtown. You know. Right where the bomb would hit in about 20 minutes.

Meanwhile selected government officials were to be secretly evacuated by the military to their own nearby private bomb shelters under the auspices of "continuity of government" and all before the ice in their glasses of scotch melted. 

 We fought countless wars directly and indirectly, overthrew governments, and assassinated duly elected foreign leaders throughout the world to make it "safe for democracy" (sarcasm intended).  Then, we watched with a certain measure of glee as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, only to get bogged down in their own Vietnam (a lesson we repeated and took us 20 long years to learn with the same results), and downright cheered when the USSR imploded and collapsed in 1991.  

So, now what for Putin? Well, if we are to believe the mainstream media, President Putin is stuck between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, his generals are extremely frustrated with the progress (or lack thereof) in the Ukraine while many members of the Duma (Russia's version of Congress), along with large numbers of the populace, are increasingly angry over the quagmire that is Ukraine.

The Russian senior military staff are themselves split between what to do. A minority see their best option as throwing in the towel and withdrawing completely with their tail between their legs as they did in Afghanistan 33 years ago. Others see their best solution as consolidating their tenuous hold on the Donbas provinces and forgoing the rest of Ukraine.

Some of the military and political hardliners are urging the use of some of their 5,977 nukes, specifically the smaller "tactical" warheads of which there are about 2,000. Even some members of the powerful state security apparatus, the FSB (successor to the feared KGB) seem to agree.  

These smaller yield warheads have an explosive output of approximately 15 to 20 kilotons of dynamite, which are close to the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,which killed or outright vaporized a combined 105,000 lives. The resulting fallout caused the deaths of tens of thousands for months and years afterwards, not including the thousands of birth defects which continued to appear decades later.

Most Western observers reject this scenario, saying Putin may be crazy, but he's not stupid. I agree that it's highly unlikely that Putin would use nukes. First, he would be unanimously condemned by the world. There's even the possibility of a coup. Those nations which have remained on the sidelines throughout the conflict would immediately provide Ukraine with humanitarian aid. Some might add military aid as well.  There would be near universal economic and political sanctions imposed on Russia would stagnate it for years if not decades.

Secondly, the nuclear fallout could drift westward, affecting Poland, Hungary, and Romania or spread further west to Germany and Scandinavia. Depending on the targets and wind direction, it's not out of the question that Turkey, not to mention Russian controlled Crimea and the Black Sea with its fishing industry and critical production of oil and gas would be affected.   

If it did drift into Poland and points west, all NATO countries, it could make for a tenuous, but plausible argument for triggering Article 5 of NATO's mutual assist agreement, and thus activate NATO's military. Granted that might be a bit of a stretch (though fallout is certainly possible and even likely), it wouldn't take much given the hotheads in NATO who've been looking for an excuse to get directly into the fight from the outset. 

Any humanitarian relief efforts transported directly into Ukraine would likely be under the protection of NATO. Any provocation by Russia, intended or not, would be all the excuse needed for things to get "hot", thus forcing Russia to pull back to avoid any possible "misunderstandings". To put it another way, everything would be locked and loaded and the safeties would be off. Lastly, it would give NATO all the justification they need in the eyes of the world to fully admit Ukraine into NATO as a full partner. Nukes would be a no win scenario for Putin.

A good argument could be made for Russia to simply withdraw from the Ukraine proper and focus its energies on the contested Donbas region, which is comprised of roughly 40% ethnic Russians. After all, Russia's military has pretty much mucked up most everything in western Ukraine while invigorating Ukrainian resistance.

Russia's badly depleted and demoralized military would have a substantially smaller area to contend with, and they would have the support of a large pro-Russian minority. The Donbas could provide a link with Russian controlled Crimea.

It's worth noting that several Western pundits claim that the Ukrainians are doing such a marvelous job in fighting Russian troops, that after driving them out of the country proper, they should move into the Crimea and retake it. An interesting notion but unlikely. The Crimea has strong links to Russia dating back to the late 1700's. A substantial portion of the population (about 60%) are ethnically Russian, speak Russian, and identify with Russia.

In March 2014, the Crimean Supreme Council held  a referendum for the Crimean people. They were to decide to rejoin Russia or readopt their 1992 Constitution which gave them autonomy. With a turnout of about 83%, some 96% voted to rejoin Russia. Critics of the referendum (mostly Americans) cited no outside observers to verify the election results, and therefore rejected the outcome. I suppose the same argument could be used for our recent elections too don't you think?

Regardless, Russia has been in the Crimea since Czarina Catherine the Great's annexation in 1783. It's home of one of their largest military installations, Sebastopol, and it's the source of vast amounts of oil and gas which has been propelling Russia's economy (perhaps the main reason Kyiv wants it back).

The Donbas (formed from the name of the area---Donets Basin) is comprised of two pro-Russian provinces, the Luhansk and Donetsk. 68.8% and 74.9% respectively speak Russian.  Fighting has been going on there for roughly 8 years, resulting in the deaths of somewhere around 14,000 people. Control of the Donbas would allow Moscow a direct connection to Crimea and the all important Sebastopol.  However, it's more than just having a land connection to Crimea. The Donbas is resource rich, especially in coal.

The hard coal reserves in the Donbas are one of the largest in the world, worth in the neighborhood of $57 billion dollars. It is also rich in methane gas, rock salt, limestone, mercury, and various types of ore. The Donbas had a gross regional product output in 2020 of 7.0 billion Euros and accounts for 6% of Ukraine's GDP.  

Prior to the 2014 invasion, Kyiv had an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell to develop one the key Yuzuvska natural gas field. Due to the war, that was suspended in 2014. Royal Dutch Shell finally withdrew from the agreement in June 2015.

The securing of the Donbas is too important to Putin to permit him to fully withdraw from the Ukraine. It is and perhaps has always been at the heart of the invasion, notwithstanding Putin's repeated refusal to allow a NATO presence in Ukraine. Such a presence would surround Russia's western frontier with NATO missiles, box in its Black Sea Fleet, and potentially restrict its access to vast amounts of oil, gas, and natural resources.

Russia should no more been expected to accept such as a fait accompli than the U.S. would with a Chinese military and economic presence on our Canadian and Mexican borders. His invasion was in many ways as colossal a blunder as Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 or Hitler's in 1941, but from his perspective, it may have been the lesser of two evil. 

At the same time, a complete withdrawal would devastate Putin's credibility at home, especially with its powerful oligarchs, military and FSB, and key members of the Duma. Such a move would likely result in a coup with Putin's removal from office either voluntarily or horizontally. Failure to leave will led to more dissent at home, and again, a possible ouster.

Securing the Donbas offers Putin with a chance for a militarily victory and stability at home before things spiral too far out of hand, but it leaves him with a dangerous enemy in Kyiv who will undoubtedly seek revenge by keeping the Donbas unstable. It also provides Kyiv with the best excuse it could ever have for full NATO membership, and with it, protection of the global corporate elite.

Finally, Russia will remain outside the reach of the Western capitalism and its ruling elite, where perhaps it should be. The sanctions will likely remain for now, as much as punishment for rejecting Western neo-feudal capitalism as for its invasion of Ukraine. Putin will be portrayed as unstable and a tyrant in the West for his disruption of the "Great Reset" of the New World Order. 

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

 

Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation

Battle for Donbas: 3 reasons why Russia is shifting its warmachine to east Ukraine

 

Putin's tactical nuclear weapons could pack the same punch as atomic bombs dropped on Japan

Russian Military Leaders Discussed Use of Nuclear Weapons,U.S. Officials Say

Why Vladimir Putin Would Use Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine

How to respond if Putin goes Nuclear? Here are the economicand political options

 

Thanksgiving: Being Grateful For What We've Had as Americans

 If we look at the present rate of inflation, it was running about 7.7% as of October. It looks like inflation it will be 8.3% for the year, which is a 40 year high. Your general utilities will be just about 17.9% more than it was last year. Food is up 10.9% over last year.

The cost of gas and diesel fuel has been on the rise as we all know. The average increase has been around 6.3%.  We saw a drop in prices toward the end of the election cycle when President Biden freed up some oil and gas from our national reserves. The point of course was to make voters forget, at least temporarily, all the pain they were paying at the pump.

Interest rates on everything from bank loans to credit cards are on the rise. When interest rates start to rise, so does inflation and visa versa. This is because to there is less money in circulation, so the "price" of money, which is based on its availability, goes up. Interest is the price we pay to "rent" the use of money.  

The control of money (and interest rates) is controlled by the Federal Reserve. In order to slow the economy, the Fed increases interest rate, which slows borrowing in order to reduce inflation. By the same token, if the economy slows too much, the Fed lowers the rate of interest in order to encourage more borrowing and thereby stimulate the economy. In general, the Fed likes to keep the overall inflation rate around 2%.

When it comes to stocks and bonds, they tend to operate inversely. As stock prices rise, bond prices drop. When stock prices drop, bond prices tend to rise.  For instance, the interest rate of "I" Series U.S. Treasury Bond are expected to starting dropping from a current rate of 9.62% to an anticipated 6.47% as inflation rises.

The average American spends about 33% of their net income on mortgage or rent payments. With that in mind, real estate prices have risen approximately 17% over last year. The median price of an average home in the United States was $428,700 in the first quarter of 2022. If we go back to 2020, it was $329,000, which is a 30% increase in price. Availability is one determining factor.

If we compare by state, the average cost of a home in Hawaii was $1,038,544 in July 2022. That same home would cost $164,132 in Mississippi. Like California? Get ready to pony up around $816,804 (some parts of California such as San Francisco are actually considered too expensive for some people to move to). Maybe you'd like a little more open spaces instead.

In Montana and North Dakota the average price of a home will set you back $449,723  and  $282,461 respectively.  Not remote enough? Try Alaska. The average price of a home is $337,373.  Of course, you could consider Kentucky or West Virginia where they say weddings are more like family reunions. An average priced home will cost you around  $197,644  and $137,286. 

Any way you slice it, the home prices are forcing more Americans to consider renting. But even that is becoming beyond some people's reach. A single bedroom apartment nationally  rents for an average of $1,326.00 a month (typically with utilities included). A single family house typically rents for $2,018.00 plus utilities.  Of course, as with homes, location is everything.

As with houses, Hawaii has the highest apartment rental prices, followed by California. The average one room apartment goes for $2,399.00 a month in Hawaii and $1,844.00 in California. Washington DC is high when it comes to either buying or renting. The average apartment rents for $1,770.00. Meanwhile, you can rent a nice single bedroom apartment in Kentucky for roughly $920.00 or $905.00 in Iowa.

But, as with everything else, the price of rent is expected to keep rising. Nationally, the U.S. is short between some 2 and 5 million units meaning there's more demand than supply, which drives up prices. Meanwhile, with inflation increasing along with interest rates, the cost to "rent" money to build more units has gone up too. That makes it more expensive to build more units and those higher cost are passed along to the consumer.

Perhaps the most important component here is wages. The average worker receives a wage increase of approximately 3.5 to 5.5% annually. Social Security and other government income recipients receive a annual cost of living increase (called "Cost of Living Adjustments" or "COLAs") of 8.7% at the beginning of the year.   

However, when confronted with the current inflation rate, most individuals go in the hole by the time you add  in all the increases in utilities, fees, credit card interest rates, gas, food, taxes (particularly property and schools taxes), clothes, and so forth. Perhaps if it was just one or two of these, most people could cope, but it's not. It's the commutative effect.    

Meanwhile, the cost of benefits, on which employees depend, continue to increase. Over the last five years, the cost of basic benefits have risen between 5% and 7%, forcing employers to reduce what they offer or requiring employees to pick up more of the tab.

Some small businesses have had no other choice but to drop benefit packages altogether, which forces some employee to seek employment elsewhere (and we all know finding qualified workers has always been tough, but finding individuals willing to work has been next to impossible since COVID). 

As a result, a lot of smaller "mom and pop" shops have vanished. Bear in mind too that few small businesses receive taxpayer based corporate bailouts. Those seem to be reserved for Wall Street. Let's take a more detailed look at wages since that effects pretty much everything else.

Not surprisingly, wages have failed to keep up with the rate of inflation. In terms of real dollars (dollars adjusted for the rate of inflation), our purchasing power is at a 66 year low. To put it another way, the current minimum wage buys the same as what 75 cents did in 1956.  Individuals on the low level of the pay scale, which includes most entry level jobs, simply can't make it.

A  survey by Bankrate said 55% of those surveyed said their wages weren't keeping up with prices. That includes workers who receive regular salary increases annually and the 39% of employees who do not.

 To add salt to the wound, CEOs and senior executives earn an average of just over $21 million dollars a year. This is more than 400 times the salary of an average employee which is about $51,000 a year. The difference was 20% in 1963. From 1978 to 2020, the salaries of U.S. CEOs increased by over 1,322% while the average employee saw an increase in pay of just 18% for the same period.  

The top three companies with the greatest executive/employee wage inequality are Nike, Walmart, and Amazon. The three companies with the lowest executive/employee wage inequality are Alphabet (the parent of Google), Walt Disney, and Berkshire Hathaway.

To put it another way, an employee at Nike would have to work just under 30 hours to equal one minute of their CEO's salary. It's 20.7 hours at Amazon and 14 hours at JP Morgan Chase Bank. At Starbucks it's 10.7 hours of serving their overpriced coffee to equal one minutes of CEO Kevin Johnson's salary. At Blackrock, which is arguably the world's most influential company, an typical employee has to work 6.2 hours to earn the same amount that their CEO, Larry Fink, earns in 60 seconds.

Income inequality is at its highest level in over 50 years according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The widest pay gaps are in California, Florida, New York, Connecticut, Louisiana. However, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Arkansas aren't far behind.

The Census Bureau also shows (perhaps not surprisingly) that the percentage of poverty in the U.S. was 12.8% in 2021, which is among the highest of any developed nation. That's about 38 million people. In fact, of the top 25 industrial nations in the world, the U.S. ranks dead last.

In 2021, the percentage of child poverty (those under 18 years of age) was 16.9%. For those over age 65, it was 10.3%. In Kentucky, the central South, New Mexico, and Washington DC,  the child poverty rate was over 22%. It was lowest in Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

For seniors, Washington DC, Louisiana, and Mississippi the poverty rate was 13% or higher. In 12 states, including Kentucky, Nevada, and South Dakota, the poverty rate was between 11% and 12.9%. In the majority of the country it was 8.8% to 9.9% while in four states it was under 8%.  

According to a number of reports, around a half a million Americans are homeless at any given time. About 70% are individuals while the rest are families. 11% of the homeless are military veterans. The rise of inflation and prices in general will likely add to these numbers.

Inflation, increasing home prices, the cost of gas, food, utilities, income inequality, homelessness, and, of course, rising taxes, are symptoms of a failing political and economic system along. There is no questioning our social, economic, and political divide.

 History has shown that radical change tends to come from the bottom up. This is especially true if a middle class supports the bottom tier. In America, our middle class has gone from 61% of the population in 1971 to 50% in 2020 while the percentage of low income has grown from 25% to 29%. Globally the middle class has shrunk by 150 million since 2017. India lost 32% of its middle class while Asia lost 25%.

Along with industrial output, the quality of education and medical care, and other key measurements, the United States is showing all the signs of a irreversible decline. China is now the world's leader in manufacturing. In terms of technology and its innovation, the U.S. ranks number one, but China, Japan, and South Korea are pretty close behind. Germany and Israel are closing in too.

Academically, we rank in the middle of the second tier in science. In reading, we're in the lower half of the second tier, while in mathematics we're just above the third tier.  Overall, we're 17th in the world academically with Asian, Scandinavian, and Europeans dominating the top slots.   

When it comes to healthcare, we spend more money than any other developed nation, and yet, we have among the highest infant mortality rates, the lowest life expectancy, and the fewest number of available beds. Among the top 11 highest income nations, the U.S. healthcare system ranks dead last.

Some predict America will become a second tier economy with a top tier military presence akn to other historic empires like Rome, the Ottomans, and Great Britain.  Others think it will a much harder landing resulting in a broken and fragmented nation.  Certainly the foundations are in place thanks to unchecked illegal immigration and a multiculturalism which discourages integration. Anyway you look at it, you better buckle your seatbelts.  

 

 If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read AnotherOpinion.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!   

 

Inflation Calculator

What Is the Relationship between Inflation and Interest Rates

United States House Prices Growth

How Rising Interest Rates and Inflation Impact Real EstateInvestments

Average House Prices by State in 2022

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment CostIndex---September 2022

Average Rent by State 2022

 

CEO vs. Employee Salaries at America's Top Companies

U.S. Poverty Rate Is 12.8% but Varies Significantly by Age Groups

 

U.S. health-care system ranks last among 11high incomecountries, researchers say

Report: Pandemic Shrunk Global Middle Class by 150 Million

America's Poor Are Worse Than Elsewhere

The Nord Stream Pipelines: The West vs. Russia Again

In the Baltic Sea, two Nord Stream gas and oil pipelines were destroyed in a series of three underwater explosions. The victims of sabotage.  One of the pipelines had been used to supply Europe (and particularly Europe's economic engine, Germany) with critically needed oil and natural gas.

Both lines had been shut down previously. The result of sanctions imposed by Russia's President Putin in light of the EU's support of Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia. The other pipeline was still partially under construction. The result of the explosions was three or possible four ruptures.

Both pipelines were owned by Gazprom, the Russian owned energy giant, in conjunction with Western partners at a cost of several billion dollars (it's worth noting that Gazprom generates around $115 billion dollars annually and is the world's largest natural gas company).

The question which is now being hotly debated in the halls of Congress and the Pentagon, the United Nations Security Council,  the capital of the EU---Brussels---and the halls of other capitals in Europe, the Middle East, and China is who was responsible for the attack.

It's generally agreed that because of the location of the pipelines, at a depth of approximately 361 feet beneath the turbulent Baltic Sea, could have only been accomplished by a tiny handful of nations---Russia through its highly trained Spetsnaz special forces; the United States Navy and its premier global strike force, the SEALs.

 China has its specialized naval assault units, the Jiaolong Assault Team, which are better known as the "Sea Dragon Commandos"; and the British Special Boat Service, also referred to by its initials, the SBS  (as an aside, it's one of the very few type of operations that the Israelis, known for their daring and near impossible attacks anywhere in the world, wouldn't have been able to accomplish. Besides, Israel doesn't have a dog in this fight).   

The two pipelines, known as Nord Stream 1 and 2, originate from Vyborg and Ust-Luga on the Russian coast bordering the Baltic and extends Greifswald in Germany. The first leak (Nord Stream 2) was reported by Swedish investigators on September 26th. The second incident involved two leaks involving pipeline 1 the following day, on September 27th. 

The damage on pipeline 1 are close together, while the damage between both pipelines aren't in close proximity to each other, which means the damage had to be closely coordinated, which again points to one of the major powers.

The majority of Western governments have either directly or indirectly indicated that Russia was behind the attacks. German Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) and Chief of the Navy, Jan Christian Kaack, has stated that Russia has capability for such sabotage when he stated that Russia had "considerable capacity" in its underwater operations, which is true.

Looking at pipeline 1, it covers 745 miles from St. Petersburg in Russia to Germany's Northeastern coast while the second pipeline runs 767 miles. In addition, there are other transmissions lines running from both pipelines (the OPEL and the NEL pipelines, which connect to other lines throughout Europe). The oil and gas originates from Yuzhno-Russkoye petroleum field in the Krasnoselkupsky District of the Tyumen Oblast in West central Siberia.

The field, which was previously unreachable due to the historical dense permafrost, has been made harvestable thanks in large part to warming temperatures and improved technology, which has allowed full time operation. The field has proven gas reserves of 805.3 billion cubic meters of gas with estimated reserves of another 1000 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

Meanwhile, proven oil reserves are about 5.7 million tons. At present, Gazprom operates 26 gas wells  which reportedly produce an estimated 15 million cubic meters of natural gas every single day of the week all year long.

 It bears mentioning that Gazprom has been working on a deal with China to construct a pipeline from the Yuzhno-Russkoye field to Northwestern China via the "Power of Siberia 2" pipeline (aka the "Altai gas pipeline") and end in the Xinjiang region where it would connect with China's East-West pipeline.   The pipeline could also run through Mongolia, which would be a boon for the Mongolian economy.

 Xinjiang Province, however, is home to the Uyghurs, a minority Muslim population which in recent years has become increasing resistant to Beijing's rule in what's known as the "Xinjiang Conflict". An oil and natural gas pipeline of this magnitude would present a tempting target for the Salafist Turkistan Islamic Party and the East Turkestan Independence Movement, two separatist groups comprised of Uyghur Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucian nationalists unified in their demand for autonomy from Beijing.

As for the two Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic, they too present more than tempting targets. While Western leaders led by the U.S. and President Biden blame Russia for the damage to their own pipelines, Russia and its allies claim that the United States is behind the incident.

President Biden had previously made threats concerning the Nord Stream pipelines. Specifically, Biden previously said that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the Nord Stream pipeline "would not move forward" and added that "there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring it to an end". 

Since the announcement of that the two pipelines were destroyed, the establishment media has tried to whitewash Biden's statements and do some fancy cover up.  Nevertheless, whether he intended that specifically to be threat or not, it doesn't look good.

In fact, President Putin took Biden's comments as a threat, and now with both pipelines out of commission it certainly appears to be a threat fulfilled. Of course, the U.S. has more than the capability and experience, not to mention intelligence expertise, to carry out an operation like this.

As a result, Putin announced that he intends to "destroy the West's energy infrastructure" as he blamed the "Anglo Saxons" for the damage (fortunately for me I'm mostly Celt and Scandinavian). The question is whether or not he can actually do it. While it remains to be seen, with Europe dependant on 40% of Russia's oil and gas to heat homes and run businesses (and Germany, Europe's industrial heart, depending on Russia for 70% of its oil and gas), it can't be good for the EU, even with limited U.S. support.

The importance of the pipelines to the Russian and European economies  and the amount of money invested in the projects can't be understated. Nord Stream 1 has been in operation since 2011 at a cost of $7.3 billion dollars while Nord Stream 2's price tag was around $11 billion dollars. It was started in 2011 and has been operational since September 2021.  

We can't overlook the possibility of routine failure. The pipelines are 361 feet down in water which average 51 degrees this time of year. At depths of 350+, the water temperature is around 15 to 20 degrees. Plus, while poor quality and/or workmanship shouldn't be an issue, but it can't be entirely ruled out. Pipeline failures aren't uncommon.

As for Russia being responsible for sabotaging either pipeline, it's unlikely. Russia has already imposed its own sanctions against the EU and shut off the valves. There's no need to destroy the pipelines on top of that. Besides, consider the costs to repair either line which could run potentially in the billions and take upwards of six months to complete. Just in closing the pipelines, Russia is taking a huge financial hit. Russia oil and gas shipments to Europe had been bringing in $120 billion annually.  

As long as the war in Ukraine continues, the cost will escalate on all sides until the unthinkable becomes the only logic option. Neither Moscow or Kyiv seems able to deliver a final knockout punch. Ukraine is hanging in there against the full might of the Russian military thanks largely to aide being provided by the EU/NATO, the United States, and an intensive Western PR campaign. Russia's mounting losses, in the face of U.S. led sanctions are starting to severely affect its economy.

As a result, President Putin has struck back by cutting off critically need oil and gas supplies, but that's may not be enough. Putin has strongly hinted at military intervention in certain European border countries and even the possibility of using tactical nukes to end the war. It's unlikely Putin would do so, but some analysis have cautioned not to rule it out entirely. Russian credibility is also on the line here.

Meanwhile, Europe is bracing for a colder than usual winter, as well as a serious blow to its economy with much higher prices for everything from food to rent to gas and staying warm thanks to Russian oil and gas sanctions.  Public unrest and riots shouldn't be ruled out.

In the United States, Washington's pro-Kyiv propaganda isn't working as well as the establishment media had hoped. Putin has proven to be popular in the U.S. (more so than Biden, who's approval ratings continue to hit record lows) as the U.S. economy slows amid rising prices and interest rates. The Republicans aren't doing any better.

Regardless of U.S. politics, the war in Ukraine needs to come to a quick end. It's cause was officially Kyiv's request to join NATO; something Russia has long opposed. The real issue was, and always has been over resources. In this case, oil and gas in the Donbas and Black Sea. With it, Ukraine becomes a new player on the block, especially if it has the protection of NATO. Without it, Ukraine is just another second tier economy.

The Washington led West is going all out to make Russia the bad guy, and in many ways they are, but wars are seldom black and white. Kyiv, Brussels, and Washington bear their share of responsibility for this war too. For Moscow, it's a matter of national security. There was nothing new about Moscow's refusal to allow NATO to encircle its western border or be forced to kneel to a "new global order", whatever that means. Meanwhile, while politicians dicker, generals plan, the rich get richer, ordinary people die.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Nord Stream gas 'sabotage': who's to blame and why?

Biden says the Nord Stream 2 pipeline won't move ahead if Russia invades Ukraine

 

Russia Blows Up Gas Pipelines, Declaring an All-out EnergyWar It May Have Already Lost

Nord Stream repair may take at least six months, sayslawmaker

The Yuzhno-Russkoye Field

Russia has cut off gas supplies to Europe indefinitely