“They are living beyond their means and shifting a part of the weight of their problems to the world economy. They are living like parasites off the global economy and their monopoly of the dollar. If [in America] there is a systemic malfunction, this will affect everyone. Countries like Russia and China hold a significant part of their reserves in American securities. There should be other reserve currencies.” – Vladimir Putin in 2011
While I hate to give such praise to a foreign leader, Putin has undoubtedly run rings around the moribund and bureaucratic incompetence of the Laurel and Hardy-style Obama and Kerry team on Syria. Putin diplomatically has the swiftness and stealth of the South’s Stonewall Jackson and Germany’s Erwin Rommel, probably the two greatest military commanders in world history.
What Really Happened on the Night of Friday, August 30th?
“At one point last week in the charade known as ‘the Syria peace negotiations’, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, announced solemnly, ‘This is not a game.’ Well, he was wrong there. This certainly is a game: the trouble is that Barack Obama is trying to pretend that it’s chess, while Vladimir Putin plays hard-faced poker.” – Janet Daley
Yes, thanks to the Internet Reformation, the administration was not able to manipulate public opinion and the people and Congress were increasingly opposed to the minimal military action, though this has never stopped a Washington attack before. Even the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) efforts came to naught and the US backed down from the attack.
I believe both Russia and China covertly played the Treasury debt card in order to protect their client states, Syria and Iran, from the impending US invasion. An attack would undoubtedly have escalated with troops on the ground, opening the way for a land assault against Iran, the ultimate real target. After all, the gas pipeline for Washington’s Sunni client states that are even offering to pay for the military action is far less important than taking Iran down.
But Putin Always Wins
“Though fraud in all other actions be odious, yet in matters of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes his enemies by stratagem is as much to be praised as he who overcomes them by force.” – Niccolo Machiavelli
If you follow Putin’s career it is apparent that he overcomes difficulties often through strategy rather than direct force. I’ll bet he has Machiavelli’s The Prince in his personal library. Russia, China and Putin had a lot to lose if the US had engaged and been drawn into occupying Syria proper.
- First, Iran would have been open for land invasion, as northern Iraq is under Kurdish control and the Kurds would have welcomed a US ground attack targeting Tabriz and northern Iran, freeing their brother Kurds there and helping to expand and create ultimately a Kurdistan state.
- Second, this would put the American forces on the border of the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia, thus threatening Russian influence in the area.
- Third, unlike the United States with hundreds of bases around the world, Russia has only one base outside the old Soviet republics and sphere of influence and this is a naval base in Tartus, Syria. The loss of this base would result in a tremendous decline of prestige and influence in the Arab world, a region where both Russia and China seek to gain influence to counter the American occupation and control of the oil and gas resources there.
“At this point, China owns approximately 1.275 trillion dollars of our debt, and Russia owns approximately 138 billion dollars of our debt.” – Michael Snyder
Remember, national leaders never threaten other nations or leaders directly because all major political leaders and politicians require plausible deniability if things go wrong. They need the ability to deny blame, knowledge and responsibility for a failure but still have the opportunity to get the job done and when helpful take credit for a success or victory. Giving the responsibility for communication or action to a lower level bureaucracy or individual where instructions are verbal or inaccessible takes care of the problem.
Although I have no proof, I believe it is likely that financial intermediaries or lower level central banking contacts dropped the hint to their American counterparts that China and Russia were likely to begin liquidating Treasury obligations should Washington go ahead with it’s planned military adventure against Syria.
This is best explained in Michael Snyder’s September 6 article at The Economic Collapse, “Who Is Going To Buy Our Debt If This War Causes China, Russia And The Rest Of The World To Turn On Us?”
I would suggest that Putin’s apparent last minute Chemical Weapons “deal” was just a face-saving gift for the Obama Administration in order to provide cover and a reasonable excuse for the sudden change of orders to halt the Syria attack. I’ll also bet that this deal had been worked out long before it was offered to Obama. I will discuss more about Putin’s Debt Card at the upcoming High Alert Investment Conference in October (see highalertconference.com).
Putin wins again. He gets the credit for stopping the US; Russia, as usual, never fires a shot and Washington retreats. You’ll know whether I’m right on Putin playing the debt card if on occasion, with very important questions on global affairs and diplomacy, America begins to slowly retreat – as do all empires when they overreach economically and begin to decline militarily.
I’m sure Putin also reads Sun Tzu and his ancient Chinese military treatise, The Art of War, so read the two quotes below and tell me what you think.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”
In closing, a word of advice to Obama and the elites of both the Democrat and Republican parties: You play poker with Vladimir Putin at your peril and that of our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment