March 28, 2014
It is possible to make a reasonable prediction about where World War III will break out based upon historical Russian military strategy. Putin is following a very predictable pattern that dates back to over a 100 years of Russian military history coupled with the present set of events.
The Present Situation
Russia is bleeding the Petrodollar dry by leading the BRIC nations in the purchase of Iranian oil for gold. The same situation is emerging in Europe as Russia is on the verge, either by invasion or by proxy control of Ukraine, of controlling a good portion of energy needs to Europe and being able to bypass the Petrodollar as a means of payment for Russian energy shipments into Europe. Further, Russia has just completed a deal which brings China into the Russian energy sphere of influence. This will eventually culminate in the weakening of NATO and the isolation of the United States both economically and militarily. What does Russia want and what will be its eventual goal? Some believe that Russia wants to occupy the United States and perhaps Putin eventually does, but it is not practical at this particular point of time. Economic attrition and military isolation are Putin’s best friends at this time. After all, the US is in possession of over 2,000 nuclear weapons and 72 nuclear armed submarines which are virtually undetectable. Despite the presence of these American deterrents, do not be lulled into a false sense of security, this cold war will soon turn hot.
Putin’s Military Strategy
Putin is pursuing a military strategy that most Americans have never heard of and even fewer understand and it has to do with Russia’s geographic makeup and this holds the key to Russian military strategy Although Russia possesses one of the largest landmasses in the world, they possess an abhorrent lack of useable coastline. Historically, Russian economic growth has been severely impeded because of the lack of usable ports. Russia rues the day that they sold Alaska to the United States. It also helps to explain why Syria has jumped to the forefront of world affairs. Russia is sitting on vast energy deposits and they are threatening to expand their energy based and mineral world dominance by exploiting the newly discovered riches at the North Pole and they have invested significant resources in beefing up their Arctic fighting forces towards this end. Russia may be able to acquire vast mineral resources, but without significant ports from which to trade, the Russian economy will always run in second gear. One does not need to have access to Putin’s war plans to understand what is going on, one needs to only be a student of history in order to predict where this coming conflict is headed.
The Heartland Theory
British geographer and military historian, Sir Halford MacKinder, in 1904, wrote an article that changed how politicians and military men viewed the world. The theory that had so influenced nearly five generations of strategists was called simply, the Heartland Theory. Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory views geo-political military history as a struggle between land-based and sea-based powers. Mackinder believed the world had become a “closed” system, with virtually no new lands left for the European powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without creating chaos elsewhere. According to the theory, the common denominator for world conflict has been reduced to sea powers vs. land-based powers which would subsequently struggle for dominance of the world, and the ultimate victor would be in a position to set up a world empire. The determining factor in this struggle was physical geography; “Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls”.
From Mackinder’s perspective, Soviet Russia had to be contained within the heartland. Mackinder’s believed that whosoever controlled Eurasia, controlled the world, so long as the controller had access to useable ports. The problem for Russia is that they have so few usable ports thus impacting commerce and the movement of men and material in a time of war. So long as Russia could be prevented from being a major sea power, the forces of the United States and Western Europe were safe. However, if Russia should become a sea power in conjunction with its massive land-based power, Russia could rule the world. And now, through the release of Russian secret documents we are finding out that Stalin was willing to fight a war with the US over obtaining Alaskan seaports as predicted by the Heartland Theory.
Stalin’s Secret Plans to Invade Alaska In 1951
In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America as early as 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States. These documents, from the Cold War, revealed that Stalin had a definitive plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports. Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily, mostly due to American dominance in nuclear weapons. In 2014, we see the importance of the Heartland Theory in guiding Russian foreign policy with regard to Syria and to some degree, China. The Chinese-Russian energy deal allows Russia access to Chinese ports. Russia is steadfast in its protection of Syria because of the Russian need to use the ports of Tartus and Aleppo. And it is highly likely that once the energy pipelines in Ukraine are secured by Putin, Europe will soon be making seaport concessions to Russia in exchange for Russian based energy shipments. At the beginning of the crisis in Crimea, the first objective of the Russian military was to secure the naval base in Sevastopol. The Russians desire the fleet to grow in support of a new Mediterranean task force created by Russia last year as a move to counter an increase in US naval presence in the Mediterranean. If Ukraine had been allowed to be wooed by Western banksters to join the European Union, Russia’s most important naval force would have been effectively neutered because of the potential loss of Sevastopol as a naval base. The G7 nations may view Putin’s actions in Crimea as being offensive, Putin, no doubt, views the action as a matter of military survival. Again, the Heartland Theory comes into play. The Heartland Theory also came into play during last year’s Syrian crisis as Putin threatened to nuke the United States if it invaded Syria in violation of international law. Syria is critical to the Russians on a number of fronts including the prevalence of Syria’s warm water ports. Syria’s importance to Russia can be condensed to five essential factors:
1. Russia has a naval installation in Syria. The base is vitally important because it is Russia’s last foreign military base outside of the former Soviet Union. Putin is playing a bit of a slight of hand approach by stating they are closing the facility. However, the Russians are maintaining navy technicians and they service their permanent flotilla in the area.
2. Russia utilizes the port at Aleppo and Tartus to facilitate its sea trade.
3. Fortifying Syria provides protection for Iran who is undermining the Petrodollar by selling its oil for gold. This allows Putin to be engaged in an economic war against the dollar and the Federal Reserve.
4. Syria is a military satellite of Russia as Assad continues to buy a high quantity of Russian military exports, which aids the Russian economy.
Control of Ukraine and its gas shipments through the country are the key to swinging the balance of power on the planet. If Ukraine comes under the complete control of the Russians, energy blackmail and the eventual disintegration of NATO will occur. If Russia moves to take over Ukraine, what options does the United States have? It is not likely that at this point in time that NATO has the ability to keep Russia out of Ukraine. Where is Russia most vulnerable? The clear answer is in Syria. Syria has both economic and military significance to Russia. If Syria were to fall to the United States, the military and economic loss would be catastrophic, not the least, would be the loss of Syrian ports. Russia’s prudent course of action would be to continue to erode the US economy by its relentless attacks upon the Federal Reserve and the Petrodollar. However I do not foresee the Federal Reserve banksters are going to continue to let this happen as the dollar erodes. Subsequently, when Ukraine falls, Syria and possibly Iran will be attacked by the United States. The provocation will likely be a false flag event within the United States in which the Syrians are falsely implicated. Remember the Heartland Theory, it also predict the second front of the coming World War III. Along these lines, Putin will attack Alaska if the United States attacks Syria. This is how a cold war can turn hot in a hurry. If you do not believe me, just ask the Polish as they have begun mobilizing for war. DHS just began a martial law lock down drill yesterday which will last for nearly a month. Ask yourself, what do these people know that you do not? Again, I want to caution people to stock up on supplies. If a false flag event does occur, your ability to resupply could be seriously imperiled.