All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March
***
The father of the Argentine Constitution, Juan Bautista Alberdi, in his work “The Crime of War” (1870), states:
“There can be no just war, because there is no judicious war. War is the temporary loss of judgment”. He adds that “wars will be rarer as responsibility for their effects is felt by all who promote and invite them.”
This is anticipated in almost a century at the end of the nuclear escalation that had its turning point in the Cuban Missile Crisis and culminated in the signing by Kennedy and Khrushchev of the Nuclear Test Suspension Agreement (1962) and the implementation of the Doctrine of Peaceful Coexistence, continuing the stigma of the Cold War until the end of the 20th century with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
However, the Anglo-Jewish axis would be preparing a triple war scenario that would cover practically the totality of terrestrial cartography and would be triggered simultaneously in the spring and summer of 2024, leaving Latin America as an islet in a muddy ocean.
The avowed goal of the globalists led by Soros and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) would be the implementation of the New World Order (NWO), which would imply the recovery of the US role as world gendarme following the Brzezinski Doctrine.
However, the isolationism of the possible new president of the USA, Donald Trump, would be a missile in the line of flotation of the military-industrial-complex that has outlined for the next quinquennium the recovery of the role of the USA as world gendarme through an extraordinary increase in US military interventions abroad to recover Unipolarity on the global geopolitical board.
Is World War III Inevitable?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book “Between two ages: The role of the United States in the technotronic era” (1971), indicates that
“the era of rebalancing world power has arrived, power that must pass into the hands of a new global political order based on a trilateral economic link between Japan, Europe and the United States”.
Such a doctrine would imply the subjugation of Russia and China and include the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the US using Trident II missiles against vital Russian and Chinese targets in the event of the Third World War being declared.
Thus, the Republican candidate Donald Trump said in his networks that
“we have never been so close to World War III” and that there must be a “total commitment to dismantle the neo-conservative globalist power group responsible for dragging the world into endless wars”.
Also, in a speech delivered at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the futurible Republican candidate stated:
“I am the only candidate who can make this promise: I will avoid the Third World War”, while denouncing the “excessive amount of weapons currently circulating in the world”.
Consequently, Trump’s victory in the Presidential elections of November 2024 would be a missile in the line of geopolitical interests known as “Club of the Islands” with assets close to 10 trillion € and whose visible head would be the financier and expert designer of “color revolutions” George Soros.
NATO vs Russia
The Ukrainian conflict would have meant a return to the Cold War between Russia and the United States and a return to the Doctrine of Containment, whose foundations were laid out by George F. Kennan in his essay “The sources of Soviet behavior”, published in the journal Foreign Affairs in 1947 and whose main ideas are summarized in the quote
“Soviet power is impervious to the logic of reason but very sensitive to the logic of force”.
This would include the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO military structures and the increase of military forces with four new battalions deployed on the European border with Russia and the Russian response to the installation of missiles in Belarus Iskander-M equipped with multi-purpose warheads as well as S-40 anti-aircraft missiles following the dynamics of the Cold War (action-reaction).
For their part, Russia would have installed in Kaliningrad the Iskander-M missiles equipped with multi-purpose warheads as well as S-400 anti-aircraft missiles and in the event of NATO closing the exit of the Soviet enclave of Kaliningrad to the Baltic Sea, could be reissued the Kennedy-Khrushchev Missile Crisis (October, 1962) which would have as its epicenter Kaliningrad.
However, the loss of congressional control by the Democrats after the midterm elections in November meant the end of the arms aid to Ukraine, the increase in the US’s thorough tracing of such weapons to prevent their passage to the black market in addition to a growing wave of political disaffection with Zelensky that would cover the entire US political spectrum.
From the above, it follows that a Republican victory in November 2024 would represent the sunset of the Atlanticist strategy of Biden and Soros determined to defend Putin from power, the signing of a peace agreement in Ukraine and the return to the Doctrine of Peaceful Coexistence with Russia.
This would mean the enthronement of the G-3 (USA, Russia and China) as “primus inter pares” in world governance and the end of the obsessive dream of the globalists headed by Soros and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) to achieve the Balkanization of Russia, “the white whale that globalists have been trying to hunt for decades”.
With the US immersed in the electoral campaign for the November presidential elections, France, Poland and the United Kingdom would be the trident chosen by the globalists to implode the Ukrainian front next spring and provoke the subsequent entry of NATO into open conflict with Russia of a re-elected Putin until 2030.
NATO vs Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
The Kissinger Doctrine advocated the implementation of the G-2 (US and China) as world referees.
Thus, in an article published by the New York Times, entitled “The occasion for a new world order”, Kissinger already considers China a great power (fellow superpower), discourages protectionism or treat China as an enemy (which would turn it into a real enemy). It also calls for relations between the United States and China to be raised to a new level on the basis of the concept of common destiny, (following the model of the transatlantic relationship after the Second World War), which would see the enthronement of the Pacific Route (America-Asia) as the world’s main commercial axis to the detriment of the Atlantic Route (America-Europe).
However, the Pentagon’s unequivocal objective would be a confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001 by the Shanghai Five (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) to which Uzbekistan was subsequently added, India, Pakistan and Iran and together with the ALBA countries would be the hard core of the resistance to the world hegemony of the United States and Great Britain. This organisation would have been strengthened after the visit to Moscow of the Chinese Defense Minister, Li Shangfu, in which he described the Russian-Chinese military relations as “strategic” while stressing “the need for an alternative security strategy to NATO”, symbolized in the SCO.
China is fully aware that the strategic agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States known as AUKUS, symbolizes a change in global geopolitical cartography by moving the Atlantic scenario through the Indo-Pacific as the epicenter of the geopolitical pulse between the US and China. So the US objective would be to establish a nuclear crisis arc around China that would span from Indian Kashmir to Japan, passing through South Korea and the Philippines and closing the arc with New Zealand and Australia to deter China from its quest to dominate the China Sea, a US pre-emptive nuclear strike using Trident II missiles against vital Chinese targets in the event of a Chinese attempt to occupy Taiwan is not ruled out.
New War in the Middle East?
The signs of Biden’s senility, the fentanyl crisis, the high cost of living and the increase in citizen insecurity would have sunk Biden’s popularity to historic lows, which would facilitate the triumphant return of Donald Trump in the November presidential elections by having cleared the way towards the White House following the latest decisions of the Supreme Court.
However, Trumpian isolationism would be a missile on the waterline of the military-industrial-complex. In the next five years, the recovery of the role of the United States as a world gendarme has been outlined through an extraordinary increase in US military interventions abroad to recover Unipolarity on the global geopolitical board.
Thus, Israel’s invasion of Gaza would only be the tip of the iceberg of a secret agreement reached between Biden and Netanyahu in their effort to avoid delaying the elections in which they seem to be clearly losers.
According to the Plan, Israel and the US will proceed to the destabilization of Lebanon and Iran by expedited methods, which would mean the beginning of a great regional conflict that will mark the future of the area in the coming years and which would be the lifeline for Biden when the planned November elections in the US were suspended and for Netanyahu who would manage to dodge the trials and the possible indictment of crimes against humanity against the Gazan population.
Such a conflict could involve the three superpowers (US, China and Russia) counting as necessary collaborations with regional powers (Israel, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran) and would cover the geographical space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Israel, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia with the avowed aim of designing the cartography of the New Middle East favorable to the geopolitical interests of the USA, Britain and Israel.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Germán Gorraiz López is a political analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Tech Viral
