The stakes couldn’t be higher. 500 years of Western domination and exploitation are being challenged. If the proxy force fails, a “Tonkin” like event will be manufactured to justify direct NATO involvement. Surely China must see they are next should Russia fail. Why such halfhearted support?

Expand full comment

Well done Mark. I suggest all your readers turn the volume of the video up to max so you get the full effect of this highly crafted bit of warprop. The Yanks are getting desperate and the Industrial Military Complex needs to clean up.

the video


Expand full comment

p2. It is worth noting Australia is being developed as a regional military platform in preparation to participate in another US-led war, this time against China (and later Indonesia [W Papua to follow the E Timor partition format]). This process involves plans to increase the presence of US strategic aviation, US naval forces and US-UK nuclear attack class submarines. In addition to Australia being integrated into US-NATO operational planning and military operations (including in Ukraine), it is being integrated into an undisclosed expanding nuclear weapons sharing program (allied conventional and nuclear weapon strike potential through US missile delivery systems). Australia has already procured Mk-41 VLS (compatible with Mk-14 cruise missile launch canisters) for naval assets and the class of submarines Australia seeks to attain is not limited to being merely ‘nuclear-powered’. For example:

- “On the announcement of AUKUS, the three countries emphasized that the US and the UK would not only assist Australia in building nuclear-powered submarines, but also provide it with long-range precision-strike capabilities including Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Tomahawk is an offensive nuclear-capable weapon.....” (AUKUS sub deal could involve transferring tons of weapons-grade nuke material: Chinese report, GlobalTimes [China], Jul 20, 2022)

In addition to Australia being an involved belligerent in the Ukraine conflict, Australia is playing a key role in the formation of military alliance structures (AUKUS, QSD, RAA, CSPs, etc.) as part of war preparations and is openly advocating for allied economic-financial warfare operations to ‘cripple’ the Russian economy. In the process, Australia is already a legitimate target in certain war scenarios while its increasingly hostile actions invite appropriate (symmetrical or asymmetrical) responses (Australian cyber warfare operations can also be adequately responded to). If more advanced stages of war in time develop (as US-NATO-allied bloc escalations are moving towards), Australia should be considered (by the military commands of Russia and China) an integral part of offensive US-NATO-allied bloc military architecture.

Expand full comment

I would suggest WW3 has been gradually unfolding for some time (being the incremental/sequential format of the globally expanding wars of the US-NATO-allied bloc that have progressed to an active conflict against Russia and soon China, the DPRK, Iran, etc…, the hybrid warfare domain active and intensifying, moving towards direct kinetic stages of conflict). For example:

- "Speaking to a group of college students on 2 April, 2003, former CIA Director Woolsey revealed, "...the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years." Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war. He then said "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War." (Wikipedia: R. James Woolsey, Jr., Director of Central Intelligence , February 5, 1993 - January 10, 1995) [Note: The Cold War was not a military (kinetic) conflagration and does not qualify as WWIII as Woolsey believes.]

Indeed, for many analysts it is common knowledge the US-NATO-allied bloc war against Russia precedes similar forms of warfare against China. The US is replicating the Ukraine format (integration into offensive allied military-missile architecture) in relation to Taiwan. It is a matter of logic the eventual outcome will be the same (war). When limits of restraint are again exceeded (the developing offensive potential becomes an unacceptable treat), a response will be forced. In this context it would be prudent for the military commands of Russia and China to enhance their coordination (including of their strategic forces for certain scenarios) and the reciprocal reconfiguration of supply chains (for war scenarios). Importantly, the conclusion of a world war in a nuclear era is self-evident (being not human extinction but an event that would eclipse all previous wars). Russia and China need to evaluate their joint operational planning for such scenarios.

Expand full comment