What Might World War III look like? Part 3

Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here, this post will center on the nitty gritty and attempt to examine BRICS namely Russian, Chinese, and Iranian likely response.

First, we have to acknowledge Russia is a defacto two continent conventional warfare power stretching from Europe to Asia whose economic and military alliances stretches into South America and North America. China is a compact Asian conventional warfare power who considers its revolution inconclusive until Taiwan is brought to heel (Think Nanking) that’s the basis of the 1-China policy. China’s economic and military pacts expands to Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. Their neighboring allies and buffer zones are Eastern Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Second, Governments who initialize public-private mergers’ security is under the arm of Command-Control of that nation’s military forces. For example, China’s public-private mergers’ security is under an arm of the People’s Liberation Army. I forget the name of Russia’s such arm off hand. This is rather old school espionage that should be rather apparent to such old institutions as MI6 and CIA and even Mossad. MI6 trained them both, and MI6 has a lot of documentation history on the Great Game when Anglo-Russia sought influence in Iran during the Colonial Era.

Third, the generic definition of a world war is a war expanding 3 or more continents, so Russia, China, and Iran possessing mutual defense pacts with Syria and in economic treaty provisions that began in 2009 that war expanding 3 or more continents escalates rapidly given the balance of power of economies, economic pacts, military pacts, and military positioning.

Classically, what you want to do is position your forces into a battle that places the war in your favor. In the Modern Era, this first and foremost means you don’t want to appear to be the aggressor as much as possible; this means your positioning is more likely economic options as Embargoes, Sanctions, and other forms of currency/trade war footing (Yes, it means outright that concerns over a currency or trade war are rather pointless; we’re already in a currency and trade war). If you’ve managed to economically out-maneuver your rival, you force them to make very unpopular solutions, and they may opt to attack. If that’s the case, your mutual defense pacts activate, and you’re golden. If not, your rival out-maneuvers you; you’re forced to react instead.

Over the last couple of days, I’m sure that I’m not the only one who read posts as:





And as:



We also already have some of Russia’s, China’s, and Iran’s response who each possess mutual defense pacts with Syria and operating within Syria.



Bare in mind, the alleged ‘forewarning of attack’ was utilized by using the Russo-US aerial coordination developed to prevent misunderstandings and thus escalating tensions has been suspended indefinitely, and Russia and China have doubled down on their presence in Europe and Eastern Med by Russia and Horn of Africa by China.

The indication is clear that Russo-Sino is gearing to conduct an economic strike:
-They can impose a embargo of their own forcing the Eurozone to double down on seeking a bypass on the geographic choke-points of the Horn of Africa and Strait of Homez to link and decouple its dependency on Russian oil-gas imports with OPEC members of the Arabian Alliance.
The result can be optimistically $20 Dollars per gallon in the US and even worse in Europe.

-China can pump and dump its oil imports from Saudi Arabia (Chair of OPEC last I looked), and China became its prime importer around 2011 or so.

-China’s AIIB banking system is designed to further pressure repudiating the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency status is doubled down.

These actions effectively bursts the US GDP bubble, and the US will likely pursue severe austerity or war and rationing if Trump’s reversal and contrast to Hillary Clinton who as Secretary of State promoted regime change in not only Libya but also Syria is any indication.

If you’re wondering, why wouldn’t they react to a message amounting to ‘hang together or most assuredly hang separately’; the answer rests in their military makeup. The US’s military focus is regionally focused by unconventional warfare as unconventional warfare geared over decades transitioned from incorporating unconventional elements to full-fledged occupation operations to combat insurgency, militia, terrorism, and the like, so this requires seeking a regionally focused battleground that enables the US to seek rapid decisive victory. In Russia’s and China’s case, their conventional warfare focus gives them the advantage in spreading the US and its allies as NATO thin through multiple regions. This also states out the door that when they activate their pacts; it won’t be decoupled of a coordinated simultaneous assault.
Lets focus on the easiest verifiable information:
-North Korea invades South Korea and bombs US installations in Japan.
-China invades Taiwan finishing their unfinished revolution and bombs US installations in Japan.
-China’s Militarized Islands bomb Singapore and TPP signer’s hubs including South Korea.
-China and Pakistan invade Afghanistan
-Russia, Syria, Iran, China mop up ISIS and Syrian rebels and pincers Afghanistan from the west.
-Russia invades Baltic, Scandinavia, and Poland. Reinforces Eastern Ukraine against Ukraine’s Coup government from the south via Crimea.
-Russian Kalingrade (west of Poland) strikes Frankfurt, Germany, Munich, Germany, and other manufacturing-production hubs. Replenishment rates becomes a major factor.
-Russia, China, Iran bombs Bahrain and Saudi Arabian oil wells.


By responding economically, they don’t appear to be the aggressor, and it’s to their advantage for US and its allies to spread itself out over several regions particularly crossing into multiple continents.

Now, we enter into recent memory of the Bio-Chemical attack in Syria, and the investigation into the possibility Russia played a role that is based on the presumption Assad using Bio-Chemical weapons are guilty until proven innocent (note that conquest-guilty until proven innocent catalysts of open borders that utilizes suspicion as probable cause even based on statistics to demographically profile criminality-terrorism). Why does this matter so much? Syria like Libya, like Iraq, like Afghanistan, and etc are regime change operations that bypass what happened in the Korean and Vietnam Wars both of which the US got its butt handed to them through rules of engagement and lack of support domestically in the US. In Korea War’s case, the US overran North Korea, and China entered the fray forcing the stalemate induced cease-fire that remains today. The problem being bypassed is Responsibility to Protect that mandates if aid is given must be granted to the ‘Established Government’ not ‘deemed legitimate government’ constituting it as a war-crime otherwise to do so under false pretenses is a premeditated war-crime.
To put it another way, the only way to bypass Responsibility to Protect is to utilize either Hawkish WMDs or Dovish Humanitarian Crisis to justify regime change that enables old school espionage methodologies to justify regime change bypassing Responsibility to Protect.

Now, lets rationalize the attack:
1). Syrian rebels state Assad has been utilizing terrorism as governance against those seeking his ouster.
2). The Chemical agents were deployed by the Airbase whose warehouses/storage facilities were targeted that housed the bio-chemical weapons.
3). The bio-chemical weapon aerosols deployment radius directly correlates to their height in the atmosphere of deployment, and the attack placed the deployment at its minimal radius deployment towards ground level.
4). Assad’s regime was going into a peace talks coming up with Syrian rebels and ISIS at a disadvantage even though alleged moderates as Free Syrian Army leadership early in the war stated the brunt of their fighting force are ISIS fighters.
5). Russian involvement is now being investigated.

I am compelled to doubt it as the entire premise centers on bypassing Responsibility to Protect through Hawkish WMD and Dovish Humanitarianism to attempt getting a UN Resolution after a fait accompli.

Assad is backed by a mutual defense pact with Russia, Iran, and China if Assad’s regime did it; they’re military response would have been in full swing (look above) resulting in the decimation of the global economy and presenting a direct challenge to the US and its allies. We know this based on abroad analysts of the fall of the Soviet Union. What they’re doing is letting the US outrun their supply lines and over extend themselves, this also requires doubling down on the perception the US being the sole superpower makes the US the sole power to pursue expansionist, guilty until proven innocent, and otherwise let Absolute Power Corrupt Absolutely.

We as a populace must be very predictable by Anti-Trump, Never Trump, and Trump proponents, but I have to say that they sure do know how to divide and conquer. Isn’t that after all the point of espionage is to divide and conquer through subversion and corruption especially during peace time?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s