Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

This post dilates upon one titled
Grand National Strategic Objective: Colonize And Culture-Splice
and dated 28 January 2014.

The Three Brothers Doctrine series of posts is available here.

 

Time has run out on Cold War, Neo-Con, Progressive, Globalist and Caliphist assumptions regarding and hopes for geo-strategy.  We need a New World.  Saints and Sages pray for a New World.  Even more fundamentally, a New Being.  She — a New World — is aborning from a New Being of God.

The end of the ways of God is corporeality.
Friedrich Christoph Oetinger

This discussion takes geography, history, geo-strategy, national security, national strategic goal and all related topics as the corporeality of God.  I use the terms New Being, New World and New Being of God to mean just that.  For me, the Divine is concrete, always concrete, or if one prefers, corporeal.  God is mysterious and tangible, even to Saints and Sages, and never vague or spectral.  The Church has enshrined this great truth in the creeds of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451).  The dimensions of the inorganic, the organic, the psychic, the spiritual and the historical are the Divine Person, or as The Church denominates, The Body of Christ.  And that means everything occurring in those dimensions, including the struggles of religion, culture and morality.

A new New World is wanted.  Rightly so.

As in 15th Century Europe, assumptions and expectations of leader cadres, and therefore of citizens, face away from truth, from simple facts of life, which is simple.  So, vast unhappiness, rampant uncertainty and near universal weakness visit themselves upon individuals, families, organizations, communities, regions and nations, despite efforts by them to mask their disquiet.

A system rots from its head.  The rotting head of a system, if it has a worthy past, merits time, energy and money spent to restore it, to expand it and/or to multiply it.  The head of the extant geo-strategic system merits new software in a new hardware array, to use a modern metaphor.  It merits a New World of thought, aspiration and action.  And that starts with a cold, hard, ruthless look at facts.  Not dreams, not ideals, not principles, not visions, not policies, not hopes, not values, not plans, not expectations, not desires, not impulses, not ideologies and most certainly not votes.  FACTS … PHENOMENOLOGY … REALITY.

The structure of the New World that is, in fact, palpably aborning, is the reunion of three brothers: USA, Russia and India.  These three brother nations, together, are Vanguard and Regulator of the New World.  Their individual sovereignty and security needs govern the globe.  They are of the same family.  Their grand national strategic goals brace one another.  Their national characters amplify one another. India is high-minded.  USA is pure.  Russia is triturating.

These three belong together.  They are of one family and that with plenary authority to shape the corporeality of the Divine Person.

Around these three brothers stand nations allied with them and with each other.  These include, in order of importance to the three brothers:

1- Nations of the Intermarium: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Belarus, Finland.  See this analysis at StrategyPage:  Leadership: The Forlorn Fourteen Seek Salvation

2- Nations of Central and East Asia: Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia

3- The other four members of Five-Eyes: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain

4- Pacific nations: Japan, Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia

5- African nations: Morocco, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Ethiopia

6- American nations: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Mexico

7- Middle Eastern nations: Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Syria

A complete, new national strategic alliance system is aborning because such is radically needed.  The old world’s linkages are arcing everywhere.  The new world’s founding members are USA, Russia and India.  Current market distortions — such as Apple’s operations — are birth pangs signaling a reunion of those three brother nations.

The Christ of history is the New Being of God, and among contemporary phenomena, that means The Three Brothers: India, United States and Russia.  These three sovereign nation states are the corporeality of God today reestablishing Dharma, concretizing Jesus the Christ, re-forming Christianity and Hinduism, protecting the righteous and punishing evil doers.

(Re-formation of Christianity entrains re-formation of Islam, which derives from Christian desert monastic prophets.  Re-formation of Hinduism entrains re-formation of Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, which derive from the Vedic Spring.)

The salient feature of, the decisive fact regarding, the early centuries of the Christian Era is not the so-called Fall of Rome (a febrile fiction written by a socialist ideologue) but the Rise of Christianity (a concrete fact driven by the New Being of God in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit of God as Christianized Greco-Roman civilization).

Protected Or Unprotected

Everyone wants to feel protected.  More fundamental than any other yearning is the yearning to feel protected.  This yearning drives people to transcend themselves and their world, whatever it is — all known to be transient and mutable — towards reunion with a base that is immutable and permanent.  You could say it is the desire to go home.  Real home.  Home that knows you no matter how long you have been away, where everyone remembers your name … and you theirs.

The first order of statecraft, therefore, is to give the people of one’s nation, those for whose welfare one is responsible and answerable, the feeling of being protected.  They know the protection statecraft can give them can be neither permanent nor total.  They are not stupid.  But they also are not about to settle for less than the protection, such as it is, that statecraft can give them.  And they can see when they receive less protection than is or could be available to them.  Such a sight fills people of a nation with righteous wrath.

The second order of statecraft is to regulate inter-state affairs in the direction of protecting nations friendly to or allied with the history-shaping nations of the era, which today and for long into the future are the three brothers: India, USA, Russia.  Think of it the way parents [should] pick friends for their family: welcome those who protect your family and shun those who do not.

It is not rocket science.

The Protection Of Women

Basically, everyone takes protection to mean they keep their independence as a family and a nation state or geo-cultural affinity group of some estimable size.  One is protected when one does not have to bend the neck to a conqueror, domestic or foreign.  In vivid colors (also here), protection means a man is not forced to abide his mother, wife, daughter, sister, aunt or female cousin being raped or stolen by other men.  The question of protection is first, last and always the question of the safety of a family’s and a nation’s women.  Everyone knows that.

Protection Through Independence

The way to protect someone, person or group, is to grow their independence.  This is how parents protect their children and nations their citizens.  It is how nations protect themselves and one another.

Distributed authority, which is to say, many nodes of independent action, strengthens large systems.  Centralized authority, which is to say, few nodes of independent action, weakens large systems.  Small systems, of course, require few nodes of independent action.  But a nation state is a large system.  Any group more complex than a young family is a large system.

A nation guarantees its safety, therefore, by distributing nodes of strong independence within itself.  In the same way, an array of nation states protects itself by growing the independence of its members.

The thought that a single nation or an array of nations will strengthen by adopting a specific form of government — for example, USA-style republican government — distorts the truth of expanding protection by growing independence.  Republican government — and par excellence USA-style republican government — is not the only form of government capable of protecting a nation by growing its independence.  It is the form of government USA Americans adopted, use and adapt, and probably always will be, but that does not mean everyone else can, should or must.

Maybe someone wants to adopt a republican form of government.  Fine, let them to it.  But no one has replicated USA-style republican government in over 200 years of their watching it operate.  No one can.  Not a few have thought they tried.  Others wanted to.  They cannot.  Only the USA’s aggregation of geography, religion and language allows USA-style republican government.

So this missionary zeal to export American democracy — and USA America is not a democracy, it is a republic, Thank God! — is wrong, forlorn, idolatrous and ultimately evil.  If someone wants to adopt a republican form of government, fine, let them, encourage them, help them, but do not insist they make it USA-style because they cannot.  Only USA Americans can do that, for themselves, a blessing of their geography, religion and language.  Only USA Americans have the formal and functional conditions necessary for USA-style republican government.  Others have to make their own.

Modern Estonia illustrates the phenomenology of protection through independence.  Modern Poland, too.

The National And Inter-National Goal

Quiet.  That’s the goal.  Quiet.

Removing obstacles obstructing self-driven individual expansion and group affiliation produces quiet.  Control freaks plot to nudge individuals and groups into behavior preordained by control freaks.  They hate Calvin for saying God does that.  (God does not do that and Calvin never said He does.)  Control freaks produce disquiet.  Removing obstacles in front of individuals and groups produces quiet.

Inter-nationally, quiet is produced by the three brothers (India, USA, Russia) removing obstacles to the independence of nations of interest to them.  That would be, in principle, all other nations.

National Security Through Distributed Independence

The three brothers’ security correlates directly with the independence of nations resting against their strategic frontiers, their national defense lines, the termini ad quem of their national sovereignty.

The USA classically sets her western strategic frontier (national defense line) at the east coasts of Asia and her eastern strategic frontier (national defense line) at the west coasts of Europe and Africa.  She builds littoral combat ships to protect those frontiers and open-sea battle groups to protect the wet stuff between them and the home country.  She is a once-vassal who revolted successfully to establish her independence.

To the north and south USA classically practices protection through independence: she fosters strong, independent nation states north of the 49th parallel and south of the Rio Grande.  Having strong, independent nations in her near abroad has served long and amply to protect the USA.  This principle and method of statecraft is replicable elsewhere.  It does not depend on origin in a base of USA-style republican government.  Classically, USA sets her northern strategic frontier at the northern littorals of Canada and Alaska and her southern strategic frontier at the southern littorals of Argentina and Chile.  This is called The Monroe Doctrine.

It is significant that China, with impunity, has punched through the USA western strategic frontier and into both the South and East China Seas.

India is protected by water on three sides and mountains on one.  Twice at least she held the globe as her vassal (the last time was about 3800 BC, the era of Lord Krishna).  She Has been conquered and vassaled twice.  She has absorbed and revolted in order to establish her independence.  She has the distinction of being the only nation, so far, to have defeated, officially, the Red Army.

USA Armed Forces defeated the Red Army in Korea — also in Vietnam — but USA civilian officials, partisans of the Red Army, relieved the General Officer, a 5-Star, who commanded the effort and declared, officially, an armistice rather than a victory.

I do not know where India places her strategic frontiers.  Her northern line would comprise the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas, I should think.  Her western line would comprise the southern littoral of Arabia and the eastern littoral of Africa.  Her eastern line would comprise the western littorals of Myanmar, the Malay Peninsula and Indonesia, perhaps even Australia, I should think.  India’s southern line would comprise … what? … a line just south of the Chagos Archipelago?  India’s only land threat lies to her north: China.

Russia is the brother with the least security by geography.  She has poor crop land and little of it.  She has rivers that do not interlink well for communication on interior lines.  She is bereft of strategically commodious warm-weather ports.  Her west is high-density, Latin Church genius.  Her south-west is mixed Latin Church, Greek Church and Moslem volatility.  Her near east is strongly Moslem.  Her far east is taiga, distance and the Yellow Horde — yesterday Mongol, today Chinese.  She has owned Alaska and Coastal Northern California.  She was not driven from these lands.  She sold them to the USA.  So she is a New World power as well as an Old World one.

Outside India’s once global reach, Russia has administered arguably the world’s largest geo-space by physical extent.  She is accustomed to distances and what they imply.

Russia has been a vassal as well as an independent nation and empire.  She has groaned under the grim brutalism of Talmudist Anti-Christianity (aka Communism).  She has groaned also under the fervent toleration of autocracy by the Greek Church, who, for dogmatic reasons, aids the government under which she lives.  She also, outside of Spain and India, is the world’s only nation to have integrated Christians, Talmudists and Moslems in one social fabric.  And outside of Spain, where at times Christians, Talmudists and Moors intermarried, Russia is the only nation, perhaps along with some of those of her near abroad, who has merged Christian, Talmudist and Moslem genetic sheafs.

Russia’s strategic frontiers are mind-bogglingly long, thick and complex.  Her northern defense line comprises the northern coasts of Finland, Norway, Greenland, Canada and the USA.  Her western defense line is arguable, wherein lies one reason for USA-Russia-India alliance, to replace argument with calm by ensuring Russia a secure western strategic frontier.  Her southern defense line, through the Intermarium and Caucasus to as far east as the Mongolian and Chinese north, also is arguable, wherein, again, a reason for USA-Russia-India alliance: to secure Russia’s southern frontier.  Her eastern strategic frontier lies on the east coast of Japan and the south coast of the Korean Peninsula.  The sheer size and complexity of Russia helps defend her, but not enough in today’s conditions of aerial and cyber envelopment.

Contemporary Russians reflect the effects of Soviet purges.  The intellectual orders were exterminated.  The crude orders survived.  Contemporary Russian language, therefore, is that of the gulags: profane, obscene, low and brutish.  Since a people’s abilities correlate directly with their linguistic erudition and elegance, which is to say precision, dealing with Russians now is not easy.  Since American language has been comparably dumbed-down, and by the same Communist brutalists, a difficult task lies ahead making alliance of the three brothers work.

The mission will succeed, one way and another.  Growing the independence of nations resting against the strategic frontiers of the three brothers, and especially the strategic frontiers of Russia, is the road to success.  I am certain this will be done in any case and that when done ’twere well it were done soon and deliberately with foresight, patience and determination.

The Goal (Again)

Quiet.  That’s the goal.  Quiet.

Inter-nationally, quiet is produced by the three brothers (India, USA, Russia) removing obstacles to the independence of nations of interest to them.  That would be, in principle, all other nations.

Standing Firm

Russia is a hammer.  She appreciates an anvil.  She likes to build things, all kinds of things.  But to do that, her hammer must find an anvil under the item she is fashioning with it.  If an anvil is not under Russia’s hammer, she cannot build things, and that makes her angry, so she starts swinging her hammer just looking to find an anvil against which to fashion this or that.

The first thing Russia has to fashion is her border security.  We have noted the mind-boggling number and complexity of factors at play in accomplishing that.   She deserves respect just for making the effort.

The anvil Russia needs — physically, psychically and spiritually — is independent and non-aggressive nation states on her strategic frontiers.  With a GDP roughly the size of California’s, unreliable domestic food production, poor lines of internal communication relative to her size and a currently-crashing Christian demographic, Russia is in no condition to own all the nations across her strategic frontiers.  Even were she, doing so would be an irrational expense.  So would be buying their passivity, subduing them by appeasing them, in effect.  Best to foster those nations’ independence, their self-directed inter-national activity and therefore their calm and ease.  In addition, Russian technological development depends, in large part, on access to American and European innovation.  A restoration of Soviet-era geo-political configurations in Russia’s near abroad is economically irrational, militarily uncertain, at best, and ideologically insupportable.  A restoration of Tzarist-era imperialism is anachronistic and physically and ideologically unsupportable.

A new solution to the problem of the Russian defensive perimeter must be found.  This essay proposes for that solution a defensive perimeter of happiness by way of detachment in place of, as has been tried and failed, a defensive perimeter of grief by way of attachment.  And that guaranteed by an inter-national alliance of three brother nations: USA, Russia and India.  The new three-face, single-substance super-power.

Russia has to be made safe.  In addition, she has to be convinced that she is safer with her near abroad comprising strong, independent nations than vassals.  She knows she needs help.  So give it to her.  Guarantee the non-aggression of nations comprising Russia’s near abroad and join Russia — and India — in defeating Salafist Jihadism (Caliphism) and deflating Iranian Jihadism (Caliphism).   Then, with the Middle East and Africa quiet, the three brothers can turn to forging the answer to the world’s big problem: aggressive, hegemonic Chinese racism.

Towards the west, Russia’s radars train on the West Germanic tribes, the Franks: German and French.  Towards the south, Russia’s radars train on the Celto-Turkic and Persian tribes.  Towards the east, Russian radars train on Uralic-language speakers, the various Mongoloid descents and the Chinese and Japanese.  Towards the north, Russia’s radars train on Uralic-language and English-language speakers.  These are the threats Russia faces, anciently and/or modernly.

The threat to the west is most problematic for Russia.  To the east and somewhat to the south Russia has managed over centuries to build physical and conceptual structures for getting along amongst peoples of sometimes quite distinguished heritages.  Except for some Uralic-language speakers — Finns, north Norwegians and north Russians — Russia’s north is both independent and non-aggressive.  The worry is to the west.  Specifically, it is the Franks: French and Germans.  To date, Russia has conceived of lowering that threat by inviting or compelling states between Russia and the Franks into alliance with or subjection to Russia.  This physical, economic and political buffer against the Franks Russia calls her near abroad.  The Frankish tribes are the enemy.

Nations of the near abroad exist to protect Russia, the thinking goes.  That is unimaginative, unproductive thinking.  Her near abroad should protect Russia but does not exist to.  Existing for themselves, those nations protect Russia because they are strong and independent, which is to say, happy and quiet.

The unimaginative, unproductive thinking puts four nations — Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary — in cross-fire and three others — Ukraine, Croatia and Slovenia — on warning order.  Instead, they should be apprised of opportunities, to include themselves training radars on a shared enemy, the Frankish tribes.  Making that point and its constellation of implications is standing firm to historic Russian Imperial and Soviet habits of territorial, religious and economic hegemony.

Symbiosis And Bionics In Place Of Containment
Three Brothers In Place Of NATO

Russia is not an enemy to be contained.  She is a friend to be protected.  India, USA and Russia herself can do that and should.  Think of symbiosis and bionics rather than constraint, much less attack.  The plover and the crocodile rather than the bear and the cage or the crocodile and the zebra.  Kennan’s containment theory was not, in fact, a constraint model (bear and cage).  It was an attack model, crocodile and zebra, or, hunter and crocodile.  In military terms it would be called a cordon and sweep model.  Only, punches were pulled for the sweep bit and even the cordon bit rarely was complete.

India, USA and Russia each does well something that is important.  India has great patience and calm during conflict.  USA has great focus for what is right and what is wrong.  Russia has great strength to pound powers of being into useful instruments.  Councils of these nations, just them, would be lively affairs but very productive for general good as they see each others’ strengths and deploy them on the symbiotic and bionic models.  Instead of static lines, stasis, councils of these three brother nations would make dynamic, energetic arrangements that roll with circumstances, forging and being forged by the flux of life.  Their councils may be the quickest way to fold The United Nations, a true and truly tiresome vestige of non-existent circumstances, because the three brothers have independence and sovereignty and therefore ability and authority to define global conditions, even compel them.

USA has no mission with NATO.  NATO is a tool forged to deal with The Soviet.  The tool did its job.  The Soviet does not exist.  NATO has no mission as forged, therefore.  If Europeans wish to transform NATO into a Pan-European Armed Forces, that is their business.  USA has no reason to be involved with that.  In fact, Europe west of Poland and Hungary should be treated as an enemy of the USA, because, those nations (essentially, the Frankish tribes) are enemies of freedom and the essence of the USA is just that: freedom.

Proof?  Observe the EU.  Speculate Brussels.  QED.

The only circumstance in which NATO, transformed into a Pan-European military force, would concern the USA is that in which said Armed Forces march east — again — across Poland and Hungary towards Russia.  Then the USA should do what is necessary to protect Russia.

What They Have In Common

Let us enumerate things Russia, India and USA have in common, facets of their lives which commend their alliance for shaping global history, the corporeality of God.

1- Christianity

2- Anti-Salafist, Anti-Caliphist

3- No need of The United Nations

4- Seriously threatened by Chinese hegemonic racism

China is THE threat shared by the three brothers, one of the factors driving their allegiance alliance.  Also, the three brothers comprise the only possible geographical and economic triangulation against Chinese geographic and economic imperialism … and it is imperialism, not help to other nations.  The three brothers have China in cross-fire.  China is the principal enemy to world politics.  Caliphists are a bother, they have no industrial base or inclination and no cultural cohesion.  They should be silenced quickly and totally, and could be.  China is the problem, and the three brothers know it better than anyone else does.

5- Western Europe is an enemy of freedom

Moves Being Made And To Make

Russia is right to think of Western Europe (aka NATO) as a threat.  Historically inimical to freedom — preferring always to think ad pejorem rather than ad meliorem — Western Europe now also is welcoming a brutal totalitarianism — Islam — than which human experience knows no second.  Speculating that, Russia rightly feels threatened.  Poland and other Roman Catholic nations of Eastern Europe and the Intermarium buffer Russia against that hegemonic West European, West Germanic insanity (aka multiculturalism in one headline).

To protect their Russian brother from the West and North German tribes (German, French, Dutch, Scandinavian), USA, Russia and India should conceive a strategic defensive arc linking Tallinn, Gdansk, Prague, Salzburg, Milan, Monaco, Andorra and Bayonne.  The arc is concave to the west and north and convex to the east and south, contemplating an enfilade ability facing German, French, Dutch and Scandinavian advances over land, sea or air.   It is to be remembered that although the German tribes can descend into military insanity (and here), they can as easily descend into insane militarism (and here).  Be it also recalled that the German tribes have welcomed and attached to themselves now in perpetuity a cohort even more prone to military insanity and insane militarism than they are: the Salafist Jihad.  This strategic defensive arc contemplates, therefore, full-spectrum deployment by the three brothers of all three powers of statecraft: diplomacy, finance and war-making.  And as explored above, protection of the Russian brother rests on the vigorous independence of countries east and south the arc.

The vitality of nations is their value as protective strength of the world in new being around India, USA and Russia.  In this defensive scenario, Poland, Italy and Spain are especially important allies of the three brothers.  Their strong independence is desirable.

Incidents like this (also here) happen for one or both of two reasons: by mistake and by stupidity.  I suspect this recent fly-by counts at least mostly among the latter.  But that begs the question, why the stupidity?

Answer: because the conceptual structure (doctrine) of the Cold War is obsolete — Mitt Romney is dangerously wrong: Russia is a potentially very good friend and in any case no enemy — and has not been replaced by a self-evidently cogent conceptual structure (doctrine) comprehending current and best-foreseen conditions.  So stupid things are happening, all over.

Metaphor: electrons (negatives, energy, female principle) scatter-shooting around, chaotically, because protons (positives, structure, male principle) are absent.  Energy without structure is chaos (atomic bomb).  Structure without energy is tyranny (unleashed bureaucracy).

As successor to Cold War doctrine, I submit for consideration a grand international strategic structure called Three Brothers doctrine.  It contemplates a world-structuring allegiance alliance of India, USA and Russia.

Because of Chinese punch through USA’s western defense littoral, Vietnam has invited USA to position military stores in-country.  This is a stick in the eye of China, who deserves much more.  For example: a Marine Expeditionary Force on their new, China Sea man-made islands and two, at least, carrier battle groups on hand to sink or splash anyone who argued the point.  Absent that, China is setting up toll booths on and over the South and East China Seas for any kind of transit thereof.  And Formosa is next, the unsinkable aircraft carrier.  China’s moves are comparable to Japan’s occupying the Hawaiian islands in 1941 and thereafter.

Regarding quieting the Middle East, here are two addresses, parallel, to that question:

Law Of Expansion: How To Get A Handle On This Situation

If I Were King Of The Forest ….

Sane minds would walk the USA away from NATO and SACEUR.  Strategically, there is Ronald Reagan’s Soviet issue topping our day’s agenda.  And, sane minds would ally USA, Russia and India against, first, the Imams, and second, the ChiComs.  Grand strategically, there is the fundamental transformation indicated by the totality of circumstances presently faced.  I am a radical: back to the roots, the Monroe Doctrine for the era of electronics.

I favor smashing the rice bowl of anyone conceiving affairs as governed by the diplomatic, financial and/or military tools created to win WWII and the Cold War (WWIII).

This post continues at a new one:
Three Brothers Doctrine: Triple Allegiance Alliance

The Three Brothers Doctrine series of posts is available here.

Update 1: Moscow May Have To Open Third Front In Central Asia To Prevent Refugee Influx Into Russian Cities

Update 2: This statement by a Trump advisor is accurate:

On Monday’s Breitbart News Daily, Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller said this election represents “binary choice” that boils down to a decision of “nation-state versus globalism.”

Also this is true: two globalist cartels are extant, temporarily allied: Secular Oligarchs and Salafist Jihadists.  Both are puritanical hegemons.  Puritanism is the bane of humanity.  It is a mental weakness driving an adamantine morality, which is to say, conjuring the Devil.

Update 3: Amb. Crocker was well-respected during the surge.  He got along well with GEN Petraeus (unlike Amb. Bremer and LTG Sanchez) and then-LTG Odierno, the ground commander, under GEN Petraeus, during the surge.  Crocker was noted for personal courage.  He visited Iraqi neighborhoods on foot.

His “recent visit to the Middle East” may have been by telephone ….

His readings to the AC, as reported by Paul, are informative but not useful.  I did not watch the video.  His mind-set, as reported and supported by Paul, congrues with the use of obsolete Cold War assumptions growing in certain neighborhoods of legacy leadership.  For example Mitt Romney: Russia is USA enemy #1.

Russia, in fact, would jump at the chance to ally, truly ally, with USA to quieten the ME by silencing BOTH Salafist Jihadis (Sunni Wahhabists: ISIS, AQ, Moslem Brotherhood and their myriad of fronts) and Shiia Jihadis (Ayatollahs and proxies, far, far less numerous, funded and capable than Salafist Jihadis).

USA diplomacy would offer Russia more Mediterranean ports and offer to help them secure and expand them.  For example: Sirte, Libya and its related hydrocarbon assets.  There is no reason on God’s Green Earth why the world, and especially Christian Civilization, must be jerked around by Puritanical Moslems.  USA, Russia and India — Three Brothers Doctrine — will easily ally to accomplish that end.  Among [genuine] intellectual leadership there is unsurprising convergence upon that awareness.

Update 4: Michael J. Totten, as a bit wooly-headed, essayed importantly today under title Moscow On The Tigris: Russia Joins The Terror Nexus

I commented:

A proper transition to an inclusive and even quasi-civilized government in Damascus would first require the destruction of both the regime and the extremists, and right now no one is making any attempt to bring that about.

Point of fact, the Russians nearly have ISIS surrounded by severing his supply lines up against the Turkish border.  This essay does not discuss Turkey, a weakness of the essay.

But more than that, the final phrase of the quoted sentence contains the germ of the solution to the problem the essay puzzles over.  Putin already suggested the solution and the essay mentions that he did: alliance between Russia and USA to quiet the entire ME, for as long as it takes to do that.

Add India to the alliance — many and weighty reasons she would want that — and now three brother nations, India, USA and Russia, can jointly deliver the ME — and MENA as well — to whatever configuration suits their joint interests.

For example, offer Putin Sirte, Libya, as another warm-weather port and hydrocarbon asset.  With Sirte, he would triangulate the EU, who is an enemy of both Russia and the USA.  Restructure the whole MENA to support Indian, American and Russian national strategic goals.  That’s what power is for.  That is what Salafist Jihadis and Shiia Jihadis are trying to do to India, USA and Russia.

And get rid of Kennan’s Containment Doctrine.  In its place: Three Brothers Doctrine: expansion guided by grand national strategic goals of India, USA and Russia allied together.

One Turtler commented on mine above:

Point of fact, the Russians nearly have ISIS surrounded by severing his supply lines up against the Turkish border.

Then why is IS still receiving supplies?

Foreign Jihadists still make their way to the IS with very little trouble; and it should be considerably harder to get new recruits from outside the region entirely than to funnel supplies around within it.

This essay does not discuss Turkey, a weakness of the essay.

Agreed; suffice it to say my opinion on the Turkish government has never been high; this has just managed to sink it lower.

But more than that, the final phrase of the quoted sentence contains the germ of the solution to the problem the essay puzzles over. Putin already suggested the solution and the essay mentions that he did: alliance between Russia and USA to quiet the entire ME, for as long as it takes to do that.

The problem is that Putin IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN interested in an honest alliance with the US (Gorbachev maybe, but not Putin).

Remember how he and his diplomats threw a hissy fit over the West using Manas as a transit base, and threw the weight of their diplomatic leverage and PR against a place that was dedicated largely to shuffling supplies and wounded around?

I don’t know anybody who died because of that, but I do know people who knew people that have.  And that’s before outright backstabbing one of our allies in the MENA (Georgia) by attacking them while most of their top line military was deployed with us in Iraq.

That is not the actions of an ally. That is not even the actions of someone who could be an ally.

Add India to the alliance — many and weighty reasons she would want that — and now three brother nations, India, USA and Russia, can jointly deliver the ME — and MENA as well — to whatever configuration suits their joint interests.

Nice theory, but it’s also what was more or less tried for a good half century or so between the late 19th and early 20th century, when Britain dominated the Indian subcontinent and was looking to tone down The Great Game

It also didn’t work, precisely because no one configuration suits all three players. Russian interests are diametrically opposed to US and Indian ones.  Russia has historically wanted a warm water port on the Indian Ocean, a divided and turbulent Indian subcontinent, hegemony over Central Asia, and a divided and turbulent Middle East.  The added interest in high gas prices isn’t going to lessen that.

India wants its’ own back door secure (without the threat of Pakistani or Iranian apocalyptic nonsense) and access to Central Asia, while the US wants a stable Middle East (arguably too much so I would say) and dominance in the Persian Gulf.

It’s like positing that Napoleonic France and Georgian Britain could have ruled the world if they’d teamed up.   Which is both true and irrelevant; it misses the key fact that they had Very Separate interests and goals which effectively precluded them from Ever Working Together in this particular area.

For example, offer Putin Sirte, Libya, as another warm-weather port and hydrocarbon asset.

If you offer Putin an inch, he will begin stealing a mile.  Ukraine found that out the hard way when they renewed the Black Sea Fleet’s lease.  I don’t see any reason to do so here.

Offering an advantage to someone requires some level of trust that they will appreciate it, and not use it to back stab you.  Considering we are talking about an ex KGB spook who had NATO soldiers die because he could not STAND a transit center in territory he considered his lake, I have no reason to accord that trust to Putin.

With Sirte, he would triangulate the EU, who is an enemy of both Russia and the USA.

Hardly.

For as much of an enemy the EU may be, Putin is far worse of one.  France may have caused a stink but they haven’t denied our wounded access to facilities on their soil.

And so on.

The US and EU are far more allied than either has been with Putin.  That is a fact.

Restructure the whole MENA to support Indian, American and Russian national strategic goals.

As I stated before, one of those is not like the other.  Russia’s national strategic goals are diametrically opposed to the other two’s.

That’s what Salafist Jihadis and Shiia Jihadis are trying do to India, USA and Russia.

Wut.

Salafist and Shiite Jihadis are trying to form some kind of grand Indian/American/Russian alliance?

Your writing is not making a whole lot of sense.

And get rid of Kennan’s Containment Doctrine.

WHY?

It has served us far, far better than ANY of Putin’s promises, or those of his apologists.

In its place: Three Brothers Doctrine: expansion guided by grand national strategic goals of India, USA and Russia allied together.

Once again, I already slapped this down.

India and the US may ally with each other, but they will not ally with Russia.  Even at the height of Soviet-Indian relations it was hardly a full alliance.  And now with Russia’s gravitation towards China and hostility towards Indian policy in the Northwest that is dead.

This reads like the writing of someone who has never actually studied the history of the region, these three powers, or what they want.

I replied to Turtler:

Wut.

Salafist and Shiite Jihadis are trying to form some kind of grand Indian/American/Russian alliance?

My bad, too cryptic.  My point is, those Jihadis are trying to restructure USA, Russia and India — and their underlying Christian and Hindu religions.  And they will not back down until driven down.  So, do undo them before they do unto us.  Because upon the question of who is right and who is wrong, we (Latin/Greek Christianity) are right and they (Salafist/Shiia Islam) are wrong.

As for the rest of your comment, thank you for using the time and energy to rebut, point-by-point, my comment.  I feel honored that you did.

I have studied the history.  I am not bound by the history.  Nor, I think, should USA, Russian and Indian diplomatic, financial and military powers be bound by the history.  They should, and any time they screw up the courage they can, make history rather than recapitulate it.

We live in an era of new being.  That is arguably the salutary legacy of the current White House Occupier: that s/he and minions have so thoroughly ripped up legacy assumptions, procedures and networks of statecraft that opportunities, unexpected, for re-canalizing the vectors of grand national goal and strategy beckon the brave and studious.  Also, of course, the malign and impulsive.

Allow me to suggest an exercise: list interests, of all possible kinds, shared by USA, Russia and India.  Further, contemplate said list as viewed between brother nations rather than inferior/superior ones.  Finally, consider the vectors of diplomacy, finance and war fighting as converging rather than competing national assets.

I learned long ago that one certain about what can and cannot be done, should and should not be entertained, especially if they anchor their proclamations on historical records summoned for the purpose, affirms an occasion for conception exceeding their wishes and possibly their abilities.

The English of which is, please draw the curtains and open the windows.  The birds are chirping and the brooks are babbling.

Turtler replied:

My bad, too cryptic. My point is, those Jihadis are trying to restructure USA, Russia and India — and their underlying Christian and Hindu religions.  And they will not back down until driven down.  So, do unto them before they do unto us.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

And on this much I agree absolutely.

Because upon the question of who is right and who is wrong, we (Latin/Greek Christianity) are right and they(Salafist/Shiia Islam) are wrong.

And on that much I agree.  Though what about….saaaaay… the Bengali Moslems that the Pakistani government mass murdered by the hundreds of thousands out of a mixture of jihadist zeal and ethnic supremacism?  Where do they fit?

Ditto the Catholic Slovenes who were invaded by essentially the rest of the crumbling Yugoslav confederation under Milosevic in an attempt to force them into subjugation to Belgrade?

The Orthodox Ukrainians who have been belittled and even had their very existence downplayed by Russian imperialists (just look at Putin’s rhetoric)?

And of course this is before we talk about and ask the massive problems like the PRC and North Korea.  Who are neither Jihadist or even Moslem but also aren’t Christian.

The idea that the world can be divided neatly into two camps while ignoring all the tension and even active conflicts in them is naive to the extreme, and in this case it’s unworkable.

As for the rest of your comment, thank you for using the time and energy to rebut, point-by-point, my comment.  I feel honored that you did.

No worries, it is my standard procedure for it.  Glad you liked it.

I have studied the history. I am not bound by the history.

Everybody is bound by the history (I challenge any Ukrainian or Crimean who denies the genocidal enslavement that was conducted from 16th century Kaffa).  But that does not mean they are bound to only one future.

So the question is if someone is incapable of letting go of the past or burying the hatchet.  And I think it is fairly clear that Putin is such a man.

Nor, I think, should USA, Russian and Indian diplomatic, financial and military powers be bound by the history.

On this much I believe it should be cautious.  We are not obliged to defend France irrationally if France becomes a Jihadist state, and I think that is proper.  I also believe we should be open to possible openings.

But I do not think we should casually discard the lessons of history or the precedent established there, in part because it explains where we and the other players are now but also because it can teach us something.

As distasteful as I find much of the EU they are not our enemy (except perhaps in the extent they are their own worse enemy).  France does not show any indication that it wants to reconquer Canada or fight another Quasi-War, in large part because it was capable of changing from the past.

But the fact of the matter is that the Kremlin that rules over Russia is bound to stamping its’ boot over Eastern and Central European politics as heavily as it can, and is continuing a very nasty and very old brew of highly inaccurate propaganda (all propaganda is somewhat inaccurate, but while we can argue about the Iraq War being sold using exaggerated estimates we can not claim that the new Ukrainian government is simultaneously controlled by Neo-Nazis and Jews) and saber rattling.

That is not the kind of regime we can hope to court as a permanent ally except in very limited cases (like the pact between Stalin and the West during WWII).  Especially if they flatly deny our right to accept the allies that Did join with us as they have with the myth about No NATO Expansion.

I can certainly hope that Russia gets a better regime than it has now, and I do not expect that an allied Russia would have to sacrifice all of its’ own interests (for instance, even the most pro-Western Russian government imaginable would still benefit economically from high oil prices while the West would otherwise).

But I have no hope that Putin or his current regime will be an ally unless he has absolutely no other choice.  In which case we probably have far worse problems looking at us down a rifle scope.

They should, and any time they screw up the courage they can, make history rather than recapitulate it.

All choices make history, even the most derivative and repetitive.

But as for course, a lot of times it is not a matter of courage as much as it is a matter of other things.  It does not matter how courageous we are in being willing to hash out deals with the Iranian dictatorship or IS if the other side has absolutely no desire to deal with us or even allow us to exist.  We should have learned that before we screwed up with Iran.

Likewise, it doesn’t matter how courageous the General Secretary of NATO or the President of the US or the President of Ukraine is if the Kremlin still insists that the newly independent states of Eastern Europe had no right to join NATO voluntarily, denies the existence of the Ukrainian people as separate from Russia (as I stumbled across due to watching the new Taras Bulba and seeing how Putin was directly tied to it), and is more interested in playing chicken with the West than fighting mutual enemies, or will privilege the PRC over India.

Courage is valuable indeed in diplomacy, but courage alone does not bring victory.  Just ask the IJA.  It’s marrying courage to other things, like pragmatism, experience, and knowledge.

I do expect that if the Jihadis stopped committing pin-pick terrorist attacks and the hundreds of thousands of ambiguous refugees and started marching into Europe and India as part of a hundreds of thousands strong army of conquest with banners flying, the Kremlin would indeed sign on for the common cause out of self preservation.

But that would not be because of the bright new possibilities with the Kremlin, but because of the situation that everybody has to react to.

We live in an era of new being.

Agreed.

That is arguably the salutary legacy of the current White House Occupier: that s/he and minions have so thoroughly ripped up legacy assumptions, procedures and networks of statecraft …

I doubt it.

Because for as much as Obama and his cohort have tried, they really have not changed that so much. For instance, take a look at the map of NATO or the US’s Most Favored Nations at the start of Obama’s presidency, and take a look at it now.

They are basically the same, and not surprisingly.  By and large our allies are more disappointed at us and our enemies are emboldened, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of switching from category A to category B or even to Category Neutral.  There are examples, but not many and certainly not on this vast scale.

… the more that opportunities, unexpected, for re-canalizing the vectors of grand national goal and strategy beckon the brave and studious. Also, of course, the malign and impulsive.

Problem I see with this is that this was precisely the kind of thinking the sitting POTUS came to the table with.  We see it in the Nuclear Deal with the Tyrants of Tehran or the Castros.  That he had the courage and vigor to bridge the half century or so of chasms.

And it didn’t work.  For all the tactical interest the Guardian Council that has lorded over Iran may have in a temporary deal, they are still totalitarian Jihadists who want all of us dead, enslaved, or converted. While the Castros are still a rogue state in the Western Hemisphere dedicated to retaining power by any means necessary and demonizing their neighbors (especially the US) in order to justify the semi-permanent state of siege.

There is certainly room for change and evolution, but we cannot ignore the fact that we cannot change who Raul Castro is.  Pretending we can is not going to do us any favors.

Allow me to suggest an exercise: list interests, of all possible kinds, shared by USA, Russia and India.

I could probably list a fair number, but the problem is that it is not always *shared* interests alone that

Further, contemplate said list as viewed between brother nations rather than inferior/superior ones.

That has- or is supposed to be- the diplomatic norm since Versailles, and certainly since the fall of the Soviet Union.  A world where the nations of the world have multiple forums to discuss, where the votes of Belgium or Georgia or Cambodia can matter as much (or nearly as much) as those of the United States or Russia; and where each nation is meant to forsake spheres of influence and imperial ambitions regarding things like coastal waters.

And in many ways that is why the EU and even Mercosur- for all the massive messes they are- have turned their continents into the least bloody and contentious they have been in their history, even factoring in the massive illegal alien invasion in the former and terrorist groups like FARC in the latter.

It was obviously not perfect, and every single one of the major powers has had some violations on it’s hands (including the US and India).  But by and large?  It has succeeded.  That is why a divided and ravaged Germany (especially poor Eastern Germany) was able to unite in spite of objections from no less than Great Britain, Panama has the canal that bears its’ name, and nations like Switzerland and Sweden can exist- neutral, outnumbered, and independent- in the center of alliances like they never could have before.

The problem with this picture is not what has been accomplished or the concept, it’s that a good chunk of the bigger players not only refuse to admit it, but aggressively reject it.  Russia being one of the key ones; and you can even see it with the rhetoric used openly by Putin’s government (like with the PRC).

Russia had a chance to enter a brave new post-Cold War world where it would no longer have to fear war from the West or tensions with its’ neighbors (at least in the West or Caucasus front).  And for a while it looked like it would work.

But it didn’t, in large part because of the rise of people like Putin who flatly reject the very concept of a brotherhood of nations without superiors or inferiors.  And that is why Kennan’s assessment still rings true today, even compared to what Kennan himself thought.

If Putin’s Russia can have only vassals or enemies at its’ borders and some of those that border it are allies of the US and India (or others), how do you resolve that dilemma?

Finally, consider the vectors of diplomacy, finance and war fighting as converging rather than competing national assets.

They both converge and compete, so I would agree with caveats.

I learned long ago that one certain about what can and cannot be done, should and should not be entertained, especially if they anchor their proclamations on historical records summoned for the purpose, affirms an occasion for conception exceeding their wishes and possibly their abilities.

The English of which is, please draw the curtains and open the windows. The birds are chirping and the brooks are babbling.

And I have learned long ago that elegant words and ornate prose have their own merits, but those merits do not translate into logical merits.  A case is just as valid as if it is argued as beautifully as poetry or as crudely as *uck.

What matters are the merits of the case at hand.

And the fact of the matter is simple.

The European Union is not our enemy.

The Russian Kremlin under the rule of Vladimir Putin is.

Putin is not even remotely interested in an alliance with the West against Islamist totalitarianism, he showed that hand very clearly when he gave supplies to Iran (capitol of Shiite Islamism today) and Assad (a secular sponsor of them).

He is also not interested in a brotherhood of equals, as we see with his extortion of virtually every country on his nation’s borders and his invasion of several of them.

What he is interested in is forcing the world to recognize Russia as a Great Power which has a cemented dominance over virtually every place in Russia’s neighborhood.

That is not a power that can be allied with on its’ merits, it is not a power that can be trusted.

Perhaps Russia as a whole- and/or a new government of it- might.  But we have to work with the case as it is now.

And while the birds chirp and rivers gurgle, men and women are dying in absurd conflicts started and maintained on behalf of a Greater Russian Empire (that is quite literally why the separatists in Ukraine operate under the term Novorossiya, an ancient colonial frontier of Moscow’s) and propaganda is spewed from almost every outlet of the Kremlin’s media that skewers everything about your concept.

To which I replied:

Thanks for the good, fun and informative discussion!  At this point, I am going to be brief.

Russia IS a Great Power.  Treat her as such.  Despite a GDP roughly the size of California’s, and a cratering demographic — both transitory phenomena — Russia thinks like a Great Power, both politically and theologically (both Christian and Moslem), and has deep history of acting as one.  She has been both a vassal and a sovereign.  Her near abroad defensive arrangements are comparable to USA’s Monroe Doctrine, both in principle and in some particulars also in execution.

An ally does not have to be a friend.  In fact, sovereign nation states do not have friends.  They have opportunities, in exactly the way there is no security in this life, personal or corporate, only opportunities.

The goal of international association now is birthing embodiments of freedom.  Not democracy, freedom.  Not a form of government, a road of freedom.  Russia, India and USA are the Great Powers extant who can and would like to do that.  The other Great Power, China, is a slave state uninterested in freedom.

The proximate task is to quiet Salafist and Shiia Jihadis, and their sympathizers, pinning freedom to their backs with a bayonet if need be.  This is easier done than is said, especially with India, Russia and USA acting in concert at the points of decision (supply lines).

The main task is to quiet China, who has few sympathizers.  With China moving on Siberia and Russia, the Hindu Kush and Himalayan Region, Africa, Central and South America and the Pacific Ocean — and with no intention of promulgating freedom and every intention of promoting slavery — there is ample reason for the other Great Powers, USA, India, Russia, to ally against China, their only truly capable enemy modernly, and the only one disinclined fundamentally to freedom’s road.

[Note: The phrase freedom road is appropriated and sanitized, with gleeful shamelessness, from the Freedom Road Socialist Organizations(!).  In itself the phrase is felicitous, and, of course, those organizations, Communist to the core, contemplate nothing like freedom from its use.  It is always good to restore an artifact of human yearning for the Divine — Who is Freedom — from corrosion, corruption, dirt and diminishment by evil doers, in this case Communist morons.]

The battle is joined.

Update 5: See this geo-political analysis of Russia at StrategyPage:  Leadership: The Forlorn Fourteen Seek Salvation

Update 6: Andrew Bostom: Islam As An Ur Fascism, Or Islamo(fig leaf)fascism?

Update 7: Washington Compost: Turkey’s Predicament

Update 8: Richard Fernandez: Leadership Qualities Needed Now

Update 9: All the morons would have to do is offer to help Putin.  At least stand out of his way.

Update 10: Stephen M. Kirby: The Lure Of Fantasy Islam

Update 11: A major reason Russia would be happy to ally with USA and India

Update 12: Elizabeth, I could not agree more strongly with your and Laura’s analysis.  I would add, however, that powers of being in the nations, this one and others, will not suffer four more years of business as usual.  Rubio and Co. would try to make it, for sure, as you and Laura say.  They cannot succeed.  Forces afoot preclude their fattening themselves as they hope and design on the nation’s and the nations’ wealth.

Update 13: This is evergreen: YEP: After boasting for three years that he “ended” the Iraq War, [The Fraud] says it was Bush’s fault.

Update 14: Globalization of commerce is not globalization of government.  Globalization of government is DOA.  Here, though not fully written out, yet, is a framework for what the future likely holds: Three Brothers [nation states] Doctrine to replace Containment Doctrine.

Update 15: To be pondered with reserved skepticism: Spengler: The 30% Solution: When War Without End Ends

Update 16: This is rambling and tendentious in the wrong direction, and also not entirely accurate or useful, but a worthy read: Analysis: What Russia’s Military Withdrawl From Syria Means For Fight Against ISIS, Assad Regime

Update 17: From 2005, anticipation of the three brothers doctrine: Dimensions And Trees Rather Than Levels And Layers: A New Era, No Parallel To The 1960s

Update 18: This has been a long fall from Ronald Reagan.

I cannot agree. I prefer something like: this has been a long and lonely road since RR.

RR fought his day’s battles and mostly won them.  He also did severe damage: S&L crisis, a warm-up for the 2008 liquidity crisis (also under a Republican admin, though GWB did warn about it, to stopped ears and shut eyes in Congress).  And RR stupidly, ignorantly put US troops in harm’s way in the ME without answering mass murder of them.  He didn’t see beyond The Soviet, but he got them right, and dead to rights.

Since RR — and even before and during — other monsters arose, snorting fire and smoke aplenty, domestically and overseas. Moslem Brotherhood was already embedded in RR’s White House (Grover Norquist, who remains there, along with MB operatives now deeply embedded in each Branch of the US Government).

Public morals and academic standards are violently ripped up since RR’s day, when already they were in shreds.

So, new or orders of magnitude greater threat vectors (to national sovereignty, solvency and supremacy), and overall and throughout, regnant, insolent, imperious and sanctimonious globalism of two distinct types temporarily allied.  Even RR believed in World Citizenship transcending national loyalty.

This is not a fall.  It is an array of developments.  The difference is consequential.  The fall, if you must, is The Fall: the passage from essential unity to existential alienation.  What we face is simply the age-old responsibility to keep the heart and the home clean.

I’ll vote for any candidate who promises to walk the USA away from NATO and SACEUR.  Strategically, there is the RR Soviet issue topping our day’s agenda.  And, any candidate who promises to ally USA, Russia and India against, first, the Imams, and second, the ChiComs.  Grand strategically, there is the fundamental transformation indicated by the totality of circumstances presently faced.

I favor smashing the rice bowl of anyone still conceiving affairs as governed by the diplomatic, financial and military tools created to win WWII and the Cold War (WWIII).

Update 19: Good News: Zoroastrian revival among Kurds

Update 20: Auspicious developments between India and Pakistan

Update 21: Sage words from Bing West at Hoover Institution: America The Weak.  I commented to a commenter:

Good point.  If I may try to clarify: President Bush and the Neo-Cons had no careful plan what to do after they overwhelmed Iraqi Armed Forces.  Gradually, they tracked with a concept that emerged I think from Hoover Institution originally (?): for ME quiet, replace USA reliance on ME dictators (some of them, anyway) with reliance on USA-installed democratic societies where dictators just had been.  The argument was, we’re more secure dealing with a democratically elected government than with a dictator. That argument is probably irrefutable.

However, making a democratically elected government rise in a former dictatorship is not easy, if possible at all.  I think only Japan has done that and then only under the very wisest possible facilitation by GOA MacArthur.  The Bush Doctrine was to develop mini-USAs with local color thrown in.  Rather naive.  And that, specifically, was the error at the base of the Bush Doctrine: a government of any kind does not come up on its own or even with outside help; it comes up only in, under, around and through the presence of a victorious domestic armed force.  A nation only builds up and out around its victorious army (armed forces).

As West says and implies, it would take 20 to 50 years of USA occupation to achieve an Iraqi armed force strong enough to guarantee the country’s independence and the safety of her government.  And meanwhile, as West also says, the occupying force should pick the leadership for the country it occupies.  It also is a military commander’s job (see SCAP in Japan), not a diplomat’s, to deem when that is accomplished (see heart-breaking battle between Bremer and Sanchez, because GWB/Neo-Cons did not grasp basics of statecraft, nation-building).  GWB and the Neo-Cons did not see these phenomena clearly.  Their successors do not want to see them and will not.  Occupation is phase two of war.

Overall, the way out of this mess now is to forge a fresh multi-national alliance structure — specifically India, USA and Russia — to include growing protection by growing independence.  Representative democratic (republican) government is not a universal good.  It works only in Christian civilization and in particular those blessed with a legal substrate of English Common Law.  Ergo, establishing such government in a non-Christian civilization is an irrational goal, QED.

Update 22: Natalie Nougayrède: Putin’s Long Game Has Been Revealed, And The Omens Are Bad For Europe

She gets the omens accurately, but her moral evaluation of them is faulty.  Overall, a very important essay.

Update 23: Leadership: The Key To The Baltics (Russia testing and training in Syria and Ukraine)

Update 24: Max Boot illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling class.  He wants to think as though it is 1945.  Says so!  And along the way he illustrates the same incapacity in that sanctimonious mountain of flesh named Walter Russell Mead.

Update 25: By this and so many other novel and dangerous developments, a complete, fresh international strategic alliance structure is indicated, forged from the common core of three brother nations: USA, Russia and India.

Update 26: Very interesting.  A thought I had from this: depending on how it’s done, rooting out evil can cost more than the destruction evil perpetrates; in such a case, therefore, there must some measuring means other than cost/benefit analysis that compels movement to root out evil in preference to joining or tolerating it.

Probably has lessons for facing down this generation’s evil caller: Salafist Jihad in its many, many guises.

Somewhat related: a stat that has impressed me through the years: GOA MacArthur went from Brisbane to Tokyo with fewer casualties than the Navy sustained, with four Army and two Marine Divisions, at Okinawa alone.  I forget the exact SWPA figure, low 50Ks.  So there are methods of rooting out evil that incur less cost than the destruction evil perpetrates.

The great Hebrew Prophets did very much see the Almighty conducting Holy War.  They describe it with considerable color.

Update 27: ISIS vows to wipe out Hindus.  A commenter writes:  Ambitious little shits aren’t they?

Update 28: A new frigate for Russia

Update 29: Iran, India, Russia, Kurdistan, Iraq, O My!

Update 30: How Poland Saved The World From Russia

Update 31: The Religion Iranian Mullahs Fear Most: Zoroastrianism

Update 32: The EU Always Was A CIA Project

Update 33: The Daily Signal, house organ of The Heritage Foundation, writes Caliphists’ lulling propaganda for them.

Update 34: Spengler: Mitt Romney was wrong.  Russia isn’t the biggest threat to the United States.

My comment: Indeed, Russia is not the biggest threat to the USA.  But noting that is not solving the problem.  Nor is saying jihadism is.  After WWII an international structure was created to keep the peace and stable communications.

That structure’s obsolescence by on-going natural hubbub of nations — and anti-national sovereignty activists — demands a new, fresh structure for doing the same: keep the peace and guarantee communications.  The Solons (statesmen) have NOT produced the same.

Here is a suggestion: Three Brothers Doctrine.

Update 35: Peggy Noonan: Mr. Trump goes to Washington: No one at this point needs your snotty potshots and your supposedly withering one-liners.

Update 36: Tyranny coming in through the back door — the government, meaning, the executive alone — suppressing the people’s will expressed through the legislature.

Update 37: The Fraud rejects cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Update 38: China is a nation of slavers.  China cannot be stood down without being triangulated.  That is by USA, India and Russia.  Reference the geography.  Only way to do it.  There is the third offset strategy.  It’s spiritual first, then diplomatic, military and financial, with technological later.  Technology is merely means.  Various kinds of pencils.  That is all.  There is no technological solution to any problem.  Technology simply embodies a problem’s solution into a reproducible form.  Problems are solved in will, ideation and mathematics.  Technology is a result of those.

Update 39: Petraeus, who was just at Bilderberg, has joined lefties to push gun restriction/confiscation.  Good grief!

Update 40: The Historic Jewish Enmity Towards Christianity

Update 41:  Long, informative interview by Washington Compost of LTG Michael Flynn, U.S.A. Retired

Update 42: Do Not Spare Pakistan

Update 43: Richard Fernandez: The End Of Containment

One sits at table with a long-run hostile and rockets a short-run hostile as a message to the long-run hostile that they had better climb down.  That is a Mafia communication technique that did not escape China’s attention.

Update 44: Indian Infrastructure Build-Out

Update 45: India army chief: we must prepare for simultaneous war with China and Pakistan

Update 46: BRICS Declaration on Pakistan

Update 47: Secretary Tillerson Discusses USA Relationship With India

Update 48: Sundance: Chinese Central Planners Forecast “Weak Growth” in Manufacturing and Housing …

I commented: I might be less downright about alliance between Russia and China.  I see cooperation on specifics there but not fundamental common interest or presence in being. Russia has considerable common interest and presence in being with both India and USA.  And they with Russia.  So I would factor, as a squeeze, an alliance among those three leaving China no chair to sit in.  Frankly, that alliance — USA, India, Russia — is the grand throttle on China’s hegemonic aspirations.  There is not another one entirely able to do the job.

Update 49: Chaotic White House aside, Trump is achieving Reaganesque policy wins

Update 50: When India’s Strategic Backyard Meets China’s Strategic Periphery

Update 51: L. Todd Wood: Putin Getting Played By China, Needs A Deal With Trump

Update 52: ISW: How We Got Here With Russia: The Kremlin’s Worldview

Update 53: Xi Jinping wants to co-opt Three Brothers Alliance

My comment: Xi is a smart cookie, bent version.  He sees the Three Brothers global authority rationale and wants to be one of the brothers.  Not possible: his people are not Christian and he has the wrong geography and ethnography.  His three brothers would rest on economics, not geography or ethnography.  Sand, not rock.

Update 54: James P. Pinkerton: Why Buying Greenland Is One Of Donald Trump’s Best Ideas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DPQ15EgyTY&feature=youtu.be

Update 55: Sundance: Big Winning – REPORT: India and U.S. Close to Final Trade Agreement

Update 56: Anthony Vinci: How to Stop China From Imposing Its Values

America’s alliances were built to address a Soviet military threat. The economic bullying that Beijing uses requires a different kind of collective self-defense.

This is a hoot!  Vinci calls for a solution to the problem I have already solved with Three Brothers Doctrine.

Update 57: Seth Hancock: World Economic Forum: The Great Enslavement

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA