Given the fiscal and political predicaments that most governments are in, another world war does seem to have a certain inevitability. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:
Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:
“The big guys like to play chess with the world. It’s the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.”
Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.
Let’s break it down:
The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money
Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.
The military needs war
The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.
Adolf said that it (WAR) is the engine of all human development and the banksters agree.
What stones he had in seizing a Rothschild bank and arresting the manager, of course he was released later for a fee.
Faux economists are still stuck on that WAR is good for economy as well.
Not the case when you have been hollowed out by decades of Long March.
The so-called leaders of the West – including those in Europe and a part of NATO – who are on the warpath against the Russian Federation and her allies are delusional.
Britain is but a shadow of the once-great world power whose empire spanned the globe. She has nukes, but in terms of conventional war-making power, she is not a first-world nation any longer.
Germany, also once home to one of the most-respected militaries in the world as recently as sixty years ago, is also a shadow of her former self. Once one of the great industrial economies of the world, German stocks of arms and ammunition are so low that they could sustain only about a week of high-intensity combat before being exhausted. She has less than a week’s worth of 155mm artillery shells.
France is probably the strongest military in Europe, and she is a nuclear power, but President Macron is dreaming if he thinks his country can take on Russia and win.
The U.S. is – rightly so in the opinion of many observers – distancing itself from NATO, and has preemptively opted out of widening the Ukraine war. NATO less the U.S. isn’t going to amount to much against the battle-hardened Russian military, reckoned by many defense analysts as the most-formidable in the world at the present time.
So why are so many “leaders” in the West pining for a war that they cannot win? Do they have a death wish? Do they wish to see their nations reduced to rubble?
Russia alone is a very tough opponent, but bring in her allies the PRC and Iran, and you are looking at a nightmare scenario for anyone foolish-enough to open the ball against them.
Remember your Sun Tzu: Sometimes, the best way to “win the war” is not to fight it in the first place….