People all over the world have been marking the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, which began one hundred years ago this month. As we mark this pivotal point in world history, some find themselves asking if another world war could take place. I hate to be the harbinger of doom, but unfortunately, I believe the outbreak of a third world war is very likely. And even more unfortunately, I think it will happen soon.
The Prelude to War
Today, I believe that the world is sewing the seeds for another world war. One aspect of this is a re-assertive Russia. Indeed, the behaviour of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is very reminiscent of Hitler's behaviour leading up to WWII. The former's seizure of Crimea and his attempt to take over eastern Ukraine is very much like Hitler's takeover of Austria and his subsequent annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. In the same manner exercised by Hitler, Putin is simply testing the waters and seeing how far he can go before having to take on the West militarily, which he is not yet ready to do, nor was Hitler when he made his first conquests. Unfortunately, the West did not threaten Hitler with force for taking over Austria and the Sudetenland, nor have they threatened Russia with force for taking over Crimea and trying to conquer eastern Ukraine, so it appears that history will repeat itself and Putin will be allowed to grow stronger, just as Hitler was.
An increasingly assertive China is another factor that I think will eventually lead to war. China is already the world's second largest economy and is on pace to eclipse the current 1st place economy, the U.S., before the end of this decade. The Chinese military is expanding rapidly as is the country's sphere of influence. China is now the leading investor in Africa, which will give it allies in the upcoming global conflict. And in the last few years, China has begun to rattle its sabers, attempting to assert control over islands in the adjacent seas that are also claimed by other countries in the region. Actually, China is claiming entire seas rather than just a few islands in them.
Another development that will characterize WWIII is the increasingly violent feud between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The recent emergence of the Islamic State and its growing list of atrocities is just one example of this feud, and I strongly believe that the Sunni-Shiite feud will become part of a wider global conflict.
The last thing I would like to mention is the growth of anti-Western regimes in Latin America. These regimes currently control several countries in the region. They will inevitably grow closer to the West's main opponents, Russia and China, and may even be launching pads for invasion of the U.S. itself in a future world war.
As what I have mentioned above comes to fruition, the world will edge itself closer and closer to the greatest conflict that humankind has ever seen. I believe that we have around ten to twenty years before WWIII begins. I base this timeline on the fact that two of the main players in the upcoming conflict, Russia and China, do not yet have the military strength to challenge the West directly, but I believe they will have it within the next decade or two.
The Competing Blocs:
As with the first two world wars, I contend that WWIII will be a competition between two alliances or blocs of states. The first of these alliances will be NATO, overlapping with the European Union. They will be joined by other non-Western countries, most notably Israel, Japan and the Sunni Arab states. This alliance will be opposed by one led mainly by Russia and China, whose allies will include the Shiite-led states of Iran, Iraq and Syria, as well as other countries in Latin America and Africa.
What Sparks the Conflict?
My feeling is that WWIII will begin in very much the same way as the first two world wars; with one event starting a chain reaction that leads to country after country hopping onto the warhorse. And I believe that it will be one of the countries in the alliance led by Russia and China that will initiate hostilities. My sense is that one of these countries, perhaps Russia itself, will attack a country allied to the West over a dispute involving natural resources. One possible scenario that comes to mind is Russia attacking Israel over the latter's plan to export gas to Europe, thus reducing or even eliminating the continent's dependence on Russian gas and thereby endangering the Russians' ability to influence European affairs. By this time, of course, there will likely already be a lot of tension between the two blocs of countries that I mentioned above. In any event, such an attack would immediately cause NATO to come to Israel's defense and declare war on Russia, leading the Russians to call on its own allies to join them in the fight against the Western-led alliance. From there on, it will pretty much be all hell breaking loose.
The Frontlines:
Almost all the main frontlines in WWI were in Europe, whereas the main frontlines in WWII spanned three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. During the two wars, and especially in WWII, significant battles also took place in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Both wars left much of the world untouched, which is one of the reasons that the United States emerged from WWII as the preeminent Western superpower as there were no battles on the soil of the Americas and so the U.S. was spared the kind of destruction witnessed by its allies in Western Europe.
In World War III, however, I believe that no continent or ocean will be spared a significant amount of devastation. Indeed, some of the most ferocious battles may take place on North American soil, where no great battles have taken place since the 19th century. I am almost certain that Russia and China will attempt an invasion of North America, but I don't think that this invasion will begin in Alaska as the Americans might expect. Instead, I believe that Sino-Russian alliance will circumvent Alaska and invade North America through Canada. Decades ago, when the impact of climate change was not as significant as it is today, this would not have been possible as ice would block an invasion force from entering northern Canada, even in the summer months. Now, however, the waterways in Canada's north are almost ice-free during the warmer months, making an invasion possible. My sense is that northern Canada will be taken quickly, and after just a month or two, the armies of Russia and China will have control of Alaska and a large part of Canada. Their next goal will be to take the Canadian province of Alberta and its vast oil and gas reserves. Indeed, the fight for oil and gas will shape many of the frontlines in WWIII. Whoever is able to control the vast majority of the world's oil and gas reserves will likely win the war. This is actually the reason why I support the Keystone pipeline that is meant to take oil from Alberta to refineries in Texas. This pipeline may be key to America's survival, and if it isn't built, the U.S. may have a much harder time getting the oil and gas it needs to win the war.
The other main battle fronts will be in Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The battle for control of the Middle East will be particularly bloody, perhaps worse than any other front. In fact, I think that some of the war's worst atrocities may take place in this region, influenced mainly by the hatred that characterizes the Sunni-Shiite feud. Of course, the oil and gas resources of the Mideast will be a major factor, but ironically the most important source of these resources that the Western-led alliance will need to protect may not be in the Arab states, but in Israel. Today, Israel is certainly not a main hub for oil and gas, but this will change in the near future with the recent discovery of vast reserves of natural gas off the Israeli coast in the Mediterranean Sea. I believe that in the future, these reserves will allow Europe to get rid of its dependence on Russian gas, and so the survival of Israel in WWIII may be the key to preventing Russia from taking over all of Europe. Indeed, victory in Europe for the Russians may mean victory in WWIII altogether. Hence, Israel itself may be the key to victory in the entire war. As I already mentioned, it may even be the site of the attack that starts the war.
The Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in World War III
During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union kept their fingers off the nuclear trigger because they knew that the use of nuclear weapons would mean mutually assured destruction, or M.A.D. as it was also known. I believe that something akin to this concept will delay the use of nuclear weapons until later in the war when one side is on the cusp of defeat and desperation kicks in. I also believe, however, that each side will resort to the use of other WMDs throughout the course of the war, including biological and chemical weapons.
Who Will Win?
I am a firm believer in the principle that good always triumphs over evil, and so I surmise that the West and its allies will ultimately emerge from WWIII victorious. It will be very close though, just as it was in WWII when Hitler's Nazi Germany was on the cusp of the total conquest of Europe with only Great Britain standing in its way. At the time, many believed that the British would not survive the Nazi onslaught and that it was only a matter of time before they were defeated. But of course, Great Britain did survive and its survival ultimately allowed the Allies to stage the so-called D-Day invasion, which eventually led to the fall of Hitler and his tyrannical Third Reich. I believe that this type of scenario will probably play out again in WWIII, and just as in WWII, the West will manage to stand their ground.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Ethnic and Religious Minorities in the Middle East are in Peril, But Nobody Seems to Care
For the last month, the international community has been preoccupied with the conflict in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has been fighting to safeguard its citizens from barrages of rocket fire and infiltration attempts onto its territory by terrorists who have been using Gaza's civilians as human shields to protect themselves and their weapons from the Israeli onslaught. And while different nation-states and international organizations have been busy heaping condemnation on Israel for defending itself, the cries for help from other peoples in the region, specifically those who happen to be members of an ethnic or religious minority, have generally gone unnoticed.
Christian and Other Religious Minorities in the Middle East on Brink of Extinction:
Anyone familiar with the history of the Middle East knows that Christianity was founded in the region just as Judaism and Islam were. Indeed, Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, after the town where he spent his childhood, now located in northern Israel. Christianity once thrived throughout the region and some of the oldest Christian communities still reside there...but for how long? Not too long, if the Islamist fanatics have their way. The Christian exodus from the Middle East began as the Arab states in the region gained their independence. Under the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalism, many Arab states began a process of Arabization and Islamization in which anything and anyone non-Arab and non-Muslim was considered heresy and needed to be uprooted. The Christian population in the Middle East is now at its lowest level history, since the founding of the religion itself. In fact, one of the only Middle Eastern states in which the Christian population is actually growing is Israel. Contrast this with other parts of the Holy Land, such as Bethlehem or the Gaza Strip, both of which are communities under Palestinian control where the Christian population has sharply declined.
The gravest threat to Christian communities in the Middle East today is the growing reach of the so-called Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS. This group, which some say is more extreme than even Al-Qaeda, has taken over large swathes of territory in northern and central Iraq, as well as northeastern Syria. Some of this captured territory includes large cities, like the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. In fact, shortly after the Islamic State captured Mosul, the group ordered the city's large Christian community to covert to Islam, pay a head tax, or be killed (see: Iraqi Christians flee from Mosul after ISIS ultimatum: Convert to Islam, pay a tax or face death). This ultimatum triggered a max exodus of Christians from the city. The most recent advances of the Islamic State's military forces have left another ancient religious community, the Yazidis, virtually trapped and pleading for help from the international community (see: Politician begs world to help Iraq's Yazidis). The response from the international community so far: pure silence - so quiet that you can hear the wind pushing the tumbleweeds past your feet. But of course, it isn't Jews or Israelis carrying out this campaign of extermination, so the rest of the world simply doesn't care.
Muslim Extremists Look to Preserve and Reclaim Their Conquests of Ages Past:
Whether it's Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, or some other terrorist group, all Islamists share one common agenda: to preserve the conquests made by Islamic rulers in medieval times, to take back territory formerly controlled by those rulers, and to rid all Muslim territory of non-Muslim elements, whether they be Jews, Christians or anyone else. In essence, they are continuing the fight that the Muslim Arab invaders of old started in the seventh century following the Prophet Mohammed's death, in which the Middle East's original Jewish and Christian populations were displaced, exterminated and/or marginalized by hordes of Muslim Arab invaders. It's time the region's original inhabitants started fighting back!
Mideast's Original Inhabitants Must Take Back What is Theirs
I do not believe it is enough for ethnic and religious communities in the Middle East to just try and hold onto what they still have. On the contrary, they need to take back what once belonged to them, just as Israel has done. Israel hasn't been "conquering" or "occupying" land since it was founded in 1948; it has been taking it back and restoring it to its original inhabitants - the Jewish people. In fact, even some Christians in what is now Israel have begun to support the state, remembering that their community predates the Muslim Arab community in the country and knowing that they will have a better future in the State of Israel than in an Islamized state of Palestine (see, for example: Israeli-Arab Christians take to the streets of Haifa for an unusual protest).
I believe that non-Arab and non-Muslim communities in the Middle East need to follow Israel's example and take back their territory, or at least their independence, from the descendants of the Muslim Arab invaders. Indeed, the Kurds of northern Iraq have begun doing this, taking back Kurdish territory from the Arab, Muslim dominated Iraqi government, including Kirkuk, which some call the Kurdish Jerusalem. I hope this trend will continue and that the Middle East's original inhabitants will take back their territory and their independence from the Arab Islamist horde, whose thirst for land and power knows no bounds. I am certainly not saying that Mideast's original communities should try to push the Muslim Arabs all the way back to the Arabian peninsula where they came from, because by doing this, they would be guilty of the same ethnic cleansing that they have been victims of. What I am saying is that it's time for the regions' original peoples to put themselves back on the map and do what is necessary to preserve and rebuild their proud cultures.
Christian and Other Religious Minorities in the Middle East on Brink of Extinction:
Anyone familiar with the history of the Middle East knows that Christianity was founded in the region just as Judaism and Islam were. Indeed, Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, after the town where he spent his childhood, now located in northern Israel. Christianity once thrived throughout the region and some of the oldest Christian communities still reside there...but for how long? Not too long, if the Islamist fanatics have their way. The Christian exodus from the Middle East began as the Arab states in the region gained their independence. Under the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalism, many Arab states began a process of Arabization and Islamization in which anything and anyone non-Arab and non-Muslim was considered heresy and needed to be uprooted. The Christian population in the Middle East is now at its lowest level history, since the founding of the religion itself. In fact, one of the only Middle Eastern states in which the Christian population is actually growing is Israel. Contrast this with other parts of the Holy Land, such as Bethlehem or the Gaza Strip, both of which are communities under Palestinian control where the Christian population has sharply declined.
The gravest threat to Christian communities in the Middle East today is the growing reach of the so-called Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS. This group, which some say is more extreme than even Al-Qaeda, has taken over large swathes of territory in northern and central Iraq, as well as northeastern Syria. Some of this captured territory includes large cities, like the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. In fact, shortly after the Islamic State captured Mosul, the group ordered the city's large Christian community to covert to Islam, pay a head tax, or be killed (see: Iraqi Christians flee from Mosul after ISIS ultimatum: Convert to Islam, pay a tax or face death). This ultimatum triggered a max exodus of Christians from the city. The most recent advances of the Islamic State's military forces have left another ancient religious community, the Yazidis, virtually trapped and pleading for help from the international community (see: Politician begs world to help Iraq's Yazidis). The response from the international community so far: pure silence - so quiet that you can hear the wind pushing the tumbleweeds past your feet. But of course, it isn't Jews or Israelis carrying out this campaign of extermination, so the rest of the world simply doesn't care.
Muslim Extremists Look to Preserve and Reclaim Their Conquests of Ages Past:
Whether it's Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, or some other terrorist group, all Islamists share one common agenda: to preserve the conquests made by Islamic rulers in medieval times, to take back territory formerly controlled by those rulers, and to rid all Muslim territory of non-Muslim elements, whether they be Jews, Christians or anyone else. In essence, they are continuing the fight that the Muslim Arab invaders of old started in the seventh century following the Prophet Mohammed's death, in which the Middle East's original Jewish and Christian populations were displaced, exterminated and/or marginalized by hordes of Muslim Arab invaders. It's time the region's original inhabitants started fighting back!
Mideast's Original Inhabitants Must Take Back What is Theirs
I do not believe it is enough for ethnic and religious communities in the Middle East to just try and hold onto what they still have. On the contrary, they need to take back what once belonged to them, just as Israel has done. Israel hasn't been "conquering" or "occupying" land since it was founded in 1948; it has been taking it back and restoring it to its original inhabitants - the Jewish people. In fact, even some Christians in what is now Israel have begun to support the state, remembering that their community predates the Muslim Arab community in the country and knowing that they will have a better future in the State of Israel than in an Islamized state of Palestine (see, for example: Israeli-Arab Christians take to the streets of Haifa for an unusual protest).
I believe that non-Arab and non-Muslim communities in the Middle East need to follow Israel's example and take back their territory, or at least their independence, from the descendants of the Muslim Arab invaders. Indeed, the Kurds of northern Iraq have begun doing this, taking back Kurdish territory from the Arab, Muslim dominated Iraqi government, including Kirkuk, which some call the Kurdish Jerusalem. I hope this trend will continue and that the Middle East's original inhabitants will take back their territory and their independence from the Arab Islamist horde, whose thirst for land and power knows no bounds. I am certainly not saying that Mideast's original communities should try to push the Muslim Arabs all the way back to the Arabian peninsula where they came from, because by doing this, they would be guilty of the same ethnic cleansing that they have been victims of. What I am saying is that it's time for the regions' original peoples to put themselves back on the map and do what is necessary to preserve and rebuild their proud cultures.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Netanyahu: Don't Listen to Bleeding Heart Liberals Like Obama and Kerry. Stay the Course
It's been about three weeks since Israel launched Operation: Protective Edge. And although the IDF has already dealt a hard blow to the terrorists in Gaza Strip, now is not the time to stop, regardless of what Neville Chamberlain-esque leaders like Barack Obama and John Kerry say. Indeed, if rockets were falling on American towns and cities, the Gaza Strip would be flattened by now and there would be many times more civilian deaths than is the case in Gaza now. Israel needs to finish what it started. What do I mean by this? I mean that for Israel to stop, not one rocket, not one launcher, not one tunnel and not one terrorist can remain. Every part of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip must be destroyed and all the terrorists who are responsible for building and maintaining that infrastructure must be captured, exiled or killed. Hamas and the rest of the terrorists are not only guilty of crimes against Israel, but also against their own people. It's already well-known that they are hiding themselves and their weapons amongst civilians, hence the high civilian death toll in the Gaza Strip. What is lesser-known, however, is that while their people have languished in poverty for years, many of them have gotten rich (see: Hamas Got Rich as Gaza was Plunged into Poverty). All the terrorists' talk about how much their people suffer is just a lot of nonsense. They care nothing for their people. They do not value the lives of their people or any human life for that matter. Hence, by putting an end to the terrorist threat in Gaza, Netanyahu and his government are not only doing a service to Israel's citizens, but to the Palestinian people as well. Bibi cannot and should not listen to the naive musings of U.S. President Barack Obama and his sidekick, Secretary of State John Kerry. He needs to do what is good for Israeli, not the U.S. And what is good for Israel is to end the terrorist threat in Gaza once and for all. In fact, I don't even think that Operation: Protective Edge should be limited to Gaza, but expanded to the West Bank as well.
Yes, I know that there are (thankfully) no rockets being fired at Israeli communities from the West Bank and there are no terrorist tunnels there (not that I've heard about anyway), but there are plenty of terrorists and they should meet the same fate as their Gaza counterparts. I'm not just talking about Hamas or Islamic Jihad; I'm talking about all the major Palestinian organizations, and that includes the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas. After all, Abbas chose to get in bed with Hamas instead of making peace with Israel. And since he and Hamas have formed a so-called national unity government that claims to represent all Palestinians, both parties are now one and the same. In other words, both Abbas' Palestinian Authority and Hamas are terrorists and they should be shown the same treatment as the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Their infrastructure must be destroyed and every one of their leaders, including Abbas himself, should be jailed, exiled, or killed.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have the opportunity, not just to wipe out terrorism in Gaza, but in all of Eretz Israel. So Bibi, stay the course and don't quit while you're on a roll.
Yes, I know that there are (thankfully) no rockets being fired at Israeli communities from the West Bank and there are no terrorist tunnels there (not that I've heard about anyway), but there are plenty of terrorists and they should meet the same fate as their Gaza counterparts. I'm not just talking about Hamas or Islamic Jihad; I'm talking about all the major Palestinian organizations, and that includes the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas. After all, Abbas chose to get in bed with Hamas instead of making peace with Israel. And since he and Hamas have formed a so-called national unity government that claims to represent all Palestinians, both parties are now one and the same. In other words, both Abbas' Palestinian Authority and Hamas are terrorists and they should be shown the same treatment as the terrorists in the Gaza Strip. Their infrastructure must be destroyed and every one of their leaders, including Abbas himself, should be jailed, exiled, or killed.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have the opportunity, not just to wipe out terrorism in Gaza, but in all of Eretz Israel. So Bibi, stay the course and don't quit while you're on a roll.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Antisemitism Once Again Surges in Europe: Should Europe's Jews Stay or Leave?
Ever since the conflict in the Gaza Strip began about three weeks ago, there has been a surge in antisemitic incidents across the globe and especially in Europe, where only seventy years ago, six million Jews were murdered in what we know today as the Holocaust. The reality is that antisemitism in Europe has grown significantly over the last few years and is not simply a product of the latest Israeli-Arab conflict. Why do I know this? Well, for some time now, I have had the task of looking up incidents of antisemitism on the internet and posting them onto a blog called Emerging News, which is owned by the Toronto-based Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre (FSWC). And I find it to be no coincidence that many of the reports about antisemitic incidents that I post to this blog come from Europe. Here are just some examples:
Unfortunately, there are plenty more where these came from. Of course, antisemitism in some European countries is worse than in others. France in particular has recently become a hotbed of some of the worst antisemitism Europe has seen in years. In fact, a report released by researchers at Tel Aviv University earlier this year revealed that for at least two years in a row, France had the highest number of recorded antisemitic attacks (see: Report: Attacks on Jews Down, But Anti-Semitism Up). It is no wonder than that as one of my posts above illustrates, some French Jews have decided to leave the country for greener pastures. For me, the Jewish exodus from France brings up a broader question: With antisemitism in Europe worsening to a point where some European Jews are afraid to show their Jewish heritage publicly and in some cases fear for their lives, how should they respond the growing wave of anti-Jewish hatred on the continent?
The European Jewish Conundrum: Stay or Go?
If Jews in Europe today take history as a guide, then they probably should leave Europe, especially if they feel that their lives are threatened. This is because history tells us that the Jews who managed to flee Europe before the Nazi death machine marched all over the continent were the ones who survived the Holocaust, while most of the ones who decided to stay did not. That being said, wouldn't a mass Jewish exodus from Europe hand the antisemites a victory? One could argue that if the antisemites can drive the Jews out of Europe, what's to stop them from driving Jews out of, say, the U.S. or Canada? Personally, I don't believe that leaving Europe is a solution for all European Jews, but I don't necessarily believe that they should all stay, take a stand and try to fight the growing scourge of antisemitism either. I believe it depends on the circumstances in which each of Europe's Jews is living. Some of Europe's Jews may be willing and able to stay put on the continent and fight the bigots head on, but others may not. I believe that every Jew has to ask himself or herself one fundamental question: is my life in Europe worth enduring more and more antisemitism, even that of a violent nature, or could I make a better life for myself in a place where I would not have to deal with such vile hatred?
Make no mistake, uprooting yourself, your work and your family and going to live in another country, or even another continent is no easy feat, which is why I don't believe there will be a very large exodus of Jews from Europe in the near future. However, if antisemitism in Europe becomes more entrenched and more violent to the point where more and more Jews feel that they cannot live their lives and pursue happiness as they would like to, the trickle of Jews leaving Europe will no doubt turn into a flood.
If Europe's Jews Leave, Where Should They Go?
I here a lot of people say that the antisemitism going on in Europe now resembles the same kind that was present in the 1930s before the rise of Hitler. While I do agree with this sentiment to some extent, there's one fundamental difference between now and the period before WWII: the Jews have a country now. They have a place to go where they won't be treated like a stranger in their own land. Hence, Israel is obviously the first option for Jews thinking of leaving Europe, but it isn't the only one. Thankfully today, the U.S. and Canada do not resist taking in immigrants because of their Jewish heritage like they did before WWII, so they are also viable options for Europe's Jews, although personally I would stay out of places like Quebec and the southern U.S. states where antisemitism is probably just as bad as in Europe. Then again, there is the danger of growing antisemitism in the rest of the U.S. and Canada, especially if more and more people who do not share our democratic values and carry antisemitic attitudes from their places of origin keep coming to live here. Indeed, part of the reason antisemitism has grown so much in Europe in recent years is because of newcomers bringing long-held antisemitic feelings with them into European countries. And since some of these same people also come to Canada and the U.S., the same surge in European antisemitism could be repeated here on the North American continent. If this happens, Jews may once again be looking for a new home. Who knows? The way antisemitism has been sweeping the globe lately, all of us Jews might end up in Israel someday.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Pro-Russian Terrorists in Ukraine are Retreating, But Putin will not Back Down
Shortly before writing this post, I read an article in The Globe and Mail called The rebels' final days? Mark MacKinnon, the author of the article, raises the prospect of an end to the Russian-backed terrorist insurgency in eastern Ukraine as Ukrainian forces have recently gained the upper hand, steadily advancing into the terrorist-controlled cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. It would seem that the complete liberation of eastern Ukraine from Russian President Vladimir Putin's thugs is nigh - except for the fact that like most megalomaniac dictators, Putin is not one to give up on a conquest so easily. In fact, MacKinnon quotes the editor of a Russian-based foreign policy journal as saying that if the terrorists are defeated, they are likely to turn to guerrilla warfare to continue their fight. But I believe that something even worse could happen.
Prospect of a Full-Scale Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Very Real
Putin is bent on restoring the sphere of influence that Russia once had in the times of the Soviet Union. His first step to realizing this goal is to control all of the territory in which Russians and Russian-speakers are the predominant population, which is why Putin took control of Crimea and why he is looking to take control of eastern Ukraine as well. But as we have seen, his plan to control eastern Ukraine has not been going as smoothly as he had wanted. At first, it appeared that Putin would take eastern Ukraine just as easily as he took Crimea, but this wasn't to be. Why? Because this time, Ukraine decided to fight back, which is why Ukrainian forces have now driven the Russian-backed terrorists into their core strongholds and are on the cusp of liberating their territory from Putin's grip. I don't see Putin letting this happen, however, because precedent has shown that he allows his enemies to sense victory before he goes for the jugular.
What precedent am I referring to? Think back to 2008 when Russian-backed South Ossetian rebels attacked Georgian troops, breaching a ceasefire and compelling the Georgian government to respond by sending troops into South Ossetia. The Georgians may have been on the verge of defeating the South Ossetian rebels, but Putin didn't let this happen. He sent his own forces in and not only drove the Georgians out of South Ossetia, but also invaded Georgia proper. The 2008 war between Russia and Georgia ended with Russia controlling both South Ossetia and Abkazia, another part of Georgia seeking independence. Both of these regions are now puppet states of Putin's Russia. My feeling is that this same scenario will play out in eastern Ukraine. As I said, the Ukrainians are now sensing victory just as the Georgians did in 2008, so I believe that Putin will act as he did in Georgia six years ago and send his own forces into eastern Ukraine to retake the territory that the pro-Russian terrorists have recently lost to Ukrainian troops. Indeed, Russia is already suspected of sending troops and heavy weapons into eastern Ukraine to help shore up the terrorists' forces and reportedly has another 15,000 troops on Ukraine's eastern border (see: Russia Massing 15,000 Troops on Ukraine Border, Says NATO).
How Can the West Prevent a Repeat of Georgia in 2008?
In order to save eastern Ukraine from falling into Putin's hands, the West must act now! But how? More sanctions? Sorry, that won't help. The West has already begun imposing more sanctions on Russia, but I suspect that they will be just as ineffective at changing Putin's mind as the sanctions placed on Russia after the occupation of Crimea have been. And clearly shaming Putin's Russia hasn't helped. Indeed, despite the public relations disaster over the recent shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight M17 over eastern Ukraine, which most in the international community believe was done by pro-Russian terrorists using a missile supplied by Russia, Putin remains steadfast in his quest to bring Ukraine's east under his control. As I have said in previous blog posts, the only way to stop Putin is the same way you stop any other dictator - with force.
NATO must capitalize on the recent victories of Ukrainian forces by putting its troops in the territory formerly controlled by the pro-Russian terrorists so that if Putin wants to take that territory back, he will have to face the full might of the western military alliance. And as bold as Putin is, he is not yet ready to directly challenge the West militarily. Unfortunately, however, I don't see this happening. No one in the West or NATO seems to have the courage to stand up to Putin, so as painful as it is for me to say this, I'm afraid that Ukraine will be left to fend for itself against the Russian dictator's growing tyranny.
Prospect of a Full-Scale Russian Invasion of Ukraine is Very Real
Putin is bent on restoring the sphere of influence that Russia once had in the times of the Soviet Union. His first step to realizing this goal is to control all of the territory in which Russians and Russian-speakers are the predominant population, which is why Putin took control of Crimea and why he is looking to take control of eastern Ukraine as well. But as we have seen, his plan to control eastern Ukraine has not been going as smoothly as he had wanted. At first, it appeared that Putin would take eastern Ukraine just as easily as he took Crimea, but this wasn't to be. Why? Because this time, Ukraine decided to fight back, which is why Ukrainian forces have now driven the Russian-backed terrorists into their core strongholds and are on the cusp of liberating their territory from Putin's grip. I don't see Putin letting this happen, however, because precedent has shown that he allows his enemies to sense victory before he goes for the jugular.
What precedent am I referring to? Think back to 2008 when Russian-backed South Ossetian rebels attacked Georgian troops, breaching a ceasefire and compelling the Georgian government to respond by sending troops into South Ossetia. The Georgians may have been on the verge of defeating the South Ossetian rebels, but Putin didn't let this happen. He sent his own forces in and not only drove the Georgians out of South Ossetia, but also invaded Georgia proper. The 2008 war between Russia and Georgia ended with Russia controlling both South Ossetia and Abkazia, another part of Georgia seeking independence. Both of these regions are now puppet states of Putin's Russia. My feeling is that this same scenario will play out in eastern Ukraine. As I said, the Ukrainians are now sensing victory just as the Georgians did in 2008, so I believe that Putin will act as he did in Georgia six years ago and send his own forces into eastern Ukraine to retake the territory that the pro-Russian terrorists have recently lost to Ukrainian troops. Indeed, Russia is already suspected of sending troops and heavy weapons into eastern Ukraine to help shore up the terrorists' forces and reportedly has another 15,000 troops on Ukraine's eastern border (see: Russia Massing 15,000 Troops on Ukraine Border, Says NATO).
How Can the West Prevent a Repeat of Georgia in 2008?
In order to save eastern Ukraine from falling into Putin's hands, the West must act now! But how? More sanctions? Sorry, that won't help. The West has already begun imposing more sanctions on Russia, but I suspect that they will be just as ineffective at changing Putin's mind as the sanctions placed on Russia after the occupation of Crimea have been. And clearly shaming Putin's Russia hasn't helped. Indeed, despite the public relations disaster over the recent shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight M17 over eastern Ukraine, which most in the international community believe was done by pro-Russian terrorists using a missile supplied by Russia, Putin remains steadfast in his quest to bring Ukraine's east under his control. As I have said in previous blog posts, the only way to stop Putin is the same way you stop any other dictator - with force.
NATO must capitalize on the recent victories of Ukrainian forces by putting its troops in the territory formerly controlled by the pro-Russian terrorists so that if Putin wants to take that territory back, he will have to face the full might of the western military alliance. And as bold as Putin is, he is not yet ready to directly challenge the West militarily. Unfortunately, however, I don't see this happening. No one in the West or NATO seems to have the courage to stand up to Putin, so as painful as it is for me to say this, I'm afraid that Ukraine will be left to fend for itself against the Russian dictator's growing tyranny.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Canadian Television: Time for More Choice
Today, I read an article in The Toronto Star by Michael Geist discussing the changes to broadcasting regulations that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is considering, which would radically alter the way Canadians watch TV (see: The CRTC's make-or-break moment). Canadian TV viewers could finally see an end to paying for channels they don't want in order to get the channels they do want and may even be able to get their cable or satellite TV service from someone other than Canadian big boys, Bell, Telus, Rogers and Shaw - legally. If these changes take place, Canadians can expect a lot more choice and a lot less regulation. But don't pop the cork on the champagne just yet, because there are a lot of corporate and special interest groups out there that are fighting tooth and nail to defend the status quo, or even make things worse for Canadian TV viewers.
Television Service Providers and Content Creators Line Up to Defend Status Quo
Unfortunately, it is not in the best interests of some folks to allow Canadians more choice in how they watch TV. Indeed, why would the likes of Rogers, Bell, Shaw or Telus want the CRTC to open the Canadian TV marketplace to competition when the status quo allows them to rip off Canadian consumers and get away with it because potential non-Canadian competitors, like American providers DirecTV and Time Warner Cable, are frozen out of Canada? The simple answer is that they don't want more competition. So much for capitalism and free markets.
The folks here in Canada who make TV content don't want competition either. Nope. They want to keep regulations in place that shove their content down the throats of Canadian TV viewers, which is why the usual suspects - groups like the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA), ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) - are lining up to vigorously defend the status quo. They don't want Canadians to be able to choose not to watch Canadian programming. They want to continue making you pay for channels and programming you don't want to watch. Make no mistake about it. These special interest groups are the enemies of Canadian consumer choice. They're the same people who want to keep the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in the hands of the federal government so that they can keep making Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for what they deem to be good Canadian content. Unfortunately, there is a major disconnect between the producers of TV content and the consumer in Canada. This is why, for example, some Canadian TV shows that were recipients of the Canadian Screen Awards, or at least nominated for them, were the same shows that got cancelled for lack of viewership (see: Critically Acclaimed Canadian TV Shows Cancelled). It seems that the arts community in this country has a penchant for rewarding mediocrity.
Canadian Content Providers Want to Limit Your Choices Even Further
As if the status quo wasn't bad enough for Canadian TV viewers hungry for more choice, Canadian content creators want even more restrictions put in place to protect them from competition. According to Geist's Toronto Star article referenced above, the Can-con (short for Canadian content) lobby wants Canadian content regulations imposed on online video services, like Netflix. In other words, they want to make services like Netflix carry a certain amount of Canadian content and make them pay for the production of more Canadian content. This will mean less choice for you and more money out of your pocket as the costs of providing money to finance more Canadian content will ultimately be passed on to you, whether you're a fan of such content or not.
Let Canadians Choose
The market, ie. the Canadian TV viewer, should decide what kind of programming, Canadian or otherwise, gets shown on television, not the starving artists and protectionists that fill the ranks of lobby groups like CMPA and ACTRA. Yes, I understand that there are many folks who want to promote Canadian content. For them, I have these words: If you want Canadian content, then you pay for it! Don't ask other Canadian TV viewers like myself to foot the bill for your interests. As for the starving artists and Can-con protectionists I just mentioned: if your product sucks and you can't get anyone to buy it or watch it, don't assume that it should be the responsibility of all Canadian TV viewers to fund it. Instead, find a way to make your product better so that it is more marketable, just as you would have to do in any other business. And if you can't do that, then I suggest you find another line of work.
Television Service Providers and Content Creators Line Up to Defend Status Quo
Unfortunately, it is not in the best interests of some folks to allow Canadians more choice in how they watch TV. Indeed, why would the likes of Rogers, Bell, Shaw or Telus want the CRTC to open the Canadian TV marketplace to competition when the status quo allows them to rip off Canadian consumers and get away with it because potential non-Canadian competitors, like American providers DirecTV and Time Warner Cable, are frozen out of Canada? The simple answer is that they don't want more competition. So much for capitalism and free markets.
The folks here in Canada who make TV content don't want competition either. Nope. They want to keep regulations in place that shove their content down the throats of Canadian TV viewers, which is why the usual suspects - groups like the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA), ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) - are lining up to vigorously defend the status quo. They don't want Canadians to be able to choose not to watch Canadian programming. They want to continue making you pay for channels and programming you don't want to watch. Make no mistake about it. These special interest groups are the enemies of Canadian consumer choice. They're the same people who want to keep the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in the hands of the federal government so that they can keep making Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for what they deem to be good Canadian content. Unfortunately, there is a major disconnect between the producers of TV content and the consumer in Canada. This is why, for example, some Canadian TV shows that were recipients of the Canadian Screen Awards, or at least nominated for them, were the same shows that got cancelled for lack of viewership (see: Critically Acclaimed Canadian TV Shows Cancelled). It seems that the arts community in this country has a penchant for rewarding mediocrity.
Canadian Content Providers Want to Limit Your Choices Even Further
As if the status quo wasn't bad enough for Canadian TV viewers hungry for more choice, Canadian content creators want even more restrictions put in place to protect them from competition. According to Geist's Toronto Star article referenced above, the Can-con (short for Canadian content) lobby wants Canadian content regulations imposed on online video services, like Netflix. In other words, they want to make services like Netflix carry a certain amount of Canadian content and make them pay for the production of more Canadian content. This will mean less choice for you and more money out of your pocket as the costs of providing money to finance more Canadian content will ultimately be passed on to you, whether you're a fan of such content or not.
Let Canadians Choose
The market, ie. the Canadian TV viewer, should decide what kind of programming, Canadian or otherwise, gets shown on television, not the starving artists and protectionists that fill the ranks of lobby groups like CMPA and ACTRA. Yes, I understand that there are many folks who want to promote Canadian content. For them, I have these words: If you want Canadian content, then you pay for it! Don't ask other Canadian TV viewers like myself to foot the bill for your interests. As for the starving artists and Can-con protectionists I just mentioned: if your product sucks and you can't get anyone to buy it or watch it, don't assume that it should be the responsibility of all Canadian TV viewers to fund it. Instead, find a way to make your product better so that it is more marketable, just as you would have to do in any other business. And if you can't do that, then I suggest you find another line of work.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Hamas and All Other Terrorists in Israel's Midst Must be Exterminated
Well, it looks like the gloves have come off in Israel's fight against Hamas and the other terrorists seeking to wipe it off the map - or have they? Even as barrage after barrage of rockets rain down on Israel's citizens, the Israeli government has so far decided not to use overwhelming force against the enemy. I believe that this has to change and change quickly. Israel must do whatever is necessary to eliminate each and every terrorist from its midst.
Not One Terrorist, Hamas or Otherwise, Should Remain
The mandate of the Israeli Defense Forces should consist of one goal and one goal only: eliminate all vestiges of terrorism from the Holy Land. This means that every member of Hamas or any other terrorist organization should be jailed, deported or dead. No exceptions. We must also treat all terrorists equally, whether they be Jewish or Arab. So, for example, if the suspects arrested in the murder of Palestinian teenager, Mohammad Abu Khdeir, are guilty, they should all be punished the same way that the suspects accused of murdering three Israeli teenagers last month should be. There is no difference between an Arab terrorist and a Jewish terrorist. A terrorist is a terrorist, is a terrorist. Even terrorists who have already been punished and released should not necessarily be exempt. In fact, I think it would be quite appropriate for Israel to deport convicted terrorists currently living in Judea and Samaria to Jordan. After all, the Hashemite kingdom did grant all the Palestinians living in the West Bank Jordanian citizenship, which ultimately makes the Palestinian residents of the territory their problem. I'm certainly not saying that Israel should deport the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank; just those who have committed violent terrorist acts against the State of Israel and have the blood of Israelis on their hands. And just to be fair, I would also advocate deporting Jewish terrorists if they are citizens of a country other than Israel.
International Public Opinion is Irrelevant
By now, we're all hearing pleas from world leaders, like U.S. President Barack Obama, to show restraint. The latter-day Neville Chamberlain just doesn't get it. When did the U.S. ever show restraint when protecting the lives of its own citizens? I think we all no the answer to that. Israel cannot be swayed by international public opinion as it deals with threats to its citizens and its very existence as a state. The truth is that the international community will condemn Israel no matter what it does, so Israel might as well do what needs to be done against the terrorists and get it over with.
The World Likes Winners
My father has repeatedly told me about one of the lessons that Israel learned from the 1967 war. He said, "the world likes winners." And it's true. In 1967, Israel not only decimated the armies of its Arab enemies, who sought to wipe the country off the map, but also seized large chunks of enemy territory with barely a hint of condemnation from the international community. Why? Because Israel had shown its enemies and the rest of the international community its strength and determination to crush those that would endanger its security. Israel must duplicate the extent of its victory in the 1967 war today, because by doing so, it will once again demonstrate that there is a heavy price for endangering the safety of Israelis and their state - a price that in the case of the Palestinians, should include the end of their ambitions to create a Palestinian state that would include Judea and Samaria, leaving Israel more vulnerable to attack and depriving its people from their historical heritage.
Not One Terrorist, Hamas or Otherwise, Should Remain
The mandate of the Israeli Defense Forces should consist of one goal and one goal only: eliminate all vestiges of terrorism from the Holy Land. This means that every member of Hamas or any other terrorist organization should be jailed, deported or dead. No exceptions. We must also treat all terrorists equally, whether they be Jewish or Arab. So, for example, if the suspects arrested in the murder of Palestinian teenager, Mohammad Abu Khdeir, are guilty, they should all be punished the same way that the suspects accused of murdering three Israeli teenagers last month should be. There is no difference between an Arab terrorist and a Jewish terrorist. A terrorist is a terrorist, is a terrorist. Even terrorists who have already been punished and released should not necessarily be exempt. In fact, I think it would be quite appropriate for Israel to deport convicted terrorists currently living in Judea and Samaria to Jordan. After all, the Hashemite kingdom did grant all the Palestinians living in the West Bank Jordanian citizenship, which ultimately makes the Palestinian residents of the territory their problem. I'm certainly not saying that Israel should deport the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank; just those who have committed violent terrorist acts against the State of Israel and have the blood of Israelis on their hands. And just to be fair, I would also advocate deporting Jewish terrorists if they are citizens of a country other than Israel.
International Public Opinion is Irrelevant
By now, we're all hearing pleas from world leaders, like U.S. President Barack Obama, to show restraint. The latter-day Neville Chamberlain just doesn't get it. When did the U.S. ever show restraint when protecting the lives of its own citizens? I think we all no the answer to that. Israel cannot be swayed by international public opinion as it deals with threats to its citizens and its very existence as a state. The truth is that the international community will condemn Israel no matter what it does, so Israel might as well do what needs to be done against the terrorists and get it over with.
The World Likes Winners
My father has repeatedly told me about one of the lessons that Israel learned from the 1967 war. He said, "the world likes winners." And it's true. In 1967, Israel not only decimated the armies of its Arab enemies, who sought to wipe the country off the map, but also seized large chunks of enemy territory with barely a hint of condemnation from the international community. Why? Because Israel had shown its enemies and the rest of the international community its strength and determination to crush those that would endanger its security. Israel must duplicate the extent of its victory in the 1967 war today, because by doing so, it will once again demonstrate that there is a heavy price for endangering the safety of Israelis and their state - a price that in the case of the Palestinians, should include the end of their ambitions to create a Palestinian state that would include Judea and Samaria, leaving Israel more vulnerable to attack and depriving its people from their historical heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)