Should The Global South Now Accept The West's Long Standing Invitation To World War III?

The Russian Federation is one of the few countries Israel cannot emotionally blackmail - Russia lost 27 Million of its people while freeing Europe from Adolf Hitler. The Red Army liberated Auschwitz during the Vistula - Oder Offensive.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

From assassinating Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossen Amir-Abdollahian on 19th May, and Ismail Haniyeh on 31st July, the blowing up of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, to arming Ukraine with advanced weapons, the West and its proxies have shown they hold an even higher disregard for the unwritten and written rules than even I thought they did. 

Writing in Postil Magazine, the famed Russian Philosopher - Alexander Dugin - suggests that the Global South should now militarily respond to these military provocations by the West and its proxies. I have conceptualised this as accepting the standing invitation to World War III long extended by the West. For, make no mistake, to respond in kind to the West's provocations so far, should plunge the World into World War III. 

Dugin decries all the impunity that countries like Israel and the United States have enjoyed in committing crimes in Palestine and elsewhere. While he concedes that there is wisdom in viewing provocations with a cool head, he thinks that this has gone on for far too long and that a response is now required; 

"It is important, of course, not to be provoked. But if you are being cynically annihilated in front of everyone’s eyes, and you persistently “do not give in and do not give in to provocations,” it looks strange. As if you yourself encourage maniacs to keep doing the same to you."

He drives the point home that the New World Order can only be built by the winners of the current conflagration - World War III in my view; 

"No, by acting in this way, we are neither laying the foundations of a new world order nor supporting the existing one. To participate in the layout of the new world, one must first win. The weak and the losers have no right to play a role in defining the parameters of the future." 

What Dugin says in his Postil opinion piece is very valid and should be considered by the Global South. I just do not see how this will not lead to World War III. I am just glad that this difficult decision is not mine to make... for now. 

Islamic State On The Korean Peninsula

“As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know” - Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense.

What comes after Kim Jong-un? That is the question.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence under George W. Bush during the 2003 Iraq invasion, said something that greatly amused pundits, he said: “As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” While pundits and comedians were amused insofar as this could be a punchline when they tell their next joke at a party, the person who studies international dynamics, to make predictions on the next security threats, must take a different instruction from the “unknown unknowns” quote.

Donald Rumsfeld was trying to make the case that they should invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to obviate the danger of the “unknown unknowns” threat from Saddam Hussein. In hindsight, it was a disingenuous and cynical claim, because as it turns out, the invasion caused more instability and suffering than any unknown Saddam Hussein capability. This is not lost on analysts who notice that, the result of the invasion, was suffering for the Iraqis, and the creation of a hitherto unheard of armed group that now threatens Europe at will – the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

With the knowledge we now have of how things turned out in Iraq and Libya, after United States regime change actions there, we can make the case – with mathematical certainty – that if the United States attacks North Korea as threatened, the outcome is knowable. The United States thinks it can make a decapitating strike on the North Korean Supreme Leader. This will then lead to the population being freed from a dictatorship and thus there will be no retaliatory strikes from North Korean Rocket Forces. The problem with that line of reasoning is that experience belies it. It is no longer a case of unknown unknowns what will happen after regime change action, but known knowns: civil war and rise of armed non-state actors in those ungoverned spaces.

What will happen if the United States attacks North Korea, is that North Korea’s Rocket Forces will retaliate with missiles against South Korea and Japan – a situation which will put over 20 million people directly in harm’s way. But even if this danger was not there, and Kim Jong-Un could be removed by force, wherever a power vacuum has occurred, non-state armed groups have invariably filled the vacuum. We have never heard of a single terrorist attack in North Korea, but this will not be the case once the monopoly on the legitimate use of force is taken away. And with Islamic State being the umbrella of choice for those aggrieved by the West, it is not inconceivable that terrorist attacks against Western interests will start happening on the Korean Peninsula, if use of force is pursued as an option against North Korea. 

North Korea's Right To Self-Defence.

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing” – Malcolm X.

North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un. Picture Credit: Alaska Dispatch News.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

In condemning North Korea’s latest missile test, but not the large-scale military drills between the United States and South Korea and other shows of force as well, the United Nations Security Council is being true to its stock-in-trade: Hypocrisy. International law itself outlaws even the threat of the use of force, but allows use of force in self-defence. United States show of force against North Korea is a threat of the use of force, while North Korean actions, properly understood, are preparations for the act of self-defence. 

The way I see it, military drills between the United States and South Korea, and flights by nuclear capable bombers, are a threat of the use of force against North Korea. The two countries are essentially perfecting how they will fight North Korea. North Korea thus has every right to perfect how it will fight its enemies when the time comes. 

What is also missing from the headlines is that the United States has harmed North Korea even more grievously through what Johan Galtung called “Structural Violence” – structural violence are all those actions that are not overt violence, but which still result in injury and death (just as would happen had open violence been used). This is precipitant from the United States’ involvement in the 1950 – 1953 Korean War, the United States has since blockaded North Korea for over 6 decades, with the result being stunted economic development for North Korea, and all the human insecurity that that precipitates.

ISIS May Yet Punch Way Above Its Weight

The Russian Su - 24 All Weather Bomber that was shot down by Turkey in Syria on 24 November 2015.

If the unthinkable - nuclear war - were to happen over Turkey's downing of a Russian bomber jet in Syria, then ISIS will have punched way above its weight in style. The fable that readily comes to mind in illustration, is the African folk tale: The Hare, the Elephant and the Hippopotamus. 

The Most Potent Global Security Threat Of The Twenty First Century

The unthinkable is the logical conclusion of all the great powers' strategic manoeuvring. Picture Credit: Wonderful Engineering.  

The greatest global security threat of the 21st century is the United States of America's fear of losing its status as the world hegemony. From this fear precipitates actions - in the name of "strategic manoeuvring" - that have destabilized, to name only the latest places: Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Ukraine represents exactly the kind of overreach, on the United States' part, that may result in the unthinkable.

This is the top tier of global security threats, all other threats should be viewed through this prism. It is also not necessarily that America is evil, Thucydides writing in the 5th Century already showed that all pre-eminent powers will behave this way. The only difference now is that a war fought to maintain such a hegemony will be the last war.