As we move to towards a formal launch with a pretty banner, we can reveal that the plan is to produce a longer analytical piece every two weeks or so but to intersperse these with shorter but still fully argued notes on more immediate issues. However, if we have nothing to say, we will say nothing on Dr. John Dee’s very sound principle – “Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat” [“Monas Hieroglyphica”, 1564]. Here is a note on just how scared you should be about our ‘leaders’ losing control of the situation and escalating current wars into a direct nuclear conflict between major powers. We take a middle way here between complacency (not helped by some genuine sociopathy in parts of the weird policy wonk community) and a ridiculous panic that results in people staring into the abyss, incapable of action. The total system is designed to ensure you are impotent without realising it but resistance in itself creates power and knowledge creates resistance to impotence.

The Ukraine and Middle East crises are linked. Iran and Russia are in increasingly close alliance. The US and its Western allies have become nervous of the costs of fighting a war on two fronts. A ‘moral war’ (according to liberal internationalist dogma) in Ukraine has been made very messy by the West’s support for an even more obviously nasty neo-nationalist proxy (as it is seen by the rest of the world) in the Middle East. Inconvenient though this is for many of us, once it was established Israel came to have genuine ‘existentialist’ concerns even if those concerns are the creations of its own creation and now of its current regime’s extreme and murderous behaviours which are the very definition of self-defeating over-reaction. The killing of civilians en masse and acts of state terror (or counter-terror if you prefer) are only possible because Western powers give cover to an interpretation of Israel’s ‘right to exist’ that denies the ‘right to exist’ of others. We may look in a future article at how the language of rights has become increasingly absurd since it emerged as a tool of political change in the late eighteenth century but that is another story.

A third front (Taiwan) is fortunately not ‘active’ although there are constant manouevrings going on in East Asia and the Pacific and between the US, China and Europe in terms of economic competition (the real origins of war) that we can look at on another occasion. China now has a major stake in not seeing Russia defeated and in assuring its strong economic and ‘peacemaking’ position in the Middle East. It is slowly but quietly ousting Western influence in the region but its stance is not confrontational here. Despite an unhinged obsession with China amongst some populists, neo-conservatives and Democrat war hawks, the PRC is not the major threat to world peace as of late 2024. But even the US is not quite as villainous in this respect as some of its European allies, most notably the UK. Washington is currently trying to restrain its ‘allies’ on both main fronts (Eastern and Middle Eastern) because it knows the buck stops in Washington and that some of its ‘feral children’ are in danger of bringing the house down around the American people. Wrecking the house is a result here of decades of bad parenting by the hegemon. Zelensky is in Washington today to try and persuade the US to listen to him and some very dangerous people that we (the British people) foolishly elected a few months ago as well as a bunch of neo-nationalists from tiny countries with sovereign rights that are much smaller than Yorkshire. They want US connivance in direct strikes on Russian territory.

The Ukraine War itself can be seen as reality or propaganda. We will ignore the propaganda. As reality, Ukraine is doing more damage than hitherto to Russian assets in Russia. It seems to be doing much better now at defending itself from air attack thanks to Western weaponry but it is losing the war on the ground. Kursk looks like adventurism that failed to draw Russian troops from the critical Donetsk Front: local Russian strategy there seems to be leisurely containment and then encirclement of over-extended Ukrainian battalions. The Russians are making no decisive victories as such but are constantly and incrementally moving forward. The next great struggle is for Pokrovsk, a nodal centre for Ukrainian defence. Pokrovsk is now by far the most important target – it is worth looking at map of transport routes to see why. There is a real possibility that the Ukrainian defence in the East (though not nationally) would crumble if it was captured. Only in the last twenty four hours, the front has begun to see small strategic Ukrainian withdrawals as Russian tactics become effective at encircling Ukrainian troops in ‘mini-cauldrons’.

The key issues surrounding war in the East are as much internally as externally generated. The SCO network has broad internal consensus for its policies of resistance to Western demands and expansion. Western ‘regimes’ outside the front-line European states in East-Central Europe cannot persuade their non-ethnic populations that the issues in either Ukraine or related to Israel are truly existential. Every attempt to control information flow or narrative back-fires as the attempt to control in itself increases resentment and resistance. Often it seems to validate conspiracy theory. European technocrats in particular appear to be bunglers and Starmer did himself no favours with unnecessarily draconian responses (which you might expect from an ex-securocrat) to right wing dissent. The US, of course, is temporarily destabilised by the election process. This will probably remain the case until the New Year: its instinct in any case is to contain problems more than seek further advantage, at least for a while. When you are the hegemonic empire and have expanded as far as you reasonably can, the game becomes one of consolidation and border definition.

The Europeans, however, are (in some areas) descending into defensive hysteria directed more at maintaining internal cohesion than at winning the war – 27 (plus the UK) political systems each have their own position ranging from the broadly pro-Russian policies of Hungary and Slovakia to intense neo-nationalist provocative stances in the Baltics via a passive liberal internationalism in countries like Spain, divided opinion in France, increasing turbulence in Germany and aggressive stances coming from an already partially discredited government in London. Both populist parties in East Germany, Left (BSW) and Right (AfD), are firmly opposed to self-destructive anti-Russian Atlanticism and managed to get substantial votes on that basis in three regions in the latest elections. It is a bit of a mess really.

In the Middle East, the Gaza ceasefire talks have effectively collapsed. Israel’s war is extending rapidly and becoming ever nastier. Gaza remains a killing pit of civilians with no major progress is crushing Hamas (strategy seems to be little more than a vengeful desire to find and kill its leader). The Israelis have been forced to make punitive expeditions into the West Bank and, now, the tension between Israel and Hezbollah in the North has reached fever pitch with (at the time of writing) nearly 500 deaths in South Lebanon from Israeli missile and air attack. Direct invasion of Lebanon looks almost inevitable (it may have happened by the time you read this or it may not, of course) despite US pressure on Israel to desist.

Hezbollah’s strategy was to lob missiles into Northern Israel to show sufficient solidarity with Gaza but avoid direct conflict despite the recent massive provocation from Tel Aviv. The recent round of tactically brilliant but possibly strategically foolish (insofar as it appears to be wholly terroristic to most outsiders) pager and related attacks on Hezbollah operatives and civilians has probably given Hezbollah little choice but to round up its fighting forces for direct and extremely bloody war. As former MI6 Chief Sawers noted on the BBC this morning, Israel has not yet targeted Iranian-origin ballistics in the North of Lebanon and Hezbollah (requiring almost certainly Iranian agreement) has not fired them so there is still room to keep the war localised but things are not looking good as thousands flee north from the Lebanese border.

Events on both fronts raise the risks of Armageddon (named after Megiddo near where this coming regional war may be fought) but it is probably wise to take a deep breath here and weigh up a very complicated situation on both the Eastern Front and Middle East before assuming the worst. Fortunately, no matter how poor relations are between the US and China, the Taiwan issue has not reached the level yet of armed conflict while North Korean posturing is essentially defensive. If a major WWIII confrontation takes place, it will only be because of some very difficult judgements that are regarded as existential by the various States concerned:-

• Eastern Front – The West permits long range Ukrainian ballistic (although non-nuclear) missile attacks on Russia that seriously affect the ability of Russia to conduct its war or which hit a major population centre. This would result (no question) in this being regarded as requiring a major existential response which might include carefully positioned tactical nuclear retaliation by Russia on the battle field but more likely the use of lesser but very powerful weaponry currently held in reserve by Moscow.  The outrage in the West would be of no concern in itself by then because Russia’s nuclear doctrine would have already been changed (quite quickly after any approval by the US of Ukrainian use of its weaponry) but there would still be no direct attack on NATO soil. The Russians may be many things but they are not fools – they are not going to give the Western ‘hawks’ their Pearl Harbour. Consequent ‘sentiment’ in the West may make it easier to increase aid and weapons supply (which will be part of the Russian calculation) but parallel increases of supply would then be seen from Iran and North Korea, Russian armaments production and ability to conscript more forces would also increase on the demonstrable existential threat and (probably surreptiously) the Chinese military would be giving increased support rather than risk Eurasian resources falling into the hands of the West. The existential balance of interest would mean existential escalation on both sides.

• Middle East – Support for Israel remains strong in the US and on the European Right and amongst Centrist regimes but Israeli behaviours are now provenly unconscionable with material easily available to demonstrate this. This spreads globally but is largely self-censored by the mainstream media in the West. Much of it is truly horrific and indicates a complete collapse in moral compass amongst at least some Israeli military units and elements in Israeli society. The struggle is becoming a defining struggle existentially not just for Israel and the Palestinians but ultimately for the self image of those who believe in the reified ‘West’ as well as for Hezbollah and Iran. Inbetween, unlike in the Ukraine case, liberal-left sentiment in the West has swung against the Western proxy (Israel) while the bulk of the world community is broadly neutral or supportive of Palestinian aspirations. The risk here is the opposite of that in Ukraine. It is of a Western ally using its nuclear arsenal for existential reasons either tactically against Hezbollah or strategically against Iran (or theoretically Syria if Syria becomes engaged). This nuclear use would place the US and West in a very difficult position but it still remains a distant prospect.

In neither case is any use of nuclear weapons likely to be more than localised but we see a double risk of escalation to the degree that the US is prepared to threaten and use its nuclear arsenal to protect an existentially defeated Ukraine or Israel after Ukraine or Israel have already presented existential threats to Russia and Iran respectively and to the degree that Europeans in the first case and Iranians in the second enter into their regional wars more directly and then expect support from superior protective nuclear powers (the US, UK and France in the first instance and Russia and China in the second). Iran is far too weak probably to resist American hegemony but Russia is not, especially if it continues to be supported by China.

We still doubt if things will reach this stage but we are now moving into territory where there is very much increased risk of the risk of direct nuclear confrontation. Containment remains the most likely strategic preference of both the US and China but a great deal depends on internal political struggles within the West that do not exist to the same degree in Russia and Iran. The real danger of nuclear escalation to a continental level does not lie so much in the actions of essentially defensive ‘enemies’ (Russia and Iran) engaged in their own definitions of existential survival or from the US which is still seeking to contain conflict but from immense pressure exerted by less responsible allies. The unseen danger is less from the desperate regimes of Zelensky and Netanyahu and their dependence on extreme right wing supporters but from various Western elites (especially those from Atlanticist neo-nationalist regimes within the EU or amongst troubled centrists across the West who are no longer in control of their domestic agenda) and who may choose brinkmanship and war to sustain their authority.

It is instability and weakness in Europe and Israel rather than in the US that should most concern us. Increasingly violent and desperate right-wing regimes in Western border regions such as Ukraine and Israel threaten to bring down the whole pack of cards, tails wagging dogs, with everyone across the total system acting to preserve regimes rather than protect their own and other peoples. The risk is thus closer to that of 1914 than that of 1939 or 1941. Just as the First World War unfolded on the logic of rail mobilisation so that dynastic and liberal-imperialist regimes lost all will to stand up and protect their populations (even socialists shamefully collapsed into national camps within weeks) so the next war would follow a similar appalling ‘logic’. Statements of intent and ‘amour propre’ at the beginning of the game would lead ineluctably to missiles striking across continents at the other. The rank stupidity in this context of third rate leadership in London from Johnson to Lammy is something we should all be concerned about.