What Surprise is in Store for the 2025 Year of the Wooden Snake?

  

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur (The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived) —Sebastian Brant (also Brandt) 

In this issue

What Surprise is in Store for the 2025 Year of the Wooden Snake?

I. 2025: The Year of the Wooden Snake, Zodiac Cycles and Sociology

II. Trump 2.0 and Current Geopolitical Developments

III. Geopolitical Milestones in the Year of the Snake

IV. The Influence of the Year of the Snake on the Global Economy and Financial Markets

V. The Impact of the Year of the Snake on Philippine Politics and Economy

VI. A Comparative Analysis of the Year of the Snake's Impact on the Philippines

VII. Conclusion

What Surprise is in Store for the 2025 Year of the Wooden Snake?

How will the 2025 Year of the Snake impact geopolitics, the global economy, and financial markets? Will it be a year of upheaval or opportunity for the Philippines?

I. 2025: The Year of the Wooden Snake, Zodiac Cycles and Sociology

2025 is the Year of the Wooden Snake. To gain insight into what this might signify, a quote from the article offers a succinct summary. 

Chinese new year 2025 is an especially fortuitous one as it is ruled over by the wood snake, a sign associated with wisdom, intuition, and renewal. It’s a combination of an animal (the snake) and an element (wood) that occurs once every 60 years. It promises to be a period full of unique energy with some distinct characteristics…The combination of snake and wood creates a special synergy in which the introspective and transformative energy of the snake is paired with wood’s expansive and balanced nature. (Mendoza, 2025)

Optimism consistently pervades the annual forecasts for the Chinese zodiac calendar. The zodiac embodies a 12-year cycle, each year symbolized by an animal and its associated attributes.

While we remain agnostic about this tradition (and its geomantic counterpart, feng shui), significant events occurring within the year might appear as circumstantial coincidences or could indeed signal potential cyclical patterns within the political economy. 

In other words, certain aspects of astrology might intersect with sociological phenomena. 

For instance, our analysis of geopolitical developments through the lens of the Chinese zodiac cycles fortuitously resulted in our accurate prediction of the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War in February 2022. 

Aside from the eroding concerns over the pandemic, potential geopolitical flashpoints for a hot war may occur.  

For instance, the US-Russian impasse over Ukraine (Russia’s vehement objection over the slippery slope of NATO’s expansion into her borders) (Prudent Investor, January 2022) 

Thus, an examination of global and local developments over 12-year cycles may provide valuable clues for 2025. 

II. Trump 2.0 and Current Geopolitical Developments

Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th President of the United States will be held on January 20th, just 9 days ahead of the Chinese New Year on January 29th. This timing suggests that at the start of his term, he will busily sign numerous Executive Orders (EOs) that could significantly influence the geopolitical landscape this year. 

Even before taking office, geopolitical developments have already moved in anticipation of his potential actions.

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, which takes effect on Sunday, January 19th—469 days after the conflict began on October 7, 2023. President-elect Trump reportedly had significant influence over this deal. 

Still, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly stated that the ceasefire with Hamas, as discussed with Trump, is intended to be "temporary." 

The incoming president is also reportedly considering easing sanctions on Russian oil exports in exchange for a peace deal with Ukraine, while simultaneously exerting pressure on Iran and Venezuela. 

While the incoming cabinet has reportedly been filled with pro-Israel lackeys and are hostile towards relations with China and Russia, Trump recently posted a video on his X account suggesting that the Syria and Iraq wars were orchestrated by Israel’s Netanyahu. 

Trump also had a phone call with China’s President Xi on January 17th, where both leaders declared on X.com they would “do everything possible to make the world more peaceful and safe.”

Following the sudden collapse of Assad-led Syria, Russian President Putin and Iranian President Raisi signed a “comprehensive partnership agreement” on January 17th, likely aimed at deterring any potential aggression from the U.S.-Israel alliance

Donald Trump has added complexity to geopolitics by exerting pressure on his allies. 

1. He has cited the need to pursue the acquisition of the Panama Canal.

2. Beyond securing access to critical mineral resources, Trump has proposed the acquisition of Greenland and the annexation of Canada, potentially to extend the U.S. sphere of influence in the Arctic Circle, competing with Russia. This strategy might also serve to divert attention from escalating war tensions with Russia and China.

As historian Eric Margolis suggested, "Trump has started a scramble of imperial rebranding"

3. Additionally, Trump has urged NATO members to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP.

4. Could the alleged snubbing of the Philippine leadership at Trump’s inauguration signal a potential shift in US-Philippines foreign relations?

Trump's presidency promises to be a period of intense geopolitical activities, where traditional alliances might be tested, and new power dynamics could emerge, all under the ambitious and often unpredictable deal-making leadership of the 47th President of the United States.

III. Geopolitical Milestones in the Year of the Snake

Based on historical analysis and considering the cyclical nature of the Chinese zodiac, here are significant geopolitical milestones that occurred in various Years of the Snake: 

1917: The United States joined the Allies and entered World War I in April 1917. This was a pivotal moment that contributed to the eventual end of the war.

1941: The Bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, prompted the U.S. entry into World War II, significantly altering the course of the conflict.

Operation Barbarossa: Launched on June 22, 1941, this was Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, marking the beginning of a massive Eastern Front campaign in World War II. This operation was one of the largest military operations in history and had profound effects on the war's outcome.

The Battle of Moscow, marking a turning point on the Eastern Front for the Russians against the invading Germans in World War II, also took place in (October 2) 1941-42. This battle was crucial for halting the German advance into the Soviet Union.

1953: The Korean War concluded with an armistice agreement on July 27, 1953, ending three years of conflict and setting the stage for the division of Korea that persists today.

1965: The U.S. significantly escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War in 1965, marking a major expansion of American military presence in Southeast Asia.

1989: The Tiananmen Square Massacre in China, from April 15 to June 4, 1989, involved the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests, impacting China's international image and domestic politics.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, marked the end of the Cold War and was a precursor to the reunification of Germany, signaling the decline of the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. 

2001: The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, devastated the U.S., leading to the initiation of the War on Terror. This event reshaped global security dynamics.

The War in Afghanistan began 1-month later that year as the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, marking the start of a long-term military engagement in the region.

2013: The Syrian Civil War saw increased international involvement in 2013, with discussions around chemical weapon use and subsequent military actions, further complicating the conflict.

The Snake is often linked with transformation, introspection, and unpredictability, suggesting that geopolitical tensions might rise or escalate. The Wood element, associated with growth and expansion, could also signify potential for new power struggles. On the other hand, the introspective nature of the Snake might promote diplomatic efforts and peace negotiations, leading to the conclusion of ongoing conflicts.

In sum, the impact of the Year of the Wood Snake will depend on a complex array of interdependent factors, including global political dynamics, the influence of vested interest groups such as the military-industrial complex, hegemonists, and political elites, as well as leadership decisions and international diplomacy. This year tends to bring significant changes, with the potential for new conflicts to emerge, existing wars to escalate, and the possibility of resolving ongoing disputes, reflecting the intricate interplay of forces during this zodiac cycle.

IV. The Influence of the Year of the Snake on the Global Economy and Financial Markets

The influence of the Year of the Snake on the global economy and financial markets have been significant

1929: The U.S. stock market crash of 1929 precipitated the Great Depression, causing global economic devastation, massive unemployment, and profound financial instability. 

1941: U.S. economic mobilization for World War II marked a shift toward a war economy. This also resulted in increased U.S. wartime financing through the issuance of war bonds, a growing national debt and the Fed’s financial repression policies.

World War II also led to the U.S. Lend-Lease Act, which strengthened economic ties between the U.S. and Allied nations. 

1965: Often cited as part of the Golden Age of capitalism, 1965 marked a peak in the post-WWII economic boom in Western nations, particularly the U.S. and Europe.

Figure 1

The Bretton Woods System started showing signs of strain mounting due to inflationary pressures and vastly increased spending related to the Vietnam War. (Figure 1, upper graph)

1977: Following the Nixon Shock in 1971, the post-Bretton Woods era led to U.S. dollar weakness and inflationary pressures.

1989: The fall of the Berlin Wall paved the way for Germany's economic reunification. 

Global market liberalization advanced, emphasizing free trade and deregulation.

Despite the Bank of Japan's monetary tightening, the Nikkei 225 reached an all-time high of 38,957.44 on December 29, 1989, amidst a Tokyo land price crash. 

2001: The bursting of the Dot-Com Bubble led to a recession, with considerable stock market losses, particularly in tech stocks, and an eight-month U.S. economic contraction.

The 9/11 attacks further destabilized global markets.

China's accession to the WTO significantly expanded its global trade presence.

2013: The "Taper Tantrum" occurred when Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke announced a potential reduction in bond purchases, causing U.S. bond yields to rise and leading to instability in emerging markets.

The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), which tracks the value of the U.S. dollar against a basket of six major trading partners' currencies, began its nearly 12-year uptrend in 2013. (Figure 1, lower image) 

Meanwhile, the Eurozone crisis persisted, with Greece and other nations continuing to face financial instability.

The Year of the Snake has historically been associated with heightened volatility in both geopolitics and domestic politics, and its interconnectedness with economics reveals similar underlying dynamics.

Historically, periods marked by surging asset bubbles, financial system pressures, recessions, and rapid economic expansion have all been part of this recurring cycle.

Looking ahead to 2025, uncertainties abound. However, the growing deep-seated economic imbalances—characterized by unprecedented debt levels, record deficits, and central bank policies favoring easy money—along with rising protectionism, the weaponization of finance, and speculative asset bubbles, all point to an increased risk of significant downside volatility.

V. The Impact of the Year of the Snake on Philippine Politics and Economy

How has the year of the Snake affected the Philippines.

1929: The Great Depression severely impacted the Philippine economy, which was still a U.S. colony, due to its dependence on U.S. markets.

1941: Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on Clark Field and Iba Field on the opening day of hostilities in the Philippines, a day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This paved the way for the Japanese occupation, causing massive socio-economic devastation.

1953: Former Defense Secretary Ramon Magsaysay was elected as the seventh President of the Philippines. The post-World War II economic recovery was still underway, with the country grappling with the repercussions of the war, including ongoing rebuilding efforts.

1965: Ferdinand Marcos Sr. was elected the tenth President of the Philippines. His victory marked the beginning of a long tenure in power, eventually leading to the declaration of martial law in 1972.

1977: Since the establishment of Martial Law in 1972, the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. had suppressed political dissent and controlled growing unrest, which resulted in widespread human rights violations.

During this period, the Philippine economy was characterized by massive government spending on infrastructure projects, largely funded through loans. This led to rising external debt, which became a significant issue in the later years of Marcos' rule. In 1977, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1177, which mandated automatic appropriations for debt servicing. 

The imposition of Martial Law coincided with economic instability, partly exacerbated by the global oil crisis, high inflation, and escalating debt levels.

1989: The late 1980s were marked by political turmoil and growing opposition to the regime of Corazon Aquino, who had assumed power after the 1986 People Power Revolution (People Power I).

In 1989, the Reform Armed Forces of the Philippines (RAFP) launched the most serious coup attempt against the Aquino government, among many previous attempts, highlighting dissatisfaction with her leadership and resistance to her reforms.

Despite Aquino's efforts to stabilize the economy, the country continued to face persistent challenges, including high levels of foreign debt and inflation. However, Aquino’s administration made significant strides in implementing market-oriented reforms and privatizing state-run enterprises, though the country still struggled due to global economic conditions and internal political instability.

2001: In January 2001, President Joseph Estrada was ousted in a second People Power Revolution, also known as People Power II, after being accused of corruption. Estrada’s impeachment and subsequent removal from office, amid widespread public protests, marked a significant political transition. Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was sworn in as the new president, though the transition was accompanied by significant political unrest and instability.

At the time, the Philippines was grappling with substantial economic challenges, including the aftermath of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and declining investor confidence during Estrada's administration.

Figure 2

2013: The Philippine economy showed robust growth, reaching a significant milestone with an upgrade to an investment-grade credit rating by major rating agencies.  (Figure 2, topmost chart)

The economy grew at an impressive rate of 6.8% for the year.

Simultaneously, Philippine assets reached key milestones, reflecting strong investor confidence in the market during this period.

The Philippine Stock Exchange’s PSEi 30 had a record-breaking year, hitting new highs in May 2013. (Figure 2, middle diagram)

The Philippine peso rallied to a five-year high, or the US dollar-to-Philippine peso exchange rate fell to a five-year low. (Figure 2, middle chart)

In April 2013, Philippine 10-year bond yields hit all-time lows or Philippine bonds rallied to historic highs. (Figure 2, lowest graph)

In my humble opinion, 2013 signified the genuine bull market peak of the PSEi 30, which has been affirmed by both the USD-PHP exchange rate and the bond markets.

Once again, like its global counterparts, the Year of the Snake in the Philippines has historically coincided with moments of political upheaval, such as the rise and fall of leaders, coup attempts, and the People Power Revolution, as well as economic challenges and heightened volatility like inflation, debt, instability, and periods of market euphoria.

VI. A Comparative Analysis of the Year of the Snake's Impact on the Philippines

Finally, let us provide a concise analysis of the comparative performances during the Year of the Snake.

Nota Bene: The underlying dynamics behind each economic statistic differ from period to period.

Figure 3

The headline GDP experienced its best performance post-independence from the U.S. and post-bellum or post-war recovery in the Water Snake year of 1953, which saw an 8.9% GDP growth. (Figure 3, upper window)

With the exception of 2001, the headline GDP has been rising since then, with 2013 representing its highest level.

However, the Water Snake year of 1953 was followed by a sharp decline in the Wooden Snake year of 1965. If history follows its pattern, could we witness a sharp drop in GDP? Or will the uptrend since 1965 continue?

The average headline GDP during the Year of the Snake since 1953 stands at 5.4%.

Could the Year of the Snake also reflect trends in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) cycle?

The CPI surged from its trough in the Wooden Snake year of 1965 to its peak of 10.7% in 1989, before descending to 2.6% in the Water Snake year of 2013.

Does this suggest a cyclical pattern of three Snake years (or every 24 years)? Or could the CPI rise sharply in the upcoming Wooden Snake year? (Figure 3, lower chart)

The average CPI during the Year of the Snake since 1965 is 6%.

Figure 4

The USD-PHP exchange rate seems inclined to appreciate during the Year of the Snake. It gained in three of the last four Snake years, averaging 4.6%, particularly due to the 2001 return, which coincided with the weakest GDP performance among Snake years. (Figure 4, upper pane)

Moving to the PSE. Since its largest return of 31.24% in 1989, the Philippine’s major equity benchmark, the PSEi 30 has struggled. However, despite its mixed performance, the five Year of the Snake episodes since 1965 have yielded an average return of 4.1%, thanks in large part to the notable gains in 1989. (Figure 4, lower graph)

The Snake years reveal that the USD-PHP's largest returns, the weakest GDP, and the most significant decline in the PSEi 30 share a common denominator: the Metal Snake year of 2001.

Key global events—such as the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the dot-com recession in the U.S., the 9/11 attacks, and local political upheaval in the Philippines marked by People Power 2, alongside the country's post-Asian Crisis economic challenges in 2001—contributed to this outcome. 

VII. Conclusion

In examining the economic patterns associated with the Year of the Snake in the Philippines, we observe a tapestry of significant historical events and economic indicators. From the peak GDP growth in 1953 to the financial turbulence of 2001 and to the financial euphoria of 2013, these years have often been marked by notable shifts in political power, economic policy, market cycles and external shocks with each year adding a unique chapter to the country's economic and political story.

As we look towards 2025, while historical trends provide valuable insights, the future remains uncertain. Given the current global and domestic economic imbalances, the Year of the Snake may again usher in another period of heightened risk and potential volatility. As always, the interplay of external events, governmental actions, and market responses will determine whether the Snake’s legacy of upheaval or opportunity will prevail. 

____

References

Corina Mendoza Architectural Chinese new year 2025: Here's what to expect in the year of the Wood Snake January 1 2025 

Prudent Investor, What Surprise is in Store for the 2022 Year of the Water Tiger? January 23, 2022 

Other Zodiac series

What Surprise is in Store for the 2023 Year of the Water Rabbit? January 22, 2023

What Surprise is in Store for the 2024 Year of the Wooden Dragon? February 11, 2024

 

Has the Flip flopping US President Donald Trump Opened Two War Fronts, in Syria and in the Korean Peninsula?

cross posted at the Prudent Investor Newsletter

'Truth,' it has been said, 'is the first casualty of war.'—Philip Snowden, 1st Viscount Snowden

In this issue:

Has the Flip flopping US President Donald Trump Opened Two War Fronts, in Syria and in the Korean Peninsula?

-The Syrian War Front: The False Premise

-The Syrian War Front: Truth Dies in the Hands of Politics

-The Korean Peninsula Front: The Syrian Link

-How a War in the Korean Peninsula Might Unfold

Has the Flip flopping US President Donald Trump Opened Two War Fronts, in Syria and in the Korean Peninsula?

Geopolitical risk has ostensibly been crescendoing.

As I have been saying here, this is a symptom of an underlying disease. People’s time preference has been rising, not just in the Philippines but around the world. Or, the propensity for short-term (usually simplified) solutions on complex problems, mostly through the use of force or violence, has only been escalating. A good example of the short-termism syndrome is the growing popularity of the strongman rule.

The Syrian War Front: The False Premise

On April 7, the Trump administration fired 59 tomahawk missiles targeted at the Shayrat air base in Syria. The reason for such action was that the Trump administration blamed a recent chemical attack on the Syria’s government.

Note that the 59 tomahawk missiles had an estimated worth of US $60 million to $93.8 million. This should put intoprism the scale of money involved in such undertaking. It tells us that outside the “us versus them” geopolitical dimension, various interests group profits or benefits from such actions. Two-time Medal of Honor awardee retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler was right: “War is a racket”!

What’s fascinating has been the apostasy by the Donald.

As a private citizen, Mr. Trump fiercely lambasted the US government’s war on Syria. Using his famous tweet storm, he chided the Obama administration to ‘Stay Out of Syria’ in 2013.

The “stay out of Syria” theme was likewise evident in the path to the Whitehouse. In the climax of the Presidential campaign period, candidate Trump chastised his rival “Democrat Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three"”! 

So what has changed? 

The Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against their own people has reportedly prompted president Trump’s pivotal U-turn.

Yet the history of war has been laden with false premises.

One great example: The Iraq War was conceived out of deceit.

Trumped up charges against the government of Saddam Hussein, who had been accused of storing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), served as the principal justification for the US government’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. After losses of tens of thousands of lives, truth ultimately came out on March 31, 2005: “The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the US invasion.” Saddam was thus exculpated. But the US government never admitted to this.

Moreover, the legacy—the direct costs of the war in terms of lives (200k or 151k-600k), resources or money ($ 1.1 to 2 trillion)—lingers on. That’s because the American government has only failed to wrap up the war. In fact, the US government has re-engaged Iraq in 2014.  There are significant indirect costs too (regional stability costs, counterfactual economic costs, opportunity costs, refugees).

Even Trump got it once right; he said that Iraq had no WMD.

But insiders control political institutions. Worst, power corrupts absolutely.

The ouster of Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, a staunch nationalist, from the National Security Council, in place of war hawks (generals) have signaled Trump’s volte-face. 

This was partly due to the influence of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who reportedly was incensed by the chemical attack.  “Trump’s dramatic U-turn”, according to the Sun, “was sparked by daughter Ivanka’s heartbreak after gas attack”.  Thismust have triggered an intense power struggle involving presidential son in law Jared Kushner that led to the ouster of Bannon. Kushner apparently jumped to the side of ardent ant-Russian, national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, the architect of the Syrian attack.

Revulsion to civilian deaths from conflict should be natural. But crucial questions should be asked: who was responsible and why?

Could it be that Syrian strike had been used as camouflage to the 200 civilian deaths from the airstrikes by the US government in Mosul Iraq, just last March or less than a month ago?

The world expressed shock and outrage for 70 fatalities supposedly due to the actions by the Syrian government, but how about the 200 civilians slain by the US government’s airstrikes? Where are the denunciations? Why the selective preference?

Where was the outrage when the US government ‘mistakenly’ strafed the Kunduz hospital operated by NGO Doctors without Borders that killed 42 civilians and medical workers and injured dozens more in 2015?

Apparently, “mistakes” by the US government should be passed off as nonevents; move along, nothing to see here.

Yet such perceived “injustice” exactly sows the seeds of conflict. Actions have consequences.

Even more interesting, US warships practiced the launch of Tomahawks even before Trump gave a-go-ahead for the airstrike against Syria.

This also posits to the growing influence of military advisers on the Trump administration. Trump has now been captured by the military industrial complex.

I would like to add that this comes on the heels of Trump’s major defeat to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is aside from the delays in the ballyhooed Tax reforms. Hence, the twin major political setbacks must have been so painful to the esteem of Mr. Trump for him to take on a desperate route of attacking Syria to salvage what remains of his political capital.

In short, Trump’s turnaround has hardly been founded from accurate and relevant information but based most likely from political influences from vested interest groups, from nepotism and from Trump’s inflated ego.

Further, why would Syria’s Assad slaughter his own people, when the Syrian Army, backed by Russia and Iran, has been on a winning streak against Syrian rebels?

Or could it be that the real objective for the bombardment of the Syrian base had been to preserve the positions of US supported rebels, who were fighting to overthrow the Assad government? Or simply put, the war hasn’t been about the ISIS but about the toppling of Syria’s Assad.

The Syrian War Front: Truth Dies in the Hands of Politics

The US government has a Syrian Train and Equip Program in support of Syrian rebels. Both the CIA and the Pentagon have trained and supported different groups, which reportedly included the Al-Nusra Al Qaeda factions in Syria. With the latter group including the ISIS on the run, actions by the US effectively stanched the bleeding. What more than to strike the base from which had crippled US-trained rebels?

And yet why didn’t Trump demand an extensive investigation of the ‘outrageous’ chemical attack? It may have been committed by the rebels (whether by design or by accident). It could also an aftereffect of the bombing of rebel bases that stored chemical weapons by the Syrian government that spread outside the area of attack. Or it may have been a false flag, a planted or deliberately contrived attack to lay blame on the Syrian government in order to force Mr. Trump’s hands. Apparently, truth dies in the hands of politics.

And this conversation between a Syrian government official and chemical producers supposedly serve as the evidence? Guilt by association? Fallacies or fake news could lead to Armageddon???

Russia claims that chemical attack was staged.

More than 2 dozen former US intelligence officials appealed or urged president Trump “to rethink his claims  blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia”. Some US lawmakers posited that the lack of proof fail to justify Trump’s actions against Syria.

Besides, Trump has depended on the intelligence networks that got him embroiled in the controversy that linked him with the Russians to supposedly influence the US elections.

As was in the case of Iraq, would reliance on information derived from such highly politicized agencies be worth the risk of a possible armed confrontation or even a thermonuclear exchange with Russia?

Didn’t Mr. Trump warn his rival in the presidential elections that this approach could “lead to World War Three”?

Or was the assault on Syria been engineered to demolish the allegation of his ties with the Russians???

If this would be the case, and if it stops here, then risks of a full-blown conflict should recede. But of course, this won’t be announced.

What this shows is that all these haven’t been about the shibboleth “America First” but Trump’s ego first.

On the other hand, if the Trump administration have now been controlled by the deep state—unidentified or invisible political operators or elites from private and public institutions with huge clout on policymaking—then the Middle East turmoil has just gotten much deeper.

Trump’s airstrike on Syria changes the playing field in the Middle East power politics.

If expectations that the Trump administration will escalate its war against Syria, then this would only incentivize its biggest adversaries, in particular, the Muslim Sunni faction led by Saudi Arabia and their allies as well as Israel to expand the theater of war against the Iran, Syria, and the Hezbollah as well as their patron, Russia.

So far, Mr. Trump has said that there will be “no troops in Syria” even though his National Security adviser, Mr. McMaster has pressed for 150,000 ground troops.

Given Mr. Trump’s capriciousness, everything can change without notice. That’s how fluid events are today.

Another example of Mr. Trump’s flipflop: in his campaign, Mr. Trump branded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as “obsolete”. In the wake of his airstrike, he backtracked and called “NATO is no longer obsolete”. Convenience over principle.

As a side note, Mr. Trump reversed his policy outlooks in just ONE DIZZYING day notes the Star. Aside from NATO, his outlook took a U-turn in China, Export-Import Bank, National debt and interest rates.

Just how can one deal with a person who changes his mind as fast as he changes his underwear?

Of course, the obvious response to these was for Russia, Iran and Syria to jointly warn the US from further attacks which they claim as constituting “flagrant violations” of the international law.

It’s interesting to see that just a day after the US airstrike whereby only 23 of the 59 targets had been hit, Syrian warplanes went on sorties again to bomb rebels.

This means the either Trump had purposely missed those targets or that the vaunted US forces were hardly as accurate as they have been portrayed in media. If it is the latter, conventional warfare would expose the flaws of the US military. And the use of the nuclear option would seem increasingly attractive when major weakness have been revealed.

In addition, a few days after the airstrike against the Assad government, US forces accidentally killed 18 friendly or allied Syrian rebels. Again, more of the same, recklessness.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went to Moscow to meet his counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week. Apparently, hardly anything substantial came out of the meeting, which according to the New Yorker, “featured the same tropes that defined summits with Tillerson’s predecessors, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry: a long list of grievances directed at the U.S. by the Russian side; a basic disagreement over the role of Bashar al-Assad and the preferred contours of a political solution to the civil war in Syria; and vague expressions of optimism with little in the way of concrete breakthroughs.”

The Korean Peninsula Front: The Syrian Link

Another perspective could be that air raid on Syria could have been intended to cajole the Chinese government to commit to the side of the US government.

Has the timing not been a surprise?

Mr. Trump feted China’s president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago estate just right after US forces struck Syria. Mr. Trump even declared that both of them talked about the US airstrike Syria over ‘beautiful cake’.

A falling out between the China and its client state, North Korea has emerged after the latter’s persistent missile tests. Both Russia and China condemned Pyongyang last February after the latter conducted a new ballistic missiles test. The Chinese government even suspended coal shipments from Pyongyang last February to signal its protest.

Even worse, the assassination of the half-brother of North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jung Un, Mr. Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia, widened this gap. Mr. Kim Jong Nam, who lived in China for about a decade, was under the protective custody of the Chinese government. Thus the assassination, which was allegedly under the orders of the North Korean government, left the Chinese government with a “sense of betrayal”.

Perhaps, Mr. Trump persuaded Mr. Xi that the Syrian strike could have merely been a one-off signaling event.

Thus, a quid pro quo emerged post the Mar-a-Lago bilateral meeting.

President Trump backed off from calling China a currency manipulator. The Chinese government surprisingly abstained from voting in the UN Security Council to condemn Syria for the recent chemical attack, which Russia vetoed. The Chinese government also suspended coal imports from North Korea and instead opted for US supplies. The Chinese government also warned rogue ally North Korea against carrying out nuclear tests which it said that such act constituted a “dangerous and irresponsible”.  

But because the US government sent an armada led by US carrier Carl Vinzon into the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese government said that “They are 'not obliged to defend North Korea from an attack'. Reason? The development of nuclear weapons signified a breach in the 1961 mutual defence pact or the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s sending a US fleet was part of the agreement with Xi or if this has gone beyond the Mar-a-Lago summit.

While the taunting between North Korea and the US government continues, the Chinese government has reportedlyamassed 150,000 troops at its border with North Korea, backed by various military vehicles.

While such actions have been explained as having meant to contain an influx of refugees and from ‘unforeseen circumstances’, it could imply of other possible responses:

One, the Chinese government may move against North Korea in tandem with US strikes (if this was part of the deal).

Two, once the North Korean government collapses, the Chinese government would act to immediately install a China friendlyregime, hence keeping North Korea as a buffer from US bases in South Korea.

Three, the Chinese government has set a limit to the actions undertaken by the US government. Should US actions move beyond such limits or parameters, the Chinese government may act to defend North Korea.

Part of the psy war was for North Korea to parade new missiles in its 105th anniversary ‘day of the sun’ celebrations.  

And in defiance of the warnings on missile tests, North Korea launched a missile test today (April 16), which unfortunately blew up.

And given Trump’s vacillating positions, whatever goodwill that Mr. Trump has attained in the Mar-a-Lago meeting with Mr. Xi seems highly tenuous.

Proof? Mr. Trump called Mr. Xi to talk about North Korea. Here’s UK’s Sunday Express: “The unexpected telephone call came after Mr Trump tweeted: “North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!  “I explained to the President of China that a trade deal with the U.S. will be far better for them if they solve the North Korean problem!”  Tensions have escalated further today after reports that Japan is planning to join a US Navy strike group in the waters off the Korean peninsula.” (italics mine)

Hence, the Chinese government appealed to its Russian counterpart to help contain the North Korean crisis. Both havecautioned the US and North Korea from taking measures that would spiral out of control.

Finally, to give a sense or a template of how conflict has been brewing underneath, the Japanese air force scrambled fighter jets 1,168 times in 2016, mostly to intercept Chinese planes. This exceeded the cold war high of 944 during the cold war or in 1984. In 2015, the comparable figure was at 875.

How a War in the Korean Peninsula Might Unfold

Let us see how a US-North Korean standoff may occur.

Historian Eric Margolis deals first with the thermonuclear exchange scenario. (bold mine)

The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7^th Fleet.  Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.  But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea.  At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea.  These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

This is a huge risk.  Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world’s economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

A thermonuclear blast would menace Asia first!

The next is conventional warfare.

A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult.  The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million.  Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective.  They would be vaporized on the first day of a war.  But North Korea’s million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion.  Pyongyang’s 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea’s political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japaneseairbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs.  Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared.  It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq.  Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today.  The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea.  Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast.  Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

US war planners believe that an attempt to assassinate or isolate North Korean leader Kim Jung-un – known in the military as ‘decapitation’- would cause the North Korean armed forces to scatter and give up.  I don’t think so.

This is the reason why the US used the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) or the Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan last week which reportedly claimed 94 lives. The bomb is “primarily intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system.”

It’s a signal to Pyongyang that the US government would use MOABs to flush out “the mountain redoubts”.

And if I’m not mistaken, Trump’s actions entail the creation of two war fronts: Syria and the Korean Peninsula.

Worst, instead of lesser adversaries, Trump representing the US deep state seems as upping their ante to include nuclear powers in the roster of enemies.

Probably, the US deep state sees Russia and China as a growing threat to the US hegemony.

Probably too, that economic pressures at home require the diversion of their citizen’s attention towards external foes to maintain their political survival.

Perhaps too, it’s all about the moolah and of the special privileges as the policeman of the world.

And it could be a cocktail mix of the above.

As the frame of thinking becomes increasingly tunneled, violence becomes more of the option.

Yet, Mr. Margolis offered a simple but very relevant solution:

All this craziness would be ended if the US signed a peace treaty with North Korea ending the first Korean War and opened up diplomatic and commercial relations.  No need for war or missile threats.  North Korea is a horrid, brutal regime. But so is Egypt, whose tin pot dictator was wined and dined by Trump last week.

But peace is bad politics and bad business for the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

Please pray for global peace.