{"id":396,"date":"2019-02-04T13:50:44","date_gmt":"2019-02-04T14:50:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malvinartley.com\/blog.malvinartley.com\/?p=396"},"modified":"2019-02-04T13:50:44","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T14:50:44","slug":"bollocks-bolton-on-the-inf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malvinartley.com\/blog.malvinartley.com\/2019\/02\/04\/bollocks-bolton-on-the-inf\/","title":{"rendered":"Bollocks, Bolton, on the INF!"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Bolton doesn\u2019t much like treaties, it would seem. The Trump administration, in its INF-inite wisdom (?!) has just pulled the United States out of the INF Treaty<\/a><\/span> \u2013 the acronym for the \u2018Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces\u2019 Treaty. This is the very same treaty that has kept nuclear missiles out of Europe since Reagan and Gorbachev signed it and it came into force on 1 Jun 1988 (chart<\/a><\/span>). Europeans are rightly concerned<\/a><\/span>, with typical muted criticism<\/a><\/span> even, because that treaty covered missiles that were aimed primarily at US\/NATO bases and nuclear power stations in Europe, as well as key infrastructure sites. It was a landmark in d\u00e9tente between Russia and the US, which is also apparently not in the interests of Washington at the moment. This will be another reason for Europeans to distance themselves from Washington.<\/span><\/p>\n

The INF Treaty chart is below, which is of interest because the time for its signing was chosen by Nancy Reagan\u2019s astrologer, Joan Quigly<\/a><\/span> (bigger<\/a><\/span>):<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The chart shows a Mars\/Pluto conjunction in the 7th<\/sup> house (treaties), trine the MC, the latter at the midpoint of a wide Venus\/Neptune conjunction. The latter midpoint tree is described as \u201ca tendency to lose oneself in illusion\u201d, or as a \u201cstrange disposition\u201d or \u201cdreamy nature\u201d. However, being in Capricorn and sextile to the Mars\/Pluto conjunction in Scorpio it brought the dreams of the two leaders down to earth and made a reality of the agreement for over 30 years. The success of the agreement was shown by a Sun\/Jupiter trine, the Sun being in the 8th<\/sup> house (transformative circumstances) and with Jupiter in the 1st<\/sup> house conjunct the Aries Ascendant. It was indeed a pioneering initiative. Altogether it was an extraordinary event, mapped by an equally extraordinary chart. As to the astrological influences showing the abrogation of the treaty, the directions to the signing chart above are fairly clear (chart<\/a><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\n

There is currently a direction of Neptune to Mars, the latter ruling the ascendant of the signing chart and the former indicating the uncertainty, among other things. The direction of the Vertex to the treaty Mars indicates the review of the treaty undertaken by the Trump administration (an emerging reality). There was a direction of Saturn to Ceres five years ago, when the US began to cite Russian violations of the treaty and thus marking a turning point, whereas now the directed Saturn is opposite the Moon, ruling the 4th<\/sup> house (the conclusion of circumstances and opposition to the treaty). And directed Mercury is now conjunct the MC of the treaty, together with the directed Saturn indicating the ultimatum<\/a><\/span> Washington has given the Russians. So why is the treaty being abandoned now by both parties? We\u2019ll begin with a pertinent question: Just how effective was the INF? Here\u2019s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:<\/span><\/p>\n

The INF Treaty eliminated all land-based ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as their launchers, with ranges of 500\u20131,000 kilometers (310\u2013620 mi) (short medium-range) and 1,000\u20135,500 km (620\u20133,420 mi) (intermediate-range). The treaty did not cover air- or sea-launched missiles. By May 1991, 2,692 missiles were eliminated, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Just to be very clear about what the INF treaty addressed, then, such missiles as are described in the preceding quote cannot reach either the US or Russia except from or to Alaska. However, they could literally obliterate either Europe, if launched from Russia, or eastern Russia if launched from Europe. So, it is Europe and the Europeans (including Russians) who are most affected by the end of this treaty. European leaders have already stated<\/a><\/span> they are opposed to stationing any further such missiles on their soil. And the unilateral withdrawal by the US \u2013 and it will ultimately withdraw, given current administration trends \u2013 has sent a clear message to European NATO members: \u201cWe don\u2019t really care about your safety or security.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

There was no good reason to withdraw from the INF. Since Washington has seen fit to do so, the Russians have done so in kind. The treaty is dead now anyway, or at least quite ill. Directions to the ratification chart show the Ascendant of the chart at the midpoint of the directed Saturn\/Neptune conjunction, the latter representing the \u2018illness axis\u2019 in cosmobiology. Bolton and the Trump administration were simply looking for an excuse to deal the final blow. Washington has used as its excuse a certain class of Russian missiles called the 9M729<\/a><\/span>. American claims against this missile have been ongoing since 2014. That year should stick in our minds as it involved Ukraine and the Crimean secession. It may or may not be a violation of the treaty, but Russia has offered for the US to inspect this missile to show that it is in compliance. Washington has politely declined. But it begs the question: Why would Russia be developing such a missile in the first place?<\/span><\/p>\n

Might it have something to do with Washington breaking another agreement, in that it would not move NATO bases one inch further to the east, from then East Germany? Or might it also have to do with Obama\u2019s and now Trump\u2019s initiatives at low-yield nuclear warheads, which are now rolling off the production lines, and which can be fitted to conventional missiles already stationed in Europe near Russia\u2019s border? In the West the reason for abrogation is played as a Russian violation, but that is typical of the propaganda we hear.\u00a0 The Russians are always at fault, right? (not)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Russians have equal qualms with American developments in weaponry<\/a><\/span> as well, which they say clearly violated the treaty. The Russians, for their part, have already stated that this will probably begin another arms race. They see this abrogation as a move to place missiles on their border<\/a><\/span>, and that they will have little, if any time to respond. Putin immediately met with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defense Minister Shoigu to begin a strategy. The Americans, for their part \u2013 at least a few armchair nuclear warriors \u2013 seem somehow to think that Russian nuclear forces are so degraded that, well, \u201cWe could take them (the Russians) in a nuclear war\u201d. Not to worry<\/a><\/span>. The thinking is that the new Russian weapons Putin outlined on 1 Mar 18 are farther away from deployment than Putin states (they are actually almost all ready), that American stealth aircraft can evade Russian radar systems (they can\u2019t<\/a><\/span>) that Russian long-range bombers would be vulnerable during such an exchange (they don\u2019t have to go anywhere near the target) and that Russian air defenses would be unable to intercept enough of the incoming missiles to have any real effect.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recent experiences of missile attacks in Syria by the West and Israel should dispel any doubt that Russian air defense systems are more than capable of defending Russia. Even the older Russian systems are capable of intercepting a very high percentage of missiles, drones and guided-air munitions. The Syrians haven\u2019t even used the S-300 system there yet. Israel, with their much-touted American F-35 jets (you know, the super-stealthy ones?) have to hide behind civilian aircraft<\/a><\/span> to launch their missiles, well out of Syrian air space. The Chinese recently used a S-400 system to intercept a supersonic missile<\/a><\/span> at a range of 250 km, if that tells us anything. The US has no hypersonic missiles.<\/span><\/p>\n

The air defense systems in Russia are all integrated, automated and operate on a dead-hand setup<\/a>.<\/span> If anything, Putin has prepared Russia to defend against such attacks. He has learned not to trust the West. If there is even a perceived attack on Russia, they will launch, and asymmetrically. Doomsday. American-built air defense systems like the Patriot \u2013 the main European air defense system \u2013 on the other hand, have a pretty woeful track record<\/a> <\/span>of interception, to the point that the US is now buying the Israeli Iron Dome<\/a><\/span> system for critical areas needing protection. But don\u2019t worry, Europeans. NATO will protect you.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another reason we hear for the US abrogating this treaty is because of Chinese advances in such weaponry. But again, this does not threaten the continental US or even Europe. It is a far greater threat to Russia, if things ever did go south between the two again, which is quite doubtful now. Washington, instead, has done all it possibly can<\/a><\/span> to push China and Russia together, much to the horror of the likes of Brzezinski, Kissinger or even Mackinder. Its systems would be a greater threat to Japan and South Korea. But don\u2019t worry, Japanese and Koreans. NATO will protect you. And just to put a finer point on this, Russian nuclear-capable land-based missiles in Russia can reach virtually anywhere in the Far East, Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe, Britain included. Russian detection systems cover almost all of Europe, too.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason to lay out all these factors is to drive home a sober fact. NATO will not defeat Russia in a nuclear confrontation, nor will its much-vaunted capabilities protect Europe from a Russian counter-attack. Nor will the US survive one, either. There is no winner in an all-out nuclear war<\/a><\/span>. (video. Watch the whole series if you like horror stories, even better, if you want to get closer to the truth.) To borrow a quote from one of my fave Australian ex-PMs<\/a><\/span>, John Bolton is like a shiver waiting for a spine to crawl up.<\/span><\/p>\n