“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
Pablo Picasso

Brr, had to scrape ice off the car windows before driving to town this week. Tis the season of long sleeves, sipping warm drinks by the fireplace. The heat pump keeping the rest of the house comfortable. Pantry is well stocked just in case a winter storm or other unexpected event prevents the weekly town run.

I am thankful in my small spot of the world life is comfortable. No guarantees it will always remain so, but for now life is good. Tremendous changes happening in the world again, the degree of blowback to the US is the big question.

History has a way of showing us events are often influenced by secret formal and informal agreements. Shooting wars between parties and when their Allies can join a conflict are complicated by laws of war. An example from World War II.

What role did the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Soviet entry into the war play in Japan’s decision to surrender in the Pacific War? Conversations with Tsuyoshi Hasegawa The Asia Pacific Journal October 1, 2023

The Soviet Union was also facing a dilemma. They had decided – as early as October 1944 – to enter the war against Japan.
...
But there was one problem. The Soviets had decided that the most favorable moment for attack on Japan would be in August. By then preparations would be completed for a surprise attack on all three fronts against Japanese forces in China and Korea, and the weather would be most favorable. But this would be a clear violation of the neutrality pact. So how were they to solve this dilemma? Stalin’s solution was to have the Allied nations invite the Soviet Union to join the war at the forthcoming Potsdam Conference. The Soviet commitment to the Allies, especially for the higher cause of terminating the world war, would trump its legal obligations to Japan. When Harry Hopkins had a series of meetings with Stalin, in May 1945, Hopkins promised to place the joint ultimatum on the agenda of the forthcoming Potsdam Conference.

One might question why Stalin, known as the master of Realpolitik, would care much about the legal commitment. Actually, contrary to the belief that the dictator could ignore legal niceties at will, the Soviet government was careful to observe the legal commitments that it made. Moreover, he did not wish his people to compare the violation of the Neutrality Pact with the Nazis violation of the Non-Aggression Pact.

But after the United States acquired the atomic bomb, it moved to exclude the Soviet Union from entry into the war against Japan, reneging on its earlier promise to place the joint ultimatum on the agenda of the Potsdam Conference. On July 26, a few hours before the official issuance of the Potsdam Proclamation, Secretary of State James Byrnes gave the Soviet delegation the US text of the document. Throughout the Potsdam Conference, the Soviets had been kept in the dark on the American-British deliberations, and the text was sent to Chiang Kai-shek for his approval. The announcement was a total shock to the Soviets. Upon learning about the proclamation, signed by Truman, Churchill, and Chiang Kai-shek, the Soviet Union hastily wrote up its own joint proclamation and asked the United States to postpone the issuance of its proclamation, presumably so that the Soviets could present their own version at the conference. The United States rejected the request. Indeed, it had already been released to the press before Molotov made the request a few hours before the official issuance of the proclamation. Molotov’s request came too late, Byrnes explained. The Soviets were outmaneuvered, and lost the chance to present their version, and their draft was sent to the archives.
...
Actually, the order to use the atomic bombs (not only the first bomb but also the second) was given on July 25, not by the president – no presidential order was given – but by General Thomas Handy, the acting chief of staff of the Army to General Carl Spaatz of the Army Strategic Air Forces, while General Marshall was away in Potsdam, one day before the Potsdam Proclamation was issued. Spaatz was ordered to “deliver the first special bomb as soon as weather permits visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki.” Moreover, “Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff.” The use of the atomic bomb was treated as a routine military matter, just as the decision to carry out conventional strategic bombing that had destroyed 67 Japanese cities prior to the atomic bombing over the preceding four months. The train had already left the station, and barring Japan’s immediate decision to surrender by accepting the Potsdam ultimatum, the atomic bombs were fated to be dropped on one and perhaps two of these targets.
...
Right after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, later on the afternoon of August 6, Foreign Minister Togo sent an urgent dispatch to Ambassador Sato in Moscow, noting the dire situation with the new bomb and urging Sato to meet Molotov immediately to inquire about Japan’s request for Soviet mediation. That meant that despite the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese government was still seeking to terminate the war through Soviet mediation. This is telling evidence that the Hiroshima bomb was not decisive.

And then, after midnight of August 8-9, Soviet Far East time, Soviet tanks rolled into Manchuria and planes attacked Japanese forces. It was only then, on the morning of August 9, that the Supreme War Council was convened for the first time. It had not met following the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But it was convened immediately after the Soviet attack.
...
Nevertheless, the best available evidence makes clear that Soviet entry into the war decisively shaped the Japanese decision to surrender in the wake of the atomic bombings and the firebombing destruction of Japan’s cities.

But Japanese hopes of Soviet mediation were stillborn. The Japanese characterized the Soviet action as that of a fire thief (kajiba-dorobō). The Soviet violation of the Japan-Soviet pact had a tremendous psychological effect. The sight of Soviets tanks rolling into Manchuria, Korea, then Sakhalin and the Kurils, was indeed alarming, prompting a fast turnaround by the top policy-makers, including the emperor, with regard to the role of the Soviet Union. If the Soviets continued to advance, they might even gain a decisive voice in the Allied Occupation Council and might claim a part of Japan as their occupation zone, making even the preservation of the current imperial dynasty uncertain. In fact, in the negotiations with Truman, Stalin demanded that the Soviets receive an occupation zone in a part of Hokkaido and a slice of Tokyo.
...
Suddenly, the fourth provision of Byrnes’ note, which stipulated that Japan’s future polity would be determined by the freely expressed will of the people, became more attractive. And this was the point that the emperor made to Kido calling for unconditional acceptance of the Potsdam terms. In other words, in order to preserve the current imperial dynasty, if not the kokutai as they understood it, Japanese policy-makers, including the emperor, bet on the American side hoping that the United States would be willing to preserve the Imperial House, and specifically, it would be more willing than the Soviets to do so.

From my limited understanding of dominoes falling in the Indo-Pacific the Partner's and Allies forces do not automatically fall under the command of the US, unless one of the countries are attacked by another nation, such as China or North Korea. A reason for continually poking at those nations, then complaining of aggressive actions. The goal is to eventually create the situation to declare "victim of surprise attack" - "we need to defend ourselves, protect a Partner/Allie or get revenge".

Where to find Pepe Escobar's articles this week. If I missed one - please add a link in comments.

Iran-Russia set a western trap in Palestine Oct 27, 2023

The Russia-Iran strategic partnership - with China in the wings - is laying an elaborate, Sun Tzu-tinged trap for the Hegemon in West Asia.

Apart from Israel, there is no entity on the planet capable of switching the focus, in a flash, away from the west's spectacular debacle in Ukraine.

The warmongers in charge of US foreign policy, not exactly Bismarckian stalwarts, believe that if Project Ukraine is unattainable, Project Final Solution in Palestine could instead be a - ethnic cleansing - cakewalk.

A more plausible scenario, though is that Iran-Russia – and the new “axis of evil” Russia-China-Iran – have all it takes to drag the Hegemon into a second quagmire. It’s all about using the enemy’s own, discombobulated flip-flapping to unbalance him and disorient him to oblivion.
...
Hamas has called on the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora, as well as the whole Arab world and all lands of Islam, to unite. Slowly but surely, a pattern may be discerned: could the Arab world – and great swathes of Islam - be on the verge of significantly uniting to avenge their own “century of humiliation” – much as the Chinese did after WWII with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping? ...
The heart of the matter in any Russian-Iran strategy is the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits at least 20 percent of the world’s oil (nearly 17 million barrels a day) plus 18 percent of liquified natural gas (LNG), which amounts to at least 3.5 billion cubic feet a day.

Iran is able to block the Strait of Hormuz in a flash. For starters, that would be some sort of poetic justice retribution for Israel aiming to gobble up, illegally, all the multibillion-dollar natural gas discovered offshore Gaza: this is, incidentally, one of the absolutely key reasons for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
...
So when push comes to shove - and way beyond the defense of Palestine and in a scenario of Total War - not only Russia-Iran but key players of the Arab world about to become members of BRICS 11 - such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE - do have what it takes to bring down the US financial system anytime they choose.
...
Bluntly, at the current incendiary juncture, the Hegemon has found the offramp from its Project Ukraine humiliation. They erroneously believe that the same old Forever War rekindled in West Asia can be “modulated” at will. And if two wars turn into an immense political albatross, as they will, what else is new? They will simply start a new war in the “Indo-Pacific.”

The Palestinian Tragedy: Cui bono? Strategic Culture Foundation Oct 23, 2023

Everything is of course interlinked. Vast swathes of the U.S. Deep State in tandem with the neocon-run “Biden” combo can ride the new bonanza side by side with the Israeli Deep State – their bubble protected by a massive propaganda barrage demonizing all forms of support for the Palestinian plight.

Yet there’s a problem. This “alliance” has just lost – perhaps irretrievably – the overwhelming majority of the Global South/Global Majority, which is viscerally Palestinian. Very well-educated Palestinians living in Gaza and suffering throughout the Unspeakable, fiercely denounce the ambiguous roles of Egypt, Jordan and the UAE while praising Russia, Iran and among Arab nations, Qatar, Algeria and Yemen.
...
So let’s turn to Dr Mahathir Mohamad: 98 years old (no, not Kissinger); spent his entire adult life in politics, most of it as the Prime Minister of a very important nation (Malaysia); knows every world leader very well, including the current ones in U.S. and Israel; and at this late stage in life, fears nothing and has nothing to lose.

Dr Mahathir does cut to the chase:

” …The crux of the matter is that all these atrocities committed by Israel on the Palestinians stems from the American support for Tel Aviv. If the American Government withdraws its support for Israel and stop all military aid to the regime, Israel would not have carried out the genocide and mass murders of Palestinians with impunity. The United States Government needs to come clean and tell the truth. Israel and its IDF are the terrorists. The United States is blatantly supporting terrorists. So what is the United States?”

Cyber warfare is not a new problem. More players are joining the game - Time to set some new rules.

Ukraine’s IT army is a world first: here’s why it is an important part of the war The Conversation Oct 25, 2025

Ukraine’s recently formed “IT army” is playing a crucial role in the war with Russia, launching disruptive cyber-attacks and data thefts against the Russian government and other high-profile targets such as energy giant Gazprom.

The IT army has thousands of volunteer members around the world, who use Twitter and Telegram channels to communicate, coordinate and report on actions. Its members have already taken part in a wide variety of attacks.
...
On February 26, 2022, Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov issued a call to arms to all hackers willing to join its IT army and support Ukraine against Russian cyber-attacks and to disrupt Russian networks.

The creation of Ukraine’s IT army is considered a world first in cyber-warfare operations. It is believed to be the first time a state official has openly called on hackers from around the globe to join a nation’s military defensive efforts against an invading force and act as part of its hybrid military operations.

States, hackers agree: Laws of war must apply in cyberspace Asia Times Oct 25, 2023

There are rules in war. International humanitarian law regulates what combatants can and can’t do, with the goal of protecting civilians and limiting suffering.

Most of these laws were developed during the 19th and 20th centuries. But in our own century a new kind of battlefield has emerged: the domain of cyberattacks, digital campaigns and online information operations. All these have played a heightened role in Russia’s war in Ukraine and, increasingly, in the current Israel-Hamas conflict.
...
In the past month, we have seen three significant developments in this area. Rules for “civilian hackers” have begun to gain traction. A new international humanitarian report has recommended ways forward for governments, tech companies and others. And the International Criminal Court has for the first time signaled that it considers cyber-warfare to fall within its jurisdiction.
...
On October 18, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published the final report of its global advisory board on digital threats during armed conflicts.
...
To safeguard civilians against digital threats, the report includes 25 action-oriented recommendations for belligerents, states, tech companies and humanitarian organizations.
...
In September, Karim A A Khan, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, signaled that the court would begin “collecting and reviewing” evidence of cyber-warfare. It will also examine “misuse of the Internet to amplify hate speech and disinformation, which may facilitate or even directly lead to the occurrence of atrocities.”

This is the first time the ICC has expressly indicated cyber-warfare and misuse of the Internet fall within its jurisdiction.

McGovern & Johnson- The Intel Roundtable: Can Intel and diplomacy end the Israeli/Hamas War? (29:34) Oct 27, 2023

7:25 begins discussion regarding China
19:00 min mentions during Obama years McGovern et al had an indirect route to forward their opinion Syrian using gas on civilian population was a False Flag. Obama did not directly start war in Syria.

The livestream videos this week by Judge Napolitano channel ongoing discussions regarding current events in Israel/Hamas/Gaza, secondary subject China and third subject Ukraine/Russia conflict. The interviews are generally posted on Monday through Friday if would like to view them in a more timely manner. The link opens in the LIVE column, occasionally an interview only appears in VIDEOS section.

Prof John Mearsheimer and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs have now appeared in multiple interviews providing their views on world events. One concern is both professors are either ignorant of Biden's cognitive decline or think we have not noticed.

What is on your mind today?