Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh on appeasement

There are disquieting parallels between the situation that confronted our country some 90 years ago and that which now prevails. In the late Twenties and early Thirties, Britain was engulfed in revulsion at the horrors of the Great War and all but bankrupt as a result of it, as well as striving to recover from the Depression years. Despite the growing menace that Nazism presented to European stability, the notorious “Ten Year Rule” – which assumed that Britain would not be at war in the next decade – remained in force. The nation’s defences were progressively weakened, while calls for rearmament fell largely on deaf ears.

Against a widespread background of support for pacifism and appeasement, blind faith in collective security through the League of Nations was used to excuse unwillingness to grasp the nettle of rearmament, at least until it was nearly too late.

Article

A very good article that reinforces the very arguments I have made in The Lens of History blog and podcast. If you swap Russia for China the article equally applies to New Zealand.

Why aren't former senior members of the New Zealand Defence Force speaking out in the same manner as Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh?Are they fearful of being labelled heretics for speaking out against New Zealand's foreign and military policies?

The absence of a Winston Churchill type figure in New Zealand politics is very telling. As a nation New Zealand excels at obsessing over rugby , taking our current foreign and military policies as gospel and electing governments that will forever increase social spending. This is why the current Prime Minster of New Zealand is a Neville Chamberlain clone.

Sometimes as if I am witnessing a tragic comedy worthy of William Shakespeare. Now my next task is find a women who is a worthy of a Juliet....

I find how Kiwis lack awareness concerning the consequences of the policy of appeasement to be unfortunate. New Zealand Prime Minster John Key is a enthusiastic practitioner of appeasing China's territorial claims in Asia. The National lead government failure provide the NZDF with a suitable force structure is comparable to the defence cutbacks that are taking place in the UK and the USA.

If David Cameron and his lieutenants in France and Germany are inviting the Russians to invade Western Europe, then New Zealand is inviting the Chinese to go on the rampage in the Pacific. It is regrettable that history is repeating in such a obvious manner.

The future of the Suez Canal

Mr Mameesh said the new canal would reduce navigation time for ships to 11 hours from about 22 hours, making it the fastest such waterway in the world. The new and old canals are connected by four small channels.

Eighty five percent of dredging works have been completed, with 219.3 million cubic metres of sand excavated from a total of 258 million cubic metres, Mr Mameesh said, adding that the new waterway would be fully secured.

Article



I don't foresee the Egyptian government making a return on their investment. This comes to mind , when I factor in the deteriorating security situation in Egypt and the wider Middle East region. Is the Egyptian government using the expansion of the Suez Canal (hereafter the Canal) to boaster the confidence of global shipping and insurance firms?

If or when global commerce decides the risk of goods transiting through the Suez Canal is to great a pivotal moment will have been reached. The pivotal moment may take a another route with Islamic extremists seizing outright control of the Canal.

Before I go on any further I believe it is worth making a few points. One of the goals of Isis is to ensure they have direct access to Mediterranean via ports along the coast of Libya. From their bases Isis and its cohorts will be able to conduct acts of piracy if not outright terrorism against UK and European interests.

The capture of the Suez Canal would be a great propaganda victory for Isis. As a propaganda triumph and a symbol of gross political/military errors I believe handing the Suez Canal over to the enemy would be akin to the Fall of Singapore in WW2. The National prestige the Canal enjoys in Egypt is equal to the value the Canal as a artery of the world's shipping lanes.

In economic terms the closure of the Canal would see increased costs passed onto consumers. The additional time goods spend in transit will increase the costs of transportation will see shipping costs rise. The increased mileage will expose sea based commerce to emerging threats.

The Egyptian Armed forces role may switch from construction duties to providing security for the Canal. Providing security for the canal is going to be problematic. At the time of writing security for the Canal is still in the hands of local border patrol/police forces. Civilian law enforcement agencies will be a tempting target for Isis and other terrorist groups.

Why does the Egyptian government appear reluctant for either a greater level of cooperation or assistance with defending the Canal? The answer is straight forward as Nationalistic pride is coming before the fall. Egypt would loath to ask the ex colonial powers , France and the United Kingdom for direct military assistance or intervention.

In the event Egypt did defy the prevailing religious/nationalistic political ideology , what might or might not occur? The US ; UK and the rest of the international community is suffering from Vietnam err, I mean Iraq syndrome. Even if the UK was to overcome their syndrome cutbacks in defence spending would prevent any kind of intervention or joint military cooperation from taking place.

I believe the Egyptian government would request naval and maritime air patrol support in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. The Egyptian Army would be responsible for the security of the waterway from a land perspective.

The first serious bite in the Cutbacks to the UK Armed Forces may be seen as events in Egypt continue to slide. The RN ability to project sea power (abet a soft version of it in this case) has been servilely handicapped by the penny pinching budgets of the last 5 years. The Maritime patrol aircraft the RAF no longer has in service is also a glaring omission.

The history and future of the Suez Canal demonstrates how history and geography are and will continue to determine the course of human affairs. Political brothers in arms John Key and David Cameron are delusional because they do not silly the grease which keeps the wheels of international events turning.

United Kingdom defence cut backs lessons for New Zealand

Strategic ineptitude. As much as proper financial backing, what is desperately needed is an over-arching grand strategy for foreign and defence policy. We need a restructuring of the shambolic National Security Council that has minimal representation from the armed forces and is a reactive organisation lacking in the ability to proactively develop long-term plans.
We are now in the run up to the Strategic Defence and Security Review due in October 2015. Unless there is a dramatic change in outlook, this will be just another round of treasury-driven cuts.

Save the Royal Navy Op Ed

Another good article from The Lens of History friends at the Save The Royal Navy Campaign. @NavyLookout 

The Government should recognise that "defence is different" and treat it more generously than other spending departments, said the UKNDA.

Drawing a contrast between the PM who appeased Hitler and the one who defeated him, the association asked: "Does the Prime Minister wish to be remembered as a Chamberlain or a Churchill?"

Full article


The horse has already bolted from the stable. David Cameron is a Neville Chamberlain clone. The crippling defence cutbacks Cameron has overseen have guttered the UK armed forces. Appeasing Hitler , I mean Vladimir Putin's territorial ambitions in the Ukraine will invite future Russian military aggression against Western Europe. Cameron and other NATO political leaders have gone out of their way to ensure Europe and the UK will be plunged into its third war in 80 odd years.

The cut backs have ensured the UK will play an isolationist role in world affairs for the next decade or so. The UK retreat from its international obligations will play a part in the road to the coming global conflict. Since the end of the Cold War the UK military has been subjected to spending cut backs. After the Cold War ended UK and other western leaders mistakenly assumed a fairy tale peace had broken out.

Cameron is intent on delivering the final nail in the coffin to the UK armed forces . Once the nail has been hammered in with a giant mallet the UK will be subject to the winds of a increasingly unstable world. The Winds go by the name of expansionist Russia , Isis and Iran's territorial ambitions/Nuclear program.

Spending money on Education and Health is much more politically attractive to voters then adequate levels of defence spending. This applies to the UK and New Zealand equally. The voters who go to the polls without considering defence and foreign policy issues have enabled the resurrection of Chamberlain clones.

What are the lessons for the Kiwi reader? First of all the reader should note how in political terms the Prime Minster of New Zealand John Key is Cameron brother from another mother. Key has continued Labour's foreign and defence polices unabated.

Key is an actively pursuing the policy of appeasement towards China. Key either takes no notice of China rise as a military power or is completely ignorant of its geopolitical implications. The current National government view the Chinese solely as New Zealand's number 1 customer for our diary exports.

The current government's failure to ensure the NZDF has a suitable force structure that can cope with the prevailing winds (Just swap Russia for expansionist China). The NZDF weak force structure contributes nicely to the morally bankrupt policy of appeasement. The only way to prevent the occurrence of total war is Peace Through Strength.

New Zealand and the UK are on opposite sides of the globe. Despite the differences in the geographical placement both countries are unable to muster sufficient political will/military strength to prevent the coming world war.

The majority of Kiwi voters ignorance of world affairs manifests itself when they go to the polls every 3 years. In the same time frame the desire for every increasing amounts of social spending also dominates the priorities of swing voters. This can said to be why the New Zealand parliament doesn't contain a single dissenting voice in the mould of Winston Churchill.

The voters who I mentioned above have sealed the fate of the next generation who are still in school . The sons and daughters of what I will call the ignorant generations are set to pay a heavy price in blood for the mistakes being made by political leaders like Key and Cameron.

A glance at the 2015 United Kingdom General Election result

The Conservatives made gains in England and Wales and are forecast by the BBC to secure 331 seats in the Commons, giving them a slender majority.
Sources say Ed Miliband is expected to stand down after Labour was all but wiped out by the SNP in Scotland.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has already said he will quit, with his party set to be reduced from 57 to eight MPs.

Article 



This is my first glance at the United Kingdom General Election Result. The final results have yet to be declared at the time of writing. My first impression is that the projected result shares a Kiwi flavour. Let me touch upon the 2014 New Zealand General Election to explain how David Cameron will be enjoying Marmite on Toast.

At the last New Zealand General Election a National lead government was elected for a third term with an increase in the party vote. (Note to the international reader under New Zealand's MMP electoral system the Party and not the Electoral Vote decides elections.) In short the centre left went out of its way to commit political suicide. Labour convinced themselves that they way to draw the “missing million” voters (voters who don't bother to vote) was drift to the left on the political spectrum.

Voters also saw through Kim Dotcom attempted to try and change the government in order to avoid extradition to the USA. Nor did the majority of voters care about the whole Dirty politics saga. By drifting away from the centre , Labour competed with the Greens and Internet/Mana Party for for the hard left vote.


In New Zealand the centre or swing voters which amount to about 40% of the electorate decide elections. On election night Labour cannibalised the hard left vote. Centralist voters flocked to National. Many of these people would have voted for Labour in the past.

Curiously the SNP success in Scotland appears to have cannibalised the left wing vote. The seats the SNP won made a contribution to Labour's defeat. If Labour and the political left in the UK aimed to emulate their New Zealand counterparts they have been successful.

IMO the SNP is proof that even without Proportional Representation it is possible to see a stark raving mad political party elected to Parliament. The SNP policy of scraping Trident (the UK nuclear deterrent) in the face of a resurgent Russia is bonkers. Never mind the viability of Scotland being a stand alone independent state.

I believe that the Kiwi reader won't be surprised by how the Lib Dem were hammered by voters. Political Commentators in New Zealand have often commented on how minor parties who go into coalition with National or Labour tend to suffer at the hands of voters at the next election. In general these minor parties are perceived to have lived in the shadow of National or Labour. (Note to the reader New Zealand hasn't had a majority government since 1993 due to the adoption of MMP.)

A brief word on the UKIP. I believe the fact that the UKIP gained more votes than the SNP and far less seats is worthy of a close examination. Could there be a better demonstration of just how bad a First Past the Post electoral system really is? Could there be a better advertisement for Preferential Voting? If the reader would like me to cover this matter in greater depth , please leave a comment below.

David Cameron and John Key are friends who share the same political outlook. For instance as Prime Minster both men have supported Gay Marriage. I also think Key and Cameron both ran solid and disciplined election campaigns in their respective countries because they share the same qualities as political leaders.

Both Key and Cameron have benefited from the radicalisation of the political left that I believe is occurring world wide. Alas the drift of the political left is a topic for another day.

Voters perceived Key as being a centre right pragmatist and a safe pair of hands. Voters in the UK likely perceived Cameron in the same manner. As a general rule Government's lose elections. Opposition parties don't win elections.

In both New Zealand and the United Kingdom the polls didn't reflect the final result on election night. I put this down to a greater emphasis on Social Media and unscientific online polls and surveys. The future of scientific political polling is yet to be extensively discussed.

Traditional (and scientific) political polling is done via telephone calls to would be voters. The rise of Skype has seen a decline in the number people who have old fashion landlines phones. We are yet to see how the pollsters will adjust to this trend.

All in all: Cameron can enjoy some Marmite on toast.

John Key in Saudi Arabia

It is also hoped he'll have face time with extravagant Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud - the world's second richest royal, worth a staggering US$21 billion. He owns a string of palaces and an Airbus A380 with its own concert hall.

Key is in the desert city Riyadh to get a free trade deal over the line. It stalled in 2009 over New Zealand's ban on exporting live sheep for slaughter.

Article

Prime Minister John Key is under fire from his opponents for disclosing Kiwi troops were in Dubai on their way to Iraq after the Defence Force had previously kept a lid on their movements for security reasons.Key has also been slated for telling Dubai media about the troop movements when the Government appeared to have a deliberate policy of keeping its domestic audience in New Zealand in the dark.

 Article



John Key's visit to Saudi Arabia has shown why he is out of his depth in the foreign affairs arena. Key view of foreign affairs is build around securing Free Trade Agreements for New Zealand. This in itself is not a unsound foreign policy objective. Where Key falls down is he disconnect from reality concerning the deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

Once Iranian backed Houthi militia have taken control of Yemen their next target will be Saudi Arabia. The Houthi and any other Iranian backed factions are in a race against Isis to seize the Saudi oil fields. Iranian backed forces will win the race in about 5 years time.

They will win the race because the Iranians are supplying them with arms and training. Republican Guard units virtually serving in the open will be acting as advisors/trainers to Houthi. Isis doesn't enjoy any such backing from rogue regimes like North Korea.

Long term the idea that New Zealand could enjoy increased exporters to Saudi Arabia via a Free Trade Agreement is preposterous. If it would take 5 years to secure the agreement ; by than Iran will be in proxy control of Saudi Arabia.

By 2020 Iran will control large chunks of Iraq , Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia as a whole. Saudi Arabia will have been thrown to the Wolves by the international community. The list of Middle East countries being thrown to the wolves consists of Iraq , Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Why did Key violate operational security by revealing the fact Kiwi troops were in Dubai while transiting to Iraq? Here is what I believe can be taken as the short answer. In the policy departments of foreign policy and defence he his clueless. Key's pointless stop off in Saudi Arabia is a clear sign of this gross failing. National failure to reverse the damage the Labour government did to the NZDF can be taken in the same vain.

New Zealand and the War against Isis part 2

Following on from Part 1 in the series I will examine how New Zealand could have pursued alternative strategies in the war against Isis. In this instalment in the series I will take a glance at how New Zealand could have opted to provide support to the Kurds who are fighting Isis in Iraq and Syria.


The title of this article stems from The Winds of Change speech made by Harold Macmillan in South Africa. In the present day I believe the Arab Spring and the rise of Isis in Iraq and Syria represent “The Winds of Change” drifting through out the Middle East. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have weathered the storm well in comparison too their fellow compatriots in Iraq and Syria.


In post Saddam Huessein Iraq the Kurds enjoyed semi autonomy in the Northern Part of the country. From 2004 - 2007 Iraq was embroiled in sectarian violence;subjected to whims of Al-Qaeda and any number of insurgent groups. The Kurdish areas of Iraq stood out as a Medium security environment that escaped the worst of the senseless bloodshed.


Starting in the 1970's Kurdish separatists (the most commonly known of these organisations being Kurdistan Workers Party or the PKK) waged a campaign for a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq , Syria , Iran and southern Turkey. Crucially the separatists claims never gained international legitimacy. In the wake of the territorial gains by Isis the international community perception of the Kurds changed from rogue separatists to freedom fighters.


Kurdish forces have proved to be the only genuine stumbling block in the way of Isis completing a take over of Iraq. Why did the Kurds not melt away like the regular Iraqi Army did in the face of the enemy? The answer that will spring to mind with many readers is the Kurds are fighting tooth and nail for their own survival.


Another dimension exists as the Kurds are also fighting for their own homeland. A historical parallel is when the Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine were struggling for statehood. In the Jewish campaign for statehood between the end of WW2 and the passage of UN Resoultion 181 (the creation of the modern day state of Israel) , terrorist tactics and illegal migration were employed. The rest as they say is history.

Why didn't John Key and his cabinet opt to send troops to act as trainers/advisers to Kurdish forces?
I believe the answer is complicated by how Key is wearing blinkers that prevent him from seeing how the Winds of Change have changed the Middle East forever. In fairness I should point out that the rest of the international community is in the same boat.

The results of the damage inflicted by the Winds of Change are that Iraq now only exists as a sovereign state on a map. Isis sole interest is spreading its tyranny across the world. A unified Iraq isn't a part of Isis aims. By unofficially partitioning Iraq along ethnic/religious, Isis will be able to subdue the population.

Purely from a military stand point in my view the coalition's policy of opting to try and resurrect a dead patient (the Iraqi Army) instead of a heavyweight boxer (the Kurds) is a very unfortunate mistake. In order to continue with the discussion I am going to assume that it would have been possible for the NZDF to work with the ADF and other coalition military forces in support of the Kurds. If you disagree with this assertion , feel welcome to leave a comment on the article.

What obstacles stood in the way of New Zealand opting to go the Kurdish route in the war against Isis?

The Kurds are land locked. A lack of seaport would have made resupplying coalition and local forces a logistically challenging. When the NZDF deploys beyond the South Pacific logistics do come into play. When New Zealand deployed a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Afghanistan Kiwi troops plugged into the logistical supply chain of our coalition allies. Clearly where ever the NZDF deployed in Iraq they had to able to plug into logistical support.

Staying with logistics any efforts to strength the Kurds would be at the whim of our coalition partners. New Zealand lacks a home grown defence industry that can support the peacetime NZDF , little alone a would be wartime army in the Kurds. Essentially New Zealand would have no say over how Kurdish forces were equipped. The full implications of relying on off the shelf Military hardware will not be seen until New Zealand faces a national emergency (read the Chinese going on the Warpath.)

In the real world there is no such thing as Rambo. Leaving front line troops without native air cover from the RNZAF in a high intensity area of operations is simply a non option. Due to political correctness demanding that Kiwi troops never face combat just how many causalities were incurred in Afghanistan due to a sole reliance on coalition air forces for tactical air strikes , will never be discussed. Let me point out to the reader how New Zealand's Provincial Reconstruction Team served in a Medium security environment.

Another point I wish to raise with the reader is how Isis and its rival Iranian backed Non State actors seek to meet their ends. Isis is acting like a conventional army. A conventional army seeks to meet its aim via territorial gains. Insurgencies seek to undermine the legitimacy and authority of government's while gaining control of local populations. The War in Iraq has shifted from a counter insurgency too more of semi conventional in nature. Events have moved well past the point where training the Kurds in counter insurgency doctrine would have been a productive aim.

In spite of the obstacles some options deserved to be discussed. Key's disgraceful political dance around New Zealand's role in war against Isis, came at the expense of such discussions. I believe that training Kurdish forces in New Zealand would be a sound idea. Why wouldn't it be better to train the Kurds away from the war zone?

Improving or creating the Kurds Special Forces capabilities is the option that springs to my mind. Partnering with our Australian allies would have been the only prequest. By partnering with Australia sufficient manpower would be available to train Kurdish Special Forces . The different climate and terrains of Australia and New Zealand offer ideal training grounds to any Special Forces selection courses and training exercises.

The Australian and New Zealand SAS could act as trainers/advisers to the new unit. A Kurdish Special Forces unit modeled on the SAS is a realistic aim. New Zealand would have a greater say over how a small special forces unit is trained and equipped than it would over the regular Iraqi Army. The role of our coalition partners like the USA would to supply the equipment for the unit with little or no cost being incurred by the Australian and New Zealand governments.

New Zealand and the war against Isis Part 1

Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Tim Keating says there will be 16 specialised trainers in Taji and the rest made up of logistics and protection personnel.

"A training mission like this is not without risk. Because of that a force protection element will be part of the deployment to support the training activities carried out at the base," he told a news conference.

 Full story
Article
Article

This is the first of a four part series of articles that covers New Zealand's military contribution to the war against Isis. In part one I will examine the decision made by Cabinet to deploy troops to Iraq .

In part two and three of the series I will outline strategies/Military deployments that I believe would have had a greater impact in combating Isis. The alternatives I will put forward are build around the NZDF training ,equipping and fighting alongside the Kurds and the taking part in the defence of Jordan. The respective strengths and weakness of each alternative will be examined. Why the coalition won't come close to defeating Isis and the coming wider war will be the subject of the last installment in the series.

Paul Buchanan is correct about the decision to deploy the NZDF to Iraq had already been made before yesterdays Cabinet meeting. The John Key lead dance around the decision to send troops to Iraq was nothing short of disgraceful. When Isis was taking over Iraq Key should have been straight with his electorate about the imperative for the NZDF to be deployed to Iraq.

In order to allow for the rapid deployment of troops Key needed to show some spine. Key could have focused on the sheer brutality of Isis. Also how Isis take over of Iraq and Syria has given them the world's largest terrorist base should have been put in focus.

The fabricate of the Iraqi Army melted away at the first sight of Isis. In short the Iraqi Army is institutionally too far gone to serve as anything more than a force that exists on paper. The Iraqi Air Force wasn't yet prepared to provide tactical air support for local ground forces. More on air cover below.

Committing troops in an advisory/training role with the Iraqi Army that is beyond repair is very unwise. Two clear alternatives were completely ignored by Key. The most obvious choice would have been to send trainers/advisors to support Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq. Dispatching troops to Jordan the next frontier in the fight against Isis would have been the second alternative. I will go into greater depth about these alternatives in part 2 and 3 of this series.

The only worse decision Key could have made would have been to withhold forces from the fight all together. Why should have New Zealand joined the coalition and risk the lives of NZDF personal in futile effort to train the Iraqi Army?

A plausible scenario exists in which the people of Iraq can be trained to provide a degree of security for their local communities. I believe that many of recruits of joining the Iraqi Army will be members of local militias. After they have completed their training and been issued with equipment the members of the local militias would desert the Iraqi Army. Upon returning home the deserters would look to protect their homes and families from Isis and other terrorist organisations.

Kiwi military and security analysts have failed to discuss how the RNZAF lack of a air combat wing (the Skyhawk's that were canned by the previous Labour government) has played a role in restricting New Zealand to a purely training role in the war against Isis. We are only just beginning to see outcome of the spineless Key's government failure to restore the RNZAF combat wing.

The other factors that has relegated New Zealand's contribution to a training role is Key's lack of political will to deploy the SAS in a front line combat role. To what extent the RNZAF inability to provide native air cover for our ground forces and Key having no back bone as Prime Minster were behind the decision to deploy troops in a “Non Combat” role , will have to be determined by the history books.

New Zealand government lack of sanctions against Russia

Prime Minister John Key says major companies such as Fonterra have been asked not to exploit the gap left by other countries' trade sanctions on Russia because to do so would be a "terrible look" for New Zealand.

Mr Key also revealed that although New Zealand has not officially imposed trade sanctions on Russia, government officials had called in Fonterra and other companies to ask them not to exploit the gap left in the Russian market. Mr Key said it was made clear that would be a terrible look for New Zealand - and while the Government could not stop them doing so, he believed they were acting responsibly.

Article

Well does anybody really believe that Fonterra will not exploit the openings in the Russian market created by the sanctions imposed by other nations? Companies like Fonterra really only care about their profit margins and opening up new markets. Russia has been an emerging market for New Zealand dairy export's for a number of years before the downing of flight MH17 and the conflict in the Ukraine.

Under the leadership of Prime Minster John Key the New Zealand government has made the decision that maintaining trade relations with Russia is of far greater importance than imposing sanctions. Heck Key's government only official protest laid has come from delaying the negotiation and signing of the New Zealand Russia Free Trade Agreement until an unspecified time.

The Kiwi and the international reader can rightfully John Key as being New Zealand 's Neville Chamberlain. The lack of moral and political condemnation from Key's government is Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement rearing its ugly head in it's most blatant form.

Like the cold hard depth of a Russian winter the sanctions or the lack of them from a Kiwi stand point have had no impact on Putin's regime incursion into the Ukraine. The policy of appeasement has been given a shabby make up job by the countries (including Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbott who shirt fronted himself at the G20 summit ) that have chosen to impose sanctions against Russia over the events in the Ukraine. The New Zealand government has chosen to throw away the Hollywood make up kit and adopt the policy of appeasement in its most naked form.

John Key's government will go down in history as having appeased the Putin regime along with the international community. History will shame the cowardly Kiwi political leaders who have appeased the Adolf Hitler of our time. I can only leave the reader with the following thought, if our political leaders and the vast majority of people have not heeded the hard learned lessons from two world wars what hope do we have of not repeating history?

The coming European war will be the fruits from the tree of appeasement. While the details of how the war will unfold are for another time it can be summarised that Russia will play the role Germany did in World War 2. Put another way Russia will be the aggressor in western Europe starting with Poland and the former East Germany and where there tanks stop rolling is yet to be treadled.