I find it highly likely that before the Ukraine war is over the Poles will put troops on the ground. Historically, when The Ukraine and Belarus have not been Russian territory, then they have most likely been Polish territory. The Poles, naturally, would like to regain some of their 'lost' eastern lands. Consequently, the current conflict in Ukraine is far too good an opportunity for them to miss. Taking land requires deploying troops so expect to see the Poles on the ground in The Ukraine. Poland's recent orders of massive amounts of military equipment, including 1000 K2 tanks from Korea, indicate the line of their thinking.
Ideally, the Poles would hope to send their troops in with the consent of Ukrainians. Arriving as the saviours when the war had got to the point that Ukraine was on the verge of total defeat. Although self-interested, it would still be a brave move to stand face-to-face with the Russians, but the Poles do have an ace up their sleeve. They can offer the Russians a complete end to the war in return for dividing Ukrainian territory between them; afterall, even today, if Poland suddenly closed its border to any trans-shipment of armaments then the Ukraine War would be over. The Hungarians are already closed to arms shipments. Moldavia is blocked from shipping arms by the fact that its border with The Ukraine is controlled by the breakaway republic of Transniestria which is strongly pro-Russian, to the extent of having a Russian base on its soil. And the Romanians have only some small roads through the thick of the Carpathian mountains to use after the Russians destroyed the bridges on the lower Dniestr River. That leaves tiny Slovakia as their only significant import route and Slovakia's main opposition party is already campaigning against their involvement in the war.
And then, of course, the Poles might be able to win the backing of the USA for their move. That would constitute another huge Ace.
Apparently, the former Polish foreign minister has said that it has been discussed at high levels whether if Ukraine became a Polish 'Protectorate' it would be covered by Article 5 of the NATO constitution requiring all NATO members to come to its defense.
Of course, talk of Polish protectorates only makes sense if the Ukrainians are losing the war and badly. If Ukraine looks like being the eventual winner then look out for the Poles finding reasons to move into Belarus. Were Belarus to send troops into Ukraine the Poles might consider it enough of a justification for them to attack Belarus. The Belarussians may not be simply looking for excuses not to enter Ukraine when they tell the Russians they need their troops to guard their own borders with the West. Putin, too, might well be deliberately wanting to keep Belarus out of harm's way, in order not to give the Poles an excuse to get involved.
Indeed, the only outcome where I do not see Polish troops on the ground, is if something like the current stalemate continues, where Ukraine is still strong enough to defend itself, but the Russians are not destroyed either. If such a stalemate is quickly followed by a ceasefire agreement then the Poles might miss their chance. I use the word 'quickly' deliberately, because it seems unlikely that a stalemate could go on for many years, eventually one side or the other should gain the upper hand as they are too dis-similar in capabilities. So it seems likely that the Poles will get their chance and if the Americans and Ukrainians aren't willing to negotiate with the Russians, the Poles, I suspect will be happy to, as for them a negotiation over Ukraine will not be zero sum; but rather win: win.

Many news reports are saying that there are more than 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. Some news reports are saying around 90,000.

So, does this mean an invasion of The Ukraine is imminent?

I would say: certainly not. The Russians are positioning themselves to take advantage of possible opportunities. Russian troops moving into the Ukraine, en masse, is certainly more likely than it was a year ago, but it may not come in the form of an invasion and will not happen at all unless global and local conditions present a compelling opportunity.

First: The Why?
Why would Russia want to take possession of The Ukraine?

Because in many Russian minds, and almost certainly in Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s mind, The Ukraine is Russian territory. The very first historical mentions of a Russian people and state come from tales of the ‘Kievan Rus’. Kiev was the first capital of the Russians. Today, Kiev is the capital of The Ukraine. Many Russian’s don’t see The Ukraine as just a lost province; they see it as their historical heartland. They strongly desire to see The Ukraine re-united with the rest of Russia.

Second: The Why Now?
Why is it far more likely that the Russians might make a play for taking back The Ukraine now, rather than a year ago?

Because they have finished the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, which means that they can now pump natural gas direct to Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Previously, their gas, which provides an enormous income stream, had to pass through The Ukraine to reach Western Europe. So, naturally, the fear was that any aggressive moves toward The Ukraine could see the Ukrainians shut down the gas pipelines and hamstring the Russian economy from the very beginning of the war. Now, the Ukrainians can no longer play this card. So, the price the Russians would have to pay for aggression against The Ukraine has been substantially lowered. Not only that, but the Russians now have leverage over many of the European nations who might otherwise have supported The Ukraine against Russia. Now, the Germans, for example, know that if they support The Ukraine against Russia, they risk losing the natural gas upon which their economy currently depends. Previously, the Germans would have lost the gas immediately that the war started so the Russians could not have used the restriction of supply as a threat to keep them out of the conflict.

So, the Russians are highly motivated to regain The Ukraine and they have already created infrastructure and political levers that would significantly lower the expected cost of an invasion of The Ukraine. So why wouldn’t they go ahead and invade?

The main reason why the Russians would limit military actions against The Ukraine as much as possible is precisely because they see themselves as the one people. They would like to re-unify the country peacefully if they can. Many think that the Ukrainian identity is weak and does not have deep historical roots for many Ukrainian citizens, they hope that a well-managed crisis might bring many Ukrainian citizens around to wanting to re-integrate with Russia. President Putin is also surely aware that a brutal invasion may well be something which could inspire a stronger sense of Ukrainian identity than that which already exists. To draw an historical example, one might say that the inhabitants of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor had no strong sense of a national identity at the time when the Portuguese abandoned that colony, however, after a brutal Indonesian invasion, the East Timorese identity became extremely strong.
So, the Russians are hoping that The Ukraine will soon find itself in such economic or governmental difficulties that a re-unification with ‘Greater Russia’ will be welcomed by the populace. Of course, now that the Ukrainian government can no longer stop them exporting gas to Western Europe the Russians are able to tighten the economic screws on The Ukraine in a way they never have before. They have already banned exports of coal to The Ukraine, it remains to be seen if they are going to shut off the oil and gas as well this winter. There are various ways that the Russians can manipulate circumstances within The Ukraine to try and bring on a crisis. It is not the purpose of this article to try to detail them all. What I would like to emphasize, however, is that there are some potential global events which Russia might be watching or even waiting for.
Imagine, for example, that China began implementing its plans to take control of Taiwan. Such activity, whether it be a blockade or a military assault, would likely take a great deal of American attention. Would that not present a perfect opportunity for an old-fashioned military invasion of The Ukraine? Is it not possible that there might not already be a deal between China and Russia such that if China begins an attack on Taiwan then Russia should attack The Ukraine, to divide the attention and resources of America and its allies? Certainly, such a deal would make perfect sense. Indeed, the deal might even go the other way. It might read that ‘if Russia attacks The Ukraine then China should begin its attack on Taiwan.
Remember, such attacks would not be seen by either country as an act of aggression against a sovereign state. China would see an attack on Taiwan as simply the final chapter in a long-running civil war. Certainly, that civil war has been cold for many decades now, but, nonetheless, Taiwan is the last holdout of the Chinese Communist Party’s opponents in the battle to control China. Taking control of Taiwan would be for them an act of national reunification. For the Russians, with The Ukraine, it is the same. They too would see an invasion of The Ukraine as an attempt to reunify their country. Both Russia and China are very conscious, however, that the USA and the West would represent their actions differently and are worried about what they would do against them. Seen from this vantage point it would seem strange if there is not a deal between these two countries to co-ordinate their attacks on Taiwan and The Ukraine.

So ...

Right now, the Russians are in a strong position to move on The Ukraine; they have removed their economic vulnerability; global fossil fuel prices are high, boosting their economic strength and making their customers less likely to want to seek other suppliers; they have a strong leader with good domestic support and the US administration is focused on China and domestic discord and the American people are tired of foreign engagements. If an opportunity appears, the Russians may well move on The Ukraine.

However ...

For the Chinese, the current moment does not appear so compelling. The US is watching them closely and they do not want to get into a hot war with the Americans. However, their hand might be forced. My feeling is that the Chinese will continue to keep trading with the US for as long as they can, and the American administration will go along with this for as long as it can too. However, American domestic opinion might eventually force the administration to cease engagement with China. Just on the 2nd of December, 2021, the World Tennis Association has ceased any engagement with China over the Peng Shuai affair. One can imagine that outrage over what is reportedly happening in Sinkiang (Xinxiang) might shortly follow. At some point trade between China and The West might come to an abrupt halt and at that point China might feel it has much less to lose by attacking Taiwan. Indeed, attacking Taiwan might become a necessary, even the only, face-saving move left to a Chinese leader who is faced with the West’s anti-Chinese actions.

So, if Russia chose to make moves on The Ukraine this winter, it is quite likely that Chinese would not act on Taiwan but rather choose to wait till their own circumstances were more compelling. However, if China does move on Taiwan this northern winter then I think it very likely that Russia would initiate some actions against the sovereignty of The Ukraine.
 
Summary:
Russia is presently very well set up to intervene in The Ukraine, more so than at any period since The Ukraine Crisis began back in 2013-2014 with the toppling of a democratically elected pro-Russian government. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has made Russia far less vulnerable to Ukrainian economic retaliation and simultaneously given the Russians more economic control of several Western European countries (most significantly, Germany). Consequently, the Russians are far more likely to intervene in the Ukraine than they have been previously, and they have stationed their military in a manner that would allow them to intervene very quickly should an opportunity arise. The Russians are probably working to manufacture such an opportunity, with moves like banning coal exports to The Ukraine, but other opportunities could arise without their meddling, an example of such being a Chinese play for Taiwan. Other opportunities, though, can be imagined, such as a poor response to the pandemic within The Ukraine causing  economic or administrative failure. Despite their strong position a Russian invasion is not a given, however, as the Russians would like to avoid alienating the majority of Ukrainians. They would prefer to intervene in the country in a situation where their intervention would be welcomed by, at least, a significant number of Ukrainians. However, if something like an invasion of Taiwan was begun by the Chinese the Russians may well think that the international circumstances were so favorable that they should take advantage of the situations and launch an invasion of The Ukraine regardless.
​Such are the precarious circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment.

Do you see what I am seeing?
Many in the media are talking down the possibility of a war between the USA and Iran. "Iran does not want a war," they say, "They know they can't match the US." Maybe so, but who says it is Iran who gets to choose?
Since the 'Shale Revolution' which made the US effectively independent of Middle Eastern oil, as recently as during the Trump Presidency, the US no longer has to worry about Iran being able to shut down its energy supply. Indeed, if a war in the Persian Gulf shut down oil production in the region that would just strengthen the US vis-a-vis all of its economic competitors whose production costs would suddenly increase, if indeed they were able to maintain much production at all.
So what is to stop the US going after Iran's nuclear program? We all know that the US doesn't want the Iranians getting nuclear weapons; not when Iran's regime considers the US to be 'The Great Satan'.
In the past the US had to tread carefully as a result of their dependence on Gulf Oil; that dependence no longer exists.
The logic is clear.
Perhaps the US president does not want a war, but there are certainly some Hawks in the US defense establishment who might think now is a good time to authorize some aggressive actions that might inspire retaliation of the sort that makes heavy-handed responses hard to avoid for even the most pacifist presidents.
There are certainly signs that some foreign powers are preparing for a Persian Gulf Crisis.
Suddenly, Japan has some naval strength positioned in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. This is very unusual for Japan. Could it be that Gulf oil dependent Japan is making sure it has naval power in place to convoy out any of its oil tankers if fighting breaks out?
Then there is Turkey. Suddenly, out of the blue, Turkey's parliament has decided to authorize troop deployment to hapless, but oil rich Libya.
Now, the Libyan civil war has been going on since 2011 so one could be forgiven for asking of Turkey, 'Why now?'
Could it be that Turkey is foreseeing the possibility of a loss of oil imports from the nearby Gulf States and is consequently seeking to put itself in a position where it can use its considerable military to secure access to Libya's oil reserves?

Perhaps Iran and the US will sort out their differences without much disruption to Persian Gulf oil supplies, some however appear to be making sure that they are prepared for a potential energy crisis.

I have not been watching the world for a while. Having been buried in my own personal projects, family and occupation I only now put my head up and look around at the world.
So what do I see?

1. I see that oil prices are high and have been that way for a while.
2. I see that Turkey, is finally flexing its military muscles and is slowly, carefully and quietly conquering parts of northern Syria.
3. I see that there are moves being made within Saudi Arabia to purge any possible sources of opposition to the king and the crown prince.
4. I see that neither the EU nor the Eurozone have collapsed, but the governments and politicians that oppose it seem to be gaining influence not losing it.
5. I see that President Xi of China is gathering enormous powers to himself.
6. I see that Donald Trump is meeting the President of North Korea in Singapore.
7. I see that Russia is hosting a World Cup, a bare four years after hosting a Winter Olympics

So what do I make of it all?

1. That with the rebound in oil prices Russia and Saudi Arabia are doing much better than many expected two years ago.
2. With Turkey moving into Arab territory there is an extra incentive for Arabs to unify and that there will be support for a strong Arab leader if one emerges.
3. Saudi Arabia could be strengthening itself internally in preparation for taking on a more aggressive role in its region.
4. The EU is already fraying politically. There is no need for it to disappear; countries can just stop doing what it says and it will simply become less and less important. Hungary and Poland are already flouting its directives, and they are flouting their flouting. The Eurozone can’t simply fade away. It will either continue to function more-or-less as-is or countries will leave it. I think some countries will eventually choose to leave.
5. The fact that 6. Is occurring despite 5. Suggests that Xi is extremely concerned by China’s relative strength vis-à-vis USA and is willing to be very nice to the USA and help them with North Korea so as to dissuade the USA from totally devastating the Chinese economy as they could do if they launched a trade war.
6. I see the American President’s meeting with the North Korean President as more of a reflection of the state of mind of the Chinese President than anything else.
7. Having weathered western sanctions and now showing an expected budget surplus for this year, Russia will be able to use the World Cup to show the world that reports of its imminent demise were vastly premature.

Extra observations:
The USA has recently started taking steps to act in its own economic interests and despite some bad press has found the process less politically painful than many expected. As their first small steps succeed, their appetite for putting America first will probably increase.
It has become clear to me that Russia has probably offered the US a grand bargain/threat on Ukraine, which would run something like ‘Ukraine stays out of NATO and the EU and you stay out of Ukraine or we let the tanks role.’ The Donbas Republics are key to this strategy because if Ukraine joined NATO and Russia attacked then all of NATO would be duty bound to go to war with Russia – and they probably would in the case of such a clear attack. If, however, Ukraine joined NATO and then the Donbas Republics suddenly had some extremely successful offensive thrusts in their on-going civil war, then technically no NATO members would be ‘duty bound’ to intervene. This would explain why so little has been done for Ukraine by the West since its ouster of the pro-Russian government.

Perhaps, more should have been made of this earlier, but the idea of boasting has come late. Before everyone forgets how few people called the US election correctly I would like to draw readers' attention to the post on the 18th of June, 2016, where not only the results of the US election, but the Australian election too, were predicted with 100% accuracy.

I do notice that there was one mistake in the post, however, the speech quoted as taking place on the 13th of July, actually took place on the 13th of June; which would make sense seeing as the post went up before the 13th of July.

It has been said that the US does not have a military option against North Korea. North Korea's ability to destroy Seoul if they are struck by the US makes a US strike on the North politically unthinkable, according to many.
However, if South Korea had a public split with the US, and could convince the North that they were totally against any US attack, then perhaps the North would not retaliate against Seoul if such an attack did come.
Somewhat ironically, if the South withdrew from its alliance with the US, over the current crisis then that could give the US more room to act.
And by the way
If the South distanced itself from the US it would also make China happier with the idea of a strike. China certainly doesn't want a full blown war on the Korean peninsula, and so it would oppose a strike if it thought that ran the risk of restarting the Korean War. If, however, there was to be a strike and no war, China could be quite happy about the North having its nuclear and ballistic weaponry removed.
This is just a by the way thought, though, because the US does not need any approval from China to decide whether it bombs North Korea or not.

I said in the raison de etre of this blog that it would be in part a public record of political predictions, so given that recent articles have been more about explanation than prediction I think some crystal ball gazing is due.
 
Predictions relating to the US election:
Donald Trump will win the US presidential election.
Trump made a speech on the 13th of July, which I think will be looked back on as significant. In it he cited protection of the LGBT community as a reason for banning immigrants from countries with a history of exporting Islamic extremists. In the wake of the Orlando massacre this argument will carry weight and will cause rifts within the ‘social progressive’ ranks which had formerly been overwhelmingly in support of Hillary Clinton.
 
Predictions relating to the Australian Election:
In the coming Australian election the Nationals will steal primary votes from the Liberals and the Xenophon Party will steal votes from Labor.
Pauline Hanson will win a senate seat.
The coalition will be returned to government.