In Colorado, pro-life groups, by DEFINITION, are not in favor of taking life. The fact that someone killed people while using "pro-life" phrases is irrelevant because he is not doing pro-life practices and is therefore not a "pro-life" activist.
In Chicago, Barack Obama's buddy, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, was the one who sat on this police shooting. Whether it was excessive or not, the blame goes with the MAYOR who was the one that sat on this story!
When determining whether Muslims celebrated after 9/11 in 2001, the GOP front runner used a NY Times reporter's story as a primary source. Since there was NO RETRACTION, the story stands as a source, and of course the GOP front runner had reason to be animated and irate!
Leading pro-life advocates are today responding to a tragic shooting in Colorado Springs near and at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic that has reportedly injured multiple police officers and civilians. While Planned Parenthood does not appear to be the target, the gunman involved reportedly hid inside the abortion facility to escape police and has been involved in a shootout with them.
David Daleiden, who produced the shocking videos showing Planned Parenthood abortion clinics selling aborted babies and their body parts, strongly condemned the shooting.
“The Center for Medical Progress does not support vigilante violence against abortion providers. There are people at Planned Parenthood who I still consider friends and my thoughts and prayers are with them at this time for no one to be injured.”
“We only visited the Denver clinic in Colorado. PPRM CEO Vicki Cowart says Planned Parenthood still doesn’t know the full details of what is going on in Colorado Springs.”
Meanwhile, National Right to Life condemned the shooting in an email to LifeNews:
“National Right to Life, which represents 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, unequivocally condemns unlawful activities and acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.”
The National Right to Life Committee has always been involved in peaceful, legal activities to protect human lives threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. We always have and will continue to oppose any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion. NRLC has had a policy of forbidding violence or illegal activity by its staff, directors, officers, affiliated state organizations, and chapters. NRLC’s sole purpose is to protect innocent human life.
NRLC will continue to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and the elderly. NRLC will continue to work for peaceful solutions to aid mothers and their unborn children. These solutions involve helping women and their children and do not involve violence against anyone.
Operation Rescue and the Christian Defense Coalition are denouncing the violence that appears to be in progress at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Details are still sketchy regarding the motives of the perpetrator and we urge the public not to draw any conclusions until police can make an official determination.
“Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies. We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone,” said Troy Newman President of Operation Rescue.
“Although we don’t know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels.,” said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life also issued a statement to LifeNews.com:
Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs. The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion. Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.
As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation.
What is motivating this shooting will become clearer in due time. We ask that in the meantime, nobody jump to conclusions regarding the connection between this violence and the controversy over abortion and Planned Parenthood, and we ask that people do not use this situation to inflame emotions on either side of the abortion issue.
Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!
Well, the movies that opened in theaters for Thanksgiving are
slightly better than in weeks past, which means we’re getting close to
the end of the year “better” movies. I’ll post my belated movie reviews
for the past two weekends soon. (I didn’t get those up in time because
there were 13 movies I reviewed, and at 400+ words per review, it’s a
lot of time, work, and energy.)
* “Creed” – Rated PG-13: Read my complete review
of this movie, which is basically “Rocky 7,” in which real Rocky passes
the torch to “Black Rocky.” I had very mixed feelings about this movie
and the Black Lives Matter propagandist who made the movie. Again,
read my full review column. TWO REAGANS PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
* “The Good Dinosaur” – Rated PG:
Whether or not you have kids, you will enjoy this incredibly cute,
touching, and endearing Disney Pixar movie. But, especially if you have
young kids, you’ll enjoy this opportunity for wholesome entertainment
for your family, which also teaches your kids the value of hard work and
sticktuitiveness. On top of that, this is the first–and best–dinosaur
Western I’ve ever seen. It’s very fun. There are some points that
might be sad or scary for kids. The father dinosaur in the movie dies
in a flood while trying to save his son, but that’s necessary to drive
the plot along. And a character seems to die (or something like that)
in almost ever Disney Pixar film. Plus, didn’t that happen in Bambi?
Some of the dinosaurs (and a snake scene) are slightly scary, but I’ve
seen far worse in movies for kids, and I didn’t find it to be too
disturbing for kids.
The story: three dinosaurs are born to a couple of dinosaur farmers
in the West (the movie’s scenery is reportedly based on Montana). Two
of the dinosaurs, Libby and Buck, are normal-sized and they make their
mark. But Arlo, the main character of the movie, is a runt and a klutz.
Nothing ever seems to go right for him, and he desperately tries to
impress his parents so he can make his mark.
Soon, crops go missing from the storage silo, and the dinosaurs set a
trap. Arlo’s job is to watch the silo and catch the critter who is
stealing from them. He catches a cave boy, but lets him go free. So,
Arlo’s father requires Arlo to go with him to track the cave boy down a
ravine. Suddenly, though, there is a rainstorm, and a flood, and while
Arlo’s father rescues Arlo, the father dies in the flood.
Winter is coming, and Arlo must help his mother and siblings harvest
enough crops so they have food during the cold months. But, again, the
cave boy steals their food. Arlo chases after him into the ravine and
mountains and then gets lost. He becomes friends with the cave boy (who
is like his pet dog–yes, we humans are the pets in this alternative
timeline of evolution and history), and together they brave the land as
Arlo tries to find and make his way home. They encounter a snake,
various other wild and dangerous animals, another species of
dinosaurs–cowboys who protect them in exchange for help in rounding up
cattle, and so on.
The movie is cute, cuddly, and very entertaining. THREE REAGANS Watch the trailer . . .
.
* “Victor Frankenstein” – Rated PG-13:
I can’t say anything positive about this movie, other than that the
first five minutes of it were pretty good. Sadly, it all goes rapidly
downhill from there, and the movie is at once disgusting, stupid, and a
totally pointless bore. I struggled to stay awake, briefly lost that
battle, and missed nothing. It’s so bad that, while I never leave a
movie for a bathroom break lest I miss something good or some important
plot twist or dialogue, I didn’t hesitate to do so for this–I think I
did this only once before (if that) in my 11 years of reviewing movies.
And, still, I missed nothing. Yes, I repeat, it’s that awful.
Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame is a hunchback clown who
performs in a traveling circus. He crawls on all fours to walk, and
when he’s not performing, he is kept prisoner in a cage and treated like
an animal. One night, the female trapeze artist in the circus falls
off of her swing and to the ground. Radcliffe can see in his mind that
her windpipe is blocked and he comes to her rescue, instructing others
what to do to save her. One of those others is a local doctor, Dr.
Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy). Frankenstein tells Radcliffe that
Radcliffe is a genius doctor and shouldn’t be in the circus.
Frankenstein convinces Radcliffe to escape and helps him to do so. Once
at Frankenstein’s mansion and laboratory, Frankenstein tells Radcliffe
that he is not a hunchback but merely has a giant cyst on his back,
which Frankenstein drains. Then, Frankenstein enables Radcliffe to
stand upright with a brace, helps him to clean up, and teaches him how
to behave like a civilized man. Frankenstein tells Radcliffe that he is
now “Igor.”
Thereafter, Igor serves as Frankenstein’s aide and assistant, while
Frankenstein attempts to create a creature from various body parts he’s
picked up from various beings and assembled. Frankenstein uses electric
shock to bring the creature to life, but the creature is dangerous and
they must catch it and kill it. Frankenstein has various benefactors
who fund his “research” into creating and bringing to life various
creatures, and Igor, seeing how dangerous and unethical it is, begs him
to stop. Frankenstein is working on bringing to life a “human”
assembled from various body parts. Igor begs him profusely not to do it
and tracks Frankenstein to a seaside, creepy resort, where the
monster’s body has been assembled and displayed, ready to shock into
life.
Believe me, I’m making this dark, creepy bore sound better than it
is. It’s neither exciting, nor interesting, and not the least bit
suspenseful. While it somewhat tracks the traditional story of
Frankenstein, Igor, and Frankenstein’s monster, it manages to turn it
into a snoozer. THREE MARXES Watch the trailer . . .
* “Legend” – Rated R:
You couldn’t pay me enough to watch this incredibly violent, pointless
bore that unintentionally borders on (and then crosses over the border
to) comedic. Tom Hardy plays real-life identical twin brother gangsters
Ronnie and Reggie Kray who operated in East London in the 1960s. The
brothers were violent and they used the threat of violence to extort
successful businesses, including bars and nightclubs, from their owners.
They murdered people indiscriminately and otherwise engaged in acts of
violence against those in their criminal gang and against the innocent.
The movie is narrated by the voice of the actress (Emily Browning) who
plays Reggie Kray’s wife, Francis.
When they were very young, the Krays were arrested for beating and
trying to kill a police officer who tried to arrest them. Ronnie Kray
was declared mentally insane and sentenced to an insane asylum. But
when brother Reggie got out of prison, he and his henchman threatened
the psychiatrist in charge of treating him with death unless he declared
Ronnie Kray sane, which he did. Ronnie Kray is portrayed in the movie
as the more crazy of the two brothers and the one who instigates
violence at the drop of a hat. He is portrayed as the bigger problem of
the two. Reggie Kray is portrayed as calm and merely interested in
(illegal) business and blackmail. But, in real life, both brothers were
hotheads who were extremely violent and murderous. There is a scene in
which Reggie Kray stabs a man repeatedly to death. It’s horrible,
pointless, and I couldn’t watch.
Ronnie Kray, the insane one, is also very openly gay. He and his
brother blackmailed a conservative member of the English parliament by
setting up a gay porn and orgy party, taking photos, and sending it to
an English tabloid to publish.
The movie shows the partnership between the Krays and American
mobster Meyer Lansky, with several scenes of Lansky’s “representatives”
offering and shepherding the partnership in which the Krays manage
Lansky’s London operations. And the movie also shows the relationship
between Francis and Reggie and how it developed, with Francis’ mother
constantly warning and begging her not to date the mobster, telling her
it will only make her unhappy eventually and that it will end badly. Of
course, as in a zillion other gangster movies with women who want to
date organized crime figures, her mother was right. The audience knows
it, and it’s eventually confirmed in the movie.
The only redeeming thing about this two-hour and ten-minute bore is
that it doesn’t glamorize the life of mobsters. But that isn’t
redemption enough to make anyone sit through this painful torture. FOUR MARXES PLUS TWO ISIS BEHEADINGS Watch the trailer . . .
I was pleasantly surprised by “Creed,” which is in theaters today for Thanksgiving. It’s essentially “Rocky 7” (with “Rocky 6” being “Rocky Balboa”–read my review),
and it’s a much, much better movie than I expected. But, at the same
time, I have some very strong reservations about who is behind it and
what this is all about.
Overall, it’s a good, uplifting movie in the Rocky spirit, although I
have mixed feelings about what is pretty much the subliminal, somewhat
racist celebration of the transformation of everything White in America
to Black (when the reverse definitely would have been called out as
“racist”). This is the story of Rocky Balboa passing the baton to the
new Black Rocky, played by Michael B. Jordan.
When I first heard about this movie, I denounced
it on this site as ridiculous and yet another promise Sylvester
Stallone made about the Rocky movies that he didn’t keep.
As I noted then, Stallone promised us that 2006’s “Rocky Balboa” would
be the last, last Rocky movie ever. That was after, years earlier, he
promised us 1990’s “Rocky V” was the end. I view Stallone’s promises
about the last, last, last, ever, ever, ever, final, final, final Rocky
movie like I view illegal amnesty pimps’ false promises that their
latest push for legalizing invading alien criminals will be the “last,
last, last” time. It never is the last time. They’ll always do it
again. There is too much in it for them not to keep doing it over and
over. And so it goes with the Rocky movies. There’s too much money in
it to stop . . . and Stallone has a model wife and several glammed-up
daughters to keep dressed in high style and bling.
Note, however, that last time, Stallone apparently intended to keep
his promise. This is the first Rocky movie that Stallone neither wrote
nor directed. Those duties are filled, this time, by Black director
Ryan Coogler, who approached a dubious and supposedly unwilling Stallone
and eventually convinced him to get involved in this production.
Coogler is something of a race merchant, and as I also noted when I first wrote about this movie, the original script was even more politically correct and featured a vastly multicultural cast,
with only a lesbian Muslim vegan terrorist missing. Coogler’s first
hit movie was “Fruitvale Station,” a race-laden, completely fabricated,
anti-police movie that sharply contrasts with the facts of the real
story on which it is based. The movie glorified convicted criminal,
all-around low-life, and drug dealer Oscar Grant, a Black man who was
shot by a White police officer after Grant resisted arrest and the cop
thought he’d grabbed his taser instead of his gun. And since Hollywood
hates America and loves to ingratiate itself and pretend it’s “down wit
da struggle,” liberal movie critics gushed over the fictional
“Fruitvale” and it received much undue critical acclaim. So, as you
watch Creed–if you decide to spend money on seeing it–you must recognize
that its writer/director (who stands to earn gazillions from this) is
part of the Black Lives Matter movement of fictional narratives
glorifying criminals and attacking cops.
In this movie, Michael B. Jordan, who played Oscar Grant in
“Fruitvale,” is Adonis Creed, the illegitimate son of boxer Apollo
Creed, who died in “Rocky IV.” I know Hollywood doesn’t strictly adhere
to real timelines. But Rocky IV came out on November 27, 1985, almost
exactly 30 years ago. And, yet, in this movie, Adonis Creed, is about
22-years-old for the portion that takes place “today.” It would have
made more sense, as I originally thought–and had written on this
site–was going to be the plot of the movie, if Adonis Creed were Apollo
Creed’s grandson. But, that aside, the movie is a slightly ghetto-ized
version of the original Rocky story.
Creed is a parentless kid and troubled punk imprisoned in juvenile
detention. Adonis doesn’t know he’s Apollo Creed’s son. He knows only
that he never met his father, who was never in his life and left his
mother, and that his mother is a drug addict who is nowhere to be found.
He likes to fight and often gets in physical altercations there. But
one day, Mrs. Cosby, er . . . Mrs. Creed (Phylicia Rashad) tracks the
young Creed son to the juvie center where he’s housed and bails’ Adonis
out. Mrs. Creed explains to the young Adonis “Johnson” in semi-evasive
but understood terms that his father/her husband had an affair with
Adonis’ mother and he is the child of that relationship. She brings
Adonis home to live with her at the giant Creed estate, complete with
gargantuan mansion and fancy automatic gate with a “C” on it.
Mrs. Creed raises Adonis as her own son and he grows up to do desk
work at a bank. But, instead of taking a promotion, he quits to become a
full-time boxer, after having some success in small fights in Mexico.
But Adonis knows he needs something more to take him to the next level,
and, soon, he pays a visit to Rocky at his “Adrian’s” Italian restaurant
(where amnesty-supporting Stallone’s Rocky happily employs illegal aliens).
This time around, not only is Adrian dead, but Paulie is, too. Rocky
regularly goes to their adjacent grave sites to read them the newspaper
and tell them what is going on in his life and the world.
Now, here’s what I liked about this movie. Despite the title and the
Black Rocky who is at the center of the movie, this is a Rocky movie.
Sylvester Stallone is the real star and he (and the usual Rocky
nostalgia we all have) carries this thing, down to the playing of the
Rocky theme, “Gonna Fly Now” and the traditional run up the steps of the
Philadelphia Museum of Art, this time with Adonis in tow. Without
Stallone as “Rocky,” this wouldn’t be worth seeing. In Germany, movie
posters for this, call it, “Creed: Rocky’s Legacy.” It’s Rocky’s
training and camaraderie with Adonis Creed–Adonis calls him “Unc,” short
for Uncle–that is the highlight of this movie. Rocky motivates Adonis
and turns him into a star. And he allows Adonis to move in with him,
despite some very rude, behind-Rocky’s-back, insults and derogatory
comments about him by Adonis. The two become like family, as Rocky’s
son moved away to Toronto long ago, in order to live his life away from
Rocky’s shadow. Rocky also faces a serious crisis in his life–and
Adonis plays the “magical Black friend” (Black L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein first iterated the concept and calls it the “Magic Negro”) role in motivating Rocky to be tough and strong in the fight of his life.
Me with Sly Stallone @ Detroit “Rocky Balboa” Premiere
I found this movie enjoyable and entertaining, though there is
nothing new here. As I noted, it tracks the Rocky story with a little
ghetto-ization. For example, Creed is a rude house guest and has sex
with his girlfriend on Rocky’s couch. (Missing was any scene of Rocky
throwing the couch out.) There’s nothing objectionable about the movie
on its face. It’s just who’s behind it and the not-so-sub-rosa message
about what is going on here: the deliberate darkening of formerly-White
American pop culture icons as an in-your-face, lording-it-over-you
statement about who is now in control and who is no longer welcome,
except as the help.
This movie says all that without saying it. It’s not heavy-handed.
But sometimes, the lack of heavy-handedness is the most effective
on-screen messaging.
(Blacks may get mad at me for saying this, as many do if you say
James Bond isn’t Black–he isn’t, and he’s not blond either, a la Daniel
Craig. He’s a swarthy, dark-haired White guy. But, as dumb as the
“Shaft” movies were, I’m sure there would be “Black Movie Characters’
Lives Matter” riots in the streets, if they made a movie in which Shaft
is forced to retire and train a new, White Shaft before handing over the
keys to da crib.)
By the way, if Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Hussein Obama Idi Amin Dada
saw this, she’d probably declare that for the first time in her life
she’s proud to be a Rocky fan.
If you are a “Rocky” fan, as I am, you will like this, aside from the
race issues which aren’t spoken (but are quite evident). If skin
complexion weren’t such a major (though unspoken) factor in this movie
and driving motivation for the career of this movie’s creator, I would
probably give this THREE REAGANS. But given that it is, I downgrade and
give this one of my rare mixed movie ratings of . . . TWO REAGANS PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS Watch the trailer . . .
We
come now to a remarkable prophecy, spanning chapters 38 and 39. It is
God's message to Gog of Magog and his allies, who dwell far to the north
of the Promised Land and of Ezekiel's place of exile in Babylon but
will one day come down into the land of Israel with a vast invasion
force. Notice that Gog's invasion will occur "after many days...in the
latter years...in the latter days" (38:8, 16). So we are clearly dealing
with an end-time prophecy.
Before more specifically examining the time factor, let's look at the identities of the various peoples mentioned.
"Gog,
of the land of Magog," is called the "prince of Rosh, Meshech, and
Tubal" (verses 2-3; 39:1). He is allied with "Persia, Ethiopia, and
Libya" (verse 5)-or, as Ezekiel actually wrote, "Peras, Cush and Put"
(Living Bible)-as well as "Gomer and...the house of Togarmah" (verse 6).
Most
of these names can be found in the Table of Nations of Genesis 10,
which lists the families of humanity descended from Noah. Notice: "Now
this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And
sons were born to them after the flood. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.... The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan...." (verses 1-2, 6 emphasis added).
Notice that Gog is not mentioned here. That may be because the name Magog
actually means "land of Gog"-so that perhaps the actual son of Japheth
was named Gog and the nation he founded became known as Magog. The name
Gog could in a later context designate anyone who was from the land of
Gog (i.e., from Magog).
The first-century Jewish historian
Josephus wrote: "Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites,
but who by the Greeks were called Scythians" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, chap. 6, sec. 2). The name Scythians
denoted a wide array of peoples who ranged across the Russian Steppes
all the way into China. (The Western Scythians were heavily Israelite
and Germanic in nationality.)
One researcher writes of the
Eastern-ranging Scythians: "The Assyrians called them Mat Gugi (Ma-Gog)
which means 'the country of Gog'.... Let Milner, famous for his writings
on the Japhetic races, add further to our understanding: 'Magog, as a
geographical term used by Hebrews of old and Arabs today (Majaj),
denoted that vast stretch of country to the north of the Black Sea,
Caucasus, Caspian Sea, Hindu Kush, and Altai, known to the Greek
geographers as Skythia'....
"The term Mongol, sometimes written as Mongoul, appears to be directly derived from Magog. In India, for example, Mongol becomes Moghul and a large part of China was known as Mangi when Europeans first visited it. The Arabs called the Scythian tribes of Tartary Yajuj and Majuj which is Gog and Magog and the Great Wall of China as the 'wall of al Magog'....
"Where
is Magog located today? They migrated via southern Russia to their
current homeland, leaving behind such place-names as: Mogliev city,
Mogiolistan, Mugojar Mountains, Mogol-Tau Mountains. Among the people of
Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, central and much of northern and southern
China...and even some Japanese are also descended from Magog. Here are
the hundreds of millions of China today. No wonder the name of ancestor
Japhet means 'expansion,' implying a large or expanding race. Other
peoples descended from Magog [as well]" (Craig White, In Search of...The Origin of Nations, 2003, pp. 189-190, available at www.originofnations.org). Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names
states in its entry on Magog: "[English biblical commentator Bishop]
Lowth on this place says: 'The Mogul Tatars, a people of the Scythian
race, are still called so by the Arabian writers.... By Gog and Magog
may most probably be meant the Turks, who were originally natives of
Tartary, called Turcheston [Turkestan] by the eastern writers, and whose
language is derived from that of the Tartars'" (Alfred Jones, 1997).
Indeed,
the Turkish peoples of Central Asia may be included-and are, at the
very least, included in the broader alliance, as many of the Eastern
Turks appear to derive from Togarmah (see White, p. 198). The Western
Turks, as noted in the Bible Reading Program comments on Obadiah, appear
to derive from Edom. As also explained there, one such group that
appears to have migrated into Central Asia is the Edomite tribe of
Amalek (see also White, p. 65). Interestingly, Amalekite kings bore the
name Agag (Numbers 24:7; 1 Samuel 15:8) and we later see the
enemy in the book of Esther, Haman, referred to as an Agagite (3:1, 10;
8:3, 5; 9:24). Josephus refers to him as an Amalekite (Antiquities, Book 11, chap. 6, sec. 5). Agag is written in the Septuagint as Agog,
and there could conceivably be some relation to the name Gog-some, such
as Milner cited above, suggesting that Agog is a compound of A (number
1) and Gog (great or high), denoting the ruler (see White, p. 65).
Indeed, it is possible that the names Gog and Magog may be figurative labels on some level in Ezekiel 38-39. Gog
basically means "rooftop" and is also thought to mean mountain. As it
seems to indicate a peak or highest point, some have viewed it as
designating a supreme ruler-a despot or dictator. In that case, Gog of
Magog becomes "dictator of the dictatorship." That would certainly fit
the description given. Perhaps both the figurative and national meanings
are intended.
On the other peoples listed, a footnote to Ezekiel
38:2-3 in The Living Bible states: "The names of Gog's confederates
(Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Beth-togarmah) can be identified as Mushki,
Tabal, Gimaraya, Tegerama, peoples who lived in the mountainous area
southeast of the Black Sea and southwest of the Caspian." This would
place them in the region of eastern Turkey and Armenia, just south of
the Caucasus Mountains. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary
states in its entry on Tubal: "Tubal and Meschech, the Tabali and Mushki
of the Assyrian monuments, were the representatives of eastern Asia
Minor. Their territory originally extended far to the S[outh]. In the
time of [Assyrian emperors] Sargon and Sennacherib, the territory of the
Tabali adjoined Cilicia [in southeast Asia Minor], while the Mushki
inhabited the highlands to the E[ast] of them, where they were in
contact with the Hittites. In later days, however, Meshech had retreated
to the N[orth], and the classical geographers place the Tibereni and
the Mushki not far from the Black Sea." Thus we see a clear northward
progression.
Meshech evidently "migrated with Tubal up to the
Black Sea and into the Russian plains. Dr. Gesenius [the famous Hebrew
lexicographer] wrote in the nineteenth century that Meshech became the
Moschi.... They dwelt, he said, in the Moschian Mountains. The Moschian
Mountains were the connecting chain between the Caucasus and Anti Taurus
Mountains. The Scofield Reference Bible says that the
'reference to Meschech and Tubal (Moscow [the Russian capital] and
Tobolsk [in West Siberia]) is a very clear mark of identification....
Milner explains: '...The whole district within five hundred miles of
Moscow seems to be saturated with the name of Meschech.' He then
refers...to the following place names: Moscow; the Moskva River; the
Novo-Mosc-owsk on a tributary of the Dnieper; Mosch-Aisk near Borodino;
Mosch-ok between Moscow and Nijini Novogorod; Mosch-arki stood on a
tributary of the Volga River; Misch-etski stood between Moskow and the
Tula...Mesch-a, a branch of the Dwina River; Mesch-Tschowsk near Tula
[etc.]...." (White, pp. 178-179).
What about the name Rosh
in Ezekiel 38-39? This name is not found in the Table of Nations in
Genesis 10. Some translators prefer to view the word as the Hebrew word
for "head" or "chief" and link it with the word prince in the
verse as denoting "chief ruler" rather than as a tribal name. However,
other translators prefer Rosh as a name. Interestingly, the Mitanni
kingdom in eastern Asia Minor became known as the land of Rashu, "Rash
or Rosh meaning 'blond.' Also, nearby dwelt the Urartians [ancient
Armenians].... Their last great ruler was Rusa II who built great cities
and huge defences. He established the religious center and fortress of Rusai-urau-tur
or Rusa-patari which means 'the small city of Rusa'.... Herodotus wrote
that the Matienaians from the land of Rosh were with the peoples of
Tubal and Meschech; while Pliny wrote of the Matiani as moving into
southern Russia over the Caucasus" (White, p. 267; see also p. 268).
It
is commonly believed that the Varangian Rus, Vikings from Sweden, gave
their name to Russia. However, "while western scholars accept this as
the origin of the Rus, Soviet scholars contend that the Rus were Slavs
from the southern steppes.Both are probably correct.... There is no
evidence of a tribe from Scandinavia called Ros or Rus. But a tribe of
the Antes was known as the 'Ros' and later modified to 'Rus' which
resided along the river Ros, a tributary of the Dnieper in the southern
Ukraine, just north of the Black Sea" (White, pp. 268-269).
So
far, then, we have an alliance stretching from Russia and Turkestan in
Western Asia to Mongolia and China in the Far East. Are other eastern
peoples listed in Ezekiel 38-39?
Notice the listing of Gomer.
This name has caused a lot of confusion as the ancient people near
Armenia known as the Gimirrai or Cimmerians migrated around both sides
of the Black Sea into Europe-becoming the Celts. For this reason, many
equate Gomer with Europe. But the Gimirrai or Cimmerians who migrated
into Europe were actually the people known to the Assyrians as Bit Khumri, the
"house of Omri"-that is, the northern tribes of Israel (once ruled by
the dynasty of Omri), who were taken captive to northern Assyria.
The
actual people of Gomer (that is, of Japheth's son Gomer), migrated not
to Europe but in the exact opposite direction-to southeast Asia. "Gomer
gave rise to the Siamese [Thai], Burmese, Indonesians, Filipinos,
Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians who all have the same sub-racial
anthropological classifications.... The Cambodians' real name is the Khmer which is very likely derived from Gomer. Similarly, one of the regions of Burma is known as Khemarata. Also, Kamara was the original name of Sumatra.... We also find the area of Kemarat in Thailand and the Gimaras
island in the Philippines. Given the aforementioned, it is highly
likely that these place and ethnic names are ultimately traceable back
to Gomer. While it is impossible to prove, it is most likely and should
be included in our list of strong probabilities" (White, p. 194).
Consider
next the people of Gomer's son Togarmah, who appears, as noted earlier,
to be the progenitor of some of the peoples of eastern Turkestan. "The
name may be preserved in the E[ast] Cappadocian city of Til-garimmu,
listed in the Assyrian records" ("Togarmah," New Unger's Bible Dictionary). This location was in what is now central Turkey.
The Hittite name, given above in The Living Bible footnote, was Tegerama. The people of this region "lived on the border with Tabal. Other names for this people were Tegaram a Tilgarimma, Trochmi and Trogmades.
The Tegarma or Tegarama migrated from Cappadocia into Armenia.... From
there they moved into Turcoman territory (Turkistan) a possible
derivation of Tegarama. In Turkistan, among the tablelands of Pamir,
rose a great mount, Tagharma.... These were the Mongoloid peoples of the eastern division of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia" (White, p. 197).
An apocryphal Hebrew work known as the Book of Jasher,
though contradictory of Scripture in a number of regards, may
nevertheless contain some accurate historical traditions. It states that
"the children of Tugarma are ten families, and these are their names:
Buzar, Parzunac, Balgar, Elicanum, Ragbib, Tarki [another possible
origin of the name Turk], Bid, Zebuc, Ongal and Tilmaz; all these spread
and rested in the north and built themselves cities" (10:10).
"Among
the sign-posts indicating where Togarmah settled we find: Tagarchi in
eastern Turkestan; Tigranoama in eastern Turkey; Tagarma mountains in
eastern Turkestan; the city of Tagarma in western China; Taganrog,
Tigeretsk Mountain, Togur town, Turgai province and Turgins, a town in
Siberia; many Uighur peoples may be a derivative of Togarmah.
"Tradition
speaks in terms of a certain son of Japheth known as Tork [Togarmah or
Tarki?]. He in turn had a son Taunak Chan. He was in turn succeeded by
Jelza Khan, Dibbakui Khan, Kajuk Khan and Ilingeh (or Alanza) Khan.
Ilingeh Khan in turn had two sons: Tatar Khan-progenitor of the Tartars;
and Mongul Khan-progenitor of some of the Mongols or Moghuls" (White,
pp. 197-198).
If these people did indeed migrate to eastern
Turkestan and then up into Siberia and Mongolia, as appears likely, that
would certainly fit the biblical description of "the house of Togarmah from the far north" (Ezekiel 38:6).
The only ones left to identify in Gog's confederation are "Peras, Cush and Put" (Ezekiel 38:5, The Living Bible). Peras
is correctly translated in the NKJV and other versions as Persia.
Persia is modern-day Iran. The descendants of the ancient Persians may
still be found in their homeland of Iran. They can also be found, as
noted in the Bible Reading Program comments on Isaiah 21, in parts of
Eastern Europe and of India.
What then of Cush and Put? The NKJV and other translations usually render these as Ethiopia and Libya.
Cush and Put (or Phut) were, according to the Table of Nations in
Genesis 10, sons of Ham, father of many of the dark-skinned people of
the world. Cush, it is generally acknowledged, became Ethiopia and other
black peoples of East Africa. And the people of Put were indeed the
ancient Libyans, whose descendants may be found throughout black Africa
(see White, pp. 89-97).
Yet these two would seem to be the odd men
out in this prophecy, being African while all the rest of the
confederation is Eurasian. Indeed, the alliance thus far appears to
include all of Asia north and east of the Euphrates River except for
most of the people of the Indian subcontinent. However, when we better
understand the identity of Cush and Put, we can see that the people of
South Asia are not left out at all (and that the African branch of these
peoples are probably not intended by the prophecy).
Concerning
the identity of the people of India, 19th-century author George Faber
wrote: "Their military nobility is acknowledged to be of the same family
as the Sacas or Chasas, who maintain that their great common ancestor
was Cusha or Cush... But we read in a special manner of two lands of
Cush, the Asiatic and the African. These were by the Greeks called the
two Ethiopias...but by the Hindoos [Hindus], as by the sacred writers,
they are denominated the land of Cush within and the land of Cush
without" (The Origin of Pagan Idolatry, 1816, qtd. by White, p. 99).
In Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization,
author Martin Bernal writes: "The tradition of two Ethiopias is much
older than [the 5th-century-B.C. Greek historian] Herodotus. In the Odyssey
[of the Greek writer Homer], the Ethiopians are described as dwelling
'sundered in twain, the farthermost of men, some where Hyperion [the
sun] sets and some where he rises.' Thus, there were Black men,
Aithiopes...from Western Libya (Africa) to Eastern Mesopotamia" (qtd. by
White, pp. 100-101).
Those on the east of Mesopotamia evidently
migrated further east, giving their name to the Hindu Kush Mountains of
Afghanistan and Pakistan. "A few other tell-tale signs of the movement
eastwards of the sons of Cush include a land called Kushian, in modern
Pakistan. Just to the north of India also lay the land Kashgana. And in the south of India ran a river called Kishna.
All of these names are variously derivatives of 'Cush'" (White, p.
102). Thus, many of the dark-skinned people of the Indian subcontinent
are evidently Cushite.
Regarding the people of Put or Phut,
historian George Rawlinson wrote: "This term is obscure.... In most
{scriptures} Phut is joined with tribes which are distinctively African;
but in two of them (Ezek [27].10, and [38].5), the accompanying nations
seem to be Asiatic. The explanation of this may possibly be that, as
there were two Cushes, so there were two Phuts, one Asiatic, and the
other African" (qtd. by White, p. 97).
The eastern branch of Put
"may have migrated from the east Mediterranean region as this is where
anthropologists trace the northern Indians to. All one can say is that
large parts of India were known as Rajputna (modern Rajasthan
state). Rajputna was a group of princely states ruled over by a
warrior-caste called the Rajputs (meaning 'chief of Put' or 'chief over
Put'). In northern India, near Bhutan, we find the town called Panta,
later Patali-putra, the capital city of Maghada State. The Rajputs and
others drove the Dravidian Cushites into Central and Southern India.
Those Phutites which settled in Central India mixed with the Dravidians.
In the east some mixed with the Mongoloids" (White, pp. 97-98).
So
rather than present-day Ethiopia and Libya in Africa, it appears much
more likely that Ezekiel 38:5 is speaking of the people of India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Consider then: the vast hordes
of India, China, Indonesia, Russia, Turkestan and more combined-an
unimaginable force and staggeringly formidable foe to be sure...
But no match at all for Almighty God.
When Will Gog's Forces Invade and Be Destroyed? (Ezekiel 38-39)
We
have already seen that Ezekiel 38-39 is a prophecy of the latter days
(38:8, 16). Yet where does it fit in the march of end-time events?
Some,
thinking the Israelites brought out of the nations and back to the
Promised Land in Ezekiel 38:8 is referring to the Jews who have returned
to the land during the past century, conclude that this prophecy
concerns an invasion of the modern Jewish state of Israel prior to
Christ's return. But this view simply does not fit the picture here. The
returned Israelites are described in this prophecy as dwelling in peace
and safety-in a "land of unwalled villages...without walls, and having
neither bars nor gates" (verse 11). While modern cities don't normally
have defensive walls, the image here is mainly a figurative one-of
living in complete peace, free from invasion or harm. And that certainly
does not describe the modern Israeli state. Israel today is
constantly under grave threat from hostile neighbors and from terrorists
within. In fact, the Israelis are currently building an actual wall or
security fence to protect them against Palestinian suicide bombers.
Neither
can the prophecy refer to, as some assume, the gathering of forces at
Armageddon referred to in Revelation 16 and their destruction in
Revelation 19. There is some parallel symbolism, as the sacrificial
feast of fallen troops given to birds and beasts is found in both
Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 19. However, similar imagery is also used of
the defeat of Egypt, as we will next read in Ezekiel 32:4-5. Moreover,
the people of Israel will by no means be dwelling safely as the
gathering at Armageddon occurs, with the forces of the European-centered
Beast power, end-time Babylon, still occupying the Holy Land. And
having just experienced the Great Tribulation, with the cataclysmic Day
of the Lord still ongoing, the Israelites will not yet be enriched with
"livestock and goods" (compare Ezekiel 38:12).
Considering these factors, the only time that fits what is described is the period after
the return of Jesus Christ. When He comes, He will defeat Israel's
enemies and gather those who are left of all Israel in the Promised
Land, where they will at last dwell in peace and safety under His rule.
As
that stage of Christ's reign will last 1,000 years (the Millennium),
during which time Satan the devil will be imprisoned (Revelation
20:1-6), the question now becomes: At what point following the
commencement of the Millennium will the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39
come to pass?
Some think it comes at the end, when there
definitely will be a march to battle by Gog and Magog. Revelation 20:7-9
states: "Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be
released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which
are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather
them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They
went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the
saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven
and devoured them." It is also claimed that because armaments such as
shields, bucklers, bows, arrows, javelins and spears will be able to be
burned for seven years (Ezekiel 39:9-10), this must indicate not modern
weaponry but wooden implements-fashioned by people at the end of the
Millennium who will be without military technology and hardware.
But
there are problems with this view. For one, Gog and Magog in Revelation
20 are said to be from the four corners of the earth and therefore
apparently represent people of all nationalities. In Ezekiel 38, it is
clear the forces are of specific ethnicities and associated with a
particular northern region.
Notice also what God says to Gog in
Ezekiel 38:17: "Are you not the one I spoke of in former days by my
servants the prophets of Israel? At that time they prophesied for years
that I would bring you against them" (NIV). How then could Ezekiel 38 be
a postmillennial reference, as none of the prophets appear to have
mentioned this in any other prophecy (unless it was simply not
recorded)-the only reference being in the New Testament book of
Revelation?
(Granted, there do not seem to be any other references
to an invasion early in the Millennium either. Yet the destruction of
Gog's forces at that point in time may simply be part of the fulfillment
of God's general prophecies of calamitous judgment accompanying the
Messiah's coming. Indeed, if Gog is a leader of Edom, which seems
possible given that the western Turks may have blended to some degree
with those of the East and that Gog may be short for Agog or Agag, there
may be more specific prophecies regarding him-that is, those that
foretell Edom's great downfall at the time of Christ's return.)
A more serious objection to Gog's invasion in Ezekiel being postmillennial is that it evidently occurs soon
after the return of Israel to the Promised Land-not after they have
dwelt there for a thousand years. Notice Ezekiel 39:7: "So I will make
My holy name known in the midst of My people Israel, and I will not let them profane My holy name anymore."
Clearly, if the Israelites had been living under Christ's rule for a
thousand years at this point, this statement would not seem to make any
sense.
Notice also: "So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day forward"
(verse 22). Yet at the end of the Millennium, Israel will already have
been living under God's covenant for a thousand years, wherein "no more
shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying
'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know [Him], from the least of them
to the greatest of them" (Jeremiah 31:34). It thus seems to make more
sense to view verse 22 as applying to a time early in the Millennium.
(It's interesting that up to this point, many Israelites are still
confused about the identity and character of Jesus Christ and the
unlimited extent of His power. It appears that up to this time they have
not yet fully and reverently submitted to His rule.)
By the end of the Millennium, the gentiles too will know the Lord-indeed, they will know Him throughout most
of the Millennium, for of Christ's 1,000-year reign we are told that
"the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters
cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). And yet Ezekiel 38-39 presents the defeat
of Gog as resulting in the gentiles coming to know God. It appears,
then, that the defeat of Gog described in Ezekiel must come during the early part of the Millennium.
Further,
God says that in the wake of Gog's defeat "the Gentiles shall know that
the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity"
(39:23)-that is, this is the point at which the nations would come to
understand it. "Then," He continues, "they shall know that I am the Lord
their God, who sent [the Israelites] into captivity among the nations,
but also brought them back to their land...And I will not hide My face
from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of
Israel" (verses 28-29). Again, it seems obvious that this is describing
events that take place shortly after Christ's return.
Indeed, the
arrangement of Ezekiel's final chapters may have some bearing here. God
spoke of giving His Spirit to His people after the return of Christ in
Ezekiel 36. Ezekiel 37 continues on that theme. Though it briefly
flashes forward to the period after the Millennium to show that even all
the Israelites who have died will ultimately receive the same
opportunity, the story flow then returns to the beginning of the
Millennium, when the nations of Israel and Judah are at last fused
together as one nation. Continuing with that flow, it would appear that
the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39 will come next in time order-followed
by that of chapters 40-48, concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem and
its temple and the reorganization of the Promised Land, events that will
also transpire early in the Millennium.
Of course, many of Gog's
forces will evidently be destroyed when Christ first returns. For
Revelation 16:14-16 says that "the kings...of the whole world" will
gather at Armageddon for the "battle of that great day of God Almighty."
Yet, understanding the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39 to come early in
the Millennium, it is evident that only part of Gog's army will be
present in the Holy Land to be destroyed at Christ's coming. It seems
likely that vast numbers will yet be stretched across Eurasia-apparently
what remains of the 200-million-man force described in Revelation 9.
Sometime after Christ smites the forces gathered against Him (which,
again, would necessarily include only part of Gog's forces), perhaps
even a few years later, the remainder of Gog's forces then
marches down for the onslaught described in Ezekiel. (This is consistent
with the fact that when Jesus returns, He will not bring the entire
world into instant compliance with His way. Rather, Isaiah 2:2-4 and
Zechariah 14:16-19 demonstrate that there will be a period of bringing the nations into line through both instruction and disciplinary measures.)
What
then of the seemingly archaic military equipment? Certainly ancient
weaponry has been used in other end-time passages to represent modern
war implements. Yet does the fact that these armaments are used as fuel
for fire for seven years mean none of them can be metal or modern? Many
guns and rifles, and most notably the AK-47 assault rifle so popular in
third world nations, have wooden stocks. Consider also that there are
many flammable elements to even jeeps, tanks and jet planes-not least of
which is their fuel. The fuel and reserve fuel for thousands upon
thousands of military vehicles is staggering to contemplate. Small
quantities of material can be used as a fire starter-and there would be
vast quantities available. Furthermore, consider all the
possessions of an enormous military force on the move-this one perhaps
two thirds as large as the current U.S. population. There would be an
unimaginable amount of burnable material for the few million Israelites
then living in the Promised Land. Also, perhaps new technology, whether
invented by man or given by God, could allow even metal to be converted
to usable energy.
Of course, it should also be mentioned that a
vast Eurasian army would have not only well-trained troops with
sophisticated equipment but also huge numbers of poorly outfitted
infantry and cavalry. Among hordes of Chinese peasantry and third-world
Muslim jihadis, it would not at all be surprising to find large numbers
of wooden spears, clubs, crossbows, wood-handled machetes and
sabers-even hoes and pitchforks.
So if it is describing a later
episode than Ezekiel 38-39, why does Revelation 20 mention Gog and
Magog? As already noted, these names seem to be used there in a
representative sense for a Satan-led force coming from all nations at
the end of the Millennium. It may be that the great invasion of Gog and
Magog that occurs near the beginning of the Millennium is being viewed
as a forerunner of the postmillennial invasion. The first was a
multinational force. The later will be as well-though encompassing even
more nations. It may even be that Gog and Magog will constitute the
largest portion of this final rebellious force. Some, it should be
noted, see numerical significance to the use of Gog and Magog in
Revelation, explaining that the words numerically add up to 70, a number
the Jews see as representative of all nations (as 70 nations are listed
in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10). Or given that Gog and Magog can
perhaps mean "dictator" and "dictatorship" respectively, perhaps that
is the parallel. In any case, the invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 does not
appear to be the invasion of Revelation 20, though there is apparently
some tie between them, if only a figurative one.
By the defeat of
Gog's forces, God says He will set His glory among the nations-they will
know His great power and majesty. The Israelites will come to know Him
as their personal Savior and Protector. And the gentiles will see that
as well-leading them, at last, to desire to become God's people too.
By Reva Bhalla
Mother Russia can be quite generous when it comes to her collection
of statelets. In the early 1990s, when a broken Russia had no choice but
to suck in her borders, a severely distracted Kremlin still found the
time and money to promote and sponsor the fledgling breakaway
territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia and Transdniestria
in Moldova. And as Russia became more economically coherent over the
years, the number of Russian troops in these territories grew, and a
bigger slice of the Russian budget was cut out to keep the quasi-states
afloat.
These post-Soviet statelets have a good deal in common. They are all
tiny — South Ossetia is roughly 3,900 square kilometers (1,500 square
miles) and has about 40,000 inhabitants, Abkhazia covers 8,500 square
kilometers and its population is about 240,000, and Transdniestria is
4,100 square kilometers and has a population of 555,000. They are also
all economically isolated, effectively run on black and gray economies,
and are largely dependent on Russia's financial largesse for survival.
Most important, from Russia's point of view, they each occupy strategic
spaces in the post-Soviet sphere where Russian troops and thus the
potential for further intervention can apply acute pressure on Georgia
and Moldova should they draw too close to the West. The presence of
Russian troops in these breakaway territories forms the tripwire that
any Western patron will be wary to cross when it comes to defending
those countries in their time of need. This, after all, is the true
deterrent value of statelet sponsorship.
But Russia's strategy has also gotten to be a lot more burdensome and
much more complicated in recent years. In addition to readopting Crimea
(covering 26,000 square kilometers with a population of 2 million),
Russia has added to its basket of statelets the self-proclaimed Donetsk
People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic (16,000 square
kilometers collectively with a population of 1.5 million and 2 million,
respectively) in eastern Ukraine. Though exact figures are hard to come
by, various compiled estimates show Russia has annually been injecting
about $300 million into Abkhazia and at least $100 million into South
Ossetia and Transdniestria each to finance their annual budgets, provide
cheap fuel, pay pensions and so on. In addition, Russia has allocated
at least $2.42 billion in 2015 to support Crimea (not including military
costs) and, according to a report written by Higher School of Economics
analyst Sergei Aleksashenko, Russia has allocated at least $2 billion
in the federal 2015 budget to sustain its military support in eastern
Ukraine, a figure that continues to grow.
And the list is only getting longer. As the world has observed in
recent weeks, Russian military support for Syrian loyalist forces in the
coastal Alawite enclave of Latakia has dramatically increased, with all
signs pointing to a long-term stay. Knowing that any negotiated
settlement is likely to fall apart in the end, the Russian plan is to
help Syria's Alawites carve out a de facto state. Meanwhile, back in the
Caucasus, the long frozen conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh
may also be taking a significant turn in the coming months. We see
growing indications that Russia and Azerbaijan may be collaborating to
shake up the status quo between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia
readied to send in peacekeepers and stay for the long haul in a bid to
tighten its grip in the region.
From eastern Ukraine to Alawite Syria to Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia
appears to be making a conscious effort to widen its footprint in
strategic spaces. This will be a pricey endeavor, but the geopolitical
logic behind these moves is not lacking.
Whether strong or weak, capitalist, communist or tsarist, Russia will
be compelled to anchor itself to natural geographic barriers for its
own security. In eastern Ukraine, the natural Russian extension is to
the Dnieper River, and short of reaching that river, Russia will try its
best to use the separatist regions to both undermine Kiev and create an
imperfect buffer against NATO's growing involvement with Kiev. The
Crimean Peninsula reinforces Russia's hold on its only warm-water base
at Sevastopol on the Black Sea, and naval projection on the Black Sea
gives Russia access to the Mediterranean. The ports of Latakia and
Tartus on the Syrian Mediterranean coast — an Alawite stronghold now
depending on Russian aid — gives Russia a physical foothold in the
eastern Mediterranean and a platform to influence power plays in the
Levant. In the mountainous Caucasus, where Russia has already been
strengthening its presence in Georgia's breakaway territories and
remains Armenia's only real patron, a developing bargain with Azerbaijan
over Nagorno-Karabakh has the potential to expand Russia's presence
even more and thus reinforce a Russian buffer to the south.
A Buffer in Eastern Ukraine
In order of priority, Russia's position in eastern Ukraine comes
first. Ukraine, from centuries past to today, forms the soft underbelly
of the Russian state that must be insulated at all costs. If Ukraine
comes under significant influence or control of a Western power, the
Russian southwestern flank will be laid bare. But Russia is not strong
enough to anchor itself on the Dnieper River and absorb both the
military and economic costs of such an endeavor. So Russia must settle.
The best Russia can do at this point is to try to consolidate autonomy
for the eastern rebel provinces, using its tight grip over separatist
commanders to dial up and down the conflict as the need arises. If
Russia feels as though its demands are being ignored when it comes to
NATO's buildup, sanctions or the like, violence in eastern Ukraine
flares up. Once the Germans and the French get the message and start
pressuring Kiev to make certain political concessions, the fighting
quickly de-escalates.
This is a pattern that all sides are getting used to, but it is still
far from ideal for Moscow. No matter what negotiations are in play,
Russia is not about to withdraw its military foothold in eastern
Ukraine. At the same time, that military dynamic provides the foundation
for a pro-West Kiev to lean on the United States for help in defending
itself against a persistent Russian threat. Russia must therefore
carefully calibrate its military moves in eastern Ukraine, making clear
that any Western push would risk a direct confrontation with the
Russians, but also not going far enough to where its actions compel a
U.S. response that could cause the Russian buffer to recede even more in
the end.
Preparing for an Alawite Statelet in Syria
Russia's moves in Syria are deeply intertwined with this dynamic in
Ukraine. Even as Russia is locked into a long-term tug-of-war with the
United States over the former Soviet rim, Moscow needs mutual areas of
interest on the periphery to shape a dialogue with Washington. The
Russians see the conundrum the United States is in, trying to fight the
Islamic State with the help of regional powers while also trying to
avoid the messier process of wholesale government change. Since early
this year, Russia has been expending considerable effort to try to
cobble together a negotiation that would outline the shape of a
post-Bashar al Assad state, making itself appear as an indispensable
partner to Washington when it comes to finding an end to the civil war.
The United States needs this negotiation, and it needs the backers of
the al Assad government, Russia and Iran, to bring the loyalists to the
table. The more the United States depends on Russia to facilitate the
negotiation, so goes the Russian logic, the more leverage Moscow has to negotiate limits on Western encroachment in Russia's immediate backyard.
But Russia is also not under any illusions when it comes to bringing peace to Syria's warring factions. Any negotiation is doomed to fail
so long as the more intractable and competent rebel factions prefer the
battleground to the negotiating table. Russia's strategy thus comes in
two parts — it must create a credible basis for a negotiation over Syria
that it can use as leverage with the United States, but it must also
prepare for the worst to protect its position in the eastern
Mediterranean for when that negotiation inevitably falls apart. Russia's
substantial military buildup at the ports of Latakia and Tartus on the
Alawite coast in recent weeks, to go along with its existing naval depot
at Tartus, speaks to both of these objectives.
For the Syrian government to be comfortable entering negotiations, it
needs to first feel secure in its core territory, running from the
south through Damascus up through Zabadani and parts of Homs and Hama to
the Mediterranean coastline. This is a plan that Russia and Iran are
working closely together on. (Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general
and the commander of the Quds Force, is rumored to have traveled to
Moscow earlier in September to meet with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to discuss the implementation
of this strategy.) A look at the satellite imagery of Russia's buildup
so far shows airfield construction, possible control towers and housing
for troops. Russia appears to be building up the logistical capability
to stage aerial assets, such as fighter jets and helicopters, to help
reinforce the Alawite statelet. Stratfor sources have indicated that
Russia's military buildup in Syria so far has cost around $500 million,
sourced from the military budget of Russia's Black Sea command, while
the military equipment Russia is deploying to Syria remains under
Russian control. In essence, the Russian-Iranian plan enables the
Alawites to enter a negotiation on a stronger footing, but also with the
security that they will have a de facto Alawite state to fall back on
as the Syrian state formally fragments with time.
A Shake-Up in the Caucasus?
Further under the radar, we can see Russia's strategy in the Caucasus
starting to evolve after more than two decades of frozen conflict
between the former Soviet states of Azerbaijan and Armenia over the tiny
enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh (4,400 square kilometers
and now a majority Armenian population of around 150,000) has been under
the de facto control of Yerevan since a 1994 cease-fire ended the war
between the two foes. Economically isolated, Armenia hosts some 5,000
Russian forces and sits firmly under the Russian security umbrella,
lacking alternative patrons. In contrast, Azerbaijan, far less
geographically constrained and endowed with energy resources, likes to
keep its options open, always opting for a balance between the West and
its former Soviet roots. That said, Azerbaijan and Russia have been a
lot cozier than usual in recent months, raising questions in our mind
whether Moscow has enticed Baku with an offer pertaining to the fiercely
nationalist topic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Azerbaijan is fed up with negotiations mediated by the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe and wants to see if it can put
its years of military preparations to work to retake the territory.
Armenia, occupying the territory's high ground and thus holding the
strategic advantage over Azerbaijan, would obviously prefer to keep the
status quo. The only way Armenia would likely be forced to renegotiate
terms on Nagorno-Karabakh is if hostilities resumed and Russia,
Armenia's sole patron, were to play a dominant role in mediating their
end. It is little coincidence that the Armenian rumor mill has been
buzzing with speculation that Russia and Azerbaijan are developing an
understanding that would have Russian peacekeepers occupy and neutralize
the territory. We are doubtful that this plan could be imposed on
Armenia solely through diplomatic means.
While we cannot be sure that this scenario will ultimately play out,
we have collected enough clues to date that put a Nagorno-Karabakh
shake-up high on our watch list. And with Nagorno-Karabakh on the list
of territories up for Russian adoption, Russia's commitment to creating
new footholds abroad has the potential to expand even more.
The Costs of Sponsorship
Russia's strategy may not be cheap, but it is entirely rational from a geopolitical point of view. Russia is weakening internally
at the same time it is confronting a strong and growing threat from the
United States on its former Soviet doorstep. While Russia is still in
the game, it might as well create and reinforce as many perches as it
can in its near abroad to leverage against the West and maintain
whatever influence it still holds in preparation for much more difficult
years to come. Thus, the bill that Moscow is footing for its statelets,
even factoring in a volatile ruble, may still be quite reasonable from a
Russian perspective. Operating from a low and still rough estimate, we
can assume that Russia is spending at least $5 billion annually on these
quasi-states, which is still less than 3 percent of Russia's 2015
federal budget of $206 billion. This amount does not include the large
amount of pre-allocated defense budget that goes into the Ukraine and
Syria operations. There is also an opportunity cost to bear in mind.
Pre-allocated military resources cannot be redirected to other purposes,
such as procurement, training, and research and development unless the
defense budget as a whole continues to increase.
However, the costs are not just financial. Nagorno-Karabakh is a
tinderbox; once the conflict resumes, it will not be easy to contain. It
is a region where both a resurgent Turkey and Iran will try to push
back against an overly ambitious Russia. In Syria, the threat of mission
creep is also real, since the loyalist government is combating an
assembly of Sunni powers with a shared interest to undercut Iran.
Moreover, with Russia preparing the ground for stationing aerial assets,
it must calculate the risks of operating in a crowded battlespace, with
U.S., Turkish, Israeli and potentially other European and Arab
coalition partners entering the fray. In Ukraine, just as Russian
sponsorship of eastern Ukraine incrementally increases, a U.S. military
buildup on Russia's European frontier will grow in kind. Ultimately,
this is Russia's backyard, and Russia will be far more constrained than
the United States when it comes to this level of competition. A statelet
sponsorship strategy can go only so far.
