This page was last updated on Saturday, 08 February, 2014.

Due Diligence meets Situational Awareness

Timothy B. Spencer for℠
8 February, 2014

Definition of DUE DILIGENCE

1:  the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property
2:  research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction (as a corporate merger or purchase of securities)

Preface:  Why do I Need Real World Informational Analytical Skills?

Image & Data MatrixI want to start off by saying that if you only watch, read, or listen to Western main-stream media, and you are also content with these sorts of sources for your information, then this article is probably not for you.  However, if you trust your "gut instinct", that little voice in the back of your mind that says "there is more to this "story" then "they" are saying, you might just be able to take something away from the proceeding exercises that attempt to define useful techniques.

Furthermore, my opinion remains that it is the duty for any head of household, parent, guardian or any other charged by morality with the safety and security of others to be aware of their surroundings at all times.  If the reader sincerely believes that the government, at any level, is a reliable "security blanket", simply have another sip of kool-aid and turn on the TV.  What ever is on will be much more entertaining than this article, and conversely, certainly much less informative.

Admittedly, this is a self-analysis of the methods that I, the author, use to determine the validity of a news story or other information that I find a need to determine the accuracy thereof.  After over thirty years of such reasonably successful efforts in both my professional and personal life, I feel that I am as qualified as anyone else to pass on the following to those that might be interested.

Let's Begin

Today, I am going to use a "real world" media story with a "real world" media source as an example -- what is described, other than the physical research of data for accuracy, has become a second-nature mental exercise as much as anything else - now, I am going to make an attempt to define that mental exercise - if you reading this, then the attempt was a success.  Please "play along" with me here if you will, you might find it helpful.

Physical Data Analysis for Accuracy (the very short form)

  • The Initial Story Headline:  Putin aide warns US on Ukraine, says Russia could act
  • Source is First Post World:
  • "Meat" of the Story:  
    • Russian Federation is upset with ( read really pissed at ) the US for what it sees as a blatant treaty (Security Memorandum, in reality) violation in the politics of Ukrayina (Ukraine). 
    • Russian Federation is willing to use force to guarantee the applicable portions of the of 5 December, 1994 Memorandum signed by The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      • Read it!  Does it say what Mr. Glazyev says that it says?  ( yes ).
        • Does the Memorandum have a termination date? ( Not found in the memorandum text )
        • Is it related to or an integral part of other treaties, agreements or memorandums, or, does it stand on it's own?  ( possibly brought about by the intent of START I, but we are not able to directly link to the treaty by verbiage in the actual document, more likely related to CSCE Final Act which does not include a known blatant termination date as such )
        • Is the Russian Federation's accusation of the United States' transgression of the memorandum accurate? ( the term "duh" comes to mind...)
    • What is the significance of the hierarchy of the Russian Federation official that made said statement in the name of his government?  ( For US equivalence, we might look at the "Czars" and "Presidential Advisors" of previous U.S. administrations.  In typical Russian fashion, this leaves the door open to flatly deny in the short term or to say that official warnings were unequivocally stated after the dust settles.  Conclusion - as usual, the Russian Federation (under V. Putin) means exactly what they say, but will back down if the US throws in the towel in Ukrainian rebellion support. )

What questions do I ask myself; what questions do you ask yourself?

Okay, now that physical verification of the veracity and truth of what was printed ( the significant and relevant parts of the material ) is verified, it's time for the hard part - the mental evaluation of the materials, in other words - what does it mean and what is the likely, or most likely outcome.  In this area one must be very careful to not let emotion or personal desires fit anywhere into the analysis of the data.  For me, this is most definitely the hardest part of this article to write.

I ask myself:  Who are the perceived major players in this situation:

In this part of the process, one must either rely on memory, or, in the alternative, spend a great deal of time researching every facet of the personalities involved.
  • Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States:
    • Perceived Character Traits:  Haughty, Proud, Narcissistic, Insulting to his subjects and others,
      Indecisive, Pathological Liar, Devious.
    • Political Happenstances:  Only enjoys popular support among certain social,  racial and/or socio-economic groups.
    • Experience:  Illicit Drug User, Community Organizer, Dis-barred Attorney, US Senator
    • Perceived Military Support:  Non-existent (in either direction)
    • Perceived International Trustworthiness:  Non-existent, does not play by the "rules" of diplomatic governance.
    • Experience:  Graduated Harvard, magna cum laude, Community Organizer, College Professor, received a "Grammy Award" in the category of best spoken word album, for his narration of "Dreams", Illinois State Senate, President of the United States, relected for second term.


  • Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation:
    • Perceived Character Traits:  Proud, Fiercely Nationalistic, Tenacious, Determined, Shrewed, Cunning, Sense of "Fair Play"
    • Political Happenstances:  Enjoys significant popular support
    • Perceived Military Support:  Enjoys strong military support and fully supports RF military personnel and the supply system.
    • Perceived International Trustworthiness:  Steadily and significantly building.
    • Experience:  Leningrad State University Graduate, Colonel, KGB (East Germany), Head of External Relations for the Sobchat's St. Petersburgh city government, Deputy Head of Management thence Head of the FSB Head of the Security Council, thence Prime Minister in Yelstin's government, thence President, Prime Minister and yet again, President.

I ask myself: Who are the real major players in this situation:

  • City of London (Western Central Bank Cartel)   ( The people, whom, with the collusion of the US government primary unbeknown to or specifically against the will of it's people, brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Mali, and many other little wars and revolutions, and likely soon, Iran)
    • North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    • European Union
    • United States


  • Russian Federation Central Bank ( a nominally independent system of coordinated commercial banks ) via and for the Russian Federation.
    • Government of the Russian Federation
    • Government of Ukraine

 I ask myself: What is the cause and/or reason to act in the case of the players involved?

This section simply requires a mental review of what one already knows of a given subject, the history of the "players" and the interests, particularly national and economic interests (most of the time the same thing).  A sound knowledge of history is great asset also.
  • For the City of London, the need to add and another "check-mark" to the list of countries that have been forced to accept Western Central Bank debt, which as has been most aptly recently demonstrated in many countries of the European Union countries, leads to loss of both sovereignty, the ability to create or earn an individual livelihood, as well as the demonstrable loss via central legislation of personal freedoms.
  • For the Russian Central Bank, and therefore the economic viability of the entire Russian Federation; the causes to act are economic and security related; to wit::
    • Ukraine borders the Russian Federation.  The entry into the EU by Ukraine equivocates to the de facto introduction and deployment of NATO to said borders.  The Russian People as well as the government find this to be wholly and completely unacceptable.
    • The economic merger of the Ukraine with the Russian Federation opens the door for huge influxes of new money in both countries

My personal conclusions:

  1. The information reported is deemed to be valid, as it is reported by multiple disconnected sources.
  2. There would, in fact, be a significant impact upon my family and our way of life if a likely rapidly escalating conflict were to break-out between the military forces of the United States/NATO/EU and the Russian Federation.
  3. The City of London/Western Banking Cartel wins monetarily, regardless of a conflict or a lack thereof -- if Ukraine acquiesces  to EU pressure and becomes a part thereof, it's a win; if conflict is in the card, the City of London will finance all sides ( just as in both previous world warsand it's still a win...
  4. There is not enough information currently available to me as of the date of this writing to ascertain the overall chances of a conflict occurring in the near term.  I could only venture an educated guess at this particular point in time.
  5. On the part of the Russian Federation, there is cause to respond militarily to a deteriorating situation as the nation's security is adversely affected should the government of Ukraine fall.
  6. On the part of the United States/NATO/EU the rationale for action exists, but the political will is significantly in question.  There is, however no doubt whatsoever as to the desires of the American People as was amply evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of military actions in Syria as proposed by the administration in 2013.
  7. If a conflict does not break-out, it will be a sure and relatively bloodless win for the Western Central Banking Cartel as it will yet again economically conquer another sovereign nation -- it is likely that only force will prevent this outcome.
  8. Best Guesses:  If a conflict does break-out, it will:
  • ...begin as a military "peace-keeping mission" or "humanitarian mission" by either the US/NATO/EU or by RF military forces.
  • ...likely not occur until after the Sochi Winter Olympics have concluded, unless significant violence occurs within Ukraine territory or across the border in the form of terrorist attacks or conflict spill-over that can feasibly be blamed on Ukrainian rebels. 
  • ...escalate to a level of all out war rapidly.  Unfortunately, this rapid escalation of could reach the "point of no return" in a matter of mere minutes considering the global instantaneous communications system as it now exists.
  • ..not be resolved diplomatically until and unless there is such horrendous losses on all belligerent's/combatant's  sides that outright national extinction becomes a realistic concern.

In Closing

I most sincerely hope that this little exercise is of some help to someone. somewhere at some point in time.  I further hope that the reader will do his or her own research on what he or she considers matters of importance

I ask that the reader not adopt my personal conclusions for their own on the subject matter discussed above; but, to please practice their own "due diligence" in verifying the veracity of the materials and to draw upon same as well as their own intellect to formulate their own conclusions.℠ (Right-side navigation page SSI insertion)