Monday 24th of June 2024

the american man and his english mutt....

The wilder conspiracy theorists will tell you that the British Royal Family are actually lizards and the financial centre of the City of London, greatly inferior to Wall Street in turnover, apparently still rules the world. Let us lay aside such simplistic theories and look at some facts.


thanks to Batiushka, writer 

‘The whole of the troubles in the Middle East that have affected the world since 1948 can be laid fairly and squarely at Britain’s door’.

Edward HorneA Job Well Done, 1982


First of all, we know that during World War II it was Roosevelt who dismantled the already very fragile British Empire. That was the US policy – to have no European rivals. A large country, it had no need to colonise others in order to populate them with its teeming millions, but it did need to have economic control to ensure asset-stripping. It needed a global ‘Uni-Empire’ – itself. And it did not take the US much to finish off the already tottering European empires, headed by the British. Those empires were already on their last legs, undermined by the colossal mistake of having created the Great European War that came to be called World War One. As one of its instigators, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, admitted in 1914: ‘The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime’. Yes, it was suicide. As we know, Lord Milner’s transatlantic ‘Round Table’ alliance was formed between Britain and the US during that First World War. This effectively recognised the reality, that the US was No 1 and power was transferred to the English-speaking US, in the hope that the US would still somehow depend on Britain.

So in December 1916 the British Establishment offered to meddle in Russia and began the process of overthrowing the Tsar through the well-developed British spy network in Saint Petersburg. Within seven months this stupid plot had gone catastrophically wrong. So a little later in 1917 the British created Israel. (Thirty years later that stupid idea would also go catastrophically wrong). In return, a few weeks after the first event, the USA would enter the Europeans’ War and basically win it for Britain, imposing much of the so-called ‘Peace’ at Versailles in 1919. The same occurred in 1941. Within a few weeks of the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, which the half-American Churchill and the American Roosevelt knew was going to happen, the US had sent troops to the UK. It was the start of the American occupation of Britain, which has continued to this day. Britain became the unsinkable US aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe, which in turn led to the US occupation of Europe. And a war is being fought in the Ukraine at this very moment about the possible continuation of that occupation.

After 1945

After 1945, bankrupt Britain gradually had to hand over Anglo-founded Israel and then Iran to the US and give up on its colonies. True, at Suez in 1956, stuffy old British Imperialists tried to show that they were still independent of the US, but they were not and were humiliated together with the French by the US. As a senior British MP, Angus Maude, commented at the time, the Suez War had ‘left Britain having to admit to the world that we are now an American satellite’.

The situation was summed up in 1962 by Dean Acheson, the former United States Secretary of State. In his well-known words he asserted at West Point that Great Britain ‘has lost an empire but not yet found a role’. As he explained: ‘Britain’s attempt to play a separate power role – that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being the head of a Commonwealth which has no political structure or unity or strength and enjoys a fragile and precarious economic relationship – this role is about played out….Great Britain, attempting to work alone and to be a broker between the United States and Russia, has seemed to conduct a policy as weak as its military power’.

He added that ‘Britain’s application for membership of the Common Market was a decisive turning point’. Should Britain join the Six, ‘another step forward of vast importance will have been taken’. In other words, Britain would just have to join in the USA’s great European project, the Common Market Six, later the European Community and finally the European Union. As we know, some sixty years on, that did not quite work out because of something called Brexit. That is a story we shall look at below.

The ‘Special Relationship’

The future for Britain after the Suez disaster in 1956 was what was euphemistically called by the self-flattering British elite a ‘special relationship’ – in fact, that of master and obedient pet dog. What breed of dog we shall discuss below. And so it was that in the early 60s British singers began singing their beat songs about teenage hormones in an American accent, wearing jeans, chewing gum and drinking coca cola. A generation later British children began using American words and phrases because they were watching so many American films and TV programmes (or, as they said, ‘movies and shows’). Two generations later British children began speaking with an American accent because they were listening to and watching so many American ‘movies and shows’ on their phones and tablets.

Thus, although Britain was saved from US folly in Vietnam by leftist Labour governments and, above all, by simple lack of funds, this was not the case in later US wars. True, when the foul-mouthed President Nixon visited Britain in 1969, a critical BBC commentator accurately described Nixon’s departure as ‘the circus leaving town’. Surprising for an ultra-Establishment BBC lickspittle. Of course, he got into trouble for it. Then there was the invention of James Bond, the British spy who was successful because he was backed up by CIA logistics and infrastructure. It was an apt symbol of reality, though the James Bond part was fiction, another circus for the masses to imagine that they were still important.

However, the fact is that when the US decided to destroy Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, Afghanistan in 2001 and the Ukraine from 2014 on, Britain was there, barking and jumping at the feet of its master. But what breed was the dog? One thing for sure, it was not a bulldog, as the vain British imagined themselves to be. Most commentators considered that the British were now just a poodle of the Americans and that was the nature of the ‘special relationship’, which the ‘special’ British flattered themselves with. A poodle?

The British Spaniel

It was the Victorians who suffered from ‘The Great Game’, the paranoid fear that somehow Russia was out to destroy the British Empire, especially wishing to invade the jewel in the crown, India. Although the Russians would have liked to liberate India from the British, they would never have invaded it, let alone occupied it. Russia did not invade anywhere, the Russian Empire just expanded to surrounding territory. As soon as it encountered other developed civilisations, the West, Iran, Tibet, China, it stopped. As a result of ‘the Great Game’ fantasy, the British disastrously invaded Afghanistan three times, starting in 1839, then Russia through the Black Sea, the White Sea and the Sea of Japan, starting in 1854, in 1903 they created a bloodbath by invading Tibet, then in 1904 they unleashed against Russia the treachery of Japan, which it had carefully financed and armed. As the Victorian imperialist Palmerston said: ‘Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow’.

The British Establishment is indeed perfectionist when it comes to hypocrisy – and, as the French know only too well, – perfidy. The Americans have merely imitated it. The hypocrisy and perfidy of double standards are Britain’s main export to the USA. What was the Cold War? It was the paranoid American version of the ‘Great Game’, the enemy also being Russia. It followed the British imperialist template. What is Globalism? Just the American word for Imperialism. Thus, Blair influenced Clinton to destroy Yugoslavia, calling it ‘humanitarian intervention’, then he influenced Bush to invade Iraq, going against his people and weapons inspectors, one of whom mysteriously died, as did his Foreign Minister, who also opposed the invasion. What is ‘the rules-based international order’? Just the American phrase for ‘the British ‘rule of law’, which justified the British invasion of almost the whole world, that is, its occupation by legalised violence. All along, the US Empire has just copied the British Empire. The American-British ‘special’ relationship is, after all, not entirely a one-way street.

US imperialism is then just a parroting of the British imperialist template: meddlesome arrogance justified by the self-righteous delusion of ‘highmindedness’ a la Tony Blair. There is then British influence. However, the influence is still that of a dog on its master, though not that of a poodle which just parades and preens itself. The British dog is rather a spaniel. Now spaniels have very long pink tongues (useful for licking their masters) and they also pull very hard on their leads, as they are hunting-dogs, who sniff out trouble and can even pull their masters to where they did not originally want to go. Although still only a pet dog, a spaniel is then far more dangerous than a mere pretty poodle, for leading its master into trouble is what the British spaniel has so often done. From Israel (British-created) to Iran (British-overthrown), from Afghanistan (British-invaded) to the Crimea (British-invaded), from Yugoslavia (British-betrayed) to Kuwait (British-separated). Everywhere devious British fingers have fingered and got burned, naïve American fingers have fingered – and also got burned. Afghanistan, Iran and the Ukraine are just examples. Remember the Crimean War – 1854-1856?

The Ukraine

In the light of this, let us come to Brexit, which Obama tried to undermine. Why did the US allow it in the end, when they were so against it, losing their ‘Trojan Horse’, as the French nationalist De Gaulle called Britain, inside the European Union? It was because the US realised that it no longer needed the British spaniel as a Trojan Horse, since both the French and the Germans had by then also become US spaniels. The French ‘cheese-eating surrender monkey’ of ‘Old Europe’ of 2003 had given way to just another banana republic vassal, along with the Germans. And Brexit Britain could be even more useful, becoming a spaniel to an even greater extent than an EU Britain. Once outside the European bloc, Britain really could truly become the 51st State, a very useful aircraft carrier and logistics and business centre. As a German politician whom I met in 1989 in US-occupied Wiesbaden said to me: Britain is ‘the front part of America’ (‘der vordere Teil Amerikas’). And the Ukraine is just the most recent proof of it.

In the light of this, we can now see what lay behind the 2006 poisoning of Litvinenko and the 2018 novichok poisoning of the Skripals. Both were clearly carried out by MI5, indeed the latter poisoning took place in the ultra-militarised British city of Salisbury, a few miles away from the British poison centre at Porton Down, one of perhaps only two places in the whole world where novichok exists. If the Russian secret services had wanted to kill either of the traitors, they would have had a thousand discreet chances to do so years before – any hired killer could have disposed of them for a fee. And nobody but an idiot would poison with traceable polonium or novichok – not unless of course he wanted to try and frame someone else in the clumsiest possible way. Nobody believed that the Russians were responsible, except for the zombified readers of British tabloids, aka the Pavlov’s dogs of the British Establishment-run media.

Both the Litvinenko and the Skripal cases were prepared in order to further the old Victorian propaganda template that Russians are bears, cruel, primitive, violent, evil and dangerous, for ‘they lie all the time, unlike us British gentlemen’. As an example, the absurd scenario outside Kiev in Bucha in 2022, where the dead bodies of murdered Russia-supporters from the local morgue and the living bodies of paid actors neatly posed at regular intervals along the sides of a road for the TV cameras. This operation was also clearly run by the same British incompetents. Who runs the SBU, the dreaded Ukrainian Secret Police? The CIA or MI6? Answer: Both, they work hand in hand, as in James Bond. The CIA runs the SBU headquarters in Kiev and Lvov, but the British run other operations, for example, the SAS naval operation in Nikolaev, under the command of the ‘British’, but Russian-named, Admiral Antony Radakin, who has so often met Zelensky. And it is the same naval British who may have blown up the Nordstream pipelines and have certainly several times tried to blow up the Kerch Bridge.

Conclusion: Post-Ukraine

The reality is that the British Establishment is a political, economic and military dwarf, a minor player on the world stage. Like a spaniel scenting the approval of its American master, it has invested itself in the Ukraine full on. But what happens if Russia wins in the Ukraine? What happens if the demented Biden gets kicked out in November 2024 and a Trump-style American nationalist gets elected? In either case and in both cases, it is the end of the war in the Ukraine. It is also the end of NATO and probably also US withdrawal from Europe. After all, this is what Trump has already promised. So Britain will end up an empty aircraft carrier.

If anyone in the British Establishment does have a brain, they should at least be thinking of a Plan B for the above scenario. What is to be done in the event of yet another highly likely US defeat, letting Britain down as in Afghanistan (£35 billion, 450 lives wasted and countless maimed), but this time far worse, for it will mean the historic US withdrawal from Britain, where the US occupation began as long ago as 1942. And then what does empire-less and role-less Britain do? It will have only one choice, to return to the empire-less days of 500 years ago, before the Reformation, before the murderous tyrant Henry VIII. He chose to turn his back on Europe, because he was unable to dominate it (just like the US in Vietnam and Afghanistan some 500 years later), but Britain was not isolated then because it could obtain power from its new overseas colony in America. This they populated with the undesirable, trouble-making Puritans, the most intolerant and racist of all the Protestants. It is the spoilt child syndrome: ‘I can’t win this game, so I’ll play another one somewhere else’.

As early as 2025 empire-less Britain, abandoned by even its main ex-colony, the USA, may be obliged to return to Europe, opposite which London was built. The only advantage for Britain is that there will by then be a New Europe. It will not be the old anti-sovereignist EU Europe, which forced Brexit on the British. It will be a whole pack of ex-spaniels, of which Britain and its old rivals France and Germany will only be three among many. All without a dog-walker, all bankrupt, all indebted, all suffering inflation, all unable to maintain essential infrastructure, all living off food banks, all short of oil, gas, heating, food and fertiliser, all humiliated, all in order to survive having to make peace with victorious Russia. It is already the leading economic, political and military power in Europe. This is called eating humble-pie. And humble-pie is going to be on the Western European menu every day for the rest of the twenty-first century.




no ceasefire.....

If the West is seeking to settle the Ukrainian conflict with force, Moscow will respond accordingly, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a press-conference following his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Saturday.

“[The West says that] in general, Russia must be defeated on the battlefield,” Russia’s top diplomat told journalists at the 78th session of the assembly.

“[…] No one wants to seriously show understanding of what is happening - [and] those who understand do not really want to show it publicly,” he said, before adding that “If the West wants to resolve the issue on the battlefield, so be it.”

Lavrov, who branded the collective West an “empire of lies” during his speech, delivered his comments to the UNGA four days after Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky and United States leader Joe Biden spoke.

The Kremlin’s foreign minister also accused the United States and “its subordinate Western collective” of attempting to “artificially divide humanity into hostile blocs.” It is a tactic, Lavrov said, that is designed to “force the world to play according to their self-centered rules.”

At the press-conference Lavrov also said that certain “peace formulas” related to the conflict in Ukraine, including any which have received approval from President Zelensky, “are unrealistic, and everybody knows it.”

But the diplomat did state that Moscow is prepared to engage in negotiations to bring an end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, though he ruled out the possibility of agreeing to a ceasefire, because, he said, “Moscow has already been deceived once.”






poodles of the empire....


Strident hawks who have Russians in their closet

These former world leaders and others are publicly maximalist, but now have financial connections to Kremlin-linked oligarchs, and even Putin.





Last week saw former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin retire from politics after a poor election showing, and join the Tony Blair Institute, where she will be “advising political leaders on their reform programs.” The news raised some eyebrows for several reasons.

For one, former British Prime Minister Blair’s long history of advising authoritarians for money, as well as the Institute’s own funding from the Saudi government, already sits awkwardly with the non-profit’s original rationale of at “articulat[ing] a vision of liberal democracy that can garner substantial support,” as well as “progressive values.” 

Also there is Blair’s leading role in the invasion of Iraq, which sits squarely at odds with Marin’s hawkishness on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s similarly illegal and disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Over her tenure, Marin rejected U.S. President Joe Biden’s suggestion of giving Putin an “off-ramp” to end the war, offered to transfer fighter jets to Kyiv, and declared she would back Ukraine’s war effort for as long as 15 years, because a lack of military victory would lead to “decades of this kind of behavior.”

But there’s also the fact that Blair’s institute was until recently at least partly funded by sanctioned Russian billionaire Moshe Kantor, a figure with close tiesto the Kremlin and the largest shareholder in the strategically significant Russian fertilizer company Acron. As prime minister, Marin was one of the leading supporters of Western sanctions on Russia, calling for them to impact “the everyday lives of ordinary Russians,” and vowing that Finland would grit its teeth through the “long winter” their blowback would cause. 

Thanks to those sanctions, Fins paid €5 billion more in electricity costs over 2022 and the country tipped into a recession, even if a mild winter meant predictions of blackouts didn’t materialize. This was all meant to be worth it to defend the “values of a free and democratic world.” 

Yet here Marin is, taking a paid position with an institute partly funded by a sanctioned, Kremlin-connected billionaire, and run by someone responsible for an illegal invasion of his own. 

Marin is not the only Western hawk who has displayed such hypocrisy. Since August, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has been embroiled in a potentially career-jeopardizing scandal over her husband’s business interests, when it was revealed a trucking company he co-owned continued to do business in Russia long after Moscow’s invasion began. Worse, the company was part of the supply chain providing Russian security forces with tear gas — which means Kallas and her husband were indirectly profiting off the Kremlin’s repression of anti-war protesters. 

Yet Kallas has been a strident hawk on the war. She has labeled calls for negotiations “very dangerous,” has repeatedly called diplomacy to end the war mere “appeasement,” banned tourist visas for ordinary Russians while urging others to do the same, and demanded tighter sanctions while admonishing local companies to find a “moral compass” and avoid deals that would let Moscow circumvent sanctions. Thanks to those sanctions, Estonia saw the EU’s single biggest price hikes for food and fuel.

Others may not have financial ties to Russia, but have histories of cozy relations with Kremlin-connected oligarchs or even Putin himself. 

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson took a hardline position on the war, insisting it could only end through total military victory instead of peace talks, vowing to “squeeze Russia from the global economy, piece by piece,” and traveling to Kyiv to scuttle a reportedly tentative peace deal in the war’s early months, preferring to inflict more military damage to Russia. 

Johnson, whose party received a deluge of Russian-connected donations since he became prime minister in 2019, has long been close with Russian oligarchs. He helped make the UK a destination for oligarchs to park their cash free from accountability, and had several personal relationships with them. That includes Evgeny Lebedev, son of an oligarch and former KGB spy who helped Putin win power and tried to help him win Western support for annexing Crimea. Johnson personally intervened on the younger Levedev’s behalf to get him peerage in the House of Lords, despite a security risk warning from MI6. 

Johnson isn’t alone among British prime ministers. Blair himself has engaged in hawkish rhetoric on the war, arguing for military defeat of Moscow as a way toward peace. Yet he had a close and friendly relationship with Putin when he was in 10 Downing Street, tacitly backing and admitting to sympathizing with the Russian leader’s war in Chechnya, and even refusing to rule out advising him in exchange for money.

In the United States, Hillary Clinton has been a vocal liberal hawk, suggesting early on that Ukraine be turned into an Afghanistan-like quagmire for Russia, and declaring the best way for the war to end “is for Ukraine to win.” 

Clinton herself was once embroiled in a Russia-related scandal: while her office was responsible for helping approve a deal that gave Russian state atomic agency Rosatom control of large percentage U.S. uranium reserves, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Kremlin-connected bank that promoted the stock of the Canadian mining company being purchased by the Russian firm.

Putin, whom Clinton visited at his home on the trip, personally thanked Clinton for the speech. Back in 2006, he himself lamented that, even as he expressed unease about Putin’s authoritarianism, the U.S. government was being too critical of the Russian leader. 

Even some ultra-hawkish columnists once started out with far less strident positions on Putin. Atlantic columnist Anne Applebaum, who recently wrotethat “even the worst successor imaginable, even the bloodiest general or most rabid propagandist, will immediately be preferable to Putin,” once wrote about the Russian leader’s “bold and unexpected decision” to ally himself with the United States after September 11 and argued that the Russian military’s friendliness with U.S. adversaries and Putin’s disinterest in a free press didn’t mean “we shouldn't cooperate with Russia.” 

Chess champion Garry Kasporov, who recently all but accused Biden and his team of being in cahoots with Putin for being nominally open to the idea of negotiating, once called Putin and his coterie “people with whom the West could do business,” and explicitly justified his Chechen war. Explaining that the Chechen rebels were “bandits” and needed to be cracked down on for the government to “win support for painful economic reforms,” he urged the West to “not demand that Mr. Putin immediately halt the Chechen operation” or threaten cutting off financial assistance over it. 

It’s striking that at a time when McCarthyite accusations are rife in Western debate on the war and on the subject of diplomacy specifically, so many of those who have taken the most uncompromising positions publicly either have a history of more pragmatic stances, or of their own financial and personal connections to Kremlin-linked figures and Putin himself. 

It raises the question of how sincere the maximalist rhetoric and drive for escalation over diplomacy really is, and whether at least some hawks are engaging in risky and reckless behavior they don’t fully believe — perhaps as a form of overcompensation in a jinogistic climate.