Wednesday 25th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

black is white, slavery is freedom, war is peace and russia is imperialist....

Britain goes full Orwell accusing Putin of imperialism
Foreign Secretary David Lammy launched into a weird rant against Russia, accusing it of the crimes Britain has committed...

There are intriguing and disappointing – though not surprising – continuities between Great Britain under the conservative Tories and the current iteration under a hardly less rightwing version of the Labour party. Crony corruption scandals that reveal the British political elite as comically greedy and petty are already erupting again.

 

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

Ordinary people still face an unforgiving search for “austerity”; indeed, given recent Labour moves on the budget, for instance on the winter fuel allowance, affecting over ten million frequently vulnerable pensioners, the so-called “Left” is now outdoing the Right in cruelty toward the common man and woman. And the fairly new prime minister, Keir Starmer, is already as deeply unpopular as his predecessor Rishi Sunak was when he called the elections that predictably finished him off.

And then there is foreign policy. There as well, it is hard to spot a difference. It is true, we have just learned that, once, former Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson was seriously considering an “aquatic raid”(say that with a Churchill growl, please) on the Netherlands, a NATO ally, to seize Covid vaccines. We have not yet heard of similarly exotic plots laid by Starmer. But otherwise, same old, same old. The UK elite remains fatally addicted to a blind loyalty toward its special relationship with the US that sometimes could make even the Germans blanch with envy. And they know a thing or two about absolute submission.

London also won’t let go of its position as Europe’s hottest cheerleader for the proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, at least outside the Baltics. Officially, the British government is still promoting the idea of co-launching Western-supplied missiles from Ukraine deep into Russia. Never mind that Moscow has made it clear that it will consider such a policy as bringing all of NATO and Russia into direct military conflict – not (barely) indirect as up until now. Moreover, the Russian leadership has also put the West on notice that cut-out games won’t work. The core point about its recent revision of Russia’s nuclear doctrine is that not only the ostentatious direct attacker state but its supporters as well are fair game – as they should be – for retaliation.

There may well be an element of fairly cheap theater in London’s posturing as a missile street tough. Think of a dog madly barking behind a closed gate, precisely because it knows the gate is closed and it won’t have to act on its ferocious threats. The role of the gate is played by Washington, which fails to allow the brilliant British-Ukrainian Armageddon-Come-and-Get-Us plan to go ahead, as the Telegraph has just bemoaned. How convenient: We’d be (insanely) brave, really, if only we didn’t have to be so obedient, too. 

Yet, at least as far as stentorian rhetoric is concerned, the UK’s government will certainly not be outdone. The problem with all the big talk, though, is that it can easily veer off into declarations so unusually hyperbolic and absurd that they backfire. Think of this current British mood as the very opposite of that fine understatement for which the island’s culture used to be famous. An example of this kind of self-defeating bombast was recently delivered by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

Trying to reach an international audience, especially in a Global South that has long given up on the West, Lammy launched into a rant – there really is no other word – about Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. The whole thing was rather cringe, as if trying to outdo his infamous German colleague Annalena ‘360 Degrees of Anti-Diplomacy’ Baerbock in demeaning his own office. Lammy, for instance, apparently felt no shame denouncing Moscow’s “disinformation” – that, from one of the West’s worst deniers and enablers of Israel’s many crimes, including its Gaza genocide and devastation of Lebanon. Frankly Russia, at this point: just wear it with pride. 

But the perhaps most stunningly grotesque moment occurred when Lammy sought to make opportunistic use of the horrific history of modern slavery. “As a black man,” he stated, “whose ancestors were taken in chains from Africa, at the barrel of a gun to be enslaved, whose ancestors rose up and fought in a great rebellion of the enslaved” he had a special knack for recognizing “imperialism.” By that he meant, of course, Russian imperialism. 

Since then, be assured, there has been much head scratching, perhaps especially in that Global South that Lammy tried so desperately to impress with his rhetorical kamikaze attack. Was not the British – cough, cough – Empire (as in imperialism) one of the worst participants in the Atlantic slave trade that produced 10 to 12 million Black victims? 

During the process of hunting and enslaving human beings, “an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the captives died on their way” from the African interior to the coast. Then the so-called Middle Passage, the nightmarish deportation across the Atlantic killed another 10 to 25% of the victims. Apart from the effects of brutal overcrowding below deck, malnutrition, and psychological trauma, slave traders had a habit of “disposing” of those they considered worthless by dropping them into the sea, alive and chained to each other, sometimes to make an insurance profit. William Turner depicted such a massacre by drowning on, as it happened, a British slave ship, in one of his most famous paintings.

And for those who survived both capture in Africa and the Middle Passage: Was it not the US – Britain’s current boss and the site of Lammy’s rant – that literally built its economic take-off on slave labor so brutal the ancient Romans would have been either impressed or shocked? And what about that famous “value” West that Lammy also seeks to speak for? Comprehensively represented in the same great crime: the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, you name it…

The result was not only death and brutality on a staggering scale. Parts of the African continent were also massively damaged demographically, economically, and politically. As summarized in Encyclopedia Britannica (as it happens), the transatlantic slave trade “had devastating effects in Africa. Economic incentives for warlords and tribes to engage in the trade of enslaved people promoted an atmosphere of lawlessness and violence. Depopulation and a continuing fear of captivity made economic and agricultural development almost impossible throughout much of western Africa. A large percentage of the people taken captive were women in their childbearing years and young men who normally would have been starting families. The European enslavers usually left behind persons who were elderly, disabled, or otherwise dependent groups who were least able to contribute to the economic health of their societies.”This was a holocaust for Africa. Historically, it is not long ago. Its scars are still there. And it was the West’s doing. 

The point is not to pretend that Russia, at the same time, had no imperial history, including great violence and injustice. Empires do. Only the naive are in denial about that fact. Rather what is so striking is that, to go after Russia, Lammy could not think of anything better than to bring up one of the British Empire’s greatest crimes. At first sight, this is “merely” yet another example of Westerners losing all inhibitions when demonizing their geopolitical opponent. They are not even ashamed to openly cite their own worst crimes to do so. Orwellian indeed.

Yet there is something else here as well that is, if anything, even more insidious. Since the Ukraine War, we have seen a relentless and widespread effort to mis-appropriate the experience, the suffering, and the resistance of the Global South as a cheap rhetorical device to provide heroic spin for Zelensky’s regime and the West’s proxy war as well as cheap shots at Russia.

There is, of course, a politics of Left and Right here. Traditionally, and for good reasons, criticizing imperialism and colonialism has been a ‘left’ thing. By hijacking ostentatiously ‘anti-colonial’ terms for the proxy war in Ukraine, this potential on the Western Left was supposed to be channeled into serving the US-NATO-EU complex. With some, that rather perverse trick, transparent as it is, has even worked. Think of it as wearing a Che Guevara-print shirt and venerating Ukrainian Azov Neo-Nazis as ‘freedom fighters’. 

Politically, this is just another way in which semi-smart people fool semi-simple people. But there is a more serious, moral dimension as well. It is a truly and abjectly colonial and imperialist move to exploit the massive suffering – almost exclusively at the hands of the West – as well as the hard-won insights and hard-fought resistance of what we now call the Global South so as to feed them into the cheap propaganda that the West now uses to sell its geopolitics-101 proxy war in Ukraine as an issue of ‘rules’ and ‘values’. And yet that is precisely what David Lammy has done. What a disgrace.

https://www.rt.com/news/604948-uk-accusing-putin-david-lammy/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

end of empires....

The British Empire

Prior to World War I, the world’s largest and wealthiest imperial power was Great Britain. The British Empire famously occupied one-quarter of the globe (“the sun never sets on Britain” was a famous slogan of the mid 19th century). British colonial possessions in the late 1800s included Canada, India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, several Pacific and Caribbean Islands, South Africa, Rhodesia, Egypt and other parts of Africa.

Many of these colonies were acquired with little difficulty; others took more time, effort and bloodshed. Britain’s acquisition of South Africa, for example, came after costly wars against the Zulus (native tribes) and Boers (white farmer-settlers of Dutch extraction).

British imperialism was focused on maintaining and expanding trade, the importation of raw materials and the sale of manufactured goods. Britain’s imperial power was reinforced by her powerful navy, the world’s largest, and a fleet of mercantile (commercial) vessels.

Other European empires

Another significant imperial power was France, Britain’s closest neighbour. French imperial holdings included Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), some Pacific islands and several colonies in west and north-west Africa. The German Empire included Shandong (a province of China), New Guinea, Samoa and other Pacific islands, and several colonies in central and south-west Africa. The Spanish Empire had once included the Philippines and large parts of South America, though by the early 20th century Spain’s imperial power was dwindling.

Empires closer to home included Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman sultanate. Russia ruled over Finland, Poland and several central Asian regions as an imperial power; its disastrous war against Japan in 1904-5 was an attempt to extend Russia’s imperial reach further into Korea and northern China.

Despite frequent condemnation of European imperialism in America, the United States also engaged in a degree of empire-building, particularly towards the end of the 1800s.

Global empires in 1914

The British Empire took in India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, parts of North Africa, islands in the Pacific and Caribbean and concessions in China.

Russia ruled modern-day Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Georgia and several regions in central Asia, such as Kazakhstan. Russia also had colonial interests in East Asia, including a concession in China.

France maintained colonies in modern-day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, areas of West Africa and India, small possessions in South America, and islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.

Germany had seized control of modern-day Tanzania, Namibia and Cameroon in Africa, German New Guinea, some Pacific islands and an important concession in Shandong (China).

Austria-Hungary possessed no colonies outside Europe but was an empire nonetheless, ruling over several different regions, ethnic and language groups. Among its regions were Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Galicia, Transylvania, the Tyrol and, after 1908, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Spain once possessed a large empire that included Cuba, the Philippines and large areas of South America – but by 1914 the Spanish were left with only tiny colonial territories in the Americas and north-west Africa.

The United States was a relative newcomer to imperialism but by 1914 had gained control of the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and several islands in the Pacific. Though later absorbed into the United States, both Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands might be considered colonial acquisitions.

The Ottoman Empire was once the largest empire in the world, taking in eastern Europe, the Middle East and much of northern Africa. Ottoman territory had shrunk significantly but by 1914 the sultanate retained the heart of its old empire: modern-day Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Armenia and Macedonia.

Portugal in 1914 was the imperial ruler of modern-day Angola and Mozambique in Africa, Goa (India) and East Timor (Indonesia).

Belgium was one of the smallest nations in Europe but still possessed a significant African colony (Belgian Congo), as well as a small concession in China.

Holland had several small colonial possessions in South America (Dutch Guyana), Asia (Batavia, or modern-day Indonesia) and the Pacific.

Italy by 1914 had moved into northern Africa, annexing modern-day Libya, Somalia and Eritrea. It also held a small concession in China.

The scramble for Africa

The second half of the 1800s produced a significant rush to build and expand empires. This desperate push for new colonies was fuelled by rising nationalism, increasing demand for land and dwindling opportunities at home. Two relative newcomers to empire-building were the newly unified nations of Germany and Italy.

The man who helped construct the German state in the 1870s, Otto von Bismarck, had shown little interest in gathering colonies. Bismarck’s view was not shared by other Germans, however. Organisations like the Colonial League (formed 1882 in Berlin) whipped up support for German imperial expansion.

The Kaiser and his advisors formulated their own imperial designs, most of them focused on Africa. In 1884 Germany acquired Togoland, the Cameroons and South West Africa (now Namibia). Six years later a sizeable swathe of East Africa was under German control: this territory was renamed Tanganyika (now Tanzania). African colonisation was well received by the German population but it created concern in Britain and France. Many in London dreamed of a British-owned railway running the length of Africa (“from Cairo to the Cape”) and German colonies in eastern Africa were an obstacle to this vision.

Diplomatic incidents

The scramble for empire in Africa also sparked several diplomatic incidents. Two significant crises followed from events in Morocco in north-west Africa.

Though not a French colony, Morocco’s location placed it within France’s sphere of influence. As Paris sought to establish a protectorate in Morocco, the German Kaiser intervened. In 1905, Wilhelm II travelled to the Moroccan city of Tangier, where he delivered a speech supporting the idea of Moroccan independence. This antagonised the French government and precipitated a series of angry diplomatic responses and feverish press reports.

A second crisis erupted in 1911. As the French were attempting to suppress a rebellion in Morocco, the Germans landed an armed vessel, the Panther, at the Moroccan port of Agadir – a landing made without permission, prior warning or any obvious purpose. This incident triggered an even stronger reaction and brought France and Germany to the brink of war.

These acts of German provocation were not designed to encroach into Morocco or expand its empire, rather to drive a wedge between France and Britain. In fact, it had the opposite effect, strengthening the Anglo-French alliance and intensifying criticism of German Weltpolitik and ‘gunboat diplomacy’ in both France and Britain.

Critical problems in the Ottoman Empire also affected the balance of power in eastern Europe.

Described by satirists as the ‘Sick Man of Europe’, the Ottoman sultanate was in rapid political, military and economic decline by the second half of the 1800s. The Ottomans were defeated in several wars including the Crimean War (1853-56), Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) and First Balkans War (1912-13). These defeats, along with rising nationalism and revolutions in Ottoman-controlled regions, resulted in gradual but significant losses of territory.

With the Ottoman Empire shrinking and at risk of complete collapse, Europe’s other imperial powers clamoured to secure territory or influence in the region. Austria-Hungary hoped to expand into the Balkans; Russia moved to limit Austrian expansion while securing access to the Black Sea; Germany wanted to ensure the security and completion of its Berlin-to-Baghdad railway.

Britain and France also had colonial and trade interests in the region. The ‘Eastern question’ – the issue of what would happen in eastern Europe as the Ottomans withdrew – was an important talking point of the late 19th century. These developments drew the Great Powers of Europe into the Balkan sphere, creating opportunities for rivalry and increased tensions.

1. Imperialism is a system where a powerful nation-state seizes or controls territories outside its own borders. These territories are claimed and governed as colonies.

2. Several European nations maintained empires in the decades before World War I. The British Empire was by far the largest, spanning around one-quarter of the globe at one point.

3. The pre-war period saw European powers scramble to acquire the new colonial possessions. Much of this occurred in Africa, where Britain, France and Germany all vied for land and control.

4. This ‘scramble for empire’ fuelled rivalry and led to several diplomatic incidents, such as two Moroccan crises that were largely precipitated by the German Kaiser.

5. The decline of another imperial power, the Ottoman Empire, attracted the attention of European powers, who sought territory, influence or access in the Balkans and eastern Europe.

 

https://alphahistory.com/worldwar1/imperialism/

 

GUSNOTE: THE RUSSIAN "EMPIRE" (THE USSR) SELF-TERMINATED (Declaration № 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.) IN THE EARLY 1990s, INVITING OTHER EMPIRE TO DO THE SAME... THE AMERICAN EMPIRE (NATO) WENT BANANAS....

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

salami tactics....

 

Putin just announced Russia’s own Monroe Doctrine
The president has cleared up any ambiguity about how Moscow will respond to any new threats in its backyard

 

BY Sergey Poletaev

 

On September 26, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced updates to the Foundations of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Area of Nuclear Deterrence. The revised document implies that under certain conditions, Moscow may consider a proxy war against itself as justification for using nuclear weapons.

Salami tactics 

Traditional nuclear deterrence doctrines date back to the Cold War and were developed with major world powers and military alliances in mind. The underlying assumption is that large states are unlikely to attack a nuclear power, since they risk facing a massive retaliatory strike.

However, the conflict in Ukraine has created a new and unprecedented reality: The West is waging war against Russia through a proxy state that shows little regard for its own self-preservation. At least under the grip of its current leadership.

Kiev actively attacks Russia’s historic territories. Incidents that have happened “for the first time since World War Two” are regularly reported in the news: e.g., a regional center being shelled in Russia, military facilities attacked in Volga Region or in the Kuban, or German-made tanks crossing into Kursk Region.

There have also been rumors of attacks on sites of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. Such aggression is officially recognized as triggers for a nuclear response. Whether or not these rumors are true, this behavior is perfectly in line with the logic of Kiev and its Western sponsors. The goal is to use isolated drone strikes conducted by a proxy force to undermine Russia’s nuclear doctrine – or, speaking in IT terms, to hack it by means of a ‘zero-day exploit’.

After all, would Putin really start a nuclear war over one drone crashing near a strategic bomber base? What about two drones? Or ten? Or perhaps a couple of drones combined with a Western-made cruise missile?

This exemplifies classic ‘salami slicing tactics’: gradually pressuring the opponent, forcing them to change their strategic position without providing sufficient grounds for the opponent to deploy their primary (in Russia’s case – nuclear) forces.

Staying behind the lines
The only real red line between Russia and the West – and specifically, between Moscow and Washington – is something that would force one side to dramatically escalate the conflict.

Both the Kremlin and the White House are currently adhering to the so-called limited war strategy. Why? Because Russia can’t afford to shoot itself in the head because of Ukraine, and in a similar way, the West doesn’t want to blow itself up because of Russia. Any dramatic escalation could result in such an outcome, making the situation unpredictable even without the use of nuclear weapons.

Neither Russia nor the US desires an escalation in the conflict. Rather, both are aiming to keep it within its current boundaries. It’s like in the fable about the snake and the turtle: if one side makes a sudden move, the other is forced to respond, which could lead to dire consequences. For Russia, an escalation means mobilizing all resources, a situation that is fraught with peril for the nation. For the West, escalation means directly intervening, with no guarantee of success and a high risk of heavy losses or even a nuclear exchange.

For now, Russia has imposed a war of attrition on its adversary. Clearly, the Kremlin believes that this strategy has a better chance of working out

The US seems to understand this and wants to disrupt the Kremlin’s plan by increasing the costs but keeping everything within its present boundaries. This is why it resorts to so-called salami tactics.

Some experts believe that the ban on long-range missile strikes deep into Russian territory is the only real agreement that exists between Putin and [US President Joe] Biden. It’s not that such strikes would significantly change things, but this serves as a benchmark, a point of reference that is more or less understandable to both sides.  

If you try to destroy us by means of a proxy force, we will destroy both the proxy and you

However, changes are about to happen in the White House. If the aforementioned agreements indeed exist, the Kremlin cannot be certain that the next administration will adhere to them.

This is why Russia needed to send a clear signal to the West (and to the whole world) about the current situation and how Russia will respond to various actions taken by the West.

Firstly, Moscow will not consider using nuclear weapons as long as it maintains the military initiative. Thus the likelihood of using nuclear weapons depends on its military success: if victory isn’t possible by conventional means, a nuclear strike becomes an option.

Secondly, because of this, Russia’s primary opponent (the US) cannot wage war against Russia directly and cannot arm the proxy state to such an extent as would change the course of the conflict. Therefore, the US must stay on the sidelines, watching as its proxy gradually loses the war. In this regard, nuclear deterrence is currently effective against the US and the West, at least until the administration in Washington changes. Putin’s new doctrine serves as a message and a warning to Biden’s successor.

Thirdly, the proxy state (Ukraine) is trying to find Russia’s weak spots and inflict a painful blow. As the situation on the front worsens for the Ukrainian forces, they may resort to more desperate measures, such as launching attacks on strategic missile deployment sites. These actions could potentially be effective. Will this provoke a nuclear response from Russia? Almost certainly not. The Kremlin is not considering a nuclear attack on Ukraine.

Why not? Because Ukraine does not pose a significant enough threat to justify starting a nuclear war. Russia can handle Ukraine through conventional means of warfare. And even though some incidents may be quite painful, they don’t change this reality.

Overall, Putin’s doctrine can be summarized as follows:

Fight weaker opponents with conventional forces and use nuclear deterrence to prevent major powers from intervening in ways that could turn these weaker opponents into serious threats.

Or, put simply: Russia will ensure its security as it sees fit, using the nuclear shield to deter anyone who might try to interfere.

Meanwhile, Ukraine serves as a vivid example of the fate that will befall any nation that wages war against Russia: it will be devastated, its industry and infrastructure will be destroyed, and it will suffer a demographic and economic collapse; as for the West, it will offer empty words of support, but in practice will push its proxy into the abyss.

One of the outcomes of Russia’s military operation should be a growing awareness among neighboring countries that looking for a fight with Moscow is a bad idea, and that NATO won’t be able to protect them.

Furthermore, the West must recognize that by inciting Russia’s neighbors to wage war against it, it risks prompting a nuclear war.

That is an approach James Monroe would certainly have approved of.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/604978-russias-own-monroe-doctrine/

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.