In
het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Brian Cloughley, gepubliceerd op
Strategic Culture Foundation, aandacht voor de oorlogshitserij in de
Britse reguliere media (en de politiek), tegen Rusland.
Alsof
GB een aanval van Rusland had afgeslagen, zo berichtte men over het
varen van 2 Russische marineschepen door de internationale wateren
van Het Kanaal , waarbij deze schepen werden begeleid door een paar Britse
marineschepen..... Van agressie was uiteraard helemaal geen sprake,
maar ja het volk moet bang gemaakt worden en rijp worden gemaakt voor
een oorlog tegen Rusland....... Zo berichtten de media dan ook over de Britse marine die het land had beschermd tegen Russische agressie..... Verdomd, nazi-varken Goebbels had het niet beter kunnen verwoorden..... (mijn excuus aan de varkens die ver verheven staan boven figuren als Goebbels en veel hedendaagse politici...)
Voorts
aandacht voor de roep om meer 'defensie budget' (lees: budget voor
illegale oorlogsvoering), terwijl GB daar al meer aan uitgeeft dan
Rusland aan defensie, sterker nog Cloughley stelt dat de EU NAVO
staten al meer dan 5 keer zoveel uitgeven aan oorlogsvoering dan
Rusland aan defensie..... Alleen GB, Duitsland, Italië en Frankrijk samen, geven al 3 keer zoveel uit aan 'defensie' dan Rusland......
Men
spreekt in de media en politiek (ook hier) over Russische agressie
(waar uiteraard de 'De Krim is geannexeerd leugen' en zoals die waarin wordt gesteld dat Rusland vecht in Oost-Oekraïne, niet ontbreken), terwijl er maar 2
partijen zijn die echt agressief bezig zijn, of beter gezegd één:
de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS, die de 2de partij in
haar macht heeft, immers de NAVO kan nog niet een scheet laten zonder
toestemming van de VS, sterker nog >> de VS zorgt er zelfs voor
dat de NAVO die scheet laat......
Deze agressieve partijen, verenigd in de NAVO zijn langs de Russische grens voortdurend bezig met militaire oefeningen....... Als Rusland hetzelfde had gedaan aan de Mexicaanse kant van de grens met de VS, dan zouden we al lang zijn beland in een volledige WOIII.......
Ben
het overigens totaal niet eens met de kritiek van Cloughley op de Brexit en waar hij stelt dat de
BBC en nog een paar anderen objectief zijn....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha! Klik voor de gein maar eens op het label 'BBC' direct onder dit
bericht, dan wordt er wel e.e.a. duidelijk over 'de objectiviteit' van de BBC...... (na een aantal berichten weer opnieuw op het label klikken,
daar je anders het laatst gelezen artikel keer op keer herhaald ziet
worden)
Lees
het verder uitstekende artikel van Cloughley:
Britain
Prepares for War Against Russia
The headline in
the UK newspaper the Daily
Mail on
August 7 encapsulated much that is paranoid in sad modern Britain. It
read “Russian
warships pass through English Channel as Putin's armed forces ratchet
up pressure on the Royal Navy.”
Certainly,
the United Kingdom is in a state of crisis; but it isn’t because of
any sort of military threat. The vote to leave the European Union was
a major slide down the greasy pole of decline
and Time magazine summed
up the debacle by
pointing out that “At heart of this political saga is the fact that
the politicians leading the Brexit “Leave” campaign — Boris
Johnson chief among them — never actually explained to the British
public what a vote for ‘Leave’ entailed. The promise of Brexit
was all things to all people, which is how it managed its 52-
to 48-percent victory over
the ‘Remain’ side. Then prime minister David Cameron resigned,
and it fell to his successor Theresa May to figure out what Brexit
actually means.”
But
this dreadful state of affairs means nothing to those who lack for
nothing — which includes politicians of the governing Conservative
Party who demand
that more
taxpayers’ money must be spent on military hardware. The previous
defence minister, Michael Fallon (who had to resign because he was
found out to have
indulged in
some sexual shenanigans), told
the BBC last
year that “we will be adding to defence, there will be new
equipment and the budget will grow every year” and the present one,
Gavin Williamson (the man who said that Russia
should “go away and shut up”), demanded in
June that Britain increase its annual military spending by £20
billion, or about 25 billion dollars.
The
strange thing about agitating to spend more money on armaments is
that, apart from an indubitable terrorist menace, there is no
military threat whatever to Britain. On the other hand, there is a
social crisis of the most serious magnitude. As the New York
Times reported in
May, “the protracted campaign of budget cutting, started in 2010 by
a government led by the Conservative Party, has . . . yielded a
country that has grown accustomed to living with less, even as many
measures of social well-being — crime rates, opioid addiction,
infant mortality, childhood
poverty and
homelessness — point to a deteriorating quality of life.”
But
the government’s answer lies in buying missiles and whooshing new
aircraft, and two aircraft carriers of incalculable expense and
nuclear submarines that the BBC reports are
to cost “£31 bn (including inflation), with a contingency of a
further £10 bn, spread over 35 years...”
Apart
from terrorists, who would want to attack the United Kingdom? There
are plenty of countries in the world that don’t like Britain (not
as many as dislike the United States, but it’s still a depressingly
large number), but can it be believed that any of them would take up
arms and attack the place?
Unfortunately,
as we see from the bizarre headline quoted above, claiming absurdly
that “Putin's armed forces ratchet up pressure on the Royal Navy,”
there is a strong propaganda movement aimed at convincing British
taxpayers that by suffering spoliation of their standard of living
they are helping to defend their country against an alleged enemy who
is intent on... doing what, exactly?
In
its article about the passage through the English Channel of the
Russian cruiser Marshal Ustinov and the destroyer Severomorsk,
the Daily
Mail reported
that “after
HMS St Albans escorted Admiral Gorshkov through the North Sea on
Christmas Day last year, Defence Minister Gavin Williamson said he
would ‘not hesitate in defending our waters or tolerate any form of
aggression’ and that ‘Britain will never be intimidated when it
comes to protecting our country, our people, and our national
interests.’ “Aggression”?
This
is utter garbage. The routine transit of Russian ships is being
treated as a military threat requiring action by ships of the Royal
Navy. And it isn’t just the Daily
Mail that
spouts this rubbish. The commanding officer of the destroyer HMS
Diamond that was sent to “intercept” the two Russian vessels,
Commander Ben Keith, declared “HMS
Diamond is proud to once again be playing her part in protecting the
UK by monitoring these vessels on their transit... While many
families are enjoying their summer holidays, my ship’s company are
working hard at sea to keep Britain safe and will continue to do so
for as long as we are required. I would like to thank the families of
my crew whose support is vital while we carry out our duty to the
nation.”
In
36 years wearing the uniform of Her Majesty the Queen I heard some
stupid things said by officers of all three services, and indeed said
a few myself. But in all my time I never heard such a preposterous
and barmy public utterance as that load of drivel.
Commander
Keith can’t really believe that he was “protecting the UK” by
cruising beside a couple of ships transiting the Channel. He can’t
truly credit that his sailors were “proud to be protecting the UK”
by having a pleasant couple of days in the sunshine sailing alongside
a couple of ships passing through international waters. Or can he?
If
he does believe this, then I weep for the Royal Navy, because if the
days of sailors preferring to be at sea rather than ashore are over,
then heaven help it. What do they join for?
But
the supposed Russian “threat” is not confined to a few of its
ships moving through international waters like so many hundreds of
others every day. In the air, too, the striking might of Russia has
to be countered at all costs.
On
August 15 the Mail rejoiced
that the
British Royal Air Force (RAF) “intercepted six Russian bombers
flying close to NATO airspace over the Black Sea and forced them to
turn back.”
Turn
back from what? The official announcement was that “the operation
was in accordance with the NATO Enhanced Air Policing mission with
NATO ally Romania. RAF jets helped deter Russian aggression, reassure
our friends in Romania, and assure NATO allies of our commitment to
collective defence.” “Aggression” yet again.
In
fact all that this silly little aerial fandango achieved was a
headline in a drivelling — but very popular — newspaper. Over a
million Brits read the garbage it prints and many appear to believe
that Russia is a military threat.
The Mail and
most British news outlets (except the BBC and a couple of others
which are objective), continue to push the line that the United
Kingdom must spend more and more money on military gadgets and
junkets.
So
on August 18 the UK’s Daily
Express newspaper,
a sad wreck of its former self, and now competing with the Daily
Mail in
publicising ‘celebs’ and headlining articles of ultra-nationalist
tripe, ran a piece headlined “Royal
Navy's £3bn warship launches to tackle ‘frightening’
Russians.” Just
how it’s going to deter anyone is not explained, because it hasn’t
any aircraft and
won’t be operational until 2021. It cost over
4 billion dollars and its yet-to-arrive 36 F-35 aircraft will cost
a minimum
of 90
million dollars each. This is in a country where the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation (JRF) records
that some 14 million people live in poverty – more than one in
five of the population.
The
sick farce of Britain’s preparation for war against Russia is shown
to be even more absurd by the plain facts of comparative expenditure.
It is never mentioned by Britain’s defence ministers or the
compliant media (from which are excluded the BBC,
the Guardian and
the Independent)
that in 2017, as reported by IHS
Jane’s,
Russia’s defence expenditure for 2017-2018 was approved at $51.35
billion while that
of the UK was
some $57 billion. Indeed, the annual military expenditure of NATO’s
European members is $254 billion, or about five times that of Russia,
and they spend a lot of it deploying forces ever closer to Russia’s
borders. Aggression, anyone?
Britain
would be a much better place if it acknowledged that there is no
threat whatever from Russia — why on earth would Russia even want
to begin to consider attacking Britain, or any NATO country, for that
matter? — and that the billions being wasted on weapons would be
better directed at improving the country’s infrastructure and
social development. The terrorist danger will always remain, but the
allegations by politicians and the press that vast spending is
justified by “aggression” on the part of Russia are irresponsible
and unworthy of a nation that could once again be great, if only it
sorted out its priorities.
Tags: UK
