The West cannot approach the problems of Syria, Ukraine or Iran without facing up to the question of its relationship with Putin’s Russia. That relationship is now severely dysfunctional and characterised by squabble and acrimony on a range of detail encompassing much of the globe.
Anti-Russian sentiment is now forming part of the ceaseless wave of militarist propaganda to which the media endlessly subjects us. There were particularly pointless pieces two days ago on all British broadcast media about one of the Royal parasites taking the salute at the 100th anniversary of some RAF squadron. Every week some military unit will have some anniversary. Plus the Second World War lasted fully six years, and as the 70th, 75th and 80th anniversaries are each to be commemorated of every happening during that war, there is never a single day with a shortage of excuse for some royal prat in a Ruritanian uniform to take a salute.
Both Sky and the BBC have recently run pieces on how the brave RAF squadrons protect us from the devastating Russian bomber threat. The alleged “problem” was that Russian aircraft fly along in international airspace close to British airspace. In other words, there is a major issue with Russian aircraft behaving perfectly legally. No mention was made of the fact that NATO aircraft do exactly the same thing to Russia, only many times more often. We saw jets scrambled to meet the “emergency” of Russian aircraft who were – err – flying along well North of Scotland and never entering British airspace at all. You were supposed to watch it and think how happy we are that the RAF are keeping us safe. I was left sobbing at the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money I had just watched wasted for no reason at all.
Which is not to say that Russia is not a threat. Russia plainly is a threat to some of its immediate neighbours. Putin holds that parts of the Former Soviet Union with ethnic Russian populations should be absorbed into Russia. That was the cause of the attack on Georgia, the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of parts of Eastern Ukraine. Putin’s motivation is sometimes hard to fathom, but certainly this use of military power against weak neighbours, with a definite ethnic agenda, is very popular with the Russian public. To Putin, it is more or less cost free, as Western corporate interests would be damaged by any positive action Western governments might take – the “sanctions” are almost entirely token. Putin is not mad enough to take on one of the former Soviet states which is now in NATO or the EU, so his possible future targets are severely limited.
Nor is it plain that Putin is “winning” in a strategic sense. Just three years ago, Russia had a pre-eminent influence throughout all of Ukraine. Now 70% of Ukraine has been lost forever to any Russian influence at all. That is a peculiar kind of victory. The economy of the Crimea plus Donbass is in disarray and even before the crisis, the GDP of the entire region was about the same as the GDP of Dundee. The whole exercise is yet another example of the thesis of J A Hobson, adopted by Lenin, that Imperialism benefits the military and political classes but not the Imperial nation as a whole. The Ukraine civil war has been good for Putin and the Russian military. It has done nothing for Russia.
It is coincidence that the Ukraine confrontation has coincided with a collapse in hydrocarbon prices. But the economic impact of that collapse has been stark and has highlighted Putin’s total failure in the most important task facing him – the diversification of the Russian economy. The failure to develop a viable manufacturing sector and to halt the extreme, Nigerian style levels of capital flight has condemned Russia to continuing Second World economic status. People take issue with my description of the Russian economy as the same size as the Spanish economy. I stand by it. Remember published economic data is historic, rather than reflecting the situation today. I am also unimpressed by attempts to disguise economic failure by using Purchasing Power Parity, rather than actual dollar values. PPP states that as cabbage is extremely cheap in Ekaterinburg, Russians are cabbage rich. So what?
Russia is no superpower. Its economy is the same size as Spain’s, and a good deal less diversified. It is a nationalistic kleptocracy. It has nonetheless a certain residual influence from its imperial past, and continuing Imperial present. Dagestan, Chechnya and Tatarstan remain colonies. Putin is extremely aware of that, which is why peaceful anti-imperial pro-independence campaigners from those countries receive heavy prison sentences, or simply get killed.
Undoubtedly the temporary economic difficulties caused by the oil price collapse have decreased Russian influence for a time. Russia went from being a major player in the Iran nuclear talks (remember the proposals about processing of Iranian fuel in Russia), to being in the end irrelevant. Russia’s impotence over Iran came from a realisation that the prospect of a return of Iranian oil to the open market would depress energy prices still further. But in Ukraine by virtue of force on the ground, and in Syria by simple virtue of being plainly right where the West has been horribly wrong, Russia remains an important player.
I have no time for the Assad regime. The current occupant is not so vicious as his father, but it remains a dictatorship, and I look forward to the day it passes. But you have to be crazed not to accept that the growth of vicious Islamic extremism means that it is necessary for Syria to be reunited under Assad and the dictatorship to survive another decade. That plainly is the lesser of a number of evils. There is no good solution.
Attempts to demonise the Assad regime over use of chemical weapons have been almost entirely unconvincing. The effort by the media to demonise “barrel bombs” – as though being eviscerated by a proper western made technological bomb is preferable to being eviscerated by a homemade bomb – has been bizarre. What is needed is an immediate halt to the funding of combatants by the USA, Saudi Arabia and their allies, and at least an internal acknowledgement that was what created ISIL in the first place. Russia should instead be authorised and funded by the UN to help enforce peace, and Russian troops should wear blue helmets. We then need a comprehensive peace deal which guarantees that the Assad regime will not pursue reprisal, and includes the return of the illegally occupied Golan Heights to Syria.
No other outcome can lead to a sustainable solution which can halt the flow of refugees compelled to leave their homeland. The first step towards such a deal must be a summit meeting between the western powers and Putin. Ideally, Ukraine should also be on the agenda. The obvious solution there is a major UN force followed, after a year of peace, by a genuine referendum on joining Russia in each of the various districts of Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.
I am not crazy and I realise that none of this will happen. What will happen instead is that the West will intensify the civil war in both Syria and Ukraine. In Syria, the neo-cons of the Tory Party will ally with the Blairite Red Tories and the UK will join in, happily bombing away, killing thousands of civilians. Within three weeks of the parliamentary vote they will be massively bombing the Syrian army too because, we will be told, it is necessary to degrade Syrian ground defences to ensure the safety of our airmen. The flow of refugees will intensify.
One aspect of the refugee crisis nobody wishes directly to address is the ferocious grip that xenophobia and racism has on the cultures of Eastern Europe. This lies behind an interesting article in the Guardian by Irina Molodikova which sought to explain this in terms of resentment of historical conquest by the Ottoman Empire. That is a peculiarly Eastern European line of defence, but fails to wash as it goes nowhere to explain the rampant anti-semitism in countries like Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, nor the abuse suffered by black people.
I have personally witnessed extraordinary degrees of racism throughout Eastern Europe. It is a cultural trait common to the otherwise conflicting nationalisms of Poland and Russia. It should not be forgotten that Russia – which is again officially encouraging its citizens to breed as it needs population – is making no significant offer to accept Syrian refugees. I continually hear stories of the everyday experiences with violent racism and discrimination suffered by Uzbek workers in Russia.
I am conscious this lengthy article rambles through a number of major issues. But the problems we face are organic, complex and linked. Any neat analysis is bound to be false, and any neat dichotomy wrong. Those who believe “Putin Bad, West Good” or “West Bad, Putin Good” are fools, just as those who believe “Islam Good, Christians Bad” or “Christians Good, Islam Bad” are fools. We need a deeper understanding. We are about to face a deluge of war propaganda. A genuine understanding is the true defence against it.
@FWL – As I see it, “People’s QE” is a populist packaging of what the government should have been doing the last 7 years at least (since the Bank of England dropped the base rate effectively to zero).
When I first heard the term, I thought Corbyn was referring to Ben Bernanke’s famous “helicopter drop” thesis – something Bernanke offered as a policy suggestion to Japan, nearly 20 years ago. And it would involve, simply, dropping money onto the streets. From helicopters. Whoever picked the money up could do whatever they wanted with it.
Politically speaking, the helicopter drop is pretty much unthinkable. The pearl-clutchers who inhabit all of society’s most prominent soap-boxes wouldn’t stand for it. But economically speaking, it is absolutely indistinguishable from the QE we all know today. The monetary policy objective from either exercise is to raise expected inflation, and through this mechanism stimulate demand in the economy.
Economically speaking, with People’s QE, it actually shouldn’t make a difference whether HMT draws directly from the Bank of England, or finances itself through the bond markets. The markets should, if they behave like all the bond gurus say they should, price UK sovereign risk equivalently however Corbyn chooses to fund his programs.
One issue that will at some point come up is whether People’s QE compromises Central Bank independence. The Pearl-clutchers are going to go bezerk on this, so you can be sure they are wrong.
Firstly, central bank independence, when in a liquidity trap, is a problem. A politically motivated central bank actually helps. At all other times, I’d prefer a neutral central bank focused on price stability. But not at the zero-bound. And secondly, the PM already has the right to appoint the governor of the Bank. There’s already a political nexus, Corbyn wouldn’t be changing anything by appointing a guy who’s on the same page as him.
Anyway, short conclusion, Corbyn’s economic thinking is mainstream. Osborne and his austerity fetishists aren’t following any established doctrine.
“It’s quite obvious Putin is going to defend Russia’s strategic interests and not hand over its base”
Yes it is. It’s disingenuous to expect otherwise.
Even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, Russia was entitled to maintain its bases there on terms set out by treaty. Had Crimea stayed in Ukraine that treaty would still stand.
MJ, in Craig’s highly pertinent point about Russia’s manufacturing, (especially given the rocket-science-level technology available to them, and incredibly vast indigenous resources), means that they should be rather comparable to China rather than Spain?!
An old like, resonates ever more today:
“This happens to be the time when Nixon was still President,” he explained with a smile. “Brezhnev calls Nixon over the hotline telephone and says, ‘Hello, Mr. President, how are you? I’ve heard that you have the most incredible super-computer in the whole world.’ Nixon replies, ‘Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how you obtained this information, because it’s top secret. But I can tell you that it’s the fastest computer in the world and can foretell events up to thirty years ahead.’ Brezhnev is impressed. ‘Thirty year: that is truly astonishing. Not even here in the Soviet Union do we have anything like that. In fact, I would like to ask you a favor, if you don’t mind.’ Nixon answers, ‘Anything you like, in the name of détente, as long as it isn’t a state secret or against the interests of the United States.’ Brezhnev replies, ‘I wouldn’t dream of anything like that. But could you please ask your computer who will be in the Communist Party politburo here in the year 2000?’ The President answers, ‘No problem, Leonid. Just give me a minute.’ And the telephone line goes silent while he is consulting the computer. Brezhnev presses his ear to the reciever but hears only Moscow static as the minutes tick by. Finally he asks, ‘Are you still there, Richard?’ (They’re on first name terms by now.) ‘Well, yes, Leonid,’ Nixon replies, ‘but I can’t figure it out.’ ‘But what does it say?’ Brezhnev asks impatiently. And Nixon says, ‘That’s just it. I can’t read and what is says—it’s all in Chinese.’”
Bottom lines is Craig is doctrinaire on Russia, Syria, 911 et al. Google “Roland Dumas Syria” and see who created the Syrian genocide. It wasn’t Assad it was the doctrinaire mates of Craig.
Very good article to read however there are some major factual historical errors.
Russia retailiated against Georgia due to Georgia’s aggressive actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia. To put this in context, it’s similar to Britain defending it’s soveriegnty of the Falklands or any number of islands like Gibralta etc which are inhabited by ethnic Brits.
Assad by definition cannot be described as a dictator whether you dislike him or not, he is factually a democratically elected leader with a higher mandate than most British leaders in the past 30 years.
Also there’s very little ever mentioned of Britain’s role in training and actively supplying ‘terrorrist’ fodder to the likes of ISIL and ‘Free Syrian Army’ both inside the UK and in training camps in Jordan and across the ME.
Keep up the good work.
Not only the British media but the Norwegians are joining in the demonization.
‘Russia Angered By Norway Invasion TV Show
Moscow describes a series depicting a Russian occupation of Norway to take control of the country’s oilfields as “unfortunate”.
24 September 2015
http://news.sky.com/story/1558148/russia-angered-by-norway-invasion-tv-show
‘Moscow has hit out at a new blockbuster Norwegian TV show, which depicts the country under Russian occupation.
In Occupied, Russia invades its Nordic neighbour at the European Union’s request to restore Norwegian oil production after an environmentally-conscious Oslo government shuts it down.
The series is based on an idea by crime writer Jo Nesbo and at 90 million crowns (£7.1m) is the most expensive TV show ever made in Norway.’
!!!
The programme goes out on TV2, a commercial channel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Norway
Owned by Egmont.
http://www.egmont.com/
Roland Dumas, from another perspective:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_case_of_the_dishonorable_roland_dumas.html
Some sort of war on Syria was being considered in the US well over a decade ago in PNAC. And this was undoubtedly part of a regional ambition; to replace the governments of Iran, Iraq and Syria with actors more sympathetic to US and Israeli requirements. The UK is still a very minor player in what ensued, whether or not it follows the original game plan. It’s a bit rich to centre the blame on us, and even richer to imply that those responsible were Craig’s ‘mates’.
Still, this is some of what he said:
J’ai rencontré des responsables anglais et quelques -uns qui sont mes amis m’ont avoué, en me sollicitant, qu’il se préparait quelque chose en Syrie. L’Angleterre préparait l’invasion des rebelles en Syrie. Et on m’a même demandé à moi, sous prétexte que j’étais ancien ministre des affaires étrangères, si je participerais comme ça à cette…j’ai évidemment dit le contraire, je suis Français, ça ne m’intéresse pas. C’est pour dire que cette opération vient de très loin, elle a été préparée, conçue, organisée (…) dans le but très simple de destituer le gouvernement syrien, car dans la région il est important de savoir que ce régime syrien a des propos anti-israélien et que par conséquent tout ce qui bouge dans la région autour…Moi j’ai la confidence du premier ministre israélien (…) qui m’avait dit : on essaiera de s’entendre avec le premier ministre et avec les Etats autour et ceux qui ne s’entendront pas on les abattra. C’est une politique. C’est une conception de l’histoire, pourquoi pas après tout, mais il faut le savoir. » (retranscription)
http://www.ndf.fr/nos-breves/14-06-2013/roland-dumas-les-anglais-preparaient-la-guerre-en-syrie-deux-ans-avant-les-manifestations-en-2011#.VgP4Vpde-8o
Sounds a bit like the ‘planning’ stage of this:
Several times the Prime Minister’s handling of the Syrian crisis caused surprise in Washington, but perhaps never more so than when he put forward proposals that fell into the ‘derring-do category’, according to one White House source.
The source refused to go into detail, but it seems likely these ideas were for ‘audacious, commando-type’ operations that included high-risk attempts to ‘take out’ Assad.
‘It was sort of Boys’ Life stuff,’ the source says [Boy’s Life being the magazine of the American Boy Scouts Association]. ‘And it was implausible, because the efforts he was proposing would have been too small to make a difference, and also quite likely to fail and would have been getting everybody into deeper waters.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243965/War-PM-Britain-s-general-LORD-ASHCROFT-reveals-chief-frozen-Syria-discussions.html#ixzz3mSMG5KPL
Get real Craig ! Even the State Broadcasting BBC concede that;
“Still, there is no doubt that the majority here are strongly sympathetic to Moscow. And, for Russians, “returning” the region from Ukraine, after its “loss” in Soviet times, was a very popular cause.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33985325
Yes there were “the little green men” aka “the polite people,”, around, but two important points about them:
1.Russian troops were already legally stationed in the Crimea, as they had been for for the past 15 years, and numbered 16,000, (actually short of the full allowable maximum number of 25,000). Some of these 16,000 were immediately replaced by the famous “ little green men”, not to intimidate or influence the outcome of the Referendum, but the very opposite, to ensure that the 20,000 Ukrainian troops also stationed there did not interfere with the Referendum, especially as they had large stockpiles of weapons, including 38 S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. The Russians realized they had to act fast, before Kiev could resort to military action, which is what all those Western calls for delaying the Referendum was really all about, giving Kiev time either to attack, or to spread sedition, and sponsor terrorist outrages, so that the Referendum could never take place.
2.Everybody, on all sides, (except the on/off exception of Craig Murray), acknowledges that the result of the Referendum genuinely represents the democratic wish of the population of the Crimea, and that the result would be the same every time, with or without the presence of troops, in times of peace or in times of tension.
Rather than Russia being commended for enabling the Crimea to exercise its self-determination, with minimal loss of life, it has instead been condemn, subjected to economic warfare, demonized to the extent that the West is just a hair-trigger away from a shooting war with Russia, and all because the West didn’t like how a referendum was conducted, even although everybody accepts that if it had been conducted as the West would have liked, the result would still have been exactly the same ! If this does end-up in WW3, it will make the reasons for WW1 look sane !
Welcome to Necon Wonderland !
(and I didn’t even mention Kosovo !)
“I have no time for the Assad regime. The current occupant is not so vicious as his father, but it remains a dictatorship, and I look forward to the day it passes. But you have to be crazed not to accept that the growth of vicious Islamic extremism means that it is necessary for Syria to be reunited under Assad and the dictatorship to survive another decade. That plainly is the lesser of a number of evils. There is no good solution.”
Well said. Post is mostly good. But equating contemporary cultural manifestations of Islam and Christianity is off the mark. Both are bad but Islam clearly is moreso. eg http://10news.dk/?p=1826
“Putin holds that parts of the Former Soviet Union with ethnic Russian populations should be absorbed into Russia. That was the cause of the attack on Georgia, the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of parts of Eastern Ukraine…”
Russia’s attack on Georgia!!!! On the eve of the Beijing Olympics, I suppose. That is not how history will remember it.
You can take the boy out of the Foreign Office. But you can’t take the Foreign Office out of the boy.
They obviously regarded you as a true believer when they sent you to Bokhara. And they weren’t wrong, really, it is just that they didn’t believe in liberal imperialism, complete with Urquart’s russophobia, whereas you, true Gladstonian liberal, actually did and recognised a ‘horror’ when you saw one.
I hail from Macedonia.
A decade ago I was very pro-American.
Now…guess which government (along with Britain’s and the EU that is) I hate most?!
C’mon Craig, guess!
Correctamundo Yolanda!
Go back in there, chill them Scots out and wait for the next world war (instigated by your lot) which should be coming directly.
Ba’al Zevul
24 Sep, 2015 – 2:27 pm
Roland Dumas, from another perspective:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_case_of_the_dishonorable_roland_dumas.html
Some sort of war on Syria was being considered in the US well over a decade ago in PNAC. And this was undoubtedly part of a regional ambition; to replace the governments of Iran, Iraq and Syria with actors more sympathetic to US and Israeli requirements. The UK is still a very minor player in what ensued, whether or not it follows the original game plan. It’s a bit rich to centre the blame on us, and even richer to imply that those responsible were Craig’s ‘mates’.
Still, this is some of what he said:
J’ai rencontré des responsables anglais et quelques -uns qui sont mes amis m’ont avoué, en me sollicitant, qu’il se préparait quelque chose en Syrie. L’Angleterre préparait l’invasion des rebelles en Syrie. Et on m’a même demandé à moi, sous prétexte que j’étais ancien ministre des affaires étrangères, si je participerais comme ça à cette…j’ai évidemment dit le contraire, je suis Français, ça ne m’intéresse pas. C’est pour dire que cette opération vient de très loin, elle a été préparée, conçue, organisée (…) dans le but très simple de destituer le gouvernement syrien, car dans la région il est important de savoir que ce régime syrien a des propos anti-israélien et que par conséquent tout ce qui bouge dans la région autour…Moi j’ai la confidence du premier ministre israélien (…) qui m’avait dit : on essaiera de s’entendre avec le premier ministre et avec les Etats autour et ceux qui ne s’entendront pas on les abattra. C’est une politique. C’est une conception de l’histoire, pourquoi pas après tout, mais il faut le savoir. » (retranscription)
http://www.ndf.fr/nos-breves/14-06-2013/roland-dumas-les-anglais-preparaient-la-guerre-en-syrie-deux-ans-avant-les-manifestations-en-2011#.VgP4Vpde-8o
Sounds a bit like the ‘planning’ stage of this:
Several times the Prime Minister’s handling of the Syrian crisis caused surprise in Washington, but perhaps never more so than when he put forward proposals that fell into the ‘derring-do category’, according to one White House source.
The source refused to go into detail, but it seems likely these ideas were for ‘audacious, commando-type’ operations that included high-risk attempts to ‘take out’ Assad.
‘It was sort of Boys’ Life stuff,’ the source says [Boy’s Life being the magazine of the American Boy Scouts Association]. ‘And it was implausible, because the efforts he was proposing would have been too small to make a difference, and also quite likely to fail and would have been getting everybody into deeper waters.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243965/War-PM-Britain-s-general-LORD-ASHCROFT-reveals-chief-frozen-Syria-discussions.html#ixzz3mSMG5KPL
Macky
24 Sep, 2015 – 2:28 pm
Get real Craig ! Even the State Broadcasting BBC concede that;
“Still, there is no doubt that the majority here are strongly sympathetic to Moscow. And, for Russians, “returning” the region from Ukraine, after its “loss” in Soviet times, was a very popular cause.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33985325
Yes there were “the little green men” aka “the polite people,”, around, but two important points about them:
1.Russian troops were already legally stationed in the Crimea, as they had been for for the past 15 years, and numbered 16,000, (actually short of the full allowable maximum number of 25,000). Some of these 16,000 were immediately replaced by the famous “ little green men”, not to intimidate or influence the outcome of the Referendum, but the very opposite, to ensure that the 20,000 Ukrainian troops also stationed there did not interfere with the Referendum, especially as they had large stockpiles of weapons, including 38 S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. The Russians realized they had to act fast, before Kiev could resort to military action, which is what all those Western calls for delaying the Referendum was really all about, giving Kiev time either to attack, or to spread sedition, and sponsor terrorist outrages, so that the Referendum could never take place.
2.Everybody, on all sides, (except the on/off exception of Craig Murray), acknowledges that the result of the Referendum genuinely represents the democratic wish of the population of the Crimea, and that the result would be the same every time, with or without the presence of troops, in times of peace or in times of tension.
Rather than Russia being commended for enabling the Crimea to exercise its self-determination, with minimal loss of life, it has instead been condemn, subjected to economic warfare, demonized to the extent that the West is just a hair-trigger away from a shooting war with Russia, and all because the West didn’t like how a referendum was conducted, even although everybody accepts that if it had been conducted as the West would have liked, the result would still have been exactly the same ! If this does end-up in WW3, it will make the reasons for WW1 look sane !
Welcome to Necon Wonderland !
(and I didn’t even mention Kosovo !)
Jemand
24 Sep, 2015 – 2:34 pm
“I have no time for the Assad regime. The current occupant is not so vicious as his father, but it remains a dictatorship, and I look forward to the day it passes. But you have to be crazed not to accept that the growth of vicious Islamic extremism means that it is necessary for Syria to be reunited under Assad and the dictatorship to survive another decade. That plainly is the lesser of a number of evils. There is no good solution.”
Well said. Post is mostly good. But equating contemporary cultural manifestations of Islam and Christianity is off the mark. Both are bad but Islam clearly is moreso. eg http://10news.dk/?p=1826
Bevin
24 Sep, 2015 – 2:34 pm
“Putin holds that parts of the Former Soviet Union with ethnic Russian populations should be absorbed into Russia. That was the cause of the attack on Georgia, the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of parts of Eastern Ukraine…”
Russia’s attack on Georgia!!!! On the eve of the Beijing Olympics, I suppose. That is not how history will remember it.
You can take the boy out of the Foreign Office. But you can’t take the Foreign Office out of the boy.
They obviously regarded you as a true believer when they sent you to Bokhara. And they weren’t wrong, really, it is just that they didn’t believe in liberal imperialism, complete with Urquart’s russophobia, whereas you, true Gladstonian liberal, actually did and recognised a ‘horror’ when you saw one.
Endless copying and pasting! What is the point?
Depending which filters you use when viewing the picture, returns of varying degrees of wealth that Russia enjoys emerge. The point is each degree of wealth in each category impacts on all the others irrespective of how far apart on the spectrum they are.
So the cabbage wealth spike is intimately joined with the rocket- science spike however seemingly unrelated the two are when viewed through separate filters.
In the early 80’s the US announced their naval capabilities had reached a point where they had become invincible in the area of naval warfare. They further crowed about their superiority during a major naval exercise in which they participated.
During an Anti-Submarine phase of the exercise, with the entire fleet’s sensor capability switched on the “impossible” occurred. The boss US warship was hit by a Russian torpedo, the first the US game players were aware of the threat was when there was a loud clunk. They hadn’t picked up the launch signature, the track or final homing stage. Oh dear.
On trying the retrieve the inert weapon from out of the water to allow them to investigate what unknown technology allowed this unbelievable act to occur, during the retrieval the fleet received a message from the Russian Sub captain to put it back or an live armed weapon would be released. The US did as they were told but not before taking a few picks and putting together other snips of intel they were able to work out what they were up against.
In the years that followed the Russians allowed further technology advances to be made public. Their ability to launch torpedoes that pop out of the water, fly at several times faster than the speed of sound just above max water swell height then pop back in the water for final engagement with optional nuclear war heads remains a tad frustrating for the US.
Without their cabbage wealth, Russia could not play chicken with the US in Syria and win every time.
I try to balance my opinions with other sources (I notice I’ve been specially mentioned @2.44)
Certainly these were c&p’d. I note Alcyone rarely gives a source for its opinions, let alone a sample for those who can’t be arsed looking anything up. Including Alcyone. Whose undulation between abuse-spitting troll and saintly guru, depending on who it’s talking to, I find intriguing.
Still, if the majority prefer snappy one-liners without substantiation or even logic, then I’ll go along with that. I can do that too.
So, how’s Alcyone with the comment to which I was responding, or indeed the response I made, rather than the supporting material?
You have some valid points but what will happen is that years into the future we will see the creation of another Somalia or Sudan where ordinary people will never have ordinary lives, their infrastructure in shambles.
Scattered families with nowhere to go, education level will decrease, basic medical services will be unavailable.
And who wins?!
The oil guzzling power hungry arms selling rulers of the world.
I have never understood why Britain has a WW2 fixation. Israel and Russia also have it, but for reasons which are more apparent.
I believe it is dragged up by our rulers to create feelings of pride and patriotism, and thus obscure their totally inadequate management of the country (for the majority, not them, of course!)
I am not a Putinista, but most his actions can be perfectly adequately explained in terms of defending Russia’s interests, rsther than aggressively seeking to expand them.
In connection with economic diversification, the UK has done less well than Russia, having gleefully financialised our economy and destroyed much industrial capacity, rather than modernising it.
Over 700 Muslim pilgrims have been killed today by their fellow Muslim brother during Jamarat. Any thoughts?
A very good piece on Counterpunch.
September 24, 2015
License to Kill
by Luciana Bohne
Let’s face it: the United States feels entitled to a license to kill.
On 23 September, Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the United Nations, insisted that the Russian veto power in the Security Council was endangering its legitimacy. Russia had vetoed four Security Council resolutions on Syria. Understandably, the US rabid dogs of war are straining at the chain to which international law constrains them. How dare Russia oppose US plans for regime change in Syria and impede a further blood bath to achieve it?
An indefatigable humanitarian warmonger, Power resents Russia’s opposition to a resolution to bomb the hell out of “atrocities” in Syria, without specifying that the main “atrocity” in her government’s eyes is President Assad.
No, no—it’s her humanitarian concern over the 250,000 Syrian already dead [she means to add more by bombing in their names]; it’s the refugees’ flight she means to stem [by blocking their path with bombs].
/..
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/24/license-to-kill-2/
~~~
Also new on there –
Boris Kagarlitsky
Jeremy Corbyn: a Man Who Didn’t Try to Fashion a Career
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/24/jeremy-corbyn-a-man-who-didnt-try-to-fashion-a-career/
and a transcript of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech to the TUC.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/24/the-kind-of-society-we-want/
” 1.Russian troops were already legally stationed in the Crimea, as they had been for for the past 15 years, ”
Under the agreement they were not supposed to leave the confines of Russian bases.
” 2.Everybody, on all sides, (except the on/off exception of Craig Murray), acknowledges that the result of the Referendum genuinely represents the democratic wish of the population of the Crimea, ”
The EU declared it to be illegal, the UN declared it to be illegal, the UN Security Council tried to declare it to be illegal but the Russians used their veto, the EU declared it to be illegal and the Council of Europe declared it to be illegal.
“But you have to be crazed not to accept that the growth of vicious Islamic extremism means that it is necessary for Syria to be reunited under Assad and the dictatorship to survive another decade.”
Mr Murray, I might be very wrong but you sounded just like one of Karimov’s apologists who claim decade after decade that everyone must unite around karimov as other alternative is IMU (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) or something similar.
Can it be that many of those young IS force have joined IS out of desperation in the first place? Unlike most of other Arab neighbours Syria due to lack of mineral resources have not benefited from crazy oil prices, hence its economy (similar to that of Uzbekistan) has been in constant stagnant pace. To add to it, Syria (just like Iraq) is a product of postcolonial borders drawing. Government which represents and favours 10% of population cannot hold power forever, especially if oppressive mechanisms have been undermined. Then why would you need or want for Syria to survive within those current borders even if it takes brutal dictatorship to support? Do you agree with those who draw its borders 60 years ago? Do you agree with those who had not considered ethnical or religious composition of the population they have just covered by that new artificially created nation?
Alcyone copies then pastes our comments and then complains about copying-then-pasting. Must be a Pythonist.
Uzbek in the UK – all nations are artificial and inherently products of a politically cunning ambitious minority.
Isn’t it all just an extension of the Great Game?
As the West pushes to control countries through puppet presidents, whilst Russia seeks to influence in a similar manner.
As far back as, Catherine the Great who had toyed with the idea of invading British India, only for it to be recalled after the death of her son Paul, has Britain, and Russia, played the land and influence game. Now other players, namely the USA, and China, have joined in.
The British further aggravated the situation during the 20th century, by enlisting the help of the Muslim Brotherhood, who carried out their dirty work to halt nationalism in the Middle East, to allow accesss to mineral resources such as oil.
As always the indigenous people suffer the most, and to look at Libya, Iraq and Syria now, and after the bombing, killing, ransacking..etc one can only be shocked.
You pose too many unanswerable questions Craig, the Middle East will remain in a state of turmoil, the likes of Israel, and Saudi Arabia, who with their unlimited supply of cash, have pushed Wahhabism, to the fore, are major players in the continuing demise of countries in the surrounding area.
Strangely enough, in my opinion there’s no clear line between all of the players, as they continue to deal with each other, whilst plotting the downfall of each other.
“The EU declared it to be illegal, the UN declared it to be illegal, the UN Security Council tried to declare it to be illegal but the Russians used their veto, the EU declared it to be illegal and the Council of Europe declared it to be illegal.”
And why did they do that? Uncle Sam told them to or the IMF and World Bank would point to their indebtednesses again.
Declaring something illegal does not mean it is illegal. In my layman’s opinion the legality of the law-makers has to be called into question. What is clearly illegal is the coup-government installed by the US. That really does contravene international law. Taking something that has long been yours can hardly be called theft.
Anyway, it’s not coming west anytime soon. So get used to it.
“A genuine understanding is the true defence against it.”
Exactly. Seeing world (or events) in plain black and white is top of stupidity. However; your own views on some matters do sometimes represent this (black and white) picture.
I claimed many times here that Putin (just like karimov) is bad. Events in Georgia and Ukraine and his stance after Andijan Massacre before that, made him forever bad in my eyes. However; even I am ready to admit that there are people in Russia (and some very close to Putin) who are even worse. If one of them comes to power Russia will go forward offensive in Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldova and Kazahstan then further and further into former USSR and then further and further into Eastern Europe. Cost and consequences will be left to sort out later, just like it happened many times in Russian history.
May I remind you that in 1918 nobody in Europe, nobody in Russia and nobody in the world could have predicted that not only Russia will (more or less) preserve its imperial/national borders but less than 30 years later will expand its influence globally.
Your appeal to that putin is not that mad as to go offensive on NATO member could be very wrong. His decisions depend not on sound mind of well educated and intelligent foreigner but on circumstances Russia is in and particularly basis of his own power.
Russia since Peter the Great is an empire. Russia as we know it will either exists as an empire or will be reduced to 1/6 of its size, similar to Britain. That is what people who knows Russia think and that is what people who have occupied Kremlin (or Imperial palaces in St Petersburg) think.
‘I have no time for the Assad regime. The current occupant is not so vicious as his father, but it remains a dictatorship, and I look forward to the day it passes.’
I have only recently following you, Craig, but I have to say I expected something different from you.
I am curious to know what sort of government you would wish on the Syrian people? A corporate owned plutocracy such as the US? A corrupt and decadent plutocracy like the UK? Maybe you favour an oppressive fundamentalist monarchy such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are blessed with. Or perhaps you think back fondly to the democratically elected Mossadeq of Iran, who lasted five minutes before your government and the US toppled him in a rent-a-mob coup. Or the creed based constitution of Lebanon. I could go on.
In 2003 I travelled in both Iran and Syria. In Iran, though quite a wealthy place, if people talked about the government it was to slag it off. In Syria it was completely different. The country seemed poorer and dirtier but people were extremely proud of Syria and of Bashar. The Arab conference was on at the time, and when we went to one of our favourite shops it was closed, so that all the staff could hear Bashar speak.
Next time I went the streets seemed cleaner, and there were big signs on the motorway, showing hands dropping stuff in rubbish bins and exortations to keep Syria clean and green.
10% of Syria is Christian. One of the shopkeepers said to me, ‘you should have come earlier, because it was Ramadan. We are Christians, but we love Ramadan’.
The secular ‘dictatorships’ of Libya, Iraq and Syria have been far more progressive when it comes to women. Libya had women serving in the army. In Syria it is forbidden for students to wear burqas.
At the same time they are the countries that have stood up to the west, about e.g. Palestine. Syria has been uncompromising in its support for Palestine, allowing Palestinians all rights, including having jobs in the government, but not citizenship, as that would affect their claims in Palestine. There is huge support for al Assad amongst Palestinians.
Of course I would like Syria to have a well functioning democracy, if only because there are enormous dangers in a presidency passing from father to son (and Bashar claims that that is what he is working towards). But not if it just enables the West to orchestrate another coup, such as in Iran, Ukraine, and Egypt.
If the US and the UK prevail, you will get the government you want in Syria, the fabric of society will be destroyed, and those who love Syria will be heartbroken.
Kempe; “Under the agreement they were not supposed to leave the confines of Russian bases.”
Their legal presence needs to be highlighted to contra the hysterical references to a Russian “invasion”; further;
“Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures. Authorities in the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea – where over half the population is Russian – requested Moscow’s assistance after the self-proclaimed government in Kiev introduced a law abolishing the use of languages other than Ukrainian in official circumstances. “
http://www.rt.com/news/russian-troops-crimea-ukraine-816/
Kempe; “The EU declared it to be illegal, the UN declared it to be illegal”,etc
As always, you are missing the point I was making, which is that everybody does agree that the Referendum result reflected the wishes of the majority of the population of the Crimea, so going to brink of war over something that doesn’t or will not change the result of this Referendum even if it was held again & again, is utterly insane.
“Uzbek in the UK – all nations are artificial and inherently products of a politically cunning ambitious minority.”
Yes, but borders of many other countries (almost all of European countries west of Ukraine) have evolved as a historical product of interethnic conflicts which throughout history were flamed by feudalism and imperialism (communism being distorted form of imperialism). Putting it in other words many borders in Europe today represent peaceful settlement between people who live within those borders. By devoting powers to minorities, or changing borders (just like when Czechoslovakia decided to split) those settlements have been reached outside of conflicts.
However; supporting oppression in order to keep borders intact is something that I did not expect from Mr Murray. And I certainly oppose it.
Here in the U.S., the Second World War was not emphasized in our culture for decades after about the mid-1950’s. Historian Stephen Ambrose started to resurrect interest with a series of books starting with 1992’s Band of Brothers. Then, in the late 1990’s, with Tom Brokaw’s 1998 book The Greatest Generation, the 2001 TV miniseries Band of Brothers, and the (awful) 2001 Hollywood movie Pearl Harbor, the war came front and center. I strongly suspect that this was encouraged by the U.S. government and the Pentagon, in preparation for wars like Kosovo and then a series of wars in the Middle East. Certainly there was a lot of Defense Department assistance in the making of the movies and TV shows.
“A corporate owned plutocracy such as the US? A corrupt and decadent plutocracy like the UK?”
Reminds me start of most of the articles in Pravda in 1970th which were written on matters of foreign affairs. God how I missed “rotten in core imperialism”, “bloody imperialistic oppression of freedom loving people of Angola” or “bloodsucking imperialists”.
Good old days indeed. Some of us got stuck in time surely.