There is a logical fallacy that dominates European neoliberal “thinking” at the moment. It goes like this.
“Hitler had unlimited territorial ambition and proceeded to attempt conquest of all Europe after annexing the Sudetenland. Therefore Putin has unlimited territorial ambition and will proceed to attempt conquest of all Europe after annexing Eastern Ukraine.”
This fallacious argument gives no evidence of Putin’s further territorial ambition. For evidence of Putin’s threat to the UK, Keir Starmer risibly refers to the Salisbury “novichok” affair, perhaps the most pathetic propaganda confection in history.
But even if you were to be so complacent as to accept the official version of events in Salisbury, does an assassination attempt on a double agent credibly indicate a desire by Putin to launch World War 3 or invade the UK?
Hitler’s territorial ambitions were not hidden. His desire for lebensraum and, crucially, his view that the Germans were a superior race who should rule over the inferior races, was plain in print and in speeches.
There is simply no such evidence for wide territorial ambition by Putin. He is not pursuing a crazed Nazi ideology that drives to conquest – or for that matter a Marxist ideology that seeks to overthrow the established order around the world.
The economic alignment project of BRICS is not designed to promote an entirely different economic system, just to rebalance power and flows within the system, or at most to create a parallel system not skewed to the advantage of the United States.
Neither the end of capitalism nor territorial expansion is part of the BRICS project.
There is simply no evidence of Putin having territorial goals beyond Ukraine and the tiny enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It is perfectly fair to characterise Putin’s territorial expansion over two decades as limited to the reincorporation of threatened Russian-speaking minority districts in ex-Soviet states.
That it is worth a world war and unlimited dead over who should be mayor of the ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking city of Lugansk is not entirely plain to me.
The notion that Putin is about to attack Poland or Finland is utter nonsense. The idea that the Russian army, which has struggled to subdue small and corrupt, if Western-backed, Ukraine, has the ability to attack Western Europe itself is plainly impractical.
The internal human rights record of Putin’s Russia is poor, but at this point it is marginally better than that of Zelensky’s Ukraine. For example the opposition parties in Russia are at least allowed to contest elections, albeit on a heavily sloped playing field, whereas in Ukraine they are banned outright.
Still less convincing are the arguments that Russia’s overseas political activities in third countries require massive Western increases in armaments to prepare for war with Russia.
The plain truth is that the Western powers interfere far more in other countries than Russia does, through massive sponsorship of NGOs, journalists and politicians, much of which is open and some of which is covert.
I used to do this myself as a British diplomat. Revelations from USAID or the Integrity Initiative leaks give the public a glimpse into this world.
Yes, Russia does it too, but on a much smaller scale. That this kind of Russian activity indicates a desire for conquest or is a cause for war, is such a shallow argument it is hard to believe in the good faith of those promoting it.
I have also seen Russian military intervention in Syria put forward as evidence that Putin has plans of world conquest.
Russian intervention in Syria prevented for a time its destruction by the West in the same way that Iraq and Libya were destroyed by the West. Russia held back the coming to power of crazed Islamic terrorists, and the massacre of Syria’s minority communities. Those horrors are now unfolding, in part because of the weakening of Russia through the Ukraine war.
But for those nations that destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to argue that Russia’s intervention in Syria shows Putin to be evil, is dishonesty of the highest degree. The United States has had a quarter of Syria under military occupation for over a decade and has been stealing almost all of Syria’s oil.
Pointing at Russia here is devoid of reason.
Strangely, the same “logic” is not applied to Benjamin Netanyahu. It is not argued by neoliberals that his annexations of Gaza, the West Bank and Southern Lebanon mean he must have further territorial ambitions. In fact, they even fail to note Netanyahu’s aggressions at all, or portray them as “defensive” – the same argument advanced much more credibly by Putin in Ukraine, but which neoliberals there outright reject.
The economies of Western Europe are being realigned onto a war footing, led by the utterly transformed European Union. The enthusiastic proponents of genocide in Gaza who head the EU now are channelling an atavistic hereditary hatred of Russia.
The foreign policy of the EU is propelled by Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen. The fanatical Russophobia these two are spreading, and their undisguised desire to escalate the war in Ukraine, cannot help but remind Russians that they come from nations which were fanatically Nazi.
To Russians this feels a lot like 1941. With Europe in the grip of full-on anti-Russian propaganda, the background to Trump’s attempt to broker a peace deal is troubled and Russia is understandably wary.
The UK continues to play the most unhelpful of roles. They have despatched Morgan Stanley’s Jonathan Powell to advise Zelensky on peace talks. As Blair’s Chief of Staff, Powell played a crucial role in the illegal invasion of Iraq. He was also heavily implicated in the death of David Kelly.
Wherever there is war and money to be made from war, you will find the same ghouls gathering. Those involved in launching the invasion of Iraq should be excluded from public life. Instead Powell is now the UK’s National Security Adviser.
I am not a follower of Putin. The amount of force used to crush Chechnya’s legitimate desire for self-determination was disproportionate, for example. It is naive to believe that you get to be leader of the KGB by being a gentle person.
But Putin is not Hitler. It is only through the blinkers of patriotism that Putin appears to be a worse person than the Western leaders behind massive invasion and death all around the globe, who now seek to extend war with Russia.
Here in the UK, the Starmer government is seeking actively to prolong the war, and is looking for a huge increase in spending on weapons, which always brings kickbacks and future company directorships and consultancies for politicians.
To fund this warmongering, New Labour are cutting spending on the UK’s sick, disabled and pensioners and cutting aid to the starving overseas.
This is a picture of Keir Starmer meeting with Israeli President Herzog, six months after the ICJ interim ruling quoted a statement by Herzog as evidence of genocidal intent.
The Starmer government was voted for by 31% of those who bothered to cast a vote, or 17% of the adult population. It is engaged in wholesale legal persecution of leading British supporters of Palestine, and is actively complicit in the genocide in Gaza.
I see no moral superiority here.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Well,
Russia has asked for over a decade (iirc, the first occurrence was at the 2007 Munich Security Conference) for a European security architecture.
One can make the argument that it then has to invade & occupy the UK, to prevent the British from playing funny games & dirty tricks.
But the rest of Europe has not much left of interest to Russia.
Times have changed. Back in the days of Hitler, ‘territorial ambitions’ meant invading foreign countries to capture their resources, their wealth. It implied tanks, artillery, and general infantry.
Nowadays, this is no longer necessary. In the global economy, you can achieve the same goals without an actual invasion.
Does Trump’s regime plan to invade Canada? Obviously not. But Canada may become a satellite state of the US.
Has Putin’s regime invaded Belarus? What for? And yet Belarus has become a satellite state of Russia.
There’s no hiding it’s a little different in the case of Israel, where the leadership has falsely claimed historical rights over neighboring regions as an excuse for their expansion policies that go together with ethnic cleansing of inconvenient residents.
We’ll see what happens with Ukraine. I cannot seriously imagine the current gesturing of the British government having the slightest impact on the outcome of the current situation. Despite widespread wishful thinking, if one Empire has faded away and for ever, it is that of the United Kingdom.
Yes. Nowadays, The shock troops are the World Bank and the IMF ably assisted by the UN in all its guises; pushing ‘democracy’, open borders, privatisation and promotion of minorities to the detriment of the majority.
The effect is the same: divide, conquer, destroy.
Russia went through this abomination 30 years ago, but thanks to the likes of Putin they have mostly managed to shake off the west and its malign influence.
Thankfully Trump appears to be putting Starmer and his crew of imbeciles in their place.
Unfortunately though, we’ll now have to live with the Israel and China agendas.
You write “There is simply no evidence of Putin having territorial goals beyond Ukraine and the tiny enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. You overlooked Transnistria, occupied since 1992. And those tiny enclaves represent 25% of Georgia. Before 1992, Russia had no designs on Moldova. Before 2004, it had no designs on Georgia. Before 2014, it had no designs in Ukraine. All of these were – surprise – surprise attacks.
Transnistria of course is part of a Moldovan state where the Western powers recently blatantly rigged the EU referendum and Presidential election. I don’t think the addition of another tiny Russian speaking enclave invalidates my argument – in fact it reinforces it. Putin’s territorial ambition extends only to a finite number of Russian speaking territorial enclaves.
Putin’s empire-building transcends language lines, as shown by his full-scale attempted conquest of Ukrainian cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv, places where Russian speakers are a minority. Transnistria’s Cuciurgan power plant once supplied 70% of Moldova’s electricity, and Transnistria had over 50% of Moldova’s industry proving Russia prioritizes control of energy and industry over cultural ties. When Moscow weaponized gas supplies in 2024, it didn’t just freeze Moldovan homes but crushed Transnistria’s economy as well. This isn’t about protecting Russian speakers; it’s about strangling sovereign nations through pipelines, power grids and war crimes. Ukraine’s fight isn’t just theirs — it’s the fight against a regime trying to resurrect its Stalin-era dominion.
Do you watch Russian TV? Why don’t you believe them when they say they want every Ukrainian dead – man, woman or child?
“Kyiv and Kharkiv, places where Russian speakers are a minority”
Oh boy, the amount of ignorance contained in this sentence is breathtaking. Jesus $%&! Christ ….
In the real world, walking around Kiev in 2012 the only Ukrainian I heard was in the rare cases that a local realised I was a westerner who could understand Russian… Kharkiv, of course is even more Russian speaking.
“Why don’t you believe them when they say they want every Ukrainian dead – man, woman or child?”
Oh my god, the delusion! If you believe russian TV says that, you will believe anything! Is this some kind of troll comment? People cannot be so brainwashed…
Mea culpa – I meant Russians, not Russian speakers. I understand you are looking forward to the US occupying Canada along linguistic lines. All in the name of preserving American culture against les Quebecois, of course.
Here director of Russia Today’s broadcasting Anton Krasovsky suggests drowning Ukrainian children, says Ukrainian women should pay for being raped by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, says Ukraine should not exist and Ukrainians who resist Russia should be burnt in their “shitty huts”. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
https://youtu.be/8lkshypC2Rk
Cip
What Krasovsky said was disgusting. Horrible. No wonder he lost his job despite his apologies. It should never have been said.
On the other side of the frontline, real degenerates sometimes get public airtime too. Fakhrudin Sharafmal, he went on air and called for killing Russian children and the like, and he quoted the nazi Eichmann.
I was not so much surprised by the outpouring of hatred, as by the choice of source for the quote. As if Eichmann was his reference book and he memorized passages.
Surely CIP, you mean so called sovereign nation who use and shut off international pipelines for their own thiefing political aims.
Nazi worshippers who should have thanked Cruitshov for his gift to Ukraine rather than erecting war memorial to killers.
Who were only too happy at the sabotaged NS2, cutting off 42% gas supplies designated for German industrial energy use.
Lets see Ukraine survive without begging for arms, paid for by western nations with monies cut from aid programs, reducing social and health benefits and empoverishing millions of children, so Nazi worshippers can buy expensive properties in Spain.
Ukraine might be as corrupt as other EU countries and Governments, but wanting to join NATO is taking the mikey/piss.
“Do you watch Russian TV? Why don’t you believe them when they say they want every Ukrainian dead – man, woman or child?”
Do they then want to dismember ~40 million corpses and use them to make a big artistic display to memorialise a certain long-passed moustachioed Georgian, with an eternal red five-pointed star on the top, as they cackle “You can do one, democratic citizens of Leatherhead with your Daily Telegraph and your Help for Heroes bump
I reckon the BBC tells the truth and upholds democracy and freedom, whereas Russian TV pumps out pro-regime propaganda, eh, @CIP?
Lets be fair Mr Murray.
Transnistria was part of the Soviet Republic of Moldova not post-Soviet Moldova. Which itself is widely regarded, as an utter quasi-fictional farce of a “country”.
They decided on that themselves, even before the final fall of the U.S.S.R. Never bothering to ask for Moscow’s permission.
It was General Lebed, who put a stop the essentially ethnic warfare there. By banging heads together.
@Urban – What’s your point? It’s good that the ethnic warfare stopped, surely? If the large majority of people living in Transnistria want to live in Russia de jure or de facto, fine. What’s the problem? Same applies in the 6 territories disputed between Russian and Ukrainian governments.
Save me from British journo commentators, tourists in all but name, who visit Transnistria and can only talk about the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, they saw a flaking mural, OMG, the hotel even served borshch…
Hmm, I think you misinterpreted what I was responding to.
I was laying out, that the idea of Transnistria being in any way meaningfully part of a post-Soviet Moldova.
Is a joke on multiple levels. International “law” be damned, because it’s certainly an ass in this case.
It’s a fair point that yourself and others derided the notion that Russia would invade Ukraine as Russia phobic hysteria…
I think it is absurd to suggest Russia has any designs on western Europe, but you can’t blame eastern states for worrying they’re in the sights of Russian opportunism, if not ideological expansions
Also note that the US has no ideological basis for world conquest but that doesn’t stop them invading with abandon for economic motives. I don’t give Russia any more benefit of the doubt, and it’s frustrating to see the anti war movement given to a naivete over Russian motivations (you really think Putin’s interest in Syria were beneficent to protect religious minorities?)
Could you make a strong case for the Russian rulers having designs on Poland?
More so than for the Polish rulers aiming to increase their influence in Lvov and elsewhere in East Ukraine?
Maybe not a strong case, but nor could I make one for Russia wanting to launch an all out invasion of Ukraine, and here we are.
And one thing is increasing influence, another is launching a military invasion. Poland has no history or public desire of holding more territory so far as I know. Same can’t be said about Russia, which has a history of empire building and entitlement to ruling over different peoples.
Georgia was indeed a surprise (if very expected) attack. By a Georgian army entirely armed by USA*.
As of course the EU inquiry confirmed the next year. Georgia attacked Russian peacemakers, who in turned counter attacked and beat the Georgian army. And then promptly left Georgia.
Transnistria has about 5000 peacekeepers who the locals very much appreciate.
You are being mislead by Ukrainian propaganda. Kiev wants to attack Transnistria as an alternative front and to embarrass Putin (a kind of more sensible Kursk). Therefore it talks nonsense about russian aggression in Transnistria. Some mugs choose to believe it.
*Ok the tanks were soviet, but the turrets had been replaced by US ones.
No the Georgian army was not entirely armed by the USA.
It got a lot of weapons as well as training from Israel.
Incidentally Georgia even had Hebrew-speaking Israelis in its government, in charge of both the war effort and the negotiations.
https://electronicintifada.net/content/tel-aviv-tbilisi-israels-role-russia-georgia-war/7664
https://time.com/archive/6944223/what-israel-lost-in-the-georgia-war/
In all areas that you’ve mentioned, Russia protects local minorities from nationalists. You see, all those small nations, they are not Angels. They need a strong hand to keep them in peace. Russian Tsars did this job for centuries, the the Soviets did the same. When Russia’s strong hand is gone, at best you’ll have the Baltic pseudo-democratic ethnocracies, and at worst you’ll have bloody inter-ethnic violence like it happened in Central Asia, between the Armenians and the Azeris, and so on.
And note that Putin is very reluctant to grab these lands.
Cip
The Transnistria conflict stems from early 90s, how could Putin be accused of that conflict since he got power some 10 years later?
Is not your argumentation a clear example of the “attribution fallacy” I spoke about further down the comment section?
“The fundamental attribution error refers to an individual’s tendency to attribute another’s actions to their character or personality, while attributing their behavior to external situational factors outside of their control”
When you analyze Russia, do you then exclude the possibility that Russia simply react to events? If one judge everything that Russia do/say on the basis that Russia allegedly follow some grand, imperial plan one is bound to get Russia wrong.
Henry Kissinger, who I am not necessarily a fan of, but he had a good understanding of the issues. He had analysed the implications of NATO moving further east. He accurately predicted that there would be war with Russia. Here he is with some thoughts still worthy of consideration:-
30 years ago today: Kissinger on Russia & NATO expansion Dec. 5, 1994 PBS Newshour, w/ Jack Matlock (6 Dec 2024) – YouTube, 16m 45s
Ukraine was a bit of problem for Kissinger’s strategising. Then there was his assumption that Germany will always be hand-in-hand with the USA.
Later he backed even Ukrainian NATO membership – having originally opposed it – which is absurd because Ukraine will never be in NATO:
https://www.rferl.org/a/henry-kissinger-evolution-views-russia-ukraine-obituary/32708682.html
In 1997, Kissinger was an enthusiasic supporter of NATO expansion. You should read the transcript of Senate Commission hearings chaired by Senator Jessie Helms where Kissinger testified as an expert.
Israel executed 25,000 Palestinian children in cold blood, with the blessing and assistance of virtually the entire Western liberal political class and their media.
Nobody who remained silent throughout those 15 months and who continues to support and parrot the politicians and media that oversaw it will ever have a voice in anything remotely related to morality.
Such discussions are not for you.
Well said.
“It is naive to believe that you get to be leader of the KGB by being a gentle person.”
It is naive to believe that Putin got anywhere near being the leader or even a leader of the KGB
An upper-middle ranked officer of the SVR. Who specialized in German.
Whom then years later got the post-Soviet head post at the FSB, because he was an outsider.
Funny how people trot out the KGB shite, without knowing what it actually was organisationally.
“An upper-middle ranked officer of the SVR. Who specialized in German.”
The SVR was still called the First Chief Directorate of the KGB in those days.
Nowadays both the SVR and the FSB go in for a double-headed Romanov eagle and a royal crown. It’s fair enough to say “~KGB” if one remembers the tilde.
It was nice to ‘meet’ a younger Putin in Robert Harris’s Brandenberg Gate, about the fall of the Berlin Wall. He has a small walk on part in the latter part of the well researched novel.
Yes, I noticed that too.
Quite brave of Harris to humanise Putin like that – doubt that anyone would be brave enough to do it again.
Maybe, yet I say that’s more of a disingenuous technicality by the people harping on it.
Implying that Putin was an old style Chekist, breaking thumbs or murdering people.
The K.G.B was an umbrella organisation the separate directories, had *very* different functions. Some of which were mundane customs & police work.
The First Directorate, had a separate headquarters, hierarchy and functional autonomy from the domestic ones too.
Andropov was the Soviet leader who was formerly the head of the KGB, not Putin.
“Hitler had unlimited territorial ambition and proceeded to attempt conquest of all Europe after annexing the Sudetenland. Therefore Putin has unlimited territorial ambition and will proceed to attempt conquest of all Europe after annexing Eastern Ukraine.”
It’s not just the logic that’s wrong. The premise is wrong too. Hitler did not have unlimited territorial ambition and did not attempt to conquer all of Europe.
It’s the kind of “reason” that’s made up or truly believed by fuckwits who see nothing wrong with rule by the ruling class, especially the part in “their” little bit of the world. Not even to the point where they’re taking part in a mass cull. (You know the Milgram experiment?) Treat it with contempt. Don’t get sucked in or use words such as “neoliberal”. They would believe arseholes grew on trees if the guys one step above them in the opinion chain had been told to tell them so. That’s how the culture works. All their concepts reek. All their premises reek. All their logic reeks.
Trump may well swing round and start a military conflict between the US and Russia, even while all the dickheads are still fantasising about what happens when GIs cross the Canadian border or US aircraft fly to the Canadian theatre from Lakenheath. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Trump and his puppeteers pull one at Zaporozhye, for example. He is interested in nuking hurricanes, so I’m sure they’ll be able to get him to okay some other nuclear shit if they put it to the gumby in the right way and tell him it’s real big stuff. That would leave the media and internet commentators in a true “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia….no, peace….no, war” situation. Even then they wouldn’t wise up.
“Trump may well swing round and start a military conflict between the US and Russia.”
That’s what I wrote. I stick by it. I’m only saying it’s an appreciable possibility.
So many people assert either the mainstream line of the moment or the permitted oppositional or non-mainstream line on so many matters, the one here being international relations, without having any historical strategic sense whatsoever. They simply aren’t equipped for assessing the range of possibilities or weighing them up. This is even if they know 10 different things that Palmerston said to Queen Victoria, what Clement Attlee had for breakfast, or copious quantities of military details from both Boer Wars, or they’re professors of “history”.
“Trump threatens to devastate Russian economy if Putin refuses peace deal
‘I hope it’s not going to be necessary,’ says US president as his officials prepare for talks in Moscow”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/12/trump-devastate-russian-economy-putin-fails-sign-peace-deal/
Is that line going to develop much? I don’t know. It may well do. Perhaps it won’t.
What the radical critic needs is
1. Marx’s theory of value,
2. an understanding of centralisation
3. an understanding of capitalist technological revolution
4. an understanding of the sheer amount of bullshit there is, in today’s media world which includes the internet FFS
4a. There are no people who are more “believers in the system” than the middle classes.
5. an appreciation of the interplay between the interests of different parts of the ruling class and the interests of the ruling class as a whole…in the dynamic which is determined by 2 and 3.
Then you realise that whatever the ruling scum do, for every section of the bastards, it’s always about money and profit. That includes whether they promote or decry religion, bourgeois democracy, individualism, fascism, whatever.
Yes you might be right Brian Red it is still a real possibility that Trump will start a war between USA and Russia and if he does , the EU and UK will join the USA but its not for the freedom of Ukraine its not for fear of Russia expanding its for resources and control of trade.Voters have little control if any over these matters our so called modern world has changed nothing in this respect.
I seem to remember that back in 2021 Craig you were saying that there was no evidence Putin wanted to invade Ukraine at all. As for Hitler’s territorial ambitions not being hidden in September 1938 after being handed the Sudetenland he promised he had no further territorial ambitions although the plans for invading the rest of Czechoslovakia had already been finalised. Within six months the Germans had occupied the rest of the country and five months after that carved up Poland with the Soviet Union.
It might no longer be Putin’s plan to eventually occupy the whole of Ukraine even though this was his initial objective, but bearing in mind what happened in 1939 can we really afford to take the risk?
Do you realise how expensive the occupation of such a large area with such a long border, with strong nationalist resistance expected, would be, both to achieve and to sustain? Putin had to do a deal in Chechnya FFS. Kadyrov is his best buddy now. Before that, there was Afghanistan.
As for “Putin” (or is it Nasser or some other bugbear), here’s what he was doing in 2016:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/vladimir-putin-eton-boys-private-audience-kremlin
That’s 2016, two years after the conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk started.
He was with that deputation from Eton College for two hours. Sounds like they had a lot in common.
Politics dictates the goals. All wars are from an economics point of view negative sum games.
“Politics dictates the goals”? I think you should take Craig’s advice to read J A Hobson:
There’s Good Money in Death
Quoting Craig – “When I give talks on Murder in Samarkand, I am keen to emphasise that the driver behind US Central Asian policy was the meeting between Bush, Enron and the Uzbek Ambassador in 1997. From twenty years experience as a diplomat I can tell you that the idea that big companies drive foreign policy is not an abstract concept, but comes down to very real contracts, very real money and very real, and often very nasty, people.”
Plenty more:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/j_a_hobson_impe/
Quoting Hobson – Seeing that the Imperialism of the last three decades is clearly condemned as a business policy, in that at enormous expense it has procured a small, bad, unsafe increase of markets, and has jeopardised the entire wealth of the nation in rousing the strong resentment of other nations, we may ask, “How is the British nation induced to embark upon such unsound business?” The only possible answer is that the business interests of the nation as a whole are subordinated to those of certain sectional interests that usurp control of the national resources and use them for their private gain. This is no strange or monstrous charge to bring; it is the commonest disease of all forms of government. The famous words of Sir Thomas More are as true now as when he wrote them: “Everywhere do I perceive a certain conspiracy of rich men seeking their own advantage under the name and pretext of the commonwealth.”
And more still:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=hobson
We are talking about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, not the humane corporate policies of the Belgium in Congo, or of Britain in India or SEA… or the revenge fantasies that led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cip
Sorry, but what you write is at odds with what I hear from people around me. I spoke to those who fled Ukraine to Russia, and that was long before the 2022 war.
What these people say is a disgusting characterization of the Kiev regime. I do not wish for you to experience what they experienced, I’m simply telling you the facts.
You cannot take care of your elderly parents, because pensions have been cancelled, social guarantees have been cancelled, banking services have been cancelled. It is suddenly dangerous to speak your native language. It’s dangerous to express your civic position. There is less and less jobs. People feed themselves by cultivating the land and from humanitarian supplies. Access to medicine is difficult. People are disappearing and the police are not accepting missing persons reports. The government is directly threatening you through the media. An artillery shell can fall on you at any moment. There’s no protection. You are declared an unprotected segment of the population, an outlaw. You are forced to change your ethnic identity under the threat of physical extermination.
Healthy adults join the resistance. Women take their children to Russia. So the person who monitored the quality of hardware at a factory in the Donetsk region now earns money doing manicures nearby.
Where and when can this be considered a fair position for citizens, taxpayers, voters? Would you like to fund your government through your taxes and receive this kind of treatment?
I think it’s a shame on those who are empowered and paid for to stand up for human rights, freedoms, democracy and all those other ‘wonderful things’, like the UN, the OSCE and I’m sure a bunch of other officials.
I don’t justify the war and I’m sorry it happened, but I’m glad my country at least tried to stop it. While all the ‘good guys’ only give more weapons to Kiev and shout ‘continue the war!’.
Bearing in mind WWII, could “we” have afforded to take the risk of ignoring Saddam’s WMD? (Yet another Hitler).
“could “we” have afforded to take the risk of ignoring Saddam’s WMD?”
Well, seeing that they were imaginary, yes. What WWII has to do with it is not obvious. WWII was not started through anyone ignoring a threat.
What risk and to whom?
Not the UK, which manages to wreck itself without Russian assistance!
Also frankly given the track record of Russia, Belarus & Ukraine since 1991.
The latter would’ve/would be, legitimately better off under the rule of Moscow or Minsk. Instead they gotten Bandera & cargo-cultistism.
“he promised he had no further territorial ambitions”
Your evidence for this statement?
Britain agreed to the annexation of the Sudetenland because the British government thought that Germany had a good case for doing so, not as an attempt to prevent further territorial expansion, so what Hitler promised was irrelevant in any case.
Also, much is made of Germany’s 1938 annexation of part of Czechoslovakia, but the contemporaneous Polish annexation of another part is never mentioned. No one appears to have noticed when Poland invaded Czechoslovakia, but when Germany invaded Poland, it kicked off WWII.
No Pears Morgaine , Russia has not invaded Ukraine to make it part of Russia but merely to stop it joining NATO , for good reason too because if Ukraine did join NATO it would then give USA the ability to site USA nuclear missiles on the Ukraine Russia border just 400 miles from Moscow.
It is clear that USA control what NATO can and cannot do it would be USA that would control any NATO missiles sited in Ukraine , we have seen recently in recent events how little control the EU has of NATO it is indisputable that Ukraine joining NATO would be a severe threat to Russia.
So often i say to those who hate Russia , what would USA do if another country sited missiles on Cuba facing USA ?
What would UK do if another country for example China sited missiles on the coast of Belgium facing London ?
I never get an answer only a change of subject.
“He is not pursuing a crazed Nazi ideology that drives to conquest – or for that matter a Marxist ideology that seeks to overthrow the established order around the world.”
Neither the Soviet rulers in the past nor the state gangsters under Putin (or Zelensky) ever pursued any ideology, except perhaps that one might have been mentioned by ~KGB recruiters in Cambridge, East Anglia, 90 years ago. But even then, “I” was only one of four methods in what the CIA call “MICE” (money, ideology, coercion, ego).
The idea that the Soviet state was more ideological than the British one with its monarchy, its Napola-type boarding schools, its oh-so down-to-earth realistic “pragmatism” (especially in its civil service and judiciary), and its symbolism of the crown and the Countess of Salisbury’s garter everywhere (“Chesterton’s fence”, we are told), is for the naive only.
Neither Craig nor anyone else has stated that the Soviet state was “more ideological” than the British one. (I think one could argue that it was so at one time, but ever since neoliberalism took hold, it has felt to me that we are living under a totalitarian economic dogma which in some way is at least faintly reminiscent of Soviet communism.) But your statement that the Soviet rulers pursued no ideology at all seems almost too ridiculous to bother arguing with! I admit I could be wrong, because I’ve never read a history of the Soviet Union, and I’ve been exposed to anti-Russian propaganda all my life. So, can you back up your assertion with some kind of reference(s)? It might at least be an amusing belief to try to criticise, even if only in the same way as it might be amusing to try to refute somebody’s belief that the Earth is flat!
The fallacy is, and has always been, that if we can show that ‘they’ are doing very bad things, then they are the bad guys so we must be the good guys. One does not follow the other. And it seems to be common to accuse the ‘enemy’ of committing the crimes that you actually commit. If/when they respond with ‘but you do that’ then your comeback is simply ‘well, they would say that wouldn’t they?’
If anyone pays attention, these things become clear quite quickly. But that’s the REAL problem. People aren’t paying attention. So the narrative can change without being questioned and lies will be believed. A large section of the population is actively disinterested because ‘the news is too depressing’. When people are disengaged then our leaders can do as they will; their reasons don’t even need to be credible..
I’d like to add to this:
“Russia held back the coming to power of crazed Islamic terrorists, and the massacre of Syria’s minority communities. Those horrors are now unfolding, in part because of the weakening of Russia through the Ukraine war.”
Disturbing news come, I’ve bookmarked this on Picabu
https://pikabu.ru/story/reznya_v_sirii_i_kak_yeto_osveshchayut_nashi_smi_12472040
An ethnic massacre of Alawites has taken place in Syria.
The scale is impressive, the death toll among civilians is in the thousands. Maybe even tens of thousands. And all of this, accompanied by jokes and cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, was carefully recorded on video and posted by the militants themselves. Hundreds of videos and photos, only they show hundreds of dead, the vast majority of whom are civilians, women and children.
The video inside the article stands as a reminder, it shows Assad’s ex-army going towards Iraq, when assad resigned. A Russian in the car comments ‘They are not men, they threw down their arms, they threw down their balls, assholes, they are not fighting for their country, they expect us to do it’.
Another report is here
https://topwar-ru.translate.goog/260669-sirijskij-bunt-ot-rossii-trebuetsja-ochen-tonkij-raschet-v-reakcii.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The Alawites (and Christians along with them) are in a much sadder and truly scarier situation. If they fail to cope and do not receive support, they will simply be slaughtered. Yes, in fact, everything is already happening, right now. The male population is being shot in groups of 5-15 people at a time. And, what is doubly sadder, everything that follows will essentially happen right opposite our base, simply demonstratively. Now the clashes have already escalated into that very massacre. People are gathering at the Russian base, asking for protection. According to unconfirmed reports, Alawite communities have sent requests for help to Moscow. As many as they could have been allowed into the territory, but this is a drop in the ocean.
The hatred for Russia in the west follow the “fallacy of attribution”, in sum, a racist view believing Russians act in a certain way simply because they are – Russian, that, there is something in their DNA that makes them do what they do. Hitler believed in this theory too.
“The fundamental attribution error refers to an individual’s tendency to attribute another’s actions to their character or personality, while attributing their behavior to external situational factors outside of their control”
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error
For example, Russia did not start the war with Georgia in 2008, it reacted to Georgian provocations.
Russia did not unprovokedly invade Ukraine, it reacted to Nato encroachment, harassment and shelling of Russians inside of Ukraine. Russia did not fund, supported the Maidan Coup, it reacted to the Coup.
It is important to remember that Ukraine is also a very young state, it is just 34 years old, that there are frictions and that the border of Ukraine might change is not really surprising but instead of recognizing this obvious fact and solve it diplomatically, the west fall into the lazy theory conspiracy theory that the conflict is because of some grand imperial idea by Putin, instead it is the result of the quick breakup of the Soviet Union where former soviet states began to exclude, discriminate the ehtnic/lingual russians minority, espcially in the baltics and in Ukraine.
I like to think, maybe mistakenly, that the Western view of Russia, and indeed China, is based upon attributing the west’s perverted views onto Russia; ie. ‘if we were in their position then this is what we’d do’. But, Russia is not like the west, and China is a totally different ball game, therefore this attribution fails every time.
There will only ever be peace between nations when differences are acknowledged and respected.
We’ve got Craig Ashton on Picabu. He is an Englishman living in Russia.
Yesterday he posted an observation describing the difference in mentality and communication.
Briefly, the difference is in responsibility for the interlocutor’s feelings, behavior in an open conflict of opinions, and the way to express or hide disagreement.
Craig assures that the English, yes, take responsibility for the interlocutor’s feelings and expect the same. So I tend to agree with you, Stevie Boy.
His story opened my eyes to how invasive and impolite, argumentative, bad mannered and just plain awful I must seem to many here. I apologize, it’s not out of disrespect. This way of conversation is simply common here.
I wouldn’t dare to translate from Russian into English what a native English speaker wrote 🙂 If anyone is curious, please read it using machine translation
https://pikabu-ru.translate.goog/story/anglosaksyi_russkie_spornyiy_razgovor_12478066?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp
That’s bullshit from Ashton, it really is. If he thinks that English people are normally polite and gentle, I wonder whether he’s ever been to England. His whole argument relies on a cultural stereotype identified with a nationality. Why does he choose the quintessentially polite English gentleman over the (rather more common) English football hooligan (who can make a pretty good go of being crude and direct, I assure you!). It all depends on whether you think of the manners and etiquette in a high-class debating chamber or restaurant instead of a typical home, or pub, or workplace. Even highly educated academics can verbally tear at each other’s throats sometimes.
Maybe British diplomats are more indirect in their rhetoric than their Russian counterparts? But then we’ve seen some examples from Craig Murray that would challenge that pigeon-hole too. As Craig (Murray) might be inclined to put it, Craig (Ashton) is being a total fuckwit.
@Tatyana – The middle class and the higher ups too in Britain have a culture of not saying what they mean, and they think it’s sophisticated to be like that. This encompasses both arrogant sarcasm and bureaucratic robot speak.
There are rich twats outside Britain who actually admire this obnoxious culture. Some of them are even diplomats.
@Justin – Craig Ashton maybe has never been in a typical home, pub, or workplace. Sure, those with influence often bitch each other and some of them like a good stabfest. Agreed about that, and Ashton is wrong about caring for the other guy, for sure. But he’s still talking about something real, quite hard for him given that he’s avoiding expressing notions of lies, hypocrisy, and arrogance, but there you go. Let’s pat his head and move on.
With these middle class “bloggers”, and middle and ruling class Brits generally, you have to ask e.g. how would they be having a normal conversation with a working class person at a bus stop? That’s the test I use. Very few of them would be able to. They are sad excuses for human beings, full of hatred for humanity and with almost zero self-consciousness. Their culture is all about being exclusive – that is its foundation and “spirit” – even if they don’t realise it.
Thanks for the link Tatyana, it was an enlightenment and indication as to why Russia and England have been at odds for a very long time.
English colonialism has been led by a priviledged class of people, same as in Germany and France, altruism was never a strongpoint of their actions, greed on the other hand was.
Jack (15.04): thanks for this useful summary. Western readers and viewers of their own mass media are not told about the intermittent seven-year long (2015-2022) bombardment by Ukrainian forces of populated targets (towns, market places) within the two breakaway Donbas republics Donetzk and Lugansk, or about the escalation of that bombardment in mid-February 2022 which precipitated the Russian response on 24 February.
Vladimir Putin has made it clear that as the largest state on earth Russia has no need to occupy more land. But it seems to me (and Tatyana can correct me if necessary) that there is a widespread feeling among people in the Russian Federation that their government has an obligation to assist Russian nationals and Russian speakers who were excluded from Russia on the break-up of the Soviet Union. When ultra-nationalists in Ukraine made clear their intention to use military action to make life in the Donbas impossible for its Russian-speaking inhabitants, the Russian leadership had little option but to act. Or have I got it wrong?
you are right, Coldish, sure we do. Any nation does, I think.
Putin once said that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest tragedy, because millions of our compatriots found themselves abroad overnight.
The first part of this phrase is often used by Putin’s opponents, who say that he dreams of reviving the USSR.
But the meaning of these words is that due to political events, people woke up in the morning unprotected in a foreign country.
And newly independent countries (note that they gained independence in a very peaceful way) tend to develop a frenzy of nationalism, and nothing binds a nation together like searching for an enemy who is to blame for all their newly independent failures.
Which is what we see in Ukraine.
Well said Jack
All this is obvious to anyone who follows world events to even a minimal extent, and who has average thinking ability.
The astonishing thing is that a lot of otherwise intelligent Europeans believe the lies of Starmer, Mark Rutte, and Kaja Kallas.
It’s amazing how easy it is to convince yourself of the truth of something that you really want to be true. There are plenty of examples on this very blog of the “it’s true because I want it to be true and anything to the contrary is therefore lies” argument.
Yes, agreed. The contortions that are got into to support Scottish separatism are a case in point.
But it’s a rare thing anywhere on the internet or in real life nowadays to get into a conversation with a new person who isn’t obviously making up shitty arguments for themselves in support of whatever their prejudice tells them it’s right for them to think.
The rulers may have surprised even themselves during the pandemic with how easy it was to run opinion.
Thinking for yourself and noticing important stuff is extremely rare.
Brian Red , you said
“Yes, agreed. The contortions that are got into to support Scottish separatism are a case in point.”
Brian Red what an idiotic statement , Scottish separatism ? What is that ? Or are you trying very badly to refer to Scottish independence ?
I am Scottish and do not need to contort to support Scottish independence , only the twisted mind of english nationalists need to do that.
Due to relentless propaganda filling all the news media. Venture a contrary opinion “below the line” and you will be set upon in an instant.
Well said Townsman
The media, guided by their government briefings/orders, have to talk in caricatures, and in black-and-white, because any nuance would undermine their foreign policy case. That’s why any debate about Zelensky, and certainly, Netanyahu, is virtually verboten in our ‘free and fearless’ British media – even though the UK isn’t officially at war with anyone. Nevertheless, the government has to preserve the image of Zelensky ‘the brave freedom fighter’ and Netanyahu ‘the implacable defender against terrorists’ via the media, because if they told the truth, the entire public would realise that the government is backing a couple of immoral, and probably plain evil puppets. Meanwhile, you can almost literally say what you want about Trump and Putin, who are separately smeared as ‘fascist’ or ‘Hitler’ – basically because the western war industry wants the conflict prolonged, and talks between the US and Russia get in the way.
@Tom74 – How do you envisage the relationship between the Musk-Trump group and the US military-industrial complex developing?
“Hitler’s territorial ambitions were not hidden. His desire for lebensraum and, crucially, his view that the Germans were a superior race who should rule over the inferior races, was plain in print and in speeches.”
If you read A.J.P. Taylor’s “The Origins of the Second World War” (and, Craig, I would definitely recommend that you do, if only for the parallels with today), you will see that Hitler’s “territorial ambitions” were, in the most part, limited to areas that had been Germany until the treaty of Versailles in 1919 and were inhabited almost exclusively by Germans, Hitler’s invasion of Poland, which kicked off WWII, was, in fact an invasion of an area that twenty years previously had been German. There seems to be a very odd idea today that borders, once they have been rearranged, are thereby set in stone for all eternity, despite the fact that most European borders have changed many times over the centuries. Ditto states. Countries have appeared, disappeared and reappeared again, sometimes after millennia. Perhaps it’s an Anglo thing and comes from living on an island, where the borders are defined by the sea rather then diplomacy.
‘appeared, disappeared and reappeared again’
Oh, yes! Borders and their constant movement back and forth.
Someone recently commented wittily:
“I live 50 km from the Estonian border and since the time of the Teutons it’s been a public passageway. Actually, given the situation, I’d like to ask – do you think it is worth planting flowers this year, or will they be trampled?”
Of course I have read AJP Taylor’s History of the Second World War. I still have it somewhere I think.
And I’ve read all AJP Taylor’s books. He is probably the greatest historian of all times and nations, to paraphrase Stalin’s worshiper’s slogan.
It’s worth a re-read, especially the foreword (“The Origins of the Second World War” that is, not “The History…”. That might be worth a re-read, too, but I haven’t read it, so I can’t say.)
Craig’s original was 100% right. If you watch Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, the globe scene, you will get a much better idea of Hitler’s ambitions, based on far more evidence than Taylor’s preposterous apologetics for Hitler. Apologetics which are only respected because of (a) the subterranean legitimacy of Nazism everywhere (b) the obvious usefulness of such revisionism to the billionaire class – viz Trump’s election and (c) last but not least, the invincible and endless stupidity and gullibility of those who should oppose it, were they rational people, the Left, in swallowing ancient right-wing propaganda and peddling it as revolutionary! socialist! fight the power! history.
Looking at his preface to an American edition. Aaack. Something I know the best as a USAn. The histories of the FDR, New Deal, WWII era are appallingly bad – most of the very few decent ones are written by Brits – but in general, character assassination of FDR by systematic, bald faced lies & “brainwashing” (New Dealer Leon Keyserling’s word for the received economic history) – are not exaggerations, especially for the “socialist” photocopiers of paleofascist propaganda. From that preface Taylor is not at the back of the pack of these tendentious history manglers.
” Taylor’s preposterous apologetics for Hitler.”
If you’d actually read what he’d written, you would have seen that he addresses that very point in the book. It suited the powers that be to demonise Hitler after WWII, because they wanted to cosy up to the Germans again as the new enemy was now Communist Russia Thus it had all to be the fault of Hitler and a few senior Nazis. It’s amazing how such a small band of people were able to kill quite so many millions of Jews, Russians, Poles, Roma, and sundry other Eastern European peoples. How did they find time to sleep? Thus the official history, the history that is taught in schools, is that Hitler was the monster you appear to believe him to be. However, A.J.P.Taylor was around at the time and you weren’t. Moreover his “proposterous apologetics” are all derived from official sources of the time.
Bayard.
Indeed borders are not immutable, the town of Berwick has changed hands 14 times between Scotland and England – and the Isle of Man was once Scottish – before England claimed it.
The Isle of Man certainly isn’t English any more, it’s hardly even British.
“…opposition parties in Russia are at least allowed to contest elections, albeit on a heavily sloped playing field, whereas in Ukraine they are banned outright.”
What slope? How does it compare with the fascist ‘electoral’ system in Britain?
PS Germany was not fanatically nazi, the public rejected the nazi partei at every free election and the half-bent election of March 1933.
I’ve never understood the benefit of a “level playing field”. If you have to play uphill in the first half, you will be playing downhill in the second. Isn’t that why the sides change ends half way through in any case?
Historical background:
When Britain/England invaded Russia:
1807-1812. Anglo Russian War. Royal Navy attacks Russian ships and blockaded Russian ports.
1853–1856 Crimean War. British forces attack Sevastopol and Balaclava.
1854–1855 Baltic Campaign. British forces attack Kronstadt and Helsinki, Aland Islands.
1918–1920 British Forces intervened in the post Revolution Civil war on the side of the Whites in Murmansk & Arkhangelsk, Crimea & Caucasus and in Turkmenistan.
When Russia invaded Britain/England:
.
What about Alex Navalny, he wasn’t allowed to be opposition or to stay alive.
Is there a name for democracies where any opposition who gets elected is actually just making it awfully likely they’ll be removed and imprisoned/killed on trumped up charges? Turkey routinely does it with Kurdish leaders, and ‘Gulenists’, ‘atheists’, and currently to presidential candidate businessman Imamoglu (crimes like calling people fools, or allegedly kicking a tomb).
Jordan Peterson claimed that the Soviets didn’t have a concept of habeus corpus, so it was acceptable to kidnap murder citizens. But I guess he thought Russia ok now, since he supposedly went there to get off his Benzos (& SSRIs was it). That he was taking when he wrote that 12 Rules book that i gather was about accepting suffering, self-reliance. He recently did an interview with Richard Dawkins where he refused to say whether or not a Jesus was actually resurrected after death. Yet it’s known the Josephus historical reference was doctored by a priest.
Just a sidenote, speaking on Navalny, in 2014 he approved Crimea being annexed by Russia:
“Navalny’s Comments on Crimea Ignite Russian Twittersphere”
“So let’s not kid ourselves. And I advise the Ukrainians not to kid themselves, either. It will remain part of Russia and will never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future.”
Link to Nytimes article https://archive.ph/ggjIf#selection-589.202-589.404
I have no idea who Jordan Peterson is, but if he believed that “the Soviets didn’t have a concept of habeus corpus, so it was acceptable to kidnap murder citizens” he reminds me of my moronic elderly Presbyterian white-supremacist neighbour who thought Catholics didn’t have concepts of right and wrong. (She also voted for Brexit because she thought it would mean that British Pakistanis would be required to leave Britain. And did I mention, she thought Muslims believe in a different God from the one Christians believe in. I mean how does one argue with such extreme prejudiced idiocy that a person has dug themselves into?)
Jordan Petersen must also never have heard of Guantanamo Bay and the sundry “black sites” where the CIA practiced abduction, torture and murder with absolute abandon, and with the connivance of the states now most vociferous in criticising Russia
In what way was Navalny “not allowed to be opposition”?
Navalny wasn’t the opposition, the opposition was, and still is, the Communists and people like Zhirinovsky.
The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn would be a good place to start (for that part of the Soviet era).
There are several current critiques of the US criminal justice system that reference their own internal gulags. Mr Murray will be aware of these as he strove to help prevent the extradition of Mr Assange. Mr Murray has also had a recent taste of the UK secure estate (see previous blogs).
Ah yes that’s the book that Peterson cites. I read the opening which was bleak. Apparently now Russia does have protections in the Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure.
I do think it’s built into Anglo systems to be able to overcome due process if sufficiently motivated to, even with regular citizens. The USA does it partly by guilt-presumptive trick interrogations that will cause many to falsely confess. The UK moved away from that with PACE, based on the work of Gudjonnsen etc. In the Nurse Letby case the interviews seemed mostly ok. But she had written and left in her house a confessional-style note (coincidentally shortly after commencing SSRI from her GP, which can cause some to contemplate falsely extreme things as a way out). But the case was built mainly on biased medical speculation by Welsh Raptor Dr Dewi Evans. Back in the day with other nurses and mums it was the now part-discredited sir Roy Meadow.
(i shouldve said England&Wales PACE, whereas Scotland Criminal Procedure Act)
@ GratedApe
Why bother fitting Navalny up, he was a western supported nobody; the leader of the opposition in Russia is the head of the Russian Communist Party.
Not an expert on the Second World war and some interesting comments read and noted.
Irony suits history and the tale of WW2 and the story of WW1 which led to WW2 can be partially applied to the US in it’s declining period (In WW1 Germany was in its ascendent period) as in the end both countries were ‘over stretched’ and found out that once you took countries you had to occupy them.
For my money remaining the occupier is the hardest thing to hold onto as fortunately a lot of human beings won’t wear it thank goodness.
Both wars were fought to gain an Empire and Colonies – beat Britain – gain their Colonies – France – gain their Colonies and so on.
The problem for the Germans in WW2 after vicious French led Reparations they were ground into the dust.
A massive seething pot of resentment which was an easy sell for the Fascists.
Then in WW2 the real ascendant nation the US was a Bridge To Far and it was in its own interest that Germany ( a massive rival ) was defeated and more overstretch into the big ( very big Soviet Union).
Then, as now the Atlantic was the US’ s biggest guardian so no invasion of the US at all – logistically impossible.
But I do think the parallels are interesting in the current climate.
The US does Proxy Wars these days and even they can go terribly wrong.
Not for the US – they just Bomb and Go but for the one’s who were persuaded – cajoled and emotionally dragged into the mess.
Even Israel will suffer from overambition eventually and the irony here is that the Ultra Imperialists are so involved in so many proxy wars or arming of people who are useful to them that they no longer have enough weaponry to go round.
They can not make enough of them quickly enough so they have to prioritise.
This I think is exactly what the US is up to.
The question is:
Who is top of the weapons list this year?
I think I know the answer and an attack on Iran will be a portion of weaponry used up.
Last on the US Imperialist Bucket List of Regime Change I reckon.
Still won’t change the theory of occupation though – no matter what.
No country can be everywhere all the time.
That’s why priorities matter and that’s what the US is doing now – prioritising.
They can always come back later and finish what they started before.
If of course they win with their priorities?
@Mark – Is your notion of “Ultra-Imperialism” influenced by Karl Kautsky’s?
Kautsky didn’t get it that capitalism can’t supersede what I referred to in another post this evening as “the interplay between the interests of different parts of the ruling class and the interests of the ruling class as a whole”.
If you want to see how far this idea can be undermined, I’d suggest looking at the Musk-Netanyahu discussion in California and especially what Netanyahu says at 23:12 and 24:08:
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/ai-safety-panel-with-elon-musk-max-tegmark-greg-brockman-and-benjamin-netanyahu-transcript
“So life is a struggle. It’s defined as a struggle. Defined all the time as a struggle where you’re competing with the forces of nature or with other human beings or with animals and you constantly better your position. This is how the human race has defined itself, and our self-definition is based on that, both as individuals, as nations, as humanity as a whole. Now, that could be challenged and it is challenged. So it’s both our self-definition throughout human history and evolution that is being challenged, and also the question of our continued existence”
<- A very clear expression of the vile right wing arsehole view of the "naturalness" of competition (a view which is total bullshit), combined with a push for ethnic-supremacist dictatorship (sold as for "survival"), and forever, is how I read it.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever".
Netanyahu can talk for himself. My understanding of humanity isn’t based on struggle between nations at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Mantoux
@ MR MARK CUTTS
Post WWI-reparations are a red herring, the point wasn’t the amount (manageable) it was who was going to pay. Weimar Germany was a democracy (a real one, unlike the west-European slave empires) and this meant that the legislature reflected the class composition of German society. The boss class didn’t use a tame legislature like the French, British and US did (and do) to make us poor foot the bill, while rich bastards lived like pigs in shite. See what Etienne Mantoux had to say about reparations.
Once again, I can only agree word for word. Well, personally I would have put it a little more strongly, but then again I’ve never been a diplomat like Craig.
Starmer is Truely Evil..Think of All His Billions to Ukraine – Billions to Evil Israel – And Now Billions to the Terriost who took over Syria… The Videos comming out of Syria are Horrendous..Yet Starmer Sends 1’5 Billion to them…Eurou sends $50 billion EVIL
It is heinous. EU follow the same path as they trailed regarding Israel, denial of the israeli/syrian crimes while giving full support to both regimes.
And on the 17 of march EU will invite Syrian government for a summit:
On 17 March, the European Union will host the Ninth Brussels Conference – “Standing with Syria: Meeting the Needs for a Successful Transition.”
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/standing-with-syria-conference_en
Yesterday, after many days of the flagrant massacre by the Syrian government, a watered-down statement that tried to minimize the crimes against humanity (or even genocidal crimes) commited by the Syrian government was put out by the EU:
“We welcome the commitments made by the transitional authorities, and in particular the establishment of an investigative committee, in order to hold the perpetrators accountable in line with international law norms and standards”
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/11/syria-statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-the-recent-wave-of-violence/
So, the people that commited the crimes… are the ones that are going to investigate the crimes? This is farcical, a travesty.
Actually, even Hitler never had pland to take the whole Europe. His goal was 1st to unite all Germans in one country, then go East (drang nach Osten).
And Putin is not even like Hitler. Like I said already, he is more like Bismark.
I noted in the wake of Trump and “JD’s” take down of Zelensky at the Oval Office a flurry of activity right across the board of UK politicians (and the EU) in support of the NarcoFuhrer.
I cannot for the life of me see what the SNP in particular had to gain from this. A party who once had it’s “No NATO” policy, who wanted Nuclear subs et al gone from the Clyde. So my analyses would be that the word had gone out from Starmer to toe the official UK line – a line which they shamelessly followed. What a hollow shell they have become.
I do not believe the British government is interested in peace at the moment. They want this conflict to be a “forever war”. And here they have the common ground with Zelensky, who wants the same.
What would they do with peace ?
Instead of funding nazis and inflating their ego’s they’d have to look at solving some of the domestic issues that have been smouldering for years. They all want to appear on the world stage as a ‘player’ meanwhile Rome burns and as the barbarians take over there soon won’t be a British homeland for these actors to return to.
In the publicly available intelligence that is used to back up these idiotic claims of RU´s attack on Europe there is not a shred of evidence.
Besides the Russian Army is not devised for such an operation. As is true for the Chinese. Both are defense by nature. But I suggest not to test their war capabilities if pressed to defending themselves.
As the situation has been playing out in fact the Russians would like to see as much distance between themselves and Europe which has remained true to its reputation as a genocidal civilisation wrecking havoc across the globe for centuries.
Europe has nothing Russia would regard as necessary for its survival. Lest the fact that if that were the case Russians would offer trade agreements as had been the case since WWI.
To understand that there is no difference between the Truman Cold War hostility of the late 1940s and the post-Cold War era it is enough to compare the secret planning document NSC-68 by Paul Nitze, formative for US foreign policy since, written in 1950, with the Pentagon´s internal planning paper of 1992 as it was then “leaked” to the NYT.
The SoD of 1992 who was behind that concept for world domination was none other than Dick Cheney. Some ideas seem to never get old:
“U.S. STRATEGY PLAN CALLS FOR INSURING NO RIVALS DEVELOP”
NEW YORK TIMES
by Patrick E. Tyler
March 8, 1992
Everything is contained in this. From keeping Germany/Japan rising to rival power status to possibly destroying Russian WMD capabilities and eventually making clear the only world order that is acceptable is US hegemony.
In reverse this means no power is allowed to question this god-given right.
https://archive.is/YZcwu
excerpts:
“(…)
A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be “convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.”
(…)
Rejecting Collective Approach
(…)
With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II
(…)
The document is conspicuously devoid of references to collective action through the United Nations,
(…)
Bush Administration officials have been saying publicly for some time that they were willing to work within the framework of the United Nations, but that they reserve the option to act unilaterally or through selective coalitions, if necessary, to protect vital American interests.
(…)
must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
(…)
Until such time as the Russian nuclear arsenal has been rendered harmless
(…)”
These words do not leave open any questions.
A later in-depth assessment of this little talked document here:
updated 2020
“1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance”
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/1992_draft_defense_planning_guidance/
And for above hinted at comparison:
NSC-68 from 1950:
(practical one-page version)
“NSC 68, United States Objectives and Programs for National Security, April 7, 1950”
https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/10/10_nsc68_1950.htm
And in conjunction with the Ukraine War, Nicolai Petro on Febr. 24th 2023 wrote, referencing the very same infamous NSC-68 from 1950:
“Nicolai N. Petro: Cold War Realism: Lessons for Ukraine”
https://usrussiaaccord.org/nicolai-n-petro-cold-war-realism-lessons-for-ukraine/#more-6601
“(…)
Once again, many Western leaders labelled the subsequent invasion of Ukraine as a precursor to an attack on NATO, and began making statements about how it must be used to remold the world for future generations. Once this view becomes the conventional wisdom, it is not hard to see how it will be used to ensure domestic support for foreign military adventures for decades to come.
All this hints at the existence of a long term U.S. foreign policy strategy that outside observers can only guess at.
I would not be at all surprised if, thirty years from now, future historians learned of the existence of a new NSC-68—America’s 1950 blueprint for conducting the Cold War—cooked up within the Biden administration in anticipation of just such a confrontation. After all, the contents of NSC-68 itself, although rumored about for years, were only revealed in 1975.
(…)”
p.s. I wonder if there is actually a single important member of the US Biden administration or NATO who has NOT conceded by now that Ukraine was merely used for the destructive geopolitical intentions of the US. Rubio for that matter has done just that. And the imbecile Lindsey Graham did so well before that when visiting Kiev.
Just so. Thank you AG. Japan is currently very piqued that its former intention to acquire the US steel industry has been set back to a 25% tariff on its own steel exports. Setting this with the words of Kissinger, linked to above, the ‘sacrifice’ of the Ukrainian people, referred to by Victoria Nuland in 2013 is foreseeable, and Fuck Europe, has its place. The situation in Britain, isolated from Europe by Brexit, is caused by the giving away of national assets and resources to global financial institutions and industrial giants. This reality was most clearly conveyed by the air head Truss, and her obedient financier hedge fund manager sidekick, when she said, years before her calamitous stint as PM: “I have a budget of billions. I can’t possibly be expected to decide how it is spent, so I give it to those who can”. The collective gasp of horror at her words fazed her not at all.
So, we continue on our self annihilating course, following the WEF Great Reset design, and all is going to plan.
Putin has defied the odds to survive this far. I am reminded of a speech he once gave, in which he expressed his admiration for the concept and effective framework of the EU and suggested that maybe Russia would one day like to join this stable trading bloc. The extreme passions generated by the war in Ukraine make this very unlikely now, but as a theme, relegated to unworkable, it may be preferable to outright war, at the behest of the US and Israel, which is where our puppet leaders appear to be steering us. Pivotal moments in the history waiting to be made, face us at every turn.
re: Truss
I am always amazed how much ugly truth is actually out there just buried under rubbles of lies and deception.
And how quickly the people forget. Actually it´s breath-taking.
I needed more than a year to get over this missed opportunity which Putin referred to (Europe and Russia).
It was there lying at our feet waiting to just get picked up.
Alison. The giving away of national assets and resources preceeded brexit by many decades. Thatcher was a fan, as are most tories, but Blair, Wilson and many others were happy also to sell the family jewels.
We once had a viable, independent and competitive aviation, nuclear, defence and space industry. The UK actually invented the first computer, Colossus, at Bletchley Park. All given away, to the USA, or defunded for political purposes. British engineers once strode the world, no more.
“Thatcher was a fan, as are most tories, but Blair, Wilson and many others were happy also to sell the family jewels.”
That’s what happens if you pay lots of money to foreigners for imports. They get paid in sterling and the only place they can spend the sterling is the UK. If there aren’t enough goods manufactured by the UK for export to soak up that sterling, the only thing we can sell is our assets.
The SoD of 1992 who was behind that concept for world domination was none other than Dick Cheney. Some ideas seem to never get old:
‘Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.’ Those were the words of NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, when explaining the aims behind the new military alliance (as it was then). Simple rhetoric it may well be, but Ismay’s words seem to be of haunting significance in the world we inhabit more than half a century later.
https://newcoldwar.org/history-nato-keep-russians-americans-germans/
The Russians were severely provoked, Just before the special military operation, both Biden and Blinken told the world that Ukraine will be a member of NATO (it was already a de facto member) this was quickly followed by Sec Gen Stoltenberg saying the same thing, then later saying he agreed that NATO expansion was the cause of the war.
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion
“Ray McGovern & John Helmer: Is Trump Getting Putin All Wrong?”
68 min. with Nima from “Dialogue Works”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/03/the-moral-balance/
It covers much territory along the lines of this blog post.
None of the interviewees could been seen as untrustworthy.
McGovern is known to be opposed to the US deep state but would describe himself a patriot and always backs up his points with records and quotes.
Helmer´s colleague was allegedly threatened by one of Putin´s people.
But he still attempts to remain fair.
His knowledge on Moscow is probably less exquisite than he likes to project after he has been declared persona-non-grata by the same Moscow (which makes his non-biased reporting even more remarkable. In Europe reporters would have long called for killing Putin and Lavrov instead of doing their damn job like Helmer does.)
But Helmer´s analyses on the various Novichok fairy-tales in England struck me as pretty detailed.
So did his condemnatory review of Mary Sarotte´s “Not One Inch”.
“And yet Belarus has become a satellite state of Russia.”
The behaviour of the collective West has quite reasonably left many non-aligned states, especially those with cultural commonality, seeking shelter. They are, in fact, being driven into the Russian or Chinese camp either via support pacts or BRICS or defence policy. While the EU proves it is anti-democratic (in Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Hungary etc.) prudence for the non-aligned inevitably means avoiding NATO and the EU.
Jorge
Surely you have noticed that Belarus is a dictatorship ruled by the perennial Lukashenko since 1994?
I agree with the overall point of the article, I understand why Craig felt it nessisery to include a part stating “I’m not a mindless Putin fanboy” although of course such an allegation is ridiculous against anyone who isn’t Russian. But there are still basic and common inaccurancies in the passage doing this
“The amount of force used to crush Chechnya’s legitimate desire for self-determination was disproportionate, for example. It is naive to believe that you get to be leader of the KGB by being a gentle person.”
Putin didn’t become President until 6 months after the Second Chechen War had already started, he did became PM a week after it started, but still it seems inaccurate to pin the blame on him, especially since it was the First war, entirely under Yeltsin’s watch, that was massively destructive and saw Grozny flattened.
Secondly, Putin did not become Director of the FSB/KGB by working his way up through the institution as implied by the description. His highest rank in the KGB was as the recruitment officer for St Petersberg, he then resigned in 1991. He was later appointed Director by Yeltsin in 1998, as a civilian at the time of appointment, although one with previous experience in the institution, he only held the post for a year.
Given your suggestion about how Russia is only seeking to protect Russian speaking communities in for Soviet states.
So are the Baltic states with said communities right to fear attack?
(Since it seems to me that such fear is part of their perspective)
I think it is not irrational for the Baltic States to view preparation for defence against Russian attack as an important policy. But that in no way makes it rational for other states such as the UK.
The best defence of Baltic States is of course to ensure their Russian minorities face no discrimination, and that they maintain reasonable friendly relations with Russia. Open belligerence towards Russia as exhibited by Kallas seems to me the worst possible policy.
To Russia, EVERYTHING feels like 1941, and always has, even before 1941. One of the problems with the left/liberal worldview is the idea of “historical inevitably,” the notion that things somehow always magically change for the better and anyone urging caution is some kind of subversive reactionary. Everything Craig has written is perfectly reasonable from that viewpoint, but it only works if you assume the Russians are working from the same map. They’re not.
The problem with Russia is that it is simultaneously paranoid and messianic. If NATO encroaches its borders, that means the west is out to get it. If NATO had held back after the Wall came down and stayed within its own sphere, that would mean it was weak and decadent and Russia’s destiny to advance west is clear. Either way, there is conflict with Russia. It would just be in Poland or possibly even eastern Germany instead of Ukraine. All that can ever be done with Russia is containment, just as in the days of the British Empire, and that requires strength. Europe has the physical strength, but no longer the moral strength. I suspect Trump’s policy twords Europe is “shape up or ship out.” I think he may have a point.
Where is the evidence of Russia having a permanent drive to expand West? I see no evidence of that at all.
You obviously don’t read the right newspapers.
Seemingly permanent neurotic paranoia and bigotry.
Basically Russophobia is highly prevalent in Europe & Britain, rivaling historical anti-Semitism.
So these people use their own metal illnesses as “proof”.
Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Finland. Poland. Czechoslovakia. Hungary. Georgia. What have all these countries got in common?
Oh, I almost forgot. Ukraine.
Athanasius
“The problem with Russia is that it is simultaneously paranoid and messianic. If NATO encroaches its borders, that means the west is out to get it. If NATO had held back after the Wall came down and stayed within its own sphere, that would mean it was weak and decadent and Russia’s destiny to advance west is clear.”
If there was no encroachment there would be more success in the relations between Russia and europe, if you go back to the 90s you actually see that perhaps the main issue was Nato expanding right to their border.
Here you have Yeltin in 1998 even putting forward the idea of Russia joining the EU.
Beyond the G8, Yeltsin sees his country in the EU
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/beyond-the-g8-yeltsin-sees-his-country-in-the-eu-1.55254
Here you have Yeltsin in 1993 criticising Nato expansion
Yeltsin Opposes Expansion Of NATO in Eastern Europe
Link to nytimes article: https://archive.ph/m98xF#selection-438.0-438.1
Nato are of course free to reject all these concerns – they do not have to listen to anybody – but then they cannot be surprised if Russia react in one way or another.
The problem with Russia is that it is simultaneously paranoid and messianic. If NATO encroaches its borders, that means the west is out to get it. If NATO had held back after the Wall came down and stayed within its own sphere, that would mean it was weak and decadent and Russia’s destiny to advance west is clear. Either way, there is conflict with Russia.”
Paranoid – maybe; messianic – no. The messianic vector of Russian thinking had ended with the liberation of Southern Slavs from Ottoman rule and now Russians share some sympathy only for the Serbs who fell prey to NATO. The rest of the tribes are considered to be the West’s whores.
BTW, Churchill warned that Russia’s concerns for the safety of her Western borders should be respected, and this is the vector of Western thinking that had ended in 1991. It has been replaced by “Now that we are so strong and Russia is so weak, who cares what the Russians think?” Well, you reap what you sow. This is the war for a new world in which the West will have to care what Russians think, like it or not. And in this war the British government is trying to save the unipolar world (though UK only played the role of a helpful sidekick of the main hero, apparently they enjoyed it), just like they tried to save the british Empire after WW2.
Russia between 1914 and 1945 lost between 40 and 50M people. the Western part of the country was destroyed thrice, in WWI, Civil War, WWII. Whether you acknowledge it or not the Russians have been living with the fact that the West has been out for their scalp for over a century now. It´s either die or defend yourself.
When Germans killed off the Jewish population of Europe, Europe after 1945 vowed to defend Jews.
The Germans did the same to the Slavic populations across the East. They were stopped at a very high cost.
Actually if I say Germans, all of Western Europe had troops involved in the extermination of the Eastern nations.
But did the Europeans after 1945 vow to protect them? No. In fact even while the war was winding down people like Patton suggested to coalesce with the remaining Wehrmacht and march eastward and destroy the Red Army and kill Stalin. Operation Unthinkable had the same goal.
There is a sediment of utter hatred and racism towards Russians buried in Western elite culture.
Once unspeakable things have now become common language in Germany.
If you publicly defend the Russians´ right to defend themselves you either pay a hefty fine or you go to prison for weeks or months.
The law under §130 was changed for this very reason. To render support for Russia in public spaces impossible.
If you do the same thing in favour of the Israeli government, if you defend the genocide, you are being applauded.
The fact that 80 years after 1941 German tanks – which even have similiar names (Leopard and Marder now, Tiger and Panther then) and carry almost the same Iron Cross – are again used to kill Russian soldiers on the very same soil – is insane, sick and a total war crime.
Russian soldiers today fight German tanks built by the very same German companies in Düsseldorf and Munich that had built the German tanks their grand-parents had been fighting. Does that not ring insane and appalling to you? How deranged can a nation be?
And Mrs. Baerbock said it loud and clear, we are at war with Russia. But was it ever officially admitted? Biden and Austen said loud and clear, Russia has to be rendered defenseless. But did they ever declare war against Russia officially? German “scholars” working in so-called Institutes for the Study of Peace were demanding for draining Russia off her educated class, were banning Russian PhDs from finishing their studies, were in fact banning any contact and communication with Russian institutions here and in Russia, scientists from Russia working on CERN got fired.
Russians have been described as not normal European, as not Europeans, as brutes, as animals, as scum.
Sarah Wagenknecht for demanding peace negotiations and organizing peace protests early 2023 was called out as a Putin-cunt and a Putin-whore. Among others in DER SPIEGEL.
I don´t know about you but if one side here is rassist, manic, insane, messianic it´s certainly not the Russians.
I have grown up in Germany with the WWII-never-again rhetoric. You couldn´t live here a single day without seeing or reading something not somehow related to it. And then when it counts they fail the test.
In reference to Gaza Chris Hedges correctly said: We have set up so many institutes for Holocaust studies. Did we learn anything? No.
The same is of course true for the Russia issue. And while the extermination of the Jewish people was planned in secret 1942, the equivalent targetting the Slavic people – Generalplan Ost – was discussed as early as 1940. Is the Generalplan Ost ever a topic in MSM. Almost never. Compared to “Holocaust” it´s actually nonexistent.
p.s. You call the British Empire an example of moral strength? Seriously?
“If NATO had held back after the Wall came down and stayed within its own sphere, that would mean it was weak and decadent and Russia’s destiny to advance west is clear.”
Do you have any evidence for that statement, or is it simply culled from the usual suppository?
The four Oblast’s and Crimea have voted and asserted their right to self determination as per the UN Charter, they have voted to join Russia and to secede from Ukraine with enormous numbers of votes to do so.
The Europeans deny their right to self determination and are threatening to intervene to help the Ukrainian army forcibly return those citizens against their will to be oppressed Ukrainian citizens once more. This is lunacy, the EU and UK leadership are delusional, Russia will not be intimidated by them, they will take all measures necessary to thwart them, including nuclear in order to prevail, Putin is not bluffing.
NATO as a military alliance may have been a good idea against the communist Soviet Union after 1945, fearing a domino effect like the scare against the North Vietnamese communists “infecting” the whole of South east Asia. But why should we spend trillions of Dollars on a military alliance against a neighboring European country who since the break up of the Soviet Union have tried to integrate into Europe and the greater world economy. Yeltsin then Putin are both capitalist leaders who want Russia to succeed in the wider capitalist system, they have huge potential given its vast natural mineral resources and huge land mass. The United States see the NATO alliance as the cutting edge of US hegemony, Zbigniew Brzeziński saw Ukraine as the key to US hegemony in Europe, this theme was taken up with various US presidents culminating in Bill Clinton’s determination to include Ukraine in NATO in 2008. Another reason if you think about it is it leads NATO, it insists on all other NATO states spend two and a half per cent (Trump now insisting on 5% GDP) on military spending. Then consider what an enormous amount of money that is, Germany for instance has a GDP of approx $4 Trillion dollars, the UK and France approx $3 trillion dollars each. Most of that money is spent in the US military Industrial complex with the likes of Boeing, Raytheon etc, this is all used by the MIC to ensure intercompatibility, i.e. you must spend your money in the US. Just as an example when Russia launched its Special military operation in 2022 Germany bought two fleets of US made F35 fighters.
The US use NATO to further its own hegemony projections, and uses its vassals to fund NATO’s massive expenses, whats not to like for the US in this arrangement?
The EU and UK cannot afford to fund a war on behalf of Ukraine (currently Von Dder Leyen wants 800 billion Euros to militarize Europe) or supply the necessary arms and finances to do it, nor should they think that any such war can be won, remember Russia considers this existential for its survival, needless to say they will use any means available to survive. The US threat to break up Russia, to dissolve Russia made by US leaders was not an idle threat. These threats were actually made by US leaders.
Finally there is no evidence that Putin wants to take over the whole of Ukraine, he did say once he regretted the break up of the Soviet Union, however he followed up that remark with “no one would be mad enough to try and recreate it”, this last remark is always left out of western MSM reporting.