George Galloway of the Respect Party gives a view here that is actually quite popular and widespread across Britain whatever the BBC might want us to believe. Because Britain is a three headed one-party-state the views expressed here are suppressed and marginalised in the mainstream British media.
Fortunately however, RT gives a platform for the views that thousands of British people subscribe to today below the official radar and generally out of sight of the infotainment news industry.
So here then is another view from another Britain to the one that is pimped by the BBC and its friends and presented to the world as the way we are.
This is yet another part of the story from inside the UK that you won't get from the mainstream corporate media here or probably anywhere in the English speaking world.
This is yet another part of the story from inside the UK that you won't get from the mainstream corporate media here or probably anywhere in the English speaking world.
You're quite right, AA, that this interview with George Galloway represents an opinion on the Ukraine situation that you won't see much of in US or UK corporate media. I hate to see any nation sink to the level of chaos we have seen in the last couple weeks, first around Kiev and now in the Crimea. It is clear that there are misrepresentations and shortcuts in the coverage of it on both sides, but it seems that the corporate West side gives us only a "just yesterday" view of complex matters.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded again, of the warnings from the Reagan Years, when there was talk about a direct war between Nicaragua (and Cuba) and the United States thirty years ago, one could be forgiven for thinking that the pro-war forces clamoring for another Vietnam-style conflict in Central America were under the delusion that people in Nicaragua and El Salvador were just like "folks in Wisconsin, only that they spoke Spanish instead of English."
Certainly, as even Henry Kissinger pointed out in an op-ed in today's Washington Post, the West is wrong to think that the Ukraine is "just another country", one that happens to be near Russia. This overlooks the centuries-old close relationship the Ukraine (or Kievan-Rus) has with Russia, one not always a good one but certainly one that the West should respect and refrain from heeding to the defiant fire-breathers like John McCain, also known for years on Capitol Hill as "Senator Hot-Head".
Let me not leave off other right-wing loud mouths like former New York Mayor Rudy Gulliani. "Rudy", another disappointed would-be Presidential candidate, waxed on about Putin a couple days ago , marveling about him as a "leader" who "knows how to get things done". One hopes Rudy and Vlad can go bear hunting in Siberia soon and "Mr. 9/11" can take notes on how to roll over political opponents, Moscow style.
Or others like Heritage Foundation strongman and neo-Confederate ex-Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, who calls President Obama "weak and vacillating" when not long ago he and his ilk complained the same guy was too "heavy-handed' and dictatorial. One only wishes that they make up their minds why they dislike him so much and stick to it.
The important thing over here I think is to see the conflict for what it is, and not what it isn't. It is NOT a conflict about Obama, much as these worthies I mentioned want to make it. It is a conflict that has been a thousand year in the making, and the best place to solve it is not to make it a "Cold War" replay.
Thanks, AA, for this needed take on the situation.
Thanks for your comments Doug. Although it pains me to agree with Henry Kissinger about anything I do agree with the sentiments you report him as expressing in the Washington Post. Where I would probably differ with Mr Kissinger is that I think this attitude should be reflected in our relationship with all other nations and communities and respect for their political and cultural history should be paramount in any foreign relations. It isn't of course the doctrine of the early 21st century, which from the atlanticist perspective is driven by aggressive, militarised US foreign policy driven by the PNAC agenda which to me is a form of collective psychopathy afflicting the ruling NATO elite. The cost of this folly is in my view incalculable and should be opposed by any right-thinking person anywhere. I agree with much of what you say here Doug, except I think the Obama administration is as guilty as its predecessors and is as commited to the PNAC agenda and therefore is no less aggressive or internationally illicit than the Bush/Bush or Clinton/Gore regimes were. All dance to the tune of the military industrial complex and the international crime syndicate that has replaced collapsed capitalism with a form of neo-fascist imperialism that is all Washington DC is known for in most parts of the world. The complicity of the UK regime under Labour and now the Coalition gives it a rather similar role in NATO to Italy vis-a-vis Germany in the 1930s-40s.
ReplyDeleteIt may not be a conflict about Obama but Obama is at the heart of it I think, a pretty powerless marionette of corporate governance, he does what he is told and achieves what the corporations allow him to achieve, which is not very much.
In my view it is more the president's powerlessness than any influence he may appear to have that really makes Washington such a dangerous force for global instability today. To me there is little point of trying to differentiate the 'good' from the 'bad' in Atlanticist politics, because in the absence of any meaningful democracy means the posturing of the political class on either side of the Atlantic is a pointless sham, an empty gesture and a carefully nurtured illusion of popular sovereignty controlled and manipulated by 'opinion formers' and advertising executives.
The corporate media is mostly made up of smoke and mirrors whose job it is to convince us of the rightness of our illusionary cultural identities, the beauty of our weapons and the manufactured 'norms' it routinely trades in. The mainstream media is I think inherently unreliable and untrustworthy, so thank heavens for spaces like these where 'nation really does speak to nation' if only on a small scale.
Thanks for adding your perspective here Doug, after all we are completely in agreement that the situation in Ukraine cannot be allowed to tip the world into further conflict in Europe and beyond. The current conflict may have a long and complex history, but the funding of fascist thugs and neo-nazis in Ukraine by western 'interests' is a new twist (although it happened before in the 1930s of course) which we the poeple of the world simply cannot allow to continue any further.
Thanks again for adding your voice to this historic mission and contributing to the discussion here Doug.
Hi Aaron, I actually came here today because I wanted to see what you had written about the Ukraine situation. I ( like many others no doubt) have resorted to watching to RT to get a more realistic report. I'm so sick of listening to the rubbish we are being fed by BBC/ ITV etc. I've found myself sympathizing with Crimea from the start and getting pretty peed off by the one sided reports being broadcast here. George Galloway has some very valid points. I remember one of the things said against the various wars we've illegally entered into was that once you start to invade other countries it becomes untenable to then, at a later date, criticsise other countries who do exactly the same thing.You kinda loose the moral high ground and set an example you're always going to regret. Not that I think Russia did invade illegally, every thing they have said so far makes prefect sense to me. Crimea is ethnically Russian with at least 50% of the people actually being Russian. Most people in the Crimea never wanted to leave Russia in the first place and the referendum to become part of an independent Ukraine only passed by a small margin. Crimea remained an autonomous country with its own elected parliament and prime minister withing the country of Ukraine. The people of Crimea can be seen in various TV reports actually asking for Russian help and distancing themselves from the rest of the Ukraine. Why does every one on every TV debate/ programme automatically assume the referendum for Crimean independence is going to be 'fixed' ?? It seems perfectly plausible to me that Crimea would prefer to be in control of its own future rather than be part of Ukraine and take its chances with what they perceive as a extreme right wing mob. I have every sympathy for the people of the Crimea and am sick to death of every European politician claiming that Russia is the aggressor and needs to be stopped. I'm also pretty sick of these endless reports of wealth and riches stolen by the Ukraine Prime Minister from his country to support his own lavish lifestyle. Pot and kettle come to mind, just remind me, who is governed by a group of mega wealthy, Eton educated, out of touch, privileged idiots who are so distanced from ordinary people they may as well be living on another planet? The only difference is our mega wealthy politicians are more subtle and sophisticated with their wealth, they've had a lot longer to con every one into believing its all OK.
ReplyDeleteAnd your description of the three headed beast is exactly right...........we have no real democracy because we have no real opposition, which incidentally is the exact argument which was used against soviet Russia; that their people were only allowed to vote for one party, the communist part, and now WE are only allowed to vote for one party, the capitalist party, personally I can't see the difference.
Hi Loretta thanks for your comments, I just typed a lengthy reply which not for the first time disappeared completely when I tried to post it, but as they used to say on Monkey Magic...."the monkey is irrepressible"....so here goes with take 2.
ReplyDeleteI of course entirely agree with all the points you have made here.
The Washington warmongers and their NATO handmaidens have completely lost the battle for hearts and minds in the West and all over the world, largely due to the efforts of people like us - thousands of them - who constantly undermine the credibility of the gangster regime and disrupt the war effort on the home front.
If we are forced to choose between Obama and Putin then for me it has to be Putin every time and like him or not, that I think is the overwhelming majority view in Europe and worldwide.
Russia is in Europe and our neighbour, America isn't and its forces of oppression are not welcome here, nor anywhere much except by neo-Nazis and CIA patsies that have illegally seized power in Ukraine. These fascist thugs will NEVER be allowed to join the EU we the people of Europe will take care of that!
In the 1940s the Soviet Union through massive sacrifices worked with us to defeat the Third Reich who were propped up and supported by US corporations like Ford, Standard Oil (now called Exxon Mobil) IBM, Coca Cola and many others, so now we have to do it again and the Wall Street gangsters are still backing the Nazis in Kiev and we and the Russians are still opposing them.
Crimea is Russian and will, be so in the future whatever the mafia bell hop in Washington thinks or wants, PNAC is dead in the water!
Thanks for your important contribution to the peace efforts and for standing up against the warmongers and oppressors, we are in the vast majority on a global scale..
In the meantime we continue to spead the idea and counter the Nazi propaganda spilling from the mouths of Washington sock puppets like Cameron and Hague. Its all going very well, the Washington regime is now the most loathed on planet Earth a result which we can give ourselves a little pat on the back for contributing to the ideological damage done to the evil empire and its IMF functionaries in Westminster, Paris and Berlin.
Thanks again for your contribution here Loretta, every little bit we contribute helps the struggle for peace and civilisation.
Ideas like these can never be defeated and the "shoal theory" of revolution whereby we are each a separate 'cell' functioning individually and collectively can never be infiltrated or subverted.
We are simply the future dismantling the past, there are millions of us all across the world and we will never stop this work until the job is done.
Thanks again for your insightful comments Loretta :-)
I think in a discussion of Anglo-Soviet cooperation in WWII, AA, one has to factor in the period between late August, 1939, and June, 1941, when Stalin and Hitler were in a economic and political pact that helped both sides. Just as the American corporations gave aid to the devil, so did the Kremlin. The following is from a Wikipedia entry:
ReplyDelete"The 1940 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement (also known as Economic Agreement of February 11, 1940, Between the German Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was an economic arrangement between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed on February 11, 1940 by which the Soviet Union agreed in period from February 11, 1940 to February 11, 1941, in addition to the deliveries under German–Soviet Commercial Agreement, signed on August 19, 1939 deliver the commodities (oil, raw materials and grain) to the value of 420 to 430 million Reichsmarks. In the period February 11, 1941, to August 11, 1941, there shall be delivered to Germany, likewise in addition to the deliveries provided for in the Credit Agreement of August 19, 1939, commodities to the value of 220 to 230 million Reichsmarks. In payment for the Soviet deliveries, Germany shall supply an own products (war materiel; machinery and technologies; raw materials).
Secret amendment to the Agreement suggest a parties negotiations in regards to the purchase by the Soviet Union of metals and other goods in third countries and to the sale of these metals and goods to Germany. Later also was negotiated a policy of the transit through Soviet territory a third countries commodities purchased by Germany.
The countries followed up the agreement and resolved other issues with the January 10, 1941 German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement.
In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and all economic agreements between the two countries were ended.
Between January 1940 and date of the German invasion the total Soviet export to the Germany estimated at 597.9 million Reichsmarks. The German deliveries accounted as 437.1 million Reichsmarks.[1]
The agreements continued Nazi–Soviet economic relations and resulted in the delivery of large amounts of raw materials to Germany, including over 900,000 tons of oil, 1,600,000 tons of grain and 140,000 tons of manganese ore."
Thanks for further extending the discussion with your contribution on Soviet Nazi relations during the period you mention between August 1939 and June 1941.
ReplyDeleteLike all history the sense we make of that happenstance depends upon where we start counting from I think Doug.
The situation in central and eastern Europe during the 22 months under review was of course tumultuous ...so I'll have a go at briefly contextualising the situation you have described above, a state of affairs for the less than 2 years prior to Germany invading Soviet Russia during the ill-fated Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
The economic relations between the young Soviet state and Germany goes back to the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918 when the Bolsheviks made a unilateral peace treaty with Germany.
Trade relations between Germany and Russia has existed since that time and before the Nazi period but greatly reduced from 1935 except for the sudden increase during the dates you mention.
In 1918 circumstances forced Lenin and Trotsky to enter into the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ceded massive western Russian territories to the German Empire.
After Germany's collapse, a multinational Allied-led army invaded the new communist state during the Russian Civil War (1917–22) creating further internal havoc. These events created circumstances in the USSR somewhat akin to Afghanistan today where foreign armies have sought to intervene on the side of one faction against the others.
Germany and the Soviet state were not equal players in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 any more than they had been in 1918, but both treaties were about the Revolution gaining time and the resources to defend itself from the multinational assault it was under from birth.
At the time the Soviets signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact they were at war in the east where they were under attack from Axis partner Japan in Manchuri... and all along the vast Mongolian border. They were also embroiled in a war with Finland and other pressing Baltic issues in the west
A measure of self survival and a breathing space was what Stalin needed in 1939-41it was realpolitik in the face of genocide.
The Spanish Civil War had demonstrated how inferior the Soviet airforce were compared with the Nazi Luftwaffe.
The reason Germany secretly planned to invade Russia despite the non-aggression treaties they entered into was both economic and ideological. In 1934 Hitler announced that Russia was a state where there was plenty of Lebensraum for the Reich of a Thousand Years and which was populated by Slavic untermenshchen and was ruled by Jews. In Nazi terms it simply demanded annexation and submission to the master race, these arrangements we are discussing are about survival in the face of multiple threats. I think that is a significant factor in the equation here Doug. The period you mention was a mad grab for resources by both sides, but even that needs to be put into some larger perspective I think.
In 1940 the value of Third Reich trade with the Soviet Union was about the same as that of the United States which had made a tariff agreement with Stalin on July 13th 1935 and a trade agreement Aug. 4th 1937. By an exchange of letters between Oct. 30 and Nov. 4,1941, agreement was reached for an American interest-free loan of arms and matériel worth up to $1 billion, with the provision of certain Soviet deliveries to the USA.
During the same period US investment in Nazi Germany dwarfed the Soviet Trade agreements during the 22 months in question. As ypou know Antony Sutton and others have provided an evidence base for this.
According to figures provided by Charles Higham the size of American investments in Nazi Germany in 1941 amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; 111 had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_excerpts.html
And thanks, AA, for bringing up greater backdrop to the events of 1939-41. I suspect Stalin and company were indeed gambling for time against Hitler, especially in the wake of the Purges and Show Trails of military and political officials in Moscow.(I think history has judged as more a malady of Stalin's megalomania and paranoia than a political issue, given the sheer number of victims many of whom were loyal.)
DeleteAlso I appreciate your reminding me of the work of Charles Higham, whose articles (such as this link) and book "Trading With the Enemy" revealed to me the sad and tragic side of American industrial co-operation with the Third Reich.
LOL ran out of characters Doug - Epilogue
ReplyDeleteSo yes I do agree with your point that Soviet/Nazi trade and co-operation for the short period it existed must be factored into the bigger picture of economic and ideologicial relations in 20th century geopolitics. Thanks for developing the discussion in this interesting direction, much appreciated as always Doug :-)
And thanks for giving me such a fair hearing, AA, as always. :-)
DeleteI think your point about Stalin's paranoia is interesting Doug. As a symptom of mental disorder paranoia has to be based upon thoughts and feelings that have no objective reality, that are apparently delusional or based upon false premises. I think given the history of the Soviet Union from beginning to end it is not unreasonable that Stalin should be 'paranoid' if that means suspicious that there was a massive conspiracy to kill him and destroy his country, rape, pillage and murder the Russian people, steel their natural resources, condemn them to slavery and prop up their own 'monarch' to rule over them with an iron fist.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that everyone who has ever been invaded, or had a covert war aimed at them is invariably said by the perpetrators to be 'paranoid' as evidence of their unfitness to govern. In Stalin's case, if ever anyone had a right to be suspicious of everyone and everything it was Uncle Joe. The endless task of stitching him up and the other 'disapproved of' leaders creates a situation which is used by the military industrial propaganda machine and is an entire multi-zillion dollar industry of itself.
Here is a proposition then:
I would suggest that evil 'dictators', oligarchs and tyranical monarchs' are deliberately created by 'liberal democracies' at great expense and effort...and without them the latter could not exist for long without becoming in some broad sense 'socialist' ....as a natural consequence of socialised humanity.
In my view Stalin's 'paranoia' didn't exclusively belong to him, it was shared amongst all the leaders of modernity and it still is.....and rightly so in my view, because I am on the side of the creeping inevitable realignment now taking place that does and should worry them.