Russia Vs America

Tags

America, American Liberty, Assad, Assad war, Barack Obama, BBC, Bombing, Britain First, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, frozen, ISIS, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, nuclear war, Putin, putin macho, putin photos, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, russia in syria, russia middle east, russia putin, Soviet Union, Syrian rebels, Twitter, United States, War, World War 3

Russia’s intervention in Syria seems (so far) to be a very positive historical development. Seems to be , yet I cannot quite say ‘is’.

My sense of caution doesn’t derive from any hostility to Russia’s policy (which I generally support), but rather from my suspicions over the world response to it. While I personally love to see Russian bombs bursting in Islamist neighbourhoods, I am aware that members of our political elite are altogether more troubled by it. I am also aware of the reason for their unease.

Though it is the catchphrase of many lunatic characters, there really is something called the ‘New World Order’ – and in that ‘order’, things like this are never supposed to occur.

The NWO (the real one) is simply another name for the post-Soviet order, itself a slightly updated design of the post-WII order, with which it still bears many similarities. Conservative journalist Peter Hitchens (younger brother of Christopher) summed it up by rehearsing the following famous attitude – ‘Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.’

Put in greater detail, the order was designed to keep America as the worlds only accepted military superpower. Expeditionary exercises by states unallied to Washington were to become the stuff of history. There were to be no more Stalins, Hitlers and Nassers; no more upstart challenges to the US military’s global predominance in the air, on land or at sea. This is why Milosevic and Hussein were so quickly disposed of, why Germany and Japan’s economic growth was once so unnerving, and why Putin’s Russia is now regarded as so threatening.

In the NWO, only Washington’s opinion on world affairs matters (the UK being little more than a button on America’s shirt). Most Europeans (myself included) are fine with this. Though it tends to make world affairs rather lopsided, American hegemony plays a very positive and important role in maintaining peace. If American might was suddenly subtracted from the globe, vicious, large-scale wars would begin almost immediately. China would begin bombing Taiwan (and possibly Japan). Iran and the stronger Arab states would start threatening the Israelis. Pakistan and India would recommence their nuclear stand-off over Kashmir. The Serbs (backed by Russia) would retake Kosovo and attack Albania. The Turks would move ruthlessly against the Kurds. Sudan (backed and armed by China) would retake South Sudan and begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Long-simmering tensions between Venezuela and Colombia would be brought to the surface. Russia would follow through on its threats to invade the Baltic and move its forces close enough to menace Poland and other Slavic EU states. Etc…

America has thus given the world a very long and very prosperous period of calm. We should be thankful for it. But now, Obama’s astonishing weakness on foreign affairs is now threatening to undo it all. Who can accurately say how far this will unravel and with what historic effect?

As anyone could have foreseen, America has loudly condemned Russia’s activities in Syria. Only today, Obama rather idiotically claimed that the airstrikes will end up ‘strengthening ISIS’ (by weakening those charming US-backed Islamists in the Al-Nusra Front, for example).

And in Britain, the reliable, chew toy-seeking David Cameron has since barked his agreement with the Washington line, followed swiftly by the human-shaped cardboard art-exhibit known as Francois Hollande. The media has been similarly obedient. As Russia Today drily noted “No sooner had Russian planes taken off to bomb ISIS terrorists.., claims made by the West’s anti-Russia lobby (were) repeated in much of the western mainstream media… (alleging that) Russia wasn‘t really targeting ISIS but “moderate rebels” and its strikes killed scores of innocent civilians… Now there’s two possible explanations for the lightning fast way this new chapter in the “information war” against Russia has been launched… The first is that the anti-Russian lobby have fantastic sources in Syria and know exactly who has been killed in air strikes moments after the bombs are dropped, or, in some cases possess clairvoyant powers and know who the victims will be even before the bombs fall…The second explanation is that the accusations and allegations that we’ve seen were already written up – filed and saved – and ready to be posted online as soon as Russia’s parliament authorized the use of military force.”

Western government and Western media are thus united in hostility towards the Kremlin. This might not end well.

I don’t believe our leaders are ready to intervene in Syria (that is, against Russia) – or not just yet. We nevertheless have to be prepared for such an occurrence. With Russia fighting proxy wars against American security assets, it isn’t Bond-novel fiction anymore.

And just what would happen if the West did intervene on behalf of its preferred barbarians? World War III? Quite possibly, yes.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Facing the Reality of Russia.

Tags

BBC, Belarus, Bombing, Bombs, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Donestk, EU Russia, Merkel, Planes, Poland, Russia latest, Russia Novorussiya, Russia Ukraine, Slavic countries, Ukraine violence, US Russia War

Another Russian bomber has been ‘escorted’ away from British airspace, this time having strayed as far south as the county (or, as some eccentrics believe, Nation) of Cornwall.

As terrifying as it sounds, this is actually becoming commonplace. Ordinarily, the Russian air force teases the UK by flying low over the North Sea within the political territory of Scotland. The choice of Cornwall this time around, demonstrates only an escalation of the same initiative.

We shouldn’t patronise ourselves by wondering why Russia has a problem with the UK. We will only consider how this problem may be solved before it transforms into something apocalyptic.

Firstly, we must recognise the reality of Russia, and how it threatens our hard-won European peace. There can be no longer any doubt as to whether Putin has intervened in Ukraine, and nor that this represents a dangerous violation of geopolitical custom and law.

Timothy Gartan Ash, the Guardian’s noted analyst of foreign affairs was consequently right to put the dispute in the following, brutal terms:

“Behind a smokescreen of lies”… “(Putin) has renewed his drive to carve out a puppet para-state in eastern Ukraine… Innocent bystanders are killed in the Black Sea port of Mariupol. In besieged Debaltseve a woman scoops water from a giant puddle in the road. The rubble that was once Donetsk airport recalls a scene from martyred Syria. About 5,000 people have already been killed in this armed conflict, and more than 500,000 uprooted. Preoccupied by Greece and the eurozone, Europe is letting another Bosnia happen in its own front yard. Wake up, Europe. If we have learned anything from our own history, Putin must be stopped.”

Although I have resisted the emotion, given my respect for Putin’s diplomatic manoeuvres on Syria and Libya, I must agree with Ash here. Putin must be driven back. If we have any respect or love for our continental security, military deterrents must be put in place. A rapid detachment of multinational EU troops should be sent to Western Ukraine and the Baltics in order to pre-empt and block any broadening of Putin’s aggression.

I am aware that I am here going against the prevailing argument within the CounterJihad tendency – the argument that Russia is a vital ally against Islam and should be welcomed back into the community of the Western World. I don’t disagree with the logic of it; my opposition is simply a matter of solidarity with Ukraine – another kindred state of Europe – in its time of need. No state deserves to be carved up by a foreign power, especially not by a power that previously presided over a policy of genocide in that country.

D, LDN.

Beheaders Aren’t Britons.

Tags

Barack Obama, Bombing, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Iraq, ISIS Beheading, ISIS Beheading Video, James Foley, Jim FOley, John, Obama, Statement, Syria, United States

Have you watched the video of James Foley’s death? I’ve only watched an edited version on YouTube. As in the original, it fades to black when the knife meets his throat. Prior to this Foley offered a (surely forced) verbal self-flagellation, climaxing with a statement of regret for being American. I’m told that in the full version (which I have no intention of viewing), the film ends with a shot of Foley’s decapitated corpse lying flat in the desert, his head resting on the small of his back.

Of course, by-itself, this episode doesn’t teach us anything new about Muslims, or about the motivating power of the Qur’an. Anyone who has even casually browsed the book will have noted a passage like the following:

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.” – 47:4

Some are calling Mr Foley unwise for having ventured into a desert filled with believers in such a text. I wouldn’t go that far. It is certainly something I would never do, and an intention I would discourage in friends. But there is an undeniably heroic quality to war journalism and – despite what his captors may have intended – Foley’s death has surely further dignified that profession.

This murder isn’t, I’m sad to say, a strictly American matter. While we in Britain had never heard of Foley before the news broke of his execution, we may have been unknowingly familiar with his murderer. In fact (altogether more chillingly), we may have rode the bus with him, sat next to him on the subway; we may have even shook the hand that slit Foley’s throat. His killer, you see, is ‘British’.

I’d like to use this occasion to take issue with something specific. Something broader than this isolated cruelty.

Having a British passport does not make you British. Being born in a Pakistanified hamlet of England does not make you English. To earn these historically illustrious definitions you must be part of the national community, speaks its language and concur with its moral standards. The butcher of Foley, as well as any other Muslim who has departed our shores for Jihad, checked their ‘British’ card at Heathrow.

No line (straight or crooked) can be drawn between these desert savages and Edward Gibbon. Don’t forget that to be called ‘British’ is in no way a small deal. This isn’t Luxembourg. Much of the modern age derives from British innovation. To make the definition of ‘British’ so cheap, to collapse its value to such an extent, betrays in one second a thousand years.

D, LDN

The Cynical Genius of Hamas.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Bombing, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Israel Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, War, Zionism

Anyone who values civilisation – from its music and museums, to its cinemas and nightclubs – will have been sympathetic to Israel’s plight over the past two weeks. It is being attacked by another century, and cannot respond except by striking (as surgically as possible) one of the most densely populated territories in the world.

Faced with these odds, Israel has inevitably lost. As I said a fortnight ago, the only way Operation Protective Edge could succeed (or be worth the ocean of negative publicity arising from the project) is if Hamas was knocked conclusively out of history. I’m far from alone in holding this view. Many a patriot in Israel has been exasperated by this war and its apparent lack of direction.

Hamas – in contrast to Netanyahu’s ambiguity – is working with a clear and intelligent strategy:

1. Provoke Israel into bombarding Gaza.

2. Fire missiles from hospitals, schools and (for added propaganda effect) UN-affiliated buildings in order to maximise foreign and civilian casualties – human lives being cheaply expendable given the local birth-rate.

3. Mobilise Left-wing and Pro-Palestinian media around the world with photos of dead women and children. Gain as many young and naïve adherents to the Palestinian cause as possible.

4. Allow the war to die down. Re-arm and await next operation.

As you can see, there is little room for failure here. One can also see how Israel’s response has fed directly into it. The intensity of Pro-Palestinian information-flow since the start of the war has been staggering. And it hasn’t been limited to the closed world of the political Left either. Here are some of the hundreds of anti-Zionist comments left on the centre-right Daily Mail website (all of which were given hundreds of ‘green arrows’ by its readership) –

“Israel would like nothing more than to destroy all Palestinian settlements. The ‘excuse’ of defending its people is a smokescreen. If this campaign somehow stops they’ll find another excuse to attack and kill thousands of innocent people. Israel are mass murderers.”

“Israel is an apartheid state gone wild and it’s unfair to expect their neighbours to sit there defenceless without the weapons and military to defend themselves.”

“Israel wants the land for its natural gas, it’s as simple as that. It won’t stop and is behaving in an appalling manner.”

“The whole world knows what a terrorist state Israel is-you can sit here all day trying to defend it-it won’t work.”

Elsewhere, the Telegraph (arguably the most reliably pro-Israel news source in the UK) has run numerous reports on the bombings of Hamas targets near schools and hospitals with the (rather important) Hamas element unmentioned anywhere in the text. It used to be the case that only the BBC was capable of this wilful propaganda. This time around, were it not for the middle-ground politeness of the BBC, the Israeli side would have no media voice in the UK outside the Jewish Chronicle.

Its inherent evil aside, Hamas is reaping the crop from a well-thought out and devilishly clever tactic. Now let’s look at what a comparably clear Israeli response would have looked like:

1. Delay retaliation to Gaza rocket fire. Instead make clear to Hamas and international community that living next to a terrorist group has become intolerable (i.e. make the case for the action before the action). Issue final warning to Hamas and make clear that it will be removed if rocket fire continues. The longer the period between the ultimatum and military action, the less the power of criticism will be when the latter is underway.

2. If rocket fire continues, launch air and ground strikes against all known Hamas sites. Occupy Gaza for as long as it takes to arrest or kill Hamas leadership and its supporters. After the occupation, make clear that the same routine will be repeated if any comparable terrorist group emerges there.

By way of conclusion, Protective Edge has been a disaster for Israel, a windfall for the Palestinian cause, and it raises serious questions about Israel’s long term planning. Let’s hope lessons have been learned.

D, LDN.