Britain Cannot Withstand Martian Death-Ray 94

The broadcast news bulletins are all leading with the claim of some old General that Britain could not resist an attack by Russia. One remarkable thing about this claim, is that all those excitably supporting it are precisely the same people who claim that the countless billions spent on Trident make an attack on the UK impossible. Plainly they have never believed their own propaganda about Trident.

But there is something still more problematic in the General’s argument. The truth is that there is zero chance of Russia attacking the UK. Nothing Putin has ever said or done has evinced the slightest desire to attack the UK. Now I am, as you know, no fan of Putin and I believe he does hanker after annexing to Russia those parts of the former Soviet Union outside Russia which are Russian speaking. But he probably does not see even that limited aim as completely achievable, and indeed in ten years he has reintegrated just Crimea and Ossetia. The UK, being neither Russian speaking nor part of the former Soviet Union, is in no danger of being attacked by Russia at all.

Nor has the UK ever been in danger of attack by Russia. Yet extraordinarily, as discussed in my new book Sikunder Burnes, Russophobia and an explicit fear of Russian attack has been an important part of British politics, actually driving policy, for 200 years. In that period Britain has invaded Russia during the Crimean War, and as early as 1834 David Urquhart, First Secretary at the British Embassy in Constantinople, was organising a committee of “mujahideen” – as he called them – and running guns to Chechnya and Dagestan for the jihadists to fight Russia. In 1917 British troops again invaded Russia, landing at Archangel and Murmansk.

Yet, although by contrast Russia has never attacked Britain, and has never had any serious plan, intention or decision to attack Britain, for centuries British foreign and defence policy has been predicated on a non-existent “Russian threat”. Of course, the arms manufacturers and the political and military classes have made incalculable sums out of this long term waste of a significant proportion of Britain’s resources. A Russian invasion of Britain is, and has always been, as likely as an attack by Martian death-ray.

General Barrons does however have one important point. Britain’s forces are not configured for defence. They are configured for attack. Aircraft carriers are of no defensive use whatsoever, and indeed are hopelessly vulnerable against any sophisticated enemy. Their sole purpose today is the projection of power against poor countries. Their use lies only in the neo-con policy of attacking smaller states like Iraq, Libya and Syria. They are Blair force carriers.

Britain is a country where thousands of children go to bed hungry. Yet is spends billion upon billion on Trident missiles whose sole purpose is to increase politicians’ sense of importance, and aircraft carriers designed to facilitate the maiming of other nations’ children. A rational, defence oriented military would have neither. Again, I return to the conviction that Scottish Independence is not just good for Scotland, but the psychological shock that rUK needs to end these imperial cravings for physical power projection.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

94 thoughts on “Britain Cannot Withstand Martian Death-Ray

1 2
  • Michael Dean

    Yet, it is Russian president Vladimir Putin who is compared to Adolf Hitler by everyone from Prince Charles to Princess Hillary because of the incorporation of Crimea as part of Russia. On this question Putin has stated:

    The Crimean authorities have relied on the well-known Kosovo precedent, a precedent our Western partners created themselves, with their own hands, so to speak. In a situation absolutely similar to the Crimean one, they deemed Kosovo’s secession from Serbia to be legitimate, arguing everywhere that no permission from the country’s central authorities was required for the unilateral declaration of independence. The UN’s international court, based on Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, agreed with that, and in its decision of 22 July 2010 noted the following, and I quote verbatim: No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to unilateral declarations of independence.

    Putin as Hitler is dwarfed by the stories of Putin as invader (Vlad the Impaler?). For months the Western media has been beating the drums about Russia having (actually) invaded Ukraine. I recommend reading: “How Can You Tell Whether Russia has Invaded Ukraine?” by Dmitry Orlov

    • Geoff

      I’m confused. If Russia deems the Crimean declaration of independence to be legitimate, and they recognise it as absolutely similar to Kosovan independence, then why don’t they recognise Kosovan independence?

      • Macky

        @Geoff, Well if you use terms like “absolutely similar” then no wonder you are confused, hint, Crimea was not ethnically cleansed; if somebody changes the rules to suit themselves, then you have every right to pull up hypocrites complaining that what you are doing it wrong, by pointing out that they did the same, only with even less justification.

          • Macky

            @Geoff, my apology as indeed these were the words used by Mr Putin himself (!); let it be noted for the record that this so often smeared “Putinista” has expressed disagreement with Putin ! 😀

    • Why be ordinary?

      Putin’s assertion of Russian protection for Russian communities outside Russia fuels the comparison with Hitler, who started off the same way (Sudetenland Germans etc).

  • Michael Dean

    But the propaganda version is already set in marble.

    – “And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized, not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.”

    None of that even came close to happening in Kosovo either. The story (told by Obama) is false. The referendum the president speaks of never happened. Did the mainstream media pick up on this? If any reader comes across such I’d appreciate being informed.

    Crimea, by the way, did have a referendum. A real one. William Blum.

  • Michael Dean

    Typical of the media was the Chicago Tribune praising McCain for his statesmanlike views on Iraq and stating: “What Russia’s invasion of Georgia showed was that the world is still a very dangerous place,” and Russia is a “looming threat”. In addition to using the expression “Russia’s invasion of Georgia”, the Tribune article also referred to “Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia”. No mention of Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia which began the warfare. In a feature story in the Washington Post on the Georgia events the second sentence was: “The war had started, Russian jets had just bombed the outskirts of Tbilisi [Georgian capital].” The article then speaks of “the horror” of “the Russian invasion”. Not the slightest hint of any Georgian military action can be found in the story. One of course can find a media report here or there that mentions or at least implies in passing that an invasion from Georgia is what instigated the mayhem. But I’ve yet to come upon one report in the American mass media that actually emphasizes this point, and certainly none that put it in the headline. The result is that if a poll were taken amongst Americans today, I’m sure the majority of those who have any opinion would be convinced that the nasty Russians began it all. The Anti-Empire Report #61 – September 5th, 2008 – William Blum:

  • Alcyone

    The Stop The War coalition should start agitating (every Sunday) for the euphemistically named Ministry of Defence (nothing MOD about it) to be renamed MOO — the Ministry of Offence.

    The mainstream media is happy at the drop of a pin to start entertaining the *idea*, baseless as you suggest, that the Russians are coming. Will they with equal zest support, or even report, a demand for a contemporary re-christening of the MOD to a plainer MOO?

    [‘Blair Force carriers … Brilliant!]

  • RobG

    Craig, I presume you post this to ensure that the NSA give you a warm welcome when you arrive in America shortly.

    I wouldn’t say that Britain has seen Russia as a major threat for the last two hundred years. It’s certainly been seen as a major threat in the last hundred years, ever since ‘Ten days that shook the world’. The Bolshevik revolution in 1917 certainly caused panic and paranoia in the western elites, which had a major effect on worker’s rights in the West, and, arguably, continues to this day – last Thursday’s BBC Question Time being a case in point.

    The Russian revolution started something that still to this day has not ended, despite the ‘post-war consensus’, and all that.

    Anyhows, during your visit on the other side of the Pond give my love to your NSA handlers.

    • Paul Barbara

      Sure, the Western ‘Elites’ (special suite in hell for the ‘Elites’; after all, they deserve it, don’t they?) were ‘panicked’.
      Antony Sutton doesn’t seem to think so – ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists’.

  • Fredi

    “Aircraft carriers are of no defensive use whatsoever, and indeed are hopelessly vulnerable against any sophisticated enemy. Their sole purpose today is the projection of power against poor countries.”

    Indeed, dead beat liberal politicians who leave nothing but financial devastation and deep mistrust in their wake like nothing better to do then strutting about on warships demonstrating their importance and ineptitude…

  • Tom Welsh

    Craig, you make some valid points and I wholly agree with the thrust of your article. But why do you not mention the Crimean War, when Britain joined France and Turkey in launching a classic war of unprovoked aggression against Russia? Hundreds of thousands of soliders landed in Crimea with the aim of capturing Sevastopol (plus ca change…) Russia lost nearly as many soldiers as the USA lost in its horrible Civil War a few years later. Yet British history books gloss over the Crimean War, with no mention of guilt.

  • Hmmm

    Ra ra Vlad Putin, Russia’s greatest love machine, it was a shame how he carried on….
    Sad to say there’ll be people losing sleep worrying about a Russian invasion. But as we say in poker, can’t beat stupid

  • Muscleguy

    I know what you mean Craig. Back in Southern New Zealand where I used to live, at the head of the Otago harbour and in the middle of the only mainland breeding colony of the Southern Royal Albatross is a relic of the 19thC in the form of a disapearing gun. An artillery piece where the force of recoil sends it down into its bunker of reloading with thick metal doors closing over it to protect it from counter fire.

    It was installed in one of the bouts of Russophobia that were only finally quelled with the victory by the Japanese over the Russian Navy after their epic voyage.

    This piece of imperial paranoia, never fired in anger, still sits in apparent working order as a museum piece in the far South Seas.

  • Paul Barbara

    And Putin is highly unlikely to let the obvious ‘Boston Brakes’ killing of his chauffeur in Moscow go without a quid pro quo. He will bide his time, but is not likely either amused, or cowed, by this new provocation.
    I don’t know if there is any truth in Putin banning all comedy shows in Russia, until after the US election is over; what’s the point of wasting good humour, when everyone’s tuned to the election soap opera?
    And Russian hospitals are registering an epidemic of ‘busted sides’.

  • Paul Barbara

    Whilst Russia has no intention of attacking the UK, if NATO attacks Russia, then the inhabitants of the UK can do the old ‘duck and cover’ routine; bend down, put their heads between their knees, and kiss their sorry a**es goodbye (and maybe have time to utter a few curses on the Bliars and Camerons, Obamas and Bushes that brought us to such an end).

  • mike

    The BBC, earlier – its top story: “Russia’s military says rebel groups have increased attacks in Syria despite a ceasefire and has urged the US to act or be responsible for its collapse.”

    Quite extraordinary. This is Russia’s point of view ! Has there been a geopolitical shift since the Hinkley Point deal?

    Stop Press: Neocon crazies up the ante in Syria by killing 62 SAA soldiers. Poor old Kerry must feel like hitting the golf course 4 months early.

  • Paul Barbara

    The Yanks seem to have a Lemming-like compulsion for Armageddon – I wonder what the Trolls on here will think, in the moments they MIGHT have before the SHTF – was it worth a few Shekels?
    ‘US Central Command Says Airstrike on Syrian Army Killing 80 Was an Accident’:

    How can they get away with calling it a ‘mistake’, when they are bombarding a Sovereign State’s territory illegally? Russia has the permission of the Syrian Government to operate within it’s territory, the Yanks (and us) don’t.

  • mike

    Eighty men dead, now, and they don’t even apologise. I suppose given the millions they’re slaughtered over the last 70 years, that’s just a snack.

  • Mick McNulty

    It’s not just a lack of ships and planes that will stop the UK fighting Russia but the lack of men. It’s likely us plebs tell the elite this one they fight themselves, we’re staying out of it. After years of neo-liberal abuse the British people are more ready to fight their own government, so TPTB will have to win the war on their own streets before they can take war anywhere else.

    • AliB

      Oh, I think we can safely rely on the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Times to rally the nationalistic troops and the fools will follow them. They’ve managed to do so in every war so far, including against the EU.

  • ron

    The Ministry of Defence is not accountable to the British people – although it’s our money they spend
    Even West Bromwich Albion wouldn’t attack the UK – what is there to gain – a few old buildings and a population, 50% of which is obese. The other 50% watch Strictly Come Dancing!

    • Sharp Ears

      or even The Great British Bake Off (made by Love Productions, 70% of which is owned by Murdoch’s Sky)

  • Why be ordinary?

    More on the India angle would help plug the Sekunder Burns book. The East India company was actively supporting Iran when Russia invaded its Caucasian provinces in the early 1800s to the extent of providing military advisers for the Iranian army (cf Sir John Kinnear MacDonald

  • Iain Rae

    “Aircraft carriers are of no defensive use whatsoever, and indeed are hopelessly vulnerable against any sophisticated enemy.” And here was me thinking that the definitive Naval battle of the last 100 years was a defensive battle fought largely using aircraft carriers.

    • Paul Barbara

      That’s as maybe, but new weaponry has made aircraft carriers sitting ducks. If Argentina could have afforded the Exocets Israel was willing to sell them, things may have turned out differently (though Britain had a nuke armed sub in the area, in case things got out of hand).

      • michael norton

        The United Kingdom is having two super carriers manufactured in the Peoples Socialist Republic of Scotland

        but we do not hae any aircraft to mount on its platform
        Dave Cameron scrapped them all and had the dies smashed, so they could never return to adorn our skies?

      • Iain Rae

        Hardly sitting ducks, a carrier with a properly balanced air group is a very potent weapon.The British carriers in the Falklands were missing AEW cover which limited their utility but even so they still managed to negate an air force that was numerically far superior using an aircraft which had been designed to shoot down Russian maritime patrol aircraft. A few years previously Ark royal headed off an invasion of Belize more or less single handedly by being able to have Buccaneers patrolling over the country within a few days of the threat appearing.

        Israel has never operated Exocet so I’m curious to know how they came by the ones you claim they were trying to sell.

        And which submarine are you referring to? The only “nuke armed” subs the uk had at the time were the Resolution class (Polaris) boats and given they had ICBMs they hardly had to be in the area.


    • RobG

      Modern missiles can take out an aircraft carrier in one hit, which makes you wonder why the US military still has 12 or so super carriers, and about 15 standard size aircraft carriers; whereas I believe Russia only has a few aircraft carriers; likewise with China.

      But there are Reds under the bed, and Islamic terrorists under the bed, so the incredibly dumb American tax payers finance this incredibly bloated and corrupt waste of money, whilst the infrastructure of America is falling apart and huge numbers of people are living in tent cities, etc.

      Modern-day America is really not much different from North Korea.

      I believe Craig has said that he hasn’t been to America for ten years. If he gets out and about on his planned trip he might be in for a shock; that is, if his NSA minders let him roam freely.

      • Kempe

        Russia has one operational carrier but has expressed an interest in building 2-4 more. The main problems being lack of funds and the fact that the only ex-Soviet yard capable of building a carrier is now in Ukraine!

        China bought a de-commisioned carrier from Russia and spent 10 years re-furbishing it back into operational condition. Their experience operating this ship helped them design their own carriers of which two are currently under construction with at least another one planned.

        Pity neither nation sought the opinions of the experts on this blog; they could’ve saved themselves billions!

  • Mark Golding

    ..that Scottish Independence is not just good for Scotland, but the psychological shock that rUK needs to end these imperial cravings for physical power projection. Absolutely – Count me in!

    • Paul Barbara

      But how can Scots contemplate joining the EU, to be ruled by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats ‘selected’ by the Banksters and Corporations?

      • Mark Golding

        I understand Paul Barbara – TTIP may well be the catalyst to break the tab on the EU problem as we move around the event horizon in sacrifice towards Scotland’s plan for a second independence referendum.

      • Breastplate

        FFS, I can’t believe this sort of tediously mind numbing drivel that’s been passed through the the lower intestines of several imbeciles still constitutes an argument in tiny minds.
        Let’s make this simple for you.

        Will Scotland gain more sovereignty as an independent country in the EU than it currently has in the UK?

        Take your time but if you happen to be a chimpanzee that’s gotten hold of an iPad, no need to answer.
        Have a nice day and enjoy your bananas.

        • Fredi

          Indeed BP, but what you are dealing with from some here on this blog is a deep rooted ’emotional’ response to the issue, therefore all logic, common sense and rational thought goes straight out the window.

          Weather aside the Scots get a far better deal (financially) then the rest of the UK, but a significant proportion of them will never be happy with the subsidy they get, Westminster and the English in general are always being blamed for some injustice or other.

          The words Sovereignty and the EU should never even be put in the same sentence, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. World class Idiots like this guy (below) are the root of the problem, people like him would, if given half a chance, destroy the country he professes to love.

          • kailyard rules

            Fredi ( and Breastplate). A big relevancy for an Independent Scotland (among others) is the removal of Trident to somewhere in the Deep South of England. Preferably anchored alongside Westminster on the Thames. Another,ongoing,is to be free of the Royal Bandwagon and patronising pseudo pundits of your ilk.
            Better an Independent Scotland in the EU cutting it’s own cloth than a Scotland continually lied to by the other EU. That’s the English Union.

          • Breastplate

            Fredi, for clarification, my post was addressed to Paul and his nitwit argument.
            Read my post again
            Saor Alba

        • Fredi

          “Better an Independent Scotland in the EU cutting it’s own cloth”

          lol !! In your dreams ! Yeah right, good luck with that. And good luck with getting a decent trade deal with your biggest market (the UK) if you lot ever fool yourself into ‘independence’.

          • Fredi

            BP you don’t get ‘independent’ countries within the EU, nor do you get sovereignty, that’s why 17+ million of us voted leave, we voted for that that same ‘Independence’ and ‘sovereignty’ that you Scots seem so keen of.
            The EU is just more centralised non democratic federal rule from an unaccountable army of bureau-rats.

            You might want to claim that is what you got from Westminster, but half the time it was your countrymen doing it (to all of us) either way Scotland always got a better deal better then the rest of the UK. British taxpayers have been bailing out your ‘country’ forever, I for one will be happy to see the EU take over that role if that’s what you guys want.

            Seems it’s ok for the Scots to want independence and sovereignty but if the English and Welsh want some it’s some kind of problem. Fortunately it’s your problem, not ours.

          • Breastplate

            How terribly distressed unionists become at the thought of Scottish independence.

            Fredi, you do understand that the UK is in financial dire straits and is struggling to service its monumental debt that keeps getting bigger and bigger?

            It seems rather churlish and unfortunately for you, ironically dim witted to suggest Scotland couldn’t manage to cut its own cloth to suit.

            On the subject of trade, Scotland will sell what it produces to all markets, the UK or elsewhere. Don’t you think?
            Ah, but of course you don’t.

          • Breastplate

            Fredi, it seems your making an argument for an independent Scotland from an English point of view, welcome aboard.
            I quite agree, jettison those scrounging Jocks and start again, I wish you good luck.

      • K Crosby

        The Snats were never about a free democratic Scotland, they were interested in running neo-facism oh…. er…. sorry, neo-liberalism…. from Edinburgh like those Syriza crypto-fascists, poncing off the English economy like the Irish.

  • Alan

    I’m going to beat Michael Norton tonight! It is possible that a Martian Death Ray has gone off in New York, causing an explosion, which may, or may not, have gas cylinders in the vicinity, and several people have been taken to hospital by ambulance. As this story is currently breaking I am sure Michael will give us full details of if and how many gas cylinders were involved, in the morning.

  • Sharp Ears

    Barrons has done his fair share for the Empire in Northern Ireland. Bosnia. Afghanistan. Iraq. NATO. He was even rewarded by the US – ‘He was also awarded the United States Legion of Merit (Degree of Officer) “in recognition of gallant and distinguished services during coalition operations in Iraq”.’

  • YKMN

    South Korean intelligence haven’t developed a death ray, even the sammy Note7 has only burnt 55 people, but they have admitted making up the threat from North Korea, on occasion.

    Or rather, over a hundred occasions, as revealed by the film reviewed here in the NYT. (mild paywall)

    Just before the closing credits of the film, “Spy Nation,” a list of the names of the falsely accused scrolls down the screen. It is an eloquent indictment of the abuse of power engaged in by South Korea’s counterespionage agencies, especially the National Intelligence Service, in the name of fighting the Communist threat from North Korea.

    In the 100-minute film, Mr. Choi stresses that “manufacturing spies” cannot be dismissed as a distant memory in South Korea, where critics say the veneration of security above all else allows the spy agency to continue to operate with a vast, abusive power.

    Korea’s NIS was first called Korean Central Intelligence Agency, it’s nice to see the New York Times taking on a C.I.A. – if not the real one . . . could the serious Koreans be advising Britain on how to become/remain scared of an enemy

  • Brianfujisan

    When would be a Convenient time for the Obomber to have a week, or so long 24/7 media distraction

    guessing this one might take all day

    yip got it. as some have mentioned already here –

    US Air strikes kill around 80 Syrian soldiers and wounded an additional 100, Prompting Russia to call an emergency UN Security Council meeting

    So they commit this war crime..then, From Samantha Power –

    “Russia really needs to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding and the stunts and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something we negotiated in good faith with them,”

    Couldn’t make it up.

    and the most grudging apology ever ..

    The United States relayed its “regret” through the Russian government for what it described as the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces in the strike, a senior Obama administration official said in an emailed statement.

  • writerman

    Craig. I think you’ll find that what the British Empire perceived as the Russian threat, wasn’t based on the absurd idea of Russia actually attacking the British mainland, rather it was linked to Russia possibly encroaching on Britain’s economic interests ‘out East’, specifically… the jewel in the crown… India. This may appear fanciful, but one cannot undrestimate the economic importance of India to the British Empire. Take India out of UK control and the UK stops being a great power, rather quickly. So what seems a bit crackers, British foreign policy towards Russia, did, in fact, have a rational basis, comparable to two Mafia dons carving up territory in Old Time Chicago.

  • fwl

    Back to this confusing set of affairs in NY where some bombs are apparently not terrorist although they spread terror.

  • writerman

    Today things are very different. Can anyone think of some reason why Britain would go to war with Russia? Where do our interests clash and intersect so profoundly that we’d be forced into a military conflict? At present we’re hardly wild about Poland, post Brexit, so I doubt we’d care much if they were attacked by Russia, and who gives a fuck about those tiny Baltic countries? Would we really risk our great cities turning into piles of ash after a nuclear exchange, because the Russians rolled into Riga? Who can even find Riga on the map?

    Are we expecting the Russian army to invade Western Europe and fight their way through Poland, Germany and France, ready to attack us across the English Channel? How likely is that? Isn’t NATO ten to fifteen times stronger militarily than Russia in conventional weapons? A Russian attack is hardly realistic. Their army is too small and they are too broke to afford a major war like this.

    So, the army is out. That leaves the Russian navy, which could attack us from the sea. Only the Russian navy is tiny compared to the might of NATO and would never reach us intact.

    What’s left? The Russian airforce? Is that what we can’t defend ourselves against? How likely is it that the Russians would just start bombing British cities? Why? Under what conceivable circumstances? That sounds like a fantasy too.

    That leaves all out nuclear war as the final Russian threat to us. But we’ve got Trident haven’t we? That’s supposed to be our independent deterrent designed to prevent nuclear war with Russia.

    All this anti-Russian hysteria doens’t really stand up to scrutiny. What’s it for? Are we, as I suspect, actually being prepared for possible war with Russia, when NATO attacks, which given our history of regime change overseas, seems far more likely.

    • YKMN

      The clue is not archaic conventional tank warfare in the Fulda gap, then Vlad invading Norfolk, for the pleasant beaches – but simply great-gaming for ‘energy security’ & profit.

      Russia/Siberia currently has massive reserves of cheap energy gas/oil, U.K. & EU looking into the distance have massive energy needs. Simples!

      Consider a near future color-revolted Russian landmass, lots of profit to be made by selling the odd bits off to Soros et al, maybe even China. Lots of advantageous long-term energy contracts to feed western needs. Furthermore the ME pipelines could then deliver over what used to be Syria.

      It then makes complete sense to advance OTAN all the way to the Baltics, invest billions in subverting Kiev, ignore democracy everywhere, as the eventual deliverables are worth it; the shocking alternative of insulating all buildings to improve energy consumption & efficiency, using best scientific practise with high COP systems, just doesn’t give as much profit, and isn’t as much fun for the MIC


  • Summerhead

    On the question of Crimea, some historical perspective is needed. The Ukraine, which means borderland has only been a nation state since 1991. The Crimea was transferred to the Ukraine in 1956 despite the vast majority of Crimeans being native Russian speakers. Despite the well documented corruption of Russia, its economy is in a stronger state than the basket case that is Ukraine and many Crimeans, especially those employed in the state sector and pensioners saw a leap in income on incorporation into the Russian state.
    The reason for US and EU backing of the Ukraine regime is to support the GMO and fracking industries; Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe and it is in our interests to oppose the corporate takeover of their agriculture by the likes of Bayer and Monsanto. I think Craig is letting his personal antipathy towards Putin cloud his view of the situation. Perhaps Craig could recommend a leader or political party that could realistically do a better job (and survive).

    • AliB

      You may regard that as justification for our attitude towards Ukraine but many of us don’t. It is not OK for US / GB to undermine other countries – we could just bother to develop our own food and energy supplies- but NO, all we are prepared to do is undermine other countries to support large corporations who give backhanders to our politicians.

  • Brianfujisan


    ” That leaves all out nuclear war as the final Russian threat to us. ”

    you may be interested in a read of this Open letter, From Russians living in usa

    We are absolutely and categorically certain that Russia will never attack the US, nor any EU member state, that Russia is not at all interested in recreating the USSR, and that there is no “Russian threat” or “Russian aggression.” Much of Russia’s recent economic success has a lot to do with the shedding of former Soviet dependencies, allowing her to pursue a “Russia first” policy. But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe.

    Evgenia Gurevich, Ph.D.

    Victor Katsap, PhD, Sr. Scientist
    NuFlare Technology America, Inc.

    Andrei Kozhev

    Serge Lubomudrov

    Natalya Minkovskaya

    Dmitry Orlov

    Irina Petrova, RP

    The Saker (A. Raevsky)

  • K Crosby

    I find it quite amusing when these flat-earthers get publicity, it’s nice to see public-school pricks making pricks of themselves.

  • Roderick Russell

    Re Craig’s comment – “The broadcast news bulletins are all leading with the claim of some old General that Britain could not resist an attack by Russia”

    I would doubt that Russia or anybody else is planning to attack the UK. But even if they were, isn’t that the purpose of NATO – Joint Defense. I think that we should be more concerned about the continuous eroding away of our traditional liberties – the rule of law, keeping our secret security services / spy agencies accountable, freedom of the press, etc. – than defending against the mirage of an attack by Russia (where we would rely on NATO anyway).

1 2

Comments are closed.