Anglo-Saxons win a losing battle

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense says that in the latest mobilization, only 20% of those called up for service reported for duty. The Ukranians are not ready for the Neocon war effort, it seems.

But in the last 15 years Anglo-American foreign policy experts and think tank fellows have made compelling cases for armed conflict, called “humanitarian interventions” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and about a half dozen other defenseless nations desperately in need of drone strikes or some other form of Western aid to turn them all into failed states.

More than one million Ukrainian men of military age are now refugees in Russia. Dying in a pointless war against an enemy that doesn’t exist is not popular with many it seems, except with those same Anglo-Saxon policy experts and think tank fellows.

Since the dawn of the internet, the idea that the privileged few urges everyone else to perish for nothing is becoming seriously outdated, but the British are having none of it.

Tradition is still important in the United Kingdom. Well-placed sources tell us that sadism at Eton College is as alive and well as it was 100 years ago when innocent Afrikaner women an children died in British concentration camps.

Writing in the rabidly-leftwing Guardian, Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash has demanded more weapons for Ukraine, and more hostile, draconian measures levied against Russia. Why? Because “Saddam” Putin is a maniac.

“Russian aggression” is the BBC’s meme, devoted entirely to the “Russian problem”. The theme is drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the ‘English’ Channel, albeit in international airspace.

The BBC’s dismal performance on “Russian aggression” reminds one of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

Britain now also boasts a “famous” sniper to ward off all evil. The Telegraph heaped romantic praise on their best assassin of the dark races recently:

A Royal Marine has been revealed as the world’s most lethal military sniper.

The Briton is understood to have recorded most of his 173 confirmed kills during tours of Afghanistan in 2006/7 and has also served in Iraq.

Most of his killings took place during a six-month tour of Afghanistan and he is said to have hit more than 90 Taliban fighters in a single day, according to The Sun.

His reported death toll puts the corporal, said to be married and from southern England, ahead of US Navy SEAL commando Chris Kyle, who had 160 confirmed kills to make him the most lethal US sniper.

However, sources told the newspaper the British marine’s figure of 173 is “conservative”, with unconfirmed killings believed to take his total even higher

And these are the folks fighting racism… and fascists daily, no less.

The current pro-Anglo-American government in Kiev boasts too many neo-Nazi extremists to ignore. Glamorising violence, racism and war, while denouncing those who are opposed to it, surely has limited appeal, but not to the English and their Neocon brethern.

Gen. Philip M. Breedlove is another one of the advocates of the move to heighten conflict. Breedlove, NATO’s American military commander, is now reportedly leading the crusade to provide lethal military assistance to Kiev to battle the anti-government forces.

Crimea belonged to Russia for over 200 years. “We can’t allow Russia to keep Crimea,” goes the favorite neocon mantra. Why not? Hardly any American can find Crimea on a map.

With Ash loudly cheering for further violence and hostilities in the world, one is reminded of Mark Twain:

As Mark Twain warned long ago:

The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will–warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, ‘It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.’ Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier–but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all–will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

A quarter of a century ago the Berlin Wall came down and the West “won the Cold War”. But a quarter of a century later, it’s really hard to see what it won.

By Egon Mess