Cock up or Conspiracy?

Hi All,

Armchair military pundits - and indeed the Russian State itself - were confidently predicting the war in Ukraine would, well, be over by now. To Russia, the certainty that President of Ukraine and his government would either be dead or awaiting a Stalinist show trial, before being shot- the ‘policing action’ was afterall to overthrow a ‘fascist junta’ that wasn’t representative of Ukraine- Russian tanks would be parading around Kiev. Mother Russia would be one again & the people of Ukraine would be joyfully throwing flowers onto those tanks (well, there's also other bits of the old Russian Empire as well, such as the Baltic States, Finland, Moldova, The Caucasus Republics , and ‘the Stans’ of Asia, but that would be for the next and the next campaign).

Ukraine and her people, from her President downward, have defied this narrative and the only thing being thrown onto tanks has been missiles, grenades and Molotov cocktails. Ukraine- despite being blitzed- is defiant as Britain was in 1940 and prepared to go down with a fight. Russia has failed- despite having more planes- to gain control of the air and her tanks have broken down without fuel or parts. Kiev is still in government hands and Ukraine’s President has admirably donned the mantle of a Churchill, but with his prop being an I-phone and rather than a cigar.

The soldiers Russia has put into the conflict are seemingly young, untrained conscripts, rather than their elite GRU regiments with Russia now calling in Assad’s thugs, Chechen Warlords and a private military outfit ‘Wagner Group’ (named after Hitler’s favourite composer and the Russians go on about ‘fascism’!) to help win the war. Rather than fight solider on solider – which Russia could do at least on paper with her superior forces -it is the Russians would are acting like a resistance or terrorist group, by blitzing cities and attacking maternity wards .

It is as if the whole thing, from the Russian side, was deliberately doomed to fail… had the generals never wanted to invade Ukraine and deliberately deployed their worse soldiers or is the reality of Russian military power being shown to the world? Is all Russia got the nukes? If so that makes Russia even more dangerous, for if a power only has nuclear weapons as their first and only option, then we’re all in trouble…

Coup or not to coup?

 Hi All, 

In light of  Biden's call for "regime change" in Russia, I have to say that if Trump had done this then the media would call him mad or insane. But Biden - who never really seems all that with it - gets a free pass. 

In any event it's up to the Russians to do their own coups. Which reminds me, where 's a "Marshall Zhukov" when you need a coup? (I find it strange the actor in this clip speaks with a Yorkshire rather than Russian English accent). 

DGSE in Ukraine ?

 Hi All,

France's elite Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, or DGSE, preparing for clandestine action against Putin?

Code names of flambeau legion:

Chevalier 

Montage 

Détente 

Avant Garde 

Déjà-vu 

Croissant 

Soufflé

 Escargot 

& Chocolate Mousse

Open Thread

 Hi All,

Open Shabbat & post Shabbat Thread!

The Artificial world order

 Hi All,

The 'Van Helsing' Memo : 

The wars are ended and the old world order is gone : with America retreating from her global role as hyperpower, that leaves those who are left to fill the void and create an ‘artificial’ great power system. In short order next to the United Kingdom,  that is China, Russia, The European Allianz, Japan and India. In the next six months to a year, we can expect Russia, Japan and India to ally together against China. Given European-Russian hostility it is natural that Europe will in return ally with China. Like the decades before world war one, we will therefore have two competing power blocs who will try and dominate the globe, but unlike the ‘cold war’ it will not be on the shoulders of two powers alone .

In light of this we should consider British policy and do what we have always done. Therefore...It should be the policy of Her Majesty’s government not to join either bloc, but to make sure that both sides are in equilibrium to each other and that a global balance of power is maintained. This is traditional British foreign policy, dating from time immemorial and there is little need to change this strategy now. None of us in this neutral camp should ever wish to see a return to the days of sole super and or hyper powers, in any event it is the opinion of the EISS that we would be able to prevail against both of these power blocs in the event of a conflict, given our extensive  military, technological and alliance predominance.

The other matter to which we must contemplate is the fantasy that America herself will descend into civil war. This is utter nonsense! The American Eagle is simply exhausted from her overextension and when push comes to shove the ‘Cultural Wars’ will eventually be settled by the true British values that were the seeds of the founding of the American Republic, the British  (& Dutch) and therefore the ancient progenitor of the United States of America must -however frustrating it is to watch- be as a parent to an 16 to 19 year old teenager at this critical juncture . Once her period of recouperation and teenage angst  is over, America  will return as powerful as ever.

We must also prepare for this event and be ready to welcome her back into interstellar society when she has finished licking her external -and internal- wounds. It would be a fantasy to suggest that America would ever abandon her foolish decision to become an independent state, but it should be a hope that one day our cousins will come to their senses and like the prodigal son come back to the Commonwealth fold.   It is the opinion of The EISS that America will face a ‘Chechnya’ moment in respect of the Mormon State of Utah, but after Salt Lake City suffers the same fate as Grozny, the ‘Mormons’ will become an elite division of the US armed forces.

The other challenge to the Continental US is to psychologically concede that Alaska is an independent state : after Benjamin Disraeli gave ‘two fingers’ to William H Steward in 1867 and provided a counter bid to Russia and successfully bought the territory , Alaska became a self governing  Dominion under the British Crown, in the same vein as Canada or Australia. That America sees Alaska the same way as France did Alsace -Lorraine between 1871 and 1914 is unfortunate : she is not only part of the Commonwealth 21, but that our allies on Mars view Alaska as a holy place equivalent to Canterbury, Mecca, Vatican and Jerusalem. Should America ever attempt to take Alaska by force, then that would be a catastrophe of epic proportions, given the likely Martian reaction,  not only  because of our Alliance under the Treaty of Woking and Article 5,  but that Mars is allied to arguably the three hyper powers of the entire universe  Svinge, Nachash and  The infamous Byzantines.

The other matter of note is that of the 157 American territories spread across the solar system and 11 systems. Whilst half of these were founded by private or Federal funds for Citizens, the rest are designated for criminals, ‘illegals’, refugees, ‘welfare addicts’ and economic migrants, which could easily result in a ‘slave’ revolt.

This situation must be carefully monitored and our red lines indicated to the next occupant of the White House will be- even if 3 months after the election this isn’t clear yet.

Yours Abraham Van Helsing  , Director -General ,EISSUK (Extraordinary Intelligence Security Service of the United Kingdom)

Happy Purim

 Hi All,

It's Purim tonight, so it is time to get the wine and food out and have a celebration!

Vegan Vampires

 Hi All,

Despite all the hatred and bad things they say, Vampires are actually an advanced race of humanoids who evolved on Earth and eventually left it to carve out an empire amongst the galaxies of the universe an empire which eventually broke up and today their domains are rules by various ‘Vampire Lords’ in a feudal hierarchy . The whole condemnation of Vampires by humans stems from the fact they are Hematophagies, that is their primary food source is (human) blood.

 When  the bulk of Earth descended Vampires  left  Earth, they took as much of their ‘livestock’ with them and today the majority of the population is what we term the  ethical Vampire, who will only buy ‘free range’ and ‘organic’  blood in the supermarkets, as they’ve given up the mass bred and put humans in industrial pens and cages of  ‘barn’ and ‘battery’ blood. There are also a small, but vocal minority of  liberal- progressive “vegan Vampires” who maintain that their science is perfectly capable of producing synthetic blood for all Vampires (true) but the mentality of your average Vampire on the Clapham omnibus is that if society went all out to the vegan option it would result in the mass slaughter of humans as ‘we can’t really have them in the house as pets’ and that Vegan Vampires were ‘using their politics to dictate everyone else’s dietary choices’. 

 Humans under Vampire rule, are in fact extremely well treated with excellent and free healthcare and most live to over 100, with a Parish level of self government . The key thing for the local magistrate is to organised ‘blood quotas’ and to ensure a levy of soldiers for warfare, the downside is that human societies are deliberately retarded to that of an educational level Earth civilisation between the 11^th and 17^th Centuries (depending on how ‘progressive’ the local Lord happened to be).

Vampires see Earth, whose societies are beginning to explore the universe with a sort of fear and contempt, because a Vampiric worldview is to see Earther humans as ‘wild, untamed savages’, examples include how badly humans treat themselves to the lack of technological progress. Nonetheless there are a few Vampire dynasties that still claim ancestral property on Earth and there are also a tiny minority of progressives that have tried to overcome their prejudices and treat humans as equals.

Condeming Russia (or is it Putin) if you are a Russian

 Hi All,

I thought that was clickbait, until it appeared on several news channels and this is the story that Strickly Come Dancing ( a popular and long running Dance show from the BBC) stars have apparently told the two Russian professional dances that they should condemn Russia or 'never come back'.  I have no way of verifying if this kind of attitude is being melted out to other Russians (who aren't Putin supporting  Oligrachs) or not. But it does raise a few interesting points. 

1). It is not as simple as condeming Russian actions and policy -if that is what a person really feels - because Russians take a dim view of freedom of speech .And that is not just about saying stuff from the safety of an armchair or a study in the UK. Russia doesn't just target individuals, they tend to go for wider family which can become a fair target in the eyes of the Russian state. Your condenmation in London, can become a gulag for your brother or sister.

2). If  there is a divide between the west and Russia it must be that we cherish freedom of speech and ergo the freedom to hold a different, however, non-palitable viewpoint it is or appears to be. It is anyone's right to stay silent and not go on social media as a sort of arm chair warrior. 

3).  There is a difference between the actions of a state and its leadership, and becoming hysterical- and sometimes it seems there is a mass hysteria against anything Russian at present-  against a people or persons of a nation. Russians who are protesting against their own government are paying a heavy price, more so that than the western "warriors" on social media, to whom it costs nothing and certainly won't be sent to a gulag.

Having said that I do -of course- find the actions of the Russian leadership and state terrible, but we have to be careful about confusion between the leadership and supporting elite of a country and not try to target individuals because they have a particular ethnic identity. 

Crufts

 Hi All, 

Watching Crufts is a good bit of time out from The Ukraine -Russian conflict. Although I do have a thing or two still to say about that one.

Getting on the Russian-Putin bandwagon because he's 'one of us in the culture wars ' (esp. againsts gays!)

    Hi All,

Both the 'far left ' and the 'alternative right' have a love in with Putin. The far left see Britain, America and the west as some kind of secular evil, if they were the Mullahs of Iran think 'great satan', mini-satan and 'the son of satan' ,  so the default position is to support anything that seems to oppose imperialist capitalism, whilst overlooking its bad bits. I am not going to dwell on the far left infautuation with Russia and Putin, though, because left wing commentators George Monbit and Nick Cohen had both written articles on this very topic, albeit  from a left perspective , here and here. 

In any case I see myself as a centralist conservative and feel that the 'love in' some conservatives have with Putin needs to be challenged. He's basically using you as 'useful idiots' as another Russian once said. 

Here's my thoughts. 

The Setting

Hi All,

In 1917, during the Mesopotamian campaign of world war 1, The British Empire discovered an alien device later to be called ‘The Space Bridge’, in effect a wormhole generator which connects to other bridges across the galaxy. It is not successfully activated until 1957, shortly after Britain’s expulsion from NATO and near Bankruptcy. For the next 20 years Britain used this device to explore the galaxy, obtaining enough gold to repay American war debts from both world wars and the loans made after the cancellation of lend-lease as well as gaining new technology, extra -terrestrial friends and enemies alike. At home the UK became swayed by the arguments of the CND and officially dismantled Britain’s  nuclear weapons.

In 1976, the Soviet Union, already in severe decline,  despite existing commitments in Angola, Ethiopia and Afghanistan, decided to show the world that it was still a super power and undertook an invasion of the British Isles, although only East Germany and Cuba actually sent soldiers in support of this effort. The next 4 years of warfare proved costly for the Soviets, eventually they were driven out, with the aid of the Martians (under the Treaty of Woking). The war and occupation cost the Soviets 1 million men and the British over 8-10 million lives and a homeland which resembled the blitz of world war 2, albeit 3 big cities had been destroyed by tactical nuclear weapons.

In 1980 the British officially confirmed the existence of extra-terrestrial life and of the Space Bridge Programme, with the offer of sharing the technology gathered over the past 20 years, with Britain’s ET allies -Mars, Svinge and Byzantine- pledging aid to rebuild Britain, which was expanded to include Venus (which was to be terraformed), a space station, lunar bases and territories within and beyond the solar system. This was all too much for the ‘Roswell Grey’ aliens , called the Kh’ari, who’d been secretly helping both America and the Soviet Union during the cold war . The cold war was in fact set up by the Kh’ari  as a ‘research project’ for one of their universities (Kh’ari society is based around academic study and is de facto a massive collegiate University).  Seeing that the game was up, the Kh’ari withdrew support from the Soviet Union which eventually collapsed in 1986, ending the cold war.

The Edinburgh Committee, named after Prince Philip, was formed in 1980 as an executive agency of the Privy Council as a reaction to the war and to absorb the bits of the Space Bridge Programme that hadn’t been hived off to other government departments. The Committee would be directly accountable to the Monarch and Prime Minister, who would serve ex-officio and 7 other members appointed by the Monarch. The purpose of the Committee was to oversee and set the strategy for a new combined intelligence and special forces agency called the ‘Extraordinary Intelligence & Security Service’ (EISS) or MI9, which would be given an unlimited ‘black budget’ & would focus on ‘extra-terrestrial, paranormal and any other dangerous threats against the Realm’.  The day to day running and tactical performance would be led by a Chief Executive Director (CED), a head of intelligence (Chief Inspector -General) and a head of special forces and operations (Captain- General).

By the twenties of the 21^st century Britain had been rebuilt during a new ‘golden age’, having established herself as a major human power on the intergalactic scene, there isn’t, sadly, a day that goes by that there isn’t still war or conflict either across the globe or in interstellar space and the EISS is needed now more than ever.

Trudeau the slimy at his worse

 Hi All,

Lesbian conservative  Jewish girl  vs  Trudeau the slimy  shit:

For the first time ever, the left is more gung-ho than the right. Why?

 Hi All, 

As far as  Britian is concerned it seems that the left is banging the drum beats of war far more than the right in respect of Ukraine, something which I've never seen the left be so keen on, not even when ISIS was cruicifying entire villages and comtting war crimes and atrocities in the middle east. 

On one hand this is easy to explain : all Britain and for that matter everyone else opposed to this invasion is doing is 'sanctioning' Russia. Yes these sanctions are 'unprecedented' but it has been said before no-one is contemplating or wants to send actual troops on the ground or even throw a few cruise missiles at Russian tanks. Ukraine has pretty much been left in the position of doing the actual fighting and maybe getting a few old Soviet era jets or not. It is therefore easy tos it from the sidelines and on the moral high ground -and the left love moral high grounds- when you're not actually risking anything. 

But there is something more viscreal going on here and I'm trying to figure out what and why. 

The left  go in for the idea that 'international law' is some kind of Federal penal and civil code for the entire world, rather than being a structure or framework to which sovereign states have agreed to abide by, in their conduct to each other. So they see a global law code and  constituion which overrules the power of sovereign states. The fact is the left knows that their concept of international law is only enforcible if the great powers of the world (a concept they hate) actually agree to adhere to it : Russia is one of those powers and is of course flouting all of these rules right now. In fact the very thing that might bring a peace about (something the left always likes, they were the first to say we 'should be talking to the taliban') is the very 19th century idea of 'spheres of influence' and 'protectorates' and 'buffer states'. For some reason if it were anywhere other than Russia then the left would be telling us that this is what would have to happen, but today it  is coming from the 'futher' or as I like to call it the 'Trumpian-Farage' right who would say :

'Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion, so she had to draw a line with Ukraine after all the other parts of her old empire- or as Russia sees it 'the near abroad' -  had broken away, Russia needs several Finlands and not the Yanks on her border'. 

This might have been possible twenty years ago or mabye even a decade ago, but it isn't now and in any case I think Putin himself has changed tac on this and is clearly intent on restoring at least the old Russian /Soviet Empire. If he is not stopped in Ukraine and he succeeds then he will go after the rest of it. 

The other explanation is that the cultural wars have spread from America to Britain's political elite. To put it bluntly those on the fringes of the left and the right  have over the past 3-5 years become less fringe and more mainstream. Politics is increasingly 'with us or against us' on every single issue, especially history, idenity, race, gender and sexuality. Even though ethnic minoritites, LGTBQYWET and the other groups the left say they fight for are more concerned with things like inflation, job security and satisfaction and you know, what's for tea tonight love? issues rather than pulling down statues because it makes them feel less guilty for being a rich, privlidged  university student type  middle class white liberal.

So in that all consuming cultural war  place the  issue  of Russia and Ukraine becomes a matter not of looking at historical or geopolitical/ religious nucances, but  becomes personal black and white on one man (even if the irony is that the  left reject the idea of 'great men' version of historical analysis)  i.e. you either despise or admire Putin in equal measure and that should inform your stance on the Ukraine war. Therefore the liberal left universally  hate Putin on these grounds : for his apparent  xenopobic - Russian nationalism, anti-gay rhetoric and support for his politicised version of Christianity, wherein Russia  via the Rus Orthodox Church  is 'the New Rome'. To those on the further (and far)  right they love him for the inverse :  putting his country first rather than submit to sub-national organisations , his get things done 'strongman' image and the cultivated idea that he is a 'four dimensional chess player' , family values and Christian moral sensiblities i.e. anti gay marriage  (however much of a sham this might be, given his various mistresses and the reality of life in Russia when one looks at the chronic prostitution,  drugs,  suicide, alocholic, abortion, birth and death statistics ). 

To top it all the left in our country are playing domestic politics with this issue, in that they are trying to tie the conservative party and therefore the government in with Russian oligrachs based in London and contributions made to the conservative party. The thing is that not every oligarch is a Putin supporter and the various posionings of them on British soil attest to that, many of them are in exile because of Putin, but it plays well when broadcasting images of building being bombed and inferring that the party who runs Britain is in effect controlled by Russia puppet masters (a reverse of the 'Zionov letter' of 1924).

 Then there is the refugee issue which the left are as usual getting hysterical about : as if accomdating 100,000 is not enough which plays into the hysteria of a xenophic Britain post Brexit and how British leadership in Europe is dimished- although I would suggest that Britain never had any real leadership in the EU as that is dominated by Germany and France, so leave it to them .  Ukraine of course wants to be part of NATO and the EU, just like the Baltic States are. You can see why, because it isn't for any love of the EU, but just like the rest of eastern europe, it is because of cash and to achieve a double sense of  security (we have yet to see if NATO would ever hold together if such a country was attacked and the EU includes neturals like Ireland who I don't think would ever go to war to protect Latvia). 

Britain leaving the EU has always been misunderstood by the British liberal left. Or rather they confuse political instutions- the EU with NATO, national states and the people living in them ,so they do not understand why people might support NATO, why they might love Europe the continent and her people, a cultured and diverse grouping which can never really fit into one homogenous state and want to be part of NATO to  keep Europe  free, but at the same time detest the EU because of its political and ideological suppositions which take away that very democatic ideal which NATO is there to uphold. 

One final thought on this question is the idea of war itself is, I think, taken rather differently in the left and right. To the right wars arise for a variety of reasons but boil down to 'national interest', in other words defence of one's homeland, people and resources is a given, followed by strategic considerations such as other powers who could threaten your nation and the need or not to form alliances to counter those threats, what follows from this is a need to secure and obtain the flow of resources to uphold the power of a nation state and that requires the ability to project force across the globe. Thus both the UK and the USA in their times as super powers relied and rely heavy on 'blue water' naval power proejection  to secure the sea lanes of the world , which goes beyond a mere defensive naval posture and tiny fleets. 

The left, by contrast, see warfare as acceptable for less hard nosed or selfish reasons as national interest. For those who aren't pacificsts the liberal left  see the reasons for war in a sort of secular version of the Christian 'just war' theory which takes us on a journey of secular "chivarlous romanatism " in that one is fighting for the lofty ideas of  democracy, equal rights (berating other cultures for their social conservatism and forgetting democracy is very much a western concept: liberals aren't as relativsic as one might thing!),  being the world politceman  (preventing genocides, humanitarian missions and regime change, see international law above) and of course wars of national defence (but only with the permission of the UN and only when the enemy is already at the gates, knocking the walls down). All of this warfare must be done within a set of constrained rules of engagment, lest 'war crimes' occur, which to those who don't stick to' the rules' doesn't mean a thing and actually gives them an advantage. Russia doesn't stick to the rules.