Brits in panic?

[Carsten Wiethoff]

From https://www.rt.com/news/362511-russian-o...loids-war/

British tabloids go into WWIII frenzy over reported pull-out of Russian officials' relatives Published time: 12 Oct, 2016 14:23Edited time: 13 Oct, 2016 01:01
Get short URL


Screenshot from dailystar.co.uk






An unconfirmed report in a regional news site appears to be enough for British tabloids to remind readers how Big Bad Vlad' secretly wants to nuke them.
The allegation is based on a claim that Russian officials were ordered to fly their families home from the West. Based on anonymous sources, it has since been denied by the Kremlin. Still some British media outlets jumped at a chance for a little Russia-bashing exercise.
"Russia urgently recalls officials' families living abroad' as WW3 threat looms," said the headline of the Daily Star, which apparently was the first British newspaper to report the story.



The publication has a picture of Russian President Vladimir Putin glancing angrily with an explosion in the background. Another picture shows Putin and a map of Europe, with Russia painted red with the sickle and hammer symbol of the Soviet Union apparently bombarding European nations with nuclear missiles.
The newspaper cites Russian political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky as saying that the alleged evacuation of family members is part of Russia preparing for a big war with the West. The report ties the move with recent civil defense training in Russia, which drew unexpected attention in Britain despite being annual and not out of the ordinary.
The Daily Mail reported the story in equally apocalyptic words, mentioning Russia's suspension of a deal with the US on how to dispose of excessive weapons-grade material. The move doesn't affect Russia's nuclear deterrence and was meant to express Moscow's rebuke towards Washington for not sticking to the terms of the pact.

Look at the picture! This is the cheapest kind of warmongering and propaganda. I call bullshit!

[Magda Hassan]

There is a huge propaganda push on now against Putin and Russia. Reaching volume 11 any day now.

[John Knoble]

The Internet has no doubt made much of the public more discerning about this type of story. That's one of the great benefits, it promotes peace by enabling free flow of points of view across borders.

It would be interesting to see how information would be controlled in the event of a real shooting war between Russia and NATO (which hopefully will never happen). Are there contingency plans to sever Russia from the Internet so the public can't read their point of view? Would they do the same to neutral countries that are sympathetic to Russia?

[David Guyatt]

If it came to an actual shooting war with Russia I'm sure RT and other Russian news outlets would be closed down immediately. RT is already the most popular news channel on Youtube with 3 billions views. It boasts that it is the 3rd most popular news channel in the UK, which I can well imagine given the dire crap broadcast by the home made British news channels.

In all my years I have never seen such a horrendous propaganda campaign against Russia - including throughout the coldest parts of the cold war. It is sickening to see our establishment politicians and news media grovel to US hegemonic requirements and wholesale engage in lying, duplicity and hypocrisy on such a grand scale.

Rant over.

[John Knoble]

I don't think the US wants to put boots on the ground in Syria or get into a serious shooting war with Russia, but it might not mind a few skirmishes that show the lauded Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't up to snuff against the latest stealth technology.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

I don't think the US wants to put boots on the ground in Syria or get into a serious shooting war with Russia, but it might not mind a few skirmishes that show the lauded Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't up to snuff against the latest stealth technology.

Hmm, the question is what happens if they are up to snuff and down a US plane over Syria. My guess is it will be painted as an unprovoked aggression and the first step to full war with Russia.

[John Knoble]

I don't think the US wants to put boots on the ground in Syria or get into a serious shooting war with Russia, but it might not mind a few skirmishes that show the lauded Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't up to snuff against the latest stealth technology.

Hmm, the question is what happens if they are up to snuff and down a US plane over Syria. My guess is it will be painted as an unprovoked aggression and the first step to full war with Russia.

The defense industry needs Russia as a long-term bugaboo that North Korea and Iran can't be because their technology is generations behind. A shoot-down of a new stealth aircraft would really mean that defense contractors who consumed hundreds of billions of dollars to develop underperforming stealth technology would be given fat new contracts to improve it.

[David Guyatt]

I don't think the US wants to put boots on the ground in Syria or get into a serious shooting war with Russia, but it might not mind a few skirmishes that show the lauded Russian anti-aircraft systems aren't up to snuff against the latest stealth technology.

Hmm, the question is what happens if they are up to snuff and down a US plane over Syria. My guess is it will be painted as an unprovoked aggression and the first step to full war with Russia.

The defense industry needs Russia as a long-term bugaboo that North Korea and Iran can't be because their technology is generations behind. A shoot-down of a new stealth aircraft would really mean that defense contractors who consumed hundreds of billions of dollars to develop underperforming stealth technology would be given fat new contracts to improve it.

I doubt that. The F-35 is a flying lemon but will cost over it's lifetime a staggering $1.6 trillion. Who needs another non-performing money sucking flying bucket that is the very definition of NFG?

However, quite apart from that, the whole thing with Syria is that it's predicated on two essential things. Firstly it is about the Qatari (for which read Exxon) plan to run their gas through Syria to Europe as a means of making sure that Europe is not dependent on Russian gas supplies. Secondly, it is to do with the far more dominant and longer term project to make sure that no other power in the world can develop to compete with the US - as stated in the Defence Planning Guidance for FY 1992-4 that became known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Put another way, following the end of the cold war the US set itself to be the only allowable world power and will go to almost any lengths to ensure that other nations are supplicant to it or face a damaging war should they consider trying to establish a competitor status that opposes the US.

The relevant excerpts from the DPG are as follows:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

A Thousand Reich...

[Paul Rigby]

A most peculiar situation, though one not entirely dissimilar from the Heath years in two respects:

1) A PM who isn't gung-ho for Cold War; rather, would appear to be pro-detente with Russia and China

2) An economic crisis (which in its present form has effectively compelled massive devaluation, long regarded as a Labour Government preserve, thus storing up inflation)

Third, May gives every indication, not least from the number of Corbynite policies she's nicked, of being more Macmillan than Thatcher.

Time for the CIA and its British fifth-columnists to get to work, I suspect.

[R.K. Locke]

A most peculiar situation, though one not entirely dissimilar from the Heath years in two respects:

1) A PM who isn't gung-ho for Cold War; rather, would appear to be pro-detente with Russia and China

2) An economic crisis (which in its present form has effectively compelled massive devaluation, long regarded as a Labour Government preserve, thus storing up inflation)

Third, May gives every indication, not least from the number of Corbynite policies she's nicked, of being more Macmillan than Thatcher.

Time for the CIA and its British fifth-columnists to get to work, I suspect.

I've been thinking about this over the last week or so and I suspect that your analysis is broadly correct. What odds on May still being "in charge" in 12 months time?