The Tory chickens come home to roost By William Bowles

24 June 2016

Ask yourself this: Why has immigration been made the pole around which, this entire referendum ‘debate’, has revolved? Why has the closet Nazi Nigel Farage of UKIP been given so much airtime?

Could it be the masses, hammering at the doors of Fortress Europe after we, that is the US-EU-NATO axis of pure barbarism, destroyed their countries, have something to do with it?

Continue reading

What is going on in Libya? By William Bowles

29 August 2011

29 August 2011

Some Tweets on ‘African Mercenaries’

J0nblaz @al_Jamahiriya @journalist92 This what we mean by Black Libyans being pursued & executed by NATO rabble terrorists! goo.gl/tkaDP

MikePrysner Rebels are correct; many Black Africans being lynched in #Libya were “hired by #Gaddafi.” They’re called immigrant workers, not mercenaries, about 3 hours ago

Continue reading

Russia Today: A new kind of media? By William Bowles

2 July 2011

Is Russia Today a sign of things to come in the world media order?

A global, digital media cuts both ways or as they say ‘what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander’. The arrival of The Real News Network, Democracy Now! and grtv for example demonstrates what can be done, even on a shoestring budget. But to get onto the global media circuit still requires big bucks in spite of all the talk about ‘convergence’ and ‘citizen journalism’.

Continue reading

Syria/Libya versus Bahrain: A BBC factoid By William Bowles

23 June 2011

Facts are wonderful things, ignore them at all cost:

“Was the decision taken [by NATO] that killing civilians here would save others elsewhere?” — ‘Libya: Funerals fuel controversy over Nato airstrikes‘, Jeremy Bowen, BBC News Website, 22 June 2011

When I first heard this report by Bowen on 22/6/11 I couldn’t believe my ears! Here is the much vaunted objectivity of the BBC revealed for what it’s worth, nothing, nothing at all. Does Bowen really listen to what he himself said? Kill little children here so that these little children won’t kill people elsewhere?

Continue reading

Empire Games – but who writes the rules? By William Bowles

12 June 2011

The Western left’s abdication, nay abandonment of principles that go to the heart of the socialist liberation project has been long in the making, decades even and made all the more obvious by the left’s take on events in Libya and now Syria. Critiques of the ‘humanitarian, socialist interventionists’ came thick and thin but for the most part the fundamental question of why the left had abandoned its historic mission has not been asked. Continue reading

Pirates of the Mediterranean By William Bowles

20 May 2011

skull-tomahawk-2.jpg“The media rush to glorify Obama the ‘warrior president’ is symptomatic of a Western society that has come to view war as entirely normal… It is by now almost impossible to imagine that the West would not always be attacking, or targeting for attack, some defenceless nation or other.” — ‘You Cannot Kill An Ideology With A Gun‘ By Media Lens

All things being equal, which undoubtedly they are not, and surely that’s point, the long overdue arrival of a truly socialized, globalized planet would have been able to tackle the mess capitalism has made of things. After all, our disasters are now planetary in scale and thus can now only be handled by the planet as a whole. That means all of us, not just a privileged few.

Continue reading

Libya: Keeping up appearances By William Bowles

21 March 2011 — Strategic Culture Foundation

“The US has signalled that the international community should “go beyond” a no-fly zone in Libya, suggesting military intervention for the first time.”” — “West should ‘go beyond’ no-fly zone, US says” — The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2011

So why is there no ‘no-fly zone’ over the Ivory Coast, or Yemen, or Bahrain or indeed any country where the state is killing its citizens? What makes Libya different? Could it be that the hysterical propaganda campaign concerning Gaddafi’s human rights abuses in the Western media is related to the following, with the head of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen telling his Polish audience:

“When I look at central and eastern Europe I’m extremely optimistic about the future we can achieve in North Africa” — ‘NATO: Libya Military Intervention: Model For North Africa‘, Reuters, 17 March 2011

Continue reading

Libya: Bewitched, bothered and bewildered By William Bowles

7 March 2011

“Despite the situation in Libya remaining unresolved, one thing is now certain: the president of the United States is now in control of the money, and this gives him a powerful tool … ‘Most countries consider the freezing of their assets an act of economic warfare'” — ‘Money as a weapon in West’s war on Libya‘, RT, 7 March 2011

In the West, revolution is something we are not very familiar with although it’s something the Left talk about an awful lot, other peoples’ revolutions that is.

Continue reading

Civil war in Libya, intervention by the West already a reality By William Bowles

4 March 2011

“Defence secretary Liam Fox today confirmed that a British diplomatic team is in Libya talking to rebel forces.” — ‘SAS unit ‘held by Libyan rebels’‘, The Independent, 6 March 2011

According to the Wikipedia site ‘a civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state’ which seems to be a pretty accurate description of events in Libya as they unfold. The problem is identifying who is contesting for state power as there seems to be no single group in charge of the opposition.

Continue reading

Libya: I smell a rat By William Bowles

3 March 2011 — Strategic Culture Foundation

“[T]o be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” — Henry Kissinger

From the very beginning of the Libyan uprising/coup, call it what you will, something didn’t strike me as ‘right’, events unfolded in a vacuum as if overnight, chaos took over. As I reported in an earlier piece, all the videos coming out of Libya, were grainy unattributed snatches of events, it was impossible to tell what was really going on, and accompanied by all manner of rumours about what it was alleged Ghadafi’s regime was doing.

Continue reading

Back to the future: “Chaos and instability Washington’s official policy line” By William Bowles

28 August 2008

“In the operation the West conducted on Georgian soil against Russia – South Ossetians were the victims or hostages of it – we can see a rehearsal for an attack on Iran. There is a great deal of “new features” that today are being fine tuned in the theater of military operations.

“…[T]he likelihood of a war against Iran was growing with each passing day, “As a result, the situation in the region will become destabilized…causing chaos and instability” was becoming Washington’s official policy line. — ‘Russian analyst points to link between Georgian attack and Iran’.

Continue reading

Aprés la deluge — wracking up the fear quotient By William Bowles

20 August 2008

Russia is following a course “horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser

The other night I went to a meeting on the situation in Georgia organized by the Stop the War Coalition at which one of the speakers was Boris Kargalitsky, a Russian leftie of long-standing, who made some interesting observations on the Russian government’s actions and reactions to the Georgian attack on Southern Ossetia. There are two, if not three, distinct stories to tell about the events that unfolded from 7 August. On the one hand there is the central role played by the US in orchestrating the attack and subsequent destabilization of the situation in the Caucasus, a part of the US strategy of “full spectrum dominance” of key resources and regions around the planet. And on the other there is the Russian response to ‘Darth Vader’ directly inserting itself into Russia’s backyard via its proxy, Georgia.  Thirdly, there is the role played by the Western media in orchestrating the events for public consumption, a campaign that tapped into generations of anti-Soviet, anti-Russion propaganda, utilizing all the usual stereotypes; the ‘Russian bear’, Russian expansionism, all of it dosed with the predictable racist sub-text.

“Neoconservative commentator Robert Kagan compared the Russian attack on Georgia with the Nazi grab of the Sudetenland in 1938.”

Predictable neo-Cold War rhetoric no doubt from the neo-con camp and largely meaningless but it does reveal just how surprised the US was by the Russian response. After all, Russia is seen as a has-been, dependent on Western largesse and not in any kind of position to challenge US hegemony. However, ‘the best laid plans of mice and men gang astray’ as they say. Russia has a powerful military equipped with nuclear weapons, it’s no defenceless, developing country and in all likelihood, the Russian response was not the one the US/NATO expected.

Everything is in flux
It’s less than twenty years since the Soviet Union fell apart and for much of that time the Western powers, led by the US and the UK/EU have largely determined the nature of the ‘new’ Russia, at least they have tried to, trusting that once the Russians got a taste of the ‘free market’ they’d be easy pickings for the pirates. The principle US objectives can be summed up as follows:

1) To open up the vast Russian market to foreign capital and products;

2) Remove Russia as an economic competitor to the US by neutralizing its ability to compete in the world’s markets, in other words reduce it to a third world country;

3) Remove and/or neutralize Russia as a military power to rival its own;

4) Destabilize the situation in the Caucasus/West Asian region as it attempts to extend its control eastwards — onwards and upwards toward China.

Unlike Kargalitsky’s English counterparts, who focused pretty much on telling us what we already knew (as well as the usual exhortations as to what we should do), Kargalitsky gave us an insight into how the Russian leadership responded to the US-engineered crisis and also how the Russians themselves reacted. He pointed out that to describe the Russian response as one of “intra-imperialist rivalries” was a complete misreading of the situation. This is not a war over markets but over strategic assets, of which Georgia is but the latest acquisition by the US. But at the same time Kargalitsky is under no illusions about the Russian response, it’s no move leftward. That said, it nevertheless represents a watershed in post-Soviet US-Russian relations, a throwing down of the gauntlet by the Russian state, a move not without its risks to be sure, but one that the US and NATO can do little about except make a lot of threatening noises about ‘repercussions’. Indeed, the members of NATO can’t even agree what the ‘repercussions’ should consist of.

It is within this context that we must view the vital role of the corporate media in orchestrating events for public consumption of which the timing of the Georgian attack was crucial, when the world’s media was focused on the opening of the Beijing Olympics. The degree to which the media has ignored the unprovoked attack on Southern Ossetia by Georgia is staggering; it simply ceased to exist, to be replaced by “a war between Russia and Georgia” at best and “naked aggression” by Russia at its worst. There can be no clearer indication of the role of the corporate/state media in selling the Empire’s objectives than the way this, the latest disaster has been presented. But it should be pointed out that there is a growing gap between what the public is really concerned about and the all-out propaganda campaign about the ‘aggressive Russian Bear’ rearing its furry shoulders above all those repossessed houses.

Russia: “We’ll nuke Poland!” goes the headline in the Sun on 14 August, 2008. But what the Russian General Nogovitsyn really said was, “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike – 100 per cent,” which is nothing less than the truth as Poland has placed itself in the frontline should a war break out. Who knows what the US promised the Poles (or what arms were twisted) but its actions over Georgia should be a lesson to the Polish government that no promise made by the US can be relied upon. And, upon reflection as simplistic as it may appear to be, it occurs to me that the US ‘encouraged’ Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia in order to panic the Poles into accepting the alleged missile defence system.

Georgia is yet another move in a game of chess; strike where you perceive your enemy to have weaknesses. So the Autonomous Region of South Ossetia (to give it its real name) has been simmering since 1994, held in check by the Russian presence, who find themselves sandwiched between Georgian and South Ossetian nationalists. It doesn’t take much to light the fire; make a promise (not kept of course) that you’ll back Saakashvili (or at least give Georgia the ‘nod’). Remember Saddam and Kuwait in 1990? Or, to go back further, US promises to Hungary in 1956. Thus as far as the US is concerned, Georgia is an expendable ‘asset’, a mere pawn in its game of expansion. Thus threat and counter-threat will no doubt flow from the outcome of Saakashvili being sacrificed on the alter of US capital and a world even more destabilized than it is already as a result of US/UK/NATO actions.

Georgia – Another Pawn in the ‘Great Game’ By William Bowles

14 August 2008

On August 7th, Georgia launched an unprovoked and vicious assault on the capital city of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, killing perhaps as many 2000 civilians, many of them women, children and old people and destroying much of the city including the main hospital and the university.

“Grad missile, artillery, mortar, and machinegun fire has been reported. Dozens of blasts shatter the city every minute. Tens of armored vehicles and thousands of soldiers moved into the conflict zone.” – South Ossetia: The War has Begun! by Andrei Areshev, 9 August, 2008.

But you would not have known this from mainstream media coverage, nor would you have known about the US/NATO/EU involvement in arming and training the armed forces of Georgia.

“The Ex-Soviet Republic of Georgia and its invasion over the last two days of the Russian population of South Ossetia – the second half of North Ossetia inside the Russian Federation looks to be linked to Georgia’s breathtaking increases in its defense spending over the last few years, and it looks set to beat all records this year — in 2008 alone so far they are over 1 Billion USD of GDP – the fourth largest in Eurasia. In late June of 2006, the Georgian government increased the defense ministry’s budget of 513 million laris (315 million US dollars) by 442 million laris (260 million dollars). And the money, arms and military training is not from a `new growing economy’ it’s from the US taxpayer, the Pentagon and NATO — along with the USAID — and yes [the] other NATO aspirant – Ukraine.” — TMPress International -New York -August 08, 2008. ‘The Real Reason Behind the Military Buildup of Ex-Soviet Republic of Georgia and Its Invasion of Russian South Ossetia’.

And in an excellent overview of the situation by Michel Chossudovsky we read:

“Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles (126 – from NATO) , 79 guns (67 – from NATO) , 25 helicopters (12 – from NATO) , 70 mortars, ten surface-to-air missile systems, eight Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, and other weapons. In addition, NATO countries have supplied four combat aircraft to Georgia. The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms.” (Interfax News Agency, Moscow, in Russian, Aug 7, 2008) – ‘War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?’ By Michel Chossudovsky.

Israel’s role is also central to the current situation:

“Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.

“They contacted defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons,” says a source involved in arms exports.

“The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia’s defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.

“His door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms systems made in Israel,” the source said. “Compared to countries in Eastern Europe, the deals in this country were conducted fast, mainly due to the defense minister’s personal involvement.”   – ‘War in Georgia: The Israeli Connection’ By Arie Egozi.

Over a thousand US military personnel have been stationed in Georgia, ostensibly to train the Georgian armed forces as well as private military contractors, in other words, all the usual suspects are involved in the Empire’s latest attempts at destabilizing the Caucasus region and isolating and surrounding Russia.

“In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the Kaiserslautern-based 21st Theater Sustainment Command, along with Marine reservists with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines out of Ohio, and the state of Georgia’s Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry participated in “Immediate Response 2008.”

“Operation Immediate Response 2008 was held from July 15-July 30, with U.S. personnel training about 600 troops at a former Soviet base near Tbilisi, the largest city and capital of Georgia. The goal of this operation was allegedly teaching combat skills for missions in Iraq. The Marines left already the country, but not the airmen.” ‘Israel and the US behind the Georgian aggression?’ By Shraga Elam.

Coincidence? I think not. The fact is, like so many before him, Saakashvili is yet another pawn in the ‘Great Game’ and the stakes are high, very high, for not only does Georgia sit astride the oil pipeline from the Caspian oil fields that supplies the West (and especially Israel) with oil, it is yet another strategic base highly desired by the US/NATO alliance as they attempt to expand eastwards and (yet again) encircle their rival in the Caucasus, Russia.

One has to ask the question: did Saakashvili ‘jump the gun’ or was it a calculated risk on the part of his US/EU/Israeli paymasters that Russia would do nothing about his all-out assault on the capital of Southern Ossetia? If the former, then Saakashvili really screwed things up for the empire. And if the latter then it was a disaster whose ramifications have yet to be felt, for regardless of the relentless Western propaganda campaign to vilify the Russians as the ‘aggressors’, it has propelled Russia back into the mainstream.

Mike Whitney, in his article ‘Putin Walks into a Trap’ ends by saying:

“South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush’s plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.” – ‘Putin Walks into a Trap’ By Mike Whitney.

Trap? Well that might have been the intention but if so, it was a serious miscalculation especially Saakashvili’s all-out assault on Southern Ossetia, an unprovoked attack that Russia simply could not allow to go unpunished, after all he murdered not only Ossetians but also his ‘fellow’ Georgians. Had Saakashvili been a less arrogant (and clearly not a very bright individual in spite of his Harvard credentials) surrogate of the US, then he would have embarked on a less obvious ‘low intensity’ campaign, which is why I tend to think that he was not held on a tight enough leash by his masters (encouraged perhaps by the Israeli Zionists, who are anxious to get their blood-stained hands on all that oil).

My own thinking tends toward viewing the ‘event’ as a cynical diversion that had it succeeded then all well and good (for the pirates) and if not, well it’s ‘only’ Ossetians, Russians and Georgians who got sacrificed on the alter of global capital and it has to be viewed more an act of desperation than anything else.

Moreover, following the humanitarian disaster caused by Saakashvili’s actions has given the US the pretext to establish a direct and open political foothold inside Georgia under the pretext of supplying humanitarian aid. In other words, the US knew what the outcome of the Georgian attack would be and cared little about its outcome. Such an action has already come to pass and one justified (in public) by all the talk of Russia reestablishing its ‘sphere of influence’ following its humiliation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Using Saakashvili as a Trojan Horse (or perhaps patsy would be a more accurate term), the US has, without firing a shot, gained a foothold in the Caucasus.

Georgia and the Media

What has to be factored in to this view is the seamless media presentation starting on the night of the invasion, led here in the UK by the BBC which has carried a relentless anti-Russian propaganda campaign that whitewashed the attack on Tskhinvali, in fact barely mentioning it in its ‘news’ reports, focusing instead on what it called “Russian aggression” and painted Saakashvili as some kind of patriot, defending no less, the territorial integrity of Georgia!

This was accompanied by highly misleading (ie, unidentified) video clips of the destruction with the voiceover creating the impression that what we were viewing were the results of Russian ‘aggression’. And this was relentless, round-the-clock disinformation.

The BBC reports the 7 August attack on the capital as follows:

THURSDAY 7 AUGUST

“Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agree to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict.

“Hours later, Georgian forces launch a surprise attack, sending a large force against the breakaway province and reaching the capital Tskhinvali.” –  ‘Day-by-day: Georgia-Russia crisis’, 14 August, 2008.

Given the nature of the BBC’s ‘news’ coverage, I lean toward the view that the British state were (along with the US) well aware of what Saakashvili intended as the entire media coverage has all the hallmarks of a well planned propaganda campaign and not merely a knee-jerk anti-Russian diatribe.

Big Brother Beeb hauled out all the usual neo-con suspects, especially the butcher of Yugoslavia, Richard Holbrooke who got major airplay on the BBC’s News 24 TV channel:

“The Russians deliberately provoked [the fighting] and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili.”

No counter-view was presented (aside that is from Russians, whose views are obviously ‘biased’ and hence can be safely discounted). Holbrooke’s comment that “The Russians deliberately provoked [the fighting]” was accepted without question by the BBC interviewer, though how they “provoked” Saakashvili into launching his murderous attack was not explained (a Russian peace-keeping force has been stationed in Southern Ossetia since 1994 without any major incident) so how, exactly, did the Russians provoke the fighting?

The point here is that the BBC presented the entire disaster as if it was instigated by the Russians and it’s a view followed slavishly by the print media as the following quotes from the London Independent (13 August, 2008) clearly reveal:

“Russia’s goals in embarking on the war in Georgia were twofold. It wanted to get rid of a troublesome leader who was too independent for Russia’s liking, and had attracted the personal enmity of Mr. Putin.” ‘Moscow flexed its military muscle and the left the West humiliated,’ Analysis by Anne Penketh (p.7)

She continues, firstly by contradicting the statement above when she says:

“No one in Georgia or a Western capital doubts that Moscow’s lightning retaliation when Georgian forces launched their surprise attack on the South Ossetian capital was long planned.” (ibid)

Penketh goes on:

“Mr Saakashvili ignored Western warnings””including those from the US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice”¦not to respond to Russian provocation. But in the end he fell into the Russian trap by ordering an ill-planned strike while the eyes of the world were on the Olympics. He cannot have anticipated the overwhelming response from the nuclear power across the border, involving massive firepower from tanks, warplanes and battle-hardened Russian soldiers.” (ibid)

So it’s the Russians who set the trap, but like the BBC, whose line the Independent parrots almost exactly, how the Russians ‘lured’ Saakashvili into his “ill-planned strike” is not revealed.

Toward the end of the ‘analysis’, Penketh, no doubt expressing a more circumspect opinion now doing the rounds of the ruling elite, tells us:

“But Mr Saakashvili’s headstrong and impulsive behaviour [sic!] in the crisis, following his disastrous crackdown on demonstrators last November, has eroded Western support.” (ibid)

The arrogance of Western journalists never ceases to amaze me when the slaughter of thousands is described as “headstrong and impulsive behaviour” !

But for the ‘official view’ we need to look at the Independent’s editorial:

“Perhaps the biggest mystery, though, is why Georgia decided to take on Russia now. Of course, the situation had long been profoundly unsatisfactory from Georgia’s point of view. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were outside its control and undisguised platforms for Russian trouble-making.”

/…/

If Russia intended a recent increase in skirmishing to lure the Georgians into a war they could not win, the tactic worked to perfection.” (p.30)

It ends:

“Russia’s barely contested military sweep into Georgia was a flexing of its muscles that leaves it undisputed master of the region once again.” (ibid)

So the official line is that the entire affair was a cunning Russian plot that the (by now) gullible (and let’s not forget “impulsive” ) Saakashvili fell for and if you believe this, you’ll believe anything the Western media throw at you.

See also:

Georgia Newslinks Part 2 for more on the foothold the US has gained in Georgia under the pretext of humanitarian aid.

‘Chinese Torture’ or what goes around comes around By William Bowles

25 January, 2008

Dumping on China by the usual horde of Western pundits seems to be de riguer these days. Hardly a day goes by without some scary headline that either warns of the dangers of billions of Chinese getting a car, refridgerator, microwave or whatever and hastening on Climate Change and/or ‘swamping’ Western markets with an avalanche of cheap goods.

Amazing that for half a century the Cold War was all about ‘Red China’ rejecting the ‘market’ and the capitalist way of life and now they’ve got it, the self-same pundits are all whinging about the ‘threat’ from Chinese capitalism. Obviously you can’t win if you ain’t a white European or American (well at least that’s what they say for public consumption). The reality however is very different and it goes to the very core of the nature of capitalist economics, ‘expand or die’. The problem for Western Capitalism is that the new boy on the block, China, is just too big to take on and what’s more it now produces most of everything we buy in malls across the land.

Continue reading

NATO’s Inferno By William Bowles

29 September 2006

Civilised (adjective): cultured, educated, refined, enlightened, polite, elegant, sophisticated, urbane
Civilise (verb): to enlighten, educate, cultivate, improve, advance, develop, refine

Poor old Dante Alighieri, were he around today, I am sure he would find it difficult to find the words to describe the evils visited by so-called civilised nations on the defenceless of the planet, assuming that is, he was fully informed of what is going on.

Continue reading

THE PLOT THICKENS By William Bowles

30 April 2003

Goodbye NATO – Hello EDF?
A European Defence Force is something Tony calls ‘unhelpful’. Unhelpful to who? In any case, as the US realigns its global military ‘posture’, it’s clear that a large US military presence in Western Europe is no longer necessary. And in any case, there’s all those ‘newly freed’ Eastern European countries dying to become satellites of the US,

Continue reading