Friday 2nd of December 2022

a bizarre "conversation"…. has "the conversation" become a disinformation shop front for the CIA?

WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ABOMINATION ON "THE CONVERSATION" — NOW A RIGHTWING OUTFIT STARTED AS A MODERATE PHILOSOPHICAL THINK-TANK. LIKE MANY OF THESE MEDIA OUTLETS, THEY STARTED WITH A REASONABLE ATTITUDE AND, AFTER ACQUIRING A CERTAIN CLIENTELE, SLOWLY MOVED TO THE FULL FASCIST VIEWPOINTS. IT'S HORRID.... HERE IS AN ARTICLE BY LOONY Matthew Sussex AND REPUBLISHED ON THE ABC:

 

Vladimir Putin's bizarre ceremonies formalising Russia's annexation of some 15 per cent of Ukraine once again revealed the yawning chasm between Kremlin triumphalism and reality.

Never mind Russian forces didn't even fully control the territories Mr Putin brought under the Russian flag.

Never mind Russia's "referendums" were a blatant fabrication — with voting often held at gunpoint.

Never mind that by now more people have fled Russia than the 300,000 extra troops to be "partially mobilised" in support of Putin's flagging war effort.

And never mind that Russian forces are retreating in many of their newly acquired lands, with the key city of Lyman liberated by Ukraine less than 24 hours after its annexation was announced.

Mr Putin's vitriolic rantings to a decidedly subdued audience provided plenty of distasteful soundbites.

He referred to the West as "Satanists" with "various genders", calling for holy war against the transgender Western bogeymen.

 

NOTE THAT THE 15 PER CENT OF UKRAINE ARE POPULATED BY RUSSIANS AND USED TO BE RUSSIAN PROVINCES UNTIL 1922.... THE NAZI GOVERNMENT OF KIEV LEAD BY A PETULANT UNINTELLIGENT JEWISH MORON HAS BEEN TRYING TO CHASE THE RUSSIANS OUT OF THEM AND RUSSIA CAME IN TO DEFEND THESE ENTITLED EMBATTLED POPULATIONS OF THE PROVINCES. THE ELECTIONS WERE FREE AND FAIR AND ACCORDING TO SOME EXPERTS, THE SPEECH BY PUTIN WAS A "CRACKER".

 

Matthew Sussex CONTINUES:

His [Putin's] characterisation of Americans as neo-colonialists was laughably hypocritical since Mr Putin was literally in the process of announcing the recreation of an empire.

He made references to Catherine the Great, claimed southern Ukraine had always been Russian, and liberally invoked the imperial term "Novorossiya".

NATO expansion, supposedly the trigger for Russia's existential security crisis that left it with no option but to invade its neighbour, barely got a mention in Putin's tsunami of xenophobic bile.

But the real story of Mr Putin's latest melodrama is that he has unequivocally bet his political survival on "victory" over Ukraine and the West.

Crucially, there are now definite signs his grip on power is starting to fray, even if Mr Putin's demise may still be some way off.

 

Matthew Sussex IGNORES THE REALITY, LIKE THE LIES OF NATO AND OF THE BULLSHIT OF THE US EMPIRE. WHAT PUTIN AND RUSSIA ARE DOING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEO-COLONIALISM, BUT PROTECTING THE RUSSIANS IN THE DONBASS. LEARN HISTORY,  DUMB ASS Matthew Sussex. 

 

Existential crises breed internal ones

Dictators often meet their ends through inadvertent overreach. So, too, Mr Putin's new fragility stems from his own choices.

Obsessed with recreating a footprint over what he believes are Russia's historical lands, and determined to blame the West as the global embodiment of moral decrepitude, the Russian leader has created his own existential threat.

Yet his invasion of Ukraine has been an utter disaster.

His conventional forces have been revealed as a chimera: poorly trained, poorly led, hopelessly corrupt, and often badly equipped.

This is now becoming an internal threat that his domestic messaging is struggling to explain.

 

'THIS IS WHY THE DOUMA VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ACCEPT THE FORMER RUSSIAN PROVINCES BACK INTO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AFTER THESE PROVINCES VOTED FOR SUCH. NO "GUNPOINT" OR WHATEVER — THE RUSSIANS IN UKRAINE HAVE HAD ENOUGH SHIT FROM THE KIEV REGIME. PUTIN DOES NOT ACT LIKE A DICTATOR, UNLIKE AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTERS GOING TO WAR NOT ASKING PARLIAMENT OR US PRESIDENTS GOING TO WAR NOT ASKING THE CONGRESS. PUTIN HAS ALWAYS RESPECTED THE DOUMA, WHICH IS THE RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT, COMPOSED OF MANY FACTIONS, UNLIKE KIEV GOVERNMENT'S ZELENSKYYYYY WHO HAS ELIMINATED ALL THE OPPOSITION PARTIES, TO PROCEED WITH HIS BAD DEED SUCH AS BANNING RUSSIAN CULTURE FROM UKRAINE.

 

What were sold as glorious Russian victories were repelled, got bogged down and then became embarrassing retreats, forcing Kremlin propagandists to simultaneously try to put out multiple spot fires.

But spinning defeats as temporary setbacks can only work for so long.

And finding others to blame, from false conspiracies about NATO forces fighting alongside Ukrainians, to criticism of field commanders for failing Russia, is also a temporary solution.

Eventually, it will become patently obvious that the one man who isn't permitted to be criticised — Vladimir Putin — is ultimately in charge of the mess.

Implicitly, this is already happening. 

Margarita Simonyan, Mr Putin's chief cheerleader in Russia's tightly controlled media landscape, has suddenly dissociated herself from politics, plaintively claiming she has no political authority.

When loyal mouthpieces start trying to look dispassionate, it's time for dictators to worry.

 

YES IT'S TIME FOR ZELENSKKKKKYYYYYY THE LITTLE DICK-PIANO PLAYING DICTATOR TO START TO WORRY....

 

IT'S TIME TO RECOGNISE THAT "THE CONVERSATION" HAS LONG BEEN A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE US EMPIRE. IT IS YET ANOTHER SHOP FRONT FOR THE CIA? I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW................

 

Illustration at top by MR FISH.......

"not even a country"…...

 

By Phil Miller
Declassified UK

 

The U.K. anticipated a “serious confrontation between Russia and Ukraine” as far back as 1992, declassified files show, Phil Miller reports. One senior official even questioned whether Ukraine was “a real country.”

 

When British intelligence warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin was about to attack Ukraine earlier this year, the spooks’ foresight won many plaudits. Yet their prediction mirrored a scenario Whitehall had long known might unfold.

In May 1992, just six months after the Soviet Union broke up, Britain’s then Prime Minister John Major was being briefed by his staff. They were concerned about a potential clash between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea. 

The peninsula in the Black Sea had belonged to Russia until the Soviet Union gifted it to Ukraine in 1954. For the rest of the Cold War, Crimea retained a significant Russian presence, including a strategically important warm water port for the Kremlin’s navy. 

Such was the strength of Russia’s legacy in the area that during the 1990s local politicians wanted a referendum on independence from Ukraine. “Most of the population in Crimea is Russian,” an advisor told Major in a handwritten note. 

They warned: “If Crimea becomes independent, Ukraine’s ability to control the Black Sea fleet — based at Sevastopol — goes with it.”

Gordon Barrass, a senior U.K. intelligence official, added:

“The Ukrainians will try to prevent the referendum from being held…The issue will arouse passions among nationalists in Kiev and Moscow and could stir up inter-ethnic conflict within Crimea.”

Among those living in Crimea were the Tatars, an historic Muslim community that had been brutally oppressed under Soviet rule and wanted to remain part of Ukraine.

Percy Cradock, a veteran British diplomat and intelligence supremo, warned the situation “excites strong emotions in Crimea and amongst the powerful nationalist lobby in Kiev (as well as in Moscow).” 

He believed: “There must be a real possibility that the situation will slip out of control. That could mean violence in Crimea, and serious confrontation between Russia and Ukraine.”

 

Ukraine’s Sovereignty Questioned

In the event, there was a messy compromise. Crimea’s parliament declared independence, while also acknowledging Ukraine’s authority. Yet the situation remained volatile. 

Major’s foreign policy advisor and former ambassador to Moscow, Rodric Braithwaite, wrote a confidential background note that would today be considered heretical.

“It is not entirely clear, even to the Ukrainians, still less to the Russians, that Ukraine is a real country,” Braithwaite noted. “Hence the tensions between the two.”

Braithwaite, who went on to chair the Joint Intelligence Committee later in 1992, gave the prime minister a potted history of the region, stretching back to the Middle Ages. He highlighted the “artificial famine which [Soviet leader Joseph] Stalin imposed on the Ukraine in 1930-31, when many millions of peasants were deported or starved to death.”

“So it was not surprising then very many Ukrainians greeted the Germans as liberators in 1941, and that large numbers agreed to join the German army,” Braithwaite reasoned, referring to Nazi collaborators during World War II. 

 

‘An Integral Part of Russia’

Although these resistance groups were ultimately defeated by Stalin, Ukrainian nationalism survived as a political movement. “Throughout 1990 the number and size of popular demonstrations for independence swelled,” Braithwaite noted, adding that Russia looked like an “empire” to Ukrainians.

On the other hand, he said: “Russians would simply not recognise the picture. For Russians, the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia, its history and its culture. The Ukrainian language is no more than a dialect.”

He went on:

“I have not met a single Russian, even among the most sophisticated, who really believes that the Ukraine is now permanently severed from the motherland.”

In a candid remark, Braithwaite said: 

“The Ukrainians know that. They also know that Ukraine itself is divided: between the ultra-nationalist … Western Ukraine … and the East which is predominantly inhabited by ethnic Russians.”

As tensions escalated, a confidential Whitehall planning paper warned: “We need to pay more attention to Ukraine.” It noted there were “fears over long term allegiance of ethnic Russian minority (22% of population)” and concerns that President Boris Yeltsin “will be replaced by nationalists/neo-imperialists” in the Kremlin.

 

‘Reabsorbed by Russia’

At the end of 1993, Foreign Office planners thought “Ukraine might be reabsorbed by Russia unless it faced up to the need for painful economic and political reforms” to make it less dependent on money from Moscow.

Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister, Borys Tarasyuk, did not dispute the analysis when British diplomats came to Kiev to meet him in early 1994 for “some six hours of confidential exchanges.”

Tarasyuk believed Moscow “was determined to try to assert as much control as possible over all the republics of the former Soviet Union” and would “use the well tried strategy of destabilising their neighbours in order to justify intervention”.

The Ukrainian politician was apparently “particularly exercised about the Crimea where recent elections have demonstrated the strength of pro-Russian separatist feeling.”

Roger Bone, a senior British diplomat who would later run arms giant Boeing, “reassured Tarasyuk that the West was very much alive to the risk of a shift in Russian foreign policy” and “would not acquiesce in the re-establishment of a Russian sphere of influence.”

 

Battle for Influence

Plans were made to bring Ukraine’s economy into the Western orbit, through promoting privatisation and engagement with the International Monetary Fund. Financial aid was to be conditional on Ukraine restructuring its economy towards a free-market model. 

It would take another 20 or 30 years for the significance of these discussions to become fully apparent. In 2014, Ukraine’s democratically elected president was toppled in a popular “coup” after he opted for an economic deal with Russia instead of the European Union.

Russia, now led by the nationalist Vladimir Putin, reacted to the loss of his ally by annexing Crimea. Residents supposedly voted by 97 percent to join Russia in a referendum, which was boycotted by Tatars and not recognised by Britain. 

Meanwhile, Moscow helped destabilise Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, by backing separatist rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk. Peace talks failed and the conflict dramatically escalated this February when Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Putin is now repeating his referendum tactic by holding disputed polls in the Donbass, despite the ongoing war. While British intelligence has recently won credit for predicting the conflict, the declassified files make clear this was a risk Whitehall had long known about.

 

Phil Miller is Declassified UK’s chief reporter. He is the author of Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes. Follow him on Twitter at @pmillerinfo

This article is from Declassified UK.

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/10/05/british-intelligence-predicted-ukraine-war-30-years-ago/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................