still dreaming of it....

Surprisingly voted out of office after World War II, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill privately became an advocate for an Anglo-American first strike atom bomb attack against the Soviet Union, as once secret FBI records indicate. Churchill’s 1946 speech at Fulton, Missouri, warning against his former Communist ally during World War II, set the stage for a new conflict known as the Cold War, which lasted for decades and still haunts international relations today. This excerpt is from When Lions Roar: The Churchills and the Kennedys by ICIJ member Thomas Maier. 

Old Glory and the Union Jack draped the streets of Jefferson City, Missouri—the perfect symbolism for a visit by President Harry Truman and the man who Truman said had saved Western civilization.

In an open-air limousine convertible, Winston Churchill sat beside Roosevelt’s successor while thousands of Missourians waved and greeted them at the train station. The two grinning politicians were surrounded by dour security agents (standing guard on the running boards) as the limo drove through the state capital on March 6, 1946. After a long train ride from Washington, the seventy-one-year-old former British prime minister was careful not to exert himself too much. When asked that year about his secret of success, the old warhorse advised, “Conservation of energy—never stand up when you can sit down, and never sit down when you can lie down.”

Only months after being turned out of high office, Churchill journeyed to a college gym in nearby Fulton to give one of the most significant speeches of his career. With the American president’s blessing, his clarion call for Anglo-American resistance to the Soviet Union’s “Iron Curtain” (his metaphor for the spread of communism dividing up Europe) would launch the decades-long Cold War. But this address in Fulton, entitled “The Sinews of Peace,” also provided another turning point in Churchill’s long life. Instead of retirement, he chose vigorous, almost defiant engagement. Rather than fade away with his glorious victories of the past, he decided to embrace, almost prophetically, the future of the postwar world with its atomic dangers. He would reinvent himself once again as a world statesman, his voice both familiar and brand new.

At Fulton, Churchill rewarded Truman’s confidence with a stellar performance. Winston wanted to wake up America, content with victory in World War II and ready to return to its isolationist slumber. He warned that if the West didn’t act swiftly and with determination, another conflict, with the totalitarian Communist regime looming in Moscow, awaited them.

“An iron curtain has descended across the Continent,” Churchill lectured, wearing the honorary cap and robes of an Oxford don before a nationally broadcast audience. “This is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.” 

Truman, who appeared next to Churchill onstage, had reviewed and approved the speech beforehand. Plainspoken Harry indicated its important message needed to be heard.

Churchill argued that Stalin’s unchecked expansion in Central and Eastern Europe posed the same risk for world conflict as Hitler’s aggressive Germany once did in the 1930s, when Winston was a lonely voice in the political wilderness. “Last time, I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention,” Churchill recalled, almost melodramatically. “There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely actions than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot . . .” 

Now, one by one, Churchill called off the names of European capitals lost to the “Soviet sphere.” He worried that this growing Communist bloc of nations would expand in the world unless a “fraternal association” (the United States, Great Britain, and the rest of “English-speaking world”) stopped its Cold War appeasement. He urged a negotiated settlement with the Soviets, to prevent tensions from bursting into an active war neither side wanted. “From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than weakness, especially military weakness,” he said, as if reciting lessons from history as he experienced it. “If these all-important years are allowed to slip away,” he concluded, “then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.”

Truman stood and applauded, appearing pleased. Unlike his tempestuous relationship with Roosevelt, Churchill appreciated Truman’s frank, direct manner and the bold way he’d brought World War II to an end. He supported Truman’s use of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaski (killing some two hundred thousand civilians) in order to avoid an estimated quarter of million Allied casualties that would taken place by an invasion of Japan. The decision to drop the bomb had been “unanimous, automatic, unquestioned,” and made with barely a moment’s thought, Churchill later recalled. Earlier in the war, the British agreed to work cooperatively with the Americans on the bomb’s development, but said they wouldn’t use it unless both sides agreed.

“Let me know whether it is a flop or a plop,” Churchill wrote to Truman in July 1945 about the first atomic test in the New Mexico desert.

“It’s a plop—Truman,” the message came back. That same year, when Stalin’s expansion plans became clear, Churchill first used the term Iron Curtain, in a private message to Truman.

Public reaction to Churchill’s Fulton speech, however, swiftly turned negative. Newspaper editorials condemned his speech as rogue bluster, and columnist Walter Lippmann called Truman’s invitation an “almost catastrophic blunder.” The new president soon learned his nation wasn’t ready for another war against its recent ally Stalin and his Russian army. Going after the Soviets in peacetime was far different from finishing off Japan in war. Truman “pulled back into his shell, even declared that he had not known in advance what Churchill was going to say,” Time magazine reported. Backpedaling away from Churchill’s comments, Truman eventually offered to send the battleship Missouri to pick up Stalin so he could come to America and refute the charges.

Winston didn’t waver, however, for his true feelings against the Soviets were even stronger than his Fulton rhetoric. Since the 1917 Russian Revolution, he felt Lenin’s Bolsheviks were extremists, intent on a dictatorship that did not recognize God , property rights, or human freedom. “The strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race,” Churchill declared. He’d made similar comments throughout his career. “Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease,” he railed. “It is not a creed; it is a pestilence.” In comparing Stalin’s Soviet Empire to the defeated Axis powers, Churchill wondered if the Anglo-American alliance had simply replaced one great evil with another.

Although his own empire’s resources were depleted, Churchill wanted the United States to control the Soviets in Europe through the use of nuclear weapons. No longer a backwater colony of the Crown, America was now “at the highest point of majesty and power ever attained by any community since the fall of the Roman Empire,” Churchill judged with a historian’s eye. Possessing the most deadly device ever seen, the United States would “dominate the world for the next five years,” he predicted, providing an opportunity for America to act swiftly to set a course for future peace. 

The Soviets still appeared far away from developing their own atomic weapons, and would respect American dominance if exerted. Dropping the bomb—or at least “a showdown” with the implied threat of doing so—must be a vital tool in curbing Soviet communism, Churchill argued. He expressed these views on his own, certainly without approval of Labour Party leaders running the British government. Letting the isolationists, pacifists, and appeasers prevail would only ensure another world war, he contended. “The argument is now put forward that we must never use the atomic bomb until, or unless, it has been used against us first,” Churchill said. “In other words, you must never fire until you have been shot dead. That seems to me a silly thing to say and a still more imprudent position to adopt.”

Privately, Churchill suggested that America strike first, before it was too late. According to FBI records, he urged Sen. Styles Bridges, a conservative Republican from New Hampshire active in foreign affairs, to back a preemptory and devastating attack on Moscow. “He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction,” Bridges told the FBI. 

During a “private conference with Churchill” while visiting Europe in the summer of 1947, Bridges claimed the former prime minister had “stated that the only salvation for the civilization of the world would be if the President of the United States would declare Russia to be imperiling world peace and attack Russia.” If this wasn’t done, according to the FBI report dated December 5, 1947, Churchill predicted “Russia will attack the United States in the next two or three years when she gets the atomic bomb and civilization will be wiped out or set back many years.”

A full-fledged nuclear attack on the Kremlin didn’t seem to faze Bridges, who’d been a sharp policy critic of Roosevelt and Truman. Bridges mentioned this conversation with Churchill only while talking to a G-man about “other matters,” according to the agent who compiled the report. It noted that Bridges “concurs in Churchill’s views and that he sincerely hopes that our next President will do just that before Russia attacks the United States.”

https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 BY JOHN MILES 

The US frequently funds pro-Western media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in foreign countries it targets for regime change to pave the way for a pro-US government to come to power.

The United States’ persecution campaign against journalists and political dissidents with ties to Russian media accelerated Wednesday when new repressive measures were announced against several entities.

New sanctions were announced against 10 individuals and two organizations under the umbrella of the Rossiya Segodnya media group, including RIA Novosti, RT, Sputnik and Ruptly. The sanctions target these entities for alleged "hostile interference in the presidential elections," the US Treasury Department claimed. The measures also target editor-in-chief of Rossiya Segodnya and RT Margarita Simonyan and several top managers at RT.

Ex-CIA analyst and former State Department counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson spoke with Sputnik Wednesday about the startling development, the latest attempt by the Biden administration to shape political discourse online and in the media.

“Let's be clear about one thing: the one country in the world that has been involved with more interference in the internal political affairs of every other country is the United States. During the reign of President Eisenhower in the 1950s, there were 170 different covert actions carried out against other countries.”

“This year [the US has] allocated almost $4 billion to interfere or meddle in the political affairs of other countries,” he continued. “$315 million of that goes to the National Endowment for Democracy. $300 million is specifically what they call counter-Russian influence. And another $2.9 billion is for ‘democracy’ programs. And these have been used basically to run propaganda, to pay people, to organize ‘democracy’ programs in places like Georgia.”

The US frequently funds pro-Western media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in foreign countries it targets for regime change to pave the way for a pro-US government to come to power. Author and journalist William Blum documented over 50 examples of significant US interference in other countries since World War II in his classic book Killing Hope, largely based on the shocking revelations of ex-CIA agent Philip Agee.

More recently the US has interfered in countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Ukraine, paving the way for the latter country’s extremist anti-Russia government through its support for the Euromaidan coup in 2014.

“I don't know how many millions of dollars are allocated to the Central Intelligence Agency for additional covert actions designed to plant stories in media, to create electronic media, to influence social networks across the board,” Johnson continued. “It's the United States that's meddling. With respect to the entire bogus claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, we now know without a doubt that that was a Democrat operation led by Hillary Clinton and her team,” he added.

“Everything we were told about Donald Trump and the Russians was a lie. I was one of the few writing about it at the time to call it out… The notion that RT is manipulating and influencing the presidential election is beyond laughable,” he claimed, noting that the Russian television channel’s app is banned from many app stores in the West while its content has been removed from YouTube and other websites.

“How is a news network that's not allowed to broadcast and that’s shut [out] of social media in the United States supposed to influence [the election]? … It just goes across the board that they're going to try to attack any kind of alternative voice in the media.”

 Johnson noted that he has been subjected to a “pre-interview” with most television news outlets he has appeared on, such as the BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS and the CBC, during which employees for each outlet attempted to ascertain what he would say when interviewed live on air. RT was one of only two outlets that never subjected him to the practice, he said.“It's the so-called ‘free democracies’ that want to run that litmus test,” he said. 

 

Johnson said the recent persecution of figures connected to RT and Sputnik is merely another attempt to run the “Russiagate” playbook, attempting to discredit alternative media outlets that critique US foreign policy. “Electoral interference” continues to take place, Johnson claimed, but it is not the Russians but the US government that is engaged in an attempt to influence and control the popular narrative for its own benefit.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240905/persecution-of-sputnik-rt-contributors-highlights-us-hypocrisy--ex-cia-analyst-1120021228.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

 

 THE USA HAS CREATED A SCHIZOID WORLD, TORN IN TWO BY A GROTESQUE AMBITION

 

Whether you think the motivations of the USA and its allies are good or bad there is no denying their global effects.

There is much to be said for the USA and the vast majority of its people. Anyone who has toured extensively in the United States knows just how beautiful the country is in those areas not yet transformed into industrial modernity. On those journeys many of you will hopefully have made and on other occasions through your lives you will have come to know the general warmth and friendliness of those who count themselves as Americans. Though parts of the USA and some of its people lack similar positive attributes, there are only very few aspects of North America that concern and constantly trouble the rest of the world.

The first such negative attribute I would like to talk of which affects many populations world wide is the apparent obsession elite America has with interfering in hundreds of nations far, far from its borders. While unashamedly engaging themselves in the internal politics of other nations, elite America comes down extremely hard on even the remotest possibility of any nation doing anything similar within its borders. This even extends to nations entirely independent of the USA within Latin/South America which has been referred to as ‘America’s Backyard’.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wikipedia

‘The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States. The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.’

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The American elites have used their influence over the centuries since the founding of the USA to reach the preeminent position of the world’s most powerful superpower. They are extremely focused on maintaining this position and the power at their disposal. You will hear them talk of their determination to protect and maintain their ‘national interests’ worldwide and their determination to strike out at anything threatening those interests. The global reach of the USA with its hundreds of military bases spread out across the planet is testament to this determination. Through hard power, always ready to strike out at those who may diminish U.S. influence and interests, and soft power, the ability to manipulate events positively for American elites through “diplomacy” American elites exert their overbearing influence.

All of the above was seen to be more or less adequate to maintain America’s national interests… until 9/11. 9/11 utterly transformed the view taken of the world by the U.S. elites, primarily those in the political sphere of course, but also, and irrevocably and with enormous consequences, by the mainstream media sphere also. After 9/11 we saw the attitude of America’s elites change to the world beyond U.S. borders. No longer content with the level of hard and soft power that preceded 9/11, now it had to be boosted exponentially toward unspecified and in fact unlimited borders. The rest of the world, contained to a certain degree within reasonably acceptable boundaries before 9/11, now had to be TOTALLY contained. If it was not totally contained, America would, to that degree, be rendered unsafe. And vital national interests would be at risk.

The ambition post-9/11 was to have full control rather than partial control, of world events and the people, groups, governments and systems of governance who brought those events into being. The only safeguard was to know as close to all that was going on as possible, to monitor the progress of every vector of nascent force and be able to punch down swiftly to snuff out potentially dangerous activities at will with no risk of negative consequences. The perceived, overwhelming urgency of the situation after 9/11 meant that the relatively background control that these elites had beforehand now required to be brought fully into the foreground. Thus ‘The War on Terror’ began. And consecutively, the project to attain ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ was to be progressed where all individuals, groups, governments and systems of governance that did not align with America’s national interests were to be weakened, then eliminated and replaced. 

While the USA engaged with its allies in ‘The Coalition of the Willing’ in its regime change wars after 9/11 those outside this fraternity looked on with at the very least, skepticism and undoubtedly in the case of a great many, with fear. All nations outside the U.S. sphere of semi- or full control knew what this change in U.S. foreign policy meant. And what it meant for the future. They would have been under no illusions about what this radical change now being acted upon U.S. foreign policy prefigured. This was nothing other than the American elite acting determinedly to engineer what would be in effect a prison planet as the solution to the lack of their control that had resulted in the events of 9/11.

Only full, overarching awareness in depth could provide what the American elites desperately required in order to feel that they and their nation’s interests could be protected. This of course required the safeguarding of their present abilities to control, manipulate and predict outcomes across the widest possible range of strategic concern and of the expansion of these abilities to the absolute limit, that limit being the objective of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’. No more was anything going to be left to chance. Not after 9/11. Threat surveillance would be expanded toward total insight and response. No nation harboring even the remotest anti-American sentiment could be allowed to escape its transformation to being fully compliant with the U.S as world leader. In addition, any nation rising economically, and thus presenting a threat to American national economic interests, was to be engaged with a view to undermining, weakening and if possible eliminating it in that form.

The nations of the global majority, including those of the global South, Eurasia, the Near, Middle and Far East plus Asia, Eurasia, Latin America and elsewhere saw all this and exactly what it portended for them. There was to be no true sovereignty of nations outside the U.S. orbit. Semi-sovereignty would be allowed only within the confines of a compliant relationship in the context of supreme western domination. No national interests of other nations could ever possibly be allowed to attain the level of importance accorded to those of the USA and its allies. Master and slave after 9/11 would not have been the semantic framing U.S. strategic planners would have used… but this was the reality awaiting all but ‘Coalition of the Willing’ nations if they continued to wish obstinately to remain independent of outside control.

Now you can see very clearly what is at stake for both sides in, for instance, Ukraine. And also in regard to Taiwan. Add any other area of major conflict of interest such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Yemen, Somalia et al. The selfsame factor as described above is at play. American elites talk of the ‘Manifest Destiny’ of the USA to transform the world, into its own image. But also to transform the rest of the world so that it permanently, in everlasting perpetuity, bows down to that image also. This is, in a nutshell, what is going on this very day across the world, the fight, instigated by one nation and its allies to subvert the notion of sovereignty enshrined in the United Nations and replace it with a western stipulated rules-based order where the rules are entirely determined by the elites of the collective west.

THE USA HAS CREATED A SCHIZOID WORLD, TORN IN TWO BY A GROTESQUE 

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/09/05/the-usa-has-created-a-schizoid-world-torn-in-two-by-a-grotesque-ambition/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 History warns: what does the declassification of archives of anti-Soviet plans of Britain, France and Türkiye in the early period of World War II show?

 

BY Alexandr Svaranc

 

At the end of August, Russian and foreign media published some declassified materials from the archives of Russia about the subversive plans of London, Paris and Ankara in the spring of 1940, aimed at destroying Soviet oil facilities and pipelines in the Caucasus to facilitate the collapse of the USSR. What are they warning current anti-Russian actors of?

What is the essence of the anti-Soviet plans of Britain, France and Türkiye in the spring of 1940, and what are the reasons for their failure? 

Regardless of its name and the ruling regime (be it the Russian Empire, Soviet Union or Russian Federation), Russia has always faced numerous external opponents on its way, both in the West and in the East (and sometimes at the same time). It is obvious that the vast expanses, combined with the wealth of natural resources and the human factor, as well as the independent course of the Russian state, became the main reasons for the conflict relations of external enemies with our country. Times have changed, epochs have come and gone, but their zealous and hostile approach to Russia remains the same. Each time, Russia had to rely on its own strength and God, which helped it withstand the onslaught and emerge victorious. Apparently, today the situation repeats itself, as well as the law of history developing in a spiral.

And here the Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin was right, noting in his essay ‘What Dismemberment of Russia Entails for the World’: “National Russia has enemies. They do not need to be named because we know they, and they know themselves”.

The process and time of declassification of important archival materials are, as a rule, associated not only with issues of scientific research on key historical events, but also sometimes have a direct bearing on current geopolitical plots of our time, where the past warns the present.

As is known, on the eve of World War II, Soviet-British-French negotiations to curb Hitler’s Germany were unsuccessful because of the two-faced position of London and Paris. The Soviet leader was left with entering into negotiations with Hitler himself to delay the start of the fiercest war of the 20th century. As a result, Soviet diplomacy, under the political leadership of J. Stalin, in August 1939 managed to sign the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, which greatly annoyed London and Paris. Türkiye, on the other hand, remained the object of intense diplomatic and military initiatives by European capitals (London, Paris and Berlin), taking into account its advantageous geography and its bordering with the USSR.

It should be noted that the Russian Academic of Science already in the 1990s became aware of the very secret materials of the plans of the Franco-British command in 1940 against our country via Türkiye. Thus, the director of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the academic V. K. Volkov, gained access to the archives of the Presidential Library in the early 1990s, i.e. during the period of regime change and the political euphoria of the pro-Western fascination of the Russian ruling elite. At that time, a kind of anarchy reigned in Russian archival documentaries. In 2000, V. K. Volkov published a monograph titled ‘Main problems of the modern history of the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe’ («Узловые проблемы новейшей истории стран Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы»), where he referred to these archival materials.

The leakage of secret plans of the French General Staff and the Foreign Ministry is connected with the capture of Paris by the Germans and the publication in early July 1940, in Germany of documents of the 5th and 6th ‘White Books’ about the anti-Soviet plans of France, England and Türkiye during the Soviet-Finnish war. In particular, under the command of French General Weygand, a joint military grouping (army) was created with a concentration of troops on the Turkish-Soviet border for the invasion of the Caucasus in the spring of 1940. The anti-Soviet action plan itself was developed by General Gamelin, who on March 12, 1940, reported the following to the commander of the troops in the Middle East, General Weygand: “Operations in the Middle East should be led by an English commander and in the Caucasus by a Turkish one. These should be carried out exclusively by Turkish forces”.

In late March–early April 1940, reconnaissance flights were conducted from Türkiye in the area of Batumi. At that time, pan-Turkic propaganda was proliferating in Türkiye itself. All these plans were promptly revealed by Soviet intelligence, and our diplomacy took preventive measures to warn its main designers. For example, the British ambassador in Moscow, S. Cripps, noted that “the USSR is against sole Turkish management of the straits” and “against Türkiye dictating its terms on the Black Sea”.

The goal of Britain and France using Türkiye was then to destroy the main oil fields of the USSR in Baku and Grozny and the subsequent energy infrastructure so as to deprive the Red Army of its ability to conduct combat operations, which would lead to the collapse of the Soviet economy and the country as a whole.

However, these plans were not destined to be realised; enter Germany’s actions in Europe. Particularly, the defeat of France and the (Second) Armistice of Compiègne on June 22, 1940, dramatically changed the balance of power in Europe. Türkiye withdrew from the alliance with Britain and France and refused – contrary to the provisions of the 1939 treaty with France – to enter the war on the side of the Allies, assuming the status of a non-belligerent state. Turkish Foreign Minister S. Saracoglu then told his British counterpart, A. Eden: “Naturally, our most sincere sympathies are on the side of England. Unfortunately, the practical foundations of the Anglo-Franco-Turkish treaty have already lost their force. France has been defeated, Great Britain is no longer strong enough to provide us with military assistance, even through supplying weapons and equipment”.

Thus, the plans of London and Paris collapsed and Türkiye became the object of active initiatives and warnings from Germany, expressed by its ambassador in Ankara, Franz von Papen.

What warning is there for the anti-Russian forces today?

Both in the past and today, Britain and France are upping hostility towards Russia. The only difference is the supremacy of the United States over the Western coalition. Unfortunately, Türkiye – regardless of the ruling regime – continues to manoeuvre between different centres of power in the hope of selling its services for more money and strengthening its security. However, as a rule, it is Türkiye that eventually finds itself facing the threat of territorial losses, which forces its authorities and diplomacy to sharply change the external course in favour of the strongest player.

In the context of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian military-political crisis, Western countries are once again pumping weapons into the regime opposing Russia to deplete the Russian army and inflict notable damage to its economy. Türkiye is manoeuvring between the United States and Britain, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other. Under pressure from the Anglo-Saxons, Recep Erdoğan, with different motivations, continues to provide political and military-technical assistance to the Kiev regime, refuses to unequivocally solve the problem of bank payments with Russian business. Meanwhile, Ankara continues to receive significant financial and other economic benefits from Russia, but for the second year it has been sabotaging a profitable Russian gas hub project and conditioning its implementation with unrealistic expectations of receiving a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through the Caspian basin.

In the current historical situation, Türkiye plans to penetrate Central Asia (East Turkestan) after entering the South Caucasus and temporarily weakening Russia’s position in this region in the hope of implementing the geopolitical Turan project. However, Ankara should better reflect on the warning of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, who at a meeting with Turkish Ambassador to Moscow Tanju Bilgic called on Ankara to refuse to participate in the destructive policy of the West towards Ukraine.

In turn, the declassified Russian archives remind the leadership of Turkic Azerbaijan of the subversive plans against the basis of the economy of their republic in 1940 that the now fraternal Turkey was involved in. Of course, at that time there was Soviet Azerbaijan, and now it is an independent state. But who said that the centres of power of the West have abandoned their ‘slice of the pie’ in Turkey and will not hatch new aggressive plans in the South Caucasus using Turkey, now a NATO member? In addition, modern Azerbaijan is dependent on energy supplies to the European market, where the rules of who and what to sell are still determined by the leaders of the Anglo-Saxons: the United States and Great Britain. Also, the entire new pipeline infrastructure of Baku, which bypasses Russia, was built with Western money.

France, which today contradicts its own declaration of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens (the example of Pavel Durov bears witness to this), demonstrates the worst traditions of French policy towards Russia and is governed by a weak leader, Emmanuel Macron, can easily repeat the sad story of the government of Edouard Daladier, only in a new dimension.

It is high time for Britain to stop developing unpromising anti-Russian projects. London’s ‘Great Game’ will not be developed in Eurasia, as Russia still remains ‘big’…

 

Alexander Svarants, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

https://journal-neo.su/2024/09/04/history-warns-what-does-the-declassification-of-archives-of-anti-soviet-plans-of-britain-france-and-turkiye-in-the-early-period-of-world-war-ii-show/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171