A
Victory for Theresa May Will See Britain Dragged
Further Towards War with Russia
By Colin Todhunter
May 11,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
-
British Prime
Minister Theresa May has been warned by various
political leaders in Britain not to rush to
attack Syrian government forces if she wins the
general election in June. The Guardian reported
that she
might hold a vote on military action this
summer. If this is the case, it would imply that
she wants to press ahead without UN backing.
May appears to want the support of parliament to
have the freedom to join US in airstrikes
against Syria in the event of another chemical
attack. This is despite the fact there is no
concrete evidence that
Syrian forces carried out such a recent attack,
just as there was no
evidence to support similar claims in 2013 when
David Cameron tried but failed to get
parliamentary approval to bomb Syria.
Taking about the chemical attack that occurred
on 4 April in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov said:
“We
think it would be constructive for the UN
Security Council to accept a resolution that
would not only investigate the incident but the
accusations against Damascus. We have different
facts, we don’t want to impose them but we stand
for objective, impartial, honest investigation.”
Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn has cautioned May against
unilateral military action in Syria:
“We
don’t need unilateral action. We need to work
through the UN but, above all, we need to bend
ourselves totally to getting a political
settlement in Syria.”
As with Iraq in 2003, the clear danger is that
‘evidence’ is being cooked up to fit a
preconceived policy; in this case, the removal
of Assad from power which was
planned as far
back as at least 2009: Syria is essentially a ‘war
for energy, capital and empire‘.
The
demonisation of Putin and Russia
Since Russia intervened at the behest of the
Syrian government, the Syrian conflict has swung
away from the opposition (terrorist) groups
which the US has been supporting to defeat
Assad, an ‘unspoken truth’ in the mainstream
media (see ‘The
Dirty War on Syria‘).
However, the US seems increasingly desperate to
intensify its military intervention to bring its
plan for Syria
and the wider Middle East region to fruition.
This does not just mean attacking Syrian
government forces. It also involves putting
pressure on Russia to step aside.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin was
told by the UK
ambassador to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft
that he is on the “wrong side of history”
because of his support for the “barbaric” Syrian
leader Bashar Assad. Rycroft added that
supporting the Assad regime would result in
“shame” and “humiliation” for Russia.
Rycroft
said the Security Council had been “held to
ransom by Russia’s shameless support for the
Assad regime.” He added that Russia’s
credibility and reputation across the world have
been poisoned by its toxic association with
Assad.
It might appear to some that Rycroft resides in
an alternative universe. Where is the
credibility and reputation of the US given its
destruction of Panama, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq
and Syria (see ‘Five
Invasion Plots, Three Continents, Identical Lies‘)?
Where does its reputation lie when much of the
world beyond the bubble Rycroft exists in
recognises that the US has supported terror
groups to destroy Syria?
Rycroft
continued discussing Russia:
“They
have chosen to side with a murderous, barbaric
criminal, rather than with their international
peers. They have chosen the wrong side of
history.”
What he
means by “international peers” is the often-used
term “international community” which in turn
means the US, NATO and its allies. This tirade
against Russia and Assad is intended for the
consumption of a Western public courtesy of the
mainstream corporate media that peddles the
narrative of the US and NATO being civilising
forces in a barbaric world.
In response to Rycroft’s statements, Russia’s UN
representative, Vladimir Safronkov, responded:
“Stop
putting forward these unprofessional arguments
and accusations against my country. These are
not diplomatic. These are lies. Don’t even try
to get into fights in the Arab world. Nothing
will work and nothing will be achieved. All Arab
countries recall your colonial hypocrisy.”
The anti-Russia rhetoric has been incessant in
recent years. Following the US-instigated
coup in Ukraine
and with no hint of irony intended, British
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that NATO must
be ready for Russian aggression in
“whatever form it takes.” He added that Russia
is a “real and present danger.”
Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Admiral
James Stavridis deems Russian aggression a
greater threat than terrorism.
He depicts Putin as someone capable of
disregarding international law and seizing
situations to his advantage. This from someone
who represents a country that has flagrantly
disregarded international law to carry out
illegal wars, torture, drone assassinations and
mass murder as
and when it deems necessary.
Jim Comey, director of the FBI, recently branded
Russia the
“greatest threat of any nation,” while answering
questions at a Senate hearing on Moscow’s
alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential
election. Again, no proper evidence has been
offered to support this allegation and Comey
failed to providence any.
Lies for
perpetual war
In the
UK, over the last 18 months, we have also seen
Jeremy Corbyn ridiculed and attacked
relentlessly. Corbyn has been described by
prominent figures in the Conservative government
as a threat to security and as a threat to
Britain. He has been demonised in a similar to
Putin. Corbyn was always going to be a target
for the Establishment because he swims against
the Washington consensus of neoliberal
capitalism, war and imperialism.
Following Corbyn being elected as leader of the
Labour Party in Britain, Michael
Fallon stated:
“Labour
are now a serious risk to our nation’s security,
our economy’s security and your family’s
security.”
If anything is a threat to Britain and the
world, it is the underhand destabilisations and
wars it participates in as it stands shoulder to
shoulder with Washington and its agenda. Former
British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig
Murray has called the UK a danger to the world.
|
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is
Independent Media
|
Murray has stated:
“I’ve
seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign
interventions are almost always about resources.
It is every bit as corrupt as others have
indicated. It is not an academic construct, the
system stinks.”
As far
as Iraq is concerned, Murray said that he knew
for certain that key British officials were
fully aware that there weren’t any weapons of
mass destruction. He said that
invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie.
It was a lie just like the ongoing demonisation
of Putin and Russia is based on a series of
lies. We now have the situation in Syria where deception
once again trumps reality as
the US seeks to gain support for broadening its
military campaign to balkanise
Syria and redraw the map of
the Middle East. Unfounded claims about Assad
using chemical weapons are front page news and
mirroring the lie of WMD in Iraq. Millions are
dead in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan as
the US and its allies play out a continuation of
a modern-day
‘Great Game’.
The US thinks it and it alone has the right
to act as it deems fit to
protect its interests and to maintain global
dominance. No other power will
be allowed to rise to challenge the US.
The US has over a period of decades created a
long list of
bogeymen and bogus reasons to remove leaders and
destroy sovereign states that have stood in the
way of its geostrategic agenda. In terms of a
massive military budget, worldwide military
bases, illegal wars and destabilisations, it is
not Russia but the US which poses the greater
threat to humanity, that
much is clear.
Trajectory
towards nuclear war
This is a recipe for perpetual war. It is a
recipe that is leading humanity towards nuclear
conflict as the US seeks to destroy Russia as a
functioning state or at least replace Putin with
a compliant puppet. Since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the US has pressed ahead both in a
technological sense and a strategic sense to
the point where it believes it can win a nuclear
war with preemptive strike against Russia.
Since when did Russia become an ‘adversary’, we
might ask. The answer is when Washington decided
to break prior agreements with Moscow and then
encircle it with troops and missiles. Eric
Zeusse writes:
“The
expectation and demand is clearly that Russia
must allow itself to be surrounded by NATO, and
to do this without complaint, and therefore also
without taking military countermeasures, which
NATO would call yet more “aggression by Russia.”
Any defensive moves by Russia can thus be taken
by the West to be unacceptable provocation and
justification for a “pre-emptive” attack against
Russia by NATO.”
There are well over a million
dead in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria and Libya as a result of
direct military intervention or covert actions
by the Western powers and their allies (the
death count for Iraq alone between 1990 and 2012
could be 3.3
million as a
result of Western economic sanctions and illegal
wars). But the ultimate price for everyone –
both rich and poor – will be a world war fought
with nuclear weapons.
The machinations
of empire alongside
a crisis
of capitalism and an increasing reliance on
militarism in a futile to deal with it has
placed the US (and the whole of humanity) on an
accelerating trajectory towards conflict with
Russia (and China) that it might find impossible
to escape from.
Matthew
Rycroft, Theresa May and Michael Fallon all read
from the same script handed to them by the
neoconservatives in Washington. As they play
chicken with Russia and gamble with all our
lives, it is they who are on the wrong side of
history.
Unfortunately, there will be no one left to
prove that once they have reduced us all to
ashes.
Colin
Todhunter, writing for print and digital media
on development, globalisation, food,
agriculture, geopolitics. 470 articles on site
below, 210 on food and agriculture.
www.colintodhunter.com
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
