Category Archives: Anglozionism

Bravo Marko! Kudos, Well Said

Russian Cops Brutally Drag Sobbing Granny From A Bus Because She Wasn’t Vaccinated — VIDEO

Pigs presume to lecture her and scream at her. Painful to watch.

The woman tried to get on an intercity bus on the Kumertau – Ufa line, without documents confirming that she had been vaccinated. At the same time, she ignored the repeated demands of the station workers and law enforcement officers to leave the bus, thereby delaying the departure of public transport, the department reports. [Link]

I wonder if the Comrade [from] Alabama, (Moon of Alabama – n.ed.) who has since gone all but quiet on everything COVID, but who in early 2020 was promising apocalypse for anyone who did not lock down with utmost severity including kidnapping COVID-positive children from their parents, is going to send a letter to the Russian mercenary cops congratulating them on work well done in brutalizing and humiliating elderly citizens?

Or perhaps it is going to be the early “COVID believer” Saker ( faux White Russian – n. ed.), who has interrupted his 18-month moratorium and ban on discussing anything related to COVID fascism, in order to publish and promote wishy-washy BS on how in Russia the government and the people are ultimately joined in a common struggle against the virus, marked by mutual trust:

Street revolts are not happening in Russia. This is not happening in China. There are relatively few ZoneB countries where this is happening and the main difference is the cohesion of citizen and state. Where there is no cohesion, there is break-down. Western governments have proven themselves to be enemies of their citizens.

The second main difference simply is trust.

Here is the most spectacular difference. The western countries started fighting their people. How dare they be susceptible to a virus but oh boy, what a crisis capitalism opportunity this is.

The other ¾ of the world started fighting a virus and supporting their people.

Utterly hilarious and laughable stuff and downright criminal to peddle it. There is plenty of revolt in Russia, it just doesn’t take the form of street protest. What else is one of the lowest vaccination rates in Europe, but a form of revolt against the state religion of COVID mind disease? 

There is also plenty of government overreach, of brutality, of Draconianism, of humiliation, pressure, coercion, repression, gaslighting, and of concealing and massaging the numbers.

Russia isn’t a place that is marked by a high level of popular trust in the government, but a place that is marked by an extraordinarily high level of cynicism for the government and the state. The level is so high that it spills into government offices themselves and the police force which is itself jaded and cynical. The real reason Russia isn’t a fully-blown COVID-Stalinist hellhole is that its own police force does not truly buy into the cretinisms of the COVID sacrificial cult that Saker subscribes to, but are only enforcing it in a lazy and mercenary fashion just sufficient to protect their paychecks. Such a hypocritical police force and bureaucracy do not allow the high leadership to wage an effective war against the populace in practice, but such a war definitely already exists on the books, and will only be ramped up in the coming winter months. (Saint Petersburg just announced a QR-code regime that doesn’t accept negative tests.)

As it escalates we will be on the side of Russian grandmas and the Russian people. Will Saker? Or will he stay true to form and keep mum, only to interrupt his silence here and there to pontificate from his restriction-free, DeSantis-run Florida on how the COVID Faucism in Russia really isn’t all that bad, and how the people, “albeit grumbling”, largely accept it anyway and find it for the best?

Here is a video of a different Russian granny who last month defied a different kind of bandit:

You know what is sad? The elderly woman who bravely resisted the mugger was ultimately assisted by a passerby, but the courageous woman who stood up to the Russian COVID Rouge was then repressed by the police.

However, even the brave Moscow grandma will now find herself in house arrest if she is one of the two-thirds of the over 60s who want none of the jab Putin is peddling and remain unvaccinated.

As Putin has instructed his Spokesman to signal, but is too cowardly to be heard saying himself:

“All measures are good. Any measures that can encourage more people to get vaccinated are good.”

So three hurrays for the Russian police! Without them who would drag unvaccinated Russian grandmas from intercity buses? They should expect a medal in the mail from Putin shortly for a job well done in “encouraging more people to get vaccinated”. Next, tune in for the cops arresting an unvaccinated grandpa for walking a dog farther than 100 meters from his towerblock, or having the guile to get his groceries in a store that is only the 2nd closest to his towerblock entrance. 

Anything to not have to get an actually honorable job. Then again, in a QR-coded, lockdown realm it’s better for you that you don’t.

Sorry granny, you thought you lived in a free country

War Crimes in Syria

by Miri Wood via Syria News

Syria’s Foreign and Expatriates Ministry has put both UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UNSC on notice that it is well past time for the bastion of peace and security to enforce its Charter against member states which breach it, in this case, the Turkish invader and occupation forces. If Guterres and the Security Council continue to refuse to enforce the Charter which prohibits member states from war criminal attacks on other countries, Syria will finally take the matter into its own military hands, which is its legal right, per the Geneva Agreements of 1949 and per the UN Charter.

The polite and overly diplomatic version of this report has been published in SANA, 20 September.

Since the beginning of the heinous NATO Spring dumped on Syria in March 2011, NATO Turkey has led the way in war crimes against the Syrian Arab Republic.

In November 2012, al Qaeda terrorists occupying part of Aleppo, under the commands of NATO Erdogan and the dirty Gulfie gas station — two-thirds of which are US military bases, dismantled Syrian factories and oil machinery parts, and transported them by trucks — in broad daylight — into Turkey.

On 5 December 2012, al Qaeda FSA terrorists in an alleged ‘make shift’ laboratory in Gaziantep, Turkey, announced they had chemical weapons and were prepared to use them against Syrian patriots. They demonstrated that they did — the chemical weapon appeared to be VX — in a fatal experiment with two rabbits. The UNSC refused to investigate the threat.

On 21 December 2012, the al Qaeda FSA terrorists in the same ‘make shift’ lab announced they had developed a quick acting poison that could massacre Syrian patriots via dumping it into the Alsinn Spring water supply to Lattakia. This time one rabbit was used in the fatal demonstration. Again, the UNSC refused to investigate.

Instead of poisoning the spring, the savages used this chemical substance to murder dozens of kidnapped Syrian children, on 4 April 2017, in Khan Sheikhoun.

Prior to Madman Erdogan’s official military invasions of the Syrian Arab Republic — to which it gave Orwellian names of Olive Branch (2018) and Peace Spring (2019), the war criminals had occupied Jarabulus, Syria, and created a Turkish police force.

Syria has previously called on the civilized world to halt Turkey’s cultural aggression against the state.

In September 2019, Erdogan presented his planned annexation of Syria map to the UN General Assembly. He should have had rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at him; instead, the NATO klansmen and house servants in attendance, bobbed their heads in approval.

Erdogan annexation map of Syria shown at UNGA meeting.
Madman Erdogan’s annexation map received tacit approval by the UN NATO klan at General Assembly meeting September 2019.

Imagine the supremacists at UNGA having tolerated a similar map of annexation plots by countries surrounding France:

Annexation normalized against Syria would not be tolerated against France.

Madman Erdogan simultaneously announced and launched his war criminal Operation Peace Spring aerial bombing and ground invasion bombing of the Allouk electrical grid on 9 October 2019 (supported by American illegal John McCain’s FSA/Jabhat al Nusra pal, Salim Idriss), which was immediately repaired by the Syrian Electricity Army, to be re-bombed and re-repaired. At the 24 October anti-Syria UN meeting, the Security Council P3 and their Ursula Mueller were complicit in ignoring the advent of Turkey’s water war crimes against the Levantine republic.

The reality of Turkey’s water war crimes against Syria was completely ignored by the unindicted war criminals of the UN, at the NATO junta’s anti-Syria monthly meeting, on 24 October 2019. Instead of condemning NATO Turkey’s water war crime against the Syrian people, the urchin honcho disgracefully described Erdogan’s atrocity as perpetrated by “allied non-State armed groups” and inferred that intricate repairs were made by a simple wave of a fairy godmother’s wand.

Mere months later, the same Emergency Relief Coordinator who showed little concern for Erdogan’s water war crimes was nearly frothing at the mouth at the UN anti-Syria klan fest, demanding Tal Abyad have a border crossing opened to ‘help’ the suffering Syrians, though she appeared sedate in the pre-meeting UNSCR meeting of the NATO klan.

 

On 28 April 2021, the OCHA humanitarian bastards published a report on Alouk, via Reliefweb, wailing its crocodile tears that the water had been “disrupted” twenty-three times since November 2019.

 

Turkey’s war crimes against Syria must obviously include ethnic cleansing of indigenous Syrians from their homeland, resulting in countless civilians being slaughtered in countless fratricidalterrorist attacks, as vicious ‘collateral damage,’ through crime of forced displacement, and simply to massacre them.

Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. Forced displacement is a war crime. Depriving civilians of potable water is a war crime.

The NATO mobsters ruling the UNSC — and the mob gang includes consummate imperialist SG Guterres — have plotted a new Sykes-Picot against Syria. This is why they avert their collective gaze to the Erdogan regime’s constant war crimes against Syria.

Dr. Faisal Mekdad, Syria’s Foreign and Expatriates Minister will speak at the upcoming UNGA meeting. He will arrive in NYC with his delegation that includes former Syrian Permanent Representative to the UN, and current Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Dr. Bashar al Jaafari, Dr. Abdhullah Hallaq, and Ehab Hamed.

Syria has put the UNSC and UNSG on notice that one way or another, Erdogan’s war crimes against the Levantine republic will be halted.

ISIS will be crushed and NATO will be ejected
Syria President Dr. Bashar al-Assad: “Every inch of Syria will be liberated”

Miri Wood

Hamas Has Establishing Itself as a Player That Cannot Be Ignored

by Shir Hevervia: Middle East Eye

As an uneasy ceasefire hangs over Gaza and Israel, differing accounts have emerged as to who “won” the round of violence in May.

Much of Gaza once again lies in ruins with Israeli air strikes killing 253 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounding more than 1,900, according to the health ministry in Gaza. Hamas rockets also killed 13 Israelis.

However, a consensus is emerging in the Israeli media – and among politicians and military command – that Hamas effectively defeated Israel.

Military officials have concluded that, from a strategic point of view, Hamas achieved its goal of establishing itself as a player that cannot be ignored when it comes to Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel’s “mowing the lawn” doctrine of repeated strikes on the Gaza Strip in order to prevent Palestinian resistance movements from accumulating military power, has largely failed.

A principal reason for this is the narrowing of the military imbalance that has long existed between the de facto rulers of Gaza and the Israeli army.

The new military capabilities of Hamas – long-range and more accurate rockets, drones and an unmanned submarine – have taken the Israeli military by surprise.

Imad Alsoos, research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, told Middle East Eye that he estimated that the Hamas leadership also created a distribution of labour in resisting the Israeli assault. The group provided low-range mortars to the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), while they focused on operating long-range weapons instead.

The absence of Israeli tanks – apparently largely withdrawn after an Israeli soldier was killed on May 12 by an anti-tank missile – also allowed mortar operators to approach the Gaza border fence and bring the mortars within range of the Israeli communities around the besieged enclave.

According to Haaretz, in those communities, over 3,400 residents requested psychological treatment as a result of trauma during the 11 days of the fighting, compared with 2,200 requests received in the region during the 51 days of fighting in 2014.

“In the 2014 war the border area was the deadliest for the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces):the use of mortars and anti-tank weapons on mustering troops, the tunnel attacks on border posts, and frogmen attacks from sea all loomed large in this round of fighting,” said Canadian journalist and researcher John Elmer.

“The IDF quite apparently wanted no part of that area this time.”

Stock falls in arms companies

Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told Middle East Eye that the Israeli military relies on arms supplied by the US, followed by Germany and Italy.

Wezeman mentioned that Germany provided Israel with submarines, frigates, torpedoes and engines for Merkava tanks – all are weapons which did not play a visible role in the recent attack. The aerial bombardments, however, were achieved by using US-made planes by pilots trained with Italy-supplied trainer aircraft.

When it comes to Israeli-made weapons, however, the defence companies were relatively silent during the last round of bombardments of Gaza. The websites of the three largest companies, Elbit Systems, IAI and Rafael did not upload any comments on the recent conflict.

The most visible system deployed by the Israeli military was Iron Dome, which is heavily subsidised by the US but still costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per interception.

As a result of the fact that the Iron Dome system erroneously shot down a drone produced by Elbit Systems, Elbit weapons were revealed to have been used in the bombardment of Gaza, with activists in the UK barricading themselves on top of the roof of an Elbit Systems factory to protest the use of its weapons against civilians in the strip.

Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who was recently based in Jerusalem and is writing a book on how Israel’s occupation has gone global, pointed out that Palestine is often a testing ground for new Israeli weapons and defence equipment.

“In the recent conflict between Gaza and Israel, it seems that Hamas improved its weaponry with more accurate, long-range missiles. However, historically, many of Israel’s most sophisticated surveillance technology and weapons were first developed for use against Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Israeli itself,” he told MEE.

“Israeli companies still talk about ‘battle-tested’ weapons for global sale. Many of the key ‘innovators’ in this space work for Israel’s notorious cyber Unit 8200 and take this experience into the private sector, leading to techniques perfected in Palestine used and abused in global conflicts.”

However, Elbit Systems, the only privately owned company in Israel’s top three, saw its stock price mostly go down during the recent round of fighting – as opposed to in previous rounds, in which it went up.

The gap in military power between the Israeli military, considered to be the 14th strongestmilitary in the world, and the Palestinian armed resistance groups, which amount to poorly equipped militias, remains very real, but the recent fighting shows that it is gradually narrowing.

Israel’s Agreement of an Unconditional Ceasefire is Actually an Admission of Defeat

via Maitreya Bhakal via RT

After rejecting previous offers, Israel finally agreed to a ceasefire with Hamas, figuring it had killed enough Palestinian civilians. Yet, does the belated move betray an admission of defeat?

First they came for the children, the adults, the schools, and the hospitals

After slaughtering 248 people, including 66 children, and wounding 1,900, the Zionist regime finally agreed to a ceasefire on May 21. Until then, it had displaced 72,000 civilians and damaged 16,800 housing units (of which 1,800 had become unfit for living and 1,000 were completely destroyed), 51 schools and educational facilities, six hospitals, and 11 primary health centers, including Gaza’s only Covid-19 testing laboratory.

Such cruelty was shocking but expected. Like its imperial mentor the US, the Israeli regime often initiates such violence to distract public attention from domestic problems. And few needed the distraction more than its embattled leader Benjamin Netanyahu, currently on trial for corruption. Zionist leaders see slaughtering Palestinians as a low-cost technique to try to bolster their popularity. Israeli voters remain divided over which figurehead to choose to bomb Palestinians; four elections in two years have failed to produce a decisive result.

The tactic isn’t always successful, though. The unconditional ceasefire is an embarrassing change of heart for the regime, after it had already rejected previous ceasefire offers.

A probable reason is that Hamas proved to be more resilient than Israel had expected or bargained for. Despite killing 248 people in Gaza and flattening whole neighborhoods, it still wasn’t winning. It failed to stop rocket attacks, while its arsenal of costly Iron Dome interceptors was getting depleted.

So was international goodwill. The UN Security Council was united in its desire to issue statements condemning Israel, save for one member, the United States, which blocked three attempts in just one week. Global public solidarity, including surprisingly in America, stood largely with the Palestinians being bombed. Israeli civilians were also increasingly sick of the violence; the mayor of Lod openly declared that “civil war has broken out” and said he had “lost control of the city.”

Even some US politicians started speaking out, especially controlled-opposition puppets such as Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While little more than a meaningless exercise in wokeness to appease their young liberal voter base, the criticism still came as a shock. The regime is not used to even such performative opposition, given its overwhelming influence over the US Congress and media. Anything short of uncritical support was a huge setback. When once expressing even the slightest sympathy for slain Palestinians (even children) was scandalous, today it’s becoming increasingly accepted in US society and politics.

Citizen journalism over social media also blunted the effect of Israeli propaganda. A video of a building being bombed or a photo of a Palestinian child being pulled out of rubble can influence people – even Americans – at a level that the best Israeli PR can barely dream of.

Palestinians can’t breathe

The savagery inflicted by Israel on Palestinians over the decades boggles the imagination, even for a US ally. Israeli soldiers kill Palestinians with impunity, when they’re not driving them out of their homes.

Settler colonialism (also known as Lebensraum) is official Israeli policy. An unbelievable 600,000-750,000 Israelis, roughly 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, are living in at least 250 illegal ‘settlements’ in the stolen territories of West Bank and East Jerusalem, having driven out the original, legal inhabitants.

The attitude of considering Jews as the Chosen People is strong with the right-wing military leadership of the officially Jewish state. The deaths of civilians are seen as an inevitable necessity for fulfilling Zionism’s messianic destiny.

This was succinctly explained by Bari Weiss, a notorious Zionist US pundit and journalist. She helpfully clarified that killing children was merely “one of the unavoidable burdens of political power, of Zionism’s dream turned into the reality of self-determination.” Eli Ben-Dahan, Israel’s former deputy minister of defense, once stated that Palestinians were “like animals, they are not human.”

Netanyahu himself made his views about Palestinians clear long ago in a secretly taped conversation, with alarming but expected clarity: “…beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable.” The Israeli military recently boasted: “Our goal is to only strike terror.” It’s easy to treat people and their homes as genuine military targets once you’ve de-humanized them.

‘Collateral Damage’

This explains the Israeli policy of targeting civilians – the so-called ‘Dahiya doctrine’ – that calls for destroying civilian infrastructure – ostensibly to deny the enemy their use, but in reality, an excuse to murder people. This homicidal policy is often cloaked with the euphemism ‘asymmetric warfare’. Since 2008, Israel has slaughtered 23 Palestinians for every dead Israeli.

In recent decades, instead of outright war, Israel sometimes prefers a strategy Israeli analysts call ‘mowing the grass’. The name is telling; it indicates both the de-humanization of Palestinians as irritant weeds that need to be trimmed and shown their place periodically (presumably by killing their children and bombing hospitals), as well as the realization that the Zionist regime, after executing major settler-colonial territorial expansions in 1948 and 1967, has now probably settled in for the long haul and acknowledged a war of attrition. The idea is to start a small fire that invites a proportionate pushback, and then use that pushback to strike disproportionately hard in return – and then retreat, claiming victory. Coupled with the Dahiya doctrine, ‘mowing the grass’ attempts maximum Palestinian civilian casualties while minimizing Israeli military deaths. This set of tactics is then rinsed and repeated every few years.

The privilege to defend itself – and attack others

Civilized nations often condemn Israel strongly. America, however, largely accepts the mass slaughter of innocent civilians, braying “Israel has the right to defend itself” to anyone who would listen, perhaps seeing a reflection of itself in the Zionist state. Indeed, few nations are more similar than America and Israel, and right since their births, both have been founded on settler colonialism.

But looking woke is also important. After blocking statements on the topic thrice at the UN Security Council, Biden told Netanyahu that he “expected a significant de-escalation,” indicating perhaps that he expected the Israeli leader to kill fewer children.

This impunity is reinforced by a vast pro-Israel lobby which exercises near-complete control over the US establishment. Abusive US diplomats are quick to hold other nations “accountable” for their “human rights violations,” but fully support and encourage outright massacres by Israel.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

The grudging acceptance of a unilateral ceasefire represents a significant humiliation for the Zionist regime. It claims to have one of the world’s most advanced militaries, and still had to capitulate in front of a resistance force it considers militarily inferior. And despite also boasting of one of the world’s strongest propaganda networks, its defeat in the PR battlefield was even worse than in the actual battlefield.

Admitting anything short of absolute victory, however, would’ve been unthinkable. For decades, Israel has strived hard to create an aura of military invincibility. Yet, while this propaganda was once actually backed by (US-aided) Israeli victories on the ground against much weaker enemies, it is today pushing up against recent debacles – as well as the reluctance of Israeli soldiers to risk death to appease their political masters.

The Israel ‘Defense’ Forces, or IDF, are a vital source of national pride for Israeli people – and an even more vital source of legitimacy for the Israeli regime. It cannot afford to be seen to lose a single war, even when it actually loses. In the pro-Israel media and academia, Israeli atrocities are often whitewashed by euphemistically referring to the situation as “complicated” or saying “both sides are at fault.” Similarly, Israeli defeats and failures are often glossed over with phrases like “both sides claim victory” or “stalemate.”

Or, occasionally, “ceasefire.”

VT Blockbuster Exclusive: Why Israel Surrendered to Hamas, Smuggled Videos

via Veterans Today Editors

This exclusive video was just received from Israel, smuggled out at great risk, the only video so far showing street fighting the media censored 100%.

The same source sent this video of Israeli police murdering a small Palestinian child through suffocation.

This is a real video of real Israeli police murdering a real child, under 10. Now, do you wonder why some of us object to Israeli’s training our police and why we tend to connect this behavior seen above, which is, we are also told, commonplace in Israel, to America’s police and their murders?

These two videos need to be seen by every elected official in America. Make sure this happens. Spread the word.

 

MERKEL SAVES NORD STREAM 2 WITH A CUNNING TRICK

by Gevorg Mirzayan

via Stalkerzone

The German Chancellor said that the fate of the most important Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream 2” will be decided not by Germany, but by the European Union as a whole. This is how she sees the response to the situation with Aleksey Navalny. It may seem that this is a terrible omen for the gas pipeline, which has already seen billions of euros invested into it for construction. But what did Angela Merkel really mean?

The fate of Nord Stream 2 was again in question. No sooner had the project’s supporters celebrated the removal of the Danish obstacle (Copenhagen, after much delay, gave permission for the pipe to be laid through its territorial waters) than Germany, which until recently was an advocate for construction and one of the main beneficiaries of construction, began to seemingly make obstacles.

Berlin, dissatisfied with the position of Moscow in the case of Aleksey Navalny, intends to put the question of a possible curtailment of the project to a pan-European discussion. Why does Angela Merkel want to close “Nord Stream 2” – and does she in general want to?

Legacy

Germany has long called for putting an end to “Nord Stream 2”, which in the understanding of a number of western activists “increases Europe’s dependence on Russian energy carriers”. They did not even require Angela Merkel to deliver a funeral speech over it. “The easiest option for Germany would be to simply withdraw its support for Nord Stream 2, allowing American and European critics to kill it,” the BBC writes. And now, against the background of the Navalny case, the aggressiveness of the project’s opponents has increased by an order of magnitude.

Until recently, it seemed that they were banging their heads against the wall of German pragmatism. Germany’s position on Nord Stream 2 was really reinforced concrete: German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation with Moscow in the case of the “poisoning of Aleksey Navalny”, but was not going to abandon Nord Stream 2 because of this. After all, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas correctly notes, “those who call for the cancellation of the project should understand the consequences of such a step”.

Firstly, Berlin needs Nord Stream 2 from an economic point of view. “Germany has a very weak position in terms of energy. They are closing a lot of power plants – nuclear, coal,” says Donald Trump. Germany and the EU do not have reliable suppliers of cheap gas that are an alternative to Russia. In addition to getting cheap blue fuel (much needed for the export-oriented economy of Germany), Germany will earn good money on the transit of Russian gas, becoming a hub country.

“If the project is stopped, the German consumer will pay for it,” said Klaus Ernst, a member of the Bundestag from the Die Linke party. In addition, Berlin is also thinking about the security of Europe under its patronage – the internal political situation in Ukraine is deteriorating, and no one can guarantee that the militants not controlled by Kiev will not decide to stop the gas export of the “aggressor country” to Europe. Well, or threaten to stop if the EU does not issue another loan to Kiev.

Finally, the issue of reputation is also important. Angela Merkel was not just a supporter of Nord Stream 2, but also a lawyer. She defended the project against those who advocated abandoning infrastructure projects with “Putin’s Russia” – human rights activists, urban lunatics, agents of influence of the US. If now, because of the Navalny case, Merkel changes her position on the “stream”, then she will be criticised for political short-sightedness.

Moreover, by both opponents of Nord Stream 2 (for catching on too late) and supporters of the project, who are dissatisfied with the fact that Angela Merkel has called into question Germany’s energy security because of some political matter. Not to mention the fact that it caused serious damage to German business (Uniper and Wintershall invested almost a billion euros each in Nord Stream 2). And since Frau Chancellor leaves her post at the end of 2021, it is important for her who she will remain in history.

“It all depends on the Russians”

However, Angela Merkel’s pragmatism seemed to be beginning to bend under the pressure of numerous critics and human rights activists calling for “punishing Putin for another poisoning of an opponent”. In their opinion, Germany is the leader of the European Union and (against the background of Donald Trump’s actual refusal to “protect freedom around the world”) a potential leader of the entire liberal community, so it has no right to stay away from the Navalny case. Therefore, Angela Merkel announced the possibility of imposing sanctions against Nord Stream 2 ,and, according to media reports, intends to initiate a pan-European response to the case of Aleksey Navalny. And gather all the EU countries together to decide how to respond to Russia’s behaviour – and part of this reaction may be the suspension of Nord Stream 2.

This suspension will be a serious blow to Moscow. After all, this is not just about an important infrastructure project – there are much bigger things at stake. “The curtailment of Nord Stream 2 will send a clear signal with long-term consequences: German business will leave the Russian market even faster, and Vladimir Putin’s attempts to modernise Russia with the economic assistance of EU countries will finally turn to dust,” writes Deutsche Welle correspondent Miodrag Soric. At the same time, as they make it clear in Berlin, the blow can be avoided. “Our further actions depend on the behaviour of the Russians,” explains German Health Minister Jens Spahn.

“I hope the Russians won’t force us to change our position on Nord Stream 2,” says Heiko Maas, alluding to the fact that the Kremlin is expected to fulfil European demands concerning the Navalny case, and that they are waiting for prompt implementation, and “not by the end of the year or even within a few months”. These demands are very simple and not burdensome – not taking the blame, but just admitting the fact of poisoning, as well as starting an investigation.

Why shouldn’t they be implemented?

One of the reasons is as old as the Russian-west conflict. Moscow does not want to create a dangerous precedent for itself. The Kremlin, in fact, is being forced to admit a politically motivated accusation – after all, the Bundeswehr, whose laboratory declared “the indisputable fact of Navalny’s poisoning”, refused to provide the Russian authorities with any material evidence, citing “the secrecy of the methods and procedures used”.

If Russia now accepts this position on faith under the threat of sanctions, then the inspired western partners will threaten the same sanctions and issue other ultimatums: non-interference in the affairs of Belarus, withdrawal from Syria, etc. And this is not to mention the organisation and information support of other provocations that should be expected before the difficult political transit in Russia in 2024. If the blackmailer issues an ultimatum, the only way to escape from it is to refuse to fulfil any, even the most insignificant demands.

Divergence?

In addition, it makes no sense for Russia to make concessions to Berlin, because the position of Angela Merkel has never changed. Germany, as before, is not going to close Nord Stream 2 – it just behaves more elegantly and cunningly. Yes, it is partly bluffing for the sake of forcing Moscow to make concessions – but at the same time it may be an elegant attempt by Frau Chancellor to pass between the European trickles. By putting the issue up for European discussion, Angela Merkel is calling out those who support punishing Russia, confirming her political leadership – and at the same time putting a tricky block on accepting any tough sanctions.

The fact is that decisions at such meetings should be made by consensus. And if Angela Merkel had raised the question of approving the construction of Nord Stream 2, she would not have received a green light – after all, a number of EU countries (Poland, the Baltic states) are categorically opposed to the implementation of this infrastructure project. However, Frau Merkel (apparently) will ask about something else – should Russia’s punishment for the Navalny case be extended to Nord Stream 2? And here one should not expect any consensus on the completion of the project – the positions of the European countries are too different.

Recall that the pan-European decision concerning the Skripal case was only the collective expulsion of a certain number of Russian diplomats.

And this is despite the fact that back then the grounds for sanctions were much more serious than now. Firstly, there were at least some grounds for blaming Russia for what happened – there was a recording of “Petrov and Boshirov” arriving in Salisbury, as well as information provided to the media that these people work for the Russian special services. Secondly, it was about the use of weapons of mass destruction on the territory of the European Union, which can be interpreted as an attack by the Russian Federation on European citizens. Whilst here we are talking at best about poisoning – without any evidence of Russian guilt. And Moscow can only be accused of unwillingness to take Europe’s word for it. The most important infrastructure projects are not stopped for this by respected countries.

Angela Merkel’s proposal has another advantage for Russia – it protects (at least for a while) Nord Stream 2 from threats from other EU states. There is a risk that some less conscious countries (for example, Denmark) may take their own sanctions against the project. For example, revoke permission to lay a pipe through their waters. Bringing the issue to a pan-European discussion puts unilateral sanctions on pause.

And since Navalny is not dead, but is on the mend, time will cool the hot European heads, and the idea of blocking Nord Stream 2 will go off the agenda. At least for a while.

Prince Peter Kropotkin and the Murder of the Liberator Tsar

by Martin Sieff

via GlobalResearch

© Photo: kropotkin.ru

Why did London host a convention of anarchists in July 1881 less than three months after they had murdered the Liberator Tsar of Russia?

The International Anarchist Congress of London, from July 14 to July 20, 1881 was highly unusual in many ways, though it has almost totally been forgotten by history, save as a curiosity.

It was the last such gathering to be held for more than a quarter of a century until the International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam in August 1907. During that time, there were four other unsuccessful attempts to call international congresses, in Geneva in 1882, in Paris in 1889, in Chicago in 1890 and once again in Paris in 1900.

Those interested in the procedural minutiae of the congress can easily enough find obscure academic articles discussing theoretical intellectual positions held and debated at the Congress.

But as far as I have been able to find, no historians have given any serious study to the possibility that the Congress may have been used to coordinate or plan any program of “Propaganda of the Deed” – the assassination of important political leaders across Europe and the Americas, which was central to the achievement of the anarcho-syndicalist movement’s goals.

Nor is there any discussion anywhere – save in terms of abstruse and apparently harmless political theory – of the role that former Prince Peter Kropotkin, the most consistently high-profile and charismatic leader of the anarchist movement played in the convention.

Most striking of all, there appears never to have been any serious investigation conducted as to why the British government permitted its capital London, to be the host of the conference that on the surface stood for the destruction of everything that the British Empire, its traditions and institutions held dear.

The decision to permit the 1881 congress to gather in London was particularly striking – and from the Russian government’s point of view outrageous – because it opened only four months almost to the day after Tsar Alexander II, the Great Liberator who freed 24 million serfs from slavery and supported Abraham Lincoln and the Union through the U.S. Civil War, was assassinated by a specially designed shrapnel grenade thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki on Sunday, March 13, 1881.

That hideous crime was planned and committed by the Narodnaya Volya, “The People’s Will” itself a strange, tiny, conspiratorial group shrouded in mystery and unanswered questions to this day.

The name of the group suggests – as it was meant to – a mass popular movement, But the Narodnaya Volya was no such thing. The best estimates of Russian and Western historians alike put it at no more than 200 members. Almost none of these were from peasant backgrounds. They were almost all from favored, prosperous, professional middle class families and in some cases even from aristocratic backgrounds.

Interestingly, the followers of the late Osama Bin Laden in the first generation of al-Qaeda that carried out the destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 exhibit an almost identical set of profiles, as former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Feisal bin Abdelaziz ibn Saud has pointed out.

The Narodnaya Volya was only founded in 1879. But it was totally crushed by 1884. Yet in the first two years of its existence, it operated with apparent impunity carrying out no less than eight attempts on the life of Tsar Alexander. No other tsar in Russian history including Alexander’s son and grandson after him was ever hunted so mercilessly and relentlessly by assassins.

The Narodnaya Volya never lacked for any of the financing it needed for its murderous schemes. The Russian internal security services, who proved extremely efficient and energetic in smashing the group after it carried out its bloody deed, seemed utterly helpless and inept against it until that point. This may in large part have been because the group was so tiny and so novel in its operational techniques.

Who led the Narodnaya Volya? Its documented leaders were Andrey Zhelyabov and Sofya Perovskaya. Perovskaya came from an aristocratic background but showed little capability beyond her own murderously intense fanaticism and strange obsession with murdering the tsar. Other members of the group when arrested openly commented on her merciless hatred for the ruler who had liberated the serfs.

But Perovskaya from 1872 was personally very closely associated with the then handsome, dashing and charismatic anarchist leader Prince Peter Kropotkin. It is likely they were lovers.

The carefully (British) constructed image of Kropotkin that endures to this day is a tubby, kindly, smiling old, bearded Father Christmas. In his youth, however, he was darkly satanically handsome and was obsessed with Goethe’s devil figure Mephistopheles in “Faust.”

For Perovskaya, Kropotkin would have been the dashing, aristocratic brilliant love of her life. For Kropotkin, the rather plain Perovskaya would have been a means to an end: The hunting and murder of the tsar.

Kropotkin came from one of the most aristocratic eminent families in Russia. He claimed descent from the House of Rurik, the original ruling family of Russia. He had actually been a personal page of Tsar Alexander II in his early years in power. He had been brutally bullied (or so he later claimed) when entering the Imperial corps of pages. For ever after, he maintained an intense personal hatred of the tsar, intensified by the years he spent as a prisoner for his subversive activities in the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg starting in 1872. His escape was engineered by friends in 1876.

Kropotkin’s relationship with Perovskaya starting in 1872 in the Tchaikovsky (not the great musical composer) Circle is the key documented fact that links Kropotkin directly to the murder of the great tsar he so intensely personally hated. The group’s leader Nikolai Tchaikovsky, like Kropotkin found protection in Britain for most of his later life.

Kropotkin was a noted scientist in his day who contested Darwin and argued a version of evolution based on natural cooperation rather than natural selection. In fact it was superficial and crackpot but interestingly has recently been revived, along with his scientific reputation in British academic circles.

During the remainder of his own long life (he died in 1921 at the age of 79), Kropotkin was allowed to live in complete peace and security in Britain. Not coincidentally, Britain was the only major country in Europe not to suffer from the mysterious outbreak of assassinations that swept the continent and even the United States in the last quarter of the 19th century.

As Matthew Ehret has noted, the anarchist assassinations seemed to disproportionately target major leaders who rejected free trade and a global economic order dictated by British financial interests from the City of London. Its victims included U.S. presidents James Garfield (1881) and William McKinley (1901), French President Sadi Carnot (1894), Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Canovas (1897) and King Umberto I of Italy (1900).

In addition, in 1878 alone, anarchists attempted to kill Emperor Wilhelm I of Germany twice as well as the Kings of Spain and Italy. Kropotkin hailed all these efforts at “the Propaganda of the Deed.” Not coincidentally, all of these leaders, especially the old Kaiser, Bismarck’s patron and protector stood like Tsar Alexander II squarely opposed to British efforts at global financial domination.

Yet despite all these outrages – or more likely because of them – Kropotkin, the guiding figure of anarcho-syndicalism and the great champion of the murder of national leaders continued to enjoy a charmed life protected by the British Empire.

To this day, British historians and other writers have unanimously continued to swallow the approved line that Kropotkin was a kindly, brilliant, pacifist saint – belonging to the company of Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King rather than that of Sergei Nechayev and Dostoyevsky’s “Devils.”

The hyper-energetic, much loved and woefully idiotic American popular historian Barbara Tuchman spread this Disneyworld fairy tale image of Kropotkin in her enormously popular and influential history of the pre-World War I world “The Proud Tower” in 1966. Typically, she won the Pulitzer Prize twice for writing other histories that got their central facts and theses wrong.

A serious study of the role of Kropotkin and his “Anarchist International” in the assassinations of the late 19th century is well over 100 years overdue.

But even in that age of carefully selected and discriminating terror, the hunting and murder of the great liberator Tsar Alexander stands out for its relentless nature and obsessive cruelty.

That age of assassinations and the Anarchists Congress that the British so incongruously hosted in July 1881 is not just a matter of abstract curiosity about a long forgotten and irrelevant past. It offers disquieting parallels to the use of targeted assassinations and the methodical destabilization of great nations in the name of free trade, democracy and human rights that continues at a feverish pace in our own time.

As the great American novelist William Faulkner rightly wrote in “Requiem for a Nun,” “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Anti-immigration? Which Immigration?

Caspar von Everec says:

Its more important to restrict high IQ Asian and Indian immigrants than a pack of low IQ Mestizos from central America. The Black criminals are even less of a threat. A government could crush them in minutes if it wanted to and everyone would applaud.

The problem with Asian and Indian immigration is that they replace the whites in high cognition jobs. If it continues, it will get to a stage where whites are simply not needed by the Jewish oligarchy anymore. Right now, they can’t afford to simply kill off or completely force out the white population of the US.

They do most of the high cognition, professional and technocratic jobs like engineering, finance, medicine, technical work etc. However, if America amasses a large enough pool of rootless and compliant coolie technocrats from India and China, this will no longer be the case.

The jewish plutocracy would feel much more comfortable with such rootless and amorphous subordinates than Whites, who have a large population base and historical roots in the country.

The elite is already waging a soft genocide on whites, yet when they no longer need whites for intelligent labor, it will turn into a hard one, with full Soviet style dekulakization. Instead of enemies of the proletariat, it will be enemies of equality/ diversity.

Furthermore, even if that were not the case, it makes zero sense for whites to allow high IQ immigrants in the country. Why would you want a foreign cadre of technocrats to rule over you? Why would you want more competitors for your children for well paying professions?

Mass Asian immigration means complete depowering of whites and their reduction to a coolie class. It will be a future where the best job a white man is able to get is to be a mechanic or carpenter. Law, medicine, engineering? Those are for the diverse and oppressed Asians and blacks (read: groups not a threat to the Jewish plutocracy).

Then there’s the case of Hispanics… I’ll concede that its not that much of an issue. They are not as criminal and their low IQ means they’ll never be a credible technocratic threat. These people are mostly powerless and are simply cattle labor for the corporate bosses.

However, mass migration is still a great economic punch to the heritage American. It lowers wages, destroys unionization, cripples support for welfare services and the glut of labor serves as a permanent downward pressure on wages…in addition to rising inflation as a result of the newcomer’s debt fuelled consumption.

The US importing hordes of STEM gradates whereas STEM fields have long passed saturation point.

https://alltogether.swe.org/2017/12/is-there-a-shortage-of-stem-jobs-to-stem-graduates-its-complicated/

Thus immigration reduction is deeply popular among Americans of all races, as everyone feels the financial crunch. It is impossible to achieve any sort of middle class society with decent wages, when there are a billion immigrants in tow.

Why Britain Paid Vast Sums to Other Countries to Make War on Napoleon and Why Trade Beat the Emperor

During the Napoleonic Wars Britain spent 14 percent of its total budget on paying France’s enemies to carry the fight to the Emperor. Gary Girod, host of the French History Podcast, explained why ultimately it was Britain’s financial and naval prowess which defeated Napoleon.

Between 1793 and 1815 Britain gave £65,830,228 to Russia, Austria, Prussia and other smaller nations in order to subsidise their conflicts with France.

That was on top of the millions it was spending on the Royal Navy, which ruled the waves and ensured Napoleon never tried to invade Britain.

People in period uniforms fight during a re-enactment of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo between the French army led by Napoleon and the Allied armies led by the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Blucher, on June 17, 2012, in Waterloo

© AFP 2020 / GEORGES GOBET
People in period uniforms fight during a re-enactment of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo between the French army led by Napoleon and the Allied armies led by the Duke of Wellington and Field-Marshal Blucher, on June 17, 2012, in Waterloo

Napoleon was driven into exile on the isle of Elba in 1814 but returned and was finally defeated at the Battle of Waterloo the following year. He died on the remote island of St Helena in 1821.

But why did Britain spend such exorbitant sums to keep Napoleon’s armies at war in Europe?

Gary Girod, host of the French History Podcast, said: “Britain was willing to pay so much because it could.”

Britain had grown rich from importing sugar, tobacco, coffee and other crops from the Caribbean – which relied on the slave trade – and tea and spices from India and invested these profits into the Industrial Revolution, which made them the world’s biggest manufacturer of iron, engines and woven cloth.

​Mr Girod said England had modernised their government in the late 17th century when William of Orange brought over the Dutch banking system and this meant Britain was far more creditworthy than most European countries in the Napoleonic era.

He said: “This meant the British government could raise incredible amounts of money from international banks at very low interest rates.”

Mr Girod, a PhD candidate in modern British-French history at the University of Houston in Texas, contrasted the situation in France, which had a poor credit rating among banks: “Even under Napoleon, France’s credit was bad and he struggled to pay for his wars,” said Mr Girod, who explained that it was part of the reason he sold off a huge chunk of North America to the US, the so-called Louisiana Purchase.

© SPUTNIK / GRIGORY SISOYEV
Napoleon

In 1805 Britain paid Russia £1.25 million – in golden guineas – for every 100,000 soldiers the Tsar fielded against the French.

The Russians sent a huge army into central Europe but a joint Austro-Russian army was defeated at Austerlitz in December 1805 and in June 1807 Napoleon destroyed a Russian army at the Battle of Friedland in what was then East Prussia.

Mr Girod said Britain’s world outlook – which had changed since the Seven Years’ War (1756-63) – also encouraged it to fight Napoleon.

“British policymakers tended not to think of Britain as a European-centric country, but a global power. Thus their policy was to maintain a ‘balance of power’ on the continent in order to give it a free hand in expanding its empire around the world,” Mr Girod said.

He said this was Britain’s world view throughout the 19th century and until the middle of the 20th century and he said there were still echoes of it in British euroscepticism, which played a part in the Brexit referendum.

Napoleon army
© CC0
Napoleon army

During the late 18th century British politics was dominated by William Pitt “The Younger”, who took a hard line against the republican regime which came to power after the French Revolution and to Napoleon, who was crowned Emperor in 1804.

After Pitt’s death in February 1806 a new government changed its policy and sought peace with the French. But when Charles Fox, the Francophile foreign secretary, died in September 1806 hopes of peace faded.

Subsequent British prime ministers – The Duke of Portland, Spencer Perceval and Lord Liverpool – resumed the warlike posture towards France until after his defeat at Waterloo.

Could Britain have ever lived in peace with Napoleon’s France?

Mr Girod said: “British reconciliation with France probably wouldn’t have led to peace. More likely Napoleon would take it as a sign of weakness that would allow him to act more freely on the continent.”

He added: “French domination of Europe went against the foundation of British foreign policy, which was to stymie the other world European powers so that it could expand its empire abroad.”

Mr Girod said Napoleon’s empire was an “existential threat” to the British Empire and his Continental System, with its ban on British goods, was a direct attack on the UK economy.

In November 1806 Napoleon signed the Berlin Decrees, which forbade all trade between Britain and Europe and stated: “All warehouses, all merchandise, all property of whatever nature it might be, belonging to a subject of England will be declared a valid prize.”

At the time a third of Britain’s direct exports and three-quarters of her re-exports (products like refined sugar, processed tea, and cotton cloth) were destined for continental Europe so the impact was devastating and there are echoes of the concerns about trade after the 2016 Brexit referendum.

But British products were so good and alternatives were so rare – France even tried to develop cotton from thistles – that most European nations sought to ignore the Continental System and smuggling was rife.

The situation was so farcical that in 1807, when Napoleon’s Grande Armee needed uniforms for an upcoming campaign against Prussia and Russia, middlemen bought 200,000 pairs of shoes, 50,000 greatcoats and 37,000 vests from British suppliers.

Even Napoleon’s wife, the Empress Josephine, bought smuggled British goods on the black market.

Mr Girod said Napoleon saw a military solution to most problems, even the flouting of the Continental System: “When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.”

​He said Napoleon’s armed forces were the best in Europe but this was ultimate the source of his downfall.

“By 1812 his attempts at diplomacy with Russia failed it bucked his Continental System, so his solution was naturally war,” said Mr Girod, who pointed out the invasion of Russiawas a disaster and led to Napoleon’s abdication in 1814.

There was one last hurrah but after Napoleon and his veterans were defeated at Waterloo in June 1815 he went into exile and the British restored the hated Bourbons to the French throne.

Mr Girod said Britain was then the world’s pre-eminent power and French governments would from then on avoid conflict with London and side with the British in conflicts like the Crimean War, the First World War and the Second World War.

“Napoleon’s project of French domination collapsed. France was still one of the great powers but it has never since dominated like before,” concluded Mr Girod.

Why England Was Always The Worst Enemy Of Russia

by Aleksandr Samsonovvia Stalkerzone

Russia and England do not have common borders and are geographically separated from each other. It would seem that two great powers may have neutral, if not friendly relations. England practically did not conduct a full-scale war against Russia itself (excluding the Crimean war), but secret war (inciting Russia’s neighbours) did not stop for centuries. London has always had an unfriendly relationship with Russia: Tsarist, Soviet, and democratic.

England is our main enemy

Over the past century, England has been the most terrible and dangerous enemy of Russia. It has done us more harm than Napoleon and Hitler. In the 20th and 21st centuries. England shares this place with the United States, which continued and developed Britain’s policy of creating a global empire. If you look at the history of Germany, France, Turkey, or Japan, you can find objective reasons for the conflict with Russia: historical, territorial, religious, economic, or diplomatic. Most often it was a natural (biological) struggle for a place under the sun.

The ongoing conflict with England was different. It is caused by a deep conceptual confrontation. It is caused by the desire of England (and then the United States) to rule the world, embodying the ancient strategy of Rome: divide and conquer. The Russian world on earth has the mission of preserving the measure/balance. Therefore, any attempts by one control centre (the throne) to take on the role of “king of the mountain” (the planet) receives resistance from the Russian people. As a result, for centuries London has been trying to solve the “Russian question”: to dismember and remove Russians and Russia from the historical arena. Russia is still resisting this onslaught.

Russia and England have never shared borders or laid claim to the same land. Russia expanded its borders, making new lands Russian. Britain was creating a world-wide colonial (slave-owning) empire. Russia and England gave the world two examples of global projects/orders. The Russian order is the unity of people regardless of race, religion, or nation. A life of truth, conscience, and love. Orthodoxy is the glory of truth. Spirit is higher than matter, truth is higher than law, the general is higher than the particular. The western order dominated by London is slavery. The world of master slave owners and “talking tools”. The domination of matter, the “golden calf”.

It was London that created the world’s slave empire, which became an example for Hitler. The British were the first to create an ideology of racism, social Darwinism, and eugenics. They built the first concentration camps, used methods of terror and genocide to subordinate “inferior”peoples and tribes. For example, in North America, South Africa, India, and Australia. The British skilfully used the tribal, national elite to subordinate the vast masses of people.

If it were not for this conceptual confrontation (at the level of “what is good and what is bad”), the two powers could live peacefully and cooperate. In the very least, to not notice each other. For example, this was the way the Russian Empire and Spain, a great colonial empire, lived (before it was pushed out of the world arena by the French, Dutch, and English). Russia is a continental power, and England is a maritime power. However, the point is that London claims global domination. And Russia stands in the way of anyone who claims to be the “king of the mountain”. As a result, the Foggy Albion is clearly to blame for all the conflicts between Russia and England. It is difficult to find a country in the world that has not been messed up by the “Englishwoman”. This is Spain, France, and Germany, with which England fought for leadership in Europe, and even the small Denmark. You can also recall the atrocities of the British in America, Africa, India, and China.

“The Englishwoman craps”

For the first time, interest in Russia in England appeared during the Great geographical discoveries. In fact, at this time, the Europeans discovered the world for themselves and raped and robbed it (the initial accumulation of capital). England was looking for an alternative route to rich India and China through the polar seas. In the 16th century, Europeans made several expeditions to find the northeastern (around Siberia) and northwestern (around Canada) passages and obtain new passages to the Pacific ocean. Captain Richard Chancellor was received by Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. From this time, diplomatic and commercial relations between Russia and England began. The British were interested in trade with Russia and an exit through it on the Volga route to Persia and further south. Since that time, Britain has been preventing Moscow from reaching the shores of the Baltic and Black Seas again.

Thus, under Peter I, London, on the one hand, developed trade with Russia, on the other – supported the allied Sweden in the war against the Russians. The British also stood behind Turkey in almost all the Russian-Turkish wars. For this reason, the English Ambassador in Constantinople (as well as the Dutch and French) tried to disrupt the conclusion of peace between Russia and Turkey in 1700. England wanted to destroy the sprouts of Russian shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk and Azov, and prevent Russia from breaking through to the Baltic and Black Seas.

This hostile policy of London continued in the future. The British were behind Russia’s wars with Turkey, Persia, and Sweden. Prussia served as the “cannon fodder” of England in the Seven Years’ War. During the time of Ekaterina the Great, Russia was able to inflict two “pricks” on England: its policy supported the American revolution (the war of independence) and declared a policy of armed neutrality, which led to the creation of an anti-English alliance of northern European countries. Under the onslaught of almost all of Europe, the British lion had to retreat. On the whole, Ekaterina skilfully avoided the pitfalls of England and pursued a national policy. As a result, there were huge successes: the annexation of western Russian lands and the reunification of the Russian people, and wide access to the Black Sea.

After Ekaterina II, England was able to take revenge. London drew St. Petersburg into a long confrontation with Paris. This led to a series of wars and heavy human and material losses for Russia (including the Patriotic War of 1812). Russia had no fundamental contradictions and disputes with France. We had no common borders. I.e., St. Petersburg could safely leave the conflict with revolutionary France, and then the empire of Napoleon to Vienna, Berlin, and London. Pavel I of Russia realised his mistake and withdrew his troops. He was ready to make an alliance with Paris and to march against England, the real enemy of Russia. But he was killed by the aristocratic conspirators. English gold killed the Russian Emperor. Aleksandr I could not get out from under the influence of his “friends”, the pressure of England, and Russia fell into a trap, in a bitter conflict with France. Russian soldiers in the anti-Napoleonic wars (except for the Patriotic War) shed blood for the interests of London, Vienna, and Berlin.

London set Iran and Turkey against Russia in 1826-1829. It didn’t allow Nikolay I to occupy Constantinople. Britain acted as the organiser of the Eastern (Crimean) War, in fact it was one of the rehearsals for the future World War. However, it was not possible to dislodge the Russians from the Baltic and Black Seas, as planned. Then there was the big game in Central Asia. The Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when London managed to take away from Russia the well-deserved fruits of victory over the Turks, including the sphere of influence in the Balkans, Constantinople, and the Straits. The British lion entered into an alliance with the Japanese dragon, directed against China and Russia. With the help of England, Japan defeated both China and Russia. The Russians were pushed back from the greater Far East, and Port Arthur and Yellow Russia (Manchuria) were taken. At the same time, the British secret services actively fanned the fire of the first revolution in the Russian Empire.

Britain successfully pushed Russia into a confrontation with Germany, although the Russian Tsar and the German Kaiser was not a serious cause for bloodshed. The British had skilfully outwitted both the Germans and the Russians, pitting them against each other. They destroyed the two empires. England supported the February Revolution, which led to the collapse of Russia and turmoil. The British did not save Nikolay II and his family, although there were opportunities to do so. The big game was more important than dynastic ties. London took an active part in the outbreak of the Civil War in Russia, which led to millions of victims. The British hoped that the collapse and weakening of Russia would be forever. They captured strategic points in the Russian north, the Caucasus, and the Caspian Sea, and secured positions in the Baltic and Black Seas.

World War II and the cold war

London’s plans to destroy Russia have failed. The Russians recovered from the terrible blow and created a new great power – the USSR. Then London bet on fascism and Nazism in Europe. English capital took an active part in the restoration of German military and economic power. British diplomacy “pacified” the Third Reich so much that it gave it most of Europe, including France. Almost all of Europe was gathered under the banner of Hitler and thrown against the USSR (Hitler was only a tool in the destruction of the USSR). Then they waited for the Russians and Germans, who had been drained of blood in the mutual slaughter, to be finished off. It didn’t happen. At the head of Russia/USSR was a great statesman and leader – Stalin. The Russians emerged victorious in this terrible battle.

The British had to play the role of an “ally” of the USSR in order to participate in the division of the Third Reich’s inheritance. After the fall of Berlin, British leader Churchill wanted to start World War III almost immediately (in the summer of 1945). The war of western democracies against the USSR. However, the moment was considered unfortunate. It was impossible to defeat the Russian forces in Europe, which first retreated to Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, then went forward and took Warsaw, Budapest, Konigsberg, Vienna, and Berlin. But in 1946, in Fulton (USA), Churchill delivered the famous speech that marked the beginning of the third world war (it was called “cold”) between the West and the USSR. In the course of this war, Britain almost continuously moved up to a “hot” local war. In 1945-1946 – intervention in Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, and Greece. In 1948-1960s – aggression in Malaya, the war in Korea (in terms of the number of soldiers and aircraft in this war, England was second only to the United States in the western ranks), the confrontation in South Arabia, conflicts in Kenya, Kuwait, Cyprus, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt (the Suez crisis). Only the existence of the USSR on the planet did not allow England and the United States to establish their own world order during this period, which would have been approximately the same as Hitler’s.

In the 20th century, Britain twice managed to pit two great powers against each other, two nations that were a threat to London: Germany and Russia, Germans and Russians. The British twice crushed their main opponent in the western project – Germany. Russia was destroyed once – in 1917. For the second time, the Soviet Empire learned a lesson from previous defeats and won a great victory. The result was the collapse of the British Empire itself, over which the sun never set. England became a junior partner of the United States.

However, this does not mean that England has ceased to be an enemy of Russia. Firstly, London has retained some of its global influence. It is a Commonwealth of Nations (over 50 countries) led by the British crown. This is British financial capital. This is a British cultural influence. Secondly, England has maintained its particular hostility to Russia, even to the “democratic” one. Britain’s relations with Russia are significantly worse than with other members of the NATO bloc, for example, with Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. This was shown by the hysteria of England during the Georgian aggression in South Ossetia in 2008, and the “Crimean spring”, and the war in Donbass.

Recently, London has again stepped up its policy in connection with the “Russian threat”. So, from the report of the UK Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament from July 21st 2020 it is clear that London is again targeting Russia. The report notes that Russia is a priority for the British intelligence services with the allocation of additional resources; a special group is being formed to develop a national security strategy in relation to Russia, which consists of representatives of 14 ministries and agencies; attention is focused on Russia’s alliances with other countries; refusal to effectively use regulations on unexplained wealth in order to seize the property of the Russian elite acquired with unconfirmed income. In other words, the British intelligence services realised that the seizure of capital and property from Russian oligarchs does not lead them to cooperate – on the contrary, it repels them. Therefore, the British removed the threat of seizure of property and accounts. The real estate and accounts of Russian oligarchs are inviolable in order to create a network of British influence in Russia. Part of the Russian “elite” is guaranteed immunity under the British crown after fulfilling its mission in Russia.

Thus, England shows that in the current global system crisis, the West is again interested in creating Maidan-style turmoil in Russia.