How can the English retain their sense of humour, let alone make war on Russia, when their country – I mean England, not Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, or Ulster – is the laughingstock of the world?
The answer is not to receive the message. That’s Roger for Receive — military radio jargon since the last world war. Also, Roger, the older English term for men having rough sexual intercourse, which was brought to England by the last foreign invaders to succeed, the Normans wielding what in their language originally meant a sharp spear.
There is a lot of rogering in the second sense in John Mortimer’s autobiography of himself as an old gentleman with failing, if not exhausted powers. Mortimer was an English barrister, playwright, novelist, filmmaker, and inventor of Rumpole of the Bailey, the only lawyer in world history to be loved by millions of people. Mortimer’s rule for comic writing was Conspicuous Consummation – that’s the display of such sexual prowess that can combine hand relief in fact with comic relief in fiction.
Mortimer died in 2009, so he can’t test his rule himself on the recent history of England at war with Russia which began with the Novichok fiction of March 2018 and the appointment this week of a new foreign minister called Cleverly in fact. We can.
Last week on October 19 the US Navy announced that “General Michael ‘Erik’ Kurilla [lead image, lower right] , commander of CENTCOM, conducted a visit aboard the USS West Virginia [top], a U.S. Navy Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine at an undisclosed location at sea in international waters in the Arabian Sea. Kurilla was joined on the USS West Virginia by Vice Admiral Brad Cooper [lower left], commander of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and NAVCENT.”
The Fifth Fleet and the Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) are headquartered at Bahrain on the Persian Gulf. From Bahrain down the Gulf to the Masirah Island airbase, off Oman, is a flight distance of 1,047 kilometres. From Masirah to the West Virginia and its escort was within helicopter flight range.
Two days later, the Pentagon reported that “on October 21, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III spoke by phone with Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu. Secretary Austin emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication amid the ongoing war against Ukraine.” They spoke again on October 23, according to Austin’s spokesman, because Shoigu had “requested a follow up call.”
Less than 24 hours elapsed before Austin telephoned his Kiev counterpart, Alexei Reznikov, to “reiterate[d] that the United States rejects the public and false allegations by Russia about Ukraine and any attempt to use them as a pretext for further Russian escalation of its unlawful and unjustified war against Ukraine.”
The same day, in the Moscow evening, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a communiqué confirming that “Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley spoke with Chief of Russian General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov today by phone. The military leaders discussed several security-related issues of concern and agreed to keep the lines of communication open. In accordance with past practice, the specific details of their conversation will be kept private.” RIA, the Russian state news agency, reported that in their conversation the generals “discussed the possibility raised by Moscow that Ukraine might use a ‘dirty bomb’.”
“The call took place shortly after a similar conversation between Gerasimov and his British counterpart.”
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the British chief of staff, announced that Gerasimov had requested their conversation. According to Radakin, he had “rejected Russia’s allegations that Ukraine is planning actions to escalate the conflict, and he restated the UK’s enduring support for Ukraine. The military leaders both agreed on the importance of maintaining open channels of communication between the UK and Russia to manage the risk of miscalculation and to facilitate de-escalation. The conversation followed the Defence Secretary’s call with his Russian counterpart yesterday and a call between the Foreign Ministers of France, the UK, and the USA last night.”
That preceding call of foreign ministers, involving Secretary of State Antony Blinken for the US, produced a joint statement of “committ[ment] to continue supporting Ukraine’s efforts to defend its territory for as long as it takes. Earlier today, the defense ministers of each of our countries spoke to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu at his request. Our countries made clear that we all reject Russia’s transparently false allegations that Ukraine is preparing to use a dirty bomb on its own territory. The world would see through any attempt to use this allegation as a pretext for escalation. We further reject any pretext for escalation by Russia.”
Blinken then telephoned his Kiev counterpart, Dmitry Kuleba, to repeat both parts of the message – that the Ukraine should not escalate to using a nuclear weapon, and that Russia should do likewise.
In case there was hardness of hearing or weakness of command and control in Kiev, or ambiguity between what Reznikov and Kuleba thought they were hearing from Washington and London, British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace had met Austin at the Pentagon on October 18. They then telephoned to talk again on Sunday, when they “reaffirm[ed] the U.S.-UK defense relationship and the importance of transatlantic cooperation. Their conversation today was a continuation of their discussion at the Pentagon last week, which covered a wide range of shared defense and security priorities, including Ukraine.”
Austin telephoned Kiev again yesterday to repeat to Reznikov that he should make sure the allegation of a Ukrainian nuclear weapon escalation was “false”; and that the allies had given Moscow this assurance in exchange for Moscow’s undertaking against “further escalation” – read Russian nuclear response.
At the same time yesterday, Vzglyad, the Moscow security publication, published its assessment of the escalating nuclear threat to Russia from the US, as the Kremlin, Defence Ministry, General Staff and the Stavka see it now. A translation into English follows.
In the history of the wars in Europe, and the wars in Asia, there has never been a combination like the present one.
When the Special Military Operation began on February 24, the Russian forces at the western border were counted by the western media at about 190,000; roughly half then crossed the frontier into the Ukraine. They were opposed by a Ukrainian force of about 200,000 entrenched and fortified east of the Dnieper River. Never has an offensive force fought against a defensive force with a ratio of one to one or less; the customary US Army rule of thumb is not less than three to one, and with firepower added to the ratio, preferably five to one.
The line of contact between the two armies, the Ukrainian and Russian, has been differently estimated from the 672-kilometre distance of the Kharkov-Odessa road, to about 1,000 kms to take account of the salients in and out of the Donetsk and Lugansk territories. Compare the length of this line to the trenches of the Allied and German armies between 1914 and 1918 of about 760 kms; the Maginot Line built by the French against the Germans in the 1930s of 448 kms; the Berlin Wall of 1961 of 140 kms; or Israel’s West Bank Barrier, fortified between 2002 and 2005, of 708 kms. Never has so long a line as the Novorussian one been manned by so few.
Not since the US imposed asset confiscations, export bans, and the oil and fuel embargo on Japan between 1937 and 1941, and the trade blockade against Germany from 1939, has US and allied economic warfare against a target country reached the present scale against Russia.
And never before has Russia proved strong enough militarily and economically to bypass, neutralize, overcome, or defeat all three.
At the same time, not since Woodrow Wilson’s stroke of 1919 has a US president been as incapacitated medically as Joseph Biden. Never before have the European allies been as politically incapacitated as the British, French, and Germans all at the same time.
This combination of strength and weakness has spilled the war for Europe into a war of the world. As Hrvoye Moric asks the questions, listen to the new TNT Radio podcast discussing the why, the wherefore, and what happens next.
In war, force and money do the talking on the ground. Not talk in the air.
On the electric battlefield in the Ukraine, the targeting of Russian attacks is being calculated to cut the command and control links between the Galician capitals of Lvov and Kiev west of the Dnieper River and the Russian east, according to fresh analyses prepared by a North American military specialist in infrastructure demolition.
In the first round this month, he says, the missile raids were a “reconnaissance in force. The Russians were experimenting with, and proving, their operational concepts; for instance, how well Iranian drones perform in concert with their other weapons options and tactics. They were testing NATO counter- measures as well.”
For the time being, this is allowing the wealthy quarters of both cities to enjoy plentiful electricity; even rising house prices according to Kiev realtors in interviews to European media. They are the sources for western media reporting of how normal and resilient the two cities are.
However, the BBC is now reporting President Vladimir Zelensky as saying “that 30% of Ukraine’s power stations had been destroyed in the past eight days. Parts of the capital Kyiv have no power and water after new strikes on Tuesday.” The state propaganda organ added: “UK defence intelligence said it was highly likely that Russia had become increasingly willing to strike civilian infrastructure, in addition to military targets, since its setbacks on the battlefield.”
The North American military source has a different assessment. “The power losses in those cities have been targeted to pit those without the money or means for relief against those who have it. The Russian General Staff goal, in my estimation, is not to break the Ukrainian population’s will to fight, or their western backers’ stream of cash and arms. It’s quite the opposite, in fact. The Russians are even allowing the electric trains to keep moving between Lvov and Poland carrying western reporters, rotating NATO staffs, and military resupplies. It’s to concentrate the new US arms supplies where they can be attacked more cost-effectively in the east; to prevent Zelensky’s men from communicating with their units and with the civilians across the Dnieper, in Kharkov and Odessa; and to allow those who want to leave to head for Poland and Germany. The Russian general who defeated Napoleon once called that his ‘Golden Bridge’ strategy.”
He is referring to Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov (lead image, left). The deadline in the Russian calculation is November 15, when President Joseph Biden (centre) will meet President Vladimir Putin (right) at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, along with a Ukrainian delegation headed by Zelensky. “A quick glance at Ukrainian rail ticket sites shows that the trains are still running between Kiev and Lvov. I don’t believe this is an accident, nor a failure, of the Russian side. With the escalation this week, I believe we are in the attrition phase of the Electric War which coincides with the Ukrainian electricity market data releases, and the approaching Indonesia meeting.”
General Vo Nguyen Giap (lead image, right) is mentioned in passing in Sir Lawrence Freedman’s (left) brand-new manual from London on how to fight wars. The reason is that the Vietnamese general defeated both the French and the US armies. Noone has done that except the Russian Army, and not in a single general’s term of command, at least not until now, not until the Ukraine.
But Freedman doesn’t say so. Giap was, he says, “the former history teacher and self-taught general” who managed to exploit the French generals’ mistakes to capture the 16,000-man French base at Dien Bien Phu in 1953 and thereby forced the French capitulation to Ho Chi Minh’s government. Giap’s success was, according to Freedman, a close run thing, achieved by “human wave tactics” and “far higher casualties than the French” on the Vietnamese side; also, excessive womanizing, according to Freedman, on the French side. Giap used women as porters to carry ammunition and weapons through the jungle; Generals Henri Navarre and René Cogny are quoted as describing their woman’s role as “giving herself to those who know how to take her.”
Among the lesser breed generals whom Freedman considers in his manual, none of them is recommended to be the model of command whom he and his Anglo-American and Franco-German, Polish and Canadian colleagues should be following now, least of all the Russian generals. They are the most inferior of the lesser breeds against whom Freedman’s manual has been written, he says, to defeat – and he judges them to be easy pickings because there is only one of them.
Freedman’s war is “a spectacular example,” he declares, “of how the delusions and illusions of one individual can be allowed to shape events without any critical challenge. Autocrats who put their cronies into key positions, control the media to crowd out discordant voices, have acquired the arrogance and certainty to trust only their own judgements, avoiding contrary advice, are able to command their subordinates to follow the most foolish orders. When the process of command is understood in this way…as a rigid sequence of order and obedience, bad decisions will be left unchallenged, and the possibilities for…probing alternative courses of action will be lost.”
Is Freedman describing Joseph Biden, Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Boris Johnson, Elizabeth Truss, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron, Andrzej Duda, Chrystia Freeland, or Vladimir Zelensky? No, not those generals whose losses already on the Ukrainian battlefield are not less than 120,000 men, with no airforce or navy left, and more than half of every US artillery and rocket piece destroyed. No — Freedman means the loser of the Ukrainian war is Vladimir Putin.
In Freedman’s book, released a few days ago, he uses the term “victory” 91 times; “defeat” just 67 times. The difference is a 36% bias in favour of winning. Freedman’s bias explains why, in the climactic war for Europe now under way, Freedman thinks his generals are winning when they are not. Not to be able to tell the difference is the peculiar feature of his generals’ propaganda. Freedman has fallen for it.
For the first time in the history of western warfare, the losers are writing the history before the capitulation.
Repeating lies over and over makes old-fashioned Joseph Goebbels-type propaganda. Repeating lies, then contradicting them; moving them from one government-paid think-tank to another; footnoting a new lie to an older version; quoting policemen and gangsters saying fatuities; adding slang and the words of pop songs—this is still Goebbels-type but stretched out and product-diversified to make its author more money. This is Mark Galeotti’s (lead image) method.
In the history of Russia-hating war propaganda projected from London, down the street and across the river from the present office of Elizabeth Truss, there is the headquarters of the Rupert Murdoch method. He has engaged Galeotti to be the new Russia expert of The Sunday Times in the confidence no one will question how the expert knows what he says, and whether it’s true or false. The Murdoch method is to convince his audience to pay money for the sensation of the suspension of disbelief. At least between Friday nights and Monday mornings.
Two detailed reports appeared in Moscow yesterday describing precisely how the attack on the Crimean Bridge on October 8 was organised and carried out.
The source is the Federal Security Service (FSB), with supporting evidence from the Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Armenia, including at least five eye-witnesses and participants, plus telephone interceptions.
The politics of this evidence, and the timing of its publication now, are plain. The humanitarian grain export agreement, promoted by United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, has been manipulated by the Ukrainians and their NATO allies – excluding Turkey – to conceal weapons shipments for military operations against Russia.
Guterres did the same thing in his conduct of the negotiations to evacuate civilians held hostage the bunkers of the Azovstal complex in Mariupol during the siege of April and May. Guterres lied in his direct talks with Russians officials then. He continued lying to them during the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) negotiations on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in September. His public lying led to the unprecedented condemnation of the Secretary-General by the Russian Foreign Ministry on September 30; Guterres was dismissed as “an instrument of propaganda and pressure on member states”.
In the newly reported interpretation of the FSB’s evidence, the shipping links have been exposed between Odessa and the Danube River ports of Romania and Bulgaria, opening for public discussion in Moscow the future of Odessa in the operational planning of the Russian General Staff. This is to be decided by the Stavka before President Vladimir Putin leaves for the G20 summit conference in Bali on November 15-16, at which President Joseph Biden and Vladimir Zelensky will also be present.
Also obvious is what is missing from these operational reports from the FSB sources. So far there has been no publication of the evidence already gathered by the FSB and military intelligence on the M.O. for coordinating the movement of the truck with its explosive charge on the bridge and its movement in parallel with the fuel train, so that the detonation would coincide and strike the train, magnifying the impact on both road and rail structures.
Uriah Heep, one of Charles Dickens’ evilest characters, said it to silence his mother who was about to expose him.
Dickens made sure his readers didn’t miss the point. “Though I had long known that his servility was false, and all his pretences knavish and hollow, I had had no adequate conception of the extent of his hypocrisy, until I now saw him with his mask off. The suddenness with which he dropped it, when he perceived that it was useless to him; the malice, insolence, and hatred, he revealed; the leer with which he exulted, even at this moment, in the evil he had done – all this time being desperate too, and at his wits’ end for the means of getting the better of us – though perfectly consistent with the experience I had of him, at first took even me by surprise, who had known him so long, and disliked him so heartily.”
David Copperfield was doing this thinking in print in 1850; the maxim Heep used on his mother was already a hoary one. But in the 170 years which have expired since then, the meaning has softened. The expression is now uttered by elderly English people to refer to difficult situations, not always false or malicious ones.
During the Soviet period, it was the Russian custom to adapt this maxim to reading Pravda and other official newspapers, so that the real meaning should be read between the lines, and not printed visibly or said aloud. Whether and what this custom mended used to become clear in time. Sometimes, a very long time.
This Russian custom of public writing and reading continues. It should be applied to the analysis of the recent performance of the Russian foreign intelligence agency, the SVR, just published in Vzglyad by Yevgeny Krutikov, a military intelligence officer of the GRU before he became a journalist.
The article follows in unofficial translation into English, without interpolation, explanation, or comment — according to the same old English maxim.
By John Helmer, Moscow, and Matt Ehret, Montreal @bears_with
In this Canadian Patriot Podcast, Matt Ehret asks the questions as the discussion unpicks the tangles of the war in Europe, starting with the revival of Galician race hatred and the Nazi German objectives of World War II, now resuscitated as Canadian state policy by Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland (lead image, right).
For the first time since the war against Russia began in the Ukraine eight years ago, the German government has not blamed Moscow (repeat not blamed Moscow) for coordinated acts of sabotage on Sunday, which the German secret services say they are investigating. The Germans also say they are investigating, and have yet to confirm the culprits responsible for the bomb attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea two weeks ago.
The Berlin Chancellor, the Bundeswehr, and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) were never so silent for so long in blaming Russia “with unequivocal evidence in writing of poisoning with a Novichok chemical warfare agent” of Russian political opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, in 2020.
