Putin and Russia won’t back down; US/UK squealing reaches new level of annoying; alternative media chips in (as always)

When the US and UK governments talk about Russia staging a false flag attack in Ukraine (putting aside the cheek of this coming from habitual perpetrators of psychological operations of the very type), surely they are actually speaking about their planned invasion of the separatist Novorossiyan territory by Ukrainian forces, as demonstrated by the following examples of such utterances collected into one place by Sky News:

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said: “We’ve discussed this idea of false flags by the Russians before – we’ve made no secret of that. And we do have information that the Russians are likely to want to fabricate a pretext for an invasion, which again, is right out of their playbook.

“One option is the Russian government, we think, is planning to stage a fake attack by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces against Russian sovereign territory, or against Russian speaking people, to therefore justify their action.”

… US deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer said: “We don’t know definitively that this is the route they (Russia) are going to take.

“But we know that this is an option under consideration – that would involve actors playing mourners for people who are killed in an event that they (Russia) would have created themselves.”

Mr Kirby added: “We believe that Russia would produce a very graphic propaganda video, which would include corpses, and actors that would be depicting mourners and images of destroyed locations, as well as military equipment at the hands of Ukraine or the West – even to the point where some of this equipment would be made to look like it was Western supplied into Ukraine equipment.”

Again, passing over the irony of this content being reported by the division of Mi7 that was famously involved in the production of certain war propaganda which many observers denounced as being staged in a mock-up of Tripoli’s Green Square†, the US officials in this extract are clearly describing aspects of what one might expect to appear in Russian media coverage of a real head-on attack by the Ukrainians.

Now, this particular content is from 3rd February, and supposedly supplemented a pronouncement by Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, (passing over the fact of her being a low grade charlatan more than usual for an MP) whereby she declared that her US colleagues’ intelligence material was “clear and shocking evidence of Russia’s unprovoked aggression and underhand activity”. More lately, Saturday 12th, to be precise, the talk resurfaced (not that it ever went away) in The Telegraph, where some Mi7 agents wrote:

Vladimir Putin is planning a “false flag” event as a pretext for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine as soon as Wednesday, Britain believes, as the Defence Secretary indicated that diplomatic efforts could be no more than a “straw man”.

A Whitehall source said the Kremlin was believed to be preparing to “create the circumstances” in which it could justify an invasion on the grounds that Russian troops were “responding to Ukrainian or Western aggression”.

So, actually, rather than being a clue to imminent Russian aggression (the big lie that Russian forces are poised all along Ukrainian borders is unrelentingly bandied about unchecked), this officially disseminated chatter is another indication that the US/UK expects Russia to react when it signals Kiev to move against the Novorossiyans – for which reason, we might surmise, they are being prevented from giving the nod. Moreover, that this false flag noise has been around for so long possibly suggests that a state of readiness has existed for a relational amount of time, and that, try as they might, the US/UK cannot overcome its stumbling block for the commencement of its operation.

Indeed, the level of demented war mongering in corporate Mi7 alone (so, not taking US corporate-media into account) at the end of last week, along with revelation that orders had been given, not only by the US and UK, but by their satellites, for their diplomatic staff and military “advisors” to leave Ukraine,  must have been intended as prelude to a phone call from Biden to Putin (which the American’s initiated), where we can expect (whatever the official account says) that the American president pleaded with Putin to commit to not intervening when the Ukrainians moved on the separatists. As you have been told before at this place, reader, the Russians are supposed by all the fury to feel pressure to stand down: to develop a feeling of guilt, and accept the role suggested for them by the US/UK of culprit, and then become contrite, and then let the Anglo-globalists do what they want to. Well, it didn’t work in Syria, but the one-trick ponies running the US/UK are far too hubristic for that to make any difference.

Of course, the hysteria of Anglo-globalist corporate-media has been consolidated by response in its alternative ancillary – especially in terms of presenting Ukrainian aggression as a provocation to have Russia get into trouble. Of all the famous alternative media so-called expert geopolitical analysts (with the inexplicably big audiences, given how they were discredited when their predicted US war on Iran didn’t materialise), the most coherent (probably because he’s writing in his native language) appears to be Paul Craig Roberts:

Washington has prepared a false flag operation that the whore Western media and all Western governments will blame on Russia.  The incident will involve the 100,000 US/UK trained Ukrainian soldiers massed on the border of the Donbass republics, territory that was formerly part of Russia and is inhabited by Russians that broke away from Ukraine in 2014 amidst the anti-Russian violence of the neo-Nazi state installed by Washington…

Washington believes that forcing Russia to bare her teeth will serve the purpose of divorcing Europe from Russian natural gas and rely instead on US liquified natural gas, while reestablishing the Russian Threat that makes NATO a political control device over European economic and foreign policy. It is about preserving the American Empire.  Washington believes that if Europe is dependent on Russia for energy, European foreign policy will escape from Washington’s control.

Washington might also hope that the Kremlin is so averse to scaring Europe by demonstrating Russian military power that the Kremlin will stand aside while the Donbass Russians are slaughtered, mistakenly hoping that the facts will come out, with the consequence being that Putin is discredited and repudiated by Russian patriots who believe it was a mistake not to grant the request to be reincorporated into Russia.

Now, it is worth saying from the outset that this idea of a US/UK/Ukrainian false flag is most lately fuelled by the taking as gospel of sayings by one Sergei Naryshkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service:

[Ukranian] Preparations are in full swing, they cannot be hidden. All combat-ready units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are concentrated on the border with Donbass to some extent. There is a massive transfer of hundreds of tons of military equipment and ammunition from US bases in Europe, from Great Britain and Canada. A contingent of advisers and instructors from NATO special forces is being built up. There is even information about the emergence of multinational detachments of jihadist militants.

Provocations of the SBU and the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the demarcation line in the Donbass and their “documentation” in the style of fakes of “White Helmets” in Syria are being prepared. The contingent of the “propaganda forces of rapid deployment” of the Western media there has been increased many times over.

Even if one accepts everything in this perspective as being true, the impression one should perhaps receive from it is that a Ukrainian false flag would create a pretext for the planned Ukrainian invasion. Roberts, on the other hand, cites this information in support of the concept of a false flag attack that, in itself and for no other reason, would cause Russia to intervene. This is the first bone of contention that we must have with Roberts. Elsewhere, Roberts says “Washington is convinced that Russia will intervene”, but is this really the case, and why should Roberts know it?

In actual fact, Russia could ignore a false flag attack in and of itself. It’s only when the follow up Ukrainian invasion took place, where Russia might – might – react. Furthermore, it’s only if the Novorossyians fail to repel the Ukrainians where Russia probably will react. And, because the Russians have evidently not indicated that they are prepared to abandon the Novorossiyans (as suggested above, we know this is the case as long as the fighting doesn’t start), there won’t be an invasion, based on the risk that comes with overcoming the Novorossiyans. And in actual fact, when events have developed so that Ukraine is clearly in a war in Novorossiyan territory, irrespective of which side is getting the blame for starting it, it won’t be so easy to convince those Russian-energy-dependent European nations that a Russian response is not unreasonable.

So, Roberts is already off the mark even before he hedges his bets, and offers an alternative where Washington now doesn’t know that Russia will react, but contrarily hopes that she won’t so that the Ukrainians can act with impunity. We must suppose, reader, that this is coy reference to the stand down that, actually, the US/UK is absolutely trying to achieve, and that it’s not just some wishful thinking or side effect as Roberts makes out. Which must lead to this: reader, if you put stock in famous so-called expert geopolitical analysts who are trying to have you believe that the US/UK would kick things off without knowing for certain that Russia won’t step in (and end forever the dream of US and Royal Navies moored in Sevastopol), then more fool you. And if you are putting stock in famous so-called expert geopolitical analysts who appear to hedge their bets in the way quoted in the following extract, whereby the intent is nevertheless to instil expectation, then you are asking to be victimised:

I would say that the chances of a Anglo provocation over next few days, maybe weeks, are sky high.. [but]  with the Ukies and the Anglos, there has been so many false alarms that this one might be just one more.

Except that I have a really bad feeling this time.  I hope and pray that I am wrong but, honestly, I think that the Donbass is about to explode, very soon, anytime starting now.

The reason why this is so wrong is that if one can narrow down the issue to a matter of US/UK intent expressed in terms of Ukrainian aggression, all stymied by the threat of Russian retaliation, it is possible to say with a degree of certainty that it is highly improbable that there will be a war.

Even so, while one so-called geopolitical expert resorts to hoping and praying instead of knowing, the one who features primarily in this piece, evidently does not understand, or does not want his audience to understand that all the Russians have to do is not budge. On the contrary, Roberts has a solution for Russia, and for Putin, and implores them to take the initiative:

To prevent the unfolding of this [US/UK] plot against Donbass and against Russia, the Kremlin could issue an ultimatum that the Ukrainian forces be immediately withdrawn or they will be destroyed.

Of course, there’s nothing like threatening and devastating an army, which hasn’t done anything yet but sit in its own land on the line of a disputed border (which the Russians don’t even recognise), to attract denunciation from a set of countries one hopes to sell gas to. And so Roberts undermines his own reasoning for why the US/UK and Ukrainians would stage a false flag attack.

Indeed, while some star alternative media geopolitical analysts do their master’s work more directly than most in suggesting to their readership that Russia should do exactly that by which it can be labelled an aggressor, the effort by others to create a febrile concern in their audience regarding the matter of false flag attacks ahead of a war involving Russia, irrespective of which side is supposed to be about to carry them out, is a one that, by complimenting the fever pitch established by mainstream compatriots,  does the bidding of the same camp.

And speaking of which, before this piece ends, there must be comment on how the US/UK withdrawal of “military advisors” (leaders) is about creating the illusion of coming war in the exact same way as does having foreboding about provocations into conflict. The Russians are supposed to think that, without their comprehending how it could be, the war that they are being charged with as starting is going to happen: only they can stop it by backing down!

Of course, the Russians are not going to fall for the nonsense that the US/UK governments are so well used to subjecting their own people to, which means that if the UK military intelligence and special forces who are remaining in Ukraine (because only an idiot would believe that these people have been recalled) do collaborate with American colleagues and their Ukrainian stooges to execute an operation to start a conflict, they’ll be doing it in the face of the terrible danger posed to them, not only by the Russian back-up if things go wrong, but something more immediate in the shape of the Novorossiyans, whose capability and prospects of mounting a successful defence with minimal Russian assistance is something that hasn’t even been explored in these pages thus far. That being said, there is a factor about which we do know whereby we can imagine a feature of potential Novorossiyan success: taking their experience in Syria as evidence, this would be the capacity of cocksure UK war criminals to be completely surprised, and then (as is deduced) to have to rely on the mercy of their enemy. In Novorossiya, against a long suffering people who must be eager to lay hands on their torturers, especially if there’s nothing to gain in bargaining by being forgiving, things could be all so very different.

† See, Archive: Did NATO Roll Out “Fake Green Square” For Jalil, And Was He Actually There? (link)

‡ See, Is The Skripal Incident Linked To The Recent Liberation Of A Town Called Nashabiya? (link)