With February offensive by puppet scuppered, US/UK’s Ukraine crisis reverts to being purely Ministry of Truth nonsense
The latest instalment of US/UK-all-mouth-and-Ukrainian-trousers uses as its chief source a Sky News piece from 15th February, which contains all the material for the points of discussion whereby there is reinforcement of the clear understanding of events as already established in other FBEL articles. There will also be a drawing on contributions by certain diplomats at the UN Security Council session of 31st January, as promised in a previous article. Now, it’s true to say that there is a newer session of the UNSC from which to give an example of the position of the United States Government – which is centrally important to this analysis – but the truth is, things have not changed in essence in an intervening period in which media of all sorts would like to give an impression there have been dynamic-changing events. As such, it’s more helpful to revisit the older stuff so that this non-development can be seen – plus it consists of pertinent supporting material.
The Sky News piece of our study is an article entitled, Russia-Ukraine crisis: Boris Johnson says Russia sending ‘mixed signals’ as Moscow says West ‘humiliated’ over Ukraine invasion warnings. It is primarily a report about the Russian MoD’s announcement (that happened at that time) of the partial ending of military exercises in Belarus, but this is prefaced by a report wherein Boris Johnson calls the central issue a matter of “mixed messages” coming from Moscow who, in reality, would still be preparing to invade Ukraine. The author is certain that the coverage of Johnson’s reaction was an addition to the original article so as to make a later edition of it, and this is why it was said that the piece’s primary focus was the news to which Johnson was reacting. The reader should also notice that the piece was published the day before Mi7 had predicted war to break out, and it was part of a brief moment when some corporate-media was talking about de-escalation and insinuating that the Russians were offering a negotiating concession. That this was the incorrect message to transmit is something that became clear and new corporate-media material was produced. It also became clear that Johnson had hurriedly been despatched to correct the narrative.
That there was this corrective reaction also made it clear that the campaign of noise from US/UK politicians and media had not been about making much of a war that Russia would not then have, so as to make Russia appear weak, and as if Putin had been deterred by the US/UK. Moreover, at this juncture, after a rather precise moment in time when war was supposed to break out has passed, the clamour still hasn’t finished, what with allegations of a Donbas kindergarten being hit by shelling (of the horizontal variety, according to the pictures), and a glut of reportage accusing Russia being behind a false flag attack on the separatists, thus creating a pretext for a war. That this goes on, and that it will go on after the Russians don’t follow up on their alleged provocation to disprove the latest allegation, shows that the objective of the US/UK military intelligence media complex is absolutely not to have Ukraine’s powerful neighbour get involved. Indeed, that there are other reports in Anglo-globalist media stating that the damage was done on the Ukrainian side of the line of contact shows that a straight story doesn’t matter, and what is most important is as much noise as possible – which is and always has been about having Russia stand down so that there can be an unhindered Ukrainian offensive into Novorossiyan separatist territory (at least; Crimea is also on the wish list).
As far as this latest supposed development goes, the conflicting reports about who fired on whom betray an underlying truth that will, for convenience, not be looked at too closely in US/UK corporate media. This truth is that at times there is more than tension along the line of contact between Ukrainian and Novorossiyan forces. This latest incident could be a case of fighting as usual. And even if internet chatter is correct and there has been an escalation of stand-off artillery fire from the Ukrainian side, it does not follow that an offensive will follow – it just means that there is an impression – and only the impression – of a looming war†, for which Putin and Russia is to be blamed, designed to pressure the Russians into making concessions.
Indeed, that the so-called Ukraine crisis is nothing more than a collection of nonsense produced by the Ministry of Truth cannot be stated enough. The Ministry of Truth, incidentally, is something to honestly call the collective US/UK military intelligence and media complex, and is derived from the identification here at FBEL of the real nature especially of UK media as a unified, coordinated arm of government that always produces war propaganda as a matter of civil control – which it has done since at least the Second World War, when Orwell experienced it as an insider so as to tell of it in Nineteen Eighty Four. If it hasn’t been said before in these pages, it should have been: if one understands this genesis of and role for corporate-media, one can understand why it unrelentingly publishes untruth: because the Big Brother regime for which it travails tirelessly is never wrong. These are people who think that if they say they can levitate, then it must be believed – and this is the scale of the fanaticism. Indeed, there’s never been a better moment in history to look at corporate-media output and see the workings of the Ministry of Truth as previous assertions – like those of 3am starting times for Russian invasion – are never heard of again, but are replaced by other lies which also have a limited lifespan of their own (demarked by reality), only to be forgotten at expiry. And the sheer output of UK corporate-media alone makes one think that there are scenes, today, in the buildings where the propaganda is produced that represent a modern day equivalent of that extraordinary moment in Orwell’s book where there is a mad rush to rewrite history in the days after the Oceania stops being at war, and has never been at war with Eastasia (or whichever one it is), and staff are sleeping in the aisles, and rubbishy Victory-brand canteen grub is wheeled round on trolleys by 1940s char-women.
So, returning to it, while Johnson’s narrative-managing pounce is the first thing one reads in the Sky piece of our interest (in the form it was published on 14:47, 15th February), it is not as important interpretation of the Russian MoD’s announcement as that by the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, who also features in the piece – where it is suggested that Zakharova, in response to the partial end of Russian exercises and return to base for troops who were supposed to be staging for an invasion, that it had been a critically important refuting of US/UK propaganda, and those who created it. Indeed, Zakharova spoke in no uncertain terms:
“15 February, 2022, will go down in history as the day Western war propaganda failed.
“Humiliated and destroyed without a single shot fired.”
But this is not quite right. Not being able to get hold of the comment at original source, the next best thing might be the reportage by RT, which had it like this:
According to her [Zakharova], the West has been“shamed and destroyed without firing a single shot.”
Now, the difference between the two reports matters in an important way because of how military intelligence (which is what corporate-media is) is intrinsic in the nature of government-by-hoax of the “West”, or Anglo-globalism, with its US/UK core plus satellite nations. At home, the public are never to be allowed to understand that its oppressor is so weak, and this is why Sky News separates media out as a distinct entity, and does not allow it to be presented as the aspect that it really is.
Zakharova has every right to place such historical importance on the failure of the US/UK military intelligence and media complex because of the huge gap between the output of its perception and expectation management, and self-evidence on the ground in Ukraine. Now, this is not a failure for media in its standing with domestic opinion, because even though Mi7 (meaning the UK’s military intelligence and media complex) gives itself away to those who can appreciate it as the essential aspect of control grid that it is, for the most part, when it tells of certain invasions to come that then don’t happen, it is like an Armageddon cult where prophesised days for the rapture can come and go over again and the people captive to the faith will forget the error and relearn to expect again. There is no humiliation to be had when being dreadfully wrong doesn’t matter.
So, when Zakharova says that something has been shamed and destroyed without firing a single shot, it is not media to which she refers. What she is talking about is the whole military junta of which media is but a component part, albeit an essential one – and this should be clear, for “shots fired” can only be reference to a military defeat. The significance of this is great for it means that a planned February war of Ukrainian-as-proxy aggression was beaten before it could be launched. And knowing that figures at the heart of Russian Government have this appraisal of current affairs, there is no need to be concerned about any war, because now there is certainly no prospect of one.
To get to the bottom of this, let us revisit something of what was said at the UN Security Council session of 31st January, 2022, as reported by The Guardian:
The Belarus envoy to the UN, Valentyn Rybakov, said the Russian troops were in his country for joint exercises from 10 to 20 February “to develop joint measures to eradicate the threat on the borders of our allied state, including caused by the migration crisis and the need to stabilize the humanitarian situation”.
The two nations’ combined forces, Rybakov said, would organize the defense of “strategically important facilities” and would “curb and ward off external active aggression”.
The problem with this coverage is that the “migration crisis” mentioned by Rybakov is not the main issue, as The Guardian Mi7 agent who wrote this makes it appear, what with his careful selection from Rybakov’s speech. In the full text (found in a CNN-prepared transcript), the real source of concern is revealed:
The expansion of military powers on our western and southern borders not only is not – but rather it’s becoming threatening in nature, despite consistent calls for dialogue and cooperation, including regarding arms control…
Given the current difficult situation the leaders of Belarus and Russia have taken the decision to conduct jointly activities to assess the preparedness of the armed forces of the two states to provide military security given the commitment of our military political alliance.
As part of these agreements a decision has been taken in February this year to conduct a verification of the responsiveness of our forces of our alliance.
The main aims of this verification of the military forces are to assess the preparedness and capability of our military command and control to conduct joint exercises to guarantee security of our allied states. To develop joint measures to eradicate a threat on the borders of our allied state, including caused by the migration crisis and the need to stabilize the humanitarian situation.
Organizing the defense and protection of strategically important facilities to curb and ward off external acts of aggression during defensive operations and to combat terrorism and protect the interests of our state alliances are the final stage of these activities.
From the 10th to the 20th of February this year, there will be a joint Belarusian exercises with – allied resolve 2022. During these drills, there will be joint drills carried out for specific purposes. We note that these options for actions for this regional group of troops are something that has been regularly developed during joint exercises. They are always purely defensive in nature.
And they pose no threat either for our European partners or our neighboring countries. Republican Belarus is continuing to uphold unswervingly all of its obligations under international regional treaties rather on arms control.
The first thing to appreciate is that explained here, from the horse’s mouth, is the genesis of the presence of Russian troops in Belarus, which the US/UK characterises as a potential invasion (of Ukraine) force, but which here is clearly stated as being non-aggressive by default. The second thing to appreciate is probably best conveyed in a proposal based on a reading of Ambassador Rybakov’s speech, and the reader can take it or leave it:
Given that the Belarusians announced joint exercises with the Russians for February in January, there was a discovery, prior to that, of the date of a planned Ukrainian offensive against the separatist Novorossiyan territories. After that, the Russians and their ally were able to schedule exercises at the same time as hostilities were to start, and in the circumstances that the Russians would newly create, would have to do so with a combined Russian and Belarusian force at the rear of the Ukrainian army as it was pointing into Novorossiya.
We suspect the rest: a campaign of accusation to have Russia commit to non-intervention, applied in private, which in public comes in the form of tremendous diplomatic activity (how many phone calls and meetings has there been between Putin and the French, German and US leadership?), with no reference to common knowledge of plans of US/UK/Ukrainian aggression, to have Russia somehow withdraw from a supposed encirclement of Ukraine framed as a staging for an unprovoked invasion of that country. Indeed, the having Russia promise not to intervene in Ukraine is probably the least that the US/UK thinks it can achieve in the diplomacy that it wants to tie Russia up in – and there’s no doubt that while the US/UK has been heaping mortification upon Russia in the squawking about unprovoked aggression, at the same time there has been the offering of the way out; one only needs to look at the language used by US officials in and about our featured UNSC session:
On Monday, Thomas-Greenfield [US ambassador] cast doubt on whether Moscow is serious about finding a peaceful resolution to its stated security concerns, saying that “if this is truly about Russia’s security concerns in Europe, we’re offering them the opportunity to discuss those concerns at the negotiating table.”
“If they refuse to do so,” she continued, “the world will know why and who is responsible.”
Despite the fiery back-and-forth, Thomas-Greenfield reiterated the Biden administration’s position that the U.S. continues to “believe there is a diplomatic path out of the crisis caused by Russia’s unprovoked military buildup.”
“We continue to hope Russia chooses the path of diplomacy over the path of conflict in Ukraine, but we cannot just wait and see,” she said…
In a statement, President Biden called the Security Council meeting “a critical step in rallying the world to speak out in one voice: rejecting the use of force, calling for military de-escalation, supporting diplomacy as the best path forward, and demanding accountability from every member state to refrain from military aggression against its neighbors.”
Here’s the rub. On February 10th, Thomas-Greenfield gave an interview with BBC World News America, and didn’t misspeak at the point in the text, as the reader shall see, where the producers of the transcript put a single asterisk pointing to a footnote as if to explain that the diplomat meant “to talk about the Minsk Accords”, and then placed a double asterisks pointing to another footnote suggesting that “eastern Ukraine” was meant.
QUESTION: There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity. The German Chancellor here at the White House, President Macron in Moscow and in Ukraine. President Macron is suggesting that the Minsk Accords, which have brought about a kind of shaky ceasefire in eastern Ukraine could be the basis for a diplomatic solution. Do you agree?
AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: We want to look at every opportunity, every possibility, for a diplomatic solution, and the Minsk Accords is one opportunity for that. We will be meeting in New York on the 17th of February where the Russians have called a meeting to talk about Crimea* and they’ve indicated that the Minsk Accord will be part of what they want to talk about.
QUESTION: Of course, the Ukrainians are really worried that talk of the Minsk Accords means Russia gets more influence in eastern Ukraine in return for backing their troops off the border.
AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, we want them to back their troops off the border. Part of the agreement was that they would pull back out of Crimea,** and they have not done that. So these discussions will be an opportunity to pressure the Russians to commit to making those agreements work.
No, none of this is misspeaking. Instead, it is deliberate deviousness, with the BBC questioner knowingly complicit by not correcting Thomas-Greenfield in respect there being no obligation on Russia’s part, in the Minsk accords, to somehow disposes itself of Crimea. This is not just pairing an invented reason for the failure of a set of peace treaties with a current campaign to blacken the Russian reputation, but it is a clear indicator of what the present flurry of Anglo-globalist effort is all about: to have Russia stand all the way down. In a previous FBEL article on this matter, it was said that knowing the hubris and the audacity of the US/UK, demands for Ukrainian security would involve the “vacation of bases in an exclusion zone around Ukraine extending into Russian territory” – with the implication that Ukrainian security actually meant the safe space to “recapture the territory owned by the separatist states, and possibly even the Crimea”. As preposterous in terms of being unachievable as it was envisioned then, after a (supposed to be lightning) Ukrainian offensive was scuppered by Belarusian manoeuvres (which was the defeat with no shots being fired), the creation of “safe space” to do civil war, with actual exclusion of Russian forces from around Ukraine, now looks like what this continuing episode of shouting and squealing is now about. But it is completely fanciful, and only speaks of US/UK flopping impotency – which is an aspect of this entire episode that always remains the same. Indeed, nothing has changed whatever one decides has happened or not in the intervening period since 31st January. All Russia needs to do to prevent the particular war that the US/UK wants in the Donbas is be Ukraine’s neighbour, and be adequately militarily competent – and it is more than that.
† Aided and abetted by the expert alternative media analysts. One that is particularly obvious now has an “open thread” where people are invited to post their gossip under the heading The Ukronazis are on the offensive.
The famous expert alternative media geopolitical analyst sets them off – yours truly’s reaction to each point is in squared brackets:
The civilians of the LDNR are being evacuated from the towns near the LOC (line of contact). [The author found this: “Denis Pushilin [leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic] announced that residents would be evacuated from the city [Donetsk] to Russia’s Rostov region”. One town, then?]
The Ukies are bombing the LDNR with artillery and mortar fire along the full LOC.
[Is this new?]The city of Gorlovka has lost power. The city is under tank fire. The only road between Donetsk and Gorlovka is under Ukronazi fire.
[Is any of this unusual?]The cities of Dokuchaevsk, Staromikhailovka and Belaia Kamenka are under mortar attack. [Again, is this new?]
It appears that the Ukronazis want to cut through the defenses between Lugansk and Donetsk.
[Not stating this as fact, only in terms of an impression to be made. Warmongering with no hard evidence. Besides which, “want to” and “are in the act of doing it” are not the same thing]
