Published On: Wed, Apr 20th, 2022

In Ukraine, the British Krypteia appears to be getting a comeuppance; Russian official: captured NATO servicemen will stand trial

There is every reason to believe that personnel of the UK armed forces/military intelligence have been captured by the Russians in Ukraine, and a very recent announcement regarding special forces troops being deployed to the country during the conflict could be an effort to create a cover story and manage expectation of any future Russian disclosure regarding their prisoners.

It was The Times, reckoned hereabouts to be the direct mouthpiece of UK military intelligence, which was the source at the interface with the public domain when it quoted Ukrainian sources claiming that “British special forces have trained local troops in Kyiv for the first time since the war with Russia began”. Although the UK Ministry of Defence evidently did not provide comment for the article, and although – interestingly – there was no “denial” in the form of the usual explanation that the MoD never does comment on such things, the news can be treated as officially sanctioned given that it came from The Times.

It should be well noted that the piece stresses that official narrative, that UK Government is desirous to maintain, in respect of there being no means to conduct a direct confrontation with Russia:

British military trainers were first sent to Ukraine after the invasion of Crimea. They were withdrawn in February to avoid direct conflict with Russian forces and the possibility of Nato being drawn into the latest conflict.

As the piece takes pains to point out, the UK special forces presence in Ukraine from around the commencement of April is a new development so that there could be “new and returning military recruits [trained] to use NLAWs, British-supplied anti-tank missiles that were delivered in February as the invasion was beginning.” The piece also gives the impression that the deployment was continuing at the time of its writing (15th April).

One is supposed to infer from the piece that an opportunity arose for a contained deployment of UK troops to Kiev afforded by the Russians’ withdrawal from previously held positions surrounding the capital. Thus, with UK Government signalling that captured British mercenaries are not going to be helped (because “they shouldn’t have been [in Ukraine]”, according to at least one government minister), there is the construction of a great deal of care not to be implicated in the fact of fighters for Ukraine being from Britain.

However, there is no reason to believe UK Government when it says UK armed forces were ever withdrawn from Ukraine. As explained in a previous FBEL article, these personnel could be expected to be attached to Ukrainian forces in a capacity other than mere and occasional trainers. In fact, this notion was corroborated by the account of the French Le Figaro correspondent, Georges Malbrunot, who, after returning from Ukraine having been there investigating French volunteers, told TV channel CNEWS that the Pentagon was in charge of Ukraine’s military affairs as far as he witnessed them. Malbrunot also took to Twitter to state that the British SAS “have been present in Ukraine since the beginning of the war”.

Having registered this independent account that contradicts the UK Government, and before applying other lessons that are suggested by it, let us explore the concept of US leadership of Ukrainian troops as expressed in the supposed and rumoured capture, or entrapment, of one Roger L Cloutier in Mariupol. Lieutenant General Cloutier is a senior US military official who is the chief of NATO’s Allied Land Command. Being the commander of what is abbreviated as LandCom, Cloutier would be the prime land warfare advisor to NATO, and that Cloutier is so very senior lends itself to dismissal of the rumours of his downfall, one way or another. Moreover, on a few occasions since the rumour emerged, posts have been added to Cloutier’s LinkedIn page as if he is operating as normal.

All that being said, if the Ukrainians had been planning to invade the Novorossiyan separatist states in February (and they had been), then it makes perfect sense for Cloutier to be near to the operation to oversee it, and then to have been surprised by the Russian Special Military Operation. Furthermore, any lackey can throw material at an internet page so that it can be called proof against the allegation of Cloutier’s being in Russian captivity, or entrapped in a Russian encirclement to inevitably be captured.

On top of that, the unsuccessful attempts in March and April (becoming so numerous that one could begin to lose count) to land helicopters in shrinking pockets surrounded by the Russians (in operations akin to those performed by US military to pull “ISIS commanders” from perilous situations in Syria), not to mention one unsuccessful attempt to fire a ship past Russian blockaders into the city’s port, speaks of there having been in Mariupol very high value assets in need of being rescued from the path of ever encroaching Russian forces – who by now are working on the one place remaining to be captured, the Azovstal steel plant.

In this landscape, then, it perfectly possible for UK special forces instructors to be, in fact, Ukrainian leadership (having the SAS teach anti-tank gun to raw recruits would surely be too much of a bad use of resources to be plausible), and also to have been taken prisoner by the Russians, or otherwise have found themselves in a predicament where being captured (or killed) is a future certainty. Indeed, we know from the reports by two Russian officials/politicians either side of 13th April, and the mass surrender in Mariupol of 1026 Ukrainian marines from the 36th Brigade, that the capture of UK special forces is a probability verging on being a certainty. Amongst those giving up were “162 officers”, said the Russian Ministry of Defence briefing that UK corporate-media itself would quote. Of course, the first thing one notices is the high proportion of those surrendering being “officers”: 1 in 6, or thereabouts. It perhaps indicates that the Russians had bagged a command centre, or the combat soldiery was of a certain class that it would have acquired officer rank.

In any case, by 9th April, State Duma deputy, Adam Delimkhanov, had been interviewed by RT, and talked openly about what he thought was 100 NATO instructors being stuck at Azovstal. He implied that they had been in direct contact with the Russians regarding acquiring an exit from their difficulty, or their communications were being monitored so that pleadings to be rescued had been overheard, and said this: “I would give them advice: don’t get on helicopters. Better hang out the [white] flag, come to us.” The reference, of course, is to the failed helicopter rescue attempts that the Russians have expertly shot out of the air – and is therefore off-the-battlefield confirmation that those attempts were intended to rescue people whose nationality would be an embarrassment upon being captured. Crucially, Delimkhanov said this:

Yes, in Azovstal and Illych factory, there are Nato instructors. [They] are there with a brigade of marines.

The marines being mentioned are perhaps the 36th Brigade, rather than the 503rd Independent Marines battalion which is also known to have been enclosed in Mariupol, because on April 15th, after troops from the marines brigade surrendered, one Andrei Klimov, a senator, and described as being the “deputy head of the commission of the party ‘United Russia’ on international cooperation” said during a briefing of media:

We already have prisoners among the servicemen of NATO countries, we will show all this when we conduct trials, and the whole world will see what really happened.

Of course, this is all very fascinating in terms of the possibility of seeing UK military intelligence and related armed services get a very public comeuppance, and of benefiting from the diminishment of the ability of UK Government to terrorise its own population (because these people are from the same agencies that do the false flag terrorism, and of the same functional ilk as those who have been coined the Krypteia in these pages). That being said, even though this particular Russian official promised days in open court for whomever had been captured, it is easy to get the impression that UK Government thought (and thinks) that if it could get any of its agents out of their life threatening predicaments, then it could get them all the way back to London as well. How else, dear reader, do we explain the outlandish language of the likes of James Heappey, the Armed Forces Minister, and Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, that coincidentally started and ceased in the same week as occurred the surrender of the 36th Marines? These two were threatening to bring Putin to account, with “all options… on the table”, over claims by Azov nationalists in Mariupol of a chemical weapon being used by Russia. Probably referring to the UK pulling the US’ strings, Heappey said that further “outrages” by Russia could see one NATO nation (or two, or three) go it alone with “[response] in kind”, and Putin couldn’t count on the NATO organisation as a single entity not agreeing that there should be – presumably – a military reaction. In reality, because there has been no usage of banned weaponry in the first place, the sabre rattling could have been about discouraging Russia from, in the first instance, killing UK assets remaining entrapped in Mariupol.

Naturally, this then makes one wonder if the sinking of the Moskva – coincidentally on the 13th/14th – was due to damage caused by a UK frogman operation, because it would be like UK Government and UK armed forces to sneak around to get a kill as per their usual dishonourable way. As a matter of fact, the author tends to think that the Moskva incident was a Russian mishap, and extraordinary bad luck on their part – but it also called the UK’s bluff. The noisome yapping about retaliation from UK ministers has quieted since the very eventful week that ended 17th April, and it’s probably  because there is an earnest desire not to present the Russians with the impression of an unequivocal connection between what are threats that won’t be followed up (note, the aptly named Heappey couldn’t threaten Russia on behalf of the UK alone) and damage to Russia’s capability to prosecute its special operation (no matter how incidental to it any lost asset is): UK Government is not looking to give any opportunity for Russia to make it look weak. Needless to say, then, things do not look very rosy for any captive (current or inevitably prospective) British Krypteia, even when they haven’t got what they most immediately deserve.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image