42 Comments
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022Liked by Michael Tracey

Let's remember that the WMD "dodgy dossier" which created the narrative for the Iraq war was put out by 10 Downing Street, ultimately by British intelligence. Fast-forward to 2016. Another curious "dirty dossier" appeared in just the nick of time to cripple an in-coming president. Funny enough, it just so happens that Sir Richard Dearlove (then MI6 director) who oversaw the release and distribution of the "dodgy dossier" was none other than a mentor to guess who? Christopher Steele.

It's funny to think that two of the most pivotal developments in recent US history were both sparked by British Intelligence.

I think people overlook the actual nature of the "Five Eyes," which goes much beyond just the US intel community. The Five Eyes is ultimately the intelligence arm of the Wall Street/City of London nexus, with the US only being one of the "Five Eyes."

If people want to see the bigger picture, I think it means zooming out from a purely American Empire view to recognizing the much older institutions that actually operate in the background, with the Five Eyes simply being the most modern incarnation of something that has been around for a very long time, and is now in trouble as a new global operating system comes online. Hence, the desperate suicidal attempts to create all out chaos and flip the chess board.

Expand full comment

I feel very lonely. I am bewildered by the people I agree with. I am aghast that the Republican Party is demanding war in Ukraine. The American interest is peace in Ukraine. We should be seeking peace.

Expand full comment

When you remember that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength, it all makes perfect sense.

Expand full comment

It must be understood that the British "left" is arguably one of the most deluded constituencies ever in existence. And by deluded, I do #actually mean: utterly divorced from reality. Remember that these are the same people who believe that the distinction between "man" and "woman", or between "male" and "female", is either impossible, or meaningless, or undesirable. More to the point: they seem to believe that sexual dimorphism is (morally) undesirable and *consequently* (conceptually) impossible! This is not just some eccentric, singular or one-off bit of article of faith; it's part of larger package that includes, for example, the conviction that a child's "inner" fantasies and perceptions about their sex/gender are more "real" than their external, physical-biological bodies, and hence that the latter must be made to conform to the former (whether via castration, hysterectomy or other forms of mutilation). ... Put in more general terms, they fundamentally believe that reality is subordinate to fantasy, or that the material is merely secondary, and ultimately yields to, the ideal ... and not vice-versa.

And so, people like this have no trouble whatsoever believing the proposition that a war against Russia can be somehow, magically, be won without actually fighting a war against Russia; indeed, they don't just believe this, they are able to espouse this view with militancy and belligerence. Because, again, for these people, this not #actually "magical thinking" ... it's merely "thinking"!

Expand full comment

Former Nato Officer interview with Aaron Mate. Important interview for those who have not seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4zReg7Bhu8

Expand full comment
Apr 15, 2022·edited Apr 15, 2022

"this new Labour Party line is a mirror image of the Republican Party’s current critique of Joe Biden"

The progressives have joined the Republicans in the push for peace which lies just over the horizon, on the other side of a bloody war. Peace can be obtained directly the old-fashioned way through peace talks and ceasefires or peace can be obtained by simply killing all the "bad guys" (and accepting that many "good guys" will also be killed) over the course of many years until both sides are exhausted of war and all the money and weapons are used up and a new and more interesting war comes along. The only difference is how many people (civilians and soldiers) are killed along the way but that seems to be an insignificant matter.

What matters is that the neopacifists (aka progressives) have joined with the neocons to proclaim themselves to be proponents of peace and no one in warmonger media will call them out on their obvious self-deception. The progressives get their approval and affirmation from Twitter and Twitter is censoring opponents of death and war, so all is quiet on the western front but on the eastern front there is still lots of blood and weapons flowing in a healthy and peaceful manner.

If I ever feel so strongly that there should be a war that I want to cheer for it (and I suppose that is a theoretical possibility) then I will go and join in the fight myself in-person instead of asking for others to do it for me. I don't feel that way about this war, I think it was provoked by idiots and crooks on all sides and could have been easily avoided. I do however, encourage the neopacifists to take up weaponry and go fight as volunteers for the Azov battalion with a swastika on your arm, instead of throwing paper airplanes and tweets, if they feel so strongly driven to create peace (and WWIII), because we can make do with less idiots on this earth and the sooner the better. Sadly, the Ukrainian army does not want useless woke twits who don't know peace from war or who don't know a hole in their head from a hole in the ground.

Expand full comment
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022

"It's 1938 all over again... again!" What is it with Brits and their obsession with the Second World War? There is hardly anyone alive who even remembers it.

Expand full comment

So somehow they think the Russians would be less angry about us sinking their ships than shooting their planes down.

And these people do realize that the Ukraine is an oligarchy, which means the "working class" wouldn't really be any better off under Russian rule than Ukrainian rule. Practically speaking, it matters nothing to them.

Expand full comment

Well since they drug us into the first two world wars, why shouldn’t they drag us into another one…third time’s a charm

Expand full comment

"The UK is Trying to Drag the US into World War III"

Slight disagreement as it seems to me there is no bloody, money laundering operation Congress loves more than another armed conflict and UK "War is Peace" campaign one more tentacle of its global PR campaigns. Loopholes and excuses are staples. George Galloway had a Russian media warning slapped on his Twitter justified by his RT show years ago.

"An old saying goes that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are really “two cheeks of the same backside.” On the subject of Ukraine, that’s eminently applicable. And you can throw in the Democrats and Republicans as well — another a pair of pimples on the same “arse.”"

Lucky for weapon industry who sit on those pimples.

Expand full comment

As always, Mr. Tracey, you are wonderful at exposing hypocrisy in public life.

But saying that we shouldn’t follow the advice of people who wouldn’t know a coherent, principled position if a pack of rabid ones bit them on the ass isn’t enough. It’s a great start, but it isn’t enough.

The truly difficult question is not what NATO and the West shouldn’t do about Ukraine, but what they should do. Getting to an answer on that questions means answering two preliminary ones:

1. What should be the objective of western policy in Ukraine?

2. What concrete steps are open to the West that can reasonably be expected to accomplish that objective?

What do you have to suggest, Mr. Tracey? At this stage of this war, that is really what I would like to see some serious thought given to.

Are we just “peace at any price”, or are there useful things to be done? At the moment, negotiating with Russia doesn’t seem to be moving the needle at all. What things can NATO do to change the current balance of forces so Russia has sufficient incentive to come to the table with a deal that the West can force Ukraine to accept—and what would that deal look like?

Expand full comment
Apr 14, 2022·edited Apr 14, 2022

The only Senators who voted on S.3522 are the twenty-two of them from the Committee on Foreign Relations, isn't that right? I ask because you mentioned Cruz (TX) and Hawley (MO) over on the Internet's Town Square. Hawley wouldn't be on a roll call bc Cornyn (TX)'s bill left the Senate via parliamentary-theatrical "voice vote," correct? It is more useless legislative posturing, as I understand it in current year?

Expand full comment

I really appreciate your reporting, Michael. Just signed on as a paid subscriber.

Expand full comment

We’ve seen the movie before. The Kindle version of “The Guns of August” is $8. Here’s Amazon’s blurb:

PULITZER PRIZE WINNER • “A brilliant piece of military history which proves up to the hilt the force of Winston Churchill’s statement that the first month of World War I was ‘a drama never surpassed.’”—Newsweek

Selected by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best nonfiction books of all time

In this landmark account, renowned historian Barbara W. Tuchman re-creates the first month of World War I: thirty days in the summer of 1914 that determined the course of the conflict, the century, and ultimately our present world. Beginning with the funeral of Edward VII, Tuchman traces each step that led to the inevitable clash. And inevitable it was, with all sides plotting their war for a generation. Dizzyingly comprehensive and spectacularly portrayed with her famous talent for evoking the characters of the war’s key players, Tuchman’s magnum opus is a classic for the ages.

Expand full comment

Keep in mind that in the UK, there's the Left and there's the Labour Party. And in their Venn diagram, there aren't many points of intersection.

Expand full comment

It's gotten easier for them to manipulate the Herd. I'm old enough to remember when they had to work really hard to manipulate opinion.

Great article. Reads like old time reporting. So glad to be a supporter.

Expand full comment