The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
HMS Defender Versus the Russian Military: the Danger of Believing Your Own Propaganda
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Less than two weeks after NATO members reaffirmed allegiance to Article 5 – that an attack on one member was an attack on all members – the UK nearly put that pledge to the test. In a shockingly provocative move, the UK’s HMS Defender purposely sailed into Crimean territorial waters on its way to Georgia.

Press reports suggest that there was a dispute between the UK defense and foreign ministries over whether to violate Russia’s claimed territorial waters with a heavily armed warship. According to reports, Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself jumped in to over-rule the more cautious Foreign Office in favor of confrontation.

As Johnson later claimed, because the UK (and the US) does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the UK was actually sailing through Ukrainian waters. It was an in-your-face move toward Russia just weeks after the US and NATO were forced to back down from a major clash with Russia in eastern Ukraine

This time, as was the case in eastern Ukraine, the Russians took a different view of the situation. Russian coast guard vessels ordered the HMS Defender to exit Russian territorial waters – an order they punctuated with rare live fire of cannon and dropping of bombs.

Having had their bluff called, the UK government did what all governments do best: it lied. The Russians did not shoot at a UK warship, they claimed. It was a previously-scheduled Russian military exercise in the area.

Unfortunately for the UK government, in its haste to create good propaganda about standing up to Russia, they had a BBC reporter on-board the Defender who spilled the beans: Yes, the Russian military did issue several warnings, yes it did buzz the HMS Defender multiple times, and yes there were shots fired in the Defender’s direction.

Similarly, in the spring, Russia rapidly deployed 75,000 troops on the border with Ukraine in response to a US-backed Ukrainian military build-up. The message was clear: Russia would no longer sit by as the US government and its allies intervened next door.

Russia now has demonstrated that it will protect Crimea, which voted in a 2014 referendum to re-join Russia. The Crimean vote was triggered by the US-backed coup in Ukraine. That is called “unintended consequences” of foreign interventionism.

The problem with the UK, the US, and their NATO allies is that they believe their own propaganda and they act accordingly. A famous 2004 quote attributed to George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove, clearly spelled out this line of thinking. Said Rove, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

These two recent near-clashes with Russia demonstrate that the “reality” created by an almost religious belief in American or NATO exceptionalism can often crash hard against the reality of 75,000 troops or the Black Sea Fleet

The anti-Russia propaganda endlessly repeated by both political parties in Washington and amplified by the anti-Trump media for more than four years has completely saturated the Beltway and beyond. Even as the Russiagate conspiracy was proven to be a lie, the propaganda it spawned lives on.

Blustering Boris Johnson almost provoked a major war over an infantile desire to continue poking and prodding Russia in its own backyard. This time the war was averted, but what about next time? Will the adults ever be in charge?

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Britain, NATO, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It is no more complicated than this:

    It is not about Ukraine sovereignty…Ukraine is a Jewish-Nazi puppet state of the US….The homosexual pederast Biden Administration wants to make Crimea into a large US Military Base with nukes pointed across the border at Christian Russia. Russia will never allow this to happen. So obviously the homosexual pederast Biden Administration is provoking thermonuclear war with Russia.

    Just remember that “peace-activist” Noam Chomsky voted for the homosexual pederast Biden Administration….

  2. What kind of Military and Goverment would risk thermonuclear over Crimea?

    Crimea has belong to Russia for two centuries….Internal corruption within the old Soviet Union and the early years of the treason post-cold war Russia…Gorbachev and Yeltsin allowed Crimea fall into the hands of Ukraine…..with the great risk of Crimea falling into the hands of homosexual pederast US Military and the homosexual pederast Biden Administration.

    The best way to describe the homosexual pederast Military of slimey General Mark Milley and the homosexual pederast Biden Administration is the Satanic creature from Steven King’s movie IT..

    The US Military

    General Mark Milley

    Joe Biden

    Pennywise the Clown


    This is what we are dealing with….

    • Replies: @animalogic
  3. Voltarde says:

    A new definition of insanity: Britain trying to launch Crimean War II on the 80th anniversary of the launch of Operation Barbarossa.

    This provocation reflects a potentially fatal clinical malady, a yearning for national self-mutilation as long as harm is inflicted on another country.

    NATO’s attempts to provoke armed confrontation are retroactively justifying the former USSR’s post-WWII policy of forming the Warsaw Pact to prevent Eastern Europe from being used as a staging area for a war to destroy Russia.

  4. To be more to the point:

    Joe Biden=Pennywise the Clown=IT

    This is what Christian Russia is up against…Christian Russia will nuke homosexual pederast cannibal America…

  5. SafeNow says:

    Yes, there is the non-adult factor, and the miscalculation possibility. But there is also this: Biden is not in charge; others are pulling the President’s strings. This introduces the “systems error” risk. This is too much.The U.S. desperately needs an expensive, no-nuclear-war-risk deployment to some peripheral place, to replace the Mideast deployments. Australia! Why? Because China played bumper-boats using a fishing boat near there! OMG, what might China do next? We’d better send a giant deployment to Australia. I can’t think of anywhere else.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @El Dato
  6. Quite possibly, to protect themselves from Pennywise the Clown, Russia and China have to thermonuclear burn every US city and every UK City to the ground…..and to thermonuclear burn the US Negro Military into lumps of charcoal…I mean, what are the other options?

  7. Carlo says:

    “As Johnson later claimed, because the UK (and the US) does not recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the UK was actually sailing through Ukrainian waters. ”
    I would love to see the Russians use this same argument. Make a joint naval exercise with the Argentineans, approach the Falklands and then just say: “Oh, it is Argentine territorial waters and they granted us access”.

    • Replies: @The Ogs
  8. The Ogs says:

    So true. It is perfectly fine for USA to send all kinds of warships to China and Taiwan.
    But Iranian ships visiting Venezuela? Oh no, that is ‘forbidden’! LoL
    I would have loved to see the Americans attempt to intercept or block the innocent freedom of passage in the international ocean, near Venezuela. And be DESTROYED by a Russian submarine!
    This would of course be unfortunate (yet richly deserved).

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  9. Looking forward to the irony of the ex-hippies calling me a pinko sympathizer and violating my civil rights for protesting the war.

    Would they be foolish enough to try to crank up the draft? That could end this current regime right there… and they may have no choice unless they can get the job done with a bunch of mercenaries and a few gung-ho lesbians.

  10. @Voltarde

    No doubt NATO has been obsolete since the end of the Cold War over 30 years back. Does anyone here remember President Trump saying something similar? Was that just more BS out of him, or did the Deep State inform him early on to keep his opinions on foreign policy to himself?

    I remember that even back in the early 1990s, when the US was pushing NATO to sign up more and more countries, right up to the border of Russia, I thought: “What is this for? Why are we antagonizing what is now a non-Communist nation. Was it to rub it in? Is this out of spite, because, you know, the USSR is no more.” As I later realized, this was part of the Neocon’s plan to build the US empire across almost all of Europe along with elsewhere.

    I don’t agree that there is some type of retroactive justification here, Voltarde. NATO was formed for a damned good reason. Without it, we may well have seen the E. German and Soviet tanks coming through the Fulda Gap. There’s no point in excusing Communism due to the stupidity going on now.

    NATO served its purpose. Its work had been accomplished by 1989. The bureaucratic mission creep set in, but a real Constitutionalist US Feral Gov’t would have just killed the organization. We’ve had quite the opposite of that government since 1989 and earlier.

    • Agree: Adam Smith, El Dato
  11. Phipps says:

    Jews own the government and the Fake News Media. Jews don’t like Caucasian Christian Russia for a few reasons: 1) Russians are white. 2) Russians are Christians. 3) Russia is friendly to Israel’s enemies.
    4) Jews know that most Russian Christians don’t like Jews — mainly because of the Jewish-Bolshevist Revolution in 1917 and the Jewish oligarchs looting the country after the fall of Communism. Jews are a naturally destructive people; in addition to tearing down America with their cancel culture, support for the BLM movement and CRT they are using their Zionist dummy in the White House to spark World War Three.

  12. jsinton says:

    Ever get the feeling you’re playing on the wrong team?

  13. Jews are the skulking enemy behind the scenes. They pull the strings, and they want as many dead Christians as possible. They’ll deny it, of course, but their actions speak loudly. Until we confront the jew pestilence, these international tensions will continue to simmer. We need to spread the word about what they are, and what they really want.

  14. Molip says:

    Crimea is all about energy.

    The Black Sea reportedly has very good oil and gas deposits and when Russia reabsorbed Crimea it got a lot of B Sea territory with it.

    The US wants the oil.

    • Replies: @Avianthro
  15. The whole ‘Crimea is Ukraine’ argument seems to imply that Ukraine will remain a belligerent, revanchist, fascist, state in perpetuity. That is an interesting development.

    • Replies: @alwayswrite
  16. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Mulga all you need to do with your comment is cross out the name Ukraine and replace it with Putin’s Russia and you’d be spot on 😁

  17. @War for Blair Mountain

    Blair-M, I kind of know where u are coming from. I don’t dispute the sentiment.
    But the Crimera dislocation occurred under Khrushchev in the 50’s for essentially administrative reasons.
    That doesn’t change any of the disgusting imperial shenanigans of today.
    Multipolar world of equal sovereign nations !!

  18. Antiwar7 says:

    “Will the adults ever be in charge?”

    Unfortunately, adults are already in charge, but they’re sociopaths.

  19. @Achmed E. Newman

    NATO is for the service of the Military Industrial Complex… So has it’s expansion been. No other reason. now it’s mission creep is starting to extend to the Pacific… Go figure

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  20. @showmethereal

    I just explained the reason for NATO. It kept Communism out of Western Europe for 40 years. Maybe that’s a problem for you?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @showmethereal
  21. @Voltarde

    Agreed and it is long past time that Russia got that buffer of states back as they have not lived up to their side of the bargain to be truly free independent states but have in fact have become vassal states of the US empire just as the UK poodle is.

  22. black dog says:

    The idiot Johnson rather fancies himself as another Winston Churchill. He has none of that man’s qualities, but all of his faults. Our (UK) government is shambolic in every sense. The media are cowardly and complicit in government antics. The BBC itself wasted no time in telling us about “Russian aggression”. And yet our armed forces are utterly inadequate even for purely defensive measures. Madness.

  23. El Dato says:

    Why not set up a Moon Base to fight UFOs? You could pump it full of diversity and sexy+competent office bunnies, too.

  24. El Dato says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Amazing, NATO seems to have sucked all the air out of any military capability of the Euros. The German forces seem to be a shambolic heap of dysfunction, with U-Boats croaking in the harbor and parts of the forces ready to Putsch&Eliminate the politicians (allegedly).

    France is still a bit more hardass and can actually field armor.

    There used to be the idea of the WEU as a purely European military alliance without Uncle Shmuel as big manipulator, but it went nowhere.

  25. @The Ogs

    Why unfortunate? The trash aboard the military ship is helping do something immoral. If it weren’t for those swine, the ship couldn’t be there.

  26. @Achmed E. Newman

    NATO is for the service …

    Please note the word ‘is’ in the above. That means the present, not the past. Your comment ignores the time frame his comment entails.

    showmethereal’s comment is correct.

    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  27. @RoatanBill

    Nah, “is” in that sentence “NATO is for the service of the Military Industrial Complex.” implies that that’s what it’s about, period. “The NBA is about supporting black thuggery”, for example, may mean only now, but most writers would state that “now”. I explained the mission creep of NATO, which has been obsolete for its stated purpose since 1989.

    Yes, it IS now, but showmethereal is anti-all-things-American from any era – I’m making this clear.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  28. Rich says:

    Britain dragged us all into WW2 with their dopey war guarentee to Poland, and now they want to drag us into WW3 with some weird show of solidarity with Ukraine. The US needs to explain to them that an attack on one of their ships taunting Russia will not be considered an Article 5 incident and they can fight this one with the Ukrainians and anyone else who wants in. Not us. But of course that won’t happen.

  29. @Achmed E. Newman

    The average USian is not the government. Lots of people can give the people somewhat of a pass on what the gov’t does, but any reference to America in the colloquial context means mostly the government.

    Please list the positives you find so attractive about the US government in the last 50 years. I can’t think of a thing.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  30. @RoatanBill

    Please list the positives you find so attractive about the US government in the last 50 years. I can’t think of a thing.

    I’m not sure why you think I, of all commenters here on the Unz Review site, would find anything attractive about the US government in the last 50 years. I got nothin’.

    However, the term USian is just stupid-sounding – I’m sorry, Bill, no offense really. “American” is perfectly fine.

    If you want to understand what I mean about “ShowMeTheReal”, this is the guy that went back and forth with me at least 5, maybe 10 times about race relations in America, he being under either the willfully or stupidly false impression that said race relations are exactly the same here as in the year 1960.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  31. @Achmed E. Newman

    FYI – Bolivians are Americans. Peruvians are Americans. Canadians are Americans. USians are Americans.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Rich
  32. @RoatanBill

    You are right geographically, Bill. However, as I wrote, that term USian is just plain stupid. You need to lose that one and use the common sense, widely-used “American”. We all know what it means.

    Are you into “First Nations person” for Eskimos now too, or is that “First Nationian”?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  33. @Achmed E. Newman

    You’re correct that the entire world uses ‘American’ to mean someone from the US. It’s the arrogance that goes along with the indispensable nation and shining beacon on the hill bullshit that I can’t stomach, so I won’t use it because it’s too broad a term and encompasses to many people that don’t want to be included.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • LOL: Rich
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  34. @Achmed E. Newman

    What makes you certain it was NATO that did that? Were all Western European nations destined to become communist? Did all of South East Asia do so because of Vietnam?? Did all of the Caribbean do so because of Cuba? India was great friends with Russia yet didn’t turn communist. Pakistan are still great friends with China – but didn’t turn communist. So either you are saying many western europeans wanted communism – or it was a mythical beast that would swallow the globe. NATO didn’t defeat communism – since there was no hot war… The inefficiencies in the Soviet system defeated itself.
    The Military Industrial Complex only tells you that is what won.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Malla
  35. @showmethereal

    No, of course the Western Euro nations*did NOT WANT Communism. It wouldn’t have been their choice. Do you think the Germans in the east wanted Communism? How about the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Lithuanians, etc, etc.? The people there had no choice in the matter after their territory had been taken by the Red Army.

    You do realize there was a war in Vietnam, right? Yeah, it became Communist anyway, by 1975, due to the war being lost. Yet, S. Korea did not. Are you getting the picture? How about the Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge? How many wanted Communism? How many still wanted it after Pol Pot had murdered 1/3 of the population?

    Oh, sure, Vietnam is not so Communist now – they were lucky it was what, arguably, 15-20 years of the hard-core stuff? The Russian people weren’t so lucky. That was 3 – 4 generations of Russian lives RUINED due to it!

    Communism is no myth, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have taken a large part of the globe, were there no United States**. Yes, you CAN win a Cold War. It took Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, Konrad Adenauer, Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul II, and millions of mostly American soldiers, sailors, airmen, engineers, and technicians to win it.

    This is pretty recent history, so I can’t tell if you were born yesterday or are just fucking with us here. I suspect it’s the latter after that BS out of you way back about American race relations.


    * with the exception of the Greeks to some extent.

    ** with NATO being a good organization to defend against it back then.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  36. @RoatanBill

    There’s a lot of that bullshit now, Bill, correct in the past but just BS now. However, Peruvians are Peruvians, Hondurans are Hondurans, Mexicans are Mexicans – it’s real simple. Speaking of the latter, why can’t the Mexicans be the USians? Their country is named the United States of Mexico. Estados Unido, right? I guess they could be EUians, going by your system.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  37. @Achmed E. Newman

    I appreciate you eventually agreeing with me even though you don’t realize it.

    Using the common names for countries, if people from Mexico are Mexicans, from Peru are Peruvians then people from the United States are UnitedStatesians which doesn’t roll off the tongue easily, so the abbreviated form is a logical substitute – USians.

    You may have the last word as I won’t reply.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Jokem
  38. @RoatanBill

    I’ll take it. I don’t agree with you. “USians” is plain stupid.

    • Agree: Rich
  39. Jokem says:

    Borrow a word from the Brits. Try Yanks?

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  40. Rich says:

    I remember the pencil necked geeks in junior high school using the same points to try to sound intelligent and worldly. What grade are you in?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  41. @Rich

    I’m frequently replied to by pinheads that can’t form a cogent argument against my positions and come after me personally.

    Why is it that initiating name calling is somehow considered the right thing to do? Being incapable of countering my statements, do you somehow feel compelled to take a shot at your intellectual superiors as some act of defiance?

    Is what I wrote true or not? Can you mount some form of logical rebuttal or are you just here to talk shit?

    • Replies: @Rich
  42. Rich says:

    You might be a nice guy, who knows? Fact is, most of your comments come off as pretentious teenage bs. “USians”? Come on, no adult would even try to use something as dopey as that.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  43. @Rich

    It’s only when you live outside the US that you realize how pretentious USians sound when they appropriate to themselves the name of continents. The indispensable nation, the beacon on the hill go along with that narcissism. Why do you think the bulk of the world’s decent people hate the US?

    • Replies: @Rich
  44. Rich says:

    Funny, Bill, when I lived “outside the US”, the overwhelming majority of people I met loved Americans. And I wasn’t a tourist for 2 weeks. I spent significant time in foreign lands. You think maybe, just maybe, it’s not Americans they don’t like, just you? Most people don’t like folks who disparage their homelands and try to sound sophisticated using nonsensical terms like “USians”. I’m just saying. Maybe buy a mirror and take a good look at yourself.

  45. Malla says:

    Did all of South East Asia do so because of Vietnam??

    There was a serious threat of the spread of Communism into South East Asia. After all the British had a successful operation in Malaysia, unlike the boastful Americans, the Brits went in and got the job done. Same in Yemen. Did not advertise it too much and go gung ho like the Yanks. The British when working on their own are far more successful in getting things done, then when they take part in America’s misadventures.

    India was great friends with Russia yet didn’t turn communist.

    Actually what was interesting is that inspite of the fact that the Indians Congress crushed Indian Communists (and at times even helped Indian Commies against the bigger threat of Hindutva), the USSR remained an all weather ally of India. But except in a few states and some marginalized populations (lower caste Dalits against upper caste Right winged paramilitaries like the Ranvir Sena, Maoist jungle tribals against Indian oligarch companies etc…), Communism did not have that appeal among the Indian masses. Indeed Indians look at Marxism as a foreign import just like Westernism, Imperialism, Christianity and Islam. Indeed Indians equate Indian Communists with Imperialists. Marxist scholars like Romila Thappar are frequently called British agents. For most Indian masses, Indian nationalism is Hindutva and Hindutva only. Capice.
    During the Quit India movement of Gandhi against the British Raj in 1942, because Britain was an important ally against the Axis forces, Moscow ordered Indian communists to sabotage the Quit India movement. This and many other examples set in the minds of many Indians that the Communists are lackeys of foreign forces. Why would Indians take their order from Moscow, which is a foreign power? This is inspite the fact that Russia was very popular with Indians.
    Indians re too religious to look to Communism as an option even though I personally believe that Communism would have done India a lot of good as it would have reduced the backwardness of the population and at east provide much wider basic education and healthcare. Even Churchill was once talking about collectivization of Indian agriculture within the British Empire as the best solution to the problems of Indian farmers.

    Pakistan are still great friends with China – but didn’t turn communist

    Yeah, good luck turning Islamic Pakistan into Communism. LOL. It would be a bigger disaster than Afghanistan. There were many Communist movements in Pakistan, I think most have fizzled out.
    After Independence ad during Cold war, Pakistan enthusiastically and ardently supported the USA because:
    1] Pakistan was based on Islam, on Allah and thus it was at that time though unacceptable to take the side of an atheist Power like the USSR.
    2] Enemy India was getting rapidly and extremely close to the USSR.

    But their overall experience with the USA was so bad, the USA used Pakistan like a used condom after all Pakistan did for the USA, that they are now ready to make friendship with Communist China. Add to that India’s own rivalry with China. Of course on the other side of the picture, the wily Pakistanis exploited the dumb Yanks too, the ISI looting out American money and all that.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  46. lysias says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    NATO succeeded too well. By destroying the Soviet Union, NATO enabled capitalism and the West to abandon all restraint and to turn all too quickly into a new Soviet Union

    Polybius wrote that his friend Scipio Aemilianus, the conqueror of Carthage, deplored having to fight Carthage because, in his view, having to compete with Carthage was all that kept Rome on its best behavior and enabled it to avoid corruption and decline. And sure enough, very soon after Carthage was destroyed, the Roman Republic did start its decline.

    Just so with us. We would be much better 0ff now if the Soviet Bloc were still in business.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  47. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    @Achmed E. Newman #39

    “’USians’ is plain stupid.”

    It really should be “USuryans” anyway in honor of the shylocks who run the place.

  48. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    @lysias #47

    “And sure enough, very soon after Carthage was destroyed, the Roman Republic did start its decline.

    “Just so with us. We would be much better 0ff now if the Soviet Bloc were still in business. ”

    Was it Shaw who said: America may be the only nation in history to go directly from barbarism to decadence without first passing through the interval of civilization.

    I’m not sure anything would have prevented our decline. We were s-o-o determined.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  49. Jokem says:

    With the fall of the Soviet Blok, the lit came off the extremists in the Middle East.

  50. @Malla

    Relating to Pakistan – there was never any push by China. That’s my point… They were friends. Many Arab countries were “friends” with the Soviets during the era too.
    China did promote communism in South East Asia and Africa though… But that stopped by the 1970’s.
    The “fight” with communism was never going to be militarily… It was always going to be ideologically. And that’s what happened.

    • Replies: @Malla
  51. @Achmed E. Newman

    Much of the states that became Communists did so because of popular uprising… The situation was different in Eastern Europe. But take Germany… Communsits became popular in Germany – which is why the Nazis killed them whenever they could. Same took place in South Vietnam and South Korea prior to their civil wars. That’s why North Vietnam was winning and so was North Korea. They had popular support. Vietnam is run by a “communist” government even though the US and allies had to tuck tail and run. North Korea is still what it is only because China came to help it. But had everyone stayed out of it – that wouldn’t have been the issue. Why before the war started was South Korea killing so many “sympathizers”??? It’s because they were popular.
    ‘You are too ideologically brainwashed… NATO military didn’t save western Europe from communism. That is balderdash. Communism failed because it is not efficient – not because of military posturing. You are as foolish about that as you are about race relations.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  52. @showmethereal

    You have neither a good grasp of history, nor reality in general, ShowMeTheBull. I could pull up that thread on race relations, and show the astute of the commenters and readers here how silly your stance was. That would be cruel and unusual embarrassment for you. Oh, plus I don’t feel like it.

    Suffice it to say that, sure Communism is often popular with the useful idiot sectors of the population. No matter what else you want to say about the Nazis, they were right about kicking hell out of the Communists. The street Commies there wanted to do the same thing with Germany as they’d done with 1 to 2 decades earlier with Russia. Russia suffered for 70 years. The Germans at least avoided that fate, oops, except for the ones caught, and eventually penned in, in the East.

    I don’t think the Vietnam War was a good thing, mind you, but if American had gone all out and won it, as we could have, then, no, S. Vietnam would have remained free of Communism. South Korea did, but was it all worth it in American lives and lost goodwill. We should have let them suffer.

    Yes, America and NATO saved Western European countries from being taken by the Soviets and the East Bloc. Communism definitely doesn’t work economically, but that didn’t stop 70 years of it in Russia and 40 years of a hard-core dose of it in China. Both of these systems had an outside enemy along with that same outside world that the more worldly part of the population could compare to with shame. For Russia, it was the huge American military edge that made it too hard to compete economically. With China, it was more that they didn’t have any serious military threat, as they were overwhelmed, so they wanted to compete economically. Chairman Deng lifted the economic side of Communism, and compete they surely did (with a whole lot of help from traitorous American politicians).

    The problem for Americans is that we won the EXTERNAL front of the Cold War, but didn’t know we were under attack the whole time in an INTERNAL war. We’ve been losing badly. If America gets taken down by these same people crawling out of the woodwork, a century later, we won’t have any such shining beacon on the hill to save us. It could go on for centuries.

  53. @Achmed E. Newman

    Like I said – ideologically brainwashed…. You don’t get what a popular uprising is. Carry on.

    As to race relations… I have no memory of it – but I’m sure you probably were talking folly. The fact you can remember it – means either you have nothing better to do with your life – or the truth cut you that deep and you are still trying to come to terms with it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  54. @showmethereal

    No, the truth is that you either have never lived in this country since 1962 or you are just screwing with people here … or, one more option.. you’re just that stupid.

  55. @Achmed E. Newman

    The USA has been white-anted by its real rulers-the rich oligarchs. Many, disproportionately many, are Jews, the rest various WASP remnants and arriviste ‘entrepreneurs’. The various social movements of ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ are products of oligarch ‘Divide and Rule’ tactics. Real insurgencies from beneath are swiftly crushed. The future is depopulation for the many, after increasingly bitter neo-feudal serfdom, and ‘trans-humanism’ for the elites.

  56. @anon

    I thought that it was Oscar Wilde.

  57. Avianthro says:

    Congratulations to Molip for giving us what’s probably the primary real motive, but there’s surely also a lot of pressure from the MIC to make sure tensions are maintained with both Russia and China so that they can continue to satisfy their shareholders’ dividend expectations, and also to keep their employees feeling secure that their jobs will be there.

  58. Malla says:

    Relating to Pakistan – there was never any push by China.

    Yes, that is true.

    China did promote communism in South East Asia and Africa though… But that stopped by the 1970’s.

    Yes, PRC become more nationalistic and less ideological with time. Kind of like the USSR too.

  59. Malla says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Nearly every successful Communist movement has had the clandestine blessings of the U.S. State Department. Tzarist Russia was turning into a major food exporter similar to the USA of its time. The Soviets could never get it right and eventually became a major food importer. During WW2, before American Land Lease help, the Soviets survived on food supplied from the British Commonwealth. Without that, the USSR would be toast to the Axis forces even if Soviet soldiers did really fight bravely and the Soviets did have some superior military hardware.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS