Britain Fans Flames Of War

Amazing as it may seem, Britain has been at the forefront in wrecking the diplomatic efforts being made to stop the war in Georgia. Backing the Americans yet again, they insisted that an agreement banning all use of force in resolution of the dispute in South Ossetia, should not be allowed to go ahead.

The British have no place being involved in this. They are again acting as the mouthpiece of the EU, taking no account of Russian power and sensibilities. The Russians have been humiliated in Kosovo, and they have stated clearly and openly ever since that they will not ‘let matters rest’ and that if secession is OK for Kosovo, then it’s also OK for the secessionary movements it supports on the edges of its former empire.

Britain has no military resources to despatch to help the Georgians. Nor is it liklely that the Americans or NATO will lift a finger to help the Georgians fight this war. So they have no business egging on the Georgians to fight Russia, which has overwhelming military might in the region.

The fact is that if the Kosovo decision is being enforced in Europe by the EU, the Americans and the Europeans cannot insist that Putin has no business attempting similar results in the Caucasus. Britain should be advocating the cessation of hostilities, and the Georgians will have to accept the bitter loss of South Ossetia, just as the Serbs are being forced by the Americans and the EU to accept the bitter loss of Kosovo.

Or the EU should get out of Kosovo and allow the Serbs to govern their own territory. They cannot have it both ways. Britain, in particluar,is acting like a spoiled child always used to getting its own way.

You cannot have one rule for the EU, and another one for Russia. Putin is quite right. And Britain has no business fanning the flames of war.

The details from the UN attempts to arrange a ceasefire are as follows –

From Al Jazeera

the United Nations Security Council failed to agree early on Friday on a statement drafted by Russia that would have called on Georgia and South Ossetia to immediately put down their arms.

“The Security Council is not yet in a position to express itself on the situation,” Jan Grauls, the Belgian ambassador and the council president for August, said.

There were no immediate plans for the council to take up the matter again.

The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the US, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides “to renounce the use of force”, council diplomats said.

It seems the New Labour EU-loving war-promoting machine drives ever onwards. One day Britain will pay the price. The centre of gravity of the world’s power is moving eastwards to newer more successful parts of the world. The Americans under Bush and the Europeans adrift inside their totalitarian EU just cannot handle it. It seems a bit unfair that yet more innocent lives have to be sacrificed to preserve Western arrogance and unreality, as their power ebbs ever further away.

UPDATE – Read the FT editorial for pure EU arrogance and hopelessness in appreciating why the Georgian conflict is happening –

EXTRACT – Russia is asking for trouble in Georgia

Published: August 8 2008 18:47 | Last updated: August 8 2008 18:47

Mighty Russia, population 150m, and tiny Georgia, population 4.6m, its former colony and now fiercely independent neighbour, are in terrible danger of blundering into a bloody and pointless conflict in the Caucasus. It would sorely damage relations between Moscow, the European Union and the US. It could also destabilise the rest of the Caucasus region. Washington and Brussels can urge restraint, but the only country that can stop the nonsense is Russia itself.

As Richard North says on, all the hot air pourring out of Brussels (and its media supporters such as the FT) is unlikely to trouble Putin very much.

See JOHN REDWOOD on ‘the oil wars’ HERE

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

13 Responses to “Britain Fans Flames Of War”

  1. ak-47 says:

    Spoken like a true imperialist. The Russians have got to learn that they can’t go around invading other people’s countries, go Georgia kick the Russian Bear’s butt.

  2. tapestry says:

    If the EU hadn’t taken over Kosovo from Serbia, I would have agreed with you.

    But as it is, the West has strayed over the bounds of Russian sensibility, and is going to have its butt kicked, if it sends any forces to help Georgia, which it won’t.

    The EU/US broke the rules and are now paying a price….as is Georgia.

    It is the EU which is imperialist.

    I would be delighted not to be living (partly) in a country where it has seized power against the wishes of the people.

    If EU imperialism is blunted by the Russians, then they (the Russians) will be doing me a favour, as I too want my freedom and my country back, and not to be bossed around by cowardly and corrupt bureaucrats hiding in Brussels.

    If the Russians don’t blunt the EU’s ambitions to become a world power, I cannot see anyone else doing it. Much as I feel badly for the Georgians, they are not going to end the EU, while the Russians might do.

    The EU has made me into an enemy of my own country, which cravenly does the EU’s bidding.

  3. ak-47 says:

    The real reason for the Russian attack is the military weakness of Georgia, if they had properly secured their frontiers the Russians wouldn’t dare attack.

  4. tapestry says:

    They knew Putin was going to make trouble. They decided to hit him first, and let him know his seizing of Georgia’s provinces will have a price to pay.

    Kosovo gave Putin the excuse he wanted to begin operations against Georgia.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Wow. Some of the nonsense I read on this blog is peculiar even for a nest of anti-Europeans. At least anti-Europeans are normally relatively sensible when it comes to grand strategy and military affairs.

    You talk of Russia’s power, but lets look at the this objectively: Russia’s economy, poorly diversified and dependent on the export of energy, is about a third the size of Britain’s, about a half of France’s, and about a quarter the size of Germany’s. Or even more potently, Russia’s economy is about fifteen times smaller than that of the EU, or fourteen times smaller than the United States economy. I’ll leave you to add up the size of the Western economy (EU and US) versus the Russian economy…

    Russia’s defence spending is about $20 billion less than Britain’s, which puts it in the same league as Saudi Arabia. Those old Soviet era vintage tanks, and those raggle-taggle Russian soldiers, didn’t look very impressive as they marched into Georgia. And Russia’s population falls each year by 700,000 to 1 million. By 2050, there may be only 95 million Russians left.

    What is the logical explanation for this power base?

    Russia’s power is not material (at least in comparison to the West); rather it is psychological. Europeans—including Britons—have given way to the idea that Russia is powerful, even though it isn’t. Rather than your defeatist and amoral recommendations, of leaving most of Eastern Europe—our allies—to the snarling Russian bear, the European Union should be aggressively crafting a geopolitical zone, dominating all of the former Soviet Union. And as the greatest political and military power in the European Union, Britain should be deploying its full might in defence of our East European allies.

    Why waste anymore time? We should establish a military installation in Ukraine and Moldova forthwith, providing each with the latest integrated air defence systems, to ward off Russian attack.

    And the Kosovo and South Ossetia issues are wholly unrelated. The Serbs waged a war of genocidal aggression for several months against Kosovo, forfeiting their right to govern the province. Georgia has never done anything similar to South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

  6. tapestry says:

    I’ll take your figure of Russia’s economy being 14 times smaller than the EU.

    The EU spends about 1% of its GDP on defence.

    Russia spends 50% of its GDP on defence. So Russia’s spend is nearly four times that of the EU.

    Also $1 in Russia buys about 10 times what it buys in Europe in terms of manpower. Their fuel is ‘free’ as it is home grown, and they build their own kit.

    So Russia’s military is potentially 30 to 40 times greater than the EU’s.

    Add to that an extraordinary track record of military success throughout history – against the Japanese, Hitler, and Napoleon for example in which Germans were amazed at the quality of Russian tanks and aircraft – let alone the numbers – and the japanese were shocked by how many casualties they suffered fighting the Russians in WW2 and decided better of it.

    The Russian army is a conscript army for the most part but has a highly professional and committed core of about 150,000 troops.

    Underestimate them as you wish.

    Don’t act out being a world power as the EU is doing if you a, don’t have the wherewithall to do anything – and b, you lack the will to use what wherewithall you possess.

    Putin will act as he wishes and the EU will huff and puff. He will intimidate and bully his way around the East of Europe. At what point will the EU fight?

    Don’t make me laugh!!!

    I doubt the EU would even fight over Kosovo.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The EU if considered a whole spends about 1.8% on defence. Britain and France spend over 2.5% respectively, and between them have 400,000 regular soldiers, 7 aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, a large and expeditionary navy, and over 1000 warplanes. They have the second and third strongest military forces in the world, after the United States.

    Russia ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT spend 50% of its GDP on defence. Do you know how absurd that figure sounds? Even the Soviet Union wasn’t spending that much, and the fact that it did spend about 35% meant that it was dragged down into the ground. Russia has no expeditionary forces; it has only one vintage aircraft carrier; its submarines are in a bad state of disrepair; its troops have poor moral with constant reports of hazing and bullying in the ranks; and its current defence spending is about $20 billion less than either Britain or France.

    Did you not see the videos of the Russian troops in Georgia? They looked in a sorry state of repair—uniforms were messy and raggle-taggle, tanks were old and bruised: the whole thing was like some Soviet era invasion from the 1970s.

    And you really think that the Russians have a military 40 times more stronger than us? We Europeans have far more regular soldiers than Russia, many more jets, far more warships, and the means to send them and deliver impact on the ground or at sea. Sure, Russia may be able to defeat a tiny country of 4 million on its borders, but it couldn’t do much elsewhere.

    And Russia’s glorious military history is only considerable if one looks to the nature of its victories: they were all defensive! Russia can only win if an enemy invades Russia itself. Even then, the picture is mixed (e.g. the Crimean war). This has less to do with Russia’s military prowess, and far, far more to do with the size of the place. Russia’s enemies have constantly underestimated the means needed to invade such a massive territory, and the communication lines required to supply fresh troops to the front. How many Russian victories can you count when Russia actually sent its armed forces abroad to defeat a foreign enemy? The war against Japan was a disaster in 1905 and the Soviet wars against Afghanistan were a debacle.

    The EU is a sleeping giant, much as the United States was before World War II. Do not underestimate our capability; if a common threat emerges to our security and cohesion, it is quite likely that the giant will rise from its sleep. You should be pleased about that: Britain is uniquely placed along with France to lead the bloc.

  8. ak-47 says:

    OK, but we don’t really know who is doing what to whom in Georgia or what is really happening there.

    If the Russians get organised they can be very formidable.

  9. tapestry says:

    Russia doesn’t need to go abroad. She haa enough turf to hang on to. If you visit Sebastopol, you would be surprised at how modern Russia’a navy appears, and there is absolutely no sign of poor morale.

    You don’t need aircraft carriers to defend Ruusia and fight continental wars.

    Strategic assessments of Russia’s military capability indicate rapid growth, and that by about 2015,or maybe 2012, Russia’s military power will be considerable.

    There is a difference though with the EU. The EU will not take or inflict casualties as it has anti-war PC culture. Russia however, will both inflict and sustain casualties with the aim of achieving recognisiton and leverage over the West.

    While Putin is in control, Russia is highly dangerous and getting more so. The EU is a strategically weak bloc and Putin knows it.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Russia does plan to spend c. €150 billion on upgrading its armed forces between now and 2015, but that is €60 billion less than the EU collectively spends each year. Again, morale in Russia’s forces is fine when confronting little Georgia, but it would not be so fine confronting Ukraine…or some large Western power.

    The EU will not take casualties for the simple reason that it does not have any armed forces (other than a handful of ‘battlegroups) and it has only had a collective defence policy for ten years. European countries are clearly not anti-war PC or unwilling to take casualties. The United Kingdom certainly is, as are Denmark, the Dutch and France. The Poles, the Baltics and the Portuguese too. All have fought in wars over the past years, often alongside their American comrades—and not just as bystanders or peacekeepers.

    Yes, the EU is not projecting the power it might be capable of. But surely you—I presume as a Briton—understand the importance of power. Collectively, the EU has the potential to thrust that power in Russia’s direction. And Britain can lead from the front.

  11. tapestry says:

    The EU’s attempt at running Europe’s economy has been disastrous. If it seriously attempts to fight a war, the results will be equivalent.

    But the crash will happen far more quickly than the gradual destruction of the Euro – (which is now about to accelerate).

    As for Britain, a second Dunkirk would be the likely scenario, with France insisting politically on the high command, without a single officer capable of taking a decision in a major crisis.

    The EU locks Britain into a non-military, incoherent political structure, and blocks the opportunity of making quick decisions with the Americans who are the only ones with enough military wherewithall.

    The USA assumes Europe is safely defended by NATO, but NATO has been seriously undermined by France and Germany being unwilling to send any troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan. Britain’s ability to function diplomatically ended long ago with our Foreign Office being infiltrated by a pro-EU fifth column.

    Russia only needs to find a general with ability and Putin will have his way in confrontations over and over again, as he ignores the EU, and exploits the weakness of an overstretched USA.

    The US is sending ‘humanitarian’ aid to Georgia – and might yet get drawn into a war here. The EU is irrelevant and obstructive to the defence of Europe…while being one of the key threats to peace as it expands Eastwards into Russia’s sphere.

    Don’t forget. It was Kosovo that triggered the war ion Georgia.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Most of your comments on EU defence are nothing more than idle speculation, and poorly informed at that. The EU is clearly not obstructive to defence in Europe. It, like NATO, is trying to get small countries, which have not had much of a major security role, to spend more, and spend more effectively. The EU is the way to ensure that weak countries are able to contribute their rightful share of forces to NATO. The more EU defence integration the better.

    Kosovo and Georgia are entirely unrelated. Russian intervention in Georgia DID NOT begin in 1999 when Europe and American decided that Milosevic and his henchmen were problematic and had to be removed from power. Russia has been interfering in Georgia since the country’s independence in 1991. You will find that the latest war conducted by Russia concerns control of energy pipelines, and Putin’s need to stoke the flames of Russian ethno-nationalism to shore up his own support…

  13. tapestry says:

    I’m always happy to learn new information, anonymous.

    People confuse the Kosovo issue. The war against the Serbs by NATO in 1990s was not the cause of ‘Georgia’ in 2008. It was the recognition of Kosovan independence in February this year, which gave Russia the excuse it was looking for to cease to observe international borders.

    The EU is ineffective in defence as it has no defence budget and has to try to persuade its members to spend more. This they are clearly unwilling to do.

    What France and Germany do spend is not enough to maintain effective armer forces. And they are unwilling to take casualties.

    Putin is very popular in Russia. The EU is highly unpopular in the nations of Europe, with even Geramns hoping to get out of it.

    Nations will fight for their own survival. International deadweight bureaucracies such as the EU have never made good fighting machines. Europe is now very vulnerable to more determined attacks as Russia builds her arsenal and military capabilities, which Putin is happy to use.

    The nations of Europe need to build up their defences and their economic strength to face down the growing threat from Russia. The EU stands in the way, and should be ended.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.