The British press has been the most consistently bellicose on the subject of Russia-Ukraine: the same phrases, the same sentiments were on display in every mainstream newspaper and political magazine
They did invent it. Look up Edward Bernays. Like all the best American products, it was invented there and found a global market because it works so well. It seems to be an essential component of what we call ‘democracy’.
One needs to look at British history to see that in European conflicts, the British press and establishment have always supported smaller states against bigger (and usually) more aggressive ones. This goes back centuries - as long ago as Napoleon, and even the Ottoman and Spanish Empires. It makes sense to 'divide and rule' from a strategic British perspective.
The establishment felt threatened by anything that would undermine their narrative. And would seek to intimidate, or attempt to destroy the credibility of anyone who could harm their messaging. I found out at first hand, after documenting an atrocity committed by Kraken elements of UAF, that the British media were glorifying as heroes. Slava Ukraini indeed! https://nevergonnabelievethis.net/2022/11/03/death-on-the-tracks/
The main problem with this British propaganda is not that it allows only one opinion, but that this opinion is based on lies - about "invasion", "Putin", "war crimes". Colossal disinformation and deception machine.
Popular unity, desired in times of war, is not always based on lies. Not at all.
But in this case, there is no war, no danger from Russia or from "Putin", it is all made up. For greed .
But unfortunately, the geography factor dominates the geopolitics. Given the location of Britain, it is no wonder Britain has pursued national strategies of manufacturing a war on the European continent. It does not matter who fights whom; it only matters that there is a way. As long as Britain does not give up the idea of international hegemony or any form of hitting above its league, Britain ruling elites will follow this strategy.
We in Scotland are saddled with a few of the US's nuclear weapons aka the UK's nuclear arsenal and therefore a target when "our" Prime Minister "acts tough" and green lights missiles aimed at Russia. The most diabolical aspect of this is the way the American neocons and neoliberals led the West into sacrificing the "peace dividend" in the early 90s and asset-stripping Russia, and here we are, worrying about WW3.
In the 19th century, people spoke of the "balance of power". The aim of British diplomacy was indeed to maintain equilibrium in Europe, but for the purpose of avoiding war. If opposing forces are evenly matched, the logic went, no one will have the confidence to start a war as they might easily lose it. Benjamin Disraeli emulated Bismarck in carrying out such policies with great skill and flexibility. (Incidentally, Bismarck declared that the secret of diplomacy was simply to make a good treaty with Russia).
Today UK politicians seem more like mad dogs. Russia, their designated enemy, is nearly 2,500 km (1,500 miles) away from London. In between lies most of Europe. The UK has no conceivable interest in antagonising Russia, and considerable interest in cooperating with it.
The politicians seek to divert attention from their mismanagement at home, which would be hilarious if its consequences were not tragic. But their clever plan has gone wrong, because Mr Trump is not playing. Without the support of the USA, even British and European politicians can see that attacking Russia is suicidal.
Thanks for this repost from Lord Skidersky. Of course he makes a very good point here in a most diplomatic way. I am British but I live in Germany. When the Ukraine war started I could not understand this crazy rush to supply weapons to a pro western government in Ukraine with a puppet ruler of dubious provenance ultimately there because of a CIA backed coup in the country in 2014.
Then we saw the destruction of Germany’s supply of cheap Russian gas via the NS2 sabotage event with an attempt by the Westen Alliance to blame this on Russia - more propaganda, because no this could be more ridiculous. Mysteriously no real interest from the German government to properly investigate an event which would cripple its economy. Germany now has to be supplied with expensive fracked gas from America.
The simple adage, “follow the money to find the criminals” tells anyone who cares to investigate this that it was the US government who were the terrorists and Biden even promised it if Russia would ever invade to protect its legitimate interests in protecting the Donbas.
Also, whatever happened to ‘diplomacy’ and the idea of peace as a solution to destructive war? Well this also became a casualty of the British jingoism about everything Ukraine.
I have come to regard the Ukraine War as a follow up false-flag terror attack operation after the Corona event ended. I had some confirmation of this view after listening to an interview with US author, Paul Williams. In this he talks about the Cold War ‘Gladio’ terror operation. I had mistakenly believed that Gladio was geographically limited to Europe and the period of the Cold War but I now understand that its modus operandi ‘The Strategy of Tension’ never died but has continued unabated throughout the world. Ukraine seems to be an example of this.
"Why this should be so is something which historians will long discuss"... possibly... though, it is very important to discuss it and clarify that "Why" now! Otherwise the opportunity to get a durable peace could be squandered, again...
How does British media - newspapers and TV manage to get such uniform coverage and opinions? There is no Central Committee to establish such policy, so how do they do it?
It's a question of common interests. For some time now the media in Britain and much of the West has been less and less profitable. They used to rely on advertising, but as fewer people read the papers or watch TV the advertisers see less value in those media. Increasingly, the mainstream media have been discreetly subsidised by government. Thus they are now government mouthpieces; The Times, The Guardian, and the BBC are the 21st century equivalents of the USSR's Pravda and Izvestia. If you keep up with government communiques, there is no point in following the media as well.
Journalists know very well what stories and angles will give them the best chance of promotion and raises - and also which will get them isolated, ostracised, and fired. Editors and owners likewise.
"The British press has been the most consistently bellicose on the subject of Russia-Ukraine". That is so true and an instance of just how vacuous and unserious the entire British establishment has become....a kind of grotesque MSM reality tv show.
They have, in fact, supplied quite a lot of weapons and ammunition. But those have all been fired off or destroyed. Russian industry is far more productive and flexible than any of the Western fools imagined. They were handicapped by their ideological bias, which forces them to think that Russia is backward and inefficient.
Good post by Lord Skidelsky. But he doesn't go nearly far enough. Whereas there is a "single voice" in the UK, Russia has permitted quite a wide variety of opinions to be aired.
For example, I have seen quite a few ordinary Russians recently suggesting that it would be a good idea if Britain ceased to exist - something easily within the power of the Russian armed forces. Half a dozen ICBMs would do the trick; a Poseidon or two would drown half the country and reduce the rest to medieval conditions.
But the Russian government, while doing nothing to stop such views being aired, has - so far - done nothing to implement them.
Ever since the SMO began three years ago, a lot of people from ordinary citizens to senior politicians have called in Mr Putin to end the SMO, or to use more radical means to compel Kiev to surrender. Little or nothing has been done to silence those voices.
It seems that roles have been reversed; today Russia has more freedom of speech than the UK.
it's amazing how effective propaganda is! if the usa-uk didn't invent it, they certainly perfected it..
They did invent it. Look up Edward Bernays. Like all the best American products, it was invented there and found a global market because it works so well. It seems to be an essential component of what we call ‘democracy’.
Among the many good books on this topic (neutering democracy), I can suggest:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", Greg Tobin
"Deterring Democracy", Noam Chomsky
"Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty", Alex Carey
"Democracy Incorporated – Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism", Sheldon Wolin
"Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution", Terry Bouton
"The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy", Noreena Hertz
"Democracy – The God That Failed", Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy", Lewis Lapham
Don't forget the washing machine parts and the shovels
One needs to look at British history to see that in European conflicts, the British press and establishment have always supported smaller states against bigger (and usually) more aggressive ones. This goes back centuries - as long ago as Napoleon, and even the Ottoman and Spanish Empires. It makes sense to 'divide and rule' from a strategic British perspective.
The establishment felt threatened by anything that would undermine their narrative. And would seek to intimidate, or attempt to destroy the credibility of anyone who could harm their messaging. I found out at first hand, after documenting an atrocity committed by Kraken elements of UAF, that the British media were glorifying as heroes. Slava Ukraini indeed! https://nevergonnabelievethis.net/2022/11/03/death-on-the-tracks/
The main problem with this British propaganda is not that it allows only one opinion, but that this opinion is based on lies - about "invasion", "Putin", "war crimes". Colossal disinformation and deception machine.
Popular unity, desired in times of war, is not always based on lies. Not at all.
But in this case, there is no war, no danger from Russia or from "Putin", it is all made up. For greed .
But unfortunately, the geography factor dominates the geopolitics. Given the location of Britain, it is no wonder Britain has pursued national strategies of manufacturing a war on the European continent. It does not matter who fights whom; it only matters that there is a way. As long as Britain does not give up the idea of international hegemony or any form of hitting above its league, Britain ruling elites will follow this strategy.
We in Scotland are saddled with a few of the US's nuclear weapons aka the UK's nuclear arsenal and therefore a target when "our" Prime Minister "acts tough" and green lights missiles aimed at Russia. The most diabolical aspect of this is the way the American neocons and neoliberals led the West into sacrificing the "peace dividend" in the early 90s and asset-stripping Russia, and here we are, worrying about WW3.
In the 19th century, people spoke of the "balance of power". The aim of British diplomacy was indeed to maintain equilibrium in Europe, but for the purpose of avoiding war. If opposing forces are evenly matched, the logic went, no one will have the confidence to start a war as they might easily lose it. Benjamin Disraeli emulated Bismarck in carrying out such policies with great skill and flexibility. (Incidentally, Bismarck declared that the secret of diplomacy was simply to make a good treaty with Russia).
Today UK politicians seem more like mad dogs. Russia, their designated enemy, is nearly 2,500 km (1,500 miles) away from London. In between lies most of Europe. The UK has no conceivable interest in antagonising Russia, and considerable interest in cooperating with it.
The politicians seek to divert attention from their mismanagement at home, which would be hilarious if its consequences were not tragic. But their clever plan has gone wrong, because Mr Trump is not playing. Without the support of the USA, even British and European politicians can see that attacking Russia is suicidal.
Thanks for this repost from Lord Skidersky. Of course he makes a very good point here in a most diplomatic way. I am British but I live in Germany. When the Ukraine war started I could not understand this crazy rush to supply weapons to a pro western government in Ukraine with a puppet ruler of dubious provenance ultimately there because of a CIA backed coup in the country in 2014.
Then we saw the destruction of Germany’s supply of cheap Russian gas via the NS2 sabotage event with an attempt by the Westen Alliance to blame this on Russia - more propaganda, because no this could be more ridiculous. Mysteriously no real interest from the German government to properly investigate an event which would cripple its economy. Germany now has to be supplied with expensive fracked gas from America.
The simple adage, “follow the money to find the criminals” tells anyone who cares to investigate this that it was the US government who were the terrorists and Biden even promised it if Russia would ever invade to protect its legitimate interests in protecting the Donbas.
Also, whatever happened to ‘diplomacy’ and the idea of peace as a solution to destructive war? Well this also became a casualty of the British jingoism about everything Ukraine.
I have come to regard the Ukraine War as a follow up false-flag terror attack operation after the Corona event ended. I had some confirmation of this view after listening to an interview with US author, Paul Williams. In this he talks about the Cold War ‘Gladio’ terror operation. I had mistakenly believed that Gladio was geographically limited to Europe and the period of the Cold War but I now understand that its modus operandi ‘The Strategy of Tension’ never died but has continued unabated throughout the world. Ukraine seems to be an example of this.
https://odysee.com/@jermwarfare:2/JWF_Paul-Williams_070924_Snapshot-Jerm-Warfare-720p-MP4:3
"Why this should be so is something which historians will long discuss"... possibly... though, it is very important to discuss it and clarify that "Why" now! Otherwise the opportunity to get a durable peace could be squandered, again...
How does British media - newspapers and TV manage to get such uniform coverage and opinions? There is no Central Committee to establish such policy, so how do they do it?
It's a question of common interests. For some time now the media in Britain and much of the West has been less and less profitable. They used to rely on advertising, but as fewer people read the papers or watch TV the advertisers see less value in those media. Increasingly, the mainstream media have been discreetly subsidised by government. Thus they are now government mouthpieces; The Times, The Guardian, and the BBC are the 21st century equivalents of the USSR's Pravda and Izvestia. If you keep up with government communiques, there is no point in following the media as well.
Journalists know very well what stories and angles will give them the best chance of promotion and raises - and also which will get them isolated, ostracised, and fired. Editors and owners likewise.
"The British press has been the most consistently bellicose on the subject of Russia-Ukraine". That is so true and an instance of just how vacuous and unserious the entire British establishment has become....a kind of grotesque MSM reality tv show.
It was obvious from the outset that no real Western support to Ukraine would be forthcoming.
And that the West was, as the article says, prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian.
Now that Ukraine has almost run out of willing defenders, it can only count the cost of its faith in the West.
They have, in fact, supplied quite a lot of weapons and ammunition. But those have all been fired off or destroyed. Russian industry is far more productive and flexible than any of the Western fools imagined. They were handicapped by their ideological bias, which forces them to think that Russia is backward and inefficient.
Good post by Lord Skidelsky. But he doesn't go nearly far enough. Whereas there is a "single voice" in the UK, Russia has permitted quite a wide variety of opinions to be aired.
For example, I have seen quite a few ordinary Russians recently suggesting that it would be a good idea if Britain ceased to exist - something easily within the power of the Russian armed forces. Half a dozen ICBMs would do the trick; a Poseidon or two would drown half the country and reduce the rest to medieval conditions.
But the Russian government, while doing nothing to stop such views being aired, has - so far - done nothing to implement them.
Ever since the SMO began three years ago, a lot of people from ordinary citizens to senior politicians have called in Mr Putin to end the SMO, or to use more radical means to compel Kiev to surrender. Little or nothing has been done to silence those voices.
It seems that roles have been reversed; today Russia has more freedom of speech than the UK.