Click to see full-size image
In UK/US eyes, it’s still 1945 and they need one More War
Written by Simon Chege Ndiritu exclusively for SouthFront
Introduction
If the cold war ever heated up, Kyiv would have been the recipient of decisive nuclear assault from the UK and the US, yet the west is now delivering military assistance to Ukraine. What has changed? Why isn’t Ukraine a threat to the west as it was beginning in 1945 and throughout the cold war? Is it because it is misguided, looted, and impoverished? It seems Ukraine has now become what Winston Churchill, the UK, and the US intended for Eastern Europe, and it must be maintained fighting against itself. Post-Soviet Ukraine shows what Eastern Europe can expect should UK-US accomplish Churchill’s vision, as I explain below.
Cold War- Churchill’s missed an Opportunity for a War
Click to see full-size image
Most of us are happy that the cold war never heated up. However, I know some regretted bitterly that such a war never materialized. How do I know this you ask? Just Google “Operation Unthinkable” or “Operation Dropshot”. In the former, you will find that the UK Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, wanted to launch another war in Europe in 1945, even before WWII was concluded, and not because USSR’s red Army posed any threat to other Allies. Instead, Churchill felt that the UK and the US needed to impose “their will” on the Soviet Union. This ‘will’ was loosely defined as having a “square deal” on Poland; a pro-west Poland. Now that they have a pro-west Poland, why the escalation in Ukraine? Churchill envisaged a future in which the Soviet Union would have no say in Europe, where it was partly located, but the UK, an island outside Europe would. He purported to offer a better vision for Europeans, a pretense driven by the need to divide and conquer Europe through senseless squabbles and wars. Even before the devastation that had been caused by WWII had been addressed, the UK under Churchill wanted another war. Some versions of the said, “Operation Unthinkable” envisaged bringing the defeated Nazi Germans into the UK-US side in their fight against the Red army. Therefore, the West’s claim to abhor Nazism or even support democracy seems to have been less important than their need to control Europe.
“Operation Dropshot”
Click to see full-size image
If anyone thought that Churchill’s UK was the only warmonger, Americans had more impressive ambitions. Instead of pushing the Soviets out of Europe, they developed an elaborate plan to nuke all soviet cities, starting from Moscow, Petersburg all the way to Tashkent. The US developed these plans as it outwardly pushed a façade of supporting ‘democracy’. It is possible that the only reason why Muscovites, Kyivites, and other Soviet cities’ residents were not vaporized alive or converted into heavily mutated beings was that the US lacked adequate nuclear bombs for this diabolical adventure. From this lengthy history, my point is that the West’s claim to care about Ukrainians or democracy is a façade. If the US had obtained enough nuclear bombs and bombers before the Soviet Union developed its own, there would not be Ukraine to ‘democratize’ in 2014 and ‘defend’ 2022.
Soviet Ukraine
Click to see full-size image
The Soviet Union and its diplomatic successors seem to be more responsible with its military than the West, meaning the world needs to be more careful with the latter. The UK-US like presenting themselves as ‘democratic’ and militarily responsible players despite unacceptable deaths and suffering they have caused through their never-ending wars across the world. Meanwhile, the ‘undemocratic’ Soviet Union did nothing close to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or even what was contemplated under “Operation Dropshot”. The USSR had appreciable benefits that can be built upon, but the west can’t let it happen. Let’s take Ukraine as an example. Soviet Ukraine was a superpower of its own sought. If the USSR was NATO, Ukraine was the UK. The small country with a small natural resource pool and less manpower was a naval and aeronautic giant. Its aeronautical output included (but was not limited to) Antonov’s line of planes, proudly made by Ukrainians and their Russian brothers. Some of these planes have maintained a world record for their size and carrying capacity to date. Also, the country made numerous naval and civilian sea vessels. These and other industries provided many employment opportunities and hence incomes to Ukrainians. Meanwhile, the UK and the US obviously slammed Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Russia as being undemocratic. However, the process of democratizing these countries became mired in looting, in favor of London, leading to its economic renaissance. Some may remember ‘Londongrad’, in which Russia’s wealth ended up in London for some time. For Ukraine, it has never abated.
‘Democratic’ Ukraine
News from ‘democratic’ Ukraine involves Joe Biden bragging how he instructed Ukrainian leadership to include his lazy and inexperienced son into the board of Ukraine’s state corporation. The son reportedly earned handsomely but it is all fair in ‘democracy’. After looting Ukraine and killing industries that formed a healthy trade ecosystem with Russians, the next step is sponsoring war, just to keep Ukraine poor, divided, and weak. A ‘democratic’ Ukraine under the west’s patronage can no longer make aircraft. It has to make do with Turkish drones. It can’t make sea vessels and has to rely on refurbished ones donated by the US. Ukrainians who should have grown to work in a vibrant shipbuilding or aircraft manufacturing industry at home have to migrate to provide low-wage labor in the west, if not be turned to Banderite militias.
Conclusion
Amidst social and economic turmoil, the problem, according to the UK-US is not their fleecing of Ukraine and forcing it to hollow out its industrial base through unnecessary antagonism with Russians. Instead, war, just as Churchill and Americans recommended in 1945 is the answer. Then we see the west delivering ‘military assistance’ to Ukrainians. The hyped assistance cannot really prevent anything but only facilitate Ukrainians to kill each other. In the event that a war breaks out, Ukrainian-speaking citizens will find themselves using these weapons against Russian-speaking ones in the east and south. Nowhere else is the West’s ‘divide and conquer” game clearer. I cannot claim to know what happens next amidst boiling tension, but Modern Ukraine reflects Churchill’s vision for Europe and probably the entire world.
the text in the Soviet ukraine section is repeated
Hard time for the slow readers :(
Churchill destroyed the British empire and refused all German peace offers, I highly recommend David Irving’s books on the subject ‘Churchill’s War’ Part I & II. He had no love for the Germans and sought their annihilation, he was nothing more than another decadent tool of the jewish cabal.
I’ll get it. Thanks
Churchill F D R and Eisenhauer were German killers without remorse
Thanks for your attempt to point out a mistake. It’s appreciated.
Churchill was a war criminal, mass murderer, drunkard, sodomite, complete psycho, one of the worst monsters of XX century. Perhaps of all history. People always talk about Hitler and Stalin but Churchill was actually worse than both.
Concentration camps in Africa (for both whites and blacks), terrorist death squads in Ireland, millions of starved to death in India, use of poison gas in Iraq and Russia (he even advocated use of gas against French and German cities), Gallipoli, Lusitania, Norway, Yugoslavia, Mers-el-Kébir, Dresden… endless list of his monstrous crimes – and he enjoyed every one of them. He was at least partially responsible for both WWs and he was eager to start another one. And yes, he was instrumental in creation of Israel, a fanatical Zionist, he even received the first Theodor Herzl award for Zionism.
Anglos will always tell us how someone else is ‘undemocratic’ while they are serial murderous themselves. Many UK-US leaders have and continue creating wars and murdering close to millions and pointing us the other way
Cold War was mostly ideological not ethnic.
Its proponents may have tried to present it as ideological, and hence palatable. But deep down, It could have been racists, for numerous reasons. For instance, if it was ideological, they wouldn’t be pushing it to date, but they are.
Then why was it full of civil wars?
Roman history is full of civil wars, so you claim they were ideological?
I don’t know about this. I mean this war only.
Due to racism. If you look closely, it consisted Anglo Saxons imposing themselves on the rest of peoples. Seeking to dominate any other people’s not only in other continents but also Europe. That’s why a strong Yugoslavia was unacceptable to them and had to be destroyed even after the ‘ideological war’ had ended. Think 🤔 about it.
For example, Angolan UNITA fought for the West against communists. Were they different race?
They were manipulated to do it, like Kenyans being recruited to fight for colonial Britain in Burma, did Kenyans’ have any interests. just as Europe was mobilized to participate in destroying ME. Tell me any European country benefiting from destroyed Iraq or Syria, non but US-UK oil thieves and their zionist child in ME
Syrian and Iraqi opposition actually called the US to go there.
These were US trained traitors that were trained in the US in regime change campaigns long before the war and were sent back waiting to be activated as it happened during the Arab springs, especially in Libya. Its in the open web.
Importantly, these were not ‘opposition’ but extremely unpopular but ambitious punks that were willing to sell their countries. As a testament to their unpopularity, non have been able to unify their respective countries behind them. Name one country where they have.
And – if you admit the US was invited by opposition, that is a violation of UN charter-the principle of non-interference in other nations internal political affairs, which all other countries observe (more or less) but not US-UK.
The logic is reductionistic. For example, Libyan opposition can be supported by Chad or Tunisia for example or great powers othern than US/UK. For example Sarraj was supported by Turkey, Qatar, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Germany, UK, US, Italy while Haftar was supported by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, France, UAE, Greece, Sudan and Syria.
Yes, you join the dots and read between the lines. Youth groups were trained in the west, the small groups returned, ‘around 300″ launched protests. Well primed western media picked up the protest and reported ‘thousands’ protested and there was ‘crackdown’ then specifically prepared militants joined in and foreign special forces all trained in Britain and NATO. These groups attacked police, military and Gadhafi’s residence. NATO kicked in with airstrikes, Gadhifi is killed and Libya is bombed to stone age. Then John McCain states that the ‘Arabspring is a virus that will end in Moscow and Beijing’.
Read them both and good luck trying to deny this plot
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1062/who-drove-the-libyan-uprising
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/the-arab-spring-a-virus-that-will-attack-moscow-and-beijing/248762/
Or, do you think the US-UK would admit openly to what they did and why??
But why did other countries join? For example, look at Syria. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries wanted the overthrow of Assad.
Now that you agree with me that it happened in Libya, let me tell you that the same model was used in all other cases, including Syria, and later Hong Kong, Latest being Kazakhstan. Only that its success rate is diminishing. If I had time, I will detail blow-by-blow how the Syrian crisis followed this model.
Hong Kong is different case. Kazakhstan is not against US.
I gave a comprehensive reply here but it may be rejected as its too long.
If darwin is right, You have no ears.
Here comes the certified clown with no contribution to make than sling insults… Let me give you some attention so that you don’t hang yourself out of feeling useless.
Eh Jens Holm is provocative sometimes but the other guys here are attacking him relentlessly.
Jens is not provocative, he is 100% retarded. AI spam bots are more intelligent (and more useful) than him.
He is not retarded. After all, you are discriminating against people with intellectual problems.
You definitely have no brain. Insect.
Yeah crimes were done but Europe was saved by the red and black plagues.
Italians, whether monarchist, conservative, liberal or socialist, rose up against Mussolini.
Its wrong to compare with Winston at all.
Husky wasnt close to be a military disaster at all but a matter of priority. Vehicled of all kinds were send to USSR as help for the T34 or stored for the invasion.
The american soldiers there never had been in combat before apart from very few from WW1(fx patton). So they expected big losses.
Its also was a forced invasion for helping Stalin and did. Kesselring got some of the best eastfront units to defend Italy.
The USA forces in those days was a new one. In 1938 they only were 400.000.
Later on Stalin has blamed west for not enough was spended for nothing as he did. I even has the Eisenhower book about it. He was called to London for Normandy just before Anzio.
This is for the first time that I partially agree with you. I do agree on Kesselring having some quality German troops at Anzio-Nettuno which made the German defense stronger. However, the quality of US troops, not just their numbers, was not at par with seasoned Germans either in Italy or in Normandy. The Patton factor ? He was never in command of armies and fronts like Manstein or Zhukov. Guderian, Model and Rybalko would have him had for breakfast. The same goes for Rommel invented by the British. In Russia, he would not be a good general either. Different war. As for Eisenhower, he was nobody in 1943.
Simon Chege Ndiritu forget the Britts didnt support that at all. His “Churchill” systematicly had made BIG mistakes before WW2. Those partly was washed away because he did a good job under WW2.
Rosevelt and Stalin decided. Here Churchill was Mr 10%. The only thing he decided was make Suez – Gibraltar open as number one.
Churchill had big worries for the Russian expansion. The britts could have knocked out the Bolsjvics in Leningrad but didnt.
His aganda was to open up Europe west of Russia and not to take any part of that too stupid bear,
USA also would help by given all there Marshall help. Stalin and friends denied that because it mase system changes. It much eaiser to control poor people even later on waiting years for a car or a babana.
By that I dont read the rest. I already know, whats written.
Is it bad letting people decide themself and not accept an USSR expansion as well as the one done by the Tzars.
Here Simon Chege Ndiritu seemes upside down as being in New Zealand with magnewtic shoes.
His context is wrong.
“His aganda was to open up Europe west of Russia” you say. as I said in the article, Europe,’ west of Russia has been open since 1991, why aren’t the newly ‘opened up’ countries developing, why are they still stuck and qualitatively poorer than Russia?? why is Ukraine, A former nuclear, Naval and Aeronautical power now closer to Kenya or Ethiopia??
You give Your answer yourself making those questions.
They never was was “west” part partly from Poland, Hungary and Thekkoslovakia. They were “Middle-Europe” but went to be Eastern Europe and that kind of change.
By that none of them can be lke us or should be like us. We are not ones as well, but we have a capitalistic system with social compensations.
So their own destiny is to find their own way and it better if they are not under fire from Old days Ryssia.
Yours even see us as states only commanding in and out kombinates or something. we are not like that. We have private ownership and 80% in fx Denmark is owned by stocholders. By that the Danish state is a needed helper BUT it dont run Our business – WE DO.
Thats what they have to learn in theirs minds. They get much more freedom BUT every single person as vital change has to be responsible for itself as well as the rest of us.
2) And by that I and we dont expect they should be like us but being able to make real improvements if they can and want to.
Thats not day to day at all. They has to implement the best for them and also kind of control the deellopments. Even in Kapitalisme we have a lot of rules. The west has many more rules, because we are more ciomplicated structures. And yes, in west some are plundering others too and behave as oligarcs and thieves.
The main change is that all are more productive and most people at least get some of that wealth. Thats because we calibrate by high taxes which are given if needed to everyone.
So we are not the last prophet and next to Muhammed in that. We need open easy good relations, which will raise their livingstandards. But dont expect them being rich tomorrow. In Our parts of Europe, there are poor parts too.
But those parts are open. People form there can work anywhere they wish send money home or urbanize.
You are missing one point. Cold War was ideological only. Not ethnic. It was all about civil wars between left-wingers and right-wingers.
What ‘good job’ you brainless imbecile? British army lost every battle against Germans (and Japanese) until USSR and USA won wars in Europe and Pacific.
That makes sense. But people has to remember, they had Chamberline and many parts of Europe and the rest of the world hardly had real modern soldiers.
After 1938 USA added their military forces to 1 million, but all was made to fight the japanese and mainly at the sea and its islands.
In west Churchill and the same kind of people for decades has been reduced to their correct seize and level.
Simon Ndiritu lives in the old days. We just want the Russians to live and rule in Russia only. We see the same Tzar and Bolsjevic Bear in nicer clothe only. The old fell off and was not even repaired.
We just want normal relations and not the Russian patent Kombinat versions for them once again. By that we invest, so they produce and sell their stuff having money for it as well. Thats an improment for all of us in Europe and the rest of the world as well.
And we wont allow Russia tryimng to collapse 3 times. NO.
Neruda whatever dont understand Our countries do the relations in Our ways as well as in EU and World way. Thats a allowed here.
Czarism>Bolshevism
the Ukraine…which means borderland is projected to be a US-UK battlefield and a knife at Russia’s throat