This has been nagging at me for a while now. Not a lot of evidence, just that sort of drip-drip-drip of annoying little “doesn’t quite fit” in The Narrative along with niggling anomalies that do fit in the thesis that “The UK did it”. Though there are similar bits of “fit” from an EU Complicit thesis.
This is a hard posting to write for 2 reasons.
The First is that I could get a UK Citizenship just by applying (and I’ve contemplated doing so…). Mum was from Britain, England, and I was raised drinking tea with the pinky out and being a “good little gentleman” in the English traditions. My heart is with the UK.
The second is that there is just not much beyond minor suspicions and circumstances to point a finger. Yet this is what I would expect from the UK. They are masters of deception in war and misdirection in peace. So how do you write an article with nearly nothing on which to hang the central thesis?
But pressing on…
Let’s begin with context. The Great Game is the competition between the UK and Russia that has been ongoing since at least the early 1800’s. From the wiki (linked in my posting linked above) bolding by me:
“The Great Game” was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern Asia. Russia was fearful of British commercial and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of Russia adding “the jewel in the crown”, India, to the vast empire that Russia was building in Asia. This resulted in an atmosphere of distrust and the constant threat of war between the two empires. Britain made it a high priority to protect all the approaches to India, and the “great game” is primarily how the British did this in terms of a possible Russian threat. Historians with access to the archives have concluded that Russia had no plans involving India, as the Russians repeatedly stated.
The Great Game began on 12 January 1830 when Lord Ellenborough, the President of the Board of Control for India, tasked Lord William Bentinck, the Governor-General, to establish a new trade route to the Emirate of Bukhara. Britain intended to gain control over the Emirate of Afghanistan and make it a protectorate, and to use the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Khanate of Khiva, and the Emirate of Bukhara as buffer states between both empires. This would protect India and also key British sea trade routes by stopping Russia from gaining a port on the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean. Russia proposed Afghanistan as the neutral zone. The results included the failed First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838, the First Anglo-Sikh War of 1845, the Second Anglo-Sikh War of 1848, the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878, and the annexation of Khiva, Bukhara, and Kokand by Russia.
Historians consider the end of the Great Game to be 10 September 1895 signing of the Pamir Boundary Commission protocols, when the border between Afghanistan and the Russian empire was defined. The 1901 novel Kim by Rudyard Kipling made the term popular and introduced the new implication of great power rivalry. It became even more popular after the 1979 advent of the Soviet–Afghan War.
So “they’ve met”… Now notice that the whole fuss over Russia reclaiming Crimea (that WAS part of Russia for about 200 years before it was, arguably against Soviet law, given to Ukraine by Khrushchev – though technically still under Soviet control until 1991) and got that warm water port back. Similarly, we have Russia on the Syrian side and the UK (with their proxy? the USA) on the other side, trying to remove that Soviet warm water base.
So did The Great Game end in 1895? Or did it just take a pause for 2 World Wars, to resume as the Cold War and then rekindle after the USSR collapsed with the rise of Putin as Nationalist leader who wishes to restore the glory of the prior Soviet Empire?
If “geopolitical imperatives” is a valid concept, then fundamental structural conflicts, like that of the Russian Empire vs the British Empire ought to persist, even as the names and players change. Replace “Ottoman Empire” with “Turkey” and “Persian Empire” with Iran in the above paragraph. Sure looks like the same “buffer states” to me. Yes, the USA is nominally an independent actor in this play and not part of the British Empire; but are we? Or are we being skillfully recruited into the roll of proxy? I can’t call that jump ball…
What can be said with certainty is that at least since 1830, and through the post W.W.II Cold War, the UK as been at serious odds with Russia. You do not end nearly 200 years of “issues” with a nod and a wink.
Then there is the quote from my prior article:
But worse, it looks like the USA is doing exactly that, but with little clue that it’s even IN The New Great Game. Though, per the wiki on it, even Prince Andrew knows it (and said so in one of the wikileaks cables):
In a leaked US Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, it was reported that Prince Andrew, Duke of York, supports the concept of a New Great Game:
Addressing the Ambassador directly, Prince Andrew then turned to regional politics. He stated baldly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too)” were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: “And this time we aim to win!”
The reference given is to “Wikileaks files: US ambassador criticised Prince Andrew”. BBC. November 30, 2010.
So Prince Andrew thinks The Game is still on.
That was with Obama in office (2009-20017), not Trump.
Now what would happen if a blatantly Nationalist “USA First & Always” Donald Trump were elected and was not so interested in playing The Great Game? Was not so easily manipulated into moving our Military into Afghanistan and
The Ottoman Empire pardon, Turkey & Syria on our dime?
It seems to me the desire would be strong to remove such an impediment to having the USA act as “British Empire By Proxy” in The Great Game II. Then how better to do it than to have a “Knight Fork” that paints both your adversaries as Evil with the same brush? One, the other, or both, get tarred and feathered. Win-win.
I can’t see any reason for The Players to NOT take that tack.
Some backing matter:
So WHO started the whole “Trump Russia Links” story?
Oh, “British Spies”…
Bold by me.
British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia
Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.
Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.
It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.
The issue of GCHQ’s role in the FBI’s ongoing investigation into possible cooperation between the Trump campaign and Moscow is highly sensitive. In March Trump tweeted that Barack Obama had illegally “wiretapped” him in Trump Tower.
So was it really just all a bit coincidence? Really? When it comes to spy agencies and deception services, I don’t believe in “coincidences”…
At this point, given what we know of the involvement of the FBI in a “Get Trump!” campaign, and seasoned with the general animosity of the TLAs (Three Letter Agencies) toward Trump, and then leavened with a bit of Obama & Kerry & Clintons being all lovey-dovey and in some cases in the pay of EU & other “foreign actors”: It really does beg the question of just how “independent” all those “chance” discoveries were…
Then remember that Steele was a UK Agent in a prior time.
Born 24 June 1964 (age 54)
Christopher David Steele (born 24 June 1964) is a former British intelligence officer with the Secret Intelligence Service MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009. He is also the founding director of Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based private intelligence firm. He authored a dossier that claims Russia collected a file of compromising information on U.S. President Donald Trump.
So “retired” at age 45? Really? I’ve known an agent or two. Even when clearly retired, they were “available”. Once a Marine, always a Marine, and once an Agent, always an Agent… (For the one I knew, they were even wanting to recruit the guys sons…)
So we have a “retired” UK Agent at the key point in the process, creating the “documentation” that enabled all the rest to proceed. We have the UK Agencies tickling our USA Agencies (with the EU “confirming”). All to what end?
To stop an American Nationalist from pulling out of The Great Game II and putting America First. Or worse, horror of horrors, being friendly with Putin and Russia. (Remember that during the campaign, Trump said as much.)
Now I personally think it is a Very Bad Idea to piss in the beer of someone with 1/2 of the nuclear weapons in the world, and I also don’t see any reason NOT to be on good terms with Russia. Hell, it is far far more “liberal” than Saudi Arabia and The Shaw, both of which we were happy to cozy up with. (I’d even assert it’s on a par with the European Parliament on the issue of “democracy” – at least Russia has show elections, the EU doesn’t even bother with that…)
Then just to put a bit more salt in the wound: Is it possible that the UK Agencies are at the lever point of the EU Agencies?
GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance
Edward Snowden papers unmask close technical cooperation and loose alliance between British, German, French, Spanish and Swedish spy agencies
The German, French, Spanish and Swedish intelligence services have all developed methods of mass surveillance of internet and phone traffic over the past five years in close partnership with Britain’s GCHQ eavesdropping agency.
The bulk monitoring is carried out through direct taps into fibre optic cables and the development of covert relationships with telecommunications companies. A loose but growing eavesdropping alliance has allowed intelligence agencies from one country to cultivate ties with corporations from another to facilitate the trawling of the web, according to GCHQ documents leaked by the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
The files also make clear that GCHQ played a leading role in advising its European counterparts how to work around national laws intended to restrict the surveillance power of intelligence agencies.
The German, French and Spanish governments have reacted angrily to reports based on National Security Agency (NSA) files leaked by Snowden since June, revealing the interception of communications by tens of millions of their citizens each month. US intelligence officials have insisted the mass monitoring was carried out by the security agencies in the countries involved and shared with the US.
Is it possible that there is one giant rats nest of “Secret Agencies” working to one end, a Surveillance Society for the Elites, as part of The Great Game II; and along comes Trump & The Deplorables to pee in their tea? So what would they do then, eh? All their contributing and cooperating “partners” out of the USA administration? That would hurt…
So of course they would just do nothing and accept losing… /sarc;
Proof? Nope, not a drop.
Mighty Strong Circumstances? A very suspicious set of “luck” on intercepts? A wall of motivations? Oh yeah.
All I have is a loose thread; but it just begs to be pulled by someone with the right hand…