War - the most stupidest crazy thing ever

This year my son was in the school production of "Oh What a Lovely War!". It was chosen to commemorate the former boys from the school who lost their lives in WWI, including the son of the headmaster at the time.

I remember watching this film when I was at school and thinking that war is the most stupidest, crazy thing ever. If you just watch a few minutes of the play, take a look at the young performers and know that, if they had been born 100 years earlier, many of them would have been old enough to serve at the front line, before the war was over. How scary is that?

My history knowledge is shockingly bad, but I still know there were several lessons to come out of WWI. One of those was that everyone expected the war to be 'over by summer', and yet it dragged on for 4 years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the same - all 'over by the summer' in theory, but the reality was completely different.

The release of the Chilcott Report this summer was great news for those like me, who were furious that Tony Blair led the UK to invade Iraq. The BBC have a summary of the main points here, the first 3 of which are below.

The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before all peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort

Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003, it said, there was no imminent threat from the then Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time and the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring

On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him "whatever". But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process, UN authority and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders

I felt this all along, did you? That we invaded Iraq because Tony Blair wanted to be best buddies with George Bush, with souped up 'intelligence' and undermining the UN security council's decision. Many people could see this, which is why there was the biggest protest in UK history, but frustratingly it didn't have an impact. What would have had an impact? Tony Blair made the commitment to go to war in July 2002, would anything have been able to stop him?

As much as I would like to see Tony Blair face justice, he is the least of our worries now. The lies, finger-pointing and propaganda are all churning again, have you noticed? Same posturing and misinformation, just a different target.

In an interview with the BBC on Hardtalk 20th June 2016, General Ben Hodges, the head of the US Army in Europe, said that since "...Russia invaded Ukraine..." they are now a threat, and the NATO drills that were being held in Poland, shown in the programme, were staged against the "Red" enemy.

Russia invaded Ukraine ???!!! Have I missed something?

The invasion of Iraq was pretty obvious, it was talked about beforehand and announced as such. The media filmed the allied air force bombing Iraq, then we saw the tanks roll in, and the regular army invade and overthrow the government. It would be difficult to describe it as anything other than an invasion. But in Ukraine....... there were protests and a coup, which led to President Yanukovych fleeing, and further internal divisions and fighting.

I can't imagine that Ukraine's closest neighbours could just sit back and watch without having some hand in helping their favoured side, but that is not the same as sending in the airforce to bomb key infrastructure, and rolling up in a convoy of tanks. There wasn't even a definitive sign of uniformed Russian troops 'invading' and the Russian government, though acknowledging that civilians were in Ukraine aiding the rebels, vehemently denied sending any troops to the country. Once the OSCE was in place monitoring the situation, they pretty much backed this up, finding no evidence of Russian troops or weapons crossing the border.

I am pretty sure that the media would have reported on a Russian invasion, as they did seem to enjoy pointing the finger at Russia, by using words such as 'Russian-backed seperatists' and 'Russian aggression'. Maybe I just missed it, but just like the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq, the evidence of an invasion seems a bit thin on the ground. Finding a handful of Russians in Ukraine bearing arms cannot be called an 'invasion'. There are a handful of Brits that have joined IS, but that doesn't implicate the whole country as terrorists. Please feel free to dispute this and share any links that show the contrary, because a Russian invasion is a pretty serious event, and if we are drilling NATO soldiers for WWIII with Russia, based on the 'invasion' of Ukraine, then I would like to be totally convinced.

What about Crimea? To me this provides even less evidence of an invasion. Imagine for instance that England decided to invade Ireland. "Over my dead body!" cry my Irish followers and they are right, it would - literally - entail a massacre of the Irish before they would concede to becoming part of England. Then there would still be strife from resistance fighters, suicide bombers and the like.

So I really don't understand how Russia can 'invade' Crimea with no bloodshed, uprising or resistance, and within days persuade 80% of all registered voters to vote to become part of Russia supposedly against their will, then to live happily without any signs of a counter insurgency. Unless of course it wasn't an invasion, and the people of Crimea, who are made up of 60% Russians anyway, requested that they get taken back under Russia's wing to protect them from the instability, fascism and violence that the media was displaying in mainland Ukraine.

Making up an invasion, with a few dodgy satellite images, photos of soldiers in unmarked uniforms that are claimed to be the enemy but could be from either side, weapons manufactured by the enemy but used by all sides, and US Generals calling it an invasion, really isn't enough proof for me.

And a war against Russia is one that would definitely not be 'over by summer'. Unlike Iraq who had their military destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War, and had severe economic sanctions in place for years after, Russia has a strong military force and plenty of WMD which Europe is well within range of. Plus China has announced that they support Russia's actions.

Russia's military might has been demonstrated in Syria. The US started the bombing campaign in September 2014 (with no UN approval or any go ahead from the Syrian government - yes I am intimating another illegal war) and IS continued to grow in numbers and area controlled. It was only after September 2015, when the Russians announced they had been asked for support from the legitimate Syrian government, and commenced a mission against IS, that IS has been retreating and is now reduced to only 25% of their former size. Notice how the media is a lot quieter about IS now?

Of course instead of saying "Good job old chaps" we have painted Putin as the bad guy and accused them of bombing civilians and of humanitarian atrocities. See how easily we can forget that IS were beheading, torturing, raping and enslaving the Syrian population. This is the same IS that was formed as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion, according to documents from the Chilcott report and the recent admission of the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

I can understand if you have missed all this going on, when the farce of the US presidential election is far more entertaining and worrisome. I mean which of the 2 main candidates is least likely to start a war? Hacked-off Hilary, who has openly blamed Russia for all the leaked emails and supported all the previous invasions, or Tantrum Trump, who seems to offend people every time he opens his mouth and displays a temperamental and unpredictable nature. I wouldn't want that choice.

Just don't assume when your politicians talk of countering Russian aggression by sending more of our young men and women to be stationed on their doorstep, that they have your best interests at heart. Question everything and look for 2 sources of evidence. Because we are all losers in the stupid crazy war game.

France

I'm going to be honest - I have at least another week of work to do for the project I am working on. It has been hard to see the end of it and my motivation has dipped to record lows. I have had to strictly prohibit trips to the allotment or writing posts until it is finished, and even spent 3 hours working on Boxing day. But my mind still try's to find other escapes and distractions!

So I spent a few days regularly checking for news from the tragedy in France and watching in horror as the events following the attack on Charlie Hebdo unfolded.



I like France. When my kids ask me where in the World I would like to go on holiday I always say France. Of course they always moan because they have dreams to travel the World and see amazing sights, and as far as they are concerned they have already ticked France off the list several times. But the next holiday I am planning will be in ...France :-)

Why? Because of the fresh croissants in the morning. They are nothing like the pre-packaged ones that you can buy in the supermarkets in the UK. It is worth getting up early and walking to the local Boulangerie, which you will find in every village, just for the delicious taste and texture of soft, warm, fresh croissants. Mmmm......heaven!

The French know this - how important it is to have delicious, fresh and varied food. It really makes you feel good to savour a delicious meal, even if it has taken all day to make, and meant sourcing ingredients from several different farms or markets. Just a slice of bread or a juicy tomato tastes better in France, because everything is about freshness, quality and the pleasure it brings, rather than just for hunger. It feels like we have lost this in the UK....if we ever had it.

And this is what shapes France, in my mind. It is why they still have a culture of lots of small rural farms and markets, and they fight companies like Amazon in order to retain small local businesses. It is why the Farmers have a voice and are quite willing to muck-spray government buildings or dump rotten cabbages outside, if the government ignores their needs. It is freedom of speech and more still. It is a population who reject TV dinners and demand better. It is a population who know that they have the power to object to stupid government or EU policies and to provoke a change. I'm not happy about it, but I am sure we would just grumble behind closed doors in the UK.

This is why it is always fascinating to see where the French stand on World affairs. The UK prime minister just parrots whatever the US have said and votes how they vote. But France doesn't always follow the rest of the flock. Look at the lead up to the war in Iraq, when Tony Blair was falling over himself to please President Bush, but the French had their own opinion and took a lot of bad press from the US for it. I seem to remember there was a boycott of French fries ?!?

And more recently President Hollande has been talking about ending the sanctions on Russia. Once again taking an independent line that is counter to that of the US. Here is what President Holland is reported to have said.

Mr Hollande said Russian President Vladimir Putin "doesn't want to annex eastern Ukraine - he told me that"............
..............."The sanctions must be lifted if there is progress. If there is no progress the sanctions will stay in place," Mr Hollande told France Inter radio.

On 15th January there will be a summit between Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine, which may lead to a decision on sanctions. It will be interesting to see what the French decide to do.

For today though there are mass rallies in France. I worry that it will provide a target for more attacks and I hope that the day remains peaceful and that the worst is over for the people of Paris. My thoughts are with the 17 killed in Paris, and also with the hundreds of thousands killed around the World by extremist forces. Let's hope that 2015 brings peace.

Shakespeare

My son has been rehearsing hard for weeks to perform as part of the Shakespeare schools festival. Simultaneously over last week there were 1,000 schools performing and we watched just 4 of these in one evening. Each school had their own take on a different Shakespeare play and they were brilliant!

The lady sitting next to me watched the whole week's worth at the Curve in Leicester, and had been very impressed. As she pointed out, "Shakespeare is like speaking another language." Yet there were primary school children confidently delivering their lines for The Tempest, and conveying the meaning well enough for those unfamiliar with the play to be able to follow. My youngest daughter was so confused -"I can't understand what they are saying", but she still picked up the storylines conveyed by the acting.

One of the schools performing was an international school, so for them it was like speaking a different language, in a foreign language. They did spectacularly and even though none of their parents were in the audience it seemed like they received the loudest applause. These were young teenagers, and you could see they were glowing with the appreciation.

Did I mention they were Russian? It clearly made not the slightest difference to any one of the people in that theatre, other than to impress them at their language ability. Why should it? We are not in another Cold War, even though those words have been rattling around the news recently. It feels like there is an attempt to re-ignite old memories and old fears. But that adversary, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. Does anyone really feel under threat from Russia?

Let me tell you a little more about the play that they performed. It was Othello, and a very brief synopsis is that Iago tricked Othello into believing that the woman he loved, Desdemona, had been having an affair with Cassio. Iago did this by deception and lies, making innocent conversations appear to mean something else, planting false evidence and trying to silence anyone who could reveal the truth. Orthello believed the lies and tormented by jealousy, murdered Desdemona, the woman he loved. In case you haven't guessed.....it is a tragedy. Though not quite as tragic as King Lear, which seemed as if most of the cast ended up dead!

This plot may be written over 400 hundred years ago, but the same lies, deception and false meanings are still in use to blind and mis-direct us. For instance, why are protesters in Hong Kong called "pro-democracy protesters" in the press, yet in Ukraine the people standing against the current government are called "pro-Russian separatists". (It is such a mouthful that it could easily be shortened from "pro-Russian separatists" to just "Russians".) Were the Scottish Yes supporters labelled "pro-Scandinavian separatists"? How ridiculous does that sound? Yet they were voting to be independent of British rule, just as the people of Donetsk have voted to be independent of Ukraine. The difference of course being that Scottish independence was out-voted, whereas Donetsk had a clear majority for independence. Plus the Scottish vote is considered legitimate and for some reason the Donetsk vote isn't. What is Democracy if it isn't about giving the people a vote and a voice?

If the majority of people living in Donetsk don't want to be part of Ukraine, how would you try to change their minds? Attacking them until they abandon their homes and become refugees can't be the only option.

I am not saying that I can unscramble the truth from the lies, but I do like to hear the story from all sides. This BBC interview by John Simpson of Dmitry Peskov, Putin's chief spokesperson, seems to give a glimpse of the other side of the story. I found Dmitry Peskov quite compelling. He really can't believe that John Simpson thinks that there are Russian troops in Ukraine. (Here is another interesting snippet from John Simpson from the same event)

There does seem to be a lot of accusations flying with little solid definitive evidence to back it up. Dmitry Orlov wrote in his post 'How can you tell whether Russia has invaded Ukraine?' describing what a Russian invasion would actually look like.

"....the Russians operate in battalions of 400 men and dozens of armored vehicles, followed by convoys of support vehicles (tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, field hospitals and so on). The flow of vehicles in and out is non-stop, plainly visible on air reconnaissance and satellite photos....."

That clearly isn't happening, but at the same time how can Russia stay neutral about what is happening on their border? With most countries in the region reliant on Russian gas to see them through the winter, the picture of an isolated Russia backed into a corner doesn't ring true either. It may be the reality of energy supplies that brings the situation to a head - a cold Cold War you might say ;-)

And maybe in true Shakespearian fashion the truth will be unveiled as the tragedy ends.