Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The recent fiasco in Amsterdam where Israeli football hooligans were beaten up by the locals for taking down Palestine flags is a story you might have missed. Or at least the real version. How the events were treated by British media represented a new low in journalism which now is entirely in the pocket of the deep state and Israel’s lobbying money which until now we only assumed reached a number of MPs in Sir Keir Starmer’s cabinet. But now it seems it is reaching media itself.

Sky News, not an outlet overburdened with high journalistic standards, is a broadcaster which, almost from day one, has reported on the Gaza genocide through the prism of Israel’s Zionists and its fake news operation. A couple of weeks ago one of its grey-haired presenters claimed in an interview with an Iranian academic that Iran’s attack on Israel hardly did any damage at all. Incredibly, others followed this narrative but few stopped to consider how it was possible that a major news outlet could be so sensationally biased in the first place.

In fact, no great act of investigative journalism is required. During the Amsterdam debacle, it was revealed via Twitter that the news editor at Sky just so happens to be a raving Zionist who proudly displays her credentials on her Twitter account. And so, no prizes for guessing just how an initial news reports from Sky’s reporter in Amsterdam which portrayed these Israeli thugs correctly and told the truth was quickly deleted from Sky’s own Twitter account. Many commentators like Own Jones had already saved a version of it, so the blowback of those who cry foul may well have not been worth it in the end. But it is clear that Israel’s absolute control of media in the UK is now no longer in question. There is a narrative which has been established by Israel, which is supported by many British journalists – some like Douglas Murray who take it to a whole new level – and what the British public is being served up each night is fake news tripe which is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of a gullible public.

Ironically, it is when British media take the rare opportunity to go rogue and break away from either Israel’s indoctrination or that of the U.S., that we almost wish the fourth estate would stick with the stenography which it excels at.

Case in point the news from the Telegraph and the Independent that Britain will send its own troops to Ukraine if Trump pulls U.S. funding for the war. Granted, these were the views of former British PM Boris Johnson who still believes his views about Ukraine are relevant. But where is the context that journalists are supposed to provide about such views? Where is the nuance?

Johnson now is such a has been that it is unlikely that he could even get a phone call with Donald Trump, let alone be allowed into his inner sanctum. He’s a non-entity whose opinions really don’t really amount to much anywhere, least of all on the international stage. But it is this notion that Britain is some sort of pseudo superpower where its elite can change the destinies of other nations by military intervention which is laughable at best and delusional at worse. And British journalists keep this absurd idea alive. The British army has only 74,000 regular soldiers. What could, say, 10,000 British squaddies hope to do in a country so vast as Ukraine? Johnson’s idea is absurd beyond belief, even if a Labour leader would be likely to even entertain it and if it were ever to happen would be the greatest embarrassment for Britain since Suez. But that’s not the real flaw in the overall idea. The real miscalculation is that Boris is clinging on to this old idea that Britain will be a decision maker in Ukraine’s future under a Trump administration. Recently, in the weeks coming up to the U.S. election, many EU countries upped their military pledges to Ukraine giving what some analysts believe would give Zelensky one more year to fight, even in the most optimistic scenarios. Yet what Boris and these EU leaders don’t want to accept is that Trump will not put up with EU NATO countries resisting his peace plan. It will be the U.S. and Russia alone who will decide when and how a ceasefire and ultimately a peace plan will take place, not EU countries. If such resistance is felt and Britain even entertained the idea of sending troops there, Trump would nip it in the bud immediately by threatening to pull the U.S. out of NATO altogether, albeit on a temporary basis for the message to be clear to the EU: America runs the show.

He has done this before, but there are more reasons now for this stunt to actually become a reality when in office for the second time. The mere idea that EU countries can even sustain their military aid to Ukraine is nonsense in any case, so that idea that the Ukrainian army can keep the Russian line where it is, is entirely unrealistic with or without U.S. military aid in any case. Without U.S. military support, Ukraine’s days are numbered anyway as Russian advances will simply be accelerated. But this old chestnut that “Russia will take over Europe once it takes Ukraine” is such a fatuous lie which Boris and others like to keep alive, although many EU countries realize that it is simply untrue. If it had any truth in it at all, the hue and cry from EU countries bordering Ukraine would be inaudible and the sense of panic from nearly all western governments would be palpable. Instead, what we see is still this state of delusion, a sort of dream sequence where elites still cling on to the lies they have manufactured for themselves, to protect their own political bases and a general calm where everyone does what they have always done: wait for the Americans to show us the way.