March 6—Appearing before the British House of Commons March 3, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer boasted how British diplomacy, with the help their pet poodle, French President Emmanual Macron, had helped keep the Atlantic alliance firmly behind NATO’s sock-puppet dictator of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his losing war against the “Russian hordes” of President Vladimir Putin. He bragged at how he had walked Zelenskyy back from the brink, after his arrogant and petulant behavior had gotten him thrown out of the White House Feb. 28 and sent him limping and beaten across the ocean to London, where Starmer had assembled European leaders to embrace him and continue their support for his losing war.
Starmer told the Commons that he and French President Macron had calmed the waters, especially calming the President Donald Trump down, who he assured all who would listen, was not going to retaliate against Zelenskyy’s for his behavior and allow him to contiue fighting the Russians with American arms. But the Labour Lord had totally misread the President. Trump was not going to be dictated to by a man “who has no cards to play” and was not going to tolerate Zelenskyy or anyone else, including Starmer, “gambling with World War III.”
No sooner had Starmer given his assurances that Trump would not act, then the President kicked him in his “Special Relationship” and announced that the U.S. had suspended all military aid to the Ukraine, and Trump’s team let it be known that the suspension would continue until Zelenskyy shows that he is ready to sit down with Putin, under Trump’s supervision and mediation, and work out first, a total halt to the fighting, and then a permanent end to the war, in a peace deal that the U.S. would guarantee and Europe would help supervise. (Then, Trump doubled down on this and ended all intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move which limits its use of spohisticated weapons systems andcuts into the effectiveness of its war effort. Zelensky called the move "petty.")
The “Special Relationship,” the term used to describe the cooperation between the United States and the UK since the end of World War II on shared policy objectives and covert operations to secure those objectives, died Feb. 12, when Trump and Putin talked over a secure internet connection and discussed how they would jointly work out a plan to end the fighting in the Ukraine, without interference from NATO or the European powers, including the UK and their sock-puppet dictator in Ukraine. Zelenskyy would be brought to the table when conditions were ripe, but he would dictate nothing. The Brits were not informed in advance about this meeting, representing a total break in the unstated protocols of the special relationship.
The events of the last days reinforce the fact that the Special Relationship is a dead letter. “Trump never told Starmer that he was cutting Zelenskyy’s arms shipments,” said a source. “Sleepy Joe Biden and his crew, including NATO whore Vice President Kamala Harris, would have consulted and maybe would have been talked out of doing anything. That’s over. London and the British Empire is not a superpower like China, Russia, or the United States.
Trump intends to build a new world order of peace and prosperity based on a guarantee of peace from the nuclear superpowers, with minor powers having policy say on strategic matters, not ‘gambling with World War III’ in some new version of the RAND-created Risk board game. If the former is how Trump sees the world, then the Brits are going to pivot toward Europe, which they will not dominate as in the “good old days” of Empires, but they will orchestrate, as they were doing this weekend.”
The Brits and Macron, who had helped orchestrate the White House blowup by giving Zelenskyy some rotten advice that said he could challenge Trump, now told their sock-puppet that he needed to show contrition and told him to say he was ready for negotiations with Putin. They also got him to agree to a strange ceasefire—in the air and on the sea, but not on land where most of the killing and dying is taking place, an idea backed by the Brits and Europeans.
In his speech to a Joint Session of Congress, broadcast to the American people March 4, Trump read from a letter to him from Zelenskyy that appeared identical to an X post that said all the things the Brits and the French were telling him to say. Trump reiterated his commitment to end this war which was provoked by NATO, and the Brits and their allies in the Biden Administration, which "should never have happened," as her repeatedly says, but the President did not say he would renew the flow of American arms to Ukraine. Instead, he said that America had already given plenty, that this was Europe’s war, and that from now on they had to pay for it.
“Trump is changing the world and moving it out of the control institutions like NATO and the British Empire,” said the source. “He does not precisely know where it is going to wind up. But in his mind, it is never going to go back. Trump is committed to set up what some people call a new strategic architecture, one that does not play games of chicken risking nuclear war. He wants peace, and I have been told he has promised the ailing Pope Francis that there will be a ceasefire in Ukraine by Easter Sunday (April 20)—that’s what he wants, and he doesn’t give a damn what London or Paris wants.”
March 4—With the Butcher of Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, openly declaring his desire to renew his bloodletting slaughter in Gaza, sources say that the Trump administration has demanded that he delay anti-Palestinian actions for several days to allow Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, a chance to renew the ceasefire and launch serious negotiations on Phase II of the deal, which should have been already well underway had it not be for Bibi’s sabotage.
Witkoff, who has not been able to devote his full attention to Southwest Asia, as he has been working for Trump to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, had come up with the framework of a plan, which was submitted to both Hamas and Israel. It calls upon Hamas to release half the remaining live and dead hostages at its start, and the rest when a plan for Phase II of the deal and beyond is hammered out by negotiation.
Bibi, realizing that the wording in the framework plan was too unspecific to be accepted by Hamas, immediately announced that Israel would accept it. Hamas, as most observers thought, did reject the announced framework as too vague and not giving Hamas enough in exchange for the loss of their main bargaining chip—the remaining hostages.
While the media has played up Hamas’ rejection, and Bibi’s response of cutting off all humanitarian aid shipments to Gaza that were a stipulated part of the agreement signed by Hamas and Israel in December—an agreement brokered by Witkoff—the reality is that it was Israel that immediately violated its terms when Phase I ended March 1, by announcing its refusal to withdraw its forces from the Philadelphi Corridor, along the border between Gaza and Egypt, as mandated by the signed agreement.
"The headlines about the state of the negotiations on Sunday quoted Netanyahu's office: U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff presented a plan for extending the cease-fire that Israel accepted and Hamas rejected'," writes analyst Amos Harel in Haaretz March 3 "A more accurate headline would have been that Israel is violating the hostage deal. It isn't withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, it rescinded its commitment to end the fighting and it isn't willing to begin the deal's second phase."
Bibi has ordered the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), badly depleted in manpower and suffering from a collapse in morale after its bloody war Gaza, and emerging bloody affair on the West Bank, to prepare for a new “ferocious” offensive in Gaza were Hamas to continue in its rejection. “We intend to open the gates of hell,” said Bibi’s lunatic racist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who says he stayed in the government to make sure that the war with Hamas will restart and that they will be “exterminated.”
“As insane and delusional as the Ukrainian leadership is,” said a source, “they cannot compare to this. Witkoff now has to plunge back into this sea of insanity and work out a deal, before the bloodshed begins again.” This and other sources report that he has already sent out feelers to Hamas through the Egyptian and Qatari negotiators, to see what would make them more comfortable. He has told them that they must be prepared to release all the hostages, in only one or two steps. That’s what his boss [Trump] wants. He believes that he can force Bibi to accept placing this in the context of an agreement by Israel to permanently end the war, even as the terms of what a post-war Gaza would look like are negotiated.
“So, Witkoff intends to force the Israelis to accept that declaration as well as a physical withdrawal of all IDF forces. But first, to get everyone back to the table, there would be an agreement to the two-stage hostage release deal. Witkoff has spoken to Trump and has his agreement to get tough with Bibi. Despite the statements that we [the U.S.] will let Bibi do what he thinks is necessary for Israel, Trump and Witkoff will demand that he make the return of the hostages his top priority. And this Bibi cannot do without risking the collapse of his government. The reality is that Trump does not give a damn about Bibi’s political future. Trump wants to end the war and the killing, and to give Israelis and Palestinians their lives back, without both being prisoner to the gods of war.”
To make all this work, to move on to Phase II and III of the signed deal, Witkoff is going to have to deal with the future of Hamas. They cannot be allowed to rule Gaza under any circumstances. Sources say that Witkoff wants Hamas fighters to be given a chance to lay down their arms and leave Gaza. At the same time, some of its political people, if they leave Hamas and renounce violence could have a role to play in Gaza’s future. “Bibi says no to this,” said a source. “But he knows not all of Hamas agreed to the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Something needs to be worked out on this.”
Witkoff may be counting on help coming from strange places. The Iranians provide the money to sustain Hamas (at least that portion of funds that were not given to them by Bibi, as a bulwark against the Palestinian Authority running Gaza); what if that spigot gets shut off? That could force the split desired with the armed wing going to other organizations, etc. Sources say that the matter has been brought up through backchannels both to the Iranians and their “friends”: the Russians.
Witkoff is expected to fly to Southwest Asia later this week—and he has every intention of getting the agreement back on track. It will not be easy.
Writes commentator Chain Levinson in Haaretz March 2: “Netanyahu is making huge efforts to sabotage any chance of pursuing the deal, to Finance Minister Smotrich’s satisfaction. The administration’s attention has shifted to Russia-Ukraine, and Netanyahu is doing quite well right now…. The only person who can do something about this is Steve Witkoff. The undiplomatic U.S. Special Envoy is preoccupied with Russia-Ukraine affairs, and the Middle East is eluding him. He keeps on postponing a visit here. Now he’s supposed to be coming toward the end of the week. If he doesn’t go into Netanyahu’s office, shove him against the wall and tell him, “Enough! as far as Netanyahu and Smotrich are concerned, there is no first stage, no second stage, and that’s that.”
If Bibi, under pressure from Smotrich, moves to restart the war, he may SOON face an angry mob, led by the families of the hostages and the mothers of the IDF soldiers who were asked to participate in his orgy of killing, but also including much of Israel’s population.
Writes Yossi Verter in Haaretz Feb. 28: “The implementation of Stage 1 and the dramatic change it has brought in Israeli public opinion will soon collide with the coalition’s abuse of the victims and its efforts to tank the deal. The anger will erupt. The great majority of Israelis will not agree to leaving the remaining hostages in Gaza and resuming the war for political reasons. Many of them, certainly the hostages’ families, may escalate their fight in ways we haven’t yet seen.”
Hundreds of Israelis took part in the funeral of Itzhak Elgarat, taken hostage by Hamas and whose body was returned to Israel last week. Elgarat's brother, Danny, a prominent figure in the hostage protests, said during the eulogy that the family did everything in its power to return him home alive: "We failed. We did not do enough. Netanyahu defeated us and you did not return from captivity. The enemy who caused your death is not who kidnapped you, but rather who abandoned you… You are laid to rest in a grave dug by the prime minister."
March 3—NATO’s sock puppet dictator of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, having been exposed by President Donald Trump as the ungrateful punk he is and literally thrown out of the White House Feb. 28, rushed March 2 to London and into the open arms of an adoring European mis-leadership, under firm direction of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The British leader had assembled his fellow NATO members and others to offer support for extending NATO’s losing war against Russia in Ukraine using Ukrainian bodies, and to demand that they play a role in determining the shape of a peace plan, the control of which remains in the hands of Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, his partner in this effort.
Whatever else emerges in the days ahead, sources observed that the so-called “Special Relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom, which has dominated post-World War II policy for what was once called the Western Alliance, is a dead letter. On most matters, with rare exception, the U.S. and the Brits shared intelligence and special operations and conspired to achieve a result in the interests of the Anglo-Americans. In that way NATO can be seen as the military arm of this alliance, which gave it broader breath, and worldwide power projection well beyond Europe.
The Brits have always prided themselves on their skill in manipulating their much larger and more powerful ally, while allowiing the Americans to take credit for carrying out what was, in fact, the British Empire’s policy, selling the world on the false idea the British Empire had faded away, as all Empires eventually do, while at the same time creating the myth of the rise of something that has never existed—the American Empire. Now, their pundits talk about the inevitable and current decline of the American Empire, with Donald Trump the symbol of its current boorish state. But behind these words, the Brits still thought themselves in control.
And then Feb. 12 happened, and it occurred without even an advance notice to London that it would: Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, spoke and declared themselves, and no one else, responsible for ending NATO’s war in Ukraine, which Putin had been provoked to launch by NATO and its puppet Zelenskyy.
Sources report that this is no token move; rather, it represents a rejection of the policies of the Special Relationship, and the NATO bloc, or more precisely it was a declaration that policy was not going to flow through the normal Atlanticist channels. Trump had chosen to make policy with his fellow superpower, and not work through the Brits, or NATO, or Europe. What’s more—Trump blamed the Brits, NATO, and Europe for a war he said, “should never have happened.” Trump expects the European countries to play a role in the peace—but only on terms determined by him and Putin. Europe would be consulted, but not as before.
Both French President Emmanual Macron and Starmer preceded Zelensky to the White House to see Trump, and both were told the same thing: You will play a role in the peace-keeping force, but I [Trump] will broker a peace deal for Ukraine with Putin, and I do not need your help or interference. Trump reportedly told Starmer that the UK, while an important nation, is a minor power, whose military is somewhat of a joke, and who has benefited from the world thinking that your policy is our policy. That is not really true, now, is it? the President asked. “You can spin this all you want,” said an intelligence source. “But Trump told this guy, the Special Relationship is over. Sic transit gloria mundi, baby.”
What this and other sources are saying is that Britain is making a pivot, away from the U.S. and toward Europe, and will seek to play that bloc, which it will orchestrate rather than dominate, against what it perceives is a dangerous collaboration between Trump’s USA and Putin’s Russia, and in the future, with China’s Xi Jinping.
Meanwhile, they will try to play on whatever sympathies they can find in Trump for the British way of life. That’s why they are pushing, at the invite of King Charles, for an unprecedented second state visit for a non-royal leader.
Sources report that the Brits and the French deliberately steered NATO’s sock puppet into his disaster in the White House. “Zelenskyy spoke with Macron and Starmer before his meeting on Friday,” said a source. “Macron told him that he should get a better deal, and Starmer led him to believe that Trump, who wanted to get the Ukrainian dictator to agree in principle to the idea of ceasefire, could and should be reasoned with on this matter. That was precisely the wrong advice, based on what they knew Trump was thinking. That Macron! He is a real snake. He, like Starmer, not only wanted to slow down the momentum toward a deal, but he wanted to blow up the rare earth/minerals deal since he has a French minister and some private companies working on a deal for France. Trump did not know this, but he knows it now.”
Right before the meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy was sent to a meeting of adoring Democratic Senators, led by Chris Murphy (D-Conn), who pumped him up to do battle for Ukraine and “the West,” against “Putin agent,” Trump. “So, Zelenskyy went into his meeting all jacked up, like he was a fairytale knight going into battle with a dragon.” said the source. “Now it is fairly well known that Zelenskyy is also a fan of the white powder [cocaine]. He might have had that up his nose as well. And the meeting took place with predictable results—if you knew the set-up.”
“Zelenskyy should not have gone to the White House,” the source indicated. “Both [Trump’s Special Envoy to the Ukraine Gen. Keith] Kellogg and [Special Envoy to the Middle East and to all trouble spots Steve] Witkoff advised,'Don’t go now. Wait until we are ready to discuss the ceasefire and guarantees. But he was pushed by Starmer, who said that Trump needs to be given a dose of reality, and also by the British agent that runs his Presidential office Andriy Yermak. And it doesn’t take much to get this guy to run to the limelight. What an ego this punk [Zelenskyy] has! So, this was all a set up to cut into the momentum for peace.
“And then Starmer had the meeting set up in London that would give Zelenskyy a hero’s welcome,” the source said. “Sure, they were officially saying “You need to work things out with Trump,” but they really told him, “Good job. You stood up to the thug-in-Chief.” And Starmer even had it worked out for Zelenskyy to go talk to that dumbo-eared moron, King Charles III who called the Ukrainian a man who history would say great things about. What we are witnessing is Zelenskyy being handed off from the Biden-NATO crowd to the Brits. He met with the King, while appearing to be wearing the same all black outfit that he wore for the Trump meeting, and which many people found disrespectful. Charles just smiled—and smiled some more.
“The word from London,” the source said, “is that the Brits and the French along with Z-man are working up the terms of a ceasefire, with guarantees, that they will present to Trump, to get them a seat at the table. Trump will embrace it—if Putin finds it acceptable. Trump does not intend to let anything break the momentum toward peace. " {The ceasefire they proposed is a half-ass thing that does not stop all the fighting, only the air attacks on Ukrainan targets; it is hard to take such a proposal seriously, and it is certainly not what Trump has in mind.)
It should also be noted that after the meeting with Trump, as he was heading to London, Zelenskyy did post a tweet on his X account praising Trump and America for their support for Ukraine and thanked them for standing with Ukraine. "He does not seem to get that Trump is more concerned about his calling Putin a liar and untrustworthy, as the President tries to put these two men in the same room to secure an end to NATO’s senseless slaughter," observed the source.. "Instead, Zelenskyy keeps talking about fighting on until victory, while also claiming he wants 'peace.'|”
Feb. 27—British geopolitical strategy to prevent peace with Russia at all costs depends on the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and roping the U.S. into backing the British intention of marching off to war against Russia. Both elements were present in a statement by U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, issued Feb. 25 and in a speech to the House of Commons, in which he announced an accelerated plan to increase military spending to 3% of GDP while justifying it as necessary against that intractable enemy of Britain, Russia. Both statements were delivered two days before Starmer is set to fly off to Washington to meet with President Donald Trump today.
Topmost on Starmer’s agenda is to try to salvage the U.S.-U.K. special relationship, which has been at the heart of the unipolar world order since the demise of Franklin Roosevelt. Starmer is also desperate to make sure that real peace does not break out in Ukraine.
“Putin’s aggression does not stop in Ukraine,” said the Labour fool rpresenting the bloodiest empire in modern history. "Russian spy ships menace our waters. Russian planes enter our airspace. Russian cyber-attacks hit our NHS. And just seven years ago—there was a Russian chemical weapons attack, in broad daylight. On the streets of Salisbury. We can’t hide from this.
“I know people have felt the impact of this conflict through rising bills and prices,” Starmer went on. “But unless Ukraine is properly protected from Putin then Europe will only become more unstable—and that will hurt us even more. Furthermore, the great lesson of our history is that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength.”
As for what Britain will do about it, “We will keep our manifesto commitment to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defense,” Starmer said. “But in light of the grave threats we face, we will bring that target forward so we meet it in 2027. That is an increase of £13.4 billion year on year compared to where we are today. And we will go further…. We will also set a clear ambition for Defense spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.”
But it’s not just a military buildup. It’s also a jobs program. “We will make sure this investment maximizes British jobs, British growth, British skills and British innovation,” he said.
And initially, at least, the military buildup will be paid for by a reduction in British foreign aid from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%.
Aside from repeating all of the foregoing in his Commons speech, Starmer also argued that the U.S. is key to British strategy. “We must reject any false choice between our allies, between one side of the Atlantic or the other,” he said. “That is against our history—country and party—because it is against our fundamental national interest. The U.S. is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology, to NATO, to Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond.”
Therefore, when Starmer comes to Washington tomorrow to meet Trump, “I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength.”
Feb. 24—Why is it in our national security interest that President Donald Trump act now to curtail the “special relationship” that presently exists between British Imperial and Commonwealth intelligence services, and the United States military and military-intelligence agencies? This week’s visit Feb. 27 by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to Washington, D.C., undertaken in the vain hope of re-enlisting America as the financial and logistical “backstop” for further fruitless European posturing in an already-lost war in Ukraine, is the proper time to pose to the American people this question: What exact benefit does the United States gain from its so-called “special relationship” with Great Britain? Put more positively, should a swift, solemn end be brought to the British-U.S. “special relationship,” in preparation for the upcoming celebration of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ Declaration of Independence?
It is time—past time—to recommit the United States to the original purpose of its 1776–1783 American Revolution. That purpose was, as it was clearly re-stated by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two to an apoplectic Winston Churchill, to remove the foot of Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, French, and British colonialism from the throat of people all over the world. Instead, the United States, founded on principles that were the opposite of those of the British empire, has, especially in the “unipolar era” from 1990 until now, been acting against the interests of the American people, and the American Revolution itself. It has been engaged in no-win wars and overthrowing governments—always in the name of democracy—but in reality, on behalf of an international financial elite, a trans-Atlantic “War Party,” a criminal syndicate operating under the code-name, “NATO.” Starmer visits Washington this week on behalf of that mission of war, and nothing else.
This is not to suggest that there are no sound, and even essential reasons for the U.S. to maintain open and extensive connections to many intelligence services worldwide, including those of Great Britain. But it is to state categorically, however, that the interests of the British Empire are not those of the United States Republic. The differences are clearly illustrated by this passage from the Feb. 20 editorial pages of London’s The Economist, “How Europe Must Respond as Trump and Putin Smash the Post- War Order.”
“Europe’s worst nightmare is bigger than Ukraine. Mr. Trump intends to rehabilitate Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, ditching a long-standing policy to isolate him. Without any obvious geopolitical benefit to America, he is angling to restore diplomatic relations. He may soon be feted at a glitzy summit.”
The Economist’s writers and their City of London sponsors know the real reason for the Feb. 12 Trump-Putin phone call, and it wasn’t Ukraine. Russia and the United States are the two most lethally-armed nations in human history, controlling fully 90% of the planet’s nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. These two “adversaries” have just reversed—barely reversed—a downward spiral into civilization-ending total warfare—atomic, biological, and chemical. The two-months, from late November 2024, through Jan. 20, 2025, was as or more dangerous than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Many Americans fail to realize, or in some cases prefer not to know, how close the world came to World War Three during the late-November launching of long-range missiles by NATO, using its proxy, Ukraine, to attack the territory of pre-2014 Russia.
The subsequent U.S.-Russia meetings Feb. 18 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia of delegations led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and American Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were the first serious talks between the world’s two thermonuclear giants in more than two years. When, before, had such a breakdown in diplomacy between Russia and the United States ever been the case, even at the height of the Cold War? Since 1945’s dropping of two atomic bombs, it has been self-evident that any breakdown in diplomacy between or among any nuclear weapons nations is suicidal. That breakdown will inevitably result in thermonuclear war by miscalculation or otherwise, at one point or another.
Do the lunatics of Europe wish that war? Whatever is in their minds, what is clear is that they want the United States in the forefront of such a war, to continue to foot the bill, in money, matériel, and if necessary, in personnel. Today’s inferior leadership of Europe’s shrunken-head nations, however, destroyed by the European Union’s failed globalist schemes, including their “green” policies for industry and agriculture over the past three decades-plus, is so decadent that they are incapable of waging the very war they blood-thirstily call for. Britain’s Starmer, France’s Macron, and the EU nations know they are, on the one hand, incapable of sustaining the present no-win-war of Ukraine against Russia without the United States. They are also so snidely condescending that they deeply resent even having to ask “the American deplorables” for assistance.
It is not only in the interest of the United States, but in the interest of humanity as a whole, that the Trump-Putin Feb. 12 initiative succeed, as it is beginning to do. There was no reason for Zelenskyy, for any other European leader or country, or any other nation whatsoever “to be at the table” in Riyadh. In October of 1962, though the world was involved, it was Kennedy-Khrushchev’s relationship that counted. Might the same financial and oligarchical forces that opposed what President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev did to stop World War III, be opposing the Trump-Putin normalization of relations today? Why would the prestigious magazine, The Economist, and City of London policy-formulators that use it to brief the bureaucracy of the Anglo-American intelligence establishment as to what to do next, be so apoplectic as to declare that Feb. 12 represents, as one columnist put it, “the end of days?”
The first sentences of The Economist article reveal a deep, and probably irreconcilable difference with the present Trump Administration on war, and stopping it: “The past week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated, and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime.” Europe, the article seems to state, intends to, despite having neither the manufacturing capability, energy resources, weapons production or military personnel, “support Ukraine fighting and winning for democracy.” That means the United States has to be Ukraine’s guarantor—but the United States is going in the opposite direction. The British policy establishment, instead wants war. Why is war—which is no answer—their only answer?
The 'Great Game'
The continuation of NATO after 1991 was necessary to continue the British policy known as the “Great Game.” Most people—unlike Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, or Tony Blinken—still find the concept of real war as a “game” to be alien, and even disgusting, even despite decades of video war games being used to desensitize younger generations to killing and warfare. But this is not the case with the "War Party.” They seem to derive an erotic satisfaction, as well as financial and geopolitical benefit from killing. In Oct. 2008, at a meeting in Bishkek, U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Tatiana Gfoeller, found herself in a testy confrontation with the infamous Prince Andrew, when she protested against the idea that Great Game politics should be the template for policy in Central Asia:
“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!’”
British figures like Sir Alfred Milner, Halford Mackinder, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and earlier ones like Lord Palmerston and Benjamin Disraeli were 19th and early 20th century “master players” of the Great Game. They wanted to conquer what they referred to as “the Eurasian Heartland,” for world power. Russia must be disintegrated for that to become a reality.
But the Great Game is not just an idea from the past. The U.S. government’s Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), also known as the Helsinki Commission, held a live-streamed seminar June 23, 2022, called “Decolonizing Russia: A Moral and Strategic Imperative,” which advocated the piece-by-piece dismemberment of Russia, breaking it into ten (or more) regions.
Former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a speech delivered to London’s Chatham House on May 10, 1982, admitted:
“In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union—indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department—a practice which, with all affection for things British, I would not recommend be made permanent. But it was symptomatic....”
Kissinger was a willing part of the British Great Game.
The idea—the truth—that the United States involvement in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, North-West Pakistan, and even into Africa (Somalia, Uganda, Niger), has all been in service, not of the American people, but of the Great Game, engineered by the neocon forces in the Republican and Democratic Parties, using Sept. 11 as a pretext, is very bitter. But that realization must catalyze a full cleanout and reorganization of our intelligence capabilities, starting with ending the special relationship with the British intelligence agencies. They have practiced a corrupt policy, and corrupted Americans into assisting them to do that which is against everything we fought the American Revolution for.
In December of 2018, during the first Trump Administration, Great Britain’s House of Lords issued a report, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order.” In paragraphs 37–39, that report states:
“The U.S. Administration has taken a number of high profile unilateral foreign policy decisions that are contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom.... However, the difficulty the UK and its allies have faced in trying to influence the U.S. demonstrates the challenge of working with the administration. How damaging this will be to what has hitherto been the UK’s most important international relationship will depend on whether the current approach is an enduring trend. Should President Trump win a second term, or a similar Administration succeed him, the damage to UK-U.S. relations will be longer lasting; and the Government will need to place less reliance on reaching a common U.S.-UK approach to the main issues of the day than has often been the case in the past.”
So, how can the United States, moving to create peace around the world, afford to trust, or even to continue the “special relationship?” And what is it that the House of Lords actually fears, not only from the “out of control” Trump Administration, but the American people?
The Real American System
The American Revolution’s system of economy, designed by Revolutionary War officer Alexander Hamilton was an anti-colonial system, designed to replace slavery and subsistence agriculture with mining, manufacturing, and machine-powered agriculture. Hamilton’s was not the outlook of Britain’s Adam Smith, nor of the Royal Africa Company’s John Locke. Hamilton was a protégé of Benjamin Franklin’s American Revolutionary faction. Since those days of Hamilton’s American economic revolution, which consolidated our victory on the battlefield against the British Empire, it has been the failure to study his four Treasury reports, on Manufacturing, Public Credit, a National Bank, and the Constitutionality of the National Bank, and the work of those American System economists who followed, that has caused us great confusion.
Most Americans today, for example, do not believe what Hamilton and his best friend, Gouverneur Morris, the man who drafted the United States Constitution and authored its Preamble clause, knew—that an economy can be both just, as well as profitable, from the standpoint of real physical output.
Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, involving re-regulating the banking system by returning to Glass-Steagall regulations; re-establishing the credit functions of a National Bank of the United States; issuing emergency federal public credit only for productive physical economic activity (such as high speed rail, water projects, etc.); and creating a science driver to transform the throughput of industry, by increasing what is called “energy flux-density,” are an efficient re-statement of Hamilton’s intent. (LaRouche’s Four Laws are perfect for catalyzing a discussion about how American principles of economic development, not British methods of imperial subjugation, could define a new American foreign policy that starts with economic development to end war, whether in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Libya, etc.)
Keir Starmer’s campaign to perpetuate war, should not only be rejected, along with the British-American “special relationship.” In its place, let us deliberate directly with the citizens of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to end the drive to war. In her “Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from all over the world, including the U.S., to the (next) President of the United States!” issued in 2023, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, wrote:
“Since Russia and the U.S. presently have 90% of all [the world’s] nuclear weapons directed against each other, which could destroy the world many times over, it is a question of urgent concern for every human being on Earth, that we must find a way out. The solution must be on a plane which overcomes geopolitics and takes the standpoint of the interest of the one humanity. We therefore express our hope that the President of the U.S. finds the greatness in herself or himself to adopt the viewpoint which was expressed by JFK in his historic American University speech.”
In honor of the first successful anti-colonial revolution in history, we, the people of the United States, declare: KEIR STARMER, GO HOME!!
The following two boxes accompany the above article:
Holes In a British ‘Nuclear Umbrella’
British elites are so war-mad, that some among them have even proposed a British or Anglo-French “nuclear umbrella” over Europe, to replace the American nuclear backstop that they now expect to lose. The Economist, the leading mouthpiece of the City of London, demanded in a recent issue that the UK and France “use their nuclear weapons to shield the continent” in the event that the U.S. under Trump makes a deal with Russia, and “abandons” Europe. Also, The Telegraph reported Feb. 22 on how the UK should develop its own arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons to save Europe from Russia’s war machine—the way that NATO nuclear weapons were positioned against massed Soviet tank formations during the Cold War!
One problem: Britain wouldn’t even have a nuclear arsenal without the U.S. Yes, the British do have some capabilities in their fleet of four Vanguard Class nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and in their nuclear weapons laboratory at Aldermaston, but even those depend on agreements signed with the U.S. The 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement provides for the sharing of nuclear warhead design information and technologies, while the 1962 Polaris Sales Agreement allows the UK to “rent” submarine-launched ballistic missiles from the U.S. for use in British submarines. According to publicly available information, the information exchange highly favors the UK, perhaps as much as 80-20, so, were the British to undertake the development of tactical nuclear warheads, technical data from the U.S. would likely be crucial.
‘Mr. President, What I Meant to Say Was....’
The present British Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Ambassador to the United States have each made these statements about the President of the United States in the recent past. So, what should our “special relationship” to them be?
Peter Mandelson, Ambassador to the United States: “An American president who is little short of a white nationalist and racist.” (2019)
David Lammy, Foreign Secretary: “Trump is not only a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath. He is also a profound threat to the international order that has been the foundation of Western progress for so long.” (2018)
Keir Starmer, Prime Minister: “Donald Trump’s approach is to stoke division, to pitch one group against another, and that’s not leadership—it’s the opposite of what any country needs.” (2020)
Feb. 28—Several intelligence sources say that they believe that the security threat against President Donlad Trump is at the highest level ever, as the President takes more aggressive stances against the NATO war machine and seeks to end the wars in Southwest Asia and Ukraine.
These sources say that Trump does not really face a threat against his life from Iran or similar sources, and certainly not from President Vladimir Putin’s Russia or from President Xi Jinping’s China. Instead, they say that threat comes from NATO, and its assets inside the United States military-intelligence complex, which effectively runs an international assassination bureau, the which was responsible for the “hits” on President John F. Kennedy, his brother Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and other leaders over the last more than 75 years.
“Trump is now NATO’s ‘Public Enemy No. 1,’ working in collaboration with Putin to end NATO’s war against Russia using Ukrainian proxies,” said a source who had accurately forecast the assassination attempt against Trump last summer in Pennsylvania, weeks before it happened. “They failed to prevent him from becoming president and now they face him in the form of their worst nightmare. Trump sees NATO policy as a greater threat to the United States than Russia. He has even publicly said that Ukraine with NATO encouragement had started the war by deliberately provoking the Russians. And despite the attempts of the NATO ass-kissers in the press to ridicule this charge, he has refused to back down.
“I know several people who regard [Vice President JD] Vance’s Feb. 14 speech at the Munich Security Conference as a declaration of war against NATO,” said the source. “The problem for NATO is that Trump can’t be backed down. Once he gets it in his mind to do something, he does it, no matter how many people with authority tell him he can’t do it. And he has it in his mind to change the whole process of post-war international relations, in which blocs like NATO played prominent roles. Trump sees things pairwise and is taking America back to acting as a great power, working with its peers—Russia and China—to keep the world out of wars and on a path of peace and prosperity. In so doing, he has blown down the whole NATO house of cards. Russia and China are not the threats to Europe. As Vance told them in Munich, the biggest threat to Europe is the European countries themselves with their unwillingness to change.
Such statements put Trump in NATO’s crosshairs,” the source warned. “So the risk to him is off the charts. That means there is a strong likelihood that they will put out orders for a hit, if those orders have not gone out already. Trump’s people are aware of the threat. More people should pick up on this and spread the word: If there is a hit on our President, we are coming for NATO and its assets.”
Feb. 28—When NATO’s sock-puppet dictator of the Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington today, he will meet with a determined President Donald Trump who will force him to agree to end NATO’s bloody war in Ukraine on his terms. Sources report that there could be an agreement in principle between Russia and Ukraine by the beginning of March that would end the fighting and define terms of a peace deal.
These sources say that Trump will congratulate Zelenskyy for agreeing to a massive investment plan in which the U.S. will provide more than $50 billion to develop the mining of rare-earth metals and other minerals for the benefit of Ukraine and the United States, which will have access to those minerals. The profits from sales will be placed in an investment fund, administered jointly by the two countries, which will go toward rebuilding that war-ravaged nation. The two leaders will sign the first part of the agreement, while the creation of the fund must await legislative approval in both countries.
But, the agreement, whose final form was reportedly worked out by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East and to all trouble spots, does not contain any specific U.S. security guarantees as Zelenskyy has demanded. Instead, that security guarantee will come as part of the larger agreement that will end the fighting, sources report, the which agreement could take shape as soon as the end of this month.
“Zelenskyy has met with various European leaders this month as they travelled to Kyiv on the three-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine,” said a source. “What he encountered were a bunch of impotent ravers who have no cards to play on his behalf against Trump. They told him that they would try to soften Trump’s approach to a peace settlement, but no one would say that they would succeed in doing that. In fact, [French President Emmanual] Macron told him that Trump does not really believe that Europe should tell him what to do about anything and that it was NATO that caused the war in the first place, by deliberately provoking Russia. Trump has figured out that NATO and the Biden Administration wanted this war, thinking that they could isolate and destroy Russia. Trump told Macron that NATO and Biden were crazy fools that endangered the whole world. He was not going to play by their rules.
“So, Zelenskyy has no protection from Europe,” the source continued. “The world changed Feb. 12, when Trump called [Russian President] Vladimir Putin. That marked the end of the control of the world by supranational geopolitical blocs, like NATO, and a return to great power diplomacy in which the three great nuclear powers, China, Russia, and the U.S., will agree to not fight each other, but instead work cooperatively to secure peace and prosperity for themselves and the rest of the world. That’s how Trump sees things on the issue of war and peace. The three powers will act as 'policemen' and seek to end wars and conflicts. There will still be competition on economic and other matters, but there will also be cooperation where possible. It is a bold concept for creating a new paradigm, which Trump sees as leading to a scale-down of military spending by the great powers and new nuclear arms and other treaties.”
This and other sources say that Trump intends to push Zelenskyy hard on agreeing to the key initial component of his Ukraine peace plan: a full stop ceasefire, that would come into effect no later than Easter (April 20) and perhaps before that, if the details can be worked out with Putin, who has already agreed to the idea in principle. Zelenskyy has resisted the idea, claiming that it will just give the Russians a chance to resupply and create the ability to launch new offensives. Trump intends to explain that Putin wants to end the slaughter that has claimed a total of more than a million lives on both sides, and that he is committed resolving outstanding issues through negotiation. The President will tell Zelenskyy that he will personally guarantee the ceasefire, and that it will lead to a permanent end to hostilities.
There is an apparent dispute between Trump and the Russians on whether there will be a European peacekeeping force to maintain the ceasefire. Zelenskyy and European leaders such as Macron and British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have demanded such a force, but Russian spokesmen, such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have rejected it. Trump, however, says that he has discussed this with Putin, and he will agree to its creation.
"This European, but non-NATO force has always been part of the Trump peace plan," said the source. "And it will be part of the final agreement. Trump will offer this as a concession to the Europeans and Zelenskyy, that he extracted from Putin. The Russian objections are staged to make the concession seem greater. Putin knows that there is going to have to be some peacekeepers, and that they will be European.
Sources say that Trump will have to give Zelenskyy something more than the peacekeepers to show that he is not being forced to eat Trump’s deal, which will end any hope of Ukraine joining NATO and which will cease the arming of Ukraine with any offensive weapons They say that Trump will agree to ease off on his demand for immediate new elections, the which have been delayed for more than nine months by Zelenskyy’s martial law decree; he will also promise to continue arms shipments approved by Biden until the deal is finalized,which shipments were halted at the beginning of this month.
It was on the advice of Witkoff and Trump’s Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Gen. Keith Kellogg, that Trump agreed to meet with Zelenskyy ahead of a meeting with Putin.
Zelenskyy immediately jumped on this opportunity, telling the media that it was “very important” that he would be meeting first with Trump, before Putin.
“Trump, under advice from Witkoff and Kellogg has decided not to try to oust Zelenskyy and will instead try to work with him,” said the source. “Zelenskyy was furious when the U.S. sided with Russia in voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution sponsored by Ukraine which blamed Russia for starting the war. But he was told by Kellogg that the sands had shifted and that he had better find a way to work with Trump. Witkoff, the hard cop in these matters, was more blunt in getting agreement on the minerals/rare earth deal: ‘It would be better for you and the Ukraine to work with us, instead of finding another way that avoids Trump. There is no such way.’”
Before his meeting with Trump yesterday, the source was asked what British Prime Minister Starmer might face from the President. Of late, Starmer has been raving about the “Russian threat to Europe” and the “need for the British to assume a greater role in leading Europe against Putin and the Russians.” Starmer’s main goal appears to be to try to save the so-called Special Relationship between Britain the United States by which the Anglo-American elite has dominated policy in what was called the “Western Alliance” since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1945.
“The Special Relationship ended Feb. 12,” said the source. “The Brits were not informed in advance of Trump’s call to Putin, which was only one of many exchanges between the two, and the first to be publicly acknowledged. Trump held the Queen in high regard, and likes Prince William, but has no love for any other Brit, especially from Starmer’s Labor Party, which sent people to help Democrat Kamala Harris in the last election. The Brits have made the wrong choice in putting in power a government more suited to work with Harris than Trump. He will be polite and formal, but Trump is not going to be sharing with the Brits information on what he is doing, unless it serves his purpose. Starmer is being given a mission impossible. If it goes really badly, the British/NATO Establishment might have to choose a different course of action.
“When they don’t get what they want,” warned the source, “they eliminate the problem. Literally. The danger level for a Trump assassination must be very high right now. NATO and Brits have assets inside the U.S. military-intelligence complex who could collaborate in such an operation. Trump’s people have to be aware of the risk.”
Feb. 27—The Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin interviewed President Vladimir Putin at some length on Feb. 24. The following are excerpts, by machine translation from the Kremlin site: Note: The [English is now posted to the President’s website, with slightly different translation.
On Ukraine: Zarubin asked if Trump was playing into Russia’s hands on the Ukraine matter, as some in the West say. Putin: "I believe that this is absolutely not the case. I have my own point of view on this matter, it is the opposite of what you have just stated…. Because in reality it doesn’t matter how many percent he [Zelenskyy] has—four or whatever. What’s important is that his rating, according to our data—they are objective—is exactly two times less than that of his possible closest political rival. This is Mr. Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian armed forces, who was exiled to London—his rating is exactly twice as high….
“Among other things, the current [U.S.] President has declared that he wants to achieve peace—and by the way, so do we—and as quickly as possible. And the current head of the regime is standing in the way of achieving this goal. That is where the position of the President of the United States comes from, as I see it.”
On Trump’s Approach: Zarubin asked if Trump acts “on the basis of emotions?” Putin said: “Of course not.” Question: “Do Europeans even understand, in your opinion, the essence of the current situation around Ukraine?” Putin: "You should ask them. Judging by the way they act, it seems to me that they do not really understand. But that is not even the point. The point is that, unlike the new President of the United States, the political leaders of European countries are connected with the current regime, they are engaged….
“Unlike them, the current President of the United States, the new President, the newly elected President—he has his hands free, he is free from these shackles that do not allow him to move forward and work towards resolving the conflict, and in his character, probably—he acts straightforwardly and without any particular embarrassment. He is in a unique position: he does not simply say what he thinks, but he says what he wants. Well, this is the privilege of the leader of one of the large, great powers.”
On the Riyadh talks: "I saw the reaction to our telephone conversation with the U.S. President, and I saw the reaction to the high-level meeting in Riyadh. It is, indeed, emotional and devoid of any practical meaning. Why? Because in order to resolve complex and even acute issues, including on the Ukrainian track, both Russia and the United States must take the first step."
“What does it consist of? This first step should be devoted to increasing the level of trust between the two states. This is what we did in Riyadh, this is what the nearest, perhaps other high-level contacts will be devoted to. Without this, it is impossible to resolve any issue, including such a complex, acute issue as the Ukrainian crisis.
“But what do the Europeans have to do with this? This concerns bilateral Russian American relations. Why do we need them here? What will they do here?”
On the role of the BRICS: “I want to emphasize we respect the position of our friends from BRICS, who created a group of supporters of peace. Today I just spoke with the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and we also discussed this. He informed me that the Friends of Peace group in New York will meet again soon and will discuss this. We not only welcome, we are grateful to all our partners who raise these issues, who strive to achieve peace. What am I saying? Not only Europeans, but also other countries have the right and can participate, and we respect this.”
On Russia and the U.S. cutting defense budgets: Zarubin mentioned that Trump “said that he wants to propose to you and the head of China to cut defense budgets in half. How do you like this idea?” Putin: “I cannot comment on how the People’s Republic of China will react to this. There were various approaches from the American side regarding strategic offensive weapons and other very serious issues. Therefore, this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China. But we could come to an agreement with the United States, we are not against it. I think the idea is good: the United States would reduce by 50%, and we would reduce by 50%, and the People’s Republic of China would then join in if it wants. We think the proposal is good, and we are ready to discuss it.”
Feb. 27—Hungarian Minister for EU Affairs János Bóka has demanded full disclosure on the funding of NGOs at the meeting of the General Affairs Council on Feb. 25. “We expect the European institutions, especially the Commission, to apply the same standards of transparency to themselves that they expect from member states,” Bóka was quoted as saying by Hungary in the EU (official account of the Permanent Representation of Hungary to the European Union).
Bóka wrote on his own X account the same day: "In recent weeks, it has become clear that NGO networks, previously financed by the USAID and now by the EU Commission are engaging in activities aimed at undermining public trust in institutions and destabilizing political systems.
“EU citizens and member states have the right to know which NGOs and activities the European Commission is financing with European taxpayers’ money.
“The funding of these organisations by the European Commission is still not transparent, and today, at my request, EU ministers addressed this issue at the General Affairs Council.”
“About Hungary”, the official blog of the Hungarian government, wrote: “After the new Trump administration shut off funding to USAID, Brussels has stepped in to fill the financial void, creating new funding pipelines through programs like the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values (CERV) program. … The CERV program, initially intended to support fundamental rights, has instead become a tool to bankroll left-liberal activist groups, many of which are directly or indirectly tied to George Soros and his influence network. … This form of influence brokering represents a clear case of political corruption, where taxpayer money is funneled into a network of NGOs that serve as unofficial political operatives for Brussels. In Hungary alone, €13 million has been allocated to activist groups working against the democratically elected government.”
A similar demand is being made for the municipal government of Budapest by the Fidesz party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.