The Blame Game

Background:
Present day:
Numerous articles, views, reports have surfaced in the course of the month of August 2009 in regards to various topics Russian, many of Albion sources.
Today’s BBC “explains” how Stalin contributed to the flames of World War II sources (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8218887.stm) titled “Stalin’s bid for new world order”. Here we can see how incredibly mean, evil and wicked this Russian leader really was (by the way he was not Russian he was Georgian, but you’d have to go out of your way to read his biography to see that he was Georgian, all other references in the given texts refer to Stalin as “Russian”).

This is on the heels of “Problems beset Russian military reform” sourced (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8204941.stm) just 10 days ago.

A few days later we have a title “Arctic Sea mystery deepens after arrests” sourced at: (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8214426.stm) dated August 21.

August 24 brings us “Russia accuses Ukraine on Georgia” at (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8219171.stm)
August 11th “Medvedev lambasts Ukraine leader” at: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8195194.stm

Guardian, The Observer August 23: The Second World War: six years that changed this country for ever: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/23/second-world-war-mccrum
It’s hard to say how little accuracy escaped the British scribes. But all the above is not quite newsworthy considering the British heavy handed meddling in the affairs of other (in their view LESSER) nations.
The pejorative LESSER is not used as frivolously as it appears. The very last quoted article shows the reader that the Americans, The Japanese and the Russians had much less of a change (or adjustments) to make in the aftermath of world war 2. Can it be true? Unless these other nations are absolutely immune to the thrills of your typical Wold War – it must be true, right?

RECENT PAST:
From Wikipedia (not always nearly as accurate or observant, but the advantage is that a person does not have to memorize dates and places): “Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament's consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.
Disraeli and Gladstone clashed over Britain's Balkan policy. Disraeli saw the situation as a matter of British imperial and strategic interests, keeping to Palmerston's policy of supporting the Ottoman Empire against Russian expansion. According to Blake, Disraeli believed in upholding Britain's greatness through a tough, "no nonsense" foreign policy that put Britain's interests above the "moral law" that advocated emancipation of small nations. Gladstone, however, saw the issue in moral terms, for Bulgarian Christians had been massacred by the Turks and Gladstone therefore believed it was immoral to support the Ottoman Empire. Blake further argued that Disraeli's imperialism "decisively orientated the Conservative party for many years to come, and the tradition which he started was probably a bigger electoral asset in winning working-class support during the last quarter of the century than anything else".
Therein starts the Crimean War. Under the pretext of dominance over all ports in the Mediterranean Basin the British employs their mighty naval fleet. Naturally the spices from the “silk route” through the Arabian peninsula, had to terminate somewhere on the Mediterranean, Alexandria, Egypt was as good a place as any. But holding the Palestine and the Roman times Judea (today’s Israel) was even better. Both were prominently important guidelines to the British cabinet, and we know that Disraeli was one of the first proponents of the British “overseas interests”. Turkish Sunni Muslims encroached on the Greek held Anatolia but that was a “fait accompli”, and ever since 1858 we know that the British access to the riches of India had be uninterrupted and unthreatened. That way, owning a pebble on Mars would entitle the owner of setting up toll booths and ramps from Earth to Mars. Therefore Non sequitur becomes de rigueur.
The essence of the Crimean War was based on Russian holding of the keys to Jerusalem and therefore their civilian and military presence, while Turkey natural position as a buffer between Jerusalem and the Black Sea served better then well for Britain to proclaim itself the “protector”. Even the more modern Monroe doctrine lacks audacity of that scope. Now as “a protector” of Turkey (the importance of Turkey was less then negligible in those days), the British manage to incite the flames of war in numerous ways:
a) Attack on the Crimean peninsula (the Crimean war 1853 to 1856)

b) Congress of Berlin 1878 (which gave Serbia more land and influence)

c) Treaty of London 1913 where Albania was established at a loss of lands to Greece and Serbia

d) Treaty of Bucharest in an attempt to reverse the unsustainable Treaty of London same year 1913 which was followed by the 2nd Balkan War and rectified by the Treaty of Bucharest, further solidifying the borders of Albania at the cost of Greek and Serbian lands.

Is it any wonder that today’s (mainly) British press is so hostile towards the Russians and other Slavic nations (like Serbia).
Not only has the creation of Albania created horrors towards the closing of the 20th Century, ethnic cleansing and elimination of Serbs and much wealth of the Byzantine Empire, it also allows an Islamic foothold on European soil (including Bosnia-Herzegovina , another largely Serbian portion of the Balkans). Naturally to the British this is as important as the welfare of Turkey during the Crimean wars – which is to say not important at all – as long as there is a conflict, the British will meddle on the continent to their heart’s content.

Iliya Pavlovich