EN LA MIRA

"THE NEW BRITISH EMPIRE"

The Skripal case, the missing Argentine submarine and the intrigues against Russia, hide a resurgence of old imperial aspirations?

By Sir Charlattam

The latest events in London have shown that there is much more behind the media remembrances created by Teresa May and her infallible Russobous cabinet, than what they actually show. Although for many it is not possible or try to belittle their idea, the movements of the British cabinet seem to be heading to reconquer the place and the old glories of an empire that collapsed after the Second World War and that the US since those days to exercise through its politico-cultural globalization that ended up leading to a political unilateralism that opened the way to its brutal military interventionism.

Today the US is withdrawing from the world stage and is clearly discussing its geopolitical role supposedly in favor of respect for human rights. Their continuous rinsing and lies that have caused the death of thousands and the misery of entire regions has led to few respects the biased recommendations of people like Nikki Haley or David Satterfield that rather than fight for human rights, they operate for the benefit not only of Washington but also of Israel. In this sense, London does not want to have much to do with such a decadent partner, which would only bring more contradictions to its expansive aspirations.

In order to have a perspective of this idea, we must see that it has been from the political experiment called "Brexit" that I distance in appearance, to London from the administrative and political control of the EU. As a nationalist reaction on the island, he decided that he would no longer accept the conditions of European representatives who were not in tune with British interests and their aspirations for a political vision very different from the collectivity of their European peers. From the pinnacles of the British political, military and financial conservative power there was a consensus that leaving the bloc would bring prosperity, independence and greater benefits for the British, but that does not mean there is a nationalist objective. In that sense the conservative Teresa May as the successor of David Cameron would be in charge of putting Great Britain on the road so that they began to unravel the threads that began to be thrown around the planet to recreate an old but updated policy to the circumstances, of retaking the preponderant place in the distant regions where the British Empire stepped on.

Let's not forget that Cameron took the first steps in 2010 with the neocolonial adventure with France and Italy over North Africa by participating covertly in what the Western press cynically called the "Arab spring" and that in addition to violating international laws and human rights favored the overthrow of the government of Mohammar AL Gadafy and occupation of Libya.

According to Teresa May, the departure of the EU will bring Britain "unity, recover its laws, its borders and control of its monies" among other considerations in the middle of a tour that took place on Thursday March 22 by four autonomous territories of the United Kingdom.

In order to achieve these objectives, the May government seems to have set in motion a battery of stage tricks and set-ups that are not exempt from harmful consequences for third parties. In reality, nothing new in the political and informative tactics of Great Britain, teachers if there are any, of how to deceive and manipulate the own and world public opinion. In this last sense, Downing Street 10 - and obviously the local media - leaves aside and becomes blind to the growing claims of other members of the "Kingdom" such as Scotland and Ireland for getting out of control of London. Let there be no doubt that the "democratic British" will hold their politicians Scottish and Irish vassals with a dagger in their throats to continue to keep their countries under the shadow of London.

To relaunch these aspirations, London needs excuses to go out again to take over the world and there is no doubt that the case of the supposed poisoning of the former Russian agent Skripal and his daughter, fall within these plans. While negotiating with the EU the transition to definitively exit the political-economic and commercial scheme, the plans of the Foreign Office have not stopped in the manufacture of events in order to try to run the main international obstacle to these aspirations and that is represented by nothing less than Russia.

While seeking to establish commercial and strategic relations with China, the government of Teresa May has focused its hostile strategy against Russia even, seeking through diplomatic intrigues and insulting suggestions, to separate Beijing from Moscow.

Already came to see some prolegomena of all this, when on January 22, 2018 at a banquet dinner given by "Lord Mayor" in London, the Chief of Staff of the Army of "His Graceful Majesty" General Nick Carter assured before the present that there would be an upcoming war with Russia and that seeing the successes of the Russians in Syria, it will be very important - almost more than winning battles - to develop a media image that favors Great Britain. 

Immediately after this meeting, the government of May announced the creation of a military unit against Russian propaganda, assuming that Russian news reports are falsehoods that must be contained. While his highest army chief reveals these plans, the government of May deploys a media campaign to discredit Russia and particularly focused on the person of Vladimir Putin, which endorses the intentions of London to create an atmosphere of confrontation and mistrust just in moments before the development of the World Cup. If this is not dirty play, what would you call it?

¿And, what about Argentina? The still unresolved incident of the submarine "ARA San Juan" in November of 2017 leaves many questions unanswered and every day that passes is leaving it clear that the government of Mauricio Macri does not know how to continue hiding that - by the undeniable pressure of London - does not search the ship and in turn, tries to keep as far as possible the search ships and especially the Russian ship "Yantar", from the area where the submarine's hull would be intact. On this same, it does not stop to astonish the amount of versions that from the Argentine government were sent to try to dissemble to the public opinion and especially, to try to separate from the minds of the Argentineans the possibility that they can confirm that Great Britain and one of his allies, were directly involved in the criminal act. The last of the efforts of the Navy to try to give a "homely" explanation of the matter, goes through the alleged maneuvers and shooting exercises of the entire Argentine fleet to sink an old vessel out of service. With this they try to reedit the theory of own failure and the implosion of the submarine. At this point and despite some maneuvers to influence the mood of the relatives who some of them came to express "not look for more", no one has doubts that the British hand was involved in that event.

And it is that Britain has a lot to hide there. In addition to the conventional military facilities of Mount Pleasant, there is a whole structure of electronic intelligence at the service of NATO that was recently complemented by the installation of an expensive Israeli anti-missile system directed against a hypothetical Argentine attack. Precisely this is one of the most obscure and dark points of the matter since supposedly the government of Macri (with several confessed Zionists in his party) has very good relations with Netanyahu and the Israeli government. But the reality of the matter is that Tel Aviv and London have more important mutual commitments than the mere ideological sympathy of Buenos Aires can offer.

The South Atlantic and in particular the Malvinas archipelago, is (contrary to what the Macri government considers) a geostrategic point for London and is part of the plans to relaunch the Global Britain in search of exercising the gradual control of the seas.

Regarding this issue, it is not Argentina that is concerned about London but the Russian presence in the waters of the South Atlantic, which although it has enough naval power to run the explorer "Yantar", they know that this would cause an incident of proportions not considered for Mount Pleasant and the entire region. Then the question would be how much is London willing to pay for its ambitions of a Global Britain?