Latest from UKIP Daily

An unholy alliance, or the politics of feelings

UKIP members know what a concerted and sustained attack in the British media looks like, having been on the receiving end for the weeks before the elections to the EU Parliament.

That this attack was not very effective was shown in the election results.

One of the reasons was that people up and down the country saw with their own eyes that UKIP candidates, members and activists were not as depicted in the media on a daily basis.

What is very worrying is that we have been seeing and are seeing this same sort of unsubstantiated attack on Russia and especially Mr Putin. It is worrying because in the first place, these attacks are taking place not just in one or two countries, it is taking place literally across the EU and the USA. What is even more extraordinary is the fact that there seems to be no difference of opinion across the media, regardless of their political leanings. This is very familiar, we saw it during the EU election campaign.

What is even worse however is that our politicians seem to base their policies on these articles and comment pieces in the media which trumpet the same demands  – sanctions, be hard with Russia because Putin is bad. Thus the astonishing spectacle of leading EU politicians clamouring for sanctions and more sanctions against Russia, regardless of their detrimental effects on our own economy leads one to ask what are the actual aims of our politicians? Obeying the demands of the editors of the international media?

Naively, one would have thought that at least politicians, especially PMs, would have been briefed properly by the intelligence services, and that they would at least have asked for proper proof as to who really downed the tragic flight MH17, and would have based policies on facts, not conjecture coloured by unsubstantiated opinions.

Instead, we have the spectacle of 28 EU heads of state declaring unisono that Putin did it, regardless of evidence, and that Putin will be sanctioned unless he ‘do something’. Take the point they make about the borders between Russia and the Ukraine: on the one had, Russia is told to secure those borders, on the other Russia is accused of being aggressive because she has too many troops stationed there.

It seems that policies, not just local but international policies, are based on ‘feelings’ driven and prescribed by international media, with no one asking for actual proof, for time needed for the investigations taking place, for evidence put on the table by the USA. Our politicians are caught in a web of ‘we believe the USA because they say they are trustworthy’ and ’Russia lies, we don’t believe a thing they say, even if they are radar records, and don’t ever look at Russian media’. Facts? Facts are not needed for policies of ‘feelings’.

There is one tiny spark of hope that we might not be driven over the brink by this unholy alliance of international media and politicians: on the one hand, there are news trickling out that it might have been the actual Ukrainian Army, not the Russians or separatists, who have fired that BUK which downed MH17. Then there’s van Rumpoy’s clever ploy of having the ambassadors of the various EU member states decide on which sanctions ought to be implemented. Thus, if the evidence does show that Russia and Putin had nothing at all to do with the downing of MH17, van Rompuy can say it wasn’t them in Brussels who instituted those sanctions, and on the other hand he can tell the USA that the EU did what they could, but sadly there were these disobliging ambassadors ….

The question remains however: are our policies now made by editorial decisions, by international media editors? Are our intelligence services now incapable of properly briefing our PMs, and are our politicians now driven by the politics of feelings, by the politics of a toddler’s playground, rather than hard facts and evidence?

The 100-year anniversary of the outbreak of WWI is coming ever closer. Have our politicians not learned from that history, where feelings and misplaced alliances led to the catastrophe which didn’t end until May 1945?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Vivian Evans (240 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

8 Comments on An unholy alliance, or the politics of feelings

  1. Those who very sensibly pay attention to RT as well as to the US version of events may have gained the same impression that I have – that it probably was the Ukrainians who shot down the airliner, in a ruthless but hamfisted attempt to put the blame on to the the separatists and the Russian government. But we’re waiting to hear the results of the investigation and particularly of the analysis of the flight recorders.

  2. Putin sees and fears the West as the aggressor. Direct intervention: Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This has now been followed by a policy of destabilisation of countries and regions (including Russia/Ukraine). By getting the protagonists to fight amongst themselves this is the best protection the West has in its perceived war on global terror. It also avoids further direct intervention. Putin is being punished because he has not agreed with this analysis and not co-operated with the US/EU. The most obvious example is Russia’s position on Syria.

  3. Malcolm ShyklesKazakhkhanate // July 27, 2014 at 4:20 pm //

    When we joined the EU we never considered that it would join the US in seeking to overthrow Russia nor that it would be dragged into ethnic cleansing in the Ukraine. It is Putin who is on the defensive and the US that is on the war path and seemingly controlling the EU. The sanctions on Russia harm the EU so what is the sense of involving ourselves in a conflict with Russia?

    The downing of MH17 has been proven by “21st Century Wire” to have been a False Flag attack that went wrong, far better to be informed by this source or the Corbett Report” and other such sites than to believe anything Cameron or Obama say.

    21st Century Wire is “News for the Waking
    Generation™” an independent media voice for geopolitical news and
    analysis, working with an array of contributors aggregating news and opinion
    from around the world.”

  4. The Emperors New Clothes // July 27, 2014 at 2:21 am //

    The evidence is starting to reveal something else is afoot, since Russia released evidence on Monday 21st July of information that the missile was fired from a Kiev based Ukrainian Army unit, not the Russian backed seperatist movement. The CIA are back tracking, now stating it was a Ukrainian army unit dressed in Ukrainian Army uniform that had defected and fired the missile??? but there is another report stating MH17 was first hit by a Ukrainian SU25 fighter jet, it fired a missile, which wounded the Malaysian plane, by hitting one of the engines, and then a SAM missile was used to bring the plane down, but weather conditions (cloud cover) at the time meant there was no direct visibility from the ground for the SAM crew to see the plane at 33,000 feet.
    “MH17 was moved by ATC Kiev approximately 200 miles north – putting it on a
    new course, heading directly into a war zone, a well-known dangerous area by now – one that’s hosted a number of downed military craft over the previous 3 weeks.”

    “To date, Kiev has refused to acknowledge or explain why the plane was moved into position in this way. Moreover, Interfax news agency reported that Ukraine’s SBU security service,( who share the same building as the CIA in Kiev), confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew immediately after the incident.”

    “The probability that this is all an ‘unfortunate coincidence’ reduces to near zero when one considers the air traffic data and Kiev’s denial of the close proximity of its Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet in pursuit of MH17 minutes before the crash”

    Does any of this sound like it was the Russians or Russian backed units involved in shooting down MH17? It was probably a mistake for Ukrainian Air traffic control to send the plane into a war zone, but its looking very likely it was a Ukrainian fighter jet that brought it down.

    UK Column News on Friday 25th July 2014

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag-attack/
    http://www.ukcolumn.org/

  5. David Hussell // July 26, 2014 at 9:32 pm //

    As Brits we must hold to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, and that applies to nation states as well as individuals. Assumptions and “reasonable guesses” about WMD took us into a disastrous war in Iraq, whose destabilising effects are now being paid by those minorities fleeing, penniless for their lives northwards to Kurdistan, or are being literally, crucified by Isis. Do we never learn ? Hot tempers and a sense of injustice are very human reactions, but seldom build towards justice let alone lasting peace. Let us see the evidence of Russian culpability before we demonise them as our enemies. And was it not the deliberate destabilising of the democratically elected government of the Ukraine, by an ambitious, expansionist EU anxious to fish that border state too into its cunning net, that set in motion the train of events that even now is still unfolding ?

  6. Articles like this do not reflect well on UKIP. I have a low opinion of most of the leaders of the EU, UK and USA but claims that they are basing their decisions some sort of media smear campaign are ludicrous. Yes, there has been meddling in the Ukraine by all sides but Putin, whilst he is looking after Russian interests in the area, is no saint. He is an ex-KGB colonel and the sheer amount of hardware and firepower available to the Russian separatists suggests very strongly that there is a considerable flow of weapons across the Russian/Ukrainian border. By all means be sceptical of the information put out by all sides, especially our own government but it isn’t wise to assume our PM isn’t properly briefed. Whether what MI6 and GCHQ are telling him corresponds to what he is then telling us is a different matter but our intelligence services are professional enough to have a very good idea what is going on. To date, I haven’t seen an credible evidence that suggests that the current theories are incorrect.

    • Yes Putin is no saint, but that does not put his hand on the trigger, nor that of the seperatists he supports. It is exactly this kind of “Putin is the baddie, so he must have done it” unquestioning thinking that this article is commenting on.

      I haven’t seen any credible evidence that suggests the current theories are correct, so why are media outlets and politicians to a man placing the blame squarely at Putin’s door? With no facts yet available, it can only be because they are pursuing a preconceived agenda. You would hope that are more balanced approach would be taken until the facts are known.

      I see Clegg is now calling for Russia to be stripped of hosting the next football world cup. As Sky News reported this, I thought perhaps some news had come to light linking Putin to the crash. But no.

      • Directly on the trigger, no and I wouldn’t claim that Putin would have even indirectly ordered such a thing. However, I think Putin has played a major role in encouraging the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine, including allowing weapons to cross the border. Even if the Russians didn’t supply the missile that brought down that plane, it provided the wherewithal for the separatists to take it from the Ukrainian army.

Comments are closed.