Social Items

TPQ
Gearóid Ó Loingsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 11-March-2026.
Photo: US military base attacked in Qatar.
On February 28th the Zionist regime of Israel and the USA commenced a lethal bombing campaign against Iran, choosing as their first target a school where more than 168 girls were murdered. Western press took its time in questioning the attack and the Western governments never really did. The press “explains” that the school was near a centre of the Revolutionary Guard, but they don’t explain that it was a cultural centre and a clinic and pharmacy all of which enjoy protection under the Geneva Conditions. They tell us that these places “perhaps explain the attack.”[1] Well no, they don’t. They remain war crimes.

Iran’s response was robust. So robust that the Western press and politicians condemned it and asked Iran to not attack the other states of the region (calling the Emirates countries or nations is a bit much). They never asked the US or its attack dog, Israel, to cease its attacks. Iranian civilians are less important than investments in Dubai and other places. Iran attacked military bases, radar installations and hotels housing US soldiers who had transferred there given the possibility of an attack on their bases. The counterattacks uncovered some truths.

The first one is that the Arab monarchies of the region are nothing more than US lapdogs, and the myths about their economies went up in smoke in seconds. They are not safe places to invest in and less so to live in as shown by the mass of TikTokers crying into the camera. It is worth pointing out that many of them boasted about not paying taxes, and one or other explicitly stated they had set up in the region in order not to pay taxes and now they want their respective governments to spend taxes that they not only didn’t pay but didn’t want to in order to rescue them. It might be that Dubai and the other monarchies never fully recover.

Another truth that was revealed is the real role of US military bases. The Yanks like to say that it is to protect and defend the countries they are located in against attacks. That myth also went up in smoke just like the myth of Dubai as a safe place for digital nomads, TikTokers, bankers and even drug traffickers like the Kinahans who have lived there openly for the last number of years.[2] They will all have to think of other places.

The military bases were not capable of defending the monarchies and moreover the US transferred a good part of its military capability to Israel and left them to their fate. Recently the president of South Korea announced that the USA had transferred part of its defence system to Israel.[3] The president lamented the situation but explained that there was little he could do, i.e. the USA decides everything. In the case of Spain, President Sánchez said he would not allow the USA to use the shared military bases in the country to launch attacks on Iran. Trump’s response revealed the real role these bases play and the real authority over them. He said they didn’t need them, but if they want to, no one is going to tell them no.[4] In many of the military bases, in law, it is the host country that commands and controls the base. The reality is otherwise and Trump showed it. In others cases, particularly in Japan and some European countries it is the US that has formal control.

The bases are not there to defend the host countries but rather to defend US interests and to act as they see fit. The Arab monarchies have just learnt that lesson the hard way. Spain has yet to, but Trump has warned them that it is in practice he who decides what is done, where and how. This brings us to the question of military bases in Colombia. Theoretically, Colombia has authority over the bases and can limit what is done. In practice it is not so.

The supposedly progressive government of Gustavo Petro never did anything to expel the Yanks from the bases in the country. Nor is he going to do so in the few remaining months of his presidency. The question is what will the new government that comes into office on August 7th do? For the moment it looks like the next president will be Iván Cepeda from the same political force as Gustavo Petro. In the midst of tensions between Colombia and the USA Cepeda stated from Madrid that Colombia wasn’t a Yankee colony.[5] When he is president he will have ample time to prove it and can start on August 7th by ordering the north American troops out of the country. The rest of the countries in the world should do the same.

It is clear that the bases are an extension of the USA and at all times serve it and nobody else.

References

[1] The Guardian (10/03/2026) Minab school bombing: what evidence is there that the US was responsible? Tess McClure. 

[2] Middle East Eye (08/03/2026) Investigation finds ‘notorious cartel leaders’ living openly in Dubai. 

[3] The Korea Times (10/03/2026) S. Korea regrets transfer of USFK air defense assets to Middle East, Lee says. Anna J. Park. 

[4] PBS (04/03/2026) Spain denies cooperating with US military operations in Middle East, contradicting White House. AP.

[5] See Santiago Barbosa 🇨🇴@smoelno "Sr. Trump, No se equivoque. Nuestro pueblo no se arrodilla ni se doblega. ¡NO SOMOS UNA COLONIA DE EE.UU!". 👏🏻💯 El futuro presidente de Colombia, Iván Cepeda, le deja claro al gobierno yankee que aquí existe la DIGNIDAD y está por encima de todo 🇨🇴✊🏼 Así se habla, HPTA 👏🏻


⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

Yankee Bases 🪶 A Trojan Horse

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Sixteen

 

A Morning Thought @ 3091

Brian Morgan ✍ In the history of the Northern Ireland Conflict, there were only two occasions when security forces were completely absent from IRA funerals. 

Figure 1: IRA Volunteer Charlie Hughes funeral 11-March-1971

The first was at the funerals of the Gibraltar 3. The second was on 19 March 1988, when Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes drove at high speed into the funeral cortege of IRA volunteer Caoimhin MacBradaigh, in West Belfast. The 1988 absences remain suspiciously deliberate, the result of a questionable secret 'stand-off' agreement between security forces and the Catholic Church, brokered for the Gibraltar 3 funerals and for Caoimhin MacBradaigh after loyalist Michael Stone's murderous attack at Milltown Cemetery three days earlier.

Too much weight is given to any agreement made with the Church. In the history of IRA funerals, the Church would have considered it unthinkable to ask the security forces to stay away completely - they would have simply asked that they keep a respectful distance. The alleged claim of an agreement to a complete absence is not credible. Figure 1 above shows how close both the security forces and mourners could be to each other without incident.

What followed remains one of the most contested incidents of the Troubles: were two British soldiers simply lost, or were they engaged in a covert operation when they met their deaths?

I do not know the Corporals' full intention but their presence at the funeral was not an accident. I will show the official account to be false. I will also show there is more evidence that they left Woodbourne RUC Barracks and not North Howard Street Barracks.

By the 1980s, IRA funerals had become flashpoints. The RUC, increasingly given front-line roles in nationalist areas, regularly engaged in aggressive sectarian confrontations with mourners, often triggered by Unionist/Loyalist aversion to the sight of Tricolours. Michael Stone's attack on 16 March 1988, which killed three and wounded over fifty at the Gibraltar 3's funeral, changed the dynamic entirely.

Cyril Donnan, then RUC Chief Superintendent, had planned the security operation for the Gibraltar 3 funerals, involving both RUC and Army personnel. In The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), he recalls: after his plan for the Gibraltar 3 had been approved, he was later told there was to be no security force presence.[1] This was the first time in the history of the Conflict where there would be no security force presence at an IRA funeral. Donnan says he was shocked by the decision.

The security forces agreed to stay away from the funerals in exchange for an IRA agreement not to fire volleys over the graves. When and with whom was this agreement made, and why was it not made with the senior officer responsible for the planning, Chief Superintendent Donnan?

Someone agreed to unprecedented conditions Donnan did not like. Donnan confirms he was operating under strict orders not to deploy after the Corporals launched what looked like an attack on the funeral.[2] Sight of a weaponised car, mounting the footpath and driving at high speed through mourners should have been all he needed to know. One occupant of the car firing a shot should have been enough to know. Donnan passively watched events unfold on a 10-inch heli-teli screen in real-time. His eventual intervention came too late and he would have known it.[3]

The heli-teli footage shows 12 minutes from start to execution. Father Alex Reid, who tried to intervene, later questioned: "There was a helicopter circling overhead and I don't know why they didn't do something, radio to the police or soldiers to come up."

The Chief Superintendent watched a speeding car drive directly into mourners, but did nothing. He watched the moment Wood fired a warning shot, but did nothing. He saw Wood being tackled to the ground and unarmed, but did nothing. He saw both soldiers being taken into Casement Park, but did nothing. He watched as both soldiers were stripped and thrown over a wall, but did nothing. He watched both soldiers being bundled into a black taxi, but did nothing. I assume he watched both soldiers being executed; he arrived afterwards and the IRA killers had long escaped.

One explanation for the Chief Superintendent's inaction: whoever told him not to intervene already knew what the Corporals' intentions were. The Chief Superintendent would have been astute enough to know, when he relayed the events to his superiors and was still told not to intervene, that it may have been a sanctioned operation.

Donnan claims he defied orders to deploy,[4] but only after fatal delay. The timeline conclusively confirms observation without intervention. Who told a Chief Superintendent with operational command on the ground not to intervene?

The Ministry of Defence maintained that Wood and Howes were Royal Corps of Signals communications technicians who had left North Howard Street base. They were supposed to drive along the M1 motorway to Lisburn. The story: Wood was 'showing around' his new colleague Howes, took a wrong turn from North Howard Street Military Base, and accidentally drove into the funeral. They should have turned left onto Westlink from North Howard Street but they turned right instead.[5]

Even the BBC would know that the claim that they could not access the motorway from the alleged route they took is false. After turning right (if they did leave North Howard Street), multiple other routes existed: Grosvenor Road, Broadway Road, Donegall Road, and Kennedy Way.

Traffic on the Falls Road would have been significantly reduced that day. Once they were past Kennedy Way roundabout there was zero traffic. Both Wood and Howes would have been acutely aware of their surroundings and what was ahead of them.

Donnan questions the official route.[6] He stated that the soldiers would have known the area was out of bounds, that they would have been compelled to find out what areas were off-limits, and that checking routes was "like pulling a shirt on in the morning."

Former RUC officer 'Noel' adds:[7] "The army are good at routes, so when something happens they know where they are, plus they would have been warned going out the gate."

The Funeral Murders captures a critical revelation at [43:58].[8] An RUC inspector from Woodbourne Barracks told Chief Superintendent Cyril Donnan that the Corporals were driving "one of my unmarked patrol cars."

This contradicts the North Howard Street origin story entirely. The soldiers were initially identified by the RUC by a commanding RUC officer in Andersonstown because they were driving one of his unmarked cars from Woodbourne Barracks.

The implication is significant. They were already inside the republican heartland, having approached the Andersonstown Road from Kennedy Way, not ‘straying’ into it from the Falls Road direction.

Even after mounting the footpath, the Corporals could still have escaped had they turned up Slemish Way. Instead, they drove across the junction and continued to drive into mourners. They stopped when they drew parallel to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness but were separated by a steel pedestrian barrier on their left. They immediately reversed, driving across the junction of Slemish Way further than they needed if escape had been their intention. The car seems to straighten to make a repeat attempt to drive forward, this time keeping the barrier to their right. Two taxis moved forward to block their path.

Speculation among Republicans was that it was an assassination attempt on Adams and McGuinness - weaponising the car gave them a better chance than Stone's attack.

It was further speculated that the steel barrier's presence, visible at ground level but potentially missed on maps, suggests pre-planning that did not account for physical reality.

As an undercover car from Woodbourne, it was fitted with communication equipment. They could have made radio contact. Why didn't they receive radio warnings from the helicopter? Undercover operatives normally coordinate to avoid compromise.

The helicopter recorded the full 12 minutes of real-time events without intervention. Chief Superintendent Donnan was watching everything on his monitor. His "strict policy not to intervene" strains credibility given the live feed. They watched the soldiers being beaten, stripped and driven to waste ground before being killed.

Former Joint Communications Unit - NI technician Seán Hartnett, in his memoir Charlie One (2016), makes claims that are not credible.[9] He states: 

There was no special mission, no clandestine operation, and no cover-up, as has been suggested by some. Howes and Wood were the architects of their own demise.

Hartnett further claimed that the Corporals' car was civilian-registered and unflagged in police systems, creating fatal identification delays.[10]

Hartnett is not a first-hand witness and is repeating rumours he has heard. His claims are discussed in turn below.

An RUC Inspector identified the car as one of his. It was not a military car as Hartnett alleges, nor did it go unidentified because it was unmarked. If the helicopter crew relayed the car's registration to the control room, that would be even more damning for Donnan - because it would mean an RUC Inspector had confirmed to him that they were two soldiers as events were still unfolding. When Donnan makes that revelation in the documentary, a fire crew is extinguishing the burning car. Viewers are led to assume that the RUC only identified the car from being present at the scene while it burned.

Hartnett makes an additional unfounded claim regarding the magazine of Wood’s gun:[11]

As the vehicle was surrounded and Wood was being dragged out, he produced his pistol and fired a single warning shot in the air. While his restraint was admirable, it ultimately proved to be fatal. If you look closely at the image on the screen you can see that the magazine housing is empty. Either Wood had been sitting on his pistol for quick access while driving around and accidentally sat on the magazine ejector switch, or it was ejected during the scuffle to get him out of the vehicle. Either way, when he went to fire a second shot all he got was a dead man's click.

This account is contradicted by direct evidence. First, the IRA used the soldiers' own guns to kill them - Wood's gun was loaded. Second, and conclusively, I personally searched the driver's side of the car, including under the seat, and found no magazine.[12] Hartnett's account amounts to uninformed speculation or repeating rumours.

One would expect the passenger side window to be open if, Republican speculation was true, and Howes was to shoot Adams and McGuinness from the car. However, the footage shows a mourner smash the window to disarm Howes after his gun jammed. That the gun jammed follows Howes having attempted to fire through the closed window.

Within hours, IRA sources claimed the Corporals were two SAS members. Howes' ID was marked ‘Herford’ - a British Army base in Germany. This was allegedly misread as ‘Hereford’ - SAS headquarters. That may be true, but it is also possible the British authorities did not want the apparent attack associated with the same regiment that had unlawfully killed the Gibraltar 3. Regardless, as members of the Signals regiment with the Joint Communications Unit - NI, the Corporals were support personnel to the SAS.

Why were they using a local RUC unmarked car from Woodbourne? As an undercover vehicle, it was fitted with communication equipment from which they could have made radio contact. The absence of any communication like this, combined with the absence of any radio warning from the helicopter to the Corporals, remains unexplained on the official account. One explanation might be, undercover units practice radio silence at crucial moments of operations.

Why the Corporals Wood and Howes drove at speed into mourners has remained unresolved for nearly four decades. The official narrative - that two soldiers simply got lost - does not survive scrutiny. The Woodbourne vehicle identification places them already inside the republican heartland, in an unmarked RUC patrol car from a local barracks, approaching from a direction wholly inconsistent with a wrong turn from North Howard Street. The route analysis eliminates accident as a credible explanation. My first hand account directly contradicts the central factual claim advanced by Hartnett regarding the magazine from Woods gun. The behaviour of the vehicle - continuing past escape routes, drawing parallel to Adams and McGuinness, reversing and seeming to realign for a second pass - contradicts the actions of lost soldiers attempting to extricate themselves. Chief Superintendent Donnan’s inaction to a deadly incident he personally watched, sustained across 12 minutes of live overhead surveillance despite multiple observable triggers for intervention, is more consistent with prior knowledge than with institutional inertia alone. Taken together, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the Corporals were sent. I do not know what their intentions were, but they were determined to achieve something.

References

[1] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [16:26]

[2] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018):

[3] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [43:26]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2AX4zm6R10

[4] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [41:00]

[5] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [51:57]

[6] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [52:33-53:18] 

[7] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [53:20] 

[8] The Funeral Murders (BBC, 2018), [43:58] 

[9] Hartnett, Seán, Charlie One: The True Story of an Irishman in the British Army and His Role in Covert Counter-Terrorism Operations in Northern Ireland, Merrion Press, 2016, pp. 45-46.

[10] Hartnett, Seán, Charlie One, Merrion Press, 2016, p. 45.

[11] Hartnett, Seán, Charlie One, Merrion Press, 2016, p. 45.

[12] Hartnett, Seán, Charlie One,, Merrion Press, 2016, p. 45.

Additional Sources:

Irish Times, 'The funeral murders that changed Northern Ireland forever' (16 March 2018): 

Belfast Newsletter, 'Corporals' murders: I was operating under a policy not to deploy, says RUC commander' (11 March 2018):.

Two Corporals 🪶 19 March 1988 🪶 Did They Stray Or Were They Sent?

Tommy McKearney ☭ There may be a temptation on this side of the Irish Sea to regard as entertainment the recent scandals among the upper echelons of Britain’s ruling class. 


This would be a mistake, if only for the reason that what is happening within Britain’s governing Labour Party and its monarchy has the capacity to impact Ireland, on both sides of the border. Clearly, the Six Counties—which remain within London’s jurisdiction—are directly affected. Yet so too is the southern state, as a consequence of its connection with certain dark elements of the British establishment.
Let’s be clear: the outworking of the Epstein scandal cannot be dismissed as confined to the proverbial “few bad apples” syndrome. For Keir Starmer, who spent five years as the UK’s Director of Public Prosecutions, to claim that he simply accepted Peter Mandelson’s assurance that he had nothing to hide before appointing him ambassador to Washington is not credible. Is he attempting to say that his intelligence agencies failed to inform him of their mandatory vetting and due diligence findings?

Nor is the fact that Starmer’s advisor, Morgan McSweeney, could have been unaware of the real situation remotely plausible, if only due to the fact that Mandelson had previously been dismissed from cabinet positions on two occasions for malpractice. The only tenable explanation is that the prime minister and his team were either indifferent to the sleazy reality or viewed it as affording them leverage over the wretched individual in question.

And if there is a stink hanging over Downing Street’s incumbents, the stench emerging from the monarchy is stifling. From sharing sensitive and restricted financial information with the Epstein network, to an extremely disturbing relationship with underage girls, to flagrant misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds, the recently demoted Prince Andrew has behaved reprehensibly. He would surely be in prison were it not for his position within the monarchy.

A major point to bear in mind about the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor story is that his toxic behaviour was undoubtedly well known—and indeed recorded—by the reigning monarchs and the state’s intelligence agencies for years before being publicly exposed. As a senior member of the royal family, Andrew had a round-the-clock security detail affording him close protection. His security detail would have been charged with a serious dereliction of duty had it failed to rigorously check the identity and background of every person in close contact with their charge. Doing so would have required the involvement of many members of the intelligence agencies and, undoubtedly, the maintenance of records.

What other explanation could there be for the monarchy paying a multi-million-pound sum to settle out of court with Virginia Giuffre? Nor should we be misled by the apparent impartial and rigorous application of the law with the arrests of Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor. They are now the scapegoats. Moreover, being well aware of the rules of the game, they will be expected to “take a hit for the team” and say nothing.

When viewed in the round, it is obvious that there is a prevailing policy of deliberate obfuscation about how affairs of state are managed. Not only that, but there is an absence of transparency as to from where and by whom power is ultimately exercised in Britain. In practice, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the deep state exercises more influence than will ever be admitted.

How this set-up affects Ireland may be difficult to see at first. However, the deliberate concealment of state-tolerated criminality is hardly a revelation for anyone following news reports from the Six Counties. Indeed, the charging of a tiny number of British Army veterans may now be viewed as a cynical strategy to deflect attention from the dark hand of the deep state. Only the age-old call to break the Union will allow for this threat to be definitively addressed.

In relation to the Republic, the situation is somewhat different but disturbing nonetheless. Plans are currently afoot in Dublin to align the southern state’s defence within the armed forces of Britain, France, the EU, and NATO. There will not be a referendum on this crucially important issue. The decision to do so will be taken by the coalition cabinet without any wider consultation with the electorate.

Worryingly, therefore, Ireland’s place in the world may now be decided—not even by English parliamentarians, but by faceless actors in Britain operating in concert with other forces acting in the interests of imperialism.

There may be some temporary amusement to be obtained from the spectacle of these one-time pillars of the British establishment under arrest in the back of a police car. But before enjoying their plight, just bear in mind that nothing has changed in relation to the underlying power structure in Britain. It is best that we always remain aware of how that system operates in order to preserve its power, because only by understanding this can we hope to overcome its destructive potential.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist.
He is author of The Provisional IRA: From Insurrection to Parliament.
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

The Rotten Ruling Elite 🪶 Epstein Was Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

Dixie Elliot ✊To deny what everyone already knows is a sure way to keep others digging for the truth.
 
Gerry Adams could simply have said, when he was first asked about being a member of the IRA, that 'for legal reasons he could not admit to having been a member of the IRA,' and kept on repeating it every other time it was put to him.

He wouldn't have been admitting he was a member of the IRA nor would he have been denying it.
However Adams continues to not just deny having been a member of the IRA, he categorically denies it.

Giving evidence in the case against him Adams said: 'I was never a member of the IRA or it's Army Council, and I never held any role or rank within the IRA.'

This statement from the veteran journalist John Ware just about sums Adams' denials up:

. . . In his statement, he continued: “It clearly grated with many of them that when Adams said that he strongly supported the armed struggle, his denial of actual Provisional IRA membership allowed him to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Adams seemingly elevated himself to a higher moral plane than the Provisional IRA, when it was they who were sacrificing life and limb – as they would see it – for a cause Adams was leading.
In short, they saw Adams’s denial of Provisional IRA membership as insufferably hypocritical.

Denying the past only ensures that others will continue to dig into it until they uncover the truth.

Thomas Dixie Elliot is a Derry artist and a former H Block Blanketman.
Follow Dixie Elliot on Twitter @IsMise_Dixie

In Denial

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ Ever since the collapse of the USSR, deliberate as it was and engineered by various internal forces led by Boris Yeltsin who was, some argue, assisted by none other than Vladimir Putin and encouraged by the West, all fifteen states, now countries, of the former Soviet Union are in a mess. 

The capitalist experiment has not worked to any greater extent than it works anywhere else. Its faults are just masked in other countries like the USA and Britain. Russia, the largest state of the former USSR, is governed by gangsters, drug barons, prostitution is rife, and a President who lays claims to territory some of which frankly since the fall of the Soviet Union is not his. His armed forces are in disarray and are not performing brilliantly against a surprisingly strong enemy in Ukraine. The US President, Donald Trump, equally as negative as Vladimir Putin appears to be holding back* possibly because he wishes to have the power held by Putin himself in the US. It is arguably for this reason he is chipping away at the checks and balances which copper-fasten US liberal democracy. Could it be Trumps hope that by the time he is due for re-election he will have eroded these checks and balances sufficiently to allow him to suspend elections and impose a Putin style dictatorship in the USA?

On Tuesday night 24th February on BBC2 I watched a documentary; The Front Line: Inside Russia’s War, which painted a picture even by Western reporting biases of an army ill disciplined, badly officered, very low on morale - and men who did not want to be there. They don’t see this war as “saving the motherland” as they are constantly told it is. If they dare say so, the frontline is a pointless ‘meatgrinder’ with them and the Ukrainians as the meat. Putin may have had a point about the de-Nazification of Ukraine – one of his reasons for invasion – as Azov neo-Nazi troops are now incorporated into the regular Ukrainian armed forces and needed weeding out. Unlike their predecessors, the Red Army who trounced Nazi Germany, the Russian armed forces have not weeded out these Nazi troops of Azov active in Ukraine. This then gives rise to question Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian President who claims to be Jewish, why is he allowing Nazi troops into his armed forces? He is either not Jewish at all, it’s a lie, or he has no power or control over who fights for Ukraine? 

Putin had a problem and has made a right pig’s arse of sorting it out. In Ukraine, Russia controls parts of Luhansk Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, and parts of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and the Crimea. Of these only the Crimea arguably belongs to Russia – the Crimean War (1853-1856) was fought between the forces of the Russian Empire taking on those of Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire, making the Crimea arguably Russian even though they lost. Putin claiming people of the Donetsk Oblast and other regions are Russian speaking holds little water. Was this not the excuse Hitler used for annexing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1939, the population were ‘German speaker’s’? This is Putin’s argument, among others, an argument fuelled by the mindless attacks on Russian speakers by the Azov Nazis! If Zelensky cannot bring his fascist troops to heel then perhaps the Russian forces should remain! The Azov Regiment and these eastern regions should be part of any peace-deal surely. 

There is no doubt about it the Azov expanded regiment are a problem, one which Starmer and his cronies trying to use the Ukraine to make a name for themselves as world powers, which they are not. Why does Starmer never mention the presence of neo-Nazi troops, Azov, who model themselves on the Waffen SS ‘Das Reich regiment’ (their description of themselves), when discussing Ukraine? Him and his second rate; “coalition of the willing”, only mention Russian atrocities and never those of Azov - why? Could Starmer and his mob see an opportunity to exploit Ukraine for its natural resources after the war? Could this be why Starmer wants “boots on the ground” after the war is over, to protect British capitalist interests?

The problem here is and as bad as Azov are, the Russians are certainly no better. They bully their own men into fighting a war they do not want to be in. The officers are very bad at earning respect in commanding their troops and strategically appear clueless! The treatment of civilians is very bad. One girl in Russia who dared to protest against the war and Putin was thrown in prison, similar to the USA when demonstrators protested against Vietnam, protestors were even shot in the US! The documentary, using secret footage, showed Russian soldiers at the front line stripped naked and humiliated for showing signs of cowardice in the eyes of their officers. The Russian officers do not lead by example - they send men into battles they themselves will never have to fight in. This is very bad officering of the worst order, a bit like the British in WW1 giving orders from thirty miles behind the lines. I suppose the British could argue some officers did go ‘over the top’ but not good old Dougie Hague!! However, I’m deviating, the Russian troops at the front are regularly bullied and humiliated according to the documentary, filmed in areas not internationally recognised as Russian with men who had deserted or gone long-term AWOL. They painted a very grim picture of tortured Russian troops whose only wish is to be home with their wives and girlfriends.

As for the Ukrainian forces, much smaller but appear dedicated on the surface, they are not much better off. They too are forced into situations they have no wish to be in but at least they can say they’re defending their homeland. Could this be the reason so many young men of fighting age are leaving Ukraine at their first opportunity? The documentary did not show the state of Ukrainian forces but with the exodus of young males from the country we may assume it is not great. The global ruling-classes, including modern shit heap Russia, are good at doing what they always have done, sending working-class people to fight their wars! Remember less than forty years ago the Russian and Ukrainian troops were part of the same armed forces! The formidable Soviet Red Army comprised of Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian in fact troops from all fifteen former Soviet states so little wonder the Ukrainians are putting up such a fight.

Through bad planning, low morale, bad officers, terrible political leadership Russia are not winning this war. At very best a stalemate in Eastern Ukraine could be claimed with only the Crimea safely in Russian hands. It is my belief the peninsula should remain Russian with the sovereignty of the regions in the east being points of a negotiated ceasefire. One major question Ukraine must ask in the event of talks taking place; who will control the power supply in East Ukraine if the Russians are given these areas? Perhaps for this reason Zelensky must hold out for regions which provide power supplies for his country! The Ukrainians have their faults at the front but compared with the barbarism meted out by Russian officers on their young soldiers, soldiers who should be nurtured and guided, the Ukrainians appear the better option. Remember this documentary was shown on BBC2 perhaps with a Western bias so must be regarded as pro-Ukraine. Any progressive aspects within the Russian command, if there are any, may have been airbrushed out possibly on British government orders.

The Western media and governments have made no secret of their support for Ukraine against Russia. They are not reporting objectively and the BBC2 documentary may be regarded as the best of a bad bunch by the standards of reporting this war. This does not make the BBC neutral and it should be noted the programme did not show any of the faults in the Ukrainian military or government. They are conspicuous by their silence about the presence of the self-confessed neo-Nazis, the Azov regiment. Not a word! They are also very quiet on the issue of Ukraine joining NATO, something Putin is adamant will not happen. From his point of view it is easy to understand why Russia cannot afford any further incursions eastwards by NATO. Would Trump, or any other US President, allow Mexico to join a military alliance hostile to the US? Of course not, they would at very least threaten Mexico and, at worst, invade and occupy the country militarily! 

All things considered and given the slow progress Russia are making in Ukraine it might be time for Putin to cut his losses while still in a comparatively stronger position than Zelensky and sit round the negotiating table. He might not hold the eastern provinces for ever! It might be time for Putin to call a ceasefire and give negotiations a chance with a view to pulling out!! Call in your chips Vladimir, roulette is a funny game especially ‘Russian Roulette!!

* Trump maybe wary of Putin because although the Russian ground forces have not exactly set a blaze of glory in Ukraine, the last time the US were up against a credible enemy was Vietnam and they lost to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. The US troops were very good at fighting in Iraq against a militarily weaker armed force and with the help of the original ‘coalition of the willing’ but the Iraqis were not a credible enemy. Perhaps Trump, mad as he may be, does not want another humiliating defeat at Putin’s hands? Another factor dictating why Trump may be weary of Putin is the Russian has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth of any single country at his disposal and he, like Trump, being deranged, may just use them should ‘Mad Dog’ Donald Trump upset him!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Should Russia Negotiate?💣 Is It Time For Putin To Cash In His Chips While He Still Can?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifteen

 

A Morning Thought @ 3090

Jim Duffy ✍ There must be some relief that Micheal Martin's meeting with Trump went OK in so far as any meeting with Trump is ever OK.
 
Countries in normal times value access to the White House, and the smaller a country is the more important that access is. The trouble is that America has elected a complete nutter as president. He knows nothing. Reads nothing. Understands nothing. Drowns in his own prejudices and cluelessness. Often he can for no good reason turn on a visitor and attack them. So countries want the meeting, but dread meeting him. They long for the days when the US actually had an intelligent knowledgeable president, not a complete uneducated imbecile.

Trump typically went off on another of his crazy clueless rants but this time the target wasn't the visitor but bullshit about supposed 'windmills'. (He is so stupid he don't know their actual name. They are wind turbines.)
 
He also thinks they are all built by China (they aren't) and that China doesn't use them. China in fact is the number one user of wind turbines. It is slashing its use of coal and oil and switching to wind turbines. Its production of electricity by wind turbines exceeded 600 GW by late 2025. Of course, being clueless, Trump knows none of that.
 
He even thinks wind turbines causes cancer. They don't. Thinking they do shows he has no idea what cancer even is or how it is caused.
 
Martin must have been so relieved to know that Trump was off on another stupid clueless rant, and that clueless rant wasn't about Ireland or Martin. Trump really is the epitome of complete and utter stupidity. People used to mock George W Bush for being stupid. He was not stupid. He wasn't at the same level as most presidents in terms of intellect, but people who dealt with him noticed that he spent his presidency reading intensely. On occasion he shocked staff by reading seriously intellectual stuff.
He made mistakes and admitted it, unlike Trump. He consulted widely with experts. He listened. He questioned. He never sent people to war lightly, and frequently had nightmares over mistakes he made.

All presidents but Trump found sending people to war weighed heavily on them, causing sleepless nights, and nightmares. In contrast, Trump frequently skipped going to receive the remains of dead soldiers so he could go to play golf. That is well documented. He even talking about bombing a target that would cause deaths "for the fun!" No sane leader ever takes actions that would cause deaths "for the fun" unless they are a complete sociopath. But then Trump has long been defined by mental experts as both a sociopath and malignant narcissist.
 
Successive presidents literally had nightmares where a mistake they made had caused a nuclear attack on the US. Trump tried to cancel a critical early warning system in South Korea that would alert the US if North Korea launched nuclear weapons on the US - giving them enough time to shoot the missile down. He told his national security adviser "I don't care. It costs too much." When explained that North Korea could hit California with a nuclear missile within 19 minutes, he response was a chilling that he didn't care what happened to California as it did not vote for him! He wasn't joking. His Chief of Staff found it chilling.
 
He also kept asking the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff why he couldn't just use nuclear weapons, at least to blackmail countries in trade deals. The chairmen repeatedly struggled to make him understand that nuclear weapons are not to be used that way. In fact they are not intended to be used at all. They are there for deterrence to stop someone using one against you as they that even if they destroy you, you can destroy them - hence mutually assured destruction. The aim is for them never to be used. But Trump couldn't comprehend that. They were like some sort of macho toy to him.
 
G.W. Bush, like every predecessor, and like Obama and Biden, would not dream of going to war in Iran because all of them realised the nightmare of the Strait of Hormuz. If it was blocked, and with Iran having a perfect line of fire on every inch of it (it would inevitably be,) it could cause not just a worldwide recession but potentially a worldwide depression. They all knew that you just could not risk that, ever.
 
They also had advisers in the National Security Council to warn of the risks. Trump got thick in his first term because they kept telling him not to do stupid things he wanted to do. So when he took office in January 2025 he sacked all the advisers on the NSC. Every one. The skills built up since the days of Truman when the NSC was created, were wiped out. All institutional memory, gone. He surrounded himself by imbeciles in cabinet, appointed the ultimate know-nothing imbecile as Defense Secretary. Then he bungled into a war every other President since Carter knew never to do.
 
In fact, presidents often said that the very first thing they are told by their predecessor when they meet is "don't go to war with Iran. It will close the Strait of Hormuz and that will destroy the international economy. Never do it." Carter told Reagan. Reagan told Bush, though Bush already knew from being his Vice-President. Bush told Clinton. Clinton told George W Bush, who had also been told it by his father. Bush told Obama. Obama told Trump - who tried to ignore it until the NSC, and his entire team told him no to do it. Biden knew it, but was reminded by Clinton, Bush and Obama. It was literally the first thing they were told.
 
Netanyahu has been trying to get US presidents to go to war for years. Every US president had the cop-on to say "no!" But he found he was dealing with a full-on unread, unadvised, clueless imbecile.
A French retired general put it succinctly. Being asked now to defend the Strait of Hormuz in the middle of a war, when it has been mined, is akin to being invited onto the Titanic as it is sinking. Nobody would be that stupid.
 
Trump is now throwing a hissy fit that NATO isn't coming to his aid, showing that he doesn't even know what NATO is. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. It never ever supports a member who has chosen to go to war with someone else. It did not do it with Turkey when it attacked Cyprus. When it was faced with Greece and Turkey going to war, and both were in NATO, it warned both that it would support neither.
 
It only ever supports a member state under Article 5 if Article 5 is triggered by a country that has been attacked, not one that initiated the attack. So NATO under its rules cannot support the US as the US started the war. It could only support the US if the US had been attacked, not the attacker. The rules could not be clearer.
 
But Trump, unread, ignoring all facts, surrounded by imbeciles, doesn't understand that - just as he doesn't understand wind turbines, cancer, how the economy works, how tariffs work, or pretty much anything. America has elected the stupidest president in US history who knows the least, and he has bungled into the world's stupidest war where he is likely to do catastrophic damage to America's and the world's economy, and he is now complaining that nobody is willing to be as stupid as he was.
He is the Basil Fawlty of international affairs. At least Basil had Sybil to get him out of trouble. All Trump has is the even stupider Hegseth.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Stupid And Stupider


Azar Majedi 🎤 delivers a speech on the situation in Iran at an activist conference in the Norwegian capital, Oslo. 

Watch Video

⏩ Asar Majed is the Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

No To War 🪶 No To The Islamic Regime

Seamus Kearney 🎤 'Rougher than death the road I choose, yet shall my feet not walk astray. Though dark my way, I shall not lose, for this way is the darkest way'.

With Brendan Hughes off the scene, Stakeknife and the other British agents inside the IRA's Internal Security Unit carried on regardless and with almost complete impunity. However, one thing had changed, and Freddie Scapatticci informed his handler of that change. Since the execution of Joe Fenton a year earlier on 26th February 1989, the IRA leadership had installed 'checks and balances' which meant the ISU had no authority to execute suspected agents until a senior figure within the IRA had personally interviewed the suspect. That role would entail whether the suspect had given information under duress, or had torture been applied to extract a confession. Scappaticci referred to this senior figure as the ' Lord Chief Justice'.

When Freddie Scappaticci told his military handler that the IRA had invited him in to interrogate Sandy Lynch, an IRA operative from the Ardoyne area of North Belfast, the handler passed this information on to the TCG at Castlereagh. The TCG decided to set a trap for the IRA and kill a number of birds with one stone using Sandy Lynch as bait. Firstly, they could capture the 'Lord Chief Justice' along with a number of senior IRA personnel, Secondly, disrupt the Stevens Inquiry as intelligence was telling the TCG that Scappaticci was about to be arrested by John Stevens. And thirdly, they could demonstrate in a show of strength that they had the Belfast IRA by the throat.

Subsequently, on Wednesday, 3rd January 1990 Sandy Lynch was summoned to a meeting with his Special Branch handlers, who informed him that the Internal Security Unit was about to arrest him. The handlers assured him that he would be rescued and to go along with the plan, as the people who would interrogate him were actually agents like himself. Once Lynch heard this he calmed down and agreed to go along with the ruse.

Shortly after this encounter Sandy Lynch arranged to meet two IRA officers in North Belfast on 5th January 1990, one of whom was a British agent code named 'Agent Shirley Temple'. This particular agent was attached to the military Force Research Unit ( FRU) and had already devastated the IRA's Ardoyne Active Service Unit since 1985.

Lynch was driven to 124 Carrigart Avenue in the Lenadoon area of West Belfast and was arrested there by Freddie Scappaticci and his former Marine colleague. Agent 'Shirley Temple' accompanied Lynch into the house and was present when Scappaticci produced a metal detector and began to run the scanner over Lynch's body. When the scanner began to bleep furiously Scapatticci realised someone in the room was wired and it wasn't Sandy Lynch. He then complained that the detector was faulty and removed the battery, pretending to check the device for faults.

Presently, Lynch broke under interrogation and admitted he was a British agent on Saturday morning, 6th January 1990. As was standard procedure, Scapatticci and his former head of the ISU both left the house together and reported back to their respective handlers. Agent 'Shirley Temple' vacated the address also and up dated his FRU handler accordingly.

On the evening of Sunday, 7th January 1990, an unmarked van entered the square and parked a short distance from the target house. A neighbour eagerly watched as masked and armed men disembarked from the van, seemingly military personnel. Seconds later a second unmarked van appeared with an RUC team disembarking from the van. The neighbour watched intently as both parties argued over who was storming the target house, with the military squad standing down and climbing back into their van before speeding off.

The house was stormed and everyone at the address arrested, with the relieved Sandy Lynch being ferried away from the scene.

Significantly, the former Marine went ballistic when he realised that a tube of psoriasis cream with his name on it was still lying on the bed at Carrigart Avenue. That evening he left for Dundalk in the Free State, never to return. Scappaticci soon followed him along with Agent 'Shirley Temple'. In a follow up search of 124 Carrigart Avenue CID discovered the tube of psoriasis cream with a name on it, but no charges were pursued in this case, possibly because Special Branch overruled the CID in favour of their agent. However, the metal detector was recovered by CID and a finger print discovered on the battery - the fingerprint was that of Freddie Scappaticci and that fingerprint would come back to haunt him until his dying day.

Seamus Kearney is a former Blanketman and author of  
No Greater Love - The Memoirs of Seamus Kearney.

Stakeknife 🕵 The Rise And Fall 🕵 Act X

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fourteen

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)