He Didn't Keep Us Out Of War

For the benefit of UK readers, perhaps an explanation may be in order. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the campaign slogan of “He kept us out of war”. Wilson won handily and, In 1917, the US entered WW1.

In a video yesterday Alexander Mercouris devoted the last ten minutes or so discussing the trials and tribulations (“the exhausting melodrama”) of Boris Johnson—mostly of his (Boris’) own making. Mercouris avoids a full bill of particulars against Johnson, but the episode that (understandably) really sticks in Mercouris’ craw is the role Johnson played as running dog lackey for the Neocons, scuppering what looked like a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. It had been hammered out in seven drafts in Istanbul in March - April of 2022, and then Johnson made his famous emergency flight to Kiev to tell Zelensky: ‘Over your dead body!’—or something like that. ‘It’s gotta be war to the hilt!’

Interestingly, Mercouris seems to be of the view that part of a British PM’s job description is to talk the Americans out of crazy ass wars (what follows is partially a summary, but a very close one—basically to clean up the oral presentation):

One thing Johson did do as Prime Minister was, he played an absolutely key role in authoring the disaster that we see in Ukraine today. At some point as his political support began to fall he latched on to Ukraine as the big issue that would establish him as the new Churchill. He played, in my opinion, a disastrous role in this affair. He set Britain on the course of being as extreme in its anti-Russian positions as possible. This played very well with the right wing of the Conservative Party--whose support he needed to remain PM--but it locked Britain into a position of support for Ukraine which has isolated Britain. Britain will be unable to play a role in any future negotiations [the Russians would now never stomach that] and may actually set Britain up to play the role of scapegoat.

All that pales before the disaster in Ukraine that Johnson created. In March 2022 Ukraine and Russia were on the brink of peace, having agreed to the framework of a treaty. Washington wasn't happy, but a British PM could have argued in support of the deal--that is what earlier generations of prime ministers would have done. It's what Winston Churchill would have done in the 50s--you only have to read the records of the discussions that took place in the Churchill cabinet in the time of the Korean War to see this. It's what MacMillan would have done. It's what Harold Wilson would have done. It's what Margaret Thatcher would probably have done. They would all have told the Americans, 'Look, it's gone as far as it can. The two sides have agreed to peace. Let us help them to build that peace.'

Johnson did the opposite. He allied himself with the Neocons in Washington, who will never accept peace at almost any price. He telephoned Zelensky and told him to back out of the peace agreement, warning him that if he entered the deal Britain and the US--[who had armed Ukraine to the teeth]--would not be prepared to offer security guarantees to Ukraine. Look at the pictures coming out of Ukraine, the harrowing accounts of the hospitals overflowing with the wounded. Johnson wasn't the sole begetter of all that, but his personal responsibility is especially heavy.

To balance the books, I suppose, we could mention the Suez Crisis and the Falklands War. The Falklands War, where Reagan unwisely rescued Thatcher from a disaster (see here for a variety of links), is especially important. This was Britain launching a round the world the north-south way war that caused damage to US relations with Latin America that persists to this day. The damage to Britain has been just as serious because, arguably, Britain lost control over any semblance of foreign policy independence it retained at that point. Britain owed the US big time after that war, and the US has called in those chips repeatedly—note that Mercouris’ listing of brave British PMs willing to talk reason to the Americans ends with a ‘probably’ (in italics) for Thatcher. But it was arguably Thatcher herself who cost Britain its influence over the US and reduced Britain to a supporting actor role in the ensuing US military adventurism that began with the end of the Cold War—out with the Cold in with the Hot.

Lots of what ifs. But the question is, After the Falklands, was any British PM really in a position to talk back to the US Ruling Class? The price of regaining independence from America would likely have been subordination to Europe—which a sizeable faction does prefer. I’m not defending Johnson—far from it. Still, it’s worth asking whether any PM could have done any differently, except to tone it down a bit.

By the way, I forgot to include in the last post—In Search Of An Endgame—three videos. The first one with Doug Macgregor is actually an older one from before the fall of Bakhmut, but it contains some excellent discussion that relate to the topics of today. The second and third also relate closely. I haven’t discussed the Middle East recently but …