Is ‘Deep State’ Trying to Block Corbyn Govt? Labour Leader’s Adviser Fears Top Secret Conspiracy

Of course they are! Deep State cannot afford to have a UK PM who is not onboard with demonizing Russia. It would wreck their plans to sell Europe kazillions of dollars of weapons systems and continue to build their NATO Empire.

Demonizing Russia also gives the USA the moral authority to punish China and India, etc., with sanctions

for buying Russian advanced weapons systems. Never mind competing with Russia;

never mind free enterprise; it's buy from US or else. 

Jeremy Corbyn arrives to address a gathering of supporters demonstrating in Parliament Square. June 27, 2016.

© Toby Melville / Reuters

Jeremy Corbyn’s top adviser has questioned whether the ‘deep state’ is maneuvering to block any possibility of a Labour government under his leadership, because the establishment deplores his approach to foreign policy.

Corbyn adviser Andrew Murray has not, to date, been granted a parliamentary security pass, and asks in an article he’s penned in the centre-left publication, the New Statesman, whether such a move is a “political stunt” committed by the “deep state,” in an attempt to prevent a Corbyn administration ever coming into power.

Murray has questioned whether the Mail on Sunday revelations he’s been refused “Commons security clearance” in addition to being “banned from entering Ukraine,” is all just a “curiously-timed episode.”

The Labour adviser writes: “We are often told that the days of secret state political chicanery are long past and we must hope so. But sometimes you have to wonder – this curiously timed episode seems less rooted in a Kiev security scare than in a political stunt closer to home.”

The former chair of Stop the War and current chief of staff to Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, references the Mail on Sunday, which claims a Ukrainian secret service officer told them Murray’s Ukraine ban is because he’s “part of Putin’s global propaganda network.”

Which means, he doesn't adhere to the NATO/DeepState propaganda network. This is unforgivable!

Murray denies such a claim, suggesting the ban is in retaliation to a speech he “made more than four years ago protesting the takeover of Ukraine by ultra-nationalists.”

That's when the Orange Revolution, with help from western powers, overthrew a legally elected government because they were friendly to Russia. They were replaced with a NATO-friendly un-elected government that was and is hostile to Russia. Western/NATO involvement was in contravention to unwritten agreements between Russian President Gorbachev and NATO powers.

It’s Corbyn’s attitude to foreign affairs that Murray says the “deep state” cannot live with, claiming a prospective Labour government would put an end to acting aggressively on the world stage.

He says: “The powers-that-be can perhaps live with a renationalised water industry but not, it seems, with any challenge to their aggressive capacities, repeatedly deployed in disastrous wars, and their decaying Cold War world view.”

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, has told BBC Radio 4s ‘Today Programme’ that Murray’s “deep state” interference claims are “highly unlikely,” and called  for Corbyn’s adviser to produce the evidence, “otherwise it’s just fake news.”

Watson said: “I genuinely don’t know why he has reached that conclusion and presumably he has more knowledge of that than me.”

Murray signs off his article with an apparent dig at the British intelligence services, stating: “Britain could soon have an anti-war government. Vet that, comrades.”

NATO - An Insane Exercise in Empire Building?

Russia could gain military dominance over NATO,

commander says

By Danielle Haynes

U.S. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, supreme allied commander, Europe, gives a press conference at the end of the 178th Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence Session at NATO alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on Wednesday. Photo by Stephanie LeCocq/EPA-EFE

UPI -- Growing modernization could give the Russian military dominance over NATO if the military bloc fails to adapt, the top commander said Wednesday.

U.S. Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO supreme allied commander, Europe, said in a news conference in Brussels that he has concerns about Russia's military.

"I think that, as an alliance, we are dominant. There are domains within this that were challenged. I think cyber is one of those. [Russia is] very competent in that," he said.

"There are others where because of the modernization you noted, while we are dominant, we will not be in five years per se if we aren't adapting like this to include our structure but also within the nations, our capabilities, across the military functional areas as well as our domains."

Scaparrotti's comments come amid two days of talks in Brussels in which alliance defense heads are working on plans to building two new command headquarters to counteract Russian aggression. The new headquarters would allow a faster movement of NATO forces across Europe.

Not one, but two new command headquarters. Is that not empire building plain and simple? How would two new command headquarters allow for the faster movement of troops unless NATO is planning on amassing very large numbers of troops in these command centers. If they do that, is that not escalating the threat to Russia? Will that not invite a response? Of course it will. That's part of the plan. They respond, then we respond with something else, then they respond, etc., etc. It's madness!

"A resurgence of Russia as a strategic competitor, growing unrest and instability in Africa and the Middle East, as well as terrorism, [are] reshaping our strategic environment," he said.

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization! What have they to do with Africa and the Middle East? Absolutely nothing! Are they aiming for global domination? Is there purpose to protect Europe and North America from Russia? Why do the appear to be the aggressors?

The relationship between Russia and much of the West, including NATO, has been strained since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

We've been through this before, but very quickly - Russia was promised by the west that they would not attempt to absorb eastern Europe when the Iron Curtain fell ending the CSSR. 

Since then, western governments and NGOs (read George Soros' Open Society Foundation) arranged the Orange Revolution that overthrew the elected President, a Russia-friendly leader. He was replaced in the coup by a western-friendly President who quickly moved the country toward membership in NATO.

This was a dramatic provocation and a serious threat to the continuation of Russia's only naval base in the Black Sea, at Sevastopol, Crimea.

Does it matter that Crimea was captured without a shot being fired? Or that the majority of Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine and re-join Russia? 

So the obvious question is, where is the big Russian threat? Are other border countries seeing activity that would cause them to believe that a Russian invasion was imminent? If Russia is building up arms on its borders is it not in response to western build-ups? Who is the aggressor here, and why?

I believe NATO is the aggressor and I believe they are doing it for two reasons neither of which have anything to do with Russia. They are: 1) selling weapons like cotton candy at a carnival, 2) they are empire building, perhaps with global ambitions.

I have said in the past that I thought Vladimir Putin had ambitions of rebuilding the Soviet empire. I have seen very little in the last 3 years to support that theory. It is not Russia that frightens me now, but NATO scares the hell out of me.

And NATO in cahoots with Donald Trump, who is rebuilding the economy of the USA by selling billions of dollars worth of arms to countries all over the world, is simply insane. The policy of destabilizing as many sectors in the world as possible is very profitable for American and many western economies. And that's what it's all about! 

NATO - Empire Building, Escalating the Drama with Russia

NATO Plans to Add Two New Commands to Counter

Imaginary Russian Threat

BY: Jack Heretik   

NATO is set to approve the creation of two new commands to strengthen alliance weaknesses in a potential conflict with Russia, according to allied officials.

NATO defense ministers will review a new command structure—meant to improve allied logistics and protect supply lines—at their quarterly meeting next month, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The recommendations include one new command to manage NATO logistics, which would focus on moving people and materiel more quickly, and one new command for the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, which would focus on protecting sea lanes, critical for supplying Europe, from submarine threats.

The potential command changes come amid rising tensions between NATO and Russia. Alliance leaders have warned that member countries must be able to move quicker to effectively deter and counter Russian forces.

Rising tensions are entirely caused by the spectacular build-up of NATO troops and weapons on Russia's European borders this year. Yes, I have complained in recent years of Putin's ambition to rebuild the Russian Federation to at least equal the Soviet empire, but the situation in Ukraine was brought about by the western sponsored coup of a Russia-friendly government. I don't believe it is an example of Russian aggression as much as cutting their losses against western aggression.

My fear is that NATO is now moving that theatre of aggression from Ukraine into the entirety of northeast Europe. However, other than Belarus, there are no Russia-friendly countries in northeast Europe, and Belarus is very stable with a strong dictator maintaining ties with both Russia and the west. Alexander Lukashenko has been running Belarus since 1994 although he is still just in his early 60s.

One potential source of conflict is the Kaliningrad Oblast, on the southern Baltic. It belongs to Russia but is not attached to it. As Russia's only seaport on the southern Baltic, Russia will protect it from aggression as they did Sevastopol in the Crimea, their western-most Naval base in the south. 

"The alliance has to move as quick or quicker than Russian Federation forces for our deterrent to be effective," Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the top Army commander in Europe, said earlier this month. "Speed is what will give our civilian leaders options other than a liberation campaign."

NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said the command structure review is meant to focus on military mobility so the alliance can "deploy forces quickly across the alliance." She added that NATO members are "adapting national legislation to allow military equipment to transit faster across borders and are working on improving national infrastructure."

The potential changes are partly in response to calls from some Eastern European alliance members to better prepare for crises.

"We have to revise how fast we make decisions and prepare better," Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė told the Journal.

The new commands' headquarters would be at the same level as NATO's Joint Forces Commands, located in Brunssom, Netherlands and Naples, Italy.

Plans for a new NATO command structure review come as the United States places more military resources in Europe to deter Russian aggression. This week alone, the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade arrived in Belgium with 89 helicopters that will go to Germany, Latvia, Romania, and Poland. Congress is evaluating whether to permanently station a tank brigade along with other units in Europe permanently.

This is great business for the companies who make military helicopters and tanks. What a brilliant idea - NATO has a reason for its existence and the military industrial establishment continues to suck up astonishing amounts of international resources that could be used for useful purposes.

NATO is reviewing a new logistics command partly because of the difficulties NATO faces with moving personnel and equipment across borders. Often a country has to give approval ahead of time for certain weapons and equipment to cross its borders, and many European roads and bridges cannot handle the weight of an American battle tank, the U.S. Army's five-axle tank transport trailers, or heavy air-defense batteries, further complicating movements.

At sea, Russia has recently invested in newer submarines with more advanced technology, triggering calls for a new Arctic and Atlantic command.