Western (and especially US) foreign policy makes absolutely no sense – whether from a moral perspective or from the perspective of what benefits Western citizens.
This point is illustrated by a recent video of Foreign Secretary Liz Truss being quizzed by Labour MP Chris Bryant. The video begins with Truss describing the Gulf states as “partners of the United Kingdom”, though she clarifies that not “every country we work with is exactly in line with United Kingdom policy on everything”.
Bryant then asks her about Jamal Khashoggi (the journalist who was brutally murdered on the orders of the Saudi Crown Prince). Rather than condemning the murder, Truss skirts around the issue, explaining that Saudi Arabia “is an important partner of the United Kingdom”.
Bryant proceeds to ask Truss for a single example of where she held the Gulf states to account on human rights issues, but she is unable to name one.
Truss’s brazen realpolitik on Saudi Arabia contrasts with her zealous moralising on Russia. Back in February, she actually encouraged Brits to go and fight as mercenaries in Ukraine – something that’s not only illegal under international law, but possibly under British law too. Truss’s suggestion had to be quickly rolled back by her colleagues.
For Truss, who will most likely be our next Prime Minister, Russia is an authoritarian regime that must be condemned. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, is “an important partner of the United Kingdom”. Does this make any sense at all?
Saudi Arabia is a more authoritarian state. And like Russia, it has a record of bombing civilians in neighbouring countries. According to the Yemen Data Project, almost 9,000 Yemenis have been killed in Saudi air strikes since 2015. There’s also the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Yemen, for which Saudi Arabia is partly responsible.
As a matter of fact, the Saudis have been bombing Yemen with weapons supplied by Britain and the U.S., which has earned us censure from organisations like Human Rights Watch.
The reason we pander to Saudi Arabia is obvious: they have oil. (Another reason is that the country serves as a regional counterweight to Iran, Israel’s main geopolitical rival. And I guess the enemy of the enemy of my friend is my friend.)
Now, pandering to the Saudis because they have oil is actually not a bad reason. After all, the West needs a lot of oil, and we don’t produce nearly enough to satisfy our demands. (Canada, Norway and Denmark are the only net exporters.) However, it’s obviously not a moral reason.
In fact, if our policy towards Saudi Arabia was based on moral considerations, it would look rather different. For example, we might refuse to buy their oil.
Which raises the question: why are we refusing to buy Russian oil? It can’t be the moral reason that we won’t do business with authoritarian regimes that bomb their neighbours, since we are doing business with Saudi Arabia, our “important partner”.
So is it a strategic reason?
I can’t see how. If Western sanctions had turned the rouble to “rubble”, as Joe Biden promised, the war might have been over quickly, with Russia significantly weakened. But they’ve had no such effect. And it’s unclear how paying vastly more for energy is in the strategic interest of Europeans.
As Richard Hanania argues, Western foreign policy is best understood as the outcome of various interest groups (like defence contractors and foreign governments) jostling for influence. It isn’t based on any moral or strategic principles.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Have Britian’s elites not always wanted to put down the dominant European force?
France historically, but then Russia in the 19th century and then Germany. And since WWII, Russia again.
Those calmish 10-15 years after the fall of the USSR were probably just a blip.
Yes indeed- neither competently cynical and selfish in all cases nor consistently moral. The worst of both worlds.
You could argue that Russia and its sphere of influence is a more
convincing threat to us than Saudi Arabia is, but I don’t think that stands up to close examination. Is it too charitable to our clown leaders to suggest they are having trouble moving in from the home when the Warsaw Pact was indeed a real threat to us? Perhaps there is an element of that, and an element of right place, right time – an external bogey man is useful to hide the damage wrought by stupid lockdowns.
It’s futile to search for reason, common sense, rationality and logic in the official western narrative about Ukraine. They’ve left the room long ago.
Of course, Ukraine is ‘different’ due to the direct exploitation by the Biden family over the last decade or so.
The reason why the UK, along with Germany ( which was becoming altogether too friendly/cooperative with Russia for US peace of mind ), and most of the EU, is refusing to buy Russian oil, etc is because they’ve been told to/had pressure put on them by the USA/western oligarchs to do so, as this weakens the EU and UK, impoverishes their populations, causes civil unrest which hrlps to destablise governments in those countries that might otherwise stand up to the USA/behave independently, and isolates them from alliance with their natural neighbours in Asia and makes them more reliant on and ready to pay the inflated prices of US oil. The USA is prepared to do a lot of damage to its “allies”/vassal states in order to hold onto its dominant role which is increasingly threatened and crumbling. The UK govt position on Russia makes perfect sense.
And it’s a very good cover story ( fuel shortages etc ) to justify increased austerity etc in the closest ally-countries; well organised chronic low level desperation being a very effective way of keeping people quiet/obedient.
‘Truss’s brazen realpolitik on Saudi Arabia contrasts with her zealous moralizing on Russia.’
That is precisely what realpolitik is.
The only principle is to have no principles, something Putin understands only too well, as any fule should have worked out well before this war, set to run and run, started in 2014.
And, if we really want to exploit Brexit, we should have no principles either; forget UN OECD IMF WHO World Bank ECHR nonsense and really set ourselves free.
I think the point he’s trying to make is that we’re not consistent – we apply realpolitik in some cases and not in others – at least apparently. Do you really think we’re putting the boot into the Russians because our leaders believe in defending plucky Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do? Seems unlikely, so the search for the true motive continues, because on the face of it there’s no logic.
That is precisely the definition of realpolitik.
It is crystal clear why we are supporting Ukraine.
Our government perceives that to be in our best long term interests.
Should Russia control Ukraine Moldova, the Baltic States, it may, in due course, once more dominate Eastern Europe.
That is not perceived to be in the best interests of Europe and, consequently, not in our best interests either.
Speculation as to the likelihood of any of that happening is pointless. The fact is that it cannot be ruled out. Putin’s replacement may be even more aggressive.
Far better to make some kind of a stand now ‘pour encourager les autres’
You go and make a stand and see what that gets you.
This country has taken a stand in support of Ukraine.
We can see, very clearly, the effects of that every day now.
But you go ahead and never take a stand on anything and “see what that gets you”.
this country has taken a stand in support of one of two corrupt countries and is using citizens of that country as a cannon fodder. In confronting authoritarian and brutal russian regime the west now has to beg for allegiance from former arch enemies no less brutal, like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.
the effects of this utmost illogical actions are clear indeed: Russia occupies 20% of Ukraine and growing, Ukrainian civilians and solders continue dying, Europeans are getting poorer with each and every day with nightmare winter looming which will only increase Russian position.
you can only propagate this nonsense if you brainwash your population and that’s what’s been happening since the beginning. I’d hope to think people would start understanding and see past propaganda rubbish. Or maybe it needs to become substantially colder outside for this to happen.
Should Russia control Ukraine Moldova, the Baltic States, it may, in due course, once more dominate Eastern Europe.
That is not perceived to be in the best interests of Europe and, consequently, not in our best interests either.
Speculation as to the likelihood of any of that happening is pointless. The fact is that it cannot be ruled out. Putin’s replacement may be even more aggressive.
“The fact is that it cannot be ruled out.”
Well nothing can ever be completely ruled out, but how likely is it and is it worth the costs?
That is exactly the judgement that the government has made.
Who to believe: some random poster on DS or HMG?
A surprisingly close call, given the last two years.
“That is exactly the judgement that the government has made.”
Is it really? Gosh, I would love to see their workings. It’s equally possible that there’s no judgement beyond what they think is immediately politically expedient for them.
Perhaps the workings of the “judgement” are filed in the same place as all the cost benefit analyses they did before screwing the country up for two years and counting because of a bad flu season.
Democracy: the least worst system of government.
I would probably go along with that. Made so by the vigilance of the voters, somewhat devalued when the voters stop paying attention and somehow assume HMG knows best.
Yes
I think Hitler tried similar in the 1920’s/30’s.
O.K., there were doubtless many other compelling reasons to account for his demise – but the above alone would have been enough for The Real Powers That Be at the time.
Just imagine, if enough countries were to say the same to those who really control us now.
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Vanguard, Black Rock…
“We ain’t going to pay this Ponzi debt which you have created and encouraged”.
“Western foreign policy is best understood as the outcome of various interest groups…It isn’t based on any moral or strategic principles.”
The last two years have convinced me of this. More to the point I now find myself questioning the whole of human history.
Was Pearl Harbour a genuine attack on the USA or an act of provocation?
I read in the Corbett Report, I think a long article questioning our understanding of the First World War, apparently it was driven by armaments.
So, were the Crusades really about religion?
What was 1066 really about?
I used to love reading British history. Now I wonder what if any of our history is really as reported.
Naiive obviously
.
You can explain so much by simply following the money. True for COVID, true for Ukraine and a lot of other cases.
Very true for the supporters of the Russian invasion.
There is a great deal of Putin’s money swelling the coffers of oddballs and their disreputable organisations across Europe.
difficult to respond to such vague comments.
who are these supporters of the invasion? which organizations in Europe?
Oh for heaven’s sake.
A two minute search is all that is required.
“Without our active engagement and tangible support for the European conservative parties, their popularity and influence in Europe will continue to wane,” stated an internal document created by Yakushev and circulated among Tsargrad’s officers.
“…..the European Parliament Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights detailed numerous cases of Russian financial dealings with far-right parties”
Newslines magazine detailed the extensive links between the European far-right and Moscow, with Kremlin operatives allegedly drafting pro-Russian talking points and amendments for their far-Right allies to propose in the European Parliament.
The connections between Malofeev and Europe’s far right are well attested and go back years.
“Malofeev has carried out the Kremlin’s tasks, which have included interfering in the Bosnian and Polish elections,” according to Kalev Stoicescu, a researcher of Russian affairs at the International Centre for Defence Studies, a think tank in Tallinn, Estonia. “He has organized the meetings of European far rightists. He has mediated an 11 million euro [$12 million] loan from Russian banks to Marine Le Pen’s party.”
Ah, but you’re forgetting that Russia is behind a lot of other things Truss doesn’t like: Brexit, Donald Trump, illegal immigration, global warming, rail strikes, poor A level results, and general unhappiness.
…my tomatoes haven’t done as well this year…I mean if we are blaming him for everything…..?
Really interesting.
The obvious disconnect between narrative and real motivation with COVID, Ukraine, global warming really makes one wonder if any of the historical narratives (histories) we accept as fact are equally disconnected from the real motivations.
Are we the baddies???
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IotkvkYe057U/
The clip of Truss with Chris Bryant is quite old, as I saw it some time ago. (BTW, I am commenting in response to receiving today’s Daily Sceptic email, but I see that most comments are many hours earlier. Why do I, as a DS subscriber – admittedly at a small cost – get penalised by receiving this news so late? I don’t have the energy or time to actually go to the DS website every day.) Truss is made to look totally stupid, dishonest, whatever (sorry to use that word)! Chris Bryant is on point. The thought of Truss as our next PM is terrifying. But, then, I have to say there is no one in any party that I could possibly trust.
A good piece by Noah.
“And it’s unclear how paying vastly more for energy is in the strategic interest of Europeans.”
It is absolutely in the interest of the venal, dishonest, virtue signalling GangGreen scumbags whose toxic little hands are on the tiller.
Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros and the rest. Even the Bliar is urging it on.
I suppose the difference is that Russia is at war with a country that is much closer to home than the Yemen, and Russia continues to threaten other countries even closer and part of Nato. Although its more possible that Russia with a different leader and global attitude could be a friendly country to us and our allies. Saudi Arabia might show superficial friendship, but it has no possible interest in adopting our values and continues to maintain despicable attitudes in almost every respect.