These are some pre-trailed comments by the new, female, head of M16. She is an internal appointment. I’ve quoted from the Guardian, with their editorial gloss. [1]
“The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug, in the Russian approach to international engagement,” the agency’s first female chief will argue, and “until Putin is forced to change his calculus”
Putin has a “aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” mindset.
Putin should be in no doubt: our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained
To make the above nonsense stand up a bit the Guardian mentions the attempted poisoning of the former Russian agent Skripal, (who was released in a prisoner swap but who may still have been actively working for MI6), in 2018 and a rather amateur recent spy plot involving some Bulgarians.
I find it both odd and concerning that – if she really believes all this – the head of Britain’s Foreign Intelligence service has such a false grasp of the political and IR situation. I suspect she does, in a way, believe it. I say, in a way, because I think that what she is probably doing is regurgitating a brief. These people seem to rise to the top because they read reports, (for example – worst case scenario reports from NATO planners, reports they have commissioned about Russian ‘misinformation’), and can, very effectively, summarise them. For these people ‘truth’ is, simply, a statement which aligns with the existing narrative.
In order to analyse an IR situation you need several things: a) a desire to cut through narratives and seek out ‘truth’, b) a workable theory of IR – ideally knowledge of the main competing theories, c) knowledge of the relevant history; in this case a knowledge of the history of Ukraine and Russia/the USSR, d) detailed and objective knowledge of recent and contemporary events, and e) general intellectual capacity – the ability to think critically. I doubt that Blaise Metreweli has any of these attributes. But, in lacking intellectual ability, and a desire for ‘truth’ (the two go hand in hand – intellectuals are, by definition, interested in how things really are), she is no exception to virtually the entire UK-European media and political leadership classes.
A few comments. Yes; to some extent Russia is no doubt carrying out low-level sabotage attacks in Europe. Surprise, surprise! For the last 4 years the UK has been sending vast amounts of modern weapons to Ukraine which they have been using to kill Russians with. Russia’s destabilisation campaign, in Europe, to whatever extent it is, is a predictable response to this. (This site predicted that Russia would escalate in this way years ago). To relentlessly kill the the other side and then cite their reaction as the result of their inherent “aggression” is intellectually ludicrous.
‘Putin has a “aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” mindset.’. So; she has bought into the “unprovoked war of choice” fictional narrative and presents this as her intelligence analysis! Heaven knows how much she is paid, but the British people are not getting their money’s worth. Is there any evidence of this supposed ‘”aggressive, expansionist, and revisionist” mindset.’? There is none. (And the media, of course, never ask these people to provide it). All the statements from Putin going back to 2008 have been 100% consistent. Ukraine in NATO is a red-line for them. They will protect the ethnic Russians and fellow-travellers in Eastern Ukraine from a regime in Kiev which seeks to impose a mono Ukrainian nationalist culture on the whole country, ideally by permitting regional autonomy within Ukraine, and, if that fails, by annexing the region. This is what they said they would do and this is what they are visibly doing. Where is the evidence that Putin is trying to re-create the USSR? There is none. (If he was he would certainly have taken chunks from Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states; much softer targets – but not threatening to join NATO, which is why he didn’t). My gosh. But it becomes understandable when we understand that in the West a huge epistemological shift has taken place. There is, simply, no longer a concept of truth, in the sense of “how things actually are”. They operate purely according to narratives. Blaise Metreweli knows what the narrative is and she repeats it and so rises to the top. Ironically enough – this is how things worked in the Communist Party system in the USSR where ‘truth’ was what the Party said it was.
‘Putin should be in no doubt: our support is enduring.’. Do catch up. Ukraine is in the process of publicly losing. Precisely because of the policies of the West, quite soon there may be little left to support. Just as Putin has pointed out; the longer Kiev puts off agreeing to Russian demands the worse situation they will be in. Unattractive and even ugly though this logic is, it is observably true. Kiev could have settled, for example in 2019, accepted autonomy for Donbas and not gone forwards with the NATO plan, and that would have been it. Or, in March 2022 they could have lost Donbas but saved the rest of the country and everyone’s lives. And so on. The reality is that this ‘enduring support’ has been the kiss of death for Ukraine. On this point, she must know she is lying. She must know Ukraine is losing and our ‘support’ is not going to do anything to prevent that.
Overall; it is the absence of intellect – ability to think critically, the curiosity to study theory and history, a willingness to be honest in one’s thinking – that has simply vanished from the West. Blaise Metreweli is just an example. Just worrying that she is the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service.
.
Notes