https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/was-there-a-palace-coup-at-the-white
Antony Blinken's foreign policy conduct has been a textbook recipe for a mutiny in the military ranks.
Alex Krainer
Sep 21, 2024

Did we just have a palace coup in Washington?

The events have taken a very strange turn in Washington DC this month. Britain's new cabinet has made it a priority to escalate the West's proxy war against Russia and to bring the U.S. and other allies onboard by hook or by crook. Part of the agenda was enabling the Ukrainians to strike at Russia with western supplied long-range precision missiles. This wouldn't be a new thing exactly, but the escalation they are gunning for is quite substantial, involving possibly even nuclear weapons.

Alex Krainer's TrendCompass is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The groundwork for this escalation was being prepared for months. In March this year, the Biden administration approved a new "Nuclear Employment Guidance" in preparation to fight and "win" a three-front nuclear war against Russia, China and North Korea. They followed up with plans to deploy long-range nuclear missiles in Germany and Holland. The preparations were being coordinated between the Neocons in the Biden administration, led by the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, NATO and the members of British cabinets, both under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and under the new PM Keir Starmer.
Starmer’s diplomatic charm offensive

Since its inauguration on July 5, 2024, the new Labour government in Britain immediately engaged in a flurry of diplomatic activity and meetings with many government leaders across Europe, Asia and the Middle East, much of it a charm offensive to “reset” the previously strained or neglected relationships. Within the cabinet’s first ten days, their Defence Minister John Healey visited Ukraine, Foreign Minister Lammy called his Ukrainian and American counterparts on his first day on the job, then on July 6 flew straight to Germany to meet with the German FM Annalena Baerbock, then to Poland the next day to meet with FM Radek Sikorski, and after that, straight to Sweden to meet then FM Tobias Billstrom.

On July 9, his fifth day on the job Keir Starmer flew to Washington for the NATO summit and a meeting with president Biden. On July 16, Starmer’s government published the new “Strategic Defense Review” – a “root and branch” revision of UK’s defence, so that it is “secure at home and strong abroad for decades to come.” Of course, all these ambitious initiatives ultimately depend on the special relationship itself. Without it, Britain would be punching way, way above its weight.
Trump-proofing the “special relationship”

In terms of military power, the UK is pretty much a lightweight with a handicap, so securing the American protection was top priority. Accordingly, the Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA) between the U.S. and Great Britain needed an urgent upgrade. The agreement was last renewed in 2014 and was set to expire on 31 December 2024. The new major upgrade was formulated by the British government in July of this year: it would make the MDA indefinite, turning it into a de-facto treaty. The idea was to Trump-proof the Agreement in case the DNC fails to steal the presidential elections again this November. The treaty also joins the two nations’ nuclear programs.

Indeed, the nuclear saber-rattling does seem to emanate largely from out of London. For example, Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Britain's oldest and most prestigious think-tank, proposed already in 2022 that the West should resort to nuclear brinkmanship in order to destabilize Russia. It was this same Malcolm Chalmers who was jubilant about the new Mutual Defense Agreement, seeing it as a diplomatic win for the UK: "It is good news for the UK that it doesn't need to worry about a future US administration using a future renewal [of the MDA] as leverage." How clever! Now we can stir the pot around the world and if things get ugly, the Americans have to come to our rescue. This is a good position from which to manipulate the U.S. into fighting Britain’s wars of choice.

This episode once more reinforces the impression that the "special relationship" between the US and the UK is a Master-Blaster arrangement (for those old enough to remember Master-Blaster from the movie Mad Max 3). In this arrangement, Blaster is the powerful, muscular giant who is manipulated around by his Master, a vicious old dwarf riding on the giant's back. Once you start to pay attention to this dynamic, you’ll find more and more evidence that the drive and the ideas shaping the west's permanent wars, especially against Russia, originate from London.
Parading the alliance

All the diplomatic activity under Starmer government also involved much public parading of the “special relationship” with the view of projecting the image of a powerful, rock-solid alliance that remains 100% committed to defending the international “rules-based order” and intimidating any uppity newcomer who would dare to challenge it. On 7 September we saw, for the first time ever, Sir Richard Moore, the head of Britain’s MI6, and William Burns the CIA chief, appear together and on stage!
The body language is interesting: CIA’s Burns’s body is turned away, legs crossed and arms folded, looking at Moore over his shoulder. Sir Moore’s open, facing Burns and the audience directly.

For anyone who missed the occasion, the talented Mr. Moore published a tweet about it, linking to the video recording of the event. Two days later, the pair published an OpEd in the Financial Times, waxing eloquent about the threats to the rules based order and how to defend it. Most importantly, they expressed their iron-clad commitment to defending Ukraine for as long as it takes.

The following day, on 10 September, US State Secretary Antony Blinken came to London to meet with his British counterpart David Lammy and the day after they both went to visit Kiev together. On the occasion, Blinken and Lammy almost certainly finalized the plan to commit both nations to aiding Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with western-supplied long range precision missiles. Only two days later, the Prime Minister Starmer flew to Washington again to meet with President Biden, ostensibly to “discuss” the events in Ukraine among other things.
Something went wrong in Washington

Now, the Prime Minister wouldn't normally travel and meet with his U.S. counterpart just to "discuss" things. Their meeting would take place only at the point when the agreement could be signed and announced in a joint press conference: a public showing of their unity, shared objectives and determination. In fact, according to British government sources, the decisions had already been made, and Sir Keir brought all the paperwork with him. However, the signing ceremony never took place and neither did the joint press conference. Something went wrong.
The awkward meeting didn’t produce the ceremonial signing or the joint press conference.

It appears that the U.S. military leadership took Vladimir Putin's warning about this escalation seriously. His words are worth pondering carefully:

“There is an attempt to substitute concepts. Because we are not talking about authorizing or banning the Kiev regime from striking across the entire territory. They are already striking with the help of drones and other means. ... The Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern long-range precision systems of Western manufacture. It cannot do this. It can only do so using intelligence from satellites, which Ukraine does not have. This is data only from EU satellites or from the United States in general, from NATO satellites. … And so this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike. It is about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation. And this already, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the nature of the conflict. This would mean that NATO, US and the European countries, the United States are at war with Russia. If that is the case, then bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will take appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us.”

According to some sources, Putin’s warning was reinforced through back-channel communications between the Russian military leadership and their American counterparts who understand that they were being pushed over the edge of total war. In response, it seems that the American military leadership took over the conduct of the US foreign policy, both in terms of military and diplomatic affairs. State Secretary Blinken and his merry band of Neocons appear to have been sidelined. This is why the US-UK agreement to escalate against Russia didn’t get the Blaster’s signature.

The change in leadership could also be felt in the Middle East. General Michael E. Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command visited Israel last week (the second time in a week's interval), apparently also to announce a new policy. Allegedly, he informed the Israelis that if they provoke a war against Hezbollah or against Iran, the U.S. will not come to their aid: they're on their own.

The palace coup at the White House wasn’t officially announced and it almost certainly won't be. We will probably only know of these changes with time, by observing the pattern of events. If the U.S. policy really changes course in a substantive way, this would corroborate that the coup did indeed take place. This may seem inconceivable, but it shouldn’t be. Secretary Blinken has been conducting a truly insane foreign policy, inflicting massive damage to the United States in material, strategic as well as reputational terms. Such conduct would unavoidably provoke disapproval and opposition within the ranks of the American defense and foreign policy establishments.
When Hitler’s general staff mutinied in 1938

The latest escalation, concocted with the British, would put the U.S. in severe jeopardy. The burden of coping with the resulting fallout would fall squarely on the military. At the same time, it remains unclear what, if anything could be gained from Starmer's and Blinken's reckless adventurism. This is a textbook recipe for provoking a mutiny, and such mutinies do tend to happen at critical junctions throughout history.

For example, when, on 21 April 1938 Hitler ordered General Wilhelm Keitel to draft plans to invade Czechoslovakia, German military brass were deeply alarmed – so much so that a group of top commanders, clustered around Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff, General Ludwig Beck, hatched a three phase strategy to disrupt Hitler’s reckless pursuit: (1) they would try to dissuade Hitler from pursuing them; (2) they implored the British to stand firmly by Czechoslovakia and warn Hitler that Britain would oppose him; and (3) if Hitler persisted in his resolve to wage war, they would proceed to assassinate him. The date for this act was set for September 28, 1938.

Of course, General Beck and his General Staff had no idea that it was exactly the British who were maneuvering Germany to war (though not against Czechoslovakia but against the USSR), just as they are maneuvering the U.S. to war today. In fact, the most recent episode hopefully helped dispel the idea that the imperial adventures are all hatched in the U.S. and that the UK is only being dragged along reluctantly, their only fault being their unshakeable, steadfast loyalty.

Incidentally, that’s the same defence Prince Andrew used to explain his continuing friendship with the convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein (the Prince’s only regret was being "too honourable"). The truth is that through channels unseen and unknown, London is often in the driver’s seat when it comes to fomenting dirty tricks and military misadventures in defence of the empire. Again, the more you pay attention to this, the more unmistakeable the relationship becomes.

Whatever the case may be, if there was indeed a mutiny at the Pentagon and a palace coup in the White House, the escalation to World War III might have been averted, and this would be the best news you'll read all day today. Meanwhile, on Thursday, 19 September European Parliament voted in favor of escalating the war, but that move might only serve to accelerate the disintegration of the European Union. The MEPs can vote whatever they like, but Poland’s Foreign Ministery Radek Sikorski revealed to the Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus earlier this month, "there is no willingness to enter the war in Western Europe." From Europe, the moves are mostly about grandstanding and virtue-signalling.