In the winter of 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to induct a new regime to solidify Afghanistan as an ally on the southern border, this action did not come without controversy. The United States of America was a main proponent of objecting to this invasion, by supporting a collection of Muslim rebels, the Mujahideen, to rise against the nation. Conflict consumed Afghanistan resulting in numerous civilian deaths and an enormous refugee crisis, and the future remains uncertain.

The USSR Cabinet told reporters explicitly that focusing inward on the USSR is more important than international conflicts. The secretaries said that the cabinet recently passed a directive that emphasizes internal infrastructure. The USSR is highlighting general education, due to the struggles of getting equal access to quality education, as well as emphasizing the multiculturality of the USSR and discussing plans on how to support and preserve these cultures. However, all this talk of bettering the USSR is a lie, the USSR is using this as a disguise to seize the nation of Afghanistan and control their government.

When Le Monde informed the U.S. cabinet of the extreme action taken by the Soviets the cabinet’s response was underwhelming at best. The U.S. Cabinet was consumed with the attempted assassination of President Reagan, who remains in critical condition, and spent their time picking our flowers for the president, instead of the obvious pressing issue, the dominance of communism in the east. The USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan and control of their government secures another communist nation, tipping the scales closer to the USSR’s communist world instead of the U.S.’s democratic fantasy.

The U.S. cabinet is struggling to handle more than one issue at a time, leading to the question is the cabinet competent enough to handle international affairs, especially in regard to the USSR? The blatant power grab by the USSR should not go unnoticed or unpunished, by invalidating the former Afghan government, the Middle East may descend into instability or worse communism. How will the world respond to a sleeping United States and a dominating USSR?

U.S. comments about Britain have “pissed Thatcher off” and the conservative House of Commons will of course stand by their Prime Minister. They go so far as to express their love for the PM by ending their statements with “I love Thatcher!” However, Prime Minister Thatcher sent a secret memo to the members of the conservative party in the House of Commons addressing unnamed party members that have “failed on their promises of loyalty to the United Kingdom.” The memo contains a thinly veiled threat to “take care of” potential “traitors”. The Labor Party and Conservative Party have always been at odds, but now the division in the House of Commons has seeped so deep that the close knit party is starting to divide.

It is confirmed by a House of Commons member that the U.K. is working to “preemptively” attack Argentina. The only justification for this is Argentina’s supposed antagonizing of the U.K., which was merely a question of Argentina defending their rightful territory. This proposition of extreme violence serves as a statement to establish that the U.K. is “the greatest country in the world” and that “if war is what it takes to prove it, so be it.”

The Conservative Party in the House is working on a paper named “Beating Argentina Badly Efficiently” to begin militarizing the Falklands in an attempt to intimidate and bombard Argentina. The aggressively named paper is being kept under wraps to avoid attention from other nations—especially the U.S. The U.K. is looking to convert current residents of the Falklands to British citizens and extend U.K. infrastructure. Establishing a 45,000 strong military presence in the Falklands will serve to help Britain maintain its dictator-like control over the islands. The paper goes so far as to condone lethal violence and “extermination” against those “invaders” who oppose their reign.

A House of Commons member accused a U.S. delegate of plotting to veto a U.K. proposal in relation to fighting against communism.

The House of Commons’ reactions to certain topics discussed between the two countries during the signing of a new public treaty alludes to present conflicts, perhaps within the House itself.

The U.K. received extremely mixed reactions from the House when speaking about abolishing unions. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher initially declined to comment on future union plans, but later established plans to rid the U.K. of all union organizations.

Accusations were thrown at the U.K. Secretary of Energy, with a member of the House calling them a potential “conservative traitor”. This was met with anger from Prime Minister Thatcher, who swiftly denied such a thing.

Despite all the evidence that points towards antagonism on these multiple levels, the U.S. Central Intelligence Director vehemently denies all accusations of conflict between the U.S. and the U.K.. President Ronald Reagan also firmly dismisses any such ideas. The bond between the two countries is only further strengthened by their mutual desire to end communism across the globe. Though the meeting between the two cabinets was initially hectic, their common goal and strong partnership prevailed.

On Christmas Eve 1979, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. It did not take long for the USSR to establish what could be called a puppet regime in their southern neighbor, placing Babrak Karmal at its helm. However, this was not a seamless transition of power. Hostility has been central to the climate in Afghanistan for the last two years, and it does not show many signs of stopping.

One point of interest for the U.N. may be the humanitarian crisis that has sprung from this conflict in the past few years since the original invasion. Scores of refugees have fled Afghanistan, taking shelter in its bordering countries, such as Pakistan and Iran. These countries, forced to take in Afghan refugees, may not have the capacity to take much more. Pakistan, for example, is already receiving aid from the UNHCR, meaning that its internal struggles may be exacerbated by new burdens.

Why did the Soviets do this? Many Americans have speculated on this since the conflict began. One common assertion is that the invasion serves to prop up the Soviet regime; that Brezhnev and the rest of the Soviet government are striving to enforce their doctrines. It is difficult to know for sure – at least, that is, until this week’s UN discussions, where certain things may come to light.