Unconditional Surrender: Lessons from World War Two

 

The words Unconditional Surrender bring echoes of World War Two to the present conflict in Ukraine. After the Battle of Kursk, the greatest tank battle in Human History, Germany knew that it would be all the way to Berlin.

It dawning on EU Leaders and UK Leaders that as a long as the battle goes on there will be no ceasefire and this is why they now understand that unless a permanent solution is found before forces of the Russian Federation reach Kiev there will be nothing left to negotiate. EU or UK could hardly stand as "peacekeepers" when they have been supporting one of the sides in the conflict against the Russian Federation.

Macron and Starmer should be under no illusion. This is why after making extraordinary statements they will be on their way to Washington. They very well know that France, Britain and others are fully unprepared at a time when they are facing extraordinary national challenges. Britain has no Independent Nuclear Deterrent. Without US support, Trident is finished. Without American aircraft, the Royal Navy has no jets for its newest aircraft carriers. No one has nearly enough the number of enlisted men and women to face any serious challenge. They can kick and scream against the USA, but they know that without the USA, EU and UK are finished. So back to the USA, to mend relations with the USA. Lord Mandelson was criticized for saying that UK should implement President Trump´s Plan for Peace. Now, France, UK and Ukraine go to kneel down in Washington and to accept terms of engagement.

HS2 Fiasco: Message to China - Britain is falling

 

HS2 Fiasco is a direct message to China: Britain is falling and is incapable of building a high speed railway link, apart from other deficiencies that are by now pretty obvious.

1. Britain is incapable of patrolling and controlling its own borders.
2. Britain is incapable of having Armed Forces big enough and equipped enough to handle a real military conflict.
3. Britain does not have the military complex to be seen as a serious military contender.
4. Britain's nuclear deterrent is limited in its reach and is not even British.

Britain's standing in the world is based on myths that can be easily shown for what they are. Britain should not be worried about spies in the Houses of Parliament telling the world what is happening in Britain. To know what is happening in Britain you don't need spies and/or any kind of advanced technology. What is happening in Britain is pretty visible for all to see and it is absolutely lamentable.

The education system is not just in crisis because of lower education standards. The education system has been turned into an anti-Britain movement that is eroding the foundations of Britain as a country.

 

How to destroy the United Kingdom from within

 

How to destroy the United Kingdom from within in case of war

The fall of Singapore during World War Two gave me the idea of how to destroy a country from within. As we know, the artillery in Singapore was heading in the wrong direction and this was one of the factors that led to one of the worst military disasters in British history. A massive number of British troops and Commonwealth troops arrived in Singapore just in time to surrender to the Japanese.

For the kind of threat we are dealing with, Faslane, the Nuclear Deterrent, the Royal Navy, the Air Force and the Army plus all the added ingredients of the Security infra-structure of the United Kingdom will be pretty useless.

It will be an Ardennes Moment. Britain will be expecting something completely different and will be powerless to prevent a very well organised and long term planned attack to destroy British fighting capabilities. It is a bit like having a car wired to explode with the occupants of the car completely unaware of what is going to happen to them. What is the most deadly weapon of all? The Human Brain. Deadly force without brainpower is not as effective as it could be or it is absolutely inneffective. The Nuclear Deterrent could be compared to the Maginot Line. Vast amounts of resources spent in technological develoments that would be rendered completely useless by using much more affordable and much simpler and much more available means that will go undetected. Beware what you see and be much more afraid of what you cannot see. Let's leave this here as an introduction.

In the 1940s, far too many people believed that World War Two was going to be the same as World War One. Nowadays, far too many people believe that World War Two was absolutely different from World War One. In fact, it was somewhere in between the two sets of beliefs. Yes, there was a better of technology and especially new technology was developed before and during World War Two, but horses and bicycles were used to move around troops and cargo. Yes there were machine guns, but many still used a one-shot-at-time rifles or carabines. When we talk about World War Three, once again we will end up with 'something in between', but the battlefields will be much closer to home for everybody's discomfort. 

As the offensive in Ukraine has shown is that despite technological advances, the methods used are still very much the same and every inch will have to be fought for and this will be true both on land, in the air, in the water and underwater and we can add that World War Three will also include Outer Space with satellites and missiles that will leave the Earth's atmosphere to re-enter the Earth's atmospher to hit their targets. And what about distances? What are the real distances today? 15 minutes for a nuclear missile to travel from Kaliningrad to London. We don't need pinpoint accuracy (American claim regarding missiles used in Iraq). If the aim is to cause the greatest, the biggest, amount of damage, pinpoint accuracy is irrelevant. It will be just about hitting a target as hard as possible in the shortest time possible for major effect. 

But let us be clear that much of the damage will be caused internally with very ordinary methods and very ordinary tools. Very much like the viruses of War of the Worlds, there are very easy ways of paralyzing a country like Britain acting inside Britain.

Nazanin: British outside Iran, but Iranian in her country of birth

The time to understand the way International Law works is long overdue. To hear a British minister talking about Iran using British citizens as hostages when in fact they are Iranian and hold British citizenship because of double nationality is appalling. 

Such kind of statements completely misrepresent what is actually going on. Iran is duly entitled to deal with its own citizens. While in Iran, British citizens born in Iran are de facto Iranian and not British. 

With regards to obligations Britain has regarding Iran, it is well known that Britain owes monies to Iran, monies that Britain is mandated to pay. This has been going on for ages and it is an issue that has poisoned British/Iranian relationships. Is it due to geopolitics? Is Britain failing to comply with international obligations contracted with Iran because of geopolitical considerations? 

It is thought that if Britain paid its debts Iranian attitudes would change, but what has happened for decades hasn't helped. Iran has been under siege and British history of interventions in Middle East and Asia Minor has made matters a lot worse. Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, USA and Britain have been involved in actions against Iran. They used Irak under Saddam Hussein to wage a chemical war against Iran because Iran dared to claim ownership of its oil resources. They never forgave Iran for daring to stand as an independent country.

When USA and Britain decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they created a vacuum that is now being filled up by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran with other countries being affected in the whole process. A mass exodus created by Britain and the USA led to neighbouring countries being flooded with refugees and this completely destabilized the entire region. The conflict in Syria very much started with the so called Arab Spring that both Britain and the USA promoted. The conflict in Yemen is perhaps and without perhaps the biggest tragedy that Britain and the USA actively contributed to create. What happened in Libya, what happened in Egypt, what is happening in Syria, what is happening in Yemen, what is happening in Lebanon and what is about to happen in Jordan could have been avoided. 

A knee-jerk reaction led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and this was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and what happened then is history leading to the mess we are in nowadays.

When we look for an explanation of why Iran could ever want to have nuclear weapons, the explanation is self-evident. Iran would look for nuclear weapons to deter any aggressor. Isn't this the explanation or justification for Britain to have its Nuclear Deterrent. Well, Iran is also entitled to have its Nuclear Deterrent to protect itself for external aggression.

In order to lower tensions, Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Iran. Paying debts could be a first step in the right direction. Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Saudi Arabia to reassure other players in the Middle East and Asia Minor that Britain will not support aggression against Iran and Britain will not be involved in wars by proxy like the ongoing conflict in Yemen. All regime-changing attempts must come to an end. All military interventions on foreign soil must come to an end. All demonizing campaigns by the political establishment and the mass media must come to an end. All economic warfare must come to an end. Normalization of relationships is the best way to prevent cases like the case of Nazanin from ever happening again.

 

Is this the future of UK/USA relationship?

Is this the future of UK/USA relationship?

Jeremy Corbyn vs Donald Trump

The way things are going, this could be a real possibility. For the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to boycott the visit of the President of the United States of America is a very serious matter. Direct attacks like the ones launched by Emily Thornberry against President Trump and none other than the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow is no laughing matter. We are talking about very serious issues involved the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the emphasis on foreign policy.

This is not merely an issue of liking or not liking President Donald Trump. This is about the British Nuclear Deterrent and the whole Defence Strategy in Europe. One has to think that Emmanuel Macron's rush to lead the way towards the establishment of EU Armed Forces and an Independent EU Foreign Policy has a lot to do with the concerns generated by Jeremy Corbyn's ideological stances.

While the attention is focused on Brexit, President Trump's visit to the United Kingdom is undoubtedly about reassurances regarding Britain's position facing the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. It is expected that a new Conservative Prime Minister will be in place by mid-year and a clear cut solution will be found to prevent the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. 

The Labour Party's Leadership is again under fire and the rise of both the Lib Dems on the Remain side and of the Brexit Party on the Leave side must have given some hope to the American Administration. President Trump has used warm words to describe his rapport with Boris Johnson as a potential Prime Minister and with Nigel Farage as Leader of the Brexit Party. 

Alastair Campbell has expressed the view that without a clear definition the Labour Party would be doomed in a General Election. Much has been said about Chancellor Philip Hammond talking about bringing down the Conservative government in case of No Deal but do those oppose to Jeremy Corbyn really want the Labour Party to win knowing that Jeremy Corbyn would be the next Primer Minister.

A very advantageous Trade Agreement between the USA and Britain would favour a No Deal option and could prevent the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. A No Confidence Vote against the Conservative government would be a geopolitical disaster. 

Of Spitfires and Hurricanes

Of Spitfires and Hurricanes

I have seen quite a few documentaries referring to the making of Spitfires and Hurricanes and about the development of the Royal Navy - Royal Air Force and Royal Navy being two key branches of the British Armed Forces but seldom or never I see questions raised about the fact that Britain doesn't make any major warplanes anymore - apart for the Euro Fighter that was shared with other European countries, came late into service and was already outdated before entering active service. Not very often we hear questions asked about why British shipyards are less active than ever before and why Britain is buying off-the shelf imports like the F35. Defence industries have been either privatised or dismantled or bypassed to buy foreign products.

Neither Labour nor Conservatives are the answer to Britain's problems and don't count on Liberals that would dismantle whatever is left of the British Armed Forces. There is no long term strategy that could be said to be British. The brand news aircraft carriers will not carry British planes but American planes. The British Independent Nuclear Deterrent is neither independent nor British. It totally depends on the US.

All the talk about preparing Britain to face new challenges is pure chit chat because in fact very little is being done to beef up the British Armed Forces. More people are leaving the Services and there is a recruitment crisis. Expertise is being lost and numbers are not growing. Britain is less prepared today to face new challenges than Britain was prepared to face new challenges in the 1930s and by then Britain had a more homogeneous population and didn't have to be on permanent red alert to counter imported terrorists.

Countering Islamic Terrorism and putting and end to flood immigration are issues of National Security. Instead of keeping them in jail at public expense, all Muslim terrorists should be thrown out together with their families. The Demographic Balance must be restored. Britain will not be able to defend itself if it has people that following a depraved political ideology called Islam are ready and willing to stab Britain in the back.  

Nuclear Deterrent: Chicken coming to roost

British Nuclear Deterrent

Not independent and it might not even deter

We have witnessed the evolution of the so called British Independent Nuclear Deterrent that is neither British, nor Independent and it might not deter anybody.

For 13 years, Labour procrastinated about the renewal of Britain's nuclear capabilities. Whether there are three or four submarines capable of carrying nuclear missiles is frankly irrelevant.

Whenever a renewal was in order, the United Kingdom would be totally dependent on the USA.

Parliament debated many options including the number of submarines involved, the type of missiles to be carried on submarines, but the main issue remains and is the fact that to have a nuclear deterrent Britain is not self-sufficient and when you depend on others to provide you the military capabilities you are not independent at all.

During the war years, Winston Churchill sold the secrets of nuclear energy to the USA in exchange for USA support and USA went on to develop atomic devices that were used in the latter years of World War Two against Japan.

The United Kingdom was the great loser of World War Two. The United Kingdom was an independent Nation and head of a vast empire. The United Kingdom became a tired country that having lost the Empire was riddled with debts and at the end the Metropolis became a colony of its own former colonies.

In 1975, a Prime Minister called Edward Heath believed to be doing a great thing to enslave Britain believing that it was financially advantageous. The consequences of such folly are now plainly visible for all to see. Generation after generation of Britons were brainwashed and made feel guilty because there ever war a British Empire. Funnily enough, all those who gladly engaged in degrading Britain's National Identity benefited greatly from the British Empire.

Today, anybody claiming to be a patriot is called Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Homophobe, Xenophobe. Such is the level of brainwashing that deters people from standing for National Interest. And... oh... surprise... a political change in the United States of America suddenly shook the status quo and Parliament just realises and many others realise that they have living in a lie. When it comes to its own defences, Britain is no longer self-sufficient and it has a steadily growing domestic enemy as whatever is left of British Identity is disintegrating.

Karl Hohenstauffen

Trident: The Conservative Paradox

A few weeks ago in the House of Commons, the Conservative Government played politics against Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of Trident or as it is usually known the 'Nuclear Deterrent".

Now, it has become apparent that the Conservative Government has been Nuclearly Deterrent by the lack of a clear strategy in terms of what will be done to replace or upgrade Trident.

While the Trade Unions were said to be openly in favour of the replacement or upgrade of Trident because of the number of jobs involved, the issue of cost has come to the surface when there is apparently only one supplier and the monies required follow the trend of National Debt, all the way upwards.

The Shadow Defence Secretary, Emily Thornberry MP, stated that the so called upgrade would be outdated by the time is implemented and indicated that the Conservative Government is delaying any announcement because there is still no proposal that could withstand public scrutiny.

Trident is wrongly called "Independent Nuclear Deterrent". In fact, it totally depends on the United States for supplies and maintenance. For ages, the British Public has been told half truths. The record of the submarines involved in the so called Nuclear Deterrent has not been brilliant either, all of which generates serious doubts about how reliable Trident actually is.