Liz Truss: Supports plan to cut British forces by about 10,000 to possibly go to war?

 

So, where there is danger of having to fight a war in Europe the best solution is to reduce even more the size of the British Armed Forces by about 10,000 troops?

In term of manpower the total number of the British Armed Forces is about 80,000. The Foreign Secretary Liz Truss go to a NATO meeting and support plan to cut down the British Armed Forces. Is this really happening? Is this the logic of a Foreign Secretary who is totally inadequate to be in charge of such a delicate branch of the British government?

When it comes to war or the threat of war, size matters and matters a lot, something Liz Truss seems to ignore. She then speaks to the situation in Asia and talks about the risk posed by China. So, let's be clear. Liz Truss MP talks about the danger of war while at the same time talking about reducing British military capability to deal with war. Does Prime Minister Boris Johnson agree with her judgement? Forget the so called 'Covid parties'. Forget any lies or cover ups. Forget about MP molesting minors or watching porn in the Houses of Parliament. Forget all that. We are talking about the real possibility of war in Europe and in Asia and we have got somebody that has no military acumen representing Britain in NATO and supporting plans to make Britain ever weaker. We all due respect, the question must be asked: was she appointed Foreign Secretary to embarass and weaken Britain? What was the agenda behind her appointment?

Owen Jones: If Labour does not stand up for people, Unions will

 

An article published on The Guardian today catches out attention. The title is pretty suggestive. Is The Guardian seems to indicating that the Labour Party and the trade unions will part company?

Sometime ago, a high ranking Liberal Democrat, Vince Cable, proposed the creation of a new political force that would unite Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians. The talk about cooperation in terms of voting strategies in recent by-elections also suggest that something is cooking.

Vince Cable, like many other Liberal Democrat politicians are closer to the City than they are to the Trade Union Movement, and Keir Starmer seem to have turned farther right than his predecessors. In fact, getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn was part of the strateg, but all might no be what it seems. The Labour Party is split from the very top and The Guardian's suggestion that 'Labour's hostile posture to a newly assertive trade union movement could prove a costly error'. It is not a secret that Trade Union that finance several Labour MPs and that certain guidelines have been adopted in term of withdrawing financial support for those who do not support the Trade Union Movement as much as the Trade Union Movement wants to be supported. Even David Lammy came out saying that 'he does not support strikes'. Labour's stances are a double edged sword that can hurt its aspirations.

The Leadership of the Labour Party knows fairly well that the present troubles are not really caused by economic policies implemented by the Conservative Party. They know that there are geopolitical issues that are accelerating inflation and leading to industrial unrest, unrest that would exist one way or another under a Conservative government or a Labour government, issues that would undermine any administratoion regardless of political orientation.

By-elections are by-elections, won one day and lost the next. Some Conservatives are not happy with a government that they think is 'not Conservative enough'. They might prefer to stick to the old ways, talking about lower taxes, a smaller state, and so forth. Do we favour the use of more fossil fuels or do we favour the environment with less use of fossil fuels? Energy costs are going up and will continue to go up, pushing prices up and leading to an effective devaluation of the Pound. If you can buy less with your Pound, then this is in fact devaluation of the Pound or you can call it also 'a salary reduction'. Nominally, you might have the same number of Pounds, but due to inflation you will only be able to buy less with your money. 

Stoltenberg: Proving over and over again that NATO never was a defensive organisation

 

Jen Stoltenberg proves over and over again that NATO is not a defensive organisation and any statements of such nature amount to mobilisation. In spite of what was said some years ago by Sergei Ivanov about any wars in Europe being fought with conventional forces, the Russian Federation will be forced to launch a preemptive nuclear attack if a massive number of troops were to be deployed in the European theatre.

In war, miscalculations happen and miscalculations by politicians who have little or no acumen in terms of military confrontations are extremely dangerous.

The fact that Lithuania has de facto created a Polish Corridor is a reason to be extremely concerned. Like it happened before - WWI  being an example of a chain reaction after events in Sarajevo - a chain reaction would follow any mobilisation. Jen Stoltenberg should already know that, if NATO is ready to deploy 300,000 troops, sooner than later conscription will have to be implemented to deal with what will follow. In fact, mobilisation itself will be a declaration of war and this will be a lot more than sending weapons to a threatre of war. Germany has promised weapons that it has never delivered. Actual conscription is a completely different matter. Politicians like Olaf Scholz, like Emmanuel Macron and others can visit Ukraine as many times as they wish or organise meetings in Berlin as many times as they wish. Selling a war to the German people or to the French people is a completely different cup of tea.

If somebody were to tell you that the town in which you live is going to be wiped out with a nuclear attack right at the beginning of such a war, would you want to go to war? Angela Merkel terrified many Germans with the possibility of a nuclear accident like the accident at Fukushima. Ordinary people heard about another nuclear accident at Chernobyl. They have have a pretty good idea of what could happen.

Politicians like Jen Stoltenberg and others should have the decency of telling ordinary people about the real consequences of any large scale military confrontation. I suspect that until now politicians keep talking about 'supplying weapons' to avoid telling people that there is the real prospect of a catastrophic war in Europe. The moment they start talking about troops mobilisation is the moment when decisions have already been made to go to war and there will be a point of no return.

 

  

Russia is winning: Sanctions against Russia are hitting hard those who applied sanctions against Russia as inflation destabilizes economies

 

Transport strikes were the most visible indication that things are going south in the United Kingdom. Now there is the threat of other sectors of the economy like health and education going on strike and no sector is safe as the legal system is now being affected and people will have to defend themselves in court, including in serious cases that can lead to lenghty jail sentences.

This is not about Labour or Conservative. Whoever is in power the consequences of the economie going the wrong way due to energy prices and sanctions against the Russian Federation. European countries that rushed to implement punitive measures had little understanding of the dramatic consequences for their economies are now seeing the error of their ways and praying for no more energy cuts.

If inflation is more than 9% and the government in some cases is only willing to give a 3% salary rise, how are workers going to be persuaded to accept what is effectively a wage reduction? But those at work are not the only ones who will suffer. Pensions are somehow pegged to inflation rises and the question is how is this going to be dealt with. If you have got a state pension, you are going to be affected. If you have got a private pension, you are going to be affected. If you pension fund consists of investments in shares the obvious thought is that if the economy performs badly then investment returns will be lower.

Some Conservative politicians are talking about reducing taxation and cutting down or simply getting rid of VAT and there are those who say that green taxes that severely affect prices should be abolished. If the whole issue is so much depending on energy costs then the green agenda will be dead in the water. We have got to use every bit of fossil fuels we can get our hands on in order to lower energy prices. This means using coal and allowing fracking. 

RMT: if blood circulation stops or blood doesn't flow as fast as it should...

 

What do the transport strikes actually mean? 

Transport and communications are the blood of Britain. Without blood circulation the body stops, comes to an end, and this is exactly what is happening right now. After more than 24 months of economic and social activity in lockdown, lack of normal transport is another form of lockdown, but it has even more implications.

For ages, we have heard about protecting the environment by reducing CO2 levels. Well, if people are forced to used their own means of transportation including motor vehicles that consume fossil fuels, will there be more or less CO2? As the number of vehicles on the streets increases, traffic jams increase leading to delays and engines stuck on the streets, going nowhere and producing ever more CO2.

If you say that waiting lists in hospitals are too long, then transport strikes and the direct consequences of transport strikes are going to be ever longer with people having to cancel hospital appointments, delayed medical treatments leading to increase health risks and so forth.

Prices at the shops are rising and will rise even more if transportation costs increase affecting directly distribution of goods across the country.

In conclusion, this is not merely about the jobs and/or salaries of tranport workers. Every single family in the country will be affected by transport strikes in one way or another. The levels of debt are going to go up both in terms of private debt and public debt. Energy must be paid for. Time losses must be paid for and for many the outcome will be lost revenues.

The discusion regarding working conditions and working pensions is reaching the point when working conditions for workers will get worse and everybody will suffer. If the Mayor of London pushed by strikes has to divert funding used to maintain a bus network in the capital city, then working pensions might be protected but bus services will be lost affecting millions of peoples across the capital city. We have already reduced bus services across the capital city and any further reductions of the budget dedicated to bus services will mean loss of services. When future strikes of workers delivering undergound transport services and trains occur, people are going to have even less alternatives to meet their transport needs and the whole city would struggle not to come to a halt.

The London Authority was created to better manage developments in the capital city, added to the authorities that already manage 33 areas of the capital city, being in charge of fundamental projects to improve living conditions in the capital city, but no organisation can function without proper funding and this is what is missing. The added problem is that London is not just a city for Londoners. London is a key element in the economy of the entire country as the Southeast is the region of the United Kingdom that has the most powerful drive in terms of economics. If London comes to a halt, the country will suffer major consequences.

Unemployment in the United Kingdom has been falling steadily. Working conditions have improved although there are certainly some areas that need special attention to prevent economic exploitation that generates serious social problems. The slowdown of economic and social activity will mostly affect the most vulnerable in society. Strikes cannot be a long term solution. If the economy suffers, there will be even less funding for transport, more working hours will be lost, and most probably unemployment will start rising again debilitating the country as a whole. 

Zelenskiy:Chronicle of an announced death

 

As the conflict in Ukraine evolves and more mercenaries are captured by advancing Russian troops, Zelenskiy makes an appearance in Glastonbury. To what effect? Is it to movitate more people to join the conflict as mercenaries?

Zelenskiy used to work as a comedian, but has become the protagonist of a tragedy. Comedies have a very good end. Tragedies end pretty badly. 

Despite the propaganda efforts in the so called West talking about the successes of Ukrainian forces, reality tells us that Ukraine is losing in a big way. And what can British civilians do when Britain itself does not have enough military manpower and is not willing to risk triggering World War Three? Does Zelenskiy want to stop the bloodshed? He should go back to the drawing board and fully and honestly implement the conditions of the Minsk Agreement. Can he do that? The longer the conflict lasts, the worst the outcome for Ukraine. The elements of the Azov Batallion that in the end ran away leaving behind their uniforms to escape as civilians are not the answer. Those people should have no part to play in the way Ukraine is governed. He shouldn't go on promoting anti-Russian sentiments that were the reason the conflict started.

 

 Abortion: while everybody talks about geopolitical crisis and economics, an earthquake hits the USA

I don't think that many people were expecting this to happen. It is a bit of a 9/11 moment. The Twin Towers have been hit all over again. Some call it a Constitutional Earthquake. It is thought that terminations will be instantly banned in not less than 13 of the 50 states and that in at least 26 states the will be moves to ban abortion altogether. Anti-abortion demonstrators gathered outside the USA Supreme Court to celebrate the ruling. 

Now, let's look at the list of states that have what is called 'trigger laws' in place: Arkansas, Idado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

The USA is changing direction of travel and what happens now in the rest of the Anglo world. It is reported that this evening there will be demonstrations at the USA Embassy in London. According to the ruling, the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the peo-ple and their elected representatives.

Christian Conservatives are turning the clock back. What else is in store to surprise us even more? This could be the beginning of a crusade to bring back a more traditionalist USA, a version of the USA that is closer to the version the Founding Fathers imagined and hope that America could be. Will the American winds reach Europe? Prime Minister Boris Johnson immediately stood up to criticize the move and said that it was a move backwards. Since when America sneezes Britain catches a cold, I don't doubt that traditionalist sector of the British society will soon been invigorated by the ruling of the USA Supreme Court and the debate will be re-ignited in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. What will happen in Hollywood? The movie industry created an image of the USA that people believe to be America itself. Later on, Hollywood openly portrayed a more liberal approach that promoted the acceptability of abortion and homosexuality. Hollywood changed America. Will America now change Hollywood? Looking forward to see how this pans out.