Argentinian President Javier Milei: The winds of change

 

Argentina: The Winds of Change

President Javier Milei finds himself talking about the "Winds of Change" and winds there are many when it comes to the South Atlantic on the way to Antarctica.

What did not happen in 1982 under a Military Junta could happen under a democratically elected President. Britain was not in the best position in 1982, but Britain is in a much worse position in 2026 and we still have not seen the numbers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, former Secretary for Defense John Healey, is going to provide. It will not be nice. Mr Healey might have even less monies for Defense than the monies he was offered by Rachel Reeves and the reason he resigned his post as Secretary for Defense. What is essential or not essential in terms of training is a debatable subject. Argentina just announced that it will be new military installations that will give Argentina better access to Falkland Islands, and Falkland Islands are not the only islands under British control in the South Atlantic. In 1982, Britain was not caught up with a conflict in Europe for which it is not well prepared. President Trump has been found laughing about British military power and he might not offer Britain any support should there be a conflict, once again, in the South Atlantic.

I would say that for Britain things are much worse than they ever were in 1982. Equipment that Britain had and that made the difference in a conflict that happened more than 40 years ago has not been updated nor replaced.

Argentina does not need military forces on mainland Argentina for internal puposes or as a precaution because of strained relationships with Chile at the time when the invasion happened. President Allende did support Margaret Thatcher and Chilean support in 1982 was for Britain a sine qua non. President Kast, shares President Milei´s ideology and so that President Trump that is visibly involved in developing American influence in Latin America.

So things have changed exponentially and not in a favourable way for Britain.

The USA, and not just those who support President Trump, have good reasons to support Argentina. As members of the American Administration stated very openly, Europe is no longer a priority. China is. So countries that are closer to the USA, where China has been playing an ever greater role, are also a priority. With Venezuela "under control", Panama controls the passage between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, which is a crossing of fundamental strategic importance for the USA - a passage that was built by the USA.

So where is Britain in all this? What is happening with the geopolitical agenda? What is happening with trade? Britain has a limited presence in Antarctica, but so do other countries. Undoubtedly, British Islands in the South Atlantic are relevant as a gate to Antarctica. For Argentina, it is obviously a bonus. It is about asserting Argentinian influence. This is for Argentina a James Monroe Moment. Just imagine what it would mean for the Argentinian peoples and for President Milei himself. Imagine what it would mean to be seen as the Argentinian President that "recovered the South Atlantic Islands".

So we keep following developments. This could be the ultimate slap on the face of Britain. So President Trump is using it. "You did not help me with Iran. I would not help you in the South Atlantic."

In Brazil, President Lula da Silva is campaigning for a presidential election in which the son of the now former President Bolsonaro is standing, but with or without a Bolsonaro as Brazilian President, the winds of change are not blowing in favour of Britain. 

UK Preparing for War? What is actually happening?

Preparing for War?

Does it feel like a country looking to beef up its defense? I hope Conservatives could wake up and stop talking about wars that Britain is unfit to fight. Empty chit chat passing as serious analysis. Present and former MPs are making themselves look and sound like assholes. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/04/british-army-halt-non-essential-training-exercises-save-money

 Britain cannot even produce proper tanks and Britain created the tanks. I followed the whole thing including what happened when Ben Wallace was Secretary for Defense, talking about cutting manpower to create rapid response SAS like teams. British drone technology, the magic response, is already outdated.

While this is happening, Lithuania indicated that it is ready to attack Russian Federation and Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, make similar comments. Both Lithuania and Germany attacking Russian Federation not as NATO countries, on their own.

Obviously this can cause one of two things: 1) a widespread European War 2) the end of NATO when other NATO countries refuse to get involved. But there is a third possibility: USA might decide not to get involved as it goes against USA interests and say that it is nothing to do with NATO.

When NATO countries are making military alliances of their own, this is also a reason to be extremely concerned. Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia just signed a mutual defense pact. Israel and Muslim hating Modi from India have an ongoing arrangement as India provides crucial resources to Israel.

So, if Israel decides to go against Turkey, something that Benjamin Netanyahu has already spoken about, Israel would be actually going against Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Faraway from Europe, Middle East and Asia Minor, President Milei of Argentina, with American support is preparing to take over South Atlantic Islands. The story tells about fundamental differences between USA and Britain when it comes to geopolitics.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham: calming the markets....?

 

The Guardian, the London newspaper talks about Prime Minister Andy Burnham trying to calm bond market, as more and more investors are getting rid of bonds of public debt. It must be said that it is not just Britain that might be losing its capacity to borrow billions of US Dollars (althougn bonds might be valued in Pounds) to paid a public debt that amounts to trillions US Dollars.

Any budget must be based on reliable data, but nowadays data has a habit of changing even before any budget is formulated. So by the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey (former Secretary for Defense) rises in the House of Commons to deliver the so called Autumn Budget all numbers in it might be totally outdated. Without the capacity to borrow more then taxing more and budget cuts could be the only way left to adjust public expenditure. Both options are deeply unpopular because they both go for one word: Austerity.

For a Labour Prime Minister having to start by imposing new taxes and cutting budgets because there is no money to go around is not what was promised during the first short campaign for an election that never happened. When the amount of monies available is significantly reduced, the impact of increasing defense expenditure makes cuts in other areas of the public administration even more painful. As Paul Samuelson, the American Economist stated, it is butter or cannons. You cannot have them both in equal measure. Something has to go. Will it be welfare payments? Whatever the previous Prime Minister did that was considered to be done against Labour values will be nothing compared with the limitations the new Prime Minister will have to impose.

Suddenly, recent electoral successes in Makerfield and Manchester will feel like a pyhrric victory. The joy and celebratons might turn into a funeral. More taxes will certainly means less buying power in the pockets of already suffering taxpayers. Budget cuts will mean more unemployment. But in actual fact both measures can accelerate the rise of unemployment. If you raise taxes, you cut private investment and consumption. Taxes will be higher but the amount of monies collected will be reduced due to less economic activity. Keir Starmer´s exit from Parliament will help him distance himself from then nightmare that is coming and Andy Burnham´s time as Prime Minister could be cut short.

Right after Andy Burnham was appointed, there were rumours that he would go to the country, that he intended to have his own Parliamentary majority, even by losing many of the seats that Labour managed to win in 2024. Going to the country, having a General Election preceded by a whole bunch of bad news does not look, sound and feel like a good idea. Labour MPs that did not want Keir Starmer as Leader and Prime Minister made the choice to remain under Keir Starmer not to risk losing their seats.

When Andy Burnham threw his hat on the right they could have rocket the boat and go for internal elections in the Labour Party. Instead, they chose to have Andy Burnham appointed without any contest. The idea was pure and simple. No contest to challenge Andy Burnham would show the Labour Party as something that the Labour Party is not: a united Party. When the new budget is presented in the House of Commons, factional rivalries will reappear. 

Having a majority in Parliament might look like a blessing, but having too many MPs might be inconvenient. A majority that cannot be controlled becomes a liability.

At a distance, Labour MPs that are no longer Cabinet Members could have been disappointed, hurt because they were no longer at the forefront of the Labour government. Now, many of them like Rachel Reeves might be congratulating themselves because they do not have to face the mess the new government will have to deal with. She was being forced to calculate and recalculate budgets before they were even presented in Parliament. Now the man who complained and even resigned as Secretary for Defense because he was not getting enough money for defense will have to face reality. Now, it is John Healey´s time to face the music.

Sue Gray did not last long as Chief of Staff under Keir Starmer. She said that she felt that she was being spied on, that her private conversations were being recorded and leaked to the mass media. Has the political environment inside the Labour government changed overnight? As pressure mounts, one can expect that internal tensions will rise. As the expression goes "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer". 

 

  

British Default: As things go, a British Default is becoming more likely by the day

A British default is becoming more likely by the day. A country that owes trillions of US Dollars, pays billions on a monthly basis and has little to show for a real economy looks increasingly as a ship heading towards the rocks.

John Healey, former Secretary for Defense and now Chancellor of the Exchequer, has very little to be happy about and so do millons of Britons whose lives are turning into a nightmare. Prices that used to be relatively stable are now rising monthly or weekly.

By the time you finish doing your budget, you have to start all over again. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has even less money to distribute then the risks of job losses and welfare cuts are all too obvious. If this comes together with loss of trust regarding the Pound then the ugly face of Devaluation is all too visible. It is also obvious that is the economy goes drastically downhill then investors trust will evaporate. Investors are already asking for higher and higher returns for public debt.

Reserves? What reserves? When Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was in charge then Britain had reserves to deal with the consecuences of an American financial upheaval. He could keep the banking system afloat, but there were many casualties. This time there are no reserves. The ship is going down and there are no lifeboats.

 

Ukraine is a laboratory to test new weaponry, but it is done with a huge human cost

Ukraine has become a testing ground for new weapons, but it is done with a huge human cost

What was a country has become a huge testing ground for weapon makers to test their new arsenals. So I do understand why those interested in transforming Ukraine into a place to try new weapons are not interested in any kind of peace as peace will deprive weapon makers from the opportunity to see what their weapons can do for real on the battlefield.

I believe that those making money by making weapons could not care less about human lives as long as they keep making money. I also believe that many politicians and leaders mention peace because they feel that it makes them look good. In reality, they could not care less about peace. 

Take everything EU leaders say with a pinch of salt. In private, they are rubbing their hands with glee thinking about profits. This is really the business of war. Nowadays, when other branches of economic activity are faltering, war is seen as an opportunity to money and for this reason so called leaders are more than willing to sacrifice entire generations on the battlefield. Europe is governed by butchers who could not care less about their own fellow citizens because they see ordinary people as expendable.

 

New Russian Federation Drone that is faster and for the moment unstoppable has neutralised everything NATO has thrown at it

German Panzer were formidable weapons until... until they faced the Soviet T34 and all its variants. Mud, snow and ice were no match for the T34. The American successes in space came after Sputnik and after the first man flight in outer space. So you should never underestimate what the Russian Federation can do when the need arises. The whole western technology - and this includes the Brits - needs urgent updates.

Although it might take some time for the Brits that sought to attack German ships with byplanes from the First World War to realise the error of their ways. Ben Wallace´s tanks did not fare so well. In fact, more than once the making of British tanks came to a halt as tank crews suffocated inside them. Now, it is John Healey´s time as Secretary for Defense to prove if he has what it takes to build weaponry that actually works. 

During decades Britain was busy dismantling or abandoning its defense industries and later on everything came as "off the shelf" produced by foreign companies. Britain faced recently difficult times when trying to have aircraft for its two aircraft carriers and the aircraft carriers themselves had a long list of troubles that prevented them from taking part in naval exercises. President Trump recently laughed about British military capabilities, something that caused great offense and embarrassment in British circles.

Andy Burnham is like a guest that was in such a rush to come to the dancing party that he forgot to put on his shoes. "We are going to support you, all the way". On the way to where? For Britain, the problem is not just about the lack of hardware. Britain has a chronic, endemic, lack of manpower. Things got to bad trying to get recruits that were fit for purpose that Parliament passed legislation inviting Commonwealth volunteers to join the British Armed Forces and even this last attempt was not successful.

Given Britain´s geopolitical stances, Britain cannot even expect to attract volunteers without it being a national security risk. Will you provide weapons and military training to people that you cannot trust at the best of times? Diversity is according to certain people a very attractive proposition. Unfortunately, such diversity could lead to lethal danger in the homeland. The sole mention of the word Conscription and the idea of harsh punishment for those who refuse to serve is sheer madness.

Mentally dysfunctional British Politicians and the advent of war in Europe

 

Mentally dysfunctional British politicians and the advent of war

Listening to British politicians one realizes that they live in their own world, totally detached from reality.

Simple logic does not seem to work in their brains. If there is war between A and B and you side with B sending weapons to kill and destroy A, what do you think that it is going to happen?

The disconnect is dangerous and it seems that there is the belief that "it will never happen to us".

Hermann Goering promised Adolf Hitler that "no German cities will be bombed". Things were rather different. In fact, it even started by accident. One evening a German crew got lost over Britain and unable to return to base with a bomber full of bombs they decided to drop the bombs and go back to base. The only problem was that navigating in the dark they had been unable to determine their own location and did not know that they were flying over London. Britain reacted and a bombing sortie was carried out in retatiation for what was believed to have been an intentional attacks against London. Until then, Adolf Hitler had rejected the idea of any attack against British cities and the Luftwaffe was focusing only on military installations. In reponse to the British retaliation to what had been an accident, German bombing missions were carried out against London and other British cities.

A bully Prime Minister trusts that nothing will happen to UK because of a gang called NATO, that Britain can continue attacking the Russian Federation and there were will be no lethal consequences for Britain. He coud be badly mistaken. Britain could be used as an example for other NATO members. A lethal attack against Britain would send a clear message to other NATO members telling them "if you move a finger, we will bomb you too". The reality is that most NATO members amount to zeroes when it comes to defensive and offensive power. NATO is very much the spirit of the gang. How do you tackle a gang? You target the leaders of the gang and Britain has positioned itself as the leader of a gang.

Herr Merz would do well looking at the photographs of German cities taken in 1945 and then tell the German people "Do not worry. There is going to be war, but nothing will happen to German cities". To make it more authentic he could even utter the same words Hermann Goering used to reassure Adolf Hitler.