Suella Braverman: to say that people that live on the streets have made a lifestyle choice is a Marie Antoinette moment

 

To say that people that live on the streets have made a lifestyle choice is a Marie Antoinette moment

What the Home Secretary has said is nail in the coffin of the Conservative Party. Insensitive, careless, brutal - adjectives that perfectly describe Suella Braverman's attitude towards a social problem that has been getting increasingly worse.

In the meantime, Conservative MPs keep making headlines by losing the whip of the Conservative Party and by-elections are being lost towards the greatest challenge ahead in May 2024. 

I have asked what is the Dream. There is no Dream. What the country is being offered is an absolute nightmare and this includes the imposition of a totalitarian state in which anybody who rises to criticize what is going wrong will be publicly hanged. Even for the most fervent members of the Conservative Party what is happening is absolutely intolerable. I reckon finding people willing to stand for the Conservative Party in elections will be increasingly difficult at a time when many of the big guns of the Conservative Party are not willing to stand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt MP has already indicated that he will not be standing - some say for fear of losing like Michael Portillo. Earlier, the now former Secretary for Defense Ben Wallace MP also indicated that he will not be standing.

Once again, there is no Dream on offer. Realities on the ground tell us that what is on offer is an absolute nightmare. Insensitive, careless and brutal - once again the image that the present government is showing to members of the public. The now mythological 'Give them cakes' has been translated into something extremely real when winter approaches. Suella Braverman has indicated that 'tents will not be allowed'. So now people who have no access to housing because housing lists for those waiting for accommodation get steadily longer are being handed a death sentence.

The idea of passing laws that penalize people for criticizing what is happening in Britain does not belong in a democratic society. What next? People sent to jail for criticizing the government? 

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt not standing as MP in 2024?

 

The political life of an administration is directly linked to two people: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The role played by Jeremy Hunt in the Conservative administration is a major role. We are a few months away of a crucial General Election and the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as main actor when it comes to implement economic policy can make or break a government long before a General Election. When Jeremy Hunt indicates that he might leave the Cabinet even before the General Election and/or that he will not be standing as Member of Parliament in 2024 sends shockwaves. He is basically cutting the branch of the tree on which British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is standing. Jeremy Hunt's calculations about not wanting to end his career with an electoral defeat show how little he trusts his own position and most importantly shows that he does not believe that there is going to be a Conservative government after the General Election. This is devastating. 

It must be said that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has of recent spent a lot of time trying to fix the rest of the world and paying little attention to what is happening in Britain. Money is flocking away from Britain and when it came to a major project the word 'cancellation' was supposed to be countered with veiled announcement about hypothetical transport projects that have not even been considered. The Prime Minister cancelled a project that was already underway and all the work done at a cost of billions of Pound is therefore abandoned. All the monies already invested and all the jobs that were generated are going to be thrown into the bin to be classified as yet more waste. We tried to sweeten the pill by promising a Paradise made up of new transport projects that he knows that he will not be able to deliver because he might not be able to stay as Prime Minister beyond the next General Election. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put an end to something real and promised thin air in exchange.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has disarmed Britain by sending abroad equipment and resources that cannot be easily replaced. For many years, the British Armed Forces have been disadvantaged and even when it came to pay in the public budget the British Armed Force came last. On the one hand, you see speeches full of aggressive language and on the other hand you see the realities of the British Armed Forces. 

Education? Transport? Health? Public Safety? Immigration? When we should see improvements we see undeliverable promises and scandals of all sorts. 

But one has to be fair and in fairness he could not do more because of the realities of the Conservative Party that ended up with a Prime Minister that was not elected by the Electorate and was not even elected by voting members of the Conservative Party. He couldn't possibly be a strong Prime Minister because he has no power base apart from the support he got as Member of Parliament. The fact that none other than his own Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing the towel tells you that it is game over. In the end, where are the heavyweights of the Conservative Party?

We have got a Secretary for Defence - Grant Shapps - that believes that being the descendant of people who suffered persecution in Europe 70 or so years ago is a crucially important qualification to be Secretary for Defence. Never mind if he does not possess any specific qualification for the post as man in charge of dealing with the defense of the Realm. Where are the heavyweights? The real knower - Ben Wallace MP - not only resigned his post as Secretary for Defence. Ben Wallace MP also announced that he will not be standing for re-election in 2024.

We see cancellations, resignations and lack of expertise that blended with a profound lack of self-confidence are a perfect recipe for disaster.

   

Myth and Reality: You cannot have a strong position without strong Armed Forces

The Romans said 'Vis Pacem para Bellum'. Politicians like to walk arond making impressive speeches to sound powerful and decisive when in reality they don't have the power to back up what they are saying. 

The now former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP as a military man knew full well that having barely 75,000 military personnel capable of engaging in a military conflict was not the foundation for a globalised military conflict. 

Another reality that has become increasingly apparent is that Britain 'multiculturalism and diversity' does not guarantee a nationwide responde in case of war. Amongst certain ethnic groups, allegiance to Britain is falling.

An entire segment of British political agents has been undermining Britain in the worst way possible. No sooner than a Conservative Politician mentioned the possible return of National Service, the said politicians went on the attack criticizing the idea of bringing back National Service.

Imagine the scenario of Britain being engaged directly in a military conflict in Europe. Imagine the case of national conscription to be engaged directly in a military conflict. What percentage of the national population will actually be willing to join in the war effort by sending their young to the battlefield?

Multiculturalists and Diversity promoters are underming Britain as a country. What Britain needs is a unifyfing force that those on the left of the political world totally reject.

One could argue that having such a military conflict would strengthen Britain by helping Britain to get rid of Multiculturalism and Diversity. With loyalties tested, it will become apparent who is and who is not on Britain's side.

If any of those coming to Britain to settle down in Britain were to be told that they would be required to join the war effort, would they be willing to settle down in Britain?

United Kingdom: Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

 

Prime Minister, what are you doing to prepare Britain for war?

Never mind the speeches and the reschuffles. Never mind the change of faces in the Cabinet. What is the British Prime Minister actually doing to prepare Britain for war?

All we hear is about filling up Royal Air Force bases with illegal migrants caught in the Channel or setting up barges that might be a fire hazard.

All we hear is about sending equipment of dubious military value to a theatre of war that might be the Sarajevo of the Twenty-First Century. The last we heard from the British government was a minimal salary increase of about 5% for those serving in the British Armed Forces. We also heard about a Tank Project that resulted in failure after failure.

Rishi Sunak is an accountant. He is no war leader. He is not even a politician as he dropped into politics coming from the world of high finances without any military background or the capacity to understand what it means to lead a country at war. His counterpart, Keir Starmer, is no war leader either. He is a man who came from a legal background without any military background whatsoever. So even the presumed replacement does not know how to lead a country at war.

All we hear is bla, bla, bla at NATO meetings that are no more than social gatherings including some failed Secretaries of State ie Ursula von der Leyen, the enemy of the German Armed Forces. As Defense Secretary she was atrocious to the point that many in Germany celebrated the fact that she was appointed President of the European Commission. 

The one man that knew something about war left the Cabinet. Ben Wallace MP was a military man with a military career and he knew what he was talking about, but he was dismissed by an old man with diminishing intellectual capabilities called Joe Biden. In fact, when there was talk about considering possible candidates, Joe Biden personally dismissed Ben Wallace MP and he did not want him not even as a possible candidate. Who replaced Ben Wallace MP. Grant Shapps MP, a man whose profund knowledge can be summarized as 'my family escaped from National Socialist Germany'. Being the descendant of people persecuted by National Socialist Germany is no proven skill in military matters that involve preparing a country for war.

UK: In the midst of a crisis, Britain replaces Defence Secretary

In the midst of crisis, a man with a solid military career and proven record is out and a man with little or no knowledge of military matters steps in. Just a few weeks ago when there was talk about a new NATO Secretary General, the then British Secretary for Defense Ben Wallace MP was rejected outright by President Joe Biden that vetoed him pushing him out of the selection process for NATO Secretary General even before the process started.

At this point, a exchange of words between Ben Wallace and Volodomir Zelensky was made public. Ben Wallace told the Ukrainian President that 'Britain is no Amazon'. Not many hours passed when Ben Wallace himself stated that if there was a reshuffle he would not remain as member of the Cabinet and that he would not be standing for re-election at the next General Election. Now, as the reshuffle went ahead, Ben Wallace resigned to be replaced by Grant Shapps, a man with no military career, no rapport within the military and little knowledge of what being Secretary for Defense implies.  

Grant Shapps

And all this is happening, when US nuclear weapons are returning to the United Kingdom to be placed in various RAF locations and work is well underway since the Pentagon was given the monies for such a huge and dangerous endeavour. Let us remember that the American government has now less overseeing of where the monies go and that budget controls have been 'relaxed'. In the military there is an expression: fire at will. 

Ben Wallace

Ben Wallace is not a 'Yes' man. Perhaps this was the reason for his demise. Grant Shapps might be more maleable. There is another English expression: 'Ignorance is bliss'. Don't see, don't talk, don't listen. If the situation gets worse on the battefront, the present British govenrment will find itself with more that it can chew. The British Armed Forces are literally no existing. For decades, they have been downgraded both in terms of equipment and of manpower. A politician might end up asking the Armed Forces to do more than they can actually do and Britain as whole will be in jeopardy.

Russian Federation/Israel/SouthAfrica: Sanctions don't affect governments. Sanctions affect people

 

When politicians, mass media and activists call for sanctions against countries, they are actually calling for sanctions against ordinary people. Sanctions against Cuba are not just sanctions against the government of Cuba. They will affect ordinary Cubans. The same goes for the sanctions against South Africa in the days of Apartheid. 

When people talk about sanctions against Israel, they are actually talking about sanctions against ordinary israelis, and the same goes for sanctions against the Russian Federation that would affect ordinary citizens. 

 

In the case of sanctions against the Russian Federation, such sanctions have actually benefitted the Russian Federation leading to foreign companies leaving the Russian Federation and creating the space for local, national companies, to prosper. But even so, there is a point of principle. If you apply sanctions against the Russian Federation then the Russian Federation has every right to counterattack and part of the counterattack is the refusal of the Russian Federation to renew agreements regulating gains exports from Ukraine.

It is self-evident that the USA and its acolytes will willingly sacrifice Ukraine that is being used in a war by proxy. The USA does not want Ukraine membership of NATO for very obvious reasons. They know that such membership in application of article 5 of the treaty will engage every single NATO members in a war of unforeseeable consequences. Turkey is using its approval of such membership to blackmail the EU, to force the EU to open its door, and many EU countries are reluctant to open the door to mass Muslim migration into Europe. We already see what is happening across the EU with mass migration levels. France has just experienced yet another series of very harsh events involving lack of integration. Hundreds of millions of EURO lost in just a few days due to riots. Hungary, especially given Hungary's past, is openly reluctant to accept mass migration and accepting Turkey as EU member will open the floodgates. This is something that Hungary does not want.

Sanctions, migration, the threat of an all-out European war are some of the main subjects of the day. When you look at the State of Israel and what it takes to keep the State of Israel alive, you understand why mass migration is rejected vehemently and you can therefore understand Hungary reluctance to mass migration.

When you are fighting a war for survival, you will seek to deprive your enemy of every possible resource. If grains exports stop, so be it. USA and the so called West have been trying to starve the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation is therefore entitled to deprive its enemies of resources that will be used in a war against the Russian Federation.

In a non declared war, the USA, Britain and others are killing Russians. It is funny to see how disagreements within NATO are leading to national political crisis. It is well know that President Biden did not allow British Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace MP to stand as candidate to lead NATO. When Benn Wallace MP told Zelensky that Ukraine should be thankful for the support it has received and stated that 'Britain is not Amazon', Ben Wallce MP was expression the feeling of exasperation. USA has not been the greatest supporter of Ukraine. Britain has been the greatest supporter of Ukraine and to do so it has made huge sacrifices. As a consequence of his expressions of exasperation, Ben Wallace MP was chastised by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Ben Wallance MP then decided that he will not stay as Secretary of State for Defence, that he is leaving the cabinet in September 2023 and that he will not be standing for re-election in 2024. 

Lets not forget that this particular feud is the icing of the cake on top of several other internal feuds that have plagued the Conservative Party that is now facing at least three by-elections and it is early days. It is only July. A lot could happen before May 2024. The Prime Minister will have to appoint a successor in September 2023. There are rumous relating to an advanced General Election. With so many statements of Conservative MPs that have said that they will not stand for re-election and with the departure of key, very experienced Conservative politicians, Ben Wallace MP's departure combined with by-election losses could yet again trigger a leadership contest or an advanced General Election.

Once again, there is a link between what is happening concerning Ukraine and the state of British politics. There is no denying that after Covid the crisis in Ukraine led to an energy crisis that has severely affected not just Britain but Europe as a whole. The Bank of England has been forced to put up interests several times in a row to try to curb inflation and there have been periodical industrial action across the United Kingdom.

But Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has failed to recognize the fact that when you are facing a potential European war you need to beef up the Armed Forces that have been badly treated for many years. The recent 5.5% salary rise is an insult, especially taking into account that some Members of the Armed Forces earn less than a London bus driver. There is a recruitment crisis. At one point, legislation was passed to invite members of the Commonweath to join the Armed Forces and this did not work. Now, the British government is invited retired members of the Armed Forces and resigning members of the Armed Forces to return to active service. The situation is desperate. Britain has barely 73,000 men and women under the flag and with the absurd conditions in which military personnel have to live in, you have to be an idiot to want to return to active service, and this especially taking into account the fiascos of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Ben Wallace: To be or not to be?

For British Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace MP the issue is pretty clear: to be or not to be? British politicians have been claiming that after the USA, Britain is the second most powerful country in the world and one wonders on what such claims are based.

Spending less than 2 per cent of the budget on Defense, Britain is below the 2 per cent required by NATO and with less than 80,000 troops the country is behind Germany in terms of capable combattants. Even Margaret Thatcher that is now in history as the one Prime Minister that was at the helm in 1982 when Britain faced Argentina in the South Atlantic was about to mothball the navy right up to the point when the country had to embark in a naval campaign for which NATO resources had to be moved south and private ships had to be used to transport troops. Lucky for Britain that the Harrier jump jets were available and were the key for success as Britain had completely underestimated the amount of resources it needed for such endeavour.

Today, reality tells us that Britain is not fit for war. Britain was not fit for war in Iraq and Britain was not fit for war in Afghanistan. Even when it acted as second fiddle to the US, its failings were immediately apparent. When you send troops to a theatre of war in vehicles that are not fully armoured and were only meant for riot control, you know that something is extremely wrong. As soon as they drove over landmines, British soldiers were turned into mincemeat. Britain's capacity to move troops around was very limited as there were no enough air transport resources and British commanders had to use American aircraft to move around in a theatre of war. 

Talking about the present conflict in Eastern Europe, if you give away British military resources and you don't invest to replace or increase British resources you know, once again, that things are extremely wrong. The country could run out of ammunition in a week. Britain build two very expensive sea mammouths at a huge cost only to realize that they were not fit for purpose. One of the biggest embarrassments were massive ships that were not sea worthy.

It was Ben Wallace that had to counter statements made by Rishi Sunak regarding the deploymenty of British jets in Ukraine stating that sending jets would undermine British security because it would trigger retaliation against the British homeland. But I am sure that it was Ben Wallace's awareness of the present state of the British Armed Forces that pushed him to act without delay to reject the promises made by Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister. Who could be the right Prime Minister if Britain faces the prospect of a protracted European War? I am sure that many Conservatives are asking such question. An opportunistic Boris Johnson? Bureaucracts like Lizz Truss or Rishi Sunak? Lizz Truss herself support a 10 per cent reduction of the British Armed Forces while at the same time trying to sound threatening on the world stage.

Eleven billion Pound might sound like an impressive amount of money, but it is just money. You need to train human resources, you need time. You don't build reliable Armed Forces on the hoof. Politicians and Church leaders seem more interested in promoting homosexuality and social decadence than in promoting a Britain that is fit for purpose and capable of performing in a theatre of war. In a country in which supporting illegal migrants is more important that supporting Britons, you know in which direction the wind is blowing. When local populations rebel against invasion and are labelled 'Far Right extremists', you know that the political system is rotten to the core.

Rotten to the core by militant homosexuality, social decadence and the destruction of British identity, Britain is not fit for purpose.

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?

Liz Truss is wrong about British mercenaries

The British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss MP should be respectfully reminded of the fact that British mercenaries or any other mercenaries participating in a military conflict are not protected by international agreements designed to protect regular soldiers when they are captured.

She has made public statements regarding the situation of British mercenaries caught up in Ukraine and sentenced to death that contradict international agreements. She is wrong and perhaps she does not have proper advisers to tell her that she is wrong. This is becoming a national embarrassment.

She was initially wrong when she encouraged British citizens to join the fighting in Ukraine and she is wrong now when she talks about prisoners of war. Mercenaries are not regular combattants and therefore when captured they expose themselves to be executed and they were lucky to have survived so long and luck to have faced trial. They could have been executed on the stop with no questions answered because they Geneva Convention does not protect them.

A former British military commander and now Member of Parliament speaking candidly about Liz Truss and her role as Foreign Secretary clearly stated his views and said 'she is lightweight'. Lighweight is another way of saying she is not competent as Foreign Secretary and there are clear examples showing that she is not competent. As a politician she is prone to making colourful statements that are not supported by facts.

I do believe that Ben Wallace MP, presently Defense Secretary, would be a much better choice as Foreign Secretary and especially when dealing with military matters and there are no doubts whatsoever that the conflict in Ukraine is both a political issue and a military issue.

Banning RT in the UK was the greatest sign of British weakness ever

 

By all means a country that barely has 80,000 troops including all branches of the Armed Forces is constantly trying to sound impressive. Cancelling RT license will attract a tit for tat reaction, but it will not change the fact that Britain as a military power is non existing and with every passing day the flow of people leaving Ukraine is growing (according to Western media) and this is no sign of success, but of ultimate defeat.

I have never ever seen so many organisations talking about welcoming Ukrainian refugees. If the Ukrainian side is winning, why according to Western media there are so many people leaving Ukraine? The answer is obvious if you care to use your brain instead of listening to the BBC and other Western mass media. When you see able bodied men in fighting age running away, you know in which direction the wind is blowing.

Ben Wallace MP, British Defense Secretary, together with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, recently made the announcement of a majestic 30 year plan to rebuild the Royal Navy by constructing a certain number of ships. The only problem is that you cannot fight a war on the continent using ships and thirty years is very long time considering an ongoing conflict.

 

Mass Media Blackout: Purpose? Not to allow the general public to know what is really happening.

 

At this point in time, all information coming out of Ukraine is fragmentary to say the least. On the one hand there is the propaganda war telling you that the conflict has stalled and giving images to fit in with the narrative and on the other is the data about advances inside Ukraine that is losing access to the Black Sea and therefore any intervention via the Black Sea is now a non possibility.

The map shows very clearly that all the talk about resistance is merely talk. Liquid courage not based on reality. Why would Ukrainian forces be blowing up bridges unless they were losing? You don't blow up your own bridges when you are winning. Seventy or so years ago, the French blew up bridges that would allow a rapid German invasion, but failed to destroy the ones that were used by German forces to advance very quickly towards Paris. At the time, remembering what happened to Warsaw, the French authorities declared Paris an open city so that Paris was not bombed.

 Away from the Black Sea there is Poland as the only way in if anybody wanted to get in, but getting in comes at the price of losing neutrality status and entering a new and much more dangerous phase in the conflict. Although some would like to enter, for Poland it is a very simple choice: if access is granted then Poland becomes the next immediate target and that will engulf Baltic Republics that are hanging on the sides without any means to repel an attack that will certainly come if a chain reaction based on NATO structure is unavoidable. The fate of all other countries all the way towards Britain would be sealed.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace and Dominic Raab MP have explicitly said that they don't want a no-fly zone, let alone an intervention that could make Britain a target and unleash World War Three. If the numbers published by the so called West are to be believe, a massive wave of refugees has already entered Poland and from then onwards it will be coming to Western Europe, including France, Germany and ultimately Britain.

Right now, France is accusing Britain of not doing enough to deal with refugees. This comes on top of the issues affecting what is happening on the Channel region. Can Germany handle any more refugees? What about Hungary? As it happened before with Iraq, neighbouring countries will take the brunt. Olaf Scholz promised to invest not less than 200 billion EURO to beef up German armed forces. Having hundreds of thousands of refugees reaching Germany, on top of the existing refugee issues is not good news for the fledging German coalition. What about France that faces the first round of Presidential Elections in April?

Refugees in Britain? Britain can hardly afford social housing to cover present needs. Hundreds of thousands coming in on top of what is happening right now? Will the British government be taking over expensive private property to house refugees?

 

 

Britain is committing suicide

The announcement in the House of Commons that Britain is going to proceed to disarm itself coincides with increases of numbers and combat readines in China, in Russia and elsewhere. What the announcement made by Ben Wallace MP - Secretary of Defense - shows is that Britain has failed to recruit enough numbers. In a desperate effort to increase conscription, there was an attempt to contract forces from overseas to beef up the numbers in the United Kingdom. It also failed and now to try and hide the fact that not enough able men and women show any interest in joining British Armed Forces or are physically fit to join British Armed Forces, the Secretary of State brought to the House of Commons a bill that is nothing more than the official acceptance of the fact that Britain is in trouble. 

Immigration does not provide Britain the right candidates for its Armed Forces. There is an inherent risk of bringing into the Armed Forces individuals whose values, religion and ideology together with the fact that they have roots in countries Britain could be forced to engage in wars make them a liability.

As events in Manchester, in London and in other cities have proven, even those born and bred in Britain show no allegiance to Britain. They even choose to travel abroad to join the enemies of Britain.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher made a mistake that proved to be catastrophic in spite of the fact that Britain managed to expel Argentinian forces from the South Atlantic islands. It came at a huge cost. Deprived of enough airpower, Britain sent British troops to their death to be killed before they even landed on the islands. Argentina was not a major player. It was not a naval power, its armed forces were made up mainly of conscripts that joined at a late hour and only had its Airforce as a major asset with missiles provided by Israel and France.

Today, the dangers are much greater. Britain's enemies very well know Britain's weaknesses. Whether there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen - of all places, Britain can only play second fiddle to American forces and American capabilities.

Ben Wallace MP's idea is basically wars by proxy using elements on the ground or supporting elements on the ground. No one rational would think that you can face the world in a real conflict with merely 70,000 men and women under flag. Lower number of men and women under flag dramatically increases the risk of a rising number of casualties should a real conflict occur. Ben Wallace MP also underestimates the risk of internal operations in Britain by individuals acting as proxy forces for foreign countries. What are the potential targets? British nuclear reactors, Communications and Transport to name a few. 

Some time ago, Dame Stella Rimmington, then head of MI5 stated loudly and clearly that the Security Services didn't have the necessary manpower to follow every lead and that people who were potential risks for Britain were going under the radar. In real war, Britain used commandos with relative success. The actions of foreign commandos in the United Kingdom is not unthinkable in a world with very open borders. In a then European Union with extremely porous borders and easy access to passports in which people could travel across the continent without any controls, it was reasonable to expect that potential aggressors would go easily undetected.

But even today, with Britain out of the EU, the danger is considerable. For the moment, attacks have been against civilians by individuals driven by hatred and a desire for revenge or trying to make a point. Britain still has to face a deliberately planned military attack from within against key targets. If terrorists had targetted, for example, the London Underground by flooding tunnels, instead of tens of victims, we would be potentially talking about hundreds of thousands dead on a busy day. Such kind of attack is not inconceivable given the fact that despite permanent efforts, the underground system is prone to flooding.

Ben Wallace MP's approach to defense is extremely short-sighted. Let's be reminded of the words of Sergei Ivanov, once again.: wars in Europe will be carried out with conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable because it would involve mass destruction of all sides. 

The build up of military capabilities in the Sea of China is not about nuclear weapons. It is about conventional forces. Any aggression would become a fait accompli because Western Nations couldn't possibly commit enough forces to prevent or to reverse any aggression. This is why in recent years, we only hear about economic sanctions and counter economic sanctions and a war of words. 

Dear Ben Wallace MP,

You might think that reducing the number of troops make good sense because you intend to carry on waging wars by proxy using local combatants or guerrillas to do the job and you might think that this strategy can be maintained for ever and ever. But in the real world it doesn’t work.

You might be too young to remember what happened in 1982, right before the Argentine invasion. Margaret Thatcher was mothballing the British Armed Forces. In a panic, Britain had to rethink the strategy overnight and had not been the for the Harrier Jump Jets Britain would have lost the war in the South Atlantic because after Argentina captured the one and only airstrip on the islands there were no available airstrips to provide British forces the crucial air cover that they needed. Now again, you are making the same mistake and there is talk again of potential trouble in the South Atlantic. How are you going to react if you don’t have the means to do the job? In a few years, Britain lost about 30,000 troops after successive reductions. How are you going to manage in a real conflict?

I know you have been having trouble recruiting new personnel. Most of those who come forward to join the Armed Forces are not fit for purpose. This is why the Conservative government launched a scheme aimed at recruiting personnel from overseas. It hasn’t worked either. Now, you talk about reducing then level of British Armed Forces by natural wastage – you were asked in Parliament about redundancies and you said that redundancies were going to be avoided by depending only on natural wastage when people leave the Armed Forces without being pushed out.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced an increase of 44% of  nuclear missiles, but this doesn’t change the reality that nuclear missiles are a weapon that will only be used when everything else has failed. I bring to your attention the words of Sergei Ivanov who said that any conflict in Europe – and presumably elsewhere – will still be fought with conventional forces. You know as well as I know that nothing is won until the ground is secured. Lack of enough manpower leads to bigger casualty numbers and lack of effectiveness.

You talk about standing up to China. How are you going to do that when China mobilizes its military machine? Talk about the Sea of China and the territorial disputes between China and India related to rich oil deposits. Talk about the Philippines that recently expressed alarm when vast numbers of Chinese ships got closer to their shores as part of a Chinese effort to assert its predominance in the region? Drones? Un-manned aircraft? Nuclear missiles?

When we came out of the EU, you and your colleagues spoke about enforcing Britain’s rights in British territorial waters? How are you going to do that? Do you have enough ships to patrol British waters?

For years and years, the Conservative Party has had a tendency to cut down while talking about increasing investment to keep up with NATO quotas.

You only have to look at the trends in the East to understand that you are saving the penny and losing the pound and you are doing it in a way that will cost lives.

They say that Keir Starmer is failing as Labour Party leader because he is not offering effective Opposition. I am copying this message to Helen Hayes and to Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition. You are living Britain wide open. You don’t face real conflicts with commandos or elite troops only.  It is said that Britain is less prepared today than Britain was prepared on the eve of World War Two.

When it comes to other issues, like the movement towards independence in Scotland, the wave of discontent in Scotland has something to do with Conservative policies in Scotland regarding defence. It was called the amalgamation of British regiments when regiments that were the pride and honour of Scotland and had a long record in history books were wiped out by Margaret Thatcher. Once, again, saving the penny and losing the pound and threatening to partition the United Kingdom. It was David Cameron that moved military contracts from Portsmouth to Scotland to try to push away the danger of a successful vote for independence in Scotland.

You are barely 50 years of age. You have no real memories of the process that led to rising votes in favour of Scottish independence. You have no real memories of the conflict in the South Atlantic and about the disadvantages that the British fleet faced in the South Atlantic. Do you know why British troops were killed before they ever set foot on the islands? Lack of air cover.

Helen Hayes might not be aware of it. I saw it when it happened. The Sir Galahad and other ships were easy prey of the Argentine Airforce because there was no air cover available. This brings memories of another military disaster that took place under a Conservative government. Have you about the history of the Royal Navy and the sinking of the Prince of Wales by the Japanese air force that used torpedo planes against British ships that went to war without air cover?

Have you read about what happened in Narvik, Norway? Are you aware of why it happened? It happened because British troops went to Norway without air cover and without artillery. They were attacked by the Wermacht from the sea, on land and from the air. This led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If anything happens in the South Atlantic or elsewhere that is remotely similar to what happened in Narvik, you will only have yourself to blame.

Don’t play with British lives. Don’t risk British lives by reducing British military capabilities.

 

The Independent: actively promoting civil disobedience

 

The Independent newspaper has been for quite a while a digital newspaper that often allows comments made by readers, but it has a very pecular moderation style allowing comments that actively promote civil disobedience and acts of aggression. Today, The Indepent reported that the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had indicated that the national flag should be seen in all public buildings. The moderators of the Independent publicly allowed comments that implied that Britain is now National Socialist Germany and Boris Johnson is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler simply because he asked for British flags in public buildings, something that is the norm worldwide and nobody has been saying that the USA is National Socialist Germany because US flags appear on public buildings. 

The Independent allows comments of individuals that call Police officers in charge of enforcing legislation introduced for the common good to protect peoples' health 'bastards',. For several days, there have been disturbances in London and in other cities. In Bristol, Police officers were attacked, Police vehicles torched, Police buildings damaged and glass windows broken by individuals who have found a home on the pages of The Independent. 

The Independent, as well as other newspapers including Metro and Evening Standard and London Live - a television channel - are owned by a former KGB agent that also happens to be a Russian oligarch called Alexander Lebedev and his son Evgeny Lebedev. His son passes as a charitable man and socialite, but the tone of media he owns is decidedly anti-British. Paradoxically, the son of a former KGB agent was made a Member of the House of Lords.

Alexander Lebedev

 

Evgeny Lebedev

You can draw whichever conclussions you might draw about the state of Britain and of some British media. This is happening in the United Kingdom.