World Conflicts: what we see is an exercise of imperial power and control

Across the world people are being killed in an exercise imperial and colonial power. In 1953, the path towards democracy in Iran was killed by the United States and by Britain. They both wanted Iranian oil and gas resources but a democratic regime stood on their way. Without hesitation, United States and Britain distabilized Iran and appointed the Shah as ruler of Iran. 

A puppet regime was the perfect solution to satisfy American and British greed, but this was not going to last. With the rise of the Islamic Revolution, the Shah was deposed and a theocratic regime took over control of Iran.

The plan has always been to steel Iran´s resources and the present war by proxy against Iran is very much part of the plan. The criminal regime that rules Israel has no qualms in going around mass bombing and mass murdering. So the unprovoked attack against Iran comes as no surprise. It has been planned all along. Did they do the same about Iraq? Of course they did, but it backfired. It totally destabilized Iraq and produced a wave of violence that goes beyond the borders of Iraq.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that a war with several fronts was serious mistake and it was precisely a war on several fronts that brought the demise of National Socialist Germany. As the Roman Empire and many other empire before and after fell down, the so called West faces dangers that itself contributed to create.

There is a direct link between geopolitics and national politics and it goes without saying that actions on the international arena are generating consequences at national level. The words of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz were "this is the last chance for Germany". Well, he is doing everything possible to get Alternative für Deutschland elected as the new government of Germany. The more he engages Germany in a disastrous set of foreign policy actions, the sooner the rotten CDU/CSU will fall to bits. Bridges falling in Germany. Public buildings that cannot be repaired. The images of bridges falling and public buildings that cannot be repaired are the best images to represent what CDU/CSU are doing to Germany.

 

Labour's 1997 historic majority led to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a war in Europe is a different cup of tea

 

Tony Blair / Prime Minister

Labour's historic majority in 1997 led straight to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Years later, we face the prospect of yet another war - although much more catastrophic if it ever happens.

In one of his initial appearances, Keir Starmer told the country and the world that he will allow the use of British weapons to attack the Russian Federation.

No interpretation needed. It is all too clear in which direction the wind is blowing.

And this is the same Labour Leader that opposed National Service. When conscription letters arrive telling young untrained men and women that they have to fight a war, I wonder what the public response will be.

Be assured that Keir Starmer will have no hesitation in terms of sending untrained British citizens to war, because reality tells that the British Armed Forces have been severely weaknened and do not have the manpower nor the equipment for any long term war.

It is not secret that Britain as well as other NATO countries expect that the USA will send young Americans to the slaughter house to defend European countries that have been entirely negligent when it comes to compliance of NATO Article 3 that demands that each member has to be able to defend itself.

Britain has done very little to beef up its Armed Forces. In fact, the now former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps could hardly explain why what he called an increase in defense expenditure was what actually a reduction in real terms. He couldn't because it was a reduction.

British morale is at an all time low affecting recruitment. Reports about more than 64% of those serving members of the Armed Forces living in substandard accommodation do not help. Let's see what Keir Starmer has to say about beefing up the Armed Forces because if he does not pay attention to the Armed Forces then we will know that all the rhetoric is based on thin air. 

Labour government: Public sector pay promises that cannot be delivered will be the beginning

 

Is the edifice already starting to fall apart? Rachel Reeves promises of public sector pay rises have already backfired with Unions told that what they were promised is not affordable.

Winning an election acting under false pretenses is not a sign of political stability.

The 2024 September Budget will be crucial to know if this is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end for the new Labour Administration, and this without taking into account dangerous statements that could take Britain to war in Europe, a war that will transform the Britain mainland into a battlefield.

Labour Administrations have a tendency to get Britain involved in disastrous wars. In 1997, Tony Blair won a historic majority only to get Britain involded in two major military conflicts that spelled absolute disaster. If Keir Starmer follows suit, the consequences for Britain would be catastrophic.

 

61 billion US Dollars will help destroy whatever is left of Ukraine

When we look at the pictures of Gaza, we can imagine the damage that 61 billion US Dollars will do to Ukraine, transforming Ukraine into a bombing site.

Those who believe that adding more weapons to the conflict in Ukraine they will help Ukraine they are fooling themselves. All they will do is to accelerate the process of complete destruction of Ukraine. Not a building, not a tree, will be left standing. There will only be rubble on top of rubble and it will be difficult to walk around without stepping onto unexploded munition. Polluted and dangerous land for many years to come. This will be the direct consequence of adding more weaponry.

Even if peace were to come as the consequence of peace negotiations, it will take decades to restore whatever has been destroyed and the memories of the conflict will stay in peoples' minds for generations. The monies spent today should have been spent decades ago to maintain a viable economy, but politicians that are very good at making meaningless declarations never intended to deliver what they were promising. Long before the conflict of today, Ukraine was the victim of endemic corruption and geopolitical games that created the conflict.

You can imagine that, as it happened in Iraq, vast amounts of money will ensure that there is even greater corruption and very little accountability and that very much of the said monies will end up in foreign bank accounts owned by the same oligarchs that created the situation that led to internal strife. A vast chunk of the weapons will end up in the black market and will be possibly used in conflicts worldwide.

On the nature of war: if somebody risks his or her life for the country you see as your country, he or she are duly entitled to be protected by you.

In 2001, Britain went into Afghanistan and stayed there 20 years. In order to fight in Afghanistan, British forces needed the cooperation of local populations, people that put themseves in mortal danger simply because they were helping Britain to fight a war. In Britain's hour of need, they were there to support Britain and therefore Britain has the moral obligation to protect them in their hour of need.

In 2003, Britain went into Iraq and needed the cooperation of Iraqis to be there. There same applies then to Iraqis that helped Britain and it must be remembered that many of them not just risked their lives. They lost their lives.

When the point was raised that Britain should honour those who fought for Britain during World Wars, including World War Two, some Conservative MPs showed that they opposed the plan not because of what happened in World War Two and other wars of a long gone past but because of present geopolitical considerations that have nothing to do with the risks people took 70 or so years ago. If we were to think in such a way, Britain would see the French Resistance as enemies because of the fight against Napoleon.

Sajid Javid and others are right to consider honouring Muslim fighters that fought for Britain during World War Two. 

 

Energy Crisis: Who is winning?

 

Covid did damage economies and completely changed lifestyles, but the single most  negative factor for Western Economies was the knee jerk reactions aimed at damaging the Russian Federation that ended up creating hardship, political and social instability in those countries seeking to undermine the Russian Federation.

For those living in the United Kingdom, sanctions against the Russian Federation meant the end of the Paradise of low prices and stable economics. Just when Britain was coming out of the nightmare created by Covid economics, the British government - once again - reacted by impulse instead of using their brains properly. Not enough with mistakes made in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. British politicians had once again to put a foot wrong by jumping on the American bandwagon of failed foreign policies and started to dig an even bigger hole for themselves.

British policies regarding events in Eastern Europe have led to catastrophic realities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Industrial economies rely on... energy. Something that British politicians completely forgot about it. Germany, thank to Merkel, got into a bigger hole. Why? Merkel's knee jerk reactions regarding nuclear power. What would be the chances of a tsunami hitting German nuclear reactors as it happened in Japan? Zero. Angela Merkel over-reacted and decided to leave Germany totally exposed to an energy crisis having to almost totally depend on fossil fuels. Even France with its nuclear capacity got hit because... France negleted its nuclear infra-structure.

The conflict has been raging for years now and might continue for the foreseeable future, although the USA and Germany are now applying pressure on Ukraine to force Ukraine to seek peace. At the end of the day, it all comes to money and another factor to consider is that today Europe is a lot less safe because of the stupidity of its leaders. As the Western side decided to get dirty by using weapons banned by most countries in the world, the Russian Federation decided that it had enough and passed legislation withdrawing from all nuclear weapons agreements. So now, all gloves are off. This is a situation created by Western warmongers that expected that they could whatever without a rection from the other side. They have used Ukraine in a war by proxy against the Russian Federation and now those who jumped on the warmongers' bandwagon are bound to pay the consequences.

General Winter is coming. The expectation is that all Ukrainian infra-structure will be wiped out, pushing Ukraine back to the Middle Ages.

Palestine: Present troubles were triggered by the United Kingdom

Until 1948, Palestine was Palestine, but then Britain intervened and troubles began. After tne initial partition of Palestine, Israel went on swallowing bits and pieces of whatever was left of Palestine and this could only come at a price: a series of wars and atrocities that led to what is happening right now. Western powers completely ignored the local populations and newcomers from all over Europe settled down in what is now Israel. Present inhabitants mainly came from Eastern Europe and fron the then Soviet Union. Instead of integrating with the local populations, they brought their own customs and their own laws and their own systems of Apartheid in which local inhabitants were treated as second or third class citizens. Those who did not want to submit to the powers of the newcomers were isolated in ghettos that we know now as 'the occupied territories'. In fact, the whole of Palestine is 'occupied territories'.

British imperial myopia led to decades of atrocities and later on British mypia was replaced by American myopia and tragedies became a normal occurrence. We can talk about natural divisions and confrontations in the Middle East and Asia Minor, but we must also talk about how Western Powers benefitted from those divisions and confrontations to exploit natural resources that fed the industrial apparatus of the Developed World. For the USA, Britain and others people did not count at all. All they cared about was oil and their own geopolitical interests. They, the supposed heroes of Democracy, have no hesitation when supporting the exploitation of local populations by tyrannical rules. Tyrannical rulers only bother them if they are tyrannical rulers that they cannot control. As long as Saddam Hussein followed the diktats of the USA, he was a good dictator. The moment he turned againt US interests, he had to be eliminated. The same rules applied and apply to other regimes across the world. 

In Latin America, Henry Kissinger was the big mover of the so called Condor Plan, a system of cooperation between Latin American military dictatorships. The USA trained killers that terrorized their own peoples and torture and murder became commonplace with the full support of the US State Department. Now, President Biden talks about 'full support for Israel'. He does not even bother to mention that there are two sides in the conflict, but it is understandable since US has only cared for one side of those in the conflict. The USA does not give a damn about justice and human rights and this is easy to understand since certain peoples are not even seen as human beings. Those who are not part of the US geopolitical calculations do not exist and are totally expendable.

  

Ukraine: Time to start translating what politicians actually mean before we cross the point of no return

Politicians hide their real intentions by making statements that sound appealing but point the world in the wrong direction.

Words like equality, fairness, and many others like them can be used to hide the intention to carry out criminal activities. 'We cannot afford it' - translation: we can afford it, but we simply don't want to pay for it. 'That is impossible', 'we wouldn't do that'. Expressions like these are very much part of the armoury of conmen. 'Trust me', 'read my lips'. Wasn't George Bush Sr as President that told Americans that there would not be more taxes. 

As a politician told me after he made a very strong statement to the media, 'that is only for the media'. He had no real intention of doing what he announced. In essence, if you don't trust politicians you are surely on the right track. Deception after deception, billions of US Dollars were 'lost in Iraq' and are being 'lost in Ukraine'. They tell you that nobody knows where the monies went, that there is no accountability, that we are going to continue investigating until we find the truth. Lies upon lies and no real intention of telling you what actually happened or who got the monies. In essence, they do know where the monies went, but they don't want to tell you where the monies went because telling you where the monies went would reveal something unpalatable, something criminal.

As President Ronald Reagan could not get the monies to support the Contras in Nicaragua, the CIA put in motion a plan that would involve soaking the US with narcotics produced by the Cartels. The Contras had no real intention of fighting against the Sandinistas. They just used the opportunity given to them to make money. The Contras got the weapons and exchanged the weapons for drugs produced by the Cartels and used the secrecy to distribute drugs in the USA making huge profits. After many years and after the killing of a journalist that revealed what was really going on, the CIA was forced to come clean and reveal that the CIA had been involved in criminal activities to support an ill conceived plan that was bound to fail because it was based on false assumptions. If you follow what the media published in those days, you understand that media colluded with politicians in desastrous adventure that fuelled drug consumption and criminal activities in the USA.

The war in Ukraine is making some people extremely wealthy because the war is being used as an excuse to extort money and the whole affair is nothing more than a gigantic criminal network. Much of what was supposed to be sent to Ukraine has already ended in the hands of international criminal networks.

We don't usually agree with Diane Abbott, but she is spot on on the causes of the crisis in Eastern Europe

Over and over again, the USA has been directly responsible for destabilization and migration crisis. The second campaign in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster that destabilized even more an already unstable Middle East and threatens to lead Europe towards chaos. The major defeat in Afghanistan was yet another disaster and one of the longest wars on recent records. 

American and British warmongering will generate one of the worst economical and political crisis in Europe and most probably turn back the clock towards the 1930 with well known consequences.

UK: Money is the cost of political decisions, but it can also be measured in lives lost

 

Money is the cost of political decisions, but it can also be measured in lives lost

The cost of dealing with the Covid pandemic has been enormous. Lives lost or damaged, job lost, the burden of anxiety and despair plus the economic and political cost.

But in essence, every political decisions has a cost attached. The cost of decision making when dealing with a crisis cannot be underestimated. When wrong decisions are made there is also a cost. Britain has been acting like a gambler, betting and hoping to win, but losing along the way. This gambling behaviour has been at the core of British geopolitical decisions. On the one hand there was the intent of saving money by cutting corners and on the other was the intent to remain relevant.

Afghanistan and Iraq have proven how wrong it was to cut corners while at the time attempting to remain relevant and and the consequences were shambolic. Politicians like to sound impressive and impressive it was the idea of investing hundreds of millions of Pound to build what were thought be state of the art aircraft carriers that have been beset by disasters. On top of delays came the realisation that structures were far from perfect and lead to leaks. As if this wasn't enough, it was understood that the carriers could be operational, but without the aircraft that should carry onboard. The latest chapter was HMS Prince of Wales when having left Porstmouth it had to return to port just when it was on its way for a long naval exercise and these was due to 'technical problems'. If Britain was at war, such kind of deficiences would be unforgivable.

What happens to the British Royal Navy in terms of mishaps does not end there, but other branches of the British Armed Forces are facing challenges. The recruitment crisis is not about lack of candidates to join the British Armed Forces. It is about suitability. Of those wanting to join in, there is a huge percentage in terms of those not judged fit to join in. This is why there was the idea of opening the gates allowing candidates from the Commonwealth to join. That did not go well. Now, recent decisions made in terms of recruitment have been criticized. Positive discrimination, not allowing white candidates to join in, has led to a new low. Trying to be politically correct, those in charge have made a difficult situation even worse. If those wanting to join in - if they trully wanted to join in - are ultimately judged not fit for purpose or if standards are lowered to allow them to join in then there will be serious questions to ask about fighting capabilities. The British Armed Forces do not have the necessary manpower and are also critically stretched in terms of material capabilities. Should Britain have to face a real threat involving a sustained long term effort, Britain would be facing mortal danger without the tools needed to get itself out of danger. Today's Britain is less capable than the Britain of 1940. 

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss spoke about her willingness of 'pressing the button' should it be necessary. Well, without the necessary conventional forces, 'pressing the button' might be the only one thing to do when everything else is missing. Just a few weeks ago, she stated that she was in favour of reducing manpower. It seems that all she has in mind is the nuclear deterrent and IT capabilities to deal with dangers linked to Internet. The formerly glorious Royal Navy had to be committed to the task of patrolling the Channel because Britain does not have enough patrol boats and this didn't go well either. Using warships to chase small ships and rubber boats is not ideal.

Building huge aircraft carriers was expensive and time consuming. One wonders how much could have been done instead of building such huge aircraft carriers. How long did the Bismark last? Were any lessons learnt? Titanic comes to mind. Given the way the British Armed Forces are managed, they could well become the new Titanic.

And when all this is happening, Britain faces a financial crisis of major proportions that threatens to unleash waves of social and political unrest. Will politicians be able to deliver all the promised budget increases? The months ahead come with the threat of blackouts, rationing, riots and defaults. Does internal upheaval make a country stronger? 

 

 

  

Military realities: Armies cannot be built overnight and speeches based on thin air are not helpful

 

This morning the Conservative Party looks smaller in Parliament having lost two by-elections created by sheer stupidity of two now former Conservative MPs who engaged in activities that led to the conviction of one of them for criminal sexual behaviour and another for impropriety having been forced to accept the fact that he had been watching pornographic videos inside the House of Commons. Not a very uplifting behaviour and nothing to be proud of.

But something else is looking pretty small and this is something to be a lot more concerned about. The size of the British Armed Forces is smaller than the Russian deployments in Ukraine while those in power are engaged in warmongering activities that increase the risk of a major incident triggering yet another European-wide war. As Chinese preparations continue apace, those in charge in the United Kingdom seems oblivious to the fact that there is an obvious issue concerning numbers. It is a bit like the case of a mouse trying to bite an elephant. If the plan is to go to war on Continental Europe or in Asia, Britain has lost the war before the war has even started. The Foreign Secretary seems to live in her own fantasy world and the Defense Secretary is pushing forward plans that will make British Forces even smaller. Britain will end up fighting using toothpicks.

With a total population of about 65 million people, British Armed Forces are remarkably small, so small that they could only play second fiddle in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP had some troubles trying to explain in the House of Commons what had actually happened in Afghanistan and the apalling details of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. As it was explained to me, the issue when it comes to recruitment is not lack of potential recruits. Unhealthy habits lead to lack of the minimal requirements in terms of physical and mental fitness required to join the forces. In an attempt to boost the number of recruits able to pass fitness test, the decision was taken to open the field and accept recruits coming from the Commonwealth. As this did not work either, my educated guess is that plans drawn by Ben Wallace MP that include smaller conventional numbers is simply a reflection of what is happening in terms of recruitment. Too many people in Britain are not fit for purpose.

But there is more. On top of the fact that research indicates that in Britain about one in ten teenagers go on to suffer mental health issues - many cases go undetected - new medical conditions appear. One of them is DLD (Development Language Disorder) and youngsters suffering from DLD have difficulties talking and/or understanding. This is a condition that affects initially children and persists into adulthood. The condition can be missed, misdiagnosed or misinterpreted as poor behaviour, poor listening or inattention. About 7.5 percent of children 4-5 years of age suffer from it. Children's ability to learn is impared. It affect reading or writing and is often linked with dislexia. All in all, this means that a vast number of individuals will never be fit for military service for physical reasons, for mental reasons and for both mental and physical reasons reducing the pool of resources in terms military manpower. We are talking about millions of individuals in the UK that face a very uncertain future and the real possibility of not being able to cope by themselves in civilian life let alone military life.

This should also be a reason for concen in terms of National Security when we talk about long term commitments in a theatre of war. 

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.

 

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.

 

IRAN: Yet another war?

IRAN: Yet another war?

The War in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts having started in 2001 when the USA bombed Afghanistan and started a military campaign. In 2003, there was the illegal invasion of Iraq and several other conflicts across Africa, Middle East and Asia Minor followed. Now, another major conflict could be about to start and this time against Iran that shares a very long border with both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Some seem to be desperately trying to create more and more conflicts across the World. While this is happening the situation across Latin America is deteriorating. It would not be surprise if we see a return of military regimes across the board.

Europe itself is in political meltdown and political stability hangs in the balance as old uncertainties make a comeback. It seems that peace in Europe has lasted too long and that brushing contradictions under the carpet is not a long term solution. But things could be a lot worse if yet another major conflict erupts in Asia Minor. Major oil producing countries would be dramatically affected by such a conflict and we know that any conflict that affects vital energy supplies can cripple economies and political stability of neighbouring regions.

EU: Das Vierte Reich in the making

EU: Das Vierte Reich in the making

Let's not beat around the bush. The purpose is clear for all to see. The rise of a new block that will be on a collision course with China, Russia and the US and presumably also on a collision course with the rest of the World. 

For those who dreamed about a peace project, this is starting to look like a project for war with its own Central Government and its own Armed Forces.

From the Common Market to promote trade between free nations to Military Alliance to prepare for a massive confrontation.

In the old days, European Nations went to war against each other. They won or lost wars, territories were partitioned or taken over depend on who was the winner and this was the way things went for a very long time. Now, we the rise of a blend of Axe and Entente that could have catastrophic consequences for those who belong to the blend of Axe and Entente and for those outside such arrangement. 

For those who believe in present arrangements with NATO as the guarantor of peace and security and not just in Europe but worldwide there is a major crisis in the horizon. As tensions rise in the Middle East and Asia Minor with the withdrawal of European forces from Iraq and elsewhere because of the confrontation of USA and some Gulf nations with Iran, other players will have to make very hard decisions. What will be Turkey's position, for example. During the second war against Iraq, Turkey wasn't very enthusiastic about it. Saddam Hussein was keeping the lid on Kurdish aspirations and the defeat of Saddam Hussein would lead to the de-facto partition of Iraq giving Kurds in Northern Iraq a free hand to help their own people in Turkey and elsewhere.

Whatever the Lib Dems and others can say about the European Union as a supporter peace, Centralised Power and the existence of European Union Armed Forces plus talk about 'uniting to stand up to China, Russia and US' are not about peace. It looks a lot more like preparation for War.

What do Americans think about the arrangement proposed? Let us remember that Isolationism was very much appreciated in the USA after the losses suffered in World War One. The American public didn't want to get involved in European Wars. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had to make huge efforts to persuade the American public that the USA had to get involved in World War Two. Had not been for the Japanese attack in Pearl Harbour and the subsequent declaration of war issue by both Germany and Italy against the USA, it would have been extremely difficult to get the USA directly involved in Europe. Sending war materials including ships and tanks was one thing that the American people could accept with the proviso that it was merely a transaction that was going to be paid for. Sending their sons and daughters to die in an European war was quite another.

Now, according to Angela Merkel, the USA is a foe, something that the European Union must stand against. Disagreements in terms of trade are now combined with disagreements in terms of Foreign Policy. But how of Angela Merkel's war-like approach is real. Lets think for a moment about the relationship between Germany and the Russian Federation. The Poles and others are complaining that while EU countries suffer because of sanctions against the Russian Federation there is no clarity in terms of German/Russian relations when it comes to oil and gas. The USA itself has criticised Germany's approach regarding oil and gas acquired from the Russian Federation.

Despite all the aforementioned, public expressions that describe USA, China and Russia as foes are not reassuring. 

 

Plot to destroy Jeremy Corbyn

Plot to destroy Jeremy Corbyn

Zionists are out to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and this coincides with their agenda to prevent any criticism against the expansionist and colonialist policies of Benjamin Netanyahu who - incidentally - is wanted in Israel on corruption charges. But there is more.

Jeremy Corbyn has been instrumental for several decades to put a stop to policies of aggression that include the illegal invasion of Iraq that created Islamic State and completely destabilised the Middle East to the advantage of one country - namely Israel or the Jewish State of Israel as it is now called.

As if this was not enough to mobilise the Huns, Jeremy Corbyn has also called for a moderate and rational approach in Venezuela and this makes the America for the American Huns very angry since as they wanted to seize Iraqi oil they also want to seize Venezuela's oil and every single resource they can get their hands on by plotting against democratic governments, destabilising countries, creating violence to then justify putting in place an useful idiots that will allow them to do whatever they want with the resources of the conquered countries.

There is no coincidence. Looking at what has been happening in the Middle East and Asia Minor and now happening in Latin America the intention is self-evident. The warmongers don't want anybody to stand on their way. This is the geopolitical angle. Not, let's look at the national angle. For an embattled Conservative Party under Theresa May, this comes like hand in glove. Instead of talking about contract for ferry services provide by companies that have no ferry or about the messy business of the Home Office that might be about to produce yet another Windrush Scandal that could fatally wound Britain's reputation and literally destroy lives - the issue of the rights of EU citizens and the processing of applications that could lead to deportations from Britain with the rest of the EU replying in kind when it comes of UK citizens living in the EU.

The rights of UK and EU citizens is by far the most important issue because of the implications for both national and geopolitical reasons in terms of creating animosity between European countries. This is quickly brushed aside when convenience and short-termism are much of a priority.

If they cannot destroy the Labour Party in the polling stations, they will try and destroy the Labour Party in the courts in the very same manner that they have sought to destroy individuals and organisations that do not sing their tune. The struggle is not about Anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with Anti-Semitism. This is about geopolitics, expansionism and colonialism and about silencing any kind of criticism.   

Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major cataclism?

Nostradamus and the Middle East: Are we on the verge of a major disaster? In the 1990s and then again in 2003, the issue was Iraq, and Palestine was an ongoing headache that had become a constant and so there were no unexpected consequences believed to be about to come out of it.

What Western military intervention in Iraq in 2003 opened was a can of worms that is now spreading in every direction reaching Europe with very undesirable effects to the point that political stability in Europe is being seriously undermined.

Despite the fact that the major players, US and Russia are decidedly involved in a series of conflicts, the risk is that those trying to fill up the gaps might unwittingly turn regional issues into something major.

When secondary players become involved, there might be not enough reasons for restraint and as the battle of words takes over the unexpected might happen. There are government and there are populations and government playing the tune for internal audiences in an effort to prevent or to counter internal upheaval are most dangerous since external wars are thought to be - a good way to silence internal opposition or to cover up bad governance.

The South Atlantic War initiated by the Argentinian Military Junta was a desperate attempt by the military to play for time when the military were loosing control. They need something that could unite a very divided Argentina. Whatever can be used to counter internal divisions will be used to try and unite public opinion in favour of governments. 

Kurdish struggle towards statehood goes on. Kurdish populations exist in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and also in Syria and Turkey is the one most affected. Israel and Iran have been at odds for a very long time. Israel favoured the invasion of Iraq and now is pushing the US to see Iran as a valid target and to justify military operations within Syrian territory. While many in the European Union favoured the continuation of a nuclear deal signed up with Iran, US withdrew from the pact and has announced that it would be reduced its military intervention in Syria. Israeli action in Syria and elsewhere justify the level of mistrust of Iranian authorities when Iranians who are fighting against Islamic State are being killed by Israeli jets.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a proxy war in Yemen. Qatar is leaving OPEC and is not in good terms with Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Jordan could be brought into conflict due to Israel military operations in the region. And then there is the relationship between European countries and countries in the Middle East. Germany and France announced an embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Turkey - a NATO country - threatened France - another NATO country - about French military operations in support of Kurdish fighters in Syria.

Where the initial flash will come from that will trigger a major conflict is everybody's guess but there are plenty of possibilities for disaster to strike. The assassination of a Saudi Arabian journalist in spite of the savagery and callousness shown by the Saudi Arabian Monarchy might be seen as insignificant when it comes to a very difficult balancing exercise.

Britain's attempt to defuse the situation in Yemen has to do with putting an end to a human catastrophe but it has also the aim of reducing the chances of a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

We are dealing with a House of Cards. One wrong move and wars will spread in every direction. 

Tommy Robinson: Defamed and Libelled by Members of Parliament

Tommy Robinson: Defamed and Libelled by Members of Parliament

Whoever hides behind Parliamentary Immunity to launch a tirade of insults, defamation and libel against a private citizen whose sin is to have denounced abuses against children committed by Muslim paedophiles is a bloody coward and this does not surprise me.

Coming from a Labour Party that for more than sixteen years looked the other way when children were plied with alcohol and drugs to be gang raped, it couldn't surprise at all.

This is the same Labour Party who had a Home Secretary called Jacqui Smith that declared the acquisition of pornographic videos as part of Parliamentary Expenses.

The same Labour Party that had an illustrious and prominent Member of Parliament called Denis McShane who lied to Parliament about his Parliamentary Expenses. Denis McShane was forced by the British National Party and by its Sleaze Buster Michael Barnbrook to resign his seat in the House of Commons. 

The same Labour Party who had a War Criminal as Prime Minister called Tony Blair, a true Weapon of Mass Destruction, that complete destabilised the Middle East leading to the rise of Islamic State - the same Islamic State that is very much loved by some Muslims living in Britain that force the British People to live in fear and the country to invest vast amounts of money that should be invested in Health, Education, Transport and Housing and other segments of the British economy.

Under the Labour Party, Britain imported vast numbers of terrorists that launched attacks in the United Kingdom and have also used Britain to launch attacks elsewhere. 

I have met Tommy Robinson in numerous occasions. I have heard him talking to the crowds in the United Kingdom and never ever has he incited any kind of racial hatred. He has never incited people to commit violence on his behalf. People of all races follow Tommy Robinson. Sectors of the Jewish Community support Tommy Robinson and this at a time when the Labour Party stands accused of hatred against Jews.

This is the same Labour Party that supported terrorists that were killing British Police Officers, British Soldiers, British Politicians and ordinary citizens across the United Kingdom.

Those who launch attacks hiding behind Parliamentary Immunity are cowards and don't deserve to be Members of Parliament.    

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

The question is extremely relevant and especially today when vested interests give you a completely falsified image of Germany in that period of history.

Look at his picture, for example. Do they look any different from youngsters you could see today? The answer is no. This is not the image of a repressive society. Quite the opposite.

They went around having fun and making the best of what they had. Such image doesn't fit in with the stereotypes the mass media and other interested parties are feeding you on a 24/7 basis. Why is that?

Today's mass media and other operators want you to believe that National Socialist Germany was all about aggression, violence and racism, all about salutes and hostile marching individuals. Nothing could be more different from the truth. They want you to believe their misrepresentations because their misrepresentations suit their political agenda. They demonise Germany in the 1930s and promote today's depravity and degradation as images of progress.

The so called Multicultural Society, filled up with drugs and lack of moral values that lead to social disintegration is nothing to be proud of but, the mass media and the political elites want to believe that this so called Multicultural Society is marvellous and anybody who rejects social degradation and depravity is called Racist and ultimately a Nazi or Neo Nazi or Fascist.

To start with, there never were any Nazis. Nazis didn't exist. If you want to use the real name you should say National Socialist. They were National Socialist. That was the proper name and the party that promoted National Socialist ideas was the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

It is fundamentally important to distinguish between Germany before what we call World War Two and Germany during and after World War Two. The people who supported National Socialist Germany wanted jobs, families, education, health, a good and decent life. They didn't think about going to war or enslaving other peoples. They thought about the goodness of living together and helping each other as one big family and because of this they showed enormous enthusiasm and this is why they supported so much the ideals of National Socialism.

The people who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 thought about a Labour Party that was offering new and better alternatives and this is why the Labour Party had such an enormous electoral success in 1997. What happened afterwards? What happened after Tony Blair took the country to war against Iraq? How did the political picture change? The people who supported the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the 1930s were not much different from the people who believed in Tony Blair in 1997. They wanted change. They wanted something better. We cannot blame ordinary people when all they wanted was a better life.

After the First World War, Germany was decimated. Germany was completely demoralised and knew extreme poverty. Suddenly, in the early 1920s came a time of apparent prosperity but it was a prosperity based on borrowing. When by the end of the 1920s, Germany was struck by the crisis in Wall Street and loans were recalled by American banks and the country once again was faced by mass unemployment and extreme poverty. As this was happening came a group of people led by Adolf Hitler that promise them bread, jobs, families, a return to a life of normality after a life of deprivation and they believed in him because they needed to believe that a better life was possible.

Modern mass media specialise in insulting people and distorting history and reality. The Germans of the 1930s were people like you and I, trying to make ends meets, trying to enjoy life to the full. War and violence happened along the way but it wasn't something they were looking for. If they had known that there would be war and that much of their country was going to be destroyed and occupied they wouldn't have supported the party and the man leading such political party. They didn't vote for war and violence. They voted for a better life.

Manchester attack was a masterpiece

Manchester attack was a masterpiece

The terrorist attack in Manchester was carefully planned and a true masterpiece. To begin with the choice of venue, the occasion and the political background - during a General Election Campaign - everything was done for maximum effect, ensuring that there would be massive repercussions and international mass media coverage.

Whoever organised it is a true genius and we should give him, her, them credit for that. It was a despicable murderous attack but it was carried out with absolute efficiency. We shouldn't underestimate the people we are standing against. They have the brainpower to organise this kinds of attacks for maximum effect.

It was a low-cost operation, requiring not so much technical expertise and requiring limited manpower that minimised loss of human resources, therefore making it practicably undetectable. The Security Services due to lack of manpower usually focus on operations requiring big amounts of money, technical expertise and manpower because this is what usually allows early detection. They Security Services are not equipped to deal with operations like the Manchester operation.

Islamic State quickly make sure that it quickly capitalise on the political repercussions and it must have been a huge morale boost for its embattled troops in Iraq and in Syria.

These people are not cowards, they are not crazy and they are extremely intelligent. They know exactly what they are doing. The aftermath of the Manchester attack and the fact that alert levels have now been raised to Critical with the deployment of the army is certainly a huge success for Islamic State.