War Readiness: Where is the money? Where is the infra-structure?

The debate in the House of Commons about Britain's readiness to go to war with few of the theoretical 650 MPs in attendance was quite elighhtening about the real state of the British Armed Forces. Britain is spending 2.1% of its budget in Defense and given the present situation in terms of being really and trully ready for any massive conflict, the amount to be spent would be not less than 15% and this includes cutting down the budget for health, education and other areas of the British budget. To put it mildly, it would be really and truly impossible.

So all the statements made by the British Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet are a lot of hot air, a pretense that is not based on real possibilities.

George Galloway and the SNP told things as they are. The total number of members of the Armed Forces could be put in Wembley Stadium. Britain has no real war industries. The Armed Forces are not only facing a recruitment crisis generated in part by British foreign policy, but also by the way Britain treats those who dare to become members of the Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, such a debate did not make headlines for the BBC, Sky News or any other mass media that keep broadcasting incessantly the pretense statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defense and others. Nobody is asking questions that should be asked in the country as whole. At times, it feels like very few people care about it. 

Grant Shapps: More white elephants instead of beefing up British Armed Forces

 

New white elephant projets announced while British Armed Forces suffer from lack basic investment and have a manpower crisis.

Systematically, one administration after another has been underinvesting in the British Armed Forces. On top of an endemic lack of manpower caused by recruitment issues, Britain has permanently underestimated the need to raise standards and support for the Armed Forces. Instead, Britain persists in its efforts to repeat the experiences of the Euro Fighter or facing ridiculous situations like the construction of aircraft carriers that had to go without aircraft or had to be returning to port because of technical defficiences. Britain does not have not even enough ships to protect its own territorial waters. Just a few weeks ago, the British Prime Minister had to announced that it was abandoning plans to deliver what was promised in terms of transport infra-structure.

The construction of stealth aircraft that will not be stealth aircraft produces headlines for people to congratulate themselves but it does not improve National Security.

Once again, huge amounts of money that will have to taken out of the public budget (or borrowed) will be thrown away. In the meantime, the country will be struggling to borrow at rising rates of interest. Fancy projects will not make Britain more safer.

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.

Migration: when full means full violence erupts

An unresponsive political system that seems oblivious to the damage illegal migration is causing or is actually encouraging it leads to people taking matters into their own hands. 

There is not enough hotels, military bases and barges to accommodate a very disruptive illegal migration that is destroying local communities by taking away whatever they have got including personal safety.

Instead of preventing illegal migration and instead of protecting national borders, the Royal Navy is supporting illegal migration.

Instead of pushing illegal migrants back to where they are coming from, Britain is actually investing millions of Pound every single day aiding trafficking gangs by allowing illegal migrants to enter the country.

How to destroy the United Kingdom from within

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

Project Fear: Fear as a Political Tool

Project Fear: Fear as a Political Tool

Since the beginning of time, fear has been a tool to be used to get what you want. You can pretend that you are bigger and stronger than you actually are. One example of such tactic is what Britain did soon after the evacuation operation in Dunkirk in 1940. The RAF was not at full strength. The Army was on its knees with soldiers that barely managed to escape carrying their rifles. The only significant tool at the time was the Royal Navy. But many felt that Britain was playing for time. Suddenly, out of nowhere, pretend weapons, pretend artillery, pretend aircraft started to appear so that enemy reconnaissance crews could see that Britain was not naked but ready to defend itself.

Debates that cannot be won with serious propositions based on factual evidence can be won with fear. You want to make people believe that a threat is very real and your proposed course of action should be adopted as a matter of urgency. You can make people feel that they are weaker than they actually are and that should they try to operate independently from others they will be doomed. The purpose of this is to keep people chained to a particular situation of dependency. Beware! We are facing the abyss! Suddenly, without any real justification and simply because mass media messages keep talking about the impending catastrophe, many are convinced that the threat is real and that something absolutely tragic is going to happen if they choose to go their own way.

The more credible the media that spread fear the more people will believe that a certain threat is real. Orson Welles knew it very well when a radio broadcast told American listeners that the USA was being invaded by extraterrestrials. The radio broadcast was followed by a panic wave.

To counter fear, we need facts and credible force to ensure that if there is a panic reaction the situation is going to be under control. Force does not merely exist to counter a threat if there is a real threat but also to reassure those who might panic and engage in actions that would be counterproductive for themselves and others.

Politics is increasingly dominated by all kinds of project-fear and fear has political consequences. Public Opinion is driven by a mix of facts, personal experiences, rumours, presumptions and half truths and this is why perception is so critically important. To alter perception, political operators, mass media and para-political organisations. There is a vast array of labels that can be used to distort political messages, to demonise those who hold different views and to basically prevent their views from becoming widespread. 

Labels like Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Homophobe, Anti-Semite, Islamophobe, et cetera are widely used with a given political purpose: to discredit political opponents. Those using such labels know perfectly well that audiences can be switched off by eliciting an emotional reaction to the said labels. Individuals not only have the capacity to think. They have emotions and if emotions can be manipulated everybody - even the most bright - can be influenced and made to more in a certain direction. Manipulated reactions can become stereotypical to the point that even the most rational of individuals stops thinking.

If I were to ask an individual in Britain if he/she believes that people should be banned from a certain profession or activity on political grounds, the said person would say: Absolutely not. The grounds for such response would be: in a democratic society no one should be discriminated against on political grounds.

When your enquire becomes specific to a particular group, suddenly the answer changes and all kinds of justifications arise that contradict the initial answer to support discrimination on political grounds. The rational process stops and decisions are made because of stereotypes.

There is little difference between the Nuremberg Laws of the 1930s and the attitudes of Liberals and Marxists of today. In the 1930s, laws were passed preventing Jews from getting involved in certain working activities/professions. Today, people that are loosely called Far Right are discriminated against and not allowed access to certain professions and occupations. The Far Right of today are the Jews of the 1930s.

The striking similarities between the Nuremberg Laws of the 1930s and today's restrictions imposed for political reasons are not mere coincidence. Modern Britain looks increasingly similar to the Weimar Republic. We have reached the point when Anti-Terror Legislation is being used for Political Persecution and the independence of the Crown Persecution Service has been compromised. Influential groups are exerting pressure on the legal system and have become the New Inquisition. Cases discarded by the Crown Prosecution Service and Police Authorities for lack of merit are being re-instated and Probation Services are being used to harass those persecuted and jailed for political reasons.

What is happening is not reassuring and sooner than later there will be dramatic consequences that society as a whole will regret. The reactions that we have already seen are merely the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. 

    

Of Spitfires and Hurricanes

Of Spitfires and Hurricanes

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

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

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

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

Alice in Wonderland: A former British soldier facing court for having fought against Islamic State

British Soldier taken to court in UK because he fought against Islamic State

I have believed for a very long time that Lewis Carroll didn't write Alice in Wonderland as a fictional story but as a true description of Britain where cuckoos reign supreme. A former British soldier is facing court charges of terrorism because he fought against a terrorist organisation called Islamic State, Daesh and so many other things.

Imagine the scenario in which during World War Two a British soldier had been arrested and taken to court accused of fighting against National Socialist Germany. It seems that apart from being related to  the acquisition of pornographic material registered as parliamentary expenses, the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith produced a monstruous piece of legislation that is being used for political purposes and to generate irrational court cases. Ah, by the way, Police resources and other resources including expenditure involving the Crown Prosecution Service are being lamentably wasted, once again, in cuckoo cases.

We live in a world in which Turkey (a NATO member) is fighting against a Kurdish group that is fighting against Islamic State, a Kurdish group that is supported by two other NATO members namely United Kingdom and the USA. To put it mildly, NATO is fighting against NATO.

But there is a lot more. You might have seen Prime Minister Theresa May during her visit to China, talking about building trade opportunities with China. Just a few days later a warship of the British Navy was sent to the Sea of China to 'put pressure on China'. You couldn't possibly make it up. Britain is sending ship to the Sea of China to try and put pressure on China the very same country the British Prime Minister recently visited to promote trade agreements.

For all that matters, the sending of a single ship to the Sea of China is a meaningless gesture that would have the same effect as the sending of the same ship to the Bermuda Triangle. The Royal Navy that could soon see their numbers cut - once again - with the dismantling of the Royal Marines is wasting money in meaningless gestures. Britain doesn't have enough ships to patrol its own costal waters and is having to borrow American planes to chase submarines because it doesn't have enough planes of her own.