If defence spending requires austerity elsewhere, the first and most fundamental question is not financial but moral and political and is instead what exactly are we trying to defend in that case? It should be obvious that a country in which public services are degraded, poverty is allowed to rise, and insecurity becomes a normal condition of life is not a society organised around shared purpose or mutual care. If, at the same time, as would appear to be the assumption, the interests of the wealthy are protected from sacrifice, the message is unmistakable: defence is not about collective security but about preserving an unequal status quo.
We must allow Vova to invade in order to save the NHS.
“a society organised around shared purpose or mutual care”
Is he arguing for nationalism in general or Fascism in particular?
Importing 12 million foreigners since 1997 has done away with any idea of: ‘shared purpose or mutual care’.
12 million only?
According to official figures, so probably more…
I know I said this a couple of days ago, but he is mad isn’t he.
Let’s give all our money to benefit scroungers including the demographic who specialise in having three or more children, the bottomless money pit that is ‘our’ NHS, anyone who says they are escaping ‘war’, those who come here to work then bring in hordes of ‘relatives’ and illegal migrants rather than protecting the country.
anyone who says they are escaping ‘war’,
Jokes on them. They’ll come here just in time for good ol’ Vlad to drop a nuke or twenty on us if starmer keeps it up.
Russia isn’t much of a threat. The real threat is, well, you know what it is and it has been imported. While the majority population is unarmed and the threat is allowed to misbehave for fear of someone being called racist we are not going to fix this one.
I often wonder why people with an ideological agenda are never asked to explain in detal the end state which they desire.
“Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspireTo grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits — and thenRe-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!”
Fitzgerald’s Omar Khayam. A quatrian beloved of Fabians, but it never describes the end. Do they even think of where all this progressiveness is leading us?
Russia isn’t much of a threat. The real threat is..
Russia is a major threat, which we need to resist. Russia under the commies and now Putin are hostile to the West. Like his commie predecessors, Putin and his advisors believe that the West is decadent and oppressive, that Moscow is “the Third Rome”, that Russians are God’s chosen people and that Russia’s destiny is to control Eurasia in order to challenge America, and…
Meanwhile, Russia often violates UK and NATO airspace, regularly attempts to hack and disrupt UK services, invades a sovereign country (Ukraine) having previously agreed its independence, and has assassinated up to 15 people on UK soil…
But, hey guys, Russia is not a threat!
Russia often violates UK and NATO airspace,
Do they?
that Russians are God’s chosen people and that Russia’s destiny is to control Eurasia in order to challenge America, and…
It has taken them 4 years to nearly conquer the most Russiany sliver of Ukraine. Russians are literally dying out as we speak. What makes you think a demographically evaporating country that’s experiencing massive Islamic and Jeet migration is going to be in any shape to take over the world, Pinky?
Asking with love x
and has assassinated up to 15 people on UK soil…
Name them?
Do they?
Er…yes…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violations_of_non-combatant_airspace_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022%E2%80%93present)
What makes you think a demographically evaporating country…
Er…
What they believe is more important than what you believe. And Russia still has nukes and great resources…
Wikipedia is certainly a source.
You’re a fraud. Used to be all ‘yes the Tories are awful but we’ve no choice, we really must vote for them’.
You’ve dropped that one now, but you’re still on all the basic blob talking points.
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is paying you, though if they are they should ask for their money back.
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone is paying you…
And what passes for your mind turns so readily to conspiracy theories…
My guess is he was very active in the Telegraph comments at the start of the invasion – MI6 and the CIA droned on a lot about ‘asymmetrical warfare’ and because there was a lot of noise about ‘vital interests’ in Ukraine any people questioning the wisdom of the operation were denounced as ‘Putin fanboys’ or some such like. Sad to see it still going on three years on but we are in the realms of sunk cost fallacy and am guessing those on here have grown dependent on the money.
Wrong – again! I have never been active in the Telegraph’s comments. I was once active in The Times’ comments, but I was banned – for mentioning average sub-Saharan IQs.
Ah, yes…
https://archive.ph/D2aBw
That map’s a bit of a shocker, isn’t it?
Entertaining I agree!!
Wikipedia as a source, my my, how “authoritative”
Wikipedia can be used judiciously and with due scepticism. The contents of the article I linked to can be checked. I suggest you do that before you dismiss it.
The US used to violate Russian airspace on a daily basis before we had satellites.
And the Russians violated US airspace, too.
Theo – Er…
What they believe is more important than what you believe.
No, no, no.
The lady’s not for moral relativism. It doesn’t matter what any of us believe, all that matters is reality. Conquest requires warm bodies to conquer, and more importantly, colonise
Russia is having great difficulty keeping Russia stocked with Russians…
The lady’s not for moral relativism.
You clearly don’t understand what moral relativism is, Steve, because I did not say anything even remotely morally relativistic.
It doesn’t matter what any of us believe, all that matters is reality.
Beliefs can change the world – eg Christianity, Marxism, Islam…And if you are trying to predict how x will act, then understanding x’s beliefs definitely matters. So what the Russian elite believe to be their manifest imperial destiny is a greater determinant of how they will act than your beliefs about their capacity to act – even if your arguable beliefs about their capacity to act are accurate. Megalomaniacs are not rational…see Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin…
Theo – I think they are rational revanchists. Crimea is their Hawaii, strategically very important to Russia. Not really to us. This war shows the strengths and significant limitations of Russian armed strength. It would be good if we could have friendly relations with Russia?
The Russian elite does not want friendly relations with the UK or the West. They dream of a Russian Empire extending from Vladivostok to Lisbon that will challenge the US…
Russia is losing 1 million soldiers a year trying to reconquer Ukraine but each year-group in Russia comprises over 2 million people. If *all* Russian caualties were dead then Putin’s would-be successors would be starting to worry but only about 1 in 5 is actually dead so the wounded can be transferred back to civilian life and breed more young Russians
The Russians who’ve been through the meat grinder, survived the Russian Army corruption and virtually non existent health care are not going to be model citizens. Expect to see even more violence in their society.
In 2024, Russia experienced a significant demographic decline, with deaths far exceeding births by roughly 600,000, marking the steepest natural population decrease since the COVID pandemic, driven by record-low birth rates (around 1.2 million) and increased mortality,
Has the CIA stipend enabled you to have more free time to peddle this?
When will you Putin fanboys ever see sense?
Putin is nasty and expansionist.
Meanwhile, MI5 deals with internal (particularly islamist) threats; MI6 with external threats.
I think the word is revanchist; Putin wants Russia to rule the same area that Stalin did, from Bavaria to the Bering Strait
Problem is, that’s not of much use to him. If he wants to be in Western Europe he needs to get all the way to the North Sea to avoid his shipping being hemmed in by Gibraltar and the Skagerrak, and move goods in and out of the Rhine. Stalin didn’t manage that.
Ever heard of Archangel and the convoys that Churchill sent to Russia with planes and other weapons with which to fight Hitler?
Were you so unaware that the North Sea’s stock of herring was decimated by Russian factory trawlers because Stalin’s disastrous collective farms made Russia unable to feed itself without Australian wheat and North sea fish?
Of course, but the point stands. Russia has a severe shortage of unconstrained warm-water ports in useful places. It also has a severe shortage of usefully navigable rivers that go East-West and don’t freeze for half the year. Sowell is eloquent on this subject.
If he could have, Stalin would have pressed on to the North Sea and eaten all of Europe. That was the plan for the Internationale, anyway, and is what the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would essentially have achieved, combining two collectivist totalitarian empires.
The CIA (who are paying you for this covers external threats) – unless you are admitting it’s MI6 who are funding you?
Nobody is funding me except myself and I agree with Theophrastus
Except you also believe this isn’t the worst government in British history and that Harold Wilson was worse which kind of knocks your credibility for six to be honest.
When Spud makes similar allegations, you denounce him as evil. You are as hypocritical as you are deranged.
you’re the one whose hypocrisy is off the scale. You seem oblivious to the economic issues facing the country and imagine that infinite funds for the defence of the realm can be found at a time when recruitment across all three services is in crisis and the government of the country is committed to the destruction of the white working class which is the bedrock of the armed forces manpower. Indeed there’s members of the armed forces who are seriously touting conscription which is likely to go down like a lead balloon
in the meantime we are squandering what resource we have in an ultimately futile endeavour several thousand miles away in an imbroglio which we have no vital strategic interests at stake. Russia has taken threee years and nearly a million casualties to make gains of around 10 additional per cent of Ukraine’s territory, which it then has to occupy while still maintaining control over the largest country in the in the world. It is an international pariah and effectively simply a resource base for China. And I ask, what is your endgame here? even assuming they could be removed from Crimea, what then? Attacks on Russia itself with ground troops?
In the meantime even the recent New Year’s festivities showed the level of Islamist penetration into large urban conurbations like Leicester, Bradford and Birmingham (just to name three) – you seem blasé about these people’s links with terrorists who have killed far more Brits than Russia ever has and who unlike the Russian army are based here and now. They also have 5 MPs overtly sympathetic to them in parliament and at least a dozen more in the next General election. Legislation is pending which will make criticism of their religion illegal. So I ask again, are you being paid to peddle the myth that Russia poses a bigger threat or are you naive enough to believe that?
You seem oblivious to the economic issues facing the country and imagine that infinite funds for the defence of the realm can be found…
A feeble argument. The defence and security of the nation should be the state’s first priority. So if funds are needed for defence, we should cut the welfare state, nut zero, the Chagos giveaway etc. Duh! And no-one is talking about “infinite” funds, if such things are even possible.
…we are squandering what resource we have in an ultimately futile endeavour several thousand miles away in an imbroglio which we have no vital strategic interests at stake.
It’s not futile because the UK, like the West as a whole, has a vital strategic interest in containing an expansionist Russia with absurdly grandiose imperial ambitions (v. Dugin et al for details). Defeat of the West in Ukraine would only encourage North Korea, China, etc. And Ukraine is c.1500 miles away, not “several thousand”. Duh!
…what is your endgame here?
Probably the re-partitioning of Ukraine with extensive security guarantees. And rearmament – for conventional and asymmetric warfare – by the UK and the West.
…are you being paid to peddle the myth that Russia poses a bigger threat…
*Sigh* Nobody pays me or has ever paid me to say anything. I have made it clear many times that I consider the islamist threat extremely serious – I favour mass repatriation of muslims – as is the Russian threat. It’s not either/or but both/and! Moreover, the two threats are to be dealt with in different ways by different agencies, though with some overlap, eg in intel gathering.
’A feeble argument. The defence and security of the nation should be the state’s first priority. So if funds are needed for defence, we should cut the welfare state, nut zero, the Chagos giveaway etc. Duh! And no-one is talking about “infinite” funds, if such things are even possible.’
Great – we are basing policy on a song from the 90s film ‘Pretty Woman’. This is government committed to treason in its every move. It has no discernible ability and every member knows they are unemployable after it ends. So they’re here until 2029. That’s even assuming they allow another election, which is not guaranteed. Their backbenchers rebelled over £6 billion of cuts and yet they are going to cut the welfare state and Net Zero?
Their backbenchers rebelled over £6 billion of cuts and yet they are going to cut the welfare state and Net Zero?
You are equivocating. First, you made the false economic claim that opposing Russia is unaffordable. Now, you have retreated to a weaker political claim that the expenditure would never be approved by this Parliament if it involved cuts to welfare or nut zero. To which I would reply that the expenditure is no less necessary, and this (and any future) government could find the funds by tax or borrowing.
The Russians are thinking in centuries, so our Russian problem will not magically evaporate by 2029…the cyber-attacks, the probing of NATO airspaces, the mapping of our undersea cables, etc will continue.
Where was the “Second Rome?”
Second Rome was Byzantium.
Thanks jgh. Makes obvious sense once you say it.
Sophia Palaiologina, sister of Constantine XI Palaiologos, the last Byzantine Emperor, married Ivan III (the Great), Grand Prince of Moscow (later Tsar), in 1472. She brought Byzantine court traditions, heraldry (like the double-headed eagle), and a claim to imperial legacy to Moscow, helping establish the basis for the Russian Empire.
“She brought Byzantine court traditions…”
Decadence², Backstabbing, Incest, Corruption, and “Caste”..
Inheriting *anything* from Byzantium is not exactly something you’d be proud of…
That was a cesspit of Faded Glory and then some… And that was when Crusades to the Holy Land were still Fashionable..
It only got worse after that…
Besides…. at that time the Habsburgs already *had* directly, familial, or through fealty, most of the actually productive and profitable bits of Europe.
Far more than the original Roman Empire ever had.
If you’re talking “successors” You’re talking Roman, Byzantium, Carolingian ( extended by the HRE/Aquitaine+France/Iberian triumvirate) , Habsburg Europe.
And by then you already hit Colonialism, so things get fuzzy.
One of the Things the Funny Corporal was wrong about is that his Dream wasn’t the Third Reich. It was actually the 5th or 6th, depending on where you draw the lines.
Inheriting *anything* from Byzantium is not exactly something you’d be proud of…
But that is not how Russian royalty viewed it. And, even now, the Russian state and church are immensely proud that Moscow inherited the leadership of Orthodoxy from Constantinople. Hence, “the third Rome”…
Third Rome? Lucky to be the third Swindon. When I say it’s not much of a threat, I don’t mean no threat. But it threatens others more. And it’s currently knackered for what, five years?
Sorry, but Russia is no realistic threat as long as Europe does not commit ritual seppuku over Net Zero or some green equivalent. Putin would not want western Ukraine, they could not control it, let alone Poland or anywhere further into Europe. You can warmonger all you like, reality however insists that you consider practicalities. After all, Russia does not surround NATO, NATO surround Russia.
Of course once Europe is the new Caliphate, tensions may rise again, but that is at least 20 years off.
Putin would not want western Ukraine, they could not control it…
That assumes Putin is rational
Russia has spent 4 years on a ‘special military operation’ against a 6th rate military.
If you think the UK military is *worse* than the Ukrainian one – then maybe its true that Russia is a threat;) If you think that no one will come when Russia slams down the Fulda, then maybe its true that Russia is a threat.
If you think that Europe is going to destroy its domestic energy production capability and buy Russian gas from their pipeline, thus making the EU a vassal of the Russian Empire – then maybe its true that Russia is a threat.
There is no such thing as “NATO airspace”. The airspace above each European country is that country’s, not NATO’s.
If you had written ‘EU airspace’ you might have had a point since mainland Europe is cucked by Brussels, but its not NATO’s airspace.
What’s next, talking about NATO’s ‘eastern *flank*’? The east is NATO’s *front*.
Pendantry!
“NATO airspace” is merely shorthand for ‘the airspace of some NATO members’.
No, its not pedantry. These are important legal concepts.
Violating UK airspace is justification for UK forces to respond – its is not justification for *NATO* to respond.
That the east is the front is conceptually important. You arrange your forces to face your front – where the attack is coming from. The attack is not coming from the north, it is coming from the east. People talking about NATO’s ‘east flank’ are not serious thinkers with real knowledge of NATO or European military matters.
They are randos that looked at a map and were confused.
An example
Can France violate ‘NATO’ airspace?
No, they can not.
But they can violate the airspace of NATO members.
Quite so. But, as I said, it was shorthand…
Russia isn’t much of a threat.
Maybe not in the conventional sense of 100s of tank divisions flooding through the Fulda Gap and parking menacingly at Calais, modern warfare is hybrid which is harder to defend against.
Yeah, BiND, we scared’em off, you and I and I suppose a few more people.
As long as they didn’t attack Friday nights when we were all pissed or the weekends when most of the European NATO troops had gone home for the weekend Europe was safe.
And that’s only a threat because the people running Europe are the RBO types who think ‘international law’ has any meaning beyond ‘if you behave this way we won’t shoot you’.
Now that its clear – for 50 years now – that no one in Europe is willing to shoot anyone who has half a chance of shooting back no one cares about their rules.
The EU smothered the RBO into unconsciousness, The Ukraine invasion shot it, Chinese encroachments in the Pacific and actions against the Philippines stabbed it, Trump just hammered the last nails into the coffin.
what exactly are we trying to defend in that case?
He’s got a good point, I wouldn’t let any of my children join the forces. If Russia nuked SW1, I’d forgive them.
People are willing to defend their own nations, but white people aren’t going to risk limb and life protecting halal chicken joints, mosques, grooming gangs, Beeg Eeshoo gypsies, or King Charles III. It would be immoral to defend Britain as it is now.
Let the past die, kill it if you have to.
Not grooming gangs.
Pakistani Muslim paedophile rape gangs.
“Grooming gangs” always makes me think your hairdressers are getting violent.
It’s always easier to destroy rather than to create. Destroy – in your adolescent rage – but be aware of what such destruction allows to flourish. Revolutions devour their children…
“Revolutions devour their children…”
The future we have if we do nothing will devour our children too, so whats to lose by a bit of revoluting?
To be honest there’s more chance Russia turns into a liberal democracy by 2100 than the UK escapes its Islamic future, so
Pressed Post Comment too soon! And the site won’t let me edit it.
Meant to finish: so we might as well throw our lot in with Uncle Vlad, there’s not much to lose.
The future we have if we do nothing will devour our children too, so whats to lose by a bit of revoluting? (my emphasis)
Non sequitur. If we do something – and the right something – ‘revoluting’ or nihilism would be unnecessary and indeed only make the task of saving the nation harder.
*White* people won’t have a choice. You’ll be conscripted. And your officers will be foreigners.
I really, really, really don’t understand this mentality Ag.
We always have a choice. This isn’t Ukraine, can’t kidnap us off the street and drive us to the front.
If you allow someone to conscript you, that’s a choice. But I can’t see any eventuality where Brits allow themselves to be conscripted. What do you think this is, 2023? The mood has changed. If they tried that shit now, we’d simply kill them.
We’re not locked in here with them. They’re locked in here with us. Have courage, Anna. We’re going to build a snowman.
.
They can absolutely kidnap you off the streets. *YOU GUYS USED TO DO IT!* – pressganging.
And you won’t kill them. That is clear. Even if you wanted to – they have all the guns now.
But we have the best memes
Oh, an army always has a choice, even when conscripted. I was watching a very interesting video about the Vietnam war the other day. By the end it got to the point that the rank and file US army had effectively mutinied, and was refusing to fight. Any officer who tried to make his men fight would end up ‘fragged’, ie killed with a fragmentation grenade, a method of killing that was virtually impossible to detect the culprit or prosecute them. The officer corps were reduced to hiding in fortified barracks within their own camps guarded by only the most loyal of troops. Out in the field junior officers had to negotiate with their men and deceive higher command that they were doing offensive patrols when they were in reality sat somewhere safe for a week or so, then would return to base.
A conscript army fights because it has some degree of shared conviction over what it is doing and how the war is being prosecuted. If that conviction is not present then the only way to make then fight is the Soviet method of ‘go forward onto the enemy’s guns, because if you go backwards ours will kill you anyway’. An army contains hundreds of thousands of ordinary soldiers and maybe a few tens of thousands of officers, and has easy access to weaponry. If the former don’t want to fight, and turn on the latter there’s only one winner.
I happen to agree with the Sage. Any war with Russia will be fought far beyond the borders of the UK. No likely end could bring the British loss, or leave them happier than before. Minipax should take appropriate measures against the threat of incoming missiles, and no more.
Potentially good uses for defence money:
* Air defence
* Domestic manufacturing capacity of all types of munitions and drones
* Submarines (especially diesel subs)
* Destroyers and frigates
* Naval aviation
* Ships cats
Wanky wastes of money:
* MoD staff
* Ajax
* The RAF
* All those recruitment ads with tiny brown women
* Regime change gayops like in Libya and Syria
Good Lord, Steve.
Diesel subs? Diesel?
Can’t be having those in the green utopia.
Our war subs will be eco-friendly solely battery powered subs. No nasty, dirty diesel engines. Gotta protect the polar bears.
Means we’ll be able to plug it in at night for recharge to make the most of cheap ‘leccy rates as well – more savings for the taxpayer!
CD – have you seen the new Jap subs? Chock full of big, fuck-off batteries to allow for silent running. They’re basically underwater hybrids, very cool tech.
Don’t forget the need for more ships cats either. Money spent on kitties is never wasted.
All the submarines I went in (a long time ago) had huge batteries though the batteries in the nuclear ones were only half the size of the ones in the diesel boats as they were just for backup. Diesel boats run their engines for propulsion and to charge the battery either on or just under the surface (snorkel) but deeper than that they run on batteries. So yes they are hybrids.
Not any more.
AIP (air independent propulsion) is all the rage in diesels. Bring your own oxygen, run the diesel while still deep so you don’t need to snorkel. Can still do weeks trawling at a couple knots.
But those aren’t proper blue-water subs – they’re for the sorts of nations that focus on territorial defense, not power-projection.
But those aren’t proper blue-water subs
Not true at all. Diesel subs were already “proper blue water subs” in WW2. Allowed the Yanks to project power across the Pacific and obliterate Jap shipping.
Modern large diesel/electric designs like the new Jap sub classes are very capable long range combatants.
The bonus of diesel is we can afford a lot more than a handful of em… and with modern cruise missiles a submarine is also a very flexible asset that can menace people far inland too
Conditions underwater have changed since WW2 making diesel no longer competitive in the deep.
At a minimum, you’re back to not being able to travel while submerged as fast as surface ships again. AIP (and especially those limited to batteries) are restricted to loitering near choke points while submerged.
At a minimum, you’re back to not being able to travel while submerged as fast as surface ships again. AIP (and especially those limited to batteries) are restricted to loitering near choke points while submerged.
Yes, diesel subs are ambush predators, using stealth and guile to kill. Our nuclear ballistic missile subs are also unable to keep pace with a destroyer, doesn’t render them unuseful.
Imagine a navy with a high low mix of useful assets that could sustain a reasonable cottage industry of, say 1-2 SSK’s in production at any one time (keeps sovereign defence skills busy).
Yes, one of the big advantages of nukes is their greater underwater speed which allows for quicker transit time to and from patrol areas.
Diesel can also run quieter, and nowadays carry an enormous long range wallop of antiship/antiland from directions the Russians never expected. It’s a complement to, not a replacement for, the premium atomic boats
Yarp. Subs have been electric since the 19th century natch. Battery tech has come a long way since then
I’d argue you also need lots and lots of nukes. So if any platoon or patrol boat is bothered by some useless bastards, they simply blow them to hell.
Or could I be thinking of my ideal Aussie defence force??
Exactly how is investing in non-productive assets a “good use”?
Oh, I see, the good old spend your way out of trouble theory. If it only worked.
“good use” “of defence spending”
To defend an island, you need a navy…
5% of GDP seems excessive when it’s hard to identify a credible external threat. I don’t see Russian troops sweeping over Europe and across the channel any time soon, and wannabe Emperor Macron only has 16 months left in office.
Threats are not only miltary. The Russians and the Chinese often try to hack our institutions, private and public…
Buying frigates and submarines is going to prevent that?
There is a good case for a nuclear umbrella. There is no good case for any other military hardware.
Yes there is. You also have to deal with the asymmetrics somehow. They have guns, rockets, MANPADS, and a martyr complex. And drones, and powered parachutes. As we’ve seen, they can make a big mess with this stuff, and they need stopping. Whereas in theory I wouldn’t weep if a nuke landed on Tehran, that’s not the only place these people operate from, and you can’t nuke most of those other places.
.If we go back to planning maneuvre warfare in Europe, we’ll be missing the fact that however much the Generals want to move pins on a map, the actions we usually get involved in are asymmetric. Most of our losses are to mines, IEDS. Have been since before VE day. Generals hate that.
and asymmetric has become so much harder with the technology available to the opposition. I don’t know how we could win now, with lawyers looking over our shoulders.
Don’t go abroad. Fund and equip teh RN properly for control of the waters around us, say 1000nm radius. And yes that includes the seine.
First lets kill all the lawyers???
Harsh. That would put a lot of nannies, cleaners and gardeners out of work.
They achieved that years ago. And nobody in power seems bothered because they are the result.
And somehow you think that situation is not mutual ? Naivety indeed
Having a force that can project power away from your shores can protect your interests in areas that are away from your shores.
There’s all the Commonwealth nations, and Argentina might get froggy again.
I think we’ll find it’s not so much defence spending that requires austerity, but Digital ID. According to the DT.
Again, classic Murphy. He starts by asking the question that other people are asking: should we spend more on defence? he ends, after a fuck-load of words! – by saying “The real question is…” and then sidesteps the question in front of him. By spending his time insisting economics isn’t a zero-sum game (despite everything he’s previously said) he deflects from his own refusal to suggest we should commit to spending more on the hated ARMS INDUSTRY.
Then tomorrow he’ll be back, like he was yesterday, saying we need to stand and fight fascism in Europe and fight the fascist trump in Greenland and fight…
Libelling out of both sides of his mouth.
Ha ha ha ha! With Net Zero, you aren’t going to have ANY DAMN MONEY ANYWAY!
It doesn’t matter what it costs, because you won’t have it. Defense or NHS or aid to invaders.
You will have no military when Denmark or Norway, or Gamecock’s favorite, Ireland, invade. Your government has posted 2050 as the Net Zero end point, but it will come way before then.
Ah, but Ireland’s fucked too. THey’re just as Net Zero as we are, and proportionally they have even more “enhancement”.
But they do have a budget surplus, thanks to all that lovely corporation tax.
Although they do have fuck all armed forces, and we might just see them trying to re-arm.
Ursula says: “Nice corporation tax take you have there, Ireland. At the moment.”
Re-arm? They’d have to arm first.
More likely, limited spending.
Related:
BREAKING:The UAE announces it will cuts funds for citizens who want to study in the UK out of fear of Emirati students being radicalized by Muslim Brotherhood Islamists on British campuses.An Arab state now views a European state as a dangerous Islamist radicalization hotspot
The best thing I’ve seen, up to now, on Trump’s defence strategy, based on a book by Elbridge Colby, who now serves as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy:
His entire framework is built on the premise that preventing Chinese regional hegemony in Asia is the non-negotiable core interest of U.S. strategy. Ceding Asia to China is not burden-sharing. It is strategic suicide. You do not hand over the most economically consequential region on earth to your principal competitor.
The confusion comes from mistaking prioritization for abandonment. When Colby argues that Europe should take primary responsibility for its own defense, he is not saying “Russia gets Europe.” He is saying Europeans have the resources to handle their own continent, so American resources should concentrate where they are actually needed for the balance of power to hold.
The Western Hemisphere focus is not America retreating to its corner either. It is securing the base of operations. You cannot project power into the Indo-Pacific if hostile actors control the Gulf shipping lanes, your canal access, or critical supply chains in your own hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine reassertion enables the Asia strategy. It does not replace it.
https://medium.com/@mcnai002/the-bridge-at-the-center-of-the-pentagon-d104b4cf3248
Obviously Russia doesn’t get Europe. Those days are long gone. Russia and the other states (Ukraine etc.) that formed the USSR plus the supporting Warsaw pact countries (East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria etc.) were a very serious threat. Russia on its own or with Belarus is now a bit player. It can threaten but it isn’t going to take Europe.
China is of course a growing threat to the US as it’s only potential challenger for position as the top global superpower. Consequently it’s reasonable to speculate a China angle for every single move the US takes.
Not wanting to knock over Russia too much is part of the china angle. It is percieved as Trump liking Putin, but it really is a need for Russia to survive as a functioning country for a bit longer. He doesn’t want Russia gone so China can move in to Siberia and its resources. Ultimately though, demographics will get China. And Russia. And us.
And everyone else, but in a somewhat different way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDJ4-MtAkQ
The Ukies had the resources to handle Russia when the Soviet Union broke up. I understand they were the third strongest nuclear power on earth.
But they gave their nukes back to the Russians in return for what they believed were guarantees of their independence by Russia and the US. This didn’t work.
Since the nukes did work, I’d argue that what Europe needs is lots and lots and lots and lots of nukes. A nuclear armed Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Greece etc.
And of course a nuclear armed Fourth Reich!!
The British Army website rotates its pictures. A quick two-minute look shows the following images:
Woman skiing, black bloke in kit, black woman (wearing the Adjutant Generals Corps cap badge ie the Army HR dept employed to sack infanteers for telling dick jokes), white bloke in kit, possibly black bloke kayaking, two white guardsmen (one with an unfeasibly feasible double chin), brown female medic, brown male medic, black woman grinning in kit while chatting to probably brown woman (can only see the black pigtails) as two white blokes look fondly on.
So three white men wearing combats, two ceremonials, one of them a fatty.
Now look at any photo of the Paras, the Royal Marines, certainly the SF. Or look at the Delta team that nabbed Maduro the other day.
No women, no fatties, and very few if any non white blokes. Hmmm.
‘Now look at any photo of the Paras, the Royal Marines, certainly the SF. Or look at the Delta team that nabbed Maduro the other day.’
Or indeed look at photographic evidence of the military personnel manning the late Queen’s funeral in 2022.
So Murphy has at last recognised that Russia’s defence industries are not in aid of collective security but to promote Stalin’s version of “collective security” which isd hegemony by the Soviret Union under Russian control
Lol, you miserable bunch of old fucking fucks.
We’ve nearly lost it before and we took it back by fighting for it; fighting with noble spirit and a wise and crafty cat at our side.
This Blessed Plot – This England
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxPvHz55Uvg&list=RDGxPvHz55Uvg
People who can’t put the national flag up aren’t going to fight for the nation.
We did? I don’t remember doing any fighting. Was I on holiday at the time? And what part did you play?
There’ll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you as England means to me
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MV0O2Y9xto4
We’ve nearly lost it before
But last time the enemy was external. Now it is internal. Thanks to open borders there’s already a force of fighting age men here, much larger than all the armed services put together.
England’s Green and Pleasant Land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9-djEuEjM&list=RDGxPvHz55Uvg
Ah yes, England’s green and pleasant land. Where the State can expropriate your green and pleasant land at the drop of a hat. And a private businesses can do likewise if they are one of the State’s favoured boot lickers. And the State tells you what you can do with your land, and your house, and can tax you into the ground if it so choses, whether you’re alive, or dead. Where anyone who tries to create anything is surrounded by State employees trying to stop him, and quite possibly simultaneously with ones demanding taxes from you because you have created something.
Green and pleasant land? Authoritarian shithole more like.
I note the absence of wind turbines, solar panels and high-rise diversity hutches in those green and pleasant pictures.
Especially if you’re dead
You can fix that – you’ve done it before, we did (once and it looks like we might have to do it again).
The question is – are you too rich today to risk losing what you have?
Can’t remember where my sister and her husband are going to go.
Must recommend the place to her if I get around to it.
Ah, so what? It’s one of those things in life, you never ever notice where you live. I spent some time with mainland Spain’s highest mountain at the end of the garden. The scenery around there is absolutely breathtaking. Looks fantastic in photos. After the first couple of weeks, I rarely noticed it. Or the picturesqueness of the historic buildings in the local town. I can remember where the supermarket was though. And the wheelybins where you dumped household trash after having to cart the stuff down in the back of the car.
It’s not the packaging that’s important it’s the contents. And the contents of the UK these days is best avoided. That’s what I remember about it.
I notice where I live, but I agree I’m atypical.
Remember the old horror move When A Stranger Calls, when the police tell the babysitter “the calls are coming from inside the house!”?
That’s what I think of when talking about the dangers facing the UK.
Has anyone asked him if he would rather live in the current Britain or a Britain that is part of the Russian (worse, *the French!*) Empire?
Which Britain does he think would the people live better lives? In which Britain does he think there would be more focus on protecting the interests of the wealthy?
Sometimes your shithole is worth defending because it would be an even worse shithole after you were conquered.
Is this not nationalism?