Good morning, Charles. You made it.
I did. I made it.
Yeah. Thank you.
Yeah. I think we're allowed to say to
the viewers it's been pretty interesting weather down here in
the West Country and you had a pretty wet drive down motorways
flooded. Yes, motorways flooded.
It was, it was, it was, it was pretty bad.
On the upside, it gave more time to ruminate on the subject
matter for today. So let's let's take the
positives. But yeah, it was it was very
hairy. It does.
I think it relates to what we're going to talk about because
there are instances like this. There was, I was on the M5,
there was a, there was a serious accident on the other
carriageway and I, I couldn't tell what had happened.
But, but it does, you know, it, it, that requires a response
that requires a response of people who know what they're
doing and who are able to deal with it.
And I think this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have
already talked about on military matters, but probably what we
will talk about today, you know, this, this matching of people to
situations and, and scenarios, although of course that wasn't
that was Ganic's not quite the right word.
But but you know, there was, there was no intent there.
It was a an accident caused by presumably bad weather and bad
driving. No one was trying to do it.
I think what we have to walk our way around today and through
this series is what is happening, if anything, sort of
organically and what is being created and therefore what are
the responses to it. So I that might be a slightly
uncomfortable analogy to make, but but you know, we'll give it
a go. No, it's great.
Well, I, I found my head deep into military matters.
I was I was looking at doing a bit of research last night,
getting back into the swing of it, having a reread parts of the
strategic defence review. And then this morning I found
myself having a look at a little video that Doctor Fiona Hill,
who's one of the three authors of that defence review.
So we've got Lord Robertson, General Barons and Doctor Fiona
Hill. And I, I hadn't thought about it
before. Who is this lady?
So she's chancellor of Durham University.
She's a Russian and European geopolitical expert.
She's provided advice to three US presidents, George W Bush,
Obama and Trump himself. And I was just listening to her
clip. She was talking about South
three years ago. She was talking about Russia.
And I just found her statements very scripted for somebody who
was supposed to be a deep analyst.
She was talking in very simplistic sound bites.
And one of the ones that I winced at was she said, well,
and of course the Russians have been conducting, were conducting
exercises in relation to Ukraine.
And these are sort of offensive exercises.
The implication was so we knew what was happening, but when we
conduct exercises, they're always defensive exercises.
And I, I just thought, is this really the level of the
intellect that was putting together our strategic defence
review? I don't know what you'd say
about that. Well, I think, yeah, I think
that's a really interesting point.
I'm again having looked into her background and her particularly
her position on Russia to a certain extent as well.
I think as well as a reduction of the intellectual scrutiny of
Russia in its current form and historically.
There's also a great emotional thread running through what she
says. And OK, I of course I concede,
but to be described as a Russia expert, if you speak Russian and
you've spent time in Russia, that adds weight to your
credentials. But at the same time, if you
decide through that period of time of having learnt Russian
and spent time in Russia, which she has done, that actually you
have become disenchanted or you decide that you don't like
Russia and what Russia is doing and you feel that you're well
justified in your position because you've been there and
you know, then that creates well, or rather that reduces
your objectivity. So it's a sort of, it's a double
edged sword to be described as an expert, but also then to
bring what looks like emotion into it.
And I think that's exactly what's happened in the strategic
defence review in particular. She's, I mean, I've, I think
I've quoted this on the news program, you know, on the
emotional side of it, she has directly compared Hitler with,
oh, sorry, Putin with Hitler in the past.
So it's all, it's very much about the individual and, and,
and that kind of thing. And again, exactly like you say
when she when when you see that she has been set against set
alongside Robertson and Barons, both of whom in effect stand to
gain from the actions that are very obviously forecast by the
defence review. Baron's in so far as his defence
consulting company is concerned and his particular interest in
sort of cyber and AI and then Robertson being involved with
the current group. So that the the conflicts of
interest as well as the points that you make are suggestive to
me that these three people should never have been let
anyone near the defence review. And, and I know I, you know, I
remember we did talk about this in the, in the last episode of
Military Matters. And I think that stands the test
of time. We recorded that back in late
September 2025 and the situation has evolved now.
But I think what's interesting is that it to us, because we are
keeping our eyes on it, I think it, you know, we can see
absolutely, or at least we believe we can see the direction
that it's going in. I think for the general public I
would regard this as a as a very clever psychological shaping
operation and slowly, slowly, incrementally, people are being
moved into a position where they can see that there would be a
justification for an engagement of sorts with Russia.
And that links exactly back to what you're saying and Fiona
Hill in particular, inserting her prejudice and narrative into
that defence review. Yeah.
And, and one of the things that we could pull out the defence
review to support that position is the fact that they're talking
about the need for national engagement.
We, we, they're not going quite as far as saying we need to get
into a full war footing, but they, the document is clearly
saying that we've got to fully engage industry, we've got to
fully engage the UK public, we've got to recruit.
So we'll say it's one level down, but it's not saying, well,
we've got to have strong armed forces that exist from within
and alongside the nation state. We're now pumping out
documentation suggesting that the whole nation has to get on
board because in the future we might have to front, we might
have to fight Russia. Absolutely.
And again, I think that's that's it's one of the building blocks.
And I think, you know, again, I was sort of considering two,
well, I suppose two sides of the same coin.
If we look at history and we've referred to this before, but we
look at the the build up to and the progression into the 1st and
2nd wars and how there were great similarities.
One things that in fact I'm going to be writing about
hopefully this week is how the emergency, the state of
emergency is first of all created and then exploited.
And just as a, as an example, I think I've got the figure right.
I look this up and I, I think between the years 1939 and
194541 pieces of general legislation, 41 general acts
that came onto the statute book during that period were
predicated on emergency. So they were, they were
basically emergency powers. Now how many of those were
rescinded or repealed at the end of the war I haven't yet got
into, but I should think it would be, it would be very few.
And here we are beginning of 2026, we are yet to see
emergency legislation, but the the current armed forces bill,
which is going to be changing the at the moment, just the
details around the call up or the ability of the armed forces
to call up reservists and to increase the age at which people
may be called up. And all the you know, that there
are there are many, many things pointing very strongly towards a
big echo with what was happening in in the wars that I've just
described. The other thing, which I think
is an interesting, if somewhat intellectual academic point is
if there is to be conflict with Russia then, and indeed this is
how it's been described in Ukraine, what does winning look
like? We're, we're always told that,
oh, well, if it weren't for what we did in the second war, we'd
all be speaking German. So that that that's the sort of,
well, that's what the result of losing the Second World War
would have been. What is the result of losing a
war with Russia now? And I think it's difficult to
point to there being much of A distinction between winning or
losing in that if we use this, what I'm describing the sort of
the, the, the emergency situation and we see how Ukraine
being an excellent case study, how, how what's happened, there
is a massive push towards a digital infrastructure because
there's an emergency, the utter destruction of democracy.
OK, arguable that it was a poor relation to any sort of
democracy that we might describe, although that's that's
another minefield. But, but, but the point is that
that you've got the all these elements pointing very strongly
towards actually, does it make any difference whether you
supposedly win or you supposedly lose the outcome because of the
combined interests of governments and corporations are
all really pushing us in in the same direction.
And then I think on the other side of it, you've got the armed
forces. You know, the view from the
armed forces in in the United Kingdom at the minute, I think
is that the situation is so poor that a war is needed in order to
improve the situation in in order to make the armed forces
do what they're supposed to be able to do.
So there are so many reasons, sorry.
And then the other one, the other big one obviously
enormously is, is that the, the defence industry absolutely
requires it. You know, there's been this,
this enormous commitment in terms of the defence spend.
Well, that's got to be justified.
So there's so many reasons that suggest that we sort of we
should have a war. But but as I say, the question
is, well, what, what would happen?
What would the result be? Lots of lots of points there.
There is there is a lot for discussion over this just coming
in a slightly different direction.
I rereading the Strategic Defence review I I found myself
1 coming back on the use of language throughout.
So you, you read the strategic defence review and to my mind,
it's full of phrases and jargon and statements about what is
going to be done, but there's no clarity in, in what that
actually means. It's it, it's, it's lots of
buzzwords, it's lots of OK terminology.
We're going to be fighting fit to win.
So these are little sound bites that of course the politicians
can stand up in the in front of the camera and talk about.
But if you actually say what does this mean?
And I can't get a meaning out of it.
What do I introduce from the document?
Coming back in at it is, is huge confusion because we live in a
country where the whole of our ability to produce and
particularly produce and sustain military operations has all been
hollowed out. And I've deliberately used that
terminology because that's appeared quite a lot in the
national press, that our military has been hollowed out.
So we look at the country and the whole of the support bases
has been stripped out. We can't manufacture steel.
We can't. Until recently we were not
producing munitions and ammunition in any quantity.
We're producing ships, but we don't produce aircraft.
And then we've ended up with the smallest army in 300 years, I
think it is at around 7072 thousand.
So world politics has been going on with the same politicians.
Lord Robertson's been there in the background and he's now part
part at the age of 79. He's now in this strategic
defence review. But the country's ability to
produce and particularly produce in house has been completely
hollowed out. And then we have a strategic
defence review that says, Oh my goodness, we're, we're in a real
dangerous position here because those nasty Russians are going
to invade and we've got to invest in the country in our own
production. But if you, if you take
procurement, although the government is, is talking about
something like 87% procurement from within UK, that doesn't
mean what the government is buying in a military sense is
AUK product because they're not tracking through the supply
lines as to where the manufactured product actually
comes from. So if they're choosing a missile
system and they're going to say, well, it's, it's produced in
house by British or it's produced by British Aerospace,
The reality is that missile doesn't get produced unless
components come in from overseas.
That might be America or that might be Europe.
So the government is now caught in its own trap.
It's hollowed the country's ability to produce weapons,
missile systems, it shut down the Royal Ordnance Factories
that were producing armour, and now it's suddenly saying, Oh
well, if it's going to work properly we've got to be in
house. So that's one conundrum.
And then of course, we've got another major one because in the
document it is largely saying, well, we're not going to fight
on our own. We're going to fight within
NATO. But Oh dear, we've now got a bit
of a a bit of a problem with NATO because Trump has shown
that he could, if he wanted to pull America out of NATO.
And where would that leave us because we're no longer strong
enough on our own. And then the other thing in the
background that doesn't really get dealt with in the strategic
defence review itself is the engagement with Europe.
Because much as we've said, Brexit, Brexit has brought us
out from the European Union. The reality is everywhere you
look, we're locked into agreements with the European
Union with respect to defence. And the situation is now so
complex that the government's making this statement as to what
it wants to achieve. The position that you're
suggesting we're, we're on a semi war footing with Russia.
But actually it can't implement it because all of the other
policies have destroyed our ability to operate, operate
alone. So I see this document as being
not only a huge, sorry, the strategic defence review as not
only being a huge psychological operation on the British public,
but it is also drowning in its own confusion because it now
exists in a political, let's say European geopolitical world for
Doctor Fiona Hill, that prevents us as a nation state from
performing in a military sense. Little bit long winded, but I I
don't know whether you'd know you know where I'm coming.
From yeah, absolutely. Well, I, I think that I think
that ties in with with this question of sorry, what, what
war would look like and whether there is some sort of metric
that determines whether or not we're winning or losing, which
is why we we sort of asked the question, are we well, and I
think we agree that we that we are in in many ways at war.
But when we say but but what is we?
Because in actual fact exactly like you say, the control and
the profit is very obviously held by multinational
corporations. And therefore there there is, I
would say a marked difference from certainly any large scale
conflict that we've had within what might be described as
living memory in that the advance of the technical digital
side of things means that you no longer buy a piece of hardware
and in doing so take complete control and ownership of it.
You might physically have the thing, whether it be a weapon
system or a an armored platform or whatever it is, but in actual
fact, the proprietary technology that makes that thing work is
owned and can be controlled from somewhere else.
Now that's a very, very dangerous position to be in if
you're just looking through a military lens.
But I think we can't really look just through a military lens.
And this is where we're we're having to reevaluate the idea of
of warfare and exactly what it might involve.
Now, I think that there, and I think we talked about this last
time, you know, the idea of sort of boots on the ground and
whatnot will always be a factor. I think that I think that has to
happen because it's impossible to run the PR campaign without
it. You can't, you can't not have
the photographs of troop ships or people getting on aircraft,
whatever it is you, you've got to have that bit to sell to the
public, the idea that there is a national emergency, a threat to
our security, but that we are providing a sort of plucky
response. But in actual fact, that
obscures first of all, the fact that an awful lot of the
activity is being conducted behind the scenes because it's
it's either the preserve of the intelligence agencies or it's
being given over to people who are running things remotely.
We've talked about the two obvious ones being sort of cyber
AI warfare, one of a better word and indeed drone operation.
So yes, I mean, I think. I think that the the way in
which we look at all of it has to be has to be completely
different. I think also the other thing
that's come out from very obviously directly from the
strategic defence review is exactly like you say,
particularly from Fiona Hill, is the idea that that Russia is
with beyond question bad and intends US harm and is a is a
threat and, and all this sort of thing.
Obviously every single protestation and communication
from Russia indicates not exactly the opposite.
But I mean, there's sort of, you know, well, fine, talk it up if
you want, but we have absolutely no intent of presenting any kind
of threat to your to your country and, and that kind of
thing. But also the accusation, and
this came out just before Christmas, a very interesting
sort of twin attack from Blaze Metro Welly, the new head of
Secret Intelligence Service, and of course, the granddaughter of
Constantin Dobrovolski, the Nazi collaborator.
So her family history is interesting to say the least for
somebody who's heading up our Secret Intelligence Service.
And Richard Knighton, the head of the armed forces, the chief
of defence staff. And they, they, they spoke,
forget what it was either on the same day or day apart.
And there the messages were, were exactly the same, which is
that, you know, we've, we've looked at everything now and
Russia is, is absolutely presenting an existential threat
to us. And that, and I think that is
completely an extension of the, of the defence review.
And, and it's, you know, it's pointing in a direction that I
think is much more subtle than the idea of right.
Well, we just need queues of people at recruiting offices.
I think there are many more ways in which this is going to work
because as I say, going back to your, your point about
equipment, the, the commitment to, on that spend is going to
deliver something that is ultimately owned by
corporations. This is going to be more than
ever before, I think a war that's conducted by people in
offices and the other side to that.
It's just an irony. But I thought I'd mention it is
that last year, you know, at the end of 2025, we had the Ministry
of Defence bragging that 2025 is a record year for what what's
being described as defense exports from this country.
So we can't we, we can make kit and flog it to goodness knows
where. Because when I asked where it
had all gone, they said, oh, it's too sensitive to tell you,
even though they're going to say we've, we've done it.
And at at that same time, we don't have the kits that we
apparently need. So to say there's, there's, you
know, a huge element of just mud to the whole thing as well.
Yeah. And is it just muddle an
incompetence or is it created muddle?
And I think to a large extent the hollowing out has been
deliberate by these agencies who've got plans for a rock in
the pond above national government.
So there's definitely muddle and there's definitely the strong
intent to create fear in the nation state because if we if we
say what would Russia actually need to invade the whole of
Western Europe, we would be back talking about armies of millions
of men, millions not, not, not 200,400 thousand.
We'd be talking about millions of men.
And the conflict in Ukraine has already demonstrated, to my mind
at least, I'm, I'm not an army man, I'm a Navy man.
But to me it's clearly demonstrated that that the age
of the rapid advance with armoured vehicles is over.
Because if you look at what's happened in Ukraine, the moment
armoured vehicles are effectively in the open, and
even when they're not in the in the open, they are being
destroyed by drones, kamikaze drones.
So large scale full frontal armoured assaults seem to me to
be out and the Russians are clearly winning in Ukraine, but
they're doing it by very small incremental troop movements.
And this then further demonstrates that the the
opportunity to invade hundreds of miles West into Western
Europe is simply not credible. I mean, Putin is saying to the
world anyway, we, as you've just said, we've no intent, intention
of, of, of attacking your countries or invading the
European Union. But in reality, the evidence is
all there that you simply can't do this.
And, and they would need to do that in order to have the troops
on the ground to control Western Europe.
So the fear factor which is coming out of the intelligence
services and the likes of Doctor Fiona Hill and presumably her
colleagues, is just astonishing. It's astonishing.
It is, I absolutely agree. And I think that's, that's
really why I mentioned the corporate element, because it,
it seems if you look at it through that lens, then the idea
that Russia is an enemy makes sense.
Because let's say we have, you know, across our three armed
forces, we have an amazing array of, I suppose we, we don't, but
you know what I mean? We have, we have an incredible
array of equipment and capabilities that are made by
all sorts of corporations all over the world.
You know, we don't, we, we do not have a line in so far as
ethics are concerned as to where we get kit from.
Really the, the government will talk about not dealing with say
North Korea or Iran or whatever, but really actually what they
mean is, is Russia and to a certain extent China, I would
say. And so the, the fact that Russia
is able to run again, what's described, I would say
erroneously or, or euphemistically as a, as a
defence industry, OK, it's, it's a war industry.
It's it's purely designed to to kill people.
But the idea that the United Kingdom is procuring equipment
solely for the benefit of the national security or the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom is is a farce.
Well, we've, we've, we've just had last month the announcement
of a missile system to be created with the Ukrainians.
Exactly, yes. Is that going to be the British
Ministry of Defence involved in that project, which suggests
not. It's going to be Tales or
British Aerospace or that club of the military industrial
complex that's going to be working on that missile system.
Exactly. So, but but to your point about
about how, for example, how ground is taken or how armoured
vehicles in particular are used, of course, and I know this
sounds cynical, but I think realistic.
If those vehicles are not destroyed in in the way that
they may be now, or if they are not destroying something
significant in return, then then the the wheels, the corporate
wheels don't turn in the way that they're supposed to.
That, you know, I think that's the way we have to consider it.
This stuff, this stuff is being made.
A lot of it is being made just OK.
A lot of projectiles, Ballistics and whatnot are being made in
order to be able to be fired elsewhere.
But otherwise, you have to take the view.
I mean, not exactly like the planned obsolescence with light
bulbs. Military hardware is is being
made to be destroyed because otherwise those companies cannot
continue to make it. If we made tanks.
Yeah, it is. I mean, and This is why I go
back to this idea that that war is, is, is necessary.
You know, we we spoke in our last episode.
We spoke a little bit around this because then we just had
that NATO summit where we took not hanging on about 5% and they
were hammering out this, you know, 5% this that and the other
of course that that was absolute smoke and mirrors because they
they were not at all upfront about how they were going to
achieve 5%. And in fact, when you look at
the way the pie was sliced, there was an awful lot of, of
chicanery going on there. But, but nonetheless, the point
is that that is totally arbitrary.
And, and I, and I made this point last time, you know, what,
what the heck does that actually deliver?
If it, or if we spent 10%, we spent 10% now on, on so-called
defence and we had every little bit of shiny kit that we needed.
What does that mean that then Russia ceases to be a threat or
that Ukraine is somehow sort of, you know, saved?
I mean, there's no, no one can articulate what that means.
But but then, you know, all you have to do is just look over
the, the side of the fence, say, oh, right, OK, so now, so now
the, the, the defence corporations all over the world
have have made their billions. They now need to keep that, keep
that turning. And then, and This is why this
is this sort of, you know, hand in glove thing with governments
being able to seize upon this opportunity in order to be able
to further subjugate populations via legislation and and sweeping
policy changes. And I mean, you know, if this
sounds, if this sounds fanciful, then then I mean all you need do
is go to legislation.gov.uk and look at what changed during in
particular the 1st and 2nd world wars.
You know, I'm not making this stuff up.
It's exactly what happens. And you know, in the same way
that we will say, you know, you can't comply your way out of
authoritarianism, it's none of this stuff ever gets ever gets
scaled back down. So This is why I do go to the
point of sort of there, there needing to be a war and and the
the, the, the, the only obstacle really is the public's response
to this. And again, this is something
that the media are very, very well practiced in being able to
create the conditions under which people think.
OK, yeah, now I'm now I'm on side.
Now I can see why I would go and join Apple, whatever it is.
That, that's a really interesting point to get to
because another of my observations on the strategic
defence review was, was about recruiting.
Because there's one small paragraph in there which it
doesn't say this, but it's intimating this, intimating this
is the senses there that unless we can recruit people, because
everything depends on having the personnel to operate the
systems, to sail the ships, to fly the aircraft, unless we get
the person, the people in, we've got a problem.
Now I, I did a quick check to see what had happened with
recruiting figures from from sort of autumn last year.
And we're still in a slow decline.
And this is where I think these people have got themselves in a
trap again, because in Russia, something which I think has
surprised the likes of Doctor Hill and her colleagues.
And I'm focusing in on her because half an hour ago I was
listening as to to speak about Russia.
Is the fact that is that not only is President Putin still
extremely popular even though we've now got war into the third
year, 3rd year, fourth year? 4th year, 4th.
Year he is recruiting in order to fight that war with
significant casualties. Nobody's saying the Russians
aren't taking significant casualties because they
absolutely are. But within Russia, across the
whole span of Russia, with all the different people types that
Russia comprises, there is still the willingness to fight for the
motherland. In contrast, in UK, recruiting
is demonstrating that people don't feel motivated to fight
for UK, for the motherland because they are now completely
unmotivated by what their own country has to offer.
They don't believe in the monarchy, they don't believe in
the, they don't believe in the government.
They certainly don't believe in politicians.
They're not even convinced happily yet that we need to go
to war with anybody. So you read the strategic
defence review with all of its rhetoric about and focus on
Russia. And we're going to do this with
equipment and we're going to have, we're going to have this
re resurgence in building equipment in house, etcetera,
etcetera. But oh, we haven't got the
people and we haven't got the people in a huge way because as
the military gets smaller, so the experience base Withers away
and therefore you have not got the quality to teach people how
the art of warfare. And I'll just add to that, that
something else that I picked up in the Strategic Defence review
was the fact that it, it was saying, well, as far as
education is concerned and teaching, and they're talking
about education and teaching recruits within the military,
that's going to be outsourced. So another key thing, because in
in in my time in the Navy, when you looked at at young recruits
coming in into the Navy, you could see the huge change that
the Navy made in taking them from being a schoolboy to
bringing them through basic training.
A lot of them needed education in that their mathematics skills
weren't very good or their writing, reading and writing
even. And it was the military
instructors that worked with them to bring those skills up.
And what that was actually doing was, was giving those young
recruits a sense of values, not only in themselves, but in the
military because they were interfacing with military
people. Now we're going to outsource all
that to Capita or whoever it's going to be.
And So what you're doing is, is even the serving people are not
rank and file. Serving people are not getting
any sense of national identity or pride in the armed forces,
all the all the things that that mean that they want to serve and
they stay in the armed forces. And of course, I always found it
bizarre when the military started talking about people
having a sort of gap year. You would serve for so long in
the military and then you'd go and work for boots and then you
would come back in. I, I remember thinking this was
utterly bizarre when it was floated around the military.
Now that report is saying, well, no, this is what we're going to
do. We want to encourage people to
be gap year military people. And I'm thinking no, no, no,
because it's the fact that people are in a career for life.
They want to serve. They want to.
This is what makes excellent professionals.
So the people compiling that document, to my mind, don't even
understand what you need to make a military work.
No, I mean I would quite agree if you, if you sort of take it
at face value. But I think we, you know, we go
back to a question I was sort of examining at the start, which
is, which is well, I suppose partly.
Do we need to pay? Well, yes, that's part of it,
but it's sort of what does, what does winning or losing actually
look like? And do we are we supposed to be
winning or are we supposed to be losing?
Because if we, I think if we, if we look at the, the end state,
you know, as one should and military planning, you know,
what is the end state? What is the design tide end
state and therefore 1 step before that, what is your center
of gravity? What are you?
What do you what's the 1 mission critical activity you need to
achieve in order to fulfill that end state?
And I have a hard time picking between sort of winning or
losing because because the point is to be able to create the
conditions under which people are going to accept a change to
their circumstances. And the introduction of I mean I
now keep saying it but but. Right.
So we're we're going to fight the war.
We're not actually going to fight the war without our.
Well, you see, I think I think there's, there are, there are
different sizes. I think it's a really
interesting point you make about the about the people because
again, we talked about this before quite right there.
There are, I think amongst the those of sort of eligible age.
I mean, in particular say that people who are coming into it,
you know, 16 to 18 year olds now by and large.
Yeah, no, not, not interested for a variety of reasons.
I think not interested probably because the just the idea of
doing something which requires a certain degree of discomfort and
sort of physical endurance. Yeah, exactly.
I mean all of that. So on the one on the one hand,
that might sound a bit damning and a bit unkind to say, but I
think it is true. And I think we can point back to
a lot of reasons why that would be.
And then I think on the other side is the what go, go and you
know, get get slotted for Keir Starmer.
No thanks. And that again, I think is a
very interesting one because when we look at what's happening
now with Reform UK and again talked about it in the last
episode, but the, the sort of creation and then riding a wave
of, of nationalistic fervor, whatever you want to call it.
And Farage now off to Davos to sort of wave his flag and say,
you know, right, I'm yours. I'm I'm going to stick up for
Britain and and whatnot. In actual fact, I think were
there a change and this is this, this might have a few people
sort of balking slightly, but but you know, there are great
parallels here with what was happening in 1930s Germany.
The the rise of Hitler in the early stages was based on
brilliant oratory and a very clever selection of a a way of
unifying the country both economically and
philosophically. And and this is what Farage is
doing. But you have to have your body
and internally whilst for Hitler it was Jews not as far as I
believe. And I and I'm I'm setting quite
a lot of story in the writings of David Irving, but and then
this is from from Diaries, not just a pillar, but of those
surrounding him. It wasn't that he was has sort
of pathological disposition against people of Jewish faith,
but but rather more that he realized the political
expediency in identifying a group of people that could be
pointed to as the problem in the same way that Reform and Farage
have done with the in particular Muslim population of the United
Kingdom. So the reason I'm talking about
this is because I think that does potentially open 2 doors. 1
is the. The, the idea that sort of
migration and whatnot needs to be tackled in digital identity,
Hey presto is the answer for that.
But also because of the, the idea that right, well, we are,
we are all Brits and those dastardly Russians are going to
do something. So you know, are going to join
up and you would fight for say, Farage.
So I think you're absolutely right.
You do need people, but probably not that many.
And I go back to this idea of, of corporate and exactly what
you're talking about with the the idea that packages of
training or whatever can be delivered from outside the armed
forces, which to you and I sounds utterly insane.
But then actually, if you're thinking of where that goes and
the idea that the control really is held outside of the armed
forces for all the all the reasons that we referred to
before, I think it sort of starts to make more sense.
Yeah, yesterday I had I had a chat with Mike Robinson and.
And I think I said to him, So what do you think's happening?
And there were, there were some things discussed, but part of
that discussion was an emergence of fascism.
And we're talking about UK and the West and, and that that was
Mike's feeling on what we're saying.
And you're intimating the the same thing here that we are.
The main danger is actually coming from within the country
and the attack on our constitution and our laws and
our freedoms and our protections.
But while you were talking about the rise of Hitler and Nazi
Germany, into my head came a chat that Mike and I had many,
many years ago, I think, in Bournemouth with a very elderly
German lady who'd married an English soldier at the end of
the Second World War and then come to live in UK.
And of course at that, because I'm talking at least 10, maybe
12 years ago, it was the EU which was seen as the big evil
beast eating away at our constitution and freedoms.
This elderly lady was very agitated and she said to us over
a cup of tea, all this is happening.
The freedoms are going. The state is taking control.
And people can't see it. Why can't they see it?
And then the next minute when
she was talking about what she'd witnessed as the change of
politics in Germany, she said, oh, but the thing about it was
it emerged like the drip, drip, drip of an anaesthetic.
And then she she said and, and one of the things I remembered
and I always hated was that more and more officials were given
the right to enter your home and more and more people doing
ordinary jobs were put in a a uniform.
And I'm recounting that now after all these years.
But it was immensely powerful because there was that elderly
late she was later, I think she was bombed out into German
cities. Hamburg was one.
I can't remember where the other one was, where she she was in
Berlin or not, but but it very poignant stories.
But I thought, my goodness, you know.
So you think about the change always being a stark change that
you could see. But she described the evolution
of the Nazi project as a drip, drip drippers of an anaesthetic.
That's what we're seeing on we're we're sensing this through
some of these documents. I think absolutely.
And I think I think what, what sets this in some perspective is
the, in some ways, what was a, you might say is a dress
rehearsal, but but actually was conducted in such a way as to
alert people perhaps beyond the level that they should have been
alerted. And that was the COVID
emergency. And, and I think there are there
are great parallels which we absolutely shouldn't ignore.
Anyone who's done any research into it will know that so many
things coincidentally were in place by the time the balloon
went up in March 2020. And that suggests that there was
a significant amount of planning into something that was
subsequently characterized as being a novel illness, a novel
emergency. And there is every indication
that it would that was not the case.
But also if you look at who you know, who benefited from that
and who continues to benefit, very obviously, of course, the
Pharmaceutical industry, but also the digital industry as
well. The, the way in which the push
to having everything online and indeed digital signature and
biometrics and all of that sort of stuff.
So that, so the delivery of profit and control and success
into those corporations has been absolutely immeasurable, as has
government control. And that's exactly what you all
describe and you think of during that period, everyone was
suddenly in high vis wondering, marshalling this, that and the
other. And by and large people accepted
it. But of course, as I say, that it
was so stark and it was so draconian that I think that's
done two things. First of all, it did have the I
suppose probably calculated effect, at least calculated
insofar as it was probably wasn't going to trigger that
many people. But a significant number of
people became aware of this, reacted against it and now are
live to what is going on in the world.
But I think actually what it did was it pushed the boundaries so
far. And Mike was talking about this
the other day on a news program, the, the sort of shut, shut the
door in the face approach, which is that you, you want to achieve
one thing, which is sort of right of argh.
So you, you make a statement about something that is way
beyond what it is that you need to achieve in order that people
react against that. And you then appear to row back
from there and say, right, well, they are.
So it sort of looks like compromise.
And I think that is in a way what the COVID project is going
to deliver in terms of war, because this is a drip, drip.
It's not right. You've all got to stay at home,
you know, right. We're all at war.
No, So I think, I think there is absolutely a drip, drip element
to that. I think also the other thing,
you know, thinking about that exchange with that, with that
German lady is how we always talk.
You know, we're always talking about we should, you know, we've
got to learn from history. Never again.
This that the other OK, fine. But what, what, what 1 forgets
is that a large part of the reason that history has
forgotten lessons aren't learned is because it's a different
group of people who are in the chair at that particular time.
So if you, if you were able to go back and say to the people
who, who did survive the First World War, right, let's go and
do this again, I, I can't see that any of them would say, yes,
we'll do it again. But by the time you've pushed on
a generation and in effect, that is what we've done.
Now people have forgotten. And I think this is the other,
the other part of it is people have lost touch with the human
cost and the, and the impact on humanity and just just to.
Yes, exactly. And, and and so it's it's
glamorized. We the the Internet does this.
You see, you see, you know, Twitter is absolutely awash with
either the idea for the Ukraine armed forces, supposedly sort
of, you know, yeah, we blew up. So and so, yeah, but so you're,
you're talking about killing people.
If that was in any other context and you're putting live videos
of of people being killed. That would not.
Be permitted, but but because it's it's sort of it's glorious
war, it's somehow fine. Well, I, I think I did mention
this in our previous talk, but the other thing I old enough to
remember, albeit as, as, as a, as a youngster was, was the
fighting in Vietnam being reported on the BBC and
regularly those reports were body bags.
They were talking about dead Americans coming back in body
bags and it was clear that the reports of those deaths, 203
hundred, whatever it was in, in any particular period were
having a huge impact on UK society.
And they were certainly having a huge impact on American Society
because when the body bags got numerous enough and and the flow
was strong enough, there was the backlash in in the American
public against against the war itself.
But the war in Ukraine, utterly brutal, brutal fighting in a
conventional sense in the beginning, but now within a
matter of a few years into drone operators hunting individual
soldiers. And some of the footage is truly
horrific. None of this appears on the BBC.
So the BBC reports the war in Ukraine with, as you say, all
the glamour of war, if that's possible, with no, absolutely no
footage of the reality. And that's that's why for UK
column news and I've tried not to overdo it.
I have from time to time put up clips to show how brutal the
fighting is in is in Ukraine. But you are right, the West
portrays the war as a a glamorous war in Ukraine.
It does and, and, and, and this is, this is truly sickening.
And, and I think with the like you described, the drip, drip
approach and the many other societal factors that have
played upon or interfered with people's minds in, in so far as
people have become desensitised from it.
They're the the number of people who've been around death and I
don't like to talk about this much, but the the number of
people who've experienced it up close is very small now, very,
very small, which means that people have largely experienced
it through computer games or these online videos.
So either it's just virtual or it's being done in the name of
something that you're told you should believe in and even in
fact, going to Bbci mean amazingly, they are I think it's
an audio series. They're actually running a
series at the moment called Putin's Foreign Fighters.
And that the the premise, as far as I've heard the the sort of
teaser clip, it's to examine these supposedly sort of
complete nut cases who want to go and who are not Russian want
to go and fight for Putin knowing that they face certain
death. But the BBC is not reporting
those same exactly people fighting for the Ukraine as
well. Or at least, if ever it has
done, it's taken the Liz Truss line, which is, yeah, this is
the right, this is the right thing to do.
Absolutely. You should go for it.
And I think, you know, that this is a it is a really serious
point because we are talking, you know, I I I think Mike and I
were talking about this in a germ warfare banter session the
other day. But the idea that, well, I mean,
you know, it's sort of word play, isn't it?
The defence industry, you know, you work with the defence
industry, you are making kit that is specifically designed
in, in most cases to kill other people.
That's that's what you're doing. You're you're there to reduce
the number of lives on the planet.
I mean that that's how it works. And and yet the sort of personal
accounts of this, because, as I say, there are so few serving or
former military now, full stop, but also very few who will have
accounted will have taken part in kinetic operations that have
resulted in the loss of life. And I just mean that in terms of
the overall population, people have basically lost touch with
it. And I think, you know, I mean, I
find this I brought back into stark reality very recently.
I've, I've read a, an account, a first hand account from the
trenches in the first war, an amazing book called Tommy at
Gomcorp, GO double MECOURT, Thomas Higgins, who was a
private soldier, then Lance Corporal in the North
Staffordshire Regiment at the early stages of the First World
War. And it describes his experiences
in the trenches and then subsequently as a prisoner of
war. And I defy anybody to read that
book and think, yes, we should go to war.
And, and that's, that should be in Keir Starmer's intro.
And I'm not suggesting that he holds all the power.
He is being pushed into this by the, the, the known and unknown
entities to which we refer. Yet he does have the authority
to to go or no go where military action is concerned.
But but I think the reason I mentioned that book is that
specifically what, what's so interesting, we have this, we
have this sort of rose tinted idea that, you know, that the
pals battalions and and this and the other that that there was a
an organic response to. It's a situation where we had to
meet, you know, we had to meet that threat.
We had to send men out and this and the other.
But actually, what comes out of that book, some of the more
poignant parts are he he recounts singing the national
anthem on Christmas Day, where sort of hostilities ceased for
the day. They sang the national anthem
and it just caused him to ruminate.
He kept these affirmed Diaries he kept at the time of sort of
well, really, is that why we're here?
We're here to keep some some bloke sitting in a nice house
back in the United Kingdom safe, you know, and to read that,
that's that's quite a pretty emotional thing to read after
the absolute horrors that he's been through.
And also he talks about the utter loss of humanity in some
of the urban skirmishes that they had where he describes.
And it was it was the same both sides.
What else could they do? But they just, it was just a
slaughter. It was a frenzy.
They would just killing people as quickly as they possibly
could. There was no regard for trying
to take prisoners or anything like that because they knew that
that if they faltered for a minute, it it was them next.
And and that is just horrific to read.
And then the Third Point, which again is it comes right back to,
I think sort of what what we're talking about in terms of this
being in prospect initially and then in review is the idea that
they went out, they did it. Some of them, like he survived
and they came back and they were just straight back down to the
bottom of the heap. And for what?
And crikey, that is poignant. And so, I mean, if anyone
considers getting hold of a copy of that, Thomas Higgins,
interestingly, his great grandson was one of my
instructors when I was at Sandhurst, which is how I came
by a copy of it. So Alf Higgins gave me a copy
the other day. But it, I mean, there'll be
other accounts, but it is absolutely remarkable.
And it just, it brings those things.
So even if you think, even if you're prepared to endure the
idea that humans can kill each other and all the rest of it,
the fact that he was able to point to this idea that that
you, you go there and you either do sacrifice your life or you're
prepared to and you come back and you just get nothing and
nothing changes. You know that that's that.
That hits very hard. Yeah, the these sorts of well,
Diaries and and recollect recollections of people who've
actually been through the fighting of very powerful
things. YouTube, for all its faults, has
got a very large number of really excellent audio or say
videos. Usually there's there's images
presented with the audio, but they are the audio, the audio
delivery of the Diaries written by German soldiers on the some
officers, but mainly soldiers on the Eastern Front when they were
fighting the Russians. And my goodness, those Diaries
tell you so much. Because for many, they go from
the initial euphoria that they're moving across the border
and Operation Barbarossa has begun and they're attacking the
Russians and they're advancing hundreds of kilometers a day.
And then it moves on to when things started to bog down
around Moscow and staling ground happens.
And then, and then they are on the retreat and they're in
appalling temperatures -30 or whatever it is.
They've no food. And they are starting to
consider why they're there. The only reason they continue to
fight is to protect their fellow soldiers.
But in those Diaries, yes, they absolutely reflect back on why
they're there and what was happening.
These are not Diaries that the BBC is ever going to present to
the nation. And I doubt if they're even
presented to the nation in Germany because they really tell
it as it is. We're on a very interesting path
here is I was driving into the column this morning.
One of the things that was in my head is that although I have
been retired now for 30 plus years from from the military,
I'm thinking to myself, it's amazing how much how powerful
the sense of loyalty is. And so I thought we're going to
have this discussion today and I didn't quite know where it was
going going to go, but I was thinking we are absolutely
challenging stuff that's happening around the military.
We're also in a way looking at the military in UK and saying
you really need to think through what you're doing and, and why.
But I also feel a sense that there are many very good young
men and women who are out there in UK's armed forces because
they believe they are doing a good job and that they're a
vital part. This is this is a difficult one.
But what do you think we should be saying to them?
Because on one hand, we're here and we're clearly putting a
message across wars and nasty thing.
You have more experience of it than I certainly, certainly do.
But so we're saying, yeah, watch out for what this really is and
who's fermenting the environment that says you, you need to go
prepared to go to war for the Russians.
What else can we say to those? Yeah, very professional and
dedicated people out there. This is it.
I, I, it's a, it's a very good question.
And and I think perhaps at the at the outset of this
discussion, we should have, we should have made reference to
that. I mean, you know, the fact is we
are, we are both ex servicemen, we, we, we both intentionally
join the armed forces and so for periods of time.
So we obviously we wanted to do that and there are so many
elements of military life and OK, I am out of touch.
And I think to go back to your point about the, the hollowing
item or not, I know that morale is not what it was when you or I
was was serving. I mean, there's always something
to complain about. So it.
Wouldn't be what it is. If there wasn't, then that
might. Be indeed that might be hard for
non military people to understand but exactly so if
there isn't a certain amount of manking which used to be called
in the life is not OK. Yes, exactly.
But but, but so, so that notwithstanding that, but yes, I
mean the, the sense and this might sound sort of Triton like
a sales pitch. It's it's absolutely not.
It is, it is completely an objective fact that the the
camaraderie and the professionalism and the ability
to get stuff done is exists in the armed forces.
In an unparalleled sense, I mean they I do not believe you can
replicate or experience that anywhere else.
And for me that was that was the main driver for not just joining
but being part of that system. Now the problem is that you are
therefore manipulated as an individual.
Your good nature is taken and may be Co opted in in any
particular direction, but that is a political direction.
So I think what I would hope that people do is discuss much
more about the factors that are pointing towards a particular
military intervention and really consider what it is that that
that either is driving this or that the results of it would be.
And to therefore exercise your discretion and your influence
over that process. Because that, you know, let's
not forget the chain of command works both ways.
And I think there needs to be a greater element of discussion
that feeds up to the, let's face it, the political, no very much
political hierarchy of the armed forces.
But that's a that's a really good point, Charles, or
immediately comes into my mind is, and I've said this on a
number of occasions, I'm happy to say again now is the immense
weakness of the senior officers in the military.
And this was one of the things that I started to see towards
the end of my career, which made me ultimately make the decision
to leave. I saw things happening in the
military which we're clearly not right.
They did not make sense. They were causing problems.
And yet there was there was no senior officer that would speak
out because their minds were full of am I going to be made a
Sir? That was the key one.
Am I going to get that most high-ranking pension to make the
rest of my life comfortable? And when I started to see what I
thought were really, really good senior officers, the sort of
people who you just knew if the chips were down, you would
actually be following them in, in the battle.
And then suddenly some scruffy politician appeared on board the
ship or on the base and they just turned to mush.
And and I, I found this appalling.
And of course, there, there are so many.
I mean, if we take barons who's been part of the strategic
defense review, you can correct me here because I may have
missed it, but what is he actually?
What did he actually do to stop the hollowing out to the
military? Because he's he's reached senior
rank in a military that was being hollowed out.
So what did he do to actually stand up against that or protest
or whatever? Though senior officers, some of
them have spoken out a little bit, but most of them in my view
are complete political cowards. We'll not talk about things.
Absolutely, I would agree with that.
And I think that's that's very well evidenced by the number of
officers above sort of one star command and above who, who go
public the moment they've left rather than actually making a
fuss whilst they're still in and being able to deliver some sort
of. Protest.
Exactly, Yes, yes. And and so, yes, I mean, to go
back to the point, you know, again, sorry, just to just refer
back to the book Tommy Ogong called the other point he makes,
of course, and this this strikes right to the heart of it.
And it's, it's terribly difficult.
It's an ethical question, But he, but, but he reflects at one
point and he just says, you know, we, we all came to think
or he, he came to think that he's really there just killing
Germans because they're German, you know, just because they had
the misfire. I can't remember.
He phrases it really well. And that, and that's quite a,
that's quite a thought. Now that takes us into a much
bigger thing, which we can't possibly touch upon now.
But the, but the idea, you know what, what is an armed force for
in the 1st place? You know, because to me, sort of
rather sentimentally, the idea of sort of queen and country
seemed to mean something, was certainly meant a hell of a lot
more than right, going to go off there and just bash those people
around just because they're in a different part of the world.
And that to me has never made any sense at all.
So to, to not have any armed forces and well, you know,
anyway, not, not for now, but but it, but it just does, you
know, how many people really, when that, when you are getting
operational briefings about this, that and the other, how
many people are really thinking, OK, so we, we are going to be
in, let's say, Iran or Russia aiming to kill Iranians or
Russians simply because they are Iranian or Russian.
I mean, that's, that's quite a thought Now where people take
that I, I don't know, but I think that people that, that,
that at least having those thoughts, having those
discussions has got to be for the, for the good, because
otherwise we, this has been sort of a thread through this
conversation. The balance absolutely does
shift away from the military holding any power over their own
destiny. And and we look at the, the
massive, massive corporate influence and that is a that is
a terrific danger. And I think what I'm pleased to
be doing is this, you know, this, this series, which we are
going to make a more regular commitment to because I think
it's really important that UK column does chart accurately
this drip, drip boiled frog progression because I think we
see it and it, it, it is very important that other people are
are brought to see it as well. Well.
Absolutely, Charles. We're probably at the top of the
hour. I, I think so we, we, we should
probably finish for today. But let's end by reinforcing the
point that we absolutely understand the quality of the
people around there in UK's military.
I think my final message would be, it may be I'm saying to
those people out there in the armed forces, you may have to
fight, but it'll be fighting for this country rather than
fighting the Russians. Yeah, that's exactly it.
But exactly what is defined by this country these days is a big
one, and we'll get to that in another episode.
In due course. Yeah.
Brilliant. Thanks very much.
Thanks.