The British Armed Forces survived Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. They stood firm for decades on the front line of the Cold War. But, since 1990, they've been salami-sliced almost to death.
Brilliant article! But very worrying. Our supposed Conservative government are descending into LibDems hellbent in creating a nanny state. They seem oblivious to the increasing threat of Russia with support from China and Iran not forgetting the growth of malign Islamic influence and antisemitism in the UK.
Perhaps an attempt to recruit competent and pragmatic diplomats that know the difference between the Black and Baltic seas is also in order to avoid the need to use our new big stick to everyone's detriment. Avoiding involvement in proxy conflicts that we end up losing would help with security too.
Right on. It’s not the 19th century. We absolutely don’t need to send young men to die by the tens of thousands to Crimea.
Whatever issues Russia has with Ukraine, some of them quite reasonable, should be settled with diplomacy. Not by wasting billions of pounds on the military industrial complex.
People like me apeased Stalin at the end of WW2 because they were sane enough to ignore the war mongers that wanted never ending conflict. They saved tens of millions of lives by trying to keep the Cold War cold. Those that want nothing but war have compared everyone to Hitler ever since to justify their blood lust. Thankfully, it looks like Trump and Le Pen will win power this year and back away from catastrophe.
Stalin was the one that wanted never-ending conflict. What did appeasing him achieve? 45 years of tyranny and oppression in Eastern Europe. Well done you.
Nonsense. Stalin kept the deals signed with Churchill and Roosevelt, and even refused to back the Greek communists, since Greece, per agreement, was in the Western sphere of influence.
Many forget that Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech was PRIMARILY about the need to avoid another war, his belief that diplomacy needed to win out, and that cooperation with the USSR was possible. (Direct quote: “I do not believe Soviet Russia desires war”.)
And the avoidance of a humanity ending nuclear war. Churchil, DeGaulle and Truman knew that a grubby peace was better than another total war. Unfortunately, instead of those great men we now have bloodthirsty idiots that believe a nuclear war is winnable and all diplomacy is appeasement. These people, on all sides, are more dangerous and stupid than the Kaiser in 1914. The sooner they are out of power, replaced soon it seems by the otherwise imperfect Trump and LePen, the better.
Again, the concept of a winnable nuclear war comes directly from Stalin-era Soviet military doctrine. The reason Putin rattles his nuclear sabre so often is that while western doctrine sees a clear break between conventional and nuclear weapons, Russian doctrine does not. To them, nuclear weapons are just really powerful artillery.
Anyone aside from the willfully ignorant, and of course our deranged and/or senile leaders can see that the war in Ukraine was wholly unavoidable, and painful concessions are necessary.
How would the UK react if Scotland invited Russian troops to be placed next to the English border and entered in a defensive alliance with Russia? Or if China got military bases in Mexico and Cuba?
Yet somehow, it’s totally unacceptable that Russia doesn’t want Ukraine as a NATO member, and takes the same steps that the US took in Iraq.
Ah yes, the 1930ies! The only frame of reference for the intellectually destitute. Everyone we don’t like is Hitler, and every faux conservative tries to be discount Churchill.
It’s buffoonery for the masses and simple copium to defend an otherwise indefensible policy.
If leftists brought up the Bolshevik Revolution as the answer to every geopolitical quandary, you’d be quick to point out how pathetic and dumb it was, yet here we are:
Thank you for that admission. After all, after you threw out that rather meaningless and erroneous parallel between the 1930ies and today, some less charitable than me would say that you indeed know nothing.
The problem with many conservatives, is their stubborn refusal of parting with the past. It’s not 1936, it’s not 1986, it’s not even 2001. And policy needs to reflect that, rather than charging headfirst into a new Cold War that mostly exists in imaginations thoroughly stuck in the past.
It doesn’t matter about the increase if the money is eaten up by committees+time=Inflation
and zero results.
There’s 27 people at the Pentagon Procurement chain, from 1 action officer to SECDEF.
27 signatures requiring 27 reviews. This is why the lead time for DOD procurement is 6 years. This is long known.
Long as in 1956 a young Dr. Henry Kissinger presents his recommendations to President Eisenhower. In 2019 a retired USMC general presents the same recommendations to SECDEF Esper “wow just wow “ then General explains from 1956.
UK 🇬🇧 seems to be on same or longer timeline.
Has nothing to do with anything but grift. DOD 🇺🇸 is lucky to keep the Dining Facilities open, the Cooks are all deployed, usually as cannon fodder BTW. Cooks got convoy escort (insurgents target practice) while Infantry and Scouts kept in reserve, for the big one… also Combat Arms runs the Army and don’t like casualties, bad for Officer Efficiency Reports.
Oh please. What exactly does the UK need a grand army for? To rule a colonial empire?
If anything the cuts to defense spending have been belated and long overdue.
If anything they need to be deeper. There are countless programs in the UK that need funding. Taxes are at an all times high. The NHS is imploding.
And yet you want to beef defense spending? For what exactly? To send Brits to die in the fields of Kherson, for a war that’s none of our business?
It’s not 1939 anymore. And the rather unintelligent platitudes about how Russian troops will swarm the UK if billions of pounds aren’t wasted NOW NOW NOW! Are transparently false.
Not an American, actually. European. But all that is irrelevant to the fact that it’s neither 1914 nor 1939, and UK defense spending is a colossal, unnecessary waste.
Well, you write in US English, which is the native language in exactly one country - the USA. In any case, you're still not British and our defence spending is still none of your business.
Death by 1000 cuts
You may have missed out an N...
Brilliant article! But very worrying. Our supposed Conservative government are descending into LibDems hellbent in creating a nanny state. They seem oblivious to the increasing threat of Russia with support from China and Iran not forgetting the growth of malign Islamic influence and antisemitism in the UK.
Perhaps an attempt to recruit competent and pragmatic diplomats that know the difference between the Black and Baltic seas is also in order to avoid the need to use our new big stick to everyone's detriment. Avoiding involvement in proxy conflicts that we end up losing would help with security too.
Right on. It’s not the 19th century. We absolutely don’t need to send young men to die by the tens of thousands to Crimea.
Whatever issues Russia has with Ukraine, some of them quite reasonable, should be settled with diplomacy. Not by wasting billions of pounds on the military industrial complex.
People like you trotted out exactly the same arguments in the 1930s. Their naivete killed around 75 million people.
People like me apeased Stalin at the end of WW2 because they were sane enough to ignore the war mongers that wanted never ending conflict. They saved tens of millions of lives by trying to keep the Cold War cold. Those that want nothing but war have compared everyone to Hitler ever since to justify their blood lust. Thankfully, it looks like Trump and Le Pen will win power this year and back away from catastrophe.
Stalin was the one that wanted never-ending conflict. What did appeasing him achieve? 45 years of tyranny and oppression in Eastern Europe. Well done you.
Nonsense. Stalin kept the deals signed with Churchill and Roosevelt, and even refused to back the Greek communists, since Greece, per agreement, was in the Western sphere of influence.
Many forget that Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech was PRIMARILY about the need to avoid another war, his belief that diplomacy needed to win out, and that cooperation with the USSR was possible. (Direct quote: “I do not believe Soviet Russia desires war”.)
And the avoidance of a humanity ending nuclear war. Churchil, DeGaulle and Truman knew that a grubby peace was better than another total war. Unfortunately, instead of those great men we now have bloodthirsty idiots that believe a nuclear war is winnable and all diplomacy is appeasement. These people, on all sides, are more dangerous and stupid than the Kaiser in 1914. The sooner they are out of power, replaced soon it seems by the otherwise imperfect Trump and LePen, the better.
Again, the concept of a winnable nuclear war comes directly from Stalin-era Soviet military doctrine. The reason Putin rattles his nuclear sabre so often is that while western doctrine sees a clear break between conventional and nuclear weapons, Russian doctrine does not. To them, nuclear weapons are just really powerful artillery.
Anyone aside from the willfully ignorant, and of course our deranged and/or senile leaders can see that the war in Ukraine was wholly unavoidable, and painful concessions are necessary.
How would the UK react if Scotland invited Russian troops to be placed next to the English border and entered in a defensive alliance with Russia? Or if China got military bases in Mexico and Cuba?
Yet somehow, it’s totally unacceptable that Russia doesn’t want Ukraine as a NATO member, and takes the same steps that the US took in Iraq.
Feck off over the Dnieper and wait
Ah yes, the 1930ies! The only frame of reference for the intellectually destitute. Everyone we don’t like is Hitler, and every faux conservative tries to be discount Churchill.
It’s buffoonery for the masses and simple copium to defend an otherwise indefensible policy.
If leftists brought up the Bolshevik Revolution as the answer to every geopolitical quandary, you’d be quick to point out how pathetic and dumb it was, yet here we are:
“MUH HITLER! MUH MUNCHEN! MUH NAAAZIS!”
OK then. You don't like Hitler or Lenin, so let's go with Cicero:
"A man who knows nothing of history, knows nothing."
Thank you for that admission. After all, after you threw out that rather meaningless and erroneous parallel between the 1930ies and today, some less charitable than me would say that you indeed know nothing.
The problem with many conservatives, is their stubborn refusal of parting with the past. It’s not 1936, it’s not 1986, it’s not even 2001. And policy needs to reflect that, rather than charging headfirst into a new Cold War that mostly exists in imaginations thoroughly stuck in the past.
Fergus trot off to the Russian Front and let us know how it goes…
Of course he won’t. War mongers have no problems sending other people to die, or sending other peoples money abroad.
Note that he wants to increase defense spending to 4-5%, but doesn’t even once mention where the money should come from.
It doesn’t matter about the increase if the money is eaten up by committees+time=Inflation
and zero results.
There’s 27 people at the Pentagon Procurement chain, from 1 action officer to SECDEF.
27 signatures requiring 27 reviews. This is why the lead time for DOD procurement is 6 years. This is long known.
Long as in 1956 a young Dr. Henry Kissinger presents his recommendations to President Eisenhower. In 2019 a retired USMC general presents the same recommendations to SECDEF Esper “wow just wow “ then General explains from 1956.
UK 🇬🇧 seems to be on same or longer timeline.
Has nothing to do with anything but grift. DOD 🇺🇸 is lucky to keep the Dining Facilities open, the Cooks are all deployed, usually as cannon fodder BTW. Cooks got convoy escort (insurgents target practice) while Infantry and Scouts kept in reserve, for the big one… also Combat Arms runs the Army and don’t like casualties, bad for Officer Efficiency Reports.
6 years to contract-
2 to approve requirement.
2 to get funding.
2 to contract.
https://acquisitiontalk.com/
This is grift, as bad or worse than green energy.
This all sounds remarkably… American… to my experienced veteran ears. I suppose its just neoliberal.
If this were America I’d say:
The government isn’t failing on defense.
The government is succeeding on offense.
See if you can deduce who the government’s enemy is?
Oh please. What exactly does the UK need a grand army for? To rule a colonial empire?
If anything the cuts to defense spending have been belated and long overdue.
If anything they need to be deeper. There are countless programs in the UK that need funding. Taxes are at an all times high. The NHS is imploding.
And yet you want to beef defense spending? For what exactly? To send Brits to die in the fields of Kherson, for a war that’s none of our business?
It’s not 1939 anymore. And the rather unintelligent platitudes about how Russian troops will swarm the UK if billions of pounds aren’t wasted NOW NOW NOW! Are transparently false.
You're American. What the UK spends its money on is none of your business.
Not an American, actually. European. But all that is irrelevant to the fact that it’s neither 1914 nor 1939, and UK defense spending is a colossal, unnecessary waste.
Well, you write in US English, which is the native language in exactly one country - the USA. In any case, you're still not British and our defence spending is still none of your business.
As long as soldiers are subservient this will continue.
This is human nature.