Latest / UK Column Radio / Military Matters: Episode 8

Transcript

Military Matters: Episode 8 · UK Column Radio

0:24
Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to Military Matters with me, Charles
0:28
Speaker 1: Mallett and Brian Gerrish. Now, Brian, I think we say
0:31
Speaker 1: this at the start of every Military Matters episode, which
0:34
Speaker 1: is we cannot believe how much has changed since we
0:37
Speaker 1: last convened. But here we are recording in the second
0:42
Speaker 1: half of July. We're under a brand new Burnham premiership
0:47
Speaker 1: and all that's come with it. And I think it
0:49
Speaker 1: is worth mentioning what has come with it, because of
0:52
Speaker 1: course it was proceeded immediately by the sensational and dramatic
0:59
Speaker 1: resigns of John Healey, the then Defense Secretary and in
1:03
Speaker 1: a way his number two, Al Cahnes. They were replaced,
1:08
Speaker 1: while Dan Jarvis found himself having gone from being Security
1:11
Speaker 1: Minister to inter Defense for a very short period of time.
1:16
Speaker 1: And I think the other thing that I would put
1:19
Speaker 1: out at this point, because I think it does absolutely
1:21
Speaker 1: bear relation to what we are going to come on
1:23
Speaker 1: to talk about, was that the National Security State Threats
1:28
Speaker 1: Act twenty twenty six has been passed, not exactly in
1:32
Speaker 1: record time, but in very very short order. So whilst
1:36
Speaker 1: these changes might be described as political, I think there's
1:39
Speaker 1: there are tremendous military ramifications for all of them. Let's
1:46
Speaker 1: start with that lot. I mean, what's your feeling on
1:49
Speaker 1: the changes that we have seen? Well?
1:52
Speaker 2: I think John Healey played a very candy political game
1:56
Speaker 2: because if he was unhappy with defense spending, he absolutely
2:05
Speaker 2: used his resignation as the death blow for Keir Stormer.
2:09
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any doubt in that. Then he
2:13
Speaker 2: gets moved to become chancellor. So is he going to
2:19
Speaker 2: be putting more money into defense or will reality of
2:22
Speaker 2: the wider budget curtail him. I think that's an interesting one.
2:27
Speaker 2: We's streeting was just sorry, and we're streeting we're not
2:32
Speaker 2: sure about. I think one of the things that we're
2:36
Speaker 2: going to see an instant change is in the past
2:39
Speaker 2: he's made some pretty blunt comments about Israel and what's
2:44
Speaker 2: been happening in Gaza, and he's said very clearly that
2:50
Speaker 2: he thinks that at least some of the Israeli actions
2:55
Speaker 2: amount to a crime in what's been happening. I think
2:58
Speaker 2: we're going to see him backtrack on that quickly. But
3:04
Speaker 2: he's no experience and everything I've been reading about him
3:09
Speaker 2: is that he's going to be very big on basically
3:15
Speaker 2: on finance and innovation, So he's going to be a
3:19
Speaker 2: change agent, I think is what he's what he's going
3:22
Speaker 2: to be. So you've got this incredible new team, and
3:29
Speaker 2: where are they going to take the country Because everything
3:32
Speaker 2: that's been discussed at the moment is about the coming
3:37
Speaker 2: war with Russia, and personally, I have no confidence if
3:42
Speaker 2: that is true, and I think there's some discussion about that,
3:44
Speaker 2: but if it is true, I don't think I would
3:48
Speaker 2: have any faith in Burnham as Prime Minister, always streating
3:53
Speaker 2: as the people to steer the country through a time
3:56
Speaker 2: of conflict.
3:57
Speaker 1: I mean, well I would. I would absolutely agree with
3:59
Speaker 1: you there. And we've just had the bizarre spectacle of
4:04
Speaker 1: Luke Pollard recording a little video to his mobile telephone
4:09
Speaker 1: camera saying that we should all be quaking in our
4:13
Speaker 1: boots because there was a bit of live fire activity
4:17
Speaker 1: forty nautical miles south of Plymouth from a Russian warship
4:22
Speaker 1: in international waters that had zero effect on anybody that
4:27
Speaker 1: was hitherto a nunaware of it. And yet he's absolutely
4:31
Speaker 1: putting that out as the reminder to us that there
4:34
Speaker 1: is apparently a present threat from Russia, despite the fact
4:39
Speaker 1: that that activity is something that goes on day and
4:42
Speaker 1: day out, absolutely all over the place.
4:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's ramping up fear, but live firing exercises.
4:51
Speaker 2: Any navy does it on a regular basis, and there
4:53
Speaker 2: is rules as to how you do it in international waters.
4:57
Speaker 2: The Russians followed all the rules. The only thing I
5:00
Speaker 2: could probably say is that because they were a bit
5:03
Speaker 2: closer to Plymouth, they're sort of cocking a snoop at
5:07
Speaker 2: UK and saying we're here. But were they entitled to
5:11
Speaker 2: have their little thirty minute shooting exercise forty miles away
5:15
Speaker 2: from Plymouth. Yes, they were, as they were in international waters.
5:19
Speaker 2: And as the UK column News reported today, this is
5:23
Speaker 2: a normal thing for NATO fleets and we've been doing
5:27
Speaker 2: it up in the Norwegian Sea. So things which have
5:31
Speaker 2: happened because it's routine since certainly during and since the
5:37
Speaker 2: Cold War, are now twisted to make it seem as
5:41
Speaker 2: if they are something sinister and special. So the fact
5:45
Speaker 2: that a Russian reconnaissance plane may approach the northeast coast
5:52
Speaker 2: of Scotland, this is some terrible new thing. No, this
5:56
Speaker 2: is routine. It's been going on for thirty year years plus.
6:01
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean I think that's a very good point
6:03
Speaker 1: and we see that. We see it across the board,
6:05
Speaker 1: things that were every day and now being described as extreme.
6:09
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter whether it's the weather that's just warm
6:12
Speaker 1: but it's now unbelievably hot, or you know, global boiling
6:15
Speaker 1: and all that kind of thing, or simply the way
6:17
Speaker 1: in which people treat each other, the idea that something
6:24
Speaker 1: said to somebody can constitute a criminal offense. And you
6:27
Speaker 1: know this is this is absolutely how all of the
6:31
Speaker 1: perfect ordinary activities that people were conducting have been reframed.
6:35
Speaker 1: And I think it does it plays very well into
6:41
Speaker 1: the hands of those who seek to both cause chaos
6:45
Speaker 1: and then profit from it. And it looks very much
6:48
Speaker 1: like that's the direction we're being pushed in. So I mean,
6:51
Speaker 1: I suppose on the the change of personalities and your
6:58
Speaker 1: comments about what we're street may have said about Israel
7:02
Speaker 1: and may think, I guess fundamentally, the question is is
7:07
Speaker 1: that going to change what we would describe as the
7:11
Speaker 1: direction of travel for the country or the armed forces.
7:15
Speaker 2: I don't think he's going to be changing anything. I
7:17
Speaker 2: think he's going to be coming into a position where
7:21
Speaker 2: he will be molded to do what the political system wants.
7:26
Speaker 2: And that does seem to be at the moment to
7:29
Speaker 2: at least get the country thinking that there's potentially a
7:35
Speaker 2: war coming, because everything that's coming out of the government
7:39
Speaker 2: is about is about the dangers of Russia, that Russia
7:42
Speaker 2: wants to invade the West, that Russia wants to attack UK.
7:48
Speaker 2: I mean, this is just pouring out of the government.
7:51
Speaker 2: And I know from speaking of speaking to people, just
7:55
Speaker 2: chatting to people over the last couple of weeks, that
7:58
Speaker 2: some of them are nervous about this. Yes, no, I
8:02
Speaker 2: think that that is absolutely and this is despicable behavior
8:06
Speaker 2: by the government. But the other bit we probably should
8:08
Speaker 2: add is that during COVID, the government was using its
8:14
Speaker 2: behavioral insight team to ramp up the fear factor to
8:18
Speaker 2: make people more anxious so they would follow the vaccination
8:23
Speaker 2: and the lockdown policy. We can be very certain that
8:26
Speaker 2: the same teams are being used to form formulate the
8:30
Speaker 2: words being used now to get people worried about a
8:34
Speaker 2: potential war with Russia. Yes, yes, sorry, And I just
8:39
Speaker 2: add to that and the professional the professionals tell us
8:44
Speaker 2: that you want to make people more fearful because they
8:47
Speaker 2: become more malleable in what they will believe if they're
8:53
Speaker 2: under stress.
8:55
Speaker 1: So we've seen that. You know, it's it is absolutely observable,
9:01
Speaker 1: isn't it. And I think the parallels are terrific because
9:06
Speaker 1: not only is that they're that element of creating fear,
9:10
Speaker 1: or rather the necessity to create fear in order that
9:13
Speaker 1: you can convince people there is sort of a unified enemy,
9:17
Speaker 1: But there's also extraordinary inconsistency between saying that Russia presents
9:22
Speaker 1: this tremendous threat at the same time as more than
9:27
Speaker 1: intimating that we are not ready to meet it, which
9:29
Speaker 1: is why the so called Defense Investment plan is so
9:34
Speaker 1: important and why we're apparently changing this out and the other.
9:37
Speaker 1: And yet the unanswered question remains, well, what is Russia
9:41
Speaker 1: waiting for? You know, if they intend us harm and
9:44
Speaker 1: they know that we are at a low ebb, a
9:47
Speaker 1: point of vulnerability, why are they waiting? Why are they
9:51
Speaker 1: supposed to wait until we are ready to meet them?
9:54
Speaker 1: In exactly the same way that with the so called pandemic,
10:00
Speaker 1: the obsession was with flattening the curve, and yet there
10:04
Speaker 1: was no demonstrable evidence of people dropping like flies, and
10:09
Speaker 1: they're being a demonstration of the danger that was spoken of,
10:14
Speaker 1: and you know, it's the same thing again, But people
10:17
Speaker 1: will fall for it.
10:18
Speaker 2: People fall for it with the respect for how the
10:21
Speaker 2: Russians think. I think more and more it's just my
10:26
Speaker 2: personal opinion, but it seems to me that the Russians
10:28
Speaker 2: look at us, will say the United Kingdom in particular,
10:33
Speaker 2: and they are watching the breakdown of this country, and
10:38
Speaker 2: they are watching the military breakdown, and they know that
10:42
Speaker 2: effectively the our military capability is dissolving. So they don't
10:47
Speaker 2: need to do anything because they're watching collapse. And if
10:53
Speaker 2: I choose one example to emphasize what I mean, we
10:59
Speaker 2: hear tom in time again that we should be terrified
11:01
Speaker 2: of the Russian military and the Russian navy close proximity
11:06
Speaker 2: to UK Russian submarines threatening UK interests and under sea cables.
11:15
Speaker 2: And yet the reality is that we have no UK
11:19
Speaker 2: attack nuclear attack submarines at sea, none of them, zero capability.
11:25
Speaker 2: The Russians absolutely know that. But of course one of
11:29
Speaker 2: the key things is that if we have no attack
11:32
Speaker 2: submarines at sea, we have no submarine defending the nuclear
11:39
Speaker 2: the bombers. So so we have one of the bombers
11:45
Speaker 2: on station twenty four hours a day, seven days a week,
11:48
Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty five days a year, and there
11:51
Speaker 2: should be a nuclear submarine protecting that bomber on patrol,
11:56
Speaker 2: but we don't have any submarines at sea to do that.
12:00
Speaker 2: So that is I can't say it's open knowledge, but
12:05
Speaker 2: certain certain sectors of the country it's open knowledge. And
12:08
Speaker 2: if that's the case, the Russians certainly know that as well. Yeah,
12:11
Speaker 2: So all the Russians have got to do is wait
12:15
Speaker 2: for this chaos to break down the rest of the
12:17
Speaker 2: military structure.
12:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean it is most odd and it
12:24
Speaker 1: points back to I suppose what we started talking about,
12:27
Speaker 1: which is the personnel, or at least the visible personnel,
12:32
Speaker 1: that have been instrumental in making this happen or certainly
12:36
Speaker 1: not preventing it. And I suppose now we look at
12:41
Speaker 1: and I showed a slide on the news program that
12:44
Speaker 1: we recorded today, which was a photograph put on x
12:48
Speaker 1: inevitably by the Minister of Defense showing Jeremy Pocklington, the
12:53
Speaker 1: Permanent Secretary to the Minister of Defense and West streeting
12:57
Speaker 1: new Secretary of State, and then to night in the
13:02
Speaker 1: very under operationally experienced Chief of the Defense Staff. If
13:08
Speaker 1: you were a fly on the wall in a meeting
13:11
Speaker 1: that they may have had within the last couple of days.
13:13
Speaker 1: And what do you think you would have heard.
13:16
Speaker 2: Well, you would have probably heard somebody. It's just my guess.
13:20
Speaker 2: You would have heard somebody saying a lot, but they
13:23
Speaker 2: would be saying it on the basis of virtually no
13:26
Speaker 2: operational experience, so they he would have been coming Knighton
13:34
Speaker 2: would have been coming out with all the right language.
13:37
Speaker 2: It would have sounded good. He'd be talking all the
13:40
Speaker 2: language that you can see in the sort of defense
13:43
Speaker 2: review and the plans, but actually in his head he's
13:46
Speaker 2: got nothing of substance because he has no operational experience.
13:52
Speaker 1: And the other man that.
13:54
Speaker 2: I watched with interest was Radykin, Admiral Radikin, because he
13:59
Speaker 2: was effective be the same. He's been second in command
14:02
Speaker 2: in a nuclear submarine. But if you said, is what
14:05
Speaker 2: is his experience over his career to be in charge
14:10
Speaker 2: of the Royal Navy, he had no experience. So he's
14:13
Speaker 2: got to be a selected political choice, selected political choice.
14:19
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I mean that that is not a coincidence. No,
14:23
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
14:23
Speaker 2: And then he's on camera saying that the Russians were
14:28
Speaker 2: collapsing in Ukraine and running out of ammunition and only
14:31
Speaker 2: going to be able to fight for a few more months.
14:34
Speaker 2: Complete nonsense, so he gets away with it, Yes, exactly,
14:38
Speaker 2: So who are these people choice, Well, it's a very
14:41
Speaker 2: good question, and we have talked a little bit about
14:44
Speaker 2: the three heads of the various services because of the
14:47
Speaker 2: thing that's always struck me, I mean, I would say
14:50
Speaker 2: us absolutely is that it's very obvious that there's been
14:54
Speaker 2: a terrific decline. We don't necessarily need to go into
14:56
Speaker 2: the details of that. It's it's been deliberately instigated, deliberately pushed.
15:02
Speaker 2: And yet what seems completely extraordinary is that the moment
15:07
Speaker 2: somebody assumes the command of their service, they do not
15:12
Speaker 2: appear to raise any of these concerns, at least not publicly.
15:15
Speaker 2: They start talking about their organization as though all as well.
15:19
Speaker 2: And we find this to be most odd, I mean,
15:22
Speaker 2: certainly a complete failing of what you might describe as
15:27
Speaker 2: being values and standards, you know, just simply not looking
15:30
Speaker 2: out for those that are in their charge and all
15:33
Speaker 2: the rest of them. There's a lot to say there,
15:35
Speaker 2: but it does bring out this the subject of leadership
15:39
Speaker 2: for which the military is renowned, sometimes good, sometimes not
15:47
Speaker 2: so good, but certainly there is a flavor, let's say,
15:50
Speaker 2: of leadership within the armed forces, that is, we probably
15:56
Speaker 2: could be regarded as being distinct. Certainly the types of
15:59
Speaker 2: challenge that that leaders might face could be seen as
16:05
Speaker 2: being distinct.
16:07
Speaker 1: But I think in light of the comments about Tony
16:13
Speaker 1: Radikin and Richard Knighton, do you think we're seeing a
16:18
Speaker 1: shift in what leadership is or has come to mean.
16:25
Speaker 2: I think the shift has happened. So the shift has
16:28
Speaker 2: been a shift. And whereas I could look back and say,
16:35
Speaker 2: within the body, the wider body of senior officers, you
16:41
Speaker 2: could always pick up ones who were.
16:46
Speaker 1: Malleable.
16:47
Speaker 2: They would more or less go in any direction in
16:51
Speaker 2: order to be promoted and ultimately to become sir. There's
16:55
Speaker 2: no question there was that. But you would also see
16:57
Speaker 2: ones who were going up the ladder so they became admirals.
17:01
Speaker 2: But they were absolutely fighting for their service, and they
17:06
Speaker 2: were writing some pretty hard staff papers to fight cuts
17:12
Speaker 2: or the closure of bases, and quite often they were
17:16
Speaker 2: saying something within the military circles, which you regard as
17:21
Speaker 2: pretty hard and direct to their masters, to say that
17:25
Speaker 2: your policy is damaging the services, not helping the military
17:29
Speaker 2: do their job. That's what I used to see now
17:33
Speaker 2: it's as if everybody who moves up into the higher
17:37
Speaker 2: echelons has no backbone to actually challenge any of the
17:43
Speaker 2: destructive political policy that's coming through. So I would say,
17:48
Speaker 2: definitely there's been a change in the quality of the
17:52
Speaker 2: people who are getting the senior posts. And then I
17:58
Speaker 2: could throw another into that, because we've now got a
18:02
Speaker 2: raw marine heading the raw navy, and I say, well, okay,
18:07
Speaker 2: but what is his professional experience.
18:10
Speaker 1: It's a raal marine.
18:12
Speaker 2: It's experience is a raal marine. What does this man
18:16
Speaker 2: actually know about the operation of nuclear submarines?
18:19
Speaker 1: Nothing?
18:20
Speaker 2: What does he know about naval operations? Very very little?
18:26
Speaker 2: And yet now he gets the overall command and there's
18:32
Speaker 2: something wrong. Is it accidental? I don't think so. I
18:35
Speaker 2: think it's a deliberate policy which is breaking down the structure,
18:40
Speaker 2: breaking down the systems.
18:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it absolutely does seem to be. What I'm
18:45
Speaker 1: going to do now is just talk a little bit
18:48
Speaker 1: about a sting more specific incident in an instance. And
18:51
Speaker 1: I just been interested in your thoughts on this because
18:54
Speaker 1: we've talked a little bit about the idea of the
19:01
Speaker 1: I suppose the sort of genesis of people's careers in
19:05
Speaker 1: the three services, and for the Army as a for
19:09
Speaker 1: the officers that is at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst,
19:14
Speaker 1: which has by reputation sort of secured its name as being,
19:21
Speaker 1: if not the best, but certainly one of the best
19:25
Speaker 1: officer training establishments in the world, which people will have
19:30
Speaker 1: their own views on if they've either attended or been elsewhere.
19:34
Speaker 1: But over the years, I think one thing that is
19:38
Speaker 1: certain is that Sandhurst has as an organization become much
19:45
Speaker 1: more involved with bodies and schemes that are sort of
19:52
Speaker 1: outside of the military system. And I think this just
19:57
Speaker 1: bears some consideration because of where we are, and we
20:02
Speaker 1: see the those that are the highest ranking offices are
20:07
Speaker 1: without doubt political appointments, and there are unquestionably other influences
20:12
Speaker 1: at play, and so the relationship that Sandhurst does have
20:17
Speaker 1: with you know, whether it is even the civilian world
20:21
Speaker 1: in terms of the accreditations that it might provide people
20:25
Speaker 1: with when they leave, or the types of program that
20:29
Speaker 1: it runs for civilians to come in, and just you know,
20:33
Speaker 1: I've be interested to know your thoughts on I suppose
20:38
Speaker 1: you know an organization that is absolutely military in its establishment,
20:43
Speaker 1: in its role and remit is it correct is it appropriate,
20:50
Speaker 1: Is it sensible to be developing relationships outside What do
20:56
Speaker 1: you think about that.
20:58
Speaker 2: I think, to some ex then it's always happened that
21:02
Speaker 2: there's always been engagement between the military and other professional interests.
21:12
Speaker 2: For me, one that would come to mind immediately is
21:15
Speaker 2: that if you're training people in house ships handle you
21:21
Speaker 2: can do, you can take it to a level of
21:24
Speaker 2: practical experience. In driving a ship, as the accepted term is,
21:31
Speaker 2: you've got to think about distances and speeds and a
21:35
Speaker 2: big problem the bigger the ship is stopping distance. All
21:40
Speaker 2: of that can be taught, but if you want to
21:42
Speaker 2: get into more detail, then you start to get more
21:45
Speaker 2: in the scientific domain. And for the Navy, that would
21:49
Speaker 2: push interaction with scientists who are operating tanks where you've
21:56
Speaker 2: got models and you can look at the scientific factors
22:03
Speaker 2: behind how a ship does behave, so you would you
22:07
Speaker 2: would be forming a productive relationship with scientists covering this
22:14
Speaker 2: particular area, and you might also be dealing with people
22:18
Speaker 2: from the arms industry who've developed a particular weapons system
22:22
Speaker 2: that you are going to be working with them in
22:25
Speaker 2: order to be able to train people up to use that.
22:28
Speaker 2: Where it's got different is that we I find this
22:33
Speaker 2: quite bizarre. We're now using civilian people to teach the
22:39
Speaker 2: military leadership, and yet, for my mind, prime leadership skills
22:46
Speaker 2: come from people who have had a career in the
22:49
Speaker 2: military because they they are.
22:53
Speaker 1: Used to.
22:55
Speaker 2: Looking after in all respects safety, you know, looking after
23:00
Speaker 2: people's lives on the battlefield, looking after their education within
23:05
Speaker 2: the military, and doing that in very very onerous conditions,
23:10
Speaker 2: whether it's not having slept for a couple of days
23:13
Speaker 2: or battlefield conditions and duress. So you say, where is
23:18
Speaker 2: where is the weight of the leadership? And to me,
23:22
Speaker 2: that's within the military. But now we've we've flipped that
23:27
Speaker 2: and the military are being taught by people who are
23:30
Speaker 2: civilian leaders. Yes, and there's some there's something not quite
23:34
Speaker 2: right here because it tends to it starts to dilute
23:37
Speaker 2: the system. And it's not it's not just officers. I
23:42
Speaker 2: actually remember a leading hand, a Killick, talking to me
23:49
Speaker 2: about when when he went from being an able seaman
23:54
Speaker 2: and he's going to become a leading seman and that
23:56
Speaker 2: involves what was always a very good leadership course. But
24:00
Speaker 2: he went to a particular naval establishment where the people
24:05
Speaker 2: teaching him how to be a leading seaman were actually civilians,
24:11
Speaker 2: and he was not happy with this, and I can
24:13
Speaker 2: understand why because he'd put a lot of effort in
24:16
Speaker 2: getting his promotion and then suddenly people who actually had
24:21
Speaker 2: minimal understanding of the Navy were teaching him leadership. Where
24:24
Speaker 2: did that come from?
24:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a very good point, and I
24:30
Speaker 1: think for many people, certainly within the system, within the
24:35
Speaker 1: military system, I would say, and Sandhurst, to think, is
24:38
Speaker 1: a good example of this. It's somewhere that's always talked
24:40
Speaker 1: about is its model of leadership. Leadership training is sort
24:43
Speaker 1: of exported either to other military academies or into the
24:46
Speaker 1: civilian world. But actually what you're describing is talking about,
24:49
Speaker 1: you know, this going the other way, and that that
24:51
Speaker 1: bit's really never mentioned. But I think you're absolutely right
24:55
Speaker 1: there is a civilianizing of quite a lot it and
25:00
Speaker 1: there are and in fact, one of the one of
25:02
Speaker 1: the things I was going to mention is the Future
25:06
Speaker 1: Leaders Group, which is a program that runs partly at Sandhurst.
25:13
Speaker 1: And again just to your point about you know, the
25:16
Speaker 1: introduction of external influence and where that might lead. So,
25:21
Speaker 1: just taking some text off the Sandhurst Trust website which
25:24
Speaker 1: talks about these people the Future Leaders group operates with
25:27
Speaker 1: small cohorts of around ten people who come from a
25:30
Speaker 1: mix of public and private sector backgrounds, an aspect often
25:34
Speaker 1: cited as a key unique selling point of the course.
25:39
Speaker 1: They have come from organizations as wide as wide ranging
25:42
Speaker 1: as Bechtel, Lockheed, Martin, Tata, Atos, Mod Armed Forces and
25:47
Speaker 1: the Home Office and Oviers and learned much from each other.
25:51
Speaker 1: Now that to me brought to mind to a certain
25:54
Speaker 1: extent Common Purpose.
25:56
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sitting here smiling because Common Purpose described its
26:02
Speaker 2: training as training future leaders. So I don't know whether
26:06
Speaker 2: it is easy, whether this is Common Purpose, but this
26:10
Speaker 2: is Common Purpose language and bringing different groups of people
26:15
Speaker 2: together because Common Purpose says well, the idea was to
26:18
Speaker 2: get them operating out of their silos.
26:22
Speaker 1: For the benefit of those who may have tuned in
26:25
Speaker 1: because of the military element to this. Just will you
26:28
Speaker 1: just give the sort of potted version of Common Purpose
26:32
Speaker 1: for those that may not have heard it before, and
26:34
Speaker 1: why there is a why I've always been interested in it.
26:38
Speaker 2: Well created roughly nineteen eighty five and at that stage
26:45
Speaker 2: the lady was chief executive was called Julia Middleton.
26:49
Speaker 1: She wrote a book.
26:52
Speaker 2: Talking about Common Purpose, which is well worth reading because
26:57
Speaker 2: it describes techniques for getting common purpose agenda through an organization,
27:04
Speaker 2: even to the point of saying that if people push back,
27:08
Speaker 2: you should steamroller through them or drive over them. So
27:12
Speaker 2: there was some pretty hard talk and it also used.
27:18
Speaker 2: It also clearly said that basically any means of getting
27:23
Speaker 2: your policy through it was okay. But essentially it's a charity.
27:26
Speaker 2: It said that it was training future leaders, and these
27:30
Speaker 2: were going to be the new leaders within society. And
27:36
Speaker 2: what was very interesting about it was that it recruited
27:41
Speaker 2: from young teenagers all the way up to experience people
27:46
Speaker 2: in their organizations, and then they were put through courses
27:52
Speaker 2: where you could see that Common Purpose said, well, it
27:56
Speaker 2: breaks down their boundaries and helps them lead beyond authority.
28:01
Speaker 2: But my feeling was always that if you teach people
28:05
Speaker 2: in the military or the police or even the NHS
28:09
Speaker 2: to lead beyond their authority, what you're actually doing is
28:13
Speaker 2: breaking down and destabilizing that organization. So fascinating to see
28:18
Speaker 2: future leaders operating here, and then they trained.
28:25
Speaker 1: Well.
28:26
Speaker 2: If I go back to the main time I was
28:28
Speaker 2: looking at it, about twenty eleven, they were close to
28:35
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand people that have been trained across the
28:38
Speaker 2: country and you can still see many of those people
28:42
Speaker 2: in post. So it was a charity training future leaders,
28:46
Speaker 2: but to me it actually had a highly political agenda
28:51
Speaker 2: and therefore was inappropriate for mixing with the military. And
28:56
Speaker 2: I pointed out that it was operating not only in
29:00
Speaker 2: the naval base here in Plymouth, but it was also
29:04
Speaker 2: operating with the Royal Marines in Plymouth. So my guess
29:09
Speaker 2: would be this is likely to be the same organization.
29:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it might well be an if not
29:16
Speaker 1: exactly that, which I think is a sound has trust initiative.
29:20
Speaker 1: But I mean it's something to definitely be looked at closely,
29:25
Speaker 1: I think.
29:26
Speaker 2: Because you've got a civilian organization imposing its view absolutely
29:31
Speaker 2: of politics and society on it into onto the minds
29:38
Speaker 2: of military people. And this to me is where's the accountability.
29:43
Speaker 2: You've got a job to do as a military person,
29:46
Speaker 2: and yet we've got this unaccountable charity or organization. We
29:51
Speaker 2: don't know, this is common purpose coming in and manipulating
29:57
Speaker 2: what the mindset of young officers in this case is.
30:01
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly yes, and now you know this would's sort
30:05
Speaker 1: of take this a little bit furtherest. With specific reference
30:08
Speaker 1: to the current commandant at Sandhurst. Now I don't know
30:12
Speaker 1: what I should prefix this by saying, I don't know
30:14
Speaker 1: how his situation differs with any of his predecessors necessarily,
30:20
Speaker 1: but Sandhurst is a two star major general command as
30:25
Speaker 1: a commandant, and the post is currently held by Nick Cowley.
30:31
Speaker 1: And in light of what were the specific subject matter,
30:34
Speaker 1: I think I think it's fascinating that he is involved
30:37
Speaker 1: into let's say, extra curricular or non military organizations, one
30:43
Speaker 1: of which is called or Released runs an event called
30:47
Speaker 1: the Future Forces Demo Day, which is absolutely undoubtedly a
30:54
Speaker 1: sort of a wheel greasing exercise for the defense industry
31:00
Speaker 1: startups in particular that now the other one which I
31:03
Speaker 1: come and I'll tell you about the trustees, the other
31:04
Speaker 1: ones called Talent Tap and something he's set up I
31:08
Speaker 1: think set up with a number of former cavalry officers
31:12
Speaker 1: that he'd served with. And I'll come on to explain why.
31:14
Speaker 1: I think that's interesting as well. But just in terms
31:17
Speaker 1: of what is or is not to be considered, say
31:23
Speaker 1: a proper or improper or you know, a relationship where
31:27
Speaker 1: there is enough transparency, does it strike you as appropriate
31:33
Speaker 1: that the commandant of the Leadership Academy of the British
31:39
Speaker 1: Army is also involved in putting together events for the
31:45
Speaker 1: defense industry.
31:47
Speaker 2: Well, I find I'm not surprised, Probably I should say
31:51
Speaker 2: that first, but I think it's I think it is
31:55
Speaker 2: absolutely wrong because you are blurring boundaries again with no accountability.
32:03
Speaker 2: So things are happening. Which side of the line is
32:06
Speaker 2: he actually on? Is he working with the defense industry
32:10
Speaker 2: or is he doing his job with the military, and
32:12
Speaker 2: the moment you get that blurring of the boundary. So
32:14
Speaker 2: I think that you are into highly suspect ground because
32:18
Speaker 2: the next thing you can say is where does his
32:21
Speaker 2: loyalty lie lie with the military or does it lie
32:25
Speaker 2: maybe with a future very lucrative job absolutely in the
32:30
Speaker 2: defense industry.
32:31
Speaker 1: Yes, No, I mean I think I think there are
32:33
Speaker 1: a whole load of questions. I must say. When I
32:36
Speaker 1: discovered that, I thought that it might have been a
32:40
Speaker 1: sort of typographical error in that he might have previously
32:43
Speaker 1: been involved with this, but couldn't possibly have been now
32:45
Speaker 1: because of what he was doing. But it turns out
32:47
Speaker 1: that he absolutely is. And I'm not entirely sure what
32:49
Speaker 1: in what capacity. I don't know whether it is a
32:52
Speaker 1: paid roll or has any sort of benefits like that,
32:55
Speaker 1: But I mean it is even whether and this is
32:59
Speaker 1: the point, it doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not.
33:01
Speaker 1: But he's obviously able to exert influence both within and without,
33:07
Speaker 1: which will have ramifications. And that I would have said
33:11
Speaker 1: is a very serious matter in its own right, but
33:14
Speaker 1: also for somebody who is overseeing a training and leadership
33:18
Speaker 1: course which is entirely built on the idea of integrity, yes,
33:25
Speaker 1: and being absolutely certain that you're not blurring lines. So
33:30
Speaker 1: it is, I think a peculiar situation.
33:36
Speaker 2: Can I just add ak Abs several years maybe ten,
33:42
Speaker 2: I remember having a little dig into Sandhurst and I
33:48
Speaker 2: started to see we'll say, encroaching influence from training bodies
33:55
Speaker 2: into Sandhursts. I also didn't realize quite this scope of
34:01
Speaker 2: Sandhurst training people from overseas, so I always imagined that
34:08
Speaker 2: Sandhurst was there as the primary officer training facility for
34:12
Speaker 2: the British Army, and as with Dartmouth the Royal Navy,
34:16
Speaker 2: you would get overseas officers or officer cadets come to
34:21
Speaker 2: get training experience, and although they might be there in
34:25
Speaker 2: very small numbers. Of course, what UK the UK would
34:31
Speaker 2: be looking for would be this would build friendships in
34:35
Speaker 2: the future, particularly if these people came from the Middle East,
34:39
Speaker 2: for example, so there was some diplomacy there. There was
34:45
Speaker 2: a little bit of soft power being unleashed. But you
34:49
Speaker 2: had foreign students, if we call them that, at the
34:53
Speaker 2: military training facility. But when I was looking at Sandhurst,
34:58
Speaker 2: it was almost as though Sanhurst had become an international
35:03
Speaker 2: training facility. That was my feeling about it, and I
35:06
Speaker 2: thought this is very interesting because that must mean that they,
35:12
Speaker 2: this was just my view, the quality of training for
35:14
Speaker 2: the British Officer cadet cadets, if that's the right term,
35:20
Speaker 2: was reduced.
35:22
Speaker 1: Yes, very interesting point. Yes, again I am not current,
35:26
Speaker 1: but certainly the situation was that I think I would
35:31
Speaker 1: say approximately ten percent of the cadets that went through
35:35
Speaker 1: were from overseas. Overseas, and yes, it is absolutely an
35:42
Speaker 1: objective truth to say that the standard of some of
35:48
Speaker 1: those cadets was well below par and they are paying
35:54
Speaker 1: very well. I mean, it's the wrong you know, obviously,
35:56
Speaker 1: if you British, you're going to the British arm you're
35:58
Speaker 1: being paid as a cadet to go through. If you're
36:01
Speaker 1: an overseas cadet, then your government will be paying for
36:05
Speaker 1: you to take that training and it's at quite a
36:08
Speaker 1: whack as Well's I forget what the cost was of
36:12
Speaker 1: running one cadet through on a year's course, but it
36:15
Speaker 1: was significant. However it is it must absolutely be pointed
36:18
Speaker 1: out that that whilst there were a number of overseas
36:22
Speaker 1: cadets who were not overall contributors to the course, in
36:26
Speaker 1: that they were not, for one reason or another up
36:29
Speaker 1: to it, there were plenty that were absolutely first class.
36:34
Speaker 1: And in fact, my own experience, which was that in
36:39
Speaker 1: to start with my platoon, which is your that you
36:44
Speaker 1: join a platoon of thirty usually thirty cadets. The platoon
36:49
Speaker 1: I was in had three overseas cadets, one from Oman
36:56
Speaker 1: who was actually not not disastrous, but had had some problems,
37:06
Speaker 1: largely actually do with command of English language, and that
37:09
Speaker 1: was that was therefore problem, and he I don't think
37:12
Speaker 1: last of the whole course, however, the other two one
37:15
Speaker 1: was Nepalese, others from Bangladesh were absolutely first They were
37:18
Speaker 1: They were actually worked very hardfically hard, and got immediately
37:25
Speaker 1: got it, got the idea that you were there to
37:28
Speaker 1: work for each other, and that was something that quite
37:32
Speaker 1: a lot of the native officer cadets did not get
37:35
Speaker 1: the hang off because people there was sort of sorry,
37:38
Speaker 1: it was a sort of sidetrack, but it was. It
37:41
Speaker 1: is quite an interesting one. The idea of setting up
37:46
Speaker 1: training within which leadership can flourish when you're all trying
37:50
Speaker 1: to lead is can be quite challenging, particularly in the
37:54
Speaker 1: sort of infantry thing, when there's an absolute requirement for
37:59
Speaker 1: people to do the thing that's asked of them absolutely
38:03
Speaker 1: immediately without questioning it, because that's just it's essentially obviously
38:08
Speaker 1: it's a it is a sort of year long role
38:11
Speaker 1: play that can be very much frustrated by people who
38:15
Speaker 1: will forget that they're in a role play and they
38:17
Speaker 1: just want to be doing that sort of you know,
38:20
Speaker 1: I'm in charge thing that that I never saw from
38:24
Speaker 1: from overseas cadets in the same way. It's quite interesting
38:27
Speaker 1: sort of cultural difference. But but yes, it's it is
38:30
Speaker 1: a it's a really significant point because okay, only a
38:34
Speaker 1: percentage of them, but but but there is there are
38:37
Speaker 1: a posential of them that do go on to to
38:39
Speaker 1: hold very senior rank, either within the military or in
38:43
Speaker 1: government or you know, wherever else. So so yes, I
38:48
Speaker 1: mean it's in terms of geopolitical influence, it's a it's
38:54
Speaker 1: a really big one. Yeah, it absolutely is a big one. Yeah. Yeah.
38:59
Speaker 1: And so what.
39:02
Speaker 2: We're saying, I think what we are seeing is that
39:06
Speaker 2: these things have gone on over time and have been
39:09
Speaker 2: largely beneficial, and they've been within I think fairly easy
39:15
Speaker 2: to see boundaries. But now something has happened which has
39:19
Speaker 2: made the whole thing looser. There are more bodies now
39:22
Speaker 2: involved in the training, more individuals. So another thing I
39:28
Speaker 2: talked about sort of scientists as one group that you
39:30
Speaker 2: could interface with, all people within the defense industries teaching
39:40
Speaker 2: you about a weapons system. But the other group that
39:45
Speaker 2: you would come into contact with would be intellectual academics
39:50
Speaker 2: who'd got a particular knowledge in a field. So it
39:54
Speaker 2: might be military history, or it might be international politics,
39:57
Speaker 2: or it could be law of the sea, if it
40:00
Speaker 2: was something to do with the Royal Navy, and you
40:03
Speaker 2: would receive courses from those very knowledgeable, highly experienced people
40:09
Speaker 2: in their field. And I think that's perfectly legitimate use
40:15
Speaker 2: of people who are not actually in the military, but
40:17
Speaker 2: they come alongside the military to help the training and
40:22
Speaker 2: to deepen the knowledge base. But when we get into
40:28
Speaker 2: organizations where we're not too sure that it's a non
40:32
Speaker 2: government organization. Does what does that make it? Or it's
40:35
Speaker 2: a charity? Where does that quite fit? Well, it's a consultants. Yes, absolutely,
40:41
Speaker 2: we see this. This is what's the interesting.
40:42
Speaker 1: You just go back to Calends. The charity that he
40:47
Speaker 1: appears to have set up, called the Talent Tap has
40:50
Speaker 1: a number of trustees, as one would expect with the charity.
40:53
Speaker 1: And I'm not in any way suggesting there's anything untoward
40:56
Speaker 1: about either setting up or being involved with a charity,
40:58
Speaker 1: but it is cannot be ignored that that of the trustees,
41:05
Speaker 1: one jumped out immediately because she's a senior policy analyst
41:11
Speaker 1: with the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, So you
41:14
Speaker 1: know that. So that's a that is a direct link
41:18
Speaker 1: straight to the Commandant of Sandhurst. And when you when
41:22
Speaker 1: you consider that.
41:23
Speaker 2: From a very powerful quasi political body, very wealthy, powerful
41:30
Speaker 2: quis political body has direct influence.
41:33
Speaker 1: Yes, and and and Okay, even if the Blair Institute
41:41
Speaker 1: had only concerned itself with such and such an issue
41:46
Speaker 1: and not anything that does pertain to war or defense,
41:51
Speaker 1: then you know that would still be I think considered
41:56
Speaker 1: something that had to be questioned. But the fact is
41:58
Speaker 1: that the Tony Blair Institut. It is is absolutely front
42:01
Speaker 1: and center with with deciding that they want to influence
42:06
Speaker 1: outcomes with regard to war and defense.
42:10
Speaker 2: So this is war and defense and other political directives
42:14
Speaker 2: such as we could say the position of the European Union.
42:19
Speaker 2: How absolutely this country and its defense is interact or
42:24
Speaker 2: otherwise with the European Yes, defense system.
42:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I mean, you know, I think it's fascinating.
42:32
Speaker 1: Also another one who has come from the London School
42:35
Speaker 1: of Economics to the British Business Bank. So again it's
42:39
Speaker 1: it's not to it's not to simply say this means
42:42
Speaker 1: that and and everything is wrong with this, but it
42:47
Speaker 1: just as an overall picture, the number of people that
42:50
Speaker 1: are you know, you have a sort of formal connection
42:55
Speaker 1: to Nick Coley in his role as Commandant of Sound
43:00
Speaker 1: seems to me much more than well, I mean, you know,
43:04
Speaker 1: as you say, in a way not surprising but surprising
43:07
Speaker 1: at the same time.
43:08
Speaker 2: Yes, And this is where we get to feeling that
43:13
Speaker 2: we shall ask questions. Well, certainly I do, because as
43:17
Speaker 2: the number of people and organizations interacting with the military,
43:23
Speaker 2: not only with regard training, but I would say to
43:27
Speaker 2: large extent with operations or at least the forming of
43:31
Speaker 2: operational policy. As the number of interactions with individuals and
43:37
Speaker 2: organizations has increased, the reality on the ground is that
43:42
Speaker 2: the performance of the military has decreased. And probably this
43:50
Speaker 2: wasn't immediately apparent because the big coverall has always been
43:56
Speaker 2: we haven't got enough money, there's got to be defense
43:59
Speaker 2: cut and therefore we're going to cut certain things. So
44:02
Speaker 2: that's gone on for years. But now we're into this
44:06
Speaker 2: situation where we talk as if we have military, but
44:11
Speaker 2: actually that military doesn't function and can't function because it
44:17
Speaker 2: actually hasn't got the operational equipment or the manpower to
44:21
Speaker 2: carry out the role. And I know I've already mentioned
44:25
Speaker 2: that no nuclear submarines bit, but we are standing on
44:31
Speaker 2: a world stage pointing a finger at Russia talking about
44:36
Speaker 2: the dangers of attacks on undersea cables or even now
44:41
Speaker 2: a couple of times I read articles in the paper
44:43
Speaker 2: where they're saying, well, actually there's a bit of concern.
44:46
Speaker 2: Could the American convoys get the supplies and the munitions
44:52
Speaker 2: to Europe if it kicked off with Russia. We don't
44:56
Speaker 2: have any nuclear submarines at sea. We do not have
45:00
Speaker 2: that capability. But the Ministry of Defense and the government
45:05
Speaker 2: talks as if we do, don't you know, don't worry,
45:10
Speaker 2: there aren't any submarines. We're going to talk as if
45:13
Speaker 2: we've still got an operational submarine fleet. So there's a
45:19
Speaker 2: real breakdown in capability. And we can point a finger
45:24
Speaker 2: at the army as well and say how many troops
45:28
Speaker 2: can you get on the battlefield for what length the time?
45:31
Speaker 1: And it's tiny, well.
45:34
Speaker 2: Twenty thousand or twenty five thousand, I think for a
45:37
Speaker 2: period of months perhaps perhaps, yeah, yes, exactly. So, so
45:42
Speaker 2: something's going on here. We're seeing greater interaction with the
45:47
Speaker 2: civilian world and funny organizations because you don't know what
45:52
Speaker 2: they are. Are they a business? Are they actually paid
45:55
Speaker 2: for but the government? Are they a charity? As this
45:59
Speaker 2: interaction is increased, so you've been seeing the you know,
46:03
Speaker 2: the falling away atrophy in the in the actual substance
46:09
Speaker 2: of the military itself. And I don't think this is accidental.
46:15
Speaker 1: I don't think it can be to be. I don't
46:19
Speaker 1: think it can be viewed in that light at all.
46:21
Speaker 1: It really can't. I'm just I've just drawn towards a
46:28
Speaker 1: quote from Where's Streetings. His first public speech is Defense
46:32
Speaker 1: Secretary Farnborough air show, which again I as I mentioned
46:39
Speaker 1: in the news program that was recorded today, was slightly
46:41
Speaker 1: ironic because it's due to the spinelessness and complicity in
46:46
Speaker 1: the you know, sort of US Israel attack on Iran,
46:51
Speaker 1: that the fairfood air show was canceled. But that's to
46:55
Speaker 1: one side, although only slightly. He one of the things
46:59
Speaker 1: that Streeting said rather astonishingly his first sentence was it
47:03
Speaker 1: is not yet clear whether the twenty first century will
47:06
Speaker 1: be defined by tyranny or freedom. And I found that
47:10
Speaker 1: quite an interesting remark.
47:14
Speaker 2: To me, Charles, that remark is straight out of the
47:18
Speaker 2: political playbook, because that's the sort of language that's being used.
47:22
Speaker 2: So it's very big words, which if it was real,
47:26
Speaker 2: mean big things. But he's just using those words, and
47:31
Speaker 2: then comes what comes with it if he believes those words.
47:37
Speaker 2: The next thing you should say this broken record. But
47:39
Speaker 2: the next thing you should be saying is we haven't
47:42
Speaker 2: got any nuclear submarines. I'm going to fix that, Yes,
47:45
Speaker 2: but that's not what he's going to say. He's going
47:47
Speaker 2: to carry on as if those submarines are there.
47:50
Speaker 1: Yes. I got a little bit.
47:52
Speaker 2: Of a quote about him that it was being suggested
47:56
Speaker 2: in an article that Streeting's role was was going to
48:01
Speaker 2: be the priorities delivery of the new military Strategic HQ.
48:06
Speaker 2: This is the one up in London at the old
48:10
Speaker 2: Northwood facility. And the appointment of a new National Almaments Director.
48:18
Speaker 2: Now that's a pretty significant position because it gives the
48:21
Speaker 2: to me, it gives the idea that we're going to war,
48:24
Speaker 2: so we're putting in a National Ailments Director. And then
48:29
Speaker 2: the other thing that he would be doing is looking
48:32
Speaker 2: after investment, getting the right financial investment with modernization. M
48:40
Speaker 2: does he mean modernization? Will he be doing modernization? I
48:44
Speaker 2: don't think so. It's going to be a change agender.
48:47
Speaker 2: Everything is going to be stirred, everything will become turbulent.
48:53
Speaker 2: They're going to break it down. What what I don't
48:57
Speaker 2: understand share this with the audience. What I don't understand
49:02
Speaker 2: at the moment is that you can see the military
49:05
Speaker 2: being broken down as they ramp up the rhetoric for
49:08
Speaker 2: a war with Russia. I can see the movement of
49:16
Speaker 2: kinetic delivery from military hands into civilian lands via the
49:22
Speaker 2: defense industry. And I can also see a focus on
49:26
Speaker 2: weapons systems where you don't really need a military, you
49:31
Speaker 2: only need the factories to produce the missile system and
49:35
Speaker 2: you only need the operator to deliver it. And they
49:40
Speaker 2: might be military, but they don't have to be.
49:43
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, well, and I think that is absolutely fascinating,
49:46
Speaker 1: and I think there's a huge amount of deliberate obfuscation
49:51
Speaker 1: on exactly that point. And the company that I've mentioned
49:55
Speaker 1: a few times before that I do find fascinating is
49:58
Speaker 1: Cambridge Aerospace because looks exactly like it will conform to
50:02
Speaker 1: that model. Describe in that it was announced by Luke
50:07
Speaker 1: Pollard yet again who else that the British government had
50:12
Speaker 1: just secured X number of fact. No, sorry, there wasn't
50:16
Speaker 1: a number given. That's right, there was no number given.
50:18
Speaker 1: But they tied down a contract with Cambridge Erry Space
50:22
Speaker 1: to provide the enforces with this Skyhammer drone interceptor system.
50:30
Speaker 1: So the message that he was trying to send was
50:35
Speaker 1: that the government has supported an organic British business to
50:43
Speaker 1: protect our country and provide our soldiers with a capabilitystem. Yeah. Now,
50:51
Speaker 1: the truth of it is that the funding for that
50:53
Speaker 1: organization came from a venture capital entity that was set
50:59
Speaker 1: up in you Crane called D three Defend. What's the
51:04
Speaker 1: third d? Oh? Yes, dare to defend democracy, and it
51:10
Speaker 1: has contributions from all over the world. And I think
51:14
Speaker 1: I have mentioned this before, but Eric Schmidt, one of
51:16
Speaker 1: the Google fonders, has you know, made a significant contributions.
51:20
Speaker 1: So the idea that's a British business is absolute nonsense.
51:23
Speaker 1: It's it's completely funded from elsewhere, from outside and then
51:29
Speaker 1: it is to all intense purposes, an off the shelf
51:32
Speaker 1: product until it's proven otherwise, because it's all very well
51:36
Speaker 1: Pollard saying he's put his hand in his pocket and
51:38
Speaker 1: bought a job, loot for the lads. But then what
51:42
Speaker 1: if South Africa turns up tomorrow and says, well we'll
51:46
Speaker 1: have some of those two or Israel for example, You
51:49
Speaker 1: know where where does it stop? And indeed, given the
51:53
Speaker 1: nature of it, how many people really are required to
51:56
Speaker 1: be able to operate this? Is it necessary for there
52:02
Speaker 1: to be exactly like you say, is there a necessity
52:04
Speaker 1: for a military dimension at all?
52:08
Speaker 2: So I don't think they want the military dimension now
52:12
Speaker 2: because the proper military dimension comes with a problem, and
52:17
Speaker 2: that is annoying people who've got a sense of their nation, yes,
52:24
Speaker 2: and a really powerful sense that come to it, they
52:30
Speaker 2: would defend if somebody was hurting their nation and their
52:34
Speaker 2: family and their communities. They will actually fight. What's annoying
52:39
Speaker 2: for the government about that sort of person is that
52:43
Speaker 2: that is the same sort of person that if they
52:45
Speaker 2: see the government not behaving properly or doing things they shouldn't,
52:51
Speaker 2: they are capable of getting in the way. So to me,
52:56
Speaker 2: if you remove the military in its present four, you're
53:01
Speaker 2: left with the government simply works with the defense industry
53:06
Speaker 2: for the weapons system it wants, and then the government
53:12
Speaker 2: becomes completely unaccountable to a military and it then starts
53:19
Speaker 2: the wars wherever it wants in its own way. That's
53:22
Speaker 2: where I think it's heading. And the bit I smiled
53:26
Speaker 2: at today because I was watching the UK column News remotely,
53:30
Speaker 2: was when Mike Robinson started talking about the banking system
53:35
Speaker 2: coming up to support military. The military a new development
53:43
Speaker 2: and the Canadians are bidding at the moment to have
53:50
Speaker 2: a had to have the lead in a multi national
53:54
Speaker 2: defense bank, which means that you're going to have a
53:57
Speaker 2: number of nation states their money at a remote location
54:02
Speaker 2: in order to buy weapons systems to fight wars that.
54:06
Speaker 1: They all agree in.
54:08
Speaker 2: Yes, and what's missing accountability indeed, So that's what I
54:15
Speaker 2: think is happening in this country. It hasn't been a
54:19
Speaker 2: military collapse buying competence. It's been a military collapse by
54:24
Speaker 2: design because you don't actually very frightening for the government.
54:30
Speaker 2: The idea that one day the armed forces wake up
54:34
Speaker 2: to realize that their own government is attacking them. That
54:38
Speaker 2: could be a problem.
54:40
Speaker 1: It could be.
54:41
Speaker 2: So is that such a huge step from looking at
54:45
Speaker 2: sand Hurst and training and saying, well, who's actually training
54:49
Speaker 2: these people and why now? I think there's a lot
54:52
Speaker 2: of questions to be asked.
54:54
Speaker 1: I think there are no very much so and well,
54:58
Speaker 1: especially when it's it is set alongside all the fear
55:03
Speaker 1: mongering that you've referred to, you know, whether it's the
55:06
Speaker 1: idea that the the Russians present an imminent threat or
55:12
Speaker 1: anything that's associated with that, the national emergency briefings and
55:16
Speaker 1: and everything else. And here we are in a hot
55:20
Speaker 1: summer and the the you know what was sort of
55:24
Speaker 1: previously described as well, silly season in a way, and
55:27
Speaker 1: and some holidays. It's it is not beyond the bones
55:33
Speaker 1: of credibility to imagine that something it wouldn't take much
55:37
Speaker 1: to trigger as some some sort of seismic change in
55:44
Speaker 1: public opinion or or you know, it's something like that,
55:47
Speaker 1: and one one feels it's there is a sense that
55:50
Speaker 1: we're sort of getting to that stage.
55:52
Speaker 2: Would you again, in the UK Coln used today you
55:56
Speaker 2: made the point about a drone flying in the space
56:00
Speaker 2: exactly the United Kingdom. Is that your point was, is
56:04
Speaker 2: that an Amazon delivery drone or is that going to
56:07
Speaker 2: be a hostile drone?
56:08
Speaker 1: Absolutely, or is.
56:10
Speaker 2: It going to be a drone released for malicious purposes?
56:14
Speaker 2: Because it strikes a target, it's then blamed on the
56:17
Speaker 2: Russians and this is the trigger to change the whole
56:20
Speaker 2: of the country into a war footing Yes, yes, exactly, Yeah,
56:27
Speaker 2: dangerous times. And my feeling, very ever more strongly, Charles,
56:33
Speaker 2: is that the dangerous enemy is not the Russians, it's
56:37
Speaker 2: our own government. And I feel ever more confident of
56:41
Speaker 2: saying this because these people are deceiving us in the
56:45
Speaker 2: first instance as to the reality who is threatening us
56:49
Speaker 2: and who isn't And then they are operating as without
56:55
Speaker 2: any real accountability for the wars that they're helping to forment.
57:00
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely none. I mean again, going back to the
57:05
Speaker 1: news program that we did record today, Vanessa Bay played
57:08
Speaker 1: a couple of clips of the United States Secretary for
57:12
Speaker 1: War Pete hegxith being questioned by a couple of senators,
57:16
Speaker 1: And the point I made in extra afterwards was that,
57:20
Speaker 1: whilst interesting and engaging to watch and to a certain
57:24
Speaker 1: extent satisfying to see that he is not being permitted
57:28
Speaker 1: to get away with saying X, Y and Z without
57:32
Speaker 1: being challenged on it. But that, unfortunately is the extent
57:36
Speaker 1: of the repercussion for him. It is simply a verbal challenge.
57:41
Speaker 1: That's it.
57:42
Speaker 2: That's true. But people are often watching what's going on
57:49
Speaker 2: in the world or the watching UK column reporting, and
57:52
Speaker 2: they come back with what do we do about it? Yes,
57:56
Speaker 2: And of course if in the Senate there's two or
57:59
Speaker 2: three or ten voices challenging him, that has an impact
58:04
Speaker 2: through the media, he might get embarrassed or he might
58:06
Speaker 2: get put under pressure. But if there were a million
58:10
Speaker 2: five million Americans picking up on that point and starting
58:14
Speaker 2: to get on access and line of communications to say
58:21
Speaker 2: we don't want you, I'd suggest that man would be
58:24
Speaker 2: removed from his post.
58:26
Speaker 1: Yes, pretty quickly.
58:27
Speaker 2: So I'd take your point on the commentary if we
58:32
Speaker 2: got time, Charles, I thought it was appropriate to mention
58:37
Speaker 2: a particular gentleman. That's commodore Germ Germy, who has recently
58:43
Speaker 2: done an interview with Tucker Carlson. Now, I've been pretty
58:47
Speaker 2: tough on senior officers, saying it's very difficult to find
58:50
Speaker 2: one who will actually speak out because they're also terrified
58:54
Speaker 2: politically or socially if they're going to challenge the system.
58:59
Speaker 2: He's done a really excellent interview with Tucker Carlson where
59:04
Speaker 2: the commodore is saying, well, we're not being told the
59:07
Speaker 2: truth about the war in Ukraine, because if you watch
59:11
Speaker 2: what has consistently happened, the Russians are applying a new tactic,
59:16
Speaker 2: and that is they're not using attempting to use massed
59:20
Speaker 2: armor to take vast amounts of grounds. They can't because
59:24
Speaker 2: of the drone warfare. What they are doing is a
59:27
Speaker 2: very clever, grinding tactic using very small numbers of troops,
59:32
Speaker 2: also supported by a high number of drones, and they
59:36
Speaker 2: are continuing to advance. And I found it very encouraging
59:40
Speaker 2: that finally we've got a relatively senior military officer who's
59:46
Speaker 2: absolutely challenging the narrative coming through the British government and
59:51
Speaker 2: the Ministry of Defense. And I'm going to say from
59:55
Speaker 2: my ability to analyze what's been happening thanks to some
59:59
Speaker 2: really good online vloggers and analysts and commentators. What the
1:00:06
Speaker 2: commodore's talking about is absolutely real. But if we're not
1:00:10
Speaker 2: being told the truth about whether the Russians are advancing
1:00:15
Speaker 2: in a way that they could conquer all of Western Europe,
1:00:20
Speaker 2: our government is lying to us, in the Ministry of
1:00:23
Speaker 2: Defense Defense hq on X is actually lying to the
1:00:28
Speaker 2: British population about what's actually happening and why are they
1:00:33
Speaker 2: doing that to increase the fear factor?
1:00:36
Speaker 1: Maybe? Yeah, I think so. I mean that seems to
1:00:38
Speaker 1: be the answer to very many questions. Increase the fear
1:00:43
Speaker 1: or indeed censor anyone that wants to discuss it. But no,
1:00:49
Speaker 1: I think it's very You're quite right, it's very refreshing
1:00:52
Speaker 1: to hear to hear a voice from somebody who's had
1:00:54
Speaker 1: that rank, and let's hope he'll come talk to us.
1:00:58
Speaker 1: That would be brilliant.
1:00:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, just wanted to give Luke Pollard a mention because
1:01:03
Speaker 2: he's local MP and you mentioned him at the start
1:01:08
Speaker 2: of our conversation, but again in the UK column News
1:01:13
Speaker 2: today he was also mentioned because he'd come in and
1:01:15
Speaker 2: given support to the protection of Dartmore ponies. And this
1:01:21
Speaker 2: is very interesting, isn't it That here is Defense Minister
1:01:27
Speaker 2: Luke Pollard who is standing up to protect Dartmore ponies.
1:01:33
Speaker 1: And I'm not.
1:01:34
Speaker 2: Making light of that because I know that for the
1:01:37
Speaker 2: local d More people this is a really important issue.
1:01:40
Speaker 2: So he gets on board with that and speaks out publicly.
1:01:45
Speaker 2: But he's not speaking out publicly saying, you know, within
1:01:49
Speaker 2: my political area, we've got the largest naval base in
1:01:53
Speaker 2: Europe where there are no operational submarines and very few
1:01:57
Speaker 2: operational ships. He's not saying that that. So why does
1:02:01
Speaker 2: he speak out in support of the ponies but he
1:02:04
Speaker 2: doesn't speak out in the reality of the state of
1:02:08
Speaker 2: the navy. And to me, there's one answer, and that
1:02:12
Speaker 2: is that the local people took the fight to him
1:02:16
Speaker 2: about the ponies. Yes, but nobody's taking the fight to
1:02:20
Speaker 2: him about the state of the military. And if they did,
1:02:24
Speaker 2: I think we would be seeing a very different loop Pollard.
1:02:27
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I think that is an absolutely terrific point.
1:02:31
Speaker 1: I think it's a point in fact that is of
1:02:32
Speaker 1: great significance, and if you haven't got anything else that's
1:02:35
Speaker 1: completely pressing, I think that would be a good note
1:02:37
Speaker 1: to close on, because I think it does give people
1:02:41
Speaker 1: that ability to see the way in which things can change,
1:02:47
Speaker 1: and to give people that hope and to remind them
1:02:50
Speaker 1: that that that is ultimately it is simple. You know,
1:02:55
Speaker 1: a concerted effort, a ground swell of determined people can
1:03:04
Speaker 1: absolutely have an effect. And I think that's all too
1:03:06
Speaker 1: easily forgotten. And you know, none of these issues really
1:03:10
Speaker 1: should be regarded as being too big. Yeah. Good Now,
1:03:15
Speaker 1: As good luck had it, when I reached for something
1:03:19
Speaker 1: to lean on for my piece of paper, it happened
1:03:21
Speaker 1: to be the second issue of our very fantastic quarterly publication,
1:03:27
Speaker 1: The Column. So if you haven't yet got a copy,
1:03:30
Speaker 1: please make sure that you do. There'll be notes for
1:03:32
Speaker 1: this particular episode published with it. Thank you very much
1:03:37
Speaker 1: for joining us, Bran, Thanks very much for talking to me.
1:03:40
Speaker 1: That's great, enjoyable. We'll look forward to the next one.
1:03:43
Speaker 1: Thank you all right, bye bye,