Latest / UK Column Radio / Military Matters: Episode 9

Transcript

Military Matters: Episode 9 · UK Column Radio

0:00
Speaker 1: Thank you.
0:25
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Military Matters. It's episode nine, believe it
0:28
Speaker 2: or not. Brian has joined me again, about which I'm
0:31
Speaker 2: very pleased, and there's going to be a lot to
0:32
Speaker 2: get through today. We're going to start with drones, which
0:34
Speaker 2: we feel are the issue du jour. So I'm going
0:38
Speaker 2: to quote from an outraged BBC article about what's been
0:43
Speaker 2: going on, in particular, between Ukraine and Russia. And I
0:48
Speaker 2: think this will lead into a very interesting conversation. So, Brian,
0:51
Speaker 2: I'm going to quote to you. The Russian embassy in
0:54
Speaker 2: the UK earlier accused Britain of deliberately opting for an
0:58
Speaker 2: escalation of the Ukraine crisis, saying the deeper its involvement
1:04
Speaker 2: in the conflict, the higher the price it will pay. Now,
1:08
Speaker 2: that's been written not just by the BBC, but by
1:12
Speaker 2: all media and interpreted by government as an outrageous position
1:16
Speaker 2: for the Russians to take.
1:18
Speaker 3: How do you regard it? Well, if.
1:23
Speaker 1: if we look at how the war in Ukraine has progressed,
1:27
Speaker 1: the reality is that the Russians have, in my opinion,
1:34
Speaker 1: effectively beaten Ukraine. The only reason that Ukraine is still
1:38
Speaker 1: able to fight is due to the support that's been
1:43
Speaker 1: pushed in by the UK and Europe and the US.
1:49
Speaker 1: And increasingly, that support has been to provide Ukraine with
1:56
Speaker 1: increasingly sophisticated and long-range drone technology. So all of the
2:03
Speaker 1: talk about Western long-range missile systems, Storm Shadow, for example,
2:08
Speaker 1: they came to nothing because the quantity of the missiles
2:12
Speaker 1: was too few, and the Russians overwhelmingly countered those missiles
2:18
Speaker 1: with their air defence systems. So the next trick from
2:22
Speaker 1: the West was to assist the Ukrainians to boost their
2:29
Speaker 1: drone capability and in particular to produce long-range drones that
2:34
Speaker 1: were capable of hitting at distance inside Russia. So the
2:39
Speaker 1: initial forays were attacks largely aimed at fuel installations and
2:46
Speaker 1: there were clearly some relatively small.
2:50
Speaker 3: Hits on.
2:52
Speaker 1: Russian oil refineries. But as time has gone on, we're
2:58
Speaker 1: now seeing Ukraine launching hundreds, in fact, thousands of drones
3:04
Speaker 1: in one raid was reported. And those were targeted overwhelmingly
3:09
Speaker 1: on a spread of infrastructure, supposedly military infrastructure inside Russia. Now,
3:18
Speaker 1: the reality is that the number of hits was very few,
3:22
Speaker 1: and that reflects on the efficiency of the Russian air defence.
3:26
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, the West's technology, and in particular drone support
3:31
Speaker 1: from UK, has been to increase the distance which Ukraine
3:37
Speaker 1: can hit inside Russia, and also to increase the payloads.
3:41
Speaker 1: And we've now got the press in UK openly boasting
3:46
Speaker 1: that it is UK designed supplied drones that are now
3:52
Speaker 1: being used to attack inside Russia. So there must come
3:55
Speaker 1: a point at which the Russians say we are now
3:59
Speaker 1: being openly attacked by the United Kingdom and we've got
4:03
Speaker 1: to respond to that. Now how they're going to respond
4:06
Speaker 1: to it is where it gets interesting because they're easily
4:10
Speaker 1: capable of launching missile systems to take out an individual
4:15
Speaker 1: factory in UK and But of course, that's an attack
4:18
Speaker 1: on mainland UK with all the possible repercussions. So what
4:25
Speaker 1: will they do? I don't know. But does a statement
4:29
Speaker 1: that we now regard ourselves as being attacked directly by
4:33
Speaker 1: the UK, is this a reasonable statement to make? I
4:36
Speaker 1: think it is.
4:37
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so. I mean, you know, there are
4:39
Speaker 3: so many elements to talk about.
4:40
Speaker 2: And the first word I suppose to come back to
4:43
Speaker 2: is escalation, because that was what the Russians said. have
4:46
Speaker 2: levelled at specifically, in fact, the United Kingdom. But I
4:49
Speaker 2: think from what you've just described, there's no doubt that
4:51
Speaker 2: there is an escalation. And to look into exactly how
4:56
Speaker 2: that's being facilitated, I think is totally critical, because it's
5:00
Speaker 2: not just that the United Kingdom is said to be
5:03
Speaker 2: supporting Ukraine. I mean, there is an absolutely defined point
5:08
Speaker 2: that one can look at, which is the new prime
5:11
Speaker 2: minister's Andy Burnham's handing of the licensing or the license
5:16
Speaker 2: to produce this technology to Ukraine. So specifically, we're talking
5:21
Speaker 2: about the BAE Systems Stone Cloak, which in actual fact
5:26
Speaker 2: is not a drone, but is a signal jamming capability
5:29
Speaker 2: that enables drones to apparently be more destructive than they
5:35
Speaker 2: would previously have been. And therefore, what that has facilitated
5:39
Speaker 2: is directly attributable to the United Kingdom's decision-making processes, and
5:44
Speaker 2: indeed defence industrial, military-industrial complex. So there's absolutely no getting
5:50
Speaker 2: away from that. And exactly to your point, you know,
5:55
Speaker 2: this surely has to constitute an even more direct link
6:02
Speaker 2: between the activities of the United Kingdom and the conflict
6:07
Speaker 2: or specifically the targeting of.
6:10
Speaker 3: Russian forces infrastructure, Russian.
6:13
Speaker 2: Military capabilities, but I'm afraid to say also Russian civilians.
6:19
Speaker 3: That's certainly true.
6:20
Speaker 1: And I'll say that the reports that I'm seeing, that
6:24
Speaker 1: I've been seeing over recent weeks is showing a significant
6:29
Speaker 1: increase in the number of Russian civilian casualties as a
6:33
Speaker 1: result of Ukrainian attacks, particularly on the Crimea peninsula. But
6:41
Speaker 1: also with regard to some of the attacks inside Russia,
6:44
Speaker 1: there's no doubt that this has happened. One of the
6:49
Speaker 1: things that I'm beginning to feel about what we're seeing
6:51
Speaker 1: in Ukraine is, well, the situation in the Middle East
6:58
Speaker 1: with Iran has come second. But what I was going
7:01
Speaker 1: to say was we're almost seeing the same thing happening
7:05
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. With Iran, America has got drawn into something.
7:11
Speaker 1: even with its tremendous military capability, as America would say, world-beating,
7:17
Speaker 1: but that's questionable. America's been unable to secure a proper
7:23
Speaker 1: full military defeat over Iran, but it keeps trying the
7:27
Speaker 1: next stage, and the next stage is pushing. And if
7:32
Speaker 1: we go back into the Ukraine war, we can see
7:35
Speaker 1: the point at which none of the Western help So
7:39
Speaker 1: that's all of the ammunition and munition supplies and the
7:46
Speaker 1: Western tanks and the long-range missiles. All of these were
7:50
Speaker 1: pushed into Ukraine in significant numbers, and they did not
7:56
Speaker 1: affect the battle on the ground at all. So the Russians, yes,
8:02
Speaker 1: they took hits and casualties initially, and then once again
8:07
Speaker 1: the Russians... advance continued. Now, the Western media, and particularly
8:14
Speaker 1: the BBC, always said, well, of course, the Russians aren't
8:17
Speaker 1: really achieving anything. They've only advanced a kilometre in the
8:23
Speaker 1: last week or something. So it was always poo-pooed by
8:27
Speaker 1: the Western media. But the reality was that the Russians
8:32
Speaker 1: continued to advance. I've described it as like a lava flow.
8:36
Speaker 1: It's very slow, but it just keeps coming. So all
8:39
Speaker 1: of these weapons went in, the tanks, the Bradley armoured
8:44
Speaker 1: fighting vehicles, the anti-tank missile systems, the long range systems,
8:50
Speaker 1: the artillery shells made no difference. Well, then the West
8:55
Speaker 1: had a problem because the Russians had demonstrated they could
8:58
Speaker 1: counter all these systems. Well, the next thing that started
9:02
Speaker 1: to appear was drones. And in my opinion, I can't
9:07
Speaker 1: prove this, but it's a strong opinion that I hold.
9:12
Speaker 1: We set out to test weapons systems on the Ukrainian battlefield,
9:17
Speaker 1: and one of those systems was drones. So we saw
9:22
Speaker 1: the launch of drones by the Ukrainian side, and then
9:26
Speaker 1: very quickly we started to see Russia counter that, initially
9:31
Speaker 1: with counter drone weapons systems, even down to troops being
9:36
Speaker 1: armed with shotguns or new cartridges which could be fired
9:42
Speaker 1: from a rifle with a dispersing pellet system to shoot
9:49
Speaker 1: at drones. And their electronic warfare was particularly good. So
9:55
Speaker 1: when the Russians started to counter the Ukrainian drones, the
9:59
Speaker 1: next thing is the Westerners. is upping the drone supply.
10:02
Speaker 1: So that starts to build. And what was the Russian
10:05
Speaker 1: response to really get into drones, attack drones, surveillance drones?
10:12
Speaker 1: And the key bit was, excuse me, that the Russian
10:15
Speaker 1: production in drones, completely outstripped anything the West could produce.
10:22
Speaker 1: So the latest figure I've seen for Russian attack drone productions,
10:27
Speaker 1: production is 11,000 drones to be completed in the month
10:32
Speaker 1: of August. This leaves the West, UK standing, but the
10:38
Speaker 1: West is ramming those drones in. It seems to me
10:42
Speaker 1: in desperation that they haven't got anything else now to
10:45
Speaker 1: throw at this at this war. Sorry, there's a bit
10:48
Speaker 1: of a long summary on it, but it's like we're
10:52
Speaker 1: being dragged into another stage and another stage because everything
10:56
Speaker 1: we do is ultimately countered by the Russians.
11:01
Speaker 2: I think a summary here for very appropriate length, because
11:04
Speaker 2: I think this is exactly where we're going to with it.
11:08
Speaker 2: And in an objective sense, from whichever perspective you try
11:14
Speaker 2: to take... it doesn't add up, it doesn't make any sense,
11:18
Speaker 2: because exactly like you described, the lava flow, whatever the effect,
11:23
Speaker 2: even if the Russian war machine is not necessarily making
11:28
Speaker 2: ground at a rate that people think it should be
11:30
Speaker 2: able to, the fact is it's not seeding ground, and
11:33
Speaker 2: also it is acknowledged universally that the military machine, the
11:38
Speaker 2: military might of Russia far exceeds anything that's able to
11:43
Speaker 2: be set against it and therefore one has to keep
11:47
Speaker 2: asking the question what what is the expected or desired
11:53
Speaker 2: end state from countries like the united kingdom which are
11:56
Speaker 2: continuing to pour taxpayers money into this constant process of
12:02
Speaker 2: destruction and annihilation it is very very hard to deal
12:07
Speaker 2: with i think on um on very many levels. But
12:10
Speaker 2: I think what's so interesting is to look back, or
12:14
Speaker 2: I mean, only a little bit back, but to look
12:16
Speaker 2: at how this not just joins up with, but absolutely
12:21
Speaker 2: reinforces what was said, not exclusively, but specifically in the
12:27
Speaker 2: Strategic Defence Review last year, and how this, and we've
12:31
Speaker 2: made the point before, but this is just looking more
12:34
Speaker 2: and more and more like a sort of choreographed slow
12:38
Speaker 2: dance into direct conflict with Russia, but sort of put
12:44
Speaker 2: in a way to the public as though, well, there's
12:46
Speaker 2: absolutely nothing we can do about this.
12:48
Speaker 1: That's absolutely the picture I get from looking across the media.
12:55
Speaker 1: We have now Andy Burnham's government. He's doing his tour
13:00
Speaker 1: of cities in the UK and he's talking about.
13:05
Speaker 1: Whatever it is, number 10 of the North and these
13:08
Speaker 1: political changes in UK. It's like for the public, you
13:12
Speaker 1: just worry about all these things, all these simple things
13:15
Speaker 1: that I'm doing. Off to one side, we've just got
13:19
Speaker 1: this massive drive for war with Russia. So recently there's investment,
13:28
Speaker 1: I think it's up to £ 300, 000 in 30 new startup
13:34
Speaker 1: companies to provide ammunition and munitions ready for war. We've
13:40
Speaker 1: got the drone production. We've got Ukrainian drone companies now
13:44
Speaker 1: here operating in UK producing this stuff. So the country
13:50
Speaker 1: is being put on a war footing, but it's not
13:53
Speaker 1: being done by an overt statement. It's sort of by
13:56
Speaker 1: osmosis happening just under the surface. And people can't see
14:01
Speaker 1: what's coming. And I'll just add, Charles, the thing which
14:05
Speaker 1: I think is most dangerous is that as you have
14:09
Speaker 1: this drive for war, it was the Tory government, it's
14:14
Speaker 1: been Labour government, it's Andy Burnham. At the same time now,
14:18
Speaker 1: you've got a National Security Act, which is absolutely designed
14:23
Speaker 1: to shut up anybody who that dares speak out about
14:27
Speaker 1: what's actually happening. If you do so, you've become an
14:31
Speaker 1: enemy of the state and a Putin sympathiser. I have
14:37
Speaker 1: to get my pronunciation on that right because I was
14:39
Speaker 1: picked up on it. And so this is a very
14:43
Speaker 1: pernicious situation in UK. We're driving for war. We're trying
14:49
Speaker 1: to start, it seems, a full-blown war with Russia. which
14:54
Speaker 1: we're not equipped to fight. And at the same time,
14:58
Speaker 1: the state is showing it's going to be ever more
15:01
Speaker 1: oppressive on the UK population.
15:06
Speaker 2: And just to go into the detail on that, just
15:08
Speaker 2: in case anyone has not followed this on UK Column
15:11
Speaker 2: News over the last couple of months, but this is
15:13
Speaker 2: the new National Security Act 2026, as opposed to the
15:16
Speaker 2: National Security Act 2023, amazingly, just three years later. This
15:20
Speaker 2: one has state threats in brackets. And the nuts and
15:24
Speaker 2: bolts of it are that it's about what they're calling
15:27
Speaker 2: foreign power threat activity. And the goalposts are simply on wheels.
15:33
Speaker 2: I mean, they are there to be moved in whichever
15:36
Speaker 2: direction is appropriate in order to... to capture anybody that
15:40
Speaker 2: may be considered to be a dissenting voice. And all
15:43
Speaker 2: that needs to be done is that the Secretary of
15:45
Speaker 2: State may pin a label on somebody and say, well,
15:48
Speaker 2: that's the result of foreign influence. And this is done by,
15:52
Speaker 2: as opposed to terrorism legislation, which prescribes there are now
15:55
Speaker 2: going to be foreign organisations that are described as designated bodies.
16:00
Speaker 2: So the threshold has been far reduced and the incredibly...
16:07
Speaker 2: At the same time, the sanctions have been dramatically increased
16:10
Speaker 2: and there are now sentences for offences within that legislation
16:13
Speaker 2: of up to 14 years simply for, you know, it
16:19
Speaker 2: is technically, theoretically absolutely possible that somebody would say or
16:24
Speaker 2: do something which could be described as having come from
16:29
Speaker 2: influence or contact with a malevolent foreign body but actually
16:34
Speaker 2: may not have done and that that person's actions could
16:38
Speaker 2: result in a prison sentence of 14 years.
16:41
Speaker 3: I mean, that's quite something.
16:43
Speaker 1: This is a very key point because we're having this
16:46
Speaker 1: discussion where we are drilling down to the reality of
16:50
Speaker 1: what's happening. And if the UK state deems that actually
16:57
Speaker 1: our analysis is helpful to Russia, then the next thing
17:01
Speaker 1: is we can be accused of breaching this law.
17:04
Speaker 4: Yeah.
17:05
Speaker 1: Um yeah it is incredible how quickly this is coming
17:09
Speaker 1: in and it's also very worrying that it seems so
17:12
Speaker 1: few people are recognizing that that what we're we're looking
17:18
Speaker 1: at the russians and saying those nasty russians are going
17:21
Speaker 1: to come and and take.
17:22
Speaker 3: Us over and suppress us yeah the.
17:25
Speaker 1: Suppression by our own government is is growing by the
17:28
Speaker 1: day yeah yeah and i would encourage you know anyone
17:31
Speaker 1: who thinks that we might be using hyperbole to a
17:33
Speaker 1: certain extent i would encourage them to go and look
17:35
Speaker 1: at what the National Security Act actually says, in particular
17:38
Speaker 1: about taking information, the passage of information simply from a
17:44
Speaker 1: designated body.
17:46
Speaker 2: In that that could be perceived to be of benefit
17:49
Speaker 2: and therefore of benefit to the designated body and that
17:52
Speaker 2: results in a penalty. And of course, this has been
17:54
Speaker 2: raised by many people, but Craig Murray was particularly, I think,
17:59
Speaker 2: to the point, which was that this.
18:02
Speaker 2: This potentially puts any journalist wanting to understand what may
18:07
Speaker 2: be happening in a given part of the world at
18:10
Speaker 2: risk of going to prison simply for trying to report accurately.
18:15
Speaker 3: It is perfectly astonishing.
18:16
Speaker 2: Just to go to the defence review, again, in order
18:20
Speaker 2: to make the point that we are not making this
18:22
Speaker 2: stuff up, it is absolutely there in black and white.
18:25
Speaker 2: I've got a few bits which I'd like to go
18:27
Speaker 2: through with specific regard to drones and whilst pointing out
18:32
Speaker 2: that the front cover of the Defence Review itself is
18:34
Speaker 2: a picture of a drone operator launching a drone.
18:37
Speaker 3: So that sends quite a clear message. But here we are.
18:40
Speaker 2: And I think my question before I read this out is,
18:42
Speaker 2: how nearly are we at this point? The government must
18:47
Speaker 2: also be able to achieve a sustainable and effective transition
18:51
Speaker 2: to war if necessary. A new Defence Readiness Bill should
18:56
Speaker 2: provide the government with powers in reserve for to mobilise
19:00
Speaker 2: reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict. It should
19:06
Speaker 2: also facilitate external scrutiny of UK warfighting readiness. That's quite stark,
19:14
Speaker 2: especially when you consider that the authors of the Defence
19:17
Speaker 2: Review were George Robertson, Lord Robertson, formerly.
19:20
Speaker 3: NATO, and subsequently working for the Cohen Group. Fiona Hill.
19:29
Speaker 2: Committed russophobe um i'm very knowledgeable in many respects on
19:33
Speaker 2: russia but compared vladimir putin with hitler and um richard
19:38
Speaker 2: barron's uh career soldier who is absolutely of the belief
19:44
Speaker 2: that the the only threat really to our way of
19:47
Speaker 2: life is russia so you're not going to get a
19:50
Speaker 2: document that is taking an objective view of the state
19:56
Speaker 2: that either the country or the armed forces find themselves in.
19:59
Speaker 3: It's remarkable.
20:02
Speaker 1: That's correct, Charles. When I read these documents now, as
20:07
Speaker 1: opposed to reading material on defence and our defence plans
20:12
Speaker 1: and strategy from 20 plus years ago, the thing I
20:17
Speaker 1: notice is that now there's all of this loose language.
20:23
Speaker 1: There's lots of words. There's a particular style of it.
20:28
Speaker 1: So you can read a paragraph and it sounds good,
20:32
Speaker 1: but then you think to yourself, what are they actually
20:34
Speaker 1: talking about? Whereas material that was written 20, 30 years
20:41
Speaker 1: ago was around defence and security was always very well-defined
20:50
Speaker 1: and specific language so that there wasn't any ambiguity about
20:53
Speaker 1: what they were talking about. And this is one of
20:56
Speaker 1: the things that I've seen happen as we've seen our
21:01
Speaker 1: whole defence sector turn into mush.
21:04
Speaker 3: Yes.
21:07
Speaker 1: I'm just thinking, and I'd just like to come back
21:09
Speaker 1: on the subject of drones very quickly.
21:11
Speaker 3: Absolutely, yeah, no, no, we will. To finish on that.
21:14
Speaker 1: But our little journey off to the side there, very worthwhile.
21:19
Speaker 1: But on the subject of drones, we're now at the
21:23
Speaker 1: point where Russia is outproducing the West in drones and
21:29
Speaker 1: therefore Ukraine. It's also demonstrating... its advances in drone technology itself,
21:38
Speaker 1: including anti-drone drones, so using a drone to bring down
21:44
Speaker 1: other drones. And, of course, the other thing is that
21:47
Speaker 1: the Russians have got the full battlefield experience of large-scale
21:57
Speaker 1: and tactical drone operations, which the West... can only get
22:04
Speaker 1: by having small teams operating alongside the Ukrainians. And this
22:08
Speaker 1: is why we, I think, can be certain that all
22:11
Speaker 1: of the Western nations, but most certainly the US and UK,
22:15
Speaker 1: have got special forces or specially selected forces in Ukraine
22:22
Speaker 1: in order to try and learn from the drone infrastructure.
22:26
Speaker 1: But the reality is that the Russians are fighting the war.
22:30
Speaker 1: So their expertise on the drones and the use of
22:33
Speaker 1: the drones, in my opinion, is always going to be
22:37
Speaker 1: ahead of the West because they're sitting on the sidelines
22:41
Speaker 1: trying to pick up the pieces. So where is this
22:46
Speaker 1: going to go? Well, Russia isn't fully war mobilised. It
22:50
Speaker 1: never has been. It's only using a part of its
22:53
Speaker 1: military capability to supply the war in Ukraine. And They
23:00
Speaker 1: are now at a stage where the production of drones,
23:03
Speaker 1: the size of the drones, the capability of those drones
23:07
Speaker 1: outstrips the West. So the West, to me, seems to
23:10
Speaker 1: be just continually inviting danger if the Russians decide the
23:16
Speaker 1: gloves are off and they're going to respond against the
23:21
Speaker 1: Western powers supporting Ukraine.
23:23
Speaker 3: Yeah.
23:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think for those believing that Russia does present
23:27
Speaker 2: not just an existential threat to the United Kingdom, but
23:30
Speaker 2: actually that there's an intent there, that there may come
23:33
Speaker 2: a point where Russia does say, right, okay, well, enough
23:35
Speaker 2: is enough, we're actually going to have to do something
23:37
Speaker 2: in the way that they felt absolutely compelled and justified
23:41
Speaker 2: to do something in early 2022. It is, it's as
23:47
Speaker 2: though a leaf is being taken out of Israel's book,
23:50
Speaker 2: and we've talking about this just before we started recording,
23:52
Speaker 2: which I think in summary is the kick the hornet's
23:57
Speaker 2: nest or get your retaliation in first and then start
24:01
Speaker 2: whinging when there is any incoming. And it is totally
24:06
Speaker 2: bizarre to see how that has, well, first of all,
24:10
Speaker 2: absolutely admired, continued to admire West Asia, the entire region
24:17
Speaker 2: in the most horrific levels of Conflict, of course, sponsored
24:20
Speaker 2: absolutely by the West, but the common factor is almost
24:25
Speaker 2: exclusively the fact that Israel will make the first move,
24:29
Speaker 2: usually far more direct than what it is we've talked
24:32
Speaker 2: about hitherto.
24:32
Speaker 3: An aggressive military attack.
24:34
Speaker 2: Exactly, an aggressive strike, and then complain when there's any
24:38
Speaker 2: form of response, which is pretty amazing. But yeah, that
24:42
Speaker 2: is ultimately what the BBC was saying in that quote
24:45
Speaker 2: that I opened there.
24:47
Speaker 3: This particular episode with.
24:48
Speaker 2: So the cognitive dissonance or double standards or hypocrisy or
24:53
Speaker 2: whatever you call it is completely remarkable. What I just
24:56
Speaker 2: want to do, though, is just to, again, to give
24:59
Speaker 2: an idea of absolutely to follow your point about the
25:03
Speaker 2: sort of Russian superiority, but yes, to look at the
25:07
Speaker 2: way in which our system works. is imagining this is
25:12
Speaker 2: that on drones from the Strategic Defence Review last year,
25:16
Speaker 2: drones now kill more people than traditional artillery in the
25:19
Speaker 2: war in Ukraine, and whoever gets new technology into the
25:22
Speaker 2: hands of their armed forces, the quickest will win. And
25:25
Speaker 2: so that the vision of the SDR is it sets
25:28
Speaker 2: a new vision for how our armed forces should be
25:31
Speaker 2: conceived a combination of conventional and digital warfighters, the power
25:36
Speaker 2: of drones, AI and autonomy, complementing the heavy metal of
25:40
Speaker 2: tanks and artillery, innovation and procurement measured in months, not years,
25:45
Speaker 2: the breaking down of barriers between individual services, between the
25:49
Speaker 2: military and the private sector, and between the armed forces
25:53
Speaker 2: and society. I mean, that we could probably spend three
25:56
Speaker 2: or four episodes just talking about that one issue.
25:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, because now we're blurring the lines of what is
26:01
Speaker 1: military and what are offensive corporations back to the East
26:08
Speaker 1: India Company, if you want to go in that direction.
26:11
Speaker 3: But this is very, very dangerous.
26:14
Speaker 4: It is.
26:14
Speaker 1: And sinister policy.
26:16
Speaker 3: Yes.
26:16
Speaker 1: And nobody I can see in the established media, mainstream
26:22
Speaker 1: media in the UK or in fact overseas is really
26:27
Speaker 1: picking up on this.
26:28
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, not at all.
26:29
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's fascinating. There are a few
26:32
Speaker 2: things that I would like to sort of talk about
26:34
Speaker 2: from that. I think we must come back to AI
26:38
Speaker 2: and this idea of autonomy, because to an extent, if
26:44
Speaker 2: that's the direction this seems to be going in, and
26:47
Speaker 2: it definitely does seem to be going in that, you
26:49
Speaker 2: almost ask the question, what's anyone else supposed to do?
26:52
Speaker 2: it's as though everybody just sits back and you let
26:56
Speaker 2: AI get on with everything, manufacturing, decision-making, and executing whatever
27:02
Speaker 2: it is that apparently has been decided.
27:05
Speaker 3: And I'll come back to that.
27:08
Speaker 2: I think the other side of it, you know, in
27:09
Speaker 2: terms of breaking down the barriers, just to go back
27:13
Speaker 2: to these strikes we were talking about, most likely enabled
27:18
Speaker 2: by BAE's Stonecloak jamming system, particularly targeted has been Wild Berries,
27:25
Speaker 2: the online, it's sort of called Russia's Amazon, enormous, enormous
27:30
Speaker 2: organisation set up by Tatiana Kim in 2004. I think
27:35
Speaker 2: just as an aside, fascinating to note that I think
27:39
Speaker 2: their turnover doubled during lockdown because they're an online retailer. Okay,
27:45
Speaker 2: we saw that in a lot of other places as well. Also,
27:48
Speaker 2: their turnover doubled in 2022 when.
27:51
Speaker 2: Supposedly the rest of the world turned their backs on Russia.
27:54
Speaker 2: So it does go to show how, okay, you could
27:59
Speaker 2: have a financial or economic argument to explain how that's
28:03
Speaker 2: a negative. But in effect, it's just yet another example
28:08
Speaker 2: of this idea of sanctions punishing Russia being, frankly, a
28:15
Speaker 2: ludicrous proposition. The other element to these drone strikes, again,
28:19
Speaker 2: as you say, you pointed out the sort of oil
28:22
Speaker 2: and gas or energy side of it. And we shouldn't
28:25
Speaker 2: forget that our sanctions in that respect were actually watered
28:29
Speaker 2: down rather quietly the other day. So how does that
28:32
Speaker 2: make sense? We are at the same time easing sanctions
28:37
Speaker 2: in order that we can... Still take oil from Russia. Exactly,
28:40
Speaker 2: take oil from Russia at the same time as allowing...
28:43
Speaker 2: Ukraine to have licensed technology to build drones to destroy
28:47
Speaker 2: the very technology that, I mean, that is a difficult
28:50
Speaker 2: one to make sense. But I think the other one
28:55
Speaker 2: on autonomy and AI is just, I think an interesting one,
29:00
Speaker 2: I'm just going to read a little bit from an
29:02
Speaker 2: article that in issue one of the column, because this
29:08
Speaker 2: was a desktop exercise and we talked about it before
29:10
Speaker 2: we started recording. But during the Future Combat and Airspace
29:14
Speaker 2: Capability Summit in 2023, they set up a situation in
29:19
Speaker 2: which they wanted to see hypothetically what would happen if
29:23
Speaker 2: an AI-enabled drone was given a mission to destroy surface-to-air
29:28
Speaker 2: missile sites, And in the scenario, the final decision on
29:32
Speaker 2: whether to strike was to be taken by a human.
29:35
Speaker 2: AI inferred that the human presented an obstacle to the mission,
29:39
Speaker 2: which was... the SAM destruction. So the guy commanding this
29:44
Speaker 2: was called Hamilton, Colonel Hamilton. So as Hamilton said, it
29:47
Speaker 2: killed the operator because that person was keeping it from
29:51
Speaker 2: accomplishing its objective. Now, This was sort of very much
29:57
Speaker 2: downplayed because it didn't really happen and a drone didn't
30:00
Speaker 2: really try to do that. But the fact is that
30:02
Speaker 2: this was a wargaming exercise and this is what it
30:04
Speaker 2: looked like it was going to do. And to corroborate,
30:08
Speaker 2: in effect, this possibility or the idea of this possibility,
30:12
Speaker 2: there's a very good article on the UK column website
30:14
Speaker 2: at the moment by Christopher Hell called Open AI's Great
30:18
Speaker 2: Escape about this bizarre case where hugging face... was broken
30:25
Speaker 2: into by OpenAI. And again, the point is that as
30:31
Speaker 2: far as OpenAI says, they say that the rogue AIs.
30:39
Speaker 3: Were not told what to do.
30:41
Speaker 2: And so it's this idea of there being a sort
30:43
Speaker 2: of a protocol, so nothing actually specified. And as Christopher
30:49
Speaker 2: Hell points out, an AI model is not an employee
30:52
Speaker 2: following instructions. it is a system that pursues a target.
30:56
Speaker 2: And when wrapped in a so-called agent harness, software that
30:59
Speaker 2: lets it run a command, evaluate the result, and then
31:01
Speaker 2: autonomously decide on the next move, it will simply keep
31:04
Speaker 2: pushing forward until it succeeds or something stops it. So
31:08
Speaker 2: what he's talking about, although totally different context, is exactly
31:11
Speaker 2: what happened with that drone killing the operator. So I
31:15
Speaker 2: think there's, again, another massive area of concern here that
31:18
Speaker 2: as leaps and bounds are made forward with the idea
31:21
Speaker 2: that AI should have access to and control of everything.
31:24
Speaker 2: There's no real understanding of how it would be interpreted
31:29
Speaker 2: by something that is not sentient and not in any
31:32
Speaker 2: way conscious of the elements that we should be as humans.
31:36
Speaker 1: Lots of questions, Charles. The other thing that goes with
31:39
Speaker 1: this is that AI overwhelmed the development of AI overwhelmingly
31:49
Speaker 1: lies with commercial organisations. So we can have the UK
31:55
Speaker 1: government saying it's going to adopt AI. We can have
31:58
Speaker 1: the UK military saying it's going to adopt AI. But
32:02
Speaker 1: in the first instance, all of the knowledge, capability, algorithms, successes, faults,
32:11
Speaker 1: grey areas, those are all known by private companies. And
32:15
Speaker 1: I think it's reasonable to say because of commercial confidentiality,
32:20
Speaker 1: they won't even be telling the Ministry of Defence, for example,
32:27
Speaker 1: the total reality about how good or how bad their
32:30
Speaker 1: system is. I mean, this is always operated by our
32:37
Speaker 1: F-35 aircraft. It's going to be a world beater. But actually,
32:40
Speaker 1: when it appears on the scene, it's got software with
32:43
Speaker 1: a whole load of bugs and faults in. And to me,
32:47
Speaker 1: AI is not going to be any different, except we've
32:51
Speaker 1: now got a system which can develop its own rules
32:55
Speaker 1: for what it's going to do. And there's been quite
32:58
Speaker 1: a lot of material coming into the wider media indicating
33:05
Speaker 1: that AI on occasions has effectively gone rogue.
33:11
Speaker 3: Yeah.
33:12
Speaker 1: It's attempted to get outside the constraint boundaries put around it. Or,
33:19
Speaker 1: for example, it's, what is the word, it's infected another
33:25
Speaker 1: system simply because it thought it was a good idea
33:28
Speaker 1: to do it. So if we're not in full control
33:31
Speaker 1: of the AI and we're going to put AI into
33:36
Speaker 1: weapons systems, this is a very, dangerous and poisonous mix
33:40
Speaker 1: and nobody's talking about it.
33:41
Speaker 2: Indeed, and I think this goes back directly to two
33:45
Speaker 2: of the things we're talking about. First of all, here
33:47
Speaker 2: we go, I've just said it, the breaking down of
33:49
Speaker 2: barriers between individual services, between the military and the private
33:53
Speaker 2: sector And between the armed forces and society is exactly
33:56
Speaker 2: what we're talking about. And this is precisely where AI
34:00
Speaker 2: is potentially at, absolutely at the tip of that particular spear.
34:05
Speaker 2: And the reason I want to go back to the
34:07
Speaker 2: wild berries thing is because wild berries, it has been
34:13
Speaker 2: suggested that wild berries has carried in its stock items
34:18
Speaker 2: that have a military application this seems a bit of
34:22
Speaker 2: a gray area because this is citing things like fiber
34:25
Speaker 2: optic cable which could be used by the you know
34:27
Speaker 2: i mean sort of okay yes but is that actually
34:30
Speaker 2: being used is that its purpose so so it's been
34:33
Speaker 2: a little bit hard to qualify in effect but nonetheless
34:39
Speaker 2: the point is that in targeting um structures uh buildings
34:44
Speaker 2: distribution centers that might be said to have a dual-use purpose.
34:49
Speaker 2: First of all, international humanitarian law has not caught up.
34:54
Speaker 2: There's not really anything stipulated about dual-use purpose. But I
34:58
Speaker 2: think when we consider that decisions, if we can call
35:04
Speaker 2: it that, but let's just use the word decisions, decisions
35:08
Speaker 2: that are made by artificial intelligence will absolutely result in
35:17
Speaker 2: death and destruction. I think we should look at what's
35:20
Speaker 2: happened at Wildberries, because the justification for striking targets where
35:24
Speaker 2: there have been civilian operators, civilians being killed in these
35:29
Speaker 2: sorts of strikes, it's been said, oh, well, you know,
35:31
Speaker 2: that's what the Russians have been doing to Ukraine. So therefore,
35:34
Speaker 2: it's fine. Well, that's, that's not really, that's not exactly
35:37
Speaker 2: how the law works, for a start. But also, I
35:40
Speaker 2: just think it's, it's worth considering what the from the
35:48
Speaker 2: 1949 conventions, the, the civilian population and individual civilians should
35:52
Speaker 2: enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations to
35:57
Speaker 2: give effect to this protections. The following rules shall be
36:00
Speaker 2: observed in all circumstances. The civilian population shall not be
36:06
Speaker 2: the subject of attack acts or threats of violence. The
36:08
Speaker 2: primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the
36:11
Speaker 2: civilian population. So that that's, I would say already, we're
36:14
Speaker 2: probably over the line there. Um, civilians shall enjoy the
36:19
Speaker 2: protection afforded by this section unless and for such time
36:22
Speaker 2: as they take a direct part in hostilities. Well, I
36:25
Speaker 2: wouldn't say that somebody packing in a warehouse for wild
36:28
Speaker 2: berries could be said to be taking a direct part
36:30
Speaker 2: in hostilities. But this then goes back to the idea
36:33
Speaker 2: that we here in the United Kingdom are coming increasingly
36:38
Speaker 2: close to taking a direct part in hostilities with the
36:41
Speaker 2: provision of the Stone Cloak by BAE systems. But I
36:45
Speaker 2: think specifically here is indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, indiscriminate attacks
36:50
Speaker 2: are those which are not directed at a specific military objective.
36:55
Speaker 2: And I think this is the bit and this is
36:57
Speaker 2: where it there is certainly no evidence to point away
37:02
Speaker 2: from the extremely likely outcome that the more involvement AI
37:06
Speaker 2: has in controlling any of this type of warfare, the
37:09
Speaker 2: more likely that part of the Geneva Conventions is to
37:12
Speaker 2: be consigned to the dustbin i would think.
37:16
Speaker 1: Yeah and and as you talked through that it was
37:19
Speaker 1: really israel that came into my head um where israel
37:23
Speaker 1: is simply attacking um civilian infrastructure whether it's been in
37:29
Speaker 1: gaza or now in in southern lebanon yeah um does
37:35
Speaker 1: the geneva convention even apply anymore well exactly exactly is
37:40
Speaker 1: the thing and if it doesn't and we're going to
37:44
Speaker 1: allow ai to run the show yeah um yeah this
37:48
Speaker 1: is very dark.
37:49
Speaker 2: It is and and i think that's a that is
37:51
Speaker 2: a natural sort of transition point in the conversation because
37:54
Speaker 2: to to even the suggestion that something other than human
37:58
Speaker 2: beings would run the show is just such a departure
38:01
Speaker 2: from what you or i would consider to be the
38:05
Speaker 2: norm and i think that brings us to the very
38:09
Speaker 2: stark changes and and um What I'd like to talk
38:12
Speaker 2: to you about is, in particular, well, we're seeing it
38:16
Speaker 2: across all three services, but in particular, the extraordinary changes
38:20
Speaker 2: we're seeing in the Navy and how bizarre it is
38:26
Speaker 2: in the spectacle of apparently projecting as a naval power
38:32
Speaker 2: with what we have got. And just as a point
38:34
Speaker 2: of reference, I'm going to use a little clip from
38:38
Speaker 2: a recent Mark Felton interview. video which i think is
38:41
Speaker 2: excellent and so we're just going to watch that now
38:44
Speaker 2: show it to the audience and then and then i'd
38:46
Speaker 2: really like your comment on it afterwards and we'll see
38:49
Speaker 2: where we go with that okay.
38:52
Speaker 4: Deploying a carrier battle group that is entirely Royal Navian
38:55
Speaker 4: in composition is now impossible, due to how few escort
38:59
Speaker 4: vessels now exist within the Royal Navy, as successive governments
39:04
Speaker 4: and the Ministry of Defence follow a seemingly illogical plan
39:07
Speaker 4: of reducing the fleet of destroyers and frigates to almost nothing,
39:11
Speaker 4: while still spouting off to the gullible that the Royal
39:14
Speaker 4: Navy is a potent fighting force stuffed full of state-of-the-art ships,
39:20
Speaker 4: The Admiralty had to dig very deep to provide just
39:23
Speaker 4: two escort ships to accompany Prince of Wales. The destroyer
39:28
Speaker 4: HMS Duncan was somehow made operational, out of six ships
39:32
Speaker 4: of the class, three of which at the time were
39:35
Speaker 4: in long-term maintenance. And a single old frigate, HMS Somerset,
39:41
Speaker 4: also joined the task group, one of only four such
39:44
Speaker 4: vessels that are still active. The dispatch of these two
39:48
Speaker 4: escorts must have virtually left the country undefended during the
39:52
Speaker 4: period of the carrier's deployment. Such defence left to just
39:55
Speaker 4: the eight offshore patrol boats. The third British ship also
40:00
Speaker 4: accompanied the carrier, which was the tanker RFA Tidespring. By
40:05
Speaker 4: way of comparison, a US aircraft carrier is always escorted
40:09
Speaker 4: by between five and eight cruisers, destroyers and nuclear attack submarines.
40:16
Speaker 4: Due to Britain's naval weakness, the Prince of Wales' battle
40:19
Speaker 4: group had to be thickened out by escorts from foreign navies,
40:23
Speaker 4: including the French frigate F.S. Aquitaine. But, however, if that
40:28
Speaker 4: wasn't bad enough, there is a truly hilarious part of
40:32
Speaker 4: the story. When Prince of Wales sailed from Scotland for
40:35
Speaker 4: the Arctic, the one thing the aircraft carrier left behind
40:38
Speaker 4: was aircraft.
40:41
Speaker 2: I should have said before playing the clip that that
40:44
Speaker 2: was in relation to Operation Firecrest, which is, you know,
40:47
Speaker 2: this continual focus on the high north or the Arctic.
40:51
Speaker 2: And of course, all this posturing due to the fact
40:54
Speaker 2: that it is perceived that this would act either as
40:57
Speaker 2: a deterrent or it's in some way checking the activities
41:02
Speaker 2: of the Russian Navy or actually the sort of so-called
41:06
Speaker 2: Russian shadow fleet, but basically to try and constrain Russia
41:10
Speaker 2: I mean that's why there's an apparent focus but as
41:13
Speaker 2: Mark Felton quite rightly points out I mean what does
41:16
Speaker 2: it really.
41:16
Speaker 1: Mean incredible it's about 10 minutes long his video I
41:24
Speaker 1: think so we've just shown a clip first thing I'd
41:26
Speaker 1: like to say is please for the audience go and
41:30
Speaker 1: watch the full thing we'll put the link in the
41:34
Speaker 1: show notes for this particular discussion but people should go
41:37
Speaker 1: and see it and watch it He is, in my view,
41:42
Speaker 1: absolutely on the button with his analysis going through this.
41:46
Speaker 1: We've now seen that the Royal Navy cannot operate a
41:52
Speaker 1: proper carrier group. So we've got carriers that are not
41:56
Speaker 1: carrying sufficient aircraft. And one of the points he makes
41:59
Speaker 1: is that each carrier is supposed to have 36 F-35s
42:04
Speaker 1: on board. It struggles to do this because the total
42:13
Speaker 1: purchase for the UK in F-35s for the Royal Navy
42:18
Speaker 1: and the Royal Air Force, I think, was 47 aircraft.
42:22
Speaker 1: So they're juggling them between the Royal Air Force and
42:25
Speaker 1: the Navy. And this has got huge limitations with pilot
42:30
Speaker 1: experience and servicing. There's all sorts of implications. But we've
42:35
Speaker 1: got these carriers at sea. but we haven't got a
42:37
Speaker 1: proper air wing on board. And then we can't operate
42:41
Speaker 1: them in an offensive role because we have not got
42:45
Speaker 1: the support group around, which he correctly points out, the
42:49
Speaker 1: American carrier groups, the battle groups, when they go to sea,
42:53
Speaker 1: you've got the carrier, they've got all of the air
42:55
Speaker 1: defence cruisers and destroyers, and they will have nuclear submarines
43:03
Speaker 1: under the surface with that battle group in order to
43:06
Speaker 1: help defend them against other attack by Russian or Chinese submarines.
43:13
Speaker 1: So that is a proper battle group. We haven't got that.
43:16
Speaker 1: He talks about the 11 UK destroyers, which should be
43:22
Speaker 1: available to do this role. But in the last two months,
43:27
Speaker 1: none of the six remaining Type 45 destroyers were operational.
43:32
Speaker 1: So they might have had one in his analysis for
43:38
Speaker 1: that group but the reality is there's now none so
43:41
Speaker 1: we can't operate these these two aircraft carriers so we
43:45
Speaker 1: posture on a world stage that we still have a
43:48
Speaker 1: raw navy which is capable of global operations but the
43:53
Speaker 1: reality is that we don't and mark felton has has
43:59
Speaker 1: dissected this nonsense in an incredibly efficient way i think.
44:04
Speaker 2: Yeah i think so yeah I think from the outside,
44:08
Speaker 2: and obviously we do look at this fairly closely, and
44:12
Speaker 2: I suppose across the general population, there'd be an awareness,
44:19
Speaker 2: but not in any great detail or depth, perhaps. But
44:23
Speaker 2: even when you do scrutinise it, it's very hard to
44:27
Speaker 2: understand what message we are really supposed to be.
44:30
Speaker 3: Receiving, because we're told.
44:33
Speaker 2: repeatedly by Gwynne Jenkins first sea lord that he is
44:38
Speaker 2: celebrating his services transition towards being a hybrid navy and
44:42
Speaker 2: all the sorts of things I've read out from the
44:44
Speaker 2: strategic defence review which as you quite rightly point out
44:47
Speaker 2: are represent frankly sort of you know change of lexicon
44:52
Speaker 2: and linguistics of such a degree that it's very hard
44:54
Speaker 2: to understand what anything ever means and in fact just
44:58
Speaker 2: to side note on that one thing think of the
45:01
Speaker 2: The phrase used in the integrated operating concept, which Mike
45:05
Speaker 2: Robinson in particular has concentrated on a lot over the years,
45:09
Speaker 2: and the phrase used there was operating just below the
45:13
Speaker 2: threshold of war. That was being suggested as something that
45:17
Speaker 2: we would do. It would suit our sort of capabilities
45:21
Speaker 2: that we would do that. And then interesting to note
45:23
Speaker 2: that Blaise Metruoli, who just took over MI6 last year.
45:27
Speaker 3: Accused the Russians.
45:29
Speaker 2: as being very naughty for operating just below the threshold
45:32
Speaker 2: of war.
45:32
Speaker 3: So that was quite fascinating.
45:35
Speaker 1: So much of our media, Charles, is based on deliberate
45:41
Speaker 1: misinformation and disinformation. And I watched a little BBC Real report.
45:47
Speaker 1: And of course, it starts off by anchoring everything on
45:52
Speaker 1: the unlawful Russian invasion of Ukraine.
45:55
Speaker 3: Yes, yes.
45:56
Speaker 1: What it doesn't talk about is what was actually being
45:59
Speaker 1: done to Russia, what was happening in Ukraine in order
46:03
Speaker 1: to antagonise Russia, in order to threaten Russia with NATO
46:09
Speaker 1: assets being moved east, right onto the border effectively. The
46:14
Speaker 1: BBC doesn't want to talk about that. It starts at
46:18
Speaker 1: this false premise and then blames everything on Russia from it.
46:24
Speaker 3: Yes. Exactly.
46:26
Speaker 2: But what I was going to go on to say
46:28
Speaker 2: with regard to this drum banging about the hybrid navy
46:31
Speaker 2: is it then seems perfectly extraordinary and really completely contradictory
46:35
Speaker 2: to be putting on conventional displays of strength like that.
46:41
Speaker 2: If you haven't got sufficient aircraft to put on your
46:45
Speaker 2: aircraft carrier, what message are you sending by committing it
46:50
Speaker 2: not only to go up to the high north to
46:53
Speaker 2: look silly, but also to take it away. At the
46:56
Speaker 2: same time, we're supposed to believe that the United Kingdom
46:58
Speaker 2: is under threat, and yet we're going to send the
46:59
Speaker 2: carrier up to the high north. It makes no sense
47:03
Speaker 2: on any level.
47:04
Speaker 1: Charles, this is a really good point that you're making,
47:09
Speaker 1: and I think my response to it is because something
47:11
Speaker 1: else is happening at the same time.
47:13
Speaker 3: Exactly.
47:14
Speaker 1: And what is happening at the same time is that
47:18
Speaker 1: our traditional system of politics and defence... is being dissolved.
47:25
Speaker 1: So again, I have to go back in time, but
47:27
Speaker 1: back in time, senior military officers with a lot of
47:32
Speaker 1: experience in their field, Army, Navy, Air Force, were sitting
47:39
Speaker 1: down both with defence firms and scientists and politicians in
47:46
Speaker 1: order to formulate defence policy. And they were then choosing
47:51
Speaker 1: the form of ad Our defenses, what assets they were
47:57
Speaker 1: going to use, what ships, tanks, aircraft, whatever. I don't
48:00
Speaker 1: think that's happening anymore. I think that we have our
48:05
Speaker 1: defense policy being formed in the background by quasi-government organizations.
48:13
Speaker 1: I'm going to name RUSI as one of those. So
48:17
Speaker 1: it's a think tank. It says, oh, we're just here
48:20
Speaker 1: to talk about defense. But actually, if you follow all
48:23
Speaker 1: the links through, what you find is that there's a
48:26
Speaker 1: plethora of these think tanks funded by huge amounts of
48:32
Speaker 1: sometimes government, but very often corporate money. They are the
48:37
Speaker 1: ones formulating the defence policy. And therefore, the military are
48:42
Speaker 1: always out of step with where things are going. And
48:48
Speaker 1: so I think that... again, this is something that needs
48:52
Speaker 1: to be fully investigated by the UK column and others,
48:56
Speaker 1: is who is actually running our defence policy? Is it
49:00
Speaker 1: the Labour government? Or is it very powerful actors behind
49:06
Speaker 1: and controlling the Labour government? Personally, I think it's the latter.
49:09
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean, I think, well, I think there's a
49:11
Speaker 2: great deal of symbiosis, because when you consider some of
49:14
Speaker 2: the things we've talked about during this conversation, we see
49:17
Speaker 2: that if you create this hypothetical, I would say hypothetical scenario,
49:24
Speaker 2: that Russia is a great threat and you can append
49:28
Speaker 2: Iran to that or whoever you like. The government has
49:31
Speaker 2: the advantage of being able to tighten controls on the
49:34
Speaker 2: civilian population and continue to upgrade the the element of
49:39
Speaker 2: fear by having this supposed existential threat. And the military
49:45
Speaker 2: industrial complex gets the benefit from that by being thrown
49:49
Speaker 2: these enormous contracts for bits of kit, which either we
49:53
Speaker 2: don't need, or as you say, we're not actually in
49:55
Speaker 2: a position to be able to make best use of
49:57
Speaker 2: because there's a total mismatch between the armed forces themselves.
50:01
Speaker 2: So you can see that the benefits of those two And,
50:06
Speaker 2: you know, they absolutely are inextricably linked. I mean, the
50:08
Speaker 2: sort of revolving door between government and the corporate environment,
50:14
Speaker 2: but specifically the sort of defence environment is, you know,
50:22
Speaker 2: it's observable the entire time we see that. So I
50:25
Speaker 2: think rather than necessarily deciding exactly who's driving what, you can.
50:32
Speaker 3: See how whoever....
50:35
Speaker 2: Is really initiating any of this there is a clear
50:40
Speaker 2: benefit to both to both parties and and to the
50:43
Speaker 2: detriment of the population of the united kingdom and the
50:47
Speaker 2: detriment of those actually serving in the armed forces and
50:49
Speaker 2: just i just do one example is that what mark
50:53
Speaker 2: felton again explains so brilliantly is that the the first
50:57
Speaker 2: of all the purchase of these two carriers prince of
50:59
Speaker 2: wales and queen elizabeth was instigated by tony blair it
51:02
Speaker 2: was then sort of on off on off And then
51:04
Speaker 2: there was a cost-cutting exercise where the catapult short take-off... Sorry,
51:08
Speaker 2: the catapult system, which meant that larger, faster aircraft could
51:14
Speaker 2: use the carriers, was scrapped. So they're big, but you
51:18
Speaker 2: still have to use the short take-off and vertical landing,
51:20
Speaker 2: which meant having to purchase the F-35B Lightning II, not
51:25
Speaker 2: so capable as other variants. I mean, the compromises are
51:28
Speaker 2: absolutely extraordinary. And to think that was, in effect, what
51:31
Speaker 2: was possible with the Invincible class.
51:33
Speaker 4: So....
51:35
Speaker 2: Again, it's another sort of question where you just, how
51:39
Speaker 2: does any of it make sense?
51:41
Speaker 1: Well, on one hand, you can say it's a shambles.
51:45
Speaker 1: And then you have people just adding this into the pile.
51:49
Speaker 1: This is broken Britain. And I always challenge this view
51:53
Speaker 1: because I think it's important to say that Britain, or
51:58
Speaker 1: we'll say the armed forces in this case, are not
52:02
Speaker 1: just sort of broken Britain. They've been deliberately broken. It's
52:05
Speaker 1: been done piece by piece by piece. And they have
52:09
Speaker 1: been broken, my mind says, in order to get us
52:14
Speaker 1: to this position when we're now seeing our traditional visible
52:23
Speaker 1: defence system being absorbed into a totally unaccountable corporate system. system.
52:32
Speaker 1: If we want to call it the military-industrial complex, that's fine,
52:36
Speaker 1: but it seems to me the power base is moving
52:38
Speaker 1: more to the corporate political side than it is to
52:42
Speaker 1: the military side.
52:43
Speaker 3: Yes.
52:45
Speaker 2: I think that's completely and utterly fair. I think that's
52:49
Speaker 2: exactly the way that we regard it in every respect.
52:54
Speaker 2: I mean, we've covered this quite a lot before, but
52:58
Speaker 2: not least because of the way in which weapons and
53:05
Speaker 2: all the various types of equipment are used it the
53:09
Speaker 2: situation has changed radically because so many so many things
53:13
Speaker 2: either required continued or extended engagement with the corporate body
53:19
Speaker 2: the manufacturer because they are in effect able to control
53:23
Speaker 2: or update or whatever it is the the particular platform
53:27
Speaker 2: that's been purchased or they are they retain some element
53:30
Speaker 2: of control of it which is a very very extraordinary
53:34
Speaker 2: position for an armed force to find itself in where
53:38
Speaker 2: i mean you know it's yet as far as i'm
53:40
Speaker 2: aware it's yet to be tested but but um but
53:43
Speaker 2: theoretically it is possible for the the maker of some
53:48
Speaker 2: of this kit to intervene in a military operation well.
53:52
Speaker 1: Well there's something else that's happened alongside that charles and
53:55
Speaker 1: that is that the um the spread of companies providing
54:00
Speaker 1: equipment to the armed forces in this country now includes
54:07
Speaker 1: an ever greater number of overseas countries. So you might
54:12
Speaker 1: have said, well, OK, if we're taking military equipment from
54:16
Speaker 1: other NATO countries, that seems to make sense. But one
54:21
Speaker 1: of the things that was flagged up to me this
54:23
Speaker 1: morning was I think that there's some serious upgrades to
54:28
Speaker 1: tanks in the UK coming along. And what do we see?
54:32
Speaker 1: We see that part of that encompasses Israeli protection systems.
54:39
Speaker 1: So my mind said, well, now we're getting to the
54:42
Speaker 1: point where we don't actually know who's producing this material.
54:47
Speaker 1: We don't know whether they're giving us the full capability
54:51
Speaker 1: or part of the capability. We don't know whether... the
54:55
Speaker 1: supplier is actually loyal to this country.
54:58
Speaker 3: Yes.
54:59
Speaker 1: Everything is blurring.
55:01
Speaker 3: Yes, it is.
55:02
Speaker 1: And I think it's very.
55:06
Speaker 1: I've been accused in the past of using the word
55:08
Speaker 1: dangerous too much, but I look out there at the
55:11
Speaker 1: situation and my hackles say that something very devious is
55:16
Speaker 1: happening in this country where it's not making people safer
55:20
Speaker 1: the more the government says... We're doing this to protect
55:23
Speaker 1: you from those nasty Russians. What the government is actually
55:28
Speaker 1: doing is putting the population of this country at ever
55:31
Speaker 1: greater risk. That's how I see it.
55:34
Speaker 2: I absolutely agree. And you can see it from both sides.
55:36
Speaker 2: I mean, it's something that's come up. We were talking
55:39
Speaker 2: about it yesterday. In actual fact, it happened four years ago.
55:43
Speaker 2: But the large plant on the Scotswood Road in Newcastle,
55:47
Speaker 2: previously the home of Armstrong Vickers, has been taken on, well,
55:53
Speaker 2: it was bought from Rees by Raphael, which, of course,
55:57
Speaker 2: is wholly owned by the State of Israel. And they
55:59
Speaker 2: then are controlling the main sort of defence production facility
56:06
Speaker 2: in the northeast of England. And there's not really been
56:10
Speaker 2: any sort of discussion about that as to how appropriate
56:14
Speaker 2: it might be. In a way, full stop. I mean,
56:17
Speaker 2: even if you're not scrutinising the activities of that particular country,
56:21
Speaker 2: is it appropriate that the government of another country should
56:26
Speaker 2: be operating, in effect, an arms manufacturer in the United Kingdom?
56:32
Speaker 1: And a non-NATO one.
56:34
Speaker 3: Exactly, and a non-NATO one.
56:35
Speaker 2: And then on the other side, the question has to
56:37
Speaker 2: be asked if Andy Burnham... has printed out the instructions
56:43
Speaker 2: for Stonecloak from BAE and Ukraine said, right, there you go,
56:47
Speaker 2: get on with that. What control do we or BAE retain?
56:53
Speaker 2: I mean, for now, we seem to somehow be considering
56:56
Speaker 2: that it's appropriate that we strike targets like wild berries,
57:00
Speaker 2: which of course is, I think for the points we've raised,
57:03
Speaker 2: very questionable. But what's to say that Ukraine isn't going
57:06
Speaker 2: to turn around and do something something else.
57:08
Speaker 1: What it is absolutely are exactly.
57:12
Speaker 2: And so so how how does that implicate us first
57:15
Speaker 2: of all in the legality of any of these actions
57:18
Speaker 2: but also the idea exactly where we started with this
57:23
Speaker 2: with this escalation this point about escalation and and are
57:27
Speaker 2: we really doing all this and not expecting any form
57:31
Speaker 2: of retaliation or retribution from russia when everything these days
57:36
Speaker 2: seems to be justified on that very basis.
57:40
Speaker 1: We can look at the camera and say that we're
57:42
Speaker 1: having this discussion and we are being extremely critical of
57:46
Speaker 1: elements of the armed forces of the United Kingdom. But
57:55
Speaker 1: things need to be described and the truth needs to
57:58
Speaker 1: be brought out because ultimately what is happening is putting
58:03
Speaker 1: the people serving in our armed forces at risk they
58:07
Speaker 1: haven't got the equipment they're going to be put into
58:11
Speaker 1: war zones to fight battles they're not equipped to fight
58:16
Speaker 1: and they are being put at risk by the sheer
58:19
Speaker 1: breakdown of the military system and therefore we need to
58:24
Speaker 1: speak about it because ultimately they're at risk so i
58:29
Speaker 1: don't want our discussion to be misinterpreted that we are
58:33
Speaker 1: bashing the people who... I know some of our audience
58:38
Speaker 1: will say, well, they shouldn't be doing it, but I
58:40
Speaker 1: know that the majority of people would have volunteered for
58:44
Speaker 1: the UK's armed forces with the real belief that they
58:48
Speaker 1: want to do the right thing to protect this country.
58:51
Speaker 1: And I think we should respect that. But at the
58:54
Speaker 1: same time, those people need to understand that if they...
58:59
Speaker 1: if they don't know what's actually happening around them, they
59:02
Speaker 1: are being put at risk.
59:04
Speaker 2: So i totally agree and i think i think i
59:06
Speaker 2: don't think those two things are are in conflict i
59:08
Speaker 2: think the the nature of our discussion exactly describes all
59:11
Speaker 2: the factors that are that are absolutely worsening the conditions
59:19
Speaker 2: that they are serving under and that's that is not
59:23
Speaker 2: their fault um so i i don't think that there's
59:27
Speaker 2: a problem with having this sort of a discussion and
59:30
Speaker 2: there being any suggestion that we are sort of doing
59:33
Speaker 2: down or having a go at the people that are
59:35
Speaker 2: that are serving and believe that they are doing so
59:37
Speaker 2: with the best of intentions but but exactly like you
59:40
Speaker 2: say i mean that people do need to be aware
59:42
Speaker 2: of this and i think and actually something came up
59:44
Speaker 2: on um during extra on the news program that uh
59:48
Speaker 2: was recorded yesterday vanessa bealy was talking about uh interflex
59:53
Speaker 2: which has been the huge commitment of the british army
59:55
Speaker 2: to train ukrainian soldiers and of course the You know,
59:58
Speaker 2: the point to make about that is, right, well, it
1:00:00
Speaker 2: doesn't matter how much you think that Ukraine's fight is
1:00:03
Speaker 2: our fight. The point is that that is being conducted
1:00:06
Speaker 2: at the expense of being able to train British soldiers.
1:00:11
Speaker 2: If you're going to use training areas and training budget
1:00:13
Speaker 2: and training personnel for training up to 60,000 or maybe
1:00:17
Speaker 2: more Ukrainians, then the obvious consequence of that is the
1:00:21
Speaker 2: British Army has not received that training. So it's everywhere.
1:00:26
Speaker 2: This is not good for people who are serving.
1:00:29
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
1:00:30
Speaker 1: Well, my black humour was that recently I read a
1:00:34
Speaker 1: report from the parachute regiment that they were getting very
1:00:38
Speaker 1: excited that they were using e-bikes. They were training on
1:00:43
Speaker 1: e-bikes in order to use small numbers of men to
1:00:47
Speaker 1: disperse on the battlefield, particularly if they've got portable equipment.
1:00:53
Speaker 1: surface-to-air missile systems with the more anti-tank weapons. This means
1:00:58
Speaker 1: a relatively small group of men can carry quite a
1:01:01
Speaker 1: lot of firepower and on their e-bikes they can cover
1:01:06
Speaker 1: a lot of distance very quickly. But what made me
1:01:09
Speaker 1: smile about this is it's sort of two years out
1:01:13
Speaker 1: of date because the Russians started to use what I
1:01:17
Speaker 1: know as scrambling bikes, relatively small cross-terrain motorbikes in order
1:01:23
Speaker 1: to move small groups of men very quickly, partly to
1:01:27
Speaker 1: evade the fairly limited drone surveillance and attack drone capability
1:01:34
Speaker 1: of the Ukrainians at that time. But they were using
1:01:37
Speaker 1: normal motorbikes. But of course, here in UK, because everything
1:01:41
Speaker 1: has to come down to the myth of climate change
1:01:45
Speaker 1: and the green agenda, the parachute regiment had to use e-bikes. Yeah.
1:01:50
Speaker 1: And so we are constraining the parachute regiment by e-bikes
1:01:56
Speaker 1: because when they run out of e, when they run
1:01:59
Speaker 1: out of electricity, the bike is useless. Whereas at least
1:02:03
Speaker 1: if you use a petrol motorbike, if it runs out
1:02:06
Speaker 1: of fuel, you might be able to take it out
1:02:08
Speaker 1: of a civilian car or a military vehicle or something.
1:02:14
Speaker 1: our armed forces, I think, being made a mockery of.
1:02:17
Speaker 1: And they're being taught tactics, which are now at least
1:02:22
Speaker 1: two years out of date from where the Russians are.
1:02:26
Speaker 1: But this is now, this morning, it's up on Defence HQ, Twitter,
1:02:32
Speaker 1: X account, as if this is some amazing achievement. And
1:02:36
Speaker 1: in fact, it's two years out of date, trying to
1:02:39
Speaker 1: catch up with the ridiculous... caveat that it's in order
1:02:42
Speaker 1: to support the UN's sustainable goals around climate change.
1:02:47
Speaker 2: I think a story and an initiative that will be
1:02:49
Speaker 2: buried immediately that the first person runs out of battery
1:02:52
Speaker 2: and gets stranded.
1:02:54
Speaker 1: Or the motorbike catches fire.
1:02:57
Speaker 3: Yes, okay, very good.
1:02:59
Speaker 2: I think that is exactly the right place to end
1:03:03
Speaker 2: because it highlights the ludicrous state of affairs that is exactly,
1:03:07
Speaker 2: like we say, not the fault of those serving this
1:03:11
Speaker 2: is the this is the agenda that's been forced at
1:03:13
Speaker 2: them and um not just they but we obviously with
1:03:16
Speaker 2: the whole of society approach this is going to be
1:03:19
Speaker 2: something that everybody has to deal with brian i think
1:03:22
Speaker 2: we've covered a lot of good ground there.
1:03:24
Speaker 1: Well lots to talk about i think i think there's
1:03:27
Speaker 1: there's the days and weeks on the fold we're going
1:03:29
Speaker 1: to see even more to talk about yeah if we're
1:03:31
Speaker 1: allowed to talk
1:03:32
Speaker 2: About it that is that is absolutely true so we
1:03:34
Speaker 2: will have to we will have to see but uh
1:03:37
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Dave, for joining us for Episode
1:03:40
Speaker 2: 9 of Military Matters, and we will see you in
1:03:41
Speaker 2: the next one.