Latest / UK Column Radio / Military Matters: Episode Three

Transcript

Military Matters: Episode Three · UK Column Radio

0:16
Good morning, Charles. You made it.
0:19
I did. I made it.
0:20
Yeah. Thank you.
0:21
Yeah. I think we're allowed to say to
0:22
the viewers it's been pretty interesting weather down here in
0:26
the West Country and you had a pretty wet drive down motorways
0:29
flooded. Yes, motorways flooded.
0:32
It was, it was, it was, it was pretty bad.
0:34
On the upside, it gave more time to ruminate on the subject
0:38
matter for today. So let's let's take the
0:40
positives. But yeah, it was it was very
0:42
hairy. It does.
0:44
I think it relates to what we're going to talk about because
0:48
there are instances like this. There was, I was on the M5,
0:50
there was a, there was a serious accident on the other
0:54
carriageway and I, I couldn't tell what had happened.
0:58
But, but it does, you know, it, it, that requires a response
1:02
that requires a response of people who know what they're
1:05
doing and who are able to deal with it.
1:08
And I think this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have
1:11
already talked about on military matters, but probably what we
1:14
will talk about today, you know, this, this matching of people to
1:19
situations and, and scenarios, although of course that wasn't
1:23
that was Ganic's not quite the right word.
1:25
But but you know, there was, there was no intent there.
1:28
It was a an accident caused by presumably bad weather and bad
1:31
driving. No one was trying to do it.
1:33
I think what we have to walk our way around today and through
1:38
this series is what is happening, if anything, sort of
1:42
organically and what is being created and therefore what are
1:46
the responses to it. So I that might be a slightly
1:49
uncomfortable analogy to make, but but you know, we'll give it
1:53
a go. No, it's great.
1:55
Well, I, I found my head deep into military matters.
2:00
I was I was looking at doing a bit of research last night,
2:03
getting back into the swing of it, having a reread parts of the
2:07
strategic defence review. And then this morning I found
2:11
myself having a look at a little video that Doctor Fiona Hill,
2:15
who's one of the three authors of that defence review.
2:20
So we've got Lord Robertson, General Barons and Doctor Fiona
2:25
Hill. And I, I hadn't thought about it
2:28
before. Who is this lady?
2:29
So she's chancellor of Durham University.
2:32
She's a Russian and European geopolitical expert.
2:36
She's provided advice to three US presidents, George W Bush,
2:44
Obama and Trump himself. And I was just listening to her
2:50
clip. She was talking about South
2:52
three years ago. She was talking about Russia.
2:56
And I just found her statements very scripted for somebody who
3:01
was supposed to be a deep analyst.
3:04
She was talking in very simplistic sound bites.
3:08
And one of the ones that I winced at was she said, well,
3:11
and of course the Russians have been conducting, were conducting
3:16
exercises in relation to Ukraine.
3:20
And these are sort of offensive exercises.
3:25
The implication was so we knew what was happening, but when we
3:28
conduct exercises, they're always defensive exercises.
3:33
And I, I just thought, is this really the level of the
3:37
intellect that was putting together our strategic defence
3:41
review? I don't know what you'd say
3:42
about that. Well, I think, yeah, I think
3:44
that's a really interesting point.
3:46
I'm again having looked into her background and her particularly
3:51
her position on Russia to a certain extent as well.
3:54
I think as well as a reduction of the intellectual scrutiny of
4:03
Russia in its current form and historically.
4:07
There's also a great emotional thread running through what she
4:11
says. And OK, I of course I concede,
4:16
but to be described as a Russia expert, if you speak Russian and
4:21
you've spent time in Russia, that adds weight to your
4:24
credentials. But at the same time, if you
4:27
decide through that period of time of having learnt Russian
4:29
and spent time in Russia, which she has done, that actually you
4:34
have become disenchanted or you decide that you don't like
4:39
Russia and what Russia is doing and you feel that you're well
4:42
justified in your position because you've been there and
4:44
you know, then that creates well, or rather that reduces
4:49
your objectivity. So it's a sort of, it's a double
4:51
edged sword to be described as an expert, but also then to
4:55
bring what looks like emotion into it.
4:57
And I think that's exactly what's happened in the strategic
5:00
defence review in particular. She's, I mean, I've, I think
5:03
I've quoted this on the news program, you know, on the
5:05
emotional side of it, she has directly compared Hitler with,
5:09
oh, sorry, Putin with Hitler in the past.
5:11
So it's all, it's very much about the individual and, and,
5:14
and that kind of thing. And again, exactly like you say
5:16
when she when when you see that she has been set against set
5:20
alongside Robertson and Barons, both of whom in effect stand to
5:26
gain from the actions that are very obviously forecast by the
5:32
defence review. Baron's in so far as his defence
5:35
consulting company is concerned and his particular interest in
5:39
sort of cyber and AI and then Robertson being involved with
5:43
the current group. So that the the conflicts of
5:46
interest as well as the points that you make are suggestive to
5:51
me that these three people should never have been let
5:53
anyone near the defence review. And, and I know I, you know, I
5:57
remember we did talk about this in the, in the last episode of
6:01
Military Matters. And I think that stands the test
6:04
of time. We recorded that back in late
6:05
September 2025 and the situation has evolved now.
6:09
But I think what's interesting is that it to us, because we are
6:12
keeping our eyes on it, I think it, you know, we can see
6:15
absolutely, or at least we believe we can see the direction
6:17
that it's going in. I think for the general public I
6:21
would regard this as a as a very clever psychological shaping
6:25
operation and slowly, slowly, incrementally, people are being
6:31
moved into a position where they can see that there would be a
6:34
justification for an engagement of sorts with Russia.
6:40
And that links exactly back to what you're saying and Fiona
6:43
Hill in particular, inserting her prejudice and narrative into
6:48
that defence review. Yeah.
6:50
And, and one of the things that we could pull out the defence
6:53
review to support that position is the fact that they're talking
7:00
about the need for national engagement.
7:04
We, we, they're not going quite as far as saying we need to get
7:08
into a full war footing, but they, the document is clearly
7:13
saying that we've got to fully engage industry, we've got to
7:17
fully engage the UK public, we've got to recruit.
7:21
So we'll say it's one level down, but it's not saying, well,
7:25
we've got to have strong armed forces that exist from within
7:31
and alongside the nation state. We're now pumping out
7:36
documentation suggesting that the whole nation has to get on
7:40
board because in the future we might have to front, we might
7:45
have to fight Russia. Absolutely.
7:47
And again, I think that's that's it's one of the building blocks.
7:51
And I think, you know, again, I was sort of considering two,
7:56
well, I suppose two sides of the same coin.
7:59
If we look at history and we've referred to this before, but we
8:02
look at the the build up to and the progression into the 1st and
8:08
2nd wars and how there were great similarities.
8:11
One things that in fact I'm going to be writing about
8:13
hopefully this week is how the emergency, the state of
8:19
emergency is first of all created and then exploited.
8:22
And just as a, as an example, I think I've got the figure right.
8:25
I look this up and I, I think between the years 1939 and
8:29
194541 pieces of general legislation, 41 general acts
8:34
that came onto the statute book during that period were
8:37
predicated on emergency. So they were, they were
8:39
basically emergency powers. Now how many of those were
8:43
rescinded or repealed at the end of the war I haven't yet got
8:45
into, but I should think it would be, it would be very few.
8:48
And here we are beginning of 2026, we are yet to see
8:52
emergency legislation, but the the current armed forces bill,
8:56
which is going to be changing the at the moment, just the
9:00
details around the call up or the ability of the armed forces
9:03
to call up reservists and to increase the age at which people
9:09
may be called up. And all the you know, that there
9:12
are there are many, many things pointing very strongly towards a
9:18
big echo with what was happening in in the wars that I've just
9:22
described. The other thing, which I think
9:24
is an interesting, if somewhat intellectual academic point is
9:32
if there is to be conflict with Russia then, and indeed this is
9:37
how it's been described in Ukraine, what does winning look
9:40
like? We're, we're always told that,
9:43
oh, well, if it weren't for what we did in the second war, we'd
9:47
all be speaking German. So that that that's the sort of,
9:51
well, that's what the result of losing the Second World War
9:53
would have been. What is the result of losing a
9:58
war with Russia now? And I think it's difficult to
10:05
point to there being much of A distinction between winning or
10:08
losing in that if we use this, what I'm describing the sort of
10:12
the, the, the emergency situation and we see how Ukraine
10:17
being an excellent case study, how, how what's happened, there
10:20
is a massive push towards a digital infrastructure because
10:26
there's an emergency, the utter destruction of democracy.
10:31
OK, arguable that it was a poor relation to any sort of
10:36
democracy that we might describe, although that's that's
10:39
another minefield. But, but, but the point is that
10:41
that you've got the all these elements pointing very strongly
10:46
towards actually, does it make any difference whether you
10:49
supposedly win or you supposedly lose the outcome because of the
10:55
combined interests of governments and corporations are
11:01
all really pushing us in in the same direction.
11:03
And then I think on the other side of it, you've got the armed
11:07
forces. You know, the view from the
11:09
armed forces in in the United Kingdom at the minute, I think
11:13
is that the situation is so poor that a war is needed in order to
11:20
improve the situation in in order to make the armed forces
11:25
do what they're supposed to be able to do.
11:27
So there are so many reasons, sorry.
11:29
And then the other one, the other big one obviously
11:32
enormously is, is that the, the defence industry absolutely
11:35
requires it. You know, there's been this,
11:37
this enormous commitment in terms of the defence spend.
11:41
Well, that's got to be justified.
11:42
So there's so many reasons that suggest that we sort of we
11:46
should have a war. But but as I say, the question
11:47
is, well, what, what would happen?
11:50
What would the result be? Lots of lots of points there.
11:55
There is there is a lot for discussion over this just coming
11:59
in a slightly different direction.
12:01
I rereading the Strategic Defence review I I found myself
12:08
1 coming back on the use of language throughout.
12:12
So you, you read the strategic defence review and to my mind,
12:16
it's full of phrases and jargon and statements about what is
12:23
going to be done, but there's no clarity in, in what that
12:27
actually means. It's it, it's, it's lots of
12:30
buzzwords, it's lots of OK terminology.
12:34
We're going to be fighting fit to win.
12:38
So these are little sound bites that of course the politicians
12:41
can stand up in the in front of the camera and talk about.
12:44
But if you actually say what does this mean?
12:48
And I can't get a meaning out of it.
12:50
What do I introduce from the document?
12:52
Coming back in at it is, is huge confusion because we live in a
12:58
country where the whole of our ability to produce and
13:03
particularly produce and sustain military operations has all been
13:08
hollowed out. And I've deliberately used that
13:12
terminology because that's appeared quite a lot in the
13:15
national press, that our military has been hollowed out.
13:19
So we look at the country and the whole of the support bases
13:22
has been stripped out. We can't manufacture steel.
13:25
We can't. Until recently we were not
13:28
producing munitions and ammunition in any quantity.
13:32
We're producing ships, but we don't produce aircraft.
13:36
And then we've ended up with the smallest army in 300 years, I
13:40
think it is at around 7072 thousand.
13:46
So world politics has been going on with the same politicians.
13:51
Lord Robertson's been there in the background and he's now part
13:55
part at the age of 79. He's now in this strategic
13:58
defence review. But the country's ability to
14:02
produce and particularly produce in house has been completely
14:05
hollowed out. And then we have a strategic
14:09
defence review that says, Oh my goodness, we're, we're in a real
14:12
dangerous position here because those nasty Russians are going
14:15
to invade and we've got to invest in the country in our own
14:19
production. But if you, if you take
14:23
procurement, although the government is, is talking about
14:27
something like 87% procurement from within UK, that doesn't
14:33
mean what the government is buying in a military sense is
14:36
AUK product because they're not tracking through the supply
14:40
lines as to where the manufactured product actually
14:44
comes from. So if they're choosing a missile
14:46
system and they're going to say, well, it's, it's produced in
14:50
house by British or it's produced by British Aerospace,
14:53
The reality is that missile doesn't get produced unless
14:58
components come in from overseas.
15:00
That might be America or that might be Europe.
15:03
So the government is now caught in its own trap.
15:06
It's hollowed the country's ability to produce weapons,
15:13
missile systems, it shut down the Royal Ordnance Factories
15:17
that were producing armour, and now it's suddenly saying, Oh
15:22
well, if it's going to work properly we've got to be in
15:24
house. So that's one conundrum.
15:28
And then of course, we've got another major one because in the
15:31
document it is largely saying, well, we're not going to fight
15:35
on our own. We're going to fight within
15:36
NATO. But Oh dear, we've now got a bit
15:39
of a a bit of a problem with NATO because Trump has shown
15:44
that he could, if he wanted to pull America out of NATO.
15:49
And where would that leave us because we're no longer strong
15:52
enough on our own. And then the other thing in the
15:57
background that doesn't really get dealt with in the strategic
16:01
defence review itself is the engagement with Europe.
16:04
Because much as we've said, Brexit, Brexit has brought us
16:08
out from the European Union. The reality is everywhere you
16:13
look, we're locked into agreements with the European
16:16
Union with respect to defence. And the situation is now so
16:22
complex that the government's making this statement as to what
16:27
it wants to achieve. The position that you're
16:31
suggesting we're, we're on a semi war footing with Russia.
16:35
But actually it can't implement it because all of the other
16:38
policies have destroyed our ability to operate, operate
16:43
alone. So I see this document as being
16:49
not only a huge, sorry, the strategic defence review as not
16:53
only being a huge psychological operation on the British public,
16:59
but it is also drowning in its own confusion because it now
17:05
exists in a political, let's say European geopolitical world for
17:10
Doctor Fiona Hill, that prevents us as a nation state from
17:16
performing in a military sense. Little bit long winded, but I I
17:22
don't know whether you'd know you know where I'm coming.
17:25
From yeah, absolutely. Well, I, I think that I think
17:28
that ties in with with this question of sorry, what, what
17:36
war would look like and whether there is some sort of metric
17:41
that determines whether or not we're winning or losing, which
17:43
is why we we sort of asked the question, are we well, and I
17:48
think we agree that we that we are in in many ways at war.
17:51
But when we say but but what is we?
17:53
Because in actual fact exactly like you say, the control and
17:58
the profit is very obviously held by multinational
18:04
corporations. And therefore there there is, I
18:08
would say a marked difference from certainly any large scale
18:12
conflict that we've had within what might be described as
18:16
living memory in that the advance of the technical digital
18:23
side of things means that you no longer buy a piece of hardware
18:27
and in doing so take complete control and ownership of it.
18:32
You might physically have the thing, whether it be a weapon
18:37
system or a an armored platform or whatever it is, but in actual
18:41
fact, the proprietary technology that makes that thing work is
18:47
owned and can be controlled from somewhere else.
18:50
Now that's a very, very dangerous position to be in if
18:54
you're just looking through a military lens.
18:56
But I think we can't really look just through a military lens.
18:59
And this is where we're we're having to reevaluate the idea of
19:03
of warfare and exactly what it might involve.
19:06
Now, I think that there, and I think we talked about this last
19:10
time, you know, the idea of sort of boots on the ground and
19:12
whatnot will always be a factor. I think that I think that has to
19:16
happen because it's impossible to run the PR campaign without
19:21
it. You can't, you can't not have
19:24
the photographs of troop ships or people getting on aircraft,
19:29
whatever it is you, you've got to have that bit to sell to the
19:31
public, the idea that there is a national emergency, a threat to
19:38
our security, but that we are providing a sort of plucky
19:42
response. But in actual fact, that
19:44
obscures first of all, the fact that an awful lot of the
19:47
activity is being conducted behind the scenes because it's
19:50
it's either the preserve of the intelligence agencies or it's
19:57
being given over to people who are running things remotely.
20:01
We've talked about the two obvious ones being sort of cyber
20:05
AI warfare, one of a better word and indeed drone operation.
20:11
So yes, I mean, I think. I think that the the way in
20:18
which we look at all of it has to be has to be completely
20:22
different. I think also the other thing
20:26
that's come out from very obviously directly from the
20:30
strategic defence review is exactly like you say,
20:34
particularly from Fiona Hill, is the idea that that Russia is
20:41
with beyond question bad and intends US harm and is a is a
20:46
threat and, and all this sort of thing.
20:48
Obviously every single protestation and communication
20:51
from Russia indicates not exactly the opposite.
20:55
But I mean, there's sort of, you know, well, fine, talk it up if
20:59
you want, but we have absolutely no intent of presenting any kind
21:05
of threat to your to your country and, and that kind of
21:09
thing. But also the accusation, and
21:11
this came out just before Christmas, a very interesting
21:14
sort of twin attack from Blaze Metro Welly, the new head of
21:19
Secret Intelligence Service, and of course, the granddaughter of
21:22
Constantin Dobrovolski, the Nazi collaborator.
21:27
So her family history is interesting to say the least for
21:29
somebody who's heading up our Secret Intelligence Service.
21:32
And Richard Knighton, the head of the armed forces, the chief
21:34
of defence staff. And they, they, they spoke,
21:37
forget what it was either on the same day or day apart.
21:40
And there the messages were, were exactly the same, which is
21:42
that, you know, we've, we've looked at everything now and
21:46
Russia is, is absolutely presenting an existential threat
21:49
to us. And that, and I think that is
21:51
completely an extension of the, of the defence review.
21:54
And, and it's, you know, it's pointing in a direction that I
21:57
think is much more subtle than the idea of right.
21:59
Well, we just need queues of people at recruiting offices.
22:01
I think there are many more ways in which this is going to work
22:05
because as I say, going back to your, your point about
22:08
equipment, the, the commitment to, on that spend is going to
22:13
deliver something that is ultimately owned by
22:16
corporations. This is going to be more than
22:18
ever before, I think a war that's conducted by people in
22:22
offices and the other side to that.
22:25
It's just an irony. But I thought I'd mention it is
22:28
that last year, you know, at the end of 2025, we had the Ministry
22:30
of Defence bragging that 2025 is a record year for what what's
22:36
being described as defense exports from this country.
22:39
So we can't we, we can make kit and flog it to goodness knows
22:44
where. Because when I asked where it
22:45
had all gone, they said, oh, it's too sensitive to tell you,
22:48
even though they're going to say we've, we've done it.
22:51
And at at that same time, we don't have the kits that we
22:55
apparently need. So to say there's, there's, you
22:57
know, a huge element of just mud to the whole thing as well.
23:01
Yeah. And is it just muddle an
23:04
incompetence or is it created muddle?
23:07
And I think to a large extent the hollowing out has been
23:10
deliberate by these agencies who've got plans for a rock in
23:16
the pond above national government.
23:20
So there's definitely muddle and there's definitely the strong
23:25
intent to create fear in the nation state because if we if we
23:28
say what would Russia actually need to invade the whole of
23:33
Western Europe, we would be back talking about armies of millions
23:38
of men, millions not, not, not 200,400 thousand.
23:44
We'd be talking about millions of men.
23:46
And the conflict in Ukraine has already demonstrated, to my mind
23:53
at least, I'm, I'm not an army man, I'm a Navy man.
23:56
But to me it's clearly demonstrated that that the age
24:00
of the rapid advance with armoured vehicles is over.
24:06
Because if you look at what's happened in Ukraine, the moment
24:09
armoured vehicles are effectively in the open, and
24:14
even when they're not in the in the open, they are being
24:17
destroyed by drones, kamikaze drones.
24:20
So large scale full frontal armoured assaults seem to me to
24:27
be out and the Russians are clearly winning in Ukraine, but
24:32
they're doing it by very small incremental troop movements.
24:38
And this then further demonstrates that the the
24:42
opportunity to invade hundreds of miles West into Western
24:47
Europe is simply not credible. I mean, Putin is saying to the
24:51
world anyway, we, as you've just said, we've no intent, intention
24:55
of, of, of attacking your countries or invading the
24:59
European Union. But in reality, the evidence is
25:03
all there that you simply can't do this.
25:07
And, and they would need to do that in order to have the troops
25:10
on the ground to control Western Europe.
25:12
So the fear factor which is coming out of the intelligence
25:16
services and the likes of Doctor Fiona Hill and presumably her
25:21
colleagues, is just astonishing. It's astonishing.
25:26
It is, I absolutely agree. And I think that's, that's
25:29
really why I mentioned the corporate element, because it,
25:35
it seems if you look at it through that lens, then the idea
25:41
that Russia is an enemy makes sense.
25:45
Because let's say we have, you know, across our three armed
25:48
forces, we have an amazing array of, I suppose we, we don't, but
25:55
you know what I mean? We have, we have an incredible
25:56
array of equipment and capabilities that are made by
26:03
all sorts of corporations all over the world.
26:05
You know, we don't, we, we do not have a line in so far as
26:10
ethics are concerned as to where we get kit from.
26:13
Really the, the government will talk about not dealing with say
26:17
North Korea or Iran or whatever, but really actually what they
26:22
mean is, is Russia and to a certain extent China, I would
26:25
say. And so the, the fact that Russia
26:32
is able to run again, what's described, I would say
26:38
erroneously or, or euphemistically as a, as a
26:42
defence industry, OK, it's, it's a war industry.
26:45
It's it's purely designed to to kill people.
26:48
But the idea that the United Kingdom is procuring equipment
26:56
solely for the benefit of the national security or the
27:00
sovereignty of the United Kingdom is is a farce.
27:03
Well, we've, we've, we've just had last month the announcement
27:09
of a missile system to be created with the Ukrainians.
27:12
Exactly, yes. Is that going to be the British
27:15
Ministry of Defence involved in that project, which suggests
27:19
not. It's going to be Tales or
27:21
British Aerospace or that club of the military industrial
27:26
complex that's going to be working on that missile system.
27:29
Exactly. So, but but to your point about
27:33
about how, for example, how ground is taken or how armoured
27:37
vehicles in particular are used, of course, and I know this
27:41
sounds cynical, but I think realistic.
27:45
If those vehicles are not destroyed in in the way that
27:50
they may be now, or if they are not destroying something
27:55
significant in return, then then the the wheels, the corporate
28:00
wheels don't turn in the way that they're supposed to.
28:02
That, you know, I think that's the way we have to consider it.
28:05
This stuff, this stuff is being made.
28:08
A lot of it is being made just OK.
28:10
A lot of projectiles, Ballistics and whatnot are being made in
28:15
order to be able to be fired elsewhere.
28:18
But otherwise, you have to take the view.
28:20
I mean, not exactly like the planned obsolescence with light
28:22
bulbs. Military hardware is is being
28:25
made to be destroyed because otherwise those companies cannot
28:28
continue to make it. If we made tanks.
28:31
Yeah, it is. I mean, and This is why I go
28:33
back to this idea that that war is, is, is necessary.
28:37
You know, we we spoke in our last episode.
28:40
We spoke a little bit around this because then we just had
28:43
that NATO summit where we took not hanging on about 5% and they
28:48
were hammering out this, you know, 5% this that and the other
28:50
of course that that was absolute smoke and mirrors because they
28:53
they were not at all upfront about how they were going to
28:55
achieve 5%. And in fact, when you look at
28:57
the way the pie was sliced, there was an awful lot of, of
29:00
chicanery going on there. But, but nonetheless, the point
29:02
is that that is totally arbitrary.
29:03
And, and I, and I made this point last time, you know, what,
29:05
what the heck does that actually deliver?
29:07
If it, or if we spent 10%, we spent 10% now on, on so-called
29:12
defence and we had every little bit of shiny kit that we needed.
29:16
What does that mean that then Russia ceases to be a threat or
29:19
that Ukraine is somehow sort of, you know, saved?
29:22
I mean, there's no, no one can articulate what that means.
29:27
But but then, you know, all you have to do is just look over
29:29
the, the side of the fence, say, oh, right, OK, so now, so now
29:32
the, the, the defence corporations all over the world
29:37
have have made their billions. They now need to keep that, keep
29:42
that turning. And then, and This is why this
29:45
is this sort of, you know, hand in glove thing with governments
29:49
being able to seize upon this opportunity in order to be able
29:52
to further subjugate populations via legislation and and sweeping
29:57
policy changes. And I mean, you know, if this
29:59
sounds, if this sounds fanciful, then then I mean all you need do
30:04
is go to legislation.gov.uk and look at what changed during in
30:09
particular the 1st and 2nd world wars.
30:12
You know, I'm not making this stuff up.
30:14
It's exactly what happens. And you know, in the same way
30:18
that we will say, you know, you can't comply your way out of
30:21
authoritarianism, it's none of this stuff ever gets ever gets
30:26
scaled back down. So This is why I do go to the
30:30
point of sort of there, there needing to be a war and and the
30:34
the, the, the, the only obstacle really is the public's response
30:40
to this. And again, this is something
30:44
that the media are very, very well practiced in being able to
30:49
create the conditions under which people think.
30:52
OK, yeah, now I'm now I'm on side.
30:55
Now I can see why I would go and join Apple, whatever it is.
31:00
That, that's a really interesting point to get to
31:02
because another of my observations on the strategic
31:06
defence review was, was about recruiting.
31:08
Because there's one small paragraph in there which it
31:13
doesn't say this, but it's intimating this, intimating this
31:18
is the senses there that unless we can recruit people, because
31:23
everything depends on having the personnel to operate the
31:27
systems, to sail the ships, to fly the aircraft, unless we get
31:32
the person, the people in, we've got a problem.
31:38
Now I, I did a quick check to see what had happened with
31:42
recruiting figures from from sort of autumn last year.
31:46
And we're still in a slow decline.
31:50
And this is where I think these people have got themselves in a
31:53
trap again, because in Russia, something which I think has
32:00
surprised the likes of Doctor Hill and her colleagues.
32:04
And I'm focusing in on her because half an hour ago I was
32:07
listening as to to speak about Russia.
32:10
Is the fact that is that not only is President Putin still
32:15
extremely popular even though we've now got war into the third
32:19
year, 3rd year, fourth year? 4th year, 4th.
32:24
Year he is recruiting in order to fight that war with
32:32
significant casualties. Nobody's saying the Russians
32:35
aren't taking significant casualties because they
32:37
absolutely are. But within Russia, across the
32:41
whole span of Russia, with all the different people types that
32:47
Russia comprises, there is still the willingness to fight for the
32:53
motherland. In contrast, in UK, recruiting
32:58
is demonstrating that people don't feel motivated to fight
33:03
for UK, for the motherland because they are now completely
33:13
unmotivated by what their own country has to offer.
33:16
They don't believe in the monarchy, they don't believe in
33:19
the, they don't believe in the government.
33:21
They certainly don't believe in politicians.
33:24
They're not even convinced happily yet that we need to go
33:29
to war with anybody. So you read the strategic
33:33
defence review with all of its rhetoric about and focus on
33:38
Russia. And we're going to do this with
33:40
equipment and we're going to have, we're going to have this
33:44
re resurgence in building equipment in house, etcetera,
33:49
etcetera. But oh, we haven't got the
33:52
people and we haven't got the people in a huge way because as
33:57
the military gets smaller, so the experience base Withers away
34:04
and therefore you have not got the quality to teach people how
34:08
the art of warfare. And I'll just add to that, that
34:13
something else that I picked up in the Strategic Defence review
34:17
was the fact that it, it was saying, well, as far as
34:20
education is concerned and teaching, and they're talking
34:23
about education and teaching recruits within the military,
34:28
that's going to be outsourced. So another key thing, because in
34:34
in in my time in the Navy, when you looked at at young recruits
34:40
coming in into the Navy, you could see the huge change that
34:44
the Navy made in taking them from being a schoolboy to
34:49
bringing them through basic training.
34:52
A lot of them needed education in that their mathematics skills
34:57
weren't very good or their writing, reading and writing
34:59
even. And it was the military
35:02
instructors that worked with them to bring those skills up.
35:06
And what that was actually doing was, was giving those young
35:11
recruits a sense of values, not only in themselves, but in the
35:16
military because they were interfacing with military
35:19
people. Now we're going to outsource all
35:22
that to Capita or whoever it's going to be.
35:25
And So what you're doing is, is even the serving people are not
35:32
rank and file. Serving people are not getting
35:36
any sense of national identity or pride in the armed forces,
35:41
all the all the things that that mean that they want to serve and
35:46
they stay in the armed forces. And of course, I always found it
35:51
bizarre when the military started talking about people
35:55
having a sort of gap year. You would serve for so long in
35:58
the military and then you'd go and work for boots and then you
36:01
would come back in. I, I remember thinking this was
36:04
utterly bizarre when it was floated around the military.
36:07
Now that report is saying, well, no, this is what we're going to
36:12
do. We want to encourage people to
36:14
be gap year military people. And I'm thinking no, no, no,
36:18
because it's the fact that people are in a career for life.
36:22
They want to serve. They want to.
36:25
This is what makes excellent professionals.
36:28
So the people compiling that document, to my mind, don't even
36:32
understand what you need to make a military work.
36:36
No, I mean I would quite agree if you, if you sort of take it
36:40
at face value. But I think we, you know, we go
36:42
back to a question I was sort of examining at the start, which
36:44
is, which is well, I suppose partly.
36:48
Do we need to pay? Well, yes, that's part of it,
36:50
but it's sort of what does, what does winning or losing actually
36:53
look like? And do we are we supposed to be
36:55
winning or are we supposed to be losing?
36:57
Because if we, I think if we, if we look at the, the end state,
37:01
you know, as one should and military planning, you know,
37:05
what is the end state? What is the design tide end
37:07
state and therefore 1 step before that, what is your center
37:10
of gravity? What are you?
37:11
What do you what's the 1 mission critical activity you need to
37:13
achieve in order to fulfill that end state?
37:17
And I have a hard time picking between sort of winning or
37:22
losing because because the point is to be able to create the
37:27
conditions under which people are going to accept a change to
37:29
their circumstances. And the introduction of I mean I
37:33
now keep saying it but but. Right.
37:35
So we're we're going to fight the war.
37:36
We're not actually going to fight the war without our.
37:40
Well, you see, I think I think there's, there are, there are
37:42
different sizes. I think it's a really
37:43
interesting point you make about the about the people because
37:45
again, we talked about this before quite right there.
37:48
There are, I think amongst the those of sort of eligible age.
37:54
I mean, in particular say that people who are coming into it,
37:57
you know, 16 to 18 year olds now by and large.
38:00
Yeah, no, not, not interested for a variety of reasons.
38:02
I think not interested probably because the just the idea of
38:05
doing something which requires a certain degree of discomfort and
38:11
sort of physical endurance. Yeah, exactly.
38:14
I mean all of that. So on the one on the one hand,
38:17
that might sound a bit damning and a bit unkind to say, but I
38:19
think it is true. And I think we can point back to
38:21
a lot of reasons why that would be.
38:22
And then I think on the other side is the what go, go and you
38:25
know, get get slotted for Keir Starmer.
38:28
No thanks. And that again, I think is a
38:31
very interesting one because when we look at what's happening
38:33
now with Reform UK and again talked about it in the last
38:37
episode, but the, the sort of creation and then riding a wave
38:42
of, of nationalistic fervor, whatever you want to call it.
38:47
And Farage now off to Davos to sort of wave his flag and say,
38:51
you know, right, I'm yours. I'm I'm going to stick up for
38:54
Britain and and whatnot. In actual fact, I think were
38:59
there a change and this is this, this might have a few people
39:02
sort of balking slightly, but but you know, there are great
39:07
parallels here with what was happening in 1930s Germany.
39:10
The the rise of Hitler in the early stages was based on
39:17
brilliant oratory and a very clever selection of a a way of
39:24
unifying the country both economically and
39:31
philosophically. And and this is what Farage is
39:34
doing. But you have to have your body
39:35
and internally whilst for Hitler it was Jews not as far as I
39:41
believe. And I and I'm I'm setting quite
39:43
a lot of story in the writings of David Irving, but and then
39:47
this is from from Diaries, not just a pillar, but of those
39:49
surrounding him. It wasn't that he was has sort
39:52
of pathological disposition against people of Jewish faith,
39:55
but but rather more that he realized the political
39:57
expediency in identifying a group of people that could be
40:01
pointed to as the problem in the same way that Reform and Farage
40:06
have done with the in particular Muslim population of the United
40:12
Kingdom. So the reason I'm talking about
40:14
this is because I think that does potentially open 2 doors. 1
40:18
is the. The, the idea that sort of
40:21
migration and whatnot needs to be tackled in digital identity,
40:24
Hey presto is the answer for that.
40:25
But also because of the, the idea that right, well, we are,
40:29
we are all Brits and those dastardly Russians are going to
40:32
do something. So you know, are going to join
40:34
up and you would fight for say, Farage.
40:37
So I think you're absolutely right.
40:38
You do need people, but probably not that many.
40:40
And I go back to this idea of, of corporate and exactly what
40:44
you're talking about with the the idea that packages of
40:49
training or whatever can be delivered from outside the armed
40:53
forces, which to you and I sounds utterly insane.
40:55
But then actually, if you're thinking of where that goes and
40:59
the idea that the control really is held outside of the armed
41:02
forces for all the all the reasons that we referred to
41:04
before, I think it sort of starts to make more sense.
41:07
Yeah, yesterday I had I had a chat with Mike Robinson and.
41:12
And I think I said to him, So what do you think's happening?
41:17
And there were, there were some things discussed, but part of
41:22
that discussion was an emergence of fascism.
41:25
And we're talking about UK and the West and, and that that was
41:30
Mike's feeling on what we're saying.
41:32
And you're intimating the the same thing here that we are.
41:37
The main danger is actually coming from within the country
41:41
and the attack on our constitution and our laws and
41:44
our freedoms and our protections.
41:46
But while you were talking about the rise of Hitler and Nazi
41:52
Germany, into my head came a chat that Mike and I had many,
41:56
many years ago, I think, in Bournemouth with a very elderly
42:01
German lady who'd married an English soldier at the end of
42:05
the Second World War and then come to live in UK.
42:09
And of course at that, because I'm talking at least 10, maybe
42:15
12 years ago, it was the EU which was seen as the big evil
42:21
beast eating away at our constitution and freedoms.
42:26
This elderly lady was very agitated and she said to us over
42:33
a cup of tea, all this is happening.
42:36
The freedoms are going. The state is taking control.
42:42
And people can't see it. Why can't they see it?
42:46
Why can't they see it? And then the next minute when
42:49
she was talking about what she'd witnessed as the change of
42:52
politics in Germany, she said, oh, but the thing about it was
42:58
it emerged like the drip, drip, drip of an anaesthetic.
43:03
And then she she said and, and one of the things I remembered
43:07
and I always hated was that more and more officials were given
43:12
the right to enter your home and more and more people doing
43:16
ordinary jobs were put in a a uniform.
43:22
And I'm recounting that now after all these years.
43:25
But it was immensely powerful because there was that elderly
43:28
late she was later, I think she was bombed out into German
43:32
cities. Hamburg was one.
43:35
I can't remember where the other one was, where she she was in
43:38
Berlin or not, but but it very poignant stories.
43:43
But I thought, my goodness, you know.
43:45
So you think about the change always being a stark change that
43:49
you could see. But she described the evolution
43:53
of the Nazi project as a drip, drip drippers of an anaesthetic.
43:59
That's what we're seeing on we're we're sensing this through
44:02
some of these documents. I think absolutely.
44:04
And I think I think what, what sets this in some perspective is
44:09
the, in some ways, what was a, you might say is a dress
44:12
rehearsal, but but actually was conducted in such a way as to
44:16
alert people perhaps beyond the level that they should have been
44:20
alerted. And that was the COVID
44:23
emergency. And, and I think there are there
44:26
are great parallels which we absolutely shouldn't ignore.
44:29
Anyone who's done any research into it will know that so many
44:33
things coincidentally were in place by the time the balloon
44:38
went up in March 2020. And that suggests that there was
44:44
a significant amount of planning into something that was
44:47
subsequently characterized as being a novel illness, a novel
44:51
emergency. And there is every indication
44:53
that it would that was not the case.
44:55
But also if you look at who you know, who benefited from that
44:58
and who continues to benefit, very obviously, of course, the
45:01
Pharmaceutical industry, but also the digital industry as
45:04
well. The, the way in which the push
45:06
to having everything online and indeed digital signature and
45:11
biometrics and all of that sort of stuff.
45:13
So that, so the delivery of profit and control and success
45:17
into those corporations has been absolutely immeasurable, as has
45:21
government control. And that's exactly what you all
45:23
describe and you think of during that period, everyone was
45:25
suddenly in high vis wondering, marshalling this, that and the
45:28
other. And by and large people accepted
45:31
it. But of course, as I say, that it
45:33
was so stark and it was so draconian that I think that's
45:37
done two things. First of all, it did have the I
45:41
suppose probably calculated effect, at least calculated
45:44
insofar as it was probably wasn't going to trigger that
45:45
many people. But a significant number of
45:47
people became aware of this, reacted against it and now are
45:51
live to what is going on in the world.
45:54
But I think actually what it did was it pushed the boundaries so
45:58
far. And Mike was talking about this
46:01
the other day on a news program, the, the sort of shut, shut the
46:04
door in the face approach, which is that you, you want to achieve
46:09
one thing, which is sort of right of argh.
46:11
So you, you make a statement about something that is way
46:15
beyond what it is that you need to achieve in order that people
46:18
react against that. And you then appear to row back
46:20
from there and say, right, well, they are.
46:22
So it sort of looks like compromise.
46:23
And I think that is in a way what the COVID project is going
46:27
to deliver in terms of war, because this is a drip, drip.
46:30
It's not right. You've all got to stay at home,
46:32
you know, right. We're all at war.
46:33
No, So I think, I think there is absolutely a drip, drip element
46:37
to that. I think also the other thing,
46:38
you know, thinking about that exchange with that, with that
46:41
German lady is how we always talk.
46:45
You know, we're always talking about we should, you know, we've
46:47
got to learn from history. Never again.
46:48
This that the other OK, fine. But what, what, what 1 forgets
46:52
is that a large part of the reason that history has
46:55
forgotten lessons aren't learned is because it's a different
46:57
group of people who are in the chair at that particular time.
47:02
So if you, if you were able to go back and say to the people
47:06
who, who did survive the First World War, right, let's go and
47:10
do this again, I, I can't see that any of them would say, yes,
47:14
we'll do it again. But by the time you've pushed on
47:16
a generation and in effect, that is what we've done.
47:21
Now people have forgotten. And I think this is the other,
47:23
the other part of it is people have lost touch with the human
47:28
cost and the, and the impact on humanity and just just to.
47:32
Yes, exactly. And, and and so it's it's
47:36
glamorized. We the the Internet does this.
47:38
You see, you see, you know, Twitter is absolutely awash with
47:41
either the idea for the Ukraine armed forces, supposedly sort
47:45
of, you know, yeah, we blew up. So and so, yeah, but so you're,
47:48
you're talking about killing people.
47:49
If that was in any other context and you're putting live videos
47:52
of of people being killed. That would not.
47:55
Be permitted, but but because it's it's sort of it's glorious
47:59
war, it's somehow fine. Well, I, I think I did mention
48:04
this in our previous talk, but the other thing I old enough to
48:07
remember, albeit as, as, as a, as a youngster was, was the
48:12
fighting in Vietnam being reported on the BBC and
48:18
regularly those reports were body bags.
48:22
They were talking about dead Americans coming back in body
48:25
bags and it was clear that the reports of those deaths, 203
48:30
hundred, whatever it was in, in any particular period were
48:35
having a huge impact on UK society.
48:38
And they were certainly having a huge impact on American Society
48:42
because when the body bags got numerous enough and and the flow
48:47
was strong enough, there was the backlash in in the American
48:51
public against against the war itself.
48:53
But the war in Ukraine, utterly brutal, brutal fighting in a
48:59
conventional sense in the beginning, but now within a
49:02
matter of a few years into drone operators hunting individual
49:09
soldiers. And some of the footage is truly
49:12
horrific. None of this appears on the BBC.
49:15
So the BBC reports the war in Ukraine with, as you say, all
49:20
the glamour of war, if that's possible, with no, absolutely no
49:26
footage of the reality. And that's that's why for UK
49:30
column news and I've tried not to overdo it.
49:33
I have from time to time put up clips to show how brutal the
49:38
fighting is in is in Ukraine. But you are right, the West
49:44
portrays the war as a a glamorous war in Ukraine.
49:47
It does and, and, and, and this is, this is truly sickening.
49:51
And, and I think with the like you described, the drip, drip
49:54
approach and the many other societal factors that have
49:59
played upon or interfered with people's minds in, in so far as
50:02
people have become desensitised from it.
50:04
They're the the number of people who've been around death and I
50:08
don't like to talk about this much, but the the number of
50:11
people who've experienced it up close is very small now, very,
50:15
very small, which means that people have largely experienced
50:18
it through computer games or these online videos.
50:21
So either it's just virtual or it's being done in the name of
50:27
something that you're told you should believe in and even in
50:30
fact, going to Bbci mean amazingly, they are I think it's
50:33
an audio series. They're actually running a
50:37
series at the moment called Putin's Foreign Fighters.
50:40
And that the the premise, as far as I've heard the the sort of
50:44
teaser clip, it's to examine these supposedly sort of
50:49
complete nut cases who want to go and who are not Russian want
50:53
to go and fight for Putin knowing that they face certain
50:56
death. But the BBC is not reporting
51:00
those same exactly people fighting for the Ukraine as
51:03
well. Or at least, if ever it has
51:05
done, it's taken the Liz Truss line, which is, yeah, this is
51:08
the right, this is the right thing to do.
51:10
Absolutely. You should go for it.
51:12
And I think, you know, that this is a it is a really serious
51:15
point because we are talking, you know, I I I think Mike and I
51:19
were talking about this in a germ warfare banter session the
51:23
other day. But the idea that, well, I mean,
51:29
you know, it's sort of word play, isn't it?
51:31
The defence industry, you know, you work with the defence
51:33
industry, you are making kit that is specifically designed
51:37
in, in most cases to kill other people.
51:40
That's that's what you're doing. You're you're there to reduce
51:43
the number of lives on the planet.
51:46
I mean that that's how it works. And and yet the sort of personal
51:50
accounts of this, because, as I say, there are so few serving or
51:55
former military now, full stop, but also very few who will have
51:59
accounted will have taken part in kinetic operations that have
52:03
resulted in the loss of life. And I just mean that in terms of
52:05
the overall population, people have basically lost touch with
52:07
it. And I think, you know, I mean, I
52:09
find this I brought back into stark reality very recently.
52:12
I've, I've read a, an account, a first hand account from the
52:15
trenches in the first war, an amazing book called Tommy at
52:20
Gomcorp, GO double MECOURT, Thomas Higgins, who was a
52:26
private soldier, then Lance Corporal in the North
52:28
Staffordshire Regiment at the early stages of the First World
52:30
War. And it describes his experiences
52:33
in the trenches and then subsequently as a prisoner of
52:35
war. And I defy anybody to read that
52:39
book and think, yes, we should go to war.
52:42
And, and that's, that should be in Keir Starmer's intro.
52:45
And I'm not suggesting that he holds all the power.
52:48
He is being pushed into this by the, the, the known and unknown
52:53
entities to which we refer. Yet he does have the authority
52:59
to to go or no go where military action is concerned.
53:04
But but I think the reason I mentioned that book is that
53:08
specifically what, what's so interesting, we have this, we
53:10
have this sort of rose tinted idea that, you know, that the
53:12
pals battalions and and this and the other that that there was a
53:16
an organic response to. It's a situation where we had to
53:22
meet, you know, we had to meet that threat.
53:24
We had to send men out and this and the other.
53:26
But actually, what comes out of that book, some of the more
53:29
poignant parts are he he recounts singing the national
53:34
anthem on Christmas Day, where sort of hostilities ceased for
53:37
the day. They sang the national anthem
53:39
and it just caused him to ruminate.
53:41
He kept these affirmed Diaries he kept at the time of sort of
53:45
well, really, is that why we're here?
53:47
We're here to keep some some bloke sitting in a nice house
53:51
back in the United Kingdom safe, you know, and to read that,
53:54
that's that's quite a pretty emotional thing to read after
53:57
the absolute horrors that he's been through.
53:59
And also he talks about the utter loss of humanity in some
54:05
of the urban skirmishes that they had where he describes.
54:10
And it was it was the same both sides.
54:12
What else could they do? But they just, it was just a
54:15
slaughter. It was a frenzy.
54:16
They would just killing people as quickly as they possibly
54:21
could. There was no regard for trying
54:24
to take prisoners or anything like that because they knew that
54:27
that if they faltered for a minute, it it was them next.
54:30
And and that is just horrific to read.
54:32
And then the Third Point, which again is it comes right back to,
54:36
I think sort of what what we're talking about in terms of this
54:39
being in prospect initially and then in review is the idea that
54:43
they went out, they did it. Some of them, like he survived
54:47
and they came back and they were just straight back down to the
54:51
bottom of the heap. And for what?
54:54
And crikey, that is poignant. And so, I mean, if anyone
54:58
considers getting hold of a copy of that, Thomas Higgins,
55:02
interestingly, his great grandson was one of my
55:04
instructors when I was at Sandhurst, which is how I came
55:07
by a copy of it. So Alf Higgins gave me a copy
55:09
the other day. But it, I mean, there'll be
55:11
other accounts, but it is absolutely remarkable.
55:13
And it just, it brings those things.
55:15
So even if you think, even if you're prepared to endure the
55:19
idea that humans can kill each other and all the rest of it,
55:22
the fact that he was able to point to this idea that that
55:25
you, you go there and you either do sacrifice your life or you're
55:29
prepared to and you come back and you just get nothing and
55:32
nothing changes. You know that that's that.
55:33
That hits very hard. Yeah, the these sorts of well,
55:38
Diaries and and recollect recollections of people who've
55:42
actually been through the fighting of very powerful
55:45
things. YouTube, for all its faults, has
55:49
got a very large number of really excellent audio or say
55:55
videos. Usually there's there's images
55:58
presented with the audio, but they are the audio, the audio
56:04
delivery of the Diaries written by German soldiers on the some
56:09
officers, but mainly soldiers on the Eastern Front when they were
56:13
fighting the Russians. And my goodness, those Diaries
56:19
tell you so much. Because for many, they go from
56:22
the initial euphoria that they're moving across the border
56:28
and Operation Barbarossa has begun and they're attacking the
56:31
Russians and they're advancing hundreds of kilometers a day.
56:36
And then it moves on to when things started to bog down
56:39
around Moscow and staling ground happens.
56:42
And then, and then they are on the retreat and they're in
56:47
appalling temperatures -30 or whatever it is.
56:51
They've no food. And they are starting to
56:54
consider why they're there. The only reason they continue to
56:57
fight is to protect their fellow soldiers.
57:00
But in those Diaries, yes, they absolutely reflect back on why
57:04
they're there and what was happening.
57:06
These are not Diaries that the BBC is ever going to present to
57:10
the nation. And I doubt if they're even
57:12
presented to the nation in Germany because they really tell
57:17
it as it is. We're on a very interesting path
57:21
here is I was driving into the column this morning.
57:24
One of the things that was in my head is that although I have
57:27
been retired now for 30 plus years from from the military,
57:32
I'm thinking to myself, it's amazing how much how powerful
57:36
the sense of loyalty is. And so I thought we're going to
57:40
have this discussion today and I didn't quite know where it was
57:43
going going to go, but I was thinking we are absolutely
57:47
challenging stuff that's happening around the military.
57:50
We're also in a way looking at the military in UK and saying
57:54
you really need to think through what you're doing and, and why.
57:59
But I also feel a sense that there are many very good young
58:03
men and women who are out there in UK's armed forces because
58:09
they believe they are doing a good job and that they're a
58:12
vital part. This is this is a difficult one.
58:16
But what do you think we should be saying to them?
58:19
Because on one hand, we're here and we're clearly putting a
58:23
message across wars and nasty thing.
58:26
You have more experience of it than I certainly, certainly do.
58:32
But so we're saying, yeah, watch out for what this really is and
58:37
who's fermenting the environment that says you, you need to go
58:41
prepared to go to war for the Russians.
58:43
What else can we say to those? Yeah, very professional and
58:48
dedicated people out there. This is it.
58:50
I, I, it's a, it's a very good question.
58:52
And and I think perhaps at the at the outset of this
58:55
discussion, we should have, we should have made reference to
58:57
that. I mean, you know, the fact is we
58:58
are, we are both ex servicemen, we, we, we both intentionally
59:02
join the armed forces and so for periods of time.
59:05
So we obviously we wanted to do that and there are so many
59:11
elements of military life and OK, I am out of touch.
59:15
And I think to go back to your point about the, the hollowing
59:18
item or not, I know that morale is not what it was when you or I
59:21
was was serving. I mean, there's always something
59:23
to complain about. So it.
59:25
Wouldn't be what it is. If there wasn't, then that
59:28
might. Be indeed that might be hard for
59:30
non military people to understand but exactly so if
59:33
there isn't a certain amount of manking which used to be called
59:37
in the life is not OK. Yes, exactly.
59:40
But but, but so, so that notwithstanding that, but yes, I
59:45
mean the, the sense and this might sound sort of Triton like
59:48
a sales pitch. It's it's absolutely not.
59:50
It is, it is completely an objective fact that the the
59:57
camaraderie and the professionalism and the ability
1:00:00
to get stuff done is exists in the armed forces.
1:00:04
In an unparalleled sense, I mean they I do not believe you can
1:00:08
replicate or experience that anywhere else.
1:00:10
And for me that was that was the main driver for not just joining
1:00:15
but being part of that system. Now the problem is that you are
1:00:20
therefore manipulated as an individual.
1:00:24
Your good nature is taken and may be Co opted in in any
1:00:29
particular direction, but that is a political direction.
1:00:33
So I think what I would hope that people do is discuss much
1:00:40
more about the factors that are pointing towards a particular
1:00:48
military intervention and really consider what it is that that
1:00:54
that either is driving this or that the results of it would be.
1:00:58
And to therefore exercise your discretion and your influence
1:01:06
over that process. Because that, you know, let's
1:01:08
not forget the chain of command works both ways.
1:01:11
And I think there needs to be a greater element of discussion
1:01:15
that feeds up to the, let's face it, the political, no very much
1:01:19
political hierarchy of the armed forces.
1:01:23
But that's a that's a really good point, Charles, or
1:01:27
immediately comes into my mind is, and I've said this on a
1:01:31
number of occasions, I'm happy to say again now is the immense
1:01:34
weakness of the senior officers in the military.
1:01:39
And this was one of the things that I started to see towards
1:01:43
the end of my career, which made me ultimately make the decision
1:01:49
to leave. I saw things happening in the
1:01:51
military which we're clearly not right.
1:01:54
They did not make sense. They were causing problems.
1:01:57
And yet there was there was no senior officer that would speak
1:02:03
out because their minds were full of am I going to be made a
1:02:09
Sir? That was the key one.
1:02:11
Am I going to get that most high-ranking pension to make the
1:02:16
rest of my life comfortable? And when I started to see what I
1:02:21
thought were really, really good senior officers, the sort of
1:02:25
people who you just knew if the chips were down, you would
1:02:30
actually be following them in, in the battle.
1:02:34
And then suddenly some scruffy politician appeared on board the
1:02:39
ship or on the base and they just turned to mush.
1:02:44
And and I, I found this appalling.
1:02:46
And of course, there, there are so many.
1:02:47
I mean, if we take barons who's been part of the strategic
1:02:50
defense review, you can correct me here because I may have
1:02:54
missed it, but what is he actually?
1:02:56
What did he actually do to stop the hollowing out to the
1:02:59
military? Because he's he's reached senior
1:03:02
rank in a military that was being hollowed out.
1:03:05
So what did he do to actually stand up against that or protest
1:03:09
or whatever? Though senior officers, some of
1:03:12
them have spoken out a little bit, but most of them in my view
1:03:16
are complete political cowards. We'll not talk about things.
1:03:21
Absolutely, I would agree with that.
1:03:22
And I think that's that's very well evidenced by the number of
1:03:27
officers above sort of one star command and above who, who go
1:03:32
public the moment they've left rather than actually making a
1:03:35
fuss whilst they're still in and being able to deliver some sort
1:03:38
of. Protest.
1:03:40
Exactly, Yes, yes. And and so, yes, I mean, to go
1:03:43
back to the point, you know, again, sorry, just to just refer
1:03:45
back to the book Tommy Ogong called the other point he makes,
1:03:47
of course, and this this strikes right to the heart of it.
1:03:50
And it's, it's terribly difficult.
1:03:53
It's an ethical question, But he, but, but he reflects at one
1:03:57
point and he just says, you know, we, we all came to think
1:04:00
or he, he came to think that he's really there just killing
1:04:04
Germans because they're German, you know, just because they had
1:04:07
the misfire. I can't remember.
1:04:08
He phrases it really well. And that, and that's quite a,
1:04:10
that's quite a thought. Now that takes us into a much
1:04:13
bigger thing, which we can't possibly touch upon now.
1:04:16
But the, but the idea, you know what, what is an armed force for
1:04:18
in the 1st place? You know, because to me, sort of
1:04:21
rather sentimentally, the idea of sort of queen and country
1:04:24
seemed to mean something, was certainly meant a hell of a lot
1:04:26
more than right, going to go off there and just bash those people
1:04:29
around just because they're in a different part of the world.
1:04:31
And that to me has never made any sense at all.
1:04:35
So to, to not have any armed forces and well, you know,
1:04:39
anyway, not, not for now, but but it, but it just does, you
1:04:44
know, how many people really, when that, when you are getting
1:04:47
operational briefings about this, that and the other, how
1:04:49
many people are really thinking, OK, so we, we are going to be
1:04:52
in, let's say, Iran or Russia aiming to kill Iranians or
1:04:57
Russians simply because they are Iranian or Russian.
1:05:00
I mean, that's, that's quite a thought Now where people take
1:05:03
that I, I don't know, but I think that people that, that,
1:05:07
that at least having those thoughts, having those
1:05:09
discussions has got to be for the, for the good, because
1:05:12
otherwise we, this has been sort of a thread through this
1:05:14
conversation. The balance absolutely does
1:05:17
shift away from the military holding any power over their own
1:05:20
destiny. And and we look at the, the
1:05:24
massive, massive corporate influence and that is a that is
1:05:27
a terrific danger. And I think what I'm pleased to
1:05:29
be doing is this, you know, this, this series, which we are
1:05:31
going to make a more regular commitment to because I think
1:05:34
it's really important that UK column does chart accurately
1:05:37
this drip, drip boiled frog progression because I think we
1:05:42
see it and it, it, it is very important that other people are
1:05:46
are brought to see it as well. Well.
1:05:49
Absolutely, Charles. We're probably at the top of the
1:05:51
hour. I, I think so we, we, we should
1:05:55
probably finish for today. But let's end by reinforcing the
1:05:59
point that we absolutely understand the quality of the
1:06:03
people around there in UK's military.
1:06:08
I think my final message would be, it may be I'm saying to
1:06:12
those people out there in the armed forces, you may have to
1:06:16
fight, but it'll be fighting for this country rather than
1:06:19
fighting the Russians. Yeah, that's exactly it.
1:06:21
But exactly what is defined by this country these days is a big
1:06:25
one, and we'll get to that in another episode.
1:06:27
In due course. Yeah.
1:06:28
Brilliant. Thanks very much.
1:06:30
Thanks.