Latest / UK Column Radio / Military Matters: Does Your Country Need You? — with Brian Gerrish and Charles Malet

Transcript

Military Matters: Does Your Country Need You? — with Brian Gerrish and Charles Malet · UK Column Radio

0:17
Hello and welcome to another edition of Military Matters with
0:21
myself, Brian Gerrish and Charles Mallett.
0:27
Charles, we decided this time we were going to have a little look
0:30
at recruiting, which has been a an important and troublesome
0:35
issue with the military over a number of years with some pretty
0:41
staggering shortfalls. I've got a I've got a few
0:44
statistics here for the year 2324.
0:48
So the Royal Navy achieved 60% of its target IA 40% shortfall.
0:56
The Army achieved 63% of its recruiting targets.
1:01
So that's a 37% shortfall and the RAF had a 30% shortfall.
1:07
So these these are pretty massive shortfalls and of course
1:11
they come after a long period of time in which the government and
1:15
the Ministry of Defence have been pretty keen to use
1:18
commercial companies in order to fulfil military recruiting.
1:24
And Capita in particular has been particularly in the
1:29
spotlight over army recruiting failing miserably over a number
1:34
of years. But we're now in the interesting
1:36
point where we see what I've described as an increasing
1:40
military militarisation agenda in UK.
1:44
We're we're seeing the government ramping up the path
1:48
to war largely on the back of the conflict in Ukraine.
1:53
And so we're seeing the government talking about wanting
1:57
a massive increase in military recruitment.
2:00
And they've come out with a new initiative in order to do this,
2:05
which is essentially bringing all of the recruitment under one
2:12
organization instead of allowing the individual services to deal
2:16
with their own recruitment. And the other thing which I just
2:20
found out this morning is that they're also looking for a
2:24
massive increase in the percentage of women in the armed
2:27
forces from about 12% up and up to 30% by 2030.
2:35
And that to me is a pretty onerous recruitment target, you
2:41
know, albeit that that one's based on women.
2:44
How do you see things at the moment?
2:47
Well, to sort of take off in a sense from where we left off in
2:54
the previous episode of of Military Matters, we were
2:57
discussing in our own respective sets of experiences how a lot of
3:04
the things that looked like they had gone wrong, perhaps
3:08
organically, were actually being made to go wrong.
3:11
And that that was granting the forever war in a sense in this,
3:18
that the armed forces themselves appear to be hamstrung.
3:20
I think my view of what you've just described, particularly
3:23
Capita taking it on taking on the recruitment in 2012 and now
3:27
Serco and now the, the idea that there's one point of contact for
3:34
all recruitment or one funnel through which everybody is
3:37
supposed to pass is almost an extension of exactly that.
3:43
It's as though the, the, the two parts to it, the the policy and
3:50
then the actual operation are intentionally set to frustrate
3:55
one another. It's, it's very hard to see how
3:58
the failure of Capita can be translated into a success by
4:03
Serco. And then, and then to, to look
4:06
at that alongside the idea that the armed forces must be
4:10
composed or comprised of such and such a percentage of, let's
4:15
say women in this instance, then moves us into different
4:20
territory because that can only be achieved by manipulation.
4:26
You can't, you can't invite 30% of women to simply turn up and
4:32
displace the, you know, otherwise male candidates.
4:35
So somehow you've got to to force that.
4:38
And really the only way to do that is either via some sort of
4:44
discrimination process, which obviously various employment
4:48
laws and whatnot should prohibit.
4:52
Although in actual fact, armed forces do have a different
4:56
relationship to to certain pieces of legislation which
4:59
perhaps we might come onto. But ultimately this points
5:03
towards conscription because that is one way in which you
5:08
can, if indeed people do, toe the line and go along with it.
5:14
That is how you can populate an armed force with people who
5:17
weren't otherwise planning on doing it.
5:19
In other words, the enormous percentage of women that are
5:22
expected to be in the armed forces that you're just
5:24
describing that aren't yet there.
5:25
So it's, it's a situation, I think that that shouldn't be
5:31
regarded in its own right. It needs to be looked at in the
5:35
much wider context of what's been going on in this country.
5:39
Well, I mean, I think for the purposes of this discussion
5:43
probably have limited a bit, but I mean, you know, for well over
5:46
100 years actually, but but but you just on the on the women
5:51
front alone. It is fascinating to think the,
5:54
the House of Commons briefing paper, which came out in March
5:57
of this year about conscription and putting out a subject in
6:04
terms as though, well, this is something that people are sort
6:09
of starting to discuss a little bit.
6:11
We, we have no plans to do it. We don't think it's a good idea.
6:16
We don't think it's necessary. And yet we're going to talk
6:18
about it anyway. And we're also going to point to
6:20
specific examples where it is happening.
6:22
But the, the, the reason I mention it right now is that the
6:26
front cover, they always put a photograph on the cover of
6:28
these, you know, publications give you an idea.
6:31
And of course, it was a wartime photograph and it was of a
6:35
parade of women, all women. And that, you know, UK
6:40
subliminal perhaps, or maybe rather more than that.
6:44
But nonetheless, the idea was very much that if there is to be
6:47
conscription and the push for recruitment, this is this is
6:51
this is to be aimed at or to include everybody.
6:56
And I and, and that seems to be where the messaging is going.
7:00
And I mean, we can come on to talk perhaps about the, you
7:03
know, the big documents that have come out this year, in
7:04
particular, the Strategic Defense Review and the National
7:07
Security Strategy, which the message of both of those is this
7:12
idea that I suppose in some ways was put out, perhaps first by
7:16
Patrick Sanders, who's then head of the Army back in 2022.
7:18
Sort of almost immediately that the the apparent or at least
7:24
that what's being described as Russia's illegal war of
7:28
aggression. The moment that started, Sanders
7:30
started talking about this whole of society approach.
7:33
And, and I think that's how we have to consider all of this and
7:38
to look not just at where it's going, but but sort of where
7:43
it's come from. And I think that's the, you
7:47
know, that that's the bit that obviously prior to this
7:49
discussion we've been considering is sort of where
7:52
this has come from. And I'm not, I'm pretending I'm
7:55
going to suggest that there's only one point, but but it is
7:58
very interesting to, to think about what has happened over
8:02
quite some number of years. I mean, you know, going back to
8:05
your own experiences and, and the way in which personnel
8:09
changed during your time in the Navy.
8:12
I mean, I'd be really interested to hear your your sort of
8:14
perspective on what was happening then in relation to
8:17
what you see happening now. Lot to talk about.
8:23
It is an amazing subject. I just wanted to add in in there
8:27
immediately before it goes out of my mind that the, the new
8:31
recruiting strategy, which is the Armed Forces recruitment
8:37
service, this is this is where they're talking about
8:39
recruitment being brought together for Army, RAF, Navy,
8:46
Royal Marines, Gurkhas. But it all comes under one
8:49
umbrella instead of it being done separately.
8:52
But when, when you actually have a look at what the what, what
8:56
has been said about this new AFRS system, The aim is to boost
9:04
national security under the government's plan for change.
9:08
So the first instance isn't that we've got a shortfall of
9:12
recruiting and we need to, we need to address that because
9:15
otherwise the existing on forces can't function.
9:19
No, in the background we've got that we are deeply concerned
9:23
about national security overall. And therefore we are, we're
9:29
going to run this recruitment system in order to boost numbers
9:33
to meet whatever the supposed threat is deemed to be in the
9:38
future. And, and for me, it's very clear
9:42
at the moment that Ukraine is just being used as the, as the
9:47
fear, the point of fear for the population.
9:50
Those nasty Russians are coming after they've dealt with
9:52
Ukraine. And now young people in the
9:56
wider population in UK are being told we, we've got to ramp up
10:00
for war and therefore our recruitment is moving to a war
10:06
footing. That's what I sent.
10:07
Yeah, I and I would absolutely totally agree with you.
10:10
And I think that you know again that there's so much spring out
10:13
just from that. I mean, for example, the the
10:16
defence review, which exactly is prefixed on this idea of
10:20
national security and the apparent threat to it, although
10:22
that threat is never really distinctly articulated.
10:26
So there's this vague sense that that Russia is somehow inching
10:31
its way towards British shores, of which there's absolutely no
10:35
evidence either of it happening or of there being an intent for
10:38
it to happen. And yet nonetheless, the
10:40
rhetoric suggests that we need to be prepared for it.
10:45
We then have Mark Reuter pushing NATO in effect at the behest of
10:51
Donald Trump to say right, we have to have 5% spending on
10:55
defence. But to exactly what end?
10:58
Again is never made clear. What is it that suddenly changes
11:02
at the 5% point? No, no one says that there is a
11:08
metric by which success is. Yeah, it is some basically,
11:14
yeah. It is absolutely so so it's the
11:18
the sort of spiral of interests, corporate interests, you know,
11:22
again described as being the defence dividend.
11:25
So the, the, the suggestion being that if we spend enough
11:28
money on this stuff, and I deliberately say stuff because
11:32
obviously we, we've started by talking about people, but
11:34
actually there's an obsession with stuff because that is how
11:39
war is monetised. In effect, you know, the, the,
11:43
the arms manufacturers, this, the so-called defence industry
11:47
works on making and flogging stuff and capabilities and not
11:52
people, people have to come from somewhere else.
11:54
But the, the kit bit is much easier in some senses to, to, to
12:00
make happen. And indeed, when the flow of
12:03
money is concerned, it's, it's well, I suppose a more obvious
12:08
relationship between state and corporations as to how that's
12:13
done. But one of the authors of the
12:17
Strategic Defence review, Fiona Hill that known Russ Phoebe, an
12:21
advisor to the Trump first Trump administration on Russia has has
12:26
said that she believes that we are at war with Russia.
12:31
And she, she's, she's also compared previously, she has
12:34
directly compared Putin with Hitler.
12:38
And, and I, I'm not, I'm not dismissing out of hand what she
12:43
says, but a lot of what she says.
12:46
For somebody who, who is, who was put in a position of writing
12:50
what should be an objective document, It's hard to see how
12:54
she could have been considered in, in such a light holding
12:57
abuse that she does. But she, she believes we are at
13:00
war with Russia. Well, in saying so, it's because
13:06
she looks at what Vladimir Putin is doing as his effort to become
13:15
the leading or dominant military power in Europe by an expression
13:20
of or a share of force in Ukraine.
13:24
And of course, the inference in that, especially when we
13:29
consider the language of the defence dividend and the, the,
13:33
the whole of society response is that mobilisation via the 5%
13:37
spending commitment means that there is effectively an arms
13:40
race within Europe. And we, we consider what's
13:44
happened in recent times. OK, this will be out of date a
13:46
little bit by the time this comes out.
13:48
You know, the, the, the supposed story about incursion into
13:51
Polish airspace recently and the response of flying British jets
13:55
into, into Polish airspace. I mean, obviously it was all
13:59
based on, on an entirely incorrect premise, but the the
14:03
point is that it's very easy to see how the situation, at least
14:08
militarily or strategically can, can change very quickly.
14:12
And I think when we, when we consider that alongside the
14:16
influence of people like Fiona Hill, who, who are absolutely
14:20
determined that we should all be not just terrified of Russia,
14:23
but actually seeking to go toe to toe with them, then that puts
14:27
us in a, in an, I would say, well, not vulnerable exactly,
14:33
but a, but a, but a difficult and dangerous position.
14:37
I, I, I really do. So quite where we go next, it's
14:44
hard to say, but there do seem to be a lot of factors pointing
14:47
towards there being a necessity for war to satisfy all the other
14:52
things that are that are going on.
14:54
Yeah, yeah, this, this is this is a fascinating subject because
14:59
if you if you try and approach it in one angle, there's
15:02
something else comes up and you think I need to pay attention to
15:05
that as well. Perhaps we can simplify things
15:10
by saying, well, let's just just at the moment leave the leave
15:14
the conflict to one side and the rhetoric for war and, and have a
15:20
little look at how the government is approaching
15:23
military recruiting. And of course, it's, it's very
15:28
interesting that we've got the massive shortfall we have
15:32
because clearly one or two things is happening.
15:37
Either the companies who've been in tasked with recruiting are
15:41
simply incompetent and they failed to produce a result in
15:46
their contract, or they haven't recruited enough people.
15:50
Or, and it might be and, or we've got people, young people
15:56
who are simply not engaging with the idea of serving in the
16:02
military. And therefore, if the recruiting
16:06
companies, we could even say Capita as was if they were doing
16:12
a reasonable job, they failed because young people were not so
16:16
easily hooked to say you need to come and serve in the military.
16:21
And I, I certainly think there are, there are a number of of
16:24
issues around this, which is to do with the fact that young
16:29
people don't have the interest in, in the military that they
16:34
could have. Now, I know there's going to be
16:36
a lot of people watching and listening to what we're saying.
16:40
And they're, they're going to be saying, well, is it a good thing
16:43
that we're recruiting young people into the military?
16:46
That that is, that's something for another discussion.
16:49
If we just accept the status quo as it is and say if we want
16:55
defence of a country and you have to have armed forces, then
16:58
you need to recruit people. So we're having a look at what
17:01
it is going on with the young people.
17:04
But I, I, I think what I've watched over a lot of years is
17:09
the military change in a way that makes it less and less
17:13
attractive for young people to join.
17:17
And what am I talking about? Well, one issue is the fact that
17:22
if you have a military system which is constantly contracting,
17:27
when people leave the system, they're, they're inevitably
17:31
talking about the problems that they were.
17:33
And in my day in in the Royal Navy, we were constantly shorter
17:38
people, often critical people. And this meant that obviously
17:44
the workload on board a ship increased, but also the
17:47
operational performance declined because you did not have the
17:51
specialist people there to enable you to do the job.
17:54
And that created pressure on the the team that you had.
17:59
And then inevitably that would be that pressure would be one of
18:04
the things that caused people to leave the service.
18:08
Probably a good example would be in the submarine service where
18:13
the moment they didn't have enough people to meet the, I'm
18:18
talking, you know, the latter latter stages of the Cold War,
18:22
the moment we did not have the numbers of submariners to man
18:27
the submarines, particularly the nuclear boats.
18:32
This meant that people were being cycled through sea jobs
18:36
without getting respite from spending, you know, time between
18:40
deployments on a shore job. So the stress levels for these
18:44
men went up and up and some specialisation, nuclear
18:49
engineers and also nuclear submarine, heavy electrical or
18:56
weapons engineers, they were, there was a big shortfall in
19:00
those jobs. So for men who were in that
19:03
specialisation, they were just facing more or less constant
19:08
time at sea and and eventually they got to the point where
19:12
they're saying, I'm not going to sign on again if they were
19:16
getting near the near the end of their their time.
19:20
And of course they're disquiet then spread once they'd left the
19:24
military because they might say, well, I enjoyed most of it, but
19:29
and the but is the thing that spreads.
19:32
So cuts was something that would just continuous.
19:37
And if we look at statistics, I've got some in front of me.
19:40
But essentially if we go back to where are we here, the 50s when
19:46
we had a big peak in in British military forces, Korean War
19:51
going on, etcetera. But if we say the 500,000 men
19:56
across the Army, Air Force and Navy, that that was the baseline
20:01
for a great many years. But since the 60s it was a
20:06
constant decline and very often defence policy was going to be a
20:10
reduction. And so if you're in a business,
20:14
commercial business, which is constantly shrinking, your
20:19
ability to recruit is going to diminish.
20:22
That's, that's a simple fact. So I, I've watched this happen
20:26
and then on top of it, I've seen that the style of the military
20:31
has been deliberately changed by these new policies, including
20:38
including women coming into the military and as I've said
20:41
before, including gays coming into the military.
20:46
And I know some of these are very sensitive subjects, but
20:49
they need to be talked about. And if we go for for the women,
20:54
women serving at the combat end, I can't comment on the the Army,
21:00
but for the Navy instantly changed the whole working
21:04
environment. Not for the best as far as a man
21:09
would be concerned, because instead of working in a tough
21:13
military environment with an overwhelmingly male side to it,
21:19
it became something rather different.
21:22
And I probably mentioned last time, the first time you go on
21:24
board a warship and it smells of perfume, something has changed.
21:29
And this is not necessarily this is not necessarily good.
21:33
So the the reduction in numbers was happening.
21:37
Plus we had enforced policy to bring women in and the gays came
21:44
in. And the reason that I'm, I'm
21:47
very happy to speak up about that is because with the gays
21:51
came the predatory gays. And if you look at, if you look
21:55
at up to date reports, there was a report that came out very
22:01
recently called Protecting Those that Protect Us.
22:05
And that that's a government report looking effectively at
22:08
harassment and abuse of women in the armed forces, where over 60%
22:16
of the serving women are saying that they were sexually harassed
22:19
or bullied or discriminated against.
22:22
Clearly the introduction of women into the armed forces has
22:26
not been a success. And if the women are
22:29
disgruntled, of course that impacts on the male environment
22:34
itself. And So what I think has been
22:37
created is a deliberately toxic environment.
22:41
So the overall performance of the armed forces has dropped.
22:46
But if you then say by 20-30 we're going to have 30% of the
22:51
armed forces of women, well, what does that really mean?
22:54
Does that mean on a battlefield, 30% of the troops are going to
22:58
be women? Because that's not what's
23:00
happening worldwide. It, it doesn't matter who's got
23:04
women in the military. And even if they say the women
23:08
have access to full, sorry, have full access to combat rule,
23:13
combat roles, the reality is in combat that women are not on the
23:19
ground. And there's a reason for that.
23:22
That the Israelis, if we take a, an emotional example in, in this
23:30
present environment with Gaza going on and they've got about
23:34
4% women, a lot of women killed in the Israeli Defence Forces.
23:40
I think it's about 500 and 55160 since the 1960s.
23:46
But are they putting women into the prime combat zones?
23:51
No. And I'm not Army, Charles, So
23:56
I'm sure you can say you can say why.
24:00
Well, I mean that you see, that's a situation that has
24:03
changed and it's, it's hard to, it's hard to look at it in
24:11
another light than that which you describe, which is that
24:15
there appears to be an intentional aim to to disrupt,
24:22
to destabilize. In my own experiences, having
24:27
served in a in an infantry regiment, which was therefore
24:31
populated exclusively by men, the only women that would be in
24:35
that environment were in sort of administrative roles.
24:41
So there were there were women there.
24:42
And this is not to apportion blame to individuals, but, but
24:48
there was drama with that absolutely everywhere, every
24:52
single time. And that happened.
24:53
And actually that that happened at the start going through the,
24:57
the training, the year's course at Sandhurst, which is split
25:03
there at least. Well, actually I think that may
25:05
have even changed now, but but the girls platoon, as it was
25:10
called, I think occasionally there were more, but they were
25:14
kept in one particular grouping that meant they were all
25:20
together. But of course they were.
25:21
The course ran alongside the bloke's side of it.
25:25
And again, there was there was drama.
25:27
Didn't matter whether it was between cadets, men and VML or
25:31
even, you know, I say worse instructors and females.
25:35
And it it, it happened it and it was, it was completely
25:39
inevitable. And for anyone to imagine that
25:40
wasn't going to happen was eitherly either wilfully naive
25:46
or like you say, you know, intentional to to create this
25:51
sort of a problem. I think one thing that is
25:56
brought out by what you're saying, which is, which I think
25:58
is an interesting consideration in recruitment is, is what is it
26:03
that people, what is it that that the new recruitment service
26:09
is trying to recruit people into what?
26:12
What are the, the jobs or the roles that people are supposed
26:17
to be finding? We hear constantly about how
26:20
advanced warfare is becoming, about the dependency upon AI,
26:26
cyber or all of this sort of stuff.
26:29
Are we suggesting that in fact, the role of teeth, arms, OK, in
26:35
an army context, people who are infantry or cavalry primarily.
26:39
So, so those that are closest to the action, are we to suggest
26:45
that those sorts of people aren't really going to be needed
26:48
so much or not? And therefore that's how we're
26:51
going to skin that particular cat.
26:53
And you think back to February of this year when Luke Pollard,
26:56
Armed Forces minister, said as though people were going to jump
27:01
up off the sofa and say, right, well, I'll, I'll sign up
27:03
immediately. He said they were going to get
27:05
rid of, I think it was 100 previous preclusions on on a
27:11
medical basis. And you think what, how OK, some
27:14
of them might not necessarily mean very much these days, but I
27:18
rather doubt it. You sort of think if it's a
27:19
medical issues, sort of be there for a, for for some sort of a
27:24
purpose, some some kind of reason in doing away with 100 of
27:27
them. It's hard to see how you're
27:29
going to be enabling the enhancement of a of a fighting
27:35
force. You know what, what sort of
27:36
people is that going to let in? And then you've got you then do
27:40
have this issue. I mean, you know, we've talked
27:44
about the, the differences between men and women and the,
27:46
and the inherent problem with putting women alongside men in
27:51
a, in a service capacity. And, and as I say, that's not to
27:54
say there's a problem with the women or there's a problem with
27:57
the men. It just happens.
27:58
It just that that's what happens.
28:00
But then if you're to think, right, well, if we've got people
28:03
who are sort of, you know, almost medically downgraded, you
28:07
know, where are they supposed to go?
28:08
And again, what when one thinks about the idea of conscription
28:14
or national service or indeed reservists, you know, all these
28:17
ideas that there are sort of separate groups of people, Where
28:20
do you put them? Do you put them alongside
28:22
regular serving soldiers, sailors and airmen or not?
28:27
And again, if you do or if you don't, you end up with the same
28:31
sorts of problems because there are there are divisions or there
28:35
are going to be conflicts and sort of abrasions between those
28:40
particular groupings of people. And those conflicts and
28:42
abrasions are the exact thing you don't want in a Coh cohesive
28:47
group of troops. Exactly.
28:50
You don't want that because you don't want people to be working
28:53
as a as a, as a team and and you, you want them concentrating
28:58
on themselves as a team. You don't need disputes.
29:01
Yeah, entirely. Yes, exactly.
29:04
Well, the the other bit that comes into my head as you're
29:06
talking through that, Charles, is that I have watched the war
29:10
in Ukraine on on virtually a daily basis.
29:14
How do I do that by very good and I'm going to say very
29:18
accurate social media analysts. But the warfare now in Ukraine,
29:27
to me is into a a new era because it's clear that armoured
29:32
vehicles on the battlefield have a very short survival time.
29:38
They're being taken out by some multi $1,000,000 tanks, for
29:42
example, or field artillery being taken out by relatively
29:47
cheap drones in very large numbers.
29:50
And so in the fighting in Ukraine at the moment, the
29:54
Russians are only moving forward by using very small groups of
30:00
men, sometimes four or five, with a lot of drone surveillance
30:06
in order to back them up. But those troops are moving
30:10
forward. And then they're being asked to
30:13
engage in combat and combat every bit as brutal as the
30:17
Second World War because they are clearing buildings, they're
30:21
going into Trent trenches, they're clearing fortified
30:26
strong points. And how are they doing that?
30:29
Well, they're getting close enough to drop satchel charges,
30:32
explosives into the underground bunkers.
30:35
So if you look at what's being expected of the men on the
30:38
ground, they are being pushed forward in small groups, largely
30:45
on foot. There have been some there has
30:47
been some use of light vehicles or all terrain vehicles, even
30:52
motorbikes to help them cover ground.
30:54
And that still goes on. But once they're dismounted from
30:58
those vehicles, they are into the most gruelling combat
31:04
possible in what they carry in, in the amount of weapons and
31:08
ammunition they got to carry. And then they are on the ground
31:12
fighting at that level in bunkers and trenches.
31:16
And we are not seeing the Russians using women.
31:23
We're not seeing the Ukrainians use women now.
31:26
They are there because they are clearly there.
31:29
Sniping is one of the things that I believe both sides are
31:33
using women. And traditionally for the
31:35
Russians that's a point of honour because women snipers in
31:40
the Second World War did a very good job for the Russians.
31:43
But are the women being pushed into full frontline combat
31:47
roles? Not from what I'm seeing.
31:49
And that's on either side, the Russians or the Ukrainians.
31:52
So if the most highly experienced military people and
31:58
credit to both sides, Ukrainians very brave because they're up
32:03
against the power of the of the Russians on the battlefield.
32:06
So we're going to give credit to both sides.
32:09
Neither of those two military systems are actually putting
32:13
women at the front end of the combat.
32:15
And yet everything we read that's coming through the UK
32:19
Ministry of Defence is that we need more women and we are going
32:23
to put women at the front end. So, So what is what is going on
32:28
here? I have to ask a question because
32:30
if you say where, where are these bizarre policies coming
32:33
from? Who's actually creating them?
32:35
I don't know. No, I mean, I, I would, I would
32:38
have to say I don't know either, but but it's a very, it's a very
32:42
good point you make. And it does fly in the face of
32:46
the propaganda that suggests that that no warfare is going to
32:53
be a more of a tech affair and that it's not going to involve
32:58
people doing exactly the things that you were describing.
33:00
Whereas the reality is that it absolutely does it.
33:04
To to win on the battlefield and take and hold the ground is
33:09
requiring that fighting. But if we if we look at where
33:12
the drone warfare's got to in Ukraine, we have very, very
33:19
skilled drone operators now down to the level, they're not
33:23
hunting vehicles, just vehicles or strong points.
33:27
They are actually hunting individual groups of men or
33:32
individuals on the ground, utterly brutal to warfare, which
33:38
can be done from the comfort of a warm.
33:41
Absolutely. Room yeah and or not even.
33:43
And and it it calls into question every element of law
33:50
that pertains to this because the idea that those drones could
33:54
be autonomous and therefore work on the basis of using facial
34:00
recognition or using methods that mean that the final
34:06
decision is not made by a human being is frankly astonishing
34:11
that that we could have got to that point.
34:13
And yet there are many countries that are already doing that and
34:16
indeed, in the UK it's being talked about in such a way
34:22
that's just that there's no way we would possibly do it.
34:25
But by by extension and by association, we absolutely will
34:28
be. The Americans have made such a
34:31
product which we doubtless will be working alongside at some
34:35
point. And that is that is absolutely a
34:41
war crime. So, and you know, and well, I
34:46
mean the, the one standout problem with it, I mean, OK, I
34:52
don't want to conflate two different things, but but in
34:54
using sort of AI autonomous decision making processes, there
34:59
was a, an event, a sort of tabletop event a couple of years
35:05
ago in which this technology was being trialled.
35:07
And and at it, there was a scenario reported where an
35:15
automated drone system was tasked with destroying, I forget
35:21
what the target actually was, but anyway, the the final say so
35:25
was by the drone operator. And because the system believed,
35:33
I mean, OK, they're not sentient, but effectively it
35:35
reasoned via its programming system that the only obstacle to
35:39
achieving its mission was the operator in the chair.
35:44
It tried to kill the operator. So, you know, the suggestion
35:49
that that any of this can work properly, especially if it's in
35:54
an autonomous context is, is absolutely ridiculous.
36:01
And and it doesn't in any way get away from what you are
36:05
describing, which is this the all of this requires people and
36:09
and OK the statistics. Yeah, sorry, Charles, people
36:12
that are going to be killed and this is this is where, yeah, the
36:16
casualty figures from Ukraine matter.
36:19
They do. This is it.
36:20
They absolutely do. And this is what you know, this
36:22
is where we come back to the to the, to the numbers.
36:25
And how, how on earth can we be talking, on the one hand about
36:29
being able to face any foe anywhere in the world at the
36:32
same time as having a total strength across all three armed
36:36
forces of of virtually nothing? 180,000 rough roughly and and by
36:42
20-30 the government is is going to say that 60,000 well OK 3033%
36:51
yeah 60,050 thousand are going to be women it's.
36:54
Going to be women exactly and how's that going to happen and
36:56
then this is and this is what brings us into what I think is
36:58
such an interesting area, which is why early on you know I
37:01
referred to conscription and this is exactly why I think we
37:05
OK we we need to limit ourselves slightly for the confines of
37:09
this discussion. But but to look back certainly
37:11
to 1914 and perhaps more in particular to 1939 and just to
37:17
see how incredibly quickly things can change and I say that
37:22
now we are in September 2025. We have just seen a summer in
37:30
the United Kingdom that has been dominated by an agenda that
37:34
concerns in the first instance sort of a backlash against a
37:40
deliberately fumble migration policy that's been going on for
37:44
years and the response to it with many possible conclusions
37:51
one of which looks like being digital identity.
37:54
But alongside this, there's been a, an engineered stimulation of
38:02
patriotic fervour and that's expressed itself in rallies,
38:08
most recently a big gathering, very big gathering in London,
38:12
the, you know, waving and sort of flying of Union flags and
38:16
Saint George's crosses in particular.
38:17
And actually, interestingly, having just been to Scotland,
38:22
less so much less so in Scotland, but that's, that's
38:25
slightly by the, by the the point is that people are being
38:27
galvanized by the notion of Britishness.
38:31
And I think that's a really important thing to mention
38:34
because when when we consider the remarks of somebody like
38:36
Fiona Hill, who is, is influential because she's just
38:39
written a document which gifts the defence industry the means
38:45
by which to make billions to further influence policy and
38:48
effectively start this this ball rolling.
38:53
It is not too much of A leap to see how a change in circumstance
38:59
or change in reporting of the threat from let's say Russia,
39:02
because that is the most obvious and most likely one could wield
39:07
that as I described. It's sort of patriotic fervour
39:12
towards recruitment in some form.
39:16
And it then you go back to, you know, think of 1914, we think of
39:18
the the Kitchener, you know, your country needs you and the
39:21
response to that. I mean, in the First World War
39:23
there was no need to introduced conscription until 1916, you
39:27
know, such was the effect of of the sort of response to that.
39:32
But but but in 1939, not so. The Military Training Act of, of
39:38
1939 came in in May and and so people at that point between the
39:42
ages of 20 and 22 were being called forward for six months
39:45
training. And that was, you know, sort of
39:50
immediate. And then, of course, at the
39:52
outbreak of war, the the National Service Act conscripted
40:00
millions of people at a stroke. And and, you know, I think it's
40:04
very easy to talk, have these conversations and people be
40:06
listening, thinking, oh, wait, you know, it's not going to
40:07
happen again. It can't happen again.
40:09
OK, well. In which case, explain to me why
40:12
in the conscription publication that I referred to earlier from
40:16
the House of Commons Library, why does it explicitly reference
40:20
the changes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic?
40:24
It's because it's, it's making it clear that things can change
40:29
on a, on a six month. I mean, you know, if we'd had
40:32
this conversation in 2019 and there'd been the suggestion that
40:35
people would refuse to go to church or hug each other or, you
40:40
know, or any of the terrible things that happened, we would
40:42
have dismissed it out of hand. And yet that's exactly what
40:45
happened. And so, so the idea now that
40:47
people are desperate to sort of prove their love of country and
40:51
all the rest of it, I mean, the conditions are frankly ripe for
40:55
the suggestion of, OK, well, I'll tell you what you can do
40:58
with that. You can come and join the armed
40:59
forces. That's how to demonstrate the
41:01
love of your country. And they are specifically
41:03
targeting youngsters. And I've commented that the
41:09
Defence HQ, so the UK's Ministry of Defence has boasted that it's
41:14
got more cadets, so young teenagers, it's got more cadets
41:21
than people in the British, in the British Army.
41:24
So, so it's clear that the government's eye is on young
41:28
people and in this recruitment initiative, it's clearly looking
41:37
to bring those into the military as fast as possible.
41:40
Because one of one of the aims of the, the armed forces
41:44
recruitment system is that they're going to, they're going
41:50
to give somebody a job offer with conditions within 10 days
41:56
and then this is going to be finalised in 30 days.
41:59
And the reason they're doing this is under the, the past
42:03
failing system, a huge number of potential recruits to the
42:09
military were leaving because they just got fed up with the
42:12
waiting time. So the figure I've got here on
42:15
the piece of paper in front of me is 74,000 potential recruits
42:21
of 137,000 gave up because the whole process was too long.
42:28
So that so the government is clearly saying we want to grab
42:32
hold of these youngsters that start to show some interest.
42:35
And just because I I think it is an interesting background when
42:39
you look at Serco that's been given the one 1.5 billion con
42:45
contract, it isn't just Serco, there's a whole range of
42:49
companies. So we've got Pega Systems, we've
42:52
got Adeco, Akodis, TMP, Optima Health, PA Consulting and then
42:59
the military preparation colleges.
43:02
But all of the commercial organisations, these are
43:05
generally global, or at least major UK recruitment companies,
43:12
invariably now with business development and AI decision
43:17
making locked into it. So we've got world innovators,
43:23
designers, consultants, digital experts, scientists and
43:28
technologists all apparently required now in order to recruit
43:33
people into the military. And I find this utterly bizarre
43:36
because my logic is the more you get into these companies, the
43:40
less they actually understand what you should be doing to try
43:44
and recruit people into the military.
43:46
Absolutely, yeah. I mean, I, I completely agree.
43:49
It's complete. It's total gravy train for for
43:53
these guys. And actually I'm using all sort
43:55
of light and open. You go to the Serco Armed Forces
43:58
recruiting service page, they of course are recruiting for
44:01
recruiters. So, So what 1 wonders with, you
44:06
know, in this 1 1/2 billion spend, I mean, how much has to
44:10
go on creating the very system itself and then and then
44:14
filtering it down to all those organizations in order to try to
44:17
make the whole thing run in the first place?
44:20
And you'd think with the terrible track record that
44:25
Capita have had over the period that they've been running it,
44:30
that lessons would be learned. And in fact, the chief lesson
44:36
really would have been that it never should have gone out of
44:39
house in the 1st place. I mean, you know that if you
44:41
want people to, to get it right, it should be held within.
44:46
Yeah, people, 7 people here have that ability to, to communicate
44:51
exactly what it is that they're looking for and give some sense
44:54
of what it's like and, and all the rest of it.
44:57
And, and also that they've got skin in the game.
45:00
I mean, why would somebody working for Serco or any of the
45:03
other businesses that you mentioned, why would they care
45:07
if you know? Why would they be better than
45:09
somebody who is currently serving well, I.
45:13
Think we know they wouldn't exactly.
45:14
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, indeed. And and this is the you know, I
45:18
mean, well, perhaps this drags us off sideways, but this, you
45:21
know, the sort of the outsourcing of everything.
45:23
This is just another another example of of how.
45:28
Well I say disaster. It's obviously great for all the
45:31
organizations that are involved except for the ones that are
45:33
supposed to be benefited by which in this instance is the,
45:37
is the armed forces. So yes, I mean, exactly how this
45:42
will play out. As we said at the start, it is,
45:47
it is hard to tell because the, you know, what is the, what is
45:57
the need for war in a sense in that that, you know, the
46:02
government has put up a huge number of sort of reasons that
46:09
could easily be pushed further into making a, a proper case for
46:13
war. And it, you know, historically,
46:15
of course, well, we can get into the sort of wars being bankers
46:18
wars and all that sort of stuff. But but, but really for A at a
46:21
national government level in the United Kingdom, you know, war
46:25
has the gift of being an absolutely enormous distraction
46:29
from everything else. It also enables you to blame war
46:33
for everything that's going wrong.
46:35
And indeed, like we saw after the first world wars and the
46:39
Second World wars to change things because people have got
46:44
used to being LED, LED, that's the wrong word.
46:49
But being pushed by a government in a way that they wouldn't
46:51
necessarily accept outside of those times.
46:54
You know, the sort of the emergency powers and all that
46:56
kind of thing. When we think about education,
46:58
agriculture, health, infrastructure, all the things
47:02
that changed so very dramatically after the first and
47:04
Second World wars. You know, all the things that we
47:07
report on on UK column as things that we are suggesting are
47:11
coming down the track. Another very, very effective way
47:15
of catalysing all that all those processes, of course, to have a
47:17
war. But exactly what would what
47:19
would tip tip us over into such a situation is not clear.
47:25
Because if it were genuine, it would be if we're talking about,
47:31
I mean, at the moment, the most obvious vehicle is the this idea
47:34
that there should be a reassurance force in Ukraine and
47:37
that somehow we get caught up in that and then that that would
47:40
lead to a proper bloody conflict.
47:43
But but to imagine that could be anything other than catastrophic
47:46
is is impossible. Yeah, and and this is of course
47:51
is something that the government is absolutely lying to the
47:55
British public on a daily basis because they are never actually
47:59
describing the war as it's being conducted.
48:03
And I, I've, I've come onto the subject of casualties and to me
48:07
this is, this is one of the, the key things for understanding how
48:12
you could say naive, the Ministry of Defence is being
48:16
here or the British government. But it, it's, it's not naivety,
48:19
it's, it's propaganda, manipulation of the public.
48:23
But is the UK public, would the UK Cup public support UK
48:32
involvement in Ukraine if they really understood it kicks off
48:37
from peacekeeping to the fact that we've become engaged in the
48:41
fighting and we are going to be talking 103 hundred, 500
48:47
casualties a day, a day. And of course, nobody wants to
48:53
talk about this, but this is the reality of of the intensity of
48:57
the fighting on the ground in Ukraine.
48:59
And so the idea that we're going to put our miniscule army
49:04
because what what is the OK statement?
49:08
Charles 20, 20,000 men in the field for a relatively short
49:13
space of time, British Army's capability at the moment.
49:17
So if we said 2020 thousand and they are involved in frontline
49:22
combat, then casualties in the Ukrainian war as it is are going
49:26
to be running at about 303 hundred men a day.
49:30
And where's that going to take us?
49:33
It's going to take us in a bad place pretty quickly, very bad.
49:37
So yeah, it does seem that that Ukraine and their obsession with
49:45
Ukraine, and we're not going to abandon Ukraine.
49:48
We're going to pump in the money and we need to get people on the
49:52
ground in Ukraine, not to fight, but as peacekeepers.
49:56
This seems to be a ruse which is taking us closer and closer
50:00
towards some form of of military engagement.
50:04
Absolutely. Yeah, sorry Brian.
50:06
And I mean, I was just going to say, and I think the, you know,
50:10
the situation in terms of its potential is being they've the
50:17
government here certainly sent spent the last three years sort
50:20
of bolstering that position in, in making all these treaties and
50:26
agreements and commitments and everything else.
50:28
You know, the most recently, obviously the, what was it
50:32
called the 100 year, you know, stand with Ukraine for 100 years
50:35
or so. Yeah, Yeah.
50:37
So something like that, meaningless and empty and
50:42
pointless as it may seem, is of course exactly the card that can
50:46
be played when the situation gets to a certain point and say,
50:49
well, I mean, you know, we've signed this PAC, we're we're
50:51
committed. We've actually, we've got to
50:53
send people. And I think with a, with a
50:57
cleverly run media campaign, I think that unfortunately, I
51:02
think that is exactly the sort of message that could change the
51:08
situation. Exactly how, I don't know.
51:10
Because the the OK limited research that we have seen and
51:15
that we have done that concerns young people's opinions on
51:21
joining an armed force and indeed fighting for this
51:26
government or this country or whatever they think that that
51:28
might entail, has suggested overwhelmingly that people are
51:32
not prepared to do it. Now, I think they're a
51:34
combination of factors involved there.
51:36
One of which I think you're absolutely right to identify is
51:40
the way in which people have been so demoralized by the
51:42
downward spiral in terms of numbers, the way in which the
51:45
process has been, has been totally mauled and therefore the
51:51
negativity that sort of pervades the organization within and
51:54
without. So to to turn that around, I
51:58
think would be very, very difficult psychologically to
52:00
suddenly get people to, you know, sort of boosted and into
52:03
thinking that that's what they they would want to do.
52:06
But I still believe it's, it's possible in some way.
52:09
Now, if, if that goes alongside some sort of halfway house
52:14
legislation, a bit like what I've described with the, you
52:17
know, the military training, sorry, military service Act and
52:19
the the National Service acts and, and those sorts of things.
52:23
But but something that falls between them and I mean, let's
52:26
not forget it was only last year that Rishi Sunak in the general
52:29
election campaign was suggesting conscription.
52:31
And and you know, it sort of tried to cover all bases or make
52:37
it sound a bit softer than than he meant by saying that.
52:39
Well, you know, part of it would be a a civil activity, civil,
52:45
whatever. But but, you know, when he was
52:46
pushed on it, he absolutely said, well, if people didn't do
52:51
it then I forget the exact words used, but it's something like
52:54
that. Their bank accounts would be
52:55
frozen. So, I mean, you know, it wasn't,
52:57
it wasn't off the cuff. Clearly it had been thought
52:59
about. And OK, you could say, well,
53:01
that's all history, but it's not because as we know.
53:04
Yeah, exactly. It's, it's an extension of of
53:07
the same thing. You know what we're seeing now.
53:09
And, and the other, the other bit I introduce into that is if
53:13
you look back as to the reasons why conscription was stopped, it
53:19
was, it was overwhelmingly because the armed forces
53:24
themselves said conscripts are giving us more problems than
53:29
we're gaining from having the numbers of the conflicts
53:32
conscripts on board. So, and, and for people who
53:35
might not realise this, this is the basis that if you have a
53:38
volunteer army, you have volunteer armed forces.
53:42
People are doing a job they want to do and therefore their,
53:47
excuse me, their whole mindset is locked into the system.
53:51
They want to do the job, they want to be good at it, they
53:54
enjoy doing the job. We're not specifically talking
53:58
about killing on the battlefield here.
54:00
We're talking about the training environment, that lifestyle and
54:05
recruits, sorry, not recruits. Conscripts can be an absolute
54:10
nightmare because overwhelmingly they don't want to be there.
54:14
So they're going to, they are going to do their best to do as
54:18
little as possible to get through their conscripted time
54:23
with as little hassle as possible.
54:26
And they want to get out the other end in one piece.
54:28
And and so conscripts sound good, but in reality they're not
54:33
good because effectively they're going to produce poor quality
54:36
troops. Yeah, now I totally agree.
54:38
I mean, it goes back to the point about women or any other
54:42
group that's distinct from a voluntary, you know, volunteer
54:47
regular force, you know, where do you put the others?
54:49
How do you make that work? And there's not really any
54:52
evidence to suggest particularly that it, that it does work.
54:55
So exactly yet another gigantic problem that's not that's not
55:01
being addressed. Or at least, you know, at the
55:02
moment all of this is put out in in sort of entirely theoretical
55:08
terms, which is disingenuous because it's not it, it can't be
55:12
theoretical. If it if it's theoretical, then
55:15
why on earth are governments of Europe or NATO being asked to
55:22
commit 5% of their spending to to defend or, you know,
55:27
so-called defense that there can only be one reason, this idea of
55:32
strength through peace. Sorry wrong way around peace
55:36
through strength. You know, I mean, it's there's
55:40
only so far you can push this stuff before before something's
55:42
got to give. And I think and I think that,
55:44
you know, the very serious point that falls out of that it's that
55:47
is that these sorts of things do do have a moment.
55:50
They they gather a momentum of their own and and once something
55:55
starts, I mean, let. OK, It's it's it's mission
55:58
creep, isn't it? Yeah, it is.
55:59
It is got to be a classic example of that.
56:06
Yeah. Each year as the conflict went
56:08
on, more and more American troops were brought in until
56:12
they, you know, from the initial, what was it, 120,000?
56:16
I, I think we were up to 500,000.
56:20
And still that wasn't enough to deal with the conflict.
56:23
And Ukraine has got the opportunity where everything is
56:26
set in my mind in Ukraine to suck in many more troops than
56:31
that. And, and ultimately Western
56:35
troops are going to be up against an experienced army in
56:41
the field. And this this has huge
56:43
implications. It does.
56:44
And I and I think people, I think people should be more
56:47
concerned about it. I think this is sort of a fag
56:50
packet calculation, but I think in this country at the minute,
56:53
in the United Kingdom at the moment, I think that the
56:56
population, the male population between the ages of 18 and 41,
57:00
which were the conscripted ages in the Second World War, that's
57:03
about 10 million people. And I would say of those 10
57:08
million, very, very few are thinking that this could in any
57:11
way be a reality. But I'm afraid to say, I think
57:13
that it could absolutely be. And just we, we come towards the
57:18
end really. But one of the triggers for me
57:20
is that we've now got France and UK setting up the multi force
57:26
headquarters, which I think is going to be northward in London
57:31
with initially the Brits taking the lead but working with the
57:34
French. And clearly that's going to mean
57:38
more British and French military on the ground in Ukraine.
57:43
Now, of course, we're always told they're going to be there
57:45
for training and observing, but the reality is that they're
57:49
doing a lot more than that. They're going to be they're
57:53
going to be involved in the command, the battlefield command
57:56
and control chain in order to learn about the war that's been
58:02
conducted. And from the Russian point of
58:06
view, and I think it's a very reasonable point of view, if you
58:09
have Western troops, be it French, British, German,
58:13
whoever, it's going to be actually on the ground helping
58:17
the Ukrainians to conduct the combat, those troops become
58:22
legitimate targets. So I see that as we've now
58:25
stepped into, we're going to have this additional
58:29
headquarters in order to ramp up our military capability in
58:34
Ukraine. The risks of an HQ or a a cell
58:41
of Brits and French being taken out is is increases
58:45
dramatically. And then of course, should that
58:47
happen, the government here is going to say, Oh well, we were
58:50
attacked by the Russians, the nasty Russians, it's all their
58:54
fault. Now we need another 50,000
58:57
troops and, and this is, this is how it ramps up.
59:00
That's. Exactly.
59:01
Yeah, absolutely. It's exactly how it starts.
59:03
And and you know, and again, I mean, this is something that we
59:08
UK column have very much warned about and brought out into the
59:11
open, but how much regard people are paying it, I think not a
59:15
lot. At the moment, yeah.
59:17
At the moment, exactly. A message for the young people
59:21
who are going to be targeted by the government.
59:24
What would you? I'm going to say I know what I'd
59:27
be saying to them at the moment, but.
59:30
Think very hard, I would say. Think very hard about about why
59:37
things are as they are and where they might go, I'd say.
59:45
Absolutely right. You know, for me, I, I think
59:48
that good people will fight for their country when they perceive
59:53
that there's a real need to lay down their life for their
59:57
country and their communities and their families.
1:00:00
They, they will do it. But we're in an era now where
1:00:05
we're not even sure who we're fighting for.
1:00:07
Are we going to be fighting for the UK or are we fighting for
1:00:10
some joint French, European? Political objective this this is
1:00:16
where I say to these young people it's one thing to die in
1:00:21
order to protect your country and your family, but it's
1:00:25
another thing to be dying because of what some European
1:00:29
bureaucrat that's decided they want to expand the European
1:00:33
Union to include Ukraine. So I I'd be saying you want to
1:00:37
think very carefully, quite agree.
1:00:39
Yeah. We'll end there.
1:00:41
I think that's good. Charles, thank you very much for
1:00:45
joining me today. I look forward to the next one.
1:00:48
Thank you.