Defence

2021-12-30

The CIB (Campaign for an Independent Britain) makes some pertinent comment on Russia's request for involvement in discussions regarding the situation in eastern Europe and the Ukraine.

They set the proposal in its proper historical context:

"Ambassador LEONIDAS CHRYSANTHOPOULOS, a distinguished member of his country’s diplomatic service who now campaigns for Greek independence from the EU, here lays out the assurances which the Western powers gave to Russia in 1990 when it withdrew from East Germany and the other Warsaw Pact countries which had been in alliance with the Soviet Union"

"Ambassador Chrysanthopoulos makes a plea for NATO and the EU to halt their relentless Eastern expansion"

"What the Russian Federation is actually proposing is what Moscow was promised by the West in 1990 in order to agree to the reunification of Germany"

A

2021-11-28

Brexit Watch brings us up to date with the latest "defence" news from the EU.

Since the UK left the EU we are not formally part of PESCO, but the door is left ajar for states that wish to participate - on the EU's terms or course.

"The latest projects... include aerial drones, naval surface drones, space assets, space asset protection and a platform for EU Member States to rebuild the military institutions of non-EU states"

"2025 is also the year targeted as the date by which the EU achieves what it calls a ‘Fully Fledged Defence Union"

Since "the Donald" told the NATO nations to contribute their fair share to the NATO costs, the EU has been busy building its own military capability. After all, if you have to pay for it, you should retain control of it - and the EU has built dual-purpose forces that can be deployed either under the NATO

2021-10-10

Admiral SIr Tony Radakin was accused of "undermining a Royal Marines Major General" according to the Daily Mail.

"His appointment as Chief of the Defence Staff came days after the death of Major General Matt Holmes, 54. The former Commandant General of the Marines was found dead at his family home in Winchester, Hampshire, on Saturday. There were no suspicious circumstances"

It would seem from the Mail's account that there was little love remaining to be lost between these two officers.

The Mail reports "A directive from Sir Tony's office included a gagging order banning the Marines officer from discussing key issues with colleagues, including the commander of the US Marine Corps". 

Why on earth would a high-ranking Major-General be prohibited from discussing matters military with US colleagues? It would seem that the prohibition possibly related to matters

2021-08-10

Few Brexit supporters who have monitored the seemingly ever-closer "defence" arrangements between the UK and the EU military post-Brexit (under both Mrs May and the Boris) will be surprised by this article on the Brexit Watch site - the only real surprise is how long it has taken to manifest.

It has been a pretty safe assumption since the early days that the civil servants were in fact driving the agenda, pulling the various Defence Ministers (and others) along in their slip-stream, willingly or unwillingly.

Now the "Brexit Watch Team" has published their investigation into the role of one Angus Lapsley in these post-Brexit shenanigans, and interesting reading it makes:

"...there is no such thing as a single error in the loss of secret intelligence, because many

2021-06-20

Man interfaced with AI? Robot humans? Hyper-Intelligent Humans?

This document is offered by a government web-site and I make no comment about it one way or another - except to say that some sort of "human augmentation" is definitely coming down the track towards us and if we do not or cannot understand it we will be unable to control it.

Note that there are copyright and usage restrictions to this documentation, which seem incompatible with its publication on the general internet. I assume that this is a simple oversight, but I may be wrong.

Almost inevitably, it seems that augmentation is first and foremost being driven by the military - no great surprise there but maybe it tells us something about the priorities of those who rule over us. Or it could just illustrate that the military are of necessity our

2021-05-25

That our politicians are toying with the notion that our armed forces should be "greened" has always struck me as an absurdity worthy of propagation within our ranks by our most committed enemy. After all, in a dog-eats-dog fight to the finish, all our people, systems, and forces will be strained to their very limits, and often beyond. Shouting that "my tanks are greener than yours" isn't going to cut it.

That such an obvious truth should need to be stated is pretty worrying. That it is not being stated loud and clear by our government is cause for dismay, to put it politely.

That is not to say that "greening" has no place whatsoever, just to emphasise that its place is down at the very bottom of the heap unless there are other more important associated reasons that might pull something up the priority list.

Veterans for Britain seem to have concluded that the

2021-04-26

After many years of defence cuts and the strategic reviews that led to them, Britain is back . . .

Reports in the press confirm that we will send a "carriier strike group" to far eastern waters (albeit with a little help from our friends).

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace:

"When our Carrier Strike Group sets sail next month, it will be flying the flag for Global Britain - projecting our influence, signalling our power, engaging with our friends and reaffirming our commitment to addressing the security challenges of today and tomorrow"

Sky News has the story.

I hope they will leave us enough boats to defend our fishing grounds, not to mention that invisible line down the middle

2021-03-31

UKIP's Defence spokesman Lieutenant-General Jonathon Riley writing in Conservative Woman reviews China's geopolitical stance, and he paints a concerning picture.

"There is little point in the West trying to deal with China as if she were another democratic or even old-style communist state"

"... military consequences will be determined by who can employ them. Principally, this is the US and certainly not the hollowed-out British armed forces"

It may be worth mentioning that the only reason that the US is in pole position is that President Trump spent a lot of money on brining the US armed forces up to scratch - it remains to be seen how the new

2021-03-19

Robert David Steele is a prolific ideas man and there seem to be few important subjects that have not caught his attention. Here he takes an external look at where he sees NATO could go by 2040.

I'm not a military man but nor are our parliamentarians, who seem content to simply let the boffins get on with it - but we have seen where that approach has led us in the Covid arena, and the idea that similar thinking could hold sway within NATO strategic planning is frankly horrifying, so I think a different approach is required.

Maybe this is it, maybe we should do something differently, but I do think we would be very foolish not to take an interest.

Download the

2021-03-18

UK Column News of 7th March has a pertinent section on how NATO is developing to effect an amicable merger with EU Military Union - the question being whether this will alter the nature of the arrangements for better or for worse.

The UK of course is "committed to NATO" as the cornerstone of our defence policy, so perhaps we are seeing how the Brexit process is being allowed (or not) to change the direction of our military development.

Boris has now conducted an "integrated" review of our defence needs for the future, and as always UK Column has the story:

Like / Dislike this video here.

2021-02-25

Now that the UK has "left the EU" our defence policy is as opaque as ever, and our defence budget will no doubt now be more stretched than ever given the predations of government policy in response to Covid.

So whither now our armed forces, and in particular, the army?

Adrian Hill writing for Briefings for Britain outlines some draft proposals for maintaining our fighting capability whilst significantly reducing manpower costs but maintaining numbers - a fine trick if it could be pulled off!

He sensibly contrasts the UK approach with the techniques adopted by other countries, and concludes that we have much to learn if only we had the will to do so.

Read all about

2020-12-02

David Banks writing for Brexit Watch reviews the current state of our "withdrawal" from EU defence initiatives, and finds the usual ambiguity (some might think disparity) about our military relationship with the EU post-"Brexit".

Of course, a military relationship doesn't just cover troop and equipment deployments, it must also cover inter-operability, common specifications, procurement and defence contractors.

If we can't manufacture our own arms and equipment then we will be beholden to the EU for such supplies - which could therefore be withheld in the event of policy differences. In any case, what chance do we think UK defence contractors would have of being chosen by the EU to supply their needs? In the short term they might have little option in specific areas but longer-term contracts could be progressively withheld until our defence industries

2020/11/19

David Ellis reporting today on defence matters for UK Column.

He helps us understand terms such as Skynet, Space Operations and Multi Domain Integration. He also brings us up to date with the European Defence Union . . .

Like / Dislike this video here.

I think David is right that if the US is going to join forces with the EU then NATO is dead, long live Defence Union.

On the other hand I can't see the US wanting to play second fiddle in the command structure, so Defence Union will be a different beast. How different?

Well, who will be the next US President?

If Biden scrapes in then

2020/11/18

Brexit Watch publishes a "drains-up" assessment of misunderstandings (and misinformations?) concerning the UK's commitments to EU Defence Union post Brexit.

Are they being hyper-sensitive when there is "nothing to see here"? Or are elements of "our" government machine still manoeuvring to keep our MPs and the public and maybe even our ministers in the dark over the future of our armed forces?

The fact that there would seem to be a continuing news black-out about our post-Brexit military relationship with the EU (a topic which has always been excluded from the "Brexit negotiations") may tell those of us who harbour suspicions all we need to know.

If even some of these assertions are true then surely this amounts to criminal fraud on a grand scale?

...

2020/10/28

Brexit Watch notes a Reuters report that our government has "told the EU that the UK will not participate in EU military missions". 

Fake News? or Welcome News? If the latter then it is likely highly significant and breaks with a long tradition of speaking of independence whilst acting as if dependent in military and foreign policy matters.

But as yet it is only a report . . .    is it based on an authoritative announcement?

As Brexit Watch remarks, there are many implications to this, so we await developments before booking our post Brexit post Covid post Life-on-Earth celebrations .