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