Non-'fiscally neutral' defence review is go, minister tells MPs A long-rumoured review of British defence spending will not be "fiscally neutral", Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson told Parliament this morning as he announced that it is going ahead. The review has been split out of an ongoing national security review headed up by the Prime Minister's National Security Adviser …
There is so much wrong in this statement, I do not know where to start.
1. Defence spending if done correctly is one of the biggest levers an economy can get. The sole reason we are where we are now is that the distinctly agricultural economy of USA changed in less than 4 years to be an industrialized giant during WW2. I can continue the examples for many pages, but let's put it as a given. PORK if used correctly is a great economic driver.
The main issue with British Defence spending PORK is that at present it feeds USA via an American company masquerading as British - BAE so it feeds people elsewhere.
If people had money there would have been no F**** need of social housing to start off with.
2. Schools. And Education in general. I am going to say one word - DARPA (especially in the 70-90es). Something we have repeatedly failed to imitate because once again, R&D contracts are not granted to educational institutions and true private enterprise, but is given to an offshoot of an American company masquerading as British called BAE under the name Quinetic so it feeds R&D elsewhere.
3... 4... 5... 6...
Then there is the other level of "wrong" in your statement. Sure, a lot of the trouble this country is chronically in is self-inflicted going back to the days of grand idiots like Mike Sykes, through to a whole sequence of modern lesser idiots like Blair, Cameron and Sir Andrew Wood. However, even if the foreign policies were perfect, we still live in a world where a country has to be able to defend itself. Even if UK foregoes projecting power (something it frankly cannot do except for comedy purposes) that still leaves having reasonable defence. If you do not have it you get social craters, not social housing, dead primary kids in schools and hospitals worthy of relocation to Aleppo.
"...an American company masquerading as British - BAE"
Funny... Here I am, sitting up the street from a major BAE USA installation, and we always joke about it being British and masquerading as American! They only appear so after having bought up the defense arm (United Defense, L.P.) of the genuinely-American Food Machinery Company (FMC). I didn't realize how much they had invested in that move and dwindled in the UK.
Aside from "UK" in the name, our own subsidiary doesn't pretend to be British; everyone knows the money flows stateside.
if you don't mind your wives and daughters sucking Russian cock at gunpoint.
Exactly because it is good to read history, the procedure known as "sucking Russian cock at gunpoint" is the conclusion of attacking them first. You can ask the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Polish, the Crimean Tatars, the Swedish, the French and the German for their recollections of that. The more you succeed initially the harder it is at the end. Again for a reference ask the Mongols and the Polish (as the only ones who have successfully conquered the Russian capital and HELD IT for a considerable period of time). The cases of Russians attacking someone first by comparison will be less than the fingers of one hand in the last 1000 years.
Now a lot of what Sir Andrew Wood defended and Blair's government financed and "freedom fighters" did there with OUR MONEY can be counted as an attack. However, on the balance of things, knowing how the Russians "tick", if we do not persist a retaliation is unlikely. There will be payback one day, but it will not be of "Farewell of the Slavic Woman" grade.
On the more serious topic - there is not just Russian cock out there. In fact, there are plenty of other significantly more likely "cocks" from parts of the world we have massively fucked up non-consensually (like the Middle East). Many times too. They are also much closer than one may think or so the history which you are referring to says. While Russians have never raided the British shores, the Barbary pirates collected slaves regularly from raids on coastal villages in the South of England and Wales as late as the 17th century. At gun and cutlass point.
"The cases of Russians attacking someone first by comparison will be less than the fingers of one hand in the last 1000 years.".
If you are British I assume you know British history well but "foreign" history not at all. Russia attacked Sweden 1808 and took half the country, the part called Finland now. Finland again was attacked twice during the last war starting in 1939. Then again one has to remember that war was a sport among Kings and Tsars earlier, To quote the Wiki - "From 1551 to 1700, Russia grew 35,000 km2 (about the size of the Netherlands) per year.".
Super powers become superpowers for fairy obvious reasons and it's a bit hard to find any exceptions and that goes for Britain too.
Not sure about your point actually and I agree with part of it although I must ask you about which Russian capital you are referring to.
But on the more serious topic, scrap Trident it's worthless.
This post has been deleted by its author
Russia attacked Sweden 1808
Sweden attacked Russia in: 1609, 1610, 1656, 1700, 1741, 1788. Some of these wars lasted for decades and scorch-eathed quarter of what was Russia in those days. Sweden only looks pacifist, cute and cuddly today.
It did everything it could to wind the bear up for a "Farewell of the Slavic Woman" modus operandi also known as "suck ... at gunpoint". For two centuries. And got it. Same story with the Crimean Tatars, just nearly 50 wars over 4 centuries, instead of 6.
It is one of the "fingers of one hand" cases I am referring to and even that is not something which counts as unprovoked by normal criteria. If we count just "Russia Proper" and NOT USSR the numbers are - twice with Sweden, the other one being 1590, a couple of times with Turkey like 1877 (in all other cases Turkey or its vassal states attacking first).
It is a good lesson in why bear bating (which is a national sport in some places in Europe) is a very contact sport (*).
Not sure about your point actually and I agree with part of it although I must ask you about which Russian capital you are referring to.
Polish held Moscow for two years - 1610-1612. This ended up with Poland disappearing off the map. Not immediately, nearly 150 years later, but revenge is a dish best served cold and the bear has a very long national memory. Mongols destroyed Russia as a state raising Vladimir which was the capital at the time until Moscow emerged as a new capital 200 years later. That resulted in Russia putting itself as a national goal to remove them. Literally. Something they diligently worked on for 300 years.
(*)Stalin who WAS NOT RUSSIAN and USSR is a different story - Finland twice, splitting Europe with Hitler, etc.
Sweden attacked Russia in...
Sweden and Russia were both enthusiastic member of the Game of Empires club. Russia (under Ivan IV) had designs on forming a Baltic Empire encompassing Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania et. al.
In 1590, Russia under Boris Gudenov invaded Swedens holdings in mainland Europe (mostly Lithuania and Estonia) in order to take them for Russia (in order to bring the Baltic Empire into being).Russia had previously taken over the Principalities of Novgorod and Pskov (as well as various Kaghanates) - places that had never been owned by Russia.
So your view is somewhat one-sided - Sweden invaded 'Russia' in response to Russia taking chuncks of Swedish territory.
As I said, both countries (and Denmark, France, the German territories like Prussia and Austria and Britain) were all playing the game of empires and wars of invasion and counter-invasion were common. It was most certainly not a case of "poor little Russia" being invaded by big bad Sweden.
the conclusion of attacking them first. You can ask the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Polish
Of course, none of the countries round about have ever been invaded by Russia have they? Apart of course from Finland (twice), the various Asian SSRs, Georgia, Crimea, Afganistan etc etc.
It's also worth pointing out that much of Eastern Europe *was* invaded and conquered by the USSR during and after WW2.
The West is no better but trying to portray Russia as almost always the target of aggression is disingenuous and just plain wrong.
"Yes, it's a white elephant—if you don't mind your wives and daughters sucking Russian cock at gunpoint."
This is just repeating propaganda without even looking to see if it has any validity.
Warfare became mechanised in the early 20th century and since then it has become possible to get a good idea of a nation's military intentions by looking at the combination of its geography and how it militarily equips itself.
In this respect Russia has land-borders with many other countries, each of which represents a potential route for invasion and in consequence of this it has needed to equip itself for defense along those borders, the extent of those borders dictating the size of its defensive forces. It is thus well equipped for land operations on adjoining territory. However, unless it has an excess of military forces, offensive operations against adjoining nations would leave a weakness elsewhere.
At the end of WW2, the USSR did have an excess of military forces (as the war had ended) and so used them to 'widen' its borders to improve its defense. This in turn though, lengthened its defensive border, which absorbed the excess. Thus, once the Cold War had started, the USSR never really had the capability to invade the 'West'.
In terms of how it has militarily equipped itself, warfare is now is all about dominance of the air and whilst Russia has very good airborne military capabilities it not able to project them very far beyond its land-borders - for that you need a workable number of aircraft carrier battle groups.
In comparison with Russia, and the USSR before it, the US is virtually an island as its two land-borders account for less than a third of its boundaries and as a consequence, and unlike Russia, the US doesn't need extensive defensive forces.
The US has, nevertheless, equipped itself not only with a large standing army, an air force that has a large focus upon long-range bombers and a Navy that has more aircraft carrier battle groups than the rest of the world combined. This has not been done for defense.
the trend of British defence spending since the end of the Cold War Correction this has been ongoing since the end of WWI in real terms the defence budget has been cut significantly and its hamstringing or forces.
Also the Government Procurement of the much delayed F-35 and its mounting cost is taking considerable budget for useful stuff like fuel for ships and tanks and pay for people to man them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
