His Majesty’s Loyal Sabre
Funny how people change, isn’t it?
That sounds a lot to us like “Bombs Not Bairns”.
We watched the first episode of “The Wargame” at 2am this morning (it’s toe-curlingly bad, shot like a soft-focus corporate promo with three-second cuts, constant dramatic music and the politicians delivering wooden press-conference soundbites rather than any sense of what an actual high-tension COBRA meeting would sound like).
And one of the things that leaps right out at you is how much Sturgeon yearns to control armed forces, rather than just piddling around with schools and hospitals and potholes in a devolved administration. She’s clearly thrilled to even be PRETENDING to be in the British government with the boys and girls from the big school.
But her remaining diehard fanbase in the SNP will surely be at least a little disturbed to hear her talk in the interviews for the show.
Firstly, this isn’t actually true. The incident in June involved a Russian frigate firing WARNING shots NEAR a yacht. (It was only 500 yards away, so it was unlikely to have missed if it had been firing ON them.)
But we digress.
When UK politicians regularly bleat that we need to spend more money on defence – and we’re currently in the middle of one such propaganda onslaught, of which “The Wargame” is a part – they’re never very clear on precisely who or what it is that the country needs defending AGAINST.
Russia clearly isn’t mounting a land or sea attack on the UK any time soon. (And nor is anyone else.) It’s been stuck in a stalemate against Ukraine for almost half a decade, at a catastrophic cost in lives and materiel, and as a result is very poorly-placed to be attempting to advance any further west. Nobody sane expects any sort of definitive military outcome to the war in the foreseeable future.
Nevertheless, Sturgeon warns that “the UK’s conventional defences” are lacking, and she’s clear to draw a distinction between those and its nuclear ones.
But if you’re going to have a war with Russia, mass destruction is the only kind of destruction that’s any use. “The Wargame” itself makes the point very early on that the UK’s conventional forces would be burned up in a matter of days in a shooting war with the Russians. (Ukraine’s military is 6-8 times larger than the UK’s.)
In WW2 the Soviet Union absorbed unimaginable losses during Operation Barbarossa. At its peak the Nazi invasion occupied almost 700,000 square miles of Soviet territory, and around 7 million Soviet troops were killed or captured from the start of the invasion in June 1941 to the German surrender at Stalingrad in February 1943.
And as the USSR eventually won that battle, it follows that you need to hurt Russia more than that if you want to win a war against it, and nuclear weapons are the only way you even have a chance of achieving that aim, or of dissuading them from trying in the first place.
(For the avoidance of doubt, Wings is very much NOT advocating a nuclear war, or any other kind of war, with Russia – merely pointing out that if you’re saying Russia is your military enemy, “conventional” forces aren’t going to cut the mustard.)
But then Sturgeon says something really weird.
The only possible rational interpretation of that paragraph is that she’s talking about “covert” warfare here – cyber attacks and so on. But an aircraft carrier is no more use against a cyber attack than a nuclear submarine is, so why’s she rattling on about conventional armed forces?
In truth Sturgeon is just saying what she’s been told to say to please the right-wing militarist lobby that’s currently demanding a big hike in defence spending – and, since government funds are finite, usually a corresponding reduction in welfare spending.
You can’t spend the same money on bombs AND bairns, after all.
The SNP has always had a hawkish faction, usually personified by former Glasgow MP Stewart McDonald.
But Sturgeon always shunned it publicly, leaning on the SNP’s well-worn slogan.
Now that she’s left office under something of a cloud and scuttled off to London without securing the grand European quango job she hankered after, though, and needs a source of income until her chunky First Minister pension kicks in, all that’s out the window and it’s “Britain needs more tanks and fighter jets and battleships, actually”.
But then, we suppose all that high-level protection comes at a price.
Agent Sturgeon would certainly be best placed to defend mother England from the Orcs. Wouldn’t take much to perfect the Shir Shaun accent either.
Plus, doing a number on Salmond and Murrell would surely qualify her for Double-Oh status?
British Bulldog china mugs all round I’d say, what-what!
“the USSR eventually won that battle”
Helped by enormous gifts of material and money from the Yanks. Plus a second front on the ground, and a third front in the air (the bomber offensive) from the Allies for the Germans to contend with.
Helped too by intelligence from the Brits, who by tipping off Mos cow that the Japs had no intention of invading the USSR from the east, freed up Soviet armies for transfer to the west to fight the Germans.
Any country wishing to win a war in 2026 needs stockpiles of around a million throwaway drones plus a million capable drone interceptors. Plus the industrial capacity to churn out tens of thousands per month of both.
So by that measure neither the UK nor Scotland could do anything other than unconditionally surrender if we found ourselves attacked without allies willing to help us.
As for “Benefits, not Defence”, without the latter there won’t be any former.
I would say Sturgeon is doing no more than stating the truths no politician can ever state while in office, if they are subject to the whims of an ill-educated, unsophisticated, not very bright electorate.
Also, any politician who has held high office experiences a sea change in attitudes, knowing that he/she is a target for liquidation in a way the average voter never is.
Decapitate the snake and all that.
More brilliant journalism from Stu, cutting through the keech in the MSM and delivering the hard facts on multiple fronts.
No surprise really, Agent Nicla is very much ‘establishment’ and like the other Fabians will be shilling for Mair Dakka to feed the ravenous Waaaaaagh! musheen (which, ironically, the Fabian warmongers have been systematically dismantling for the past 35 years).
Like Global Warming, national debt/deficit, the EU, the Coof etc it’s the political Flavour Of The Month and it will all go away after a few months and be replaced with another political plaything to occupy their miniscule attention spans, leaving the rest of the country to continue its decay into liquid jobbies.
Thatcher doesn’t get a look in. What an evil piece. I sincerely hope that Paul gets to the truth and brings the whole lot down.
Not everything is about Thatcher, unless you’re the early ’90s Ben Elton whose repertoire largely consisted of his shouting “Fatcher!” in a stupid voice. Maybe that was why he was so crap?
I note that she says she hopes that the show “..sparks a debate about whether the country is properly prepared.” I wonder which country she means?
The first responsibility of any government is defence of the realm.
This is whether it is Scotland, the UK or any other country, everything comes second to defending the country as a duty for the government.
Government funds are not finite
Having moved to London she will be concerned about the possibility of her new home being nuked.
All this lends substantive support to the belief that she was «mole»
How many more are there?
Could be Holyrood is full of them.