After the usual introductions, Sir Jock noted that among the vast range of topics he could choose to talk about on this occasion, it was necessary to be clear about what is what when talking about military plans and objectives. I started the conversation by pointing out. The underlying political vision that underpinned clearly measurable goals and indicators before they were established.
So began his pitch for Britain's “grand strategy” for the 21st century.
The core of his speech was that Britain, as a historical 'great power', has both the right and the responsibility, from the perspective of our own perceived 'national interest', to intervene in world affairs to protect the established order. This was an important premise. ”, and internationally if deemed necessary. In particular, he describes how Britain built its empire and its prosperity in trade and commerce, with a view to ensuring that Britain's relative economic advantage was maintained at all costs. He pointedly mentioned that he had a “primary directive.''
In this example, the 'national interest', taking all vertical angular momentum into account, has no direct relation to the actual general welfare of the British people themselves, but rather to the narrow and deep-rooted interests of self-perpetuating aristocratic families. It should be abundantly clear what you are doing. They own a political and economic system and deploy it for private ends, or, as Bernard Mandeville put it, “private vices, national interests.”
He spoke sharply about the rise of China, India, and to a lesser extent Russia as new economic powers that have upset the world's “balance of power.” This is not a surprising perspective for long-range military strategists, but the upper echelons of the British establishment, indoctrinated with Mackinder's geopolitics and the Venice policy as a basic sacred theology, are rooted in bestial hatred. It shows the type of thinking that is pervasive. pervasive humanityhobbesian worldview.
A direct reference to the recently released National Security Strategy white paper In this government-published book, he paints a picture of a world in which states will fail, societies, economies and climates will be disrupted on a global scale, and non-state actors will take up arms in an asymmetric war against NATO. , the establishment confirmed otherwise. All we know is that the entire Earth system is collapsing, but they're already planning it and even accepting it – after all, the Empire that Lord Jock and our forces are fighting against Our mortal enemy is self-defense. Clearly, the fait accompli of the plum-grabbing grandiose utopias and their vision of a new world order is that all nation-states, including the former United Kingdom, are failed states.
After an animated wet dream video of fake geopoliticians, the audience was bombarded with questions, the first of which came from the head of investment banking at Goldman Sachs. “What can we expect from the Obama administration in terms of foreign policy?'' Bringing down the Bush administration, but what impact will this have on the “special relationship''?''
Here, Jock wastes no time in explaining that, in his estimation, the “special relationship” has been affected by a change in administration and major policy initiatives that are now clearly almost a 180-degree reversal from those of the Bush administration. He said it was unlikely that the form would be affected. Consideration was already underway two years before the Obama administration took office. He specifically mentioned the decision to keep Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in the Pentagon as a strong indication of the degree of continuity between the two administrations.
These points aside, he was sufficiently insightful that any “special relationship” between the two countries would be based on common strategic objectives, and that the term “special partnership” would therefore be more appropriate. agreed. In the case of the United States, such “common strategic goals” are driven solely by the Anglo-American-dominated Wall Street faction and its economic interests, as opposed to the true fundamental national interests and historical mission of the American people. It will look like it's being emitted. as stated in declaration of independence. At least in this respect, he writes,war is a racketClearly, not much has changed in the 100 years that these tin soldiers have been plying their trade around the world under the cover of their own misguided brand of patriotism.
Given the recent events at the G20 meeting and certain reports currently underway; influence While we are not naive enough to say that the “special relationship” is over within the White House economic team, it is certainly under great tension in many quarters.area Strategic policy.
Other questions focused on:
In Russia, Lord Jock shared an anecdote from a personal conversation with Robert Gates, reportedly saying, “Some people say when you look into Putin's eyes, you see a man who can do business. “When I look into someone's eyes, I see that person,” he is said to have said. Killer”. Well, I think it takes a person to know that.
In Pakistan, a questioner asked whether Western countries should support groups seeking regime change. Here Jock deftly avoided commenting directly on such radical proposals, but pointedly noted the “very strong and active” connections that have continued from the Commonwealth era to the present day.
In Afghanistan, the focus is clearly on “Can we win the hearts of the Afghan people?” rather than “Can we defeat the Taliban?” is an issue of military and strategic policy, but of course there is no mention of the “hearts'' of the victims of the Opium Wars being waged around the world.
And finally, after almost an hour of starchy brass band flourishes, I ended up asking a two-part question.
“You stated that the EU is essentially “doing nothing” in international/NATO military matters, which is clearly not true. I don't know if you've had a chance to watch Congressman Peter Lilley's recent Bruges Group presentation on “The Death of Parliamentary Democracy,” but I highly recommend that you do.
Secondly, there are a lot of rumors that the British military is preparing for a “civilian emergency”. Is there any truth to these rumors?
In response, Sir Jock begins by rambling on about civil emergencies related to terrorist atrocities and natural disasters, and then goes on to say that although he has never heard of Peter Lilly's speech, He humbly admitted that he was going to watch it on my recommendation. I took the opportunity to challenge his “definition” of a “civil emergency,” as he cleverly reversed the order of my questions to deflect the opportunity for a counterattack from the more sensitive of the two. Not given, he began pretending to know nothing about the incident. Destroying the very country he claimed to be “protecting” and absorbing it into the EU dictatorship. Call me a cynic, but I call it confession by evasion.
In conclusion, Sir Jock is a seemingly fine, honest and honorable gentleman in the best traditions of the 'stiff-upper-lipped' military, but he is probably more of a politician than a soldier; Strategist and other person. Rather than being a strategist, he's more like a pawn in the great game of the 21st century, knowingly or unknowingly.
My advice to him is to stop messing around with politics and start thinking about how to win a major ground war in the European theater. how things are progressingwe may soon face it again before the decade is over. And the small matter of abandoning any crazy idea he might have of going along with Gordon Brown's fascist plan to enforce the Treaty of Lisbon by force from the muzzle of our own bloody armies!
