George Robertson, former NATO Secretary General who received a life peerage in 2000 as an award for his loyal work on behalf of the British Empire argues in a June 8 interview with Roland Oliphant, senior foreign correspondent for The Telegraph, that the Strategic Defence Review is really about preparing the British population for war with Russia over the long term. “Too many of the interviews I’ve had this week have been about the money,” he complained. Whereas actually this report fundamentally transforms the way in which we do defense.”
“It’s a strategic review, it is designed for 2035, not just for what we’re facing at the present moment,” Robertson says. “It’s to do with what we are going to need in future: agile forces, grasping the whole of technology, capturing the innovations that are coming. I think a lot of people have missed that.”
According to Oliphant, the review’s authors, who besides Robertson included General Sir Richard Barrons and Fiona Hill, argue that Britain’s Armed Forces remain shaped by the post Cold War era of small wars, far away, against irregular or poorly armed opponents. “Exquisite” capabilities have masked the “hollowing out” of the Armed Forces’ war fighting capability. Stockpiles are inadequate. The “strategic base lacks capacity and resilience following years of under investment. Medical services lack the capacity for managing a mass-casualty conflict.”
The Royal Air Force is called on to deliver deeper air and missile defence, expand its use of drones, and could be involved in “discussions with the United States and NATO on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced U.K. participation in NATO’s nuclear mission.”
But it’s really about militarizing the population. “We need to have a national conversation among the British people about your defence and security, how safe do people want to be, and what you are willing to pay in order to be properly safe,” says Robertson. “Our adversaries don’t believe in business as usual, and therefore what we are doing can’t be business as usual.”
Of course, the British people would be a lot safer if the royal establishment would stop its drive to provoke a nuclear war between the US and Russia, but the consequences of British geopolitical policy are never mentioned.
Oliphant adds his own endorsement to Robertson’s call for “sacrifice” by the population. “All of this will be useless without one crucial, but unquantifiable factor. Just as nuclear deterrence depends on the willingness of national leaders to use it, whole-of-society deterrence will only be as credible as our own—that is, ordinary people’s—willingness to endure hardship our enemies can inflict upon us,” he writes. “Those hardships will be enormous. Experience from Ukraine shows that full scale war involves electricity, water, and energy supplies being targeted. There will be shortages of fuel and possibly of food.”
