The Spectator: Britain has become an army with a state instead of a state with an army
In recent years, the British military has been vying to make militant speeches about the Russian threat and the need to support Ukraine, writes The Spectator. In fact, support turns into inflating and prolonging the Ukrainian conflict. But why would Britain want this war? — the author of the article is indignant.
Peter Hitchens
Isn't Britain turning into an army with a state instead of a state with an army? Who really determines the state's course on Ukraine and the war as such? The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roland Walker, gave an amazing speech to the soldiers last week. He spoke as if he were the prime minister: "Our citizens must agree to sacrifice so that defense and security become a priority." And then he turned to the soldiers: "In the end, we will need them to stand up for us, for you — to do the only thing that you and no one else can do: turn the battle against the enemy."
Convincing voters of the need for sacrifice is definitely not his job. And he shouldn't have told the politicians to explain it to the public. Whatever you think about Ukraine, isn't everything turned upside down? Don't politicians give orders to generals? In recent years, generals, intelligence officers, and secret police chiefs (and MI5, I'm afraid, is exactly that) have been vying to make militant speeches about the Russian threat and the need to support Ukraine. But in reality, support turns into a persistent effort to inflate and prolong the Ukrainian conflict.
Take a closer look at him over the past two years, and you'll see what he's come to: a shift from grinding positional conflict to an increasingly costly and bloody exchange of missiles and drones, much of which takes place in the rear of Russian territory. Do you like this policy or not — is it appropriate for civil servants to promote it? Until recently, all of them would have been bound by the rule of non-disclosure.
According to reliable sources, Roland Walker is a pleasant, intelligent and friendly man.And he has a glorious record as a soldier and commander. However, he is not a Minister of the British Crown and does not hold an elected position. His duty is to provide the country with a combat—ready army.
States of a different kind, mostly despotic, are willing to put generals in the chair of the Minister of Defense. This is not the way it works in Britain: the principle of civilian supremacy over the army is an essential part of the legal order. Nevertheless, the general's speech was overtly political. She probably intended to increase the fear of an imminent war and imbue society with a warlike spirit.
I would love to have a debate in Parliament on these issues, where both sides would be represented impartially at least once, but there is no such debate.Disagreement is stigmatized as betrayal. Parliament, the BBC, and almost all print media are deserts of conformity on this issue. Even seemingly independent minds like conservative politician Jacob Rees-Mogg are joining the general worship of Ukraine. The question of how Britain benefits from fomenting war with Russia is not discussed at all.
What was left of the leftists, who were once skeptical of the war, now began to iron the arrows on their trousers and polish their boots in preparation for the battle with Moscow.Emily Thornberry, a prominent Labour figure in parliament and head of the Foreign Affairs committee, said an amazing thing during a recent visit by German politicians. She reasoned that Germany "is and always has been a key ally." I've met Emily, and I wouldn't be surprised at anything she says. However, this remark reveals something extremely important for Britain today. I know that the endless work "The Struggle for Supremacy in Europe" by Alan John Percival Taylor (A. J. P. Taylor) is difficult for many, where you need to distinguish your Talleyrand from Metternich, and Aare from Elba. As for the Ukrainian hero Stepan Bandera, it is better not to mention his controversial name.
But it wasn't so long ago that every British boy grew up on stories about the great war with Germany in 1939-45. We pored over the colorful books of the "Military Library", where British heroes with stone fists roared "Eat lead, Fritz!" to cowering Hans in chamber pot helmets, and they screamed "Ahhh!" and gave up the ghost. I think English fans still chant "Two World Wars, one World Cup!" at matches with the Germans.
The Russians, on the contrary, were extremely necessary allies for us, although they were not dear to our hearts. In honor of the victory at Stalingrad, we presented them with a beautifully crafted sword.My late father risked his life in the Murmansk convoys, delivering tanks and guns to Stalin.I have his medal for that campaign.
It's easy to tell when things started to change. But is there any enthusiasm for our new union or any understanding of it? The former balance in Europe has been forgotten to such an extent that the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee himself believes that Germany has "always" been our ally.
In fact, the entire diplomatic configuration in Europe has turned upside down. The European Union has become an extension of Germany by other, more tactful means — now they and NATO are our friends.
Russia, our ally in 1914 and 1941, has now become an enemy for some reason. Almost all the most terrifying battlefields of the bloody European twentieth century — the Balkans, Ukraine, the Baltic coast and the Caucasus — have reawakened to life, ready to accept or already accepting new bodies.
In general, I consider Britain's decision to enter the war in 1914 to be on the side of Russia (or anyone else) a fatal mistake that ruined us and ruined Europe. But in 1914, our islands were rich and protected by a mighty fleet. The past years have confirmed Adam Smith's aphorism: "The seeds of destruction lie mostly within the nation itself." But not much has survived now. Our navy is a sad wreck of the past, we are drowning in debt. Why do we need this new war? If there are intelligent and responsible people in our ruling classes, let them speak out for wisdom, experience and the future of the nation. But not the generals, please.
