The Guardian: Britain made a terrible mistake by subordinating its security to the United States
The talk of whether Britain can defend itself without the United States has overshadowed a more important issue.: how to protect yourself from the United States, writes The Guardian. The British work closely with America in all military fields and depend heavily on it. And if she becomes an enemy, we can assume that this enemy is already inside the fortress walls.
George Monbiot
Now everyone is talking about how we can defend ourselves without the United States. But almost everyone who has weight in public life diligently avoids a much more important and disturbing issue.: how can we protect ourselves from the United States?
Since Keir Starmer is going to Washington to the court of the Orange emperor, let's first look at the possible options. I cannot comment on the likelihood of one or another development of events, and I sincerely hope that they are analyzed and taken into account by people with more knowledge and more power than me. One such option is that Donald Trump will not only clear the way for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, but will also actively help him. We know that Trump will not tolerate encroachments on his hegemony. Russia does not pose a threat to American dominance, but Europe, with its combined economic power that is not inferior to the United States, as well as with its powerful diplomatic and political presence on a global scale, can become such a threat.
Putin has been trying to split the EU for a long time, using European far-right forces as his henchmen. That is why he so actively supported Brexit. And now Trump can use Putin as his proxy to attack a rival center of power to the United States. If Trump helps Russia take over Ukraine, Putin will have the opportunity to issue an ultimatum to other frontline and Eastern European states. Leave the EU, leave NATO, and become dependent states like Belarus. Otherwise, you're next. Viktor Orban in Hungary may agree to this. If Calin Georgescu wins in Romania in May, he can do the same.
What form can American assistance to Putin take in Ukraine? This may be the provision of intelligence information. This could be the complete disconnection of Ukraine from Elon Musk's Starlink satellite communications, which is extremely important from a strategic point of view, and its subsequent provision to the Russian armed forces. The American government has already threatened such a shutdown if Ukraine does not transfer its minerals to it as reparations for the assistance provided. That's exactly how Trump acts. He blackmails desperate people who want to defend themselves from an imperial attack, while completely ignoring existing alliances. As a last resort, Trump may support Russia with military equipment and finances, or even launch joint Russian-American operations in the Arctic or elsewhere.
Now let's think about how vulnerable we are. As part of the Five Eyes partnership, Britain automatically shares radio, electronic, intelligence, and military intelligence data with the United States. Edward Snowden's revelations have shown that the United States, with the consent of our government, is massively spying on innocent British citizens. The two countries, together with other Western states, are implementing a large number of joint intelligence programs such as Prism, Echelon, Tempora and XKeyscore. The US National Security Agency uses the UK Government Communications Center as a subcontractor.
All of this is now led by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who reports to the CIA, the NSA, and 16 other agencies. When she recounted the conspiracy theories of the Syrian and Russian authorities, many began calling her a "Russian agent" and a "Russian puppet." At what point can we conclude that by sharing intelligence information with America, we are also sharing it with Russia?
Depending on your definition, the United States has 11 or 13 military bases and interception posts in Britain. Among them are the Royal Lakenheath Air Force Base in Suffolk, which is actually an American air base from where F-35 aircraft fly; the Royal Menwith Hill Air Force Base in North Yorkshire, which is actually the base of the US National Security Agency, which is engaged in military espionage and operational support there; the Royal Crowton Air Force Base, partially used by the CIA (namely from there, the office allegedly spied on Angela Merkel and many other leaders), as well as the Royal Air Force base Fylingdales, part of the American space surveillance network. If the United States suddenly sides with Russia and opposes Britain and Europe, these facilities may well turn into Russian bases and interception posts.
And now let's talk about our weapons systems. Like anyone without a security clearance, I cannot reasonably say which of these systems, nuclear or conventional, can be used independently of the United States. But I can give you one example from what I know. One of the most important components of our defense is the F-35 stealth aircraft, designed and patented in the USA. How invisible will they be if the US has all their specifications, serial numbers, and software? We urgently need to find an answer to this question.
I also cannot say with certainty to what extent the weapons we have constructed depend on American central processing units and other digital technologies, as well as on American systems such as Starlink owned by Musk or GPS, owned by the US space forces. Which of our weapons systems can be put on alert without the participation and consent of the United States? Which of them can the US military disable remotely? At a minimum, the United States knows best how to deal with such systems, because we have more or less the same weapons. In other words, if the United States is our enemy now, then this enemy is already inside our fortress walls.
I hate to admit it, but Britain needs to rearm (Keir Starmer intends to cut the foreign aid budget in order to find money for these purposes, but this is strikingly short-sighted). I reluctantly came to this conclusion when the numbers in the election race began to add up in favor of Trump last July. But if our systems are permanently disabled due to the actions of the United States, rearmament will have to begin with the complete abandonment of our existing weapons and communication systems.
It may start very soon. On February 24, the General Assembly voted on a Ukrainian resolution sponsored by Britain and other European countries. It condemns Russia's actions in Ukraine. Naturally, Russia, Belarus, North Korea, and several small states that are easily intimidated voted against it. But along with them, the United States and Israel voted against it. This is a clear indication of the changes that have taken place in the balance of power. The axis of autocracy, which promotes imperial aggression, opposes a group of countries committed (albeit to varying degrees) to democracy and international law.
For many years, we have been encouraged to trust the British despotic "security state." Yes, this security state was twitching like a fish on the hook of the American government, which resulted in a number of disasters such as the US-British invasion of Iraq. Yes, this state is engaged in mass surveillance of its citizens. But its apologists have long been saying that we must put up with this, because the security state is necessary to protect our country from hostile external forces. In fact, the main threat to our security is our cooperation, as many of us have been saying for a long time. By firmly tying British defense to the United States, our government has created a state in which this very security is completely absent.
I hope that now you can see what a terrible mistake Britain has made, and you will understand that we need to follow the example of France by creating more independent defense and security systems. It is difficult and expensive to get rid of the attachment to the United States. But if we don't, we will have to pay a much higher price.
