In the past especially the Blair years, the UK was seen as the USA's puppet being dragged into any and all of their conflicts even against UN recommendations.
During that time period we were part of the EU with the capability to fall back on our relationships there in the event of us opposing the US viewpoint.
Now that we are no longer to be part of that community and it appears destined to have an increasingly interlocked relationship with the US whilst still be very much the junior partner (maybe even more so?) where does this leave us.
Do the events of 2016 leave us irretrievably dependent upon the USA for trade and political partnerships.
Someone to think about however you feel about Trump.
Friday 20 January 2017
Wednesday 21 December 2016
I Hate Feminism (Opinion)
What is Extremism? It is a word being bandied around at leisure in recent years and is something we need to understand.
The most obvious example at the moment would be "Islamic Extremists". It is a phrase used by people who (and this bit is important) claim that there actions are due to their devotion to Islam and against those who are seen to decry Islamic beliefs. Their actions are aggressive, terrorist based with little legitimate backing either by an internationally viewed government or by the majority of Islamic religious figures.
And yet it is not this bloodthirsty, stand alone viewpoint we focus on but the fact that they claim to be Muslims. This then leads to the vile racist behaviour we see on our streets (either directly or on the news).
It is a viewpoint which is transmitted to the masses and used as a battlecry around campaigns to "get rid of Johnny Foreigner". The Brexit campaign was (as I have previously stated) an appalling campaign based on lies and the leave (for economic/sovereignty reasons) campaign (in my opinion) did not do sufficient to distance itself from those who were just using it as an excuse to close borders and promote racist language (and indeed attacks) - something which multiplied in the days/weeks after the result.
All that both "extreme" views have managed to do is to enable mistrust and separate us along lines of nationality and race - something which I genuinely had hoped we were starting to see the back of.
But do we see the same thing in other extremist viewpoints. Let us use Feminism as an example. On similar lines to racism, the differentiation of individuals based upon their gender has gone on for millennia. This is obviously wrong, men and women should be treated equally with equal opportunities to all. Again though we need to clarify. Equally does not mean the same. If we were to treat everyone the same, children's bedrooms would have no individuality, female toilets would have urinals in them (after all should women not have the choice to stand whilst peeing?).
I like being a gentleman; standing up to allow an older person to sit on the bus instead of me is clearly the right thing to do. I would always allow a woman to get off first - is this sexism? Holding the door, offering to buy a drink - are these honourable acts or seeing a woman as being unequal?
So what I guess I am trying to say is that I hate that there are these extremist views out there - but I understand. For too long minorities (does the female gender count as a minority when they make up roughly half of the population?) have been mistreated and because of this with increasing freedom they want to have their voices heard and so they feel the need to shout - I just wish it wasn't so.
I leave you with a few questions to ask yourself.
Is positive discrimination a good/bad thing?
Do we treat people with equality or the same?
Does shouting make lasting changing - or is change more effective in a controlled environment?
Feedback appreciated.
The most obvious example at the moment would be "Islamic Extremists". It is a phrase used by people who (and this bit is important) claim that there actions are due to their devotion to Islam and against those who are seen to decry Islamic beliefs. Their actions are aggressive, terrorist based with little legitimate backing either by an internationally viewed government or by the majority of Islamic religious figures.
And yet it is not this bloodthirsty, stand alone viewpoint we focus on but the fact that they claim to be Muslims. This then leads to the vile racist behaviour we see on our streets (either directly or on the news).
It is a viewpoint which is transmitted to the masses and used as a battlecry around campaigns to "get rid of Johnny Foreigner". The Brexit campaign was (as I have previously stated) an appalling campaign based on lies and the leave (for economic/sovereignty reasons) campaign (in my opinion) did not do sufficient to distance itself from those who were just using it as an excuse to close borders and promote racist language (and indeed attacks) - something which multiplied in the days/weeks after the result.
All that both "extreme" views have managed to do is to enable mistrust and separate us along lines of nationality and race - something which I genuinely had hoped we were starting to see the back of.
But do we see the same thing in other extremist viewpoints. Let us use Feminism as an example. On similar lines to racism, the differentiation of individuals based upon their gender has gone on for millennia. This is obviously wrong, men and women should be treated equally with equal opportunities to all. Again though we need to clarify. Equally does not mean the same. If we were to treat everyone the same, children's bedrooms would have no individuality, female toilets would have urinals in them (after all should women not have the choice to stand whilst peeing?).
I like being a gentleman; standing up to allow an older person to sit on the bus instead of me is clearly the right thing to do. I would always allow a woman to get off first - is this sexism? Holding the door, offering to buy a drink - are these honourable acts or seeing a woman as being unequal?
So what I guess I am trying to say is that I hate that there are these extremist views out there - but I understand. For too long minorities (does the female gender count as a minority when they make up roughly half of the population?) have been mistreated and because of this with increasing freedom they want to have their voices heard and so they feel the need to shout - I just wish it wasn't so.
I leave you with a few questions to ask yourself.
Is positive discrimination a good/bad thing?
Do we treat people with equality or the same?
Does shouting make lasting changing - or is change more effective in a controlled environment?
Feedback appreciated.
Wednesday 19 October 2016
Is the Baltic a Russian Lake?
This technically is not a quotation. However I saw an article about the Russian's deploying short range ballistic missiles1 to Kaliningrad. The Iskander-M system2 launches two SS-26 "Stone" missiles which carry a number of defensive countermeasures and most worryingly are nuclear capable.
This, combined with numerous articles with regards developments in the Black Sea (including the Russian "occupation" of the Crimea) got me thinking about what the Russian's mindset3 is over these areas. Now the Black Sea has had a lot of attention with regards to this recently (understandably so with the motions turning hot4, but I want to look at something different and about an area I know a little more about (although admittedly not a huge amount). So the question I ask is;
The Baltic Sea is a mostly enclosed body of water with its only natural entry point through the Danish islands in the west through the Kattegat. It is enclosed (From North Clockwise) by Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast (A Russian Enclave), Poland, Germany and Denmark. There are numerous islands - some of which are of significant size such as Gotland (Sweden) and/or strategic value such as the Aland Islands (Finland).
The very enclosed nature means we can look at it as an isolated issue - although clearly it strongly links to events on the land within Europe such as NATO deployments in Poland.
Russian Strategy
The Russians have two access points to the Baltic for its fleet to operate from; St. Petersburg and its enclave in Kaliningrad. Accordingly it also has two obvious main strategic aims (although clearly there may be more going on behind closed doors).
Firstly Russia wants to keep the sea lane routes to Saint Petersburg open to maximise its trade going in and out of its second city with three major seaports serving the area.
On the other hand the Soviet Union and indeed Russian Federation fears attack (as anyone does) and so wishes to deny offensive access to its border areas. By denying anyone else6 military access it reduces the amount of weapons that can be used against it. By having a forward base at Kaliningrad this means the defensive bubble is further forward (and hence further from Russian soil). It also means that its fleet can be deployed in a more aggressive position to interdict enemy forces or threaten convoy movements.
Both of these aims are linked; by threatening the second it protects the first. The Russian Federation has seen "the old enemy" of NATO advance its borders further and further east with Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic joining in 19997 - all of which were former member states of the Soviet controlled Warsaw Pact. By deploying forward in Kaliningrad it feels it can push back the forces it feels threaten it.
Baltic Reactions
The other Baltic nations are the ones directly threatened by this, and appear to be reacting in different ways. Estonia appears threatened by this with their Chief of Staff stating;
This also matches up with other nations desires to update some of their defences (although clearly this is a constant ongoing process with all nations). Lithuania is spending significant (€100 million) on the Norwegian-American NASAMS air defence system9. Finland has started the process to replace its F/A18 Hornet fleet with information being requested from 5 different manufacturers including BAe Systems with regards the highly agile and multi mission capable Typhoon10.
This viewpoint is supported by ongoing Russian violations of Finnish airspace12. This is not isolated with suspected incursions over Polish and Norwegian airspace13 as well as Russian long rang bombers penetrating UK airspace14.
Moving Forward
Although at the start of the I stated that we could look at the Baltic in isolation, this is only true on a strategic/tactical level. On a grand strategic/political viewpoint, it is linked into actions along the European/Russian border from Poland, Ukraine to the Black Sea as well as operations in the Norwegian Sea and into the North Atlantic.
Having said that, as things stand, Russia is in a strong position in the Baltic, its deployments within the Kaliningrad Oblast alone outnumber enemy local forces and and can operate on multiple levels with an all force deployment being available19.
All in all the situation will need to calm down or escalation could be quick with upgrades to local forces as well as external NATO forces reinforcing. The best way to judge if escalation is happening other than the obvious reinforcement levels? Well a US Carrier Group parked up in the Norwegian Sea could be a pretty big statement of intent.
References
 |
| Iskander-M 2 |
"Is the Baltic a Russian Lake?"Geography
The Baltic Sea is a mostly enclosed body of water with its only natural entry point through the Danish islands in the west through the Kattegat. It is enclosed (From North Clockwise) by Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast (A Russian Enclave), Poland, Germany and Denmark. There are numerous islands - some of which are of significant size such as Gotland (Sweden) and/or strategic value such as the Aland Islands (Finland).
The very enclosed nature means we can look at it as an isolated issue - although clearly it strongly links to events on the land within Europe such as NATO deployments in Poland.
 |
| Baltic Sea (Russian Territory in red) 5 |
The Russians have two access points to the Baltic for its fleet to operate from; St. Petersburg and its enclave in Kaliningrad. Accordingly it also has two obvious main strategic aims (although clearly there may be more going on behind closed doors).
Firstly Russia wants to keep the sea lane routes to Saint Petersburg open to maximise its trade going in and out of its second city with three major seaports serving the area.
On the other hand the Soviet Union and indeed Russian Federation fears attack (as anyone does) and so wishes to deny offensive access to its border areas. By denying anyone else6 military access it reduces the amount of weapons that can be used against it. By having a forward base at Kaliningrad this means the defensive bubble is further forward (and hence further from Russian soil). It also means that its fleet can be deployed in a more aggressive position to interdict enemy forces or threaten convoy movements.
Both of these aims are linked; by threatening the second it protects the first. The Russian Federation has seen "the old enemy" of NATO advance its borders further and further east with Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic joining in 19997 - all of which were former member states of the Soviet controlled Warsaw Pact. By deploying forward in Kaliningrad it feels it can push back the forces it feels threaten it.
Baltic Reactions
The other Baltic nations are the ones directly threatened by this, and appear to be reacting in different ways. Estonia appears threatened by this with their Chief of Staff stating;
"In the long term Russia's wish is to bring the Baltic Sea and the passages leading to it more and more under its control, and to control it much like it does the Black Sea.8"
This also matches up with other nations desires to update some of their defences (although clearly this is a constant ongoing process with all nations). Lithuania is spending significant (€100 million) on the Norwegian-American NASAMS air defence system9. Finland has started the process to replace its F/A18 Hornet fleet with information being requested from 5 different manufacturers including BAe Systems with regards the highly agile and multi mission capable Typhoon10.
 |
| Finnish fighter of the future?11 |
With many of the Baltic nations now being strongly entrenched with NATO, NATO will feel that defence of these nations as compulsory, especially with Russian forces strongly out numbering the Baltic nations on the ground15.
However not everyone agrees. The French are deploying troops in the area but say the move is purely defensive and President Hollande stated;
"NATO has no role at all to be saying what Europe's relations with Russia should be. For France, Russia is not an adversary, not a threat.16"
Sweden have also said they do not experience any threat from Russia17. However, with a historical, official position of neutrality which has existed since the Napoleonic Wars18 this viewpoint could be an ongoing leftover of that stance.
Moving Forward
Although at the start of the I stated that we could look at the Baltic in isolation, this is only true on a strategic/tactical level. On a grand strategic/political viewpoint, it is linked into actions along the European/Russian border from Poland, Ukraine to the Black Sea as well as operations in the Norwegian Sea and into the North Atlantic.
Having said that, as things stand, Russia is in a strong position in the Baltic, its deployments within the Kaliningrad Oblast alone outnumber enemy local forces and and can operate on multiple levels with an all force deployment being available19.
All in all the situation will need to calm down or escalation could be quick with upgrades to local forces as well as external NATO forces reinforcing. The best way to judge if escalation is happening other than the obvious reinforcement levels? Well a US Carrier Group parked up in the Norwegian Sea could be a pretty big statement of intent.
References
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37600426
- http://www.military-today.com/missiles/iskander.htm
- http://europe.newsweek.com/putin-dream-black-sea-russian-lake-476321?rm=eu
- http://ukraine.csis.org/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea#Coastal_countries
- http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-anti-access-and-area-denial-a2ad-range
- http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/13/world/expanding-alliance-the-overview-poland-hungary-and-the-czechs-join-nato.html?_r=0
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/07/russia-moving-nuclear-capable-missiles-into-kaliningrad-says-estonia
- https://www.rt.com/news/360854-lithuania-nato-defense-system/
- https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/finland-kicks-off-fa-18-replacement-process-420255/
- http://www.baesystems.com/en/capability/aircraft
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37584058
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html
- http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/626167/Britain-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-incursions-UK-airspace-Michael-Fallon
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-09/baltics-to-black-sea-nato-unity-may-be-tested-by-next-challenge
- http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2016/07/08/France-says-Russia-a-partner-not-a-threat-.html
- https://www.rt.com/news/360058-sweden-russia-no-threat/
- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14682745.2013.765865
- http://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/russian-armed-forces-in-the-baltic-sea-region/
Wednesday 12 October 2016
"We are witnessing events which match the behaviour of the Nazi regime in Guernica in Spain"
So here it is, my first entry in this new blog which is all about how correct people are when they relate acts to the past.
This first entry, the quotation in question is the following from Andrew Mitchell MP on the 10th October 2016.
The Current Situation
The Syrian Civil War is a current conflict in Syria between multiple parties within Syria's borders as well as international interventions2 from numerous parties supporting various belligerents. Effectively it all started with civil unrest in opposition to President Bashar al-Assad's regime which strongly (read violently) put it down3.
Since then the conflict has degenerated into multiple parties with the government being supported by Russia (which has history of supporting Syria in the past), the opposition backed by NATO, Kurdish groups and the "extremist" group ISIL4.
The conflict is fluid to say the least and because of this there is no easy direction in which civilians can flee meaning many are leaving the country and trying to enter (amongst other areas) Europe5.
ISIL (ISIS/IS/Daesh) is the fundamentalist militant group whose caliphate has control over areas of land across Syria and northern Iraq and has worldwide cells6. It is against this group which NATO and Russia started air attacks and supporting ground forces opposed to these. However NATO does not support the government, and Russia does not limit its attacks to those targeted against ISIL7.
This has obviously led to confrontation between Russia and the other external nations which has led to Turkeu shooting down a Russian warplane back in November8 with queries over whose airspace the event occurred. This has been followed by the attack on an UN convoy by what appears to have been a Russian plane9.
Spain
What are we comparing this to? The Spanish Civil War ran from 1936 to 1939 and was a conflict between the Spanish Republic and the Nationalists led by General Franco. The Republican were backed by the communist Soviet Union whilst the Nationalists were supported by Nazi Germany as well as Mussolini's Italy10.
The Soviets supporting the left had opposing perspectives and objectives to the German and Italian forces involved and escalation of external forces led to the involvement of the Condor Legion which was made up of personnel from the German Military and consisted of air and ground formations11.
As the war progressed, the Nationalists were pushing into Biscay on their way to capturing Bilbao which they believed was one of the keys to winning the war. The Basque (Republican) ground forces were in full retreat passing through Guernica which was subjected to a devastating and controversial attack on the 26th April 193712.
Waves of modern German (and Italian) bombers attacked to town (as requested by Nationalist ground forces) and civilian casualties were between 170 and 300 (although at the time they were vastly exaggerated at over 1700!13).
For the Germans (and Italians) this was a perfect opportunity to test new tactics and equipment including strategic bombing of non-military targets and the Heinkel He-111 and Ju-52 medium bombers.
Valid Comment?
On one hand the situation in Spain was considerably simpler - there were 2(ish) sides and the external involvement was mostly unofficial (volunteers etc). As such any controversy could be denied by the parent nation. The 1 on 1 nature as well means that there is no supporting one side harms another which in turn supports a 3rd party. Any action was a positive to one and negative to the other. But the nature of using modern weaponry in a civilian zone with relatively inaccurate weapons (cluster bombs) is seen in both. Guernica and the UN Convoy attack are - although different in scale - arguably very similar actions which will put a dark stain on both respective air forces.
The only problem is, NATO are being involved in airstrikes which are causing civilian casualties too. The US admitted to "probably" killing at least 2 children in a strike15. Can we be making comments such as these when our own (allied) operations are also causing civilian casualties?
Conclusion
The matter in hand just purely on this comment by Andrew Mitchell can be seen as a valid use of a historical analogy. What its effects will have remains to be seen but using The Nazis to compare the actions of a nation which is still most defined by its handling by that regime is certain to make his words be heard.
References:
This first entry, the quotation in question is the following from Andrew Mitchell MP on the 10th October 2016.
"We are witnessing events which match the behaviour of the Nazi regime in Guernica in Spain1"This was in regards to the current conflict happening in Syria particularly the actions by the Russian Air Force and Syrian forces working alongside them. So what is happening in Syria?
The Current Situation
The Syrian Civil War is a current conflict in Syria between multiple parties within Syria's borders as well as international interventions2 from numerous parties supporting various belligerents. Effectively it all started with civil unrest in opposition to President Bashar al-Assad's regime which strongly (read violently) put it down3.Since then the conflict has degenerated into multiple parties with the government being supported by Russia (which has history of supporting Syria in the past), the opposition backed by NATO, Kurdish groups and the "extremist" group ISIL4.
The conflict is fluid to say the least and because of this there is no easy direction in which civilians can flee meaning many are leaving the country and trying to enter (amongst other areas) Europe5.
ISIL (ISIS/IS/Daesh) is the fundamentalist militant group whose caliphate has control over areas of land across Syria and northern Iraq and has worldwide cells6. It is against this group which NATO and Russia started air attacks and supporting ground forces opposed to these. However NATO does not support the government, and Russia does not limit its attacks to those targeted against ISIL7.
This has obviously led to confrontation between Russia and the other external nations which has led to Turkeu shooting down a Russian warplane back in November8 with queries over whose airspace the event occurred. This has been followed by the attack on an UN convoy by what appears to have been a Russian plane9.
Spain
What are we comparing this to? The Spanish Civil War ran from 1936 to 1939 and was a conflict between the Spanish Republic and the Nationalists led by General Franco. The Republican were backed by the communist Soviet Union whilst the Nationalists were supported by Nazi Germany as well as Mussolini's Italy10.
The Soviets supporting the left had opposing perspectives and objectives to the German and Italian forces involved and escalation of external forces led to the involvement of the Condor Legion which was made up of personnel from the German Military and consisted of air and ground formations11.
As the war progressed, the Nationalists were pushing into Biscay on their way to capturing Bilbao which they believed was one of the keys to winning the war. The Basque (Republican) ground forces were in full retreat passing through Guernica which was subjected to a devastating and controversial attack on the 26th April 193712.
Waves of modern German (and Italian) bombers attacked to town (as requested by Nationalist ground forces) and civilian casualties were between 170 and 300 (although at the time they were vastly exaggerated at over 1700!13).
For the Germans (and Italians) this was a perfect opportunity to test new tactics and equipment including strategic bombing of non-military targets and the Heinkel He-111 and Ju-52 medium bombers.
 |
| Condor Legion Heinkel He 111 14 |
On one hand the situation in Spain was considerably simpler - there were 2(ish) sides and the external involvement was mostly unofficial (volunteers etc). As such any controversy could be denied by the parent nation. The 1 on 1 nature as well means that there is no supporting one side harms another which in turn supports a 3rd party. Any action was a positive to one and negative to the other. But the nature of using modern weaponry in a civilian zone with relatively inaccurate weapons (cluster bombs) is seen in both. Guernica and the UN Convoy attack are - although different in scale - arguably very similar actions which will put a dark stain on both respective air forces.
The only problem is, NATO are being involved in airstrikes which are causing civilian casualties too. The US admitted to "probably" killing at least 2 children in a strike15. Can we be making comments such as these when our own (allied) operations are also causing civilian casualties?
Conclusion
The matter in hand just purely on this comment by Andrew Mitchell can be seen as a valid use of a historical analogy. What its effects will have remains to be seen but using The Nazis to compare the actions of a nation which is still most defined by its handling by that regime is certain to make his words be heard.
References:
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-civil-war-russia-assad-putin-andrew-mitchell-air-strikes-parliament-uk-debate-a7354986.html
- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUSKCN0RV41O20151002
- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-crackdown-has-killed-5000-people-un-says/
- http://www.mei.edu/content/syrias-rebels-radicalization-and-division
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36157422
- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/isis-now-has-military-allies-in-11-countries.html
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34431027
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34907983
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37430824
- Zara Steiner, The Triumph of the Dark: European International History 1933–1939 (2013) pp 181–251
- Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (2010): Krieg und Fliegenp. 109 (ISBN 978-3-506-76747-9)
- http://www.buber.net/Basque/History/guernica-ix.html
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6583639.stm
- http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/heinkel-he-111?page=2&sort=mostpopular&excludenudity=true&mediatype=photography&phrase=heinkel%20he%20111
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32840132
Intro
So I want to start writing some stuff which is a bit more organised, a bit more "real". Having heard so much in political speech to use historical events in comparison to ongoing events/issues - I thought I would explore how valid these comments are. These will be short and I hope to eveolve them both in style and in terms of deeper personal research into the statistics I use. For now it will be ust my base knowledge and what I can find quickly.
Hope you enjoy!
Hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)