In fascist lockstep, the entire British media, broadcast and print, corporate and state, is leading with a Ministry of Defence press release about a “Russian spy ship” inside “British waters”.
No British media appears to have been able to speak to anybody who knows the first thing about the Law of the Sea.
Here are the facts:
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The Continental Shelf can extend still further, as a fact of geology, not an imposed maximum.
On the Continental Shelf the coastal state is entitled to the mineral resources. In the Exclusive Economic Zone the coastal state is entitled to the fisheries and mineral resources.
For purposes of navigation, both the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone are part of the High Seas. There is freedom of navigation on the High Seas. Foreign ships, including foreign military ships, may come and go as they please. Nor is there any ban on “spying” – exactly as there is no restriction on spying from satellites.
The Territorial Waters of a state extend out to just twelve miles. These are subject to the internal legislation of the coastal state. There is freedom for foreign vessels, including military vessels, to pass through them but only subject to the rule of “innocent passage” – which specifically rules out spying and reconnaissance. In the territorial sea, vessels have to be genuinely just passing through on their way somewhere, otherwise they may need coastal state permission for their activity.
The Exclusive Economic Zone is subject to the rules of the coastal state only in relation to the reserved economic activities to which the state is entitled. Scientific research is specifically free for all states within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
The Russian ship Yantar has been just outside the UK territorial waters. It is therefore under “freedom of navigation” and not under “innocent passage”. It is free to do scientific research.
I don’t doubt it is really gathering intelligence on military, energy and communications facilities. That is what states do. The UK does it to Russia all the time, on the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Not to mention 24/7 satellite surveillance.
It is perfectly legal for the Yantar to do this. Personally I wish the entire world would stop such activity, but to blame the Russians given the massive levels of surveillance and encirclement they suffer from NATO assets is simply ludicrous.
Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy that the UK has been flying intelligence missions over Gaza every single day and feeding targeting information to aid the Gaza genocide.
The UK’s allies blew up Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The UK is now accusing the Yantar precisely of scouting this same kind of attack – which we endorsed when the pipeline was Russian.
For example HMS Sutherland, accompanied by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring, and two other NATO warships penetrated 160 miles into Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and lingered 40 miles from Russia’s Severomorsk naval base. There was no pretence they were doing anything other than gathering intelligence and sounding out defences.
In armed forces media the UK boasted it was an assertion of freedom of navigation. Yet we harass the Russian vessel equally on the High Seas for exercising its freedom of navigation.
That was also perfectly legal. The idea that the same activity is worthy when we do it, but a pretext for war if the Russians do it, is so childish as to be beyond ridicule. But there is not one single mainstream journalist willing to call it out.
As this photo of HMS Somerset illegally threatening the Yantar on the High Seas shows, forcing it into dangerous moves, the aggression is not from the Russians. That British jets illegally buzzing the Yantar have been met with lasers designed to disrupt attacks. That is not the Russian aggression John Healy claims. The nonsense about dazzling pilots’ eyes is sheer invention.
Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away it is a physical impossibility to shine a laser into a pilot’s eyes in a modern warplane, from below in a ship. The pilot won’t be looking at the ship out of the window, but will be looking at his screens and the image from the cameras under the plane. These might be disrupted by the lasers – and a perfectly valid and sensible defensive measure that is too.
This is the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Imagine it in the skies way above you and look at its body, particularly the front end – how would you get line of sight on the pilot? You couldn’t. Lasers only go in straight lines.
Most sinister of all is the universal state control of media that gets every single mainstream outlet booming out the propaganda narrative, all entirely without question.
This war talk is of course the normal refuge of extremely unpopular governments. But it is part of a wider tightening of the grip of the military-industrial complex on the state. Starmer is committed to increasing military expenditure by tens of billions of pounds a year, while imposing austerity on the rest of the economy. In Scotland, we are told that the closure of major industrial sites like Grangemouth and Mossmorran will be compensated by opening new weapons factories.
Beating ploughshares into swords.
The rise of domestic racism and authoritarianism is accompanied by the increase in militarism and the desire to portray Russia and China as enemy states with whom we are already in a state of proto-war. The state has a mainstream media which is showing itself willing to pump out even the most thin propaganda to this end with no interrogation whatsoever.
Western democracy has already died. Not everybody has yet noticed.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
“Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy that the UK has been flying intelligence missions over Gaza every single day and feeding targeting information to aid the Gaza genocide.”
In mainstream media and political circles, it’s still considered the height of bad taste and “6th-form politics” to mention Starmer’s participation in this world-historic slaughter of mostly women, children, elderly people and babies.
Since the “ceasefire” the retort has been a reprise of the old Blairite Iraq war deflection .. “Move on!!!”
Hypocricy is a British invention, after all. What else did you expect?
I suspect, Yuri, that hypocrisy – or the potential for it – is built into the psyche of the human race.
To say, therefore, that the British “invented hypocrisy” is rather strange.
But even if it were (which it isn’t), it’s an “invention” which has certainly caught on more or less world-wide, wouldn’t you agree?
The Romans were more honest, judging by their sayings, such as “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” or “pecunia non olet”.
I already posted here one example, when in XIX century the Britts cried for the friedom of Poles but cheered when N1 helped Austrians in suppression of the Hungarian rebellion in 1848; I can give more. Like, when the Japanese attacked Port-Arthur in 1904, the British newspapers selebrated their skills and bravery; this was presented as David’s strike at Goliath. The similar surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was taken quite differently, this time that was a “treacherous blow” and “dastardly attack”.
Well, Yuri, the Romans might have been more honest, but they haven’t been around for over one and a half millenia, so it might be rather difficult to back up that assertion on the basis of concrete examples during that period. But thank you for drawing those two quotations to our attention – I believe they are still widely quoted, albeit in living languages.
I do think, however, that you’ve been guilty again of a rather grandiose statement, in response to criticisms of which you offer a couple of examples drawn from the past two or three centuries. No doubt you could “give more” but no matter how many you give you are not really proving that the British “invented” hypocrisy.
Come on, Luis. The British (William Caxton) invented the printing press.
The etymology of “hypocrisy” is here: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=hypocrisy , where it can be seen to be originally an ancient Greek word. If the Ancient Greeks had a word for it, it is unlikely that the British invented it.
Maybe the Greeks met some of the inhabitants of the British isles and had to come up with a term? 🙂
Pytheas probably?
But not Pythagoras
This is important information and shows that what our parents fought in World War II, Nazism, has ultimately won. The main stream media are purely and only Nazi propagandists and the state will soon be coming for the likes of you. The UN is dead, Russia and China, based on their failure to oppose the on-going genocide in Gaza, seem content with having their own sphere of influence, and the western countries are almost all now openly fascist. Stay safe, find a place to hide when the time comes.
Gaza Arabs are betrayed in the 1st place by their cousins in Jordan, Egypt, KSA, Kuwait etc; only Hezbollah, the Yemenis and the Persians (who are not even Arabs) stood up for them. Naturally, Russia and China do not want to be more Arabs than the Arabs themselves are. But at least they do no assist Israel.
Yuri:
Quid Pro Quo, Mr Molotov, Quid Pro Quo.
Russia and China can still be less Arab than the Yemenis by exercising their veto power but they have chosen to prioritise their own interests. Russia has a reciprocal trading relationship with Israel and 15-20% of Israeli citizens are Russian speakers. I would be interested to know what percentage of this cohort are dual citizens of Israel and Russia and what percentage of these dual citizens serve in the IDF. This would tell us more about the degree to which Russia does not assist Israel and therefore how committed it is to the international struggle against fascism.
2 JohnnyOh45:
True to some extent; however, what’s more important Putin does not want Israel to provide military aid to Ukraine. So both countries have some means to pressure each other and at the moment prefer to keep the balance by avoiding doing anything provocative. But Isreal has no such means against the Arab states or Turkey, except through the US, so their inaction is less justifiable.
I have long believed that America is run by Nazis (Operation Paperclip was far too successful in not only importing Nazi scientists but their philosophy as well) and that fascism has always had deep roots in the British establishment.
The founding fathers and the 13 colonies were pretty fascistic when you look behind the myth making and lies.
Well known that America and British industry and banks explicitly supported the German reindustrialisation prior to WW2 and even after war was declared. Money and morals are diametrically opposed, America and Britain never had a problem with nazis, that was dreamed up for the history books.
And support to nazis continues to this day.
“Over a dozen UK companies supplied Israel’s largest arms firm Elbit Systems during the Gaza genocide”
https://www.declassifieduk.org/exposed-the-uk-firms-supplying-elbit-systems/
@Stevie Boy 10:28
I don’t think re-industrialization is the right word; Germany didn’t de-industrialize during or after WW1. I think you mean “supported German economic recovery”?
But more importantly : you castigate the UK and USA for supporting German economic recovery before war was declared in 1939 and 1941 respectively, the implication being that there should have not been such economic aid despite the fact that those countries were not at war with Germany. This is a dangerous argument from someone (yourself, to be precise) who is presumably opposed to Western sanctions on Russia today in the absence of any declarations of war.
Reindustrialisation, wrt armaments, was banned under the Versailles agreement following WW1, as far as I remember ! The USA and British industrialists were assisting Germany in breaking this agreement and thus re-arming. Nothing to do with rebuilding their economy.
Stevie Boy
Oh OK, now it’s “reindustrialization with regard to armaments”. You have narrowed the scope of your claim.
I’m puzzled that you should think that rearming had nothing to do with rebuilding the economy.
You seem now to be saying – perhaps I have misread you? – that Western capitalists limited their economic assistance to post-WW1 Germany to the production of armaments. If you really mean that, then perhaps you would explain how one separates the production of armaments from the general economic picture.
It was a simple laser rangefinder and it was just used to ascertain the exact position of the UK fighter jet.
The fighter jet was probably using it’s own laser rangefinder on the ship…
They must be shitting themselves about all the LIDAR devices on self-driving cars…!
Radar not working then?
” Western democracy has already died. Not everybody has yet noticed.”. No, but I reckon more people are noticing. At least, they are noticing the yawning chasm between what rent-a-gob politicians are telling them is reality and what they ( * ordinary * people ) are actually experiencing/perceiving as reality; eg ” sorry, OAPS, we simply can’t afford to pay you any Winter Fuel Allowance ” v ” Hey, Vlod, how much are you and yr gang needing this month?, what,only £xxxxxmillion? no, that’s not enough, here’s £xxxxxxxxxxxmillion ”
What is even more nauseating than the total MSM lockstep-to-disaster ( albeit, mainly performative Union Flag Y-Front waving, so far ), is the equally hivemind compliance of the entire Political Class; is there a single MP/MSP objecting to this revolting jingoism & intelligence insulting imposition of utterly false ” THE REDS ARE COMING!! ” blatant propaganda?
As a Scot, I hold * our * political representatives in deeper contempt than their rUK counterparts – particularly the SNP mob.
At a time when the latter should be screaming from the rooftops at the insanity emanating from WM/Whitehall – as if the chronic economic blundering/plundering wasn’t bad enough, the Blimps & Strangeloves of English imperial delusion are intent on marching us – note, not THEM, the instigators – into possible direct military conflict with a nuclear armed power and all the pathetic WM & Holyrood troupe do is nod along and spout the same warmongering drivel as the rest of them.
They ( SNP ) should be using this situation to ask the people of Scotland a few simple questions…..
1st being ” do you REALLY want to see your loved ones die ( once again ) in some ” foreign field “?
2nd ” what has Russia EVER done to us, ie Scotland ” ( though the same question could/should be put to rUK )
3rd ” in whose interests would such possible sacrifice be made? the people who are inflicting such economic/social hardship on you? ”
Finally ……are you off yr F*****G HEADS!? Can you not see what is happening here?, ie yet again, a succession of UK Govs have made a total shitshow of domestic & foreign policy and, like all such abject failures, seek to distract from the calamity they have created by pounding cacophonously on the drums of war and waving tattered flags in bamboozled-by-relentless-propaganda faces.
Thank you for “rent-a-gob.”
Britain’s never been a democracy.
That depends on how you would define a democracy, surely?
But it’s a nice one-liner.
Who better to define “democracy” than the people who invented the concept? Socrates said that where the officials of state, i.e. the executive arm of the government, were elected by lot, the state was a democracy, but where they were elected by ballot, the state was an oligarchy. You also have to consider the complexities of running a nation state: these are far too great for a single person to deal with, day in, day out. They are also far to great for the mass of people to deal with, or else they would have no time to do anything else. The result is that the executive part of any government (the part that actually runs the country, that is as distinct from the legislature, the part that makes the laws) has not only to be comprised of a small minority, but a majority of that minority will have to be permanent, i.e. not elected and certainly not chosen by lot. Thus the modern state is almost always some form of oligarchy.
Sure, you can take what is currently called “democracy” and say that is democracy, but if that’s what the word means, what term do you use for a state where the people actually have a say in how the country is run, rather than, every five years, choosing from a predetermined list, the people who will choose the people who will make up a small minority of the executive. To give an idea how democratic the UK is, consider that it has two heads of state: one is hereditary and the other was elected by 0.04 of 1% of the UK electorate.
I’m not sure, Bayard, that your proposed source is really valid. Democracy was so conceived in what was in essence a small city state, only a minority of whose inhabitants ranked as citizens and in which women had no political (legislative or executive) status. The differences between that world and ours are so obvious that you don’t need me to spell them out.
But I’d still be interested to hear the original poster (Squeeth) on the subject.
So you agree that “democracy” no longer means what it purports to mean, i.e. rule by the people? Which is fair enough, words change their meaning over time, sometimes quite dramatically. However, the big selling point of “democracy” is that it is supposed to be exactly what it purports to be, that is “rule by the people”. Anything more than a cursory glance at who actually has power in a modern democracy, apart from the power to be one of a majority in choosing a representative to the legislature who is under no obligation to to do what their electors want them to do, shows that the people do not rule in any way, shape or form. A much better definition of most nation states is “oligarchy”, rule by the few. Sure you can call what is an oligarchy a “democracy”, but that doesn’t make it a democracy any more than taking off the “Ford” badge from your car and fixing on a “Porsche” one makes it a Porsche.
Bayard
No, I think that it is not the meaning of democracy (rule by the people) which has changed, it is perhaps rather the definition of the people which has changed. The concept of “the people” has changed over time.
In ancient Greece “the people” were the citizens of the city-state and,obviously, didn’t include foreigners and slaves. However, for democracy to still mean “rule by the people” today, you would have to exclude everyone except those influential and rich enough to actually be able to affect government policy and how that policy is carried out. That isn’t what anyone thinks of when they see the term “the people”. Britain has gone from an “aristocracy”, i.e. rule by a hereditary caste of leaders to a plutocracy, but both are simply forms of oligarchy.
Given the extremely limited effect the mass of the population (which is what most people think of when they see the term “the people”, Humpty Dumpties not included), on government policy and its execution, as I have outlined above (Nov 18, 18:26), perhaps you could show the logical trail from which you get from that to something that resembles ruling.
Bayard, I think this is becoming sophistry – and therefore fruitless – all the more so as I simply cannot understand what you are trying to convey in your latest post. So best the leave the discussion there.
But just, finally, to go back to your post at 18:26 on November 20th. You wrote “…what term do you use for a state where people actually have a say in how a country is run, { rather than, every five years, choosing from a predetermined list…etc…}.
How, in the modern complex state of many million inhabitants, can you achieve what you appear to yearn for (see above quotation)? I stand ready to be corrected, but I suspect that you have nothing practical and sensible to propose.
And that is why your objection to using the word “democracy” is just idiosyncratic and a mere debating point.
In the absence of a practical, sensible alternative, the word you use to describe the present arrangements is irrelevant – you could call the system “marshmallow” if you want, it doesn’t matter. Moreover, only the smallest part of the population knows what “democracy” meant for a couple of hundred years in a small Balkan city state a few centuries before the Christian era.
LCdS: “How, in the modern complex state of many million inhabitants, can you achieve what you appear to yearn for (see above quotation)? […]”
May I offer Holland as an example. There, we can weigh in on a huge number of issues in local and national elections which are much more frequent and comprehensive than putting an X in a box once every five years.
We get to vote not only for a number of candidates (the ludicrous FPTP method of electing a candidate is long gone), but on a whole range of local and national issues. Many such decisions can be voted on by residents, not solely restricted to citizens.
Should we have more spending on parks, cycle paths, traffic calming measures? Should we charge more taxes on this or that, which is of dubious benefit to the locality/ country? Would you like lower taxes generally on income or wealth at the sacrifice of a range of public services, or more taxes raised for more of them? Should, say, an out-of-town shopping centre be granted permission to establish itself?
It’s pretty comprehensive, and citizens are welcome to contribute other ballot measures and initiatives. People are actually listened to at the local level, rather than being treated as a nuisance – at best – by local councillors. Decisions are made far more in the open, corruption is deeply frowned upon, rather than an assumption that this is simply the way things are done, as it is in Britain now.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the general idea.
“And that is why your objection to using the word “democracy” is just idiosyncratic and a mere debating point.”
I’m not sure why you don’t see that using a term that not only etymologically means “rule by the people” but is generally taken, even today, to mean that, is not misleading. What you call things matters only to the extent to which people understand it to be descriptive of the thing of which it is the name. You can call a car a “Gazelle” and no-one will expect it to have four legs and antlers, but if you call it a “two litre”, then they would naturally expect it to have an engine of 2000cc capacity and would feel cheated if you explained, post purchase that it wa just a name and the engine was actually only 1250cc. Similarly, if you call a form of government a “democracy” most people tend to assume that it involves the people having some agency in the way the country is run, whereas if you call it a “marshmallow” they won’t:
“ Would you like lower taxes generally on income or wealth at the sacrifice of a range of public services, or more taxes raised for more of them?”
This can only work in the UK when the populace has an accurate knowledge regarding the workings of currency creation and its destruction via taxation.
For as long as it, persistently and erroneously, believes Thatcherite “handbag economics” myths, that taxes and so-called “borrowing” (aka private sector saving) *fund* Govt spending, then there is really little point, because in reality the macro economy functions nothing like a household.
https://gimms.org.uk/2021/02/21/an-accounting-model-of-the-uk-exchequer/
No British government has been democratically elected, is that enough?
Any coincidence this rears up on the same day a new plan to stop the war emerges?
Le Petit Napoleon aka Macron thinks he can bully Russia, his goons hi jacked a Russian tanker in International waters, claiming it was part of the ‘Russian shadow fleet’ and transporting sanctioned oil. Putin called this piracy, what do you do with Pirates, why you blow them out the water? Putin then said there is no such description as a shadow tanker fleet in International law, in fact there is no International law banning the sale of Russian oil to anyone in the world. The French want to up the anti using criminal means, this will end in disaster for France and any other country who messes with the bear.
Macron, speaking at an EU event in Copenhagen, said he could not rule out a connection between the vessel and the drone incursions, but so far lacked proof. Macron said the tanker raid was part of a wider plan to take tougher actions to limit Russia’s oil sales and press for an end to the war in Ukraine, . Macron, Merz, Starmer, Von Der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are dangerous people, their positions are on very shaky foundations.What can the UK electorate do about it? Only a by-election somewhere or the local elections next May have any chance of changing things, then only an outside chance. It is one thing to want war (however Justifiably) with some small or medium sized country but to threaten war with a major superpower who have over 6,000 nuclear weapons and see NATO expansion as an existential threat and over what many regard as a ‘border dispute’ is the height of lunacy. Quite apart from the fact that many Ambassadors and top political scientists, including Professor John Mershiemer have said that the extension of NATO into Ukraine would mean war with Russia. Of course NATO led by Biden thought Russia too weak to do anything about it, that assumption has proven to be disastrously wrong and left NATO with its only option, in order not to lose credibility.. ‘Double down’, Crazy.
https://www.reuters.com/world/two-crew-members-detained-russian-tanker-have-been-arrested-french-pm-says-2025-10-02/
The thing about considering it a “border dispute” is, when Scotland goes independent, will Indy Scots be perfectly content with England grabbing 20% of the most productive of Scottish land? I think the answer to that has already been provided in the criticism of Tony Blair’s grab of Scottish oil fields in the North Sea…
Since Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries, and any claims that Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. However, the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain (that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales) has caused constitutional law in the United Kingdom to provide for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defined the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law and that 90% of UK oil resources were considered under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, Section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defined Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. That was subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999, which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.
Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and English sectors by using the international principle of equidistance, as is used under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly-formed states and in resolving international maritime disputes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil
I seem to remember Craig drawing a straight line across the North sea from the border between Scotland and England in an article on this blog some years ago, with oil and fisheries in mind.
Russia claims the oil tanker Boracay was in Neutral waters when intercepted by French commandos. International law of the sea can in some circumstances be interpreted in conjunction with international humanitarian law and in particular whether a state can respond to an attack as noted above by France on a merchant ship as described above as a belligerent act of war or merely self defence. In today’s world it is probably not wise to depend on “details” like International law, and just do unto others as they do unto you.
2. Relevant rules of humanitarian law
2.1 Targeting
International humanitarian law generally permits the use of force against objects that ‘make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage’, according to Paragraph 40 of the San Remo Manual Footnote 14 . Paragraph 67 specifically concerns ‘[m]erchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States’ and lists a variety of instances where they can be targeted. This includes situations where ships ‘are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture’, or where ships ‘otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action’. These rules have no geographical limitation and apply in all maritime areas.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/use-of-force-against-neutral-ships-outside-territorial-waters/56CF204865927A59302B21DCB66D9428#s2-1
Re: ‘how would you get line of sight on the pilot? You couldn’t.’
You can literally see the Eurofighter pilot in the photo – from an altitude angle (with respect to the pilot’s perspective) of around minus 30 degrees.
By the way, a Boeing P-8 Poseidon looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#/media/File:US_Navy_P-8_Poseidon_taking_off_at_Perth_Airport.jpg
P.S. In particular atmospheric conditions laser light can bend.
Your contrarianism is as desperate as it is tiresome.
I note that you haven’t rebutted a single point made in my ‘desperate’ reply, Glenn. FYI I don’t know whether the Russians aimed lasers at the Poseidon pilots or not. The British authorities could be lying – it wouldn’t be the first time. But I do know that it wouldn’t have been a physical impossibility for them to have done so.
It’s true that Glenn hasn’t rebutted a single point of yours – he does tend towards the merely impatient and choleric, I’ve noticed.
But let me try to rebutt : Mr Murray pictured a Eurofighter (with German markings, I note – does the UK not have them?) and n his text says “imagine it in the skies way above you”.
“Way above you”.
Has it occurred to you, L.A., that the picture was taken when a real plane was flying at a very low altitude – or that it is in fact a picture of the plane not flying at all – perhaps of a model or something like that?
All that Mr Murray could then be criticised for is not having chosen a better image to make his point.
Perhaps Mr Murray couldn’t lay his hands on a better image n the time available, that is, a Eurofigher actually flying way overhead?
Thanks for your reply Luis. Yes it did occur to me that the Eurofighter (some of which are still flown by the RAF) was flying low, because its undercarriage is out. However, that makes no difference to my argument – the important thing whether the ship was in the pilot’s line of sight. If the plane was directly above the ship then it’s true that the crew couldn’t have seen the pilot, but it would only be directly above it for a fraction of a second. Our host should have at least chosen a picture of a P-8 Poseidon, which was the plane in question.
And thank you for your reply, L.A.
You’ll probably consider me a complete ignoramus, but obviously the line of sight is essential. The line of sight between the firer of the laser beam and the intended recipient (the plane, I mean).
But surely, and equally essential, is the angle of travel of the laser beam? The higher the plane, the steeper the angle of travel and therefore the greater the possibility that the beam just hits the underside of the cockpit?
Yes, the undercarriage is out, but that can still mean the plane is quite high. But more importantly, I still wonder whether the picture is not an AI representation, rather than a real photo of a real plane flying. The detail is more than perfect, and the sky is suspiciously blue….?
Thanks for your reply Luis. The only thing that matters is that enough high-intensity laser light is able to enter the pilot’s pupils – even for a tiny fraction of a second – to cause temporary blindness. A direct line of sight between the pilot and a sufficiently powerful laser ensures that that could happen. Maybe the picture of the Eurofighter is AI. It doesn’t really matter though as it’s still a lifelike representation of the plane, whereas the plane which reportedly had a laser aimed at the cockpit was a Poseidon.
And in the picture you can plainly see the complete BS of this story. Military pilots don’t fly by naked eye, they have visors, HUDs, etc. these have built in protection from lasers ( obviously Military laser weapons are another thing).
In certain atmospheric conditions you can piss all over yourself.
Thanks for your reply Stevie. Airline pilots have been temporarily blinded by commercially-available lasers aimed by reprobates on the ground. Military lasers could be tens or hundreds of times more powerful. Since when did a HUD offer any protection from lasers? A helmet visor wouldn’t offer much more. I never claimed that piss always travels in straight lines.
I have just seen this one, L.A. and I think it also merits a non-impatient, non- choleric response (Glenn pls note)
Airline pilots have indeed been impeded by commercially available lasers. But in almost all cases when about to land their plane. In other words, when the pane is low and not way high above you in the sky.
Why is this important to note?
Because what you need to look at here is the angle. The lower the plane, the smaller the angle from the horizontal for the laser beam and therefore the greater the possibility of it actually hitting the pilot’s face. The higher the plane (“way above you in the sky”), the steeper the angle and therefore the smaller the liklehood that the pilot’s face could be hit.
From this, by the way, it seems that the strength of the laser, about which you hypothesize, is irrelevant.
Angle is all!
Thanks for your reply Luis. The more powerful the laser, the more chance you have of hitting and disorientating the pilot, even through a visor.
Yes, of course – provided that the beam is actually hitting the pilot in the face.
I don’t even believe the fake news scare stories about pilots of commercial flights being dazzled by yobs with lasers. Aiming the dot from an ordinary laser pointer at a whiteboard a few feet away is quite easy, but just try it at 25 yards and it is very difficult. It’s a collimated beam so the dot barely expands and you can’t keep your hand steady enough. At distances beyond that no chance.
Thanks for your reply Realistic. Airline pilots have gone on record stating that they’ve been temporarily blinded by people aiming lasers at them. Fortunately they had co-pilots to take over. The lasers the yobs use are generally a bit more powerful than the 5 milliwatt laser pointers. They’re illegal for household use in most Western countries, but that doesn’t mean that people can’t buy them from China. Of course, the beam will be moving around due to tiny muscle twitches in their hands, but it only takes a few milliseconds of laser light entering the pupils to not just dazzle but temporarily blind a pilot.
“Military lasers could be tens or hundreds of times more powerful.”
And they also couldn’t. You don’t know, you’re just guessing or else you wouldn’t use the conditional mood. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that the Russians were using a “military laser”, if they were using a laser at all.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Of course I don’t know what the Russians did or did not do in the UK’s EEZ, but unlike some people on here, I’ve never claimed to.
” In certain atmospheric conditions you can piss all over yourself.” ;O)
“You can literally see the Eurofighter pilot in the photo – from an altitude angle (with respect to the pilot’s perspective) of around minus 30 degrees.”
You have obviously missed the “Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away” bit. At 30 degrees, it has to be twice as far away as it is high.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. I didn’t. ‘Extremely, extremely low’ is basically what military pilots do in Ukraine to avoid radar – basically just above the treetops, say 50 metres altitude. ‘A very long way away’ is say over 2 miles away. The pilot could be in line of sight of the laser in a plane flying at 300 metres altitude, 600 metres away.
. “OK, one last time, Dougal, These are SMALL. But the ones out there are FAR AWAY… Small… far away….”
Thanks for your reply Stevie. I do appreciate the whimsical, Father Ted sense of humour on this thread, but would still point out that no one has yet successfully rebutted any of my points. Bayard has had a good go.
“a plane flying at 300 metres altitude, 600 metres away” isn’t going to be affected by a laser much, even if the pilot was foolish enough to look at it for longer than it took to look away.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. If the laser is reasonably powerful and it’s shone into his or her eyes, even for a split-second, of course it’s going to affect the pilot. As I mentioned above, airline pilots have been temporarily blinded by people aiming low-power lasers at them from outside airport perimeters.
” If the laser is reasonably powerful and it’s shone into his or her eyes, even for a split-second, of course it’s going to affect the pilot.”
If we had some rum we could have a rum omelette, if we had some eggs. An almost infinite amount of things are possible, far far fewer are actually probable. Here’s an “if” for you: if the pilot is so badly affected by having a laser shone in his eyes for a split second that he cannot fly his plane, then he’s not much good as a fighter pilot. What’s he going to be like when he turns so that the sun is shining full in his face? This is like the RAF complaining that some farmer, annoyed by low-flying fighter jets, had written “PISS OFF BIGGLES” in large letters on the roof of his barn on the grounds that it might distract the pilots.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Are you really comparing aiming lasers at pilots, potentially blinding even the best of them, to writing offensive slogans on the ground? The former can land you with up to 5 years in prison. The latter can’t – unless you write about not caring whether people set fire to asylum hotels.
No I’m comparing having a laser shone into your eyes for a split second at 600m with having the sun shone in your eyes for a similar length of time and the distraction caused by that with the distraction caused by reading an sign saying “PISS OFF BIGGLES”. If you can’t see the difference between that and your comparison, I can explain in greater length.
The important bit here is “for a split second”, so we are not talking about anyone being blinded here.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Looking directly at the sun on a clear day when it’s high in the sky in the tropics will result in about 1 milliwatt per square millimetre of power hitting your retina. Typical commercial laser pointers are two to five times that. Their power consumption is tiny, but the only reason that they generally don’t do permanent eye damage when shone in people’s eyes is because the eyelid-shutting reflex kicks in.
“Typical commercial laser pointers are two to five times that.”
At 600m?
“Their power consumption is tiny, but the only reason that they generally don’t do permanent eye damage when shone in people’s eyes is because the eyelid-shutting reflex kicks in.”
And the pilot of a warplane wouldn’t have this reflex, I suppose?
Thanks for your reply Bayard. As I mentioned in my reply to Realistic, the lasers generally aimed at planes are more powerful than the laser pointers for whiteboards*. Even at distance, they can cause temporary blindness before the eyelids have had time to shut.
* I’ve just found out that the limit for laser pointers in the UK is 1 milliwatt, which means that the 5 milliwatt one I bought in Amerikkka is illegal. Oh no.
We’re back to the rum omelette here: if a laser was used against the British plane, it might have caused blindness, if it was a military laser of sufficient strength.
When was the last time British military forces were under anything approaching democratic control (or even checks)?
Western democracy was never alive in the first place to have perished. More people are noticing.
Plutocracy – and always has been.
Just incredibly brazen now though…?
If a serious government wants to tell another something, wouldn’t they tell them through diplomatic channels?
Announcing it surrounded by flags and the press, with macho language, is not for the benefit of the other government. Clearly it’s a show for its own people.
Yet more “They’re coming to get us! They’re coming to get us!”
Al-Qaeda, then Iraq, ISIS, now Russia. At home, it was single parent mothers, benefit scroungers, the disabled (for God’s sake), now immigrants.
They are the reason the country is in a shambles and we can’t have nice things. Always them. Never the chaotic government that never actually governs in favour of the people.
Does this government seriously think anyone at all is going to forget the wretched state of this country, and start getting enthusiastic about war with Russia? Yey! Cut services even more and put taxes up, let’s go!!
The frustration of the ruling class in both Europe and the US is the simple fact that we cannot compete with the newly emerging BRICS countries, in particular China. At one time when the British empire ruled over nearly three quarters of the planet, then when the US replaced the British empire with a more aggressive military and economic stance, with control over the IMF and approx 900 military bases all over the world, plus insisting on others use the dollar as a means of exchange, this stance (hegemony) has enabled the US (as the UK did before it) to accumulate tremendous wealth for most US citizens.
Now the economic state of the world is changing, the BRICS are growing stronger, and, in the natural order of things BRICS will replace the current hegemon. Hence the hegemon will lash out at these “interlopers” in order to retain its powers. Short of using nuclear weapons there is nothing it can do, it must acknowledge its status as a declining empire and settle for being just one powerful state, in a multi polar world instead of the uni polar ‘master of the Universe’ as many Neo cons imagine the US to be.
” Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away it is a physical impossibility to shine a laser into a pilot’s eyes in a modern warplane, from below in a ship. ”
So you accept that the aircraft, a P8 Poseidon – a converted B737 not a Typhoon, was a long way from the Yantar and not posing any threat to it. If the Yantar has freedom of navigation in the area then so does the RN and the RAF.
That presupposes that the whole “firing a laser” story wasn’t simply made up.
“If the Yantar has freedom of navigation in the area then so does the RN and the RAF.”
Yes, but that freedom means being able to navigate without aggressive action by other ships, or are you trying to maintain that the Yantar attacked the frigate and the warplane? “Sir! he hit my fist with his chin!”
Directing a laser at an aircraft is a dangerous and provocative act. If it’s OK for ships to approach our shores to spy on us then we have the right to keep tabs on them to see what they’re up to.
Strange that Craig has dug up an incident that took place in the Barents Sea five years ago but ignored more recent events in the Black Sea.
https://www.navylookout.com/was-hms-defender-targeted-by-the-russians-in-the-black-sea/
Would you consider “just keeping tabs on you sir” a reasonable explanation for a police car pulling in front of you so that you have to brake very sharply to avoid ramming it?
There are no international laws prohibiting pointing lasers at pilots. And while I can accept that directing a laser at a commercial aircraft is still a dangerous and provocative act, some dickhead in an Eurofighter can simply duck off and leave the ship alone.
I’d be interested to hear how close a UK warship would allow a Russian or Chinese aircraft to get in reversed circumstances, and what action they would take? Can say it would be a bit more than ‘smile for the camera’…
Thank you for understanding Healy’s war spell for what it is, i.e. utter ballcocks.
The poseidon is equipped to shadow and detect submarines, it isnot a fighter jet flying attack loops which at their highest point swing upside down to visually the target
, imho, the only time (mere seconds) when a laser might have a chance to interfere/shine at a jets cockpit with a laser.
Here in mid Norfolk we are well and truly fed up with the gung ho of day and night practise flights roaring as they fly these attack loops and practise their dog fighting.
I wish everyone in Norfolk would shine lasers at the stars when this happens as I am totally and mentally challenged by these 5 creatures Kallas, Macron, Merz, von der Lying and Dopey forcing Russia into a first use nuclear situation.
Does it really take a march from John O’Groats to Lands end by millions to shine a light on this russophobic collective madness?
They are flying this red kite to divert from their vast internal failures, their ignorance of international laws of the seas, the ICJ and their fascist intent here and abroad reminds me of FLIGHT INTO WAR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Projector
I understand that a laser wasn’t the only dastardly and ungentlemanly weapon used by the Russians.
Next those pesky Ruskies will be using Irony, the bastards. 😉
Meanwhile, the Msm are quiet about “Kiev’s military intelligence used two toxic substances, including a British-made VX variant”.
https://www.rt.com/russia/628050-ukrainian-honeypot-chemical-weapon/
Good old Porton Down still supporting the Russia phobia.
The Guardian today has a leaders article warning of the dangers of failing to support Ukrain’s financial black hole, and that Europe must come together an fill it. Otherwise “Mr Putin believes he is able, if necessary, to outlast Ukraine and the EU to achieve his revanchist goals. He must be disabused of that notion”.
Revanchism is a policy or political doctrine aimed at a revenge or the reversal of the losses incurred in previous political or military defeats, most commonly, the incurred territorial losses. The Guardian leader is stating that Russia has greater aims than it has stated. The MSM have for years stated quite correctly Putin’s remarks on the passing of the Soviet Union that is to say..”Anyone who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. What is invariably left out is the full quote, to wit: Anyone who wants it restored has no brains”. Can you see how Putin’s quote has been shortened, to make it look like a threat, that is dishonest, but unsurprising for the MSM.
https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings/vladimir-putin-anyone-who-doesnt-regret-the-passing-of-the-soviet-union-has-no-heart-anyone-who-wants-it-restored-has-no-brains
This is just another instance of the Guardian’s snivelling, counter-factual Brit Military/Establishment arse-kissing. It has always been a bit of a joke, now it is a total joke; no different in it’s warping of reality than the scum tabloids it still has the conceit to consider it’s inferiors. in fact, IMO, it’s worse than those cat-tray-liners, at least they don’t portray themselves as anything other than what they are, ie Right Wing hymnsheets; whereas the Guardian still imagines it’s of the Left.
Well, I suppose it IS ” of the Left ” – that New Left that has nothing but disdain for the Working Class – now transfigured as the embodiment of unevolved Populism; gives hysterical support to and promotion of that new kind of man, the kind that can magically transform into a woman ( no, really ) and is big on that new Democracy, the kind that worships extreme Centrist Parties and believes any threat to the latter by, y’know ” Extreme Right ” Parties is an outrage and should be dealt with by the simple – impeccably democratic – expedient of proscribing, demonising and/or outright banning them.
Also, it gets turned-on by War- both Culture & Actual. Yip, all those Anti-Pilgers, eg snake-in-the-grass, creeps like Paul Mason, are soooo gung-ho for other people to die that the Guardian readership may sleep easily in their suburban cradles and gentle ” transwoman ” can enter female spaces with impunity.
The Guardian is a key player in the War On Reality
I read on the CommercialPrivateEquitybbc Ceefax, a Russian ship sailing next to British territorial waters and read it as ‘Russian ship sailing in international waters’. I was amused to read that the Russians were ‘shining lasers’ and wondered why an aeroplane had to fly with them entering the cockpit when an aeroplane can manoeuvre in for dimensions. What do I know, I’ve only goat a BGA A licence? ;O)
Does anyone know if the Morning Star stands out from the rat pack?
Today’s Morning Star carries an article by Andrew Murray its Political Reporter with the headline, HEALEY REVEALS MASSIVE BOOST IN ARMS BUILDING based on yesterday’s speech.
The article does not mention the ship incident at all but focuses on the government strategy to boost the economy by boosting the arms industry to prepare for war. However, Murray points out that “only 1,000 new jobs are to be created at the 13 factories to be constructed, reflecting the high ratio of technology to labour in the sector”.
The article highlights bellicose statements by the Commons Defence Committee Chair, Tan Dhesu, who “called for a government propaganda offensive to alarm the public into supporting the war drive”.
If the “Yantar” incident is part of this propaganda drive it is pretty pathetic stuff. Healey’s childish, petulant “bring it on Putin, we are ready for you” absurdity was also embarrassing and shameful. It is not surprising to read on their Telegram channel that it gave Ambassador Kelin and his staff a good laugh. (The post says “smiled at” but I think they were just being polite).
“Commons Defence Committee Chair, Tan Dhesu, who “called for a government propaganda offensive to alarm the public into supporting the war drive” This is standard fare for warmongers, German leader Hermann Goring used the same language..”The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders…tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for every country.
@ Crispa November 20, 2025 at 16:35
Liarbour always puts a donkey who’s thick as pigshite; the Tories (Officials) have adopted the same practice.
Into the MoD, that is.
Aren’t laser-proof glasses a standard part of military pilot’s gear?
A good pair of mirror shades should be adequate.
As Larry Niven, who knows a bit about physics, says, “Never fire a laser at a mirror”.
This is like all the nonsense about Russiah ships cutting cables in the Baltic sea and the dodgy shadow flett (technically only insured somewhere other than Lloyds). This is all about preparing the British public for a blockade of the Baltic seas against Russia as if there were some justification beyond pure Nato war mongering.
Blockade, hah, this assumes that the British ‘defence’ forces aren’t just a giant joke !
“Always blame your designated ‘antagonist’ of whatever you yourself have done”.
The idea from the British government – and it propaganda machines (the media) is of course to frighten the public into allowing the British government to waste billions of public money on weapons – with the lying scare story, that Russia is about to invade Britain of course – the only ones that will benefit from wasting billions more on weapons, is the MIC and the politicians who get backhanders – for dishing out he contracts.
UK carriers ~£7Bn plus £96Mn pa/ship
How many doctors and nurses would that buy ? How many teachers and schools ?
Stevie Boy.
Spot on Stevie – however there no huge backhander for the Westminster boys and girls in that.
Russia is not an enemy of Scotland’s – one day, once we ditch the illegal ball and chain that is the union, Russia might supply us with arms (sales) to defend ourselves – and Russian ships could be a common site in Scottish waters and docks – lets hope its sooner than later.
Then they ‘persuade’ Scotland it needs Russian airbases which of course means Russian troops to guard them and before you know it you’ll have ‘little green men’ marching on Holyrood.
“Then they ‘persuade’ Scotland it needs Russian airbases”
You mean like the US “persuaded” the UK and fifty odd others they needed US airbases?
Oh I don’t know – we already have English and Americans stationed in English airbases in Scotland, and English and US subs/warships at Faslane – as for Holyrood its already captured by England – all the parties answer to Westminster, and not the Scottish public, who have given consecutive colonial admins 6 mandates to dissolve the illegal union, three at Holyrood and three at Westminster.
Of course England has occupied Scotland for centuries – check out the 300 cantonments.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=13xM8JJrtnks9ICtP2myODwrylfts8eDo&ll=56.9662220030592%2C-4.492507634374986&z=7
So you see having Russia as an ally – can’t be much worse than what England has done in Scotland.
So you don’t like England having occupied Scotland but Russia, that’s fine.
Be careful what you wish for.
So you acknowledge that the UK is currently occupied by the US, then?
“So you don’t like England having occupied Scotland”
Pears Morgaine
Nice admission there – Russia doesn’t occupy Iran or China – they are allies as we would be – England however does occupy Scotland – and its not an ally in the sense of the word.
Here are two thoughts:
1. As pointed out by Glenn at 10:59, all these things are just government bullshit, assisted by journalists who want to keep their jobs (and their contacts with the relevant authorities)
2. Keynes-ism is of course a dirty word everywhere these days. But, faced by an increasingly desperate economic situation, perhaps Western governments are giving “military keynes-ism” a whirl?
Doesn’t mean they are really serious about wanting actual war, but by God it’s a wonderful way of giving the economy a (temporary) boost……
“Doesn’t mean they are really serious about wanting actual war, but by God it’s a wonderful way of giving the economy a (temporary) boost……”
Sure it boosts GDP, but only in the way that paying people to dig holes and fill them in again does.
Bayard
Did not Keynes use the example of putting money in jamjars at the bottom of pit shafts ?
As an example, there is some big manufacturer in the Ruhr area (perhaps Rheinmetal AG? – not sure) whose current production is not selling too well abroad which is able and willing to convert its activities to the production of armoured vehicle, tanks and so on.
And I’m pretty sure it’s already been said by high politicians in the UK that UK rearmement will create “x” jobs over the next “y” years.
Keynes knew that only government spending on the productive, value-adding economy would produce increased wealth for anyone but the already rich, however this wasn’t what his paymasters wanted to hear, so he stopped saying it. Spending on arms no more adds value than digging holes and filling them in again.
It’s worse than that as digging holes doesn’t use any real resources. Manufacturing arms does. You could have one tank OR 1000s of spades from the same lump of metal.
Mark
Is not labour a real resource?
Just ask , for example, the English NHS or Spanish agriculture, both of which have to import people from abroad to get the job done.
“Is not labour a real resource?”
It is, but it is renewable, unlike iron ore.
Sadly the main beneficiary will be the money markets and the MIC and not the consumer economy. See the discussion in the link below.
I think that’s a feature, not a bug.
This is exactly the subject between Richard Wolff, Michael Hudson and Nima in the most recent dialogue works. The EU has turned itself into an auxiliary of NATO serving the interests of the USA and the MIC. This is done at the expense of infrastructure and the welfare state and also of consumer industry. Well worth listening to. The provocation described by Mr Murray is just part of the orchestrated justification for the military buildup.
https://youtu.be/dWkpaI-U6WM
“The EU has turned itself into an auxiliary of NATO serving the interests of the USA and the MIC. This is done at the expense of infrastructure and the welfare state and also of consumer industry. ”
If you think about this is inevitable: any manufacturer of durable hardware will face a problem sooner or later where all their potential customers have enough of the hardware in question and it is wearing out considerably slower than that manufacture needs to be able to manufacture it to keep their senior management in the style to which they have become accustomed, their workforce occupied and their shareholders happy. If your product is armaments, then you need your customers to use the damn things and use them up or get them destroyed and for that you need war. Thus war is the inevitable result of privatising the arms industry.
You and your customers don’t necessarily need to use the weapons. Their rapid obsolescence will guarantee new products and continued production.
You just have to look at the age of e.g. the UK’s main battle tanks to see that obsolesence is not nearly fast enough to support the turnover of a company like Lockheed Martin.
The fact is that the procurement cycle used by MOD means that everything, eventually delivered is at least 10 to 25 years old. Even ‘off the shelf’ technology has to be tinkered with by MOD to meet British requirements, this means delays and extra costs negating the rationale for ‘off the shelf’. You can imagine the problems with anything using the Microsoft OS !
Bottom line, UK military technology is all out of date when delivered.
I think Mr Murray is correct about the hysterical Russophobic propaganda and it’s use as a distraction from many other issues.
Yet he might be slightly wide of the mark in one aspect. I E the actual militarism aspect. Starmer isn’t building new arms factories, ramping up defence spending or increasing the size of the military. Even if he wanted to,
Simply because the dysfunctional & economically moribund British state, now lacks the capacity to do so. Indeed the British military is still withering.
So all this brainrotted boomer/bulldog patriot posturing, is all a desperate buff from a nation with more admirals than seaworthy warships and 10× more horses than functional tanks etc.
“Starmer isn’t building new arms factories, ramping up defence spending or increasing the size of the military.”
Well, it’s quite possible that his promises to do the first and third are simply a blind to provide approval to do the second and spend the money on buying arms from the USA.
Bayard.
Starmer answers to his corporate buddies who now run Britain – he and his party will say anything to dupe the public the most recent BS is Great British Energy – it employs 18 people when it was meant to employ hundreds of not thousands – the political system is broken – its not fit for purpose, it all needs to be torn down and rebuilt and only the public can mobilise to do that – but will they is the question? or will they just continue to eat Westminster’s lying shit?
“Starmer answers to his corporate buddies who now run Britain – he and his party will say anything to dupe the public…”
Well, that’s his job, isn’t it? and Britain has always been run by “his corporate buddies” or their oligarchical predecessors.
“Well, that’s his job, isn’t it?”
Bayard.
So its his job to allow Peter Theil’s Palantir to have access to everyone’s medical records – goodness knows what he has lined up for us and the NHS.
Just look at what Palantir is up to in Gaza, now imagine that we are the Palestinians, that’s our future: digital IDs, AI driven CCTV, all services monitored, controlled and allocated by the regime – and the regime is run out of the USA. Welcome to the brave new world.
“Welcome to the brave new world.”
It’s more 1984 than Brave New World.
Stevie, it’s not the future, its already like that. I just got a tax demand. I made a bit more interest last financial year than expected and it just went over £1000, the tax free limit. I hadn’t told HMRC this yet as was waiting to see if he already knew and he obviously does. He was £2 over what I owe but close enough to know that he knows how much money I have in my bank accounts and which they are – without me telling him ever. I doubt it is just because I have a state pension but if it is, it could easily be extended to everyone as the system must be there.
The West really to do everything to get a war started – every day they try to clutch onto a new pre-text to start the holy war against Russia – in a way their urge feels primitive, almost sexually perverse in nature, it is like they are egging themselves on with all these made up bs scaremongering stories and have to sooner or later… release that gross urge, it is quite a riduculous spectacle when one take a step or two away from it.
It would be so easy to simply solve whatever prolbem the West have with Russia, one phone call away – that is what it takes, but the West are so pathetic, so brainwashed so immature and obviously too bloodlusting that a peaceful solution is not in the mix. They are rabid.
Just take my own nation, Sweden, which top the survey of the most anti-russian nation polled, we have not been in war with Russia since like 220 years ago, we have no border conflict etc still people here are anti-russian to absurd levels:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/06/pg_2025.06.23_global-views-russia-nato_2_01.png?resize=420,752
Maybe they are desperate enough to try to deploy the “Mouse That Roared” strategy. There the idea was to declare war on the USA, surrender immediately… Profit!! Nowadays China and Russia are more tempting marks.
I like this and it would be totally irrational to support any government that is promoting a war agenda fuelled by such paranoid and delusional beliefs. Section all those MPs who are subject to them, perhaps starting with Healey.
“The West really to do everything to get a war started”
Aye, as long as it’s Eastern European cannon fodder that does the dying.
They know fine that their demoralised populations are incapable of it, and that their military industrial potential is a joke!
The latter half is true but Eastern Europe doesn’t have cannon fodder to mobilise nor the popular will.
The dirty secret of thier thirty years of “our democratic values of who we are” era since escaping the “Soviet yoke”. Is ruinous levels of depopulation, deindustrialization and corrupt comprador governments.
Plus after a grim three year lesson. Even the people whom *actually* support Ukraine, don’t want to emulate it.
I remember all those Swedes and Finns drinking themselves into oblivion in Leningrad back in Soviet times. Now all of a sudden they are as Russophobic as the Lithuanians. But the guys in the Baltic states are at least paid for that; what is the Scandinavian enthusiasm based on, this escapes me.
“in a way their urge feels primitive, almost sexually perverse in nature, it is like they are egging themselves on with all these made up bs scaremongering stories and have to sooner or later… release that gross urge … ”
Undeniable. From a Freudian view, what he wrote about human nature was true and important, seeing the psyche as an egocentric system of quasi-mechanical energy, determined by its own individual history, whose natural attachments are sexual, ambiguous, and hard for the subject to understand or control. i.e. the fat relentless ego.
How could a number of European countries (France, Germanyy, Britain, Holland, Italy, Belgium) in the 20th century afford to inflict industrial scale slaughter on themselves? They got rich and fat looting Africa (China and India) in the 19th. Never again they said but here they are again, in my mind, trying to finish us off for good!
“Never again they said but here they are again, in my mind, trying to finish us off for good!”
“Never again” and “Lest we forget” are sick jokes these days; the poppy-wearing warmongers are crying, rather “Once again!” and are hoping that everyone has forgotten, now that the generation that were so appalled by their wartime experiences that they never spoke of them are nearly all safely dead.
To that Freudian perspective, we might usefully add that of his former ” star pupil ” – Jung’s.
” Recently, given all the media reports on the blustering by certain heads of state threatening nuclear war, a student asked me if Jung ever spoke about the likelihood of atomic war. In fact, he was asked this exact question around 1954, in a meeting of the Psychology Club.[1] The context then was the Cold War, that interval when the world witnessed the formation and rivalry of two camps: the “West” and the Soviet Union. Both camps had nuclear weapons, and, then as now, people worried if these weapons would be used. Barbara Hannah, one of Jung’s most devoted students, recorded his answer:
“I think it depends on how many people can stand the tension of the opposites in themselves. If enough can do so, I think the situation will just hold, and we shall be able to creep around innumerable threats and thus avoid the worst catastrophe of all: the final clash of opposites in an atomic war. But if there are not enough and such a war should break out, I am afraid it would inevitably mean the end of our civilization as so many civilizations have ended in the past but on a smaller scale.”[2] ”
His writing & thoughts on the what he termed the Collective Unconscious and the critical role played by Archetypes in both the Collective & Individual psyche are also greatly relevant to our current crises. In particular the German psyche, which he believed was dominated by the archetypes of Germanic Mythology, Legend & Folklore – as are the psyches of every culture informed by their own Mythologies, Legends & Folklore. He thought the Germans would never resolve their underlying ” Will to Power ” ( a la Nietzsche, albeit warped by the Nazis ) issues until they have understood and addressed what it is that drives it.
Look now at the – to my mind, psychologically * unbalanced * – bellicose rhetoric and Anti- Russian fanaticism of the two main current exemplars of German absolutism, Von der Leyen and Merz ( Rutte could also be included; Dutch, but ” neighbouring ” German ) and it’s not difficult to agree with Jung that Germany has STILL not understood itself.
Who would have thought, even as little as a decade ago, Germany would be remilitarising and once again threatening to attack, of all nations, Russia!? Yet, here we are, again, only this time ” we ” are the ones fully behind this insanity.
This time though, if Germany is mad enough to attack Russia, it will never have another such opportunity. It will be wiped from the map.
Maybe ” Freud’s ” Thanatos will defeat, finally, ” Jung’s ” Eros; in the process precipitating Götterdämmerung. Let’s hope not
” Yet, here we are, again, only this time ” we ” are the ones fully behind this insanity.”
“We” were fully behind the insanity last time. I don’t think it was any coincidence that the declaration of war followed closely after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. So long as Britain thought the Nazis were going to attack Russia, the government was right behind them.
Good point, B. Sometimes it’s easy to forget, or to put it another way…..hard to bear in mind, the conditions that prevailed and under which ” we ” formally declared war on Germany and that the * official * version – that the latter’s invasion of, eg Poland, was the root cause, is just more revisionism to fit a more ” acceptable ” narrative, ie Britain the noble warrior outraged by German aggression, was compelled by the highest moral standards to take action against the ” beastly Hun ” . How unbeastly a large % of the UK Ruling Class actually thought Germany under the Nazis has, despite having been proven in many ways and in multiple instances, been carefully airbrushed out of the WW2 narrative.
Also let’s not forget Operation Pike that the Jewish funded drunk, Churchill, thought would finish the Soviets off in 1939.
Bayard,
Do you remember about ten years ago The Sun published a very short, about fifteen second video featuring the Prince of Wales (Edward), the Duchess of York (Elizabeth) and her two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret? It was 1933 and set in the grounds of one of their many houses. All four were practising Nazi salutes. It is no longer on the Internet, but I did keep a copy. The caption in the Sun explained how Edward was teaching them the salute. But when I look at the clip it is very clear that the leader, the person encouraging the others, was the Duchess of York, who went on to become Queen Elizabeth.
This tells me two things. First, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who was Queen of the United Kingdom from 1936 to 2002, was an enthusiastic Nazi. And second, the power of suggestion is amazing. Even though it is absolutely clear who is leading, people were willing to accept that it was ¨Bad¨ Edward who was the skunk. A role he suffered from 1945 until the end of his life.
And for that we have to thank a certain James Vincent Savile.
The Nazis’ main sin was being on the wrong side in WWII. You only have to look at the way Israel is treated today to see that murdering large numbers of people is regarded as a peccadillo, so long as it’s the right sort of people getting murdered. If the Nazis had done the “right thing” and attacked the Soviet Union, no-one would think twice about having Nazi-supporters as ancestors. They would have been our loyal allies against the Soviet menace, just like Ukraine today.
The whole idea of WWII being a “war against fascism” is a carefully constructed post-war myth. The British ruling elite had no quarrel with fascism: you just have to look at which side they supported in the Spanish Civil War. Britain didn’t fight Germany because it was fascist, and Germany and Britain were on the same side in the Winter War, so there is nothing surprising about the Royal family doing Nazi salutes, it’s just a little out of step with what later became the official narrative.
Britain and France went to war for the balance of power, same as usual.
Who would have thought, even as little as a decade ago, Japan would be remilitarising. Even though people are still suffering the affects, to this day, of the unwarrented nuclear bombing by the USA. Some forms of stupidity have no cure.
Another good point, Stevie. And, yes, you would think, given the fact Japan is the only country to have suffered the effects of nuclear weapons, it would be the very last one to get itself embroiled in more militaristic madness; particularly at the behest and in compliance with the country that inflicted that material & psychological carnage on it, the good ‘ol freedom loving U.S of A
“you would think, given the fact Japan is the only country to have suffered the effects of nuclear weapons, it would be the very last one to get itself embroiled in more militaristic madness”
Lesson learned by your parents’ generation are much less effective that lessons learned yourself and lessons learned by your grandparents even less so. Things are always different now.
Looking at Kallas and all the other European war mongers who pledged to support and help Ukraine to inact Minsk 1 and 2, then turned around thenext day when they heard that the Dombass was bombed and under extreme artilery attack.
Now these weasels moan about a 28 point plan divised by America demanding that they take part in the peace talks, or they would reject it.
These ignorant idiots are not even planning to ask their populations whether they would like turn to nuclear dust in the defence of their so called democracies, they just go ahead and revel in bad mouthing and goading Russia.
‘Oh we never knew he would dare and use thermo nuclear/ neutron weapons on us’ they will say before they disappear into their bunkers.
I hope that there will be some people alive, who survive an initial attack and weld those bunkers shut with a little message of good riddance.
Kallas is a puppet, she is only doing what she’s told.
I am not so sure that she’s just a puppet, at least not in the way I think you mean. It may actually be that she is just the “bad cop”, whose posturing and rhetoric serve to hide the fact that the EU as a whole has no intention to do anything serious about Russia and, indeed, is in no position to do anything serious even if it wanted to.
In other words, watch what the EU actually does and not what Kaja Kallas says.
It is perhaps also no coincidence that she comes from a member state that is both the most vociferous in its Russophobia and the weakest in quite a few important areas. The smallest dog can be relied on to yelp the loudest, the saying goes.
Last but not least, don’t forget she is part of the package of top jobs decided a year or so ago. President of the Commission (Western European, large country, conservative, female), President of the European Council (South European, smallish country, socialist, male), President of the European Parliament (Southern Europe, smallest country, conservative, female), EU “Foreign Minister (Eastern Europe, very small country, centrist, female). Note the various equilibria…..
Never mind the below – its Russia via its intel gathering ship that’s looking to attack Britain.
“NATO has turned the Baltic Sea into an area of military confrontation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said, lamenting that the bloc is unwilling to discuss de-escalation in the region.
Her remarks come amid rising anti-Russian rhetoric and military activity among NATO members, especially Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which all border Russia and the Baltic Sea.
Zakharova said the region had long been a space of trade and peaceful cooperation, but that the balance has been dismantled by NATO’s military buildup.
“This part of Europe has been turned into a zone of confrontation, which sharply escalated as a result of Finland and Sweden joining the bloc,” she told Russian media on Thursday.
The diplomat pointed to NATO’s 2025 launch of the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission, calling it an attempt to impose new navigation rules and turn the sea into the bloc’s “internal waters” – ambitions she said are doomed to fail. She insisted that Russia will remain a full-fledged member of the “Baltic community.”
NATO claims ‘Baltic Sentry’ protects critical undersea infrastructure after recent incidents involving energy and communications cables. It has deployed warships, submarines, and aircraft to the region, conducting regular patrols and drills. Moscow views the buildup as a direct threat.
”It is very difficult to see any potential for dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. And NATO countries… are not showing openness to an honest discussion on ways to de-escalate,” Zakharova said.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have adopted an increasingly confrontational stance toward Russia since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Officials such as EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who is a former Lithuanian prime minister, continue to invoke an alleged Russian threat to justify soaring military spending. Kubilius warned this week of a possible conflict with Russia within two to four years.”
Yes never mind the increasingly bellicose attitude of Russia towards the Baltic States, the propaganda and hybrid warfare not to mention memory of what life was like during the Soviet occupation, mass arrests, deportations and forced immigration.
https://jamestown.org/russias-hybrid-warfare-tactics-target-the-baltics/
Nothing ‘alleged’ about it.
Republicofscotland
November 20, 2025 at 20:53
You mentioned “soaring military spending” in the Baltics.
Russian military spending is certainly “soaring”.
One difference is that the Baltics were invaded, occupied and planted with Russians for 60 years, ending in the 1990’s.
That experience and Russian revanchism make military spending by the Baltics simple prudence.
Not to forget, however, that a 100% or 200% increase on a very small amount still does give you a very large amount.
Perhaps it’s imprudent rather than prudent. Provocations are fine as long as it’s pretty sure that the provoker will prevail when the chips are down.
Luis Cunha da Silva
November 21, 2025 at 19:26
What are the provocations to which you refer?
My dear JK, I think you know perfectly well which provocations I have in mind.
Do you believe that, in general, politico-military provocations are conducive to maintaining the peace, or do you believe the opposite?
“That experience and Russian revanchism make military spending by the Baltics simple prudence.”
So what is it that you think the Russians find so irresistably attractive about the Baltics? Is it the intelligence of their politicians, their abundance of natural resources or the friendliness of their populations towards the Russians?
You’d best ask your man in the Kremlin but his predecessors thought the countries worth invading, fraudulent elections, forcibly deporting 200,000 people (75,000 to Gulags), 60 years of oppression and forced immigration in an attempt to ‘Russify’ the population.
Are you surprised they’re worried about history repeating itself?
Bayard
November 21, 2025 at 19:49
The Soviet Union invaded, occupied and planted the Baltics with Russian settlers.
Which suggests they did indeed find the Baltics irresistably attractive.
No?
PM, JKR, I ask you why you think Russia would today find the Baltics so attractive and you both answer that 80 years ago it did indeed find them attractive. Is that not fairly obviously the wrong answer? Have you not noticed that the world has changed a bit in 80 years? Why should Russia under Putin be the same as communist Russia under Stalin?
“Are you surprised they’re worried about history repeating itself?”
If they are worried about history repeating itself, they should be more worried about being invaded by Germany, as should France and all the Balkan nations, not to mention Poland and Ukraine. Have you ever thought why the Russians left eastern Austria, but remained in East Germany?
The “Baltic States” were part of the Russian empire for centuries. The post war states were an interregnum, like the fascist dictatorship in Poland.
Brilliant analysis Craig…Getting Dangerous
l
“The UK does it to Russia all the time, on the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Not to mention 24/7 satellite surveillance”
Not to mention too the endless military manoeuvres right on Russia’s land border with the Baltics. And the completely normal, unprovocative dispatching of British warships to the far side of the earth to “patrol” the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea.. Just peace luvin Good Guys antics according to the same British media industry.
The rich class control all the Western mass media which (mis-)’informs’ our votes. No surprise elections change nothing of any consequence – except to get worse as their propaganda grip tightens.
We don’t have to put up with this any longer – we can easily create a different structure for a public mass media sector that faithfully represents majority (non-rich) citizens’ interests.
There should only be two options for the structure of mass media businesses – either as a private/commercial (shareholder) controlled entity, or as a member controlled Co-operative type entity in a (new) Commons ‘public’ sector, under direct citizens’ ‘votes’ control.
(Eg., the ‘public’ sector BBC Depts. could choose one or the other – no more corrupt Gov appointee run fake ‘public’ media.).
Mass media in Western societies is near all owned & delivered by a small group of wealthy elites, & significantly funded via advertising by a handful of large Corporations. That can have its place in providing public discourse & entertainment non-critical to ‘democracy’, but it should not be the only model for media with power (& reach).
We can easily create a system where citizens control a similar size sector of the media directly, through non-profit media Commons/Common Ownership structured publishers/providers, which exclude all private capital & revenue income. (Instead, they are controlled by members with equal voting rights, like Worker Co-ops or Community Businesses.)
In this sector, their only permitted income comes from our currency issuer Govs (at zero cost), but not directly. Instead of Gov directing which Commons Media enterprises get grant funding, citizens, equally, disburse the funds via an annual voucher system, whereby they sponsor their preferred Commons media provider(s).
This simple system ensures full democratic participation in a sector of mass media, & thus the political discourse which elevates politics to power, and we need it now, before humanity’s path to its own self-destruction becomes irreversible.
I think you’ll find any reforming of the mass media would be classified as antisemitic !
After leaving office, it will be interesting to see which arms company Healey goes to work for.
They need these big adversaries to justify, not just ever expanding military budgets, but their expensive, oppressive surveillance state apparatus and paranoid control freakery. Just as the Ministry for State Security aka. the Stasi, in what was East Germany needed ‘enemies within,’ so do the morons we’ve elected – due to deliberately limited choice, two-party systems – in the West.
These Cold war revivalists have, quite frankly, missed the old certainties of West vs East and being designated our ‘protectors’ engaged in a great ideological struggle: capitalism vs communism. They sulked through and hated, the collaborative approach between: NASA (United States), Roscosmos (Russia), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), and CSA (Canada), that gave us the the ISS, and later, that announced ‘golden era for UK relations with China’ – David Cameron and George Osborne c.2015.
Take away Russia and China as threats, and they are nothing by petty, vindictive, secretive bullies, abusing power and harassing their own populations.
With this story on the news tonight, I was speaking to someone about this ; it’s leading the news and the reaction was, “he [Starmer] can’t just take us to war with Russia, he’d have to put it before parliament, right?”. And while that’s true, does anyone have any confidence in parliament to reject that insanity, that could result in the death of millions of people? I don’t, because parliament as a whole is very right-wing, very hawkish. It’s as if the intel services in the UK have been manipulating politics and grooming and imposing, a whole class of pro-war politicians. The Tories would definitely vote in favour of a war despite the risks of thermonuclear escalation. Sir Ed Davey’s Lib Dems would probably also too; they largely and shamefully did for the Syrian intervention in Cameron’s coalition. That leaves us depending Labour doves, of whom. after selection manipulation by Starmerites, there are frighteningly few.
This story in question, being Ukraine and Trump’s proposals to end the war. Proposals with a deadline, that Zelenskyy, egged on and emboldened by the unrepresentative, ultra hawkish European leadership duo of von der Leyen and Kallas, and their bottomless pit of EU war funding, seems likely to reject.
It’s Trump doing the bullying and this is all about him, he wants that Nobel Prize, he wants to be recognised as a peacemaker and he doesn’t care who has to suffer as a consequence. Zelenskyy has no option but to reject Trump’s appeasement deal, Ukraine won’t accept anything else. If nobody else does they recognise that Putin isn’t serious about ending the war, that he’ll soon find an excuse to resume the offensive whether or not Ukraine is stupid enough to reduce the size of its army.
Ukrainian forces are in the dark without U.S. provided real-time battlefield Intelligence. The U.S. briefly withheld such assistance during Ukraine’s Kursk campaign – the failed foray into Russia – and Ukrainians reported they felt like sitting ducks being picked off. Monitoring enemy troop and vehicle movements with up-to-the-minute data is essential.
The U.S. isn’t without leverage here. They also can restrict weapons and ammunition. Does Zelensky really want to spend £200 billion more, in a war, in which they’ve already burned through more than £360 billion? Does he think the EU backers won’t want anything? Apart from the senseless loss of life, the astronomical lost reconstruction funds alone, in what was, is, and likely will be again, a very poor country, are insane.
“Does Zelensky really want to spend £200 billion more,”
Of course, he’s on a percentage.
¨Ten percent for the big guy¨. Hunter Biden
Parliament never objected to the Iraq war, they never objected to the Gaza genocide, they won’t object to any suicidal attacks on Russia. Moronic lemmings.
I was reading that staggeringly, the U.S. still controls all Iraq’s oil revenues to this day from New York, in 2025, more than two decades after the invasion/occupation in 2003, this in spite of numerous UN demands for the U.S. to relinquish control back to the rightful owners’, Iraq’s govt. The U.S. uses the revenue to keep Iraq in line, withholding it if they step out of line; for example, as over Iraqi parliamentary demands for U.S. Troops to leave the country, after Iran’s IRGC chief, Qasem Soleimani, was killed, in Iraq, in a U.S. drone strike, in 2020. Iraq’s national debt is less than the total the U.S. is withholding. How can they justify this? The f*cking invasion was illegal and built on a false WMD narrative, the U.S./UK should be paying Iraq reparations. They suffered under Saddam, and now under Anglo brutes.
Will Pears Morgaine et al, be outraged by this? Somehow doubt it. And Ukraine thinks it has it bad.
I opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was illegal and unnecessary.
I oppose the invasion of Ukraine for precisely the same reasons.
You are correct Goose, The Iraq oil fund was set up by the US coalition authorities, all receipts for oil sales were to be put into a fund lodged with the US Federal reserve, ostensibly for the Iraqi people, funds are distributed usually on a monthly basis to the Iraq government, for the Iraqi government to use on day to day expenses. Trump threatened the Iraqi government by with holding those funds when the government wanted US troops to leave.
Washington has maintained control over Iraq’s oil revenues since its illegal 2003 invasion – a financial and economic subjugation that undermines Iraqi sovereignty and denies it access to its own national treasure.
https://thecradle.co/articles-id/27007
Not “lemmings” at all, and very far from moronic. On the contrary, quite clever, with a finely-honed rat-like cunning. And very alert to the possibilities of self-enrichment and gaining power. What would be remarkable, amazing indeed, would be if such people were to work hard for years and abase themselves to paymasters – just in order to benefit others whom they don’t even know.
Follow the money. That is the *only* way to understand politics. Money is a necessary and sufficient explanation for everything that happens.
That is true, Tom. But in the modern world of ¨professional politicians¨ what else can we expect?
We do not need representative politicians anymore.
In the times when it took three days (or more) to travel to London it made perfect sense, but that is no longer the case.
So how do we get rid of them, and perhaps replace them with people who actually live among us?
John. Why do we need politicians ?
We need people with specific, proven technical skills to run the different departments of the government and we need experienced managers to team lead and plan. We now have the technology that enables ‘the people’ to have a real voice on what they require from their country and to feed this into the government to support planning.
So, why do we need politicians ?
The House of Commons had evolved into one of Bagehot’s dignified parts of the Constitution. The clever people are the ones who tell the MPs what to vote for.