Friday Night's Telly

Trapped in a room where the TV was tuned to the BBC News, I noticed a man in a scarf standing in front of the White House proclaiming that President Trump had gone completely loopy.  Apart from his awful attitude to WOMEN, his dyed hair, the rigged election which denied Hillary’s term, Russian collusion in state affairs, he was now claiming to be about to open a dialogue with North Korea.  The reporter had spoken to Oprah Winfrey who had dismissed the plan as just another hair-brained stunt by a complete loser who was totally unfit to be President of the United States.  After all, she had said, if there had been even a grain of hope of achieving anything with North Korea, Trump would have already been awarded a Noble Peace Prize by an awestruck world establishment.  That just HADN’T HAPPENED!  So there!  He’ll be claiming the American economy is booming next. On the other hand, the reporter continued, “some Americans are saying” (and then the transmission faded out and we seemed to lose the man in a scarf and cut back to the studio).  Seamlessly, other news continued.  Apparently, wearing a headscarf can empower otherwise empty-headed women on the catwalk.  Quite what they would do with their new power wasn’t clear.  And then the National Lottery results – this seems to be a new game where the listener tries to work out what the announcer with the speech impediment is saying.

I admit to a little exaggeration and invention for effect but I do despair for the BBC.  Can they get any worse?  David Gould writing to the Sunday Times offers little hope:

“If anything can be accused of dividing the UK, it is the BBC. Left wing, contemptuous of Brexit, obsessed with gender and identity politics, the BBC increasingly broadcasts to a nation it believes should exist, rather than the one that does.

The diversity it so obsesses about is lacking at every level of its decision making. It is no good if a committee is balanced on gender or ethnicity if all those people are social liberals who think Tories are dangerous barbarians.”

Dealing with Russia

If, as seems increasingly likely, the astonishing events in Salisbury are state-sponsored, how should the UK respond to this outrage.  Assuming evidence emerges that links the murder attempt to Russia, is there anything we could do to punish that country?

At times like this it would be comforting to look to the EU for support, collectively led by Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.  For reference, Federica Mogherini, who does not appear to have ever worked for a living, was a member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation from 1988 to 1996.  A spokeswoman of hers is married to a communication adviser to Gazprom, the Russian owned energy company and the largest supplier of natural gas in the world.  Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect a robust reaction from her?

We could hope that individual Nations may be more sympathetic.  Germany, for example should surely feel threatened by an aggressive Russia.  But then, having shut-down their nuclear generating capacity and under pressure not to reinstate any more coal-fired power stations, they are dependent upon Russian gas supplies and are unlikely to poke a stick in Putin's eye.

How things have changed.  In the mid 1980s I held a staff appointment at a NATO Air Headquarters at Ramstein, near Kaiserslautern.  The geography was idyllic - the Black Forest, Switzerland, Alsace, the Moselle Valley were all close by - and, with threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction apparently working and keeping weekends free for leisure, there was plenty of time for recreational travel.  However, that easy-going life concealed a harsh reality beneath.  My boss, Manfred, a steel-eyed Prussian, and all his German colleagues were under no illusions about the threat we faced.  War games were played out very seriously indeed and, depressingly, most ended in a furious nuclear exchange.  Before that strategic destruction, however, my German colleagues would have been quite content to loose off the odd small nuclear weapon to stem the advance of Warsaw Pact armour surging through the Fulda Gap and pushing through the Inner German Border towards Frankfurt - they knew what was at stake and they meant business.

But that was 1982 and, despite Crimea and Ukraine, perceptions of the Russian threat have changed today.  Desperate to believe that our opponents will always view problems with our smug Western bias, our politicians cannot bring themselves to admit, at least in public, that Russia poses a threat.  So, noble though it is, the Duke of Cambridge deciding not to go to the world cup is not going to cut it.  Neither will PNGing a handful of Russian diplomats of freezing the assets of a few criminal oligarchs. As Corporal Jones remarked, however, they don't like the cold steel up 'em - if we want to make an impression on Russia, we need bigger and better bayonets.  We should immediately commit the funds necessary to restore the operational integrity of our neglected armed forces and urge our NATO allies to do the same.  That is something Putin would understand.

German Coalition Defence Policy

The copious coalition agreement in Germany makes grim reading for anyone concerned with defence.  Germany already struggles to maintain defence spending above a pathetic 1.2% of GDP and with a new SPD Finance Minister in charge of the coffers, the chances of Germany fulfilling the NATO commitment of 2% seem very remote indeed.  News of the coalition agreement came as China announced that she was increasing defence spending by a whopping 8.1%!

Carefully avoiding a definition of Germany’s strategic place in the world the agreement on defence and security includes some notable fudges:

• “Earmark any additional government surplus” for defence development and crisis prevention – spending split equally between military and non-military projects.  So, don’t hold your breath whilst they set about making a few more squadrons of Tornado aircraft operational again

• “Take the initiative to strengthen European foreign policy making mechanism,” similar to PESCO structure set up to coordinate EU military projects.  This may, as I have already pointed out, provide a field hospital in a few years’ time but it is not going to do anything positive in the short to medium term to address the declining capability of European armed forces

• “Pursue a goal” of strengthening European contribution to NATO and strengthening cooperation between EU and NATO.  It is difficult to see how setting up any parallel military structure in Europe, defined as “complementary” or not, could possibly strengthen EU contribution to NATO.  Quite the contrary

• At a time when the NATO Secretary General is urging members to increase their defence spending because of a more assertive and aggressive Russia, the coalition agreement “seeks a solution” to the Ukraine conflict and a willingness to loosen sanctions if Russia cooperates

• There is no mention of NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on military. Instead, Germany aims to “achieve agreed NATO capability goals and close gaps in capabilities.” This is probably the most worrying deficiency and betrays German commitment to NATO. Early next year, NATO allies will report on their specific defence investment plans, covering three main areas: cash, capabilities, and contributions. In other words, how they will meet their commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence; how they will invest additional funding in key military capabilities; and how they will contribute to NATO missions and operations.  Against the background that 80% of NATO’s defence expenditures will come from non-EU allies and that 3 of the 4 four battle groups we have in the Baltic countries and Poland will be led by non-EU allies (US, UK, and Canada), it should be an interesting discussion at the NATO Summit in July?

We may be about to leave the EU but I don’t think, during future Brexit negotiations, we need take any lessons from our German allies about being good Europeans!

German Election

After an indecisive election and 5 month's of smoke-filled room negotiation and public displays of sanctimonious hand-wringing, Mutti seems to scraped together her grand coalition. One cannot help wondering, however, whether the political parties might not have speeded up the whole toturous process by agreeing, like a four at bridge, to cut for partners at the outset?

BBC Response to my Complaint

I have received the following reply from the BBC:

“This is an update to let you know that we had referred your complaint to the relevant people and regret that it may take a little longer before we can reply. Please do not contact us in the meantime.”

Although we reply to most complaints within 2 weeks we cannot achieve this every time. It depends on what your complaint was about and how many others we are handling, or may sometimes be due to more practical issues. For example a production team may already be working on another programme or have gone on location.”

It seems rather odd that the “relevant people” are proving so hard to track down.  Other viewers may have noticed the army of people milling around behind the news presenter each night and wondered, like me, what they are supposed to doing?  Obviously not writing replies to people like me so, I suppose, I must be patient.  Although quite how hard it would be to say “sorry, we were sloppy in our use of statistics and regret that we skewed our interpretation to suit our editorial purposes,” is rather hard to imagine.

But I shall not be holding my breath!