War Breaks Out in Ukraine – Scottish Soldiers In Harms Way Yet Again – But Prime Minister May Promised There Would be No More Foreign Forays – Some Promise Lsted Four Days





27 Jan 2017: Prime Minister Theresa May pledged an end to ‘failed’ military intervention aimed to make countries more like UK as she addresses US law makers

In a later meeting with President Trump she told him that the UK will no longer answer calls from other Countries to intervene militarily unless the threat to the UK is real and immediate.

Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, when asked about the policy said Britain shouldn’t be embarking “on foreign adventures for the sake of it”

Next morning, Interviewed on Radio 4 he withdrew his support of Mrs May’s new policy stating: “It has to be in the British national interest that we intervene in these countries or an ally that is asking for help.”

Note: There are 650 Scottish soldiers in the Ukraine providing training and support to the Ukraine armed forces. Which conflicts with the new policy since the Ukraine is not a member of NATO nor the EU””






31 January 2017: Eastern Ukraine in Flames Again – Western Ukraine Forces Breach Peace Accord

The situation in the Donbas has deteriorated sharply during the recent days. Ukrainian security forces struck powerful artillery blows on the positions of the armed forces of Novorossiya and residential areas of Donetsk, as well as settlements of Makeyevka, Yasinovataya, Gorlovka and Dokuchaevsk.

A power line was damaged in the shelling, electricity supplies to the Donetsk filtering station were curtailed. Many homes were destroyed. Eye witnesses said that the scale of destruction and the intensity of the attacks mirrors that of the hostilities of 2014.


“What is the current situation?”

“They shell us all around the clock. It appears that they are completing a pre-planned mission to destroy water supplies. They targetted a major filtering station. There are other infrastructure losses, but the worst is civilian casualties. The OSCE  monitors do nothing to stop the attacks.They confine their efforts to recording the results of the Ukraine forces attacks their expansion within the exclusion zone. It appears a full scale invasion is imminent


“Why has the situation worsened so dramatically in recent days? What are the causes?”

“The Minsk Accord is a legal document of little effect – this is the prime cause.


“What was the goal for President Poroshenko’s visit to Berlin?

“It is believed his urgent return had been planned in advance”.


Is the Ukraine President Expecting President Trump to intervene?

“Possibly, he wants to show the Trump administration that Washington will have to admit Ukraine’s activity. Ukraine has reformed its armed forces, and the Ukrainian army has been mobilized well enough. At the same time, we need 100 fighters on a conditional line of fire, but we have only 20 of them there.”

“The Kremlin,  appears to be playing a subtle game. The People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk contribute to the economic growth of the Russian Federation. We are an industrial region, and Russia should take us a little bit more seriously. As many as 40 percent of our residents remain devoted to the Russian world, but around half of the other residents are ready to return to Ukraine so they can live without war. and its attending horrors.j






30 Jan 2017: British Warship Deployed to the Black Sea – Nearing Ukraine Coast

A warship of the British Royal Navy is in the Black Sea:The “Diamond Class destroyer, equipped with rockets, is approaching the Ukrainian coast. There are around 60 marines on board.

It is thought the ship may form part of a larger formation tasked to support 650 British soldiers who are in the Ukraine participating in ‘secret drills’.

UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon claimed that: “The UK is sending a clear message that we are committed to defending democracy across the world and support Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity”.

This is the first ever such deployment since the end of the Cold War and is consistent with Prime Minister, Theresa May’s assertion that “Britain and America should stand up to President Vladimir Putin.”

The foregoing confirms recent claims by the Head of the Russian General Staff that there has been much increased activity of the NATO’s naval forces in the Barents, Baltic and Black Seas. Further stating that NATO has been adding to its military contingents, accumulating weapons and developing military infrastructure in Europe.



destroyer    Diamond Class destroyer,



The Ukraine Conflict – How did it get to this?





The Ukraine – A Forced Marriage of Two Independent States

At the end of WW2 the Province of Ruthenia was ceded by a restored Czechoslovakia, to the Soviet Union. The Ruthenian speaking Western province of Ruthenia was subsequently merged with the Russian speaking Province of Novarossya. A new State “The Ukraine” was formed.

Relations between the former provinces were never other than barely tolerant. A state of affairs not assisted by failing crops and famine in Novarossya which created the “Haves” in the West and “have-nots” in the East.

Forming part of many communist “five year plans” the USSR invested in agriculture in Western Ukraine and in heavy industry and shipping in the mineral and sea port rich,(coal and the Crimea) East.

This then is the country that gained it’s freedom at the time the USSR collapsed. The Ukraine has never really been one country. This being the case the Eastern State of Novarossya has every right to hold a referendum and declare independence from the State of Ruthenia.



Permanent Representative of the North AtVictoria Nuland, the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs


imagesGeoffrey R. Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine





February 2014: President Obama admits: US orchestrated a coup in Ukraine – overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian government – So that the Ukrainians would be brought on-side expanding NATO.

Obama told Fareed Zakaria, a member of both the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR) and Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, that the United States “brokered” the coup in Ukraine in February 2014.

Obama’s candid admission should not come as a surprise following the release of a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Victoria Nuland, the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, the US Ambassador to Ukraine.

The conversation centred on ousting Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and replacing him with one of several hand-picked State Department choices. Nuland instructed Pyatt to “have the UN glue this thing” and then dismissively added “fuck the EU” for its role negotiating the crisis.

The U.S. orchestrated “transition,” as Obama characterized it, resulted in the appointment of fascists to key positions in the Kiev government and led to the current war in eastern Ukraine launched by Petro Poroshenko, the former confectionery magnate turned Ukrainian president.

Poroshenko’s war on those who do not accept the nationalist government in Kiev has thus far killed more than 5,000 people, although unofficial tallies are far higher.

In the not too distant past, the U.S. government attempted to hide its involvement in coups and the removal of democratically elected leaders. It relied primarily on the CIA to ferment coups and counter-revolutions.

However, since the advent of NGO and foundation spawned “colour revolutions” attributed to the people of target countries, while in actuality orchestrated by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. government has admitted its role in overturning governments.



images2Petro Poroshenko and President Obama

February 2014: Video – Brokered it & broke it – Obama on Kiev deal that paved path to bloodshed

The Ukrainians’ expression of free will didn’t come without a nudge from Washington after all – in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Barack Obama acknowledged that the United States had “brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.’








March 2014: Russia Reacts

But Putin was determined Eastern Ukraine, including the Crimea Peninsula, base for the Russian fleet, would not transfer allegiances to an expanding NATO. He authorised a peaceful takeover of the Crimea.

Following a successful referendum of the mainly Russian speaking population he formally annexed the Crimea returning it and the large Russian Naval base back to Russia.

The EU and the USA imposed sanctions on Russia – with the intention of forcing Putin to cease Russian aggression against the Ukraine. Putin imposed “counter-sanctions” on the EU and today, EU’s growth rate is stagnant and falling.

Putin then gave up on Europe, turned to the East and rapidly established a new banking and business treaty (BRICS) with China, India, Brazil, South Africa and a host of other nations.

With it’s new buffer zone around Southern Russia there is not a single reason why Russia should cooperate with the West and it can cut off gas supplies to Europe anytime they choose.

Inside Russia, which had freely opened its economy to European and US capital witnessed thousands of Western companies withdrawing investment and set about replacing them with companies from their new expanding partners. The US and Europe are experiencing shrinking economies by result.

The only potential saver for the West is the price of oil which, due to a massive worldwide glut has fallen well below the level Russia needs to sustain the country’s economy. But the same failing apples to just about every country in the World including the US and Europe.

Providing some relief recent events in the Yemen have increased market concerns about the availability of oil from Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries and the falling oil prices of the past few months appear to be taking a significant upturn.

So it follows that Russia is winning the war of attrition forced on it by the US and Europe. The Ukraine will soon be abandoned to it’s massive debts and considered “collateral damage” in the USA-Russia economic and political shoot-out.

Once more the old saying, “every loser wins” aptly fits. The pro-western euphoria of perestroika embraced by President Gorbachev and Russia is unfortunately at an end and regardless of leadership any future business will be entirely pragmatic.



Ukraine west v eastCrimea to join Russiaccac08fe-129a-4997-89a8-7a6c549f933b-460x276







Saudi America – Determined to Annihilate Yemen by Proxy – Aden – Red Sea Choke Point Pivotal to the Supply of Oil and Gas and Control of World Trade




South Yemen and the UK

South Yemen and the bustling port of Aden was brought under British control in the 1800’s so that anti-piracy measures would be sustained protecting the shipping of the ever increasing British Empire.

The advent of the Suez Canal served to increase the importance of Aden and this remained to be the case until Harold Wilson’s Labour government decided, (in the aftermath of the aborted invasion of Egypt by the British) to introduce the, “East Of Aden” policy in the mid 1960’s.

British intentions, mainly driven by the socialist ideals and pan-Arabist doctrines of Egyptian leader Gamel Abdel Nasser precipitated a wave of Arab nationalism spreading to the Arabian Peninsula and the anti-colonial uprising in Aden in 1963.

In the years that followed, small,  localised anti-British guerrilla groups with varying political objectives finally merged into two large,  rival organisations:




Events Take A Turn For The Worse

At the end of 1963 the British High Commissioner of Aden was subjected to a grenade attack.

He was uninjured but there were 51 civilian casualties.

On that day, a “State of Emergency” was declared.

The NLF and FLOSY began a campaign against British forces in Aden, relying largely on grenade attacks.

The guerrilla attacks largely focused on killing off-duty British officers and policemen.

Much of the violence was carried out in the Crater, the old Arab quarter of Aden.

British forces attempted to intercept weapons being smuggled into the Crater but their efforts met with little success.

Despite taking a toll on British forces, the death toll among rebels was far higher, largely to inter-factional fighting among different rebel groups.

In 1964 an Infantry Brigade was despatched to Aden to establish control and to conduct land operations in wider South Yemen.

The Brigade remained there until November 1967.

By 1965, RAF station RAF Khormaksar had been increased to nine operating squadrons in support of the army.

These included transport units with helicopters and a number of Hawker Hunter fighter bomber aircraft.

At the beginning of 1967, the NLF provoked street riots in Aden.

The Aden police failed to establish control and the British High Commissioner deployed British troops to quell the riots.

But no sooner had the NLF riots been crushed than, pro-FLOSY rioters took to the streets.

Fighting between British forces and pro-guerrilla rioters continued until the spring of 1967.




Arab police mutiny

The emergency was further exacerbated by the Six-Day War in June 1967.

Nasser claimed that the British had helped Israel in the war, and this led to a mutiny by hundreds of soldiers in the South Arabian Federation Army on 20 June, which also spread to the police.

The mutineers killed 22 British soldiers, shot down a helicopter, and occupied, (to the exclusion of British soldiers) the “Crater”, an Arab town nestling in an extinct volcano.

Concern grew about the safety and security of British families and emergency evacuation plans were hastily evolved and actioned.

Following the mutiny, the Crater District remained occupied by an estimated 400 Arab fighters.

NLF and FLOSY fighters then took to the streets and engaged in gun battles, while arson, looting, and murder was also common.

Order was restored in July 1967, when the 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders entered the “Crater” under the command of Lt Col Colin Mitchell and occupied the entire district overnight with no casualties.

The Argyll’s were ordered by Labour Party politicians in London, to leave the Crater District but this was ignored by, “Mad Mitch” on the basis it made no military sense to do so and armchair generals and politicians had no right to interfere with operational military decisions.

The British Public warmed to the Argyll’s but Lt Col Mitchell was the only officer commanding an army unit not to receive a commendation on return to the UK. A harsh punishment for a brave soldier by a petty Labour Government.




Withdrawal from South Yemen

Nevertheless, deadly guerrilla attacks by the NLF soon resumed against British forces, and the British left Aden by the end of November 1967, earlier than had been planned by Prime Minister Harold Wilson and without an agreement on the succeeding governance.

British casualties in the period of the emergency included 57 killed and 651 wounded, while local government forces lost 17 killed and 58 wounded

Casualties among the NLF and FLOSY are unknown.

Following the British departure, the NLF managed to seize power, and established the People’s Republic of South Yemen.

But the new oil-poor South Yemeni nation was starved of business and revenue, due to the closure of the Suez Canal, after the 1967 “Six Day War” and this precipitated severely disruptive economic circumstances for many years.






The Aftermath 1967 – 2003

Twenty-three years of police state thuggery followed, with the Soviet KGB replacing the British.

Even after Aden and the rest of the south merged with North Yemen, there was another civil war in the 1990s.

No wonder then the Yemen today is battered and bruised, and its people frustrated by the follies of their rulers. It is a forgotten place anchored to a forgotten time.









External Influences 2003 To date

After Yemeni unification in 1990, some Shiite tribes in the north of the country joined forces to fight the Sunni-dominated central government’s increasing influence.

In 2011, they supported an uprising against President Ali Abdullah Salih.

The fighting resulted in numerous casualties and further deterioration of the region’s already weak economy.

The Yemeni Zaidi Shias accused the country’s government of discrimination towards the Shia minority. and demanded official recognition of their rights including restoration of the Shiah Imamah that was abolished during the revolution of September 1962.

In the wake of Salih’s overthrow, however, they were excluded from a national dialogue on the creation of a new government.

When a draft constitution emerged in the summer of 2014, the Houthis protested. Above all, they opposed the planned new federal structure that merely provided them with a landlocked province.

The Houthis found a supporter in the ousted President Saleh, who hoped an alliance with the Houthis would help him topple his successor and return to the presidential palace.





2014 to February 2015

The Houthi rebels’ key opponents, supporters of the Sunni Hirak movement, had also been excluded from the national dialogue.

The southern Hirak, like the Houthis, also saw themselves as losers in the Yemeni unification process and indicated an intention to secede from the federation.

Houthis, went to war in February 2015, seized the capital Sana’a and took control the city of Taiz, in the country’s central belt and advanced further south before being held up North of Aden by troops loyal to Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who had fled from Sana’a to the southern port city, once a key way-station of the British Empire.

The Shiite-led Houthis, whose leaders have received training and weapons from Iran, now controlled Sana and nine of the country’s 21 provinces claimed they were advancing in order to prevent the expansion of jihadist militancy (al-Qaeda) in the country.

But it is unclear whether they really believed they could take on al-Qaeda’s Sunni tribal heartlands in the centre and east of the country.

But they had the upper hand against a government in disarray.

Their lightning strike on Taiz took Mr Hadi’s forces by surprise, though a coalition of local fighters and soldiers managed to hold the advance at al-Maqatirah, 60 miles north of Aden

The internationally recognised foreign minister of Yemen appealed for international intervention as the Houthi rebels, an Iran-allied rebel group advanced on Aden plunging the country further into civil war.

“They’re expanding in territory, occupying airports and cities, attacking Aden with planes, detaining whom they please, threatening and gathering their forces,” Riyadh Yaseen, Mr Hadi’s foreign minister, said in an interview with al-Jazeera.

“We have expressed to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the United Nations as well as the international community that there should be a no-fly zone, and the use of military aircraft should be prevented at the airports controlled by the Houthis.”

Britain and America confirmed they had pulled out their special forces.

A handful of SAS troops had been based in the country liaising with local commandos and US forces as well as providing protection to embassy personnel.

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, stressed the desirability of finding a “peaceful solution”.

The Houthis are Shia and allied to the Lebanese militia Hizbollah and Iran, which has gloated at the group’s success in taking the Yemeni capital.

Saudi Arabia is Iran’s main strategic rival in the Gulf.

Mr Hadi’s election as president of Yemen was a high-point of Western diplomacy during the Arab Spring, but has backfired badly.

He was vice-president to Yemen’s president of 30 years, Ali Abdullah al-Saleh, who for months resisted pressure from demonstrators to stand down but was eventually pressured into quitting by the GCC and its western backers.

Now Yemen is dangerously split between the Houthi-Saleh alliance, the recognised government, a separatist movement also based in the south, al-Qaeda, ISIS and militants.

Further complicating matters the pro-Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant faction have claimed responsibility (March 22) for a triple suicide bombing of mosques in Sana’a which killed 142 people and a gun attack in the south which killed a further 29 the same day.



images22Six people killed during attacks on Saudi-Yemeni border postsaudi troops


26 March 2015: Saudi Arabia launches military operation in Yemen

Saudi Arabia launched a military operation in Yemen.

Other Gulf states and Middle Eastern countries, (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Sudan) have said they are committed to the protection of Yemen from a Shiite Houthi takoever.

“The operation is to defend and support the legitimate government of Yemen and prevent the radical Houthi movement from taking over the country,” the Foreign Secretary said.

The military action was announced as reports surfaced that President Abed Rabbo Mansour Haddi had fled his Aden palace and left the country by boat, although his aides denied the claim.

Saudi consultations with the US were said to have taken place “at a high level” before the operation was launched, a Washington official told the Reuters news agency.

Yemen has become increasingly divided between a north dominated by Houthis and a south largely controlled by Hadi supports.

Former President Ali Abdullah Selah, who resigned in 2012 after protests, has been accused of backing the Houthi rebels in an effort to regain influence.

Saudi warplanes continued to bomb the Houthis on Thursday as part of their offensive “Storm of Resolve” to weaken the Shiite rebels.

Four naval vessels were additionally being sent from Egypt and were expected to be in the Red Sea soon, to secure the Gulf of Aden.

Washington, “commended the work of the coalition taking military action against the Houthis” and ensured Washington’s support in “intelligence sharing, targeting assistance and advisory and logistical support for strikes against the Houthis.”






27 March 2015: The air war that is already taking its toll on the civilian population of the Yemeni capital city of Sanaa is just the beginning, as Saudi Arabia is telegraphing their planned ground invasion of Yemen, and touting the number of Sunni Arab allies who will be going along.

The latest reports are that some 150,000 Saudi ground troops have massed along their border with Yemen, along with heavy artillery. Egypt also confirmed an undisclosed number of troops on transport ships off the Yemeni coast, who will join the invasion.

Egypt is not alone in joining the war, as a number of other Sunni Arab nations are reportedly involved, with an eye on fighting the Shi’ite Houthis, who control the capital city of Sanaa.

At present, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are confirmed to have help from Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan.

There are also reports of Libya’s government giving its approval, though they are unlikely to contribute troops, and Saudi state media also claimed Pakistan as part of the coalition.

News of the war sent the price of oil jumping, as while Yemen itself is not a major producer, Saudi Arabia is, and its own oil production is centred around the territory of its Shi’ite minority.

If fighting spreads to the Yemeni coast it could also imperil key shipping lanes.

Saudi officials are already trying to downplay the scope of the war, saying they don’t intend to 100% occupy Yemen, but rather to just fight a big war and weaken the Houthis in the hopes that President Hadi, who resigned in January, will take over again.

That seems unlikely, with Hadi having fled the country yesterday in the face of a minor Houthi offensive.

The more likely immediate impact of the Saudi intervention will be emboldening the Sunni Islamist forces in the country, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS, and giving them an advantage in expanding their territory.








10 Jul 2017: Saudi-America – The Rogue Nation at the Heart of All the Misery, Death and Destruction in the Middle East

Saudi Arabia is fully protected by the USA from any external aggression.

Probably the world’s most authoritarian regime, its repression of its own population and blatant aggression against its neighbours is appalling.

Its protector, the USA is also the country’s largest supplier of arms, munitions and just about every tool of war in existence, short of nuclear arms.

Of major concern to the UN in recent years is the use of the Saudi military machine against its neighbours

In this period a very significant amount of the aforesaid arms and munitions has been expended against a few thousand rebels in Yemen.

Total overkill by a so called Saudi led coalition who seem to be determined to destroy the rebels even if this brings about the complete destruction of the Yemen.

At the end of July 2017 more than 10,000 Yemeni have been Killed


A woman puts her malnourished son on a weighing scale at a malnutrition treatment centre in Sanaa,




10 Jul 2017:  The Role of the Brits

Next in the supply line is Britain who have been training Saudi armed forces personnel and selling them many £ billions of tanks, aircraft, munitions, missiles etc.for countless years

The British government licensed £283m worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the six months after an air strike by the Riyadh-led coalition killed 140 mourners at a funeral in Yemen.

A UN sanctions monitor told the security council that last year’s double air strike, which targeted both mourners and those who helped them in Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, violated international law.

It was one of the bloodiest attacks in a two year campaign waged by Saudi Arabia against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Following the attack, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson advised Trade Secretary Liam Fox to grant four export licence applications to supply the Royal Saudi Air Force with equipment which could be used in Yemen.

Figures compiled by the Campaign Against Arms Trade show that from the time of the attack on 8 October 2016 until the end of March 2017, the UK government authorised exports including £263m worth of combat aircraft components and £4m of bombs and missiles to the country.

The figures exclude aircraft cannon equipment, targeting software, aircraft components and assault rifles exported under 24 open licences, which are seen as even less transparent.





Famine and Disease

31 Jul 2017: War-torn Yemen is facing a famine caused by the Saudi led coalition blockading ports preventing the supply of food and medicines into the country.

Time is not on the side of the UN who estimate over 70% of the Yemeni population are nearing starvation.

Added to the misery over 450,000 have been struck down by cholera with no sign of an end to the epidemic.

Seeking to justify the actions of the Saudi led coalition a spokesman said: “Weapons and ammunition is being supplied to the rebels by Iran using small shipping units and we are denying them this outlet.”

But there is no evidence of any such assistance reaching the rebels.

Arms Sales Britain:





The Annihilation of Yemen by Saudi American Led Forces – The first 6 months March – August 2015

5 Mar 2015: The Saudi’s, inspired by newly appointed Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman attacked Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The campaign was expected to be executed swiftly and with minimum casualties.

But three years later the battles rage on with no sign of an end.

Below is a tabulated account of the first few months of the war followed by a statement of recent events which should give concern to any decent minded person.

The Arab nations need to call a halt to the war now or bear witness to a catastrophic disaster.





09 Mar 2015: Saudi Arabia agrees to host peace talks with Houthis militants at the request of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi after Houthi’s and Al-Qaida militants overran and held the city of Mahfad in southern Yemen for hours before an army counter attack pushed them out.

25 Mar 2015: The Saudi ambassador to the United States announced that his country had initiated air-strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Saudi operation has been named “Decisive Storm.”

The Saudi’s have gathered a 10-country coalition of Sunni states to bomb the Houthis.

26 Mar 2015: Warplanes from the Saudi led Arab coalition bombed Huthi rebels in support of Yemen’s embattled president, as regional rival Iran warned the intervention was a “dangerous” move.

Egypt also participated in the Saudi led campaign against Shi’ite Houthi militias in Yemen with its naval and air forces.

The US military rescued two Saudi pilots who ejected from their jet off Yemen’s coast.

27 Mar 2015: At least 21 Yemini, rebels were killed when residents in a tribal southern region opened fire on their vehicles.

Saudi warplanes targeted Houthi forces controlling Sanaa and their northern heartland.

In a boost for Riyadh, fellow monarchy Morocco said it would join the rapidly-assembled Sunni Muslim coalition against the Shi’ite Muslim group.

27 Mar 2015: Egyptian and Saudi Arabian warships have been deployed to the Bab al-Mandab straits off Yemen to secure a strategic sea passage.

28 Mar 2015: Saudi Arabia’s navy evacuated dozens of diplomats from Yemen and the United Nations pulled out international staff after a third night of Saudi-led air strikes trying to stem advances by Iranian-allied Houthi fighters.

29 Mar 2015: 38 killed in Yemen in clashes between rebel forces and tribes near a southern oil region.

Saudi led warplanes bombed the main international airport and struck a renegade troop base in Sanaa.

31 Mar 2015: Saudi led air-strikes pounded Yemen’s Shiite rebels for a sixth day, destroying missiles and weapons depots controlled by the rebels.

The UN human rights office in Geneva said that in the past five days, at least 93 civilians have been killed and 364 wounded in five Yemeni cities.

Air strikes hit a dairy factory near Hodeida killing 23.


A family eat breakfast outside their hut at a camp for people displaced by the war near Sanaa, Yemen September 26, 2016


01 Apr 2015: Saudi led coalition warplanes bombed Shiite rebel positions in both the north and south of Yemen, setting off explosions. Anti-aircraft guns returned fire.

03 Apr 2015: In Yemen Houthi forces pulled back from central Aden after warplanes from the Saudi led coalition dropped weapons and medical aid to fighters defending the southern Yemeni city.

An air strike on a village near Sanaa killed a family of nine in what appeared to be a hit by the Saudi led military campaign against Houthi militia.

Local militia forces said they killed 10 Houthis during the fighting which pushed the Shi’ite movement out of Crater.

They also said Houthis killed two medics and two patients when they opened fire on an ambulance ferrying casualties from Aden peninsula to hospital on the mainland.

04 Apr 2015: A Saudi adviser said Saudi Arabian special forces are involved in a military operation against Shiite Houthi rebels in neighbouring Yemen.

A second Saudi led coalition force pounded rebels in the south and dropped more arms to loyalist fighters.

05 Apr 2015: In eastern Saudi Arabia a policeman was killed and three were wounded during a raid in al-Awamiya, a predominantly Shiite town.

05 Apr 2015: In Yemen warplanes from a Saudi led coalition bombed Sanaa overnight on the eleventh day of the campaign against Iran allied Houthi.

A senior Houthi member said Yemen’s Houthis are ready to sit down for peace talks as long as a Saudi-led air campaign is halted and the negotiations are overseen by “non-aggressive” parties.

07 Apr 2015: In central Yemen warplanes from the Saudi led air coalition bombed a military base controlled by Houthi fighters and their army allies.

A website of the Houthi-run defence ministry said two students were killed at a neighbouring school.

Suspected al Qaeda militants stormed a remote border post with Saudi Arabia, killing at least two soldiers including the senior border guard officer.

08 Apr 2015: In southern Yemen warplanes from the Saudi led coalition struck al-Anad airbase overnight and targets in areas around the southern port city of Aden.

At least 22 people were killed in tank and mortar shelling by rebel forces on residential areas in Aden.

Warships from the Saudi led coalition blocked a vessel carrying more than 47,000 tons of wheat from entering a Yemeni port, demanding UN guarantees that the cargo would not go to military personnel.

09 Apr 2015: The Pentagon said the US has begun daily aerial refuelling for planes in the Saudi led coalition carrying out air strikes in Yemen.

10 Apr 2015: Yemen’s Houthi rebels killed 3 Saudi border guards in a mortar attack in Saudi Arabia’s Najran province.

12 Apr 2015: In Yemen suspected Al Qaeda militants killed an army colonel in central Shabwa province.

Saudi Arabia dismissed Iranian calls to end air strikes on Yemen as Saudi led attacks hit a military camp in Taiz, killing 8 civilians.

14 Apr 2015: Iran proposed a four point peace plan for Yemen and called for an end to Saudi led air strikes against Houthi rebels.

It comprised of a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, an intra Yemeni dialogue and the establishment of a broad-based government.

18 Apr 2015: Saudi Arabia pledges to cover the entire $274 million in humanitarian aid sought by the UN for conflict-torn Yemen, where a Saudi led coalition has been bombing Shiite rebels for three weeks.

19 Apr 2015: A Saudi border guard was killed and two troops wounded by heavy gun and mortar fire from Yemen.

20 Apr 2015: In Yemen Saudi led air strikes on a missile depot in Sanaa, the rebel-held capital, sparked explosions that left at least 18 people dead and 300 wounded.

21 Apr 2015: Saudi Arabia announced that it would end almost a month of air strikes against the Iranian allied Houthis.

Hours later Houthi fighters captured an army brigade base loyal to the government in Yemen’s central city of Taiz following heavy fighting.

A Saudi air strike hit the brigade headquarters shortly afterwards.

22 Apr 2015: In Yemen rival forces fought on despite a declared halt to a Saudi led bombing campaign, showing how tough it may be to find a political solution to a war stirring animosities between rival Gulf powers Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The Houthi rebel movement said it wanted to return to UN sponsored peace talks but only after a complete halt to a month of Saudi led air strikes on the group.

The Saudi-led coalition bombed southern Houthi positions carrying out at least 12 air strikes.

23 Apr 2015: Warplanes from the Saudi led coalition pounded Houthi militiamen and military bases with at least 20 air strikes throughout Yemen, despite Riyadh saying it was winding down its campaign.

27 Apr 2015: In Yemen Saudi led aircraft pounded Iran allied Houthi militiamen and rebel army units in central Yemen and Sanaa despite a formal end to the air strikes.





01 May 2015: Saudi Arabia said its forces killed dozens of Iran-backed rebels from Yemen who launched their first major attack on the kingdom since Saudi led air strikes began last month.

04 May 2015: Senegal is sending 2,100 troops to Saudi Arabia as part of an international coalition combating Houthi rebels in Yemen.

05 May 2015: Saudi King Salman announced the establishment of a centre to coordinate humanitarian assistance for Yemen, and invited the United Nations to join in relief work for the Arab country.

05 May 2015: Yemen’s Houthi rebels fired mortars and Katyusha rockets at the Saudi city of Najran, killing at least 3 civilians.

A husband and wife were killed as a missile from war-torn Yemen struck their building in the Jazan region.

Five Saudi soldiers were reported captured by rebel fighters.

06 May 2015: Saudi led coalition warplanes struck Yemeni provinces near the Saudi border overnight, killing at least 43 civilians.

Another 9 people were killed and 18 were wounded in air strikes on a police academy in Dhamar province.

Aid agencies warned that fuel shortages could halt their efforts to tackle Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.

Houthi fighters entered Aden’s al-Tawahi district, one of the last strongholds of supporters of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Fighting across Yemen killed 120 people, mostly civilians, including at least 40 who were trying to flee Aden in a boat that was struck by Houthi shells.

07 May 2015: Saudi Arabia offers a five day humanitarian truce to the Houthi militia it has hit with weeks of air strikes in neighbouring Yemen, on condition that fighting across Yemen stops.

08 May 2015: The Saudi led coalition declared the rebel stronghold of Saada in Yemen a war zone and said its entire territory would from now on be considered a “military target,” urging all civilians to leave by 7 p.m. local time.

09 May 2015: The Saudi led coalition struck northern provinces of Yemen in a third consecutive night of heavy air strikes.

More than 100 air strikes hit areas of Saada and Hajjah provinces, including the districts of Haradh, Maidi and Bakil al-Mir.

11 May 2015: Saudi led warplanes pressed air strikes against rebel positions in Yemen, 36 hours before a scheduled five-day pause to allow the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.

The air strikes on a rocket base in Sanaa killed 90 people and wounded 300.

12 May 2015: In Yemen at least 69 people were killed and 250 others were wounded by explosions after Saudi led warplanes hit an arms depot a day earlier on the outskirts of Sanaa as bombing continued.

13 May 2015: King Salman doubled Saudi Arabia’s aid commitment to Yemen to $540 million on the first day of a humanitarian pause in a bombing campaign it has led.

A jet fighter from the Saudi led coalition struck a military convoy belonging to Shiite rebels and their allies in southern Yemen, straining the humanitarian, five day ceasefire.

21 May 2015: In southern Yemen Saudi led coalition warplanes carried out fresh raids on rebel positions as pro-government tribesmen advanced on Shiite Huthi strongholds in the north.

Saudi shells hit an international humanitarian aid office in northern Yemen, killing 5 Ethiopian refugees and wounding ten.

24 May 2015: In Yemen Saudi forces and Houthi militia traded heavy artillery fire overnight, which destroyed part of the Haradh border crossing, the main border crossing between the two countries.

In Taiz Houthi forces and pro-Hadi fighters fired tank and artillery shells at each other throughout the city overnight, killing 5 civilians.

Local fighters combating the Houthis in the south said they killed 8 Houthi fighters in an ambush in Dalea province.

26 May 2015: In northern Yemen 7 members of a family were killed in an overnight strike by Saudi led warplanes on a border village.

In the south the Saudi led air force launched nearly 20 raids on Houthi fighters in the port city of Aden.

27 May 2015: Saudi led air strikes killed at least 80 people near Yemen’s border with Saudi Arabia and in the capital Sanaa, the deadliest day of bombing in over two months of war in Yemen.

31 May 2015: In Yemen, aircraft from the Saudi led coalition bombed Houthi outposts throughout the country.

Yemen’s exiled government in Saudi Arabia said that senior Houthi officials are holding talks with the United States in neighbouring Oman to help end the nine-week conflict.

Human Rights Watch published new evidence alleging a Saudi-led coalition is using internationally banned cluster bombs in Yemen.




01 Jun 2015: In Yemen at least 8 civilians were killed and 20 wounded in explosions sparked by Saudi led air strikes on rebel arms depots in Sanaa.

03 Jun 2015: In Yemen Saudi led air strikes killed a group of around 20 Houthi fighters outside the southern port city of Aden and also shook the capital Sanaa in the north.

04 Jun 2015: In central Yemen warplanes from the Saudi led coalition pounded rebel positions as air raids intensified amid attempts to revive UN-proposed talks in Switzerland.

05 Jun 2015: Four Saudi troops, including an officer, were reported killed after an attack was launched from the Yemeni side on border areas in Jizan and Najran.

06 Jun 2015: Yemen’s dominant Houthi group and its army allies fired a Scud missile at Saudi Arabia which the kingdom says it shot down.

Eyewitnesses said around 10 Arab air strikes pounded Houthi positions in Aden’s Northwest suburbs.

07 Jun 2015: In Yemen 20 civilians were among at least 45 people killed in Saudi led air strikes on the rebel-held armed forces headquarters in Sanaa early today.

09 Jun 2015: In Yemen a series of air-strikes from the Saudi led military coalition targeted the Defence Ministry building, which is under control of Shiite rebels who control Sanaa.

The air-strikes also targeted the homes of military commanders allied with the rebels in the Northwest Sanaa district of Hamdan.

11 Jun 2015: In Yemen a Saudi led air-strike hit a public bus on a highway north of the southern city of Aden, splitting the vehicle in half and killing at least 20 civilian passengers.

Air strikes over the last 48 hours also hit a family travelling in a private car and a farmer driving a pick-up truck loaded with potatoes, also near Aden.

12 Jun 2015: In Yemen Saudi led air-strikes targeting Shiite rebels and their allies destroyed historic houses in the centre of, Sanaa, a UNESCO world heritage site.

The Saudi led coalition denied claims that it carried out the strike, suggesting a rebel ammunition cache may have exploded.

13 Jun 2015: In Yemen 9 people were killed when Saudi led coalition warplanes bombed a district in Sanaa inhabited by relatives of ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh. At least 60 people were reported wounded.

17 Jun 2015: Al Qaeda militants in Yemen killed two alleged Saudi spies, accusing them of planting tracking devices which enabled the assassination of the group’s leader in a suspected US drone strike last week.

Four car bombs hit three mosques and the political headquarters of the Houthi movement in Sanaa, killing and wounding dozens of people.

Jun 19 2015: In Yemen Saudi led warplanes bombed elite Republican Guard forces allied with the dominant Houthi faction.

Houthis reported that 9 civilians were killed in air strikes on the Razeh district of the northern province of Saada.

UN-sponsored ceasefire talks broke off in Geneva without a deal to end nearly three months of fighting.

24 Jun 2015: Yemen’s Shiite rebels launched two late night attacks along the Saudi Arabia border, killing three Saudi soldiers and one from the United Arab Emirates.

26 Jun 2015: In Yemen air strikes by a Saudi led force hit military bases across Yemen. 10 people were killed in air raids in Jawf.





06 Jul 2015: In Yemen Saudi led warplanes bombed the Sanaa headquarters of the party headed by rebel allied former president Ali Abdullah Saleh overnight.

More than 45 civilians were reported killed in a Saudi-led air-strike in Fayoush.

16 Jul 2015: In Yemen fighting intensified in the southern port city of Aden as Saudi backed troops pushed to drive Shiite rebels out of several neighbourhoods.

The Shiite rebels meanwhile fired rockets at the city’s airport, killing at least 3 people.

Senior members of the exiled administration flew into Aden to make preparations for the government’s return.

11 Jul 2015: In Yemen a UN proposed truce, aimed at delivering desperately needed aid to millions threatened with famine, failed to take hold.

The spokesman for the Saudi led coalition targeting Yemen’s Shiite rebels in air-strikes since March said the coalition is not bound by the new truce deal.

22 Jul 2015: In Yemen a Saudi military plane loaded with arms for fighters loyal to Yemen’s deposed president landed at Aden airport, the first flight to reach the embattled port city in four months.

24 Jul 2015: In Yemen Saudi led coalition air-strikes killed more than 120 civilians and wounded more than 150 after shelling a residential area in the Taiz province.

25 Jul 2015: Saudi led coalition forces announced a five day humanitarian ceasefire would take effect starting July 26 evening at the request of exiled president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

27 Jul 2015: Yemeni military sources Saudi led coalition warplanes hit positions of pro-government forces in south Yemen by mistake, killing 12 people on the first day of a humanitarian truce.

28 Jul 2015: In Yemen Saudi led warplanes resumed raids on rebels, who clashed with loyalists.

Air strikes targeted rebels north of Aden, rebels in nearby Lahj province and a rebel convoy near Sabr.

Other raids hit a building occupied by insurgents in Jaawala.

An overnight strike hit rebels in Marib east of Sanaa.

29 Jul 2015: From Saudi Arabia Yemen’s exiled President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi ordered that militias battling Shiite rebels in Yemen be merged with his national army, in an apparent attempt to unify ground forces.

29 Jul 2015: In Yemen Saudi led warplanes bombed targets in northerly Saada province.

A car bomb exploded outside the Ismaili Al Faydh Alhatemy mosque in an eastern district of Sanaa, killing 3 people and wounding seven.

The Islamic State militant group claimed responsibility.

Ismailis are a minority Shi’ite Muslim sect, as are the Zaydi Shi’ites, a community whose interests the Houthi group says it defends.





07 Aug 2015: A Saudi soldier was killed by shelling from across the Yemeni border, becoming the third death this week.

08 Aug 2015: In Yemen pro-government forces, strengthened by tanks newly supplied by the Saudi led coalition, launched an offensive to retake Zinjibar, the rebel-held capital of Abyan province.

A Saudi led coalition airstrike hit allied fighters in a friendly fire incident, killing at least 20 fighters on a coastal road as they headed toward Zinjibar.

17 Aug 2015: The Saudi military said 2 soldiers have been killed along the border by a missile fired from inside Yemen.

21 Aug 2015: In Yemen a helicopter from the Saudi-led forces battling anti-government fighters crashed along the Saudi border, killing the two pilots.

Huthi rebels said they have shot down a Saudi Apache helicopter.

25 Aug 2015: In Yemen about 100 Saudi forces arrived in Aden to help rebuild the local police force.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it has temporarily suspended its activities in Aden after its office was raided by unidentified gunmen a day earlier.

Al-Qaeda dynamited a headquarters of the secret police in Mukalla.

26 Aug 2015: In Yemen al-Qaeda militants blew up an army headquarters and set up checkpoints in the jihadist network’s southeastern stronghold of Mukalla, Hadramawt province.

Yemeni army units allied to the Houthi militia fired a ballistic missile toward southern Saudi Arabia but the Saudi military said it intercepted it and retaliated with air strikes on Yemeni territory.




04 Sep 2015: President Barack Obama hosted Saudi Arabia’s new monarch for the first time and said that the US shares King Salman’s desire for an inclusive government in Yemen that can relieve that impoverished Arab country’s humanitarian crisis.

04 Sep 2015: In Yemen Iranian allied Houthis attacked a weapons storage facility in Marib killing 45 soldiers from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 5 Bahrainis, 10 Saudis and 4 Yemenis.

06 Sep 2015: Saudi led coalition jets bombed a Houthi military position and army bases in the Yemeni capital Sanaa through the night and into this morning in what appeared to be further retaliation for the killing of dozens of coalition soldiers two days ago.

Note: The war of attrition against Yemen has now progressed through 5 x  6 monthly cycles.

Death and destruction in each period has spiralled and the situation in the country is now desperate.

The Telegraph – Sputnik News – The Guardian – Anti-War News










Russia And China Introduce A New World Financial Order Challenging The Power of The USA – Britain, France and Italy Sign Up To It – So Much For The Grand Alliance


00221917e13e12bf29ef12images-3BRICS happy_0


March 2015: Major Realignment of the World’s Banks

The US dollar has been the worlds controlling currency for a very long time. In times of financial constraint, eg the 2007-8 crisis the US Federal Bank simply printed more dollars and this has resulted in a glut of paper money which cannot be supported by gold reserves. Many countries are uneasy at this state of affairs and in 2013 a group of five comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) decided to form an anti-dollar alliance breaking away from the, International Monetary Fund, The World bank and over time the US dollar.

The fear in the US is the loss of power that would be brought about through a transfer of control of the worlds finance to Russia and China. Meeting the challenge was considered crucial and the US tasked the NSA, CIA, FBI and other covert agencies to monitor events so that they would be placed to ensure the group did not expand further.

The full extent of the covert eavesdropping operations were revealed to the world by the US National Security Agency (NSA) leaker Edward Snowden and former CIA agent John Kiriakou and resulted in many countries curtailing diplomatic relations with the US. The clumsy attempt to retain the status quo accelerated the growth of the newly formed BRICS group.

BRICS are an innovative team and spawned a Development Bank promoting growth within the group. Many new countries have committed to the new bank including the UK, Germany, France and Italy. It follows that relations between the US and europe are strained and the full effects of the new alignment will be far reaching. There is talk of the US reverting to the inward looking status it pursued, up to 1942. For those inclined to know more I have tabled below a sequence of events, to date. Enjoy the ride.


October 2013: NSA hacked the phones of 35 world leaders

The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its “customer” departments, such the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their “Rolodexes” so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems. The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately “tasked” for monitoring by the NSA. The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.

Merkel suspected the surveillance after finding her mobile phone number written on a US document, is said to have called for US surveillance to be placed on a new legal footing during a phone call to President Obama. “The [German] federal government, as a close ally and partner of the US, expects in the future a clear contractual basis for the activity of the services and their co-operation,” she told the president.

Earlier in the week, Obama called the French president François Hollande in response to reports in Le Monde that the NSA accessed more than 70m phone records of French citizens in a single 30-day period, while earlier reports in Der Spiegel uncovered NSA activity against the offices and communications of senior officials of the European Union.

The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, this week backed proposals that could require US tech companies to seek permission before handing over EU citizens’ data to US intelligence agencies, while the European parliament voted in favour of suspending a transatlantic bank data sharing agreement after Der Spiegel revealed the agency was monitoring the international bank transfer system “Swift”.



October 2013: BRICS Countries Build New Internet to Avoid NSA Spying

BRICS countries are close to completing a brand new Internet backbone that will bypass the United States entirely and thereby protect both governments and citizens from NSA spying. In light of revelations that the National Security Agency hacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, in addition to recording information about 124 billion phone calls during a 30-day period earlier this year, the fallout against the NSA has accelerated.

A 34,000-kilometre undersea fiber-optic cable will be in place by 2015 running from Vladivostok, Russia to Fortaleza, Brazil, via Shantou, China, Chennai, India and Cape Town, South Africa. The project will create, “a network free of US eavesdropping,” which via legislative mandates will also force the likes of Google, Facebook and Yahoo to store all data generated by BRICS nations locally, shielding it from NSA snooping.




July 2014: BRICS morphing into anti-dollar alliance

the Governor of the Russian Central Bank used a meeting with the Peoples Bank of China to let the world know about the technical details of its international anti-dollar alliance. She outlined the need to establish an international alliance of countries willing to get rid of the dollar in international trade refraining from using dollars in their currency reserves. The ultimate goal being to break Washington’s money printing machine that is feeding its military-industrial complex and giving the US ample possibilities to spread chaos across the world.

Currency swaps between the BRICS central banks will facilitate trade financing while completely bypassing the dollar. At the same time, the new system will also act as a de facto replacement of the IMF, because it will allow the members of the alliance to direct resources to finance the weaker countries. As an important bonus, derived from this “quasi-IMF” system, the BRICS will use a part (most likely the “dollar part”) of their currency reserves to support it, thus drastically reducing the amount of dollar-based instruments bought by some of the biggest foreign creditors of the US.

Commenting, Andrei Kostin, the president of the state-owned VTB bank and one of the staunchest supporters of anti-dollar policies, offered an interesting perspective on the situation in Europe: “I think the work on ruble-yuan swap line will finalized in the nearest future and the way for ruble-yuan settlement will be open. If the current trend continues, soon the dollar will be abandoned by most of the significant global economies and it will be kicked out of the global trade finance. Washington’s bullying will make even former American allies chose the anti-dollar alliance instead of the existing dollar-based monetary system. The point of no return for the dollar may be much closer than it is generally thought. In fact, the greenback may have already past its point of no return on its way to irrelevance. Read more:


July 2014: Brazil and Russia leaders discuss the creation of a development bank to promote growth in Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa.

The Brazilian President, meeting with President Putin a day before leaders of the five emerging BRICS nations meet, told reporters the bank would top the summit’s agenda, adding she hoped the event would produce an agreement on the proposed institution. She said the five countries “are among the largest in the world and cannot content themselves in the middle of the 21st century with any kind of dependency.” Brazil and Russia also signed bilateral accords on air defense, gas and education.




July 2014: Anti-Dollar Alliance Prepares Launch Of BRICS Bank

There has been a growing anti-dollar hegemony alliance across the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Their efforts concentrating on creating a structure to serve as an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank (which are dominated by the U.S. and the EU). Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have discussed the creation of a development bank to promote growth across the BRICS and hope to produce an agreement on the proposed institution at this week’s BRICS Summit.




July 2014: BRICS Announce $100 Billion Reserve To Bypass the US Federal and Developed World Central Banks

The BRICS anti-dollar alliance has successfully created a so-called “mini-IMF” The world’s developing nations stated “We remain disappointed and seriously concerned with the current non-implementation of the 2010 International Monetary Fund (IMF) reforms, which negatively impacts on the IMF’s legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness.”

President Putin explained, this is part of “a system of measures that will help prevent the harassment of countries that do not agree with some foreign policy decisions made by the United States and their allies.”

Initial capital for the BRICS Bank will be $50 Billion – paid in equal share among the 5 members (with a contingent reserve up to $100 Billion) and will see India as the first President. The BRICS Bank will be based in Shanghai and chaired by Russia. Simply put, it’s game over for the dollar.

The creation of the BRICS Development Bank has a political significance too, since it allows its member states to promote their interests abroad. “It is a political move that can highlight the strengthening positions of countries whose opinion is frequently ignored by their developed American and European colleagues. The stronger this union and its positions on the world arena are, the easier it will be for its members to protect their own interests.”

Perhaps the following sums it all up perfectly. Economists warn the IMF’s legitimacy is at stake, and they say U.S. standing abroad is being eroded. “Eroded” indeed…if the current trend continues, soon the dollar will be abandoned by most of the significant global economies and it will be kicked out of the global trade finance. Washington’s bullying will make even former American allies choose the anti-dollar alliance instead of the existing dollar-based monetary system. The point of no return for the dollar may be much closer than it is generally thought. In fact, the greenback may have already past its point of no return on its way to irrelevance.




Key excerpts from the Full statement:

We remain disappointed and seriously concerned with the current non-implementation of the 2010 International Monetary Fund (IMF) reforms, which negatively impacts on the IMF’s legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness. The IMF reform process is based on high-level commitments, which already strengthened the Fund’s resources and must also lead to the modernization of its governance structure so as to better reflect the increasing weight of EMDCs in the world economy.

The Fund must remain a quota-based institution. We call on the membership of the IMF to find ways to implement the 14th General Review of Quotas without further delay. We reiterate our call on the IMF to develop options to move ahead with its reform process, with a view to ensuring increased voice and representation of EMDCs, in case the 2010 reforms are not entered into force by the end of the year. We also call on the membership of the IMF to reach a final agreement on a new quota formula together with the 15th General Review of Quotas so as not to further jeopardize the postponed deadline of January 2015.

BRICS, as well as other EMDCs, continue to face significant financing constraints to address infrastructure gaps and sustainable development needs. With this in mind, we are pleased to announce the signing of the Agreement establishing the New Development Bank (NDB), with the purpose of mobilizing resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging and developing economies. We appreciate the work undertaken by our Finance Ministers. Based on sound banking principles, the NDB will strengthen the cooperation among our countries and will supplement the efforts of multilateral and regional financial institutions for global development, thus contributing to our collective commitments for achieving the goal of strong, sustainable and balanced growth.

The Bank shall have an initial authorized capital of US$ 100 billion. The initial subscribed capital shall be of US$ 50 billion, equally shared among founding members. The first chair of the Board of Governors shall be from Russia. The first chair of the Board of Directors shall be from Brazil. The first President of the Bank shall be from India. The headquarters of the Bank shall be located in Shanghai. The New Development Bank Africa Regional Center shall be established in South Africa concurrently with the headquarters. We direct our Finance Ministers to work out the modalities for its operationalization.

We are pleased to announce the signing of the Treaty for the establishment of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$ 100 billion. This arrangement will have a positive precautionary effect, help countries forestall short-term liquidity pressures, promote further BRICS cooperation, strengthen the global financial safety net and complement existing international arrangements. We appreciate the work undertaken by our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. The Agreement is a framework for the provision of liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures.




July 2014: Germany Secretly Planning to Join BRICS

NSA surveillance controversy centered on U.S. fear that Europe’s economic powerhouse will dump the dollar. Jim Willie, a statistical analyst who holds a PhD in statistics sensationally claimed that Germany is preparing to ditch the unipolar system backed by NATO and the U.S. in favor of joining the BRICS nations, and that this is why the NSA was caught spying on Angela Merkel and other EU leaders. “I think they were looking for details of a secret movement for Germany to get away from the dollar and join the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.) This is exactly what I think they are going to do,” said Willie.

Earlier this month, the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), announced the creation of a new $100 billion dollar anti-dollar alternative IMF bank to be based in Shanghai and chaired by Moscow. Putin launched the new system by saying it was designed to, “help prevent the harassment of countries that do not agree with some foreign policy decisions made by the United States and their allies,” a clear signal that Russia and other BRICS countries are moving to create a new economic system which is adversarial to the IMF and the World Bank.

In another sign that BRICS nations are moving to create an entirely new multi-polar model adversarial to the west, the five countries are also constructing an alternative Internet backbone which will circumvent the United States in order to avoid NSA spying.

Willie also links Germany’s move to last week’s shoot down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which has been exploited by the U.S. and Britain to push for more stringent sanctions on Russia despite the fact that they have had little effect so far and only appear to be harming the trade interests of countries in mainland Europe.

“Here’s the big, big consequence. The U.S. is basically telling Europe you have two choices here. Join us with the war against Russia. Join us with the sanctions against Russia. Join us in constant war and conflicts, isolation and destruction to your economy and denial of your energy supply and removal of contracts. Join us with this war and sanctions because we’d really like you to keep the dollar regime going. They are going to say were tired of the dollar. . . . We are pushing Germany. Don’t worry about France, don’t worry about England, worry about Germany. Germany has 3,000 companies doing active business right now. They are not going to join the sanctions…period.”



I thought the EU was at least a year out from this decision. If the EU follows Germany’s lead (and many of the nations of the EU owe Germany money) and join the multi basket of currencies that much of the world has joined……..the dollar will collapse.

This is really serious, folks. Germany and France are the leading nations of the EU, and of the two, Germany is the strongest. I don’t know if one member can dump the dollar without the agreement of the other 27 members (many are weak, and in debt to Germany). If Germany can move on their own, the rest will follow, because they will have to in order to operate.

The US is run by fools. They have done everything wrong. I have been disgusted and horrified by the behavior of the leaders, they do NOT represent the will of the people, they don’t care what we think. Bullying, spying, sanctions on nations that don’t use the dollar…….all these acts have made the US look aggressive, and foolish in turn. All they can do is offer threats and sanctions…….they have NOTHING left.

Oscar Wilde once said “we have nothing left to offer but compliments, they are the only things that don’t cost money.” Pity, the US didn’t learn from him…….compliments win a lot more friends and support than threats.

This is an unmitigated disaster. If this happens on Obama’s watch, he will replace Clinton as the worst president we ever had. Calling the Russians a rogue nation makes true what many psychologists say: “Ask a man about another, and he will tell you all about himself.”

For God sakes, the US is the rogue nation. Russia now has an alliance of over half the world…….the US is relying on the EU to avoid collapse of the US dollar. If the US loses the EU, the game is over for the US, and millions of fools who right now think they are doing just fine will be screwed. I have no sympathy for them, greedy people deserve the worst life can bring them.

But, millions of people struggling with skyrocketing prices now, living on a fixed income will really be hurt. Suicides will skyrocket as well because they will not be able to survive, and most people will not accept the prospect of homelessness. This is happening so much faster than I foresaw. I saw this coming, but now it is upon us.

Russia has China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, South Africa and many emerging African nations, much of South and Central America, Argentina……much of the world economy using their system. New Zealand and Australia dumped the dollar, also India and Japan. Obama gave Japan a pass, whatever that means.

For those who need a quick review, it started in 2010 with Hugo Chavez and his tiny organization, the South American Trade Association. He introduced the first electronic currency, the Sucre, so that member nations could trade with each other using their own currencies, leaving the dollar out. The Sucre translated the value of each currency at the time of transaction, making the need for any world reserve currency obsolete. It was a tiny organization, and it flew under US radar.

Russia and China watched it closely. In November, 2010, they adopted a similar model between each other, trading with each other, leaving the dollar out. They went on to recruit much of the world, and finally went public only a month ago. I was surprised, because I had been watching it since 2010. As it stands, they hold the majority of the world market. There are many more aspects to this, but this is enough for now. The US is in deep trouble, and the leaders are too damn stupid to know it. Fools and their money are soon parted.


March 2015: US anger at Britain joining Chinese-led investment bank AIIB

The White House has issued a pointed statement declaring it hopes and expects the UK will use its influence to ensure that high standards of governance are upheld in a new Chinese-led investment bank that Britain is to join. In a rare public breach in the special relationship, the White House signalled its unease at Britain’s decision to become a founder member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) by raising concerns about whether the new body would meet the standards of the World Bank.

The $50bn (£33.5bn) bank, which is designed to provide infrastructure funds to the Asia-Pacific region, is viewed with great suspicion by Washington officials, who see it as a rival to the World Bank. They believe Beijing will use the bank to extend its soft power in the region.

A White House spokesman stated “it is up to individual countries to decide on joining a new China-led lending body”, as media reports said France, Germany and Italy also agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). He further added “This is the UK’s sovereign decision. We hope and expect that the UK will use its voice to push for adoption of high standards.”

George Osborne – who has discussed the decision to become a founder member of the investment bank with his US counterpart, Jack Lew – has been the driving force behind developing closer economic ties between Britain and China. The chancellor has led the way in encouraging Chinese investment in the next generation of civil nuclear power plants in the UK and he ensured that the City of London would become the base for the first clearing house for the yuan outside Asia.

The US administration made clear in no uncertain terms its displeasure about Osborne’s decision to join the AIIB. A US official told the Financial Times: “We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power.”

Britain was unsurprised by the decision of the US administration to air its concerns in public after the formal announcement that the UK would join the new investment bank. Sources said, in addition to the talks about British plans between the chancellor and the US treasury secretary, British and US officials have been in regular contact ahead of the announcement. UK officials say that, by joining the bank as a founding member, Britain will be able to shape the new institution.

In its statement to the Guardian, the White House national security council said: “Our position on the AIIB remains clear and consistent. The United States and many major global economies all agree there is a pressing need to enhance infrastructure investment around the world. We believe any new multilateral institution should incorporate the high standards of the World Bank and the regional development banks.

“Based on many discussions, we have concerns about whether the AIIB will meet these high standards, particularly related to governance, and environmental and social safeguards … The international community has a stake in seeing the AIIB complement the existing architecture, and to work effectively alongside the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.”

Human rights groups and others have complained that the UK has become too willing to placate China – particularly in light of its muted comments over the tight restrictions set out for voting rights in Hong Kong – but Thursday’s remarks seem to be focused on the bank.

“I think the US has had its questions about the UK posture towards China on other issues and I suppose this announcement probably triggered renewed concern in Washington about overall British politics vis-à-vis China. But [we] don’t normally arbitrate these things in public and I’m a little unsure as to why the US has chosen to pick a fight with the UK on this bank at this time, because I thought it had somewhat softened its posture on the bank. It’s a bit surprising to me,” said Matthew Goodman, senior adviser for Asian economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Goodman said the US had legitimate questions about the AIIB when it was first announced last summer, such as the governance of the institution, its lending standards and procurement rules.

“Notwithstanding that, I think they should have been more willing to engage in discussion with China and others about the institution. There’s a big infrastructure gap in Asia, existing institutions are not filling it and China has the wherewithal to contribute on the right terms.”

Some surmised that the US was responsible when Australia backed away from signing up to the bank at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing last autumn, after widespread speculation a deal was on the cards.

“The US did reach out to Australia, Koreans and others to consult about questions and concerns, and that’s been interpreted as leaning on allies not to join the bank,” said Goodman.

As the world’s second largest economy, China has grown increasingly frustrated that it does not have more influence at the IMF and World Bank, and sees little prospect of more say regarding the Japanese-backed Asia Development Bank.




How The Media Manipulates Controls The Minds Of The UK Public

The Establishment And How They Get Away With It – Owen Jones




Owen is a young author and Guardian columnist and is one of those who is not afraid to think critically while accepting there is far more than meets the eye, and certainly than the controlled media would like revealed. To wit, from the book’s official blurb:

“Behind our democracy lurks a powerful but unaccountable network of people who wield massive power and reap huge profits in the process. In exposing this shadowy and complex system that dominates our lives, Owen Jones sets out on a journey into the heart of our Establishment, from the lobbies of Westminster to the newsrooms, boardrooms and trading rooms of Fleet Street and the City. Exposing the revolving doors that link these worlds, and the vested interests that bind them together, Jones shows how, in claiming to work on our behalf, the people at the top are doing precisely the opposite. In fact, they represent the biggest threat to our democracy today – and it is time they were challenged.”

The following infographic from the book, showing “how the media controls Britain” reveals the schism between popular British sentiment about key social issues courtesy of media influences and reality, indicating that the “establishment” is happy to sow discord within the working/middle classes using its traditional “objective” distribution channels, while it remains aloof, collecting the rent its record capital provides.





And while the middle class around the world fights for scraps, and has seen its real wages over the past three decades largely unchanged, the “establishment”, wrapped in a comfortable cocoon spun by the captured media, benefits:

“How The Media Controls Britain”


The Falklands – Argentina To Have Another Go At It ??? Not Before The General Election Surely??

sovereignty-dispute-argentina-aircrafts.siA line of British soldiers in camouflage advancing during the Falklands Wara-map-of-the-falklands-84146162


December 2014: Argentina and UK Falklands Dispute Resurfaces

The Falkland Islands, an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean comprising of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 smaller islands, have placed a strain on relations between Argentina and the UK since the days of colonialism.

Up to 1,500 troops, backed by a naval warship that visits throughout the year, are permanently based on the Falklands, along with four RAF Typhoon jets, plus anti-aircraft and artillery batteries.

In 1982 Argentina lost a brief war with Britain over the islands. The encounter lasted 74 days and ended with Argentina surrendering on June 14, 1982. A total of 649 Argentine and 255 British military personnel, together with 3 Falkland Islanders were killed. At the end of the war the dispute was referred to the United Nations who passed a resolution calling on both parties, “to resume negotiations over sovereignty and to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications in the situation as long as the dispute persists.” There has been little progress in 30 years and it appears the, “sabres are rattling” once more.

After the war the UK introduced a new “Falkland Islands Constitution”, under which the UK undetook responsiblity for the islands’ foreign affairs, retaining the power “to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory.”


harrierInjured from Sir Galahad in Ajax Bay Field Hospital


October 2014: Replacement Aircraft Contract Cancelled

Argentina needs to replace its depleted fighter fleet and in October, defence minister Agustin Rossi announced the purchase of 24 Saab Gripen fighters, which were to be provided by Brazil, but Whitehall squashed the deal as some of the jet’s parts are made in the UK.




December 2014:

The Ukraine. UK took the lead criticising Russia over it’s annexation of the Crimea and military support of separatist elements in the east of the Ukraine. Pressing allies hard, imposing ever harsher financial and good & services sanctions further complicating matters providing military support in the form of training the Ukrainian armed forces.

Russia retaliated, banning food imports from the US, along with goods from the EU, Norway, Australia and Canada. This encouraged Russia to seek new markets in South America.



December 2014: Russia & Argentina

Russia has been developing friendly ties with Argentina since 2010, when it signed a “historic” contract with Buenos Aires and delivered two Mi17 assault helicopters to serve in the country’s national Air Force. The sale was the first time the Argentinean military had bought Russian military hardware.

President Vladimir Putin’s visited Argentina in July 2014 further boosting relations between the countries, paving the way for exchanging Russian military hardware for food and goods.

At the end of December 2014 reports surfaced that a deal was about to be signed off involving a lease/lend of twelve Sukhoi Su-24 all-weather attack aircraft, which NATO calls “Fencer A”. The jets are well capable of completing operations over the Falklands.

Whitehall Defence officials are fearful Argentina will soon take delivery of the planes certainly well before the projected 2020 deployment of the Navy’s 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and its much delayed F-35B fighters, opeining a “real window of vulnerability.”





December 2015: Argentina calls on Britain to discuss Falklands sovereignty

Argentina President Cristina Kirchner has called on Britain to discuss the Falklands’ sovereignty in light of an historic deal between the US and Cuba. The 61-year-old said she hoped the normalisation of diplomatic and economic ties between the former adversaries would be an example to Prime Minister David Cameron.

American President Barack Obama and his Cuban counterpart Raúl Castro had talks yesterday which could lead to the removal of a US embargo on Cuba. The Embassy of Argentina in London today revealed how Mrs Kirchner hoped the South American country and the UK could find a “peaceful settlement to the Malvinas question”.

The statement referred to the Falkland Islands by its Argentinian name. Mrs Kirchner urged Mr Cameron “to sit and dialogue with Argentina, as the US did with Cuba”. She referred to the historic deal as “a ray of sunlight” which she hoped would “warm the hearts of British leaders.” Mrs Kirchner added: “I pray that this action taken by the United States will inspire its European partner”.

She also praised the role Pope Francis, an Argentinian, had in the US and Cuba agreement. The pontiff has previously also backed his home country’s sovereignty claim over the Falklands. The British Foreign Office said there would be no discussions about sovereignty until Falkland Islanders voted in favour of such talks. A spokesperson said: “There are three parties to this debate, not just two as Argentina likes to pretend. “The Islanders can’t just be written out of history. “As such, there can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until the Islanders so wish.”

In March 2013 Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying British during a referendum. Some 1,517 votes were cast after a 90 per cent turnout. Only three people voted against the archipelago not being a UK overseas territory. The issue of the islands’ sovereignty has been raised by Argentina numerous times since the Falklands War.


March 2015: ‘Chill out’, look at Falklands, Russian MP tells UK over Crimea demand

Russian sovereignty over Crimea is more legitimate than the UK’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, the chair of the foreign relations committee in the Russian parliament said in response to Philip Hammond’s criticism of the Crimea referendum. “London should pause and chill out. All Western opinion polls in Crimea say the absolute majority supports reunification with Russia,” Aleksey Pushkov tweeted on Sunday. “Take notice, London. Crimea has much more reasons to be part of Russia than the Falklands to be part of Britain,” he added.

Pushkov was responding to British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, who earlier on Sunday called Crimea’s referendum to join Russia held in March 2014 a “flagrant breach of Ukrainian and international law” and demanded that Russia returned the peninsula to Ukraine.

In 2013, Britain held a referendum in the Falklands, with 99.8 percent of the 1,517 residents voting for remaining a British overseas territory. Buenos Aires rejected the referendum, saying the “implanted” British population didn’t have a right for self-determination.

In the Crimean referendum held in March 2014, about 97 percent voted for joining Russia. Western backers of the post-coup government in Kiev rejected the referendum, claiming it was conducted at gun point, even though post-referendum opinion polls showed the majority of Crimean people considered it free and fair.

The status of Crimea remains the biggest hurdle in relations between Russia and Western nations, including the UK, which imposed sanctions against Moscow over the move.


1 oW7Bdbe67rG0407XNxY1mw

Crimea is Russian territory. It was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1954 and legally reunited with Russia in 2014. End of story.

The Rothschilds and their stooges on Wall Street still cannot discard the prepostrous notion that Russia needs to be broken up and plundered, so that the banksters can save their fiat currencies known as the dollar and the euro, both of which are printed backed by Nothing. Russia will not disintegrate, as desired by the so-called Western elite (a bunch of criminals really).

What will disintegrate is the Anglo-Saxon financial system. This means that in the end the chief continental countries in Europe will turn to Russia and the BRICS, while the Brits will end up on a bankrupt island. Think carefully what you are doing. No double standards.

Afternote. The UK has joined BRICS. The US is not at all happy


March 2015: Britain to send more troops to Falklands amid Argentine invasion fears

It is expected that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will announce reinforcements of troops and equipment in response to a Ministry of Defence review which suggested an attack on the South Atlantic archipelago was more likely.

Russia is reportedly planning a deal to lease 12 bombers to Argentina as the country re-arms more than 30 years after the Falklands War. A Whitehall source briefed “The Defence Secretary’s decision reflects operational judgments and the increased nature of the threat. We want the people of the Falklands to know they are uppermost in our thinking.”

A Russian lawmaker claimed yesterday that Moscow has “far more” right to Crimea than Britain does to the Falkland Islands. Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, made the controversial comment after Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond denounced Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea. Mr Pushkov tweeted in Russian: “Attention London: Crimea has far more reason to be in Russia than the Falklands have to be part of Great Britain.”


04.01.13: Phil Disley on the Falkland Islands dispute


The long-running dispute over the sovereignty of the British overseas territory, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, has re-erupted in recent times under the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner whose government and term of office is nearing a re-election date, (much as Margaret Thatcher’s government was in 1982)As in the case of Thatcher, the Argentine President is determined to achieve glory through claiming back the Falklands for Argentina.

Prime Minister David Cameron, in his Christmas message to the Islanders last December, said this year would also see the unveiling of a bronze statue of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands. He said 2015 would be a year when “the British government, again, steadfastly defends the freedom she helped you secure”.



March 2015: Britain to send more troops to Falklands amid Argentine invasion fears

It is expected that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will announce reinforcements of troops and equipment in response to a Ministry of Defence review which suggested an attack on the South Atlantic archipelago was more likely.

Russia is reportedly planning a deal to lease 12 bombers to Argentina as the country re-arms more than 30 years after the Falklands War. A Whitehall source briefed “The Defence Secretary’s decision reflects operational judgments and the increased nature of the threat. We want the people of the Falklands to know they are uppermost in our thinking.”

A Russian lawmaker claimed yesterday that Moscow has “far more” right to Crimea than Britain does to the Falkland Islands. Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, made the controversial comment after Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond denounced Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea. Mr Pushkov tweeted in Russian: “Attention London: Crimea has far more reason to be in Russia than the Falklands have to be part of Great Britain.”

The long-running dispute over the sovereignty of the British overseas territory, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, has re-erupted in recent times under the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner whose government and term of office is nearing a re-election date, (much as Margaret Thatcher’s government was in 1982)As in the case of Thatcher, the Argentine President is determined to achieve glory through claiming back the Falklands for Argentina.

Prime Minister David Cameron, in his Christmas message to the Islanders last December, said this year would also see the unveiling of a bronze statue of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands. He said 2015 would be a year when “the British government, again, steadfastly defends the freedom she helped you secure”.






World-Leading Economist” And Advisor To Chancellor Osborne Busted For Smoking Crack

mcwilliams and osborne_0

February 2015: “World-Leading Economist” And Advisor To Chancellor Osborne Busted For Smoking Crack

Professor Douglas McWilliams, 63, is head of the well-known Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) think tank and one of the most prominent modern economists, in fact in his own words “one of the world’s leading economists…best known for his work in forecasting” as well as advisor (and cheerleader) to none other than UK Chancellor George Osborne. His background:

Douglas is one of the world’s leading economists. He was chosen in 2012 from over 300 applicants to become the Gresham Professor of Commerce.

His Gresham lecture series ‘The world’s greatest ever economic event’ looking at the impact of globalisation on the Western economies has attracted widespread attention and large audiences. He covers all aspects of economics but is best known for his work in forecasting, the economics of the IT and telecoms sectors and transport economics and for his knowledge of the Far East economies. He works with clients who are particularly looking for an economist with a public presence to help make their case.

After setting up CEBR, he was Chief Executive for 20 years. Previously he was Chief Economic Adviser to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Chief Economist for IBM UK. He is famed for his communications skills and is one of the most widely quoted economists.

Yes, a “forecasting” economist. That in itself could have been the joke right there, but the real reason why we bring him up is not due to his seasonally-adjusted oracular abilities but because, this “world leading” economist also does whatever he can to boost UK GDP through the use of illegal narcotics, or to avoid the political correctness, crack cocaine.

When the UK and the rest of Europe, (except France and a few others) proposed and implemented a change to the way GDP is calculated last year one which “estimated” the contribution of prostitution and illegal drugs to national economic output, little did we know that such “estimates” would be based on personal experience, (see my post:


The Story So Far

A leading economist is to step down as executive chairman of CEBR an influential City think-tank amid drug abuse allegations. Professor Douglas McWilliams, 63, revealed that he is to leave his role at the Centre for Economic and Business Research after footage emerged of him allegedly smoking crack cocaine in a north London drug den. The think-tank, which he founded in 1992, confirmed he will take a five-month sabbatical.

Professor McWilliams, who has also advised London Mayor Boris Johnson on housing, said last night he was ‘taking time off to deal with issues I have not had the chance to address fully when I have been in full-time work’.

It comes just two weeks before the launch of his book “The Flat White Economy” which tells how London swapped the City’s champagne and supercars lifestyle for bicycles and trendy flats.

Suddenly, the top echelon of politicians are doing everything they can to distance themselves as much as possible, starting with the UK’s own Secretary of the Treasury. “Referring to reports that Professor McWilliams was an adviser to George Osborne, the spokesman added that ‘neither he nor any other member of CEBR staff has spoken to or met George Osborne since he became Chancellor’, but that CEBR has ‘briefed or advised all four major political parties’.”

One of Chancellor George Osborne’s senior advisers on economic policy has been captured on video smoking crack cocaine in a drugs den. Professor Douglas McWilliams, who last year ­ estimated we would all be £165 a year better off by the election, is seen inhaling it through a glass tube at a flat in North London.

The executive chairman of influential City think-tank the Centre for Economic and Business Research then slumps dazed on a sofa after repeatedly smoking on the makeshift crack pipe involving a miniature Martell Cognac bottle. Red-faced and slurring his speech, he later told the dealer he had “too much” and that he had spent the day on a binge. Two rocks of the deadly drug can clearly been seen on a table beside the dazed professor. The grainy footage will heap embarrassment on the Chancellor and raise serious questions about his choice of adviser.

A source said: “Last Sunday McWilliams turned up at the den around 10pm and was there about a hour and a half. There were two rocks of the drugs. He smoked it over a table and then sat there all spaced out. He was in a suit and started talking about the economy and all that for about 20 minutes. He kept mentioning someone famous he worked with but didn’t make much sense. He was asked if he wanted any more and said ‘I’ve had too much’.”

Oh the irony: On Christmas Day he tweeted about an Office for National Statistics decision to include earnings from drugs and the sex trade in economy figures. He wrote: “Prostitution and illegal drugs help UK overtake France in global wealth league.” Little did the world know then that a small portion of the contribution was due to the “economist” himself.

Of course, none of this would actually be a problem and certainly worth the mention if only the CBER wasn’t actually taken seriously. The think-tank’s website states: “CEBR’s clients are mainly public, private, government, professional bodies and third sector organisations. Most are UK based although several have a global reach. We advise 25 of the FTSE 100 companies.” It adds: “We advise a number of UK government departments and independent government bodies. Recent projects include the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Arts Council England.”

The worst news is that now that the entire world has become one massive, and terminal, experimental playground for precisely these Keynesian fanatic world-leading economists, crack cocaine addicted “central planners” is just one more reason why 7 years after “quantative Easing” was started, everyone – except for the richest 1% of course – is wondering: why has nothing been fixed yet? For the answer, please check your local opium den: chance are you will run into at least one “world-respected” economist.



Prostitution and illegal drugs In The UK Valued At 10Bn – EU Gets 2Bn Cut Of Notional Taxes – Uk Absorbs 5Bn Bill Policing the Trade. Crazy

December 2014: Prostitution and illegal drugs help UK overtake France in global wealth league and Increase Our Cotributions to the EU

Britain’s illegal, multi-billion pound sex and drug industries have helped the UK to become the world’s fifth largest economy. The latest global economic league tables include a £10bn boost in UK earnings from drugs and sex – which earlier this year resulted in Brussels issuing a £1.7bn bill to the Treasury. While the Chancellor George Osborne may cite the new rankings as further evidence of the success of his financial strategy, the UK’s jump up the table comes with a caveat – a number of EU countries, including France do not include prostitution or narcotics income in gross domestic product (GDP) calculations, so where’s the justice in that.

GDP – the value of all final goods and services produced inside a sovereign state – is not the only way of calculating economic power. PPP (purchasing power parity), also based on IMF estimates, already makes China the world’s largest economy. But regardless of which measurement is used, The highly regarded London based, Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) say that with globalisation reaching a “mature phase” by 2030, the world’s economic league placings are “settling down to a new order” and the UK has just overtaken France on the leadership board, courtesy of prostitution and drugs. Brilliant, austerity has injected a massive boost in our drug dealing and prostitution industries.

'This is what I mean about inadequate interagency cooperation.'sw1070712bcd_lr


Confusing. When the matter of an unplanned massive additional annual contribution to the EU budget first surfaced, press releases, issued by the Treasury stated only that the extra 2bn charge was due to an increase in the relative size of our economy. Now we know it was the inclusion of the notional value of the illegal trade in Prostitution and Drugs. The newly identified source of goods and services forming part of the UK return, At first glance it is baffling that France and other countries of the EU are able to exclude it, keeping their EU contributions down. The figures:

* According to the estimates there were 60,879 prostitutes in the UK in 2009, who had an average of 25 clients per week – each paying on average £67.16 per visit.

* There is also detailed data on drugs. The statisticians reckon there were 2.2 million cannabis users in the UK in 2009, toking their way through weed worth more than £1.2bn. They calculate that half of that was home-grown – costing £154m in heat, light and “raw materials” to produce.

The con-trick, (for that is what it is) foisted on the UK public is typical of the Con/Dem Treasury team led by Osborne, Alexander and the recently censured Permanent Secretary McPherson and his team of fear campaign fixers. The purpose of including an unmeasurable illegal output is that it makes the vast and growing debt of 1.8trillion and the recurring monthly deficit look smaller by comparison. SMOKE and MIRRORS.


Additional Defence Spending of £30 Billion Over 5 Years To Be Added To The Austerity Programme – But only For Public Consumption Ater the General Election Is Published – What A Fiddle

Gordon Brown, whilst in government as Chancellor and after as Prime Minister, was always acutely aware that his stock within the military was poor, due to his refusal to properly finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to which he and the New Labour Party had committed the armed forces disregarding the advice of Whitehall and military commanders. Direct contact with armed forces personnel and their dependents was by result very much confined to a few carefully arranged press photo only sessions


The Tory Party leadership are even more hawklike in their approach to military intervention. Indeed they fully supported the illegal actions of Blair and Bush in Iraq & Afghanistan and the neo-conservative ideaology of the Tories was brutally evident at the time they brought Libya to it’s knees and the subsequent aftermath that now ensues in that poor country. It is probable that Egypt will invade Libya before long preventing an expansion of Muslim fundamentalist activities, returning the country to some form of parliamentary control.


As before, nothing was learned from the debacle of Libya and piggy-backing on the “Arab Spring” it was the Tory’s intention to commit the military to bombing President Assad of Syria into submission then resignation. A blatant policy of regime change which had never been put to the country for approval. Public pressure forced the “House of Commons” to intervene and those that had learned from the past voted against the proposal thereby preventing the “Tory Hawks” from blundering into a situation from which there would be no withdrawal. The Tories viewed the defeat as a betrayal of the UK’s obligation to support the USA and blame was foisted on the “British Pinkos” in opposition.

Not to be denied ISIS was created by Saudi Arabia (supported by the USA) and proceeded to attack Syria from a safe base in the Sunni (anti-Assad) controlled area of Iraq. But finding the going tough against Syria ISIS soon turned on it’s hosts, the Sunni’s and being well armed, equipped and organised put them to the sword, declaring the entire area of Western Iraq to be a reconstituted “Caliphate “. The mad dog had turned on it’s masters.


This unforeseen and unwanted state of affairs further increased instability in the entire Middle East and it was decided by the USA, UK and their allies that ISIS would need to be destroyed. But successful completion of the mission would require up to 100,000 army boots on the ground for up to 5 years.


Iraqi armed forces, (primarily Shiite Muslim) were badly organised, poorly led and in insufficient numbers to contemplate taking on the task. Indeed ISIS heavily defeated Shiite forces North of Bahgdad at the time they staged the takeover of the Sunni area.

The US turned to Iran, (pro-Assad and predominately Shiite) and agreed an accomodation allowing Iran to provide training, leadership, arms, and non-regular military forces in sufficient numbers making up a force capable of defeating ISIS. This new force attacked ISIS, with mixed results, to the North of Baghdad late February 2015. The US, UK and a number of NATO countries are committed to a role providing air superiority in support of the newly formed Iran led Iraqi army.

mara-angeolosante-1st-winner-1687 (1)

An added complication is the aggressive expansion of ISIS in the North of Iraq. This placed them in confrontation with Iraqi Kurds, who proved to be well capable of dealing with the ISIS threat. At March 2015 the Kurds are making significant advances South.


It is likely ground taken by the Kurds will not be given up in any new Iraq formed after the conflict is over. This might not find favour with the Turks who fear a creation of a new State of Kurdistan to the South of Turkey since nearly 25% of Southern Turkey is occupied by Kurds.

Despite an undertaking by the Tory’s there would be no deployment of British forces, army teams have been deployed to Iraq providing weapons and tactics training and support, (short of military involvement). So more problems to resolve and with a fellow member of NATO!!

Saudi Arabia is becoming increasingly concerned at the way in which events are unravelling in Iraq. Fearful of a spread of Shiite Muslim rule in Iraq and the closer ties with a nuclear armed Iran that would bring. Kuwait, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia would either develop their own nuclear deterrent or arrange a purchase of Missiles and technology from Pakistan or China. What a mess and the UK and USA are responsible.


It now appears the USA, UK and their allies are backing down from regime change in Syria requiring only that President Assad open a credible dialogue with those in opposition to his government. It is possible a form of federal state might evolve over time. But this is precisely what President Putin asked for before all the trouble started. Gung Ho Nato again!!

Further complicating matters President Putin took advantage of on-going events in the Middle East and carved up the Ukraine taking the Crimea back to Russian control, (which was always on the cards) creating instabilty in the Eastern (Russian speaking) part of the country. The origins of the conflict in Ukraine are complicated but informed sources are of the view that Russia has legitimate claims to the Crimea and the troubles in the Eastern part of the Ukraine may be self inflicted by right wing elements within the country.

No matter who is to blame President Putin’s conduct has changed the political climate in Europe. It might be he has no intention of absorbing the Baltic States but this is not assured. NATO is committed to their defence and it is crucial President Putin is not given the impression NATO will not honour such a commitment.

In consequence of events in the Ukraine NATO convened a summit meeting, held in Wales and issued a clear message to President Putin that NATO would not allow any infringement upon any NATO country. They also committed to the recurring allocation to defence of at least 2% of GDP.

It is against this background of chaos and assurances that the Tory Party is implementing the findings of a defence review conducted after the Afghanistan withdrawal and BEFORE the troubles that surfaced in Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine. The new thinking, holding force at the time of the review is that the UK’s primary concern would be focused on the security of the homeland and that financial resources should be transferred away from heavy infantry defence, creating fast moving teams of up to 5000 multi purpose personnel, capable of rapid response, tackling any terror threats from ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Problems have since surfaced within NATO over the figure of 2% of GDP. The nature of expenditure that is to be counted in or out is not agreed and the UK is under pressure over the decision to include the cost of the Trident nuclear deterrent, (approximately 0.6% of GDP) within the return. The view held is that NATO operates under the umbrella of the US nuclear deterrent and the UK, having no need to retain a pseudo independent deterrent, within NATO should exclude such costs from financial allocations.

Another aspect of costing is the bloated MOD bureaucracy comprising over 500 colonels and 200 brigadiers and generals managing an army of 82,000. Adding personnel, admin, (each officer is allocated a staff car and driver) and service support to each of the officers takes up around 0.2% of GDP. In contrast the 500,000 strong US army has only 310 staff officers of comparable rank, the bulk of which are deployed with their soldiers in times of war.


Concerns emanating from the US are that subsequent to implementation of the defence review the UK will not be able to “deploy troops with accompanying fighter aircraft and naval vessels without relying on American forces” and this would be unacceptable. The Independent Trident 400 warhead nuclear deterrent is also considered to be of little consequence given that the US has placed it’s entire 20,000 nuclear warheads within the command structure of NATO. Finance saved by the UK by giving up Trident could be better used in the maintenance of conventional forces and weaponry.

NATO is committed to the mutual defence of member states in a new fast changing, very dangerous environment and 2% of GDP might not be sufficient to meet the many and varied military challenges it faces. A more realistic figure of 3% of GDP would not be misplaced. It is of great concern therefore to note that the Tory Party are committed to a further reduction in the armed forces allocating only 1.5% of GDP. The level of defence projected additional spending cuts thrusts the UK into a political maelstrom and the backlash from the US and other NATO countries will be unforgiving.

Rory Stewart, Tory Chairman of the Commons Select Defence Committee delivered, in the Defence debate, one the best speeches on defence heard in many a year, It is essential listening. It is only 10 minutes long commencing at 12:18 but provides an excellent analysis of the problems facing the UK at this time and in the future, it is available at:


The Times publishes excellent articles supporting the foregoing ( am not a subscriber so only the headline part is available but this is sufficient to provide  the gist of the full article content
January 24 2015: The British army is overhauling its top brass. About time.


January 24 2015: Army chief to take axe to ‘bloated’ top brass.


January 24 2015: Lions led by pen-pushers, the state of the British Army today.


March 7 2015: Trust us — we’ve a safe pair of hands, says PM.


March 12 2015: Merkel snubs Putin’s military parade in protest over Ukraine.


March 18 2015: Don’t humiliate Putin, Obama told.


March 19 2015: Putin takes control of Georgia’s South Ossetia.


March 20 2015: Police and courts are at risk of cuts to pay for defence.


March 20 2015: MPs quiz Cameron over £170m arms export licences for Russia.


March 21 2015: Russia’s sanctions may fall as EU leaders fail to agree.



For more than 50 Years Successive Conservative & Labour Governments Have Resorted To Spying & Sabotage To Discredit The Scottish Independence Movement – Read It & Weep


1970: Discovery of Oil & Gas in the North Sea

Since oil was struck in the North Sea in 1970, it has fuelled dreams of Scottish independence. British waters were already clearly defined from Norwegian waters, and so was the oil and gas underneath. Scotland had legitimate claim to 90+ per cent of British North Sea oil and gas revenue.


1999: Scottish Parliament Established

By the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea North of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK’s oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters. But such was the fear of the rise of Scottish nationalism that proving documentation remained secret under the governments of Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Blair.


1999: The North Sea off Scotland’s East Coast up to Carnoustie stolen by Westminster

The North Sea on Scotland’s East Coast up to Carnoustie past St Andrews was stolen by Westminster in 1999.  6,000 miles of North Sea between Berwick-upon-Tweed the legal Marine boundary to Carnoustie now belongs to England, this means the pipeline into Grangemouth is in English Waters.

The former boundary between English and Scottish waters ran due East from Berwick to a median line between the UK and Norway. But a new ”demarcated” limit was created 60 miles further north at Carnoustie. The new boundary was drawn up under international maritime regulations to identify a zone within British fishery limits for which Scottish ministers will be responsible in the future. The boundary shift was established by an order carried out at Westminster under the Scottish Adjacent Boundaries Order (1999).

The order was passed by the House of Lords and the Committee on Delegated Legislation on March 23, but was not openly debated in the Commons. It was first nodded through by the treacherous Lib/Lab coalition in Holyrood who refused a debate.

The suspicious reasons behind this move, requested under the Freedom of Information Act, have been denied to the SNP government as “it would not be in the public interest”.

Whose public interest do they refer to? One can only hazard a guess at what that means.

Expert legal opinion declared the move illegal and the matter will need to be resolved to Scotland’s satisfaction at the time of independence.

A Scottish Office spokesman, when challenged said the change in the fishing boundary – was necessary as a result of Scottish devolution. However, the spokesman could not explain the constitutional logic of the boundary alteration.

The spokesman said the area, transferred to English limits, would be policed by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food protection vessels rather than the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency.

north sea oil rig6937858_1 6937858-1
Oil and Gas Production-Scotland 2014-2015

The UK oil market is volatile at the best of times. But the last year has been extraordinary even by those standards. A year ago the price came close to $140 a barrel. At that price many thought the commodity overpriced and oil producers came under international political pressure to do something.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, took a unilateral decision to increase production and the resulting glut brought about a significant drop in the price of a barrel of oil. At one time it was trading at less than $40 per barrel.

Other OPEC countries, not so oil rich require the selling price to be in excess of $80 per barrel and Saudi Arabia has been under pressure for some months to cut back on production allowing prices to stabilise around the higher figure.

As at March 2015 the price of a barrel rose to nearly $60 but the market remains unstable due to continued speculation in the commodities markets and an over production of US shale oil. Projections are however that normality will be achieved in the summer of 2015.

There remains concern however that the Bank of England’s policies of expanding the money supply and continued heavy government borrowing might result in increasing levels of inflation. Buying up and storing cheaper oil and other commodities provides some protection against that for investors.

But, as on prevous occasions lower commodity prices created a welcome mini-recession driving down the cost of living index allowing the government an opportunity in the March 2015 budget to stimulate the economy giving away windfall finance to the electorate forming part of an electioneering campaign.

The drawback for the oil industry and the economy is that lower selling prices do not provide incentive for investment in exploration and exploitation of existing/new oil fields.

The government’s belated response was to ease the tax burden on the producers providing the finance necessary to allow continued investment.

2013: Banned Documentary on Scottish Oil (The McCrone Report)

The story of how successive Labour and Conservative governments worked behind the scenes to discredit the Home Rule movement and the SNP – as revealed through once secret papers now available from official archives



Truth Lies Oil and Scotland on how Westminster has kept the wealth of the North Sea Oil hidden from Scotland

This is incredible – The BBC! Full of UK MPs saying that there is a supply excess which will last for at least 4 decades, without new exploration. Yet they claim this is a liability for an Independent Scotland and that it is running out! Scotland – we need to see through the lies and see the benefit of this resource for our families, our kids, our grandkids


2014: The Secrets(Gaelic, with subtitles.)

For more than five decades successive Conservative and Labour UK Governments resorted to spying and sabotage to discredit the Home Rule movement and Scottish National Party members and supporters – as revealed through once secret papers now available from official archives.


Trident Nuclear Deterrent – The Great Confidence Trick Played On the UK Public – Trident is the Most Expensive Bluff in History



The Chilcot Inquiry Report Won’t Reveal The Real Reason Why The UK Invaded Iraq With The USA

“Did Britain have to invade Iraq? No, but if we had not, when the Mutual Defence Agreement came up for renewal in 2004 would John Bolton have recommended to President George Bush that Britain was worthy of another ten years of nuclear supplies “in light of our previous close co-operation”?




2006: Trident: We’ve Been Conned Again

The independent British nuclear deterrent is a myth – whatever else it may be, it is not independent. That reality, laid bare as never before in US presidential directives published on our website, renders meaningless the government’s suggestion that it is time to renew “our” nuclear arsenal.

For decades, American presidents have been authorising US weapons-makers to ship vital bomb components to Britain. George Bush Sr was one of them: in July 1991, for example, he signed a five-year directive ordering the United States department of energy to “produce additional nuclear weapons parts as necessary for transfer to the United Kingdom”.

These are the final pieces in a jigsaw which exposes simple facts that British leaders have long known but a generation of Thatcherite consensus has obscured: we cannot and do not make our own nuclear weapons; we are not a true nuclear power; we are mere clients of the US.

Our present Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile system reaches the end of its shelf-life in the 2020s and we are told that, if it is to be replaced, work has to start soon. As the debate begins, supporters of a new generation of British weapons of mass destruction say we must have a bomb of our own so that we will always be equipped to face a crisis such as that of 1940. “Something nasty may turn up,” is their bottom line.


We now know, however, that British weapons are so dependent on the US that this 1940 argument is a nonsense. In that year, we stood alone and the United States remained neutral. We would not have had a bomb in our arsenal because the Americans would have refused to help us make it, and would certainly not have given us one there and then. The truth behind the pro-renewal argument is that our defence in any future 1940 scenario depends not on us having a nuclear deterrent with a Union Jack on it, but on us having the US on our side.

The declassified National Security directives uncovered in the archives of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr leave no doubt about this dependency. The most recent available instruction is Bush’s, quoted above, but the names of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski appear on earlier versions of this annual update to the US nuclear stockpile plan.

Governments here, however, have always stressed that the bombs on top of the Trident missiles were truly British – their answer to the criticism that Trident, as Denis Healey once put it, was a “rent-a-rocket, Moss Bros missile”. Yet even when Healey spoke, more than 20 years ago, there was no shortage of evidence to contradict the official line. The Conservative government itself had to admit that there were never any “identifiably British” Trident missiles in the US navy store where British submarines loaded up. The words “Royal Navy” were only painted on the missiles for test-firing, to make good publicity pictures.

Documents obtained by the Natural Resources Defence Council, a non-governmental organisation in the US, show that for 45 years the UK has been given blueprints of many US weapons to help build bombs for Royal Navy missile submarines and RAF bombers. For decades, too, all Brit-ish nuclear testing was done in the US, and access to the Nevada test site is still essential to the UK programme.

Today the factory at Aldermaston in Berkshire that makes the bombs – and uses US equipment to do so – is actually owned by the Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, while the submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is largely the property of Dick Cheney’s old firm, Halliburton.

murphy nuc

The transatlantic links date back at least to 1958, when a “mutual defence agreement” between Dwight Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan allowed the US to send Britain everything except complete nuclear weapons. Even in the years 1946 to 1958, when US nuclear support for Britain was supposedly cut off by Congress, the British were trading uranium ore for details of how to build factories to make nuclear weapons.

In 1962, as Macmillan set off to accept John F Kennedy’s offer of Polaris missiles, the chief of Britain’s nuclear bomber force wrote that the prime minister was travelling to “defend a myth”. Macmillan’s Sir Humphrey, Robert Scott, wrote that the deal would put Britain in America’s pocket for a decade. His words were echoed four decades later when Admiral Raymond Lygo, the former head of nuclear programmes for the Royal Navy and chairman of British Aerospace, explained last year that any successor to Trident would “continue to tie the UK to US policy”.

This past week, along with other experts, I gave evidence to the Commons defence committee on the issue of replacing Trident. I heard Sir Michael Quinlan, now retired from the civil service but widely regarded as the doyen of British nuclear strategists, say there were two issues at stake: independence of procurement and independence of operation. He argued that, although we had no independence of procurement, we could use the weapons independently.

This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn’t matter if the missiles aren’t British. Take a step back. Imagine for a moment that France imported its nuclear missiles from China. Who would then believe in French independence?

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Let us say that Britain wanted to fire Trident and the United States opposed this. What would happen? For one, the entire US navy would be deployed to hunt down Red-White-and-Blue October; it would know roughly where to look, starting from the last position notified to the US and Nato while on normal patrol. Meanwhile, the prime minister would be trying to find a radio that was not jammed, hoping that none of the software had a worm and that the US navy wouldn’t shoot the missiles down with either its Aegis anti-missile system or the self-destruct radio signal that is used when missiles are test-fired.


From the moment of a breach with Washington, moreover, every Trident submarine sailing down the Clyde would find a waiting US escort. In months the software would be out of date, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton would fly home, taking much equipment with them, and no spare parts would be available. As Quinlan put it: “We would be in shtook.”

The British people believe that an independent bomb exists. They don’t know that this insurance policy is valid only when Washington feels like it. And the premiums are high: in return for this dodgy insurance, Britain must follow the US line.

Did Britain have to invade Iraq? No, but if we had not, when the Mutual Defence Agreement came up for renewal in 2004 would John Bolton have recommended to his president that Britain was worthy of another ten years of nuclear supplies “in light of our previous close co-operation”?

Forty years ago Peter Cook lampooned Macmillan’s pretence at an independent bomb. Harold Wilson argued before, during and after he left office that Britain’s nuclear weapons were not independent. Recently Robin Cook, previewing my own work in what was his last article, affirmed that all aspects of Trident are dependent upon the US. Yet academics, journalists and politicians still use the words “independent nuclear deterrent” with gravitas rather than derision.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain’s bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can’t be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal – behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

At the Commons defence hearing, MPs voiced the opinion that voters wanted a British bomb for the simple reason that the French had one. Informed that ever since Charles de Gaulle the French have regarded Britain as a US vassal because of our nuclear dependence, they were unmoved. The voters would not see it that way, protested one MP. Well, perhaps it is time the voters were told the truth.

2005: The Late Robin Cook MP – A Man Of Honour – Replacing Trident Is Against Our National Interests And Our International Obligations

In an editorial written just before his death in July 2005, Robin Cook, who had served previously as Blair’s foreign secretary, raised questions about the expensive building and upgrading of facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, to which the government committed substantial additional funds well before any debate or decision on the future of British nuclear weapons. He said, “Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.” The full article:

Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.

If we want to exercise the option of producing more weapons, we are told we must make up our minds in this parliament. This is not because Trident is in imminent danger of going out of service. The British submarines can keep on diving and surfacing for another two decades. The problem is that it will take that long to order, build and commission another expensive fleet to replace them.

This is an excellent opportunity for Tony Blair to prove that he is a real moderniser. It is a fixed pole of his political pitch that he represents a clean break from old Labour. It was the Wilson government of the 60s that built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was Jim Callaghan who first struck the Trident deal with President Carter, eccentrically in a beach hut on Guadeloupe. There could not be a more convincing way for Tony Blair to break from the past and to demonstrate that he is a true moderniser than by making the case that nuclear weapons now have no relevance to Britain’s defences in the modern world.



The justification for both Polaris and Trident was that we faced in the Soviet Union a great, hostile bear bristling with nuclear claws. The missiles were put on submarines precisely because the ocean bed was the only place they could hide from Russian firepower. But those are calculations from a long-vanished era. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, its satellites are our allies in the European Union, and the west is now sinking large funds into helping Russia to defuse and dismantle the warheads that we once feared.

No other credible nuclear threat has stepped forward to replace the Soviet Union as a rationale for the British nuclear weapons system. To be sure, two or three other nations have emerged with a crude nuclear capability, but none of them has developed the capacity or the motivation to attack Britain.

It is not easy to see what practical return Britain ever got out of the extravagant sums we invested in our nuclear systems. None of our wars was ever won by them and none of the enemies we fought was deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, although Britain possessed the nuclear bomb and Argentina did not. But the collapse of the cold war has removed even the theoretical justification for our possessing strategic nuclear weapons.

However, the spirit of the cold war lives on in the minds of those who cannot let go of fear and who need an enemy to buttress their own identity. Hence the vacuum left by the cold war has been filled by George Bush’s global war on terror. It is tragically true that terrorism, partly as a result, is now a worse threat than ever before.

But nuclear weapons are hopelessly irrelevant to that terrorist threat. The elegant theories of deterrence all appear beside the point in the face of a suicide bomber who actively courts martyrdom. And if we ever were deluded enough to wreak our revenge by unleashing a latter-day Hiroshima on a Muslim city, we would incite fanatical terrorism against ourselves for a generation.

Investment in a new strategic nuclear system would be worse than an irrelevance. It would be an extravagant diversion of resources from priorities more relevant to combating terrorism. Trident cost us more than £12.5bn – roughly half the whole defence budget for a year. Even if its successor did not have a higher price tag, it could not be bought without cutting back on the conventional capacity of our armed forces. It will be more difficult this time to find the funds for a new nuclear weapons system without those cuts being painful, because the defence budget as a percentage of GDP is now much less than the level that accommodated the Polaris and Trident programmes.


Our army is already shedding both troops and tanks. Yet Britain’s most valuable role in global stability is the professional, experienced contribution of our soldiers to peacekeeping missions, which earns us much more goodwill round the world than our nuclear submarines prowling the seas. The world would be less stable and Britain would be less secure if we were to trade in even more of those army units for son-of-Trident. It is not just peaceniks who would oppose such a choice. I suspect a clear majority of the officer corps would vote against diverting the defence budget into another generation of nuclear weapons.

It is not as if the large sums that would be required to keep us in the nuclear game would buy us an independent weapon. Dan Plesch documents in an impressive forthcoming report that all levels of the Trident system depend on US cooperation. The missiles are not even owned by us, but are leased from the Pentagon in an arrangement that Denis Healey once dubbed as “rent-a-rocket”. Renewing our collaboration with the US on nuclear weapons will deepen the bonds between Downing Street and the White House, at the very time when the rest of the nation longs for a more independent stance.

It is therefore against Britain’s national interests to replace Trident. It is also against our international obligations, notably the commitment in the non-proliferation treaty to proceed in good faith to nuclear disarmament.

To be fair, New Labour has so far had a decent record on progress towards this objective. In the past decade Labour has scrapped Britain’s other nuclear weapons, signed up to the test ban treaty and reduced the alert status of our submarines by several days. But these positive steps will be reversed if we now charge off in the opposite direction by ordering a brand-new nuclear system.

There is a chasm too wide for logic to leap, between arguing that Britain must maintain nuclear weapons to guarantee its security, and lecturing Iran et al that the safety of the world would be compromised if they behaved in the same way.

Despite the current anxieties over proliferation, more nations have given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. Brazil and Argentina negotiated a treaty to terminate their rival nuclear programmes. Ukraine and other former Soviet states renounced the nuclear capacity they inherited. South Africa, post-apartheid, abandoned its nuclear programme and dismantled its weapon capacity.

None of those countries regards itself as any less secure than before. Nor need we, if our leadership can find the courage to let Trident be the end of Britain’s futile and costly obsession with nuclear-weapon status.

2005: New labour and The Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Labour’s 2005 election manifesto stated: “We are also committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent.” But can this system be called independent when so much of it is, as modern business-speak would have it, sourced in America? The deterrent is carried in four Vanguard-class submarines that although designed and built in Britain, incorporate many US components and reactor technology:

* The delivery system is the Trident D-5 missile, which is designed and made in the United States.

* The firing system is also designed and made in the US.

* So is the guidance system.

* The computer software is American.

* The warhead design is based on the US W-76 bomb.

* The warheads are produced by Aldermaston, which is owned US firm Lockheed Martin and primarily uses US technology.

* Vital nuclear explosive parts are imported, we now know, from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts.

* The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico.

* The submarine maintenance base is also 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.

2006: End of a Nuclear Weapons Era: Can Britain Make History?

The United Kingdom has begun to debate whether to replace the current Trident nuclear weapons system, which will cease to be operational in the early 2020s, or to become the first acknowledged nuclear-weapon state to comply fully with Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by eliminating the British arsenal.

A decision is expected sometime in this parliament, (deferred until after the May 2015 general election) in 2010. Just before last year’s general election, the government of Tony Blair announced that it would need to consider a follow-on to Trident, but it sought to portray the decision as essentially technical—whether to extend the life of the current submarines or build new platforms.

The government’s attempt to slip the decision through quietly failed, and a contentious debate about the future of British nuclear weapons and nonproliferation policy has now been kindled. Politicians and retired military officers are taking sides, the grassroots peace movement is mobilizing, and members of parliament are demanding to participate in the decision-making.

Blair has made clear that he believes the United Kingdom should retain “the independent nuclear deterrent.” Yet, his defense secretary, John Reid, has tried to reassure members of parliament that no decision has been taken on any replacement and that the government would “listen to” their views. However, there was no commitment to either a debate or vote on the matter in parliament.


2008: USA sub builders to plug yard skills gap

18 Americans are arriving in Barrow to help BAE. They include six designers who have already arrived, and who will work with BAE, Thales, Rolls Royce and Ministry of Defence staff on designs for future subs including planned, giant Son of Trident vessels. Twelve engineers from Electric Boat, set to arrive in January, will work on the Astute-class boats Ambush and Artful, now in build.

On the design side, BAE has to work with the USA on any future Trident missile sub because the top secret missiles and missile compartments are American technology and are designed and made by US firms.

2008: Britain’s nuclear warheads will be upgraded

The Government is planning to upgrade its stockpile of nuclear warheads, it has been reported.

A senior Ministry of Defence official told a private gathering of arms manufacturers that the decision to replace the warheads had already been taken, according to documents released under the freedom of Information Act. In June last year David Gould, the then chief operating officer at the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation, made the announcement at a future deterrent industry event. He said: “This afternoon we are going to outline our plan to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent. “The intention is to replace the entire Vanguard class submarine system. Including the warhead and missile.”

The statement is in contradiction to previous assertions made by ministers. They have always denied that there are plans to replace the warheads as part of the upgrade of the Trident nuclear system, and insisted that no decision would be made until the next parliament, probably sometime after 2010.

Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “It is a disgrace that the MoD is secretly telling the defence industry one thing, whilst ministers are saying quite the opposite in Parliament.”

2008 – Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire sold off to American company.

The government has sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to an American company. The move means Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads. Opposition MPs have criticised the sale, but the Ministry of Defence said Britain’s “sovereign interests” had been protected. The fee paid by California-based Jacobs Engineering has not been disclosed. The sale of British Nuclear Fuels’ stake means Jacobs has control of one third of Aldermaston’s operating company, AWE Management. The other two thirds were already in private hands. They are split equally between American defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British plc Serco. Aldermaston is responsible for the production of warheads for the Trident nuclear deterrent programme and its planned replacement Trident2.


2015: Trident Nuclear Weapons – Armageddon On Our Doorstep

The current Trident nuclear weapons system comprises four nuclear powered Vanguard-class submarines, which are homeported at Faslane naval base northwest of Glasgow. These are equipped with Trident II D5 missiles leased from the US, fitted with warheads that are manufactured at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston and Burghfield, near London. The majority of the UK’s declared 225 warheads – those that are not being deployed on board the submarines or refurbished by AWE – are stored at a naval arms depot at Coulport, on the Scottish coast about 6 miles from Faslane. Trident nuclear weapons are regularly transported through Scottish lochs and seas and between Faslane and Coulport. Convoys of armoured vehicles carrying warheads frequently travel on public roads, including motorways, between AWE Burghfield and Coulport.