Latest from UKIP Daily

The New Cold War

In 1914, Britain drifted into a catastrophic war which destroyed almost an entire generation of educated young men. We drifted into it at least partly, perhaps mainly, because everybody in Britain, in 1913 and 1914, was so excited about Irish Home Rule, the House of Lords, the budget, the trade unions and the female franchise that no one paid any serious attention to developments in Europe.

In UKIP now, everybody is so excited about leadership issues, the party constitution and the possibility that the May Government may water down Brexit that they are scarcely talking about another feature of the new government’s policy. The May government has, if anything intensified the Cameron government’s total and unconditional support for the U.S. policy of confrontation with Russia. And this new Cold War is steadily getting hotter.

How is it that twenty five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has drifted into a situation more dangerous than the nuclear stalemate of 1950-1990?  Is there anything that we in Britain can do about it?  Must we just watch the U.S.  presidential debate and hope that the candidate who offers at least some hope, will win?  Are we completely at the mercy of forces beyond our control – forces which might destroy the world we live in?

UKIP stands for the United Kingdom Independence Party.  After herculean efforts, almost entirely by UKIP, Britain looks set soon to be free of rule from Brussels.  But will Britain outside the EU will be any more truly independent than we were before the referendum?  Are we not still ruled from Washington? The future of our children and grandchildren – their very existence, perhaps – may be imperiled by our failure to rid ourselves of American control. What are we going to do about it?  If Britain does not act, who will?  And in Britain, if we in UKIP do not act, who will?

Let’s forget, briefly, about our own relatively petty concerns, and remember recent history.  During the first Cold War, two superpowers, evenly matched in military terms, divided the world.  Both possessed the nuclear capacity to destroy the other.  But each knew the power of the other; and each was governed by rational men who were fully aware of the responsibility this placed on their shoulders.  As time went on, they learned to respect each other and to some degree to work together.  There were some very nasty moments – particularly the Cuban Missile Crisis – but issues which became too dangerous were resolved.  Superpower rivalry continued, proxy wars continued in Viet Nam, in Angola and elsewhere.  But the USA and the USSR respected and (to some degree) trusted each other and neither side behaved too dangerously.

After the Suez crisis, it had become much more difficult for Britain to pursue an independent foreign and defence policy.  But we were not entirely subdued.  When the Vietnam war was fought, Washington put every possible pressure on the Harold Wilson government to join in. Australia (which is nearer to Vietnam) joined in, but Britain did not.  When Margaret Thatcher fought the Falklands War, America gave Britain some limited and grudging support.

The first Cold War ended, the USSR ceased to exist and no longer appeared on one side of the equation. The USA seemed to have achieved total world domination.  At first, it seemed that all would be well. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved.  But then it became clear that NATO – the counterpart pact of the West – was not going to be dissolved.  On the contrary, it spread steadily eastwards towards a weak and temporarily helpless Russia.   The USA continued spending as much on “Defence” as the rest of the world put together.  The powerful military-industrial complex looked for new markets and new enemies to fight.  And Britain continued its full involvement in NATO.

Since 9/11, the USA has embarked on a series of unjustified and aggressive attacks on Middle-Eastern countries.  Iraq and Libya were reduced to chaos. Amidst that chaos, extremist Muslim forces dedicated to Muslim world dominance came into existence and have horrified the world with their atrocities.  Large numbers of refugees have fled their homes.  The extremists invaded Syria and it became clear that Syria was also next on the list for American regime change.

Under New Labour, all pretense of British national independence was abandoned.  When Washington embarked on its catastrophic policy of conquering Iraq, Tony Blair not only supported Bush; he encouraged him; he helped him to answer his critics.  The knowledge that he had full British support gave Bush considerable moral help at home.   Respect for Britain (undeserved as it has become) is still there in the world and particularly in America.

David Cameron continued the same policy of total subordination to Washington.  And now, it seems, the May government will do the same. We may be happy about May’s EU policy, or we may not.  But can we possibly be happy about her foreign and defence policy?   And if not, what are we going to do about it?  Are we the United Kingdom Independence Party, or are we not?

Photo by kre8tiv

Photo by VelikaBritanija

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Mike Munford (57 Articles)
Mike Munford is a member of UKIP, a retired businessman and a lifelong student of English history.

17 Comments on The New Cold War

  1. Very interesting article by Mike Munford.

    Although NATO expanded, I agree dangerously, it wold not have been right to disband it. It was a uniquely capable organisation that worked. After the Cold War it could have been used more wisely. Personally, I think the West did not do enough to rehabilitate Soviet Russia. Compare it with how Germany was treated after WW2. We still need NATO but international politics is in a sorry state.

    Mike Munford separates the new cold war from consideration of the EU. They are intimately linked. NATO and EU expansion go hand in hand. Which is the driver and which the follower is hard to discern. But we do know that Cameron wanted the EU to extend to the Urals. We do know that the EU (Mrs Merkel in particular) with support from elements of the US establishment gave Ukraine an ultimatum: no neutrality, choose Russia or the EU exclusively. We know that the EU’s possession of a military force for power projection in support of EU expansion was clearly stated in Juncker’s first five year plan. We do know that among the EU’s long term aims is to challenge and replace US hegemony. We do know that EU member states, with a few minor exceptions, and now including UK, decline to commit resources to national defence and have historically abused US commitment to NATO and now believe that pooled EU armed forces would be a better use of resources for defence.
    The EU is about power. Its power is based on the size of the population it claims to represent and the size of its member state’s economies. It is perfectly true that British Ministers abroad, at least until the Brexit vote were accorded inflated status on the basis that they spoke for 250 million rather than a mere 65 million people. This personal power of the EU elite is sustained by the EU’s expansionist policies coupled with a lack of accountability. It is also incompetent in terms of world diplomacy and strategic affairs. Just consider which countries over the last century or so have been successful and powerful world players, standing up for freedom and democracy? The EU leadership cannot claim to be among them.
    The EU, to my mind, because of its greed for power, incompetence and lack of accountability is the most serious threat to world peace in the medium to long term bar none.

    • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 8, 2016 at 6:40 pm // Reply

      Dear Peter,

      The Russian Federation invaded Georgia on 08-Aug-2008 and Ukraine in February 2014.

      Mike Munford describes Britain’s declaration of war in 1914 as a “drift” which is a cliché about the period but wrong. As the then Foreign Minister’s statement that “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time” proves, the government was not sanguine (as “drift” would require) about war.

      The UK’s obligation under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine gave us plenty of wriggle room in 2014 that was missing in 1914 from our Treaty with Belgium, but Ukraine would never have surrendered its nuclear arsenal if it had not trusted the UK and USA to uphold its territorial integrity. I am surprised that you Peter appear not to know that it was not just Ukraine we sold out in 2014 but our honour too.

      Mike Munford thinks that selling out our honour would have been the best thing to do in 1914 and you and I would probably agree but let us be clear that the German Empire in 1914 was a threat to the British Empire even if you and I and Mike agree that we should have rolled over for it.

      My point is not that you will be unable to cite an example of the EU having militarily invaded another internationally recognised country since, after all, your point is about the “threat to world peace”. My point is that the Russian Federation is beyond being a threat to world peace in the future. The Russian Federation has already defecated on world peace, twice, in the last 8 years.

      Perhaps you are right that the EU is the greater threat in the future. But if so I would rather be threatened by an EU with no (the French control their own) nuclear weapons than by a Russian Federation that has 4,500 (to our 200).

      I find myself comparing your threat assessment to a burglar from another town coming to your house, breaking in, murdering a few of the inhabitants and then, after a while, coming back and doing it all over again claiming, on both occasions, that it was all your fault, and you then reacting to this by pointing to your neighbour and declaring that person to be the main threat to your property.

      Yours faithfully, Aidan

  2. Israel is the main beneficiary of the demise of Syria and Iraq.
    Egypt is neutered and in hock to the USA.
    The UK should make a deal with Russia giving them total control of the Syria area and we must cancel all alliances with Turkey.
    In return Russia must honour the independence of the Baltic States.
    Ukraine and Russia should be encouraged to make some sort of treaty, given that most of the people in Russian occupied Ukraine are ethnic Russians ( a product of the extermination of 6-8 million Ukrainians in 1932-34 ‘Holodomyr’ organised by Stalin and the non Russian elite who controlled the USSR for most of its obscene and criminal 70 years).
    All this is messy and terrible but it is Realpolitik.
    What the world needs is time to discuss and plan and re-organise on ethnic nationalist lines.
    I propose a new combined British Isles-Canada-Australia-NZ-Eire-maybe SouthAfrica trading cultural and defence pact.

    • South Africa is gone unless you want to work with the chaotic A.N.C. (?), & Eire is best kept at a safe distance – the Irish are not our friends & are a difficult people to work with temperamentally, & Canada & Australia are essentially fading away now thru foreign immigration. The English World that we created is being undone (by its own hand), some other strategy in the medium term is required for Albion I suspect.

      • In broad terms there are 180 million people in the world who can be identified as WASP anglophones in whole or in part.
        Anglophilia goes up and down in cycles and when the €uro collapses we will see both Scotland and Eire make rapprochements with the English.
        Canada and Australia have very strong anglophile elements to their people/culture, the Queen remains Head of State. South Africa has enormous potential and we should have made a deal with the Afrikaaners to keep it under white rule; ditto Rhodesia.
        Despite bogus studies the WASP element of US society is still highly significant as many persons of olde English descent having intermarried with the Scotch Irish (sic) classify themselves as Irish.
        Ditto the large numbers of mixed English and German descent in the Mid West.

        • CitizenKain,

          What on earth are you talking about keeping South Africa and what was Rhodesia under white rule, that could never have continued. What era are you living in? Let’s get real here.

          • Rhodesia has been utterly destroyed under black rule.
            The white British created a new country called Southern Rhodesia from wild bushland.
            The standard of living of blacks coloureds and asians in South Africa was the highest in sub saharan africa under white minority rule with the exception of Rhodesia.
            Just as the whites ‘invaded’/colonised the Cape and large tracts beyond in a little over 150 years bringing civilisation with it so the Bantu crossed the mighty Zambezi river in 1550-1700 in differing sub groups to invade and enslave the San-San (bushmen) and Khoisan (hottentots). White rule was better than black rule as we did not revert to cannibalism as occurred at various times during the bantu supremacy.
            South Africa will be destroyed in the next 20 years just as Rhodesia was. Rhodesia was 10% white and it is now 0-05% consisting of very poor very old whites who subsist on donations from relatives etc abroad as their houses and land have been stolen and they are denied employment.
            So far a staggering 40,000 Boer farmers and their families have been butchered since black majority rule.

          • CitizenKain

            I know all the history of what you have quoted it is basically what the Blacks have done to themselves, that is up to them. It does not mean that we should or could have still enforced white rule over them any longer especially in the 20th century.

          • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 8, 2016 at 7:02 pm //

            Dear Donald,

            It is hard to say what could never have happened (whatever you think of it), had things gone differently, but I think you might agree, as I do, with “citizenkain” that Zimbabwe has been (more or less) destroyed by its present government even if you do think that Ian Smith (and heirs) carrying on would have been worse.

            Yours faithfully, Aidan C U Powlesland

  3. Interesting & well expressed piece. There’s quite a few misreadings of history in it – i.e. that we ‘drifted’ into the 1914-1918 War (no we didn’t, Europe was militarily attacked in a long premeditated aggressor war by the II Reich, & although H.M.G. saw the threat ahead of time it wasn’t able to avert it despite repeated attempts at diplomatic initiatives with Berlin); & that the conflict “destroyed a British generation” (no it didn’t, under 1 million dead from our side thru all causes in a war time armed forces’ manpower strength of 8x that number, & a several million men of fighting age more who didn’t see military service, isn’t a “generation virtually destroyed”, despite the melodramatic & sensationalist suggestion to the contrary by journalists kicking out lazily researched copy on the issue, usually around Armistice season for the last few years.

    With regard to what’s going on right now between the USA & Russia, this is nothing but an empty & fairly stupid geo-strategic game-play from the USA, no one’s crazy enough to turn this empty sabre-rattling into something more, or engage in thermo-nuclear war over Syria or Europe’s Eastern alignments. If Putin was a genuine aggressor he would have put 6 divisions into Eastern Ukraine to seize the territory, backed up by the Russian Air Force, the fact that he hasn’t and has resorted instead to covert military support for the Russian militias fighting the Ukrainian Government there with military kit being smuggled through forests & via back roads in the dead of night, says more about him than any statement coming out of Moscow’s ministries.

    However, the really interesting issue is whither England in the 21st Century in terms of its own geo-strategy now it has broken free from the shackles of the eu? Are we to continue to weaken & wain through lack of sunlight in the (now dying) colossus’ shadow that has been the USA of the last 7 decades (I don’t say that with any enthusiasm, the USA is an extension of us, & I will regret its passing into history, which is now well under way), or are we to come out from that shadow assume our full height once again? And what role is there for UKIP, or what UKIP is to be in this process?

    • Excellent comment AJAX.
      unfortunately however good a manager and administrator mrs May might be, she is no leader and has no vision of Britain’s role in the future. The government and its advisers are still operating very much with an EU mentality: they simply cannot grasp the concept of an elected government being solely responsible for leading and governing a nation and therefore needing to have some clue as to the desired path. And they are totally and in my view unnecessarily, getting bogged down in the details of a new entanglement with the EU, which they ludicrously believe they can negotiate in the timescale of Brexit (world record currently seven years), instead of doing what the referendum requires: exit, quite feasible within 6 months. Anyway they cannot see the wood for the trees.
      The West missed an opportunity to bring Russia in from the cold. Compare its treatment with that of Germany, twice offender of the last century.
      You’re right about WW1, too. The Oh What Lovely War school of history is far from dead.

      • Forgot to include this thought! They fly past too quickly. In 1939, it wasn’t only a dithering and weak PM who appeased Germany. There was a very strong pacifist tendency in British politics which grew out of reaction to WW1. The socialist International had totally failed to prevent WW1. By 1939 there was a respected argument for pacifism and appeasement. The price of democracy. Contrast that with Germany which maintained a more or less continuous aim and strategy from around 1910 right through to 1945 and it took defeat in two world wars to make it change its mind.

  4. These days, no country can be really and truly 100% “independent”.
    How about substituting “opportunities” for “independent”; so, UKOP instead of UKIP!

  5. Interesting article and another good reason why we need to prevent the distraction continuing for 2 or more years and get on with it now.

    Reason too for UKIP to sort itself out quickly and develop its policies to become a real opposition party able to get seats in the HoC.

  6. Like this. I’ve just gotten home after being out for a few beers and will need to read this article again when I’m sober. But I’m just in the process of writing an article that is closely related.

  7. “Brexit” was a catchy new word. But perhaps UKIP should try to encourage the use of the simpler “Independence” for what we want? “Brexit” sounds technical, complicated, and slightly negative. Exiting something, after all, implies loss and risk. To my mind, there is no downside to “Independence” – even the Americans would find it hard to criticize that a nation wishes to be Independent!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.