Comments by "" (@charliemoore2551) on "Who and what are we defending in the UK It’s a question in need of an answer?" video.

"Remarkably small quantities of physical armaments available to us in the UK". I think it's the nature of the armaments which is the problem. For example, a Trident submarine is no use whatsoever in the defence of the UK. It is a part of the US's war fighting capability. We seem to have a preponderance of capability for mounting anti-"insurgent" operations in places like Afghanistan or providing Israel with the aerial intelligence to bomb civilians in Gaza. But none of these things have anything to do with defending the islands on which we live - nor even of defending Europe as part of an alliance. What we are really paying for is to be part of a force which tries to control resources elsewhere as an illusory imperial policy which really amounts to being no more than a proxy for the US. And I can't help thinking that we're drawing the wrong lessons from what has been happening in Ukraine. Russia put all its resources into attempting to invade one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Europe. It was mightily repulsed. It has managed to hold on to a chunk of territory on which it has some political support and which it can easily resupply because it adjacent to its border but by and large, its project to re-absorb Ukraine into a new Russian empire has failed and it's economy and politics have been severely damaged along the way. Even if had achieved military success, it might have got acquiescence in the East, but it would have needed to permanently station troops in Western Ukraine to hold off Banderite resistance. The notion that such a power could then go on to invade the rest of Europe is risible! But what it has made clear is that a strong and motivated conventional force can hold ground against an invader of vastly superior numbers and simply make invasion too costly in blood and treasure to contemplate. That is the direction in which any genuine defence policy should go.
6