Britain has lost its strategic depth.

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
They even blame Britain for their defeat in Anatolia.

British warned the Greeks a lot of times that getting more further leaves them vulernable to counterattack by Turkish nationalist forces that even we cant save you.

Greeks have forgotten that Ataturk was trained with German stormtrooper tactics. Greeks had their supply lines scretched too far.

Greeks have their mindset of entitlement that other nations have to fight for them.

Geopolitics does not work like that. There is no such thing as entitlement.

Look at all the empires or even kingdoma they had to take it with whatever means necessary. Its just how things worked back in the day.

Its interesting to see how Britain has been retreating aince the end of ww2.

What I find so surpriaing is how Britain gave back Hong Kong back to China. I find this a geopolitical blunder. Cod wars were just a dumb defeat it just does not make sense.

Imagine a country like Turkey giving shit up for Cyprus or imagine Italy giving up against Malta. Cannot imagine that happening.

China would have just taken it and there is nothing Britain could have done about it.

China would have said to the world the legal deal means it now belongs to me and britian is an occupier which internationally is an easy sell. On top of that whose going to fight china over british owned honk Kong.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
China would have just taken it and their is nothing Britain could have done about it.

Britain has nukes and a well trained military.

Well with politicians its another story.

Crazy how Britain and Turkey have cowardly politicians. Turkey has achieved getting its interests thanks to the military.

I feel like if it wasnt for them Turkish politicians would easily surrender.

If only Erdogan has some balls.
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Britain has nukes and a well trained military.

Well with politicians its another story.

Crazy how Britain and Turkey have cowardly politicians. Turkey has achieved getting its interests thanks to the military.

I feel like if it wasnt for them Turkish politicians would easily surrender.

If only Erdogan has some balls.

China has nukes too, plus millions of soldiers in the region and hundreds if not thousands of fighter jets in the region. There is nothing england could have done.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
They even blame Britain for their defeat in Anatolia.

British warned the Greeks a lot of times that getting more further leaves them vulernable to counterattack by Turkish nationalist forces that even we cant save you.

Greeks have forgotten that Ataturk was trained with German stormtrooper tactics. Greeks had their supply lines scretched too far.

Greeks have their mindset of entitlement that other nations have to fight for them.

Geopolitics does not work like that. There is no such thing as entitlement.

Look at all the empires or even kingdoma they had to take it with whatever means necessary. Its just how things worked back in the day.

Its interesting to see how Britain has been retreating since the end of ww2.

What I find so surprising is how Britain gave Hong Kong back to China. I find this a geopolitical blunder. Cod wars were just a dumb defeat it just does not make sense.

Imagine a country like Turkey giving shit up for Cyprus or imagine Italy giving up against Malta. Cannot imagine that happening.
Yet somehow we have kept to pointless bases on Cyprus and the Falklands, economically not viable places.

Economically the only viable places for Britain were where we had settlers. So Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. However we gave all those places independence. We could have basically had unlimited population growth and moved people into those places. It just seems to me Britain or rather is civil service hasn't understood its geopolitical position and has kept trying to doing what it did before. Basically operate east of Suez and counter-balance the French/Germans/Russians.

Every time I hear the idiots buzz because are a operating east of Suez, I am like you lot are retarded, we don't have the interests in those place and we don't need to be their anymore, what we need is capabilities in Britain and the South Atlantic, we can get all the resources we need from the South Atlantic and control trade in and our of the Arctic and North west Europe. I have been calling it in the North-South strategy for years, so we don't annoy the Americans, but control the sea's where we don't have to directly competition with other great powers like Spain/France/Turkey/Indian/Japan, because we don't have the people in those places to defence our trade. We should be looking at places like Angola/Nigeria for allies against the French/Spanish/Turkey/India. But we stupidly went for the worst strategy possible, with a tiny navy which only has the capabilities to operate east of Suez.

I have watched this happen and have been screaming about it, build a navy, build a navy.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Here is the military I would for want for the 'North-South' strategy. This is possible for Britain to achieve. The CANZUK/East of Suez strategy isn't possible at all.

2 QE class carriers.
8 Type 45 destroyers.
16 ASW frigates.
12 SSN.
10 Fleet Replenishment ships.
15 minesweepers.
12 SSK.
12 ASW corvettes.
12 ASuW light frigates.

That 99 combat ships. Doesn't include patrol ships/amphibious ships. Force structure of 2 carriers/4 destroyers/8 frigates/4 SSN/4 minesweepers/4 light frigates/4 replenishment ships. This would be the dominant force in the South Ocean/South Atlantic and waters around Britain. And we could fully support operations in the South Atlantic because we could ally with Portugal and we have a string of islands we can use for bases.

Then you build the Royal Marines up to a brigade size force, you build a network of bases on all the islands we control. With troops/aircraft/replenishment stations and air defences. I mean its simple, cheaper, easier. Then you have an integrated air defence network around Britain and you have the SSK's, light frigates, ASW corvettes and the rest of the minesweepers to defend Britain, so you don't have to worry when you send out the battle groups to the South Atlantic.

This would require a force structure of about 60,000 for the Royal navy, the army and air force would be about the same, a new air defence wing with about 10,000 people and an increase in the Royal Marines to 5,000. Britain could support that force structure. What we would need to support the force structure to do east of Suez and CANZUK we couldn't do in a million years. You would be talking about 3-5 nuclear powered carriers, 6-12 cruisers/dozens of the frigates/destroyers, 20 plus SSN, a much larger replenishment fleet. A RN of 100-120 thousands sailors. Not something we could do now at all.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yet somehow we have kept to pointless bases on Cyprus and the Falklands, economically not viable places.

Economically the only viable places for Britain were where we had settlers. So Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. However we gave all those places independence. We could have basically had unlimited population growth and moved people into those places. It just seems to me Britain or rather is civil service hasn't understood its geopolitical position and has kept trying to doing what it did before. Basically operate east of Suez and counter-balance the French/Germans/Russians.

Every time I hear the idiots buzz because are a operating east of Suez, I am like you lot are retarded, we don't have the interests in those place and we don't need to be their anymore, what we need is capabilities in Britain and the South Atlantic, we can get all the resources we need from the South Atlantic and control trade in and our of the Arctic and North west Europe. I have been calling it in the North-South strategy for years, so we don't annoy the Americans, but control the sea's where we don't have to directly competition with other great powers like Spain/France/Turkey/Indian/Japan, because we don't have the people in those places to defence our trade. We should be looking at places like Angola/Nigeria for allies against the French/Spanish/Turkey/India. But we stupidly went for the worst strategy possible, with a tiny navy which only has the capabilities to operate east of Suez.

I have watched this happen and have been screaming about it, build a navy, build a navy.

We learnt this in Australian history.

A lot of the British did migrate to Australia but the problem was a lot of them were not coming which led to Australia having to take immigrants from European countries. Then it opened up to Asia and africa also South America.

It is said the white policy Australia was kept so only Anglos and Anglo Celtics could come. The thing is not many were coming which led to Australia slowly getting rid of the white policy.

Interesting how a lot of the British preferred migrating to other places of the British Empire than Australia or even New Zealand. Was it too far or just not promoted enough?
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
We learnt this in Australian history.

A lot of the British did migrate to Australia but the problem was a lot of them were not coming which led to Australia having to take immigrants from European countries. Then it opened up to Asia and africa also South America.

It is said the white policy Australia was kept so only Anglos and Anglo Celtics could come. The thing is not many were coming which led to Australia slowly getting rid of the white policy.

Interesting how a lot of the British preferred migrating to other places of the British Empire than Australia or even New Zealand. Was it too far or just not promoted enough?
When Britain enforced abortion, our birthrates, imploded. So that put an end to that. So it isn't that we 'stopped coming' its that we stopped being allowed to be born. Millions of British people would move to Australia, my grandmother moved to Australia before moving to Ireland. So it isn't the distance or because it wasn't promoted. Its just the British state enforced abortion. That's all it was. There have been 7 million British babies aborted in the past 60 years. About 180,000 a year. So that's it. Its interesting because people talk about demographics/birthrates/migration. They never mention abortion, which creates an existential threat to the exists and economic demographic of a nation, then requiring the state to import millions of foreigners or give money to families to have children. The British/English civilization have demographically aborted themselves out of the world. Same as the Chinese have done with the 1 child policy, its just ours wasn't a policy, it was feminism. Hahaha.

 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
When Britain enforced abortion, our birthrates, imploded. So that put an end to that. So it isn't that we 'stopped coming' its that we stopped being allowed to be born. Millions of British people would move to Australia, my grandmother moved to Australia before moving to Ireland. So it isn't the distance or because it wasn't promoted. Its just the British state enforced abortion. That's all it was. There have been 7 million British babies aborted in the past 60 years. About 180,000 a year. So that's it. Its interesting because people talk about demographics/birthrates/migration. They never mention abortion, which creates an existential threat to the exists and economic demographic of a nation, then requiring the state to import millions of foreigners or give money to families to have children. The British/English civilization have demographically aborted themselves out of the world. Same as the Chinese have done with the 1 child policy, its just ours wasn't a policy, it was feminism. Hahaha.


You have Anglo Celtic heritage am I right?

Fck me i used to mock Europeans including the British for their low fertility rates. Even the Japanese and the Koreans im like maybe the Japanese are too busy sleeping with anime pillows to even have children.

Now the Turks are on the road to having low birth rates.

Fck me what a nightmare. But also never mock peoples despair when it can happen to you.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Im 28 years old. A man stay fertile even in his 60s.

But it gets harder for a woman to have a child once they hit 30.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
You have Anglo Celtic heritage am I right?

Fck me i used to mock Europeans including the British for their low fertility rates. Even the Japanese and the Koreans im like maybe the Japanese are too busy sleeping with anime pillows to even have children.

Now the Turks are on the road to having low birth rates.

Fck me what a nightmare. But also never mock peoples despair when it can happen to you.
I am of Anglo-Norman heritage, I have a grandmother who was half-Irish, my mother is Anglo-Irish. I would never call myself Celtic, but I guess I am a bit Celtic. However mainly English/Norman.

The difference is you are just coming to the end of a normal generational/demographic cycle, you aren't compounding it with abortion. So your demographic will fall, but stabilize. It wouldn't become a terminal decline in Japan or China, unless you enforce abortion. The only thing keeping European birthrates somewhat stable is migration birthrates, which in the end leads to instability.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Im 28 years old. A man stay fertile even in his 60s.

But it gets harder for a woman to have a child once they hit 30.
Yeah I know. IVF treatment is much better now, so woman can have children later. However it does nothing for birthrates because it is so expensive. Basically get married at 18 and have as many children as you can. The rest will sort itself out. I am also 28.
 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Contributor
Messages
511
Reactions
297
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
@RogerRanger imo Brit need realignment and readjustment of resources , your financial prowess is a boon but it also made you a stock exchange like place .

To enforce geopolitical power , British need new allies and settle issue with old rivals .


Solving Falkland is one step .

Another would be pulling a plug on some iceland supply to show that aggression is both way street and neighbor should be in peace . Next is financial realignment .

You need a manufacturing hub ,like usa had china in earlier days , you can use india here . Both have some common player , TATA is a mnc operating in UK ,RR and BAE are major mnc which can use indian manufacturing potential . You need to support your company to get manufacturing plant in india for components ,so even after value addition in UK your product have cost competitiveness .

Third you need to cure cultural issue .

One thing i might point out is the high immigration of pakistani diaspora .

Unlike most muslim immigrants , pakistani are ill reputed for creating nuisance .
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yeah I know. IVF treatment is much better now, so woman can have children later. However it does nothing for birthrates because it is so expensive. Basically get married at 18 and have as many children as you can. The rest will sort itself out.

What about the Sexual revolution in the west??

Many argue this was also one of the causes of birth rates falling due to the sexual liberation bs and the beginning of lbgt rights.

Normans remind me of the Turks so much.

Normans changed Western Europe while the Turks changed the Middle East. Both come from warriors and constantly fought everybody while making their own states.

Both also ate up the declining Byzantine Empire.

Normans play a big role in the history of England while the Turks play a big role in the history of Turkey.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Another interesting thing is Northn
@RogerRanger imo Brit need realignment and readjustment of resources , your financial prowess is a boon but it also made you a stock exchange like place .

To enforce geopolitical power , British need new allies and settle issue with old rivals .


Solving Falkland is one step .

Another would be pulling a plug on some iceland supply to show that aggression is both way street and neighbor should be in peace . Next is financial realignment .

You need a manufacturing hub ,like usa had china in earlier days , you can use india here . Both have some common player , TATA is a mnc operating in UK ,RR and BAE are major mnc which can use indian manufacturing potential . You need to support your company to get manufacturing plant in india for components ,so even after value addition in UK your product have cost competitiveness .

Third you need to cure cultural issue .

One thing i might point out is the high immigration of pakistani diaspora .

Unlike most muslim immigrants , pakistani are ill reputed for creating nuisance .
Thanks for the comment. I will reply more later. What do you think of the North-South strategy I mention later in the thread? It isn't a compete strategy, however in geo-political terms it gives us our own sphere and access to resources.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
What about the Sexual revolution in the west??

Many argue this was also one of the causes of birth rates falling due to the sexual liberation bs and the beginning of lbgt rights.

Normans remind me of the Turks so much.

Normans changed Western Europe while the Turks changed the Middle East. Both come from warriors and constantly fought everybody while making their own states.

Both also ate up the declining Byzantine Empire.

Normans play a big role in the history of England while the Turks play a big role in the history of Turkey.
The sexual revolution was a product of the west coming to the end of its demographic cycle and the American free trade system protecting the west. So if you are safe and protected, you have start doing stuff you couldn't do before, plus you are at the peak of a demographic cycle. So basically the Boomers were so secure they stopped caring about their parents and their children, and just did what they wanted. However the Boomers still controlled the western institutions, so they enforced their generational mindset on everybody else going forward. However that is ending now, as they are dying/retiring.

Once could say the Normans and Turks were a tag team of destroying the Roman Empire. Hahaha. The Normans were a great people, small but with a ruling class mentality. With same great military commanders from Williams to Roger to Bohemond, so I agree with you. Also the English willingness to accept foreigners in my view comes from the Normans, who would just assimilate into any nations they took as the ruling class. The English were very different.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,631
Reactions
5 18,317
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
The sexual revolution was a product of the west coming to the end of its demographic cycle and the American free trade system protecting the west. So if you are safe and protected, you have start doing stuff you couldn't do before, plus you are at the peak of a demographic cycle. So basically the Boomers were so secure they stopped caring about their parents and their children, and just did what they wanted. However the Boomers still controlled the western institutions, so they enforced their generational mindset on everybody else going forward. However that is ending now, as they are dying/retiring.

Once could say the Normans and Turks were a tag team of destroying the Roman Empire. Hahaha. The Normans were a great people, small but with a ruling class mentality. With same great military commanders from Williams to Roger to Bohemond, so I agree with you. Also the English willingness to accept foreigners in my view comes from the Normans, who would just assimilate into any nations they took as the ruling class. The English were very different.

The Romans getting rekt 😁

Explains why Roman weebs are so butthurt about the Normans and the Turks.

Muh roman empire muh ceesar.Turkish Horse archers and Norman knights goo brrrrrr
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
@RogerRanger imo Brit need realignment and readjustment of resources , your financial prowess is a boon but it also made you a stock exchange like place .

To enforce geopolitical power , British need new allies and settle issue with old rivals .


Solving Falkland is one step .

Another would be pulling a plug on some iceland supply to show that aggression is both way street and neighbor should be in peace . Next is financial realignment .

You need a manufacturing hub ,like usa had china in earlier days , you can use india here . Both have some common player , TATA is a mnc operating in UK ,RR and BAE are major mnc which can use indian manufacturing potential . You need to support your company to get manufacturing plant in india for components ,so even after value addition in UK your product have cost competitiveness .

Third you need to cure cultural issue .

One thing i might point out is the high immigration of pakistani diaspora .

Unlike most muslim immigrants , pakistani are ill reputed for creating nuisance .
In terms of new allies and setting old issues, what did you have in mind?

For the UK we had a manufacturing hub in the ports of Glasgow, Belfast, Newcastle, as well as inland areas like Sheffield and Birmingham. That was based on trade within a global Empire.

Now manufacturing is more high end and detailed, so you need a highly skilled and capable work force. In three or four areas of the country. London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. With the financial sector of London/Leeds/Edinburgh. So you have a strategic spin from north to south. This will be high end stuff though, not like the old steel works. The UK has great universities which will create new technologies which is a positive. Another thing is we need food/energy/materials, we can't get them from Britain for the most part, so we need to get them from other places. If we can do that, our economy will be good. If we can't we will need to basically become the 51st state of the US.

Everything is predicated on Britain controlling the waters and air space around Britain, if we can't do that we can't import what we need. Second for me would be to finally fully integrate Ireland into the British economy. Thirdly form alliances with other North sea counties like Norway/Denmark/Holland/Iceland even, and form a north sea trading group under the protection of the British fleet. I have had these views for 10 years, but I am just remembering them now. Then I guess you can have some trade deals and alliances with India and Japan. However not with France or Spain, Portugal would for sure be an ally.
 

Lonewolf

Contributor
Messages
511
Reactions
297
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
In terms of new allies and setting old issues, what did you have in mind?

For the UK we had a manufacturing hub in the ports of Glasgow, Belfast, Newcastle, as well as inland areas like Sheffield and Birmingham. That was based on trade within a global Empire.

Now manufacturing is more high end and detailed, so you need a highly skilled and capable work force. In three or four areas of the country. London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow. With the financial sector of London/Leeds/Edinburgh. So you have a strategic spin from north to south. This will be high end stuff though, not like the old steel works. The UK has great universities which will create new technologies which is a positive. Another thing is we need food/energy/materials, we can't get them from Britain for the most part, so we need to get them from other places. If we can do that, our economy will be good. If we can't we will need to basically become the 51st state of the US.

Everything is predicated on Britain controlling the waters and air space around Britain, if we can't do that we can't import what we need. Second for me would be to finally fully integrate Ireland into the British economy. Thirdly form alliances with other North sea counties like Norway/Denmark/Holland/Iceland even, and form a north sea trading group under the protection of the British fleet. I have had these views for 10 years, but I am just remembering them now. Then I guess you can have some trade deals and alliances with India and Japan. However not with France or Spain, Portugal would for sure be an ally.
High end product need a lot of capital expenditure , you can pull off one or two secotr but to do it in various fronts you need to integrate your manufacturing with another country , like for say ,you do some work on specific metallurgy but you can get some other country to make raw material for you , a country which won't have any claim on your territory in future or any other type of conflict .

Also your financial strength need to be exploited further , need to enter new market especially africa etc , but these places are chinese dominated , so you need alliance who will do the basic infra works for you so your industry can plug and play easily .


Cost cutting that's the mantra you need
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
High end product need a lot of capital expenditure , you can pull off one or two secotr but to do it in various fronts you need to integrate your manufacturing with another country , like for say ,you do some work on specific metallurgy but you can get some other country to make raw material for you , a country which won't have any claim on your territory in future or any other type of conflict .

Also your financial strength need to be exploited further , need to enter new market especially africa etc , but these places are chinese dominated , so you need alliance who will do the basic infra works for you so your industry can plug and play easily .


Cost cutting that's the mantra you need
I totally agree with this. Which is why I would want to integrate with Ireland and set up what I call the Irish crescent. Which would be an economic grouping which will manufacture for Britain basically. From Derry in the North all the way along the Irish east coast to Cork. Bringing in Belfast and Dublin. So you have the manufacturing centers of Derry and Cork, with a big city/financial center in Dublin and a industrial port in Belfast. So things are then great in a trade network from Ireland to Britain, then out into the world.

Britain has been spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, which we have mostly wasted giving it to India and China. However I would use that money on foreign direct investment in West Africa and South America, ally with somewhere like Angola which has a lot of oil and gas, but needs the knowledge to make it profitable. The British have all the knowledge from the North sea. Then there are minerals from DR Congo as well and Namibia. So there is a lot of stuff you can do in west Africa and South America, where there isn't a major power like the US or Japan or Indian to directly compete with.

Its all about avoiding other major world powers as much as possible for me. Until we have the Irish economy integrated, have a good brown water navy and powerful air defence network we can't be trying to take on France/Turkey/Spain/India/Japan, even if we could win in a war at sea, it would be too risky, if we lose we are done. Once the three things I mentioned are in place we can then afford to take more risk because whatever happens we have a secure geography at home and a brown water navy to enforce trade around Britain.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom