I do not wish to be pedantic about an item that isn't central to the author's theme, however this statement is incorrect:
"Russia’s ally China offers low-hanging fruit for the conspiracy theorist. It is a dictatorship and therefore almost by definition malevolent."
China is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy. It's a democracy that has both similarities and differences from Western-style governance. First, the big difference: China does not have MULTIPARTY politics. They have done away with all the fighting between warring political parties. Instead of political parties fighting each other for supremacy, elected officials focus on the people's needs. The second notable difference is that there can be no "winner take all" victor in Chinese national politics. There is only one way to rise to the top of China's political system: starting at the bottom and progressing upward only over time and performance. It works on a tiered system as follows.
Chinese elections take place every three years. Every Chinese adult citizen may vote or run for office. You do not have to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party to stand for election. Voters elect the local representatives. In turn, those representatives elect the people who stand for regional office. And then those individuals elect the people who are members of the National People's Congress. The NPC is the highest governing body in China. It makes all the laws. And, it elects the President of China, currently Xi Jinping.
By the time a candidate reaches the NPC, he or she has passed through multiple layers of government in China. They are seasoned officials that understand how the system works and how to make it work for the people. They are experts in the system. A Johnny-come-lately with no political experience cannot buy his way to the top, as is possible in Western politics.
The final nail in the dictatorship accusation is that the 'big dictator,' President Xi Jinping, is elected by the NPC. The office of president doesn't have term limits, but neither does the Prime Minister of the UK have term limits. Both individuals may serve as long as they retain the confidence of the NPC in the case of China, or Parliament in the case of the UK.
China has national elections more often than we have in the West. Their officials at every level of government are elected by their peers. The President of China is also elected, and serves only at the pleasure of the NPC.
That is correct, and the narrative is an out-and-out lie. China is not a dictatorship. It holds elections more often than most western countries. China is a democracy, full stop. It's democracy is structured differently than the winner-take-all approach we have in the west, but it is highly democratic nevertheless.
These nervy caveats in Mr. Skidelsky's piece detract from what should be it's power.
The UK and The West are now the authoritarian dictatorships: controlled by a small global financial elite with censorship and mainstream media in full compliance. They are creating this paranoia because they are increasingly desperate to hang on to all the loot and the states they they have stolen and taken from ordinary people; with the security services rogue, psychopathic and violent in tandem with them; privatised armies even more unaccountable and violent - Gerald Cornwell began writing about this in his later life and Hugh Laurie is playing so well currently in The Night Manager.
Western states are captured and in thrall to these global maniacs who control the media and the means to create the paranoia. They are projecting their repugnant and disgusting plans onto China and Russia.
Lord Skidelsky's heart is clearly in the right place, and his mind is a powerful one. But like any politician, he always has to stay within the marked boundaries of the playing field.
I'm working on the assumption he or others won't mind me stating the uncomfortable stuff in shorthand. I know intellectuals around the world can know and see this and many smart-arses with their heads in the sand or too much to lose, won't see it.
I am currently reading Snow Country by Sebastian Faulks. In the context of this conversation, Faulks sets up the atmosphere in Europe just before WW1 wonderfully and with such insight: there is a character who can sniff the air and understands the tectonic plates are shifting and most people's heads are still in the 19th century.
I love reading all the erudite people who write and comment on Substack, but am mindful that we are in a similar moment a hundred or so years later. Reviving the corpse of Cold War hysteria and keeping it on life support is desperate stuff and deliberate.
We are in a new world.
The past is another country.
Like anyone who's paying attention, my pessimism is that these desperate fools are leading us over the cliff into global conflict to have their lust for global domination at any cost.
Anyway, enough rambling for now. Your erudite insights on various threads are always welcome. Thanks.
My view about the West is like your own. There is a facade of democracy, only. The ballot box, the media, the political culture, the bureaucracy: they've become the "bread and circus" that those with power use to keep the masses distracted while they're being exploited. It's particularly galling to see those in power in the West accuse other states of the malicious behavior that they're involved in.
Imagine we send a trade delegation to China and it is rebuffed, as happened in 1792. Imagine the Chinese believe they have a superior culture to ours, they were building palaces in 200BCE when we were living in mud huts. Imagine that they believed that their refusal to export rhubarb to Britain would result in catastrophic consequences to our digestive systems and would result in our capitulation within six months despite Britain being able to grow rhubarb itself. It was a problem for Britain that China did not need any of our exports yet we needed their porcelain and carpets. Fast forward to 1842 when, after Britain, through the East India Company, was exporting drugs illicitly to China and making a proportion of its citizens junkies, we actually invaded and defeated the Chinese forces. We negotiated a 150 year lease on Hong Kong as a trading base. China was forced to cede territory to the Western powers from which they could trade without hindrance or subjection to control by the Chinese authorities. All of this happened and worse, when the 150 year lease on Hong Kong was about to transpire, we introduced democracy to the native inhabitants of the territory, knowing it would annoy the Communist Party of China. Imagine the Chinese doing any of this to us and you will understand why the Chinese are annoyed with the West. I don’t know if we ever apologised for these actions, or if we were asked to apologise but there is no doubt that we owe the Chinese the benefit of the doubt on any actions they take to further their own interests in the West.
We needed their tea, but in exchange they were taking all our silver. Until we discovered they also would import opium. Illegal in China, but of course we fought a war to force them to purchase. The situation only stabilized when we found that tea plantations could thrive in India...
Quite so, but we "needed" it in the sense that we wished to avoid economic disaster. The tea trade in the event was so massive it created a silver shortage as the trade was literally draining the rest of the world's supplies of silver, far faster than it could be mined. Because the Chinese were a monopoly supplier who would accept nothing in exchange other than payment in silver.
Tea also had other amusing geopolitical consequences. Look no further than the East India Company's selective abolition of the tea tax, intended to bankrupt the smugglers (John Hancock etc) and thus resulting in the Boston Tea Party. ;)
It wasn’t the “rest of the world’s” supplies of silver so much as Britain, Europe, and the USA. And anyway most of that silver had originally been stolen from Latin America by the Spanish.
If economic prosperity relies on such slender foundations, it is evanescent anyway.
Even the name "Rebellion" is disgusting propaganda. Since when have patriots fighting against heavy odds to defend their country against heavily-armed foreign invaders been "rebels"?
It is an astonishingly little-known fact (in Britain) that whereas neither China nor Russia has ever invaded Britain or the USA, those countries have invaded China and Russia several times, killing many of their citizens, causing huge damage, and stealing many priceless artefacts.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese and Russians would have done as bad things if they had had the chance?
Huge Chinese fleets sailed around the world 500 years ago, with ships bigger than any built before the age of steam and iron. Nowhere did they establish a colony or attack the local people. Nowhere did they steal or murder.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But I think it is significant that the Chinese and Russians have never wanted global empires.
Yes, but not so much if they had had the chance but more if they had thought it in their dynastic interest. I don't think you can draw sweeping conclusions about Chinese imperialism or the lack of it from one 28 year period during the Ming Dynasty. Many fleets, albeit smaller, sailed great distances around the oceans without establishing colonies - Tasman, de Gama, Columbus, Anson. Colonies came later in some cases but the Chinese concluded the rest of the world had nothing to offer their superior culture.
Modern day China shows that the Chinese are perfectly capable of behaving as badly as anyone else and the Belt and Road is imperialism by other means. Not that the Chinese shy away from the use of force. In recent years they have invaded Vietnam, annexed Tibet, fought with India on their Himalayan border, enslaved the Uighurs and harassed Filipino ships within the Nine Dash Line.
As for the Russians, the Tzars definitely had imperial aspirations. Their expansion into Manchuria and Korea led to the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. It's only because the Japanese won (and initiated their own empire) that we're not talking about a Russian empire in the Far East. Not to mention Afghanistan.
I'm not arguing we in the West are somehow better than the rest but we're no worse. The empire-building instinct is a permanent feature of human history and how it plays out is just down to circumstance.
"... the Belt and Road is imperialism by other means..."
Isn't that stretching it a bit? "Trade is imperialism"; sounds straight out of "1984". The Chinese are very industrious and acquisitive - to stereotype a little - and they are very keen to do business with everyone. As far as I have seen, that has always been on a basis of everyone profiting. It's the West that adopts a "zero sum" policy - we win only if you lose. Mr Trump is the perfect exemplar.
Your examples of recent Chinese aggression are not very convincing. "Enslaved the Uighurs"?? I have read reports by Western eye-witnesses who have travelled through the Uighur lands and testify that everything is perfectly happy and peaceful.
I agree with you about universal human instincts. But history shows that some people are much better at repressing such vicious instincts, and some societies are better at keeping violent psychopaths out of power. If you look at the current leaders of China and Russia, and compare them to their Western opposite numbers, you will surely see my point.
All this MSM and political nonsense re China is ultimately aimed at locals, i.e. domestic use. It's a ploy to impress how Britain is still of a highest statue in the world. Except it is not, and nobody's paying a slightest attention at UK's whinges and whines
What you describe is on the one hand hilarious but on the other a potentially very dangerous situation. McCarthyism without a McCarthy.
It highlights the arrogance of the West’s belief in the superiority of its flawed and corrupt democracies that have led it to economic stagnation and immiseration of its working and now middle classes.
Look at the UK: it once ruled a quarter of the world and was the world’s workshop too, and now it can’t even build a short section of high speed railway.
It could be a moment for the BBC and the media to enlighten people about China but of course unbridled hubris and the profits of sensationalism swamp all rationality.
Daniel Bell does an excellent job of explaining how Chinese governance works:
A very disturbing recent example was Blaise Metrewell's inaugural speech as SIS chief. We were told all about Russian "threats" to the UK. But where can we read something substantial about these "cyberattacks on critical infrastructure"? The "drones buzzing airports and bases"? The "aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves"? The "state-sponsored arson and sabotage"? The "propaganda and influence operations? The "export of chaos"? Is it all kept secret for security reasons? Can anyone explain what I'm missing here?
Well, that's probably true of a very large number of people with German or East European roots. But it doesn't explain why the head of an important British institution, which should be staffed by the cleverest and most thoughtful people available, makes dramatic allegations for which there appears to be very little solid evidence in the public domain. The risk is that we'll all lose confidence in anything they might tell us in the future.
Spooks and counterintelligence people are no different from any other tradespeople: it is in their interests to magnify and publicise the need for their services.
I think that an honest and painstaking inquiry would find that there are hardly any serious threats to Britain from without - except the grossly excessive levels of immigration, which the government positively encourages.
The logical response would be to get rid of that government and replace it with one that has the citizens' interests at heart.
'In The Times (15 January 2026), Juliet Samuel wondered “what exactly will the US do … if we allow its main adversary [China] to build a vast operational hub slap-bang in the middle of the Western alliance and its critical infrastructure?”'.
It would be useful to compare the planned Chinese embassy in London with US embassies all over the world. The one in Baghdad, with its infamous Green Zone, for example. Or the one in London, for that matter.
"MPs have been forbidden to download TikTok on their parliamentary devices — and thus to access Chinese views — due to fears of data harvesting, surveillance, and potential exploitation by the Chinese state (PoliticsHome, 23 March 2023)".
Is this not evidence that it is the UK that is now a police state? MPs - the members of our supreme legislature - are forbidden by anonymous "security" officials to participate in global fora used by billions.
The truth is that Britain is not nearly important enough or technically advanced enough for the Chinese to be deeply interested in spying on it.
This is an excellent diagnosis of how exaggerated threat narratives take hold especially the shift from legal to administrative responses.
One layer I’d add is structural rather than psychological: once institutions lose buffering capacity, security framing becomes the fastest way to compress ambiguity. Administrative tools don’t just reflect paranoia, they substitute for politics when latency outruns deliberation.
Do you see this as a reversible cycle, or as a durable feature of governance under permanent coordination stress?
This nails something tht's been bothering me for months. The way security concerns get weaponized to shortcut actual policy debate is genuinely troubling—once something gets labeled a 'threat', suddenly there's no room for nuance or proportion anymore. Had asimilar experience with a local planning committee where vague 'safety concerns' shut down discussion about a community center before anyone could even examine the details. The bit about MI5 and GCHQ actually finding risks manageable but politicians running with the paranoia anyway really shows how much this is about domestic theater rather than genuine foreign policy.
'In The Times (15 January 2026), Juliet Samuel wondered “what exactly will the US do … if we allow its main adversary [China] to build a vast operational hub slap-bang in the middle of the Western alliance and its critical infrastructure?”'.
Who, exactly, claims that China is "the USA's main adversary"? Why, the USA! No one in China would ever say such a stupid and ignorant thing. China does not start wars, and expresses no hostility towards the USA. In 1945, as soon as the Japanese had been expelled from China, Mao Zedong wrote a personal letter to President Truman proposing a strategic partnership between the USA and China. American technology and capital, he said, would perfectly complement Chinese cheap labour and desire to industrialise.
Mao's letter was never even acknowledged. So he turned to Stalin, although knowing that the USSR was still recovering from the terrible wounds of the German invasion. Stalin replied with remarkable generosity, offering as much help as the USSR could manage.
James Bradley's excellent and well-researched books "The Imperial Cruise" and "The China Mirage" explain the decision of US leaders, as soon as expansion had reached the Pacific, to move on to Asia - with China the first big target. "Manifest Destiny"! Realising that this was too big a leap geographically, they chose Japan as their local base and hunting dog. After WW2, when China reasserted its independence and became able to defend itself, the cry went up "Who lost China?" Imagine the arrogance of suggesting that China had ever belonged to the USA - or rather to its plutocrats.
Now that China has emerged from its "century of humiliation" by the West, it characteristically does not seek revenge. All it wants is to be left in peace and to trade fairly with all comers. But to be sure of those freedoms, it has had to arm itself with the most powerful weapons in the world. No one can fight a war with China except in and near China, as it has no aggressive intentions. But to fight China on its own ground is suicide.
Because China is bigger, wealthier, and growing far faster than the USA - and the average Chinese is significantly more intelligent than the average American or European - the Americans have taken fright and label China as their "adversary", "antagonist", or even enemy. That is the way they have always behaved. If any other country is able to defend itself against them, they consider it a dangerous threat.
It's unfortunate that the British ruling elites seem compelled to follow, dog-like, in their master's footsteps.
I wholeheartedly agree the whole purpose of the insane Starmer government is to take Britains off the fucking muslims he's importing to keep himself in power the arsehole needs to be assassinated.
I do not wish to be pedantic about an item that isn't central to the author's theme, however this statement is incorrect:
"Russia’s ally China offers low-hanging fruit for the conspiracy theorist. It is a dictatorship and therefore almost by definition malevolent."
China is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy. It's a democracy that has both similarities and differences from Western-style governance. First, the big difference: China does not have MULTIPARTY politics. They have done away with all the fighting between warring political parties. Instead of political parties fighting each other for supremacy, elected officials focus on the people's needs. The second notable difference is that there can be no "winner take all" victor in Chinese national politics. There is only one way to rise to the top of China's political system: starting at the bottom and progressing upward only over time and performance. It works on a tiered system as follows.
Chinese elections take place every three years. Every Chinese adult citizen may vote or run for office. You do not have to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party to stand for election. Voters elect the local representatives. In turn, those representatives elect the people who stand for regional office. And then those individuals elect the people who are members of the National People's Congress. The NPC is the highest governing body in China. It makes all the laws. And, it elects the President of China, currently Xi Jinping.
By the time a candidate reaches the NPC, he or she has passed through multiple layers of government in China. They are seasoned officials that understand how the system works and how to make it work for the people. They are experts in the system. A Johnny-come-lately with no political experience cannot buy his way to the top, as is possible in Western politics.
The final nail in the dictatorship accusation is that the 'big dictator,' President Xi Jinping, is elected by the NPC. The office of president doesn't have term limits, but neither does the Prime Minister of the UK have term limits. Both individuals may serve as long as they retain the confidence of the NPC in the case of China, or Parliament in the case of the UK.
China has national elections more often than we have in the West. Their officials at every level of government are elected by their peers. The President of China is also elected, and serves only at the pleasure of the NPC.
That is democracy with Chinese characteristics.
I echo your comment. Describing China as a dictatorship is all part of the narrative.
That is correct, and the narrative is an out-and-out lie. China is not a dictatorship. It holds elections more often than most western countries. China is a democracy, full stop. It's democracy is structured differently than the winner-take-all approach we have in the west, but it is highly democratic nevertheless.
Well put. Thanks.
These nervy caveats in Mr. Skidelsky's piece detract from what should be it's power.
The UK and The West are now the authoritarian dictatorships: controlled by a small global financial elite with censorship and mainstream media in full compliance. They are creating this paranoia because they are increasingly desperate to hang on to all the loot and the states they they have stolen and taken from ordinary people; with the security services rogue, psychopathic and violent in tandem with them; privatised armies even more unaccountable and violent - Gerald Cornwell began writing about this in his later life and Hugh Laurie is playing so well currently in The Night Manager.
Western states are captured and in thrall to these global maniacs who control the media and the means to create the paranoia. They are projecting their repugnant and disgusting plans onto China and Russia.
Lord Skidelsky's heart is clearly in the right place, and his mind is a powerful one. But like any politician, he always has to stay within the marked boundaries of the playing field.
Yes, Tom, I agree.
I'm working on the assumption he or others won't mind me stating the uncomfortable stuff in shorthand. I know intellectuals around the world can know and see this and many smart-arses with their heads in the sand or too much to lose, won't see it.
I am currently reading Snow Country by Sebastian Faulks. In the context of this conversation, Faulks sets up the atmosphere in Europe just before WW1 wonderfully and with such insight: there is a character who can sniff the air and understands the tectonic plates are shifting and most people's heads are still in the 19th century.
I love reading all the erudite people who write and comment on Substack, but am mindful that we are in a similar moment a hundred or so years later. Reviving the corpse of Cold War hysteria and keeping it on life support is desperate stuff and deliberate.
We are in a new world.
The past is another country.
Like anyone who's paying attention, my pessimism is that these desperate fools are leading us over the cliff into global conflict to have their lust for global domination at any cost.
Anyway, enough rambling for now. Your erudite insights on various threads are always welcome. Thanks.
My view about the West is like your own. There is a facade of democracy, only. The ballot box, the media, the political culture, the bureaucracy: they've become the "bread and circus" that those with power use to keep the masses distracted while they're being exploited. It's particularly galling to see those in power in the West accuse other states of the malicious behavior that they're involved in.
Imagine we send a trade delegation to China and it is rebuffed, as happened in 1792. Imagine the Chinese believe they have a superior culture to ours, they were building palaces in 200BCE when we were living in mud huts. Imagine that they believed that their refusal to export rhubarb to Britain would result in catastrophic consequences to our digestive systems and would result in our capitulation within six months despite Britain being able to grow rhubarb itself. It was a problem for Britain that China did not need any of our exports yet we needed their porcelain and carpets. Fast forward to 1842 when, after Britain, through the East India Company, was exporting drugs illicitly to China and making a proportion of its citizens junkies, we actually invaded and defeated the Chinese forces. We negotiated a 150 year lease on Hong Kong as a trading base. China was forced to cede territory to the Western powers from which they could trade without hindrance or subjection to control by the Chinese authorities. All of this happened and worse, when the 150 year lease on Hong Kong was about to transpire, we introduced democracy to the native inhabitants of the territory, knowing it would annoy the Communist Party of China. Imagine the Chinese doing any of this to us and you will understand why the Chinese are annoyed with the West. I don’t know if we ever apologised for these actions, or if we were asked to apologise but there is no doubt that we owe the Chinese the benefit of the doubt on any actions they take to further their own interests in the West.
We needed their tea, but in exchange they were taking all our silver. Until we discovered they also would import opium. Illegal in China, but of course we fought a war to force them to purchase. The situation only stabilized when we found that tea plantations could thrive in India...
In what sense did we "need" all their tea? It was a luxury for the rich to begin with - tea caddies were fitted with locks.
In the same sense as today's wealthy "need" their cocaine.
Quite so, but we "needed" it in the sense that we wished to avoid economic disaster. The tea trade in the event was so massive it created a silver shortage as the trade was literally draining the rest of the world's supplies of silver, far faster than it could be mined. Because the Chinese were a monopoly supplier who would accept nothing in exchange other than payment in silver.
Tea also had other amusing geopolitical consequences. Look no further than the East India Company's selective abolition of the tea tax, intended to bankrupt the smugglers (John Hancock etc) and thus resulting in the Boston Tea Party. ;)
It wasn’t the “rest of the world’s” supplies of silver so much as Britain, Europe, and the USA. And anyway most of that silver had originally been stolen from Latin America by the Spanish.
If economic prosperity relies on such slender foundations, it is evanescent anyway.
Concur completely: wherever mined, it was available to the West. ;)
"If economic prosperity relies on such slender foundations, it is evanescent anyway."
Indeed. And with every passing day that sounds more and more contemporary! :)
See the Boxer Rebellion (1899) and the terror we enacted upon the Chinese nation in response.
Even the name "Rebellion" is disgusting propaganda. Since when have patriots fighting against heavy odds to defend their country against heavily-armed foreign invaders been "rebels"?
Well said. You won't see Opium Wars mentioned in MSM. China is always framed as aggressive and backward.
It is an astonishingly little-known fact (in Britain) that whereas neither China nor Russia has ever invaded Britain or the USA, those countries have invaded China and Russia several times, killing many of their citizens, causing huge damage, and stealing many priceless artefacts.
Well put.
That's nothing to do with morality, simply the fact that, to date, neither China nor Russia have had a global empire.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese and Russians would have done as bad things if they had had the chance?
Huge Chinese fleets sailed around the world 500 years ago, with ships bigger than any built before the age of steam and iron. Nowhere did they establish a colony or attack the local people. Nowhere did they steal or murder.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But I think it is significant that the Chinese and Russians have never wanted global empires.
Yes, but not so much if they had had the chance but more if they had thought it in their dynastic interest. I don't think you can draw sweeping conclusions about Chinese imperialism or the lack of it from one 28 year period during the Ming Dynasty. Many fleets, albeit smaller, sailed great distances around the oceans without establishing colonies - Tasman, de Gama, Columbus, Anson. Colonies came later in some cases but the Chinese concluded the rest of the world had nothing to offer their superior culture.
Modern day China shows that the Chinese are perfectly capable of behaving as badly as anyone else and the Belt and Road is imperialism by other means. Not that the Chinese shy away from the use of force. In recent years they have invaded Vietnam, annexed Tibet, fought with India on their Himalayan border, enslaved the Uighurs and harassed Filipino ships within the Nine Dash Line.
As for the Russians, the Tzars definitely had imperial aspirations. Their expansion into Manchuria and Korea led to the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. It's only because the Japanese won (and initiated their own empire) that we're not talking about a Russian empire in the Far East. Not to mention Afghanistan.
I'm not arguing we in the West are somehow better than the rest but we're no worse. The empire-building instinct is a permanent feature of human history and how it plays out is just down to circumstance.
"... the Belt and Road is imperialism by other means..."
Isn't that stretching it a bit? "Trade is imperialism"; sounds straight out of "1984". The Chinese are very industrious and acquisitive - to stereotype a little - and they are very keen to do business with everyone. As far as I have seen, that has always been on a basis of everyone profiting. It's the West that adopts a "zero sum" policy - we win only if you lose. Mr Trump is the perfect exemplar.
Your examples of recent Chinese aggression are not very convincing. "Enslaved the Uighurs"?? I have read reports by Western eye-witnesses who have travelled through the Uighur lands and testify that everything is perfectly happy and peaceful.
I agree with you about universal human instincts. But history shows that some people are much better at repressing such vicious instincts, and some societies are better at keeping violent psychopaths out of power. If you look at the current leaders of China and Russia, and compare them to their Western opposite numbers, you will surely see my point.
Well put.
So, what you're saying is the Chinese know how to bear a grudge.
All this MSM and political nonsense re China is ultimately aimed at locals, i.e. domestic use. It's a ploy to impress how Britain is still of a highest statue in the world. Except it is not, and nobody's paying a slightest attention at UK's whinges and whines
What you describe is on the one hand hilarious but on the other a potentially very dangerous situation. McCarthyism without a McCarthy.
It highlights the arrogance of the West’s belief in the superiority of its flawed and corrupt democracies that have led it to economic stagnation and immiseration of its working and now middle classes.
Look at the UK: it once ruled a quarter of the world and was the world’s workshop too, and now it can’t even build a short section of high speed railway.
It could be a moment for the BBC and the media to enlighten people about China but of course unbridled hubris and the profits of sensationalism swamp all rationality.
Daniel Bell does an excellent job of explaining how Chinese governance works:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLtFae0pbw
A very disturbing recent example was Blaise Metrewell's inaugural speech as SIS chief. We were told all about Russian "threats" to the UK. But where can we read something substantial about these "cyberattacks on critical infrastructure"? The "drones buzzing airports and bases"? The "aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves"? The "state-sponsored arson and sabotage"? The "propaganda and influence operations? The "export of chaos"? Is it all kept secret for security reasons? Can anyone explain what I'm missing here?
Her grandfather was a Nazi.
Well, that's probably true of a very large number of people with German or East European roots. But it doesn't explain why the head of an important British institution, which should be staffed by the cleverest and most thoughtful people available, makes dramatic allegations for which there appears to be very little solid evidence in the public domain. The risk is that we'll all lose confidence in anything they might tell us in the future.
Spooks and counterintelligence people are no different from any other tradespeople: it is in their interests to magnify and publicise the need for their services.
I think that an honest and painstaking inquiry would find that there are hardly any serious threats to Britain from without - except the grossly excessive levels of immigration, which the government positively encourages.
The logical response would be to get rid of that government and replace it with one that has the citizens' interests at heart.
Constantine Dobrowolski?
'In The Times (15 January 2026), Juliet Samuel wondered “what exactly will the US do … if we allow its main adversary [China] to build a vast operational hub slap-bang in the middle of the Western alliance and its critical infrastructure?”'.
It would be useful to compare the planned Chinese embassy in London with US embassies all over the world. The one in Baghdad, with its infamous Green Zone, for example. Or the one in London, for that matter.
"MPs have been forbidden to download TikTok on their parliamentary devices — and thus to access Chinese views — due to fears of data harvesting, surveillance, and potential exploitation by the Chinese state (PoliticsHome, 23 March 2023)".
Is this not evidence that it is the UK that is now a police state? MPs - the members of our supreme legislature - are forbidden by anonymous "security" officials to participate in global fora used by billions.
The truth is that Britain is not nearly important enough or technically advanced enough for the Chinese to be deeply interested in spying on it.
This is an excellent diagnosis of how exaggerated threat narratives take hold especially the shift from legal to administrative responses.
One layer I’d add is structural rather than psychological: once institutions lose buffering capacity, security framing becomes the fastest way to compress ambiguity. Administrative tools don’t just reflect paranoia, they substitute for politics when latency outruns deliberation.
Do you see this as a reversible cycle, or as a durable feature of governance under permanent coordination stress?
You're not paranoid, Robert, you're blasé.
This nails something tht's been bothering me for months. The way security concerns get weaponized to shortcut actual policy debate is genuinely troubling—once something gets labeled a 'threat', suddenly there's no room for nuance or proportion anymore. Had asimilar experience with a local planning committee where vague 'safety concerns' shut down discussion about a community center before anyone could even examine the details. The bit about MI5 and GCHQ actually finding risks manageable but politicians running with the paranoia anyway really shows how much this is about domestic theater rather than genuine foreign policy.
'In The Times (15 January 2026), Juliet Samuel wondered “what exactly will the US do … if we allow its main adversary [China] to build a vast operational hub slap-bang in the middle of the Western alliance and its critical infrastructure?”'.
Who, exactly, claims that China is "the USA's main adversary"? Why, the USA! No one in China would ever say such a stupid and ignorant thing. China does not start wars, and expresses no hostility towards the USA. In 1945, as soon as the Japanese had been expelled from China, Mao Zedong wrote a personal letter to President Truman proposing a strategic partnership between the USA and China. American technology and capital, he said, would perfectly complement Chinese cheap labour and desire to industrialise.
Mao's letter was never even acknowledged. So he turned to Stalin, although knowing that the USSR was still recovering from the terrible wounds of the German invasion. Stalin replied with remarkable generosity, offering as much help as the USSR could manage.
James Bradley's excellent and well-researched books "The Imperial Cruise" and "The China Mirage" explain the decision of US leaders, as soon as expansion had reached the Pacific, to move on to Asia - with China the first big target. "Manifest Destiny"! Realising that this was too big a leap geographically, they chose Japan as their local base and hunting dog. After WW2, when China reasserted its independence and became able to defend itself, the cry went up "Who lost China?" Imagine the arrogance of suggesting that China had ever belonged to the USA - or rather to its plutocrats.
Now that China has emerged from its "century of humiliation" by the West, it characteristically does not seek revenge. All it wants is to be left in peace and to trade fairly with all comers. But to be sure of those freedoms, it has had to arm itself with the most powerful weapons in the world. No one can fight a war with China except in and near China, as it has no aggressive intentions. But to fight China on its own ground is suicide.
Because China is bigger, wealthier, and growing far faster than the USA - and the average Chinese is significantly more intelligent than the average American or European - the Americans have taken fright and label China as their "adversary", "antagonist", or even enemy. That is the way they have always behaved. If any other country is able to defend itself against them, they consider it a dangerous threat.
It's unfortunate that the British ruling elites seem compelled to follow, dog-like, in their master's footsteps.
Tinpot PONCE country 🏴, joke FINISHED union 📉🇬🇧
Parasites …🏴
🏴☮️🇪🇺
Gee, it sure would be a shame if something..untoward.. were to happen to the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery at an inopportune time.
I wholeheartedly agree the whole purpose of the insane Starmer government is to take Britains off the fucking muslims he's importing to keep himself in power the arsehole needs to be assassinated.