Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Welcome back to Going Underground. Broadcasting all around the world. From the UAE headed the annual two day NATO summit that is starting tomorrow. Hosted this year by Takia NATO member the United Kingdom is being represented this year by a prime minister forced to quit after deception surrounding his top diplomat in Washington and child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. He leaves office in a country where now more than two and a half million need emergency food parcels to eat. And with 12 million unable to afford heating, nearly one in four children in Britain now lives in deprivation. Since 2010 in real terms, public health care funding has had to be slashed by more than a quarter overthrown. PM Starmer will be joined by equally unpopular NATO counterparts not favored at home, according to opinion polling. Meanwhile, ahead of the summit, tens of millions will gather in Tehran to pay respects to the late Ayatollah Khabani assassinated by Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, whose Tomahawk missiles also slaughtered 168 schoolgirls on the same day. NATO nations now represent less than a third of global GDP by PPP compared to say the 41% of BRICS. That includes Russia, Iran, China and the UAE. For NATO, the agenda is militarisation and ever more billions to fight China and Russia through Ukraine as well as arming wars on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. Joining me now from London is the former chairman of the UK Defence Select Committee, former UK Minister for the Middle east and North Africa, and former UK Defence Minister, Lieutenant Colonel the Right Honorable Tobias Elwood's latest book is Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three and it's out later this week.
Tobias Elwood, thank you so much for coming on Going Underground. Let's just begin with Starmer and as I was saying, how he's not alone in being unpopular at home. Just can you explain to our international audience, I mean we know the Epstein scandal helped to bring him down. Why can Britain not have a prime minister for a full five year term?
[00:02:03] Speaker A: Well, great to see you. This is a big question that I think we're asking ourselves because this isn't usually how we do business. There's normally confidence in a prime minister, indeed in a government to see out the parliamentary term who for a good five years. I think it's a reflection of where politics has gone, how fickle it is, how fickle the nation is in wanting results so quickly. Social media fuels this, of course, but there's an impatience that if you're in there just even just two years and you don't get good results, then people start to question whether you should stay in Office. And of course, I can't complain about this because I came from a government where we had a churn of Prime Minister, we got through four or five, and I think I. So I say this with some sadness that this is currently where Britain is.
[00:02:55] Speaker B: I mean, it's not just rhythm, in fairness, it's not just Britain. I mean, the figures for Starmer are 72% unfavorable. Macron, 78 unfavorable, 78%, Germany's Mert, 80% unfavorable. Meloni, 55% unfavorable. It's all across Western Europe.
[00:03:11] Speaker A: But the difference, I would say, is that they're not churning out their, throwing out their leaders, their premiers halfway through office.
Times are tough now and we've entered a new era of insecurity. Global order itself has starting to fragment. We've got Russia, Russia and China working closer together, America disengaging. Where is our world going? And economically, of course, this is a very testing time. Whether it's Iran and what's going on there, whether it's the COVID that hit us too, whether it's the financial crisis going back there. There's been a series of testing events, which means that economically, these are difficult times. Now, if the nation itself, the people then get frustrated, clearly they're going to express that in the popularity of whoever is Prime Minister at the time. What is different is that MPs themselves then look at the poll ratings and say, I think we could probably do better with somebody else. And that is very, very unusual. That's, I think, a different phase that we've gone into. From a British perspective, I don't think from the international's perspective, you're going to see much change with Andy Burnham coming in compared with Keir Starmer. Domestically, probably, yes, but certainly from a foreign policy perspective, I don't think you're going to see much change at all.
[00:04:32] Speaker B: Do you think if you were still Defense Minister, would you have supported Starmer's decision to prevent Trump using Diego Garcia for the bombing of Iran?
[00:04:44] Speaker A: I think it was right initially to challenge what on earth Trump was trying to do and succeed with Iran, given the fact that when you looked at the detail, it's very clear now, there was no strategy, a utility of military might on a massive scale.
But ultimately we now see Iran arguably more empowered than they were before America charged in. And that's the sort of questions that Britain is good at raising. You know, the D Day landings. Should we go to Calais? No, not a good idea. We whisper in the presence here, let's do Normandy. It makes sense. And that is the role that Britain has played. This is this relationship that we've had for decades now of working with our closest security ally, propping up and supporting the very international order that came from what we call the Atlantic Charter, this agreement in the middle of the war to say we actually need to uphold international laws and we will work together on that. Where it comes to Donald Trump is, of course, he's thrown all that out the window. He's decided, I'm not interested in these international organizations. I'm going to look after America and I am going to use military might if it serves my interest, even if I'm not sure where it will go. And that's the dilemma we now face today. How can you persuade?
[00:06:06] Speaker B: Dilemma or is it broken? Dilemma or is it broken? I mean, presumably the CIA didn't tell their MI6 counterparts they were about to assassinate Atal Khamenei.
[00:06:17] Speaker A: The CIA is another discussion, I think, because many of them, we share information, the five eyes community that you may be familiar with, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and so forth. Something very, very important to us in sharing that the level of trust there is second to none. So it is with some sadness that we are unsure where our relationship with Donald Trump goes. And there is a question mark. Does it click back into place once he departs office, or have we moved into a new era of disengagement with America? Because certainly what Donald Trump is trying to do, as we see, is actually separate interest on Europe, on support for Europe as well, and leave us to our own devices. And that's something that we are having to work more closely with our European allies in a way that we've not done for many, many years. Once Trump had decided to go in, once we were at war with Iran, it was in all our interest to actually make that work. As Middle east minister for a number of years, it always saddened me that we'd not done enough to stand up to Iran, that it had such a toxic influence across the Middle east through its proxies and what it was actually doing, and it got away with it. And so there is a little bit of me that actually understands why Trump has been frustrated. Successive American presidents have had to deal with Iran since 1979. Here we have a president willing to cross the line, but then doesn't have a plan.
[00:07:49] Speaker B: In fairness, Trump did answer that, didn't they? Because he said, oh, after he won the war against Iran, then the British offered help. He wasn't interested in It.
[00:07:59] Speaker A: Although, of course, sorry, he's not won any war with Iran, I'm afraid the regime is still there. The long range missiles are still operational, so are the Shihads and so forth. And as we know, and you know better than me, he's got absolute control over the, over the Straits of Hormuz. And the consequence of that is that you've actually emboldened this regime. In fact, I'd argue the regime's worse because you've got the IRCG now taking on power in Iran as well. The sadness is the Iranian people that were told promised get ready to rise up against the own regime and they've now been massacred on a scale, thousands been killed because of what's actually happened. So this has not gone well. It's had consequences in America to the oil gas prices and so forth, but also to Trump's political stock. But he's not gonna change. And I fear Cuba, Cuba will be the next place that will be on his target list.
[00:09:06] Speaker B: Okay. I mean, before actually, before we get to Gaza, I should just say I got a sneak copy of that book you've just written. You may want to tell me about it. And you say in the book, nukes deter invasions. So based on what your book says, clearly Iran should have nuclear weapons.
[00:09:26] Speaker A: Well, in one respect, that's exactly why you've got a country such as Iran wanting nuclear weapons in order to provide that deterrence itself. But you only go down that road if you think there's a threat from somewhere else. Well, there is the us, Ukraine.
Exactly.
And the same way with Ukraine, who had nuclear weapons that are now wanting to very much, you know, pursue or return to being a nuclear power in order to push back, to push back Putin and what Russia is doing. But I think you've summarized rather, rather simply what I've written.
What's fallen away are any sense of treaties and so forth that actually control this environment and have faith in our global order, which then encourages individual nations to then pursue nuclear weapons.
[00:10:22] Speaker B: What do you think about the role that the British played in what Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia calls the genocide in Gaza?
[00:10:30] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm very saddened that again, where this has rolled out, Donald Trump has pursued an agenda along with.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: Well, it's Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden in Venice.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: Explain that.
[00:10:43] Speaker B: The genocide in Gaza.
[00:10:47] Speaker A: Yes. I mean, over a long period of time, you can absolutely say that it's not just Joe Biden, but the west itself has turned a blind eye not being able to stand up to Israel, Netanyahu but also to pursue a pragmatic solution that takes us more to a two state place. And that I fear when you go to Israel now and the carving up of the new settlements and so forth, it becomes an ever distant possibility simply because where the of west bank now is, and then you add Gaza to it, which has diminished in size too, and we are in a very dangerous place.
[00:11:29] Speaker B: But as Defense Minister, what do you think of former Defense Minister, what do you think about Raf Akrotiri in Cyprus being used for that genocide?
[00:11:37] Speaker A: I think we were very careful, but it wasn't used for the genocide. It was actually used as part of understanding the intelligence that was being used to understand what Hamas was doing and to control the environment. After that barbaric attack by Hamas.
We can, I think, but I hear where you're coming from. I do believe Britain should have done far, far more in advocating a clear strategy, a direction of travel and standing up to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And what he's done, particularly in the post 7th October in where Gaza is going to, there was an agreement that made it very clear Hamas should have no further role in the governance of Gaza, but they're clearly still in charge. And that means the whole prospect of getting any form of advance of the politics, little end of security becomes very, very difficult indeed.
[00:12:39] Speaker B: Would you end arms to Israel, British arms to Israel, if you were a Defense Minister?
[00:12:46] Speaker A: I don't think anything can be done without the Americans on board as well. But it has to be used as a tool to influence what ISRA Israel is doing. From my perspective, I should distinguish between Israel and the Prime Minister, by the way, make this really, really clear because many of US advocate and 100% support Israel's right to exist. This is a difficult neighborhood. This is a democracy. But what Netanyahu has done in promoting war for the sake of war, not just in Gaza, but also in Lebanon as well, has been deeply unhelpful and has actually moved us into a more insecure place. The one country that can stand up to this, of course, is, is Donald Trump. I was amazed when he actually came out with the comment to say when you're going after Hezbollah, you don't need to take out the entire block of flats to remove one person. Yeah, but it took Trump, it took
[00:13:34] Speaker B: Trump to say that. And of course it's considered an apartheid state by most people in the world. So. Yeah, yeah. I'm not sure whether you're saying yes or no to British arms, but I will say that obviously I'm saying I'm
[00:13:49] Speaker A: saying, I'm saying Britain on its own simply saying something we've just done from a symbolic perspective. If you want to influence Spain, did Ireland then.
Yeah. Well, again, I mean, Ireland doing this, Ireland can then pat themselves on the back and say, this is where we are. If you actually want to affect behavior on the ground, then it's not making grand statements. It's the behind the discussions, the back channels, the conversations we should be having with America to say you need to influence your the one country that can influence what Netanyahu is doing. Get on with it. Because where this is going is actually dangerous for not just the Middle east, but the wider region.
[00:14:32] Speaker B: Tobias Elwood, I'll stop you there. More from the former UK Defense minister after this break.
Welcome back to GOING underground. I'm still here with the former chair of the UK Defense Committee and former UK Minister for the Middle East, Lieutenant Colonel the Right Honorable Tobias.
We were speaking about how nuclear weapons work within the calculus of geopolitics. I've got to ask you about Gaza. I mean, clearly in the headlines here in the Middle east, every day of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, it hasn't stopped, despite the ceasefire.
What do you think of, say, how the UAE doesn't seem to respect your opinion about Russia as a pariah nation? I mean, Vladimir Putin, who I should say a U.S. national Endowment for Democracy poll said the recent polls show him at 79% support by the Russian people. What do you make of the fact that MBZ was in Moscow recently, in January state visit, and the UAE explicitly calls Russia a strategic partner, not a trade partner?
[00:15:47] Speaker A: I think it's a reflection of again, of how fragmented our global order is that people are leaders are choosing alliances which are suitable for the moment and working behind the scenes to create strength to survive. In fact. And the fact that you've got Putin being able to court leaders in this way shows an absence of clarity as to what the Middle east stands for, what the west stands for as well. Everybody is looking to see which way the wind turns. And if Putin looks like he's on the up, that he's surviving, that he's got China, has got his back, then you will see what we would assume to be our own allies courting these individuals. They have assets from minerals to energy supplies in order for, you know, even countries like Saudi Arabia to, you know, to survive and thrive. And that is the Celtic world I'm afraid that we've now entered.
I wrote this book to make it very, very clear just how alliances are very different as to what they were before. People are being very, I think, more cleverer, if you like, about choosing who they're going to operate with. And it could be on a very, very short term basis indeed.
[00:17:15] Speaker B: But is it actually that chaotic or is Western Europe, and I delineated the unpopularity of their leaders in Western Europe as contrasted with say Vladimir Putin at home. Is it not chaotic at all? Is it just Western Europe that is now isolated in the whole of the world? Something that may really be highlighted by the BRICS summit coming up in Delhi when Iran, Russia, China, let alone Brazil and India will all be talking under uae.
It's just Western Europe, isn't it, that are fighting this war through Ukraine against Russia.
[00:17:50] Speaker A: I wouldn't agree with that. But you do highlight the fact that there is a risk averseness of the west in dealing with this. We should have put out the fire in Ukraine some time ago. But there are these relationships, these alliances of convenience. You're right. The BRICS is advancing, challenging the G7 in the same way that the Shanghai Corporation Organization and the One Belt One Road is challenging the United Nations Security Council and indeed the World Trade Organization. There is a rival global order being pursued by China, supported by Russia. And that goes to the heart of the book that you very kindly touched on that I then focus on. Our world is splintering into two and countries are forced to look one way or another or place bets or try and play both sides. And in many cases they can't. They're going to have to choose. Do I continue using the dollar as the second currency or do I have to lean on the rmb? Do I choose GPS or do I have to move over to the Beta? Do I lean into doing trade with China and Belt and Road or can I stick with the West? And that for me is the slide to a very, very dangerous place, which without necessary off ramps and redesigning our global order, you could easily lead to, I'm afraid, the splintering into east, west and the Global south, as I say, being torn as to which way they face.
[00:19:19] Speaker B: Do you think the United States has made its position clear? I mean, Trump said in a tweet famously that Zelensky was a dictator without elections, that in Ukrainian polls the only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle. And that basically, I mean, we saw just recently terror attacks in Monaco that French reports suggest are coming from the Ukrainian secret services. Why is Britain supporting Ukraine?
[00:19:51] Speaker A: Well, very, very clear, you have a dictator that's invaded another country in Europe.
[00:19:57] Speaker B: Look, I Just. I just said Trump. Trump said Zelensky is a dictator because obviously he's first.
[00:20:04] Speaker A: He asked me. No, no, no. You asked me the question as to why we are supporting Ukraine. I'll come on to what Trump is
[00:20:08] Speaker B: doing in a. Putin is clearly not a dictator, is he?
He's elected.
[00:20:13] Speaker A: You don't think. You don't. Well, he is, I'm afraid. He's elected, but the votes are rigged. There isn't an opposition anymore. They've been removed. Many of them have been thrown out of windows.
[00:20:23] Speaker B: But it's the U.S. national Endowment for Democracy that says he has 79% approval rating at the moment. It's gone down a bit.
[00:20:32] Speaker A: We're going to fundamentally disagree on this. Putin, I'm afraid, from the Western perspective, is not seen as a democratic leader in the true Western sense. I'm sorry, but, you know, there is not an opposition party that can actually stand up.
[00:20:46] Speaker B: There's a huge opposition party.
The Communist Party came second in the elections. And some are saying that Putin is.
[00:20:54] Speaker A: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're speaking this way because you're actually playing in to the Putin.
[00:21:01] Speaker B: Well, what do you make of the opposition? What do you make of the main opposition in Russia which claims that Putin is a weak leader and that now is the time to ramp up the firepower against the NATO nations that are arming Ukraine?
And to make it clear, because the
[00:21:19] Speaker A: first part of that sentence suggests and absolutely appeases people like you to say, look, we've got an opposition. And the second bit plays exactly into what Putin wants to say. Let's just move back to the bigger picture, which is far more important. You've got a nation, whether you call him the leader, dictator or not, that's invaded another country.
Now, there's two things that you can do. You could roll over and have your tummy tickled and then just accept it and say, well, it's a strong country. We do nothing about it, or you can stand up to that bully. This is 1937 all over again, I'm afraid. And I'm sorry that you speak the way that you do, because from a European perspective, Russia would not stop with Ukraine. If it could succeed in taking Ukraine, it would march further. This is Putin's absolute strategy to break up NATO to make sure that the west is fragment and to expand Putin's influence one way or another, whether it's by actual territorial gain or simply by economic influence across the Eastern Europe. And that has significant an impact on European security.
So why are we Standing up for Ukraine. It's very, very clear the war would not stop there if we didn't. And the fact that.
[00:22:32] Speaker B: Okay, on that, on that point. On that point.
[00:22:35] Speaker A: Very dangerous. And makes.
[00:22:36] Speaker B: On that specific. Okay, but on that specific point, I mean, I should say there's no evidence for a lot of what you were saying there. On that specific point. The debate in Britain is specifically about a defense budget not being good enough to defend Britain until 2030.
So based on what you just said, does that mean that the Russians should invade now because Britain is so weak? I mean, if, if you, if wants to believe what you just said just now, obviously the British army, what military spending of Britain is around $90 billion. Russian is. Russia's is $190 billion.
They have one and a half thousand tanks. There's a plans for British. Britain's tanks at 140.
Inadequate numbers of shells in Britain. Unpublished. 7 million shells. Russia has. Now's the time for Russia to invade Britain.
[00:23:35] Speaker A: No, that's daft. I'm sorry, we need to raise the level of this debate. Really, we really do.
[00:23:39] Speaker B: No, no, but I, I don't understand.
[00:23:41] Speaker A: But let me make. No, let me make my point.
[00:23:43] Speaker B: But you said Russia wants to attack Western Europe.
[00:23:47] Speaker A: No, Eastern Europe, and go beyond Ukraine. Okay, make it very, very clear. Russia is already at war with Britain, but not in the way that you describe. Okay. Firstly, the 150 tanks, we don't have enough. But that's why we're part of NATO, because collectively we are stronger than Russia if we had the political will. But Russia every day is attacking Britain through cyber attacks. We had one against Lander or Jaguar. It costs that company over a billion pounds every day. Our undersea cables are under threat.
[00:24:19] Speaker B: There's no public evidence of that. Why not have dialogue with Russia?
[00:24:23] Speaker A: Yes, please come to Britain and I'll be glad to show you the evidence as to what's going on.
[00:24:28] Speaker B: But why not? Why not?
[00:24:30] Speaker A: Why is going to economically harm us and sow political discord? It's different to the conventional warfare that you're trying to steer the conflict.
[00:24:38] Speaker B: Britain is attacking Russia.
[00:24:40] Speaker A: Warfare has changed.
[00:24:42] Speaker B: Britain is attacking Russia through Ukraine. So you'd expect Russia to respond. In fact, a lot of critics of
[00:24:48] Speaker A: Putin say, are you saying that's wrong? Are you saying that's wrong that we don't support a country that has been in.
[00:24:54] Speaker B: No, I'm saying expect retaliation.
I'm saying expect retaliation. If you fund drones, if MI6 is on the ground being used to attack Russia, Russian Federation line. Obviously retaliation is to be expected.
[00:25:11] Speaker A: Yeah, but you're now making my point.
[00:25:12] Speaker B: But why not have dialogue? Why is there a lack of dialogue between London and Moscow? There's clearly dialogue between Washington and Moscow and Beijing and Moscow and every other part.
What is wrong with Western Europe in that there's no dialogue between Western European capitals and Moscow?
[00:25:33] Speaker A: Because for the moment, where would dialogue lead you? It would lead you to some form of appeasement with Russia to say you can have a fifth of Ukraine and giving space for Putin to rearm, regroup and advance its mission. And that's the danger that we face. And I'm really saddened, I have to say, to hear that you somehow advocate that we should agree to some form to what Putin is trying to achie achieve. You're right to point to the fact that Donald Trump has washed his hands of this and is taking no responsibility to support our global order. He's making deals with Russia.
[00:26:11] Speaker B: I mean, obviously Putin says he is trying to achieve the safety of the people of the Donbass. We can't litigate over the origins of the war. Donbass is not enough time.
[00:26:22] Speaker A: That's not his country. That's not his country. So in the sense was Iraq, but
[00:26:28] Speaker B: then you see no parallel then between British invasions with Iraq, of Libya, involvement in Syria, in Afghanistan in all these different countries and what Russia is doing. If you accepted your view that Russia has invaded the Donbass.
[00:26:45] Speaker A: No, I would question and I would have to take each one of those individually, I would question the value of what we did in every one of those places. In many situations, we've made the country worse, we've taken it into a worse place. There's some people do justify what happened in Afghanistan, but again, in the same spirit of what happened in Vietnam or indeed in Iran. There was no strategic plan, no political direction of travel as to where things would go.
[00:27:13] Speaker B: But Putin has a strategic plan under
[00:27:15] Speaker A: the Taliban, did allow an attack on the United States and therefore there was retaliation. But then where do you go after that? It got into a complete mess. So I don't dispute the fact that the West's track record on this is not good. That doesn't justify though, in any sense the Putin charging into Ukraine. And I'm sorry, you can't tell me, you can't say those words. Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine, I suspect.
[00:27:42] Speaker B: I'm just interviewing. I'm just interviewing. I don't have to say. But if you did say it, then I'm not.
[00:27:48] Speaker A: It's a line of questioning, the line of question.
[00:27:51] Speaker B: I'm not working in Britain.
[00:27:53] Speaker A: You sound like you're on the. I'm sorry to say this, but you sound like you're on the page payroll over the Kremlin. And that is very worrying indeed.
[00:28:00] Speaker B: Well, Tobias Elwood, thank you. Thank you, Lieutenant Colonel Tobias Elwood. We'll have to continue the debate on a future Going Underground. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, goingundergroundtv on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. TSA. There.
