[helsinkiandrew]

> These individuals had also been quoted, featured, or otherwise used as commentators in UK media coverage of defence, conflict, or national security issues.

If they are promoting defence spending or plugging their employers products that's bad, but using their experience to comment on the Iran war or Ukraine, or Russian/Chinese Spy networks doesn't seem that bad?

[JdeBP]

In 17 of the 19 detailed instances, it is stated that they are promoting increases in budgets and spending. The two others are reported as speaking with different conflicts of interest.

[helsinkiandrew]

Does it say that in the full report somewhere else? I can't find that in the text.

I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased.

[cucumber3732842]

>I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased.

When all you know is a hammer...

[jimjohnny123]

Today, the UK's Navy for example is so diminished due to cuts by successive governments, that it would struggle to defend even Britain's shores.

See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBe_36XfZb4

UK military capability is not what perhaps persists in some people's imaginations, even compared to say 20 years ago.

Britain does need to increase military spending.

[dgroshev]

"People who have seen the state of the military first hand are saying that we need to fund the military" is not really shocking or sinister.

[defrost]

It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message.

[dgroshev]

Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"

[JdeBP]

A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.'

[defrost]

I expect this:

> "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"

from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims.

I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance.

[SturgeonsLaw]

It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.

[dgroshev]

This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.

[SturgeonsLaw]

My position is that war is a blight on humanity, and people waging war are committing evil acts. Russia's actions in Ukraine reinforce my view.

I am fortunate enough to live in a country that is not being bombed, and I wish that for every human being.

[ajsnigrutin]

It's the UK we're talking about here.

To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist.

At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?

[fakedang]

And the same UK taxpayer money is now being spent to ferociously defend Ukraine, and in turn European interests. That same UK taxpayer money is spent to promote freedom of the seas for global trade, whether it be the Hormuz, the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, the Baltic or the Horn of Africa.

Defence spending is only as good as the government that controls it, but you can't be serious if you're discounting the importance of military readiness at all times, given the world we live in.

The UK's military spending has always been much more justifiable, especially given that the country actually spends a lot on education and healthcare too (and I will argue that both of them are some of the SOTA systems in the world currently, in spite of their challenges).

[dgroshev]

You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point.

But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?

[f6v]

You can't deny Ukrainian military suffers from deep corruption.

[_djo_]

Much less than 5-10 years ago, and orders of magnitude less than the Russian military.

The pressures of fighting an existential war plus the demands of the public in a democracy have closed off most typical avenues for corruption, forcing a focus on battlefield results and effective supply to the front-line.

Nobody in the Ukrainian military is advocating for military spending for corrupt reasons, but for the country to remain independent in the face of a Russian military invasion.

[dgroshev]

What compelled you to write this? It's just a random point having no relationship to what you're replying to. Why have you typed this and pressed "reply"?

[rigonkulous]

Yes, the military is fed by the one thing all cultures have in common - their susceptibility to warrior narcissism - and indeed in the modern age any military is little more than a criminal murder-class protected by a thin line of paper.

However, murder is meat. Wars feed people. Not often the 'right' people, but the moment one starts drawing another such thin line about who and who doesn't deserve to be fed, the narcissist demon draws closer and so then, is the warrior devil justified.

Anti-war rhetoric is unpopular, it is true - but there is more of it out there than most people realize, or else we'd all be ash already. Warrior narcissists are only given the space for such identity by quiet, humble peace-makers. Get louder about making peace and stay proud about it.

[XorNot]

I don't know how you can post something this stupid after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[rigonkulous]

Well, lets see .. the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, Afghanistan, Syria .. the violence in Somalia .. the genocide of Gaza, and now ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.

You can say as many stupid things as you want, until the war crimes are prosecuted, the war criminals will continue to get away with war.

[advisedwang]

I think it should always be disclosed. Even when they aren't explicitly advocating for a direct benefit to their company, their overall analysis is colored by their interests. The defense industry is going to amp up risks of an aggressor, downplay the risk of appearing to be aggressive, downplay non-military foreign policy strategies etc. Allow the defense industry to influence how we think about foreign events is certainly going to influence how we think about policy and spending.

[RobotToaster]

There's lots of indirect ways to promote "defence" spending, such as promoting more involvement in a conflict.

[rigonkulous]

In the context of Julian Assanges' treatment by UK media, and his subsequent disassembly at Belmarsh, who cares what they have to say about Russia or China.

[TiredOfLife]

In the context of Assange turning out to be russian mouthpiece. Well deserved.

[rigonkulous]

This justification for state violence is false.