UK to Spend $510Mln on Sea Viper Missile System Upgrade Following Houthi Attacks in Red Sea
Sputnik – 21.01.2024
The United Kingdom plans to spend $514 million to modernize the Sea Viper anti-aircraft missile system that UK forces previously used to shoot down drones in the Red Sea amid a deteriorating situation in the Middle East region, UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said.
On January 10, Shapps said that a UK destroyer operating in the Red Sea alongside US warships managed to repel “the largest attack” staged in the region by Yemen’s Houthi.
The contract was reportedly signed with the UK division of the MBDA missile maker, the report said. The Sea Viper missile system will receive new missiles and software to counter ballistic missile threats.
The Houthis vowed in November 2023 to attack any ships associated with Israel until it halts the invasion of Gaza.
In January, the US and UK began airstrikes on Houthi positions in Yemen to degrade their fighting capabilities. Russia condemned both the Houthi actions in the Red Sea and the Western aggression against Yemen, dubbing the latter “another example of the Anglo-Saxons’ distortion of UN Security Council resolutions and complete disregard for international law”.
Miliband will bring wholesale deindustrialisation
Net Zero Watch | January 19, 2024
Net Zero Watch has said that Labour’s green dogmatism will be a disaster for the working classes, bringing industrial closure on an unprecedented scale. The campaign group, which has warned about the existential threat to British steel industry for more than a decade, says that the Port Talbot closure was inevitable, given the determination of all parties to push up the costs of energy.
The policy of taxing fossil fuels made the closure of Port Talbot inevitable, while the drive for renewables is pushing up electricity prices so far that the plan to replace the blast furnace with an electric-powered arc furnace will almost certainly prove to be a dead duck.
Electricity prices have doubled from 2002—2020, even rising during long periods of falling gas prices, as a result of increasing grid system inefficiency caused by renewables.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford warns that things may get even worse under a Labour government.
Ed Miliband’s delusions over renewables are going to be a disaster for the UK working classes. He is going to produce deindustrialisation on a scale that is going make the closure of the coalmines under Margaret Thatcher look like a walk in the park.
Mr Montford says that while the finger of blame for Port Talbot should be pointed at the Conservatives, there is an all-party consensus around the policies that produced the disaster:
The Westminster village is so far divorced from the interests of general public that they will shrug off the Port Talbot disaster with barely a look back.
UK to become only G20 member without steel production
RT | January 20, 2024
Steel producer Tata Steel plans to close blast furnaces at its Port Talbot plant in South Wales and lay off nearly 3,000 workers, according to media reports. The move, which is part of a major restructuring of the company’s UK operations, will reportedly leave the UK as the only G20 economy unable to make steel from scratch.
The planned move, which was first reported by the Financial Times this week, is part of Indian-owned Tata Steel’s four-year transition to a greener form of steelmaking at the company’s UK steel operations, which employ 8,000 people, and involve sites elsewhere in Wales and the Midlands. While the blast furnaces at Port Talbot will be shut down, the company intends to build electric arc furnaces, which make steel from recycled scrap. The government has promised up to £500 million ($634 million) to help with the transition.
Meanwhile, the two other remaining blast furnaces in the UK, both of which belong to the Chinese-owned company British Steel, are also slated for shutdown as the parent entity plans to replace them with two electric arc facilities, which could be operational as early as 2025.
“That would leave the UK as the only G20 country that cannot make steel from raw materials,” The Guardian wrote.
“Steel is the beating heart of manufacturing and of our entire infrastructure and, of course, of our national security,” Stephen Kinnock, a Labour MP for Aberavon, home of the Port Talbot plant, told Sky News. “Do we really want to be a country, given the dangerous and turbulent world in which we live, that isn’t able to produce its own steel?” he said.
US attacks on Yemen aimed at guarding Israel, not world: Ansarullah
Press TV – January 19, 2024
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement has condemned in the strongest terms the “unjustified” US airstrikes on the Yemeni territory, saying they’re aimed at “guarding Israel, not the world.”
Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Ansarullah spokesman, made the comment in an interview with Reuters.
The United States and Britain launched airstrikes on Yemen on January 12 in what they called an intervention to protect international shipping in the Red Sea.
“What the Yemeni people did, in the beginning, was to target Israeli ships heading to Israel without causing any human or even significant material losses, just preventing ships from passing as a natural right,” Abdulsalam said.
“We imposed rules of engagement in which not a single drop of blood was shed or major material losses.”
“It represented pressure on Israel only, it did not represent pressure on any country in the world.”
The Yemeni official said the US intervention has further escalated the situation and that the movement will continue to respond to the US attacks.
“Now, when America joined in and escalated the situation further, there is no doubt that Yemen will respond.”
“The strikes on Yemen, from our perspective, are a blatant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and a serious aggression against the Yemeni people,” Abdulsalam said.
Yemen, he added, does not intend to expand the attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea beyond their stated aim of blockading Israel and retaliating against the United States and Britain for airstrikes.
“We do not want the conflict to expand in the region, and we are still working on non-escalation, but the decision is up to the Americans, as long as they continue to attack.”
The Yemeni official said the decision to target Israeli-linked ships was a response to popular demands. “It came after great popular pressure not only in Yemen but in the region, demanding that the governments of the region and their leaders take a position towards the Palestinians facing a genocidal campaign.”
Referring to the Persian Gulf’s Arab countries, the Yemeni official said Ansarullah calls on them “to reject the militarization of the Red Sea or the presence of military forces inside the region.”
Abdulsalam said the Yemenis have made their own decisions in the conflict and do not take orders from Tehran, though they maintain a close relationship.
UK Backing Israel With Spy Planes Over Gaza – Report
Sputnik – 19.01.2024
Late last year it was revealed the United Kingdom was supplying Israel with weapons from a base in Cyprus. Now new evidence is emerging of the lengths the country has gone to assist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his Gaza military campaign.
British Defense Minister Grant Shapps had previously admitted the UK was providing “surveillance support to Israel,” although he couched the assistance in terms of “preventing the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups.” Shapps later claimed the surveillance flights were intended to locate two British captives being held in Gaza.
But now it has emerged that the British Armed Forces have flown 50 surveillance flights over the besieged enclave since December alone. The flights departed from RAF Akrotiri, the UK’s air force base in Cyprus.
The revelation is likely to prove controversial as the UK has been rocked by demonstrations protesting Israel’s deadly military operation in Gaza, which has killed nearly 25,000 people in the territory. Thousands of Britons have taken to the streets even as the country’s government has provoked free speech concerns by attempting to ban pro-Palestine protest chants. In France and Germany, authorities have banned some pro-Palestine demonstrations entirely.
The UK’s embattled defense minister was recently widely ridiculed for a speech warning that the UK was at risk of attack from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Shapps was mocked for an address where he declared “the era of the peace dividend is over” – the United Kingdom has been perhaps the strongest supporter of US military interventions throughout the world.
Status Report From Another Would Be “Climate Leader,” The UK
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | January 15, 2024
At any given moment in the course of human events, not everyone can be the leader. And thus can the world only have a small number of “climate leaders” to light us the way to the Great Green Energy Nirvana of the future.
Among that select group of “climate leaders,” New York is definitely one. We know that because New York enacted its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2018, announcing its “climate leadership” to the world for all to envy.
But there are a handful of jurisdictions out there that are not to be outdone in the competition for the title of “climate leader.” One of those is the UK. Ten years before New York even entered the competition, the UK had enacted its Climate Change Act of 2008, setting an initial round of legally-binding emissions reduction targets (80% below 1990 levels by 2050). Then, in 2019 the UK upped the ante, committing by statute to “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions for its entire economy by 2050.
We know from my last post how things are going with this “climate leadership” thing in New York: five years into the competition, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased substantially, as two large new natural gas power plants have replaced electricity generation from two prematurely-closed emissions-free nuclear facilities, while generation of electricity from wind and solar has barely budged.
Has the UK been any more successful? Rupert Darwall, writing under the auspices of the Real Clear Foundation, has produced a comprehensive update, with a date of December 2023. The title tells you all you need to know: “The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net zero and Britain’s Disastrous Energy Policies.”
The short summary of Darwall’s Report is that there is nothing but bad news for Britain. By contrast to New York, the UK has actually moved forward with massive construction of “renewable” facilities to generate electricity, mostly in the form of wind turbines. What it has gotten for its efforts is far more nameplate capacity of facilities for generation, but far less electricity actually generated. Costs that were predicted by advocates to decrease substantially have instead increased steadily. The percent of electricity generated from the “renewables” has gotten to around 35%, but has stalled out at that level, and the latest round of offers of acreage for offshore wind development attracted no bidders even at prices a multiple of what additional natural gas facilities would cost. In short, the UK appears stuck, with its consumers paying higher costs for power indefinitely, but with no path forward from here to the promised net zero utopia.
Darwall compares trends in electricity prices charged to commercial and industrial business in the UK and U.S. over the period from 2004 to 2022. The UK prices have steadily pulled away as the percent of electricity generation from “renewables” has increased. Here is Darwall’s chart from page 51 of his Report:

Darwall attributes the growing divergence in prices mostly to divergence in fossil fuel production. In the UK, fracking for natural gas has been completely blocked by environmental regulations. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Darwall writes:
By 2009, natural gas output had increased by 14.3 percent from its trough, reaching its highest level since 1974. In the next 10 years, US natural gas output surged a staggering 64.4 percent, to 33,899 billion cubic feet (bcf), 56.0 percent higher than its previous peak of 21,731 bcf in 1973.
In return for greatly increased electricity generation from wind and solar, the UK has dug itself into the perverse situation of ever-increasing nameplate generation capacity, but simultaneously falling output of electricity. Darwall:
Between 2009 and 2020, . . . a 15.5 percent increase in nameplate generating capacity produced 21.6 percent less electricity. In 2009, 1 MW of capacity produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent.
Has the UK at least made some progress in “saving the planet”? Here is my favorite chart from the Report, found on page 28:

The UK has gone a long way toward destroying its industrial base, but its emissions reductions are so small as to be barely noticeable in the overall world picture, and totally swamped by increases elsewhere, mostly from China. The rest of the world is getting a good laugh at Britain’s expense. As Darwall states, “The metric of leadership success is followship.” By that metric, as well as every other, Britain’s “climate leadership” is a total disaster.
Britons Mock Warmongering Lecture by UK Defense Secretary
Sputnik – 17.01.2024
The United Kingdom’s Defense Secretary Grant Shapps warned of potential war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea within the next five years in a widely mocked speech in London this week.
Shapps delivered the address to promote greater investment in military spending in the UK and its European allies.
“The era of the peace dividend is over,” said Shapps in remarks he also shared on his profile on the X social media platform. The so-called “peace dividend” was a proposed reinvestment of government finances toward domestic concerns after the end of the Cold War.
The comment may leave many Britons wondering when exactly they enjoyed a peace dividend, as the British government has imposed a policy of economic austerity for a number of years. The UK was also perhaps the US’ strongest ally in the so-called “War on Terror,” which led to the deaths of more than 4.5 million people across the Middle East according to some estimates.
The comments come as European media is reporting on supposed “leaked documents” that allege Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to launch an attack on Germany and other NATO members in the near future. The claims were dismissed as “fake news” by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Britons greeted Shapps’ remarks with ridicule, with multiple posts by the defense minister being “ratioed” on the X platform, meaning they received more comments than likes as users piled on to jeer the jingoistic speech.
“Obviously, the best way to deter enemies and lead allies is by pouring billions of pounds into the military industrial complex,” responded one user sarcastically.
“You do know we were involved in bloody and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?” added another. “Can you explain how British soldiers killed in Helmand or in Basra were at all beneficiaries of this so-called era of the peace dividend?”
“The people need to prepare for a new era of conflict with you bastards,” wrote user John Wight, expressing widespread antipathy towards governing elites in the West. “Wars happen when the government tells you who your enemy is. Revolution happens when you work it out for yourself.”
Bypassing the UK parliament; the royal prerogative; and bombing Yemen
By Binoy Kampmark | MEMO | January 16, 2024
There is something distinctly revolting and authoritarian about the royal prerogative. It reeks of clandestine assumption, unwarranted self-confidence and, most of all, a blithe indifference to accountability before elected representatives. That prerogative, in other words, is the last reminder of divine right, the fiction that a ruler can have powers vested by an unsubstantiated deity, the invisible God, and a punishing force beyond the reach of human control. And that such powers can in turn be vested in the government of the day. It is anathema to democracy, a stain on republican models of government, a joke on any political system that has some claim on representing what might be called the broader citizenry.
The UK government, in league with the US and with support from a number of other countries, attacked Houthi positions in Yemen on 11 January. The decision was made without recourse to parliament and was justified by reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter as “limited, necessary and proportionate in self-defence”.
In his statement on the attacks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed to the Houthi’s role in staging “a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening UK and other international ships, causing major disruption to a vital trade route and driving up commodity prices.” He made no mention of the Houthis’ own justification for the attacks as necessary measures to disrupt Israeli shipping and interests in response to their systematic, bloodcurdling razing of the Gaza Strip.
Lip service has been paid by the executive within Westminster to parliament’s importance in deciding whether the country commits to military action or not.
The stark problem is that the action is always decided upon in advance, and no dissent among parliamentarians will necessarily sway the issue. Motions can be proposed and rejected but remain non-binding on the executive emboldened by the royal prerogative.
The British decision to commit to the egregious invasion of Iraq in 2003 was already a foregone conclusion, despite preliminary debates in the House of Commons and huge public protests against the measure. On 18 March, 2011, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the Commons of his intention to attack Libya, leading to a government motion on 21 March that the chamber “supports Her Majesty’s Government… in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-protected measures.”
That same year, the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK acknowledged that a convention had crystallised in parliament that the House of Commons should be availed of “an opportunity to debate the matter [of committing troops] and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The broadly worded nature of the caveats – in cases of emergency or when it would not be appropriate – have made something of a nonsense of the convention. In April 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made much of the “exception”, arguing that it was “important to ensure that this and future Governments can use their judgment about how best to protect the security and interests of the UK.”
Parliament, in short, should be put in its place when necessary. Governments, it is reasoned, know best when it comes to matters of national security; parliamentarians less so. “In observing the Convention,” Fallon goes on to explain, “we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces is to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.” In such cases, matters could be dealt with retrospectively, with the government of the day subsequently informing parliament after the fact.
An example of this absurd policy was played out in the decision by the UK government in April 2018 to target the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Hiding behind the weasel claim of humanitarianism, the explanation for avoiding parliament was shoddy and leaden. “It was necessary,” came the explanation from the PM’s office, “to strike with speed so we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operations, and protect the security and interests of the UK.”
The Yemen strikes eschew humanitarianism (the humanitarian justifications advanced by the Houthis in protecting Palestinian civilians has been rejected), but, in any case, shipping interests take priority. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, apparently, was satisfied that an exception to the convention to consult parliament had presented itself. “The prime minister,” the minister parroted, “needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements. That led to the timing.”
With the horse having bolted merrily out of the stable, Heappey remarked with all due condescension that parliament would, in time, be able to respond to the decision to strike Yemen. An “opportunity” would be made available “when parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.” The sheer redundancy of parliament’s role in matters of state, and that of MPs, could thereby be affirmed.
Much agitated by this state of affairs, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell opined that no military action should take place without parliament’s approval. “If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous and often unforeseen consequences,” said McDonnell. “There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran was of the view that parliament should not be bypassed in matters of war, yet opted for the rather fatuous formula arising out of the 2011 convention. “Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall parliament this weekend,” she said.
The use of the royal prerogative in authorising military action remains one of those British perversions that makes for good common room conversation but offends the sensibilities of the democratically minded elector. A far better practice would be to make the PM of the day accountable to that most essential body of all: parliament. That same principle would be extended to other constitutional monarchies, which are similarly weighed down by the all too liberal use of the prerogative when shedding blood. If a country’s citizens are to go to war to kill and be killed, surely their elected representatives should have a say in that most vital of decisions?
US, UK attacks on Yemen illegal, strategic mistake: Iran foreign minister
Press TV – January 16, 2024
Iran’s foreign minister has strongly slammed the recent attacks on the Yemeni territory by the United States and the UK as illegal and a strategic mistake.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made the remarks in an early Tuesday phone call with Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, during which the two sides discussed the latest developments related to the Gaza Strip and the Red Sea.
During the conversation, Iran’s top diplomat stressed the Islamic Republic’s principled stance on protecting and maintaining security of shipping and navigation.
“By stopping ships that are bound for the occupied [Palestinian] territories, Yemen seeks to put a halt to the Zionist regime’s crimes and genocide against civilians in Gaza,” Amir-Abdollahian said.
He added that “illegal measures taken by the United States and the UK in attacking Yemen” amounted to a strategic mistake that would lead to further escalation of tensions in the region.
Since the start of the Israeli military aggression on Gaza in early October 2023, the United States and its Western allies have been providing financial and logistical support to the occupying regime in its ceaseless bombardment campaign against Palestinians in the besieged territory.
As part of their support for Palestinians, Yemen’s Armed Forces and popular Ansarullah resistance movement have over the past month targeted several ships owned by Israel or bound for ports in the occupied territories in the strategic Red Sea after multiple warnings.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Iran’s foreign minister expressed concern about the complicated humanitarian situation in the besieged Gaza Strip, reiterating Iran’s readiness to send humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people in the territory.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza has so far claimed the lives of more than 24,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, leaving thousands of others wounded and millions homeless. According to the UN, about 85 percent of the territory’s population has been displaced and forced into crowded shelters.
The regime has been also enforcing an all-out siege against Gaza that has prevented the flow of food, water, fuel, and medicine into the territory.
The UN chief, for his part, expressed concern about further spread of conflicts across the region, saying the world body is trying to stop the war and alleviate the suffering of the regional people.
He once again condemned the ongoing military aggression against Gaza, stressing the need for stopping it and sending humanitarian aid to Palestinians there.
Guterres also lauded the role played by the Islamic Republic in bolstering peace and stability in the region.
Trump a ‘threat’ to UK – ex-MI6 chief
RT | January 15, 2024
Former US President Donald Trump’s potential reelection could be “problematic” for British national security due to his stance on NATO, former head of the MI6 intelligence service has warned.
Richard Dearlove, who led MI6 from 1999 to 2004, was discussing potential threats to the UK in 2024 in an interview with Sky News on Sunday, during which he pointed to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the “long-term behavior of China,” before moving to the US presidential race.
“You have to add a political threat, which I am worried about, which is Trump’s reelection… which I think for the UK’s national security is problematic,” Dearlove said. If Trump, given his critical attitude towards NATO, “acts hastily and damages the Atlantic alliance, that is a big deal for the UK,” he warned.
“We’ve put all our eggs in defense terms in the NATO basket. If Trump really is serious about, as it were, changing the balance, I mean the American nuclear umbrella for Europe is, in my view, essential to Europe’s security and defense,” the former spymaster said.
During his time in the White House, Trump disparaged NATO, calling it “obsolete,” and questioned the bloc’s relevance in the modern world. He also cast doubt on Washington’s commitment to defend its allies and argued that other NATO members were not contributing enough.
“Look, NATO has taken advantage of our country. The European countries took advantage,” the former president recently told Fox News, adding that his attitude towards NATO depends on whether “they treat us properly.”
Despite several court cases against him, Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination as presidential candidate. A recent Morning Consult poll indicates that he is leading with 69% support, while the nearest rival is trailing far behind.
