When the Army Asks Soldiers if They Want Nail Polish! By Richard Miller (London)
Just when you think modern life couldn't get any stranger, along comes a news item that sounds like the plot of Black Mirror crossed with a Monty Python sketch: as war in the Middle East escalates and global tensions spike, the UK Ministry of Defence is reportedly surveying troops on whether male soldiers should be allowed to wear make‑up, nail polish, long hair and jewellery!
Yes, you read that right. Somewhere between strategic strikes, closing shipping lanes and rising oil and gas prices, the MoD apparently decided this was the moment to ask frontline soldiers what shade of nail lacquer they prefer. If that doesn't perfectly capture the surreal contradiction of our age, nothing does.
Imagine the briefing: "Sir, enemy forces are advancing, missiles are flying, and global geopolitics are tumbling into chaos." "Excellent," replies someone in a bunker, "but first — do we want matte or glossy?"
It's hard not to see the irony here — or to ask the obvious satirical question: why not just surrender now and avoid the rush? If the response to existential conflict is to consult the rank and file on the gender‑neutral cosmetics policy, then at least be honest about it. Announce that the real threat isn't missiles or hostile regimes, but controversial shades of foundation. Give the enemy a head start; they clearly have their priorities straight.
Of course, defenders of this initiative will insist that it's just a "consultation" and has nothing to do with battlefield readiness — or that it's all about equality. They might say that the Army is simply trying to be inclusive, ensuring everyone feels represented and that access to eyeliners isn't a gender‑specific right. All very nice in a poetry workshop. But when the world teeters on the brink of real war and national security decisions could cost lives, spending time on a survey about which lipstick complements fatigue greens feels like asking for colouring pencils in a foxhole.
This episode also highlights a broader cultural absurdity: our institutions often prioritise symbolic virtue signalling over substantive strength, especially when it comes to national defence. We seem to have reached the point where discussing cosmetics policy during a serious military crisis is considered just another "progressive" item on the agenda. Meanwhile, strategic threats multiply, allies debate engagement, and adversaries prepare for real combat. The contrast could not be sharper.
It raises a blunt and unavoidable thought: maybe today's elites really are more interested in cultural signalling than in defending civilisation itself. If that's the case, then surrender with style might be the only coherent next step — adorned with coordinated nail colours, of course.
After all, if we're going down, why not look fabulous on the way? Best to surrender right now, and avoid the rush later!
