I cannot help but think that in he wreckage of international relations that now exists, UK defence policy is in a total mess.
First, there is Trump's order that defence intelligence may no longer be shared with Ukraine. Ignore the bigger dimensions of this for a moment - like the massive risks that this exposes millions of people to, about which he is indifferent. Instead, be narrow-minded and realise that what this means is that much of UK defence intelligence, which is almost wholly integrated with US systems, is rendered unusable as a result.
Then consider our nuclear strategy. This is dependent on US missiles, which we cannot fire without their permission. Ignore for a moment questions about the desirability of nuclear powers. The simple fact is that right now our nuclear deterrent is under the control of a Russian agent and we cannot use it without, in all likelihood, the Kremlin's permission. This part of our defence strategy is rendered utterly meaningless and totally irrelevant as a result. Ending spending on it, straightaway, would make complete sense.
Then there are our two, quite farcical, aircraft carriers. Ignore the fact that these are not watertight. Ignore as well the fact that it seems their engines do not work. Ignore, too, that they could be destroyed in combat in seconds by a concerted drone attack - which the war in Ukraine is showing to be deadly. Instead, just appreciate that they can only fly US made F-35 jets, and the US is, with an isolationist policy, unlikely to make these available to us for much longer. These ships are also a complete white elephant as a result.
In fact, large parts of our whole defence strategy are now meaningless, partly because those we need to defend ourselves against have changed, and now very obviously include the USA, but also because our systems are under the control of those who now threaten us.
My question that follows from this is one that I have not heard asked, which is why are we simply increasing our defence spending whilst letting it continue to be expended on systems that are now so dysfunctional that they may actually prejudice us, when the actual task is to start planning our defence again from scratch, starting with how we wage drone warfare to best effect, and moving on from there?
It's really not hard to work all this out. Why is nothing being done about it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“Why is nothing being done about it?” Vested interests etc.
In the early/mid 1930s the Uk face the “the bomber always gets through” problem. Apologies for mentioning this again – but Len Deightons “Fighter” (non-fiction) describes throught processes & approaches which could be re-used today with respect to defence. The Brits invented operational research & perhaps they need to re-invent and apply to the pickle that the Uk is in. It might also be good if the Brits made proper contact with the hundreds of Ukrainian companies involved in the prduction of all sorts of interesting stuff. I know a lady that can help in that respect. She is looking for a job, is Ukrainian & speaks Russian, Ukrainian, French, English and German.
The UK no longer has an empire, it no longer needs a “blue water” fleet”. It does need systems that defend power systems (e.g. off-shore wind) it does need home-grown drone kit that has high functionality and is low cost. etc.
OR needs to be formed that can address these things (answer the question: what do we really need/want). Deighton’s book offers pointers and very good approaches.
There is only one place where you can learn almost as much as on this blog, and thats RMweb (Model Railways) & National Preservation (Choo Choos)
Somebody who knew about these things pointed out that one of the problems with the carriers is propeller shaft alignment. (And I spent several grim hours trying to check Plummer Blocks – intermediate bearings on a propeller shaft on an ex RN Fresh Class Water Lighter but that’s a story for another day) It seems that there is some fairly basic maths involved but the real problem is that we no longer build enough ships, big ones in particular to get it right unlike the Koreans.
So the moral of this story is, I suggest that if we want to look at ‘Defence’ we need to start looking at wider issues in our economy in particular manufacturing so when we need to produce ‘defence’ equipment we have the skills to do it
BREXIT, austerity and other Tory economic vandalism has not helped – there was time when Britain was heading in a direction that produced lots of potent kit with which to defend ourselves and allies particularly with air power and then we literally had our wings clipped but somehow we cannot even do that now. We’ve sold a lot of it off from what I can see – defence it seems can be subject to ‘market forces’ without thinking about what the use of force is all about – first off being that it has to work. It’s bogged down now in process and ‘contract management’ and weird notions of ‘value for money’.
This post captures that right I think.
A lot of Europe’s spending on Ukraine has been on US made hardware, not just US spending.
If, as part of such a readjustment, the US finds many billions of exports vanish, then it might belatedly realise that it has thrown away a more favourable position on global defense spending than it thought it had.
German forecasts are showing (just the same as Russian readings) that war spending creates a short term economic boost when directed towards domestic production.
Drone technologies have wider applications as well (delivery, maybe even transport in time), so technological leadership here would also provide further benefit.
As worrying as the change in the world order is, there are signs that (as before) much of Europe can come together to show leadership. The other question is where this leaves the US if it encourages people to use the dollar less as a reserve currency, etc? It’s economic might is partly created by that dominance. Without that its goods are relatively expensive and wholly out of favour right now.
An interesting factor to me is quite how resilient Ukraine has been under three years of concerted attack. The people of course but also the infrastructure. Many of the buildings constructed under the Soviets have bomb shelters. Other infrastructure was designed with redundancy to survive attack.
Most western countries are so “efficient” that they are fragile and prone to collapse when operating conditions move outside the expected range. We would have no chance under similar attack. Our power grid and transport networks risk falling over if there is strong wind or other bad weather.
We obsess over white elephants such as nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers when it is munitions and trained personnel (and the capability to produce both quickly on demand) that really matter.
Agreed
I don’t have any specific answers but I just wanted to go on record to say these are the exact questions that need to be asked.
I only know that the direction of travel that gets to the correct answers, that address all the issues here, have implications that are so profound there is no way the current political class is up to providing them.
Look at Reeves right now; yet again scrambling around the dunghill of spending cuts. It is almost as if we hadn’t booted out the Tories in July. What is the point in the change of government if all we get is the same old failure? What is the point of re-armament and defence if the lives you say you are protecting are being ground down by the very same orthodoxies that have wrecked the UK economy across 4 decades?
The UK has aligned itself so closely to the US such that it’s military hardware is American and Trump controls it.
It can’t actually be said, therefore, that the UK has a defence policy – except to wed itself to the US aka the Kremlin – or defensive capabilities of its own.
It all seems just a tad short-sighted.
For 30 years our defence strategy has been based on being part of allied expeditionary forces outside Europe. That required a different set of kit from fighting an enemy such as Russia with large armoured land forces. It takes a lot of time and expenditure to transform forces.
I looked on the website of the Royal United Services Institute -the oldest military think tank in the world. Things are worse than I thought. We would be hard put to deploy one armoured division into the field. One also needs equivalent forces in reserve to rotate units.
Even if we think tanks are on the way out, there is still a lack of artillery and logistic support. Still these can be delivered more quickly than new ships or aircraft. And we need them too. Drones are important but not the be all and end all.
Dr Watling of RUSI ( with lots of jargon I’m afraid ) gives us an over view.
https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/explainers/lessons-ukraine-recommendations-nato
worth a look
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/5/2308278/-Trump-ORDERS-UK-Not-to-Share-Intel-with-Ukraine
Going to be interesting to see how that one plays out. As the Snowdon dossier showed, GCHQ is partly funded by the NSA (the figure mentioned was £100m in 2013 – so probably £150m maybe £200m now) who obvs will to some extent call the shots. Doubtless, the spooks will be hoping the Mango storm blows over but given that the NSA is now controlled by a Ruzzian sympathiser and the US commander in chief is a Ruzzian agent one wonders at the wisdom of sharing anything (info flows are always two ways) with the USM(ango). One could also question the loyalties of those in GCHQ and SIS – is it a case of UK first or are their loyalties compromised? How about this: Ruzzia decides to take a pop (again) at some poor devil in the UK. USA has some intelligence on this – but decides on to pass it on – cos Putler is Mango’s mate. etc etc. Plenty of scenarios. How about this one: all US military personel are given 10 days to leave the UK.
If, as you say, the US essentially controls our intelligence agency as well as the nuclear weapons we are so proud of , we are already the 51st state – a mere poodle, or airstrip one – its very unlikely Starmer will ‘ask’ US personnel to leave
Simon Jenkins in the Guardian – has always been pretty good on the scandalous waste and wreckage that is UK defence policy and procurement
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/04/vladimir-putin-adolf-hitler-ukraine-keir-starmer
“This is dependent on US missiles, which we cannot fire without their permission.”
I don’t believe that’s true. I was watching a Newsnight (Monday I think it was) on which James Cleverley went through the actual chain of command that would lead to the launch of a nuclear missile – even if the Prime Minister was unable to give the order should, for example, there be a nuclear strike on London. He was clear that the UK owns its nuclear arsenal and the UK has sole responsible for deploying it.
If you’ve got some evidence I’d be pleased to see it.
I am referring to something that I believe has been widely understood for a long time.
I would not describe James Cleverly as a reliable source. I can’t check now – am mid walk.
Yes, I can agree with most of this, but I suggest you also need to back a stage further too. The UK’s Defence posture depends on our foreign policy; that needs to be known and defined in full first. From that, it is possible to derive the defence requirements.
Do we have a firm foreign policy stretching into the future? I don’t think so.
Hmmm, a bit of a problem there then………………..
The position on the UK’s “independent nuclear deterrent” in relation to firing missiles is actually as follows:
The UK subs are armed with US Trident II missiles, but have “UK” warheads, under a programme named “Holbrook”. Although it is claimed that the warheads are British made, they are almost identical to the U.S. W76-1. So the warhead delivery system (Trident II) is a U.S. project, which the UK bought into, but the warheads are British made. The UK manufactures and maintains the warheads. The Trident II missiles are built and maintained in the U.S., and the UK gets them from a “pool”, from which they are randomly selected and rotated.
Once the missiles (plus warheads) are at sea in Vanguard subs, they are directly controlled by the UK. Theoretically, the U.S. then has no control over their launch.
Ok! Thanks. I was wrong, except for our dependency on the US for the missiles.
Yes, I’ll accept that. Relaince on US supplied hardware is a problem, plus supply of spare parts thereof. Let’s hope it’s all speculation anyway.
I don’t think it’s speculation anymore.
This is the world we now live in.
Quite frankly, Richard, that could all have changed in the last week! Trump obviously has no qualms about breaking treaties or international agreements. I have no faith whatsoever in the U.S. sticking to its requirement to maintain the Trident II missiles; they have complete control over servicing ours, and we have no control over which “randomly selected” missiles we get back after a rotation. Who says we won’t get duds? (As I’ve never been convinced of the need for a UK independent deterrent……then….?)
I disliked working with US Forces. I never met a USAF Officer who had any grasp of global affairs beyond “Communism is a cancer, Ma’am. We have to cut it out”. The wider implications of US actions beyond that world view were lost to them.
As the US contributor to that Newsnight discussion said ‘why on earth are we talking about nukes – ‘if that happened we are all cooked’. The MAD strategy is what it says on the tin – utterly mad. As documented cold war history shows – we have only survived so far by sheer good luck.
Difficult to believe the US wouldn’t keep the option of stopping UK unilateral use.
In particular – I couldn’t find any answer as to how the missiles are guided and targeted – other than ‘ they are not dependent on the US GPS system.
Andrew, That last comment is a worry.
According to ChatGPT (amongst 4 other things) –
The U.S. Trident system is believed to use GPS for additional mid-course updates, but the UK may not have direct access to GPS guidance for its independent deterrent.
However, GPS data could be used in pre-launch preparations.
Worth looking at the full reply if you are interested.
Sorry to post again but on the way to work this morning I was still processing this post and trying to reconcile my feelings toward Ukraine.
Reflecting on Richard’s post, the UK is a debased state these days, debased by Neo-liberalism (NL). The NL and libertarian hatred of the State has rendered the British state clueless as to how to rule.
The UK was U.S. Neo-liberalism’s first and most successful trans-Atlantic conquest outside of the U.S. in the West and has lived longer with NL than mainland Europe. This is because its democracy was always an apparition any way and ripe to find NL attractive. The NLs always know where to start, where to begin their influence and it is always at the top – infiltrating government whilst accusing Trotskyists and Marxists of being underhanded to divert attention from themselves.
We must accept this debasement as a fact. We have rotted away. Just look around you at your local infrastructure. Remember how New Labour sent British soldiers to the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan in European green cammo gear and poorly armoured, low threat designed snatch Land Rovers last used in (wait for it) Northern Ireland as it kept to Tory/NL PSBR rules. British soldiers died in those unsuitable vehicles and being issued with the wrong kit until replacements were ‘procured’ in order to conform to Neo-liberalism’s requirements. The infantry SA80 combat rifle was a piece of crap for some time.
NL is now more rampant in the EU, especially after the formation of the ECB, where they pounced upon its formation and which makes it easier for NLs to strangle the money supply in Europe and stop states from ‘crowding out’ the private sector, rather than having to pick off individual member states. The ECB could go tomorrow for all I care – member states need to round on it and send it packing. Good riddance.
However, the Germans and French seems to be gearing up for Ukraine – Sweden and Finland and others are waking from their slumber.
Good. This is how it should be. Sod that little inconsequential island off the European West coast. They’re done. Britain is a country whose government is so etiolated that it cannot even run its public services properly and where corruption is rampant. How the hell it can be expected to rally to a cause like Ukraine is beyond me. It can’t defend itself let alone another ‘sovereign’ nation (everyone else’s description of Ukraine – not mine).
How the member states of mainland Europe will handle the ECB has yet to be seen. How they will cool their economies if money for war floods their money systems (or will it trickle?) is also yet to be seen. And will the NL/ordo-liberal scum in the ECB come back afterwards, wanting ‘their money back’, worrying about ‘inflation’ as the meaning of life, whilst promoting low taxes? Well, again, we are just going to have to see. I wish them luck, and look forward to the ECB being wound up one day. Tell me why I shouldn’t?
But it is right that mainland Europe picks up the gauntlet for Ukraine. It is also Europe’s way of making amends for not handling Russia better as it came out of the cod communism it had endured. Instead of being tumescent in victory like the Yanks, Europe could have insisted on (say) a more Federal Russia, like a federal German lander system with areas like the Ukraine, Belarus – God – even Latvia and Estonia still being a part of Russia but with a real say, real power to deal with the centre, with Moscow.
But no, in their rush to destroy Russia – not to create a new Russia OK? – the Europeans fell for nationalism instead, learning NOTHING from events in Yugoslavia. And so we end with the Ukraine and other new countries that ignore just how naturally mixed up even Eastern Europe really is. It’s always rush, rush, rush. As Aurelien says, there is always these days a ‘failure to understand’ in the West.
So after a little excursion there back to Europe, back to the UK. A country incapable of doing fuck all. Ukraine is none of our business. We left Europe OK? And we won’t take much notice of Putin until he invades France – yes? I think so. It’s not our war.
And do you know what? If the Ukrainians had any sense, they would not let us be involved anyway. Britain is a country ran by people who do not know how other people live or die. It is so unequal that the people at the top do not have a clue.
It is divided to the point of incapacity. Happy to have hungry children on its streets, shit in its fresh water and which sends is finest men and women (your mums, dads, sons, daughters) into harm’s way as a gesture – nothing more. At this point I would not trust any of our godforesaken ministers or what is left of the military to get involved in a war and prosecute it effectively.
It would be like World War 1 all over again if we went to the Ukraine. There is a superb book by John Laffin called ‘British Butchers & Bunglers of World War One’ (1989). Read it. That is what you get when you have a divided society – people expected to do impossible things by more powerful people who are oblivious to the realities of the situations they have put those people into. That – because of its corruption by Neo-liberalism – is the sort of society you are living in now and expected to – what? – bail out Ukraine? I don’t think so.
In the film Lord of the Rings the character Eomer says to his sister Eowyn that ‘War is the province of men’.
Well, I’ll qualify that by saying that war is the province of capable men and women, who are prepared to lead and would not ask others to do what they would not be prepared to do themselves. Sir Stymied, Rachel from Accounts and too many others are NOT those sorts of people, OK?
Britain doesn’t have ’em anymore. Do you understand?
Thank you.
I believe you’re selling us short
Our politicians are shit
I don’t think we are
Bit
Always surprised at how there can be a discussion with no disagreement but the idea of the Great Bear with Imperial ambitions might once have been the Soviet Union but hardly from a country with an economy roughly the size of Spain now.
In 1990 as the Soviet Imploded Gorbachev agreed to allow Germany to unite and presumed in negotiations that NATO would not expand to surround it.
When Putin came to power he asked to join NATO (SEE George Robertson then NATO Head who revealed this recently)
New York Times last week published (probably with CIA source)the CIA involvement role in Ukraine.
The idea that the devastating death of thousands of Ukrainians ( and Palestinians) spending more on the weapons that did it ( and dramatically end aid to many poor countries) pretending that it’s ‘ethical’ and making arms manufacturers richer would at least be part of the discussion.
UK’s ownership of nuclear weapons. Yes you were wrong, unsurprisingly. What else may you have been wrong about? How much UK intelligence really is controlled by USA?
I hope and expect that already things have changed in intelligence sharing. UK Eyes Only does exist, I believe. No, the public should not know in detail of what is happening; Only on a need to know basis. Would Trump’s instruction have been obeyed? Really? Agreed the whole thing is a wake-up call to maintain UK independance. Same can be said for EU cooperation, but just now that feels more comfortable – mainly!
I would be extremely surprised to find out that our various defence research establishments have not considered in detail, and with factual knowledge of current practice and agreements, various war-game (terrible term!) scenarios.
A strong anti-UK mind-set is not helpful.
You have made 220 comments here Norman.
I note you say:
“UK’s ownership of nuclear weapons. Yes you were wrong, unsurprisingly. What else may you have been wrong about?”
First, I was not wrong: we borrow the missiles, in effect. You ae wrong.
And whilst I acknowledge I make mistakes, what was the ‘unsurprisngly’ about?
If that’s how you feel, I have better people to deal with Normam. Difference of opinion I ma happy with. Rudeness, I am not.
As for suggesting I have a strong anti0Uk mindset – you appear to have some difficulty with reading, I suggest. That’s another good reason why your commnents aren’t needed here.
From Heather Cox Richardson in relation to intelligence sharing between “The 5 Eyes” (US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) and the trustworthiness of the trump administration, particularly trump hinself. It is a small point from her post, perhaps, but very illustrative in my opinion …
“Their concern is likely heightened by the return to Trump’s personal possession of the boxes of documents containing classified information the FBI recovered in August 2022 from Mar-a-Lago. Trump took those boxes back from the Department of Justice and flew them back to Mar-a-Lago on February 28.”
Here is the link to her Substack post …
https://substack.com/home/post/p-158571306?source=queue
As Starmer is excluded from talks in Europe, it becomes more clear what his ‘coalition of the willing’ is about. His task at this stage is not to build British defences (there may be people with more knowledge than I have who can say how soon or effective this is in reality). His number one task now is to prevent the EU from forming its own military force. Starmer is playing the US game.
I think you may be right. I need to write more on this.
Looking down the line to when the dust settles, and it will. When a peace ‘deal’ is imposed on Ukraine and the US and Russia seek to carve up the spoils, it is possible/likely that Russia (under whosoever’s leadership) sees its long term interests in alignment with Europe rather than the US (under whosoever’s leadership).
Trump has broken the world order. Angela Merkel in particular and indeed the UK while in the EU were conscious of not alienating Russia. Their common interests have not gone away. Russia could very well turn to Europe again and abandon this current love-in with the crazy Trump administration. This would explain why Starmer is a useful tool for Trump who is desperate to fracture European unity and fatally weaken what he sees now as an enemy: the EU.
Interesting….