I gathered from reactions to my comments on what Fiona Hill had to say about the UK defence review, which I posted here yesterday, that not everybody agreed with my opinion.
Let me be honest: I do not post here, or on YouTube, or anywhere else, to necessarily seek agreement. I post what I think to be honest comment reflecting my opinion, and I do so with the intention of contributing to debate on what it might be appropriate for politicians and others to do in response to situations that appear to exist in the world, as I see it.
Given that the topics that I pick to comment upon will, almost invariably, be those where I have already found a point of disagreement with some other commentator, it is unsurprising that some of the things that I say here might not resonate with everyone who reads the blog. That could, to some degree, be a reason for its success, even if it might also irritate on occasions.
On this occasion, I look at the world through a very different lens to that which Fiona Hill obviously uses. She chose to be an expert on Russia, and I am not doubting that we need them. Nor am I questioning her expertise on the issue. I have no reason to do so. But, if you make an expert on Russia one of three people to undertake a defence review, with the other two being heavily biased towards what might be called the traditional NATO view on defence, unsurprisingly you come out with a set of recommendations that reinforce the conventional view that Russia is the problem that we face, and Russia is where any threat might come from.
There are a very large number of problems implicit in this approach. Firstly, this particular Russian narrative is one that was developed during an imperialist era. That, after all, was the basis for the Cold War stand-off, and the continuing belief that this approach to international relations is necessary, and even appropriate, is commonplace only amongst those who are, in my opinion, very largely old men.
Trump and Putin are old men.
Starmer has an old man's mindset.
The thinking in question is all about power being imposed. This is not just between nations, but also within nations. So, whilst Fiona Hill showed awareness in the comments reported in the article to which I linked yesterday of the stresses within the UK, the defence review itself does not, in my opinion, do so. It was that incoherence that led to my comment, and my suggestion that underpinning this thinking was a right-wing mindset that prioritises control over all else.
I long ago rejected this idea of politics through control. To me, it belongs to another era. It has contributed to the two great conflicts of the 20th century. It was perpetuated throughout the second half of that century. The fact that it is still implicit in the defence review appears to me to be a serious error of judgement, and again, that is why I do not understand how Fiona Hill can apparently be aware of all these stresses within the UK, and yet not identify them as fundamental to defence strategy, and yet I cannot see her linking the two.
As far as I am concerned, defence is a meaningless concept unless some critical questions can be answered.
Firstly, the question of what is being defended has to be asked. The claim that this is a physical space is meaningless in isolation (and I will return to tis, below), unless it is assumed that there is top down control of the population in that place, who can then be coerced through force to defend the interests of those who are dictating that place's policy, whether they are a benefit to most of those living in that location, or not.
To put this another way, if defence is to win popular appeal, and in a modern era I think that is essential, then it has to be clear precisely what it is that is being defended so that sacrifice, in whatever form it takes, can be required of a population. This means that there has to be sufficient understanding of opinion within a jurisdiction to ensure that there can be coherence around ideologies that represent what is valued within the way of life of the country in question. It is these ideologies that are being defended.
Secondly, a necessary part of defence is, in that case, the creation of an understanding of how the ideology that is being defended cannot just be maintained, but be improved for the benefit of everyone in the jurisdiction, so that they might benefit from the sacrifices being made. Quite explicitly, this trade-off has to be understood. To be equally explicit, the manufacturing of a sense of fear of a remote aggressor is not a sufficient basis for mounting a defence policy. Instead, creating a sense of enhanced potential well-being is a necessary precondition for any defence policy to work. This appears to be absent from current thinking.
Thirdly, in that case, there is a need for a proper risk appraisal of where the risks of fundamental disagreement on ideology might arise with a jurisdiction, with their causes being clearly identified, and a means for their reconciliation being put in place. Doing this is a vital component of defence, most especially as we do have such stresses within the UK at present.
For example, poverty is a massive issue in this country.
In addition, the obviously apparent malfunctioning and even failure of the government is a cause of enormous strain.
On top of that, the political obsession with growth that has not delivered any increase in well-being to the vast majority of people in the UK for more than four decades is creating a distance between those who would command the defence forces, and the people that they might wish to recruit to serve in them, which makes any defence policy almost impossible to deliver.
It is the resulting failure to supply basic services to meet basic needs that is the most likely cause of most of the stress around migration in the UK. I do not think that most people who vote for right-wing political parties are racist, although I do think that those parties are, because they are seeking to use a racist interpretation of the failure of government to advance their own political agendas. What I do think is that people are voting against the failed extreme centrists who I described here recently, and it is only far-right wing political parties that are giving them much opportunity to do so, at least in England. The result is that at present we are a country of apparently irreconcilable differences, although I suggest that the same changes that are necessary to underpin a coherent defence strategy could also eliminate many of the differences causing domestic stress at present.
To pull these themes together, to pretend that the United Kingdom is at present a single entity in which there is sufficient commonality of view to demand the sacrifice that defence from a distant threat from Russia creates is, in my opinion, a work of fantasy.
For a start, it is not clear that the United Kingdom is even united. A majority of people in Scotland would like to leave the Union. Up to 40% of people in Wales are now expressing a similar opinion. It cannot be long before the same is true in Northern Ireland, where demographics make this almost inevitable within the next decade or so. In that case, at the most basic level, it is not even clear that there is a geographic space that can be defined as the place that is now being defended. That is how incoherent this defence review is. Until we know what this country is going to be - and we don't - we can't defend it.
And at an ideological level, people are aware, even if they have not developed the analysis to express it so bluntly, that they are living in a country where the prevailing ideologies of power have failed them. The promise that they were given that abandoning the protection of government to secure the benefits of free markets has very obviously created wealth for a few, and no enhanced well-being for the majority. Most people in the country now realise that. If you want a single explanation for the final collapse of the Conservatives, then this is it. In that context, Labour's desperate desire to take their place on the centre-right makes no sense as a result: they, too, are setting themselves up to fail by promoting something that does not work.
If this is the case, the defence review does not make any sense. It should have made clear that there is no agreement on what place is being defended.
Then it should have suggested how we can create an ideology around which the people of the country can cohere, and around which they can settle most of their differences, because most of their needs and at least some of their wants would be met. This is not an unreasonable objective.
That defence review should have recognised that unless these issues are resolved, we will not be able to find the necessary sense of identity to give us a role in international negotiation once more. We do not have that identity at present. People can sense that. It is obviously absurd that we have two empty aircraft carriers whose sole purpose appears to be to float around the Pacific Ocean. When the threats that we face are here and now, because people realise that their well-being is being prejudiced by the government that is claiming that they must make sacrifices in order to defend the status quo, in which they do not believe, the likelihood of acquiescence is low.
I do not dispute that we need a coherent defence strategy. But, and to return to my original point in this post, to promote that strategy on the basis of ideas that should have been consigned to history a very long time ago, makes no sense at all. And when those ideas are about maintaining hierarchies of power that appeared to be opposed to the best interest of most people in the UK, or each of its member countries, then I think it fair to say that the opinions in question represent imposed ideology of the type most commonly associated on the right wing fringes of politics, and we need to do very much better than that.
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!
Much to agree with here.
Why would the Russians want to invade the UK? They already own most of Knightsbridge and I’m sure they wouldn’t want to drive the property prices down.
The “defence” industry is a protection racket.
Good question (ref Russians owning Knightbridge).
Here is another one: given Mrs Belton’s book “Putins People” given many/most/all the Russian poeple owning Knightsbridge etc are +/- Russian mafia (either by mentality or reality)
Do you think it is healthy having such people within the UK? Is it a “good look” having the son of an ex-KGB man sitting in the House of Lords?
I note that the Defense review never even tries to get to grips with the socio-economic (tojan horse?) reality of Russians in the UK.
The politicians both in & outside power imitate ostriches in this respect.
A secure Uk takes many forms – as RMs blog notes. The current crew in gov’ are no where near to even thinking clearly on the subject (are they functionaly capable?), let alone getting to grips with it.
Thanks
You get my point…..
Meanwhile it appears that teh BBC World Service will be facing funding cuts . https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/08/cuts-to-bbc-world-service-funding-would-make-us-less-safe-mps-tell-ministers
I would have placed the World Service as part of our broad defence strategy and part of what “makes Britain great” across the world. If this stupid Government cannot even see that and prefers to reach for nuclear war heads God help us.
I could pick many holes in your argument but let’s start with one based on fact not opinion. You say “A majority of people in Scotland would like to leave the Union”. That is just not true according to recent opinion polls.
“As of March 2025, 54 percent of adults in Scotland said they would not support Scotland being independent from the United Kingdom, compared with 46 percent who would support it. Support for Scottish independence reached 53 percent in August 2020, the highest level of support for independence in the provided time period. The highest opposition to independence was in January 2018, when 57 percent of people in Scotland advised they would vote no in a hypothetical referendum”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1170409/scottish-independence/
Wrong. I work for The National. The data I quoted is current. And you are a time waster.
For what its worth its clear that
1. A significant if not necessarily over 50% of the population of Scotland support independence ie quite a lot
2. Its clear that a mis step by the Westminster Government could easily push support for independence to significantly over 50% and into the sort of supermajority that would be needed to justify an independence decision
3. If those who support independence in particular the SNP were to up their game and helped by 2. the Union could end up with a perfect storm…………….
On the other hand however Westminster could up its game
@ Richard,
Might it be worth a blog to explain why polls are weighted, and why weighting becomes increasingly counterproductive over time?
A lot of independence polls are anchored to a near 11 year-old result; clearly flawed if adjusting using standard methodology.
Perhaps that’s what those commissioning the polls are looking for; or maybe I’m just in a cynical mood today.
Their continued use of this data is very bizarre.
I really think that polling while there is no ongoing campaign is of limited usefulness. Prior to the 2014 referendum nobody believed it could be as close as it was, but that % rose a lot during the course of the campaign.
Anecdotally, almost everyone I know in the North East is in favour of it. I think you’re wrong.
Thanks Richard, defence spending is a topic that the common man needs to get interested in and start to engage more proactively else it will be a matter of time that Starmer and co. will divert all our taxes to saving us from an enemy that will remain visible only to politicians (& their rich friends).
Looks like UK is want to copy the the Americans and establish a CIA/ Pentagon model where they can threaten and muscle their way through – billions of pounds wasted in the process. The people of the nation are brainwashed that defence spending needs to increase because the enemy will invade us. Their argument is just like “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” – never found but left thousands dead and billions of dollars wasted. No accountability for their decisions – Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Ukraine……the list is endless. Wars are an easy distraction from problems of the common man. Why cant they focus on child poverty, NHS, education etc.?
Instead of government’s focus on defence strategy – I would suggest a stronger focus on a robust communication strategy, how to engage and collaborate for peace and prosperity.
I am not sure I want my kids to work in a defence industry where their manhours will result in products that will cause death and destruction.
War should never be regarded as inevitable. Those who are currently banging on the loudest about the need to prepare for war – politicians, senior military etc – are surely also those best placed to find ways of avoiding it through talks, diplomacy, peace initiatives etc etc. Indeed, this should be their primary duty. But we never hear about anything like that. And as for the media’s complicity in this whole charade, words fail me.
‘All war represents a failure of diplomacy.’ Tony Benn
The people who are in the position to prevent war are the very ones that stand to benefit the most from it. Military Top Brass, politicians and weapons manufacturers.
Leaving it to Generals and forces leaders etc is the golden opportunity for them to secure funding for their pet weaponry such as nuclear submarines, nuclear bombs, tanks and the whole plethora of military equipment which makes them look good and let’s not forget kills people.
Maybe it’s time for one political party to start pushing the content of RM’s content in this post?
It is healthy we can have differing views on some things and debate politely. In most things I agree with you, Richard. I knew my view would be a minority one.
I am not sure whether I should do a short summary but I have to go out -to a Quaker meeting actually. Then take the family for lunch out .
Enjoy
No one wants to invade Britain, the country has sold it all its assets to foreign “investors”, there is nothing worth taking.
Military spending is all about diverting government money to the military-industrial complex.
Pensioners, the NHS, and children lose out, billionaires get richer.
Read: “The Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism (& How It Came to Control Your Life)” by George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison (2024)
https://amzn.eu/d/1K3h5EW
Thank you for this.
“the manufacturing of a sense of fear of a remote aggressor is not a sufficient basis for mounting a defence policy”
Entirely agree – yet that has been the basis of our defence policy since 1945. The world has changed, yet nothing has changed, in the minds of our political “leaders”.
FYI, Tariq Ali used the phrase “extreme centre” back in 2011:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/september/against-the-extreme-centre
The armaments companies got what they wanted and what they lobbied for.
https://www.cityam.com/ftse-100-defence-stocks-rolls-royce-bae-systems-and-babcock-shares-surge/
It’s a bit rich to say Scotland desires to be independent in a discussion of UK defence strategy. It just shifts the debate to what defence strategy should an independent Scotland have, what values does it seek to defend, and against what threats.
If you don’t understand the point I was making why make a fool of yourself by commenting?
There’s an additional problem in that the UK’s Defence will not deter Russia, even after implementing the Review.
There’s growing, credible evidence of:
Russian cyber probes and intrusions into UK infrastructure, telecoms, and elections.
Disinformation operations targeting domestic dissent, trust in institutions, and military aid to Ukraine.
Low-visibility espionage and sabotage efforts, e.g. against energy and submarine cables.
These actions are not one-off provocations but part of a long-term strategy of “below-the-threshold” warfare — and they continue in spite of the UK’s formal defence capabilities and will not be curtailed by the Review.
Hardly a good basis for asking citizens to make sacrifices
What might be the purposes/reasons/excuses for not keeping defence continuously under revue?
Might an exclusion of morale, health and well being etc. of the whole population invalidate any defence revue?
Might a real revue include analysis of the all major parties’ adherence to Austerity/Neoliberalism which has weakened the majority of the citizenry and their children and drastically reduced our armed forces in both numbers and equipment?
P. S. Has anyone any suggestions as to what might be of benefit from Austerity/Neoliberalismto our citizenry and their children f
Using Finland as an example, their defence strategy is coherent, focused and supported by a large majority of Finns irrespective of voting intentions. They are essentially committed to their defence strategy and volunteer to train – in various ways – to support it. Without going into elaborate detail, the vast majority are committed ‘heart and soul’ to it. Why? Fundamentally, they have a high degree of trust in government – and each other – based on the fact that government and government services are supposed to be orchestrated to benefit the many, rather than the few.
I think this is the point that Richard is making. The current government (and for many previous years) does not engender that trust, do not appear to act in the interests of the many, etc., and, as such, do not have a coherent defence strategy that the population in general are behind or will get behind.
yes, what you say about Finland is true. They probably do have more trust in the state than we do.
They also lost 10% of their territory which was annexed by Russia in the 1940s. They might have gone back under Russian rule, as before 1918, if they hadn’t fought so hard.
They also had to be neutral during the Cold War. Finns have explained how the USSR would veto aspects of their domestic and foreign policy. Some films widely screened in the west could not be shown. Similar with books. Being neutral was not like it was for Ireland or Switzerland.
They also ended their neutrality following the invasion of Ukraine, and joined NATO.
I don’t think they see a Russian threat as ‘manufactured’ or a hang over from the Cold War. Neither do the neighbours of Belarus or the Baltic States.
Of course, it is an option to shrug our shoulders and say ‘mind Britain’s Business’- a slogan from the 1930s. Maybe we should be discussing that more/
Russia’s threat is real, Ivan. I do nit dispute it. We also have international responsibilities. I get all that. But that means we need to take part in a European defence review, not a profoundly confused English exceptionalist one.
I mentioned the need for a European approach during the week. Partly because it enables some specialisation but also because the threat is against Europe. For Fascists the goal is power. A disarmed or neutralised eastern Europe is what they proposed in 2021. That would reinforce domestic power and give an option of military intervention as the resistance would be small. It is a Russian version of MAGA. And revenge for the shock therapy of 1990s. That was humiliating for them. It seems you and I do have common ground on the threat but maybe not what that is or what should be the response. We do have a choice whether Europe arms sufficiently to deter. Or just accept “spheres of influence” – China, Russia and USA. The first policy requires hardware. IMHO more likely to ensure peace.
Mike Parr, or another, put up a YT blog yesterday by Alvira Bary in which she says the Russian elite tell the people Europe is weak morally and militarily. Anyone familiar with the NATO forces level has to agree. At my history group In April, a retired Brigadier told me his contacts tell him we could barely deploy a division to Ukraine and could not sustain it more than a few months. It is a bad as that.
Yet we also have folk saying eastern expansion of NATO is the cause. Like a good judo player (which Putin is ) he tries to use the opponent’s wight against him.
BTW I thought it funny but I’m not Ivan
P. S. Where might one find information on to whom the Defence Revue spending monies will go?
Big industry…
Ah-ha. Big industry. It does beg the question…. what does Ukraine do?
& it’s not “big industry” that is supplying Ukraine with fighting equipment – & certainly not in the area of drones.
Begs the question: how to move away from the large-corp/trough approach to funding – given the way defense is changing.
Fast nimble players – able to innovate quickly. This is not a description one could make of the usual suspects.
“a mis step by the Westminster Government could easily push support for independence to significantly over 50% and into the sort of supermajority that would be needed to justify an independence decision”
and, yet, a 52% to 48% vote took the UK out of the European Union – in England the vote to leave garnered 53.4% against 46.6% to remain. No supermajorities required there.
Why should a supermajority be needed in Scotland’s case to become an independent country once again?
A long post I typed in got lost when I clicked the wrong icon on my phone. Aaargh!
So I’ll try a different tack.
I don’t dispute that Russia means the UK ill, they’ve been messing seriously with our democracy since well before the Brexit referendum, with the active co-operation of some of our best known political leaders including when in government, AND various individuals promoting protest parties.
Count the mentions of Russia (29) in this bio of one of our recent unsuccessful WECA mayoral candidates, who may well be an MP soon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks
Do research on one Michael Gove.
Don’t forget For. Sec. Johnson’s Lebedev links and his crazy unsupervised trips to Italian villas.
But what strikes me about Fiona Hill’s contribution and the resulting Defence Review is how spectacularly irrelevant it is to that very real, non-military but still lethal threat from Putin that directly affects my neighbourhood NOW.
How might Putin view an Arron Banks led Reform government in 2029?
Does the Defence Review make that more or less likely?
What effect would that have on our national security?
Where will Reform votes come from?
THAT battle is being fought now on the streets of my local community. The deaths are already occurring, both through violence and poverty and neglect – my neighbours, a few streets away. It may well explode this summer. Russian proxies may well be exploiting and fomenting it as they have been since before 2016. They aren’t the CAUSE, that’s failed neoliberalism, but they are making the most of it, of course they are.
But I can’t see how submarines, nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers will help, especially if they are under the control of a Reform Russian proxy PM after 2029.
Yes, our defence needs some reviewing, but in a far more radical way than this defence review does. It should look at soft power not just killing machines, development aid and diplomacy, not just hardware and troops in uniforms. But we are cutting all that, and that DECREASES our security just as austerity at home has already decreased it.
Focussing on a supposed military threat to the UK from an enemy whose prime interest is in causing social and economic chaos inside the UK, rather than militarily invading us, is yet another mis-step by an out of touch puppet PM.
He has to be stopped.
A reminder of Russia’s non-military interference in UK affairs, the one Johnson wouldn’t let us see before the 2019 election.
https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20200721_HC632_CCS001_CCS1019402408-001_ISC_Russia_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf
The current Defence Review appears to largely ignore it.
Demographic change will indeed take Northern Ireland out of the UK in a decade or so. It will then be impossible to resist Scottish demands for independence. One that happens, will Wales still wish to be an English colony? I think not. In twenty to thirty years, what we now describe as the United Kingdom could well become England alone as the three other nations depart. The UK would then only exist as an informal region if England followed the others back into the EU.
The first step ought to be to define the United Kingdom now. In my view, it was held together for the last half-century mainly by EU membership, and will now unravel absent serious change.
The only chance of a continuing future for the United Kingdom is to return sovereignty to the nations (instead of the Crown in Parliament) and change to a system of dispersed power, with the UK government responsible only for foreign affairs, defence, and common standards. That would focus minds on what, who, and why are we defending? which is your basic, unanswered, question.
As currently constituted there is little democratic debate about these issues, because central government is failing through overstretch. Parliament never gets to debate serious questions. Instead they are outsourced to “experts” with predictable results.
No, thank you.
Independence being good enough for England for the last 300+ years of English colonial rule in Scotland, and much longer in the case of Wales and N Ireland, then Independence is what we, outwith England, will have.
England running Scotland’s defence, foreign affairs etc., is still colonialism and is wholly unacceptable.
I agree: there is no future for the UK. There is no viable federal structure because of the imbalances, and because people are simply too different in each nation.
An extremely well-reasoned post and argument.
As an Englishman, there is no way I would fight to protect the indefensible society that we have now. No way. My children too, whom I would talk out of it.
It might have been more bearable in days past where the rich felt that they had some responsibility to the commons, some circular fealty to those who lived on their land and served them and were willing to serve alongside you, but not now. The ‘new rich’ have none of these subtleties or sentiments. We are nothing to them. White feathers? Pour them over me – I don’t care.
If you did fight, what would you come back to? Waiting in A&E for hours to have your injuries you incurred in defence of your country seen too? Fighting with the DWP for your disability allowance, told that you could still work when you’d seen your mates eviscerated and keep waking up from with the nightmares about their torn and burnt flesh? Nowhere to live because there is no affordable housing? And an abundance of credit to keep you in your place – with high interest rates decided by people on wages of half a million pounds a year.
We don’t have defence or coherence policies, what we have in UK is a deference policy – knowing one’s place and doing as one is told by one’s better orff.
What Richard says about the power play we have here is all too true. Listening on the radio this morning being told that there will money for this and that at last as if we should grateful for it I was reminded of just bloody medieval this shit house of a country still is. It is till comprises of those above us making sure they are first in line for the cash and then wringing their hands over who gets what left.
Me and my own fighting a war – what? – to maintain the upkeep of an insult to society like the CBRA whilst council coffers are nearly empty and my wages have lost 25% of their value since 2010?
Bollocks!
Thanks
Richard…. I think that your ideological examination is on the money. It is reflected in the public mood post WW11, and the returning heros, who would not accept that their sacrifices maintain the status quo. This,in turn, spawned the longest period of societal improvement for the majority.
Unfortunately this is a ‘cart before the horse’ situation. It is a madness that so many have to be killed and maimed before any appreciable attention is given to the quality of life for the majority.
All wars, it seems to me, are failures of diplomacy, particularly these days when, in such a globalist, interconnected world, so many other levers can be pulled before bombs start being dropped.
Failing that put all the world leaders that want a fight in a field with a gun each then we’ll sort things out after they are done. It’s so easy to be brave (reckless, irresponsible, foolhardy) when it’s not you being shot at.
Very well articulated. I would add that the defence review relies on Scotland effectively hosting our nuclear deterrent at Faslane, something the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon were vehemently opposed to.
For me it is the wrong answer to the wrong question and whilst I accept the world is becoming a less safe space, I would query Russia remaining our number one enemy. And the optics of spending so much more on defence, when we are being told there is no money for child poverty etc. are really bad. This feels a bit like Covid which the Tories used as an excuse to siphon off large sums of money to their friends, but here it is to BAE Systems etc. and will not deliver for many years to come.
Even within the establishment there is some sort of recognition that its not so much about how much is spent , but what the hell it is spent on . Even conservative commentators like Simon Jenkins have been excoriating about the duff tanks, armoured vehicles, frigates, carriers, subs etc.
Despite the SDR saying ‘everything has changed’ the majority of its proposed billions seem to be scheduled to go on the same old massive dysfunctional hardware, – subs, bombs. etc.
BAE systems, Rolls Royce, Babcock ‘are’ ‘our’ defence industry and they seem to control policy.
As Richard points out – and others here – at very least we need a ‘defence policy’ that includes strategies to avoid conflict – all the diplomatic and economic soft power tools
Just by way of a coda to my last contribution, comprehensive talks with Russia are not only desirable, but ultimately necessary – even if difficult, uncomfortable, or politically unpopular.
While deterrence may be regarded as essential, deterrence without diplomacy is inherently unstable, especially when that deterrence isn’t up to much.
Agreed
and Simon Tisdale on nuclear proliferation – are we a rogue nuclear state?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/08/uk-strategic-defence-review-nuclear-arms-race-armageddon
Very good
And right, IMO
“even if it might also irritate on occasions”
I would like to remind everyone that when we come to “Funding the Future”, we are NOT PGs (paying guest). We are invited into this daily blog-salon as true guest and not as someone who crashed a party, breeched a paywall or paid a subscription.
Great discussions always irritates or you end up with a group of people sipping tea, eating biscuits and discussing the weather with an occasional football comment )or comment about the Royal Family) thrown out to relieve the boredom.
Richard, keep doing EXACTLY what you are doing.
As John Prine sorta said in a famous song:
You can fool some of the people part of the time
In a Reform and Tory song
Two million YouTube fans Looking for The New Normal
Can’t be all wrong
Cheers!
Thank you. Appreciated.
I agree with the thrust of Richard Murphy’s critique of the so-called Strategic Defence Review whose conclusions were proscribed by its triumvirate authorship of three experienced experts, but who are essentially warmed up Cold Warriors; and the fact the conclusions had a limitation of 3% GDP for its budget.
The focus on Russia was inevitable: not only the horrible hot war in Ukraine, but the earlier incursion and partial occupation of Georgia plus the quashing of significant internal unrest in Chechnya and South Ossetia in the Caucasus suggest a Russian government prepared to use significant extra-and intra-territorial force. Russia has also deployed forces in Syria, but with the permission of the then President Assad.
The only actual Russian threats in the U.K. ( as against military ship doing recon missions in international waters off our coast, as the Royal Navy -and indeed RAF flights- off Russia) have been the curious reckless chemical weapons attack on the Skripals in Salisbury and the polonium attack on a former Russian secret service agent defector in London. There has been no actual of threatened military attack on the U.K., or indeed on Europe outside Ukraine from Russia.
Moscow has done two offensive actions that the U.K. needs to secure against, but does not need expensive precision weapons or nuclear WMDs. These are the threats to seabed communications cables and the persistent threats of cyber sabotage, as recently hit the NHS. Our civil nuclear plants are especially vulnerable to malicious malevolent actions, something the World Institute for Nuclear Security ( WINS) in Vienna, for whom I have been an expert consultant, has been working on for a decade.
Dr. Lowry, your analysis makes absolute sense to me, as does Richard’s. One would hope that the views of someone with your experience and credentials would have some purchase with our decision makers in this area. Sadly, it appears they prefer the rabble rousing rhetoric that they think appeals to the voters they are chasing on the right.
WINS seem to be doing an essential job of trying to promote global nuclear security, but are obviously completely embedded in the world wide nuclear industry.
A pity that this probably goes along with the many actors- who are promoting yet more public investment in nuclear – without which it would die under its own contradictions, – uninsurable, uneconomic without vast public subsides including centuries of funding waste disposal.
As Richard has repeatedly reminded us, there is no limit on what a Government that can borrow in its own currency can spend. Hence we can have both guns and butter. To say that we cannot afford an extra 0.5% of GDP on Defence is meaningless; we should be spending far more than that on welfare. The problem is not the SDR and its authors; the problem is that the Government, like previous Governments, have been captured by the Treasury and their pre-Keynsian outlook.
Defence should be a sub set of foreign policy . We haven’t had a foreign policy explainer. It is a defence review but is concerned with more than Russia. There are a number of possible threats -which can’t always be anticipated -and they are discussed. It is very aspiration but short on force levels, deployment areas, weapons systems such as the next combat aircraft. It does make a reference to infrastructure vulnerability- ( Chapter 3 ) an aspect picked up by someone yesterday. There will be more to come.
The two main parties seem to be set to support renewal of the deterrent force. Polls would suggest about half the population agree. So that was probably part of the brief given.
Fiona Hill was an advisor to Trump. She did not agree with all his views and I am sure not all of John Bolton’s, another advisor. An advisor is not a policy maker.They give information and opinions based on it. Lots of discussions take place which we only hear of later. If they dissent too much they resign. This is a new post for her and I am sure further talks are taking place.
I do agree about the need for economic and political change in the UK but that is not a defence policy. Without the means to fight, we are not defended. Designing an adequate defence strategy is not the same as war mongering.
I am sorry, but you really are losing the plot, and are beginning to waste my time.
To suggest that “the need for economic and political change in the UK but that is not a defence policy” is ridiculous because you have made no attempt to answer the points I raise. Instead you say next “Without the means to fight, we are not defended. An adequate defence strategy is not the same as war mongering.” I promise you, it is. You want to fight without reason. If that isn’t warmongering I don’t know what is.
This incoherence is, I admit, trying my patience.
Agree
As my son said :
Why should I risk my life for a rich man’s war.
Your son’s sentiment echoes Muhammad Ali in 1967 when refusing to fight in Vietnam: “…No VietCong ever called me…(the N word)”.
Some thoughts on the constitional issues you’ve raised.
Right now, UK defence policy isn’t really grappling with the potential fallout from major constitutional change — whether that’s Scottish independence or Irish unification. There’s no clear sign of contingency planning for the loss of key military assets, especially Faslane, which is home to the UK’s nuclear deterrent. If Scotland became independent and asked for Trident to be removed, the UK would be in a very difficult position, with no obvious alternative base. More broadly, defence planning seems to assume that the UK will stay territorially intact — overlooking the possible loss of Scottish airspace, radar coverage, and access to critical maritime routes in the North Atlantic. The potential reunification of Ireland raises similar issues: British forces would need to leave Northern Ireland, and the UK would have to rethink intelligence-sharing, policing, and border security with a now fully sovereign Republic — possibly within the EU and Schengen area.
What’s striking is how little this features in mainstream discussion. Defence debates in Westminster and the media rarely connect these constitutional questions with strategic risks, and planning documents hardly mention them. Some analysts and think tanks have raised the alarm, but their concerns haven’t really influenced policy. That’s a problem. The UK’s defence strategy still operates on the assumption that the Union will hold together — but the political ground is clearly shifting. If the state doesn’t start adapting its defence planning to these realities, it risks sleepwalking into a crisis that would undermine its nuclear credibility, its role in NATO, and its broader status as a serious strategic actor. It’s time to bring these questions in from the margins and treat them as core to national security.
The question dies not arise because those with an English exceptionalist Unionist mindset believe ‘their’ Scottish, Welsh and Irish colonies are theirs for good, and will do what they are told.
You’ve just explained why Westminster will always try to block Scottish independence. What we don’t yet know is how far Westminster/UK is prepared to go and whether it will involve a revoking of what little constitutional government we have left.
I think UK Gov’t is prepared to ditch the constitution to keep the Union. Which won’t be pretty.
sorry to take up your time
but her she is speaking out https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-s0MX3JbqI8
And all the comments suggest the illogical nature of the defence review. She needs to explain that, not me.
Some final thoughts from me for today (honestly!!), this time about the nuclear deterrent.
The argument in favour of the UK holding onto its own nuclear deterrent still hinges on a few key ideas: that nuclear weapons act as a last-resort insurance policy, that they keep the UK at the top of Nato’s table, and that the current setup – four submarines with a “minimum credible” posture – is relatively affordable. But the recent review ramps things up quite a bit. We’re now talking about a £15 billion investment in a new “Astraea” warhead to replace older models and extending the missile stockpile. Plus, there’s mention of reviving air-launched tactical nukes and expanding submarine fleets through new Dreadnoughts and SSN‑AUKUS attack subs. That all drives up cost and complexity—and further ties the deterrent to questions of sovereignty, especially around basing in Scotland at Faslane.
On the flip side, the old critiques still bite even harder now. The big threats we face today—cyberattacks, climate disruptions, regional terrorism—aren’t stopped by nukes. And technically, the UK isn’t walking alone here: our warhead effort relies on US tech and cooperation, particularly with the Astraea warhead being synced to the American W93/Mk7 design. Now that the review is expanding the arsenal – maybe even reintroducing tactical nukes on aircraft – it further muddies the waters: more weapons, more debate, more risk. And if Scotland becomes independent and asks for Faslane’s closure, the entire setup could unravel, at least temporarily. So yes, there’s still a case for the deterrent, but it just got a lot more fragile, expensive, and politically complicated.
If we can have aircraft carriers without planes I can’t see why our commanders in chief imagine there could be a problem with nuclear weapons without bases. They just can’t imagine the problem happening, so they donor think about it.
Yes. And I bet they keep their fire extinguishers in next door’s garage.
Ian Stevenson asserts ( at 3.53 on Sunday: “without the means to fight we are not defended”.
But the U.K. cannot ever “fight” the great nuclear-armed powers Russia, China,USA, or France. To do so would be national suicide. One exchange of ballistic nuclear missiles upon the capital cities of any would destroy the respective societies.
Does anyone expect a military confrontation between the U.K. and the other two bogie states: Iran and North Korea? If so, specify under what possible circumstances a military confrontation with either could transpire.
The arguments for widespread massive re-armament in the SDR almost seem more like a kind of Keynesian way to bring about industrial/regional manufacturing growth through military expansionism than any real intelligent assessment of military threats from warfare to the U.K.
Thanks, David.
Trump is sending “defensive” forces to Los Angeles.
If Starmer’s defence strategy is not for overseas use, then perhaps he’ll use it domestically;
… can’t have the Left making a comeback, or people supporting oppressed people while they are slaughtered.
I know I said my previous contrbution would be my last for the day. I lied I’m afraid.
The whole row over China’s proposed embassy at the old Royal Mint Court really highlights a bigger Defence problem: the UK government doesn’t seem to have a grip on the basics of national security. Selling a site like that – right next to sensitive communication cables and data hubs – without thinking through the risks just looks a tad careless. And now, with both the previous Conservative government allowing the sale and the current Labour government seemingly supporting the embassy plan, it starts to feel like no one’s really in charge.
This matters rather a lot for the Defence Review that’s now underway. You can talk all you like about new kit, cyber forces, or global influence – but if the UK can’t even safeguard key parts of its own capital from possible foreign intelligence use, then all that talk rings hollow. Defence isn’t just about the armed forces, it’s about whether your country has the infrastructure, planning, and governance in place to support them. And right now, it feels like we’re trying to build a modern defence strategy on top of the square root of bugger all.
I really disliked the title of the Fiona Hill article but the text felt like more of the same.
Our right wing eg Telegraph and progressive left eg Guardian are almost completely aligned on using rearmament to deter Russia/China to continue our failing neoliberal model.
Consent is being manufactured for us and the Strategic Defence Review the 3rd in what 4 years is part of this process.
The rise of Fascism in the 1930s was an obvious threat looking back but many where still arguing for restraint eg George Orwell’s coming up for air.
UK consumption will fall etc while military spending rises. Great cover story for austerity as Richard’s already pointed out.
Are we being complacent like George?
Some increase in military capability seems prudent by the looks of it despite all the inflammatory media rhetoric that’s where the British establishment has got to after a lot of noise.
Russian aggressive behaviour is a well established fact but how we should respond is another matter entirely. A modest increase in military spending feels appropriate but as Richard pointed what else is missing?
US controls much of what the UK does I wonder what their input has been?
I’ve heard that the US has advised the UK to ignore its so called indo-pacific tilt of the last strategic defence review and concentrate on Russia in Europe.
Given the UK can’t nowadays have a continental size army and a global navy the US advice might be realistic.