@edwardstrngr65 Errr...
1. Finland hasn't been in NATO for 2 decades
2. It doesn't have overseas territory commitments.
3. It doesn't have CASD.
But except for those points and others to numerous to mention it's of course a valid comparison..
They are not really interested. The debate is like a bad PPE seminar with its Lego land approach to history. Obvs Starmer, Hermer, Reeves, Little don’t take the warnings of security services MI6,5 GCHQ seriously. SDR in reality was a false prospectus
@tnewtondunn Let’s not forget the original SDR was delayed 6 months last year because the PM didn’t want to pay for it. It was only published because a NATO summit was going to embarrass him. The DIP is actually 18 months late, in our no-growth economy, not credible even with fantasy maths
GCAP and AUKUS subjects of international treaties. Don’t imagine short-term meddling by Reeves considers long term implications. They’re in the bunker.
Sadly, this is further proof that @JohnHealey_MP Defence Reform programme has not yet found traction. This indicates HMT sees MOD as ‘same old…’. Recruiting a NAD who could manage such projects well, immune to Service meddling, was part of the rationale for one!
I do feel for the Russians. There is a deep sadness. Russia is part of Europe. Their history and literature is embedded in the cannon of Western art. Putin is sad. Medvedev is becoming psychotic. Dugin is going crazy. And they speak for the Russians I meet in Moscow. They are sad that Europe wants to reject them. They don't want to escalate. Because they are European. But the incomentant British Foreign Office. And EU commision are pushing them to do so.
I love Paris. I love Rome. I love Moscow. I was born in the most beautiful European city of all. Edinburgh. In Scotland. It breaks my heart to see whats happening to Europe now. Two world wars. And they still don't get it. Great power wars in Europe. Only brings ruin to us all.
And of course the Treasury will f it up all over again - as they nearly always do. We wouldn’t have the dinosaur aircraft carriers but for them and G Brown. Their expertise in defence is generally too self-regarding; the mandarin culture is outdated.
Also tonight @LOS_Fisher reports that as part of the deal to inject fresh funding into the MoD, the Treasury is proposing to take control of the spending on the GCAP programme https://t.co/7XG5FIuQmx
Also tonight @LOS_Fisher reports that as part of the deal to inject fresh funding into the MoD, the Treasury is proposing to take control of the spending on the GCAP programme https://t.co/7XG5FIuQmx
There is a strange development in which academics of international politics are expected to publicly condemn adversarial countries before they are allowed to participate in public discourse. The complexity of international politics is reduced to a moral question of good versus evil, and academics must make moral declarations before even discussing facts, history, strategy, and interpretations. Academics should explain why states behave as they do; they are not moral validators.
What value does it bring to an analysis if the analyst "condemns" one side? After Russia invaded Ukraine, the former Norwegian foreign minister actually argued that "this is not the time to understand, but to condemn". This ridiculous position is pushed on academics. However, understanding is not endorsement, explanation is not advocacy, and ignorance is not strength. I argue it is in Russia's security interest to push NATO away from its borders, it is in Iran's interest to control the Strait of Hormuz, and it is in China's interest to create a new international economic architecture. This is not advocacy, nor is it a normative position about how the world should work; rather, it is a recognition of how the world actually works.
An academic should examine interests, capabilities, and strategic calculations that produce such policies—not participate in ritualised declarations of virtue that contribute absolutely nothing. Furthermore, moralism and condemnation often lead to a lack of understanding and increased conflict. When the conclusion is always that the good guys are confronting the bad guys, then the solution is always "peace through strength", "weapons are the path to peace", and defeating the latest reincarnation of Hitler. If you want war, condemn the other side as pure evil. If you want peace, the first step is to understand the other side.
Vetoed by the Treasury and the anti-Welfare Reform lobby ( = half the government) security and defence not a priority - probably never was. Approach to alliances completely cynical
Prof. John Mearsheimer :
A number of European leaders have basically said we should fight to the last Ukrainian, which I find morally sickening.
The Ukrainians are going to lose this war. They should have quit a long time ago for their own good.
Ukraine is in a demographic death spiral, and we're encouraging them to throw bodies into the meat grinder when they're going to lose anyway.
The British, French, and German leaders are really enthusiastic about continuing the war, but that's because their people are not dying.
'As I once explained to a sceptical President Trump, Global Britain is not a moralising slogan. It is the British national interest: the position of an island economy that cannot opt out of the world'
Ministers must get the Defence Investment Plan right https://t.co/8BbronS71n
Great in our time radio 4 this morning the levellers : great speakers, Teresa Bejan, Clare Jackson, Ted Vallance - Edward Sexby gets a name check in the podcast . Hooray
Really : the margin was 52: 48 - a big turnout but not the entire electorate . Where in British constitutional practice is it written that the vote in a popular plebiscite is in perpetuo - whereas the opposite applies in general elections.
The Labour party has no electoral mandate to override the biggest vote this country has ever seen when voting for Brexit. We must defend the overwhelming democratic vote of the British people and fight to make sure Brexit is not betrayed. The Labour party’s internal leadership psychodrama should not hide the fact that they plan to take the UK back in to the expensive clutches of the EU. In short Labour want to wreck Brexit.
https://t.co/NpHTwWR0wb
The Labour party has no electoral mandate to override the biggest vote this country has ever seen when voting for Brexit. We must defend the overwhelming democratic vote of the British people and fight to make sure Brexit is not betrayed. The Labour party’s internal leadership psychodrama should not hide the fact that they plan to take the UK back in to the expensive clutches of the EU. In short Labour want to wreck Brexit.
https://t.co/NpHTwWR0wb
None of these were SAS - Al Carns was SBS, Dan Jarvis was a Para & failed SAS selection, Tom Tugendhat was Int Corps and work as a linguist with SBS, Mike Martin was Int Corps
I have just heard on Radio 4 's Gardeners' Question Time the much publicised plantswoman Bunny Guiness says ' I have never seen a horse eating docks.' Did my ears deceive me -- this is sheer ignorance. Dock leaves are poison for horses and cattle (?) and that's why I used to rip them up on the farm, with my esteemed Dad!
Two stories juxtaposed on the front page of @thetimes - Brussels tells Keir Starmer to pay £1bn for closer ties to Europe. And no money for new weapons until 2030, former military chief warns…
Reports today that the Royal Navy — you know, the one that ruled the waves — now down to five frigates. Some of which already have commitments. So we cannot provide a carrier fleet for our aircraft carriers, who have their own problems. A national disgrace in which Tory, Labour and even the pathetic Lib Dems are complicit.
So why do so many in Uk military command , RAF and elements of MOD and UK Treasury especially , still insist on ‘US first’ ? Margaret MacMillan Radio4 2day : it will take ages to remedy Trump’s chaos
Trump’s latest moves on trade and troops in Europe reconfirm two simple facts: no deal with Trump is worth the paper it’s written on & no degree of bending the knee to him makes an iota of a difference (other than shredding European dignity)
Gabriele , you need watch progress on the D Investment Plan - probably buried for the time being - and the National Defence Bill postponed for a year at least (senior SDR source) . And the Ajax saga - too many backsides mutually being covered. What as the ne NAD directorate actually achieved?
Every ship, jet or AFV on the way was ordered by others. You dithered on last tranche of 15 M270A2s; placed no new F-35 orders; withdrew vessels and parked up others; introduced as yet unknown no of years of delay in Type 26 deliveries. All before DiP reveals complete list of KIA