Wars do not always begin because somebody wanted one. Sometimes somebody simply makes one mistake too many. And if Putin does that and we’d always expect our nation to respond to protect us what looks like a budget decision in Whitehall today could cost British lives tomorrow.
Putin probably hopes his new missiles will be silver bullets. There will be no realistic peace until next Spring or Summer, and only if Russia is successful on the battlefield. Ukraine will be a winter, but it’s difficult to see it being broken. Putin is increasingly inclined to hit Western targets, but he’s not there, quite yet.
Ultimately, we should remember a simple lesson: in poker terms, we still have a one of the best hands of any nation, we just need to play it better.
The Ankara summit will be less about grand declarations than about credibility. NATO has already set an ambitious direction; the challenge now is delivery. For the UK, the stakes are particularly high
Advantages unused do not remain advantages for long. The question is not whether Britain can “win” the AI race outright. It cannot. The more relevant question is whether it intends to shape the environment in which that race unfolds.
Britain needs a force capable of mobilising, replenishing, absorbing losses, protecting the homeland, operating with NATO in Europe, and sustaining advanced cyber, space and undersea operations. Anything less is another declaratory review.
We are already years behind in properly and adequately funding defence for the challenges we face. Deferring comes with real costs to both our armed forces and the companies that supply them. It is also revelatory: if governments want things to happen, they need more than ambition.
It’s no secret that Ukraine’s future depends very much on the degree to which avowed allies are willing to help. So keeping track of opinions about the war helps recognise both positive and negative trends.
It would be naïve to dismiss Russia as a spent force. It would be equally foolish to put Ukraine’s victories on the battlefield down to advances in technology alone. Its success has been driven by its people. It is adaptability, determination and raw courage that have given Ukraine its edge.
A national conversation implies the nation supports defence. What nation? The SNP opposes nuclear submarines at Faslane, Sinn Fein is against the £50 million Defence Growth Deal in Northern Ireland and Plaid Cymru backs rural resiliance [sic] but ducks defence.
Soldiers are beginning to take a back seat and instead control the robots and the systems that do the fighting. In the Ukraine war, we are witnessing the rise of the machines – and machine learning. Ground warfare will not be the same.
To understand why the Falklands matter today, one must look beyond sovereignty alone. They are not simply a territory to be defended. They are a community to be valued.
Were Lord Nelson to see the current state of the Royal Navy, his shock would surely be shared by Vice Admiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, commander of the enemy fleet at Trafalgar.
We currently live in a never-never land of promised defence spending that doesn’t then materialise. Our Government is talking the talk on defence and resilience. It is not walking the walk.
Britain needs a government that treats defence as the foundation of national strength. A government that recognises that sovereignty is not cheap, but the cost of losing it is far greater. The 3 per cent target should not be abandoned. It should be the baseline for Britain’s return to serious defence leadership.