Britain's strategic defence review is a hollow plan without the right cash

The Labour government's ambitious strategic defence review publishd yesterday was full of bold talk and fancy phrases that when analysed sound like they were written by someone well-versed in the gobbledigook of Whitehallese lingo. For me, the stand-out fiugure was the promise by the government to increase the size of the regular army from its current figure of around 70,000 to 75,000 by 2034. That pretty much sums up the state of our armed forces today. An army of 75,000 in the next nine years is not going to put off people like Vladimir Putin or any foreign leader who fancies his chances to grab a bit of Britain's diminished empire around the globe. Ok, the review is also full of dreamy talk of drones and other unmanned vehicles and super hi-techness and a dozen nuclear-powered submarines. But where is the money going to come from? The hoped-for 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence won't be enough, not for the long term. The aspirational three per cent ain't going to happen for years and as for the Naop secretary general's wish for all alliance members to increase their spending to 3.5 per cent or even five per cent of GDP, how can the UK agree to that when it's struggling to reach 2.5 per cent? Of course, there is only way out and that's to increase income tax by one or two percentage points. But the Labour government "promised" in its manifesto that it wouldn't raise income tax. Ever. This promise will have to be cast aside, and very soon. Then the popularity of the governemnt is going to sink. It's a hard road ahead for this country and for this government. The strategic defence review could end up just being 140 odd pages of unfulfillable wish lists.

Ukraine's attack on Russian bombers is a massive turning-point in the war

Carried outwith precision and daring, Ukraine's security forces have damaged or destroyed dozens of Russia's strategic bombers inside Russia, depending on whether you believe Kyiv's claims or Moscow's downplaying statements. Whatever is the full truth, there is no question that Ukraine has dealt a huge blow to Russia's military and to Putin's confidence. In a covert operation codenamed Spider's Web, 117 drones were launched against Russian strategic bombers in five different bases, allegedly attacking 34 per cent of Moscow's long-range cruise-missile-armed aircraft. Not from a long range but from close up, with the drones fired automatically from trucks nearby. It's a staggering achievement and it will make Putin realise that all his treasured military aircraft parked in the open air on bases without hangers to keep them safe, will now be vulnerable to Ukrainian attack. It's a turning point so massive that I believe Putin will be forced to take drastic action to try and show that he is still winning the war. Could he use tactical nukes against Ukraine? He will be sorely tempted. If he does, then the war will spread to Nato. This is such a dire thought that I hardly dare put it into print. But far from seeking an end to the war, Putin is going to accelerate and expand the conflict. He has built a war economy and is producing so many tanks that he will want to use them. The promise by Sir Keir Starmer today to start converting Britain into war-readiness sounds bold but perhaps too late. Al the things he has promised, such as more nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines, will take years. Putin might make his move well before then.

What does Pete Hegseth mean by "imminent"?

Talking to a bunch of top people in the foreign and security policy business in Singapore, Pete Hegseth, the Trumpite US defence secretary, warned that a Chinese attack on Taiwan was "imminent". What does he mean by "imminent"? The definition of imminent is "likely to happen at any moment" and is generally accepted to mean that whatever it is is on the very point of occurring. Like, a person's death is "imminent", ie he has hours to live. So is that what Hegseth meant? That China is literally poised to invade Taiwan, like tomorrow or the next day at the latest? Surely not. I don't think so. If it was true, there would be signs of a massive build-up of PLA warships, amphibious craft, fighter jets, ballistic missiles all turned in the direction of Taiwan and so on. But there is no sign or any intelligence of this going on. Nor do I think Beijing is actually ready for an invasion of Taiwan. Politically, Xi Zinping might just risk it in the belief that Trump won't bother to retaliate by defending Taiwan, but, militarily, the PLA needs more time for rehearsals. They've got until 2027 when Xi said Taiwan will be back under the Beijing fold whether by diplomacy or force. So, not imminent then, not tomorrow or next week or even next month. Hegseth was stirring it up, I guess, and he certainly did that with Beijing which warned him to stop interfering.