He's right, but Miliband will never go for it.
08.03.2026 21:51
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
He's right, but Miliband will never go for it.
When you invite someone to speak on a subject that was the title of their book and they say that's not their area 😆
Grrr, I mean they should have deployed HMS Dragon earlier but if you're looking to identify who's responsible for us only having a handful of destroyers, it's the fault of governments 15-20 years ago.
Interesting headline in The Economist...I'd say the Israelis have a pretty clear strategy, even if the US doesn't..
What also fascinates me is note the complete absence of impact of the digital age...wasn't that supposed to transform output? Make us all super productive?
Event link tinyurl.com/39zsat6y
Feel free to share with your networks @gunjans.bsky.social @timbale.bsky.social @preciouschatd.bsky.social @drdonnasmith.bsky.social
@filippoboni.bsky.social
@jamiegaskarth.bsky.social
@simonusherwood.bsky.social
@drgholmes.bsky.social
@oupolitics.bsky.social
For no particular breaking topical reason, a recent (award-winning) cartoon.
Thinking about publishing your research on global security?
#JoGSS welcomes submissions across several formats:
• Research Articles (8,000–10,000 words)
• Research Innovations (3,000–5,000 words)
• Forums (3,000–4,000 words)
• Special Issues
• Correspondence (max 1,000 words)
The idea is one Type 45 can do the job of multiple previous ships. The problem is, if you don't have as many, they're not on the scene when you need them, but they'll be there in a week.
Come on, why should Iran have all the fun of antagonising every single state in the region?
It is the best national anthem to be fair.
Then you get into the weeds. Army apparently has a 12 month wait for semiconductors. If we wanted autonomy, you're talking 4 to 5% GDP pa on defence, extra 40bn.
Yep, I completely agree with your ambition and we could do more, but can't do it alone or make the leap until there's somewhere to land safely.
Nuclear has come on leaps and bounds in recent years. Fuel much more stable and less pollutant. On NATO, this is the leader talking. Granted not official policy but what he says he wants:
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
If we were going to try and recreate the sort of capability we get from our US partnership, you'd need a massive shift in our intelligence, logistics, strategic lift, SEAD/DEAD, ISTAR, not to mention mass. Only France and possibly Germany have tech and ind base.
Nuclear is the easy bit. It's opaque and sovereign so doesn't entail any hard domestic choices. UK has lent its deterrent to NATO since 1962...
It's hard to disagree on Starmer's indecision (defence investment plan?!) But Europe (namely France) needs to step up. Their actions on FCAP (Franco-German fighter) and SAFE (defence fund) suggest they're not anywhere near a place where you'd risk going all in with them.
Check out their actual policies rather than their vibes. They want to get rid of nuclear power (which would hit our net zero aims). They want to withdraw from NATO and get rid of nuclear deterrent (which would leave us defenceless, especially since they wouldn't invest in conventional forces).
Excellent piece here by @rafaelbehr.bsky.social. Starmer can't outbid the extremes of the Greens or Reform. All he can do is tread a fine line and keep British interests as the focus.
I prefer wrong-headed to weak.
Given these countries, incl UK, did not support US strikes, you tell me...
It's an interesting point. I'd say we're obligated to defend UK military bases. Even on citizens, you can't get them to safety while airports are being attacked with missiles and flights are grounded.
Exactly!
I think that's also true but lumping 'Muslim' voters into one block is misleading. There is far more unity on Palestine than on Iran.
If you're wondering why Starmer first refused US access to UK bases then granted it, I suspect the answer is the same in both cases: US plan is flaky as hell. Shd we join illegal strikes on a country capable of retaliating, with someone this clueless about what next?
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/u...
I think you're right. It's basically a sectarian play for a minority of Muslim and progressive votes. But if the gov was better at explaining itself it would crumble on contact.
Green Party apparently wouldn't defend British citizens and UK bases under attack.
But he's been absolutely right hasn't he? Must we always judge actions on how it plays rather than whether the policy is the right one?
Tbf, he doesn't describe the US as a partner. 'Partners in the Gulf' refers to Gulf states ....
Same!