Air defence for the UK in 2026

A bit later than intended: but I said we'd have a post on Badenoch and her £10 bn 'Britannia Shield'. 

One should never fall for "the bomber will always get through" as an excuse for doing nothing.  She's right that we haven't been doing remotely enough.  But we need to examine both the history of our air defences and the current threats, to recognise the challenge we face.

1.  WW1  No air defences at all, until some fighters were belatedly deployed against Zeppelins.  Even then, the casualties per ton of bombs dropped, on an essentially unprepared nation, were extraordinary - so much so that, extrapolating to the Luftwaffe's bombing resources, it was estimated that London alone would suffer a quarter of a million casualties in the first week of a prospective WW2**.

2.  WW2  Fortunately, this didn't result in a policy of What's The Point?  Quite the reverse.  Making good use of the months of Phoney War, effective multi-layer defences were instituted.  Radar station, very capable fighter cover, barrage balloons, anti-aircraft guns, air raid shelters of various types, blackouts, ARP wardens and teams of fire watchers.  

All very well: but that's a time of flat-out national effort, no expense spared.

Cold War  A very different enemy, based in East Germany and point eastwards, with no aircraft carriers.  Our interceptors were pretty effective but, by the 1960s, few in number: our long-range AA missiles (Bloodhound, Thunderbird) were not impressive, neither in quality nor quantity.  Quite plainly, the strategy was one of (a) forward defence on the Lüneburg Heide & (b) hide behind the Americans.  

The one area in which some rather more impressive protective measures were put in place against air attack was the Navy, which was then upgraded significantly post Falklands / Exocet. 

But now, however well armed, we can't muster a single destroyer on demand!  So a protective line of these vessels is certainly out of the question.

Threat in 2026  It's not bombers!  RAF Typhoons may be expected to make short work of any stray Tu-95s.  Clearly, it's cruise missiles (however launched), ballistic missiles and, since Ukraine's impressive Spiderweb operation, drones launched from lurking trucks and coastal vessels.  Here's the thing.  The USA and Israel have invested mightily in "exquisite" air defences, and since February have been comprehensively taken to the cleaners by Iran.  

Solutions  Our needs are not the same as theirs, however; and as regards long range missiles, forward defence in the classic sense remains the solution (though not for Poland et al).  What else can / should be done?

Firstly, get the well-armed destroyers operational!  In recent years the Navy has become a disgrace.  (Gordon Brown's bloody aircraft carriers are of course much to blame.)   

We may safely rule out Trump's 'Golden Dome' as a solution or model for us: £10 bn doesn't buy you much down that track.  Passive defence - hardening our military assets - must be part of the plan: but Russia, the USA, Israel and the Gulf States have discovered that it's really difficult to protect infrastructure (being static, with locations known precisely).  The Russians have in fact tried to harden their refineries, to no avail.  (As regards the Spiderweb military targets, they hadn't even tried.)

When we get down to the level of hostile drone swarms, it's not clear the 'nuclear option' - even supposing we had an independent capability - gets us very far.  Another very important form of forward defence is intelligence from all sources, which should definitely be beefed up: we're even quite good at it.  

Which brings us to tech solutions, which probably require a load of R&D - and not into the exquisite systems that can't be afforded.  Early-warning detection systems are definitely needed for ship-launched short-range cruise missiles: shouldn't be beyond the nation that developed radar.  The real puzzle is the drone swarm from within, or just offshore.  Detection at a distance?  I am not abreast of the latest technology, but it seems implausible to me.  However, no detection = precious little chance of shooting down: so R&D should go into that, too.  If the drones were to be guided or require Starlink, it's possible GCHQ might have a very useful role.  But Ukraine deploys pre-programmed autonomous drones requiring merely the initial launch command.   

Finally, bringing down drones on the perimeter of targets, 'Goalkeeper' style (albeit all these things are easier at sea).  We're in danger of getting into science fiction here, but is there some kind of laser etc that could both detect and defeat an attack on the spot?  It needs to be cheap, if it's to be deployed at scale. 

Last thought: we should (continue to) stay close to Ukraine in these matters.  They are so far ahead of the game, we could do a lot worse than making this a joint venture. 

Any other perspectives?

ND

_______________

** The authorities were debating as to whether the bodies should be dumped in to the gravel pits where Heathrow is today, or into the Thames at high tide.

"Manchesterism" - seems like we've been here before

 ... and it didn't end well.

"Manchesterism" - not to be confused with Manchester Liberalism - is intended to mean something easily grasped for political purposes: greater interventionism at the civic level.  This is supposed, a priori, to have obvious benefits yielding excellent results.  Well, maybe, sometimes.  The ideal degree of devolution is as long as a piece of string: how many Scots feel their once vaunted education system, or the Welsh their vaunted health service, have benefitted from greater devolved control?  Objectively, the results suggest otherwise.  And the ludicrous Rebecca Long-Bailey's equally ludicrous 2019 Labour manifesto plans for ultra-devolution of the energy industry (down to the level of units of "around 200 households" owning their own local energy infrastructure) provide the reductio ad absurdum of 

And there are reasons to think that Burnham's model isn't what it's thought to be: that he's basically encouraged commercial property development on a significant scale, which can't easily be replicated across the nations.  A glance at the pages of every issue of Private Eye and its years-long revelations of naked, industrial-scale corruption on Teesside for the personal benefit of a very small number of individuals, shows that local devolved powers can end up being shockingly abused. 

But there's another factor.  Remember how Neville Chamberlain came to Westminster as the dynastic hereditary king of Birmingham, with municipalism in that other great city as his calling card.  He didn't do so well in the corridors of Whitehall - or of Bad Godersberg and Munich (notwithstanding some recent revisionist versions of events there).  Maybe in other nations there is a wothwhile tradition of fine presidents and prime ministers coming up the local government / Big City Mayoral route.  But not around these parts. 

Do we see any signs that Andy is up to the bigger job?  Municipalism is not enough, Mr Burnham.  

ND

Jury trials, for and against

Photo: BBC

A bit of a plate-spinner here, pre-scheduled.  I⁴'ve been meaning to open this one up for a while now but, well, events.

So:  judge-only trials for criminal offences?  OK, Lammy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer [1] but then again, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied; and the backlog in the courts is appalling.  Balancing the system by waiting for victims and witnesses to lose heart (or die) is no way to dispense justice.  The guilty go free by default and simple delaying tactics.

But hey, if it's me in the dock, there are circumstances in which I probably want a jury; and I think most people agree.  And, although it's strictly irrelevant to the criminal cases I'm most concerned with, I was once party to a massive civil case in the commercial courts which in the USA would have been heard by a jury, and (all parties agreed [2]) would definitely have gone only one way - but here, being heard only by a single judge, it went the other way on a judicial whim over an odd technicality, and required overturning at Appeal.

I reckon we know where the blame lies, not least in the shocking reduction in funding for the CJS by the Tories: and covid didn't help; nor the latitude given to defence lawyers to waste time - one of the juries I sat on (a murder trial) saw some remarkable time-wasting being accommodated, albeit testily, by the judge.  Somebody has to address the situation, somehow - under whatever leadership.

So what can we agree on?

• truly, the backlog has got to be addressed decisively
• we've long ago sold the pass on really nasty terrorist cases (N.Ireland, where the threat to juries is chillingly real - and that might spread across more of the realm in years to come, you don't need me to paint the scenarios)
• having sat on three juries, I tremble at the thought of jury trials for complex cases of fraud & the like
• hey, I'm an old soldier and know all about summary justice at first hand: it has to be a very serious offence before it gets anywhere near a Court Martial [3]
• so like taxation, it's already happened, & how much more in future is all a matter of degree

What else then, does t'readership think on this most critical of issues for a society supposedly built on the rule of law? [4] 

ND

____________

[1]   And nowadays it seems to be OK to point this out: everyone else does.  This has surprised me somewhat.  I had several accounts of what a good impression Lammy made in a handful of trips to the USA in 2023/24.  But there we have it - by common consent, the man's a laughing stock.  Pity he's in charge of this difficult issue.

[2]  So clear was this to all concerned that the party which won at First Instance was desperate to have the case heard in England, and they succeeded.  Conversely, the other party had tried equally desperately to have it heard in the USA.  Some $400m was at stake. 

[3]  For any US readers, in the British Armed Forces we don't term regimental-level justice a 'CM': it's a term reserved for full military trials with defence counsel etc.  (No juries, though: an experienced panel.)  At the regimental level or below ('CO's Orders' or 'OC's Orders'), evidence is taken, but it's summary justice, CO = judge-and-jury.  As my first Sergeant Major explained, the process is straightforward:  "March the guilty party in.  Find the guilty party 'Guilty'.  March the guilty party out."  GP will be invited to elect for CM, but it never happens: Sergeant Major makes sure of that, too.  Oh no, son, you don't want that.  You definitely don't want that.

[4]  I shan't open up an episode of History Corner on you - Henrys I and II, Edward I, and Henry VII 

Streeting will land us with Miliband

I'm off on a short hol, but I leave you with my view - a prediction that has been simmering for 18 months, as you know (check the Mili tag).

• It's clear enough why Streeting might feel his only chance (ever) is to move now
• He may get 80 signatures, but he won't get elected
• Not sure if Starmer will stand and fight - John Major did (and won), but that was different in material ways
• In any case, if Streeting moves, Miliband wins

Have fun.   If I can find some wifi in a few days time, I might join in.

ND

________________

PS: the lefties at Novara are often quite good on lefty stuff, but made a really ridiculous assessment on Tuesday evening.  They said Miliband doesn't fly "because he's been rejected by the electorate before".  FFS!

1. The electorate ain't being consulted
2. errr ... Harold Wilson 1974?
3. errr ... Donald Trump 2024?
4. - plus loads of French and Italian politicians who think nothing of going round for a second bite  

PPS:  Rayner's 11th-hour "exoneration" is pretty damn' convenient, eh???  For Starmer as well as for her.  Sounds to me like the story of McSweeney's 'phone: nobody's gonna believe it. 

Stonewall Starmer goes full 'Sierra'

Not as much fun as you thought?

Having long suggested that Team Starmer fully intends to tough it out - and they had plenty of advanced notice and planning time [1] for this crisis, at least - that's how it still seems, & strongly so, at the time of writing.  There's only one oven-ready candidate in the wings, with no "anyone but [Wes]" votes against him: our old pick Ed Miliband.  

Team S is pursuing what I call the Sierra Strategy when I'm strategising in business.  Recall the Ford jallopy of that name?  Having had many years of consummate success with its predecessor, the smart rust-bucket Cortina line[2], Marks 1-4, Ford went for a fairly 'bold' new look.  The 'jelly-mould' hatchback found immediate disfavour, and despite the usual launch promotions sales were not good.

Ford had a massive call to make:  re-skin and rebrand it fairly promptly with as much commercial dignity as possible, or double down.  They doubled down with massive corporate determination.  Advertising, deep discounts, promotions of all kinds, a smarter Ghia variant that was half-decent - everything in the marketing man's book of tricks.  For several years!  Dunno what this campaign cost, or how the counterfactual might have played out: but in terms of sheer brute force to get the Sierra into the top 3 or 4 UK best-sellers, they succeeded.  And that's Starmer now.

PS, Miliband is sitting there trying to figure his optimum positioning for picking up the crown when it falls.  And a coronation is what he wants: no knife-job.  My guess?  At the critical moment, he offers Starmer Foreign Secretary and a big Euro-push mandate.  Kier, we can both make history together ...     

PPS  If you think Starmer is stonewalling impressively, just watch Trump between now and the mid-terms.  He'll be looking at everything from conjuring a genuine crisis in order to call them off, to calling the results void - and calling out the National Guard in every state that returns a Dem.    

ND  

_________________

[1]  E.g. the timing of the King's Speech

[2]  The Mk 1 started life as just the plain 'Consul'.  Didn't play ideally, so they changed it to 'Consul Cortina' (as opposed to its predecessor the 'Consul Classic'.  See, these Ford guys were always sharp with marketing-based solutions. 

Trump and Putin: making up war aims on the fly

You don't need to be a second Clausewitz to know that wars of choice should have well-defined goals before even the planning gets underway, let alone the execution[1].  In saying this, nobody is advocating total inflexibility thereafter; but to launch a war without proper goals at the outset is just buccaneering adventurism.

It's a commonplace observation that Trump hasn't a clue what he's doing in the Middle East, beyond representing a vague, atavistic American fixation with Iran, and harbouring a ludicrously and dangerously false equation between Venezuela 2026 and Iran 2026.  To the extent he sometimes feels the urge to state one or more war aims, he's issued so many over the hours, days and weeks that it merely goes to reinforce his brainlessness.  (To its credit, the intelligentsia in the USA is gradually shaking off its paralysis of 2025 and is ready to call him out in scathing detail -  see this from the estimable Ryan Evans.)  Already we can offer his Iranian adventure as a perfect illustration of the principle given above: and we haven't remotely seen the full downside potential yet.

But there's another perfect illustration bubbling away somewhere north of Iran, where Putin still conducts his own ill-conceived war on Ukraine.

At the very outset, he articulated two war aims, plus a long list of gripes and grievances.  They were: (A) to "de-Nazify" Ukraine's body politic; and (B) to "demilitarise Ukraine".  In the same announcement he declared he had no territorial claims on Ukraine (sic), although it's fair to note that at the same time he was asserting that Luhansk and Donetsk were independent countries.  And of course he assumed that after his lightning war, there would be a puppet regime in Kyiv, Belarus-style, that would render territorial conquest irrelevant.

[In the runup to the "special military operation" (which was "defensive, in aid of Luhansk and Donetsk"), he had of course demanded that NATO and the EU shun Ukraine, and that the former must withdraw to pre-accession borders.  But those were hardly war aims: he hoped they'd fall into his lap at the negotiating table when Ukraine was, errr, defeated.]

Given A and B above, manifestly he has completely and utterly failed even by his own lights; and everyone in Russia knows it.  There has been no regime change in Kyiv, whatever childish political label he wants to attach to it.  And demilitarisation?  Pound for pound, Ukraine now has the best army in the world, a thriving defence industry, world-leading expertise in drone warfare, etc etc; and is reducing a vastly larger force to ruinously costly advances through unimportant hamlets at snail's pace.   Oh yes, and on the other side of the front line it is degrading Russia's mighty energy industry to a material degree; periodically grounding its civil air movements; blocking its ports; sinking its ships; and (in conjunction with sanctions) hobbling its economy.   

Here's where it gets interesting for the theme of this post.  Reports from fairly reliable Russian sources suggest Putin is under tremendous internal political pressure to find an off-ramp before the economy nosedives.  Those oligarchs still have some sway, if they conduct themselves cautiously.  One major thrust of this exercise[2] is to come up with some - wait for it - War Aims, such as can plausibly be declared duly accomplished.  Then it's "home for tea and medals" as we say in the British Army.

What, then, do we imagine his newly-forged war aims will be?  It's a serious question, notwithstanding  that sarcastic suggestions come quickly to mind.  

We'll take both kinds BTL - let's see what we can come up with to help L'il Volodya with Project "Absolute Victory26".

ND 

________________

[1] Long-time readers will know I often laud George HW Bush (Bush Snr) for his adherence to this principle when setting out to evict Saddam from Kuwait, 1990-91.  More on that conflict by following the 'Kuwait' and 'Saddam' tags on that post.

[2] Another is to keep plugging away at Trump, trying to persuade him that utter Ukrainian defeat is just around the corner, so why not tell Zelensky to surrender?  Yeah, right.  I have a feeling the moment for this gambit has passed.

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers?  Or "talks"?  Or even "talks about talks"?  Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company.  Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them.  But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved.  There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out.  We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions.  We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on.  Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes.  Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price.  The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode.  With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones:  you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties.  But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since.  I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.)  For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on.  Heaven help us all.

ND

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock.  Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time.  But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom.  Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings).  They'll back you up against it every time. 

Steve Borthwick in Italy

He won't thank me for recalling this, but Steve Borthwick's past dealings in Italy do not encourage optimism for this afternoon.  In his (brief) period as England captain many years ago, his team performed miserably in Rome, ekeing out a slender win against an Italian side a lot less impressive than today's.  But in a deeply unconvincing post-match interview he lavished praise on England's "great performance".

He was shown the door shortly after, by Martin Johnson (IIRC), a man who knew what a great performance was.

I've never been convinced by Borthwick, his "technical knowledge" and that winning season at Leicester notwithstanding.   This afternoon looks ominously like Italy's great chance to register their first ever Victory against England.

ND

When does the AI bubble burst - and what then?

That AI is currently inflating a mighty economic bubble is a commonplace observation.  A vast proportion of US economic growth (as conventionally measured) and stock market value is related to AI.  Every damned company on the planet is trying to portray itself as somehow AI-contributing or AI-powered - and they are frequently getting a gratifying share-price kicker from it[1].  Presumably, the pension industry is pretty addicted by now.

In the real world, the vast and (we are told) exponentially-growing demand for electricity - 100% secure baseload electricity to boot - made by data centres is seriously distorting electric power-system planning for many a nation.  Coming atop the average grid's already torturing itself - and its hapless bill-payers - to accommodate the diametrically opposed demands of a decentralised renewables-based future, this is a serious spanner in the works.  And of course governments everywhere are anxious to play host to new data centres, Starmer's as much as any; and are making this a policy priority.   But the (would-be) data centre builders have twigged that these contortions on the part of conventional grid operators may very probably not prove successful - and thus are talking about joint ventures with nuclear generators and ... sponsoring nuclear fusion development! [2]  Yup, it's a completely irrational bubble.     

But what does that tell us about AI itself?   Not much, beyond the obvious fact that it has gripped the universal imagination to the extent that dollar signs rotate in every businessman's eyeballs.  

Well.  Railways had a mania, and many a railway company went bust.  The technology and much of the infrastructure they built is still evolving and very much in use.  We had a dotcom bubble.  It burst, alright, but it didn't mean the internet was a phantasm.  Enron was a bubble: but it didn't mean the Enron vision for how energy markets should be configured was wrong.  (Even China is trying to figure out how to bring that revolution into its own constipated energy sector.)  Etc etc - these techie-based phenomena are not like Dutch tulip mania: nobody needs tulips, but everyone needs railways / electricity / the www / .... and, probably, we'll continue to want and need the advances that are made under the banner of 'AI'.

So: if history is any guide, it'll be a painful financial collapse; a reshuffle of the runners and riders in the "AI industry" (for those who don't break a leg & are not shot by the vet); and the underlying new tech rumbles on to find a more stable way to become a permanent fixture in all our economies and our ways of life. 

Views?  Predictions?  Timing ..?

ND

UPDATE: a bucket of cold water over certain claims for AI:

________________

[1]  Even Drax, FFS - a floundering, downsizing biomass-burning power company.  

[2]  On the eve of the 2007-09 financial crisis, a high-end energy-specialist VC firm of my acquaintance was looking for opportunities to invest in unsubsidised nuclear powerplant development.  When money is aimlessly sloshing about on that scale, that's when you really know a financial crash is coming soon.

The veterans problem in Ukraine

Following on from the earlier post on Russia's fairly comprehensive plans for its future tsunami of troubled veterans, we now turn to Ukraine.  The situation looks potentially to be much, much worse.

On the one hand, whatever the 'outcome', Russia will still be there and Ukraine will not be able to stand down its army.

On the other, its overall manpower problem has been dire from Day 1.  If Zelensky has dropped any balls at all, the biggest has been his failure to crack on with a proper conscription plan: so Ukraine has been fighting the war with men (and women) predominantly of age 30+, some a lot older still, when everyone knows that (infantry) warfare is a business for 18+.  Those 30+'s have fought magnificently - much, much better than the Russian rabble** they have faced - but there is a limit.  Meanwhile, back on the home front, a large percentage of the remaining male population has been (a) bribing the local commissar to keep themselves out of the recruiting office, and/or (b) skipping abroad.  There is only so much that can be delegated to a fleet of drones, across a battlefield as large as Ukraine's.

The demographic problem resulting from this is acute, and can only get worse; and I haven't seen much sign of it being addressed.  Well, there's a helluva lot else going on.

The precise details of how this plays out will depend upon exactly how the current conflict is "frozen".  There are of course many scenarios - too many to legislate for every possibility.  There are just two strands I think will feature in any case.

1.  For many years forward the EU (and prob the UK) will be sending huge amounts of cash to Ukraine for civil reconstruction and societal rebuilding (a dismal proportion of which will be swiftly embezzled, as has been the case throughout) - it's the only thing the EU really knows how to do;

2.  There will be very many violent men roaming the world, offering their services as mercenaries or enforcers for organised crime, either as thugs or as expert hackers and drone operators.  As regards the thugs, go back to the first post: that's what happened after Russia / Afghanistan; it's what galvanises Putin; and that was small beer by comparison.

Per the earlier post again: at least Putin is thinking about it.  He has that luxury.  It will take a worldscale genius to solve Ukraine's manpower issues: and if no such person emerges, the legacy will be long and baleful.  Brave, brave Ukraine deserves something better.

ND

_________________

*  I first met Russian soldiers in the flesh in 1985 at a conference in Potsdam.  They were an unutterable rabble, the officers and men of the proud Soviet Army.  The officers wandered around in public with their tunics raffishly unbuttoned and their hats at rakish angles, a parody of caddish behaviour.  The men were pathetically thin and unsoldierly in their ill-fitting, coarse uniforms and bizarre outsize flat caps.  And this was 3rd Shock Army, the tip of the spear!  Forty years on, nothing much seems to have changed: it was troops like this that were humiliated in just a few weeks in Feb-March 2022, and driven off the field in full rout during Ukraine's Kharkiv counter-offensive in the September of that year.

Russia plans for the return of 'troubled' veterans

Among many dire woes of various kinds, the combatants in the war in Ukraine each have a massive problem brewing: what to do with their armies when fighting ceases.  Any nation does, and always has had.  The details are different in each case: I'll look at Russia in this post.  

The objective diagnosis is this: hugely disgruntled Russian soldiery returning from their 10-year adventure in Afghanistan 1979-1989, brought with them many personal problems, and were not well looked after.  They in turn caused no end of social problems themselves, many of the most violent, brutal and criminal  kind.  Putin knows all about this from his KGB days, in even more detail than every Russian citizen knows anyway.  There will be even more returnees from the 'Special Military Operation' (SMO); and thus far, there has been no large-scale demobilisation (perhaps for this very reason).  Even so, those few who have returned, on leave or wounded or just deserters, have been causing all the expected problems.  This is not least because when they are serving in the SMO their pay is substantially better than anything they'll return to - often their reason for signing up in the first place.  The towns from which they hail (mostly quite a long way from Moscow ...) are trembling at the thought of this happening on a large scale.

Zhukov: definitely not wanted by Stalin in 1946
photo: MoD Russian Federation  Mil.ru

Coupled with this is a particular Russian problem: its post-Tsarist leadership has always feared the military.  Communist parties always do, the world over: doctrinally, they recognise no higher power than the Party - but they have obviously also spotted that large numbers of men trained in violence are themselves potentially a rival source of power to be reckoned with.  Lenin's first actions on taking power were (a) to strike a peace with Germany, quickly followed by (b) disarming the army. Shortly after WW2, Stalin (who had of course eviscerated the Russian army officer corps in the 1930s) dispatched Marshal Zhukov, undisputed victor of the Eastern Front, to effective banishment (ironically, to the Odessa Military District), such was the Marshal's popularity and stature.

Irrespective of the details of whatever outcome in Ukraine, Putin - shaken to his core by Prigozhin just two years ago - knows he has to deal with this comprehensively.  Phase One, as noted above, is probably just to avoid demobilising at all for as long as possible.  Phase Two is the "Time of Heroes" programme being rolled out, that will reserve a range of sinecures in civic society (in government, deputy mayoral posts etc etc) for veterans of the SMO.  Now, word is coming out that veterans will be packed off en masse to build new infrastructure and enterprises in ... Siberia!  (And Murmansk, which is just as cold.)  The pay won't be great but it will be a job ...  As one Russian cynic has it:

"Veterans have already fulfilled the most important task of the state - to fight our enemies. Who, if not them, should perform new tasks, be ahead of everyone in this matter? Veterans, current and future, let's be honest, in civilian life, many of you will not be able to earn as much as in the army. Resettlement in Siberia will be an excellent (and for some, the only) way for you to find yourself in a peaceful life," 

 ... oh, and it won't be anywhere near Moscow.

Still, at least Putin is thinking about it strategically.  Unlike so many other aspects of the SMO.  Well, au fond, his training was KGB.

ND

Darren Jones: a different kettle of fish

In the right hands, the plumb job in Government is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.  Seat in Cabinet.  Just below the radar, but enormous power.  In charge of government spending - everybody needs to be your friend.   The best springboard imaginable: the partial list below is revealing[1].

And now, CSttT Darren Jones has sprung into another such job: CSttPM, no less, invented specifically for him, it seems (and to help dig the Starmermobile out of the rut in which its wheels are spinning idly as the engine races).  Yes - Darren, the sharp, confident, facetious smartarse, is in charge of more than just spending now.  Let's see what he does with it:  because such jobs and such people are in the type of pivotal position that can see significant results along several axes, personal as well as political and practical.

In business, the term once used was "troubleshooter" - a person appointed to get something Big & Awkward done, often away from the corporate centre.  Julius Caesar is perhaps the greatest example in history; there's Wellington and Slim in British military annals (and many other besides, of course).  Douglas MacArthur: the list could go on.  Right now, Putin has Sergei Kiriyenko[2].  It's happened to me three times in my career: being given plenipotentiary powers in the hope I could fix some unexpected, pressing difficulty.

The thing is: you're never sure how things will turn out - with the task itself, and what the Man does afterwards.  Caesar came back in triumph from Gaul - and immediately mounted a successful coup.  MacArthur had a coup in mind himself.  Wellington was a bit more constitutionally correct when he had the whole of Europe at his feet: he still became PM.  But Slim just quietly slipped away[3].

The troubleshooter appointment will always be given to someone believed to be capable - that's the whole point - but often also to someone viewed as maverick, which can give rise to the problematic aspect of what happens after the hoped-for success; the unwanted consequence of the Faustian pact.  And if he wasn't (identifiably) a maverick before the assignment, well, lots of power and a free hand, sometimes exercised way out over the horizon ... it can turn a man's head.  Capable, and hitherto reliable, doesn't always mean predictable.

We shall follow Mr Jones' progress with interest.

ND

____________________

[1] Past CSttT's include: James Callaghan, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Portillo, Alistair Darling, Danny Alexander, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak.  (Oh yes, and Chris Philp, whose ambitious little heart nearly exploded at the prospect he had it made, when he briefly held the job.)

[2]  If you haven't heard of him, well most people haven't.  Aye, there's the wonder of the thing - as Sherlock Holmes said in related circumstances

[3]  Zhukov, of course, was effectively banished to Siberia!  but the CP has always been paranoid about military leaders: when you need 'em, you really need 'em.  But afterwards ...  

“Chance favours the prepared mind”: lithium batteries

Citing Pasteur's famous dictum, this article from a couple of years ago tells the remarkable story of the development to commerciality of the lithium-ion battery.  

And it's a classic illustration of just how messy and random much of science and business can be.  In this case, at least a UK organisation made some reasonable money from it! 

A great read.

ND

Some lawyers know the law: some know the judge ...

Well, someone on Team Trump knows their game: gotta love the symbolism of meeting in Alaska!  Yup, Li'l Volodya / L'il Volodymyr, it's real estate.  Sometimes you wish a former territory was still yours - but sometimes that's just history and we all move on.  Great stuff.

While we await the ghastly prospect of Trump and Putin sitting around the map of Ukraine drawing arbitrary lines (and Putin wetting himself with pleasure at meeting the Great Man again), here's the story I promised you'd get.

*   *   *   *

Many years ago I was working for (*gasp*) an oil & gas company, and had planning responsibility for our ops in a certain African country.  A plum piece of offshore acreage was up for grabs and we wanted it: but another company had a rather more compelling claim.  The acreage was contiguous with a play they'd been working very productively for several years, and their geo-data strongly suggested the oilfield they were producing extended into the new block.  It is technically possible for business to be conducted effectively by two separate developers accessing a single field that straddles a licence-line - you need to negotiate a "unitisation" agreement - but it's messy, not least in primitive jurisdictions (are you allowed to say that? - Ed).  So the incumbent was strongly motivated to pitch hard for the new acreage.  We had some neighbouring acreage, too, which thus far had not yielded any discoveries.  But we weren't deterred: the prize was great.

The minister, replete with tribal hat and fly-whisk, decreed that he would make his determination at the end of a grand meeting where he'd hear each side make its case.  Along came the incumbent with a slick slide-show of all their geo-data: a fine technical presentation that was pretty persuasive - judged on its own terms.

But our chief geologist was a canny Frenchman (Basque, actually - we'll call him Vasco), and this was a Francophone country.  When the incumbent's team had finished their polished performance, he strode up to the table with a large map that he unrolled theatrically and plonked down several paperweights to hold it flat.  It was a simple map of the seabed, with few markings: the lines of the various licence areas; and seabed contours.

Now seabed contours don't have very much to do with what lies thousands of feet beneath (OK: nothing whatsoever).  But they made the plot that was up for grabs look a lot more natural a fit with our existing area, than with the incumbents.  Our man's presentation was short and simple, and he concluded it with a grand, sweeping gallic hand-gesture across the map, indicating the perfect logic of his contour-based argument.  Then he sat down.

The minister pondered all things in his heart, and then rose to the table.  He addressed the assembled host with these words:

Moi, je comprends l'argument de Monsieur Vasco

With this, he grandly replicated the sweeping gesture across the map; turned on his heel; and awarded us the licence.

*   *   *   *   *

I think we can guess what Putin's maps are going to look like.  Heaven help Zelensky on 15th.

ND

Russian strategy revisited

Last year I offered a short account of how evolving Russian practice on the Ukrainian battlefield was starting to show signs of being in pursuit of an identifiable strategy (after two years of unbelievably inept, strategy-free military nonsense); and how that would be viewed - highly critically - through the lens of classic Soviet military doctrine.  The current state of the Trump-triggered "negotiations" makes it useful to revisit that account, and add a bit more salient detail from that Soviet playbook.

Recapping: under Soviet doctrine the offensive should be mounted on a series of broadly parallel axes, simultaneously, across a fairly wide front.  A graphic analogy might be swinging forcefully into the opponent with a heavy club featuring several long, protruding sharp nails.  The desired 'phase 1' effect is inflicting direct damage, plus pinning the enemy into position with much reduced ability to manoeuvre to right, left, or even backwards.  The doctrine prescribes several subsequent phases to deal with what remains, and straighten the line between the multiple puncture-incursions made in phase 1.

That's if the action lasts beyond the first several days of phase 1.  We didn't extend the account in that earlier post: but taking matters a stage beyond the initial phase, the Russians foresaw a contingency in which NATO, reeling from the initial, puncturing blow but for whatever reason unwilling to escalate to nukes, called for a 'freeze' and negotiations.  In such a case, the Russian claim on territory would essentially be delineated by just that straightened line, obtained (more or less) by joining the dots between the furthest point reached of each of the breakthrough axes.  Obviously, there would be some finessing: if they'd over-reached on one axis, they'd be only too happy to 'concede' along that line and fall back to something handily defensible.

Then ... rinse and repeat on a rachet basis twenty years later, or whatever.

The Soviet critique of Russia's performance 2022-25 would be simple: beyond Day 1 back in Feb '22, where's the shock?  The whole strategy is predicated on massive firepower and speed, see the earlier post[1].

However ... perhaps all these lessons have been learned, and Russia intends its 2025 summer campaign to culminate in just such an offensive.  It's not difficult to conceive the current state of play on the  Kharkiv front as being shaped for such a development, and even posit the precise axes that would be involved.  Ditto the front south of Ukraine's 'fortress belt'.

And Trump looks just the man to sit with a map, extend his stumpy finger, and offer Putin the territory east of a straightened line of his own devising [2].  I'd judge Putin's dream outcome for 2025 would be an offensive like the one surmised above over the next several weeks; then a sit-down with Trump and a big map before the autumn rains begin.  Militarily, anything oversimplified in geographical / topographical terms could be an utter disaster for Ukraine.  Out on those open plains, largely devoid of the hills and forests we automatically think of in Western Europe, the only inherent primary obstacles are water-courses, towns and strongpoints.  Failure to factor in the precise geography of the water-courses in particular, and as a defender you're sunk. 

Well, Putin can dream.  Let's see what kind of Soviet-style offensive his army can muster in the next few weeks.  I doubt Stalin would be particularly impressed.  

ND

_________________

[1] Also upon the 3rd of the triad: manoeuvre - see that earlier post - absence of which would be another major criticism of Russia's current venture.

[2] I'll tell another story on that theme next week

Naming Corbyn's New Party

So old gaffer Corbyn is inviting suggestions for names for his and Zarah Sultana's new leftie-Islamist micro-party.  He wants it to be "short, inclusive, and effective in bringing people in".

First thoughts must surely be:

• The People's Popular Front for the Liberation of Bedsitland
• The Popular Front for the People's Liberation of Bedsitland
• The Bedsitland People's Popular Liberation Front
• The Popular Liberation Front for the People of Bedsitland

One of those should surely be inclusive: they all cover the main ground.  But he's right that 'short' is also probably necessary to be effective in the age of TikTok when attention-spans, not to mention reading ages, might not run to a name with nine words.  We all remember how effective "Respect" was.

Bearing that in mind, and other salient factors, on balance I feel they should go with

• 'Splitters'

That has a nice, catchy ring to it, plus some deep and relevant political baggage for those of an historical bent.  Come to think about it, that's probably Sultana under that fetching black garb - and indeed Jeremy himself in the final few frames of this famous Party Political Broadcast ...

ND

Trump and his solo bomb damage assessment

There's history when it comes to "bomb damage assessment* by top-down diktat" & I'll relate one example closer to home than the Donald's private, untutored convictions about what has happened in Iran.

The UK started WW2 with an outmoded aerial reconnaissance model which (in a different context) we've written about before. 

The original use of aviation in WW1, right from the very first days in 1914, had been for reconnaissance.  The second use was for shooting down the enemy's recce aircraft!  Hence, the received wisdom was that recce results (at first, visual; later, photographic) had to be fought for.  So the RAF's plans before WW2 revolved around a relatively fast armed aircraft - the Blenheim light bomber, operated by Bomber Command, which upon its initial introduction was faster than any biplane then in service with the RAF.  From the very first week of WW2 they started flying Blenheims for recce against German targets, in ones, twos, threes, even in fives and sixes.   Bravely flown as they were, they were shot down in alarming numbers and, sadly, brought back precious few photographs (albeit occasionally of very good quality).  By 1939-40 the Blenheim was no longer up against slower biplanes; and the training of its crews and the cameras it carried were only geared to what would now be regarded as low-level photography.  They were sitting ducks.  

Notwithstanding Bomber Command's legendary willingness to take casualties (and this was even before Bomber Harris took over), the Air Ministry at the top was less sanguine.  These casualties "were not to be borne"... 

Blenheims, "... even in fives and sixes"
Photo, © IWM CH 2992

So of course quite shortly there-after, the suicidally slow and low-flying Blenheims were replaced by Spitfires, flying fast and high, with much better cameras.  But there was another problem, which became apparent after the very first RAF bombing raid of the war, on a German seaplane base on the Baltic coast.  Based on the pilots' accounts, Bomber Command claimed a major success with key buildings having been destroyed.  However, careful analysis of recce flown the next day showed that not a single piece of damage could be identified, and that it seemed the bombs landed harmlessly in adjacent sand dunes.  Continuing the story:  

Such is the bizarre nature of service politics that Bomber Command was allowed to [insist] that only its own people carried out Bomb Damage Assessment - they were determined to mark their own homework.  Eventually they were called up on this too, much to their disgust - as it was proved conclusively that their bombing was not even remotely as accurate as they claimed.  Though his Command's relations with [the newly-established specialist air recce interpretation unit] were often strained, to his credit Bomber Harris personally came to value its accurate output.   

Private BDA conducted by a deeply ignorant politician with a transparent agenda?  The very worst things happen when a powerful leader is grovellingly indulged in all circumstances, whatever he does: and we now have two of them - Trump and Netanyahu.  Not even obliged to exercise normal political caution (not something I'd say of Putin, for example, or Xi).  What will Trump not do in pursuit of his personal gratification?  Aside from the likes of Starmer, Rutte, and the Trump Cabinet, with their demeaning performative "tactical sycophancy", is there anyone left who can offer a defence of Trump and his bellicose, juvenile narcissism?

ND 

______________

**That's what 'BDA' traditionally stood for.  More recently, the 'B' is being rendered as 'battlefield'.

Labour leadership stakes: rats-in-sack update

It's two months ago since we last looked at the jockeying for position going on in the Cabinet.  At that time we cast our eyes over Reeves (nobody's idea of the next leader, then or now); Streeting (obviously positioning himself actively); Lammy (radiating ambition); and Rayner (also ambitious but actually a joke).  For completeness, we mentioned Khan (permanently on the lookout for the Main Chance); Miliband (radiating competence); and Mandelson (devious and unpredictable as ever).

How do things look now?  The Grauniad has a telling, tearful piece, avowedly briefed by the wimmin: and it's worth quoting a couple of chunks. 

... a female minister spoke directly to the prime minister to complain about the leaks and briefings she saw directed against other women ... including Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper .,. “Cabinet really no longer feels like a safe space for genuine debate,” one minister said ... after weeks of tension felt by some women in the cabinet... Almost a dozen female Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian said they were unnerved at how female cabinet ministers appeared to be getting the brunt of the blame for issues in government – though there is less sympathy for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, because of anger over the Treasury’s handling of spending cuts and welfare. Among some of the new intake of MPs, there is a strong feeling that any ultimate successor to Starmer should be a woman – and a resentment of what they see as a campaign to anoint Wes Streeting.

Hahah!  More popcorn supplies, please.  It goes on: 

At the moment [Streeting] has no obvious female rival as the heir apparent. Senior cabinet ministers who did not want to see Streeting win had previously coalesced around Reeves, but her unpopular decisions as chancellor have meant that is no longer the case. Other ministers would back Rayner, but she would face a brutal press onslaught. Among Labour members there is no doubt, however. Rayner is streets ahead of her rivals in terms of popularity with the grassroots ... There is only one cabinet minister ahead of her, who is probably the least likely of anyone around the table to have another shot at the top job – Ed Miliband.

This is not intelligent commentary.  First, selecting the next leader when there's no vacancy is well-known to be an absolute mug's game.  Genuine, nailed-on heirs-apparent are few and far between in British politics (in the past century or more, only Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown).  

Second, Miliband is not at all the least likely to have another shot.  In countries like France and Italy he would be the number one contender in everyone's books: competent (at politics, that is), confident, popular, experienced, sure-footed, intelligent, and comfortably dynamic enough.  And he has the green-left eating out of his hand - potentially deemed a vital constituency when the Green Party is snapping around Labour's heels in such politically volatile circumstances.  That's how he'd be marketed, anyhow. 

A couple more comments.  (a)  You just can't rule out Khan or Burnham.  These guys' ambition and political capital is so great.  Safe seats aren't so hard to find in a hurry: Boris always found one at the drop of a hat.

(b) Having mentioned the Prince of Darkness last time and just out of interest, I have it on good authority Mandelson has already f****d up royally in Washington.  Of course, he's made comebacks in the past from many an appalling situation of his own making, so who knows?  But right now, his political capital is deep in the red.

Oh, and Lammy?  Speaking of in-the-red, he's so far out of the money right now, I almost forgot him.

ND  

"Might is Right": the Melian dialogue

I don't want to insult t'readership by assuming you don't know all this, but ... 

 Athenians : ... you should try to get what it is possible for you to get, taking into consideration what we both really do think; since you know as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. 

Melians : ... we who are still free would show ourselves great cowards and weaklings if we failed to face everything that comes rather than submit to slavery. 

Athenians : No, not if you are sensible. This is no fair fight, with honour on one side and shame on the other. It is rather a question of saving your lives and not resisting those who are far too strong for you... if one follows one’s self-interest one wants to be safe, whereas the path of justice and honour involves one in danger.

There's nothing new under the sun.  Xi hs always explicitly espoused this.  It's always possible as a policy.  What's to oppose it?  Only self-restraint, based (ideally) on nobility and strength of moral character, but otherwise on proper consideration of the long term.  But for Old Men in a Hurry ..?  We have three of them stomping the world stage now.  Heaven help us all.

ND

How the Romans felt when Nero was emperor

Some pretty dire scenarios are easily envisaged, but it's anyone's guess now, on any geopolitical question you care to speculate on.  Has global politics ever hinged on pettiness and petulance to this degree?  Even remotely?  "well, checks and balances ..."   Really?

There is, at least, one thing we may be sure of:  Xi will be determined to make his move on Taiwan before November 2028. 

ND