Saturday, 2 April 2022

French Ukraine "intelligence" fiasco: poor stuff, frogs

It's worth a small laugh over this cold weekend, but you have also to feel sorry for General Eric Vidaud, head of French military "intelligence", who has been required to fall on his sword over Ukraine-related failings: 

France‘s military intelligence chief is leaving his post after Paris failed to accurately predict – in contrast with western allies – that Russia would launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine ... France’s assessments had contrasted with the gloomy predictions by allies including the US and Britain who said a serious military assault was imminent. Senior figures from Emmanuel Macron’s government insisted there was no suggestion of a full-scale invasion and the French president kept diplomacy going to the last minute ... Le Monde said the war in Ukraine had exposed the differences between the intelligence services of France and those of the UK and the US ...  “Even if this reliance on Anglo-Saxon intelligence has existed for a long time, particularly in the fight against terrorism and in space, the war in Ukraine has shed light on it in a crude way”

Note "reliance".  Yup, that's what it is, much to the chagrin of France (and Germany and the rest).  Likewise France's dependence on the UK and USA for critical support that underpins its military operations in central Africa.  What a crap player Theresa May was, with cards like that in her hand.

ND

Tuesday, 29 March 2022

New Russian Military Doctrine On The Fly? Yeah, right

"Jack Watling said in a recent paper that to survive in the east, Ukrainian forces needed to “prevent the Russians from being able to concentrate their efforts on one axis at a time” by continuing to counter-attack in and around Kyiv. In other words, Russia’s new strategy is to try to concentrate its forces to achieve a breakthrough. Ukraine, meanwhile, has to find a way of making the invaders’ original multiple-front offensive continue to work against itself, by keeping the fighting spread out." [my emphasis]
This may be right: but if the Russians are now trying for a breakthrough on a single axis, they really have thrown the Red Army playbook out of the window.  Do they have a single general who's capable of improv on this scale and with these stakes?

*   *   *   *   *

'Breakthrough' or 'breakout' is a concept that armchair military commentators assume is kinda obvious - it's what tanks are for, right?  Well, there are certainly great examples of breakthrough in the conflicts that are close to home for us:  Monty breaking out at Caen (eventually) and the Americans to the west and south of Normandy.  

But it played no strategic part in Soviet military thinking, which was essentially oriented towards parallel progress on multiple axes across a front, departing from parallel forward movement - in an individual thrust, being one of several - if and whenever and to the extent that an obstacle, natural or man-made, was in danger of halting the advance (as I summarised in the second parts of this, and again in this).  Manoeuvre - another Red Army obsession, along with firepower and speed - was to be by way of an attacking rugby player's 'step' - dodge the head-on tackle by swerving to one side whilst maintaining momentum and aiming to resume the direct forward line immediately, ideally leaving the defender grasping at thin air.  It's a skill, an art (think Jason Robinson): it takes practice.

There's some evidence that the initial phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was planned as a classic Red Army series of multi-axis parallel advances, on each of several fronts, aiming (unsuccessfully) to be swift in their penetration.  But they didn't seem to attempt even the rudiments of manoeuvre - the quality and competence of troops and leadership involved didn't run to anything more tactically adroit than steaming along the open roads.  And it's not obvious they brought anything like the requisite firepower to bear (difficult if, in your arrogance and ignorance, you don't think you need to wait for a big preparatory barrage by air and land AND you remain in line astern on the road).

If these jokers can't execute according to basic Red Army doctrine, how much less likely are they to be able to come up with, and successfully carry through, a new doctrine on the hoof?  The type of strategic-scale axis-shifting being contemplated (by these western observers) takes a Patton to devise and execute, and an army (like the USA's) truly skillful at logistics.  Don't see it here, meself.  

ND

Monday, 28 March 2022

'Germans Don't Understand Markets', part 94

From time to time I am moved to observe that Germans, as a rule, have no intuitive grasp of how markets work.  Perhaps their postwar social-democrat / Christian democrat tradition is so inherently mercantilist and dirigiste (and, by many lights, successful!) and now so deeply ingrained, that market dynamics pass them by.

At the state level the French 'Enarchists' aren't much better (though you meet far more French business people who know the score).  So there's little hope that 2022 Brussels, with no leavening of UK influence, will have the first clue.  Here's some up-to-date evidence.  

EU leaders pledged to bulk buy natural gas jointly and review the role of the fuel in setting electricity prices as part of plans to protect European consumers from spiralling energy costs ... “Instead of outbidding each other and driving prices up we will pool our purchasing power,” said Ursula von der Leyen

Where to start?  We all know where bulk buying and large-scale procurement by state entities leads, and it ain't prone to driving down prices++.  (It is prone to monstrous corruption: the mysterious middlemen who will insert themselves in this process when the politicians realise they are totally in the dark in such technical matters, will ensure an extra € or two gets added to the unit price, and is silently shared around a bunch of deeply undeserving individuals.  (Libel laws forbid me elaborating, but suffice to say the gas sector has not proved in any way immune from this in the state monopoly days of yore.)  It's just one of those things that can be made to 'sound sensible', sort-of, and is promoted by people like Peter Mandelson who has advocated it in the past.  But experience tells heavily against it.

The one that really amuses me is "review the role of the fuel in setting electricity prices".  Boris - another ignorant prick - has mouthed similar words.  Well, review away, fellahs; but I can tell you in a couple of sentences what the answer is.  The price of any traded commodity** is set by the cost (or opportunity-cost) of the marginal source of supply (or demand, in some cases), which for most of the time in European electricity is NATURAL GAS.  Occasionally it is something a bit more obscure and we get negative prices (something else that has always puzzled German politicians).  But the dynamics are exactly the same.

Gottit, Ursula?  Great: so you can save that million € being asked for by McKinsey or whomever to answer the question for you.  All part of the C@W service.

By the way, this situation is destined to prevail for many years - in fact, decades, as far as anyone can see - however much new 'renewable' electricity capacity is brought on line.  The only truly 'dispatchable' renewable source is hydro from reservoirs (as opposed to run-of-river).   In practice, biomass can be, too (if it isn't already running baseload because of the vast subsidies involved) - but large-scale biomass ain't renewable: its deemed renewable status is a massive scam.

Of course, Ursula's oh-so-predictable follow-up question is: what can we do about it?   Ans:  well, you can suspend the laws of gravity for just so long as you are willing to throw money at it.  But that's what happens:  you waste even more money, and it still comes out the same when, eventually, you've had enough.   Gottit?   Well no, sadly; probably not.

ND

_______________

++ presumably, as dearieme has wittily observed BTL, "in homage to their success in buying vaccines jointly"  

** the physical commodity, that is.  Forward prices are set by completely different dynamics.

Wednesday, 23 March 2022

Shocked at the 5p Fuel cut?

Who could have predicted that?

As ever, the Government in their Spring Statement are happy to play the cynical nice guy, making a 5p cut in Fuel tax which actually still leaves them raising taxes over what they expected this year. 

Together with the very high levels of inflation, at over 6% now and heading for 10% as we can all see, is also the rise in NI to pay for the social care fund. yes, a small adjustment to NI thresholds will help the lower paid. 

But overall, this is a high level of financial repression. Let's not mess about, we are here at the start of the recession today. Never has there been this level of energy costs across the world without causing a recession, and that is before we factor in the cost of food thanks to the war in Ukraine too. 

Yes the government is worried about paying for the (ongoing) pandemic, but to raise tax and interest rates in the face of rapidly collapsing demand and confidence is idiocy. You can't tax your way out of this hole. the better strategy to to engender growth a bit faster than planned, with a more conducive environment for business. Unfortunately, the Tories are very lost here, we have high levels of business taxes, unreformed rates and constantly rising personal taxes. Mr Laffer has been long ago executed.

Rishi Sunak will regret this statement at leisure, it will be the thing that kills the Tory chances for an election or two. The fact they won't feel that today is ironic, the blows will come with the economic headwinds later in the year. 

Sunday, 20 March 2022

The War of Putin's Arse

As was suggested BTL on Friday, the Chinese piece we linked to last time certainly conveys (inter alia) a worldview fairly palatable to western readers, i.e. that China - a nation that has thrived mightily in the recent world order - has at least something to lose by finding itself on the wrong side of history.  Whether that means the piece is a come-on to embolden the west into doing something stupid is another matter.  I suppose it might be.

It's not just the Chinese, of course, who'll be priming the www with self-serving inputs.  Here's a briefing on behalf of Biden, making out he's a wise and consistent judge of Putin, with a realistic - i.e. very worried - view of the dangers.  Hmm.  Maybe.

Various western commentators say that our interests are best served by giving Putin a clear cut face-saver because the alternative is rapid escalation towards an existential threat to ourselves; against which outcome Ukraine as an integral, independent political entity may need to be sacrificed.  I'm not sure it's as easy as that.

Right now it looks to most of the world as though the stout Ukrainian defenders (with a little help from their sponsors) have already handed Putin his arse.  Sure enough, he may deploy heavy artillery plus an army of mercenary orcs to flatten and then occupy half the country.  Maybe that even includes a puppet regime in Kyiv.  But that's not even "Hitler Captures Most Of France in a Lightning Strike, Parades in Glory at the Arc de Triomphe, and Sponsors a Compliant Vichy Government", is it?  Nobody's the slightest impressed - most specifically, not Xi, as I keep saying. 

So: assuming the chances of Putin swiftly repeating his Ukrainian, errr, triumph on Estonia are vanishingly small, what scenario can possibly give him that face-saver, expunge his global humiliation?  

Here's what I think.  He gets and holds whatever slice of UKR he can, maybe even just Donbas (who's to stop him?), but there's non-stop sniping resistance from whatever's left (there are enough wealthy bear-baiters to finance that).  And the west carries on with serious sanctions: not remotely sufficient to guarantee an early anti-Putin putsch, but more than enough to make a mark, and have him permanently angry (and demeaningly in thrall to China).  Whatever the finer details - even if China feels strong enough, and the inclination, to tell him to wind his neck in - surely in all cases we are likely to be in for a protracted 'War of Putin's Arse': his retribution by way of non-stop Kremlin-sponsored sub-military mayhem (sabotage, assassination, cyber attack, support for Bad Guys, encouragement of organised crime, sponsorship of illegal migration ...) against western interests by land, sea, air, space and cyber, never quite crossing anybody's red line into actual combat.  The west's lines of logistics are really quite extended and exposed ...

Whose nerve cracks first?  Germany, seriously incommoded by inability to rely on Russian energy supplies?  USA, with isolationist opposition to bearing the costs of strife in faraway places, and elections every two years?  Brussels, always keen to deal and never noted for its spine?  The entirety of western public opinion, ground down by shortages, price increases, limitations on safe travel, random unexplained power cuts and www outages, big defence bills  etc etc etc ad nauseam?  Or ... Putin's praetorian guard?

I really can't guess.  

ND

Friday, 18 March 2022

Superb writing: Chinese UKR paper, + 'Hatfield Girl'

You'll never read a more instructive short position-paper than this Chinese one on how China should conduct itself vis-à-vis Putin and Ukraine.  So rich, so clear-sighted, so crisp, so well stated (and well translated, we must assume).  I'm not going to summarise or extract from it: it's quite short and you should read the lot (its headline below is a link). 

Possible Outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War and China’s Choice

*   *   *   *   *

On the subject of rich, clear writing, a heartfelt lament.  'Older readers' will recall we once had an active and exceptionally fruitful ongoing dialogue here and elsewhere with 'Hatfield Girl' who blogged at Angels in Marble.  Alas, the lady left that blog frozen in its marble state some seven years ago, and if she contributes to the www anymore, I don't know under what moniker.  (And I think I'd have spotted it anyway because both her style and thinking were distinctive.)  We miss her as much as we miss Raedwald - and that's a serious compliment.  Hopefully she hasn't suffered a parallel demise.

Anyhow, as best I can summarise a subtle writer's views without pernicious distortion - perhaps a ridiculous thing to try (and I invite readers who recall her to pitch in on this: there are several of you) - HG held a position roughly as follows:

  •  there is such a thing as Christendom, however badly represented by current-day man-made institutions
  • Christendom can be a great (one of the greatest) and valuable force for civilisation 
  • Christendom is internationalist in essence (which made HG temperamentally inclined towards the EU, but she was no supporter of Brussels) 
  • Orthodox Russia would ideally be a strong candidate for inclusion in this vision
She didn't bang on very much about Christendom by name and per se, but here's a 2012 post - actually not one of her more subtle offerings, but rather a short summation piece - where she made things more-than-usually explicit. 


Read this whole thing, and the BTL thread.  It's very prescient, pointed, and poignant.
... this Europe, core Europe and its surrounding states, is Christendom ... not the 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam' with tambourine accompaniment Christianity so dear to other parts of the world ... Europe isn't a tyranny - it has been and it could be again - but now it stands against the global, a-cultural imperialists ...
Seeing ... the destructiveness of the current EU's institutions and actions on European democracies ... I turn to Europe's cultural and strategic reason and forces for its unity in the face of uncivilised and rapacious assaults on its values and its peoples. And accept, for now, the Union with all its deficiencies and deficits. The assertion of a single 'West' led by a 'global' America and its interests is repellent. NATO has become a monstrous armed threat to European values. 
Well, I never fully agreed with her, but ...  

HG, where are you at this hour?

ND


Tuesday, 15 March 2022

Why does the UK Government allow the petrol catastrophe?

After some stabilisation in the Ukraine war and also a realisation that much of Europe is not about to ban Russian oil imports, Brent Crude prices have dropped from $139 a barrel back down to around $110. 

$110 oil is still very expensive and will mean UK retail prices of over £1.60 for the foreseeable future. 

This is about 30% higher than pre-war and of course is broadly linked to the 30% increase in oil price. 

However, as we all know Retail fuel prices are a huge chunk of tax. Currently that is set at 57.6p per litre, plus 20% VAT on the remainder. 

If we take petrol at £1.60, this means you have 82.8p per litre of tax - just over 50%. This is 17p odd more in tax than when the fuel price was £1.30. 

Given the Petrol Retailers Association says we buy around 38 billion litres of Petrol and Diesel combined, that 17p is about £6.5 billion more in revenue per year, or nearly £600m per month in tax revenue for the Government. Diesel  prices are up to 10p higher, so this is an underestimate in all likelihood. 

This increase is very inflationary  in the short term, because the price goes up for transport, end prices for goods also go up substantially. Normally, you would see tax rises as anti-inflationary as they reduce demand, but for goods whose purchase are necessary inputs, this argument does not hold so much water. Less travel and less deliveries of goods will reduce economic activity in the long-term causing a recession but still cause a short-term bump in inflation. Great. 

The Government could easily reduce fuel duty by 5p in its Spring statement next week and help the country through its fuel price crisis. It cannot do this so easily on residential gas, which will mean home bills will remain high. All the more reason to help out with energy costs somewhere for consumers.

Reducing by 5p the fuel duty still means the Government revenues will be going up during the year from what was expected at the last budget, where prices were £1.42 on average which is well below where they will be in terms of 2022 predictions. Some analysts say £2 diesel is only a couple of weeks away as so much (33%) of our retail diesel was imported from Russia. 

Of course, the Government is less keen on telling everyone that due to the rise it must keep raising Vehicle Excise Duty. Currently electric vehicles are 33% of all new cars sold and with Fuel costs at this price, this is only going to go up. (Although, with home energy costs rising 200%+, the differential benefit in cost terms to electric is still reducing, but overall worth it). 

Longer term, all this means we must move to road pricing or back to higher taxes on car ownership and less on the usage. Hard times for an eco-loon Government intent on pushing everyone electric.

But now is the time to commission the long-term review whilst alleviating the short-term issues - a free popularity boost to the battered Government too. 

Saturday, 12 March 2022

Energy ignorance has dished Putin: thanks, Greens!

Our esteemed BQ gave an excellent account of how Putin must have totted up the scores before making his fateful move (BTL here).  It all looked so promising: almost a no-brainer!

Clearly enough, seventeen days in, we can safely say he made at least three monstrous miscalculations: and I'm going to suggest a fourth

  1. he thought the Ukrainians wouldn't fight, such is his contempt for them (but instead he's got a re-run of Finland 1939-40 on his hands)
  2. his own troops would fight - at least to some basic standards (on which more below)
  3. Europe wouldn't react in any material fashion   

Closely bound up with 3 is what I take to be his assumption that all European politicians understood the degree of Europe's dependence on fossil-fuel energy.

Well, as the man with possibly the world's biggest vested interest in fossil fuels, he knew that - so surely they did, too ..?   Boy, was that wrong.  Can we seriously imagine they'd all have rushed to support the kind of really quite striking responses we've seen, if they had half a clue just how bad our upcoming energy crisis is going to be?  Maybe they did: maybe they knew they were staring down the barrel (pun intended), at very least of a re-run the 1973-4 Oil Crisis and all that followed, (but maybe even worse).   Didn't really come across that way, though.

Instead, I think we may credit the Greens with having drummed it into empty heads that we don't need fossil fuels at all, really.  As recently as Wednesday we read George Monbiot saying that, seeing how the USA came up with the atom bomb in 4 years, we can dispense with fossil fuels now in the same kind of timeframe.  And there are people with a strong inclination to believe this crap, this utterly misleading analogy: you can see it peddled everywhere. 

I can see only one simple & decisive way this could get resolved without deep & serious economic pain for Europe - via an energy crunch - and I'm not suggesting it's plausible for a nanosecond.  It would be a putsch against Putin, and a new Russian regime that unilaterally restored the status quo ante.  Then, however quickly / enthusiastically attempts were made to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, it wouldn't matter too much when it turns out to take decades rather than months.

Just very expensive.

*   *   *   *   *

By the way, on the mystery of how badly the Russian military has been performing (and wow, what a disgrace on them: the sheer contempt Xi must be feeling.  No lack of respect intended for the outstanding Ukrainian defiance, naturally) ... the Beeb interviewed what seemed to be a fairly ordinary Ukrainian front line soldier the other day.  They asked him how the Russian were fighting.  He replied, in English:  "Like 1941 - only attack from front - make no manoeuvres". 

This (which we have seen with our own eyes) is astounding stuff for an army with even the merest acquaintance with Red Army doctrine, which I certainly assumed they must have.  Several days ago I summarised what we might have expected in that case (second part of this C@W piece).  The essence of that whole offensive doctrine is summed up in the three must-haves the Red Army was based around:  speed; firepower; manoeuvre.  Well, I guess we saw a bit of haste, if not proper speed.  The firepower is not really in doubt (though as noted before, they seem to have withheld their air force).  But the complete absence of manoeuvre is just amazing.  Because it's winter?  FFS, that's what Russia specialises in!  Because the terrain is mountainous?  Not last time I looked.  Because they only brought two-wheel drive family saloons?  Plenty of perfectly adequate tracked vehicles in evidence, even if now charred wrecks smouldering on the tarmac.  Because Russian soldiers don't like bumping along off-road?  No, I suspect they'll do whatever they're told, at least for a few days & weeks.

Nope: it has to be down to very poor generalship - whatever crazy instructions they got from Putin.   ("... and stay on the roads, comrades:  take care not to drive across the fields ..." -  Seriously??)   Yes, that's a bit of a surprise.    

ND  

PS:  how about we try to avoid covid, hmm?  BTL, that is - as well as out in the big wide world.

Friday, 11 March 2022

WW3 - Getting hard to avoid

 The statements from Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister yesterday are very concerning indeed. he has gone the full Comical Ali. The West is at fault, Ukraine are holding hostage their own people, using human shields, preparing chemical and nuclear attacks. All whilst Russia now vows to turn East and never deal with the West again. 

This is very dangerous territory indeed. There is no bakcing down from Russia and no sign that Ukraine is going to capitulate anytime soon either. the nastier the war gets, the more the pressure from the population of Western Europe and America to step in will grow. The polish planes will be given, the free brigades will start getting armed in Romania and Poland, much like the Taliban were re-supplied in pakistan (by opposite sides over time too!). 

Russia will then have a big decision to make, settle for the Eastern gains and have a Korea style ceasefire or go all out to crush Kyiv and the whole of Ukraine. Certainly the latter they are still aiming for today it seems. 

For the West, what to do, a madman at the help of one of the largest Nuclear armed countries has bascially been our worst fear since the manhattan project. Lots of wars and efforts to try and stop this ever happening. 

All the while, the economic damage will be great, whilst China and the East will benefit once more. In the grand strategy terms, this was is a total disaster for the US and Europe. For now we think it unites us, but there is no easy end and every day of fighting it strengthens an economically stronger competitor in China. 

Thursday, 10 March 2022

EU: Federasts Gleefully Jumping on Crisis

The say the EC is full of devious people always waiting for opportunities to offer the unchanging panacea:  "the solution is more Europe, not less Europe!"   And what better opportunity than a full-blown crise?  In fact I seem to recall some proto-federast opining, donkeys years ago: Europe grows, crisis by crisis.  Never let a good one go to waste, eh?

Well they're gleefully jumping all over this one, n'est-ce pas?   Budgetary restraints out of the window; joint militaristic measures;  getting Germany to pay for everything, ... and I'm sure they have a big wish-list of other stuff they'll take the occasion to get through, by ramrod or stealth.

Makes you more glad than ever to be out of it, no?

Incidentally, they'll be watching the highly effective US/UK intelligence effort with much envy.  Couldn't you guys, errrr, let us in on that?  Please ...?

 ND

Monday, 7 March 2022

Gas Price: This Should Be Obvious, But ...

This is off the scale - and totally unsustainable.  In the sense that the west cannot sustain what we normally consider civilisation like this.                      (Graphic: BBC)

"Civilisation is energy intensive" (James Lovelock, 2005)

ND 

Thursday, 3 March 2022

Contra Starkey, contra Putin: "Ukraine" is a Real Thing

The Starkey lecturette we were directed to the other day is very good viewing indeed - all manner of interesting perspectives.  I can't go along with all of it, however.  As noted before, the degree of strategic capability we should attribute to Putin is very much open to question, as is his 'hero' status in the non western world.

There's something else that needs to be challenged, if not on the facts then certainly on the interpretation.  Right at the beginning, Starkey notes that through most years of recorded history we won't find 'Ukraine' on the map.  His clear implication, I suggest, is that Ukraine is therefore not a 'proper entity' in some sense - a latter-day confection - which very much invites the next step of "so maybe we shouldn't get exercised about something which lacks status in that way". 

However much it's important for some purposes to learn the history, for other purposes we needn't get into "what are the origins of modern-day Ukraine?".  Specifically, there's the rather pointed alternative question: "will they stand and fight?".   A few days before it all kicked off, against a BTL comment that pointed to several recent regimes that had simply crumbled in the face of a determined military thrust, I offered the view that Finland 1939-40 was the appropriate counter example (NOT France 1940); and that "Ukrainian nationalism is a real thing".  If that's right - and I remain of the view that it is - the answer to Starkey's observation is a resounding "so what?".  If they stand and fight, what's the relevance for immediate practical purposes as to how they came by their national identity?

My views on this stem from when I worked in Moscow, many years ago.  I was determined to learn the language, and took on a Russian tutor.  At a very early stage I brought him a list of my Russian staff and asked him how I should correctly pronounce their names (knowing that, for example, Олег would put up with being called Oh-leg, but really it is more like Alyeck).   The tutor scanned down the list, and with a look of utter disgust lighted upon one name:  This is a Ukrainian name, he spat out - why do you employ her?

And so it went on.   At one particularly memorable business lunch when my boss from the US was over, one of the assembled host told a joke, the punchline of which was to compare Ukrainians unfavourably with certain others of mankind's races, and also the apes.  This was solemnly translated for my man, who went purple but didn't know quite what else to do.  But it was par for the course in Moscow.

In a later business incarnation I found myself working alongside a Ukrainian for a sustained period, who gave me the other side of the picture over a beer or three.

Any suggestion on Putin's part that Russians and Ukrainians are blood-brothers that have been artificially and temporarily separated, doesn't ring at all true to me.  Ukrainian nationalism is a Thing alright, wherever it came from and whenever it dates from - and quite tangible enough to fuel serious resistance.  As we see before us daily.  I'm still on my Finland-not-France analogy.

ND   

PS: I might add that if it rumbles on into a stalemate where the west keeps the Ukrainians armed and fighting as did Russia and China keep the North Vietnamese, this Russian gentleman suggests we may live to regret it.  As with Starkey, we're not obliged to agree with everything he says: but it's a compelling little essay.

PPS - an afterthought: if Ukraine "didn't exist" for much of history, then how's about, errrr, Germany?  Italy?   etc etc etc 

Wednesday, 2 March 2022

When does fracking sidle back onto the UK agenda?

It's kinda noteworthy that, the ruckus over the Cambo field notwithstanding, several more North Sea licences are under consideration.   And the Climate Change Committee (under silly "Lord Deben") has correctly opined that, while they'd prefer new licences not be granted, it's a purely political matter having nothing to do with objective reckoning of whether it would increase global CO2 emissions (which it wouldn't).  Ah, COP26 seems so long ago now ...

Of course the greenie-left is trying to get its retaliation in first, having spotted (again, correctly) what they take to be a great argument, namely that increased UK production would have no impact on the world price of oil or gas - so we wouldn't pay any less for our domestic energy.  AND - shock, horror - we might even export the stuff!  True, as far as it goes - but it misses two critical details that in my book invalidate the objection entirely.  (a) they are wrong about the price impact as regards local prices which would indeed fall (by a small amount), that being the transportation cost differential between home-grown and imports; (b) the Exchequer would gain mightily from the tax they would levy on the profits arising, there being clear daylight between production costs and today's high oil & gas prices.  All this atop the jobs created etc etc.

So:  perhaps some new offshore O&G licences first, & then see how the land lies?  Before getting back to the really interesting topic of fracking.  Incidentally, I am the last one to minimise the practical difficulties involved in fracking in the UK (we had many a thread on this several years ago); but the amounts of gas are so immense, and the value so high, we could afford to do the job really well and avoid, minimise, or handsomely compensate for any downsides.  There's no getting away from the political price that would be paid just now ...  but give it time: that shale gas ain't going anywhere.  And Germany seems to have changed its energy policy (as well as its military policy) quite significantly in the past few days.  The Ukraine factor might yet have transformative effects here, too.

ND  

Tuesday, 1 March 2022

Mr Putin: What Are You Like?

Some folks around here suggested that mention of the Sudetenland was in bad taste.  I can't think why; the analogy seems pretty clear (in that excellent podcast we were referred to yesterday BTL, Starkey essentially agrees) and as with any analogy, it's there to be considered for its heuristic value.

Nothing daunted, I'm going to suggest another similarity between the two little dictators:  both seem to believe in their own abilities as military strategists and tacticians, with little compelling justification.

We've read in several places that Putin has proceeded very cleverly in strategic terms, "laid a trap for the West", built up substantial financial reserves, squared China away, allowed Germany to become hooked on his gas etc etc, and perhaps there's a decent argument along those lines - right up until he fired the starting-pistol.  But where's the shock-and-awe sudden victory?  Or, conversely, what's the merit in allowing the military stuff to unfold as messily as it is?  I can suggest only one, and a heavily qualified one at that.  Maybe he wants to occupy a really big chunk in perpetuity, and doesn't want to damage the infrastructure too much, or piss off the inhabitants.

Well.  That would have depended upon a very quick rolling-over by the defenders; or the spontaneous anti-government uprising he called for; or for the West to pull the rug.  As things stand, none of these being self-evidently just around the corner, it looks as though he'll need to contemplate something considerably less than ideal - (a) stepping up the destruction in a big way (which can always "succeed" in its own terms, but hardly glorious);  (b) continuing to look stupid in public (and pathetic to the Chinese);  or (c) settling for some near-term outcome that is rather lame-looking against the apocalyptic circumstances and his extraordinary rhetoric. 

On (c), it was widely suggested that Putin has available to him a fruitful strategy of "bloody a few noses, seize 50km, freeze the new border, wait for the waters to close over, rinse and repeat, from Tbilisi to Tallinn".  In other words, that's not to be characterised as I just did, as a less-than-ideal outcome: it's maybe what he wanted all along.

I'd be interested to know if any of our BTL-ers who espoused this view still reckon it flies.  He certainly has his 50km if he finds that satisfactory (though at the time of writing I'm not sure Odessa is in the bag).  IMHO, the flaw would seem to be: just how long is it that the professional Russian military etc is willing to be humiliated by the distinctly unfunny pantomime they're being made to participate in?  (Then again, people probably said that about the Wehrmacht in 1942.)   Additionally, the whole of NATO - including Germany! - has been royally stirred up; and Tallinn might be feeling a bit more secure than it did three months ago (for now, at least).  The "50km" strategy starts to look a bit, well, glacial: I ask again, how long has he got? 

*   *   *   *   *   *

In my view, then, Putin is guilty of Adolf-style micro-managing the military (the ever-tempting sin I've frequently lauded George Bush Snr for avoiding):  I'm not quite as ready as Starkey to attribute strategic prowess to L'il Volodya, at least in the purely military sphere (nor the 'hero' status in the non-Western world that Starkey confers upon him).

So what would have been the outcome if the Russian military professionals had been given proper delegated authority?  Even more destruction?  No.  [Caveat: I'm working off the 1970-80's Red Army playbook which used to be my concern.  But then again, so (probably) will the current generation of Russian generals.]

The first thing is that speed is always of the essence, and for that, you advance across a wide front avoiding towns, forests, mountains and bogs etc like the plague.  Even if they harbour forces of resistance, you bypass and (de facto) encircle them, to be mopped up at leisure if they are to form part of what you decide, eventually, to hold.  Otherwise they simply impose delay.

Exactly the same principle applies to any enemy strong-points you encounter along the way: you "fix" them and bypass.  Surrounded, they will be bludgeoned by second-echelon forces in due course.  By these clear-sighted and decisive means you aim to make maximum penetration along as wide a continuous front as possible in the least time.  Some kind of finish-line will have been given in advance, or you may decide on a different halt-line based on unfolding circumstances.  Back-filling to this new line is easy because you have the numbers to do so (in second- and third-echelon units): and the firepower in the first wave, coupled with air power and long range artillery, is sufficient to set up formidable defences along the line you have reached.  Maybe you won't hold it all, but that's your choice, to be dictated by a combination of politics, the terrain, and what the enemy is doing in front of you.  All in all, a fairly desirable outcome: and a lot quicker than what's going on today.

It's pretty clear this isn't what's happening.  Why?  I'm not sure inadequate numbers explains it (and if it does, so much for the brilliant strategy).  As noted here several days ago, the forces we've seen deployed are using fairly ancient kit - but then again, it should be adequate for the task.  Nor is it squeamishness - or even due caution - over the amount of destruction caused: the second-echelon "mopping-up" of bypassed towns mentioned above is entirely optional (less dramatic alternatives are available); and in the meantime the engagements will only be with the enemy's own military units, plus a little collateral damage to infrastructure.

I am left with my analogy with the other little guy who told his generals what to do in amateurish, self-defeating detail.  No, not Napoleon - (who knew exactly what he was doing): the other one.  

ND

Monday, 28 February 2022

West taking gambles and risks too quickly

 A goof debate on the last thread, the situation in Ukraine moves quickly and it has become the most dangerous crisis of my lifetime in short order.

Russia is defeated, if not on the ground then in the world opinion. The crazy nations like North Korea, Brazil and Iran are not going to save Russia. Even India and China are staying neutral. 

The huge sanctions placed on Russia are going to bite much more quickly than Putin imagined. Equally, the ground war is taking much longer and maybe much more bloody than expected. 

The West is full of preening Politico's and media today very pleased with themselves at Unity and the usual # mentality - echoes of "#Bring back our Girls".

In the real world, we are at the most dangerous point now. Putin won't stand a loss. Heavy and horrible weapons will be used on cities. Already Katyusha's fall on Karkiv which is a Russian populated city. Putin also darkly threatens nuclear retaliation of the real kind. 

I understand the West is also concerned to send China the right message re Taiwan, that this could be your fate too, but this is very risky. Indeed, I can't believe cool heads are war-gaming this properly because the chance of nuclear weapons being used is climbing - from an infinitesimally low number to something in the low digits percentages. Much like the Cuban missile crisis. 

Of course, if Putin is going to end up destroying the world whether we deter him this week or not makes little difference, it is up to the Russian army alone to fix the problem. However, some calmer thought and more work behind the scenes instead of in front of the camera's is desperately needed. 

Friday, 25 February 2022

Modern hybrid war - it never ends

 The invasion of Ukraine has been long signalled and 10 years in the making.

The propaganda war has included Russian support for the SNP, Brexit, Catalonia and others. Much bribery in Germany in Italy and all across the EU. Even support for President Trump.

Even when Ukraine falls, which sadly remains likely even if it becomes a low grade war much like has happened in Donbas for several years, the hybrid propaganda will continue.

China has conveniently fallen for it, as have the usual leftie-suspects in the UK like Corbyn and Galloway.

Then next stage will show Putin suddenly keen on peace, trying to partition Ukraine and withdraw from Kyiv, whilst still blaming Ukraine. Then a plebiscite is Eastern Ukraine will ensure it joins Russia fully, perhaps Transnistra too.

Meanwhile, the gas vs sanctions will play out, not too long until the summer to Putin new he had to strike now whilst the gas threats might work on Germany. 

Then what, what next will the Maskirovka try to do - undermining the West will surely only step up? 




Thursday, 24 February 2022

Mr Putin's Gas

What plans does Little Volodya have for his gas weapon?   (Methane, that is: large-scale chemical warfare doesn't seem too likely right now.)  Gazprom's great selling point has always been reliability - better, for example, than the Dutch, who in their heyday as an exporter would always interrupt external sales rather than deliveries to their own people.  With Russia it was the exact opposite: Russians could freeze in order to support hard currency sales.  Notwithstanding Putin has been holding back gas for many months now, he's always met minimum contractual obligations and curiously, just today, westward flows of Russian gas are the highest they've been for several days.

"Suspending" Nord Stream 2, as the Germans have done, is virtue-signalling, but meaningless in practical terms:  they'll un-suspend it at the first convenient juncture.  Ol' Uncle Joe Biden said something at the weekend rather bellicose about NS2 but I kinda doubt he has in mind blowing it up, easy and rather satisfying though this would be (there's a James Bond film involving a Russian gas pipeline, as I recall).

So: will Putin turn off the taps, as that long-running and rather prescient little graphic in the opening credits of HIGNFY has it?  More constructively, he may satisfy himself with the dramatic price hike that's already happened, of course.  

One thing's for sure, the Germans (and many others) are in absolutely no position to forgo that gas voluntarily, as we've noted here before.

Which leads us to consider a Big Accident.  If there's too much high-explosive shit flying about in Ukraine, well, all that infrastructure is really quite fragile (although not too difficult to repair).  Quite a big chunk of Russian exports still transit Ukraine, albeit NS2 is designed to put paid to that.  Who knows what any number of rogue actors might think of doing in that very large country, in the fog of war?  There are plenty of people who could profit handsomely from a Big Accident ...

"Short gas" may describe all our positions as consumers right now.  Won't be many commodities traders short gas at the moment, though.

ND  

Monday, 21 February 2022

Oh ye of little faith

 Told you all it was 21st Feb.


Hope you all stocked up on oil and gas futures.



While we wait for Putin ... here's some meerkats

I've long been quite surprised that the market has sustained so many price comparison sites.   Presumably, the software is relatively simple, the overheads are low and their biggest cost is massive prime-time TV advertising campaigns.  It seems to be as competitive as an industry ever gets - ironic, when at the start of energy-price comparisons we notoriously only had the 'Big 6' of actual energy suppliers.  Right now, unsurprisingly in view of the UK energy pricing debacle, they're in trouble. 

You'll have read it here; but I don't recall ever seeing in the MSM recognition of the baleful impact the auto-switchers or 'flippers' had on the health of the energy supply market itself.  It was once impossible for small new entrants to access this market - and quite right too: why should the barriers to entry in a sector like this be low?  But a number of factors conspired to turn this situation utterly on its head, so that any two-bit rogue could play - and play with other people's money, too.  High on the list of new factors was the 'flipper':  all you had to do was register with the site, ensure your price was the lowest for a short while (or, with the less scrupulous ones, cross the flipper's palm with silver for 'special favours'), and be sent as many customers as you wanted.  Simples, eh, Sergei?

And play they did - for a while, until the tide inevitably went out and their lack of swimwear was revealed.  Meanwhile, many a rogue syphoned off a chunk of the free working capital that the energy 'market' gifts to end-game suppliers in the form of pre-payments, and green levies collected but not paid over.  As well as genuine profits in the early stages of this game when prices were falling and they could play the Northern Rock tactic of sell long, buy short - without needing much by way of credit-lines.  Yes, of course it was unsustainable.  

The outcome is costing us £ billions to unwind, even though Ofgem's SOLR mechanisms mean no customer loses their supply in the process.  It has also brought the game into fundamental disrepute.  Ofgem is generally quite a good regulator but they screwed this one up royally.  Thanks, Sergei and that Welsh git.

ND  

Thursday, 17 February 2022

Russia Has A Painful Precedent In Mind

 ... and it's Finland, 1939-1940.

Russia hasn't had stellar success of late, even in Georgia and Chechnya, both a damn' sight easier to chew off than Ukraine.  

But the real pain must come whenever they think of Finland, whose heavily outnumbered forces dealt them a serious bloody nose.  It's generally reckoned the Soviet casualties in the 'Winter War' were of the same order of magnitude as Britain suffered during the whole of WW2 - and that in just three and a half months.  For not much gain  (a bit of Donbass-style land-grab), and substantial international opprobrium.   (Not that Joe Stalin cared very much.  Nor about casualties, for that matter.)

That's what can happen when you take on a nation that is (a) very big, geographically, with unlimited ability for tactical retreat by the defender, and overstretch trouble for the attacker;  (b) fiercely nationalistic.   Given their own dealings with Napoleon and Hitler, we might imagine that for the Russians, this lesson is not lost ...

It's been fairly noted recently that successful guerilla wars are fought by youthful fanatics, not middle-aged populations - with the suggestion that under this precept Ukraine has the wrong demographics for that kind of resistance.  Maybe so: but surely Finland is a much more relevant case study.

Oh, and that extremely interested observer President Xi will also be recalling China's own less-than-glorious attack on Vietnam in 1979.  Still, at least Putin hasn't pooped on Xi's Winter Olympics party in the unseemly way he did with Georgia, slap bang in the middle of Beijing's 2008 summer games, to China's profound disgust.  Well - not yet, anyway.

ND

Tuesday, 15 February 2022

Revealing Pictures of Russian Military Preparations

OK, so I last looked at Russian military kit in detail, in earnest, almost exactly 30 years ago.  And guess what?  Almost everything we've seen so far from the Russian side of that messy border is of just that vintage, i.e. 35-40 years old (because they hadn't done much innovating after the fall of the Berlin Wall).  

We are led to believe they have in fact made some serious strides in, for example, AA equipment, but they ain't showing that.

What do we infer?  There might be several hypotheses, not all mutually exclusive by any means:

  • Naturally, they do have some modern kit - but maybe not in large quantities
  • They reckon they can do the job quite comfortably with the old stuff
  • The units they are deploying - at least for the cameras - are not front-line troops: Russian policy has long been to scrap nothing, but to relegate it to equipping reserve formations
  • They have no desire either to expose the new stuff to close inspection (recalling how much they *enjoyed* their own ringside seat at NATO's extravaganza in 1991 - see my Kuwait account ad nauseam); or, of course, to see plum bits of new kit embarrassingly captured
Anyhow, it's a feast of déjà vu for old Soviet hands like meself ...  If I find a bit of time I might make up a bit of a photo-feature.

ND

Friday, 11 February 2022

UK growth at 7.5% in 2021

Despite what  the headlines will try to say, the economic growth last year merely puts the UK on par with most other Western Countries post-pandemic. 

The UK had the highest fall in GDP and productivity given we were hit hard like Italy with the first wave of Covid. 

Since then, the successful vaccine roll-out and some spirited determination to live with the virus rather than have constant lockdowns, has allowed the UK to play catch-up. Meanwhile, France and Germany have had a harder time with the later waves and so have not seen their economies re-bound as strongly. 

Germany in particular is in a challenging position. It's main export market for manufacture is China and its main energy supplier is Russia. This is not a good geo-political place to be and there is no easy way out of this for Germany politically or economically. 

Still, that the UK has recovered to near par is a good thing. However, the extra NHS spending, endless tax rises and interest rate rises are going to bake in a nasty downturn at some point, it is quite a way down from such high levels of growth but stagflation beckons for at least a year or two. 

Thursday, 3 February 2022

The great game

 Sorry for the long pause, be a bit challenging at work but suffice to say I have a period of free time now….

So, on good authority I have a date for the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Monday 21st of February.

So the question for everyone is, why do I posit this date? 

Monday, 31 January 2022

The Boris Blitz and what it betokens

 ... aside from the fact that the man is utterly shameless and very desperate indeed, a dangerous combination.

Few who pay any attention whatever to anything other than the lowest form of social meejah output can have missed the Boris Blitz of apologia, stunts, diversionary announcements and other attempts to "regain control of the narrative".  We can confidently expect him to visit a slit trench "somewhere in the Ukraine" shortly.  Sadly, we can also be confident he will spend epic quantities of our money on ill-conceived attention-grabbing policies.

It signals two things worthy of note: one specific and one timeless.

(a) He has some competent advisers.  They may not be in the Cummings class in any particular dimension (recall his extraordinary performance in the Autumn of 2019), but they know the basics of their trade (mostly, Lynton Crosby's Dead Cat** strategy).  And they must be broadly "loyal" because, given their shameful brief, they are advising intelligently and comprehensively.

(b) Government always has the whip-hand - or at least, a whip-hand - because like it or not (and Starmer won't like it at all) it can always set the news agenda and has a truly vast array of levers at its disposal: with a little creativity, even more levers than are obvious.  This is something Mandelson always knew instinctively, and exploited to the full.  Cummings likewise, in that Autumn 2019 campaign (proroguing Parliament!)  However, a surprising number of "experienced" politicians don't.  Probably the total lack of creativity, of course. 

It's why the oft-heard suggestion "this is an Election to lose" is always wrong.  Power, when held in the right hands, is always the right answer.  It's like: who doesn't want choice?

Incidentally, none of the above acknowledges Boris' strongest card, which is that the Energy Crisis buys him guaranteed time - and time is always also of the essence.  Playing for time is a pathetic business, but often the very core of political strategy.

Not even Starmer, I think, wants to be PM until after April ... even though that flies in the face of my dictum above.  Lack of creativity, see.

ND

____________

** Before this Crosby coinage became the generally-accepted nomenclature, I used to think of it as the "Royal Yacht" strategy.  Back in 1997 after the great Blair sweep-to-power, Blair disappeared off for an extended summer hol ... leaving Mandelson in charge (amazing to recall).  Several things started to go wrong rather publicly and embarrassingly - the one I remember specifically was the Millennium Dome project.  So Mandelson announced the Royal Yacht was to be scrapped, and immediately grabbed all the front pages.  So easy - when you realise what's possible. 

Thursday, 27 January 2022

"Biden to get gas for Europe" - Really?

It's jolly nice of Joe Biden to say that he'll make sure "Europe is able to make it through the winter and spring" as regards natural gas, if Putin switches off (some of) the taps.  But he'll search in vain for a good precedent.

Oil is proibably the most relevant.  Yes, Saudi Arabia has been prevailed upon from time to time to open the taps a bit - but in terms of total volume, only to marginal effect.  (The effect on the price can be disproportionate, of course: that's how the market dynamic of commodities operates.)  But what about the First Oil Crisis 1973-74?

Recap: Israel invaded Egypt; OPEC reduced overall production and instituted an "embargo" of sales to countries it deemed to be supporting Israel - notably, the Netherlands on some pretext I've forgotten.  So the OECD set up a small working group in its Paris offices, (an organisation that was later to become permanent as the IEA) to coordinate the entire free world's oil stocks.  Everyone played ball, and a scheme of global rationing was put in place.**  It kinda worked, and eventually OPEC backed down.

But let nobody imagine it was a walk in the park.  (a) All motoring was severely impacted, for months++.  (b) Not a few power stations around the western world were oil-fired back then, and there were serious power cuts.  (c) The price of oil went up from around $3 to $12, and stayed there (until the Second Oil Crisis in 1979, of course, when it went to $30).  This of course is widely blamed for the serious western inflation and economic downturn of the '70s, Thatcher & the Wicked Tories etc etc.

And oil is very much easier to re-direct and store than natural gas, even with today's big fleet of LNG vessels.  Biden makes great play of how he's talked to the Qataris about "more gas for Europe" but believe me, at recent prices they and every non-Russian gas producer on the planet has been flat out at max already.  (Whisper it softly but the UK has been importing US shale gas for months now.) 

The parallels of the oil crisis of 1973 if played out in natural gas in 2022 would be extremely painful, possibly long-lasting, and inflicted on populations that have forgotten about commodity privations and how to get by.   (1973 was less than 30 years after WW2, and only 20 years after UK rationing stopped.)   In particular, who can see the Germans - among the worst exposed - going along with it?  As noted here before, Merkel spent the long years of her regime doing absolutely nothing to lessen German dependence on Russian gas (not even a single LNG terminal) because, truth be told, (i) she's a Russophile and (ii) Germany's foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia has long been based on a voluntary Danegeld principle, which privately they've convinced themselves is a positive thing.  They're appallingly exposed; and the rest of us still largely depend on gas for heating, and (across the whole of Europe) balancing the grids when the wind doesn't blow.

So Good Luck Joe, and thanks for the thought, even as we contemplate shivering through until spring.  But you try getting the Germans fully onside.

ND

_______________________

**  They wanted the rationing to be "optimal" (big word, that) so they needed a Linear Programming approach of unprecedented magnitude.  The maths doesn't change with size so it's conceptually straightforward - but not so easy on the computers of the day.  So Exxon offered the use of its suite of mainframes at Florham Park, NJ, and its expert staff of mathematicians (which big energy companies used to have in those days).

++ I was at Sandhurst at the time.  We had our use of trucks severely curtailed, and frequently had to get to training areas on 1930's vintage iron bicycles!  Riding a heavy bicycle, in winter, on unmetalled tracks in full kit with a GPMG on your back is no joke, I may tell you.  Character-forming, indeed ...

  


Tuesday, 25 January 2022

2 Great Examples of Green Bandwagoneering

For a couple of years now I've been writing that decarbonisation is the only game in town - for businesses, banks, NGOs, unions, leftists, world-governmentalists, subsidy-farmers, kleptocrats, con artists, fraudsters, organised crime etc etc.  Trillions upon trillions at stake; ignore or deny the opportunity to advance your cause at your peril.

Here are two nice examples of self-interested bandwagoneering:  

(1) McKinsey   (I won't tell you which category they belong in) 

McKinsey, which advises many governments and large companies ... warns that the economic transformation will affect every country and every sector ... It estimates that $9.2tn will need to be invested every year for decades

(2) the Race Relations industry, as it used to be known.  (Being old fashioned I don't quite know how they like to be called these days.) 

... a reflection of the racist attitudes built into our political and economic systems ... climate justice is intertwined with other struggles against state hostility and negligence ... If we can’t even talk about racism and the part it has played in climate breakdown, then how do we get better? How do we break down the systems that got us here?

Grand entertainment.

ND

Saturday, 22 January 2022

The Limits to Financial Responsibility

Every capitalist is in favour of financial freedoms: it's fundamental.  Every conservative is realistic about human failings.  Both statements need qualifying; but they are not irreconcilable.  They do, however, add up to limits at the 'freedom' end of the continuum.  Bracing and salutary as it may be to give financial responsibilities to as many people "as possible", there is little point in conferring freedoms where they will inevitably be abused on a scale to be of general disbenefit.  

It's a scalar matter, and there is no merit in striking purist, polar attitudes.  We don't, for example, allow people to sink their pensions into the shares of the company that employs them; nor drive cars without insurance.  There are all manner of constraints on banks etc.  

Another very sensible restriction is that placed on local authorities before 2012, preventing them from getting into commercial ventures (beyond some very tightly limited, essentially de minimis cases).  Heaven knows, I was a local councillor for a number of years and saw at first hand the limitations of a large proportion of my fellow elected representatives - and indeed those of full-time council officers, notwithstanding the genuine specialist skills many of them possessed.

Then along comes G. Osborne - complete with his student-politics talent and deeply unrealistic political attitudes - with his Localism Act, which turned LAs free to enter more or less any contract they fancied.  And away they went, not least in my own home town of Croydon, bankrupt thanks to crazy commercial schemes (mostly in property, in that case).  Croydon, however, is not the subject of today's story.

It's Warrington, another council I've written about before which, in 2019, bet the farm on shares in a distinctly ropey-looking small energy company, "Together Energy".  (How the Together management pulled that one off, one can only speculate: but the words "due diligence" don't quickly come to mind.)  Remember that by that time, Nottingham and Bristol city councils were very publicly staring disaster in the face with their own hopeless energy ventures, "Robin Hood Energy" and the less imaginative "Bristol Energy", so it was already pretty well understood that there was many a deep pitfall down that path.

But no, Warrington Council parted with £18 million of its residents' money for the shares, plus more in loans and guarantees, and then more loans and more guarantees ... and still Together went bust, just this week, when Warrington wasn't willing to allow matters to go even further - as was obviously always going to be the case eventually.  To make matters even more poignant, Together Energy even bought (with hard cash) the residential customer portfolio of Bristol Energy along the way.

Now tell me, Osborne, what possible contribution to the Public Good is represented by allowing such things to happen, as they inevitably have.  Does it teach other councillors a lesson?  Evidently not: Bristol and Nottingham were foundering in the full glare of publicity when Warrington got started.  Fact is, councillors and council officers are proven wholly unfit to be allowed to embark on commercial ventures: and that's a fairly restrained way of putting it.

The challenge of striking intelligent balance in policy-making is endless.  Right now, this one is badly out of kilter.

ND

Thursday, 20 January 2022

Boris: Never Going To End Well

If it isn't this time, something Even Worse will come out next month.  The Tories should do the deed swiftly: can anyone, save possible Starmer, make an argument for delay?  A finger in the dyke now will cause the pressure to build up even more.

Après lui, le déluge?   Boris, we are told, warmly espouses the Great Man theory of history, and no surprises there.  FWIW, in very broad terms so do I, in the sense that individuals can (sometimes) dictate the direction of history at critical forks in the road.  But the clue is in the coinage.  Not Great Charlatan, Great Entitled One, Great Pussy-Whipped Oaf, Great Serial Truth-Dodger.

It's Great Man.  And we don't have one.  So History had just better get on with it.

ND

Wednesday, 12 January 2022

Midweek Reading: Ukraine; Legislating the Internet

Being somewhat too busy for writing, here are a couple of excellent reads for you.

Ukraine:  First, a caveat, I have absolutely no idea whether "Consortium News" is a website of good repute (as regards conspiracy theory etc etc - everyone has to rely on their own judgement, and virus protection etc).  Also, the article I'm linking to here - What War With Russia Would Look Like by seemingly ultra-well qualified former US marine Scott Ritter - definitely serves Putin's purposes, whether or not the author has any leanings that way himself or, as I hope we can assume, not.

That said, it's a really good analysis of the realpolitik in play just now - or kiddy-politik in the case of Joe Biden.  Sobering stuff.  It contains an observation you might have read here at C@W before: 

Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign - Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I - and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.

Yes indeed it has - being deeply impressed, nay shaken, by how successful was NATO AirLand Battle doctrine on its first roll-out in earnest.  Russia had a ringside seat, and was watching intently.  Here's another good soundbite: 

Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy.

Yes, that's Angela Merkel's enduring legacy.   A Russophile all her life, she did nothing to fix Germany's dependence on Russian gas.

*   *   *   *   *

Internet:  Hey, we're a blog, and we don't much like the idea of our freedom of speech being curtailed.  That said, we are still bound by (e.g.) the laws of copyright and libel ... so obviously internet freedoms are on a spectrum.  Here's a great piece by my favourite practising American philosopher (and qualified lawyer), Brian Leiter: The Epistemology of the Internet and the Regulation of Speech in America.  (You can download the full paper from that abstract.)

No need to buy into all his conclusions to agree that (a) there's something very wrong with some of what gets pumped out on the www; and (b) the concept of "epistemic authority" is very powerful.

I'm guessing Dominic C agrees with the latter.

ND

Saturday, 8 January 2022

Weekend: Homecoming of a WW2 Pirate's Ship

A very telling episode in British WW2 history is the remarkable story of Sidney Cotton and his associates.  If you don't already know it, a very brief summary appears below.  

Anyhow, the aircraft in which Cotton flew some of his most daring MI6-sponsored missions, a Lockheed 12A, eventually wound up in the USA and has recently been up for sale.

I have it on good authority (and you heard it here first, for sure) that it has been bought by an unnamed British interest and is being readied for return to the UK, restored to its original British aircraft registration G-AFTL.  For WW2 air buffs, if and when it happens, this truly will be a red-letter day.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *

It is often said that when war breaks out, initially it is in the hands of the Gentlemen; but that things will only get properly underway when the Players take over.  If ever a man epitomised this, it was Sidney Cotton.  At the same time, consummate players like Cotton are often, how shall we put it, not always wholly reliable when it comes to things like, errr, facts.  Many of the accounts you'll readily find about Cotton are based on self-serving, highly embellished claims by the man himself and shouldn't be depended upon as regards details.  In particular, he was prone to laying claims to the deeds of others.  But the truth is more than exciting enough and, in very brief outline, goes as follows.

Cotton, an Australian, served with distinction in the Royal Naval Air Service in WW1.  In between combat missions he designed the 'SidCot' flying suit which protected pilots against the cold, wet and flying oil they encountered in the cockpit, a design which remained in production until the 1950s  Along with many early aviators he saw limitless opportunities in using aircraft for novel purposes, and was involved in many buccaneering commercial enterprises around the globe in the inter-war years.  Biggles had nothing on this man.

In the year or so before the outbreak of WW2 the RAF realised it needed to get back into the business of purposeful aerial reconnaissance, an activity and skill that for several reasons had effectively lapsed between the wars.  It commenced an extensive programme of quiet recce, mainly of Italian positions across the Mediterranean and North Africa, using regular RAF resources (mostly flying boats).  But by 1938-9, flying badged military aircraft missions against Germany itself, both for ourselves and the French, was not on.  So, sponsored by MI6 and its French opposite number the Deuxième Bureau, the word went out: can we find a civilian who'll be able to do it on a clandestine basis?  Cotton was "known to the authorities", eminently qualified, and only too happy to oblige.  With secret Anglo-French funding he acquired a couple of high-tech, all-metal Lockheeds and a smaller Beechcraft, along with a daring young co-pilot and a base at Heston.

Cotton at the controls
G-AFTL in particular was cleverly modified, James Bond-style, (Cotton and Fleming were friends, naturally) to conceal a suite of cameras behind sliding panels, in the underbelly and the leading edge of a wing root.  On spurious commercial pretexts, Cotton and his merry men flew an impressive series of flights across a range of target areas, most significantly across Germany - sometimes even with German passengers aboard.  One of their sorties was the first operational recce mission of the war - actually, just hours before war was declared - over the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven, bringing back vital photos. 

The war having been declared, the RAF formally took over responsibility for air recce, using its carefully trained fleet of Blenheim light bombers, of which more later.  However, Cotton's "civilian" crews still had an important role.  Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Italy were all neutral at the start of the war, but of potential value to the Germans in one way or another.  So up-to-date aerial recce was urgently needed, to map them out accurately and from a military perspective.  The Lockheeds, again on spurious "civil" journeys, were ideal for the task.  They only became redundant in this role when Germany moved against the Low Countries and then France itself late in the spring.

It will be great to have G-AFTL back in blighty again.  Its new owners are being very coy about who, when and where - so, watch this space.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *

So much for the Lockheeds: what of Cotton?  He was lobbying for a revolutionary idea.  First, some perspective.  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".

They had before them an alternative concept, being pitched by Cotton and others.  Precisely whose original idea it was is open to debate (there are at least 3 main candidates) but the proposal was clear enough.  Instead of fighting for your photos, send an ultra-fast aircraft, at high altitude, with cameras of much longer focal length - and obtain your pictures unopposed.  Bomber Command strongly resisted this idea but, greatly assisted by the secrecy of Cotton's outfit (still officially reporting to MI6), work rapidly started on putting the concept into practice on a very small scale: one aircraft, to be precise.

Of the technical desiderata, the ideal cameras were not at first available; but urgent development work was put in hand to acquire what was needed.  Meantime, there was a really obvious candidate for the aircraft - a Spitfire.  (Needless to say, Fighter Command initially declined to hand one over, but they were outranked.)  Cotton stripped out the armament, ballast and armour, sanded the machine down, painted it blue, made various other clever tweaks to the airframe and engine, added more fuel tankage - and fitted cameras.  The result was something that flew faster and higher than a Spitfire had done before and, most importantly, was comfortably able to outclimb and outrun Me109s.  It was the first of several marks of recce Spitfire, getting progressively more advanced in every dimension as the months went past, that were operational before the fall of France.

Their success rate, both in terms of the photos they acquired and their survival rate, was vastly superior to that of the brave Blenheims, as was immediately obvious to all.  It should have been no contest; but Bomber Command mulishly and indeed deviously resisted the inevitable for many months of intra-service wrangling to come.  They were, however, basically bypassed** with the formation of a well-equipped "strategical reconnaissance" organisation at RAF Benson near Oxford, squarely based on Spitfires (and later Mosquitos, and later still with US personnel and assets).  This was complemented with a new science/art of "photographic interpretation", centred at Medmenham down the road on the Thames - as much advanced from WW1 photo analysis as was the recce itself, and developed just as rapidly; initially by maverick civilians who were the strong-willed equivalents of Cotton in their own sphere. 

The exploits and achievements of this entirely new strategic organisation had no parallel in Germany, and rival Bletchley Park for their importance in WW2.  Stories galore for another day.    

To start with, all this was under the highly resourceful and decidedly unconventional command of Cotton, now an RAF Wing Commander.  During its pioneering development phase, everyone recognised it couldn't be any other way: cameth the hour, and so cameth the man.  And the achievements of his revolutionary endeavour were extraordinary, in a very short space of time.  However, he was putting noses seriously out of joint, up and down the land and over in France.  The final straw came - and Cotton went - after he accepted money from French industrialists to spirit them out of Paris in RAF aircraft just before Hitler arrived.  That was Sidney Cotton for you.  Definitely a player.

Come home soon, G-AFTL ...

ND

_______________

** Such is the bizarre nature of service politics that Bomber Command was allowed to carry on using its own costly recce in parallel to the new purpose-built strategic setup for more than a year.  One of the Command's motives was to ensure 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 Medmenham were often strained, to his credit Bomber Harris personally came to value its accurate output.

Friday, 7 January 2022

Holland's energy commitment for the new year - a practical guide for UK energy policy


"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails." William Arthur Ward

The huge natural gas reserves in Holland have meant that the country has been a petro-state for a while, just a very quiet one. There is a reason here as to why it is such an agreeable country, even if my personal business experience of dealing with the Dutch is they are as tough as nails when it comes to negotiating. 

However, as with all of Europe, they have been prone to green-virtue signalling about their energy for a long time. Given the pre-disposition for windmills, you would expect nothing less. However, as is typical across Europe, a lot has been spoken about but not much done. Since 2015 they have though moved electricity generation from green power from 5% to 15% of the Dutch grid. Oh well, I am sure the climate will be thankful for this. 

All the rest is gas, all 85%. 

So of course the recent shift in gas prices has a strange dynamic in Holland, on the one hand the huge Groningen field can still produce a huge amount of taxable profits, on the other the citizens re very exposed to the huge prices increases. 

So, making a sane decision for once, the Dutch have decided to double the output of Groningen field this year, making Exxon and Shell very happy. This will actually wind down the field, maybe even causing a few earthquakes. No matter, desperate times (and profitable ones) and desperate measures. The domestic supply will be sated, profits made and, err, problems kicked into the future if the Russians continue to ignore their customer base. 

Meanwhile, in the UK, we still have politicians wittering on about the need to go green at all costs. The Liberal Democrats are actually suggesting windfall tax on Oil and Gas businesses now, to help the consumers - just as they need funds to open up capacity. The Scots have already cancelled the huge Cambo filed development off Shetland, incredible; the Tories are considering subsidizing the retail energy sellers to help them hedge the market - not thinking at all about supply or the further downside risks of hedging in a volatile market. 

The solutions to the crisis are actually within our grasp, but the politicians we are led by will suggest anything but the obvious and practical solutions. The UK should still be an energy exporter with certainly no domestic shock - indeed, it should be windfall times with our gas reserves. It is totally stunning how stupid and badly advised they are collectively. 

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808)


Monday, 3 January 2022

Predictions game 2022

 So for this year, more free form for the predictions game.

The four topics for consideration are UK Politics, Global Politics, Macro Economics and Covid.

Make a prediction for the development of each of these, plus one bonus as a tie breaker.

Get started in the comments!

For me, in UK politics Boris will survive the year somehow, in global politics Russia will not invade Ukraine directly but engineer a civil war of some sort and perhaps then take a police action. In macro economics inflation will fade in some products as goods and trade recover, but remain high as energy costs drive it like the oil crisis of the 1970’s. Covid will be with us, Omicron signalling the end for a nice spring and summer but the autumn will see a new variant. As my bonus, Northern Ireland will cause huge Brexit issues and a desperate Boris will invoke Article 16 as a way to try to drag both the EU and the US into a new round of negotiations.