Strategic Defence Review - AI Would Have Done Better

 

An old RAF colleague from Northumberland, reflecting on the Ukrainian success in destroying a large number of Russian strategic bombers on the ground, mentioned that the chief of the Russian air force may wish to modify his future social behaviour and restrict his attendance to events that only take place at ground level.  It may be too late, but he may also wish to get his excuses in early?  Unlike the Government’s Strategic Defence Review – a carefully crafted document which conveniently ignores, as a starting point, the strategic imperatives of National defence policy and, instead, hides behind meaningless slogans such as, “NATO first.”  Mushroom will return to that. Meantime, if the head of the Russian air force has access to Gemini AI on his phone, to save valuable time, he may wish to ask how to excuse his failures to President Putin.  Mushroom asked as simple question and, less than a second later, received the following answer:

 

“As head of the Russian Air Force, explaining the loss of 50 aircraft to a Ukrainian drone attack would require a carefully crafted narrative, blending elements of truth, deflection, and propaganda to maintain morale, accountability (to a degree), and public perception. Here's how I might frame it, addressing different audiences:

To the Supreme Commander (President/Ministry of Defence):

"Comrade Supreme Commander,

I stand before you to address the recent incident, a calculated and unprecedented attack on our airbases by the Ukrainian regime, resulting in significant damage to our aviation assets. While the precise number is still being verified, preliminary assessments indicate substantial losses, potentially affecting up to 50 aircraft.

This was not a conventional attack. Ukrainian forces employed a novel and insidious tactic, utilizing swarms of highly sophisticated, long-range drones, many reportedly launched from within our own territory using camouflaged mobile platforms. This allowed them to bypass traditional layered air defence systems that are designed to counter conventional air threats. The sheer volume and low radar signature of these drones, coupled with their distributed launch points, created a challenging operational environment.

We are conducting a thorough and immediate investigation to understand every aspect of this breach. Our initial findings point to:

●      Exploitation of new tactics: The enemy adapted rapidly, deploying a decentralized and massed drone attack that leverages commercial technologies adapted for military use.

●      Challenges in detection and interception: The small size, low altitude, and often materials used in these drones make them difficult to detect by conventional radar and intercept by traditional air defence assets designed for larger, faster targets.

●      Possible internal complicity or negligence: We are investigating how these launch platforms could have operated so deep within our territory. This includes examining security protocols, intelligence failures, and any potential acts of sabotage or negligence by individuals. Those found responsible will face the full force of military justice.

●      Asymmetry of cost: It's important to note that the cost of producing and launching these drones is significantly lower than the value of the strategic assets they targeted. This is a deliberate tactic to inflict disproportionate economic and material damage.

Despite these losses, our strategic air capabilities remain intact. The damaged aircraft represent a fraction of our overall strength, and we have robust reserves and production capacities. This incident, while regrettable, provides invaluable lessons that we are already implementing to adapt our air defence doctrines, deploy new counter-drone technologies, and enhance security measures at our airbases. We will turn this setback into a strategic advantage, learning from the enemy's adaptations and developing even more effective countermeasures.

I assure you, Comrade Supreme Commander, the fighting spirit of our Air Force remains unbroken. We will redouble our efforts to ensure such an attack is never repeated, and we will continue to fulfil our mission with unwavering resolve."

To the General Public (via state media):

"Citizens of the Russian Federation,

Yesterday, the Kiev regime, in a desperate and cowardly act, launched a terrorist attack against several of our military airbases deep within Russian territory. This aggression, utilizing foreign-supplied and highly destructive unmanned aerial vehicles, was a blatant attempt to sow panic and undermine our nation's security.

Thanks to the heroic actions of our air defence forces and military personnel, the vast majority of these enemy drones were successfully intercepted and destroyed. However, a small number managed to reach their targets, causing localized fires and minor damage to some aviation equipment. We commend the swift response of our emergency services and military teams who quickly contained the situation and prevented further harm.

This was a cynical act of desperation by a regime facing inevitable defeat. They targeted our strategic assets in a futile attempt to disrupt our special military operation, which continues to proceed according to plan. We want to reassure our citizens that there is no threat to civilian populations, and our armed forces remain fully capable of defending our Motherland.

This incident only strengthens our resolve. We will not be intimidated by such terrorist tactics. Our military is adapting, learning, and developing new and advanced countermeasures to protect our skies from all threats. Those responsible for planning and executing this barbaric attack will face inevitable retribution. Victory will be ours."

Key themes in the explanations:

●      Downplay the exact number of losses (to the public): While acknowledging "significant damage" or "several pieces of aviation equipment," avoid giving a precise, high number to the public.

●      Shift blame: Frame it as an "insidious," "cowardly," or "terrorist" attack by the enemy.

●      Highlight enemy innovation/unconventional tactics: This explains the difficulty of defence without admitting a fundamental failure in existing systems. It also justifies future expenditures on new defence technologies.

●      Emphasize resilience and adaptation: Stress that the military is learning, improving, and will overcome this challenge.

●      Reassure the public: Emphasize that there is no threat to civilians and that the military remains strong.

●      Call for unity and resolve: Reinforce patriotic sentiment and the necessity of the "special military operation."

●      Promise accountability (internally): To the command, acknowledge investigation into potential negligence or complicity.

●      Focus on the future: Frame it as a lesson learned that will make the military stronger.

This approach combines elements of information control, psychological manipulation, and a degree of operational reality to manage the fallout of such a significant loss.”

 

By the way, you may agree that the key themes in the explanations to the public bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Starmer’s Strategic Defence Review selling points?