Staying Alive

 

I don’t know about you, but I pricked my ears up when I heard Wes Streeting, the Defence Secretary, say that Britain must be ready for war in 1,000 days as Russia intensifies its hybrid warfare against NATO.  He said Britain’s enemies could be in a position to attack the country by 2030, and the UK must be “ready to fight with our allies and win.”  I assume planning and provisioning for this uncomfortable event is well under way and there is little urgency since the Government has delayed setting out a detailed plan for meeting our NATO commitment to increase defence funding until next autumn’s spending review. Nevertheless, to indicate intent, I hear that the Chancellor, John Healey, is expected to use his first Budget as Chancellor tomorrow to promise a “down payment” on hitting 3 per cent by 2030.  Although, apparently, there are some clever sleights of hand to fund this transaction, everything is said to be well under control and I am sure there is no need to be concerned (like we used to be, with reds under the bed)!   

Still, if we needed confirmation of our precarious position, our Government recently published guidance which advised us to keep three days’ worth of non-perishable food and bottled water, an FM radio and blankets at home to prepare for disruption caused by natural disasters or attacks by hostile states. I didn’t think 3 days provisions sounded very much unless, of course, the only disruptions we are likely to face are very minor indeed or, on the other hand, nuclear in which case, to borrow from Tom Lehrer, “we’ll all go together when we go.”  But this is rather at odds with Wes’s preparations to resist attack from our enemies.  I don’t suppose an invasion of England would be over in 3 days – but if it weren’t, for how long should I provision to protect and survive?

I thought it would be helpful, for the purposes of civilian resilience and planning, if the Government would define some scenarios in which we may become engaged in fighting and match the resources required to sustain capabilities for a certain period accordingly.  In particular, how would we deal with a direct attack on our country, as Wes envisages?  Armed with a worst case, we could then plan our own survival strategy.

Unfortunately, your guess is as good as mine but it would certainly involve surviving deprivation for a lot longer than 3 days.  So I shall begin my stockpiling immediately.  I’ll need quite a lot of stuff and somewhere safe (we haven’t seen a Bobbie on the beat round here for years) to keep it.  Then there is the Anderson Shelter to consider.  Altogether it could cost me a lot more than I could raise in ready money.  The credit card is on the buffers after that “well-deserved” family break in the summer.  I’ve tried the Martin Lewis tricks of balance transfers, but the awful reality is that if I want to buy anything I can’t borrow to pay for it, except for pay-day loans of course.  As it is, the minimum payment on my credit cards is a big chunk of my pension after tax so there is not that much ready money either.  I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I may need to cut back on current expenditure and reassess the holiday plans for next year just to fund my survival cache.  How unjust is that?

Cost of Government Crisis

 

Having worked hard during my life and made provision for an independent retirement, I feel sure Andy Burnham believes I belong to the hapless cohort with the “broadest shoulders.” I am, therefore, bracing myself for “paying that little bit extra” to ensure the provision of services and security which I had, hitherto, expected my contributions to cover.

It is speculated that the Budget will shy away from discussion the disagreeable subject of how stuff is to be paid for and concentrate on the much more politically advantageous subject of what’s in it for me.  Well, not me, as I explained above but you know who anyway.  We shall probably hear lots of warm words about pathways and roadmaps to sunlit uplands meantime financed by cunning changes to rules and accounting procedures.

Beneath the glossy surface, we could be forgiven for feeling a few pangs of anxiety.  With civil unrest, particularly in France, out of control national budgets, and ineffective political leadership, it would only take one of the dominos to tip to set off a devastating chain reaction in the Eurozone. We should not kid ourselves that our Brexit status would give us any special treatment or protection – we are in the giant debt Ponzi scheme up to our necks.

There are a few honourable voices that sense the danger we face and the measures necessary to recover stability.  You can read what these people have to say in magazines like the Spectator, hear what they have to say on news media like GB News, or hear them disparagingly name-checked on BBC programmes like Have I Got News for You.  Most of all, however, you will hear from the Government that these dreadful people are preaching “austerity,” – a shorthand for Thatcherism and a complete anathema to all fair-minded and caring people.

But let us get one thing clear as we lurch further into the cost of Government crisis: austerity is not a political policy chosen by governments or oppositions: austerity is a regime, unmistakably, imposed by creditors.  If you want to avoid austerity, the remedy is simple – don’t give your creditors cause to worry that they will not get their money back.

 

Whitehall Whitewash

 In respect of the placement of, arguably, our most important diplomatic position abroad, the Daily Telegraph opined, “since this was a political appointment made at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, the usual Foreign Office procedures for testing suitability for diplomatic posts were not followed.”

Our Embassy in Washington, I assume, routinely deals with our biggest secrets and, most importantly, vital secrets shared with our allies.

Those of us who have been entrusted with such confidences in the past know the stringent vetting procedures and careful indoctrinations that would normally take place before such appointments – the owners of the secrets, particularly in the US, would have insisted.  The vetting process would, amongst other things, take account of the subject’s character, past action, and susceptibility to influence in the future.  At the highest level, the subject would emerge from the process having been declared, "OMO" clean or “whiter than white.”

 

Given the publicly available detail of Mandelsons past dealings and the personal weaknesses exposed, it seems to me inconceivable that the relevant departments of our security services, who would have known a lot more than had been reported in the press, did not raise show- stopping objections at the time. It appears these objections must have been overruled or ignored by the political appointment procedure to which the Telegraph referred. It follows that it is not just Mandelson who has betrayed his country.

We continue to be mislead. Despite Starmer's anger and Epstein victim mea culpa, this was not just a ghastly error of political judgement, it was a critical breach of security, potentially on the Philby scale.

Starmer's Spending Conundrum - NATO First, Wallet Second?

Starmer has been out on the stump, banging the drum for "NATO first." Unfortunately, the fighting capability wish list, which might be a useful contribution to the alliance, provided, of course, “when circumstances allow,” is getting longer and pricier. The percentage of GDP required to fund these ambitions is growing by the day. Starmer's carefully calibrated pledges, 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an "ambition" for 3% further down the line,” look like futile gestures..

So how do you square a staunch "NATO first" commitment, which implicitly means meeting the alliance's demands, with a declining economy and an eye-watering balance of debt (debt interest alone is nearly twice the current MOD budget)?

Starmer's team have been quick to point out Britain's strong track record and capabilities within NATO. It surely won’t be long before someone in Whitehall mentions, “punching above our weight”  again! Unfortunately come the next NATO summit in The Hague, the pressure will be on to put even more of our money where our mouth is.

"NATO first" sounds grand on a campaign poster but will it come at the expense of free school meals, pay rises for junior doctors, restoration of winter fuel allowances, warm home schemes, and dozens of other social measures all of which, to this woeful government, seem more important than their fundamental duty to keep us safe.

Mushroom thinks we should be told.

 

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?

 

The Way We Live Now

 

Fogo not Forgetting

 

In a corner of this foreign field someone has ensured that the young men who died whilst serving at Charterhall are not forgotten.  The several graves of mostly Commonwealth aircrew have been meticulously maintained, ensuring that their death in war was neither anonymous nor unsung. Thank you, parishioners of Fogo, from an RAF veteran.