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.

Taxes Made Easy

  

HMRC appears to be in small spot of difficulty with its customers.  The threat to deny access by telephone for months on end has been hastily withdrawn and, instead, HMRC assures us:

 “We continue to encourage people to use our highly-rated online services wherever possible, so they can get their queries resolved quickly and easily. This allows our expert advisers to focus on helping those who need one-to-one support, including the digitally excluded and the vulnerable.”

Public exasperation with the tax authorities does not appear to be a recent phenomenon.  Back in 1865, Punch published an exchange between disgruntled tax payer Mildmay Diddleton (Late of the Army) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, WE Gladstone.

I came across the particular edition of Punch whilst relaxing in the superb visitor centre at Howick Hall in Northumberland (£9 admission for old folks is an absolute snip, by the way). 

Here is the full exchange of letters. 

Readers, particularly those frustrated by their failure to contact HMRC,  may admire Mildmay Diddleton’s sense if purpose and may, even, be tempted to follow his example?

 

 

Defence Chickens Roosting

 

In the past, Mushroom has lamented the incessant cutting of defence expenditure and derided the clichéd excuses such as punching above our weight and pivoting towards cyber warfare. He has sat, with former colleagues, and listened to senior serving officers emphasising the importance equality and diversity at, apparently, the expense of fighting effectiveness and esprit de corps.  He has become exasperated with the naïve party line that if only we should spend 2% of GDP on our armed forces, all will be well with our defence posture.  A stupidity that appears to afflict almost the entire political establishment.

Well, this week, the cosy complacency has been punctured as several respected authorities warn of the deteriorating security situation and our lack of preparedness for major conflict. 

The historian, Robert Tombs, weighed in, in the Sunday telegraph today:

“History shows that we have blundered into disaster by not seeing it coming. In the 1930s, public opinion moved faster than the politicians in realising the threat from the Nazis, but it was still desperately late in doing so. War is so terrible – modern war unimaginably so – that we cannot neglect any way of making it less likely. Retreating into neutrality does not seem an option in the modern world, as Sweden, long a proud neutral, has realised. We need politicians who are able to look without flinching at the dangers facing us, and explain to the country what needs to be done and what it will cost.”

To which our Government spokesman, apparently, “looking without flinching,” reassures us that “these kinds of hypothetical scenarios, talking about a conflict, are not helpful and I don’t think it’s right to engage with them,” adding that the Government had invested “significant sums into our Armed Forces”. Quite so and, as an old colleague in Northumberland reflects on a quote from Sir John Harvey-Jones on planning:

“Planning is an unnatural process; it is much more fun to do something.  And the nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression."

Just the political ticket?