Britain’s armed forces must be prepared to confront a "deadly quartet" of global threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, according to Lord Robertson, the surprise pick to lead a comprehensive review of the UK's defences. This major review comes as a response to the perceived need for Britain to bolster its military capabilities in the face of these emerging threats.

 

Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary and ex-NATO chief, has been brought back to the forefront of military policy by Sir Keir Starmer. Robertson previously led Labour's last Strategic Defence Review (SDR) over 25 years ago. In an innovative move, the government also announced the inclusion of two other external experts to assist in shaping the future structure and size of the armed forces.

 

One of these experts is Fiona Hill, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump administration who testified against the former president during his impeachment trial. Hill, a British-born expert on Russia who holds US citizenship, has previously likened Donald Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has dismissed her criticisms, saying, "She doesn't know the first thing she's talking about. If she didn't have the accent, she would be nothing."

 

Speaking about her new role, Hill stated, "This review could not be more timely given the current global turmoil and rapid technological change. I am honoured to participate in this important and critical exercise." The third reviewer, General Sir Richard Barrons, is a highly-regarded four-star general who was once considered for the role of head of the armed forces before his retirement in 2016.

 

At a news conference launching the government's new defence review, Lord Robertson emphasized the need for "fresh thinking" to address the "threats and challenges" the nation faces. He warned, "We're confronted by a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together. We in this country and the NATO alliance have got to be able to confront that particular quartet as well as the other problems that are pervading the world."

 

The explicit description of China as "deadly" marks a shift from the more nuanced language previously used by the UK government regarding Beijing. Although Robertson did not name the quartet, it is widely understood to include China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

John Healey, the current defence secretary, stated that the external team would collaborate with the "deep expertise" within the Ministry of Defence. The review, he promised, would be delivered "at pace" within the first half of next year, incorporating input from academia, think tanks, and even journalists.

 

Healey acknowledged the enduring challenges of a military diminished by decades of cost-saving cuts, coupled with limited financial resources for necessary transformation. Despite the government’s pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income from the current 2.2%, no specific timeline has been offered.

 

Speaking candidly, Healey admitted that even an increase in funding would not be a "magic wand" to solve all problems. "If we simply use additional funding to relieve some of the pressures in present programs and plans, we will fail to get to grips with the very serious situation we face and the changes we must make to be better fit to fight in the future, better able to defend Britain, and better able to deter the threats that we may face in the future as well."

 

Healey also expressed a desire for the wider defence sector to play a larger role in the government's plans to boost economic growth. "In many ways, defence is the untold story of economic growth and the economic engine in Britain," he noted, highlighting that the average wage in the defence industry is 40% higher than other manufacturing sectors, with 70% of defence jobs located outside London and the South East.

 

"For a government that wants to drive growth, improve productivity, and spread wealth creation, defence is one of the cornerstones of a new industrial strategy," Healey emphasized.

 

The defence secretary will oversee the review, with the three external reviewers providing regular updates to him, the prime minister, and the chancellor. They will be supported by a Defence Review Team consisting of experts from both inside and outside the government. As Britain faces an increasingly complex global landscape, this review aims to ensure that the country’s armed forces are fully equipped to meet current and future challenges.

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-07-17

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

What sort of spending would be required to defend against the Famous Four? The UK is in trouble after years of Tory mismanagement and unlikely to be able to turn things around in less than a decade.

For a government that wants to drive growth, improve productivity, and spread wealth creation, defence is one of the cornerstones of a new industrial strategy," Healey emphasized.

 

The grift continues. I don’t see any country posting a military threat against the UK. Who in their right minds would want to militarily occupy such a rotten society. The threat, if any, is economic and in that respect, Britain has lost out long ago.

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Britain’s armed forces must be prepared to confront a "deadly quartet" of global threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, according to Lord Robertson, the surprise pick to lead a comprehensive review of the UK's defences. This major review comes as a response to the perceived need for Britain to bolster its military capabilities in the face of these emerging threats.

 

Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary and ex-NATO chief, has been brought back to the forefront of military policy by Sir Keir Starmer. Robertson previously led Labour's last Strategic Defence Review (SDR) over 25 years ago. In an innovative move, the government also announced the inclusion of two other external experts to assist in shaping the future structure and size of the armed forces.

 

One of these experts is Fiona Hill, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump administration who testified against the former president during his impeachment trial. Hill, a British-born expert on Russia who holds US citizenship, has previously likened Donald Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has dismissed her criticisms, saying, "She doesn't know the first thing she's talking about. If she didn't have the accent, she would be nothing."

 

Speaking about her new role, Hill stated, "This review could not be more timely given the current global turmoil and rapid technological change. I am honoured to participate in this important and critical exercise." The third reviewer, General Sir Richard Barrons, is a highly-regarded four-star general who was once considered for the role of head of the armed forces before his retirement in 2016.

 

At a news conference launching the government's new defence review, Lord Robertson emphasized the need for "fresh thinking" to address the "threats and challenges" the nation faces. He warned, "We're confronted by a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together. We in this country and the NATO alliance have got to be able to confront that particular quartet as well as the other problems that are pervading the world."

 

The explicit description of China as "deadly" marks a shift from the more nuanced language previously used by the UK government regarding Beijing. Although Robertson did not name the quartet, it is widely understood to include China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

John Healey, the current defence secretary, stated that the external team would collaborate with the "deep expertise" within the Ministry of Defence. The review, he promised, would be delivered "at pace" within the first half of next year, incorporating input from academia, think tanks, and even journalists.

 

Healey acknowledged the enduring challenges of a military diminished by decades of cost-saving cuts, coupled with limited financial resources for necessary transformation. Despite the government’s pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income from the current 2.2%, no specific timeline has been offered.

 

Speaking candidly, Healey admitted that even an increase in funding would not be a "magic wand" to solve all problems. "If we simply use additional funding to relieve some of the pressures in present programs and plans, we will fail to get to grips with the very serious situation we face and the changes we must make to be better fit to fight in the future, better able to defend Britain, and better able to deter the threats that we may face in the future as well."

 

Healey also expressed a desire for the wider defence sector to play a larger role in the government's plans to boost economic growth. "In many ways, defence is the untold story of economic growth and the economic engine in Britain," he noted, highlighting that the average wage in the defence industry is 40% higher than other manufacturing sectors, with 70% of defence jobs located outside London and the South East.

 

"For a government that wants to drive growth, improve productivity, and spread wealth creation, defence is one of the cornerstones of a new industrial strategy," Healey emphasized.

 

The defence secretary will oversee the review, with the three external reviewers providing regular updates to him, the prime minister, and the chancellor. They will be supported by a Defence Review Team consisting of experts from both inside and outside the government. As Britain faces an increasingly complex global landscape, this review aims to ensure that the country’s armed forces are fully equipped to meet current and future challenges.

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-07-17

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

That's the question: Is it better to live in peace or status quo with a supposed enemy or is it better economically to deal with someone who got opposed views of the world to be? However, our lobbyist will tell you to buy more deadly arms.

In my opinion Victor Orban is on the right track to find a way to live in peace with Russia or China or US. 

In this war there will be no winner, but the daily life with higher prices and loss of wealth will become harder. For me are expenses in any army unnecessary and wasted money....unless you have plans to start a war.🙏

Britain...

21 minutes ago, Jenkins9039 said:

Britain...

Stop swearing.

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

What sort of spending would be required to defend against the Famous Four? The UK is in trouble after years of Tory mismanagement and unlikely to be able to turn things around in less than a decade.

The barbarian hordes can't wait to flood over our 'island home'.....they're in for a disappointment, even the islanders want to leave.

homeland terrorism is the biggest threat

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

The grift continues. I don’t see any country posting a military threat against the UK. Who in their right minds would want to militarily occupy such a rotten society.

 

If they do invade I hope they try to take London first.

 

They'll be stabbed, robbed of their trainers and locked up for a hate crime before they get 100 yards.  

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

What sort of spending would be required to defend against the Famous Four? The UK is in trouble after years of Tory mismanagement and unlikely to be able to turn things around in less than a decade.

You are letting your politics influence your post. The emasculation of Britain's defense force happened under Labour governments as well as Tories. It's been going on since BAOR ended.

 

I don't see how any tinkering will help anyway. The military just isn't an attractive career option.

 

Perhaps if the previous guy hadn't wasted the budget on bombs for Ukraine they might have some money to make the wages attractive.

 

I was in the military during a time we were in Vietnam and when we were not and the time we were not the military sucked biggly ( too many idiots in positions of power ), so they lost me and all the thousands of dollars they spent training me.

Peace time military needs to try harder to keep people in, or they will leave.

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

What sort of spending would be required to defend against the Famous Four? The UK is in trouble after years of Tory mismanagement and unlikely to be able to turn things around in less than a decade.

Both Labour and the Tory politicians are to blame for running the military down starting with Duncan Sandys back in 1957 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Duncan-Edwin-Sandys as minister of defence.

 

Harold Wilson in 1968 along with Denis Healey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez#:~:text=In January 1968%2C a few,well as the Persian Gulf

 

In January 1968, a few weeks after the devaluation of the pound,[1][8] Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, announced that British troops would be withdrawn in 1971 from major military bases in South East Asia, "east of Aden", primarily in Malaysia and Singapore[12][13][14] as well as the Persian Gulf and the Maldives[15] 

 

In addition to that, UK politicians have committed more UK military to conflicts world wide from the ever decreasing UK forces and only now seem to come to the realisation that recruitment is down, retention of the military is down and the well of people and equipment is running dry.

 

IMHO if the politicians of whatever party is in power at the time commit the UK military asseis to somewhere, they will find that there are no longer any assets to commit. There will not be enough boots to put on the ground anywhere.

 

As an example, the Royal Navy has only 2 aircraft carriers. One is in the Red Sea and the other is covering the rest of the world. What will the government do when one carrier id due for a major overhaul, or worse still, needs major battle damage repairs in the UK, or even the worst case, it is sunk?

 

It is not as though you can build, equip and man one and then train the crew in a couple of weeks.

 

 

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

n January 1968, a few weeks after the devaluation of the pound,[1][8] Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, announced that British troops would be withdrawn in 1971 from major military bases in South East Asia, "east of Aden", primarily in Malaysia and Singapore[12][13][14] as well as the Persian Gulf and the Maldives[15] 

I remember that. I was posted to ANZUK in Singapore, in Nee Soon camp, but the Brits and the Aussies went home, and we Kiwis had to transfer to Dieppe Barracks.

 

Singapore was a great place back in the 70s for a young guy. I loved it.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

If they do invade I hope they try to take London first.

 

They'll be stabbed, robbed of their trainers and locked up for a hate crime before they get 100 yards.  

 

Says a bloke who probably hasn't set foot in London for 10 years or more.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The military just isn't an attractive career option.

 

Not meaning this to be a pointed question (from a smartass Yank, no less).  What is it that makes it unattractive?  Low pay?  Lack of respect?  Bad living conditions? Poor advancement prospects?  Bad family situation?  I'm asking, not suggesting. 

 

I'd like to understand, since they seem bound and determined to take us into WW3.  Hopefully on the same side if they do... (That was a dig, but pointed at the US as well as the Euros)

 

Edited July 17, 20241 yr by impulse

Propagating fear to feed the MIT machine.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I remember that. I was posted to ANZUK in Singapore, in Nee Soon camp, but the Brits and the Aussies went home, and we Kiwis had to transfer to Dieppe Barracks.

 

Singapore was a great place back in the 70s for a young guy. I loved it.

I was posted to RAF Seletar in August 1968 where I met some mates on my acclimatisation day which I spent the afternoon touring the Tiger brewery in 19 minutes and the next 1 hour 41 minutes slurping down free Tiger draught beer.

 

I got posted from Seletar to Tengah in March 1968 and was due tourex in January 1971. They were looking for "volunteers" to extend until September 1971. I decided to go back to the UK and was extended until the September anyway.

 

We must have been there around the same time.

 

quote "Singapore was a great place back in the 70s for a young guy. I loved it".

 

I loved it too.