@IBallantyn added to list.

It’s time the Govt did serious studies into Y the U.K. gets such poor VfM for its spending. It’s not just defence that’s crap, but health, education, transport etc. Look at HS2, Crossrail, Hinckley Pt etc as eg’s. Do other countries do it better - France, S Korea, USA, etc?

Between 2010 and 2024, the RAF experienced the largest reduction in fleet size since the end of the Cold War. The Brirish Army lost 23 regiments. The Royal Navy lost 25 ships. Ministers who did this are still Conservatives or now in Reform UK. Don't be fooled.

Given the success/ threat of UAVs and USVs in the ME & off Ukraine, restricting the utility of naval forces, I wonder if the UKs (not yet published) DiP will identify the need for thousands of similar cheap systems to help protect the Falkland Islands?

An extremely sad read, & I can’t argue with it, but this is how even our pro-U.K. allies see us. They pity us; how embarrassing, & no sign of an upturn in our fortunes imho despite the build programme @IBallantyn @TomSharpe134 @Gunbust09696378 @pegge49 @ForwardStrategy @MtarfaL

Britain should wear Trump’s insults as a badge of honor. Being attacked by Trump is not a sign that you failed him. It is often a sign that you refused to bend to something reckless, vain, or destructive. At this point, being denounced by him is almost a moral endorsement. He has spent years degrading allies, poisoning trust, normalizing lies, corroding institutions, and turning public life into a spectacle of grievance and humiliation. He does not strengthen relationships. He burns them down, then demands applause in front of the ashes. So yes, if Britain is now getting the special treatment, it should be proud. Trump reserves his worst behavior for the people and countries that still expect decency, loyalty, and seriousness. That tells you everything. And history will not be kind to the people who enabled him. When the full cost of what he broke becomes clearer, in democracy, alliances, public trust, and basic standards of leadership, future generations will look back in disbelief at those who cheered him on. Many of his supporters still think they are backing strength. In time, they may be remembered as the people who helped vandalize the West from within. What does it say about a leader when being insulted by him feels like a mark of integrity? How will tomorrow judge those who saw all this clearly and still chose to support it?

Trump’s message to Britain says more than he probably intended. After reports that London was considering sending carrier support, he brushed it off, said the U.S. did not need it, and warned that “we will remember.” That came after a public clash with Keir Starmer over Britain’s earlier hesitation to allow U.S. use of British bases in the Iran war. The UK defence ministry has said preparations were under way, but no final carrier deployment decision had been confirmed. This is what Trump keeps doing. He treats allies worse than adversaries. He insults friends, humiliates partners, and chips away at the trust that held the Western alliance together for decades. That is not strategy. It is demolition dressed up as strength. The pattern is now impossible to miss. Europe should read this clearly. A continent cannot build its long-term security on the mood swings of one American president. If Washington can turn on London like this in the middle of a crisis, then Europe has every reason to build more of its own defence capacity, its own industrial base, and a far stronger ability to act without waiting for permission from a chaotic White House. That last point is an argument, not a verified fact, but Trump’s handling of allies is exactly the kind of evidence European leaders will cite. He has also exposed something deeper about the United States itself. When one leader can degrade alliances so casually, drag institutions behind his impulses, and still face too few meaningful restraints, it raises serious questions about how resilient the American system really is, both for its own democracy and for the allies who once assumed it would remain steady. That is an inference, but it is the direction this presidency keeps pointing in. Stay connected, Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

🚨🇦🇪🇺🇸 Prominent UAE billionaire Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor just published an open letter to Trump. It's brutal. "Who gave you the authority to drag our region into a war with Iran? Who gave you permission to turn our region into a battlefield?" Al Habtoor's a major figure: billionaire, former diplomat, outspoken political voice in the Gulf. When he talks, UAE leadership's listening. His questions: * Was this your decision or Netanyahu's pressure? * Did you calculate collateral damage before firing? * You placed GCC countries at the heart of danger they didn't choose * Your "Board of Peace" initiatives were funded by Gulf states. Now we're getting attacked. Where did that money go? * You promised no wars. You've conducted operations in 7 countries: Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, Iran, Venezuela * 658 airstrikes in your first year back = Biden's entire term (which you criticized) * War costs $40-65 billion for operations, possibly $210 billion total * Your approval rating's down 9% in 400 days * Americans were promised peace. They're getting war funded by their taxes The sharpest line: "Before the ink has dried on your Board of Peace initiative, we find ourselves facing military escalation that endangers the entire region. So where did those initiatives go?" Al Habtoor's not some random critic. He's establishment. Connected. When UAE elites start publicly questioning Trump's decision-making, that's America's closest Arab allies saying "we didn't sign up for this." The letter ends: "True leadership is not measured by war decisions, but by wisdom, respect for others, and pushing toward achieving peace." @KhalafAlHabtoor

Interesting article on BBC News today about how Russia & Ukraine wage war with drones; in particular nothing (inc troops) moves without close control from op centres via drone top cover. Meanwhile in the U.K……..Ajax.

Long post warning.. “Why don’t we send the Navy to stop them boats” I hear you shout. Here’s why! This is mainly about law, safety, and operational policy — not simply capability. When small boats cross the Channel carrying migrants, the Royal Navy (when tasked) operates under UK and international law. Here’s why they don’t just “turn them around”: ⸻ 1️⃣ Duty to Preserve Life at Sea Under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention and longstanding maritime law, any vessel encountering people in distress at sea has a legal duty to rescue them. The UK is a signatory to SOLAS, administered internationally by the International Maritime Organization. Most small boats crossing the Channel are: • Overcrowded • Not seaworthy • Without proper safety equipment • At risk of capsizing Forcibly pushing them back can increase the risk of loss of life — which would breach maritime obligations. ⸻ 2️⃣ Non-Refoulement (Refugee Law) Under the 1951 Refugee Convention (and related human rights law), the UK must not return individuals to a place where they may face persecution without assessing their claim. This principle is known as non-refoulement. Even at sea, if migrants enter UK territorial waters, the UK assumes responsibility for processing asylum claims. ⸻ 3️⃣ Operational Risk Trying to physically turn around: • Inflatable dinghies • Overloaded small craft • Often piloted by untrained individuals creates high capsizing risk. Naval or Border Force vessels creating wake turbulence can easily destabilise these boats. A mass drowning in one incident would be politically and legally catastrophic. ⸻ 4️⃣ French Territorial Waters Many crossings begin in French waters. The Royal Navy cannot operate enforcement actions inside French territorial waters without French agreement. Jurisdiction changes depending on: • Which country’s waters the boat is in • Whether it has been formally “rescued” • Whether distress has been declared ⸻ 5️⃣ Pushback Policy Was Considered — Then Dropped The UK government previously explored a “pushback” tactic (turning boats back toward France), but it was: • Strongly criticised on safety grounds • Opposed by maritime professionals • Legally challenged • Ultimately abandoned ⸻ 6️⃣ Current Approach The operational model now is: • Intercept • Rescue • Transfer to UK processing Responsibility is shared between the Royal Navy and Border Force depending on tasking. ⸻ In Plain Terms The Navy could physically block or escort boats back in theory. But in practice: • International maritime law prioritises rescue • Refugee law restricts forced return • Safety risk is extremely high • Diplomatic and legal consequences would be severe So the policy defaults to rescue and processing rather than pushback.