Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Europe, European Union, Government, Greenland, Military, NATO, Society, United States

UK troops could be sent to Greenland to ease fears

GREENLAND

Intro: European allies have been in talks to deploy a force to Greenland in countering the growing threat from Russia and China. Sending a NATO force might help to ease President Trump’s security fears

The UK is in talks with European allies about deploying a force to Greenland that would guard the Arctic and ease anxieties in Washington.

Military chiefs are drawing up plans for a possible NATO mission on the island, which President Trump has threatened to seize for security reasons.

Officials from Britain have met with counterparts from countries including Germany and France in recent days to start the preparations.

The plans, still at an early stage, could involve British soldiers, warships, and planes being deployed to protect Greenland from Russia and China.

It is hoped that by significantly stepping up their presence in the Arctic European nations would persuade Mr Trump to abandon his ambition to annex the strategic island.

It is believed this would allow him to claim a victory for American taxpayers by arguing that Europe was paying more for the cost of policing the Atlantic.

Mr Trump has threatened to take ownership of Greenland through the use of force. It is a self-governed island but is territorially part of Denmark, a NATO member.

He has cited concerns that Moscow or Beijing will seize the island if he does not, insisting that “we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour”.

Greenland is also rich in natural resources – including copper, nickel, and rare earth minerals crucial for powering modern technology.

Sir Keir Starmer is taking the threat from Russia and China in the area “extremely seriously” and is said to have agreed that action must be taken. There is increasing acceptance by the UK Government of President Trump’s view that growing aggression in the High North must be deterred, and Euro-Atlantic security be strengthened.

Mr Trump has also floated the idea of effectively buying the territory by offering each of its 30,000 citizens up to $100,000 to switch allegiance to the US.

Purchasing Greenland may be Mr Trump’s preferred option, but he has not ruled out using military force in annexing the island, insisting that “we are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not.” Ominous language.

His pursuit of the territory has plunged NATO into crisis and prompted speculation that the 75-year-old alliance could fall apart.

While plans are at an early stage, European countries are hoping to pull Mr Trump back from the brink by offering to station a military force on the island. This idea was discussed at a meeting of NATO allies in Brussels.

Members instructed the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, the alliance’s military headquarters in Belgium, to determine what more could be done to secure the Arctic.

It could be a full-blown troop deployment or a combination of time-limited exercises, intelligence sharing, capability development, and re-routed defence spending.

Any operation would likely be carried out under NATO’s banner and would be separate and distinct from existing missions in the Baltic and Poland.

Preparations in Britain for a greater role in Arctic security have already started. These include commandos and Royal Navy ships taking part in Exercise Joint Viking, a joint NATO drill in Norway’s sub-zero temperature.

This year, 1,500 Royal Marines will also deploy to Norway, Finland, and Sweden for Exercise Cold Response, a training mission on defending frozen terrain.

It is also understood the European Union is drawing up plans for sanctions on US companies should Mr Trump reject the offer of a NATO deployment.

US technology giants such as Meta, Google, Microsoft, and X could be restricted from operating on the Continent, as could American banks and financial firms.

A more extreme option could be to evict the US military from its bases in Europe, denying it a key staging post for operations in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Analysts said the president’s actions were typical of his negotiating strategy, which involves making maximalist demands to extract money from other countries.

Examples include his threat to impose massive tariffs on European pharmaceuticals but exempting countries, including Britain, that agreed to pay more for US drugs.

In recent months, the White House has also suggested that it wants Japan to pay more towards covering the cost of the 55,000 American troops based there.

Sibylline, a risk analysis firm, said Mr Trump was “likely weighing the unity and resolve of European nations” over Greenland. It said allies could “call Trump’s bluff” by proposing a NATO force in Greenland, implying security wasn’t the president’s real reason for wanting the island.

It came as a former RAF chief cast serious doubt over Britain’s ability to protect the Arctic, saying the nation’s defences had become “a flimsy façade”.

Air Marshal Edward Stringer said that the gap between the perception of the UK’s military strength and its actual capabilities had become cavernous.

In a report for Policy Exchange, he warned that not a single formation in the British military was currently sustainable in combat in its own right.

He wrote: “Now the US is signalling strongly that it is putting ‘America First’ and the rest of NATO will have to look after its own defences.

This fundamentally challenges the model that we had semi-accidentally slipped into – our national defences have been revealed to be a flimsy façade.

The ‘Say-Do’ gap between the image of ourselves we have come to believe, and the reality of the hard power we can project in practice, is stark.

The first necessary step is to recognise that, and recognise that the methods that got us into this mess have to be discarded ruthlessly.”

Standard
Britain, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Europe must awaken or face great insecurity in 2026

EUROPE

THE great Victorian jurist, Sir Henry Maine, wrote: “War appears to be as old as mankind… but peace is a modern invention”. Events in the early part of 2026 will doubtless prove his wisdom by showing the awful fragility of that particular invention.

Even if they had never heard of Maine, the most complacent Europeans should have learnt from Vladimir Putin’s relentless onslaught against Ukraine that peace is neither a natural state nor the default setting of advanced countries, but rather a historical aberration that can only be preserved through strength and vigilance.

Yet, in 2025, we discovered how Europe remains divided between nations that grasp this lesson – or never forgot it – and those that cling with obstinance to old delusions. Leading the former category are Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Having broken free of the Kremlin within living memory, these countries know exactly what it means to be invaded by Russia: they will do anything to prevent this from happening again.

And what of Britain? Despite Sir Keir Starmer’s grandiose rhetoric (“a battle-ready armour-clad nation”), Britain remains firmly imprisoned in the camp of the deluded. The PM revealed his priorities in the Budget when he preferred social policies over defence, such as appeasing Labour backbenchers by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. This Government will allocate another £17bn to welfare by 2030, the exact sum that would have allowed Britain to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP. This looks as if Sir Keir has decided to place his own political survival – and the prejudices of his party – before the national security of his country, and for that there is bound to be a reckoning.

The outcome of those decisions is that Britain will enter 2026 at greater risk than was necessary. The perils ahead could scarcely be greater. The first and most immediate danger is that Donald Trump could collaborate with Putin to impose Russia’s peace terms on Ukraine. The guns along the frozen 800-mile front might then fall silent, but any respite would almost certainly be temporary while Russia rearms and regroups. If Putin achieves what he believes to be victory in Ukraine, he would be emboldened to come back for more. We should remember that today’s tragedy in Ukraine is Putin’s third war of attrition and conquest since the assault on Georgia in 2008. Like all aggressors, his appetite remains insatiable.

If there is a flawed peace in 2026, Putin’s next move could be a renewed attack on Ukraine, to achieve his original goal of subjugating the entire country. He might consider still more dangerous options. If he concludes that Mr Trump no longer cares about defending America’s allies, Putin could risk attacking a NATO member and the signs are ominous. If so, Britain would be obliged to stand with our allies and go to war with Russia, the world’s biggest nuclear power. Do we in Britain have any idea of what this would entail, or where such a crisis might lead?

There are still ways of ensuring that we never have to find out. We can rally our European allies to deliver more support to Ukraine, protecting Volodymyr Zelensky from being muscled into a false peace that rewards aggression. And we must do whatever is necessary to secure America’s commitment to NATO. Both imperatives require Britain and the rest of Europe to emulate Poland and its neighbours and spend far more on defence.

The second danger and the threat is rising is that China’s colossal military build-up might culminate in a confrontation with the United States and its allies in the Pacific. In 2025 alone, China commissioned 14 frigates and destroyers into its fleet; the Royal Navy, by contrast, has only 13 of these warships. 2026 has begun with China conducting intensive exercises in the waters around Taiwan, apparently simulating a blockade of that democratic island.

A full-scale invasion of Taiwan remains unlikely, this year, though Xi Jinping is believed to have ordered the People’s Liberation Army to be ready in 2027. But no possibility can be excluded and China’s lightning military expansion will heighten the danger. That threat is likely to reach its peak later in this decade.

Elsewhere, Mr Trump is going to have to decide whether to go to war in Venezuela to overthrow Nicolas Maduro’s autocracy. The biggest deployment of US forces in the Caribbean for nearly 40 years cannot be sustained indefinitely. If the president orders US forces into action, the first new conflict of 2026 would be a regime change operation in Caracas, probably combining air strikes with covert action on the ground.

Another authoritarian anti-Western leader who may be fearing for his regime’s future is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran. The new year is opening with mass protests in Tehran and other cities.

The Ayatollah’s authority was severely weakened by the successful Israeli-US strike on Iran’s nuclear plants last June. As Khamenei approaches a point of maximum weakness, there must be a chance that 2026 could see the downfall of Iran’s regime, though no-one knows who will take over.

Above all, this has to be the year when Europe finally awakens to the threats and relearns the art of defending itself against aggression. If not, it may be too late to save the modern invention of peace.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Politics, Society

Strategic Defence Review: New face of Britain’s military

DEFENCE

IN a stark assessment, the authors of Britain’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) have said that Britain’s Armed Forces aren’t ready to fight a war against a military with similar capabilities.

The report states that our forces are better suited “to a peacetime era” and are “not currently optimised for warfare against a ‘peer’ military state”.

The externally-led SDR, written by former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, retired general Sir Richard Barrons and Russia expert Fiona Hill, was described as the most profound change to defence in 150 years.

While it leaned heavily into new technologies, it has also recommended an increase in the size of the regular Army from 73,000 to 76,000 in the next Parliament. This follows decades of the Army shrinking from 156,000 at the end of the Cold War. The review also includes a chilling list of the potential effects of conflict on the UK’s way of life and lays bare Britain’s overseas dependencies and threats.

In the event of war, Britain would be subject to attacks on its military bases at home and abroad, long-range drone and cruise missile sorties, cyber attacks crippling national infrastructure, and disruptions to economic interests and international trade routes.

The SDR highlights that the defence medical services couldn’t cope with a mass casualty event and that the military is suffering from a recruitment crisis which means only a small number of troops could be deployed.

The document added: “The UK is entering a new era of threat and challenge. The West’s long-held military advantage is being eroded as other countries modernise and expand their armed forces at speed.” The report also reveals that 95 per cent of the UK’s data is carried by undersea cables that are vulnerable to attack and sabotage and that the UK relies on imports for 46 per cent of its food.

It stated: “Undersea pipelines and data cables are critical for sustaining daily national life. The maritime domain is increasingly vulnerable. The Royal Navy must be prepared to deter maritime incidents similar to the sabotage of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the cutting of undersea data cables in UK and international waters.”

In the year to September 2024, the UK suffered 89 nationally significant cyber-attacks. The Navy and RAF conducted 374 escorts of Russian Federation vessels between 2020 and 2024. In that same period there were 32 launches of RAF Typhoon aircraft for immediate interception.

The report added: “Defence must prepare for a much more difficult world of heightened competition, more frequent crises and conflict that sees conventional military attacks combined with intensified sub-threshold aggression.

“The UK is already subject to daily sub-threshold attack, targeting its critical national infrastructure, testing its vulnerabilities as an open economy and global trading nation and challenges its social cohesion.

“Changes in the strategic context mean that UK defence must plan on the basis that NATO allies may be drawn into war with – or be subject to coercion by – another nuclear-armed state.”

The SDR will bring about a transformation of the Armed Forces, including the development of a so-called Integrated Force, a coming together of the separate services.

While defence chiefs are determined to meet the Prime Minister’s challenge to become “war ready”, the SDR reveals they are also expected to make savings.

The Army is expected to deliver “a ten-fold increase in lethality” – but without a significant number of regular soldiers, although the report concedes there is a “strong case for a small increase in regular numbers when funding allows”.

The SDR suggests fewer paratroopers will be trained to jump. The report calls on the RAF to become more efficient and use civilian planes when a task “does not require military capability”. The Royal Navy is expected to move towards a “cheaper” fleet. Admirals are expected to use “commercial vessels” for transportation in non-contested environments and to share logistical challenges with allies.

The UK’s £7billion combined-cost aircraft carriers are expected to become more versatile, with adaptations to ensure long-range missiles can be fired from their decks and more unmanned aircraft. Defence Secretary John Healey said: “We must move to war-fighting readiness, to avoid the huge costs that wars create. We prevent wars by being strong enough to win them.

“We will establish a new hybrid-Navy, our carriers will carry the first hybrid airwing in Europe. We will create a British Army which is ten times more lethal, with an aim of 76,000 regular soldiers in the next parliament.

“We will increase the number of cadets by 30 per cent and develop a new strategic reserve by 2030.”

The SDR has made 62 recommendations which government ministers have pledged to implement in full.

Analysis

New face of our modern military

More submarines, soldiers and drones, along with an airborne nuclear strike capability and the exploration of technologies such as lasers, AI and robotics, are among the proposals in the Strategic Defence Review.

These are the key ambitions outlined in the assessment:

Army to be “ten times more lethal”

This ambition relies on the harnessing of new technologies and weapon systems, particularly drones. Lethality is difficult to measure and the claim is strong on political rhetoric. Only a couple of months ago, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said the ambition was to double lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030. The new Archer artillery system, the belated introduction of the Ajax vehicle and Challenger 3 tanks will increase lethality. But to what extent?

Three forces to be integrated into one

The Integrated Force, unveiled as part of the SDR, is not a merger of the Armed Forces, but they will lose much of the traditional independence as they are moulded into a centralised Integrated Force. The SDR suggested the services were “siloed”. The need for them to train together and prepare for war shoulder to shoulder was essential in the months and years ahead.

£15billion boost for nuclear warheads

Britain’s nuclear deterrent has long been in need of recapitalisation. The £15billion will pay for these weapons to be upgraded or replaced. It will also see the significant modernisation of infrastructure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, supporting more than 9,000 jobs at the Berkshire site.

Up to 12 new nuclear attack submarines

The as yet uncosted pledge to develop “up to” 12 new attack submarines has been welcomed by military observers but the first boat is not expected to enter service before the late 2030s. The submarines will support the AUKUS security alliance between the UK, Australia, and the United States, and will be used to protect the Pacific from Chinese aggression. Over the decades ahead, the boats will replace the Royal Navy’s current fleet of seven Astute-class submarines. They will be built at key sites such as BAE in Barrow-in-Furness.

Six new factories to make munitions

The SDR proposes at least six factories making munitions and energetics such as explosives and propellants for weapons.

The SDR recommends creating an “always on” munitions production capacity in the UK, allowing production to be scaled up at speed if needed. Britain’s military warehouses are bare after £5billion in weaponry and munitions was provided for Ukraine since the start of the conflict in 2022. The programme will create more than 1,000 skilled jobs, according to the assessment.

Robotics, cyber warfare, and AI

The review says AI will improve the quality and speed of decision-making and operational effectiveness for Britain’s military, its allies… and its enemies.

It should be an immediate priority to “shift towards greater use of autonomy and AI within the UK’s conventional forces”. This has shown to be transformational in Ukraine. Defence chiefs will launch a Defence AI Investment Fund by February 2026.

The report warns cyber threats will become harder to mitigate as technology evolves, with government departments, military hardware, communications, increasingly vulnerable. Hardening critical defence functions to cyber-attack is crucial. Directed Energy Weapon systems, such as the UK’s DragonFire, a world-leading laser ground to air system being developed at Porton Down, can save millions of pounds in expenditure on ordnance systems. The review also calls for the Ministry of Defence to seize the opportunities presented by technologies such as robots and lasers.

£4billion expansion of the drone force

The Government unveiled a £4billion investment package for drones and autonomous systems. Drones are dominating the conflict in Ukraine and in Russia, following the audacious Ukrainian attack on Russian airfields in Siberia just days ago.

They provide lethality at minimal financial cost and would spare the lives of British troops because they are not required to engage with the enemy at close proximity. Cheap to produce drones can be effective against “legacy” military systems worth billions of pounds and are necessary to protect and augment the UK’s manned military systems, such as aircraft, helicopters, and armoured vehicles.

Fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs

Britain is exploring the potential return of air-delivered nuclear weapons in collaboration with the United States. The US’s F-35A Lightning II is capable of carrying tactical gravity nuclear bombs.

The proposal marks the most significant shift in UK nuclear posture since the Cold War. Currently, this country’s nuclear deterrent is carried by the Royal Navy’s “bomber” submarines. The air-launched nuclear weapons would carry a much smaller payload. The lower yield B61 munitions are already integrated into US aircraft stationed on continental Europe and could be brought to Britain.

Thousands of new long-range weapons

At least 7,000 long-range weapons will be made to restock UK military warehouses and to prepare for an extended conflict against an adversary such as Russia.

Children taught value of the military

Defence chiefs will work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools, by means of a two-year series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends.

Schools and community-based cadet forces will also be expanded, with an ambition of a 30 per cent rise by 2030 with a view to the UK having 250,000 cadets, many of whom will go on to enlist in the forces.

More reservists and investment in them

To meet the challenge of engaging in a lengthy conflict, the report identified the need to boost the number of reservists.

These part-time personnel, many of whom are former regulars with operational experience, would join full-time troops on the frontline. The report identified the need to increase the size of the UK’s Active Reserve forces by at least 20 per cent “when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s”. The UK has around 25,000 Army reservists, 3,500 Royal Navy and Royal Marine reservists, and 3,200 RAF reservists. There have also been proposals to create a home guard to protect airports and power plants.

Standard