Category Archives: Military

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, NATO, United States

British maritime surveillance of Russian submarines is weak

DEFENCE

smolensk

Danger: Smolensk nuclear powered submarine

BRITAIN is struggling to keep track of the growing number of Russian submarines in its waters.

The Russian president Vladimir Putin is increasingly using his fleet to hide off the coast to test the weaknesses of the Royal Navy.

The Navy has been forced to rely on NATO patrols since it scrapped its submarine-tracking aircraft in 2010, with replacements not due for at least two more years – a so-called security gap in Britain’s military power.

Figures on hostile incursions in British waters are kept secret, but of ten known incidents between 2005 and 2015, eight were in the past three years. In June, a Russian submarine was intercepted as it cruised towards the English Channel, while in October others were detected in the Irish Sea.

A defence analyst at the respected Henry Jackson Society, a security think tank, said: ‘Sadly, because of certain cuts, we don’t have the capacity to monitor Russian activity constantly. There is a security gap and doubtless the Russians are testing our reflexes and responses… We are now reliant until at least 2019 on our NATO allies to help us with the patrolling.’

Britain has not had its own submarine tracking aircraft since the Ministry of Defence scrapped its Nimrod maritime reconnaissance spy planes in 2010.

In November, last year, Downing Street announced the purchase of a fleet of Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft, but they are not expected to enter service until 2020. The UK has diminished its conventional war-fighting capabilities as it has faced the challenges of cyber warfare and terrorism. Intelligence initially suggested there would be no threat, but it has since transpired that there is a threat and from a rather traditional source. It will take time, once again, in building up our military capabilities.

At least twice in the past year a Russian submarine has been suspected of attempting to track one of Britain’s Clyde-based Vanguard-class submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles in order to obtain the ‘acoustic signature’ it emits as it moves. Once this is obtained it can then be deduced where they are and tracked.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: ‘The Royal Navy maintains a vigilant watch in international and territorial waters and is always ready to keep Britain safe from potential threats. We do not comment on operational detail, for obvious security reasons.’

Dr Julian Lewis, the Tory Chairman of the Commons defence committee, said: ‘We should look on Russia as an adversary but not an enemy. By showing Russia that we are strong, we can ensure it decides it is not worth its while becoming our enemy.’

OPINION

Since the Berlin Wall fell, Europe’s leaders have wound down their armed forces, apparently thinking the world has changed so much that a major war is no longer possible. If only this were true.

Indeed, as Russia’s Vladimir Putin experiments with cyber warfare, flexing his military muscles in Syria and the Baltic – and daily probes the Royal Navy’s defences and our air defences – the threat of attack remains ever with us.

Donald Trump has sent a strong message that we can no longer rely on America to go on bearing its disproportionate share of defending Europe through NATO. Mr Trump wants other NATO countries to be contributing far more. Just five countries in the alliance meet the minimum 2% of GDP on defence spending.

Add the terrorist threat and there could surely be no more insane moment to countenance a real-terms cut in our defence spending.

Yet this is happening, as the weaker pound and creative accounting at the MoD threaten to reduce our frontline capability.

We drop our guard at our mortal peril.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Legal, Military

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team and exploitative abuse

IHAT

ihat

Around 1,500 cases of mistreatment are being investigated by the publicly-funded Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

Intro: IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse

RECENT media and press coverage has laid bare the iniquitous practice of British soldiers being persecuted by their own country for doing their job. That is also the uncomfortable conclusion being drawn by critics of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT). Revelations stemming over a range of apparent abuses and mistakes made has led to a sense of betrayal that has markedly worsened.

Legal activism is being fuelled by a litany of inquiries. These should be ended by the Government who must be assumed to have a duty of care to those soldiers who have served the nation. Frivolous and vexatious claims being pursued by ambulance chasing lawyers to the point of it becoming so routine, often at huge expense to the legal aid bill, should stop.

The scale of payments made by IHAT to Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), a legal firm that lodged more than 2,400 criminal complaints against British troops, has been staggering. PIL shut down over the summer after its legal aid was withdrawn, and in the last few days the firm’s founder, Phil Shiner, conceded to a legal disciplinary hearing that he ‘must be’ struck off after he admitted acting ‘recklessly and without integrity’.

Among IHAT’s expenses, drawing on funds supplied by the Ministry of Defence, some £1.4 million was paid in travel and hotel costs for Iraqi civilians, PIL staff and IHAT investigators travelling to Turkey and Lebanon. A sole Iraqi agent, who worked as a tout for PIL, received more than £110,000 for three years’ work – as well as receiving separate money to cover hotel and travel costs in and out of Iraq. And PIL’s paralegals were paid up to £75 per hour to sit with Iraqi civilians during interviews. A dozen payments, totally nearly £210,000, were even made to the disgraced legal firm after the MoD had reported the organisation to the legal watchdog.

We must look at how this strange situation has arisen. IHAT was set up ostensibly to avoid the British Armed Forces being investigated by the International Criminal Court. PIL sought redress on a mountain of cases, and, it is presumed, payments from IHAT to PIL were made for the alleged abuses to be investigated as fully as possible.

What other police operation in the world behaves in such a way, one in which the alleged victims of abuse and their lawyers are paid to give evidence? IHAT’s independence clearly looks to have been compromised.

While it is surely right that the Government should end many of these insatiable inquiries that has led to legal activism, it must also be right that where individual soldiers have committed crimes that any charges are investigated and the guilty are brought to justice.

IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse. That has not been the case. The abuse being raised by its growing number of critics is the team’s largesse and its deliberate and provocative hounding of veterans.

 

Appendage:

Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

. What is it?

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) was set up by the Labour government in 2010 to examine allegations of abuse, including murder and torture, made by hundreds of Iraqi civilians by British armed forces

. How many cases have they examined?

The investigative team, led by a team of retired police officers, has looked at 1,490 cases of abuse, the vast majority brought to the unit’s attention by Public Interest Lawyers, which closed down in the summer after being stripped of legal aid funding over alleged irregularities in connection with a number of Iraqi claims.

. What offences have been alleged?

They range from alleged murder to low-level violence from the start of the military campaign in Iraq, March 2003, through to the major combat operations of April 2003 and the following years spent maintaining security and mentoring and training Iraqi security forces.

. Why has IHAT been criticised?

It has been accused of “betraying” British veterans after revelations that three servicemen, including a decorated major, could become the first troops to be prosecuted over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago. The decision to consider charges comes despite a 2006 military investigation that cleared the three men of wrongdoing.

. How have veterans responded?

Hilary Meredith, the lawyer acting for the major, who has not been identified, condemned the recommendation to prosecute her client. She said he was awarded two medals for bravery and is now suffering mental and physical health problems.

. How much has the inquiry cost?

Red Snapper Recruitment is paid nearly £5million a year by the Ministry of Defence to provide staff, including ex-police officers, to the inquiry. The agency is owned by husband and wife Martin and Helen Jerrold; company accounts show the couple were paid a dividend of £318,539 in in the 12 months to May 31, 2014 in the year after the contract was awarded. The firm’s profits have also risen – from 181,980 in May 2013 to £1.1million in May last year.

Standard
Government, Military, NATO, Russia

A policy brief warns that NATO and Russia are preparing for conflict…

NATO/RUSSIA

A London-based global security think tank has published a policy brief warning that NATO and Russia appear to be preparing to go to war with one another. The European Leadership Network (ELN) warns that military exercises by Russia and NATO have become part of a dangerous ‘action-reaction cycle’ that could accidentally elevate the chance of war.

The report argues, that: ‘Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia… Both the NATO and Russian exercises show that each side is training with the other side’s capabilities and most likely (have) war plans in mind. Whilst spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise.’

The policy brief says that while each side insists their exercises are defensive, the political fallout between Russia and the West over the Ukraine crisis has triggered a reactive cycle on either side in terms of military exercises. It suggests that each side is aiming to strengthen deterrence by ‘flexing their military might’, causing the other side to interpret this as provocation and responding with yet more military manoeuvres.

The brief uses two cases to illustrate its point. One is Russia’s snap exercise in March involving some 80,000 military personnel and the other is NATO’s Allied Shield exercise in June in which 15,000 personnel from 19 member states and three partner states took part. The report reads:

‘The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia.’

Russia has become increasingly proactive of late and has started calling all branches of its military to take part in active drills, with a strong focus on its Arctic territories and on the Baltic region. In February Baltic defence officials and experts expressed concern that Russia may be deliberately raising the alert level in Europe with its snap drills – by paving the way for an eventual attack on a Baltic capital.

The ELN report highlights repeatedly that NATO’s exercises are significantly smaller than Russia’s, although it points out  that this may be largely due to limited capability rather than a decision not to match Russia, whose entire force is permanently under one command (as opposed to the armed forces of NATO). The report also notes that Russia’s use of conscription allows it to quickly summon greater numbers of troops which ‘the predominantly professional armed forces of NATO countries simply cannot match.’

The authors do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict is inevitable, but says the changed profile of exercises is a fact and does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe.

Russia will have conducted more than 4000 exercises for 2015, which is over 10-times more than what NATO has planned for over the year. Indicative, too, is that Russia has incorporated nuclear and nuclear capable forces in its recent exercises.

Currently, Russia is hosting a series of international military games. This involves servicemen using its training courses to compete in tank and jet manoeuvres. Earlier this week, the Russian Defence Ministry called on 500 of its servicemen to practice amphibious assault in the Baltic.

NATO, meanwhile, is currently preparing for its Trident Juncture exercise which is set to engage over 36,000 troops in Spain, Portugal and Italy between October and November. NATO has been keen to highlight that it had announced this exercise ‘one year in advance’ and has invited international monitors to observe it through the OSCE.

Standard