New UK 'integrated operating concept'. "Expensive, crewed platforms that we cannot replace and can ill afford to lose will be increasingly vulnerable to swarms of self-coordinating smart munitions perhaps arriving at hypersonic speeds or ... from space" gov.uk/government/pub…
"The economics of warfare are changing the balance between platforms and weapons, and between crewed and uncrewed systems. In short, we face an inflection point between the Industrial Age and the Information Age" gov.uk/government/pub…
"NATO remains central to the pursuit of our strategic end ... But the centrality of NATO does not mean ‘NATO Only’. We must look beyond NATO to other alliances, giving real meaning to interoperability and burden sharing ..." gov.uk/government/pub…
"our own respect for the rules, conventions and protocols of war are a centre of gravity which must be protected. But the pace of technological change & the blurring of ‘peace’ and ‘war’ means that our legal, ethical and moral framework needs updating ..." gov.uk/government/pub…
"It is clearly not possible to immediately abandon the current force structure and create a bespoke one from scratch. Important operations continue, legacy programmes and platforms retain utility" gov.uk/government/pub…
List of what the UK military deems to be the likely characteristics of "sunrise" capabilities, based around idea of "intense competition between hiding and finding". gov.uk/government/pub…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Very important signal that UK might return to air-launched tactical nuclear forces by buying F-35A and participating in US nuclear sharing arrangements. There had been indications that UK was preparing to be able to host B61 tactical nuclear weapons. thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…
2/ UK participation in nuclear sharing would have limited impact in itself, since weapons remain under US custody & control, and several other European countries already host B61s & practice delivering them. This doesn’t mitigate against withdrawal of US nuclear umbrella. But …
3/ Having the Royal Air Force prepare for & be capable of handling, carrying, delivering & planning non-strategic nuclear use could make it easier in the long term to develop a (vastly more expensive & currently unviable) sovereign air-launched tactical nuclear leg, like France.
An interesting essay on how US intelligence agencies judged Soviet intentions and capabilities & how that changed over time. "...probably incorrectly believing there was also a Soviet proclivity to prepare to launch a war if conditions seemed propitious" cia.gov/resources/csi/…
"...considerable [Soviet] exaggerations of Western bellicosity and capabilities, including planning for initiation of war. Soviet intel estimates, like those of the United States and NATO, were always predicated on initiation of war by the other side" cia.gov/resources/csi/…
'It is clear in retrospect that what had been needed in 1976 was not a hard-line Team B, but a more imaginative and far-seeing "Team C."' cia.gov/resources/csi/…
I've been reviewing many of the past year's US & European military & intelligence assessments of how long it would take Russia to rebuild its military capability and the timeline on which any threat to NATO could unfold. A brief thread below which summarises these assessments.
Norway intel service: "At the earliest, Moscow may be able to fully realise these plans [for military expansion e.g. Karelia] five to ten years after the war in Ukraine is over." In some areas Russia has "next to no reserves" for the next two years. etterretningstjenesten.no/publikasjoner/…
Denmark intel: "no threat" now & "some years" for new units to be ready, but Ru more willing to use force "if it believes...NATO...is unable to maintain its military superiority, does not respond to Ru mil activities or no longer presents a united front." fe-ddis.dk/globalassets/f…
I wrote a piece on China’s evolution into a bigger, more sophisticated and more threatening cyber power over the past decade, and particularly in the last few years. I also look at the pivotal role played by China’s private sector ecosystem in that shift. economist.com/china/2025/03/…
A few sources. Ciaran Martin’s very good survey from a few days ago gazumped mine. rusi.org/explore-our-re…
Absolutely incredible. The Trump admin accidentally adds the editor of the Atlantic to a Signal group. Then Pete Hegseth sends him details of the US strikes on Yemen hours ahead of time incl. "precise information about weapons packages, targets & timing" theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Walz: "it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes [Red Sea]. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans" theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Stephen Miller: "...if Europe doesn’t remunerate [for Houthi strikes], then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return" theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
Witkoff on UK troop proposals. “it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and…simplistic. I think there’s this … sort of notion of we’ve all got to be like Winston Churchill, the Russians are gonna march across Europe. I think that’s preposterous” singjupost.com/transcript-of-…
Witkoff transcript is just eye popping: “Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose, exactly? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine. That would be like occupying Gaza…They want stability there… But the Russians also have what they want” singjupost.com/transcript-of-…
Witkoff on US-Russia cooperation: “Share sea lanes, maybe send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together. If we can get past technology migration. Who doesn’t want to see a world like that?” singjupost.com/transcript-of-…