WUHAN ONE YEAR ON
On 22 January 2021, it will be a year since China locked-down the city of Wuhan and in doing so alerted the rest of the world to the fact that we were facing a new and deadly illness that has changed our lives.
(1 of 21)
There is compelling evidence to suggest that China knew how serious the virus was long before January 2020. Internet searches in the Wuhan area revealed people trying to identify the symptoms we now identify as Covid-19 in October and November 2019.
(2 of 21)
Athletes returning from the World Military Games in Wuhan, also in October 2019, reported a strange illness that was unidentified at that time. Isolated cases of an unknown illness also presented at French, Swedish, and other European hospitals in November 2019.
(3 of 21)
There is more than adequate data to suggest China that failed to provide timely warning of Covid-19. This was either gross negligence or a deliberate decision to ensure it would emerge from the pandemic sooner and be financially stronger than the West as a result.
(4 of 21)
There is no suggestion that the virus was engineered in a lab or released deliberately. However, we cannot discount the fact that the virus may have been being researched in the Wuhan bio-lab and somehow escaped unintentionally.
(5 of 21)
It seems highly probably that China understood the seriousness of the virus before 22 January 2020, but realised it could manipulate the situation to its advantage by delaying efforts to warn us. This is not how a responsible member of the world community behaves.
(6 of 21)
China responded badly to criticism. At one point, a CCP member went on national TV threatening to withhold antibiotics from the US market. (The USA gets 97% of its antibiotics from China.) China also bullied Australia when it called for a virus inquiry.
(7 of 21)
Although China eventually shared the genetic code of the virus, enabling Western labs to start developing vaccines, it did so too late. More than anything, China has not engaged with the rest of the world over the last 12 months. it has retreated into itself.
(8 of 21)
Suddenly, we've woken-up to the fact that China is an economic and military superpower that rivals the USA. The power China now possesses was given to it by the West. Western companies making large profits from Chinese-made goods have fuelled its growth and power.
(9 of 21)
We've also woken-up to the fact that Chinese goods are so competitive, because their workers are paid so much less than their Western counterparts. By willingly outsourcing everything to China, we have killed our own home-grown industries.
(10 of 21)
We've woken-up to the fact that China has not honoured the Hong Kong agreement. We realise that China's treatment of Uighar Muslims is ethnic cleansing if not genocide. We certainly shouldn't be rewarding China's recent behaviour with trade deals.
(11 of 21)
For a very long time, we've turned a blind eye to the fact that China is a totalitarian state that has made itself immune to Western censure. We've ignored China's belt and road expansion initiatives in Asia and Africa.
(12 of 21)
The situation we find ourselves in is like someone who befriends a wolf cub. They feed it, play with it, and steadily it grows. Then one day the wolf gets on the sofa and they go to shoo it off, but a fully-grown animal bares its teeth, snarls and refuses to budge.
(13 of 21)
Over the last 12 months, the West has realised that China's growth was fine so long as it was benign member of the global community. But what happens when the animal we have fed and nurtured turns on us? The risk of this happening is very real.
(14 of 21)
In other words, the pandemic has forced us to re-set our relationship with China. But this is not about punishing China. It is about realising that we must be self-sufficient, rather than completely dependent on one country and on a country we cannot trust completely.
(15 of 21)
This is not to say China has become an enemy. But it has become a competitor. If we prevent ourselves from competing with China on equal terms, then we risk putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage. We risk being taken advantage of.
(16 of 21)
We cannot appease China. As Winston Churchill said, appeasement is like feeding a crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last. Authoritarian states respect strength not weakness. This requires us to rethink our strategic and economic priorities.
(17 of 21)
We need Joe Biden to restore America's place on the world stage, because its strength, integrity and unity have preserved world peace since 1945. If we don't protect democracy, it will be threatened by those who prefer to rule without accountability.
(18 of 21)
Our way of life is threatened on a daily basis. Enemies living amongst us are actively plotting our destruction from within. They seek to destabilise society, to discredit our leaders, and restrict our freedoms. They are not the stuff of fiction, but a real danger.
(19 of 21)
The situation we find ourselves in means the business of defence has become a renewed national priority. Even though hard power is important to protect against physical attack, equally we must wield soft power to seize and hold the moral high ground.
(20 of 21)
For all of the above reasons, the UK's Integrated Review is a vital strategic process to achieve strength and resilience that deter and protect us against would be aggressors. One year on, it's not about money, even though cash will be constrained. It's about survival.
(21 of 21)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday's @RUSI_org speech by @BWallaceMP was one of the most significant made by any UK Defence Secretary over the last decade. Although no detailed announcements were made, there are five reasons why we should take note.
(1/7) gov.uk/government/spe…
1⃣ The speech clearly signalled that UK Defence has become a more important Government priority than it has been at any time since the end of the Cold War in 1990. While it is unrealistic to expect a massive uplift in spending, swingeing cuts seem to be a thing of the past.
(2/7)
2⃣ The Integrated Review promises to be a robust strategic process that will align our aspirations with our resources so that UK defence is RELEVANT and CREDIBLE while being AFFORDABLE and SUSTAINABLE. This means that whatever we decide to do, we will resource it properly.
(3/7)
WHY HAS BRITISH ARMY RENEWAL BEEN SO PROBLEMATIC?
Having made the point about the need for urgent modernisation, I want to try and explain why achieving this has proved to be so challenging. Our story starts in 2000, a decade after the Cold War ended. 1/
At this time when we were not involved in any major conflict.
Deployments to Iraq, former-Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone had shown how difficult and expensive it was to generate, position and sustain capable land forces in an expeditionary context. 2/
Since the forward basing of units ties-up forces that can’t be used elsewhere, the need for a medium weight capability to make the Army more deployable and easier to support was identified. This was the impetus behind programmes like FFLAV, MRAV (Boxer) and FRES. 3/
THE ARMY - WHAT'S IT FOR?
During a recent conversation with a senior serving Army officer I asked why so few people understand what the Army's role is? His response was: because the Army does anything and everything. This is right. It performs an endless array of tasks. 1/
Although we rely on the Army to be a readily available source of disciplined and trained manpower, ultimately it needs to be focused around the UK's most essential defence commitments. So, what are these? 2/
Our high-level commitments translate into several levels of engagement based on intensity. These lead to half a dozen specific tasks based on existential threats. 3/
HAS THE INTEGRATED REVIEW BEEN OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS? (Thread)
As most of you know, the UK’s integrated security, defence and foreign policy review is designed to reconfigure our armed forces around realistic policy objectives which are consistent with the threats we face.
1/
The need to do this was based on a growing mismatch between our defence aspirations and the resources available to support them. Moreover, Britain leaving the EU is an opportunity to review our place in the world, to look beyond Europe, and to embrace a global perspective.
2/
Despite having the world’s 6th largest economy and 8th biggest defence budget, we needed to inject our grand strategy with a healthy dose of reality. We are not a superpower, so instead of trying to do everything badly, we should try to perform fewer defence tasks better.
3/
The UK Army has been criticised because its 2025 plan is apparently unaffordable. This graphic shows what it set out to achieve: Five brigades including 2 x Strike, 2 x Armoured Infantry and 1 x Air Assault. Everything else was designed to support this core structure.
The above structure has been simplified to aid communication. It combines deployability with resilience, flexibility with focus. It enables high intensity warfare against a peer adversary, as well as low level peace support. It is no more than Italy, France and Germany have.
Component elements of the Equipment Plan designed to deliver this are: Ajax, Boxer, Challenger 2 LEP, Warrior CSP, MRVP, Mobile Fires Platform, Morpheus C4I, Apache E, and various minor upgrades. The only problem is we need to acquire everything at the same time.
DETERRENCE THROUGH MILITARY MOBILITY (Thread)
Everyone gets the Navy.
Frigates. Destroyers. Aircraft carriers. Strategic missile submarines. Attack submarines.
People know what they do.
You have a problem? Send a ship. Job done. We used to call it gunboat diplomacy.
Everyone gets the Air Force too.
Typhoon. F-35 Lightning. P8 Poseidon. A400M. C-17A. Voyager. Chinook.
Air strikes. Delivering aid. Patrolling the skies. The RAF's role is easy to understand too.
But what about the Army?
It sat unused in Germany for 50 years with tanks that couldn't be moved anywhere quickly. Then it fought two wars that seemed to have little direct impact on UK security. So people rightly question what is the Army for?