Thread by @defencewithac

The Integrated Review looks like quite a weighty, boring document. So in that spirit I shall try and brighten up the experience by live tweeting my thoughts as I read. Don't expect it to be coherent, or to contain any dazzling insights, /1

For example, upon opening the PDF I see it's default formatted to double spread. I dunno who does that, the PDF maker or the web browser, but it's fucking annoying. #nospreadsasPDFdefault /2

We're on the contents page and we've already had "A force for good" mentioned. Oh shit. /3

It seems "Tilt" is going to be the new bollocks buzzword for defence and security in 2021. We couldn't say "pivot", because the Americans already stole that. /4

"Tilt" seems an odd choice, and worryingly implies a half arsed, non committal stance with the serious potential for an unintentional fall flat on ones fucking face. /5

Ah shit there's 69 pages before we even get to defence /6

Uh oh, there's that term "Homeland Security". Did we just copy some document from like the CIA and just change a few of the words? /7

I need another tea I think. /8

Right, foreword from Spongebob, let's see what he has to say for himself. I'm hoping there's an Aftword from Sir Keir Starmer, where he tries to claim credit for everything he's just read. /9

"When we began the Integrated Review in early 2020" - haha, fuck off mate. First line, bullshit. That's a good start. /10

"Build back better" in bold, just in case you weren't aware this was a political document. /11

"agility", "unique soft power", "match fit". Getting the bullshit bingo in early on this one. /12

"Protecting our people, our homeland and our democracy is the first duty of any government," - Which of course is why we spend so little on defence, security and law and order... /13

"so I have begun the biggest programme of investment in defence since the end of the Cold War" -

Bull. Shit.

"Learning from the pandemic, we will bolster our national resilience with a new Situation Centre at the heart of government" - Because that of course was the leading problem, a lack of screens and telephones. /15

It is a very British thing though, to plan a state of the art communications facility built under a knackered old building that itself was originally built on unstable foundations and is utterly inadequate as a modern office space /16

"we will return to our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows" - U-turn in the first few pages on a recent major policy announcement. Bodes well doesn't it? /17

Notable that a lot of these sorts of documents make bold promises with no real reason to have any faith in their claims. I think too often politicians think that if they just will something hard enough then it will become reality, while simultaneously being divorced from it /18

Jesus, where did they get these infographics? Wingdings? /19

"3rd most powerful cyber nation in the world, ranking top in defence, intelligence, norms and offensive capabilities" - Erm? Are you sure about that? Especially that last claim. /20

Plenty of save the union type stuff in this. A long with a lot of bollocks waffle, chasing the page count. /21

"These include a commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law, free speech and fairness and equality." - having just passed the second reading of a bill that limits peoples right to assemble. /22

"In most cases, the UK’s interests and values are closely aligned" - Ah yes, like in Saudi Arabia for example. Or indeed much of the middle east. /23

"and a maritime trading nation" - is there really many advanced economies that aren't? This isn't the 1700s, where a handful of countries dominated the trade with the colonies. /24

You may not know it, but the UK is hosting COP26. It's only been mentioned about a thousand times so far and I'm only 16 pages in. It genuinely does come across a little desperate, all the "we did this thing, and we did that thing," over and over again. /25

The most important thing this review needed was a fucking editor. Jesus Christ, it just keeps going on and on repeating the same bullshit over and over. /26

My favourite part of gov documents like this is when you get to the bit that spends 5-6 pages explaining what the rest of document will do. Like, I fucking know, I can read the contents page and I wasn't expecting the chapters to be blank you dickheads. /27

I need more tea, this is pissing me off. /28

"It is a response to the fact that adversaries and competitors are already acting in a more integrated way – fusing military and civilian technology" - You mean like trucks, and radios, and aeroplanes? What's old, is new. /29

Talking of old is new, another COP26 reference. Christ. This whole document has just spent the first 22 pages chasing itself around in circles without really saying anything. /30

"we will create armed forces that are both prepared for warfighting and more persistently engaged worldwide through forward deployment," - I'm sure that will do wonders for retention. /31

"They will also be able to keep pace with changing threats posed by adversaries, with greater investment in rapid technology development and adoption." - You can't even keep up with the last generation of threats you mad bastards. /32

A reminder that the MoD is only just starting to deliver some its new scout vehicles about two and half decades after it first identified the requirement for one. /33

"We will introduce new legislation to give our security and intelligence agencies and police the powers they need to tackle the challenges we will face in the coming decade" - Ominous line, given this governments track record to date. /34

"This section describes the Government’s assessment of the strategic context to 2030." - Why, you've explained it about three times already? /35

"Geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts: such as China’s increasing power and assertiveness internationally, the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific to global prosperity and security, and the emergence of new markets and growth of the global middle class" /36

Remember, the plan is to be super agile and ahead of the curve etc, yet the government has only just realised that China might be on the rise and that the global middle class is growing. /37

Under the sub-heading "Systemic competition:" you'll find a list of things that have been happening for centuries, presented as if they had only just suddenly started to occur. /38

Under the sub-heading "Rapid technological change:" you'll find the government's realisation that technology changes the way the societies and economies work. Are we sure Sir Keir Starmer didn't write this? /39

"the momentum towards poverty reduction is likely to resume, with absolute poverty estimated to be almost eliminated in Asia and Latin America in the 2030s" - Venezuela? Argentina? Maybe it was Corbyn who wrote this. /40

"Over the coming decades, technology is likely to significantly improve access to and the quality of education globally" - No. Fucking. Shit. /41

"Increasing great power competition is unlikely to mean a return to Cold War-style blocs. Instead, the influence of middle powers is likely to grow in the 2020s," - There's a nice, healthy dose of optimism there. /42

All the people that have been saying this document wasn't that bad either didn't read it, or had expectations even lower than mine. And I'm the one everyone thinks is a cynic? /43

"Governments may struggle to satisfy popular demands for security and prosperity, with trust further undermined through disinformation from malign actors" - May? Perhaps Mary Antoinette wrote this. /44

I just want them to fuck up some numbers so I can say; "turns out Diane Abbott wrote this", /45

"Tensions between democratic and authoritarian states are highly likely to become more pronounced, as authoritarian states seek to export their domestic models, undermine open societies... and shape global governance in line with their values" - Turns out Churchill wrote this /46

"n some areas, such as emerging technology or space, there will be a growing contest" - Turns out JFK wrote this. /47

This whole thing genuinely reads like someone read the wikipedia article for international relations and just copied down all the main points in bullet point form. /48

"By 2030 people will be increasingly using roads and railways to travel. Some people may choose to fly to other countries for both business and pleasure" - Not an actual quote, but it wouldn't be out place. /49

" as malign actors use a wider range of tools – such as economic statecraft, cyber-attacks, disinformation and proxies – to achieve their objectives without open confrontation or conflict." - Maybe George Bush wrote this? /50

"More states will adopt economic statecraft as a lever in systemic competition" - They're just taking the piss now. I'm beginning to think the whole review was actually 10 pages long in its 1st draft, and then someone said "pad it out" and that's why it's been delayed. /51

Having read the sub-heading "Space", I now suspect Ronald Reagan might have written this. /52

Time for more tea. We're at page 35 and about to dive into a chapter on the Strategic Framework. God help us. /53

37 pages to get the first mention of "horizon scanning". Or at least the first one that I've noticed. Not bad. /54

For reference, governments historically have been as good at horizon scanning as Stevie Wonder. /55

"Over the next four years we will invest at least £6.6 billion of defence funding in... R&D to deliver an enduring military edge in areas including space, directed energy weapons, and advanced high-speed missiles" - You mean the things the US has been testing for years? Bold. /56

£6.6 billion in 4 years to try and catch up with decades and tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions, of dollars of research.

UK's approach to Cyber seems to be that gov think a) they can direct everything from the centre, in a world fundamentally based on distribution, and b) they can close the technological gap with the rest of the world, in all aspects, in just a decade, with minimal funding. /58

Like most genius government plans, this has all the hallmarks of something more likely to go massively tits up than it does to actually help. /59

Expect to see a mountain of legislation incoming to try and dictate every last aspect of the sector and in the process fundamentally undermine its freedom to innovate. /60

"The NCF draws together personnel from GCHQ and MOD, as well as the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), under one unified command for the first time." - I'm sure GCHQ will be thrilled with this. /61

What better way to enhance the already immense success of GCHQ than by allowing the MoD to blunder in with all the subtlety and competence of a drunk Hermann Goering to help take command and shake things up. /62

Lot of guff in there about defending freedoms, speech, rights etc, not long after the Scottish government passed its controversial hate crime bill and UK government has been looking curb certain rights itself. Mismatch between words and actions. /63

Might seem like a nothing, but it essentially undermines the credibility of the entire document, because it's basically a red flag that says "all of this is bullshit". /64

"Within the UK, we will continue to explore opportunities around domestic extraction and processing of critical minerals, such as lithium," - Basically the UK strategy on rare earth elements is to hope we have a bunch of them down the side of the couch. /65

Honestly, whole chunks of this document are laughable. It might as well have been written in crayon given some of the claims it makes and strategies it proposes. I'm expecting a section on how the UK will single handedly end world hunger by 2045 any minute now. /66

For those new to UK defence, this is the classic British approach of trying to tackle everything, all at once, in unprecedented times scales, on a budget that can barely cover a Freddo and a can of coke. /67

Legitimately, I'd be fucking embarassed to have my name associated with this. It's dog shit. /68

A fair chunk of it is just stuff that already happens, dressed up as being new, while the rest is largely pie in the sky nonsense that has about as much chance of coming true as I do of winning an award for my blogging. /69

"We will establish the Trade Remedies Authority as an independent body, enabling businesses across a range of UK manufacturing sectors.. to seek redress against unfair trading practices," - is probably the first sensible thing I've seen so far. It's page 55. /70

On future frontier tech "Our effort will involve.... developing regulatory frameworks governing infrastructure, technologies, data and commercial activity;" - Please don't. Just leave that shit alone and stop trying to control everything. /71

"The regime will protect users from harm and safeguard freedom of expression and pluralism online, establishing a new system of accountability and oversight for tech companies that moves far beyond self-regulation." - Translation: We're going to fuck this up royally. /72

"The Government recognises the complexity, diversity and dynamism of the digital economy" - Good, then just fucking leave it alone. Most of you can barely use zoom. /73

"As part of this, we will seek to ensure that lawful access to data is maintained.. so that law enforcement and intelligence services have the capabilities to investigate the most serious crimes," - Translation: We're coming for your data mother fuckers. /74

An entire section that basically said; "We'll work with every country in the world on stuff". /75

Oh, COP26 mention on page 67. All those playing the COP26 drinking game have a shot. /76

You know what right *hiccup*, you know what right? You know what? What? Right? *hiccup* What? hjdfjhdgf? Right? /77

I think I need another tea. It's half 1 in the morning and I've finally reached the bit on defence. So far what I've learned is that the government's strategy is... everything. Just, do everything. Everywhere. Before 2030. Did you know the UK is hosting COP26 btw? /78

I've moved on to coffee. /79

"Detect. Disrupt. Defend. Deter". - Make a note of those four words, because if you have any interest in UK defence you're going to be hearing them a lot over the next few years. It's very 'MoD' for Deter to come at the end of the chain after the event has already happened. /80

"We must therefore make it more difficult and costly for malign actors... to achieve the effects they desire. This will involve reducing our vulnerabilities and improving our resilience to persistent threats" - By reducing the size of the armed forces. Again. /81

"We will tailor our presence and support according to the country and region, continuing to focus our security efforts primarily on the Euro-Atlantic region" - Before going on to list 3/4 of the globe as places that they will offer support to. /82

"The first responsibility of the Government is to defend the UK and its citizens." - Then I ask again, why do you spend so little on it? /83

Lot's of 'warfighting' references starting to pop up. As opposed to 'warwatching' or 'warnotfighting'. /84

"All activity, including that which has previously been seen as routine, has the potential to constrain or deter adversaries" - Parade drill confirmed as the new frontier in detering Russia in the Baltics. /85

"In practice, persistent engagement will mean deploying more of our forces overseas more often and for longer periods of time" - Translation: the only way to do the same with less, is to rag the shit out of the less. /86

"We will also invest around £60 million in expanding and improving our global network of British Defence Staffs, increasing it by nearly a third" - No cuts at the top then... /87

"a network of MOD innovation hubs" - God help us. /88

"Finally, we will implement a new defence and security industrial strategy aligned with the Government’s plan for growth" - Remember how well the last shipbuilding strategy went? At least if you were BAE. See next tweet for translation. /89

Translation: 'We don't care what the armed forces actually want or need, we're going to use the defence budget to drive our political agenda and try to win votes,' /90

"We will move away from the 2012 policy of ‘competition by default’ and prioritise UK industrial capability where required for national security and operational reasons" - *Laughs in BAE* /91

I'm not kidding, literally I'm off after this to put together an order for BAE shares. This policy is only going to end one way and that is with the front line getting shafted in a variety of ways. Especially when you consider the MoD's propensity for shit budget management /92

"This will involve deepening our security relationships in the wider Euro-Atlantic area, Africa and the Middle East, and with a greater emphasis on the Indo-Pacific" - This is defence speak for 'everywhere but South America'. /93

All the fuss about nuclear weapons seems to be largely much ado about nothing. /94

"A new PROTECT duty will make it a legal requirement for owners and operators of public spaces and venues to take measures to keep the public safe from terrorist attacks" - Hello poorly designed, poorly worded legislation, my old friend /95

"To consider threats and hazards.. so that we can build national resilience across the diverse range of risks facing the UK... including low-probability, catastrophic-impact events." - Counter-Asteroid Command confirmed 😉 /96

"and we plan on making greater use of the military reserves in supporting domestic national security priorities" - Join the Army Reserve, get pulled away from your job to fill sandbags. /97

"We will also consider how to extend this to a civilian reservist cadre for support in times of crisis" - i.e. how can we save money on crisis preparedness by fobbing it off onto the public. /98

Page 89, two COP26 references on one page, take three shots. It's nearly 3am. This has been an utter waste of time and potential sleep, but we're nearly at 100 tweets now. /99

Page 90, another two COP26 references. Take another three shots. Go directly to A&E. /100

"The UK will lead by example, protecting 30% of our own land and sea by 2030" - The remaining 70% can go fuck itself. Serious note, this exact line has been mentioned before, maybe twice, so we're still just repeating ourselves after 90 pages. /101

"At home, we will introduce a new law to prevent trade of products in the UK that contribute to illegal deforestation" - a law mostly championed by a number of large, dominant market players? I'm sure there is absolutely no alternative motives at play... /102

"The UK’s vision is that by 2030 the ocean will be effectively governed, clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse" - See what I mean about making bold statements that you can't possibly deliver on? What's the fucking point? /103

That's not to say that you shouldn't try to improve these things, but cut the bullshit. You couldn't deliver an armoured scout vehicle inside 25 years, but you're going to transform the oceans into Utopia in 9? Fuck off. /104

"Future SRs will provide further opportunities to align spending plans with the priorities set by the Integrated Review" - Considering the priorities appear to be 'everything' that is going to be one hell of a spending review. /105

It's 3:19am and we've reached the annexes. 100 pages and I don't think I've really learnt anything I didn't already know, as much of the stuff actually announced is stuff that's already been announced elsewhere, but returns here for the sake of beefing up the document. /106

Trying to pass off a bunch of existing R&D funding as new money? Fuck me, Dianne Abbott really did write this. /107

The best part about the annex is after all those grand claims throughout the document, now we get to the nitty gritty and it's all like '£10m over 20 twenty years for this thing,' and '£30m to fix all the world's problems in this area'. It's a joke /108

A lot of the announced 'funding' really is just promising continued support for things that were already budgeted for. /109

What does the Integrated Review class as soft power? Well...
- "Over £284m for galleries and museums"
- "Over £42m for VisitBritain to promote the UK to visitors from around the world, promoting familiarity with UK values" /110

In other words, not what you'd think. Classic case of trying to take any old shit and fob it off as being a 'soft power superpower'. /111

On Defence: "Over £24bn increase in cash terms over four years, including at least £6.6bn of R&D" - Basically the previously announced MoD funding plus a bit for R&D. Cash terms means no inflation link. /112

Money for: Research into AI, "Reshape the UK’s armed forces for a more competitive age", Space Command, Trident renewal, develop Type 32 frigate, "at least 48 F-35s by 2025", develop FCAS, deliver upgraded Typhoon radars, cyber. /113

Not mentioned: to fill the giant fucking black hole that is the MoD's finances, sucking in ever more money and crushing it beneath the weight of bollocks management speak. /114

And that, at 03:58, is mercifully that. So did we think guys? /115

Guys? Guys? You've all gone to bed haven't you? You all went to bed hours ago, didn't you?

Bastards

/116/end.