Thread by @NJ_Timothy

A rushed new defence policy raises five risks:
1 Rearming without reindustrialising
2 Spending more on the wrong military strategy
3 Making commitments we may regret
4 Adopting a Russia strategy forgetting wider threats
5 Getting caught between the US and EU.
Long thread…

Rearming without reindustrialising would mean dependence on foreign suppliers.

The US can afford to spend 5% of GDP on defence because its contractors are overwhelmingly American.

We have some big players, eg Rolls Royce, but lack the same industrial base.

Without reindustrialisation more defence spending will make our existing problems worse - the trade deficit, current account deficit, arising self-defeating policies, regional inequality, budget deficit etc. ukonward.com/reports/a-cons…

There are also strategic questions about industrial dependence on other countries - even allies.

Look at how Germany restricted the deployment of German-made but eg Estonian-owned equipment in Ukraine. wsj.com/articles/germa…

Reindustrialisation requires strategic policy - radically different energy policy, tax and regulatory reform, skills and training programmes, better infrastructure, place-based schemes - to work. Buy British procurement policies. Sometimes even subsidies. telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/0…

Reindustrialisation requires strategic policy - radically different energy policy, tax and regulatory reform, skills and training programmes, better infrastructure, place-based schemes - to work. Buy British procurement policies. Sometimes even subsidies. telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/0…

Rearmament demands things the Treasury finds unacceptable.

Most pressing: we must do whatever it takes to keep virgin steel production here.

The Government has been passive about the loss of British production. It should be prepared to nationalise. riancwhitton.substack.com/p/steel-isnt-s…

On military strategy, the logic for years - smaller budgets, aircraft carriers, protect special forces - was that the future of warfare for us was elective conflict against weaker states and terror groups.

This is no longer true, if indeed it ever was. thetimes.com/uk/defence/art…

Starmer has pretended since the election that Britain has an independent Ukraine policy. Obviously we never did.

Where once he said there was no alternative to Ukrainian victory, now he supports a peace deal.

America has pulled the plug, and policy is all over the place.

We need to be careful about what’s being discussed. “Peacekeeping” means being willing to fight in the event of an attack. This is a commitment beyond NATO. What forces are we talking about? How will they be equipped? Who else will deploy? What will the US do if we’re attacked?

A deployment of British troops in Ukraine in any serious numbers may be unachievable and would anyway cost billions - the sorts of sums the Government has avoided spending as it denied the budget increase demanded by the military. bbc.com/news/articles/…

More broadly there are obvious strategic calls ministers and military leaders will need to make.

The balance between land, air and sea. Investment in tech and hardware, especially AI, drones and missile defence.

The future of the nuclear deterrent.

But a military strategy with Russia and the European eastern border in mind - which is what we seem to be hurriedly contemplating - is worthless without a wider, hard-headed look at our national security.

Ministers are negotiating with Chinese firms to build enormous wind farms in the North Sea. This would leave Beijing in control of the tech that runs the turbines.

There are concerns offshore infrastructure is used by Russia to monitor British submarines. telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/…

Govt policy means we’ll be more dependent on electricity imports delivered by interconnectors, of the kind between Estonia and Finland destroyed by Russia at Christmas.

Despite these concerns, there is no single government minister in charge of offshore infrastructure security.

Ministers prostrate themselves before China seeking “investment”, but China steals industrial secrets, cheats international trading rules, conducts cyber attacks, undermines free speech on campus, and uses investment for geopolitical leverage. inews.co.uk/news/politics/…

We’re exposed to Russian hybrid attacks, and to Iranian hostile action.

We’re still in denial about Islamism at home. We have Islamists in the Commons, de facto blasphemy laws and Labour want to criminalise “Islamophobia” - a key Islamist demand. mi5.gov.uk/director-gener…

There’s little point securing the European border with Europe if we don’t take these threats - for Britain, arguably more direct threats - as well.

And this brings us to the choice we face in our relationships with America and Europe.

America may seem a capricious ally. But it’s following its own interests as perceived by its President. The strategic challenge for the US is China.

It doesn’t want to spend more than necessary in Europe when European countries can pay their own way. defense.gov/News/News-Stor…

European hypocrisies and weaknesses have been shown up brutally in the last week.

There’s no rules-based international order. Soft power means nothing versus hard power. Being a “regulatory super power” means little amid global great power competition. bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-…

And Europe is making the same mistakes as Britain with the other serious threats it faces.

Look at the terror attacks that have become almost routine where immigration has been highest. Look at the way Germany approaches trade with China. carnegieendowment.org/europe/strateg…

Britain should be strong to defend ourselves and contribute to collective security.

We must be judicious in our choices now. We must not carry a burden other Europeans are unwilling to bear. Our security contributions should be considered amid our wider relationship with Europe.

And we need to contemplate our national interest in the bigger picture.

We need to protect ourselves from China, Iran and Islamist extremists as well as Russia.

And as we rearm and work out how to reindustrialise, we need to establish who our partners are.

It’s not a binary choice between America and Europe. If we’re to buy more US tech and kit, can we agree joint projects with British firms? Can we get production in the UK?

Additionally or alternatively, what more can we do with Europeans, the Japanese, Israelis, Australians etc?

We all knew Trump was coming. We all knew he would take a position like this regarding Ukraine, Russia and NATO.

So what is the plan?

We need to hear something comprehensive from the PM as soon as Parliament returns.