British Military Current Events

[MarkOttawa]

UK's Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy-- intro to a major piece by Julian French-Lindley, very pessimistic about state of the world and prospects for the British military (and the CAF?):

Mark
Ottawa

Is all this really "military"? Why, if the real deal, "armed" services to do much of it?

Britain unveils new operating concept for a ‘fundamental transformation in the military’

The British military and government must “fundamentally change” the way they counter the political and military ambitions of authoritarian rivals, or risk being overwhelmed, warned the country’s top soldier.

Gen. Nick Carter’s speech at the Policy Exchange think tank Sept. 30 coincided with the publication of Britain’s new “Integrated Operating Concept.” The chief of the Defence Staff said key changes backed by the concept include improved integration of effort across government and with allies, equipment modernization, and constant competition with adversaries below the threshold of war.

The concept says the strategy rethink “represents the most significant change in UK military thought in several generations. It will lead to a fundamental transformation in the military instrument and the way it is used.”

Carter said one of the “big ideas” in the operational concept was that it makes a distinction between “operating” and “war fighting."

“In an era of persistent competition, our deterrent posture needs to be more dynamically managed and modulated. This concept therefore introduces a fifth 'C' — that of competition — to the traditional deterrence model of comprehension, credibility, capability and communication,” he said. “This recognizes the need to compete below the threshold of war in order to deter war, and to prevent one’s adversaries from achieving their objectives in fait accompli strategies, as we have seen in the Crimea, Ukraine, Libya and further afield.

“Competing involves a campaign posture that includes continuous operating on our terms and in places of our choosing.

Carter also identified the nature of the growing threat driving Britain to rethink its strategy.

“Our authoritarian rivals see the strategic context as a continuous struggle in which nonmilitary and military instruments are used unconstrained by any distinction between peace and war. These regimes believe that they are already engaged in an intense form of conflict that is predominantly political rather than kinetic,” he said. “Their way of warfare is strategic, it is synchronized and systematic, and our response must be too [emphasis added].”

The new concept comes ahead of the government’s Integrated Defence Review, expected in the second half of November. The review is planned to bring together British policy thinking across defense, security, foreign policy and overseas development spending.

Government ministers and advisers previously signaled the review would see the military effort pivot away from conventional military capabilities and move toward a greater focus on space, cyberspace and artificial intelligence.

Carter’s speech and the new strategy document are the best evidence to date of where the government’s plan for change is heading.

“We must chart a direction of travel from an industrial age of platforms to an information age of systems,” Carter said. “Some industrial-age capabilities will increasingly have to meet their sunset to create the space for capabilities needed for sunrise. The trick is how you find a path through the night. We know this will require us to embrace combinations of information-centric technologies. But predicting these combinations will be challenging [emphasis added]."

The concept identified some capabilities it expects will be in demand in the future, including smaller and faster capabilities to avoid detection; trading reduced physical protection for increased mobility; an increasing dependence on electronic warfare; stealth technology; and evermore sophisticated networks of systems.

Carter made no mention of how the cash-strapped country will find the resources for a strategy rethink that requires substantial spending in sectors like space and cyberspace. Analysts here reckon the early disuse of conventional capabilities, like much of the main battle tank force, may be one way of balancing the books.

Last week, the Ministry of Defence confirmed it is considering cutting an order to buy five Boeing Wedgetail command-and-control aircraft to three platforms as part of its cost-cutting effort. Completion of the new aircraft expected around 2030.

The new operating concept document said it’s impossible to immediately abandon the current force structure and create a bespoke one from scratch, noting that important operations must continue and that legacy programs and platforms should retain utility.

Carter reinforced that message, saying it is “important to emphasize that the willingness to commit decisively hard capability with the credibility to war fight is an essential part of the ability to operate and therefore of deterrence.”
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/09/30/britain-unveils-new-operating-concept-for-a-fundamental-transformation-in-the-military/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kat Stevens]

For those who watched the Sharpe movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqPElqWDBbk&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1YKzlsdO3KprnitXbWwkL9F3BN2fR8TYXlMrhS-G_GeH0GUvHopohZBOQ

 

[daftandbarmy]

As Gerry Adams said: 'They haven't gone away you know.'

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

Northern Ireland Related Terrorism

https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo3ZDY5ZThhOTNhNTk1Nzc5

 

[Halifax Tar]

As Gerry Adams said: 'They haven't gone away you know.'

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

Northern Ireland Related Terrorism

https://docs.google.com/a/independent.gov.uk/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kZXBlbmRlbnQuZ292LnVrfGlzY3xneDo3ZDY5ZThhOTNhNTk1Nzc5

You know a real easy fix for this would be, and I quote Paul McCartney "Give Ireland back to the Irish".

 

[daftandbarmy]

You know a real easy fix for this would be, and I quote Paul McCartney "Give Ireland back to the Irish".

But then how would they sustain the only thing that sustains them as a culture like, you know, hating the 'outsiders' who caused all their problems?

 

[dapaterson]

But then how would they sustain the only thing that sustains them as a culture like, you know, hating the 'outsiders' who caused all their problems?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yQ4s6IBec

 

[Halifax Tar]

But then how would they sustain the only thing that sustains them as a culture like, you know, hating the 'outsiders' who caused all their problems?

Does it matter after that ?  Would it be a British problem anymore ?  Give people in NI the opportunity for a one time move to England and the remainder get absorbed into the Republic. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Does it matter after that ?  Would it be a British problem anymore ?  Give people in NI the opportunity for a one time move to England and the remainder get absorbed into the Republic.

Except for the million or so peaceful people (of all religions) who continue to vote to remain part of the UK in Northern Ireland, most of whose families have lived there for about 300+ years, I guess that would work

Actually, now that I think of it, Cromwell might have tried something like that. It didn't work out too well I recall.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except for the million or so peaceful people (of all religions) who continue to vote to remain part of the UK in Northern Ireland, most of whose families have lived there for about 300+ years, I guess that would work

Actually, now that I think of it, Cromwell might have tried something like that. It didn't work out too well I recall.

They are just settlers   Lots of people in the Republic of many faiths.  Let your empire die.  

 

[daftandbarmy]

A thoughtful piece...


War is Boring – But We Need to Scrutinise the Military More than Ever

Iain Overton and Murray Jones explore the repercussions of a lack of rigorous scrutiny of the UK’s past military actions and how reverence for soldiers is weaponised as the ultimate political tool

When critiquing militarism in the UK, though, it’s of profound democratic importance to separate our troops from their masters in Whitehall. This was never truer than during last week’s debate around the Overseas Operations Bill.

While claiming to be motivated by protecting soldiers from vexatious legal claims (which it likely won’t), Johnny Mercer, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, underhandedly shielded the Ministery of Defence (MOD) from future negligence claims. Far from looking after the troops, many veterans complain that the bill undermines their chance for redress.

Ultimately, reverence for soldiers, rather than being the impetus for decent publicly-funded veterans’ care, is the ultimate political tool. It deflects scrutiny. And we know where that leads.

The upcoming Integrated Review will be the biggest shake-up of the UK’s defence policy since the end of the Cold War and is headed up by the Prime Minister’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings, whose contempt for accountability is well known. So far, the debate has mainly revolved around whether or not Britain will keep its tanks – a distracting sideshow of ‘traditionalists versus modernists’. The real question is where and how will we use our military.

Today, few investigative journalists focus on defence. And when they do, they face a very defensive mentality (it seems to come with the territory).

In August, journalists at Declassified UK were blacklisted after requesting a comment on a story about a soldier protesting the UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The MOD gave a quote to the Telegraph on the same story. Despite an eventual apology, the debacle demonstrated a hierarchy of access within defence reporting. Complimentary publications are treated favourably.

Such transactional access has blunted the incisiveness of defence reporting. It is even understood that a major British journalism prize recently floated the idea of having an arms company sponsor a defence category.

Meanwhile, faced with global pandemics and the like, other journalists have decided to focus on other priorities. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently announced that it was to pack in its decade-long investigation into covert warfare. A few days later, the US was revealed to be firing gruesome bladed ‘ninja-bombs’ from drones.

The wider British press has lost interest. 456 British troops may have died in our long and bloody war in Afghanistan, and yet when, in early September the Taliban sat down with the Afghan Government to sue for peace, there was barely a murmur on the front pages that we had truly lost that war.

Instead, in the week the peace talks began, a senior British defence source gave a briefing to two correspondents. One came out writing that Russia was now our greatest threat. The other said it was China. Either way, future threats to Britain are deemed far more newsworthy than our past failures. And there’s a gilded reason why.

With the sweeping Integrated Review coming up, the MOD is seeking to justify its budgets more than ever. Defence Intelligence, the MOD’s version of MI5, recently held its first press conference, focusing on the threats of both Russia and China and “the expanding grey-zone between war and peacetime”.

This should concern us. As the grey-zone engulfs more areas of the MOD’s activity, so will the national security justification against transparency, leaving us all in the dark.

It is worth remembering that, when defence reporting first began, it was explicitly a form of national propaganda. Sadly, we have to ask: has it returned?

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/29/war-is-boring-but-we-need-to-scrutinise-the-military-more-than-ever/

 

[daftandbarmy]

Good old Daily Mirror... all the news that's not fit to print

British Army Colonel 'groped officer's wife in hospital as she visited sick son'

The woman claims Lt Col Gordon Edwards, 59, sexually assaulted her in a coffee shop queue when she was at her “most vulnerable”, with her child unconscious, a court heard

The woman claims Lt Col Gordon Edwards, 59, sexually assaulted her in a coffee shop queue when she was at her “most vulnerable”, with her child unconscious.

The woman told the military tribunal at Bulford, Wilts: “He ran his hand across the small of my back from left to right, down on my right bottom cheek and squeezed.

“It was a proper grope. I was shocked. My child had nearly died. It was not like I was at a party having a good time.

“I couldn’t believe someone of his stature would do that at that time.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-army-colonel-groped-officers-22810279

 

[exspy]

It was not like I was at a party having a good time.

So the victim involved is upset about the time and place rather than the act itself? If the two had been at a party "having a good time," would that have made his actions acceptable to her? Not at all excusing what he did, but if I were him her statement would be a part of my defence.

Just sayin'.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So the victim involved is upset about the time and place rather than the act itself? If the two had been at a party "having a good time," would that have made his actions acceptable to her? Not at all excusing what he did, but if I were him her statement would be a part of my defence.

Just sayin'.

I was based in Bulford Camp for a couple of years. This is pretty much standard fare for 'Edge of Salisbury Plain' culture

 

[Blackadder1916]

Good old Daily Mirror... all the news that's not fit to print

British Army Colonel 'groped officer's wife in hospital as she visited sick son'

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-army-colonel-groped-officers-22810279

The Daily Mail adds some more details.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8818843/Army-officer-chickened-reporting-Lieutenant-Colonel-groping-bottom.html

Army officer '100 per cent' let down his wife when he 'chickened out' of reporting Lieutenant Colonel 'for groping her bottom on hospital visit to see her injured son'

An Army officer '100 per cent' let down his wife when he 'chickened out' of reporting a high-ranking colleague 'for groping her bottom' on a hospital visit to see her son, a court martial heard.

Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Edwards has been accused of 'trying his luck', believing he could 'get away with a quick grope', before telling the woman's husband: 'Sorry mate I didn't mean anything by it'.

The respected officer, 59, was queuing with the woman at a hospital coffee shop when he allegedly ran his hand down her back 'over her left buttock, and squeezed her right buttock'.

He had been visiting Bristol Children's Hospital to check on the soldier, his wife and their son after the boy was involved in a serious accident. 

Bulford Military Court in Wiltshire today heard how the solider was outraged when his wife told him about the alleged incident, but failed to act and she ended up having to report it herself.

Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Edwards has been accused of 'trying his luck', believing he could 'get away with a quick grope', Bulford Military Court in Wiltshire heard.

Lt Col Edwards and his colleague were working together and the incident 'complicated' their relationship and caused 'tension' and 'public fallings out'.

The soldier told the court his 'shocked and angry' wife demanded he report it with the chain of the command and he reassured her 'I will deal with it'.

But he failed to report it within the Army, saying Lt Col Edwards was retiring and so he didn't want to burden him with the allegation. 

He also failed to confront Lt Col Edwards in a 'man to man discussion' while on deployment to Oman after the incident, despite telling his wife he would do so.

Lt Col Edwards then received a promotion after they returned from Oman and took on a senior position.

When it was suggested to him these were excuses for failing to report him, the soldier told the court: 'Yeah, I chickened out.'

Months after the alleged sexual assault, the woman resorted to reporting the matter to police herself.

Giving evidence, she said her husband '100 per cent let her down'.

She added: 'My husband has let me down as he's not supported me one bit in trying to get something done to Lt Col Edwards.

'He should have reported it to his chain of command. I asked him on several occasions.'     

After the woman - who can't be identified for legal reasons - reported the alleged sexual assault, her husband finally brought it up at his retiring boss's leaving do. 

Lt Col Edwards' defence lawyer claims he only did this because he was worried his own job was at risk. At the time, the officer was being investigated for his behaviour amid a fallout with his colleague. 

The Lieutenant Colonel today told the court he has 'no attraction' to his alleged victim and claimed she made the accusations to save her husband from being dismissed from the Army.

The high ranking officer, giving evidence for the first time, claimed the woman was 'exaggerating' any possible contact to protect her husband.

He claimed the soldier faced being dismissed 'and even a court martial' because his behaviour was being investigated following two 'outbursts' made towards Lt Col Edwards during nights out.

The prosecution claim these outbursts, months after the alleged sexual assault, were a direct consequence of the incident but Lt Col Edwards has argued otherwise.

He told the hearing: 'He was going to be removed from his post because of his insubordination investigation, two of them in fact. It could have led to dismissal and even a court martial. She made the complaint to support her husband.

'I believe it has been exaggerated to support her husband.

'She might have thought there was some touching, which was not me, and then took something and run with it while her husband had his insubordination investigation.'

Lt Col Edwards maintained he didn't grope her bottom, saying: 'I had no attraction to her. I didn't grope her. It was a pretty broken scene when I got [to the hospital].

'[The husband] almost broke down crying, [the alleged victim] was really heightened, very high pitched but pleased we were there.

'We went off to get coffee... We went to a vending machine, I didn't buy anything. She got something from the vending machine... and we went back upstairs.

'Then by the bedside she turned to me and her husband and mentioned that she believed I patted her bottom. To be honest, all I could say was "did I?" because I was absolutely shocked.

'I did not pat, grope or squeeze her bottom, I did no such thing. And I did not run my hand down her back.

'I had no intention of touching her. If I touched her I have no knowledge of doing so. I was completely unaware of it.'

Lt Col Edwards claimed weeks after the incident he visited the family's home for dinner and there was no 'frostiness' and he and the woman chatted as normal.

Bulford Military Court yesterday heard Lt Col Edwards groped the woman while he visited the hospital to check on the soldier, his wife and their son after the boy was involved in a serious accident.

Prosecutor William Peters said: 'This was Lt Col Edwards trying his luck in the hospital thinking he could get away with a quick grope.'

Lt Col Edwards, of the Defence School of Electronic and Mechanical Engineering at MoD Lyneham, Wilts, denies one count of sexual assault.

The trial continues.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Daily Mail adds some more details.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8818843/Army-officer-chickened-reporting-Lieutenant-Colonel-groping-bottom.html

Army officer '100 per cent' let down his wife when he 'chickened out' of reporting Lieutenant Colonel 'for groping her bottom on hospital visit to see her injured son'

A classic case of LMF!  :rofl:

 

[daftandbarmy]

I assume this is a similar experience to most Western nations:



MI5 boss: We face a 'nasty mix' of terrorism and state-backed hostilities

The new head of the Security Service, Ken McCallum, says state-backed hostile activity is on the rise.

By Deborah Haynes, foreign affairs editor

Wednesday 14 October 2020 17:14, UK

Russia poses the biggest state-based threat to the UK but China is the growing long-term challenge, the new head of MI5 has said, describing Moscow as delivering "bursts of bad weather" while Beijing is "changing the climate".

Ken McCallum said MI5 is looking to increase its work to counter Chinese activities in a carefully prioritised way.

He also described how the coronavirus pandemic has created new jobs for MI5, with spies working to protect the UK's research into COVID-19 vaccines and treatments from attempts by hostile states like Russia to try to steal or sabotage the data.

Terrorist activity is adapting to the pandemic. Terrorists are having to look for different opportunities because there are fewer crowded places to target, while covert surveillance for MI5 has had to adapt because of the lack of people on the street to blend in with.

COVID-19 may also have given new ideas to enemies who pose a biological weapons threat.

"It would feel reasonable for us to imagine, that in a year where a global pandemic has turned the world upside down, some of our adversaries will have noticed that clearly, and maybe thinking through whether this has application in their area," Mr McCallum said.

"But I'm not saying to you that threat is now upon us, it is a possibility we have had to face a generation and we are still therefore facing it in a slightly varied form this year."

Mr McCallum described a "nasty mix" of terrorist and state-based threats to the UK.

He noted that hostile states are no longer just focused on stealing secrets and spying, but also targeting the UK's democracy, its economy and infrastructure.

"On state-backed hostile activity, I think we are looking at two lines that are going to cross," Mr McCallum said in his first public comments as director general of the Security Service.

"If the question is - which countries' intelligence services cause the most aggravation to the UK in October 2020 the answer is Russia," he said, speaking at the Home Office in London.

"If on the other hand the question is which state will be shaping our world across the next decade, presenting big opportunities and big challenges for the UK, the answer is China. You might think in terms of the Russian intelligence services providing bursts of bad weather, while China is changing the climate."

https://news.sky.com/story/mi5-boss-we-face-a-nasty-mix-of-terrorism-and-state-backed-hostilities-12103871

 

[CBH99]

Apparently I'm on a silly question bonanza tonight.  (I've been absolutely braindead all day, no idea why.)

But...


Why would a nation-state such as Russia, or China, attempt to sabotage or steal data on a COVID vaccine?

Would it purely be for monetary purposes?  Such as a Russian or Chinese state-affiliated company getting a possible monopoly on the vaccine?  I don't see any other reason why a nation state would intentionally sabotage medical research that would potentially save lives?

 

[blacktriangle]

Apparently I'm on a silly question bonanza tonight.  (I've been absolutely braindead all day, no idea why.)

But...


Why would a nation-state such as Russia, or China, attempt to sabotage or steal data on a COVID vaccine?

Would it purely be for monetary purposes?  Such as a Russian or Chinese state-affiliated company getting a possible monopoly on the vaccine?  I don't see any other reason why a nation state would intentionally sabotage medical research that would potentially save lives?

R&D costs a lot, others may be more successful in their efforts and you want to replicate the science, or you simply are reporting up the chain on the capabilities and limitations of your adversary.

As for sabotage, well, the longer a country is focused on a virus/vaccine, the longer they won't be focusing as much on you and whatever you are doing. And the more prolonged this goes on for, the more second order effects there are that may reduce the overall strategic position of your adversary, thus in a zero sum, boosting your own strategic position.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Apparently I'm on a silly question bonanza tonight.  (I've been absolutely braindead all day, no idea why.)

But...


Why would a nation-state such as Russia, or China, attempt to sabotage or steal data on a COVID vaccine?

Would it purely be for monetary purposes?  Such as a Russian or Chinese state-affiliated company getting a possible monopoly on the vaccine?  I don't see any other reason why a nation state would intentionally sabotage medical research that would potentially save lives?

They don't care as much about the lives of those in other countries. The West, in general, has its head in the sand around that fact and it tends to show up during 'shadow engagements' around the edges...

 

[CBH99]

I agree with you D&B.

For some reason, it's hard for me to envision an intelligence agency putting human & technology resources towards sabotaging something like a vaccine for a virus, other than for monetary gain.

Sabotaging research on a possible COVID vaccine "just to be dicks" and increase the death toll, seems... petty?  waste of resources?  (Unless ofcourse there is a monopoly on the vaccine by a state-affiliated company in their home country.)


I'm probably still missing a piece of this -- haven't slept in over 48hrs (not kidding) so good chance it's just my brain being goo.