The Foreign Affairs Committee published a report scrutinising the UK Government’s strategic shift towards the Indo-Pacific region.
The report, titled Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific, evaluates the opportunities and risks of the policy while expressing concerns about its clarity and focus.
According to the report, the Governmentās tilt to the Indo-Pacific comes as the āglobal geopolitical and economic centre of gravity is moving eastwardā. However, it warns that āthis policy shift should not be at the expense of regions like the Middle East to which the UK has long-standing commitments and responsibilities.ā
The Committee criticises the Government for its lack of a clearly articulated long-term strategy. It states that the ambiguity ārisks failing to meaningfully deter the threats to UK sovereignty from a more aggressive Peopleās Republic of China (PRC), and hinders the ability of the UK to take full advantage of the opportunities of greater engagement with the Indo-Pacific.ā
On the subject of China, the report goes further than previous analyses by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It calls for the Government to āpublish an unclassified version of its China Strategyā and to provide āsector-specific guidance for industries of critical national importance.ā
The Committee identifies āthe activities of the Chinese Communist Party as a threat to the UK and its interests,ā noting increased aggression towards the UK by the Party.
The Committee also recommends a zero-tolerance policy for transnational repression, urging the Government to be prepared to expel diplomats involved in intimidation or physical attacks on UK citizens. In addition, it calls on the Government to acknowledge that attacks on Hong Kong dissidents are part of a wider policy of repression by the Chinese Communist Party.
On Taiwan, the Committee advocates for the UK to ādevelop deterrence diplomacyā to protect the island’s self-determination. It also calls for the UK to secure inward investment in the semiconductor and wind industries from Taiwan.
Among other recommendations, the report suggests the expansion of AUKUS to include Japan and South Korea, and for the UK to seek membership in the Quad. It also encourages the development of economic and people-to-people relationships with Indo-Pacific countries, including India and the Republic of Korea.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Alicia Kearns MP, described the report as a āthorough assessment of the UKās policy on the Indo-Pacific; the result of two years of evidence gathering and research.ā
“The Indo-Pacific is a vast and varied geopolitical region, home to over half of the worldās population and set to continue to grow as a major economic powerhouse. The era of the Indo-Pacific is here. In any conversation about the Indo-Pacific, China looms large.
Chinaās global ambitions and desire to rival the reach and influence of the West were made clear at the recent BRICS summit, but the writing has been on the wall for years. Itās only by shoring up our networks in the Indo-Pacific that we can temper Chinaās economic and political expansionism, offering a viable, democratic alternative to Indo-Pacific states. For many years, the Foreign Affairs Committee has advocated the need to balance economic cooperation with caution in the UKās dealings with China.
Recent Foreign Office announcements indicate that Ministers are listening to the Committee. However, there is still too much unsaid. The confidential, elusive China strategy is buried deep in Whitehall, kept hidden even from senior Ministers across Government. How can those implementing policy ā and making laws ā do so without an understanding of the overall strategy?
The Intelligence and Security Committeeās report highlighted the incoherence in the Governmentās approach to China. Our report goes even further and calls for Government to publish an unclassified China strategy. Strengthening our diplomatic, defensive and economic ties in the Indo-Pacific is critical ā if the West leaves a vacuum, China will eagerly fill it. Resilience and deterrence must be at the core of our foreign policy. Concentrations of power can easily end up in the wrong hands. Diversifying our supply chains, particularly our supply of semiconductors, will protect us in the long term. Taiwan is an important ally and partner of the UK.
The Government should stand shoulder to shoulder with Taiwan, making clear that attempts to undermine Taiwanese self-determination are unacceptable.”
Simple answer. We want to be global Britain and engage with our Indo/Pacific partners, using the armed forces as a powerful link, particularly the Royal Navy. The problem is that we don’t want to pay for it.
Yep that’s our government š
In fairness the same strategy built the biggest empire in the history of the human race š
Exactly. That is why we can do this swivel today. We have historic ties and a culture that integrates rather more sympathetically with others than some powers. Get this done!
How well do we integrate with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka or Hong Kong?
Smell the coffee, drink the coffee, but, stop mainlining bleach.
Despite their rhetoric and transactional diplomacy, India is a fairly good prospect for defense ties. They know that their Russian equipment is carp and they don’t trust the Americans. Hence why they increasingly seek technology partnerships with Europe.
The linga franca around the globe is English. But no one does itself down more than the British.
I drink tea. From the former colonies, dontcha know! (See trade).
The trouble is that the Victorians were a whole different crowd to today when reality TV is the life blood of the nationļ»æš„ļ»æ
Following a naval strategy the UK can easily afford an Indo pacific strategy providing forces at both significant scale and quality in conjunction with western Allieās.
Buying three F35 capable LHDās to replace the Albionās would cost less than Ā£1.5 billion and give us 5 aircraft carriers 2 heavy and 3 light which is the same size of the fleet through much of the 50ās and 60ās.
We could build 12 SSKās to add to our planned 12 SSNās for less than Ā£8 billion giving us an attack boat fleet nearly 60% of the US navyās projected numbers with a crewing requirement of less than 500.
For just Ā£1.5 billion we could add 6 more type 31 frigates giving us a fleet of 30 surface combatants which is 40% of the USN projected surface combatant fleet in the next decade.
These numbers are chump change for a government that is spending Ā£1,0000 billion each and every year and employs 5 million people.
What we canāt afford is a big army guarding Germanys boarder from an eastern threat which no longer exists.
Jim,
You’ve already got your wish about the army. We certainly don’t have a large army and it is not in Germany. But don’t write off the prospect of a resurgent Russia in future!
Good luck with the sizable naval expansion, but the Whole Life Cost including additional personnel, accomodation, fuel, spares, ammunition etc will be huge.
Jim, I’ll have what your drinking!! It’s common sense isn’t it. Why the buggers order ships in 5 & 8s, if it’s the rule of three, what’s so difficult in ordering 6 or 9 for an extra T31 and T26? And 7 Astute’s, why not 9, even 8? Too late for the latter now. Less is simply less.
China maybe enjoying its power for the moment, but having the world’s biggest navy, airforce, army, and its propaganda, isn’t going to put the light of democracy and freedom out and push aside the international rules based system. They might get a shock at the collective will of the rest of us one day. Who wants to beholden to the likes of the Leadership of the CCP and their political feudalism? Not inspiring at all. And they’re only a party of 100m I read somewhere. I hope the West including Britain truly keeps working better with its social economic and military relationships with other countries. Got to continually demonstrate that you are the better alternative. And historical grievances with former colonies really need to addressed and worked through so these countries don’t look elsewhere.
100%!
I like it Jim but I’m biased! Three new LHD’s is not going to happen really. I have floated the idea of two more flat tops paid for by cutting out the O.A. budget and using them a “emergency/hospital ships in peacetime but again? At the moment I would settle for having just one of our carriers with a full complement of F35’s ( I will probably be shot down for daring to suggest this) but as we still only have one operational squadron after five years I’ll have to take my chancesļ»æšļ»æ. We could as you say commit to twelve SSN’s as part of the SSN AUKUS programme but that’s a long way off. Meanwhile maybe five conventional/ USV’s to take the strain in the Atlantic. As for the T31’s They should order a second batch of five now. Forget the T32, let’s get hulls in the water.
AIUI, we’re waiting for Block 4 ready F35s.
No, we’re not. We have ordered 48 aircraft and most should be here very soon…2025 anyway. The problem is once again the snails space that we introduce thing. We have a trials flight in the U.S., one operational squadron, 617, and an OCU. Nearly six years that’s taken.
Yes, we had an order for 48.
Further orders will come when Block 4 arrives.
Trawl the archives – you know it makes sense.
Your not taking notice of what I’m saying David. What we’re doing now has nothing to do with BlockIV. We are about to complete our order for 48 aircraft but we still only have one operational squadron of8/10 aircraft. This programme started in 2014, the first operational aircraft in 2018 and we haven’t gone anywhere since.
That’s true. Thanks for the correction Geoff.
I agree itās unlikely but my point is the numbers involved are chump change. Britain chooses not to have a massive navy for political reason, not for economic ones.
If the kind of political moment built by Jackie Fisher for the āwe wonāt 8 and we wonāt wait campingā was present today we could easily have a navy which was a significant percentage of the USN.
The UK can’t recruit enough personnel.
After that, anything built is gathering rust.
Indeed. And building small carriers means you need to deploy more at the same time for the same capability as the large ones. You then need proportionately more escorts to protect them, and we don’t have those because- as you say- we can’t man them.
No argument that it can be done Jim but we are not part of the same society that Jackie Fisher lived in. Now we spend more time faffing about with issues that only matter to about ten people and not the bigger ļ»æšļ»æissues
Jim love the idea but are you aware that right now UK PLC is effectively completely broke, with zero financial wiggle room.
If we werenāt then the PM and Chancellor would be using any spare funds for pre election Tax Cuts. The fact they arenāt and are holding out on all public service pay rises just amplifies the financial straight jacket we are in.
The very simple reason is the amount of money we are spending on interest on the National debt. A very large proportion of ours is unfortunately owed on Government Guilts and Bonds that are tied to the RPI + 1 or 2 %. So when inflation was down at 2 to 3 % it was cheap money. So we borrowed a lot and it cost us Ā£30 to Ā£40 billion a year to service the debt (about 3 to 4 % of Government revenue pa).
Unfortunately this year and last we got up paying 13.5% interest or roughly Ā£135 billion pa (which is twice the entire U.K. defence budget).
To put that into context we are spending Ā£13.50 out of every Ā£100 raised in revenue.
We even ended up having to borrow more money just to pay the interest.
Most other countries didnāt issue debt in this way so have more wiggle room than us.
This is well known by both major political parties which is why spookily neither one is making lots of expensive promises. In fact Labour is busily back tracking on just about everything that involves spending.
What makes our derby worse is the almost total lack of growth in U.K. economy. Itās why Poland can just decide to go shopping on a vast scale, very low amount of debt and a growth rate over 4% pa.
However there is a glimmer of hope, if inflation continues to fall things should ease up mid next year and some funding could be available.
Now I wonder what our Politicians will do ? Spend it on Defence or winning an election ?
If the present Government wanted to actually do something sensible then this time next year they could admit they could quietly realise that most of them will looking for new jobs. It isnāt like 50 Tory MPās including BW havenāt worked that one out already.
So they could (pigs fling time) just take a leaf out of Gordon Browneās play book and sign off a Defence uplift with contracts that prohibitively expensive to cancel.
That way they land Mr Starmer and Co with a lovely a set of financial handcuffs.
But you know they wonāt do that and so do I š
But āsuch things are what dreams are made ofā.
Itās just an excuse, as I pointed out 3 LHD for Ā£1.5 billion.
The British government spends that every 12 hours.
Itās chump change.
18 hours of British government spending buys 6 X T31 frigates.
2 days of British government spending buys 12 X SSKās
During COVID we borrowed Ā£300 billion in 1 year.
Thatās enough to buy nearly 100 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers or 230 Astute class SSNās
The size of the navy is a political choice not an economic one.
Crew?
Accommodation.
Pensions.
Stop posting shoitem
Jim yes I do understand how much these things cost as I actually have an involvement with an item of Defence spending that is far larger than the ones you mention.
But the difference is that one has been costed and properly funded with a contingency fund for inflation and any other unforeseen circumstances.
And all the ones you mention are completely unfunded and cannot be funded within present Government fiscal means and would have to be paid for with even more borrowing. At a very high rate of interest so long term it further cripples out economy and increases the Tax burden.
It isnāt an excuse itās simple reality and right now there is nowt we can do about it. Inflation has to be controlled in order to reduce our debt payments itās really that simple.
BW did a simply brilliant job to secure funding to just tread water with Defence expenditure with a little bit of an increase, but got slammed into the ground by the economic reality.
What made matters even worse was the Ā£300 billion borrowed for Covid and the Energy subsidies last winter of @Ā£78 billion (the highest in Europe).
This year U.K government borrowing is going to be @Ā£135 billion and the treasury are pretty happy as that it is less than forecast.
Back end of next year it may change to a positive, but if you increase borrowing now that may not happen.
So dream on, because until borrowing costs drop and GDP increases we will not be spending money on anything other than what is planned.
Simple solution is raise tax, the UK has one of the lowest tax takes in the OECD.
Itās a UK political fallacy that higher spending can only come from higher growth or borrowing.
Itās, Thatcher nonsense that raising tax will reduce economic growth.
France has a nearly identical GDP per capita to the UK and is tax take is well over 50% of GDP where as the UK is below 40%.
We also have 53% of population who are now getting more out than they put in up from 48% a few years back, its a worrying trend. And the go to fix is to take more from the remaining 47% and borrow more.
Are you sure you should be replying to my comment and not Jimās. I donāt want to borrow nor raise taxes to pay for anything, I want to reduce our debt burden and grow the GDP. Which will increase the available revenue.
A way to be a bargaining chip. UK does not have the numbers.
To do it we have to have assets out there. It’s no good saying we’re having this, We’re building that, the forces need these things now, not eventually in an ideal world a far east flotilla based say at Singapore could do a lot of what is hoped for, but like I said to do all theses things, you needed assets an people
Singapore are a bit of lost cause. They do purely what’s best for them.
We’d be better off setting up shared bases in Australia and Japan. And the links are there in the form of future joint projects
Agreed, At best Singapore would stay neutral in any conflict with China even if it meant accepting being part of greater China which many their would support these days.
Any naval infrastructure should be based in Australia because the only reason we will be getting involved is to help defend Australia. Malaysia and Singapore are a lost cause, Chinese money bought them off long ago.
No argument from me. Singapore? but I do take your point. A visit every three or four years by anything over the size of a River or similar just doesn’t do it AUKUS or JAUKUS (?) though might be the answer. Commit to the Indo/Pacific properly with the R.N. at the forefront. Mind you if Labour get in we’ll only need to worry about Rockall and the Isle of Wight.
Why would you do that with the royal navy? Why not the RAF?
If things get serious, havenāt you seen the Moskva? The story of Port Arthur? What would the Royal Navy dominates in these waters? China has far more ships than UK and likely as many as the EU all together. 1 or 2 fighter bomber squadrons would wild a larger punch, are less expensive than a fleet and faster to deploy in Asia.
if you want to deploy ships that far, then you have to dominate all water and seas on the way. Given the current production of steel of UK and China, we all know that it is impossible before 30 years, especially with current demographics. The strategy of UK in Asia, a bit like France is to try to avoid an open conflict which will not benefit UK trade. Therefore, a demonstration of power must be strong (bombers) and as cheap to do as possible. A400 or Typhoon carrying a lot of gliding bombs and missiles could be a threat even China would have to consider.
Best regards and highest respect from over the Channel.
WE have a very small and ever reducing army, a very small airforce and a navy which spans the world, with but with very few ships. The current attack (?)submarine fleet( all six of them) are all tied up in dock. No wonder the Chinese dont treat us seriously. Does the government actually know how limited our capabilities are? Have they actually counted the size of our military forces? Or is that too difficult for our inept politicians?
There is evidence to suggest that with Ben Wallace gone, the cabinet hasn’t got a scooby about our military capabilities, the PM doesn’t care and the Chancellor is only obeying orders. If the government cared, we wouldn’t be spending a smaller proportion of our resources this year than last on our armed forces, just when the rest of the world is massively rearming.
If you want to understand the PM look at his five pledges: three are economic, one is is NHS waiting lists and the last a nod to the Daily Mail. Perhaps the MOD should buy a Daily Mail subscription for all servicemen and women, making it in the Mail’s interest to support more armed forces personnel.
Great to hear these people speaking reality to government. Indeed we should shore up support for those facing hostile bullying from the PRC, make it clear we oppose such & would support any FE nation the PRC attacked.
That’s the way to do deterrents.
Not courting, toadying & appeasing the CCP. Cracking down on cyber attacks & the insidious activities of Chinese secret police here too-zero tolarence is quite right.
However we need to get the RN back to at least 25 escorts to cover our existing comitments & 30+ to have the capacity to give meaningful support to the far east should we need to do so.
We also need to decouple ourselves from over reliance on Chinese manufacturing which feeds the CCP beast & has robbed our own workforce of work.
I’d like to see the PLAN turfed off all the S China sea atolls they stole too. No other nation would’ve been allowed to get away with it.
Now if only they could make the government listen. In the governments view they could increase the defence budget or could spent it on something that benefit there business, high income pals. The 2nd option always wins.
Rishi has a lot of money unlike other PMs needing loans for favours. Rishi may have some perspective on Asia. Unfortunately a lack of talent and energy in Tory party they need to regroup in opposition for a while.
Any idea what’s sitting behind their main gun?
The Type 055 guided-missile destroyer Nanchang is seen at Qingdao Port ahead of an activity to celebrate the 74th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) on April 20, 2023, in Qingdao, Shandong province of China.
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/230831124248-type-055-guided-missile-destroyer.jpg
Some sort of CIWS?
I thought it might be a laser but probably not.
“China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) is testing a tactical laser system that bears remarkable similarity to the U.S. Navy’s Laser Weapon System (LaWS), an anti-surface / anti-air defensive weapon that has been in development since 2014.
The Chinese version appeared in a promotional video broadcast by state-owned channel CCTV, and it is shown in a ground-based, vehicle-mounted application. According to Sina.com, the weapon is intended for both land and sea deployment, both for air defence or close-in surface-to-surface force protection.
The outlet suggested that it might find use aboard the PLA Navy’s Type 055 destroyers in future years as an alternative to the HHQ-10 surface-to-air missile.”
It is a Type 730 30mm, 7 barrelled CIWS system. In other words the Chinese ripped off, backwardly engineered copy of the Dutch Goalkeeper system,
Nigel, it might some early laser CIWS? Or, maybe they’ve left the barrels off!! Lol š
Sorry, I see you’ve mentioned that below.
Worth reading!
Blue-water ambitions: Is China looking beyond its neighbourhood now it has the worldās largest navy?
LINK
And watch how everyone else responds.
Very closely!
“We also need to decouple ourselves from over reliance on Chinese manufacturing which feeds the CCP beast & has robbed our own workforce of work.”
Ebay has more recently become the part of the problem, they effectively give preference to goods made in PRC on their site!
This sounds like another one where Rishi will sit resolutely on his butt.
‘Fraid so when he was appointed PM by the committee this was the point that concerned me most. He wouldn’t or didnt understand the UK’s particular advantages and relationships world wide. You have to be immersed in this stuff which includes our colourful history and the personalities involved. They weren’t woke but they were surprisingly enlightened for their times and for the most part got it right with a few notable exceptions. The Indo Pacific is crucial but how hard it is to convince people on the need for a blue water navy.
Many here will want to manfully go to the pacific. By default we have deep blue carriers we can go anytime anywhere. I favour supporting and collaborating with pro western democracy where we can around the world but not seeing a massive realistic upscale of our forces abroad particularly. Though we can contribute in other ways and do.
May I remind everyone what the Shadow S of S fro defence has said several times regards the UK and the Pacific.
Labour will concentrate on where the threats are, not where the money is or where trade opportunities lay.
As it stands, this Pacific far east policy will be gone within a few years.
Considering the importance of the region to world trade, and UK trade, the rise of China, that is Strategically blind.
Why am I not surprised?
I posted this link above which you might find interesting Daniele.
Labour does not have any policies so I would not worry too much, they have just been playing typical opposition party saying black when the government says white.
They will be pro ship building and pro Warton, AUKUS and SSN(R) is safe so is GCAP. Realistically thatās all our tilt to Asia has been. T32 is the only thing up for debate.
No way they will increase the army in size to deal with a non existent Russian threat.
Anything we would bring to the eastern EU boarder will be small potatoes compared to Poland anyway.
I hope you’re right Jim! I’ll be looking for you here! š
Hi Jim, if UK Labour doesnt have any policies then the people shouldn’t be voting for them, your voting for nothing. Tories and others should be holding them up to the light and vice versa. We have a Labor (no “u”) government here Aus that seem to be doing a reasonable job internationally and domestically and especially in defence. The opposition, independents and the press are onto them every day, I guess like anywhere else.
Labour is keeping it’s gunpowder dry because we have such a toxic right-wing press.
Has a General Election been called? Answer is?
So why give ammunition to the Cons and the rabid press, a quite a bit of which is owned by a tw@t named… Mugshot, who is from…?
And on the subject have the Cons announced any policies? Any other party? Why should Labour.
At 8% Reform are for the birds.
Meanwhile, I’ll go back to reading this right-wing echo chamber.
I’m down in š¦šŗ so wouldn’t have a clue what’s happening in the UK. But someone’s got to “keep the bastards [in power] honest”, left, right, or middle. You’d hope that some good politicians of all persuasions stand up and want to do a good job for their party, people and country. Personally I don’t mind whose in power, just want the honesty, effort and benefit for the whole of the nation to come through. All sides can learn from each other unless they’re completely arrogant.
Unfortunately, your media mogul has vested interests in maintaining a right wing press in the UK.
The EU are ripping him a new set because of his activities, that would have caused him severe pain in the UK.
And his press backed the campaign to leave the EU – assisted suicide is outlawed in the UK, what we did was an act of assisted suicide along with Bluffer etc al, he should be strung up.
And now you want politicians to set standards in a hostile media glare, good luck with that one.
I absolutely agree with your sentiments but we are a long way from ever being empowered to enable them under the current govt and press.
For what the Tory Party have become, the best to be done is to just let them squalor for another year or so.
They are completely reactionary and there’s almost not a single soul left in their parliamentary party that is interested in doing what is best for the country. Trying to appeal to that is therefore a waste of time and effort or worse.
We should be able to hang on for a year before you hopefully finally boot them out of power.
That’s sad to hear and a bit of a disgrace at the same time. Can’t believe the UK has come to that but it can only take one good example of leadership or a calamity to bring out a right person and things might get on the up again. We know others would have the same qualities but I wonder if BW would ever consider running for PM? We also have a very decent Labor defence minister Marhles here in Australia who I feel would make a decent PM.
*Richard Marles.
You are very naughty!
But nice.
What was I naughty about?
The British Govt put ink pots, spilt ink spreads, of platoons into the Afghan AORs – they were, thankfully, Royal Irish and PARA.
They still got malleted but, withstood the onslaught, but then strategy had to change.
I would suggest, falling back on your core, a la Labour is infinitely more sensible than a Batch2 inkpot.
When we have a grounded economy, able to build and develop GDP, come back to me; or continue and put the blokes and blokesses lives on the line.
The narrative has to change for one with realism.
Morning David.
Fortunate I found this, your message went into Spam on my email! The only one. ļ»æšļ»æ
Hiya Daniele, interesting interview with Jeremy #unt today on Kuensberg – put some water between his stint as Chancellor – addressed the schools issue and the previous Chancellor.
One of the Sunday papers running with previous Chancellor, just call me Rish!, cut the schools budget on this issue.
And he is now talking of a 5p tax cut??? Aspirations for a 2.5% – 3% Defence budget just went out the window… and don’t you just love the new boy at Defence.
No, I don’t, dreadful choice. However, I’m happy to give him a chance.
He should be shot at dawn, and anyone suggesting that amoeba of a living specimen should be given a chance, is clutching at straws.
Smell the coffee Daniele.
Sounds depressing. Hope Britain doesn’t shrink under Labour if they get in otherwise you will be really called “Little Britain”! š Sorry, but I’m a Brit, and we got to be able laugh. Who can beat our sense of humour!
Goodbye P5 and goodbye several overseas bases is my greatest fear.
Hi Daniele, you’ve lost me on “P5”? No idea what that is sorry. “P8” I’ll understand… Lol š
The permanent 5 on the UNSC, a prestige position based on the victors of WW2.
US, Russia, China, UK, France.
We are also a G7 member, another important distinction.
Thanks. Got you. And all nuclear powers. All forums have their challenges though certain countries like to stay in or near the top while other countries are knocking at the door!
Happy Sunday M8, we canāt be removed from the UNSC, itās impossible due the UN charter and how it is constructed.
Itās the same reason Russia canāt be booted off, we all have a Veto and no one can override it. So we, France and the US would all have to either vote for us to be removed or abstain.
And as it is a 3:2 West / East split neither will agree to that, nor admitting India or Brazil, same applies to Germany, Japan Australia or Canada.
And even if the entire UN assembly voted for that plus the SC we just use the Veto.
The status Quo is 5 and so it will remain š
Happy Sunday
Evening mate. Didn’t know that detail regards removal, and yes, Russia, I’d not considered that. Thanks
What worries me, and always will until shown otherwise, is a left wing government removing us itself as “we’re too small and let someone else take the status”
Though I guess the US and France may not rubber stamp that, so…
We all know China will be the very real next threat, and a presence which involves physical platforms, partner nation agreements and combined force structures, will be essential in the region.
BUT, at this time arenāt the Russians posing the most (as Tom Clancy would say) the āclear and present dangerā most certainly looking back towards the North Atlantic. Yes the Russian bear is turning out to be a rather underfed, piss stained, scraggly tag nutted alley cat, which has been knocked over by the neighbours car a few times, but the submarine capabilities in their Northern fleet cannot be discounted. They are currently closer, more belligerent and more unstable due to Putins shock at the shit show in Ukraine, and in saying that they must be the current and most immediate threat which we have to plan and prepare to meet! We have limited platforms to meet all threats so we do need to prioritise the nearest and most current, and that is not China (physically that is as they are a real threat in the cyber environment) at the moment! Discussions please, as Iām certainly not an SME on this one, cheers.
Bluffer Johnson raises his head again.
Bluffer bluffed without substance, without assets and without planning to create a jingoistic idea of global Britain; basically a load of bollocks, that the gullible lapped up like lap dogs. No bulldogs were involved in this dream.
Should, SHOULD, the UK focus on NATO, then perhaps we can take a more considered view of our international obligations and opportunities and focus our defence accordingly; and no, I do not subscribe to the idea that we will lose a carrier or two and with a Northern focus, a littoral capability will be needed.
Not to sure on the idea of Japan & S.Korea joining AUKUS, especially at the top level. AUKUS is a grouping that speaks the same language & a large proportion of their peoples are of the same ethnic & cultural mix. They understand each other pretty well & have been long standing allies beyond living memory. They get on well together & have a tendency to gravitate towards each other in any case. S.Korea & Japan donāt get on with each other. In a big group, that can be handled. In a small group – not so much.
I don’t know about AUKUS but Japanese-Korean relations are thawing a little, as both western aligned countries understand that they need to unite to confront their common regional foes. Their differences are based on historical resentments (Japanese treatment of Koreans under occupation) and these things tend to fade over time. Japan is clearly a very different country today and we don’t for example see the same resentment in Europe with Germany. I’ve visited both countries, including spending much time with locals, and I tend to think they have a quite similar but also different culture and a bit of a love-hate relationship, it’s very much like how we are with the French.
The big probem with the Indo-Pacific Strategy is our armed forces are be too thin on the ground to be effective.
See above.
This supposed ’tilt to the Indo’Pacific” is purely political theatre for the masses, who love the idea of Britain strutting the world stage, as long as they don’t have to pay for it!
The immediate military threat to Europe comes from a resurgent Russia. Playing our full part in NATO Europe is therefore priority No 1.
The US has insisted that Europe steps up to look after its own back yard, in Africa and the Middle East. So we now have 8 battalions of SFABs and Rangers helping allied forces there, countering AQ and competing with China”s encroaching influence. That is military priority 2.
We have nothing left to send to the Indo-Pacific – one carrier group with a very small air wing and maybe one Astute from time to time. There are no spare fast jet aircraft or army combat formations for Asia.
Our indo-Pacific stance is militarily insignificant, it’s a token political gesture. Our main interest is trade, but you don’t need a fleet or expeditionary force to export to or import from South East Asia.
If we wanted to stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA in a face-off with China, we would need to treble our defence spend and start a 20-year crash building and recruiting programme.
Nobody is proposing that, because we know that we are really just paying lip-service to this whole far-fetched idea.
We mustn’t be tied by Boris’s daft concept or the Royal Navy’s pushy enthusiasm. Any.military help from Europe to the Pacific would have to come from a joint NATO Europe force, in which we would have a small role to play.
Said so much better than me earlier in the thread.