Until we are energy independent we will be reliant on having a stable and free moving trade from the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is when you are a large importing nation for everything from energy to food it is very easy for an opponent to cripple you if you don’t have a strong protection of the means to receive those imports.SW1 wrote:The Middle East is more a concern for China than us. Going fwd the Middle East will require less UK engagement not more. Beyond Contributing to upholding international norms of freedom of movement the Mid East is of diminishing strategic importance for the UK.Jake1992 wrote:2 - the Middle East not only doesn’t seem to being getting more stable but infact getting worse, this is going to require maintain a reasonable land presence there along with increased naval an amphibious presence.
3 - a rising and belligerent China, this is a threat to vital trade along with very close allies, we’ll need a much gear naval presence and air presence whether that be individually ie CSG or as part of working with allies.
The vital trade is with China they don’t need military means to disrupt it. Yes the are asserting themselves and ensuring we support allies is important but it will be more through diplomatic and intelligence means than militarily ones we are very much a junior partner in that part of the world .
In regard to China I did point out that we wouldn’t be a lead in the Far East region but more that we would have to contribute more than today to enable global norms to continue, the likes of the US and regional nations are very stretched as is.
But it’s not just about protecting our trade or upholding global norms, HMG want the UK to be a global player with global influence and rightly so. The only way this is maintained is though a strong miltary as we can see with other nations, Russia has more influence globally than the likes of japan or Germany even though the laters have much larger economies, this is due to Russia’s large military force and willingness to deploy it.