Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:Lack of funding and ambition in our armed forces (remember the “first tier or not” discussions) were very much part of her premiership also.
I do and I think she wouldnt use the term perhaps investing less in rhetoric, maybe she knew then capabilities actually were failing in over ambition not a lack of it. We spend tens of billions every year on defence maybe it’s being spent on the wrong things you cut your cloth accordingly and stop disappointing people.

You can have all the money and ambition you like but it counts for nothing if you don’t have the political will to see things thru to the end.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:You can have all the money and ambition you like but it counts for nothing if you don’t have the political will to see things thru to the end.
Absolutely agree - it will be the curse of the western world till it’s too late.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by topman »

SW1 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Has she been asleep since suez? What did she do to decrease our dependance on the US when she was PM?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

topman wrote:
SW1 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Has she been asleep since suez? What did she do to decrease our dependance on the US when she was PM?
Probably most of them have been. Most likely nothing

But doesn’t make the points wrong.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by topman »

SW1 wrote:
topman wrote:
SW1 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Has she been asleep since suez? What did she do to decrease our dependance on the US when she was PM?
Probably most of them have been. Most likely nothing

But doesn’t make the points wrong.
If she was a backbencher and spent her career pushing that line fine, but it's hypocrisy at its best to then start huffing and puffing when she's an ex PM but was quite happy with that level of dependecy when she was in charge.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

topman wrote:
SW1 wrote:
topman wrote:
SW1 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Has she been asleep since suez? What did she do to decrease our dependance on the US when she was PM?
Probably most of them have been. Most likely nothing

But doesn’t make the points wrong.
If she was a backbencher and spent her career pushing that line fine, but it's hypocrisy at its best to then start huffing and puffing when she's an ex PM but was quite happy with that level of dependecy when she was in charge.
Politicians are hypocritical by nature so nothing new there. The only think about her being PM is that her time was so short I don’t think there was a defence review under her premier ship.

The think I find interesting is that it’s actually being discussed openly by the political class, will it result in anything tangible happening don’t know I’m not exactly holding my breath but maybe the beginning off a wake up call that far to much enabling and support assets depend on the US.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by topman »

I doubt anything will change, it'd be too much of a change for the country at large to deal with.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

We will never be able to match the range of capabilities fielded by the US military. We can however configure our Armed Forces to be able to operate seamlessly with the US Military as well as NATO members and other allied nations. This means ensuring we have our platforms equipped with the needed datalinks so that both our and our allies can operate in a co-operative manner. be it on land, at sea or in the air.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:What does that actually mean a global player,
For me it is an acknowledgment that things that impact the UK doesn’t stop at the channel, and as such being a Global Player means having options to influence events around the globe and protect your interests.

As a Global Player we should be engaged as a equal in the regions that impact us and our interests, not as a Superpower or Empire, but as a leader (if required) or a contributor as part of a collection of like minded equal nations - I see the Commonwealth as one of these collections.
Moved this here to avoid blocking up the escort thread.

The UK politically is a member of the p5 economically a member of the g7 and has maintained for decades a small but important presence from Belize to Brunei from Europe’s north to the south Atlantic and couple of places inbetween. That has been are foreign and security posture we clearly care about as we’ve been there for more than 50 years I don’t see anything that’s changed other than reaffirming commitment to it with the IR part of the sdsr. It’s not something new and while Global Britain is a nice slogan it isn’t new just different marketing

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

I think there is a subtle but substantial difference. During the UK’s membership of the EU, everyone was focused on a global strategy with other Europeans top at mind. Regardless of your view on Brexit, the UK focus is now more broad and therefore can and needs to build strategic relationships with other nations.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

I think there is a subtle but substantial difference. During the UK’s membership of the EU, everyone was focused on a global strategy with other Europeans top at mind. Regardless of your view on Brexit, the UK focus is now more broad and therefore can and needs to build strategic relationships with other nations.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

The UK needs support and as part of something like CANZUK it would hold more sway as would Canada , Australia & New Zealand and as time went on it could pull in others like Japan , Singapore and maybe India

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Repulse wrote:I think there is a subtle but substantial difference. During the UK’s membership of the EU, everyone was focused on a global strategy with other Europeans top at mind. Regardless of your view on Brexit, the UK focus is now more broad and therefore can and needs to build strategic relationships with other nations.
During the EU days one of the big problems with its CFSP was the shear struggle to move the organisation away from being predominately inward looking. That's one of the big negatives of the EU, to be fair it does have positives too. For the EU the threat must be that other players (European & otherwise) will better appreciate the enormity of recent events and not delay acting. I expect the likes of France, Canada, Australia, Britain etc..will act to form new alliances and strengthen existing one's, including with each other. Germany will probably demand a predominantly EU based multilateral approach and be in danger of being potentially left behind when, as I fear, the EU fails to deliver and instead focuses it's energies on Eurocratic policy initiatives such as Strategic Compass and European Defence Fund.

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Tempest414 wrote:The UK needs support and as part of something like CANZUK it would hold more sway as would Canada , Australia & New Zealand and as time went on it could pull in others like Japan , Singapore and maybe India
Don't be surprised if, below the radar, Quai d'Orsay and King Charles Street start working far more closely together than they have in many decades; possibly even since 1956.

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Repulse wrote:I think there is a subtle but substantial difference. During the UK’s membership of the EU, everyone was focused on a global strategy with other Europeans top at mind. Regardless of your view on Brexit, the UK focus is now more broad and therefore can and needs to build strategic relationships with other nations.
During the EU days one of the big problems with its CFSP was the shear struggle to move the organisation away from being predominately inward looking. That's one of the big negatives of the EU, to be fair it does have positives too. For the EU the threat must be that other players (European & otherwise) will better appreciate the enormity of recent events and not delay acting. I expect the likes of France, Canada, Australia, Britain etc..will act to form new alliances and strengthen existing one's, including with each other. Germany will probably demand a predominantly EU based multilateral approach and be in danger of being potentially left behind when, as I fear, the EU fails to deliver and instead focuses it's energies on Eurocratic policy initiatives such as Strategic Compass and European Defence Fund.
The thing with CFSP and other mechanisms to try and create a joint foreign policy though is that the UK put in great effort to Keep them as shallow and cumbersome as it could and acted as the cornerstone of US backed efforts to ensure it remained as ineffective and irrelevant as possible.
Post-Brexit for one there isn't the same kind of important, central and powerful memberstate for others to rally around and/or be incentivised by to join a blocking coalition and simultaneously the attractiveness and reliability of US patronage and privileged treatment is continuing to decline.

Just ask the Poles, they went in super hard against Germany on Nordstream and wasted a lot of energy and good will just to get unceremoniously dumped when the US decided it was better to accept the German fait accompli and do a face saving deal among the big boys, leaving Poland, Lithuania and the Ukraine humiliated.

At least when the Germans deal with Russia they take their Project™ into account and generally looped in.
You have to ask yourself, if the US decides that China is so important that Russia needs to be rehabilitated and does a deal to that regard where will that leave those EE countries that profess such fear of Russia?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

The reality is that the UK will still have a “global strategy partnership” with the UK, given its pretty unique global reach ability. However, that it will be far from “special” nor will it be as strong (outside of Europe) as other allies in specific regional partnerships.

The UK itself has to look at each region it wants to play in and influence and decide who are the best allies aligned to the UK interests in addition to the US and be prepared/ able for a level of action(without US involvement), for example:

- Europe: EU nations
- Artic: Canada and Nordic Nations
- Caribbean: France and Netherlands
- Gulf / Indian Ocean: Oman and India
- Pacific: Five Powers plus Japan and possibly South Korea
- Africa: ?
- South America: ?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/we-need-to-talk-a ... -transport

Twenty years ago today UK Army soldiers arrived in Macedonia. They went there as part of a NATO mission to collect weapons from ethnic Albanian rebels as part of a ceasefire agreement. Like the air evacuation currently taking place in Afghanistan the Army response was spearheaded by the Parachute Regiment. But, like during the last week, central to operations was the RAF Air Mobility Force.

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Gtal wrote:The thing with CFSP and other mechanisms to try and create a joint foreign policy though is that the UK put in great effort to Keep them as shallow and cumbersome as it could and acted as the cornerstone of US backed efforts to ensure it remained as ineffective and irrelevant as possible.
Is there any evidence for such anglophobic assertions, beyond stories planted in the minds of receptive journalists by those who lost the argument in European Council?

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Gtal wrote:At least when the Germans deal with Russia they take their Project™ into account and generally looped in.
Indeed, pity the poor Ukrainians https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... ssurances/

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by dmereifield »

Opportune moment for Ukraine to be strengthening defence ties with the UK then...

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Gtal wrote:The thing with CFSP and other mechanisms to try and create a joint foreign policy though is that the UK put in great effort to Keep them as shallow and cumbersome as it could and acted as the cornerstone of US backed efforts to ensure it remained as ineffective and irrelevant as possible.
Is there any evidence for such anglophobic assertions, beyond stories planted in the minds of receptive journalists by those who lost the argument in European Council?

Oh wow. What do you do all day when you read about UK defence and foreign policy? I mean this is like common knowledge, even UK experts and researchers admit it.

Ivan Rogers thought the UK's grievances around Galileo were highly ironic:
"For those of us who worked on the intensive debate over the creation of Galileo about 18 years ago, and recall a previous generation of UK politicians instructing one to find ways to ensure it did not get off the ground – I failed."

Even after the Brexit referendum (edit:) Micheal Fallon thought he could continue the UK's long standing policy anouncing publicly:
"The UK will oppose all EU plans for increased military cooperation."

You could just google this stuff you know..

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Gtal wrote:At least when the Germans deal with Russia they take their Project™ into account and generally looped in.
Indeed, pity the poor Ukrainians https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... ssurances/
Is the Ukraine in the EU? NO. Ergo why should the Ukraine's whining feature much in Germany's considerations on it's and the EU's Russia policy?
And the Ukraine didn't get fucked by Germany. They got betrayed by the US.
After being encouraged and egged on by the US for YEARS they really believed the US would stand with them to the end.. but once the US finally realized it couldn't actually stop Nordstream short of an act of war, they just turned around and symbolically made up with Germany so as not to appear to have failed it's objective.

Edit: It really seems to be difficult to comprehend that not doing what the US's transatlanticist "policy" sect wants is the exact opposite of being weak or dependent.
If Germany can execute it's percieved interests against unprecedented openly hostile bipartisan (even under Trump) US opposition (still the most powerful country in the world - for now), Europe can deal with Russia too.

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Probably a good idea to remind oneself of what the integrated review command paper actually said. The synopsis on Gov.UK says:
Details
The Integrated Review is a comprehensive articulation of the UK’s national security and international policy. It outlines three fundamental national interests that bind together the citizens of the UK – sovereignty, security and prosperity – alongside our values of democracy and a commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and faith, and equality.

The Integrated Review concludes at an important moment for the United Kingdom. The world has changed considerably since the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, as has the UK’s place within it.

The document, which is the product of over a year of work across government and of consultation with a wide range of external organisations and thinkers, sets out a vision for Global Britain. This includes:

an emphasis on openness as a source of prosperity
a more robust position on security and resilience
a renewed commitment to the UK as a force for good in the world
an increased determination to seek multilateral solutions to challenges like climate change
It also stresses the importance of deepening our relationships with allies and partners around the world, as well as moving more swiftly and with greater agility.

In this context, the Integrated Review sets out four overarching objectives:

Sustaining strategic advantage through science and technology, incorporating it as an integral element of national security and international policy to firmly establish the UK as a global S&T and responsible cyber power. This will be essential in gaining economic, political and security advantages.

Shaping the open international order of the future, working with partners to reinvigorate the international institutions, laws and norms that enable open societies and economies such as the UK to flourish. This will help our citizens and others around the world realise the full benefits of democracy, free trade and international cooperation – not least in the future frontiers of cyberspace and space.

Strengthening security and defence at home and overseas, working with allies and partners to help us to maximise the benefits of openness and protect our people, in the physical world and online, against a range of growing threats. These include state threats, radicalisation and terrorism, serious and organised crime, and weapons proliferation.

Building resilience at home and overseas, improving our ability to anticipate, prevent, prepare for and respond to risks ranging from extreme weather to cyber-attacks. This will also involve tackling risks at source – in particular climate change and biodiversity loss.

The Integrated Review sets out the government’s overarching national security and international policy objectives to 2025. These will inform future policy-making for all government departments. They will also inform future Spending Reviews, offering further opportunities to align resources with ambition over the long term. We will ensure all government’s instruments work together, coordinated by enhanced strategic capabilities at the centre, to achieve our objectives.


With further detail here, including on our international relations https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ign-policy

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by tomuk »

Gtal wrote:
Even after the Brexit referendum Tim Farron thought he could continue the UK's long standing policy anouncing publicly:
"The UK will oppose all EU plans for increased military cooperation."
What has Tim Farron got to do with UK Goverment Policy? He didn't take a government role when the Lib Dems were in coalition government between 2010 and 2015. He was Lib Dem leader for two years 2015-2017 and their party is currently poling about 9%. He is a complete irrelevance.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

I’m guessing what there talking about is in a particular region you decide who your going to work with to achieve a specific aim and then deploy accordingly.

On the wider point about a more independent U.K. foreign policy. What your looking at is deciding what level of operations your considering doing alone. You then decide scale at what distance and how many simultaneously. That would define the task lines for scaling the enabling assets the infamous defence planning assumptions. But I would think something like Serra leone is the high water mark. Beyond that your looking at investing in the enablers most frequent requested in coalitions.

Gen Lamb and Col Williams wrote a paper not unlike that 10 years ago for sdsr 2010. Would give many heart failure I would think but interesting reading https://www.policyexchange.org.uk/wp-co ... sep-10.pdf

Post Reply