Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has called for increased investment in Britain’s forces
 

All well and good, but if you turn on the taps now, you will still be years down the line before anything equipment wise is available or has the trained manpower for them unless you aim to recruit those that have recently left, mind you cancelling some of the out of service dates might help, such as the Herc's and the recently retired nuclear submarines.,.

Wallace warns Russia may ‘lash out’ as he calls for rise in defence spending (msn.com)

And STOP doing stupid things like the selling of this.

UK set to lose biggest microchip factory over ‘direct threat' from China: ‘It's madness' (msn.com)

Agreed, Nutty, but you have to start somewhere. Recruiting recent leavers has been done before, and would fill a gap.

Agreed about the factory. If it needs a buyer to remain viable, Nationalise it, even if only as a temporary measure.

Playing catch-up with an active scenario on NATO’s Eastern flank makes for good Media coverage.

As Putin seems to be discovering, real conflict consumes personnel and materiel at a very high rate. Opening manufacturing or recruiting facilities, with their respective ponderous time-lines, only provides an answer many years down the line. UK and NATO are in a ‘NOW’ scenario, and reaping the rewards of years of neglect and contraction. Horses and Stable Doors time, chaps, and yet Vlad the Mad has been waving his Red Flags vigorously for ages … or did nobody think he was serious?

Nobody wanted to believe it is probably closer to the truth.

Because it would also force some very hard choices on whichever government had to make them. With the tax burden at record levels, in order to pay for the extra defence budget, something has to give - remember how popular that pretend austerity was?

The glib answer is to chin off foreign aid, but that has some very real consequences and doesn't fit with the newly announced G7 equivalent to Belt and Road. Welfare budget? Who's going to tell the pensioners? Transform the National Religion? Good luck with that.

No easy options.

Yep, the problem with a war is that it always a 'comes as you are' deal. The only thing a nation may be able to negotiate is the date of the party or the time..and perhaps decide to show up fashionably late.

The defence cuts were short sighted and stupid, but that is irrelevant in this time and place, because they have happened. What is in the cupboard is all we have to play with, and this obviously goes for every nation, not just the UK. That said, the planned cuts of more troops, C130's etc should probably be halted immediately as they were done with a view to saving money and loss of capability was inadequately considered, or just outright ignored.

I see that Boris has already refused to agree with the Sec Def's statement today, instead saying a bunch of gibberish about defence budgets over the years etc and deflecting the question. I would not hold my breath for a ton more cash - maybe just enough so he can use the optics of it to show he is doing something. We reap what we sow, and the UK has put itself in it's current predicament, but I think it may not be as bad as some think. What would really happen if we unleashed what combat power the UK does have, against the Russians (I am not thinking 'Nuclear' - that is a game changer)? I suspect we would annihilate their air force and slaughter their artillery - it would almost be like fish in a barrel. Add in the Yanks and the rest of NATO and Russia would be eviscerated in short order, based on their performance thus far in Ukraine. But here is the thing...does anyone really believe that Russia does not know this? This is why I believe Russia will not risk a conventional war with NATO.

If a NATO/Russia war was to materialize, then I believe it inevitable that as soon as Russia started to lose decisively - the sort of loss that could not even be spun as a 'victory' by Putin himself - then he would go nuclear. If that happens, then no amount of spending will help to avert the consequences. His FM has stated in the last few days that in the event of Nato intervention this would lead to WWIII and the first place to be removed from the planet would be London.

Putin will not want to go nuclear because he is losing his forces in a conventional war - he needs a military to support his power base. Instead, he would rather jump first, nuke London (or wherever) and then immediately (perhaps whilst the missile is in the air) say 'that's it, no more will fly if you all back off and let me have what I want, and if you don't then the rest of you get it'.

I genuinely believe he is deluded enough to think he could get away with it.

Not a Boffin,

Aid wise the 50 mil to India would be a good start, especially as they are busting the sanctions over Ukraine by buying Russian fuel.

Fully agree. Its bizarre that the UK continues to provide aid to a country with both nuclear weapon and space programs. It's likely more about buying the votes of British Indian voters though.

Oh I don't disagree. Ditto anything still going to China or even Nigeria. But £50m is literally a drop in the ocean. Less than 1% of the budget. Might buy you half an airframe or ten tanks.

But pennies make pounds, it’s alright saying it only chump change, but it all adds up at the end of the day.

The Gov't says the exhorbitant price of fuel is driven by the war in Ukraine. Perfect! We have a delicious scenario in which the problem can be it's own solution...
Gas/Oil/Petrol/Diesel prices have gone through the roof - the Gov't says 'because of the war in Ukraine'. This means the Government is unexpectedly raking in a huge dividend in taxes. I submit that they should give this windfall, in it's entirety, to Defence. This may help to end the war more quickly, thus reducing the price of fossil fuel once again, and it's 'free' money as it was never planned for in the budget. Am I missing something?

Oh, and Brent Crude is $117 a barrel today and petrol is over 1.90 per litre. The last time it was $117 a barrel, petrol rose to 1.25 per litre but no higher. Someone is lying to us.

For fear of turning this into a price of fuel thread. Headcorn on Sunday. Small independent garage diesel £1.98.9. Large multinational service station £2.01.9.
So if it's the war causing this it seems to affect the big money makers more than the little guys?
They used to call it profiteering.

They did say that although they are making more tax it is being offset by the extra costs to them in both fuel and other commodities they purchase. The fuel price is down due to them cutting refining capability, so although oil is cheaper, refining it is the problem and supply shortages drives up the price.

read

https://www.reuters.com/markets/comm...ch-2022-06-22/

..

It's not a date, it's money therefore a simple decimal. £ 2. 019

The trouble with Wallace's statement is of course he hasn't suggested where the money will come from. NHS? Pensioners?? Taxes???

Nobody ever explains where the money will come from when the case is made for expenditure increases anywhere. There is, however, the sweeping claims made by Labour and the Greens etc when demanding more for public services the NHS, Education and so on. Its always talk about punitive taxes on the rich, that won't happen without draconian measures imposed on everyone to ensure Business owners (and I mean the very rich) have very severe restrictions preventing them from circumnavigating any new tax laws forcing what? Never ending rounds of windfall taxes, massive levies and so on. We would need to be more like the Marxist state which the British left still seem to crave but without a thought for how that will affect us all generally.

FB

An individual minister would never talk about such a thing: that would be interfering in the affairs of government outside his/her specific area of responsibility and would be very badly viewed by the Prime Minister and Chancellor. That is their turf and they would not tolerate a simple minister trampling on it.

In the current climate, where the money is going to come from is somewhat academic.

The cost, collectively to Western nations, of putting the brakes on Putin's ambitions would (and, sadly, probably will) be dwarfed by the ultimate cost of not doing so.

The trouble is at the end of the Cold War, the Treasury took the so called Peace Dividend but then took it again, year after year rather than the once. Presumably, they crossed their fingers hoping there would never be another war. History shows such a hope is forlorn.

Absolutely right. Not putting the brakes on Putin’s ambitions will come at a far higher price.

Yes, you need to nip it in bud now once and for all, because if you don't, you will end up back at the coldwar situation, masses of troops stationed overseas for years at a time.

The problem is getting that over to Joe public as the knee jerk reaction will be" you could plow that money into the NHS" etc.
The trouble is they will not see it as spend now on the military to save spending even more on it later.
Putins army needs to be well and truly routed with his major equipment depleted or destroyed on the fields of Ukraine, to such an extent it will not be fit for a generation or more to attempt anything like this again, we need to support them NOW and in sufficent quantities, both in time and sustained replenishment, only then will there be a chance of peace.