Defence: an invisible plan

By Richard North - May 14, 2024

By a substantial margin, Sunak seems to have got more publicity for his speech prior to its delivery than he can boast in current media editions, where reports have been tucked in inside pages.

For those who are particularly interested, there is a version of the speech on the No.10 website, although this is of limited utility as the political content has been redacted.

Usually, one can find a full copy of the PM’s speeches on other websites, such as the Spectator, but in this case a simple search does not reveal any links. Given that the speech was supposed to be kickstarting Sunak’s general election campaign, the lack of interest might say something about his chances later in the year.

Consulting the redacted version, which has the opening paragraphs removed, we see Sunak asserting that he feels “a profound sense of urgency”, because, he says, “more will change in the next five years than in the last thirty”.

That much we got from the pre-publicity, along with his assertion that he is “convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet the most transformational our country has ever known”.

What I don’t recall being rehearsed in the pre-publicity (although I may have missed it) was the next bit, where Sunak poses the “question we face today”, which is: “Who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future for you and your family?”.

He goes on to articulate the now familiar line, telling us that the dangers that threaten our country “are real” and that they are increasing in number. This is where he injects his soundbite “axis of authoritarian states” in which he includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China, all of which – in the Sunak playbook – are “working together to undermine us and our values”.

Then, and only then, does he make his single reference to Ukraine, as he warbles that “War has returned to Europe, with our NATO allies warning that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next”. But he adds another reference to Russia, asserting that “Putin’s recklessness” has taken us closer to a dangerous nuclear escalation than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.

I note the reference to the Cuban missile crisis and am just old enough to remember the sense of real fear that infected my parents and the world stood on what seemed to be the brink of nuclear war. And currently, the situation doesn’t feel anything like it did then, although if Cameron keeps putting his foot in it, I suppose we could easily get to the stage where nuclear annihilation threatens.

Of more immediate concern though, is the situation in Ukraine, with the uncertainty enhanced by the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv direction, bolstered by Putin’s move to replace his defence minister, Sergei Shoigu.

Even as Sunak spoke, he must have known – if he had read his security briefs – that there is increased enemy activity in the Russian regions bordering on the Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts, with increased cross-border shelling. Some border villages in Sumy have been evacuated.

This points to the very real possibility of the Russians widening their offensive, imposing intolerable pressures on the Ukrainian defenders who have had to rush reinforcements to the Kharkiv front, depleting forces in the Donbass defence zone.

Yet, despite that, some reports claim that, in the space of a further 24 hours, the Russians have doubled again what they call the “liberated” area, from 100 square km yesterday, to over 200 today, with troops having entered the northern part of the key town of Vovchansk.

Bearing in mind that Sunak’s speech was supposed to be on “security” – which was in fact the heading given by No.10 – one might have thought that Ukraine might have got more than one passing mention, given that there is now a greater than ever possibility that Putin might succeed in his domination of Ukraine.

Furthermore, as the Guardian puts it in its headline, Sunak’s pitch to the nation is “who do you trust to keep you safe?”, with his USP being that he has a “plan”, it really isn’t asking too much for him to share his thoughts on what he expects us to do if Putin decides that Nato’s turn is next.

But having asked “who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future”, Sunak’s next reference to the fabled “plan” is to tell us that “We must be prepared strategically, economically, with robust plans and greater national resilience, to meet this time of instability with strength”.

There’s more than a hint of a non sequitur here for, if Sunak is implying that his administration already has a plan, he should hardly be declaring that we must be prepared. Rather, it would be more appropriate for him to assert that we are prepared.

In all, there are six references to a “plan” in the speech, one more is to a “bold plan to make science and technology our new national purpose”, one to the success of the plan to control inflation, and a further one to the NHS “Long Term Workforce Plan”.

That brings us to the final reference, in his closing peroration, where he intones (in that squeaky, unconvincing voice of his) that “there are storms ahead”, that “the dangers are all too real”, but “Britain can feel proud again, Britain can feel confident again”, because “with bold action and a clear plan, we can and we will create a secure future”.

Again, the dead hand of the incipient non sequitur strikes. Are we supposed to feel “proud” and “confident” that, “with bold action and a clear plan, we can and we will create a secure future”, if there is an element of conditionality there?

Any rational interpretation of Sunak’s words must surely lead us to the conclusion that he is prepared for “bold action” in accordance with some “clear plan” which he has tucked away to deal with the coming storms.

Yet, assuming there is more than one, where are these plans? The only plan he has revealed for Ukraine – which he announced in Warsaw at the end of last month – is to send aid to the value of £3 billion a year, for “every year it is needed”.

On current form, the UK taxpayer could be in for an unexpected treat, because that aid might not be needed for very much longer, in which case we will need a plan for what we do next.

But all Sunak has to offer is an increase in defence funding from 2 to 2.5 percent of GDP, invoking the response from Starmer the security speech (as retailed by the Guardian) that this is the seventh reset in 18 months.

Says the leader of the opposition, “I know first-hand the importance of national security … but in order for that to happen you need a credible plan. What’s his record? He’s hollowed out our armed forces, he’s wasted billions of pounds on procurement”.

Starmer is most definitely not the one to talk, but he does have a point. Adding a fraction of one percent of GDP to the defence budget to deal with a resurgent Russian threat does not exactly constitute a plan – credible of not – especially when much of the extra money will be spaffed up against the wall on useless, overpriced procurement projects.

In that context, the crucial issue facing the nation is the one which confronted our forefathers in the 1930s, when they had to decide on an isolationist self-defence approach to a rearmed Germany, relying on a strong navy and air force, or whether we should mount a “forward defence” policy of equipping an expeditionary force to bolster the land armies of our allies on the continent.

Should we choose the latter option, our Army will soon be the proud possessor of 148 refurbished Challenger MBTs (rebadged as Challenger 3s), at about £7 million a pop – discounting the original purchase price – somewhat more than the cost of a brand new K2 Black Panther.

Current experience in Ukraine, though, tells us that the average life of an MBT once committed to action is about 10 minutes, at which rate – even if we were to deploy our tanks sequentially rather than en masse – we would run out of armour in 24 hours.

In short, not only do we not have a plan, we don’t even have the makings of a plan. And with the prime minister wibbling his way through inconsequential speeches we do not even have the start of a national conversation that might beget a credible plan.

It wasn’t always the case that our prime ministers treated us with such casual disdain, palming us off with dribble instead of substance – the essence of his invisible plan. But Sunak has taken this further, turning vacuity into an art-form. The worst of it all, though, is that he thinks this is the way to win an election.