Latest news with #FionaHill
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
There is only one warmonger on the European stage: Vladimir Putin
On 13 June, the Guardian published a collective letter concerning Russia's war and attacking Dr Fiona Hill, the chancellor of Durham University and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. As UK-based and/or British-educated experts in matters pertaining to Russia, Ukraine and international security, we voice our profound disagreement with the letter by Robert Skidelsky, Richard Balfe, Anthony Brenton, Thomas Fazi, Anatol Lieven, Ian Proud, Geoffrey Roberts, Richard Sakwa and Brigitte Granville. They say that Dr Hill represents 'the warmongering mood of official Britain'. But there is only one warmonger on the European stage, and that is Vladimir Putin. It is neither a 'false premise' nor a 'mad conclusion' to argue that Putin's invasion of Ukraine has the goal of restoring Russia to the status of a world power, and that the departure of the US would leave Russia 'the dominant military power in all of Europe'. In reality, governments and independent experts from across Europe, ourselves included, have reached conclusions very similar to Dr Hill's, as they are supported by empirical evidence – not least by Putin's own overtly stated aspirations. One wonders what 'precautions' the signatories would advise Britain to take in the event of a US pullout from Europe. The once – and perhaps still – friendly contacts in Russian officialdom that some of the letter's authors maintain will not help. Roy Allison School of Global and Area Studies, University of OxfordTimothy Garton Ash Faculty of History, University of OxfordAnders Åslund Stockholm Free World Forum, Sweden (DPhil Oxford)Rostyslav Averchuk VoxUkraine, Kyiv (BA Oxford)Jaroslava Barbieri Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House, LondonIan Bond The Centre for European Reform, LondonLaurie Bristow Ambassador to Russia 2016-20, Cambridge, UKMaksym Butkevych Principle of Hope Foundation, Kyiv (MA Sussex)Edward Hunter Christie Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki (MSc LSE)Ruth Deyermond Department of War Studies, King's College LondonSasha Dovzhyk INDEX: Institute for Documentation and Exchange, Lviv (PhD Birkbeck)Marta Dyczok Western University, London, Ontario (DPhil Oxford)Julie Fedor The University of Melbourne, Australia (PhD Cambridge)Emily Finer School of Modern Languages, University of St AndrewsRory Finnin Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of CambridgeLawrence Freedman Department of War Studies, King's College LondonMischa Gabowitsch Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany (BA Oxford)Ian Garner Pilecki Institute, Warsaw, Poland (BA Bristol)Keir Giles Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House, LondonPaul Goode Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario (DPhil Oxford)Thomas Grant Wolfson College, University of CambridgeSamuel Greene School of Politics and Economics, King's College LondonAgnia Grigas Atlantic Council, Washington, DC (DPhil Oxford)Hubertus Jahn Clare College, University of CambridgePolly Jones Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, University of OxfordIvan U Kłyszcz International Centre for Defence and Security, Tallinn (IM Glasgow)Amy W Knight Independent Scholar, Summit, New Jersey (PhD LSE)Natasha Kuhrt Department of War Studies, King's College LondonTaras Kuzio National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (PhD Birmingham)Simon Lewis University of Bremen, Germany (PhD Cambridge)Klara Lindström Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (BA Oxford)Bobo Lo Independent international relations analyst, Brighton, East SussexJohn Lough Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House, LondonEdward Lucas Centre for European Policy Analysis, Washington/LondonOrysia Lutsevych Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House, LondonClaudia Major German Marshall Fund of the US, Berlin (PhD Birmingham)Luke March School of Social and Political Science, University of EdinburghDaria Mattingly Department of History, University of ChichesterMichael McFaul Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (DPhil Oxford)Jade McGlynn Department of War Studies, King's College LondonBohdan Nahaylo Kyiv Post – Ukraine's Global Voice, Kyiv/Barcelona (BA Leeds)James Nixey Conflict Studies Research Centre, Shrivenham, OxfordshirePhillips O'Brien School of International Relations, University of St AndrewsOlga Onuch School of Social Sciences, University of ManchesterIngerid M Opdahl Institute for Defence Studies, Oslo (PhD Birmingham)Carolina Vendil Pallin Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences, Stockholm (PhD LSE)Peter Rutland Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut (BA Oxford)Gwendolyn Sasse Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany (PhD LSE)Anton Shekhovtsov Central European University, Vienna (PhD UCL)James Sherr Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House, LondonOxana Shevel Tufts University, Massachusetts (MPhil Cambridge)Iryna Shuvalova Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo (PhD Cambridge)Timothy D Snyder University of Toronto, Ontario (DPhil Oxford)Joanna Szostek School of Social and Political Sciences, University of GlasgowMaximilian Terhalle Hoover Institution, Stanford, California (MA SOAS)Nikolaus von Twickel Centre for Liberal Modernity, Berlin (MA King's College London)Andreas Umland Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (PhD Cambridge)Adam Ure Lvivski Consulting, London (PhD UCL)Fredrik Wesslau Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (BSc LSE)Sarah Whitmore School of Law and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes UniversityAndrew Wilson School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCLKataryna Wolczuk School of Government, University of BirminghamStefan Wolff School of Government, University of BirminghamMychailo Wynnyckyj National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (PhD Cambridge)Yuliya Yurchenko School of Accounting, Finance & Economics, University of Greenwich
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Asia Times
13-06-2025
- Business
- Asia Times
UK's strategic defense posture still includes East of Suez roles
Originally published by Pacific Forum, this article is republished with permission. The launch of the United Kingdom's Strategic Defence Review has finally set down a clear direction for the UK's strategic posture for at least a parliament, perhaps longer. The most instrumental element in the paper is the decision to focus on the Euro-Atlantic as the priority region. This was already understood, but there have been at least two decades of the UK flirting with an East of Suez strategy. This included development of a robust defense attaché network in Southeast Asia, the long courtship of China – and then India – for growth, and the resurgence of UK military assets to the region in the name of defending maritime sea lanes and a 'free and open' Indo-Pacific. While it's true that this SDR was written by externals, led by Lord George Robertson, Dr. Fiona Hill, CMG, and General Sir Richard Barrons, the Labour government has already stamped its seal of approval by accepting all 62 recommendations. So what exactly does it say about the UK's 'Indo-Pacific strategy?' Well, the document is a realization that the US 'Pivot' to the Indo-Pacific region is here to stay. This was made clear after the Biden administration re-released an Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2022 to put its stamp on the Trump strategy of 2019. Both strategies began with the starting point that the United States as an 'Indo-Pacific power' or 'Indo-Pacific nation.' While resources and political attention have – at times – remained stubbornly centered around the Middle East and CENTCOM and with Europe and EUCOM, the arrival of Elbridge Colby (a one-time Pacific Forum 'young leader') on the strategic scene in the United States has for now crowned the Indo-Pacific Pivot as the United States' priority region. The rise of China in this region, and the shift of political, military, and economic weight from Europe to Asia has cemented this shift. Colby's ratification as undersecretary of defense for policy has also added an explicit message to the Europeans: The dribbling of small amounts of assets to the Indo-Pacific is unnecessary; the United States would infinitely prefer that European powers – France, Germany and the UK – focus on the Euro-Atlantic and deal with Russia. The SDR wisely accommodates this resource imperative, while still providing a place for UK interests and support to the US and its allies in the region. If one looks at the number of times 'Indo-Pacific' is mentioned in the document (17), it is notable that this is down from a high of 32 mentions in the 2021 Integrated Review. Still, it is still better than the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 or the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, documents which mentioned 'Asia' five times and two times respectively. The 2025 SDR states that NATO-first does not mean NATO-only, putting the list of priorities as Euro-Atlantic, Middle East, and Indo-Pacific in that order. It states that 'the Indo-Pacific is strategically important to the UK as a global economic and political powerhouse and arena of increasing geopolitical tension.' It notes the strong partnerships the UK has in the region – ASEAN, Australia, Brunei, Japan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, New Zealand and Pakistan come in for special mention – and, of course, China. The SDR's position on China is probably closest to that of the UK Ministry of Defence and –sadly – does not reflect broader opinion across government in Whitehall. China is a 'sophisticated and persistent threat,' which behaves aggressively in the South China Sea and has escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait. It notes the fact that China has supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine and that the US-China relationship will be a 'key factor' in global security. It also notes the threats provided by Beijing's military build-up, nuclear modernization and technological and cyber capabilities and recommends the maintenance of UK-China military-to-military communications. Given that US-China mil-to-mil relations are extremely limited now and constantly under pressure from China over US arms sales to Taiwan, this might prove a helpful channel in time. Notably, it recognizes that most of the UK's adversaries will likely field Chinese technology – an important observation in its own right. The SDR's integrated approach toward the Indo-Pacific region is consistent with the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, and consistent with the overall security interests of its closest partners, Japan and Australia, which are rapidly becoming the more important partners of choice across a number of different metrics. First, both are key partners in intelligence-sharing, both work closely with the United States to demonstrate deterrent capability in military exercises in the region and both are defense industrial partners of choice. With Japan, the UK is developing the Meteor, a joint new air-to-air missile (JNAAM) and the Global Combat Air Programme (with Italy), though this latter effort is under pressure. With Australia, there is even more by way of 'production deterrence' in the form of the AUKUS submarine and technology programs. The rotation of UK Astute-class submarines to HMAS Stiling, in Australia, planned as early as 2027 will be an immense boon to deterrence and warfighting capability. So what's missing from the SDR? Well, with respect to the authors, there are a few things: The recent murmurings of disquiet about a lack of progress in AUKUS Pillar 2 is an issue. London and Canberra now need to press upon newly arrived Trump officials their thoughts on the blockage and what can be done to expedite things at the resourcing, regulatory, and organizational level. This needs to be done at a time when the White House is shifting the US trade environment, so this will be difficult. In addition, the UK Ministry of Defence needs to think about what posture it needs to 'surge' military forces into the region in a crisis. The MOD needs to provide options and these range from inter-changeability exercises for UK assets visiting the region to developing a more mature presence in INDOPACOM – through a mid-size consulate in Honolulu run at the ambassadorial level by someone with close links to MOD. The options include joining the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience – if this has not already occurred – and supporting 'production deterrence.' It might mean co-production on long-range munitions in the wide expanse of the Pacific. And, finally, it needs to develop – alone or in tandem with the US – hubs for maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) so that it can operate at the long-distances required by the operational environment. Dr. John Hemmings (john. @ is deputy director at the Council on Geostrategy in London and senior advisor at Pacific Forum.
Daily Record
08-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Keir Starmer's defence expansion plan 'will bring tens of billions of investment into Scotland'
Military intelligence experts say thousands of jobs will be created as billions are ploughed into key Scots locations. Keir Starmer's massive defence expansion plan will mean tens of billions of investment in Scotland's economy, leading military intelligence experts have told the Sunday Mail. Thousands of jobs will be created north of the border after the Prime Minister travelled to Glasgow last week to announce the largest sustained increase in MoD spending since the Cold War in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). One of the authors of the report, Fiona Hill, yesterday warned Russia is already 'at war' with the UK, and said America is no longer a reliable ally against Vladimir Putin. And to counter the threat Philip Ingram, a former senior intelligence and security officer in the British Army, has told the Sunday Mail Scotland will need to play a leading role in an 'always on' ship building drive on the River Clyde, upgraded nuclear capability at Faslane, and a massive RAF expansion at Lossiemouth. He revealed billions will also need to be invested with established Scottish tech companies to develop drones, satellites, battlefield communications systems, missiles and guidance systems over the next decade. Ingram said: 'This is the first review in recent history that has been about increasing capability rather than cutting it and there is also pressure now coming from NATO not to just increase defence budgets to 2.5per cent of GDP, but to go to 3.5per cent and even higher. 'To put that in number terms our current defence budget is around £65.6billion. If we even go up to three per cent that takes you to £85billion and 3.5per cent takes you to just short of £100billion. 'Given Scotland's established military ship building, the fact that it is already the base for our nuclear fleet, and Scotland's position in supporting our defence industry generally, this will definitely mean tens of billions of pounds of new money going into the Scottish economy. 'It is going to mean thousands of new jobs for the civilian labour market in very high tech industries and that will stimulate a lot more requirements for people coming through Scottish universities and schools with technology and engineering skills. 'It also means much more money coming into supply chain industries right down to the burger vans because there are more people going to work with more money in their pockets who will be spending it in local communities. 'In town and cities where the high street is suffering this can stimulate a turn around. This is why the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is saying that investing in defence will underpin her strategy for growth. 'You are effectively taking taxpayers' money and instead of spending it overseas you are spending it on British manufacturing and that money is filtering through into the service industry and local communities. 'Companies for example working with drones or novel materials or new ways of communicating - and there are a lot of these companies in Scotland and Scottish Universities are focussing on this - there is big money coming, it is win win.' Keir Starmer launched the SDR alongside Defence Secretary John Healey at BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow, last week. He promised to implement all of its 62 recommendations which included multi-billion pound expnasions of the Army, Navy and Air Force, new nuclear submarines, more soldiers, new weapons and equipment. Scotland was described as a 'linchpin', with generations of skilled workers to benefit from apprenticeships, jobs and rewarding careers in defence as spending increases to 3.5per cent of GDP in the next parliament. Ingram added: 'It is definitely not wrong to see this as tens of billions coming into Scotland. They way things are going with the international community it is not unrealistic at all. 'America, who traditionally supply a lot of defence equipment, has effectively shot itself in the foot because the UK and everyone else has been until now been buying from America because they had the capacity and it was cheaper to rely on them. 'But Trump has at the same time as pressurising people to increase defence capacity also turned around and said we might not support you if it came to war, we may not supply you if you are not in Donald Trump's good books. 'That was a Gerald Ratner moment, like saying all my jewellery is s**t, so there is now an opportunity for us to not only to manufacture our own defence equipment but to also start taking over parts of the global market. 'The UK is already the second biggest defence exporter in the world and we can quite easily build on that, and a big slice of that pie would go to Scotland.' As part of the SDR commitment the UK Government will spend around £11billion on front line kit and build at least six new munitians factories with Scotland a likely base for some of the investment given its established weapons companies. Around 7000 long range weapons will be built and the UK's aircraft carriers are to become 'hybrid air wings' housing drones, jets and long-range weapons. A hybrid Royal Navy that uses aircraft, drones, warships, submarines to patrol the north Atlantic around Scotland and beyond will be created as part of a military which will become '10-times more lethal' according to ministers. New F-35 jets, Typhoon jets and autonomous aircraft will be commissioned alongside expanded warship building operations. Defence Secretary, John Healey MP said: 'From Faslane to Lossiemouth, the importance of Scotland to our defence capabilities cannot be overstated; it provides vigilance and protection for everyone across the UK. 'With threats increasing, the SDR is clear on the need to move to warfighting readiness to boost deterrence and to grow our defence industry across the country. 'Scotland will be a linchpin in making Britain safer, with more generations of skilled Scottish workers benefiting from apprenticeships, jobs and rewarding careers in defence.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'Why defence announcement in legendary Govan shipyards felt personal for me' by Joani Reid, MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven and grand-daughter of legendary ship-building trade unionist Jimmy Reid Why does a political party like Labour exist? It's simple: to ensure that the wealth generated by working people, from electronic communication to shipbuilding and defence, is shared fairly and that the jobs created allow everyone to live decent, dignified lives. Our communities famously fought to keep the Upper Clyde shipyards open because they understood the dignity that hard, well-paid jobs brought to working people and their families. The UCS work-in wasn't about ideology but respect and survival. Tory ministers couldn't grasp why working people wouldn't quietly accept their jobs were surplus to requirements, and why they fought back against the devastating reality that closure would bring to their families and communities. This came into sharp focus for me this week as I stood in those same Govan shipyards at the launch of Labour's Strategic Defence Review. It felt personal. Here was Labour returning to Govan—not with empty promises but with real investment, real jobs, and a real future. For the first time in decades, government ministers came to announce billions in investment for Scotland, not just crumbs from an ever-shrinking cake. This investment will deliver thousands of high-quality, skilled jobs for our young people. But new defence industries don't appear overnight. To grow our industrial base, we need active government support and substantial investment in skills and infrastructure. Yet, incredibly, the SNP blocked a £2.5 million grant for a specialist welding centre in Glasgow last week due to their misguided opposition to defence-related spending. John Swinney's opposition is disgraceful. If he agrees Scotland needs armed forces, what exactly does he expect them to be armed with—paper darts? Investment isn't only about industry; it's also about properly caring for those who serve our country. The deplorable state of our defence estate urgently needs addressing. During my recent visit to Faslane, I saw condemned buildings riddled with unsafe concrete and personnel accommodation infected with legionnaires' disease—a regular occurrence, I'm told, due to outdated infrastructure. Service personnel described the poor conditions they endure daily, conditions that undermine morale and weaken our readiness. This shocking neglect from the SNP government and previous Tory administrations must end. The SNP must drop its ideological boycott of Faslane and ensure Scotland fully benefits from defence-related investments. Nobody wants conflict, but conflict may still find us. Putin's invasion of Ukraine shows that war in Europe isn't confined to the history books. It's a stark reminder that we live in unpredictable times, requiring vigilance and readiness. We must maximise our deterrent power and capacity to prevail in any potential conflict, whether on land, sea, air, or cyberspace. Protecting our way of life, values, and people demands this preparedness. Scotland must be at the heart of this renewal. Our people have always volunteered bravely for the front lines; now we must also lead in building advanced industries to counter the threats of the 21st century. Scottish innovation and ingenuity can position us as global leaders in cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, and green defence technologies. Achieving this demands coordinated effort, targeted investment, and genuine commitment from our government. I'm immensely proud of our marine engineering heritage at Govan and Rosyth. But let's not overlook our broader industrial strength: manufacturing in Scotland is 60% higher in real terms than at the turn of the century. With world-class universities, skilled workers, and a robust industrial legacy, the foundations for becoming a global defence engineering powerhouse already exist—we just need to strengthen them further. Sixty years ago, strength in the shipyards meant muscle power—tough jobs for tough people. Today, it's about skills in chemistry, physics, maths, and cutting-edge technology. The Duke of Wellington once claimed the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. The next battles will be won in our high schools, colleges, and universities. Let's position Scotland at the forefront, leading the charge for jobs and opportunity. Our children deserve nothing less.
