Article published in The Daily Mail, 6 August 2024. © Richard Kemp

For a seafaring nation that once counted itself among the world’s great naval powers, the state of Britain’s submarine fleet is both an outrage and a humiliation.

It could also leave us open to catastrophic acts of sabotage by our enemies, with cables, pipelines and wind farms particularly vulnerable.

The global economy could not function without the 800,000 miles of undersea fibre-optic cabling criss-crossing the world’s oceans that are responsible for carrying 97 per cent of international communications and $10 trillion of financial transfers every day.

In a digital age, these cables have never been more essential and, if they were to be disabled, the world would be plunged into a devastating depression. As a report published by the Policy Exchange think-tank put it: ‘Short of nuclear or biological warfare, it is difficult to think of a threat that could be more justifiably described as existential than that posed by the catastrophic failure of undersea cable networks as a result of hostile action.’

It added: ‘In the words of the managing director of one major telecoms firm, “Cascading failures could immobilise much of the international telecommunications system and internet… The effect on international finance, military logistics, medicine, commerce and agriculture in a global economy would be profound … Electronic funds transfers, credit card transactions and international bank reconciliations would slow…such an event would cause a global depression.”’

Such an outcome is all too possible given how vulnerable these cables are. While they are engineered to the ‘five nines’ standard – meaning they are reliable 99.999 per cent of the time – they are highly vulnerable to attacks by enemy forces.

Typically just over an inch in diameter, they consist of fibre optics – strands of glass as thin as a hair – in the centre, surrounded by galvanised steel wire armouring and then, on the outside, a plastic coating. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 4 August 2024. © Richard Kemp

Labour is in denial over the danger to this country from Iran, and appears to be prioritising conciliation of its own anti-Israel supporters above our national security. There is surely no other explanation for the Government threatening an arms embargo on Israel as it fights a seven-front war directed from Tehran. If proof were needed of Iran’s controlling hand in this widespread regional aggression, the Islamic Republic’s permanent mission to the UN has now threatened that its proxy Hezbollah will soon be striking deep into Israel and will deliberately attack civilian targets.

That might be nothing new for Hezbollah or Iran, but such a blatant announcement of planned war crimes shows how emboldened the regime has become. It is being strengthened by the appeasement of its leaders and the condemnation of the country it is attacking by much of the Western media, international bodies such as the UN and by governments like ours.

The message being delivered by the rumoured decision to freeze new contracts for military equipment is that Israel is committing war crimes. Why else would you deny your ally munitions in a time of war? Yet Labour knows this isn’t true. The Defence Secretary, John Healey, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Tony Radakin, were both in Israel this week, and the Attorney General had been there a few days earlier. All were briefed in detail on the reality of Israel’s military operations, which they know anyway because Britain’s military chiefs and diplomats are in close contact with the Israeli government and armed forces.

It increasingly appears that the Labour Party and its supporters are less changed than many hoped after Jeremy Corbyn’s days as leader. Mollifying anti-Israel supporters now seems to transcend sticking up for our most important ally in the Middle East and, by doing so, supporting our own national interests.

The Government’s stance is also a counterbalance to the Royal Air Force’s probable role in defending Israel if the expected large-scale attack comes from Iran and its proxies in the coming days. RAF jets are preparing now to take to the skies to help intercept the missile Continue reading →

Article published by Ynetnews.com,  1 August 2024. © Richard Kemp

The elimination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, presumably by Israel, contains a shattering double message. First to Iran: that the IDF can strike where, when and against whomever it wants inside their country. Second to Hamas: that their leaders are no longer safe anywhere in the world and never will be.

The devastating blow in Iran’s capital at the time of the new president’s inauguration redoubles previous messages delivered to the ayatollahs. For example, they were humiliated when Israel repelled hundreds of missiles and drones fired into the country on April 14.

Insult was added to injury when Israel struck back at the most heavily defended place in Iran, Isfahan, the center of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program. Tehran’s forces were unable to even detect, let alone shoot down, Israel’s missiles.

We will have to see the extent to which Haniyeh’s killing deters Iranian belligerence. But one thing is certain: This further sign of impotence will encourage the growing dissent inside Iran against a repressive regime that has destroyed the country’s economy while investing so much in imperialist aggression across the region. Whatever their response now, the ayatollahs can’t afford to risk much more humiliation.

For Hamas, a leading Iranian proxy, Israel’s action will resound throughout what is left of the movement. Hamas in Gaza is already on its knees, with thousands of terrorists killed and captured, many miles of tunnels blown up and munitions seized and destroyed. It is no longer able to operate as a coherent military organization and its supply lines from Egypt have been cut. The terrorist leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, has been forced into survival mode. His military lieutenant, Mohammed Deif, was killed in an Israeli air strike earlier this month that was a tremendous blow to the organization. I saw for myself last week inside Gaza the extent to which the IDF has now secured freedom of operations everywhere. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 12 July 2024. © Richard Kemp

Sir Keir Starmer has humiliated Britain, embarrassed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and handed an undeserved victory to Russia at his first international summit as Prime Minister. It’s one thing to flip-flop on domestic policies but quite another, and far more dangerous, to do a screeching U-turn on a vital strategic subject with the eyes of the world on him.

But that’s precisely what he has achieved on the crucial issue of Storm Shadow missiles.

Only a couple of days ago, the international press hailed a new, more hawkish policy from the Government as Starmer suggested that Kyiv would be permitted to fire British Storm Shadow cruise missiles into Russian territory, lifting previous restrictions on their use. That decision was greeted enthusiastically by Zelensky, who added that he had discussed operational implementation with Starmer. Inevitably, the Kremlin condemned the move as a dangerous escalation.

A day later, however, Downing Street clarified that Ukraine will not be able to use Storm Shadow to attack into Russia after all. What’s going on? Pressure from the White House, cold feet in the face of Moscow’s outrage, or bungling by Starmer? Whichever it is, it is shambolic.

The first decision was the right one. For over two years, Russia has been hitting any corner of Ukraine it likes. It took months for Britain and the US to summon up the courage to supply Ukrainian forces with the long-range missiles they needed to hit back. But both countries, fearing Putin’s wrath, hogtied Kyiv by insisting they not be used against Russian targets outside Ukraine.

That has left Moscow free to build up supplies, deploy forces, and launch air attacks from within Russia with virtual impunity. We were Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Mail, 3 July 2024. © Richard Kemp

It is no exaggeration to say that Britons today are living through the most dangerous geopolitical period since the Second World War.

The threat is all around us: from ever-multiplying jihadi terrorism, a resurgent Iran, a muscle-flexing Russia waging its unjust war in Ukraine and even from China, which only two months ago GCHQ director Anne Keast-Butler warned posed a ‘genuine and increasing’ cyber risk to the UK.

It is against this bleak and unsettling backdrop that, if the polls prove correct, Sir Keir Starmer will be appointed our country’s new prime minister on Friday.

It is a prospect that profoundly alarms me.

As the Mail reported on Tuesday, former Ministry of Defence chief Dr Rob Johnson has just issued a devastating assessment of our ever-depleting military capability, warning that a country once renowned for its might is now so short of infrastructure, personnel and weapons that we are, as Dr Johnson put it, unprepared for a ‘conflict of any scale’.

What a terrifying prediction that is — a state of affairs that, I believe, would sharply deteriorate under a Labour government.

Nor is this just my view as a former commanding officer who saw action in some of the world’s fiercest warzones, but one shared by many senior military figures, both retired and operational, with whom I speak often.

The numbers speak for themselves: When I joined the army in 1977, it boasted a regular fighting strength of about 150,000. Today, those numbers have diminished to less than half that at around 73,000. As Dr Johnson made plain, it is not just people we lack either: we are desperately short of ammunition, ships and aircraft too.

Yes, it is only fair to point out that successive governments from both sides of the House have presided over this diminishment of our Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2024. © Richard Kemp

Kyiv has been told that, before it can join Nato, it must fix its problems with corruption. These are very real: the latest Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Ukraine below Belarus and Kazakhstan. But that is not the true reason why there will be no good news on accession for Zelensky at Nato’s 75th anniversary summit in Washington next week.

The simple reality is that very few in Nato wants to let Ukraine in, despite endless platitudes including a declaration by the North Atlantic Council at Vilnius last year that ‘Ukraine’s future is in Nato’. There has been discussion about taking that further at the July summit, but Joe Biden vehemently opposes anything more than the meaningless formulation of ‘a well-lit bridge’ to Nato membership. The best he is willing to do is sweeten the pill with a 10-year bilateral defence pact that changes very little and, tellingly, is cancellable with six months’ notice.

We have seen Sweden and Finland become Nato members in the blink of an eye and with no need for any kind of a bridge. That won’t happen for Ukraine. With Putin’s battles raging, all of the member states know that they would effectively be at war with Russia from the moment of Ukrainian accession.

Zelensky has been pressing for a solid guarantee of Nato membership ‘after the war’. But when will that be? Putin is not going to withdraw his forces, and without a surge of Western military support at a scale not so far contemplated by the West, Ukraine will not be able to push them out. That leaves an endless war or a frozen conflict at best. Whether the latter results from a negotiated settlement or battlefield paralysis, it will certainly re-ignite while Putin or anyone like him occupies the Kremlin. Well aware of that harsh reality, which Nato leader is going to sign up his country’s young men and women to fight against Russia at an unknown point in the future and potentially within his own electoral cycle?

Putin has drawn us into a trap which damns Nato if it accepts Ukraine and damns it if it doesn’t. According to US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, ‘Nato is the most powerful and successful Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 28 June 2024. © Richard Kemp

Russian hackers have caused chaos in the NHS and put patients in danger. This month, one of the most serious cyber attacks we have ever faced hit London hospitals and GP surgeries by locking pathology service providers out of their own IT systems. This has forced more than 1,100 operations to be postponed, including cancer treatments and organ transplants. Thousands of outpatient appointments have been cancelled and vast numbers of patients’ records stolen, some of which have been published on the dark web. They include results of blood tests for cancer and HIV.

Make no mistake. This is a terrorist attack on the UK, which has already resulted in widespread suffering and may cause deaths.

The hackers, who call themselves Qilin, operate out of Russia. They were first known to be active in 2022 and their activities have so far been thought to be criminal, using cyber attacks to extort large sums of cash from their victims. But Qilin claim they carried out this attack – in which a £40 million ransom was demanded – over Britain’s role in an unspecified war.

That may or may not be the motive, but it is far from implausible. Vladimir Putin seeks to create chaos in the West, to undermine support for Ukraine by demonstrating the high costs of that support. He has reportedly recruited criminal gangs to carry out sabotage against Western factories supplying arms to Ukraine, including cyber attacks. We have already seen indications of such action in Britain, the US, Germany and Poland.

Links between freelance hackers and Russian intelligence services have been growing since the 2022 invasion. It is possible Qilin is run and directed by one of the Kremlin’s agencies, and that it is provided with encouragement, information and technology. As a minimum, Russian law enforcement are turning a blind eye on these cyber gangs. For that, Putin is culpable.

It must be a priority to shut down Qilin, which has expanded into the largest Russian enterprise of its kind. That won’t be easy, although Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 23 June 2024. © Richard Kemp

Nigel Farage’s claim that Nato and EU eastward expansion provoked the war in Ukraine have been greedily seized on by Russian state broadcasters and social media channels as endorsing Vladimir Putin’s claims of Western culpability for more than two years of bloodletting and destruction.

Farage’s words unintentionally feed the Kremlin’s propaganda machine, boosting domestic support for continuing the conflict at a time when even Putin seems to be contemplating some form of negotiations. They also help undermine Western resolve, which is already wavering in its support to Ukraine. Those are the dangers of a prominent British politician seeming to endorse Putin’s own excuses for his violent aggression, even though Farage believes the Russian invasion ‘immoral, outrageous and indefensible’, sentiments that were not of course picked up by the Russian media.

While he disapproves of Putin’s actions, it appears Farage actually believes that his pretext for war is genuine. That is something he has in common with Jeremy Corbyn, who appeared to justify the 2014 invasion of Crimea, claiming Putin was protecting against Nato’s ‘attempt to encircle Russia… one of the big threats of our time’. That was the man Keir Starmer said would have made a better prime minister than Boris Johnson, one of Ukraine’s most staunch defenders.

If Farage and Corbyn are right, then what is the answer? Should we expel Poland, Romania and the other eastern European member states from the alliance to end the war and prevent further aggression? The Baltic states would also have to go, as Putin says he considers their independence and Nato membership as threats to Russian security and sovereignty. Likewise Finland and Sweden, who have recently joined Nato, in response to which Putin threatened action if any Nato military infrastructure or forces were deployed on their territory.

Perhaps all our foreign policy decisions should be calibrated to avoid upsetting Putin. Should we, for example, withdraw our support from Israel, currently under attack from Putin’s ally Iran, which has been one of Russia’s main weapons suppliers in Ukraine? If so, it might be Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 22 June 2024. © Richard Kemp

Nigel Farage’s analysis of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine could hardly be more wrong. He claims that Nato and EU expansion was provocative. In fact it was Western weakness and timidity that encouraged Putin’s aggression in 2022. Rather than making any attempt to oppose Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, or helping Ukraine to do so, Western governments called on Kyiv to take no action that might lead to escalation. In spirit, it was a foreshadowing of Joe Biden’s offer in February 2022 to give President Zelensky a ride out of Ukraine.

When Putin saw the West was unwilling to confront him, he rapidly followed up with aggression in the Donbas. In the face of that, Europe desperately sought to revert as soon as possible to business as usual with Russia, even taking steps to increase energy dependence. Seeing he had nothing to fear, an assessment reinforced by Nato’s abandonment of Afghanistan, Putin returned to the charge in Ukraine in February 2022.

To give credence to Putin’s frequently trotted out excuse for starting this war is, to say the least, naive. Farage says that he admires him as a “political operator”. Well, the political operator understood only too well that Russia had nothing to fear militarily from Nato, having rubbed shoulders with the heads of Western governments for so many years. Not one of them has any aggressive instinct let alone intent.

Quite the reverse. As we have seen repeatedly in the pusillanimous responses from both Europe and the US to the 2022 invasion, with pretty much whatever Ukraine has needed to fight back being provided reluctantly, inadequately and with crippling restrictions, if at all. If Putin has any genuine fear of Nato’s eastward expansion, why has he withdrawn 80 per cent of Russian forces from the border with Finland shortly after it joined the alliance?

Beyond his imperialist motivations to recreate a greater Russia with him as Tsar, what Putin did actually fear was a democratic Ukraine and a Ukraine that has benefited increasingly from alignment with Continue reading →