Welcome to the 76th Cable, our weekly roundup of British foreign and defence policy.
Last week, the United States (US) hosted a multinational ministerial meeting to develop a strategic alliance over critical minerals to counter the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) dominance in rare earth supply chains. During the meeting, the US administration proposed a new initiative to mobilise allies and partners: the Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE).
Additionally, a number of bilateral agreements to enhance the production of these critical minerals were signed with American partner nations. The United Kingdom (UK) was one such country which signed a Memorandum of Understanding on critical minerals, with the partnership set to allow both nations to work closer together and encourage greater private investment into mining and processing.
As the PRC accounts for almost 70% of critical mineral ore production and over 90% of refining capacity globally, breaking Beijing’s dominance over these essential resources will be critical to ensuring Britain and its allies and partners can compete in producing many of the technologies that will dominate the 21st century.
Welcome back to The Cable!
During a visit to Camp Viking to meet Royal Marine Commandos, John Healey, Secretary of State for Defence, announced that the number of British troops stationed in Norway will double to 2,000 over the next three years as part of efforts to combat the Russian threat in the High North. This announcement comes as the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) confirms Exercise LION PROTECTOR, which will see air, land, and naval forces from JEF nations train to protect critical national infrastructure. Later this week, Healey will travel to Brussels to discuss the British Armed Forces’ involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) ARCTIC SENTRY mission later this year.
His Majesty’s (HM) Government published its Advanced Nuclear Framework on 4th February, outlining how to stimulate private investment in innovative nuclear technologies. Advanced nuclear technologies – including advanced, small, and micro modular reactors – are manufactured in factories in modules, meaning they could be built quicker and at a lower cost. Developers are aiming for the first advanced nuclear reactors to be operational in the UK by 2035.
According to reporting by the Financial Times, Britain could be included in a new €90 billion (£78.2 billion) European Union (EU) loan scheme for Ukraine, after member states agreed to allow British companies to win military procurement contracts to supply Kyiv (depending on certain conditions).
Jimmy Lai, media tycoon and British citizen, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison in Hong Kong for ‘national security offences’ amid widespread criticism from press freedom groups. Lai is the founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, a popular Hong Kong newspaper that supported the pro-democracy movement. Responding to the sentencing, Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary, said:
For the 78 year old, this is tantamount to a life sentence. I remain deeply concerned for Mr Lai’s health, and I again call on the Hong Kong authorities to end his appalling ordeal and release him on humanitarian grounds, so that he may be reunited with his family…
HM Government announced that the British Army Cyber Association will lead the Defence Cyber Marvel 2026, a multilateral exercise taking place in Singapore. Now in its fifth year, the week-long exercise will bring together more than 2,500 personnel from 70 different organisations and 29 countries.
HM Government held a ‘record-breaking’ solar, onshore and tidal renewable energy auction this week. Contracts were awarded for 4.9 Gigawatt (GW) of solar capacity and 1.3GW of onshore wind. According to HM Government, this latest auction – coupled with last month’s offshore wind auction – ‘puts the UK on track for its 2030 clean power target’.
How competitors frame Britain
TASS reported on a statement made by Alexander Gusarov, head of the North Atlantic Department in the Russian Foreign Ministry, in which he claimed that ‘British strategists are looking for creative ways to unite their remaining allies in Europe’ to escalate tensions in the Baltic and Black seas. Gusarov added that: ‘The intensity of military propaganda in the British Isles has reached a level we haven’t seen in a long time. Our country is constantly subject to fictitious and absurd accusations.’ Quite a take from Russian state media, considering that it is the Kremlin which has escalated tensions across Europe and enjoys spreading conspiratorial accusations.
The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the UK responded to HM Government’s ‘erroneous statement’ on the sentencing of Jimmy Lai. It urged Britain to ‘abandon its colonial mindset’ and ‘stop meddling in China’s internal affairs.’ So much for the desire to ‘strengthen dialogue and cooperation’ between the two countries that was central to the visit of Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister, to the PRC last month.
Does it keep the rain out? NATO nerves on the nuclear umbrella
A suite of recent reports have alluded to a number of conversations between Europe’s non-nuclear powers and its nuclear ones. From Sweden to Germany and Poland, there are clearly growing nerves about the credibility of NATO’s extended nuclear deterrence. Vast tomes could be – and have been – written on the theories and practice behind extended deterrence, so what exactly is it that has caused these nerves, what do allies want, and what exactly might come of it?
To take the first point, non-nuclear European countries have always had nerves about extended deterrence. There have always been questions about whether the US, the UK and France would be willing to trade Washington, London or Paris for the cities of central and eastern Europe. Forward-deployed forces, nuclear sharing, and the use of rhetorical and physical signalling have been the tools with which allies have been reassured and foes deterred. Yet, recent transatlantic tensions, as well as more general American desires to retrench from Europe, have brought these nerves back to the surface – the US’ arsenal is the largest and most flexible in NATO.
Allies along NATO’s eastern front, facing Russia’s large and versatile nuclear arsenal, are keen to deepen the ties that bind the British and French nuclear arsenals to them in order to hedge against potential changes in US posture. However, these eastern front countries are technically already covered by the UK’s nuclear umbrella through Britain’s explicit extension of its strategic deterrence to NATO and (albeit more vaguely) the French arsenal through Article 42(7) of the Treaty of the EU and the French doctrine of loosely defined ‘vital interests’.
There is little more that London and Paris can do to reinforce the credibility of their strategic deterrents. Although warhead numbers have been much reduced since the end of the Cold War, they are more than sufficient to deliver utter devastation.
So what is it that the UK and France can do to deter the Kremlin and reassure allies better? The answer lies in sub-strategic nuclear capabilities. NATO’s only declared sub-strategic nuclear weapons are American. France possesses its own (the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée [ASMP] missile) but these are not declared to NATO, and Britain has none.
French signalling has evolved slightly in recent years, with Emmanuel Macron, President of France, attempting to expand the definition of ‘vital interests’, and visits by the wing of the French Air Force responsible for nuclear strike to eastern front allies. But, given the history of French nuclear doctrine, as well as contemporary French political views on extended deterrence from different parties, this is unlikely to go much further.
This means that the most effective means available would be for the UK to re-acquire its own sub-strategic nuclear capability; one declared to NATO and one that can be authorised for use by London rather than Washington. Given the cost of such an effort, the financial support of allies for this would make life much easier for Britain. And, with the aforementioned recent statements of allies, this may well be a possibility.
If you found this Cable useful, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about this Cable? Why not leave a comment below?
France’s does often seem to be a sticking point (SAFE, FCAS, Mercosur, etc.) but it may not matter. I believe the UK again needs a tactical deterrent, but most of our industrial capacity for those materials are already committed to the refresh of the strategic deterrent. Even with much needed financial support from new partners, it will require a minor miracle to do it in a reasonable amount of time.
The comment related to the EU defence agreement will be open to the UK if we pay. We must not pay the EU any money - bilateral agreements or a few small multi-laterals are fine with like minded states. France still wants to harm the UK - read history which provides 100's of years of evidence.