Robert Fox

The UK’s ageing population, falling fertility rate and expanding need for health and social care require a fundamental rethink of immigration policy, Robert Fox argues. He criticises proposals by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to tighten migration rules and extend the route to permanent residence for care workers, saying they conflict with the country’s demographic needs. Drawing on trends in the UK and other countries, the piece argues that attempts to raise birth rates are unlikely to succeed and that Britain needs a smarter system focused on attracting migrants to essential sectors—potentially more migration, not less.

Andy Burnham’s meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky has exposed the scale and persistence of the war in Ukraine, where Russia remains capable of fighting despite severe losses and Ukraine needs substantially more European and British support. Britain is developing cheaper cruise missiles and counter-drone systems, while Ukraine’s expertise in drone warfare is increasingly benefiting British forces. The conflict is also becoming connected to Iran and North Korea, adding further complications. Burnham is urged to overhaul the fragmented defence policies and investment plans inherited from Keir Starmer, because continued neglect of defence, security and national resilience could allow international conflict to dominate Britain’s domestic agenda.

UK defence preparedness is assessed against escalating Russian aggression and mounting global instability, highlighting the significant security challenges awaiting incoming prime minister Andy Burnham. Despite his domestic priorities, he will confront immediate decisions on nuclear readiness, military investment shortfalls and the need to strengthen homeland and European defence. Russia’s battlefield losses, potential mobilisation and increased provocations heighten the urgency for the UK to bolster capabilities, address critical funding gaps in the Defence Investment Plan and keep pace with NATO allies. Aging naval assets, strained air defences and underdeveloped homeland security planning underscore the scale of the task, with warnings that delaying major commitments until 2030 risks leaving the country exposed amid rapidly worsening threats.

Britain is preparing to announce a defence investment package of up to £15 billion over three years, including major spending on drones, artificial intelligence, commando capabilities, F-35A aircraft, Wedgetail surveillance planes and the Tempest next-generation fighter. The plan abandons a new Type 83 destroyer in favour of hybrid amphibious assault ships that can deploy drones and support helicopter operations. It draws heavily on Ukraine’s effective use of drones and missiles against Russian supply lines, while anticipating possible Russian hybrid attacks against vulnerable Baltic states. The Army’s new 20-40-40 structure will combine heavy equipment, more expendable autonomous systems and reserve and support forces. Although the package is larger than expected, it falls short of the services’ £18 billion target and is mainly a short-term commitment, with wider questions about nuclear weapons, future force design and emerging threats such as quantum computing and biological and chemical weapons still unresolved.

The UK faces an increasingly urgent security threat from Russia, including cyberattacks, submarine activity around critical infrastructure and possible aggression against the Baltic states. The government’s proposed defence funding and planned cuts are portrayed as inadequate, with the armed forces already suffering from low ammunition stocks, limited naval readiness and delays in weapons production. The article calls for a practical three-year defence reform programme focused on funding, personnel, reserves, procurement and integrated military capability. It also argues that Britain should abandon ambitions of acting as a traditional global power, reconsider costly projects such as Ajax and the aircraft carriers, and reassess the expense and strategic assumptions behind the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The resignation of Defence Secretary John Healey is presented as evidence that Keir Starmer’s government lacks a credible defence and security policy. The delayed Defence Investment Plan and uncertainty over the promised increase in defence spending threaten Britain’s ability to meet NATO commitments, while ammunition shortages and outdated equipment leave the armed forces ill-prepared for cyberwarfare, drones and autonomous systems. Planned Army and Navy modernization projects, including hybrid drone and fleet capabilities, face funding uncertainty. The dispute has also damaged relations with allies and placed the future of the multinational GCAP programme at risk, as Treasury control over defence spending intensifies political tensions within government.

The UK government’s delayed Defence Investment Plan is portrayed as a major test of Keir Starmer’s credibility and Britain’s standing as a reliable military ally. Expected funding increases of £15bn–£18bn are being contested across government and may be absorbed by a reported £28bn Ministry of Defence shortfall. The armed forces face difficult choices, including reductions to planned F-35A aircraft, submarine cutbacks and possible Army reductions, while trying to modernize through drones, robotic vehicles and artificial intelligence. The Ajax programme, weak MoD accounting and the absence of a published equipment plan for three years are cited as evidence of deep procurement and governance failures. A further delay would damage confidence among allies, the armed forces and the defence industry, while exposing the need for a more realistic defence strategy.

Russia has shifted toward large-scale attacks on Ukrainian cities, using hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles in an apparent attempt to demoralize civilians, disrupt government and business, and force an end to the war on Moscow’s terms. The article argues that Ukraine’s drone operations and strikes on Russian fuel and logistics infrastructure are having an incremental impact, but warns Kyiv against attacking Russian political and cultural centres because of the risk of an extreme response. Russia’s mounting casualties, recruitment problems, inflation and war spending suggest growing economic and military pressure, while a drone strike in Romania may have tested NATO’s willingness to respond to escalation. European NATO governments face urgent decisions over how to contain an increasingly unpredictable Putin and prevent the conflict from spreading into Belarus, the Baltic region or the Balkans.

The UK’s armed forces are described as being left in limbo while Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government delays its Defence Investment Plan amid Cabinet and Treasury disputes. NATO allies are increasingly concerned that Britain is failing to meet its defence obligations, while the Ministry of Defence faces a reported £28bn funding gap. The services need major investment in drones, missiles, artificial intelligence and replenishing ammunition sent to Ukraine. The Royal Navy has limited numbers of operational submarines and surface ships, and an exercise using the Asgard AI targeting system exposed shortages of ordnance and equipment. Although Starmer reportedly supports increased spending, political uncertainty and resistance from other ministers could postpone major decisions until next year.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are portrayed as trapped in wars they expected to win quickly but cannot decisively conclude. Russia has suffered enormous battlefield losses and faces increasingly effective Ukrainian attacks, while Trump’s campaign against Iran has failed to achieve regime change, destroy its military capabilities or trigger a popular uprising. Iran’s leadership has instead become more repressive and gained leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. The leaders are seeking possible diversions, including further escalation in Iran, pressure on the Baltics, Cuba, Venezuela and Greenland. These developments risk widening instability across Europe and the Middle East, leaving European governments to develop a coordinated strategy for regional stabilization.

The Royal Navy is described as suffering a severe decline in operational readiness, with very few destroyers, frigates and submarines available and major vessels requiring lengthy repairs or refits. The article argues that Admiral Lord Boyce’s decision to pursue two large aircraft carriers set the Navy on a disastrous course because the carriers were designed around an unaffordable and ultimately unsuitable aircraft configuration. The F-35B’s limited range and weapons capacity, the carriers’ manpower demands and repeated reliance on allied escorts have weakened Britain’s maritime credibility. Political indecision under Gordon Brown and later governments, ageing frigates, constrained budgets and delayed replacement programmes compounded the problem. Urgent reform and substantially greater investment are presented as necessary given mounting risks in the North Atlantic, the English Channel and the Middle East.

The seizure and damaging of the Iranian freighter MV Touska has exposed the limits of Donald Trump’s claim to control the US-Iran conflict. Iran now holds substantial leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and could retaliate using surviving Revolutionary Guard drones and attack craft, while the US and Israel face shortages of key munitions and rising financial and domestic political costs. Trump’s expectation that NATO allies would join the war is portrayed as unrealistic, since the conflict lies outside NATO’s treaty area and the alliance is not an instrument of presidential discretion. European leaders, with Turkey playing a pivotal role, may need to negotiate a separate arrangement with Iran to reopen regional shipping routes. The crisis is also deepening humanitarian and economic pressures inside Iran, without producing the popular uprising Trump appears to expect.

Donald Trump's proposed selective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is portrayed as dangerous and impractical because Iran's Revolutionary Guard retains substantial capabilities, including attack boats, mines and drones. European countries and the UK are urged to establish a maritime protection force and negotiate limited navigation arrangements covering Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb. The piece argues that Britain lacks sufficient ships, mine-clearance capacity and coherent defence planning, and calls on Keir Starmer to invest more seriously in national and European security as NATO shifts toward greater European responsibility.

Donald Trump’s threats and failure to explain the objectives, operational plan or exit strategy of Operation Epic Fury suggest that the US is trapped in mission creep and losing the psychological contest with Iran. US and Israeli missile-defence stocks are falling, while potential operations around Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz carry significant risks. Iran, despite severe economic damage, retains the ability to disrupt global energy flows through Hormuz and its links with the Houthis. Trump’s suggestion that the US might leave NATO is portrayed as further weakening American credibility and forcing European allies, Canada, Japan and Australia to reconsider the alliance’s structure and regional responsibilities.

The Houthis have entered the Iran-Israel war by firing ballistic missiles at southern Israel and threatening to close the Bab al-Mandeb strait. Their expanding arsenal, including Iranian-designed missiles, long-range loitering drones, sea drones, mines and swarms of attack boats, has surprised Western militaries and could further disrupt shipping through the Red Sea and Gulf. The group has grown substantially since 2010 and has attacked more than 200 ships since late 2023, while Yemen faces severe humanitarian deprivation. Possible deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to the Gulf risks escalating the conflict into a prolonged war that would be difficult to contain.

The UK’s response to the expanding US-Israeli war with Iran exposes serious weaknesses in British military readiness, including limited operational ships, aircraft, air defences and troops. The government’s preparations have failed to prevent attacks on RAF Akrotiri, while France has demonstrated greater military capacity and political resolve in defending Cyprus and regional interests. The piece calls for an emergency £2 billion defence fund, rapid mobilisation of land, air and naval forces, expanded Sky Sabre deployments, and stronger protection against drones, missiles, cyberattacks, chemical or biological weapons and information warfare. It argues that the government must overcome public and political complacency and adopt an urgent security plan before the crisis produces a wider disaster.

War correspondent Robert Fox argues that the casual nature of gun violence and the heavily armed, masked presence of U.S. immigration and border agents frighten him more than many war zones he has covered. Citing the deaths of Renée Good, Alex Pretti and George Floyd, he condemns America’s gun culture, expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment and what he sees as the dehumanization of victims and perpetrators under Trump-era law enforcement. He concludes that the moral and security concerns surrounding the United States make him reluctant to visit, while noting the hypocrisy of Trump allies who portray Britain as unsafe.

The US attack on Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, is criticized as an opportunistic military campaign lacking clear aims or a credible plan for what follows the possible removal of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's regime. Israel's parallel operation is portrayed as more focused on an immediate security threat from Iran's nuclear programme, missiles and drones. Drawing on the disastrous aftermaths of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the analysis warns that regime decapitation without plans for governance, security and economic recovery could produce prolonged civil conflict and extremism. Any transition, it argues, should be led by young Iranians and supported through sustained virtual and practical assistance rather than a foreign ground occupation.

The Royal Navy’s conventional fighting strength has declined sharply through fleet reductions, personnel shortages, limited funding and the loss of a major NATO maritime command. The article argues that Britain may struggle to defend its territory or meet allies’ expectations as Russia expands submarine patrols and uses shadow-fleet vessels, cyberattacks and other hybrid tactics. Although the government’s delayed spending commitments are criticized, new investment, Arctic deployments, Type 26 frigates and autonomous systems under General Sir Gwyn Jenkins offer grounds for cautious optimism. The central recommendation is an immediate funding increase and a rapid program of naval reform and technological innovation.

The UK is portrayed as increasingly vulnerable to Russian military, cyber and covert attacks as the war in Ukraine worsens and the possibility of a Ukrainian collapse threatens wider European instability. The article argues that the Government should rapidly increase defence spending, rebuild ammunition stocks, accelerate air-defence and missile procurement, and expand drone, submarine, naval and air capabilities. Britain is described as having depleted stocks and serious delays across its Army, Navy and RAF, while NATO allies question whether it can provide credible leadership and meet its treaty obligations. Immediate priorities include replenishing artillery, acquiring Sky Sabre systems and Storm Shadow missiles, protecting undersea infrastructure, and strengthening cyber and homeland defence.

The article argues that Britain should reconsider a planned order of 140 Challenger 3 tanks in light of the Russia-Ukraine war, where inexpensive drones, electronic warfare and persistent surveillance have made massed armoured operations highly vulnerable. Tanks remain useful for protected infantry support, concealed firepower and holding ground, but they must operate in small numbers alongside autonomous systems and disposable drones. The debate is therefore framed not as the extinction of tanks but their evolution into smaller, more integrated robotic platforms, with defence funding potentially shifting toward AI and autonomous weapons.

The UK is portrayed as retreating from major defence commitments despite the government’s promises to raise military spending. Funding and decisions on the GCAP Tempest fighter, AW149 helicopters, Boxer vehicles, Ajax, Challenger 3 tanks and other programmes are reportedly delayed or threatened, while the Royal Navy has only seven operational destroyers and frigates and Britain’s air-defence capacity remains limited. Allies, particularly Italy, Japan, Norway and other European partners, are increasingly frustrated by British inaction. The article also criticizes the planned £35bn Chagos Islands agreement while domestic air-defence needs remain underfunded, arguing that the Strategic Defence Review risks becoming an unfunded façade rather than a credible plan to restore UK military readiness.

Donald Trump's demand for control of Greenland is presented as evidence that his ambitions are running up against limited military capacity. U.S. forces are described as overstretched by operations involving Venezuela, the Caribbean and the Middle East, while China is increasingly capable of challenging American power in the Pacific. The article argues that Trump's rhetoric has alienated European and American allies, prompting Canada, Mexico, Brazil and South American trading partners to push back. Europe is beginning to reshape its security arrangements through closer cooperation among France, Germany and the UK, as leaders reassess reliance on Washington and the prospects of a post-peak Trump presidency.

The UK’s plan to expand the Strategic Reserve’s maximum eligibility age from 55 to 65 is presented as evidence of severe defence understaffing and underfunding. The Government is criticized for delaying defence investment, relying on future spending promises and failing to address emerging threats such as cyberwarfare, AI, autonomous weapons, drones and attacks on critical infrastructure. The article argues that older reservists and veterans can provide valuable specialist and disaster-response skills if they are properly trained, equipped and used, and calls for a more serious approach to defence and national resilience.

Donald Trump’s aggressive posture toward Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba and Greenland is portrayed as part of a broader U.S. strategy to dominate strategically important assets in the Western Hemisphere. Although Venezuelan oil remains significant, rare earths, lithium, copper and other minerals—along with the processing capacity needed to reduce dependence on China—are identified as the longer-term priorities. Greenland, Chile, Argentina, Guyana and Antarctica are highlighted as key areas of competition, while Colombia is framed primarily as a test of political loyalty, migration control and security cooperation. The resource race could intensify tensions with China, Russia, Britain and Argentina, particularly over Antarctic and Falkland Islands-related energy prospects, although much of the southern competition lies beyond Trump’s presidency.

The US seizure of the Russian-flagged tanker Marinera, formerly Bella 1, follows the arrest of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and a series of other tanker seizures tied to sanctions enforcement. The operation threatens to intensify tensions with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, while sanctions pressure, Iranian protests and the war in Ukraine compound instability. Baltic and Black Sea shipping routes are emerging as potential flashpoints between Russia, Ukraine and NATO, with Kaliningrad particularly vulnerable. The article argues that Trump's broader strategy seeks US dominance over the Western Hemisphere's hydrocarbons and strategic minerals, while the UK is being drawn into the crisis through military support and faces pressure to increase defence spending.

The U.S. bombing of Caracas and capture of Nicolás Maduro are presented as the opening of a potentially lengthy and destabilizing military intervention rather than a completed operation. The article argues that control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, more than narcotics trafficking, is the likely core motive, with Marco Rubio and the Trump administration driving an effort tied to regional dominance and opposition to Cuba. It warns that 10,000 U.S. troops are insufficient for sustained control, while Venezuelan forces, militias and foreign insurgent groups could fuel prolonged resistance. Drawing parallels with Iraq and Panama, the piece concludes that the intervention may create a messy legacy for Trump, distract the United States from wider strategic challenges and generate serious consequences across Venezuela, its neighbors and U.S. domestic politics.

Robert Fox reflects on continuing to work as a journalist after turning 80, arguing that age itself is less important than quality, judgment and the ability to recognize when one is no longer effective. He describes the value of intergenerational colleagues, acknowledges the risk of older workers blocking opportunities for younger people, and calls for more healthy and capable older adults to contribute through paid, voluntary and part-time work. Fox links the issue to Britain’s ageing population, pressure on welfare systems and the responsibilities placed on younger generations. Comparing his own situation and Helen Mirren’s continued work with Donald Trump’s presidency, he concludes that Trump’s age should not automatically disqualify him, but his erratic speech and apparent lack of candid counsel raise serious concerns.

The author argues that Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy is handing Vladimir Putin a major strategic opportunity by weakening confidence in NATO, distancing the United States from its role as Europe’s security guarantor and undermining the European Union. Putin may seek a limited victory or ceasefire in Ukraine to reorganize and rearm Russian forces before renewing the conflict, while pursuing a broader campaign to weaken Western institutions through hybrid operations, maritime surveillance, disinformation, border pressure and proxy activity. The strategy’s sustainability will depend on whether Russia’s strained economy, military and population can support a prolonged confrontation.

The prolonged battle for Pokrovsk is compared with the Battle of Stalingrad, whose urban-combat lessons remain relevant despite major advances in drones, electronic warfare and other technologies. Russian forces are struggling to operate in open ground under Ukrainian surveillance, while close urban fighting still depends on small infantry units using buildings and rubble for cover. Heavy rain has reduced drone effectiveness, helping Russian infantry squads move around Pokrovsk, where Ukraine reportedly lacks sufficient troops. The battle is presented as a warning that Russia may be preparing for a wider confrontation and that the UK and its European allies must accelerate defence innovation, strengthen resilience and prioritize ground forces alongside emerging technologies.

Russia is maintaining maximalist demands for Ukraine, rejecting a ceasefire before a comprehensive peace agreement and refusing to accept Ukraine’s European and NATO aspirations. The article argues that Putin’s war is expanding into a broader hybrid conflict against Europe through airspace incursions, cyberattacks and disruption of communications and energy infrastructure. Although both sides are suffering heavy losses, Ukraine is striking Russian energy and water supplies, damaging refining capacity and developing a growing domestic drone and missile industry with European support. Analysts cited in the piece believe the war could continue for at least another 18 months because Putin’s objectives concern Russia’s dominance in Europe and his own historical legacy, rather than territory alone.

Vladimir Putin’s long-term objective is portrayed as rebuilding a Russian imperium by subordinating former Soviet republics, with Ukraine as the pivotal prize. Although Russia expected its 2022 invasion to quickly overthrow Kyiv, prolonged resistance, heavy Russian casualties, changing battlefield technology and Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure have undermined the campaign. Putin nevertheless remains committed to victory and may seek a major battlefield success before Russia’s upcoming elections, while a prolonged war could widen toward the Balkans and Baltic states and test NATO’s unity.