<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet title="XSL_formatting" type="text/xsl" href="/template/rss.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>RUSI Agenda for the New Government Feed</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/</link>
<description></description>
<managingEditor>web@rusi.org</managingEditor>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2013</copyright>
<item>
<title>Protecting British Soldiers in Afghanistan: UK Strategic Culture and the Politicisation of Force Protection</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4FD731BCB33DF/ </link>
<description>Has the increased prominence of force protection in UK political debates in the past decade resulted in a strategic cultural shift?</description>
<date>2012-06-12 13:10:38</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Liam Fox letter will force Government to face up to defence decisions: Commentary by Malcolm Chalmers</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4CA45BF67DAAC/ </link>
<description>The leaked letter from Defence Secretary Liam Fox to Prime Minister David Cameron has outlined in detail some of the cuts now being considered in Britain’s armed forces – sharp reductions in the frigate fleet, the ‘deletion’ of the Royal Navy’s amphibious capability, and the scrapping of the new Nimrod MR4 maritime patrol aircraft (the first of which entered service, at great expense, only this year). </description>
<date>2010-09-29 10:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Trident procrastination weakens Britain's deterrent</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C93946D6895F/ </link>
<description>The coalition is understandably hesitant about committing to the cost of replacement – but it does affect our deterrent credibility</description>
<date>2010-09-17 17:16:49</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is it Open Season on the Aid Budget?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A4C93274838C55/ </link>
<description>What will the current strategic review mean for UK aid?</description>
<date>2010-09-17 09:31:10</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>SDSR an opportunity, not a death sentence, says RUSI analyst</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4C90D249C5B6C/ </link>
<description>Professor Malcolm Chalmers believes that, rather than destroying the capabilities of the armed forces, the SDSR could help to create more sustainable armed services.</description>
<date>2010-09-15 15:06:05</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>How will UK defence cuts impact on UK-US relations?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C8F9F4D68955/ </link>
<description>On 13 Sept 2010, the Daily Telegraph reported how US defense officials expressed worries to cuts to the UK defence budget. RUSI's Michael Clarke assesses how this will impact on the US-UK relationship.</description>
<date>2010-09-14 17:18:29</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Strategic Moment: Britain faces impossible choices in an unstable and uncertain world</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C8DEEC98CC24/ </link>
<description>The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threats of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain's place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come.</description>
<date>2010-09-13 10:30:06</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The UK's ability to promote stability and prevent conflict, in desperate need of reform</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4CA098E45EAA2/ </link>
<description>The UK's capability to promote stability and prevent conflict in fragile states requires significant, cross-government reform according to a new report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-08-25 14:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Introduction: Reforming Defence</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6D3ABF2024C/ </link>
<description>Learning lessons from past Defence Reviews</description>
<date>2010-08-19 16:12:13</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Inter-service rivalry: British defence policy, 1956-1968</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6D2A628B79D/ </link>
<description>As we enter an era of declining access on a global scale, the UK armed forces must learn from Cold War disjointery and end its historic inter-service rivalry.</description>
<date>2010-08-19 14:09:32</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Problems of Setting Strategic Priorities: The Inskip Defence Review of 1937-38</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6D0AD6E0810/ </link>
<description>With the balance of short- and long-term requirements increasingly relevant to current defence considerations, the Inskip Defence review provides a lesson in keeping doors open.</description>
<date>2010-08-19 12:49:53</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Learning from Haldane</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6D17CAE6E13/ </link>
<description>Can Richard Haldane’s reforms, responsible for the best organised expeditionary force of the twentieth century, provide a basis for the current Strategic Defence Review? </description>
<date>2010-08-19 12:42:25</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Dodging the Bullet and Ducking the Question: British Defence Policy and its Post-Imperial World Role</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6D0795721B3/ </link>
<description>Britain's imperialist mentality is outdated and overambitious: viewing the country as a global power is damaging, rather than benefiting, current defence policy.</description>
<date>2010-08-19 12:37:59</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Many questions remain about the direction of UK defence reform</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C65600E6FE36/ </link>
<description>Following the Secretary of State for Defence’s speech on the future of UK defence, how many more questions have been raised than answered?</description>
<date>2010-08-13 15:11:07</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Defence reform: Watch assessment from Michael Codner</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C6BF9735253F/ </link>
<description>RUSI's Michael Codner gives his assessment to the UK Defence Secretary's resolve to reform defence.</description>
<date>2010-08-13 15:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Can we afford to renew Trident?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C52F7480348F/ </link>
<description>The Chancellor, George Osborne, has announced that funding for the renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent must come from the Ministry of Defence's core budget. RUSI's Malcolm Chalmers assesses the ramifications of this announcement. </description>
<date>2010-07-30 17:08:12</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Like for like renewal of Trident will come at expense of conventional forces</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4C4ED70C3F1F7/ </link>
<description>The UK's current commitment to maintain a nuclear-armed missile submarine on deterrent patrol at all times (Continuous At-Sea Deterrence, or 'CASD'), is driven as much by institutional and political momentum as by strategic necessity, and plans to order a new generation of submarines after 2015 now threatens to be at the expense of further reduction in conventional forces according to a new report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-07-28 00:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Debating the Deterrent: Why the Cruise Missile Option Does Not Add Up</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C4EBAB3454FD/ </link>
<description>With defence spending under scrutiny, the spotlight has long since shone on Britain’s nuclear deterrent. But while the costs of replacing Trident are high, the difficulties of creating a new system may be a price we simply cannot afford to pay.</description>
<date>2010-07-27 12:03:01</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>What is the British national interest?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C46DBA9A21AB/ </link>
<description>Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the United States, reflects on the future prospects for the British national interest.</description>
<date>2010-07-21 12:42:13</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nick Harvey MP Delivers Keynote Address</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C3469BA71A88/ </link>
<description>Nick Harvey MP, Minister of State for the Armed Forces delivered his Keynote Address to The RUSI Future Maritime Operations Conference. </description>
<date>2010-07-07 13:04:51</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Prognosis for defence spending after Budget 2010</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C233A1FC3171/ </link>
<description>The first budget of the Coalition government could lead to the  core defence budget being cut in real terms by up to 15%, with numbers of military personnel being reduced by around 30,000. </description>
<date>2010-06-24 12:03:09</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Memo from the Prime Minister: UK Defence status quo is not an option</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C1E81E1E2A7D/ </link>
<description>Every generation or so, the British prime minister is faced with a decisive choice over the direction which the UK should take in world affairs.  This time round, economic restraints will also contribute to a fundamental reassessment of grand strategy and defence policy. However, reassessment need not mean retreat and we must maintain an ability to deter so our allies and potential rivals will listen.  </description>
<date>2010-06-20 22:04:41</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Question of Balance? The Deficit and Defence Priorities</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4C075E3815930/ </link>
<description>The deeper the immediate budget cuts that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to make, the greater the risk of reduced capability without commensurate financial gains, argues the latest Future Defence Review Working Paper from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-06-03 08:49:44</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Question of Balance? The Deficit and Defence Priorities</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C075A0A72D7A/ </link>
<description>The deeper the immediate budget cuts that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to make, the greater the risk of reduced capability without commensurate financial gains, argues the latest Future Defence Review Working Paper from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-06-03 08:32:39</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>India and Britain: the new special relationship?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BFD483EA7611/ </link>
<description>Britain’s governing coalition has promised ‘a new special relationship’, on the heels of successive diplomatic blunders under Labour administrations. However, drawing closer to India will require messy compromises and a realistic assessment of the price of partnership.</description>
<date>2010-05-26 17:14:42</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>RUSI: Will the new government fund Britain’s position in the world?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4BEBBB0389C5C/ </link>
<description>The new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government must address the most basic question affecting the Defence Review and Britain's position in the world 'how much is the nation prepared to pay for defence?', according to a Future Defence Review Working Paper from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-05-13 09:42:14</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>RUSI Journal: Police reform in UK is long overdue</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4BE28DA73B5EB/ </link>
<description>Police reform in the UK is long overdue but all three main political parties are currently failing to take the initiative, according to a report in the latest Journal of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-05-06 10:42:10</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>An International Regulator: A US View on Future UK Defence Plans</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BD7D5F88D18A/ </link>
<description>From an American perspective, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed to complement US strategy and has a key role in upholding international security. The international community and Americans expect the UK and US to act in concert. Defence reviews on both sides of the Atlantic must be mindful of this consideration.</description>
<date>2010-04-28 07:35:05</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK General Election: Defence Perspectives</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4BD6F0B8B7157/ </link>
<description>FREE ACCESS: Leaders of the main British political parties give their views on defence and security going into the general election</description>
<date>2010-04-27 15:16:13</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The UK-US Alliance Under the Microscope</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BD6E91B58EE6/ </link>
<description>The on-going concern about the 'special relationship' is not about the Americans at all, but about Britain. However, the true debate is not about the merits of the alliance but Britain's position in the world.</description>
<date>2010-04-27 14:45:33</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>RUSI in the News: General Election 2010 Coverage</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4BD1B1CCB19B9/ </link>
<description>Citations in the global media of RUSI General Election 2010: Defence and Security Policy for the Next Government </description>
<date>2010-04-23 15:42:24</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Leaders' Debate: Not Much to Choose in Principle, Just a Matter of Emphasis</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BD17C2CD7E3A/ </link>
<description>Seeing the effects of personal style on the outcome of last week’s debate, all three leaders tried to put their personality into the defence and security tussle; not an easy thing to do when trying to be a world figure.</description>
<date>2010-04-23 11:55:03</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>RUSI SURVEY: UK needs ‘radical reassessment’ of its position in the world according to 88% of defence and security community</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4BCF8A7549FE6/ </link>
<description>The UK needs a ‘radical reassessment’ of the position it wants to play, and is able to play, in world politics, according to 88% of the defence and security community surveyed by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).</description>
<date>2010-04-22 00:31:51</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Labour Party View of Future Defence and Security Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BCECAA3CE720/ </link>
<description>In this statement Gordon Brown outlines the challenges faced by the British armed forces over the last decade, reaffirming his support for their continuing presence in Afghanistan. He estimates an increase in defence spending next year while promising to reform procurement, reduce civilian staff and cut lower priority spending. He also outlines his goal to reduce Britain’s number of nuclear warheads while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent. </description>
<date>2010-04-21 10:51:34</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Conservative Party View of Future Defence and Security Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BCEC98CCE762/ </link>
<description>In this statement David Cameron outlines his plans to introduce a National Security Council, dedicated border force, Cyber Threat Assessment Centre and a permanent military Homeland Command for domestic emergency planning. He also reaffirms his support for British involvement in Afghanistan and the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent. </description>
<date>2010-04-21 10:47:14</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Liberal Democrats View of Defence and Security Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BCEC769462C7/ </link>
<description>In this statement Nick Clegg outlines his goal to move away from ‘default Atlantacism’ and towards a more concerted European defence partnership. He rules out a like-for-like replacement of Trident and promotes the possibility of increased equipment cooperation with European allies.</description>
<date>2010-04-21 10:38:54</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election 2010: Military Leader Interviews</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCFA41C41057/ </link>
<description>Part Six: In the final installment of these interviews, General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, former commander of British forces during Operation Telic and Rear Admiral Chris Parry, former Director General, Development, Concepts &amp; Doctrine, offer their headline advice to an incoming government.</description>
<date>2010-04-20 13:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: What will Britain's role be in future conflict?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BCF8D139590C/ </link>
<description>Part One: Ahead of the British elections on 6 May, senior former military leaders give their assessment of the issues facing defence and security. General Sir Mike Jackson, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Rear Admiral Chris Parry take part in the interview. </description>
<date>2010-04-20 09:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: Can Britain continue to stay Afghanistan?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF8F0080586/ </link>
<description>Part Two: Will the next government and the British public have the staying power to complete the job in Afghanistan? Ahead of the British elections on 6 May, senior former military leaders give their assessment of the issues facing defence and security. General Sir Mike Jackson, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Rear Admiral Chris Parry take part in the interview. </description>
<date>2010-04-20 08:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: Is there a public appetite for defence?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF901A6F78C/ </link>
<description>Part Three: Ahead of the British elections on 6 May, senior former military leaders give their assessment of the issues facing defence and security. In this interview, General Sir Mike Jackson, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Rear Admiral Chris Parry explore the public perception's to Britain's defence.</description>
<date>2010-04-20 07:45:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: What should our spending priorities be on defence?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF91A664FB0/ </link>
<description>Part Four: Continuing their interview, General Sir Mike Jackson, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Rear Admiral Chris Parry outline what the defence spending priorities should be for an incoming government on 6 May.</description>
<date>2010-04-20 07:15:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: Are the Armed Forces used as a political football?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF92D9CE74E/ </link>
<description>Part Five: General Sir Mike Jackson, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge and Rear Admiral Chris Parry discuss the nexus between political debate and the consensus on the Armed Forces. </description>
<date>2010-04-20 06:30:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Election Interviews: Memo to an incoming government</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF945167B75/ </link>
<description>Part Six: In the final installment of these interviews, General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge, former commander of British forces during Operation Telic and Rear Admiral Chris Parry, former Director General, Development, Concepts &amp; Doctrine, offer their headline advice to an incoming government.</description>
<date>2010-04-20 06:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Strategic Defence Review: After Helmand</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BC30B2081F61/ </link>
<description>After the UK General Elections, the promised Strategic Defence Review needs to be developed on the basis of the likely outcomes in Afghanistan. It may be essential to have a genuinely radical solution to the defence crisis where the three services would each need to commit themselves to a single mission and a unified doctrine.</description>
<date>2010-04-12 13:02:40</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>General Election 2010: Defence issues and the party positions</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BA9B729495B3/ </link>
<description>RUSI Director Professor Michael Clarke, and RUSI's Director of Military Sciences, Michael Codner, offer their assessment on the defence and security issues that may be raised either prior to or immediately after the UK General Election.</description>
<date>2010-03-24 06:57:47</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Conservative Prospect: Not an Easy Ride</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A4B8E4F7175B4C/ </link>
<description>An in-coming Government would do well to learn the lessons of the previous SDR. UK security would not be well served by the Treasury dictating the terms</description>
<date>2010-03-03 12:01:35</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Doing Defence Acquisition Better: Making the Political Case</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A4B8E44F1B0E70/ </link>
<description>Public pessimism over Britain's global counter-insurgency role not only must be tackled successfully, but can be, and a framework for acquisition reform needs to be constructed for implementation after the election</description>
<date>2010-03-03 11:16:09</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence and the Growing Financial Challenge</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A4B8E40576A6F8/ </link>
<description>The Ministry of Defence is in increasing financial difficulty as the financial needs of the MoD's Equipment Procurement Plan exceeds the potential financial resources. What are the likely solutions in the forthcoming Defence Review?</description>
<date>2010-03-03 11:05:56</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence Procurement in Crisis: A Call for Leadership</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A4B8E394810745/ </link>
<description>Manufacturing plays a vital role in any national economy but requires leadership, vision, professional knowledge and integrity.</description>
<date>2010-03-03 10:27:33</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>What Will Success Look Like in Operation Moshtarak?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B7A986340AD7/ </link>
<description>Operation Moshtarak is the most important campaign in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. Its success, however, will not be measured in military terms but in terms of public opinion, both in Helmand and the rest of Afghanistan and in the Coalition's domestic electorate.</description>
<date>2010-02-16 13:25:09</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Green Paper - Premises for a Strategic Defence Review?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B6C4E6458A39/ </link>
<description>The Green Paper to the Strategic Defence Review highlights strategic premises which should be presented to the public in the run up to the General Election.</description>
<date>2010-02-05 17:02:11</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Green Paper and RUSI's contribution</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B6C43B6DB9DD/ </link>
<description>Since the Government announced a Defence Green Paper in July 2009,  and the undertaking of a Strategic Defence Review after the next General Election, RUSI has consistently delivered insightful analysis and commentary which has helped frame the national debate. The series of working papers addressing the Future Defence Review have received widespread media attention and praise from within the defence community.</description>
<date>2010-02-05 16:14:17</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Ministry of Defence Green Paper and top level defence policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B6C2E49D19B4/ </link>
<description>The Defence Green Paper hints at more cooperation with Europeans as the way forward, but a need for short-term cuts may damage the coherence of defence outputs before the defence review is completed.</description>
<date>2010-02-05 14:44:03</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence and the General Election: Labour's Defence Quagmire</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A4AF16F583D391/ </link>
<description>Amidst ongoing economic woes, defence has emerged as one of the most challenging policy areas for the Labour government.</description>
<date>2010-01-04 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Assessing Value for Money at the Ministry of Defence</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B2BA21424302/ </link>
<description>The most arresting point made by the latest report from the National Audit Office concerns the slippage of major projects. It reveals that the majority of the increase in project costs is due 'to deliberate decisions to slip projects, taken corporately by the Department as part of a wider package designed to address a gap between estimated funding and the cost of the Defence budget over the next ten years'. </description>
<date>2009-12-18 15:43:59</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The cost of Afghanistan to UK Defence</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B28B2C882CF9/ </link>
<description>Bring on new Chinooks. But the defence budget can't cover the needs of a long-term occupation</description>
<date>2009-12-16 10:15:47</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence Cuts: Something is going to give</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4B28AC1602813/ </link>
<description>Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has announced deep cuts in military personnel and equipment to fund a £900 million boost for the Afghanistan campaign. However the figures may not stack up. Something is going to give and in a big way. Defence is living through a slow motion road accident while it waits for the political wheel to turn and give it some strategic direction. </description>
<date>2009-12-16 09:48:04</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Gray Report</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A4B0BC4738718B/ </link>
<description>The Gray Report offers one of the most revealing takes on the workings of the MoD available to the public, and expands in detail upon acknowledged problems</description>
<date>2009-11-24 11:34:05</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Gray Report</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4AF850322FE64/ </link>
<description>The review of the government's acquisition programme should be welcomed by all who care about equipping our Armed Forces with the right equipment, at the right time, within an affordable programme - and it is to be hoped that this includes both present defence ministers and their successors after the next election.</description>
<date>2009-11-09 17:37:51</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Future of UK Air Power</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4AEB23617A11F/ </link>
<description>As a defence review approaches, Britain's air power is once again under the microscope. More than even, a joint capacity is vital</description>
<date>2009-10-30 17:33:26</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence and the Arctic - Go with the Floe?</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4A955A761D39A/ </link>
<description>What should the UK’s role be in the growing political tussles over the Arctic? Important strategic choices need to be made in the rapidly changing polar region. </description>
<date>2009-08-26 16:53:29</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Defence Review: Formally Announced but Already Begun</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbrief/ref:A4A5733CE5557C/ </link>
<description>The announcement of the next Future Defence Review to be carried out by a new Parliament marks the official beginning of a long process of discussions about the state of the Armed Forces, but the review of strategy has been going on for a long time before.</description>
<date>2009-07-10 13:29:57</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>RUSI Discussion Paper: The Hard Choices</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C492D7CC824145/ </link>
<description>In preparation for its 'Defence in the Round: The United Kingdom’s Needs, Priorities and Resources' conference, RUSI releases a discussion paper posing twenty key questions about the UK's national military strategy.</description>
<date>2008-11-26 17:13:39</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Note on the Prime Minister’s Lecture</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A45E2BD4F10E8D/ </link>
<description>Now is the time for a public debate on the nation’s military strategy and the new security environment </description>
<date>2007-02-26 11:05:06</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Defence Perspectives: Defending the United Kingdom and its Interests</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A45E2B9B51A41D/ </link>
<description>To defend Britain's interests, Britain must combine 'soft' with 'hard' power argues Prime Minister Tony Blair.</description>
<date>2007-02-01 10:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Labour Party View of UK Defence Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BA24E21BE470/ </link>
<description>In advance of the expected General Election in May, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence, outlined his party's policy of defence.</description>
<date>2005-04-13 13:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>UK Defence: Ten Questions for the General Election</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:P42565352E7D69/ </link>
<description>Ten questions on UK defence policy and military strategy that need to be considered for the upcoming General Election.</description>
<date>2005-04-08 10:48:02</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Conservative Party View of UK Defence Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BA24C8E6762F/ </link>
<description>In advance of the General Election in May 2005,  The Hon. Nicholas Soames MP, Conservative Party Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, outlined his party's policies on defence.</description>
<date>2005-04-04 13:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Liberal Democrat View of UK Defence Policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BA248B065F78/ </link>
<description>Ahead of the election Paul Keetch outlines the Liberal Democrat policies on defence</description>
<date>2005-03-15 13:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Future of British Defence: The Liberal Democrat View</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:J40c1f7af83beb/ </link>
<description>In presenting his Party's response to the New Chapter Paul Keetch discusses the future of British Defence Policy.</description>
<date>2004-06-18 12:23:44</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Future of British Defence: The Opposition View</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:J40c1f7afe084b/ </link>
<description>Bernard Jenkin, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, assesses the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review</description>
<date>2004-06-18 12:23:44</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Security and Defence Policies of the Conservative Party</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:J40c1f76d6b54b/ </link>
<description>Conservative Party remarks made ahead of the 2001 General Elections</description>
<date>2004-06-18 12:23:41</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Security and Defence Policies of the Liberal Democrat Party</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:J40c1f76dc81ab/ </link>
<description>Liberal Democrat remarks made ahead of the 2001 General Elections</description>
<date>2001-08-18 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Security and Defence Policies of the Labour Government</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:J40c1f76879fab/ </link>
<description>Labour Party remarks made ahead of the 2001 General Elections</description>
<date>2001-08-18 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>The strategic defence review</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4469B8683949E/ </link>
<description></description>
<date>1997-10-10 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Labour's defence and security policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4461D1A91B811/ </link>
<description></description>
<date>1997-06-09 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Conservative party defence policy</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A4461D0352AD59/ </link>
<description>The Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo was Secretary of State for Defence from 1995 to 1997 presents the case for the Conservative party prior to the 1997 General Election</description>
<date>1997-06-09 12:00:00</date>
</item>
<item>
<title>British security and defence policy under the Liberal Democrats</title>
<link>http://www.rusi.org/publications/journal/ref:A445B625D7ABE1/ </link>
<description></description>
<date>1997-04-07 15:00:00</date>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
