News & Comment

Justin Bronk, an airpower expert at RUSI, a think-tank, suggests employing the F-16 for deep interdiction in Russia would put it at the mercy of Russian surface-to-air missiles, including the lethal S-400. There are probably better ways to hit remote targets in Russia.

Think-tank Royal United Services Institute has estimated that the 3 per cent defence target would be the equivalent to putting up income tax by 5p in the pound or raising VAT from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Creating a special “reserve” (a Treasury device used for Iraq war and Afghanistan spending) won’t cut it. A new “war bond” could fit the bill, but that conflicts with Sunak’s aversion to debt.

"Over the years, Russia started to have plans for those territories, not necessarily as they are now, to annex them fully, but they tried to bring them more closely into Russia, but also for them to be financially independent because they were a bit of a drain on Russian financial resources." She added: "So I think this is probably a big part of their political and practical consolidation of the area. here's also a financial gain to it, and it can help in what Russia would call the reconstruction of those areas. Obviously, they were the ones that bombed it, but a ruined Eastern Ukraine that Russia is occupying is not so useful for it. So it does need those areas to be reasonably self-sufficient."