russia – Verbal Alchemy

Imagine the sirens sound in London.

Typhoon pilots sprint for cockpits that have flown ten per cent fewer hours this year so their squadrons could meet an emissions cap.

Tankers sit on the apron topped up with scarce Sustainable Aviation Fuel that costs four times more than kerosene, so the wing commander releases just two instead of the required four.

The calculus is brutal, and it is instant: fewer jets in the air, slimmer magazines, thinner margins.

The adversary—be it Russian bombers, Chinese hypersonic glide vehicles, or a swarm of weaponised drones smuggled across Europe’s southern flank—does not care that our bases run on wind power or that our hangars are net‑zero.

All that matters in that moment is whether we can fight and win.

Survival first, stewardship second

Climate policy is a long‑term struggle for habitability; war is an immediate struggle for survival.

Lose the second and the first becomes irrelevant.

An occupied nation has no agency over carbon prices, land‑use policy, or green R & D.

Remember how Ukraine’s grid decarbonisation goals evaporated the instant Russian missiles targeted Kyiv’s substations; the only metric that counted was megawatts restored quickly enough to keep lights on and radars spinning.

The same brutal arithmetic would apply here.

If Portsmouth is cratered or RAF Lossiemouth is reduced to rubble, our gleaming solar arrays and impeccably sorted recycling streams will not defend the Channel, guard data cables in the Atlantic, or shield cash machines from cyber‑extortion.

The illusion of choice

Proponents of the current programme argue the United Kingdom can “walk and chew gum”, greening Defence while preserving deterrence.

That phrase rings hollow when budgets are already stretched between replacing Trident, recapitalising land forces gutted after the last review, and standing up an AUKUS submarine fleet.

Every pound poured into retro‑fitting hangars is a pound not spent on stocks of medium‑range air‑to‑air missiles; every hour an F‑35B sits in a simulator to save carbon is an hour the pilot is not honing instinctive reactions to a real, air‑combat merge.

The hard truth is that Defence cannot buy itself out of physics.

Hydro‑treated plant oils and e‑fuels hold less energy per kilogram than Jet A‑1.
Batteries steal payload and range.

“Do more with less fuel” eventually becomes “do less”.

A realistic hierarchy of need

Win the fight.
Deterrence that fails costs cities, not credit‑rating points. War‑winning mass and readiness must sit at the top of the spending stack.
Harden the force.
Where green technologies also add resilience—micro‑grids that keep a station alive when the national grid is hacked, for example—they should be accelerated. But they serve the war‑fighting aim first.
Cut emissions without cutting capability.
Capitalise on incremental gains already proven in conflict—formation flying software that trims fuel burn, synthetic training that substitutes only the least valuable live sorties—not the most.
Hold ambition to account.
Net‑zero deadlines must carry a readiness‑override clause: if a target compromises deterrence, it slips. Not the other way round.

A closing vision

Picture a different headline five years hence: “RAF repels barrage on UK airspace; combat air wing retains 92 % mission‑capable rate.”

In the footnotes, you learn the bases ran on a hybrid micro‑grid, and the tankers blended 20 % SAF because supply chains allowed it—not because doctrine demanded it.

That is how sustainability should look in a world of peer conflict: a dividend of strength, never a substitute for it.

Climate change may shape the century, but if the Union Flag is replaced over Whitehall, the climate debate—along with every other public good—ends at the barrel of someone else’s gun.

First secure the realm. Then, in the peace our readiness secures, we can afford the luxury of arguing about carbon.

The clamour for war with Russia, increasingly echoed by politicians and mainstream media, is not only reckless but also deeply irresponsible. The ease with which some armchair commentators, journalists, and politicians dismiss the prospect of war as a mere geopolitical manoeuvre is astonishing. They forget—or have never truly understood—the catastrophic cost of modern warfare. Worse still, they try to smear those who advocate for diplomacy as “appeasers,” a lazy and historically illiterate insult designed to shut down debate.

Let’s be absolutely clear: opposing war does not mean supporting Russia. It means valuing human life over political posturing. It means recognising that war is not a game to be played by those with no skin in it. The loudest voices for conflict—the politicians who have never served, the journalists who will never see a battlefield, and the social media warriors pontificating from their bedrooms—are the ones least to bear the costs of their reckless rhetoric.

The Horror of War

Those who flippantly call for escalation seem to have forgotten—or never learned—the reality of war. War is not just an abstract clash of nations; it is the destruction of homes, the obliteration of cities, the deaths of men, women, and children who had no say in the matter. It is young soldiers, conscripted or otherwise, being sent to die for causes they barely understand, while their leaders sit comfortably in safety. It is entire generations of families torn apart, livelihoods ruined, and futures obliterated.

The idea that Russia can be “defeated” in the same way smaller nations have been toppled in the past is absurd. This is a nuclear-armed state with vast resources, a hardened military, and a leadership that has survived every attempt to isolate and weaken it. Those pushing for war seem to believe that Western superiority will guarantee a swift and clean victory. It won’t. Even conventional war with Russia would be ruinous; nuclear war would be the end of civilisation as we know it.

The Hypocrisy of Western Warmongers

The moral high ground claimed by the West is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Critics of Russia love to highlight its political prisoners and suppression of dissent, yet in the UK, people are being imprisoned for jokes, offensive memes, and opinions deemed unacceptable by the establishment. We release murderers while punishing individuals for thought crimes. Meanwhile, the very people calling for war are the ones who celebrated Tony Blair, a man whose war in Iraq led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The same people who rage against Putin’s authoritarianism are often silent about the erosion of freedoms at home.

If our own political elite were held to the same standards they demand for others, many would be behind bars. Instead, they posture as champions of democracy while their own nations slide further into authoritarianism.

A Sensible Alternative

Instead of sabre-rattling and reckless escalation, we should be pursuing diplomacy with every available means. That is not weakness; it is wisdom. A truly strong nation does not rush into unnecessary wars—it seeks to avoid them. Strength is found in strategic thinking, not in chest-thumping bravado from people who will never face the consequences of their words.

Those who insult others as “appeasers” should be reminded that the real appeasement is refusing to challenge the march toward war. The real failure is allowing warmongers to dictate policy while silencing dissent. If we do not push back against this insanity, we will soon find ourselves in a war that no one—except the weapons manufacturers and a few deranged ideologues—actually wants.

Tag: russia

Grounded by Green: How the RAF’s Net-Zero Crusade Risks Leaving Britain Defenceless