15.5 C
London
Thursday, June 11, 2026
Home Blog

UK defense – a hole in the bucket

0
uk-defense-–-a-hole-in-the-bucket
UK defense – a hole in the bucket

In the 1950s and 1960s, a massive wave of underground humor swept across the USSR and the Eastern Bloc featuring a fictional broadcaster called Armenian Radio (known in the West as Radio Yerevan). Many of the jokes involved food lines and food scarcity, a fact of Soviet life.

In one widely circulated shaggy dog story, a man gets in different lines to try and buy some food for dinner. Each time, he reaches the end of the line to be told they are out of (meat, sausages, chicken etc.). He finally explodes in anger. A KGB man tells him to please behave better.

This is something new. The man in line comments that not only is the Soviet Union out of hamburger and chicken, it is out of bullets.

The Armenian Radio story reflects the condition of Great Britain today, not the Soviet Union of past years. The British military is out of everything. It even lacks bullets.

While the UK pretends to be a great power, it has a broken-down army, a fleet with submarines that can’t submarine and frigates that can’t frigate. Yet, despite these massive deficits, the UK promotes the war in Ukraine vociferously, thinking (one supposes) that as long as the Ukrainians are fighting and dying, the UK can worry less about defending itself.

As a member of NATO the UK depends on the United States for its survival, and on the “special relationship” it may have squandered under Keir Starmer. The near collapse of Britain’s fighting capability, including its dreadful lack of reserves and stockpiles, is paralleled by what looks like internal social collapse: a cultural crisis that is altering the UK, not for the better.

John Healey. Source: SCANPIX/AFP PHOTO/Wojtek Radwansk

The overall mess has now led to the resignation of the UK’s defense secretary, John Healey. Healey is a long-time Labor politician and Starmer stalwart. He is not a defense expert and has no particular national security background.

Healey reportedly demanded £18 billion in new funding to patch the critical structural holes in the armed forces (such as the idled submarine fleet, escort ship shortages and munitions stockpiles). The Treasury and Downing Street ultimately offered only £13.5 billion, with officials noting that only £10 billion of that was actually “new” money.

While Starmer previously pledged a long-term goal of hitting 3% of GDP on defense, Healey’s resignation letter revealed that the Treasury’s actual plan would only see defense spending reach 2.68% by 2030. Healey stated bluntly that this “falls well short of what is required for defense and the country at this dangerous time.”

  • At the end of the Cold War (1991), the British Army stood at roughly 155,000 active troops. Today, that number has dropped to approximately 72,500 – the lowest level since the Napoleonic era. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (RAF) have seen similar cuts, shrinking by 25% and 40% respectively since 2000.
  • The Ministry of Defense (MoD) has consistently missed recruitment targets. Privatized recruitment contracts have faced severe bureaucratic delays, causing applicants to drop out. Furthermore, social attitudes toward the military have shifted significantly among younger generations, hampering standard recruitment efforts.
  • Physical and mental health conditions mean that more than a fifth of remaining regular forces are classified as “not fully deployable” or completely undeployable.

The US has around 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers in Europe, more than the entire British army. US troops are better equipped and far better supported despite the huge distance between the US and Europe.

The level of UK support for NATO, defined as on or near the alleged front lines, is minimal. Roughly 800 to 1,000 British soldiers (typically an armored or mechanized infantry brigade combat team subunit equipped with Warrior infantry fighting vehicles or Challenger tanks) are stationed in Estonia. In Poland the UK maintains a smaller cavalry troop presence (usually around 150 personnel) integrated into the US-led NATO battlegroup in Orzysz.

While the UK is able to surge troops for NATO exercises, it is notably weak in supporting the Baltic States and Poland. The UK does provide intermittent RAF Typhoon deployments to bases in Lithuania, Estonia, or Romania.

Britain’s navy is in poor shape. There is a severe availability crisis for the hunter-killer submarine fleet. The Royal Navy has an operational availability rate of 0% for its deployed attack submarines. All of them are undergoing repairs. Britain’s ballistic missile submarines, Vanguard-class (Strategic Deterrence / SSBN) also are barely operational. The UK operates four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines based at HMNB Clyde (Faslane) in Scotland. They maintain the UK’s Continuous At-Sea Deterrent (CASD).

Under a doctrine active since 1969, at least one British nuclear missile submarine is hidden underwater at sea every single second of the year. Each carries American-made Trident D5 strategic ballistic missiles, armed with British-manufactured nuclear warheads. Commissioned in the 1990s with a 25-year design life, these boats are ancient and wearing out. Maintenance overhauls that used to take months now take years, forcing the remaining active crews into grueling, record-breaking deployments (sometimes exceeding six months underwater) just to keep a single boat on patrol.

The UK has not had funds to procure enough F-35B aircraft for its aircraft carriers. The UK simply does not own enough F-35Bs to fully stock even one carrier’s maximum flight deck capacity (~36 to 40 jets) purely with British airframes. To project maximum power during major deployments, British carriers routinely embed US Marine Corps F-35B squadrons alongside the Royal Air Force/Royal Navy joint squadrons to fill the empty spots on the flight deck.

British carriers also don’t have adequate fleet support. They have had to rely on NATO assets, especially the US, for escort duties. This is critical to protect carriers from enemy submarines and from missile and drone attack. Whether British carriers, without integrated escort, are supportable in combat scenarios is an open question.

HMS Argyll in the basin outside the Frigate Support Centre, Feb 2024. Photo: Tom Leach

The situation is also dire in the surface fleet, especially type 23 frigates (Duke Class). The operational readiness of the escort fleet is under intense strain. Only a single Type 23 frigate (HMS St Albans) was actively working up or operating at sea, with the remainder immobilized in various stages of maintenance, refit, or crew reallocation.

A notable portion of the remaining force is locked in extended upkeep blocks to keep them structurally sound and safe for sea. HMS Kent, for example, entered a major, planned deep maintenance and modernization cycle to sustain its baseline utility through the late 2020s.

To plug gaping personnel deficits across the fleet and preserve resources for incoming platforms, the Ministry of Defence prematurely retired HMS Argyll and HMS Westminster. HMS Westminster was decommissioned despite recently undergoing a massive, multi-million-pound refit, because the Navy could not sustainably crew the vessel while simultaneously preparing personnel for future platforms.

The UK has severely depleted its previously inadequate weapons stockpiles. So, too has the United States, but the difference is the US is stepping up defense manufacturing (as best it can with an obsolete defense manufacturing infrastructure) while the UK lacks funds and will power to increase defense production. The failure to meet financial targets (which led to the Defense Secretary’s resignation) means that the road ahead is full of potholes.

A related problem is that the UK has been moving much equipment to Ukraine, but this cannot be sustained. NATO is hoping, along with the Ukrainians, that their drone strategy will keep the Russians contained and force a negotiation that will end Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory. But this is a big wish, and drone “dominance” will sooner or later end as new counter-drone solutions get fielded.

The recently published UK Strategic Defence Review outlines a 10-year roadmap aimed at shifting the country toward true “warfighting readiness” rather than just looking good on a parade ground. The Defence Review is a solid assessment of Britain’s dire defense situation. It is unlikely under the current UK government that the Defence Review recommendations will be followed, or that funds will be found to change the current mess.

With plummeting defense capabilities, sooner or later UK politicians (and the supporting cast of defense experts) need to adjust to reality and rethink the country’s national security strategy. With a de minimis security role in NATO and empty stockpiles, the UK should be thinking more about home defense and less about power projection. In short, the UK needs to redefine its defense strategy from top to bottom.

As things now stand, the UK has a big hole in its defense bucket. It cannot continue without radical change in its plans and strategy.

Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy undersecretary of defense. This article, which originally appeared on his newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.

This unfathomably huge fungal network keeps Earth cool and green

0
this-unfathomably-huge-fungal-network-keeps-earth-cool-and-green
This unfathomably huge fungal network keeps Earth cool and green

Even if you don’t like eating mushrooms, you’re in debt to fungi. One group of them, known as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, form vast subterranean networks of tubes called hyphae, hooking up with the roots of plants to exchange nutrients. Earth is so verdant in large part thanks to these partnerships, as this expansive infrastructure is associated with nearly three-quarters of all plant species. But because the network sprawls underground, it’s been difficult for scientists to determine just how much arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is out there. (Good luck digging everywhere on the planet and taking samples.)

Scientists have developed a workaround, which has produced some astonishing numbers. Using machine learning models, they’ve estimated that worldwide, the arbuscular mycorrhizal network stretches for 110 quadrillion kilometers, almost a billion times the distance from Earth to the sun. (Scoop up just a teaspoon of soil and you might find 10 meters of fungal strands.) Every year, these fungi shuttle around 4 billion metric tons of carbon, equal to 11 percent of humanity’s CO2 emissions. 

Because scientists have already taken thousands upon thousands of samples around the world, the researchers could train the models to build maps (you can play with them here) that predict where these fungi are more or less concentrated, even in the most remote environments. “We have started to have a clear picture of the full extent of these hidden living infrastructures that circulate carbon and nutrients in the soils beneath our feet,” said Toby Kiers, executive director of the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks and coauthor of the new paper, which published today in the journal Science.

enormous amounts of carbon underground in peat, or dead plant material that resists decay and accumulates over centuries.)

Toby Kiers and Merlin Sheldrake take soil samples in the mountains of Bhutan. Courtesy Tomás Munita

At the other end of the spectrum, the study found that in areas with large-scale agriculture, fungal network densities are about 50 percent lower on average. That may be because synthetic fertilizers provide crops all the nutrients they need, easing their reliance on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Tillage also tears fungal networks apart at the end of a growing season. (Other research has found that tilling also disrupts soil’s ability to retain water.) “Maybe we can do better to have more fungal biomass in our agricultural systems, and in our terrestrial ecosystem as a whole, and capture more carbon dioxide,” said ecologist Smriti Pehim Limbu, who studies mycorrhizal fungi at Dartmouth College but wasn’t involved in the new paper.

Humanity has to feed itself, of course. But with this new data in hand, it can also take steps to protect these critical species hidden underground. “This map is for mycorrhizal fungi what the first detailed maps were for, I don’t know, ocean currents or river systems,” Kiers said. “Where you go from knowing a system exists to knowing where it is, how dense it is, and where it’s threatened.”


Next Article

U.S. President Donald Trump is joined by grocery store owners and supermarket in the Oval Office

No, rolling back these environmental rules won’t lower your grocery bill

A Point-by-Point Breakdown of Trump’s Failed Iran War Objectives

0
a-point-by-point-breakdown-of-trump’s-failed-iran-war-objectives
A Point-by-Point Breakdown of Trump’s Failed Iran War Objectives


At the very start of his war with Iran, President Donald Trump declared victory. “We won,” Trump announced on March 11, 11 days after launching the joint attack with Israel. “In the first hour it ⁠was over.” But more than 2,200 hours later, the conflict is obviously still raging.

This week, U.S. forces bombarded Iran after the downing of an American Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran responded with strikes on targets across the Middle East and threats to “turn the entire region into hell.” Trump told Fox News’s Trey Yingst on Wednesday night that the U.S. fired 49 Tomahawk missiles at targets inside Iran, in addition to bombing raids by fighter jets. Yingst reported that Trump also said, “We’ll bomb the S out of them tomorrow night’” if Iran did not sign a peace agreement. Trump followed this on Thursday by declaring the U.S. would be “hitting Iran … VERY HARD TONIGHT.”

The burgeoning forever war contradicts months of reassurances by Trump that a peace deal with Iran is imminent.

An Intercept analysis of Trump’s claims about the Iran war, stated objectives, and supposed achievements finds the U.S. has fallen short or flamed out on all counts. The public record shows an administration that has consistently scaled back its goals and downgraded its claimed successes, without nearing anything resembling the victory Trump has touted. 

A Promise of World Peace

On the first day of the conflict, Trump laid out, with complete clarity, his most ambitious objectives. Claiming Iran was already “very much destroyed and, even, obliterated,” Trump said his war would bring peace to the region and, somehow, the globe. “The heavy and pinpoint bombing … will continue, uninterrupted … as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on February 28.

The bombing campaign was, indeed, “heavy.” The “pinpoint” attacks included a strike on an elementary school that killed between 150 and 175 civilians, most of them children. And thousands more civilians died in other strikes. Almost 149,000 civilian infrastructures, including homes, hospitals, and schools, have been damaged in the U.S.–Israel war, according to an April report from the Iranian Red Crescent Society. An estimated 400,000 people have been affected by damage to houses and apartments. But Iran was not “very much destroyed,” much less “obliterated.”

Peace in the Middle East, it goes without saying, never came to pass. The U.S.–Israeli strikes actually kicked off a regional war that grew to include more than a dozen countries, including Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Beyond this, the inability of the self-proclaimed “peace president,” head of the world’s newly created Board of Peace, and recipient of the first FIFA Peace Prize to achieve “peace throughout … the world” may stand as Trump’s grandest failure.

Just two days after setting out his topline goals, Trump began publicly vacillating and dramatically scaling back U.S. aims. “Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities,” he said during a March 2 White House ceremony. “Second, we’re annihilating their navy. … Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. … And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”

Months later, these objectives remain unmet.

Eliminating Missiles

While the United States claims to have struck more than 13,000 targets in Iran, leaked U.S. intelligence assessments found evidence that Iran restored 30 of the 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz to operational status, and retained 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile and 70 percent of its mobile launchers. Reports emerged that in April and May, Iran began efforts to repair its Yazd Missile Base. In just one day last week, Kuwait says it was targeted by an Iranian barrage of “13 hostile ballistic missiles.” On Sunday, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israel. And on Thursday, Iran attacked multiple countries in the region, including Jordan which said it shot down 20 Iranian missiles.

During an aborted interview with NBC News that aired on Sunday, even Trump admitted he had failed. “They have some missiles left,” he said. “I would say, percentage-wise, maybe 21, 22 percent of their missiles. It’s a lot of missiles.” 

Annihilating the Navy

While the U.S. sunk many Iranian ships, the Iranian Navy has not been annihilated. In fact, U.S. Central Command, which is overseeing the war effort, has repeatedly referred to actions by Iran’s Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy in the months since Trump laid out his aims, demonstrating that both still exist, upending Trump’s frequent boasts to the contrary.

Just last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “there is no Iranian Navy,” and in the next breath admitted there was, referencing Iran’s “Boston Whalers with machine guns on them.”

Ending the Nuclear Program

Iran also still maintains its stockpile of enriched uranium. And there is no evidence that nuclear sites that were not attacked during Trump’s 2025 Iran war, such as Pickaxe Mountain, were ever damaged. Last week, in fact, Rubio confirmed that Iran’s “nuclear program” still exists. And during his recent NBC interview, Trump acknowledged that Iran still possessed its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and “they can get it, I guess, with years of work.”

Last week, Rubio even suggested Iran might be allowed to continue enrichment at some later date, noting it would need to accept “severe and long-term limitations, and/or cancellation, of enrichment.”

Halting Funding of Militias

The Trump administration has also failed to ensure “that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.” Days after Trump declared this war aim, House Republicans introduced legislation stating that “Iran remains the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and provides substantial financial and military support to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.” In the months since, even the Trump administration says the president’s goals haven’t been achieved.

In mid-April, the State Department said that Iran still “funnels the wealth of the Iranian people to Hizballah and other terrorists in the Middle East.” That same month, the Treasury Department took action against a “constellation of Iran-backed terrorist militias,” specifically “seven Iraqi militia commanders responsible for planning, directing, and executing attacks against U.S. personnel, facilities, and interests in Iraq,” including leaders of Kata’ib Hizballah, Kata’ib Sayyid Al-Shuhada, Harakat Al-Nujaba, and Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haqq. In May, the Treasury Department again targeted “Iran and its proxy militias in Iraq,” sanctioning “leaders of Iran-aligned terrorist militias Kata’ib Sayyid Al-Shuhada and Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq” and referencing still “other Iran-aligned terrorist militias in Iraq.”

Unconditional Surrender

This assemblage of failures has been compounded by other unmet war aims. On March 6, Trump set the terms for an agreement with Iran. “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he wrote on Truth Social. In the months since, that hard-line stance has turned to mush.

“There is the prospect before us — which could happen today,” Rubio said last week of a potential peace deal, in a weak-kneed explanation to lawmakers. “We’re hopeful that something like that could happen in which the straits would reopen, we would enter into a period of negotiations on very specific topics — delineated negotiations in the hope of reaching an outcome that’s acceptable to us, and something they would be able to do as well.”

Reopening the Strait

The “straits” in question have become another sticking point and catastrophe. After failing to achieve all his initial war aims, Trump added another that was nothing more than a return to the status quo antebellum in the Strait of Hormuz: opening the waterway to traffic after Iran imposed a wartime blockade.

Before the war, the average number of vessels crossing the strait — a critical artery for the world’s oil, fertilizer, helium, critical materials for microchips, and numerous other goods — was more than 120 per day. It has never been close to that level again.

“I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT. Time is running out,” Trump declared on April 4. When the U.S. and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on April 7, Trump wrote on social media that he would “suspend the bombing and attack of Iran” on the condition that Tehran agree to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The next day, the White House declared: “Iran has now agreed to a ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz as the Trump Administration negotiates a broader peace agreement — once more proving Peace Through Strength victorious.” But that same day, Iran closed the strait, following continued Israeli attacks on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. 

In response to Iran’s blockade, the U.S. imposed its own blockade of the strait on April 13, barring commercial vessels from entering or leaving Iranian ports. Then on April 15, Trump posted: “I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz.” Two days later, Trump claimed, “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again.” On April 19, Trump said Iran had launched attacks in the strait and noted Iran had announced a blockade. On April 23, Trump ordered the Navy to attack Iranian ships laying mines in the strait. On May 6, Trump teased that the war might be “at an end, and the highly effective Blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be OPEN TO ALL, including Iran.” A day later, Trump said U.S. warships came under Iranian fire in the strait. The situation was still dragging on when Trump wrote, on May 29: “The Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.” On Monday, a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship patrolling the strait was downed by Iran. 

The Strait of Hormuz remains functionally closed, except for a tiny trickle of traffic. “Last month, I directed our Great U.S. Military to execute a secret mission to support Oil Tankers and other Commercial Ships through the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump posted on Wednesday. “More than 200 Commercial Ships have safely traveled through the Strait.” (About 3,000 ships normally traverse it every month.) On Thursday, Iran announced that it, again, closed the strait to oil tankers and commercial ships.

Oil industry analysts say that global oil reserves are dwindling and that if the war doesn’t wrap up in the near term, petroleum prices could skyrocket to $150 a barrel. “The oil will go down,” Trump said on NBC, but acknowledged the war had driven up prices. “We’re going to have higher gasoline. We’re going to have a little higher fertilizer,” he admitted, before equivocating further when asked if gasoline prices had peaked. “Well, it depends. I mean, it depends where the war goes. It could be,” he waffled. “If we sign an agreement, it’ll go down now. Otherwise, it’ll go down after we’re finished.”

Oil prices rose to about $95 a barrel on Thursday as the U.S. and Iran continued to launch attacks. Trump said on Wednesday that the price of oil would have been at $250 a barrel had the U.S. government not been siphoning off “millions of barrels” of Iran’s oil over the course of the war. On Thursday, Trump posted that the U.S. would also soon seize Iran’s “oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets.” Despite the rampant oil theft and threats of more to come, U.S. inflation accelerated for a third straight month in May, driven by energy prices which rose 3.9 percent over the month.

A Peace Deal

The “agreement” in question is still another failed aim. On March 23, Trump told reporters about supposed peace talks and cited “major points of agreement, I would ​say — almost all points of agreement.” Iran denied negotiations had taken place. Two days later, Trump claimed Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly.” On March 26, he said Iran was “begging to make a deal.” On April 15, he said the war was “very close to over.” On April 17, Trump claimed that Iran had “agreed to everything” and that “we will get a deal in the next day or two.” 

“An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization,” Trump announced on May 23. On June 2, Trump wrote: “as I told Iran, ‘It’s time, one way or another, for you to make a Deal.’” Then Trump told NBC late last week: “We’re very close to having a deal.” But on Monday, Trump said a “Final Deal” has yet to be “reached.”

What such a “deal” will end shines a bright light on another flip-flop failure by the president. Trump went from claiming, in early March, that the U.S. won the war with Iran, to attempting to convince Americans that he never even went to war in the first place. “We don’t call it a war,” he said before the end of that month. “We call it a military operation.” By early May, Trump was calling it a “mini war” or “a little detour.”

Just Give Him Two Weeks

The deadline for when this “mini-war” will finally end may be the most telling of Trump’s failed aims and achievements. It’s well known that Trump’s lying and laziness coalesce around one simple phrase: two weeks. “We’ll have something in two weeks,” Trump said in January of an agreement with Europe to extend U.S. control over Greenland, to take one example.

Trump has long used this two-week delaying tactic when faced with vexing questions about anyone and everything, from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the war on ISIS to international trade and the Covid-19 pandemic. Two weeks really means later. Except when it means never.

The ceasefire with Iran, announced on April 7, was initially supposed to last “two weeks” while the two countries inked a deal to end the war, according to Trump. He claimed at the time that they were already “very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East.”

On Monday evening, Trump held a tele-rally for South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham where he addressed his failed war with Iran. “We’re negotiating now, and they want to make a very good deal. They’re willing to give us everything,” Trump claimed, noting, “It’ll happen very soon.” The president then added in his favorite faux time frame: “I think we are winning that battle, but you’re really going to win it over the next two weeks when we declare total victory.”

UK, Australia, Canada launch fund to support two-state solution efforts

0
uk,-australia,-canada-launch-fund-to-support-two-state-solution-efforts
UK, Australia, Canada launch fund to support two-state solution efforts

Group of Palestinian children in Bureyc Camp raise the Palestinian flag over the rubble of buildings destroyed by Israeli strikes following announcements of recognition of the State of Palestine by Canada, Australia, the UK, and Portugal, on September 22, 2025, in Gaza City, Gaza. [Moiz Salhi - Anadolu Agency]

Group of Palestinian children in Bureyc Camp raise the Palestinian flag over the rubble of buildings destroyed by Israeli strikes following announcements of recognition of the State of Palestine by Canada, Australia, the UK, and Portugal, on September 22, 2025, in Gaza City, Gaza. [Moiz Salhi – Anadolu Agency]

The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada announced Thursday the creation of a new International Peace Fund aimed at supporting efforts toward a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel, Anadolu Agency reports.

In a joint statement, the three countries said the multi-donor fund will support projects designed to advance the conditions for a negotiated two-state solution.

The governments said the initiative will complement ongoing diplomatic, humanitarian and development efforts by supporting organizations working to promote peacebuilding and mutual understanding.

The three countries reaffirmed their commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, describing it as the only viable path to lasting peace.

The UK, Australia and Canada will each contribute initial seed funding equivalent to £1 million ($1.3 million) over three years. The fund will also be open to contributions from other international partners.

READ: ‘A stain on our city’: UK urged to ban Israeli property fair selling stolen Palestinian land

After nearly breaking, NASA’s Deep Space Network “worked well” on Artemis II

0
after-nearly-breaking,-nasa’s-deep-space-network-“worked-well”-on-artemis-ii
After nearly breaking, NASA’s Deep Space Network “worked well” on Artemis II

NASA pushed its Deep Space Network beyond its limits during the Artemis I mission nearly four years ago. The global array of deep space communications antennas couldn’t keep up with the routine demands of 40 robotic science missions and the extraordinary surge required by NASA’s Orion space capsule as it flew around the Moon.

The experience in late 2022 reduced or delayed downlinks from several high-profile science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope and Mars rovers, as the data-hungry Artemis I mission took priority on NASA’s communications network. And that was before the first Artemis mission with astronauts onboard. When Artemis II launched April 1, NASA called upon the Deep Space Network (DSN) again to connect Mission Control to the Orion capsule as it soared more than a quarter of a million miles from Earth.

With a crew of four flying inside the spacecraft, the agency’s appetite for data from Orion on Artemis II was even higher than it was on Artemis I. But at a little more than nine days, the Artemis II mission was shorter than the 25 days Artemis I spent in space, helping alleviate the communications overload. Artemis I also launched 10 small CubeSats into deep space, many of which required tracking and telecom services from the DSN. Artemis II carried fewer CubeSats.

“We learned a lot on Artemis I, and we actually put some new processes in place ahead of Artemis II, mostly focused around coordination and our scheduling processes with all the missions, not just the Orion vehicle itself,” said Greg Heckler, deputy program manager for capability development in NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation Program. “I think that worked well.”

Lessons learned

Heckler said NASA’s science division, responsible for most of the missions using the DSN, provided the network’s managers with “positive feedback” after Artemis II. But the limitations of the network and the high demand continue to “create some asset contention” among NASA’s missions.

“During Artemis I, we had a subsystem called the Private Cloud Appliance. This PCA actually failed during Artemis I. Because of that failure, that high visibility, we actually received some additional resources from our Moon to Mars program, and we were able to install, effectively, a new subsystem ahead of Artemis II,” Heckler said.

The demand for signal is only going up. NASA and its commercial and international partners plan to launch numerous missions to the Moon in the next few years. NASA is working with commercial providers to construct ground antennas for a dedicated network for Moon missions, called Lunar Exploration Ground Sites (LEGS), to free up more capacity on the DSN to support other spacecraft. Commercial companies are also developing data relay satellites to fly in orbit around the Moon, supporting future landers and construction of a Moon Base. High-bandwidth optical communications may be another solution. NASA successfully tested a laser communications terminal on the Orion spacecraft on Artemis II.

“We’re going to have to work as a community to deal with that higher level of contention during the Artemis missions themselves, but we’re doing everything to establish non-DSN, or new infrastructure, to take on that load and burden,” Heckler said Wednesday in a meeting of the Small Bodies Assessment Group.

Asking for more

The burden currently includes around 40 operating missions that rely on the DSN’s antennas in California, Spain, and Australia to stay in communication with Earth. Most of NASA’s missions outlive their original design lives, so they put demand on the network for longer as the agency launches new spacecraft.

About 40 more missions are projected to need the DSN over the next 10 years, and many of the 40 missions currently using time on the network will likely still be operating over that time. One of NASA’s most data-intensive missions, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, is scheduled for launch in August. It will return more data through the DSN than all of NASA’s previous astrophysics missions combined.

The 10 CubeSats that launched as secondary payloads on Artemis I placed an unforeseen burden on the DSN. Some of the small satellites were lost soon after deploying from the rocket, and their operators called upon the DSN to use its giant antennas to search for the CubeSats as they headed into deep space, further exacerbating the communications crunch the network was already experiencing with the Orion spacecraft.

“Before onboarding new missions to the DSN, we now strictly require a feasibility study to see if there’s enough capacity to make that type of commitment,” Heckler said. “So we’re trying to balance, through data and analysis, the new demands coming onto the system versus those legacy missions we have to support until they fly out due to natural causes.”

DSN managers are also working with NASA’s older missions, some of which continue to pull on the network decades after their launch, to understand how much capacity they will use. As these older missions got extended, some of them did not update the network on their needs. “Some missions are using more than what their paperwork would say,” Heckler said.

“Once that is in place, as we move forward with new mission commitments, we will just be more focused, I think, and more process-oriented in being able to commit to new missions or not,” Heckler said.

Key antenna offline

One constraint on the DSN is an accident last year that knocked one of the network’s three 70-meter (230-foot) antennas offline at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Barstow, California. This antenna, along with similar ones in Spain and Australia, is used to communicate with some of NASA’s most distant missions.

The 70-meter dish was tracking NASA’s Juno spacecraft at Jupiter last September when it “over-rotated” and damaged cables and water lines in the facility’s fire suppression system. An estimated 200,000 gallons of water flooded the base of the antenna. The water contained glycol, causing it to be classified as an environmental hazard, officials wrote in a report after investigating the accident. The resulting flooding rendered the antenna inoperable.

Investigators cited several technical and process causes. After troubleshooting a problem with the antenna’s emergency stops, technicians at Goldstone “overrode and bypassed multiple safeguards that normally would have prevented over-rotation,” officials wrote in the report.

“The investigation revealed inadequate training, insufficient written procedures, a reliance on undocumented behaviors and tacit knowledge, and deficiencies in the antenna’s control logic,” officials wrote. “In addition to the root causes listed above, the hydraulic limit system—the final fail safe against over-rotation—was discovered to have been severely damaged to the point of inoperability in an unknown and undocumented prior incident.”

Work logs indicated the hydraulic limit system was last tested in 2004.

NASA officials estimate it will cost between $4.1 million and $4.6 million to repair and restore the antenna to service. “Our plan for that system is to combine any of the remediation after the mishap with an already planned upgrade cycle that will keep that system down into 2028,” Heckler said.

Ukraine war now longer than the first world war – the similarities are unsettling

0
ukraine-war-now-longer-than-the-first-world-war-–-the-similarities-are-unsettling
Ukraine war now longer than the first world war – the similarities are unsettling

The war in Ukraine has now exceeded the first world war in duration. And while the comparison between these two conflicts is imperfect, it is becoming difficult to ignore.

Some of the similarities are obvious. At the tactical level, the conflict in Ukraine has witnessed the return of artillery as the dominant arm of battle.

During much of the first year of the war, artillery was responsible for the vast majority of casualties. Although drones have since transformed the battlefield, artillery remains indispensable to both sides.

Equally striking has been the return of extensive trench systems. Not since the Iran-Iraq war, which was fought between 1980 and 1988, has a major interstate conflict depended so heavily upon field fortifications and prepared positions such as trenches, concrete obstacles and belts of barbed wire.

Large-scale manoeuvre has given way to attritional combat measured in hundreds of metres rather than tens of kilometres.

Yet the deeper similarities lie not in trenches or artillery, but in the underlying logic of the war itself. Like the first world war, the conflict in Ukraine has become a contest of endurance: manpower, industrial capacity, economic resilience and political will.

These factors, rather than any individual weapons system, are likely to determine its eventual outcome. Of these, the most important is manpower.

Ukrainian rescuers work at the site of a Russian strike on a car dealership in Kyiv.

Ukrainian rescuers work at the site of a Russian strike on a car dealership in Kyiv, Ukraine, on June 2. Sergey Dolzhenko / EPA

Broadly comparable losses

During the first world war, British, French and German governments routinely published casualty lists. The public knew that victories often came at immense cost.

Military leaders understood that the key question was not simply how many casualties the enemy had suffered, but whether their own societies could continue to bear comparable losses for longer than the opponent.

Battles such as Verdun and the Somme in 1916 and Passchendaele (also known as the Third Battle of Ypres) in 1917 generally produced losses that were severe for both sides. This was well understood on the home front.

Yet in the Ukraine war, we are regularly invited to believe that Russia sustains several times the number of dead than is suffered by Ukraine. In a particularly unlikely example, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, claimed that 47 Russians were dying for every Ukrainian earlier in 2026.

About a year ago, I was having dinner at a London club with a well-connected former Ukrainian government official whom I have known for some time. Our conversation turned to casualties.

I asked them: “Tell me, no bullshit: what is the real casualty ratio?” My companion paused before replying quietly: “Same as the Russians.” Surprised, I asked for the source. “The General Staff,” they replied.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is the senior military command headquarters of Ukraine’s armed forces – the body responsible for planning, directing and coordinating military operations at the highest level.

This is an anecdote, but publicly available evidence tends to support this assertion. Sources such as the New York Times have also confirmed that casualties on both sides are similar, with Russia sustaining more, but not multiple times more. Russia, of course, has a far larger population than Ukraine.

The precise casualty figures remain contested and are likely to remain so until long after the war ends. What matters for present purposes, however, is that the available evidence points towards a war of broadly comparable losses rather than one in which either side enjoys an overwhelming advantage in manpower attrition.

A member of the Ukrainian armed forces fires a rocket towards a Russian position.

A member of the Ukrainian armed forces fires a rocket towards a Russian position in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine on June 4. Mechanized Brigade / EPA

Even if these figures are broadly correct, Ukraine has held the line against a much larger adversary for over four years now and has shown extraordinary resilience in the face of invasion. Its capacity for innovation has repeatedly surprised observers.

New drones, autonomous systems and precision-strike technologies are often presented as solutions to the country’s growing manpower difficulties. Some commentators even suggest that robotic systems may compensate for shortages of personnel.

The difficulty with this argument is that war is an interactive contest. Almost every significant Ukrainian innovation has been met by a Russian adaptation and vice versa. The result has been a continuing cycle of measure and countermeasure rather than a decisive technological breakthrough by either side.

Technology matters enormously, but it rarely abolishes the need for manpower. Artillery, tanks, aircraft and machine guns transformed warfare between 1914 and 1918, yet none removed the requirement to occupy and defend ground with soldiers.

The same remains true today. As military doctrine has long recognised, drones, missiles and aircraft can destroy, disrupt and delay, but ground can only be taken and held by troops.

A Ukrainian drone pilot holds a first-person view drone at an undisclosed location near the frontline.

A Ukrainian drone pilot holds a first-person view drone at an undisclosed location near the frontline in the Druzhkivka area of eastern Ukraine. Maria Senovilla / EPA

There are other echoes of 1918. The small infiltration and assault groups employed by both sides in Ukraine’s drone-saturated battlefields bear a striking resemblance to the German stormtroopers who achieved remarkable successes during the Spring Offensive of 1918.

As so often in warfare, however, innovation did not confer a lasting advantage. The British and French adapted, developed countermeasures and eventually improved upon many of the new tactics themselves.

What transformed the strategic balance in the first world war was not tactical innovation or a decisive technological breakthrough, but the arrival of the US Army and Marine Corps. More than 2 million American soldiers ultimately served in Europe, and their battlefield presence convinced Germany that time was no longer on its side.

Ukraine faces no such prospect today. For all the discussion of technological revolution, the war in Ukraine remains a contest of human endurance – just like the first world war.

How the development of solar and wind farms on the Tibetan Plateau is affecting local communities

0
how-the-development-of-solar-and-wind-farms-on-the-tibetan-plateau-is-affecting-local-communities
How the development of solar and wind farms on the Tibetan Plateau is affecting local communities

China is building some of the world’s largest solar farms on the Tibetan Plateau, where nomadic people have grazed herds of animals for millennia.

It’s not the first time Tibetan regions have become a major source of renewable energy in China. Since the mid-1990s, many Tibetan communities have lived alongside hydropower stations.

Now, with vast open landscapes and high elevations that provide ideal conditions for harnessing solar and wind energy, many pastoral lands have become key sites for large-scale renewable energy projects.

As part of my ethnographic research, I spoke to number of people in this area, offering a rare look at how large-scale energy development is affecting nomadic communities.

Large metal structures hold up dark panels, and underneath bovine animals walk and graze.

Yaks graze underneath the panels of a solar farm. Sanggay Tashi, CC BY-ND

Herding yaks on solar farms

I spent time in a nomadic community located about 100 miles (161 km) southeast of Xining city, the capital of Qinghai province.

Beginning in 2017 and accelerating more recently, regional subsidiaries of energy companies such as PowerChina have built three solar panel power plants – enough to generate about 1 gigawatt of power – and a dozen wind turbines on the area’s open grasslands.

Sandy, desert-type land is well known to be suitable for solar and wind farms. Yet the grasslands and many other pastoral areas turned into solar farms are not sandy deserts. They are productive grazing land where Tibetans have herded yaks and sheep for generations.

Parts of what was once open fine alpine grassland, which Tibetans call pangtang where herders moved freely and gazed across the boundless horizon, are now covered by dense rows of solar panels. It remains unclear how these sites comply with China’s grassland conservation regulations. Other solar projects elsewhere in China have reportedly been investigated for environmental violations.

Walking through the sites feels like moving through a dense forest of iron pillars rising into the air. “It is easy to get lost in this jungle of solar panels,” Tsering, a local observer, told me as we walked between long rows of panels on a windy winter day in 2023.

That day, I also met Dolma, a local Dokpa, or nomad, herding yaks under solar panels. As we talked, she told me the solar farm had changed the experience of herding. She said, “I am used to herding on open grassland. So, herding under these glass panels feels like something is wrapping around my head. It feels very depressing.”

Mostly bare ground lies between rows of solar panels.

The topsoil and grasses are disturbed by the construction of the posts and digging for underground cables. Sanggay Tashi, CC BY-ND

Individual and collective tensions

These energy projects in nomadic communities are presented as part of of national efforts to modernize rural areas, bring capital to local communities and promote renewable energy development as part of China’s clean energy and carbon reduction agenda.

But their implementation brings tensions and contradictions in the communities where they are located.

Based on my conversations with more than 20 people in the community, some view them as good economic opportunities and are envious of those whose grazing lands were selected for lease. Others oppose them, saying they “open the gate” for outsiders to appropriate local land for short-term financial gain by a few.

As more outsiders move in and the landscape changes with these energy projects, the overall concern that I observed from talking to different people is that the land that generations have lived on and protected may not retain the same sense of home in the future.

Tsering, who guided me through the solar farms, is very critical of those who agreed to lease land to solar farms, saying, “I may sound pretentious, but these days people are like grass growing on a wall – easily swayed by the slightest breeze of money.”

Since the 1950s, all land in China has been either government-owned or collectively owned; private land ownership is not allowed. Individuals may hold fixed-term “land-use rights” that can be transferred, sold or leased. In the 2000s, the government allocated land to individual families in nomadic areas of Qinghai and granted them 50-year “grassland use certificates.”This enables the locals to raise livestock on the land and lease it to others. Most certificates are set to expire in 2050.

Some holders of grassland use certificates have leased their land to energy farms. In the area I studied, those leases typically are for around 25 years, to align with the remaining term of local grassland use rights. What will happen when these land use rights expire remains unknown.

Rows of metal frames stand on flat land.

A solar farm under construction in eastern Tibet. Sanggay Tashi, CC BY-ND

Money matters

In practice, leasing is extremely complex. When I asked a dozen families about their official contracts with the energy companies, several people said they signed it without fully understanding what it said.

“The only thing people made sure to know is how much money they are receiving,” one person said to me. The documents included long and complicated legal or technical language in Chinese, some of which was orally translated into Tibetan during the signing, because many nomads who are heads of households and more than 40 years old can’t read either Chinese or Tibetan.

Negotiations and leasing decisions are often carried out between company representatives and a small number of heads of households, brought together with the help of local officials. That leaves many residents uninformed about the terms and conditions of the agreements.

Households that lease grazing land to energy projects receive a one-time payment that depends on the amount of land involved and which company is seeking the lease. From 2017 to 2026, residents have told me they received offers between 3,000 and 4,000 yuan (US$440 to $587) for each mu, a unit of area equivalent to about 0.16 acres. Those rates have resulted in payments between 40,000 and 100,0000 yuan ($7,300 to $147,000) per household.

Rows of solar panels are in the background as several animals graze on brown grass.

Livestock graze near solar panels in eastern Tibet. Sanggay Tashi, CC BY-ND

Human relations with the land

The energy companies’ contracts treat local households and land as individually owned properties in financial transactions. But local Indigenous communities have a different understanding and relationship to the environment.

Socially and historically, and regardless of the government policies on land ownership, Tibetans have perceived pastoral land as communal and experienced it as inhabited by all kinds of beings besides humans, including deities, animals, insects and other visible and invisible beings that are important in the Tibetan cosmological worldview. The energy planners often disregard these local ways of understanding and relating to the land.

During a dinner conversation, four local residents told me about one of these deeper spiritual concerns. During the construction of transmission lines to carry the solar power to users, they said, several transmission poles were placed very close to a labtse of a neighboring community. A labtse is a sacred site where an important mountain deity is believed to reside and where community members make regular offerings.

When locals asked for the poles to be moved, the energy developers suggested they would cover the cost of relocating the labtse instead – which, culturally, cannot be done, and if it were would require direction from high-ranking religious figures.

For the local people, however, this was not a matter of compensation but of protecting the deity from being stabbed by the giant poles. Some residents were even willing to pay the planners to move the poles. After a series of negotiations, the poles were eventually moved a short distance from the labtse.

People climb a wooden pole that is dwarfed by metal towers and wind turbines.

Workers set up power transmission lines. Sanggay Tashi, CC BY-ND

Living alongside energy farms

Herding on energy farms comes with new challenges.

When the solar panels were installed, excavation for support posts and underground cables disturbed the topsoil and destroyed the native grasses, which consist of a diverse species of grass. According to people involved in the work, the replacement grasses consisted of only one or two dominant species among the several that were common in the local ecosystem. And the seeds used for restoration came from beyond the local area, so residents are unsure whether the replanted grasses are exactly the same as the types that grow locally.

During winter, snow under the shade of solar panels takes a long time to melt, causing baby lambs to freeze in the cold. Dolma also told me, “The solar panels are making a fortune for the wild fox because it is hard to see them when they attack little lambs under the panels.”

Dolma told me that when the wind turbines were being built, their noise frightened her livestock and carried across the valley, disturbing neighbors during windy times.

The locals also told me that wind blowing through the posts and wires of solar farms produces persistent and unsettling noises that disturb both animals and people.

Future uncertainties

While these solar farms are generally considered “renewable” and part of “sustainable development,” their future remains uncertain. Locals told me they do not know whether the land-lease contracts will be renewed or abandoned when they expire in about 25 years. Solar panels also last around 25 years, and local people wonder how the waste will be disposed of.

As more Indigenous communities around the world become locations for climate mitigation projects, energy production and data centers, the stories of local people are essential to understand how their ways of life, culture and environment are affected by these new interventions.

Trump hints at ground invasion to get ‘total control’ of Iran oil

0
trump-hints-at-ground-invasion-to-get-‘total-control’-of-iran-oil
Trump hints at ground invasion to get ‘total control’ of Iran oil

While promising more strikes against Iran on Thursday, President Donald Trump suggested that the US would soon be “taking” Kharg Island in a bid to seize “total control” of the country’s oil and gas market. That’s an operation that would likely require ground troops.

“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post, following days of strikes that hit military infrastructure and also damaged a pair of reservoirs that left around 20,000 people without drinking water.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” he added.

It’s not the first time Trump has threatened to take the island, which handles about 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports and is of paramount importance, as Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war has sent oil prices skyrocketing and resulted in the most severe inflation the US has seen in over three years.

As in Venezuela, where Trump said the point of the US operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro was to “get the oil flowing” to US corporations, the president said his objective in taking Kharg Island was explicitly about enriching the US by using raw force to commandeer Iran’s natural resources.

“My preference has always been to take Kharg Island,” he said on a phone interview with Fox News on Thursday morning. “I don’t know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. You’d make a fortune….”

“We did it with Venezuela,” he continued. “Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody. We’ve taken millions and millions of barrels of oil out of Venezuela. We’ve brought them to Houston and various other places, Louisiana. Refineries that we have that are incredible, they’ve gone 24 hours a day. Making a fortune.”

However, he said he wasn’t sure that the country, which is strongly opposed to strikes against Iran according to recent polls, “has the appetite” for it.

As senior CNN political correspondent Aaron Blake explained, “it’s widely assumed that taking and keeping Kharg Island would require ground troops,” an idea that just 18% of Americans said they supported in a May survey from the Institute for Global Affairs. Even Republicans were more likely to oppose boots on the ground than to support them, according to that poll.

The Trump administration has had plans drawn up to invade the island as far back as March, but they were reportedly shelved as US officials feared large numbers of American casualties, especially as Iran had prepared for an invasion by laying anti-personnel and armor mines.

Despite being aware of the plan’s unpopularity with the American public, Trump said on Thursday that taking Kharg Island would be “a guarantee if I want to do it.”

Brett Erickson, a sanctions and geopolitical-risk expert who serves as managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors, said the idea was “grim and stupid.”

“Their exports [from the island] are not even close to what they were prior to the war, or even throughout March and the first half of April,” he explained. “In the last five weeks, Iran has loaded a whopping one vessel at Kharg Island.”

He added that since the island is a “fixed position,” it “would constantly come under fire from drones and missile barrages.”

“We would likely, in the absolute best case, lose hundreds of lives,” he said. Worst case? Well into the thousands. Would it change anything about the war? No. It literally would not matter.“

The only thing to be gained, he added, would be “a lot of Americans dying for an oil export hub that is not being used, and that is blockaded anyway.”

Asked by reporters on Capitol Hill about Trump’s threats to invade the island, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hardly seemed bullish on the idea. He said he believed Trump was “communicating directly with our adversaries over there,” adding, “I would not put too much stock in the details of that right now.”

But the idea does have its cheerleaders including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is credited with helping Israel persuade Trump to launch the war in the first place.

The notorious war hawk, who previously compared taking Kharg Island favorably to the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima, where the US suffered 26,000 casualties, said on Thursday that Trump was “right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island” and thanked the president for “going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict.”

US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that invading the island without approval from Congress “would be brazenly unconstitutional.”

“American troops would die during the invasion,” he said. “And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island.”

Four Republicans joined every Democrat last week to pass a war powers resolution meant to halt Trump’s ability to wage war against Iran without approval from Congress.

In the wake of Trump’s threats to invade the Island, Lieu said the “Senate must pass the House’s war powers resolution.”

-Common Dreams

Ryanair investigated over charging parents to sit with children

0
ryanair-investigated-over-charging-parents-to-sit-with-children
Ryanair investigated over charging parents to sit with children


Ryanair is being investigated by the UK’s competition watchdog over charges it imposes on parents to sit next to their child on flights.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it was looking into whether the fees, which the watchdog said typically costs £8 each way, were “unfair” under consumer law.

It said Ryanair’s terms and conditions state a parent must sit with their child if aged between two years and 11, and this is done through what the airline calls a “mandatory family seat” that the parent must pay a fee for.

Ryanair called the investigation “bogus” and insisted its family seating policy “fully complies with all relevant laws”.

The CMA is looking at whether the airline’s “approach to seat reservations may mean parents are being charged for the airline to meet its child safety and disability‑related obligations as set out under aviation rules rules – and will investigate to determine whether or not this practice is in line with consumer law”.

The watchdog said it understood that Ryanair was the only major airline flying out of the UK to impose such a charge.

It said other airlines offered to seat children next to a parent or guardian without a fee, or allocate seats together automatically during booking for free.

Ryanair said adults travelling with children pay one reserved seat fee, “but can select reserved seats beside them for up to four children on the same booking FREE OF CHARGE”.

“This means that parents travelling with children pay for only one (adult) reserved seat but pay nothing for the four other reserved seats for their children travelling with them,” it added.

“This bogus CMA investigation is a failed effort by the Starmer Govt to pretend it cares about consumers when it has failed to abolish APD [Air Passenger Duty] which would immediately deliver lower fares for all consumers and growth for the UK aviation, tourism and wider economy.

“Ryanair looks forward to disproving these false CMA claims during this bogus investigation.”

The CMA said it would examine whether the mandatory family seat fee is “dripped” during the booking process and whether consumers are presented with the total price that they will pay.

The CMA’s director of consumer protection, Hayley Fletcher, said extra charges can quickly bump up the price for families saving up for an affordable summer holiday.

“Our investigation will consider Ryanair’s approach to family seat reservations and how the cost is presented to consumers to determine whether they comply with consumer law.

“For the past year, we’ve told businesses to ensure their customers are shown the total price upfront – those who don’t face the very real possibility of action from the CMA.”

The regulator added that its investigation had just started, and it had “reached no conclusions about whether Ryanair has broken the law”.

The investigation is part of the CMA’s wider aims to help ease cost of living pressures. Under new powers, it can fine companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they breach consumer law.

Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

0
blueberry-sour-cream-coffee-cake
Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

This Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake is soft, moist, buttery, and filled with juicy blueberries in every bite. It is the perfect cake to serve with morning coffee, afternoon tea, weekend brunch, or as a simple dessert after dinner.

The secret to its tender texture is sour cream. It adds richness, moisture, and a slight tang that balances the sweetness beautifully. Fresh or frozen blueberries bring bright fruity flavor, while a light dusting of powdered sugar gives the cake a simple bakery-style finish.

This is an easy, comforting recipe you can make for family breakfasts, guests, holidays, or anytime you want a homemade cake that feels special without being complicated.

Why You’ll Love This Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

This coffee cake is simple, cozy, and full of fresh blueberry flavor.

You’ll love this recipe because it is:

  • Moist and tender
  • Easy to make
  • Perfect with coffee or tea
  • Loaded with blueberries
  • Great for breakfast, brunch, or dessert
  • Made with simple pantry ingredients
  • Delicious with fresh or frozen berries
  • Ready in about 1 hour

What Is Coffee Cake?

Coffee cake is a soft, sweet cake often served with coffee or tea. It does not usually contain coffee. The name comes from the way it is served — as a cozy cake to enjoy alongside a warm drink.

This blueberry version is made even better with sour cream, which keeps the cake moist and gives it a rich, homemade flavor.

Recipe Summary

Prep Time: 30 minutes
Cook Time: 30–35 minutes
Total Time: 1 hour 5 minutes
Servings: 9 pieces
Course: Breakfast, Brunch, Dessert
Cuisine: American

Ingredients

  • 1 cup granulated sugar
  • ½ cup unsalted butter, softened
  • 2 large eggs
  • 1 cup sour cream
  • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
  • 2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 teaspoon baking powder
  • ½ teaspoon baking soda
  • ½ teaspoon salt
  • 1 cup fresh or frozen blueberries
  • Powdered sugar, for dusting, optional

Ingredient Notes

Sour Cream

Sour cream gives this coffee cake its moist, soft texture. It also adds a light tang that pairs beautifully with the blueberries.

Blueberries

Fresh blueberries work wonderfully, but frozen blueberries can also be used. If using frozen berries, do not thaw them first. Toss them lightly in a little flour before folding them into the batter to help prevent sinking.

Butter

Softened butter helps create a rich, tender cake. Make sure it is at room temperature so it creams easily with the sugar.

Vanilla Extract

Vanilla adds warmth and enhances the flavor of the cake.

Flour

All-purpose flour gives the cake structure while keeping it soft and fluffy.

How to Make Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

Step 1: Prepare the Oven and Pan

Preheat your oven to 350°F.

Grease a 9×9-inch baking pan or line it with parchment paper for easy removal.

Step 2: Cream the Butter and Sugar

In a large mixing bowl, beat the softened butter and granulated sugar together until light and fluffy.

This should take about 3 to 4 minutes.

Step 3: Add the Eggs, Sour Cream, and Vanilla

Add the eggs one at a time, mixing well after each addition.

Mix in the sour cream and vanilla extract until smooth and combined.

Step 4: Mix the Dry Ingredients

In a separate bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder, baking soda, and salt.

Step 5: Combine the Batter

Gradually add the dry ingredients to the wet mixture.

Stir gently until just combined. Do not overmix, or the cake may become dense.

Step 6: Add the Blueberries

Gently fold in the blueberries.

Be careful not to crush them, especially if using fresh berries.

Step 7: Bake

Spread the batter evenly into the prepared baking pan.

Bake for 30–35 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean.

Step 8: Cool and Serve

Let the cake cool in the pan for about 10 minutes.

Transfer to a wire rack or slice directly from the pan.

Dust with powdered sugar before serving if desired.

Tips for the Best Blueberry Coffee Cake

Use room temperature butter and eggs for smoother mixing.

Do not overmix the batter after adding the flour.

Toss frozen blueberries in a little flour to keep them from sinking.

Check the cake a few minutes early because ovens can vary.

Let the cake cool slightly before slicing so it holds together better.

Dust with powdered sugar right before serving for the prettiest finish.

Easy Variations

Lemon Blueberry Coffee Cake

Add 1 tablespoon lemon zest to the batter for a bright citrus flavor.

Blueberry Almond Coffee Cake

Add ½ teaspoon almond extract and sprinkle sliced almonds on top before baking.

Cinnamon Blueberry Coffee Cake

Add 1 teaspoon cinnamon to the dry ingredients for a warm spiced flavor.

Mixed Berry Coffee Cake

Use a mix of blueberries, raspberries, and blackberries.

Streusel Topping

For a bakery-style finish, sprinkle a simple crumb topping over the batter before baking.

What to Serve with Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

This cake is delicious on its own, but it also pairs well with:

  • Hot coffee
  • Iced coffee
  • Black tea
  • Herbal tea
  • Fresh fruit
  • Greek yogurt
  • Scrambled eggs
  • Vanilla ice cream
  • Whipped cream

It works beautifully for breakfast, brunch, or dessert.

Storage Instructions

Store leftover coffee cake covered at room temperature for up to 2 days.

For longer storage, refrigerate it in an airtight container for up to 1 week.

You can also freeze individual slices for up to 3 months. Wrap each slice tightly and place in a freezer-safe bag or container.

Thaw at room temperature or warm gently in the microwave before serving.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use frozen blueberries?

Yes. Use frozen blueberries straight from the freezer. Do not thaw them first. Toss them in a little flour before adding them to the batter.

Can I make this coffee cake ahead of time?

Yes. This cake can be made a day in advance. Store it covered and dust with powdered sugar right before serving.

Can I use Greek yogurt instead of sour cream?

Yes. Plain Greek yogurt can be used as a substitute for sour cream.

Why is my cake dense?

The batter may have been overmixed. Stir gently once the flour is added and stop as soon as everything is combined.

Can I make this gluten-free?

Yes. Use a 1:1 gluten-free all-purpose flour blend.

Can I add a crumb topping?

Absolutely. A cinnamon crumb topping would be delicious on this cake.

Recipe Card

Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake

A moist and tender blueberry coffee cake made with sour cream, fresh or frozen blueberries, and simple pantry ingredients. Perfect for breakfast, brunch, dessert, or coffee time.

Prep Time: 30 minutes
Cook Time: 30–35 minutes
Total Time: 1 hour 5 minutes
Servings: 9 pieces

Ingredients

  • 1 cup granulated sugar
  • ½ cup unsalted butter, softened
  • 2 large eggs
  • 1 cup sour cream
  • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
  • 2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 teaspoon baking powder
  • ½ teaspoon baking soda
  • ½ teaspoon salt
  • 1 cup fresh or frozen blueberries
  • Powdered sugar, for dusting, optional

Instructions

  1. Preheat oven to 350°F.
  2. Grease a 9×9-inch baking pan or line it with parchment paper.
  3. In a large bowl, beat butter and sugar until light and fluffy.
  4. Add eggs one at a time, mixing well after each addition.
  5. Mix in sour cream and vanilla extract.
  6. In a separate bowl, whisk flour, baking powder, baking soda, and salt.
  7. Gradually add the dry ingredients to the wet ingredients and stir until just combined.
  8. Gently fold in the blueberries.
  9. Spread the batter evenly into the prepared baking pan.
  10. Bake for 30–35 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean.
  11. Cool in the pan for 10 minutes.
  12. Dust with powdered sugar before serving, if desired.

Notes

Use room temperature butter and eggs for best results.

If using frozen blueberries, do not thaw them first.

Toss blueberries with a little flour to help prevent sinking.

Do not overmix the batter, or the cake may become dense.

Nutrition Estimate

Per serving:

  • Calories: 250
  • Carbohydrates: 36g
  • Protein: 4g
  • Fat: 11g
  • Sugar: 20g
  • Fiber: 1g

Nutrition values are approximate and may vary depending on ingredients used.

Final Thoughts

This Blueberry Sour Cream Coffee Cake is simple, soft, and full of homemade comfort. The sour cream keeps the cake moist, while the blueberries add sweet bursts of fruit in every slice.

Serve it with coffee in the morning, tea in the afternoon, or a scoop of vanilla ice cream for dessert. It is an easy recipe you’ll come back to again and again.

0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts