He called lots of people traitors.

And traitor is a very loaded charge.

Traitor carries by history a death sentence.

And this is a man who, a few weeks ago, was telling people to modify their language after the tragic murder of Anne Whittaker and spout this stuff.

I also think it's a bit cheeky.

This is a guy who's an American banker, for God's sake.

Never put a uniform on in his life.

But if it unravels that easily, why would it appear many people in the country would seem to support them?

Thinking about the application of those funds then, whatever the number is, I think it's now sort of received wisdom that not just our economy or or our government but most governments need to address defense needs from kind of the manpower as well as the equipment standpoint what are the gaps for the uk's national defense strategy that you think are most acute i think the gaps

are really autonomy properly being delivered the the united states have decided it's a really good example of the difference between a trillion dollar budget which is the united states can do things concurrently right so they can either invest or just maintain the conventional and invest at the same time in parallel the next generation of warfare whereas in our system we have to take a judgment and cancel something or retire it or you know put it out to pasture to create the money to invest in the new generation that's very hard for institutionalized military leaders to say we're going to mock ball the carriers or get rid of a carrier we're going to save them and that is the the current problem or failure is that no one is actually leading.

No one is actually saying within the British system, thank you very much.

I've looked at the new way of warfare in Gaza, in Iran, in Ukraine.

I can see what the thought leaders such as the United States are doing.

And whether you like it or not, I'm going to cancel this, close that.

And I'm going to have a big pot of money with a ring fence around it.

military well let's talk about the current threats the current geopolitical environment and well to start the conversation on that i wanted to have you look back if you would to your time as the minister for defense and talking through just generally how national security and statecraft decisions are shaped by the political process out of number 10 and i'm maybe using the ukraine war as an example you know the uk as a country was a leader in its support of ukraine and i'm curious how that decision-making process and political process went about while you were in government

What do we take from the events now in the English Channel, Sir Ben?

Well, I think what we saw, first of all, this week, if you remember, we saw these men convicted of firebombing Zakir's car and his property.

I think we're seeing a very deliberate change towards the Russian posture when it comes to their views on the United Kingdom.

It is clearly there's been a change of policy in the Kremlin in some areas, such as the operation carried out against Russia.

Secure's properties.

That wouldn't have happened 10 years ago or 15 years ago.

It's very, very clear change.

With all the headlines swirling about the level of defence that we either have or we don't have, you'll know better than most how powerless or how perilous is our position regarding defence and defence spending at the moment, Sir Ben.

I put it to him, how far up the chain could this have gone? Who might some-- who might have signed something like this off?

I think President Putin is very clearly behind stepping up, uh, actions on the United Kingdom.

Launching attacks on assets or properties linked to the Prime Minister is a very deliberate change of policy.

I think that would have been signed off at the highest levels, if not the President, certainly the National Security Council or indeed members of, of his inner circle.