NATO has announced that member states will be increasing troops and equipment available to defend the Alliance in light of recent Russian actions.
According to a statement:
“Today, NATO leaders agreed that we must and will provide further support to Ukraine.
We will continue to impose unprecedented costs on Russia. And we will reinforce Allied deterrence and defence.
Leaders approved our four new NATO battlegroups. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. These are in addition to the four already in the Baltic countries and Poland.
So we have eight multinational NATO battlegroups now. From the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Across Europe, there are one hundred thousand US troops supporting NATO efforts. And European Allies and Canada have also stepped up.
We have 40,000 forces under direct NATO command, mostly in the eastern part of the Alliance. Backed by major air and naval power. Including an unprecedented five carrier strike groups from the High North to the Mediterranean. Today, NATO leaders agreed to reset our deterrence and defence for the longer-term. To face a new security reality.
On land, we will have substantially more forces in the eastern part of the Alliance, at higher readiness. With more prepositioned equipment and supplies. In the air, we will deploy more jets. And strengthen our integrated air and missile defence. At sea, we will have carrier strike groups, submarines and significant numbers of combat ships on a persistent basis.
We will also strengthen our cyber defences. And enhance our exercises, focusing on collective defence and interoperability. I expect we will decide on the details at our next Summit in Madrid in June.”
Recently, Strategic and tactical air transport aircraft including C-17s, C-5s, A330 MRTTs and C-130s from multiple nations have been busy moving units from the NATO Response Force along with national contributions to locations across NATO’s Eastern Flank.
“Allied Air transport aircraft are key in enabling the rapid movement of troops and supplies, allowing NATO to position its forces effectively during the evolving crisis,” said Lieutenant General Pascal Delerce, Deputy Commander, Allied Air Command.
Makes a mockery of the decision to cut the C130s. Bet they are glad that Tonto invaded before the cuts were made?
It also puts into question the Army’s ORBAT and the rational behind dropping troop strength even further. Could this be the moment where continuous cuts are stopped and perhaps reversed?
The issue we have, is that if we need to keep a battle group (I won’t call them a division, because in reality they are not!) in the Baltics indefinitely. Do we have the numbers of men and material to keep rotating them? I suggest we may struggle and am hoping someone in the top brass with a bit of backbone finally admits it and makes this known!
Do we have the numbers to rotate a battlegroup? I should think so, we have got plenty of them mate!
A Battle Group is just that, a mix of combat, CS and CSS troops under an infantry battalion or tank/cavalry regiment CO, and is about 800-900 strong. It is of course not a division.
To keep a BG on station indefinitely, ie an enduring operation, we need to roule every 6 months and would need 5 BGs to make that work and preserve harmony guidelines of Tour Interval. The army has got enough troops to do that – it is a very small level of effort, after all. Also, the BG in Estonia includes a Danish rifle company and some Icelandic personnel, so it is not all-British.
There are many other deployments around the world to cover off too – including a sub-unit in Poland, and the PCF tasks. We have enough to cope with these very small deployents.
And to think up to 2015 they worked to the rule of 5 at Brigade level. The 3 AI Bdes in 3 UK Div and 2 more deployable Bdes in 1 UK Div.
Now we cannot do an enduring brigade level operation.
Scandalous.
True Daniele, We could no longer do Op HERRICK (Afghanistan) or similar on that basis.
With a tank fleet heading down to 148, we could no longer do Op GRANBY (Gulf War 1) or similar, where we deployed 221 tanks.
Why would one call it a Division when it is not even a Brigade? Seriously, Labour are calling for a reversal of cuts, it’s got that bad.
Labour are the hypocrites behind a lot of the issues that the u.k has today
Davey, I wonder if the MOD might reverse their decision on the C130 cuts , given current events? Possibly the same thinking being applied to the Tranche 1 Typhoons? It seems logical and practical to maintain existing assets.
Im flabbergasted we are going ahead with 10,000 cut to Army. Tranche 1 Eurofighter typhoon going. Hawk T1s going (they have a useful secondary fighter bomber role).
C130s etc wtc. We need some common sense uegently installed into the government. At a time of conflict you fight wars with the weapons you have to hand. Not what you are bringing into service some time in the distant future. If the MOD dont stuff up the procurement project.
With inflation so high, any increase in defence spending would not have the same impact when inflation is lower. And we need every penny to be useful.
As far as I’m aware the army numbers being cut are only on paper and the real number of troops is actually the reduced number.
I don’t think the T1 hawks would of ever been much use in an air defence role. The plan originally was to pair them up with a radar equipped jet. Low range, no radar, ecm, and a sidewinder L. Maybe could of hit a few Russian bombers back in the Cold War.
So long as there roles can be filled by other means I’m ok with the hawks going. That money can be put into better aircraft upgrades or whatever.
Fingers crossed there is something to replace the t1 hawk roles.
The C-130s need an expensive refit and wing spar box replacement. Hopefully they are either replaced with new aircraft.
I have my doubts and I do worry about the depth in the forces. But even a doubling of the defence budget would not equal a doubling of numbers and equipment.
I hope the MOD can come up with costs of what it keeps to have forces as is and what is required for expansion. Got to remember most politicians have no clue about defence or how important it is to have fully functioning kit and keep it relevant. I think constant reminding of this is needed.
“As far as I’m aware the army numbers being cut are only on paper and the real number of troops is actually the reduced number.”
Yes, the army is way below the established strength of 82,000 already, getting to the 73,000 total will not be a 10,000 cut, far far less.
Yes, but the PIDs could have been given to Royal and RN, sodding army playing Top Braid game… we have 750 *ranks… or another way, a 1* plus for less than a 1000 soldiers each.
No, it is wrong. We need boots not braid.
I agree David. 👍
You know my views, RN, RAF first, and that includes the RM.
The army numbers being cut are rwal, nor just on paper. 2 Mercian being axed is 600 infantry out, the 4 battalions being converted to Rangers adds anothet 1,200 out, and that’s just infantry.
The previous re-roling of 4 infantry battalions as SFABs cost another 1,200 personnel.
Basically, the army was close to its establishment of 82,500, about 3,000 short. But the numbers have been swiftly reduced by slowing recruitment (as if Capita could go any slower) and redundancies as above. So today’s figures are heavily massaged, about the only thing the MOD is any good at.
The issue about the retinal of 100 Sqn and the RN’s Hawk T1s is not so much about the combat potential of the T1, it is that these aggressor squadrons have a tranche of trained fast jet air and ground crews, so a ready-made reserve for the RAF and FAA.
We are already well short of fast-jet pilots and are now having to devote a Typhoon squadron to aggressor training, which means it is not available for front-line duties.
As far as I can see, we are the only NATO member currently slashing its forces, everyone else seems to be increasing.their defence spending.
As for investing the savings in shiny new equipment, dream on, it will go primarily to pay for the RN’s new warships and SSBNs, RN equipment accounting for 70% of the £18bm Black hole in the equipment budget.
The current HMG’s emphasis on the navy, at the expense of the other services, is strategically bizarre when we don’t face any major naval threat from Russia and are desperately short of army combat units and fast-jet squadrons. Ukraine reminds all of what we need to fight a peer war and a supposedly ‘global navy’ is not high on the list of priorities.
In quite a few areas of the forces we have assets but they are either wrongly configured or in the wrong place everyone knows that the batch 2 rivers could be unpinned so too the archers with the Russians trespassing into u.k waters with impunity the archers with say a single anti submarine torpedo tube, acting with a frigate in squadrons could be useful tools especially in littoral waters most nations are flexible and think outside the box asymmetric warfare needs new thinking we have more assets than we think we have, most nations include missile, torpedo boat’s plus corvettes in their front line fleet numbers that we don’t just gives the wrong impression of our strength an capabilities
Mate, you certainly have my vote!
The numbers of soldiers is certainly a store point I would give this observation. The 20000 Nepalese competing for a paltry 400 places in the British army will still be there as a pool for larger recruitment the failures could be offered a place in the R.N. MAYBE EVEN name a frigate H.M.S GURKHA.
“Could this be the moment where continuous cuts are stopped and perhaps reversed?”
I fully expect planners to double down on Jam Tomorrow™.
After all we’re again seeing the disruptive power of unmanned systems and the weakness of armour against light forces equipped with cutting edge AT equipment.
I fully expect to see a debate on replacing all British armour with STRIKE 2.0 and the RAF with drones. None of this will be delivered of course but much money will be doled out on studies to price ‘prove’ the idea.
That’s the question.
This is not integrated armour against light troops with ATGM, this is armour against motivated troops with tactics.
Armour will have a negative exercise outcome.
Simple lessons are obvious and the need for RRA to provide overhead is crucial.
Vthis Ukrainian situation will definitely bring the u.k forces and their strength and abilities into the public domain which could be the chance our forces have yearned for for all the time since the Falklands conflict
Is there no chance of a modern day BAOR albeit on smaller scale and based in the Baltics? Permanent bases and infrastructure, forward deployed equipment and service personnel with their families based for the mid/long term? This threat isn’t going away any time soon.
It is looking more likely, especially after the comments made by Boris and Biden on the news.
I’d imagine that the BAOR battle plans are dusted off at the moment the scenario is almost too similar to the risk that NATO geared towards in the cold war. So preparation for the possible onlaught from the East would already be there
I’m a little surprised that the queen Elizabeth strike group is not deployed. This is one of the task’s she was built for
And 4 mote type 45’s maybe the navy would love that one
and HMG increase spending on defence by…….nothing…….it seems massive geopolitical shifts seem to happen to other nations, in the U.K. we cut a few tax’s to deal with the cost of living crisis…while singing around the campfire and ignoring a world transformed into a playground for totalitarian regimes.
Hi Jonathan,
Compared to his response to Covid Sunak’s response to the Ukrainain War and the cost of living crisis is well MIA…
Even his tax cuts will likely be wiped out by wage rises or inflation or both. The former because he has already stated that he will freeze the tax threshold for the next 4 years so as wages rise over that time period more people will find themselves back above the tax threshold. Inflation will also see a higher tax burden thanks to VAT..! So not good on the cost of living crisis…
As for the changed strategic situation, yeh, they’re all sat around the camp fire singing as loudly as they can to avoid facing up to the reality. Even Labour asked if the cut in troop number would be stopped. The only minister I am aware of suggesting we need more spending on defence is Liz Truss. Reportedly, she highlighted we used to spend 5% on defence during the Cold War in a speech in the US recently.
Seems to me the Treasury has been flexing it’s over developed muscles again.
All very disappointing… may be we’ll get a proper response to the crises later in the year if not, God help us.
CR
All the unrealistic expectations don’t help though. Asking for 3% of GDP right off the bat is probably completely unworkable. But an increase of 10% to 2.2% of GDP gets you an extra ($60 bill x .1) 6 billion USD a year which is a massive amount. You could buy 18 extra Sky Sabre batteries with that money and still have $4+ billion left in year one. That is game changing money.
Ron Stateside, In many ways I agree. The government can increase defence expenditure far quicker remove the ssbn/Trident cost from the MoD and put it back into the treasury where it used to be. Possibly other measures such as this one could also be done, an example military pensions under the cost of the DWP, humanitarian aid missions under the International aid budget etc. Possibly even remove VAT on MoD expenditure. This would give a good increase in the MoD budget whilst not increasing the overall GDP percentage.
Pandemic, plus Furlough and also plus the additional cost of supporting Ukraine, we simply do not have the money.
Borrowing is great but it has to be paid back and we cant keep borrowing as we had been.
Sadly the fantasy world of Corbyn and his money tree is not reality. As much as id love a big increase in defence spending the reality is we cant afford it.
It’s how you choose to spend your money. I’m not sure a universal tax break is the right way to go. Personally I’ve just had been given a tax break I don’t need, I would rather it was spent on either the defence of the nation or healthcare.
Yes we needed to ameliorate cost of living on low income families…but not a universal tax break.
If you don’t want the tax break you can always send the money saved to HRMC as a donation. They do accept them.
If I could mark it for defence spending then I would, as is I will give it to charities, by upping my charitable donation allowance.
I don’t disagree you can’t just throw money at something as it cannot suddenly be spent ( they have done this with the NHS, given us the opportunity to bid for loads of in year money..but we can’t spend it because healthcare is all about staff and it’s not long term funding for training pipelines). But they are making cuts and delaying capabilities coming on line, so these should be funded…….
Sorry, why reference Corbyn when he is not even in the loop? Where’s your linky that we don’t have the money? Indeed, Rushi has said hey peeps have a tax cut before the next election.
Your sound bites are pretty poor, must try harder.
In the mid 1980’s the top rate of tax was 60%, basic rate 30%, that paid for defence at 5% of GNP, we were still of in Cold War time then!
Hi James,
I think we can if we cut the overseas aid budget. Now, I am not against overseas aid but what I am against is the ringing fencing to 0.7% of GDP. Seriously, that budget is so bloated the government can’t spend it quickly enough! Do we REALLY need to spend that much on overseas aid when defence is woefully underfunded? I think not; diverting cash from overseas aid to defence would help solve the problem an appreciable amount with no net increase in government spending.
If everyone googled u.k. Foreign aid and how much and where it goes to made my blood boil
The MOD didn’t request any additional fund’s. And nothing announced today is going to help Ukraine. We spent 2.3% of GDP last year. But this conflict will change the longer term view on defence spending. I would expect another strategic defence review before any increase in defence spending. Don’t lose hope just because nothing was announced yesterday.
6000 missiles won’t help Ukraine ? Ask a Ukrainian what they can do with them or perhaps ask a Russian BMP driver whether he wants the Ukrainians to get another resupply of ATGMs.
That wasn’t what I meant Jack. I meant any increase in defence spending, such as ordering more Typhoons or Challenger 3 upgrades for example isn’t going to help today. 6000 anti-tank missiles will definitely help them.
We could order a mass of new stuff but it’s no good if it takes years to arrive our infrastructure isn’t geared to production it took the CLyde yards 4 years to produce a patrol ship, the wait for a frigate doesn’t Bear thinking about, but I’m not bashing the Clyde it was neglected for years when it should have been a priorityplace to be invested into
I do hope something will come down the line Robert, But I think we need a strong statement now, even if it was a statement that there would be a timely defence review, say over the next 6 months or so that will look at defence programmes, timetables and spending in light of the new world order.
It not so much about today I worry about ( I know we can’t just throw a ton of money). Its about the future and how our geopolitical enemies may take a lack of statement as weakness ( and those totalitarian nut jobs always look for weakness, even when its not there).
There is the international optic of the U.K. going ahead with reductions in personnel numbers, reduced orders of wedgetail etc when Russian is invading European nations and China is increasingly aggressive towards the west.
Optics very much count in Geopolitics and the genesis of war. The First, second and falklands war all had potential points of de-escalation or prevention that failed to materialise and that can be tracked back to key decisions points in which it looked like the UK government was either weak or non committal ( not being clear on its commitment to defend the Low Countries in 1914, Hitler perceive the U.K. would not go to war, the 1981 nationalities act and Endurance being withdrawn). What appear as tiny pragmatic decisions by liberal democracies can have massive destabilising effects as authoritarian governments always seem to see these as weakness ( no idea why as one thing history teaches is Democracies always fight when provoked tend to the hyper aggressive or dig in and become impossible to shift) .
So for me the sad lesion is the only answer to continued peace is showing an utter commitment to fighting a war, that’s best done as early as possible by being armed to teeth and spending money on being armed to the teeth and being clear your not giving an inch. The Cold War stayed cold because of western nations utter commitment to being heavily armed, investing on offensive capability and staring expansionist totalitarians strait in the face, showing a willingness to fight ( the falklands war had a big impact on the Cold War) and convincing them we would all burn if they invaded or push to far.
The only time the world has know significant times of peace ( Apart from smaller conflicts) was during Pax Britannia, when the British government ensured the RN could and clearly would destroy any other nations ability to trade or defend its trade) if they did not follow our rules, and the Cold War, when the west ensured it could defeat its enemy or ( and convince them we would) take them down in mutual destruction.
I really worry Not making any commitment to at least look at increased defence spending is send the world a message and the message is we speak with a big voice but we are not willing to sacrifice to make sure we have the strength to back it up.
I agree with what you are saying, but we are apart of NATO, and NATO had sent a very strong and unified message to Russia. And after seeing the mess the Russians are making of it’s military campaign in Ukraine, I think NATO could wipe them out on the conventional battle field. And all the talk of big numbers have meant nothing without the logistics and capability to match it.
I do agree, russia is not really up to a conventional land campaign Against NATO. it’s not in anyway close to the USSR and to be honest would clearly not be able to act offensively against any NATO or close peer nation ( Finland or Poland’s military would have probably kicked Russia back over its borders on present performance.
But I think the risk is in the causing of pain to key western nations and Putins willingness to risk as well as his perception of the willingness of key NATO nations to accept risk or pain on their home soil. Putin used nuclear blackmail very clearly around Ukraine and I’m pretty convinced if Nuclear weapons had been out of the mix NATO many have been more aggressive. I’m therefore betting Putin thinks he got away with a nuclear treat to NATO and therefore the risk is in a few years he push’s to hard especially around the Baltic states. I do think we have a good few years to convince him that’s would be a very very bad idea as I suspect he’s going to go for first Georgia (after he’s recovered from Ukriane) or maybe take a second bit at Ukriane.
I read an interesting article that said Putins only way of surviving UKriane was to double down, so this academic felt there may be a secession of violence, but no peace treaty and Putin would have to militarise the Russian economy. So we need to start developing a long term plan around this as well as China.
I do think we need a bit of a rethink around NATO especially now everyone is seeing how important it is. I do think we need to consider why it could not prevent the invasion of Ukraine. At a simple level it’s the nuclear powers argument, but I think it goes a bit deeper and there may be something around needing more localised and swift responses from member nations (maybe something like sub alliances that can react quickly but call on the rest of nato to respond if it escalates) as well as making it easier for NATO to influence and act out of area ( countering China will need a more aggressive Worldwide model ).
I also agree on the big numbers, on think the The U.K. has always been good at is balancing this. So we always seem to have lower numbers that others but our ability to put them on the ground, air or sea where needed has been a defining point.
But we do need to consider numbers ourselves as we are not on a position to replace capacity that may suffer attrition from either normal use of military actions. A classic example is shipping, the sea is always looking to kill you and 25 ish major vessels a year are lost, including warships, imagine what would happen to our ability to deploy if for instance we lost a Point class loaded with 20 challenger 3s. We Now tend to plan to the bone without consideration that we cannot replace, which is a silly risk, when you consider capital investments ( not ongoing costs which are more difficult) of even a couple of billion are really small amounts. So with challenger 3 an extra couple of hundred million invested in capital costs for 70 extra Tanks that have a life of 25-30 years nothing money ( The government throws that kind of money around without through in other more vote winning areas).
So I just think there’s a number of things that could be done ( with a couple of billion) we know are cheap and meaningful which we can do at the same time as organising a “we are now in a Cold War, assumption of war” defence review.
I cannot remove the worry that the political classes of this county no longer have the Vision or will to consider longer geopolitical aims or the nations longer term wellbeing and are obsessed with telling their core voters and the floating voters what the want to hear and not what they need to hear.
Oh please, the MOD are run by the Cons with an orders abiding, low ranking, short commissioned, Tic Toc at the head of the tree.
Did you really expect this Rupert to rock the boat? Heavens, tic toc Ruperts preferred their blokes get roasted alive on a boat in 1982 against the advice of a senior Royal Marine.
A reversal of the cut to PIDs could have seen them allocated to Royal and Royal Navy not forgetting the RAF, that could have been immediate and allowed a training pipeline for fully manned Cmdo and Navy.
Opportunity wasted by a Con Govt.
Except, maybe they wouldn’t want to serve in the RN or RAF. They aren’t robots. They are people, with lives and loyalties.
8 ‘battlegroups’ sounds lovely to the ill informed but in reality it is still a token tripwire force as it is spread across half a dozen or so countries. It is not anywhere near a war fighting force.
The whole idea of Western NATO ‘tripwire’ forces deployed in paltry numbers to Eastern NATO countries is moot. The countries they are deployed in are NATO members themselves and as such, serve as the tripwire for wider escalation.
It is all political spin. Deploy in depth & with teeth, or why bother.
Agree otherwise you are potentially leaving forces the west cannot afford to loose at significant risk.
What exactly can Russia do against 8 very well trained and equipped battlegroups? Not a lot really after being engaged in Ukraine.
So yes its a good enough border force to have in place, unless Russia want to go non conventional then that opens another chapter in the history of this planet.
Disagree. That’s the point though isn’t it. The 8 battlegroups are all isolated from each other across 8 countries. Just try and grasp the span of territory those 8 battle groups are covering. With none being significant enough alone to slow a purposeful and intentional invasion.
I can’t see Putin opening up 8 fronts simultaneously to go easy on us can you?
RF in Ukraine started softly softly, miscalculated and under prepared massively assuming they would face little resistance with one eye on retaining a functioning society and infrastructure for a post invasion puppet regime.
We are now starting to see them employ their usual doctrine of massive indirect fire to level areas with complete disregard for civilians.
RF are being considerably more successful in the south which I believe to have been their major objective all along. The land bridge. I expect once that is established that we will see RF more willing to negotiate. The sparing of Kyiv will be his golden goose.
Make no mistake though against NATO, they would employ their brutal tactics from the word go.
NATOs deployment should be larger and fully combined. A staging post. An actual capable war fighting contingent that is capable of direct manoeuvres to counter any incursion in to NATO territory anywhere along the eastern flank.
As another commentator states – tripwire forces risks losing mass and equipment early on for zero gain.
Opinions are like arseholes though pal… everyone has one!! 🙂
Not so is it? These BGs are backing up the national forces of the country they are in! So not there to confront the Russians on there own.
The thing about a tripwire force is, faced with any evolving threat, you need to back them up pronto with substantial reinforcements.
We do not have any substantial forces to send and Germany and France are not much better. So the tripwire will be pretty much on its own and highly vulnerable.
You are relying on the ‘national forces of the country they are in’. The problem is that these are small countries with limited forces. Our UK population is around 67 million.
Bulgaria is 6.7, Slovakia 5.4, Estonia 1.3, etc. The Estonians are making valiant efforts to raise a second combat brigade, out of a population smaller than Kent or Essex, but even 2 brigades and a UK battle group would be miniscule to fight a peer enemy. The same applies to 7 of the 8 host countries, only Poland has a fairly large population of about 37 million and a substantial army of 12 brigades.
By way of comparison, Ukraine started with 19 regular and 8 reserve brigades. So any NATO force of a couple of brigades and a battle group is very small beer.
Basically, NATO needs to be able to deploy minimum 4 armoured infantry corps to reinforce the eastern tripwire to mount any useful defensive effort. But countries like the UK playing at it with 148 tanks, a 2-brigade division and down to 6 under-strength fast jet squadrons is just a joke, we could barely reinforce the Isle of Wight.
All the others are in the same boat
You are utterly correct. Those 8 battlegroups are spread across what was the entirety of ww2s “Eastern front”. A front the German Whermach couldnt garrison with 200+ divisions. These are very much token forces. From the Baltics to the black sea is a distance of 1600 miles. Thats a large landborder with Russia…or least it will be if Russia defeats Ukraine, which fantastically is by no means certain.
So by your logic the Russians will attack along the whole front of 1600 miles? As far as I can gather we knew where they were going to go into the Ukraine, I am fairly positive we would notice any build up at certain points along that border with the NATO countries and act accordingly.
Well said! I’m all for increasing our military support but lets be realistic; Putin has just shown the world what a 1980’s military looks like. Is Putin capable of taking and holding even a small east European state at the moment?
Russian forces A team could mallet them.
In Eastern Estonia and Eastern Latvia the local pop might well welcome RusMil.
2 things about this.
First up Russia isn’t using the A team In Ukraine? Why ? They want to look weak for some reason ?
Secondly. The East of Ukraine isn’t welcoming RusMil. So why should Estonia and Latvia welcome being invaded by “their mates” in Russia.
Disagree mate, the Russkies don’t really have an A team, they bought some good kit, but in small numbers operated by conscripts. Poop Tin has no reason to show they are weak for a reason, they are becoming a laughing stock! But we should always still be prepared for the unexpected!
They do seem more organised and successful in the south. I do think the land corridor is the ultimate goal & has been all along for Putin.
It wouldn’t surprise me if all this talk of Kyiv this & Kyiv that, is all a distraction so when they eventually get what they want in the south – Putin can say we’ll back off Kyiv and people will jump on the band wagon as that being a success.
Poop Tin (love that by the way) will tell the RF population he got what he wanted all along and be celebrated at home – and the West will breath a sigh of relief that the whole of Ukraine did not fall and pat each other on the back but in reality – He has gotten exactly what he wanted and played us for fools.
Just a niggle in the back of my head. More so with how devastating the siege on Mariupol has been.
Restrict and reduce any access for Ukraine to the Black Sea? That’s been my thought for a while mate! But whatever Poop Tin is, at this moment he may be a physco but you can’t call him crazy or mad, as you don’t hold on to power this long by being a certified loon. Like you I suspect he does have an alternate agenda, and he is prepared, as all Russkie and communist leaders do, to throw as many expendable people into the breach to get it. Cheers mate.
There is meant to be quite a sizeable unit inside Belorus up against the Suwalki Gap at the moment – do you have any open source links as to its intent?
Not at this time mate soz.
I’m not sure – if they were you might expect a different outcome.
Point I made on another thread; of the school children I taught just a few years ago, they wanted to be part of Russia, none of them have shown any sympathy tobthe Ukraine by adopting the Ukrainian flag emoji.
Telling? Older Russian Latvians are also staunchly neutral, but then, they have foreigner passports issued by the Latvians.
The Ukrainians have their own passports and are welcomed openly by the EU, if not by the UK.
If they are watching this war with the same horror as the rest of us then IF they still want anything to do with Russia they are pretty damn stupid!
They are listening to Russian Channels.
About time Signals turned up the ampage and blocked the b*****ds.
Just my opinion.
Unlikely, those populations are enjoying living in wealthy democracies. They’re unlikely to trade that for an impoverished totalitarian regime simply because of language.
Hi Sean
I’ve answered in thread.
It’s a conundrum but the Latvians give them ‘foreigner’ passports and bar them from working in the Civil Service…
Latvian Latvians don’t do themselves any favours.
Now, combine that with their mindsets – totally different to ours, and, you have a problem.
I don’t see why people are so concerned about the threat of Russia as a conventional force after all this. Ukraine has fought them to a stalemate within less than a 100km of the border in most places.
How are they suddenly going to sweep through eastern Europe with all of NATO’s backing? It’s not the same ball park at all. Nuclear weapons is the only thing which puts Russia on the same scale as the other countries in any form.
He wouldn’t sweep anywhere. But if he thinks he can then he my take the risk. When he grinds to a halt that is when the nuclear option becomes the only option.
Hence why our conventional response should be so significant it makes him blink.
Had we reacted more robustly when he invaded Crimea this latest road trip may not have happened. How people can’t see that baffles me.
Good points on having an upfront strong conventional deterrence and a nuclear deterrence in the background. I/we hope Ukrainian forces can counter attack in around Mariupol and even Crimea, hopefully with the Russian’s looking the other way. All those tanks, vehicles, launchers with a “Z” need to be “zapped”! Good to see Russian ships in southern ports getting knocked out or damaged. Long may it continue. Looks like 1000s of Mariupol residents have been taken as hostages/slave labour so Russian war amorality is seeping ever lower. Hope they are held accountable for everyone of those Ukrainian souls. They don’t seem to value their own people too well.
2014 was our Czechoslovakia moment.
Had we reacted then the way we are doing now, Putin might never have started this war.
Absolutely Sean. Ukraine is like watching the sequel of valiant Poland being crushed while the West looked on.
At least we had the bottle then to warn Germany off and, when that failed, to go to war on principle, while rapidly rearming.
Contrast Boris and other Western leaders hiding behind gestures. Boris is pretty much unique though in cutting defence capability while everyone else is rapidly waking up and increasing defence spending or force levels or equipment stocks.
To be fair Boris announced a big increase in money for the military last-year, whereas others didn’t. Germany is simply catching up to where the U.K. and Eastern European nations have been for years with a 2% spend.
The U.K. was also doing far more shipping NLAWs etc to Ukraine before the invasion began, ensuring they were in theatre and ready. Most countries waited until after the invasion. The Kremlin earlier this week labelled him as “the most active anti-Russian” leader for good reason.
The one big difference between 1939 and now, nukes…
Not wrong. There is no reason why we should not of exercised at scale with UkrMil in the Ukraine, would have staved off this shit show.
It is not a warfighting force because we are not going to war with Russia.
Article 5 may decide that for us. I admire your confidence. Or is it ignorance.
If you believe in the nuclear deterrent then you should also believe in a conventional deterrent. And that isn’t 8 ‘battle groups’ thinly spread over thousands of miles or borders.
Estonia 87.000 Armed Forces
Latvia 17.500 Armed Forces
Lithuania 125.000 Armed Forces
Poland 214.000 Armed Forces to be almost doubled
Ukraine 200,000 Armed Force… Didn’t stop Putin having a go…
Do you see my point?
Er… where did you get your stats from? A wish list. Latvian number is an order of magnitude wrong.
If you have included their ‘Landguard’ in there, they are woeful in their tactics and just cannon fodder.
If they all came from Daugavgriva then it would be a different matter… and they don’t.
Latvia is the one that surprised me the most by being so small. As to find. Search Wikipedia or Google numbers very similar.
I lived there and taught them; sorry, my unfair advantage.
I don’t much like it being suggested that I am ignorant. Durimg my 34 years in the army, I spent long enough in Germany (BAOR, then BFG) to have some understanding of the Soviet/Russian psyche.
Russia has its hands full in Ukraine, having committed most of its army – and it is not doing well, a month into a supposed Blitzkrieg. It is hard to see that Putin would win against Ukraine, then turn (with a demoralised army with depleted manpower and materiel and pathetic tactics) to attacking a NATO country, perhaps in the Baltics. Article 5 would be triggered and NATO would attack Russian forces in the field, probably leading to WW3. Putin would I am sure be relieved of his command (by a coup) if he tried that as invasion of a NATO country would lead to the destruction of Russia as a functioning state.
I agree that 8 BGs well spread out do not constitute a strong defensive force against Russian invasion but they are a tripwire to a bigger NATO force being whistled up if attacked, and the show of force reassures the Local Nationals.
I’ll put it down to confidence then! No offence intended.
In my 12 years I came to understand a lot including stagnation of equipment and reduction of deployable assets. I’m sure you’re the same in your 34 years but that’s not really what I’m getting at.
Russia invaded Ukraine with fewer blokes than the standing Armed Forces available to Ukraine of circa 200,000 solders/airmen/sailors etc knowing they have significant reserves that they can also call up on. Madness really, but they did it anyway.
Regarding Russian psyche, I expect they did so as they expected a quick easy fight. What they saw in front of them (200,000 strong opposition with recent imports of modern anti tank weapons) they assumed they could go toe to toe with (incorrectly I would agree) – but they still thought they’d have a go.
The standing armies of the eastern flank (with maybe the expectation of Poland) will worry Russia as little as Ukraine did.
8 additional NATO battle groups thinly spread will not change that calculation in Putins mind.
My point is those countries do not need tripwire forces as they are NATO members themselves – the tripwire is their own border should Russia cross it. These battlegroups do little to change the calculus for Russia – but create the risk of them being flattened if Russia decides to move. Losses we cannot hope to sustain for the reasons we all know (lack of depth).
My point is Russia has not acted rationally at all as they likely believe their own propaganda. Our posturing should be so conventionally significant as to raise their eyebrows. We should be acting in a way that makes Russia think – Jesus if we step a single toecap in NATO territory the forward based NATO forces they have can, cause us some serious headaches… As I said – 8 battle groups wont do that.
Even with their woeful performance in Ukraine Russia (potentially with Belarus) could breeze through Latvia & likely Lithuania all the way to Kaliningrad – Encircling the British contingent in Estonia in the meantime. That would be panic stations then wouldn’t it.
The idea should be deterrence from any escalation into NATO territory. It’s great winking at the locals with a token force saying ‘hey guys we’ve got your back’. I’m sure they feel great about a little support but the idea should be to deter further aggression and this response wont.
Its purely political, NATO reassuring eastern states that we have their back. Rest assured US/UK intelligence will know Putin’s plans a few milliseconds after he’s decided them and will get the correct assets in the right places.
Agree it’s a political gesture. I hope you’re right that we can reinforce more quickly that Putin can pivot West should he choose to.
I just feel the decision/deployment should be more pragmatic and deterrence based rather than back patting and symbolic.
I doubt those Battlegroup Tanks would get a speck of dust on them. F35s and other NATO Air assets would turn the Russian Ground Forces into a steaming pile of junk before they were clear of customs.
I agree that Putin is not rational, otherwise he would not have launched a full invasion into Ukraine. He is very unpredictable. I can’t see how this will end.
My best guess is that the Russian Army will fragment – most/some will fight on with ever increasing brutality against the civilian population and infrastructure, some will desert, some will refuse to soldier for a variety of reasons. Putin could face rising anger by those at home who have lost out (oligarchs who have lost assets or who cannot trade; small businesses who cannot trade, Generals who see their army being humiliated and reduced) and there could be a coup (or several) against him – or he could flee before he gets taken out.
Away from speculating, you challenge the 8 BGs in EFP roles and locations as being insufficient. However they are in 8 different countries and will increase Putin’s sense of paranoia about the threat from NATO even if such forces are small in their opwn right. What is the alternative? Beef up each BG to at least a division? Could NATO do that – UK could not field a full division and most NATO countries would struggle to field that. It would be escalatory and may trigger Putin to over-react with multiple WMD release in Ukraine.
Could we put to rest that a battlegroup is not a brigade of about a 1000 bods.
Pushing the Brit contribution upto a Brigade would be painful with our numbers – we did that in Afghanistan and needed Royal and the Royal Navy to deliver one tour; we need fleshed out Bns with support, do we have it?
Cat in Hell’s chance of fielding a Division.
Not sure who thinks a BG is a brigade of about 1000 bods. It is a Unit equivalent (not a Formation) commanded by a Lt Col and of 600-1000 bods.
Wheras a brigade (or BCT) is a Formation typically 5,000 strong under a Brigadier and might comprise 3-4 manouevre units (BGs) plus CS and CSS.
We cannot any longer deploy a brigade on an enduring operation (such as we did in Afghanistan) without recourse to a reconstituted 3 Cdo Bde – and then would have to minimise other land forces commitements elsewhere.
We could deploy 1 or 2 brigades for a short duration one-shot operation, something quite different.
My point about upping from a BG per eastern European country to a division apiece to scare Ivan is precisely that it is near impossible to achieve within NATO and certainly not achievable for the UK.
Have a like.
Thanks pal!
Given the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine, those 8 battle groups could probably reach Moscow in a week if they wanted to.
Except of course the Russians would start using tactical nukes.
Nah. Motivation doesn’t resolve lack of training, organisation, logistical support or equipment failures.
And the average Joe in Russia, not even the Russian military, doesn’t hate us.
I’m interested to know what the community thinks of politicians who were in the forces – there seems to be quite a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_veterans_in_British_politics
I was actually at school with one of the guys on that list! He was quite a decent chap then – seems to be a bit of a raving loon these days
Almost all Army, only a few Navy and RAF, and one failed Marine. And almost all Conservative. I only glanced at the Lords because quite a few have been given honorary ranks and the real action should happen in the commons.
What surprises me is that with all that experience the Conservatives appear to have been quiescent when it comes to the reduction in size of the Army, and yet are happy to sign off a report saying we need a bigger Navy. (Which we do) Like many other contributors here I really hope that the end result of the ghastliness in Ukraine is that we do more than pay lip service to NATO solidarity and actually get around to strengthening right across all three services. I haven’t looked up how many time servers there are but quite a few were in Parliament in 2010 and signed off on that disastrous review, and were therefore complicit in all the damage that caused. Step forward Ian Duncan Smith and David Davies, to name but two.
Just shows that back-benchers don’t have any clout.
The 2010 review was a reaction to the global economic crisis to save the economy rather than a measured assessment of threat and response, and was less severe than originally proposed – still was savage, though.
There cannot be a knee jerk response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If there is to be a substantial increase in Defence spending, sustainable in the long term then a new detailed Strategic Defence Review to establish the requirements for a much bigger and more robust Armed Forces is needed, but how long for those results to be realised as actual hardware is all of this going to take in the long term? New equipment, ships, aircraft or main battle tanks for example, and all the extra fully trained personnel needed to operate them all, will take well over a decade to implement. But it’s not just about bigger Armed Forces, it’s also about strengthening, building, regenerating the industrial base. Everything has changed.
An awful lot has changed, but we do not have the money to do what we need after the last few years.
Reality is we cannot keep borrowing as we have been hence no defence spending increases.
Time will tell. First of all though, I hope that this truly awful war is brought to an end very soon.
And heaven help us if/when interest rates start rising on the level of debt we now have. That’s on top of inflation biting hard.
Are we talking UK or Russian?😂…Roubles looking good at the moment?!…keep going with your tripe…getting angry now more than I should..
Most on here now see your agenda though …every post you make simply undermines your cause and credibility 👍..
However, inflation erodes debt.
I remember that 9/11 caused a ‘New Chapter’ to be written to the previous Defence review. Not inconceivable that the Russian invasion could trigger another ‘New Chapter’, rather than a new SDSR.
I am not sure that more ships for the navy would fall out of that, but certainly the RAF and the Army should be beneficiaries. You are right that it might take a decade or more to get all enghancements in place, but some things can be done relatively quickly – you can recruit and train additional infantry in 18 months and buy more kit off the shelf, or perhaps acquire US recently retired kit – use UOR procedures perhaps.
The military response to 9/11 was groundbreaking – the first time ever in NATO’s history that Article 5 was called. It caused a British commando unit to leave Ex Saif Sareea II in Oman and conduct a combined op with the Americans to find Bin Laden in the Tora Bora caves.Sadly Bin Laden had fled the scene, yet Al Qaeda were hunted down for years later in Afghanistan and elsewhere by a much larger multinational force with some considerable success.
I agree that the expansion by Bush to the Global War on Terror was too broad and lead to regime change without post-conflct resolution and arguably helped to create IS.
How does increasing Britain’s nuclear forces over the next few years help to get Putin’s forces out of Afghanistan this week or next? I do however think that we should never have abandoned tactical nuclear capability, particularly as our conventional forces diminished to such a small size.
Some people on here are saying the battle group deployments are mere political tokenism, I disagree. These are on top of the national armies along the eastern flank. So, for example, the US led battlegroup in Poland is on top of 120,000 regular Polish troops already there. The key part of this deployment isn’t the battlegroups anyway but rather the enablers, pre placed equipment for rapid reinforcement, the CBRN group and the integrated air defence.
There is however a problem with the UK deployment. We have a regular army which can deploy 3 airborne BGs, 9 armoured BGs + the 2 RM BGs. Having 4 based forward (2 in Estonia, 1 in Poland and now 1 in Bulgaria) leaves very little room for reinforcement. We should be adding a BG to 16 AA Bde, reforming 3 Cmdo Bde as a deployable force (another 2 BGs) and doubling our armoured BGs by forming another division. That means going back to a Regular Army of 110k to 120k. There is no time to be lost – this needs to happen now.
Has the UK committed battle groups to Poland and Bulgaria? Obviously we have two now in Estonia plus half a RM Cdo and light cavalry squadron in Poland but that’s it i thought? i wouldn’t consider the Polish deployment at battle group level or even semi permanent….
We definitely have two in Estonia (Royal Welsh & 1 RTR). A new BG is definitely going to Bulgaria. In Poland we have several sub units but not a complete BG. There are Royal Marines (45 Cmdo) & REs helping the Polish with border control, a Sqn of light cavalry serving within the US BG and a Battery of Sky Sabre air defence from the RA.
I thought we had a single large BG in Estonia plus some Apache – and the light cav sqn in Poland.
No idea on Bulgaria – we have training there.
Poland has 1 or 2 companies – Mech Inf and Recce IIRC
Estonia, our main effort has circa 2000 bods. Not a Brigade.
A BG can be formed based on any Infantry battalion (does not have to be armoured inf/mech inf) or armoured regiment – and we have quite a few of those. I have not heard of airborne BGs – is that ‘a thing’?
Before we put more money on the table we need to sort out our woefully inapt procurement system, getting rid of the reams of middle management in the MoD would be a step in the right direction anouther step would be to make decision makers accountable for those decisions.
After 30 years of mis-management we are going to need off the shelf solutions to help fill the gaps in our forces capabilities, but it will not replace the lack in personnel unless there is a push to get some of the older guys who have recently left the forces to re-engage, I sure there are members of this forum who would like to sign up again.!!
To be honest most of the middle management in the civil service is were the expertise and organisational memory resides. This happened to the NHS during the fuck up reform of 2011.The idiot langsley made half the middle managers who new how to run a local healthcare system redundant and for the last 10 years every time work needs to be done we now have to pay the big London consultant firms agencies astronomical amounts of money to get the skills, as all the expert middle managers took their redundancy, dossed around for a year and then got consultancy jobs paying a fair bit more doing the same as they did before but without any actual responsibility for any later fuck ups. Never ever cull your middle management if you actual want a complex knowledge based organisation to work ( you can’t replace 30 years of knowledge).
I do not disagree with what you are saying but there is no accountability within the MoD with people making decisions with no consequences if they f–k up and in a lot of cases they get a promotion to get them out of the way as it is at the moment nearly imposable to sack any one in the CS.
Combined the above with the political interference who see the armed forces as a national cost that must be reduced instead of a national asset that needs looking after.
After 30 years of mis-management of our defence budget we are left with a shell of what we should have despite the UK being (on paper) having one of the largest defence expenditures with in Nato.
For our money what have we got, and army that will struggle to keep 1 division in the feild for any length of time an RAF reduced to 100 front line fighters, and a RN with very limited offensive capability.
Yet we see people in the CS being paid any thing from 30,000 to 150,000, It is not the CS who will be asked to put them selves in harms way but there decisions will determine how many of our young men and women come back in one piece or at all.
I don’t disagree with accountability, a lot of the problem around that resides with the senior management grades and the fast track promotions. I see it all the time, very senior managers just moving about and not really taking any of the flack, with some individuals being fast tracked through junior and middle management roles within a few years with no real understanding of the complexity of the services…they have the gift of corporate presentation, but not profound knowledge. In my own experience of the NHS I’m of the view that promotion should only come from the wisdom of experience and proven track record, with individuals who have been working that service effectively being promoted…not bringing in some slick new ideas 20 somthing on a fast track to tell senior nurse managers etc who have profound knowledge what they should be doing…….
If middle managers are not being held accountable, you fire the senior level, not the middle level. But as it has gone on for so long, the problem will be institutional, and it will remain no matter whom you fire. You need to reorganise the top around a cadre of clear thinkers who have carte-blanche to change the way things are done (yes, the vision thing).
If Radakin didn’t neuter himself to get the job, he could be helpful. Quin is a ragdoll who needs replacing first.
Well if it was up to me I would get rid of the lot and close Abby- wood and put in place a joint services procurement department maned by ex and serving military and bring in experts in their field relevant to the kit you are in the process of procuring similar to what the USMC do when they start to look at a new bit of kit. This is not a new concept and in fact it was the UK who first did this under the direction of Lord Fisher back in the 1WW. It worked well right up until the end of 2WW when it was decided to put the CS in charge of procurement for the armed forces and in the last 30 odd years seem to have been taken over my the Clangers with the soup dragon left to run the budget.
Spot on!…would be there tomorrow 👍
If you get rid of middle management, either the work they did does not get done or is pushed up a level to the ‘busy people’ who don’t have time to do it or is pushed down to the inexperienced and demoralised low grade people who will do it badly, slowly or not at all. [I experienced the above in a civilian company]
I fully agree that we need more MOTS/COTS solutions.
Hello Graham, Things have to change, the UK on paper should have an out standing armed forces with all of the latest kit to hand along with the personnel to man it but as I have said on numerous occasions in the past the last 30 years have seen our armed forces decimated with the procurement being fruit and centre as the main problem area with vast eye watering amounts of money being wasted on kit that is either not fit for porpoise or simply dose not work. We expect our military personnel to put themselves in harms way to protect the country and our way of life so the least we should be doing is giving them the correct kit to do the job and the right amount of people to do the job.
The CS needs to get to grips with its accountability and if that means people losing there job because they are inapt so be it,
Hello Stephen, I was an army officer for 34 years, and deployed on operations being very much in harms way, so I very much agree that our forces should have the latest kit. I worked closely with army Requirements Managers when I was at DLO as an Equipment Support Manager. My first jobs out of the army was working on contract for DE&S Abbey Wood – I was firstly in the Armoured Vehicle Support Transformation project, then was a PM in the Operational Vehicles Office (overseeing all UOR vehicle projects), then was a PM for a piece of infantry kit.
Most procurements go very well or as well as can be expected. It is only the horror stories that make it to the ‘papers.
The MoD procures some incredibly complex kit, much of it cutting edge and barely out of development labs. I would not just blame middle ranking CS for procurement cock-ups, then think that the way to procurement Nirvana is to sack the lot of them – in fact it will make things much worse.
Many reasons for the occasional procurement problems –
My list could go on – but I hope you get the point that we should not just blame CS middle management – we should blame: Industry base, Industry competence, politicians, MoD process, MoD staff resourcing (SRO and DQA), Treasury……
I believe we have had similar conversation like this before, and I tend to agree with what you are saying but the fact of the matter is there is something wrong at the top or within the CS, yes they do produce a lot of good stuff that goes under the wire and is not seen by the the vast majority of people but the big budget projects that are seen in the news are all over budget and have not delivered, something has to change and as there is zero accountability in the CS then the CS must change so that accountability is front and centre or if the CS are not willing to be accountable then we must change the system. The best way is to look at what is good in the CS (small to medium projects) and build on that, so we either brake down large projects into smaller chunks or we have a department that will handle the larger projects run by the armed forces them selves as they know what is needed to keep the UK’s armed forces on the front foot.
Steven, yes we have had similar conversations before. I took much effort to craft a detailed reply from my considerable experience of military procurement which stated that the problem procurements are not simply down to some duff civil servants (CS).
I agree that you cannot lay the blame at the door of one department but there is something fundamentally wrong in our leadership that allows these gross miscalculation and political interference to continue, we have had 30 odd years our armed forces being gutted now we are expecting them to stand up for the country and Nato with what!!!
We have ships at sea that have extremely limited capabilities and in the case of the T45’s are prone to brake down, we have an army that will struggle to maintain 1 division in the field and an RAF with 100 serviceable fighters.
The word I believe that is appropriate is Accountability, who is accountable for all of these blunders and what was behind their decisions was it purely ineptitude or has Putin and his money been influencing people’s decision making as it is very coincidental that the demise of the UK’s armed forces over the last 30 years corresponds to when the Russian money started to appear in London in the shape of Putin’s Oligarchs
You may say that the British institution is not corrupt that is a conversation for anouther day but I will say that people easily lead astray.
We agree on the lack of accountability – this is true for all Government fiascos – who is being sacked for buying uselss PPE for the NHS, for spending billions too much money on ‘Track and Trace’, for hospitals with huge numbers of medical deaths, for running childrens homes where abuse was widespread. Closer to home, who was sacked for the Nimrod EEW, Nimrod MRA4 fiascos.
This is a trait of Government and it is appaling. Blame is not passed on to Industry where that seems appropriate.
I am pleased that there is a fix for the T45s propulsion problems and that is now at last being done swiftly.
Scandalous that we have to wait until 2025 to be able to deploy a warfighting division into the field.
France gets far more bang for the buck – I wonder why?
Our armed forces started to decline in strength from 1953, the end of the Korean war.
We can no longer commit a brigade to an enduring operation (such as Afganistan) unless 3 Cdo Bde is recreated as a warfighting formation. We could not do Gulf War 1 again as we do not have 221 working tanks to deploy.
It is scandalous.
Does anybody know if the Russians are actually bulking thier forces up in the region of the baltics? I would imagine the vast bulk of russian military might is now concentrated around ukraine are they leaving themselves open in other areas?
They brought around 10k plus equipment across the country from the Far East for the Belarus exercise. That is the main long distance troop movement. I don’t know where they are now.
Praying I expect.
👍😂
Ensuring the logistical chain priorities shit role and body bags!
Probably deserted, on the ground half these guys still thought they were on exercise!
On a lighter note John your Dads turning in his grave!. If he indeed did serve, it wasnt for the values you’re purporting now.
On a personal note….drop dead.
Mate he has no real history just a number of made up avatars! But, shhhhhhhhhh he thinks we haven’t noticed 😂👍
Im guessing they will be needed back in the Far East. Russia is massive and I’m guessing does not want empty borders with thinly spread troops. Nobody would of tried to invade russia. I just can’t see what russia gets from the conflict. What does it bring to Russia?
I do wonder how much more equipment russia can keep pulling out before it starts to run low. Also troops loses are massive. Ukraine will be suffering as well but as the defender they will fight until the last man.
Let hope it ends peacefully soon
In refrigerated railcars and trucks waiting to be returned to Russia for burial?
Sad but true!
Brought 10k? Well going on recent combat experience from your blokes in Ukraine I suggest we mobilise the Sea Cadets, Colchester detachment, and send all 24 of them to the Baltic’s, and both adult instructors, as a forward presence, that should be enough don’t you think! And we will ensure they have logistic support, 2 haverbags each, with cheese and pickle sandwichs. Big improvement on your logistics eh Russkie troll!
Looks like quite a bit of kit is wrecked. Russia will not be able to afford to replace what it had lost. It will have stocks of old equipment but when that goes they aren’t going to be able to build 1000’s of new tanks and afv.
I wish Russia would withdraw before anymore die and reassess what it is trying to accomplish and how to do it.
Just now they are just losing soldiers and equipment
According to sources at the Pentagon, between 20% and 60% of Russia’s cruise missiles are failing in a daily basis. Launch failures, going off course, not detonating, etc…
It does make you wonder about their much vaunted Hypersonic missiles and their nukes. Not that we should test the latter!
F-35 JPO Evaluating Spare Parts Following Vinson, Queen Elizabeth Deployments – USNI News
US confirms the faster than expected rusting of F-35 on US carriers doesnt occur on British carriers where it occurs at a slower than expected rate. Finally seems to be recognizing the downside of deck parking.
So exactly where are the five carrier battle groups…. Just curious I count one.
It isn’t referring to carrier battle groups, but army battle groups.
Modern NATO ships up against Russian rust and poor trained crews .
RAF c17 doing runs on teesside Airport near me.
Probably prep work for getting supplies in if used as a dispersed base for typhoons.
There was news release not long ago about the raf practicing dispersed ops again and teeside airport was always classed at a second line base during the cold war.
Surprised that the royal navy carrier strike group hasn’t been deployed