A new report from the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army, concluding that its current size is inadequate to meet NATO commitments and sustain large-scale conflict, particularly in light of lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.
The report, titled “Ukraine: A Wake-Up Call”, outlines significant gaps in the UK’s defence posture and calls for urgent reforms to ensure the British military is prepared to counter growing threats from Russia.
Chaired by Lord de Mauley, the committee launched the inquiry in February 2024—two years after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—with the goal of assessing the conflict’s implications for UK defence policy.
The report criticises the UK’s current defence capabilities and warns that successive governments have allowed a gap to emerge between the UK’s global power ambitions and the reality of its military readiness.
In his comments, Lord de Mauley highlighted the critical lessons from the inquiry: “In February 2024, two years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the Committee launched an inquiry to draw interim lessons from the conflict and assess its implications for the UK. We identified two key lessons. First, our deterrence strategy towards Russia clearly failed. If we are to restore the credibility of NATO’s nuclear and conventional deterrence posture towards Putin, we must develop a clearer understanding of the reasons for this failure.
“Secondly, the invasion exposed significant weaknesses in both the UK’s and NATO’s military strength, and the UK’s ability to sustain large-scale warfare. Successive governments have attempted to maintain the notion of the UK as a global power, but the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call, laying bare the gap between that ambition and reality.”
The report paints a concerning picture of the British Army’s ability to contribute adequately to NATO’s deterrence strategy.
It states: “All in all, the evidence we heard points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate. While size is not the only measure of capability, we are concerned that the Army cannot, as currently constituted, make the expected troop contribution to NATO. We therefore question whether the British Army is prepared to meet the growing threat posed by Russia to European security.”
The Committee also called attention to recruitment and retention issues, which have long plagued the Armed Forces. The report urges the new government to tackle these challenges and questioned whether it would follow through with the recommendations from the Haythornthwaite Review, which had proposed changes to streamline recruitment.
The committee said that the current Defence Recruitment System (DRS) is hampered by excessive bureaucracy, particularly in the medical evaluation process, which has become overly cautious, causing unnecessary rejections and delays that deter potential recruits.
“To increase recruitment numbers and enhance the efficiency of the process, the DRS should take a more balanced and risk-tolerant approach to its medical examinations and accelerate the process of resolving marginal cases,” the report recommends.
The committee also warned that the UK’s defence industry is unprepared for sustained conflict due to years of underinvestment. The lack of trust between the government and the defence industry, according to the report, is a significant barrier to increasing output and readiness. The committee called for clearer, long-term commitments from the government to ensure that the defence sector is able to meet the demands of modern warfare.
In addition to concerns about the Army’s size, the report highlighted the importance of air superiority, noting that the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated the essential role of air defences in preventing prolonged ground conflict. The committee urged the UK to invest more heavily in integrated air and missile defence systems, in cooperation with NATO allies, to strengthen its capabilities.
The report’s findings also highlight the need for the UK to adopt a more holistic approach to national defence, incorporating not just military strength but also greater public engagement and resilience. It points to the Scandinavian “total defence” model as a potential framework, where the entire society plays a role in national security, including critical infrastructure protection.
Ultimately, the report offers a warning that unless immediate action is taken to bolster the UK’s defence posture, the nation will struggle to meet its military obligations in an increasingly dangerous global security environment. “Given the perilous threat environment,” Lord de Mauley said, “the Government must not miss this chance and must commit to spending more on defence and spending better.”
With the launch of the Strategic Defence Review, the Committee urged the government to seize the opportunity to set clear priorities and develop a cohesive defence strategy that draws on all elements of national power, from industry and technology to military reserves and allied cooperation.
The report concludes by calling on the government to act swiftly to address the challenges exposed by the war in Ukraine, as the security of the Euro-Atlantic region and the UK’s own future depend on it.
How much political weight does this report carry?
None. Just a bunch of over privileged Conservatives now strangely awakening to the fact their party cut the armed forces during their 14+ year tenure.
So are all the Labour lords over privileged as well Mr. B?😇
The Army has been shrinking since WW2 – why pick on the last 14 years I wonder.
The public have entrusted the security of the nation now to the Labour party. Let’s hope they can do a little more than moan about the past and hit the ground running and sort out the future.
Not looking good Mark. Labour is doing and probably will do, sod all.
Since Ukraine massively kicked off the call to return defence spending to a safe minimum, nothing has been done, this became even more inflamed by Gaza and the Lebanon , with Iran actually directly attacking Israel..
Still nothing….
Zero interest with Labour….
I’m not sure Israel need (or want) any support from the UK. Israel has been aware ever since the holocaust that it can and should be self-reliant as it fights for it’s own survival. The new Labour Government thought that it can influence Israel but I’m sure they are not listening to the people who understand the relationship the best in whilehall. It will be interesting to see what if anything will happen under Labour. So far existing Tory policies have been enacted, there have been areas Labour have said will be continued, they have talked about the recruitment shortage… Read more »
🙏
Really because the last fourteen – sixteen years is when the world turned, it unfortunately coincided with austerity as these things do..but essentially the big issue is the our government has not reacted in an appropriate way… before 2008 although there were some signs that all was not as the end of history brigade thought it would be…everyone really still thought the west had won… late 2008 saw that start to crumble, when the whispers became a shout and Putin invaded his first European nation, when he invaded Georgia. mid 2009 saw officially china put into policy the 9 dash… Read more »
OK point taken. The Government of the time would have argued that the spending priorities were down to the financial meltdown in 2008. Hindsight would have told us that the Government spending cuts were too harsh but would not have explained if an alternative path would have put us in a better place..
Hi Mark, As I said unfortunately the massive uptick in geostrategic risk of a European or pacific was was co terminus with the requirements of austerity…but that is not actually that uncommon..the Great Depression was co-terminus with the risk of the third Reich, yet we massively rearmed when that risk developed. The management of depression and ensuring massive levels of deterrent was a fundamental part of the Cold War..and a good portion of the Cold War involved the west being in a depression..while still spending 6-7% GDP on its military deterrent..infact the Cold War was won by the side that… Read more »
Some of that shrinkage since WW2 was justified – end of Empire and colonial garrisons and associated bushfire wars, then end of the Cold War.
The Options for Change defence review of summer 1990 was the last time the army was cut for rational Threat-centric reasons. Cut to just 120,000 regulars, two fully deployable divisions, 386 tanks.
It is cuts since then, not just the last 14 years, that all should be concerned about.
Point taken Graham. The interesting thing so far as I’m concerned is that the UK has since 1990 sought to modernise it’s kit (starting with the RN) whilst our enemies seem to have the bulk of their military forces frozen in time – dating back to the cold war era. The main issue in the UK is the new kit needs has not perhaps been built in sufficient quantity.
I would have said the 97 review was that last sensible review ( that was never followed with the resources needed). But I will take your word and operational knowledge on that one..but in your mind what were the big failings in the 97 review ?
It is a cross party committee, which includes many former senior military peers.
4x Torries… 2x Lib Dems, 3x Labs and 2x X-Benchers… I wouldn’t call that a bunch. But I do agree that these reports do not hold nearly as much weight as they should and get broadly ignored by decision makers. More useful for stoking the media towards certain points of view. Also agree in all likelihood these lords are over privileged. Especially Lord de Mauley who sits as a hereditary (and likely won’t have a role come the revolution), but at least he actually turns up and does ‘some’ work (chairs a senior committee) for his £361. Although I think… Read more »
That depends how the Monarch reacts and generates public support. It could in all reality go either way.
What George? The King does not interfere in any way in politics. That is all in the hands of his Government which were appointed by him but choosen by the public.
Exactly my point. If King Charles spoke live to the nation and highlighted the dire state of HM Forces and leaking borders. Rendering our hard pressed military unfit for purpose, placing us at risk. Explaining that as King it was His duty to speak up. Emphasising that the current plight was entirely due to mismanagement of funds by every government since the end of the Cold War. Regardless of party. Warning His subjects that their elected governments had shirked the number one duty of defending the realm. What do you think would happen next? In a democracy like ours, public… Read more »
If he did that he would be in breach of his constiutional role as monarch by commenting on political matters which are the sole responsibility of successive Governments over the years. He is within his rights to warn a Government (in private) and express his opinion (again in private) however to do so in public would be unconstitutional and as his late Mother proved throughout her lifetime the Prime Minister’s weekly audiences with the monarch concerned many important matters of state but the contents of those conversations were taken to the grave, in all cases, and should never and will… Read more »
Not much. It is part of their role to research and report so that it guides their decision making in the upper chamber. At the moment Labour have a sizable majority allowing them to do much as they please.
None, it’s the usual nonsense, when was the peace time British army ever large enough to sustain a large scale conflict? Answer never
It’s crap like this where former Generals try to measure the required size of the army in a vaccum that turns the treasury off funding.
They could double the size of the army tomorrow and they would still be saying it’s not large enough to sustain large scale operations.
…I think the BAOR would like a word with you.
This is hardly news. Everyone with any knowledge about defence matters knows our armed forces are too small. The hillarious fact these Conservative Lords are now declaring a need for urgent action after their chums were in power for 14+ years and did nothing but austerity and cuts makes me laugh.
It should make us all scream with anger! I’m afraid the serving military and veterans community sat back and let it happen. The first duty of every government must always be defence. I’m not going to insult your intelligence be explaining why.
George, I served 1975-2009, then of course became a veteran. In what way could I or colleagues have let Defence cuts happen?
Cuts are imposed by our political masters, generally without a reduction of Threat as justification, in order to save money which can be switched into the vote-winning areas.
Senior officers of course stress to Ministers that capability and effectiveness will be diminished, but they are overruled every time.
Absolutely with you on your post 👍
Thanks Andrew.
It’s a bit of a national foible to blame the guys in the middle who have no real power and can only do the best they can with what they are given…If you actually blame the people in power, the politicians then you have to ask the question who employed them and that means the British public have to take some accountability….because who would have ever voted to pay another 20-30billion a year in tax to have a good military..when they were instead offered more personal wealth and less personality responsibility. instead it’s always the “civil servants, generals,,other officer types.managers… Read more »
Read my reply to Graham. The armed forces are a special case because the very existance of the country is dependant on their ultimate sacrifice. The blame game here is proportional to rank. The top brass have a duty to inform ministers in no uncertain terms, that they cannot guarantee defence of the realm if the military is underfunded. Nobody else can speak with such authority on the matter. Except perhaps the reigning Monarch. Moreover, they have a duty to said monarch and British subjects, to inform them of the issues created by their elected representatives too. I know it… Read more »
“If you don’t spend more on defence I’ll vote for the Russia Today employee.” is not the power play you think it is.
Russia Today employee. You lost me. Please explain.
The power play is uniting and motivating serving personnel and the veterans community, in support of proper funding HMAF. It’s a task akin to herding cats. But it has been done before.
If you don’t know the sordid history of the man behind Reform, and his close ties to Vladimir Putin, then maybe don’t endorse them.
Do you mean Nigel Farage as he was the 60% share holder of the fledgeling party. I’m aware of slanderous unfounded rumours of six figure earnings from RT for appearing on their shows. The same labour MP responsible for the slander, also appeared on RT several times but refused to accept the fee. Was he working for free to aid his former marxist comrades. Both stories are political spin and skulduggery, nothing more. If there was any truth to it the woke media and the conservatives would have exposed the dirty washing ages ago. BTW I’m not a member of… Read more »
As I said the man or woman in the middle has almost no power..I have a professional code of conduct I must follow “at all times” as a duty within the law of the land. I’m bound to act by it, that means I am not allowed to in law let some things occur that you as an individual citizen are not held accountable for..I don’t act on some things I can loss my profession and even go to prison. This has mean I have had to in the past resign from posts to stay within my code of conduct,… Read more »
It sounds as if the organisation you resigned from lost a good man. You probably slept better at night with a clear conscience too. Humour me with a round of what if? Now imagine what could have happened if you were not alone in expressing your strength of feeling. Standing shoulder to shoulder, with countless previous occupants of your post. With wide support expressed in the press and HoC/HoL sparked by a disgruntled electorate. Combined with seriously we are not amused backing support from the reigning monarch. Using the official back channels, of course. Do you think that would have… Read more »
Hi Graham – we served roughly the same period but I retired early due to injury/illness hence the war pension. But I’m still British and moaning is my hard won birth right. So here goes. In this instance, when good men choose to say nothing bad things happen. You correctly highlight top brass have advised ministers that, effectiveness will suffer if cuts are made. But it’s usually behind closed doors and with all due respect. Never forcibly enough or properly organised in a way designed to influence policy. Rather those politicians have set the branches of HM Armed forces against… Read more »
What are you suggesting? That we take up our rifles and march on Whitehall? Good grief man, we’re better than that as a society and as armed forces.
Over the last 12 months this site has seen seven calls for a military coup if Labour win the election. Three were from George, the other four from three other people. Of the four people involved three, accounting for six of the calls, have endorsed Reform. I do not think this is coincidence.
Not at all Ma’am. Don’t echo the idiots on here. I know you are more intelligent than that. Please read my replies to both Graham and Jonathan. I care deeply about the integrity of our British society and the armed forces. There is no greater calling than to bear arms for ones King and Country. It’s in the blood.
So not a coup, just advocating for active interference in UK politics by members of HM Armed Forces?
Vociferously raising concerns about national security, in such a way that cannot be ignored. Is not a coup. Neither is informing the electorate of dangerous government funding priorities. I’d call it transparency and acting in the national interest. A duty.
There have been no austerity, it has been the contrary. The UK Government is getting more taxpayers money since Atlee.
There fact there is not enough money for defence is not related to any lack of money in Government.
It’s purely mismanagement of funds and dubious spending priorities. The Armed Forces traditionally stay “above politics.” Yet politicians dictate spending and budgets. If financing defence was outside the remit of HM GOV, things would be much better. Ringfenced and independent of party politics. It’s he safest way to ensure the survival of that we hold dear. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the essence of Britishness.
The Danish home-guard would be a good model to follow. I think though the reason why the Scandinavian home-guards work is that they are services in their own right. I think more perhaps would join knowing that the efforts would be directed to the home front and they aren’t going off to fight abroad. We do need AA missile system and manning it with part timers could help reduce costs. The Army is probably about the right size. Just very poorly equipped and organized. But that of course leaves the RN and RAF which are really, really too small and… Read more »
Probably the right size for what?
We have obligations around the globe. From Australia to Belize and Canada to Oman. As well as trade routes and trading partners to safeguard. GB is the parent nation of the anglosphere.
The UK can only do so much. British Army currently has 33 infantry battalions. If grouped into brigades of three and given supporting cavalry, artillery, and other support elements that would be 11 divisions or 5 corps or 2 army groups. As I said the army is about the right size just not well equipped. How much more do we need? If I am wrong perhaps you could tell me how big the Army should be? Your comment would have more weight if you had offered up some numbers. As you are saying you know better than me you need… Read more »
You may have made a mistake in your maths. An infantry battalion (500-750) isn’t a brigade (3500-5000) and three battalions is no division (15,000-20,000). I think you would need to divide by about 6ish – if the battalions were at full strength. They probably aren’t.
I’m no expert and I’ll let others comment further in the reality.
What the actual frick!? 11 Divisions!? No. No. NOoooooooooo. Let’s do this again: The British Army has 31 Infantry Battalions (33 refers to pre Future Soldier when 3 RGR and 2 Mercian still existed). Of those, 1 is seconded to SFSG, 4 are Ranger Battalions, and another 4 are SFAB’s, and 1 is the experimentation force. That leaves 21 regular Infantry Battalions. Of those 21 Regular Infantry Battalions, 3 are needed for overseas Garrisons (One of the RGR battalions in Brunei, and 2 Battalions for the Cyprus Garrison). We are now down to 18 Battalions. But at least one of… Read more »
Aren’t the Ranger/SFAB battalions glorified companies?
It’s crazy how nearly half the listed battalions aren’t frontline units.
Fair enough, nobody probably expects the UK to take the lead in any future land war in Europe, but that we can’t even deploy an armoured division in support is a joke.
We have declared an armoured division as deployable to NATO, but it is under-equipped with 155mm artillery, its AFVs are mostly 35 to 60 years old and many have not been upgraded, and under-strength units would have to be beefed up from other units outside that division.
And it only has 12 and 20 Bdes as manoeuvre formations. I believe the ideal is 3 for a Division, plus Divisional Troops.
I don’t count DRSB as it cannot deploy without the others.
Yes. Worth saying that in case others don’t know.The reason for three manouevre bdes is partly physics (the strongest shape is a triangle) and partly tactical (if a Div has to cover a wide frontage perhaps in Defence, then two bdes can be deployed forward doing that with the third providing depth in total in triangle shape). If the Div is advancing then one brigade can be leading, with the other two to its rear completing the strong triangle shape and again providing depth. Additionally, irrespective of the type of activity ie Phase of War, success should always be reinforced… Read more »
Nope.
And what does Front Line unit mean? Because for example I’d class both Rangers and SFSG as “Front line.”
Also 3 UK division is small, but it’s basically the only unit that has enough enablers to deploy in full.
Thanks Dern. Great answer.
Calm Dern….Calm. 👍
Odd really..the way maths works because I’m pretty sure the way you added up the maths leads directly to exactly what we have..to 6 brigade combat teams and 2 divisions….being pedantic and argumentative I was actually going to respond with a list of all the brigade combat teams and the battalions in them as well as what all the rest were doing..but your way saved time and effort 🤔
Kind of, the Maths gets a bit screwy because 1 DSR is a No Infantry Zone, so yes, you are right, but we should in theory, going by the maths, have 1 more BCT than we do have.
Army “best case” is 6 deployable Brigades in 2 deployable Divisions. 3UK – 1/12/20 ABCT with DRSB reverting back to AI. Needs a new “set” of CS CSS for 1 ABCT. that 3rd CH2 Reg retained, and 2 Infantry Bns transferred in. 1UK – 16AA/ 7 LM / 4 LI. Needs a new “set” of CS CSS for 4 Bde and PMV. The army remains, as always, several Regiments of CS CSS short for this structure, which is actually quite close to that of the French I believe. Dern showed what was possible with an ORBAT chart. It would take… Read more »
That is not how the Army could organise itself. 😏
If the tone of my comment caused offence then I apologise dear lady. It was not my intention to be confrontational just moderately astounded. However, I still wish to know what you consider our land forces (army) are for, before discussing numbers required for the task. Bearing in mind it is widely accepted that we are now in a second Cold War, with potential theatres of operation in Eastern Europe, the Middle and Far East. As well as the Arctic circle and South Atlantic to consider as probable areas at risk. Perhaps it would help if I offered my rough… Read more »
We really are wanting to achieve a little more than a home guard. I suspect the population of the country would go apoplectic if that was proposed. Also I think you are incorrect it has generally been the policy over many generations and governments to improve all aspects of our military. It is far from perfect but we are making good progress in most areas.
Also I think you are incorrect it has generally been the policy over many generations and governments to improve all aspects of our military. It is far from perfect but we are making good progress in most areas.
That is a very interesting point of view. I think you are incorrect. If you think UK is making defence your metrics are very different to mine. I think actually you are trolling me.
Stephanie I am simply responding to your posts with a different point of view. The RN, for example, is part way through a modernisation programme which means we now have kit which is far more sophisticated than was possible 20-30-40 years ago. It is not our ambition to simply defend our own country but to be able to go out into the world and assist peace loving nations to protect their own territory. I am simply offerring a different point of view based upon the facts as I see them.
How is the army about the right size when these well-informed members of the Lords say we cannot meet NATO commitments? Many others have said the army is too small, including the recently departed CGS, Gen Sanders, and just about every other retired senior officer. In a regular army of 73 000, about 70% will be in the deployable Field Force, say 51 000. Of those at least 12% will not be personally able to deploy. So that leaves a max of 45 000 that could deploy in theory. But that would mean that all other commitments would have to… Read more »
All British Warfare is expeditionary. A home guard is a waste of money.
What we do actually need is a very good civil defence organisation..this nation is hopelessly ill equipped to take a hit.
Perhaps, but that would fall far outside the Remit of the MoD, and would look very different from a home guard force of light infantry reservists.
Indeed, but if we had a bit of money for a home guard type force ( which as you say is a waste of money, because we are not being invaded) it would be better focused on a volunteer and professional civil defence force..because we may just one day, get bombed, missiled, dirty bombed, a have nuclear detonation, bio weapon release, chemical weapon release or mass shut down of services via cyber attack…all of which will need serious civil defence capabilities..not the joke civil contingency system we have at present ( which from experience cannot manage a snow day, let… Read more »
the size of the army we need is not really rocket science all you really need to do is look back historically and look at threat size and expectations vs army size. if we start from 1948 after the WW2 demobilisation… 1948 to 1960 was a time defined by imminent risk of war with the Soviet Union..I time when the Soviet Union was desperate to invade the west and the west knew it..army size 250,000 to 450,000…profound high risk of war in Europe. 1961 to 1990 was a time when the Cold War was still running ( hot ?) but… Read more »
Another report stating the patently obvious which will join the rest of weighty tombs, stating the patently obvious which will be ignored.
Do these people get paid / claim expenses for making statements that are blindingly obvious to most of us?
It’s laughable mate
It’s going to get even worse as the Two Tier Keir brigade bankrupt Great Britain. Immediately after the Tories pruned the armed forces beyond the point of no return. I can see us begging the Ukrainians for their third hand cast off weapons before joining the que at the ChiCom embassy for food handouts.
UKR should send us all the battlefield scrap (including Russian equipment). We could recycle it into new resources for our own weapons procurement.
Whilst military personnel are an important factor, Ukraine is teaching one important lesson, tactics and top quality equipment are essential on the modern battlefield.
A report stating the obvious
To small yes the Army is ,and so is the RN and RAF tell us something we don’t already know. Since the end of the cold war all HMG governments Cut ✂ defence seemed like the first pot to Raid from to pass to other departments.Would love to see Ex PMs from 1990s on ward’s explain themselves in front of a committee ,oh and I would throw MR Osborne the Chancellor of 2010 in with is good friend Cameron. Every government play the same old Record Defence of the Realm comes frist ,what a load of 💩. Sorry for the… Read more »
Agreed. I too have “fantasized” about the old PMs explaining themselves.
“First, our deterrence strategy towards Russia clearly failed.”
Urr…did NATO get attacked and I miss it? It shows the opposite. Russia won’t attack NATO but will attack non NATO countries.
“All in all, the evidence we heard points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate.”
It would still be inadequate to fight Russia if it were twice the size. The lack of attention to NATO burden sharing, to different degrees, in different domains is the flaw in most defence commentary. More army please…urr and who is going to do the heavy lifting in the maritime: Poland, Finland, Germany?
Nobody thinks the British Army is required to take on the Russian Army alone. The report is only about the army as that is the weakest of the 3 services.
The army too small argument needs fleshing out. Too small to operate at what scale (Battle group, brigade, brigade group, division, corps) and for how long in combat (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years). Nevermind at armoured, mechanised or motorised formations. And at what readiness level, a week, a month, a year? We need to be specific and understand what our allies require from us across all domains. We need to see the whole board.
I have often gone back to the baseline set by Options for Change which included considerable analysis as to the size and shape of the post-Cold War army. It concluded that armoured warfare was less likely but we needed a decent capability just in case if a revanchist Russia (so a drop to one armoured div) and another deployable div with a mix of capabilities for everything else. A cut to two divisions, 120,000 regular soldiers and a mere 386 tanks. The two Gulf wars and the two enduring sandbox operations were not predicted but the army just about managed.… Read more »
Thanks Graham this is really interesting. Although attrition may be a similar limiting factor other than magazine depth. My problem with all talk about deploying a division, is it’s one shot. Say three months high intensity then it’s spent. What then. Our contribution has to be sustainable. So that means rotating when combat ineffective say every 2 to 3 months. So we’re below divisional scale now. So plan around deployable brigades that can be rotated 3-5 times. But then we need to consider formation type and parent division arrangements. The latter especially is non existent on the debate but it’s… Read more »
“Given the perilous threat environment,”
“It points to the Scandinavian “total defence” model as a potential framework, where the entire society plays a role in national security, including critical infrastructure protection.”
It is unnecessary and unfeasible for an island 1500 miles from the frontline to sustain this.
The country will be bankrupt in a couple of years. What will 2% of GDP be worth then?
Note that bankruptcy 99% of the time is not lack of money, it is no willingness to pay the commitments.
My son lives in Norway and you could argue that its Socialist in that the government has a major say in the day-to-day running of the country (eg government shops that are the only place to buy alcohol above a certain level eg wines etc. – they are I have to say very pleasant places and don’t feel intrusive/big brother in any way). The BIG difference is that its also a very proud nationalist country, for example a majority of homes fly the Norwegian flag or pennant; they have a form of national service (which makes perfect sense to them… Read more »
Nationalism? Careful, I recall Labour politicians calling for that to be rooted out as if it’s some terrible evil. And the individualis still in politics.
I agree.
What a surprise! All three armed forces have obviously been cut to levels below those needed to meet the UK’s critical defence and national security needs. My personal assessment is that the Royal Navy (including the RM, RFA etc) is in the worst place compared to its required taskings, the Royal Air Force is second, whilst the British Army is actually the least worst off. Of course if the Army was asked today to deploy a combat ready Armoured Division as per 1991 and 2003, it couldn’t do so. A strong mechanised brigade including one regiment of tanks is now… Read more »
What are the Royal Navy’s required taskings and so where do their capability gaps lie?
Post brexit the economy has been hit by anything from 6-10% based on which economic data you take, mainly because we ended up with a terrible trade deal with our largest trading partner and zero better deals with any other country (using goverment own data none of them result in anything above a 0.1% gdp benefit) We don’t have many cards to play in any trade deal with the EU, but one we do is defence and they are very keen on a deal around that and keen not to discuss it at the same time as trade for obvious… Read more »
Fair post 👍
Good Morning,
Let’s hope the Defence review will repair the damage done over many years and ensure investment to boost all the services which is desperately required.
Nick
Morning Nick , I and many others on here pray 🙏your right but sadly can’t see this current government doing the right thing 🙄