Jim Shannon, Democratic Unionist Party MP for Strangford, recently raised a question in Parliament about the impact of the UK’s NATO-first defence strategy on the shipbuilding supply chain.
Shannon inquired whether the Ministry of Defence had conducted any assessments to understand how the defence strategy, which prioritises NATO commitments, could influence the nation’s shipbuilding industry.
In response, Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, confirmed that all strategic decisions regarding the UK’s defence relationship with NATO are thoroughly evaluated.
Pollard stated: “All decisions on Defence strategy, encompassing our relationship with NATO, are fully assessed to ensure UK defence requirements are met, including the shipbuilding supply chain.”
He further highlighted the role of the National Shipbuilding Office (NSO) in supporting and expanding the UK shipbuilding sector, ensuring it is well-positioned to meet both national and NATO commitments.
Pollard added: “The National Shipbuilding Office works with colleagues across Government and industry to promote growth and resilience across the entire UK shipbuilding sector to enable it to meet our NATO commitments and, where possible, seize opportunities presented by working closely with allies.”
Why is NATO first associated with army first. The Russian army is a joke but its navy is still highly capable. The Russian army has zero chance of ever threatening the UK but the Russian navy is the single greatest threat to the UK.
NATO has overwhelming land and air assets but its ASW skills outside of the Royal Navy have been allowed to atrophy.
If the US pulls out of NATO it will make little difference to Europe’s land picture but a massive difference to its naval one.
I guess the perceived overwhelmingness of NATO army depends on how close your borders are from Russia.
Regarding the Naval Superiority of NATO, the perceived threat may be link to how you perceive sea dominance as a key element to your prosperity…
I am not inclined to think that ground superiority over Russia can be achieved easily. Different chain of command, equipment, logistics and political decision center makes this superiority not so obvious. Especially if Russia starts to have friends.
What about the Russian army performance leads you to believe nato can’t achieve ground superiority?
The fact that if you look at the lines, Russia has advanced. Then US involvement is at best dwindling. Then Germany, UK and France not many soldiers.
Russia has strategic depth greater than any other country. This makes them an extremely difficult enemy to defeat on land, especially if you are fighting in Russia itself. St Petersburg to Vladivostok via trans-Siberian railway is 9,500km. It is said that logistics wins wars. That’s one hell of a long logistical tail. Add in a possible ‘friend’ like China. There is an old Chinese curse, “may you live in interesting times” comes to mind.
The Russian Army is a joke? I don’t think so, at least it’s still in Ukraine and operating, and even going on the offensive. The Russian Navy has been neutralised by a country without a Navy and forced to withdraw from Ukranian Waters, it’s lost an Island to Ukraine. Now lets compare NATO and Russia at sea, Aircraft Carriers Russia: 0 (1?) NATO: 16 Cruisers: Russia: 4 (Used to be 5 but then they went up against a country without a Navy) NATO: 17 Destroyers: Russia: 10 NATO: 85 Frigates: Russia: 12 NATO: 163 Corvettes: Russia: 88 NATO: 92 So… Read more »
The Russian Navy like the Soviet Fleet before it doesn’t really need to defeat the NATO fleet but undertake a sea denial strategy to cause havoc. Our reliance on offshore energy sources and undersea cables makes the West very susceptible to covert action by any potential foe. The Russian Navy particularly its submarine force is therefore a real threat and when you think those NATO ship and sub numbers are made up of a majority US vessels the balance of power at sea is not so clear cut. Indeed any coordination of action between Russian and Chinese forces in the… Read more »
Okay, but then if you want to play the China card you can’t just play China for Sea Power, and not do the same for Air and Land Power.
You can because china needs sea power to get here.you can’t support a land war across Eurasia the logistics don’t exist.
How many Russian SSN’s in the Black Sea?
Who knew a surface fleet could be defeated by land based missiles and mines in a small body of water
That’s never happened before. 😀
In terms of Russian army being a joke I refer you to their attempt to take Kiev.
Really Jim. Even NATO itself has just stated it needs to move to preparing for a sustainable war against Russia where losses will be substantial and ongoing. Presently few countries in Europe are remotely prepared for that from a manpower point of view, Finland, Estonia and increasingly Poland are best prepared for that but realisticallyonly Poland offers mass and it’s still a work in progress. We mustn’t underestimate just how effective Ukraine is in the field at the moment outside of the three I mention I wonder how confident we can be with the soldiers commitment to the cause beyond… Read more »
NATO first is shorthand for pulling back to Europe, which is where Starmer wants to be, and not just for defence.