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.
I agree we can’t be complacent. A strong Ukraine and Poland and Europe is safe but if Ukraine falls or an unfavourable peace nullifies them and I would be deeply concerned especially as Iran, NK and China all see Europe as the weak underbelly with which to weaken the US and MAGA being too blind to see it.
This is also what concerns me. Without US involvement, the leadership to face Russia is not clear. That’s why may be, an even greater alliance between France and UK could look strong enough to create the European pillar of NATO. I think Germany, for many reasons, would not be pleased to somehow « bow the knee » and all this sort of things. Poland will just look if there is somebody strong enough to do « something » and will rely on it’s strength. EU is not really legitimate or ready in power play.
A strong alliance, Germany who does not feel isolated in a relationship with France that they « dispise », Poland feeling some political will to back them up could lead to a certain degree of shared confidence. For US, they have a whole lot on the plate (Middle East, Taiwan, Korea) and limited means. The European pillar is needed now.
This does not mean UK does not have to focus on the fleet, but we cannot take for granted that a 30 nations block is as solid as a 1 nation, even if on paper, NATO is stronger.
What about the other 30 countries in NATO? Finland turkey poland etc
It is both a blessing and a weakness. 30 countries is great, but 30 countries are also deciding by themselves their own policy which is in turn a weakness. Unity is never guaranteed, especially when the glue of the alliance, the US, seem to be preoccupied by other topics. If US leadership is gone, you have then a supranational body, the EU that wield no hard power, and an alliance with a lack of leadership. No country alone in Europe is stronger than Russia. UK, France, Italy and Germany seem more preoccupied by industrial share than defense troups. Only countries with direct borders to Russia are preparing armies. None of these armies are in par with Russia’s army. The second line of defense (Germany, Norway, Denmark, Romania) lack of personal as well. The 3rd row like France, UK, Italy or Spain simply don’t add troups. The meager army we have in France can hold a front of 50 km. This is not serious compared to the more than 1500 km front in Ukraine. It is even worst when you consider the length of Russia border, or the UK army is half the size of the French one. Scenario like a Baltic attack seem a nightmare to me when you see that paperwork’s prevented Leclerc to be deployed in Northern Europe crossing Germany. A lot has to be done and a lot is not so much done. I believe that arms conceived are good, but numbers are now simply too low to be relevant. The elite soldiers of Russia where gone in 3 months. So would the French army. French tanks would be gone in 6 months at best.
If your talking about a Russian invasion they need to go through most of those 30 countries to get to us. It’s not like nations can opt out.
Hum, a quick look at Italy, Finland, Spain attitude in WW2 could give another light. Same thing with coalitions facing Napoleon, Rome coalition in the later day’s of western Roman Empire, the Iron century in France or the Hundred Years’ War (barony), France in WW2 when UK had to retreat the expeditionary corp. Opt out of a coalition is always an option. It all depends of the perceived advantages of being part of an alliance. Especially on the fringe of it, in the most exposed countries, like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Eastern Germany. A coalition is never an iron homogeneous block. Especially if the glue has other things to do or behave in another way that US did since then, like an hegemon.
Massive difference is Germany didn’t have to go through those countries to get to us. Russia does, also Russia is confined to railways as it lacks trucks and it’s rapidly running out of fuels. NATO outnumbers Russia nearly ten to one. All the countries bordering Russia have individual armies that can defeat Russia. Even if half the members of NATO don’t respond we still massively out number and out gun Russia. People need to stop giving Russian’s credit they never earned.
Don’t need a huge army. Poland can handle the Russian army single handedly. The UK is a maritime power and we urgently require more ASW frigates, MPA and submarines. I think if Aukus commission date isn’t until the late 2030s then serious consideration needs to be made about just ordering 2-3 more Astute class now which can be delivered at least a decade earlier.
Hell we could have these additional astute’s in service by the late 2020s with Barrows increased workforce and a sense of urgency.
There is no more Astutes coming, doesn’t matter what budget is available.
UK has a special blessing: it’s fleet. I am happy about that. The stronger the fleet, the better we feel. Though on land, I don’t believe that we can state Poland will single handily handle Russia. It does not work this way, never did, never will. The blood price must be shared or you have no alliance to speak of. When you don’t have allies, you can play a bit with things like northern army, southern army and so on to keep moral up in troups and population, but nothing give a better boost than the appearance of foreign allies fighting along. Moral is one of the key component of the ability to fight.
I am sorry being so direct. I should be far more humble on a UK forum.
Please consider this contribution as a different perception.
Very much this. You can’t leave allies to fight a land war alone, if you do that you won’t be allies for very long.
🤣🤣🤣
The UK is a maritime power, but is also in NATO, an alliance committed to the defence of Europe. Our army is required more for aiding our continental allies than for homeland defence.
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.
If NATO ever had to take on Russia, does it have to follow that NATO forces would have to advance to Vladivostock to secure a victory?
NATO is not an empire-building organisation unlike Nazi Germany or Napoleon’s Empire.
NATO might seek only to restore territorial integrity to a country invaded by Russia – and then to force a peace treaty.
Well without the US NATO planners seem to be showing some concern. Turkey’s commitment might be crucial I suspect, simply for numbers.
We should still be worried about Russian artillery.
In addition to Dern’s reply, the Russian army has invoked ‘the God of War’ – artillery. So much destruction to Ukraine’s infrastructure, housing and death and injury to her people – due to artillery.
That is one area where they have not under-performed, sadly.
Reports now circulating of North Korean troops in Ukraine fighting for Russia.
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 even in Corvettes, something Russia is supposedly great at, they’re behind NATO. “But Russia is really good at submarines” everyone chimes. Okay:
SSBN and SSGN:
Russia: 23
NATO: 26
SSN:
Russia: 16
NATO: 62
SSK:
Russia: 21
NATO: 56
Let’s be honest here, the idea that the Russian Navy isn’t facing overwhelming odds is no more true than the idea that their airforce or army is facing overwhelming odds. Litterally the only places they’re even CLOSE to parity (still not achieving it) is SSBNs and Short Range Surface combatants.
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 Atlantic and SCS would probably require the US to reduce its NATO commitment.
Western complacency of having undisputed control of the worlds oceans is being challenged with the Chineses fleet expansion programme outstripping the US.
Western Europe’s over reliance on US military protection and reinforcement as a guarantor of its safety needs to be overturned. For the U.K. with our unique geographic position that should mean a focus on the maritime domain and reinforcement of those capabilities. Technology might change but not a lot else does. .
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.
China doesn’t have the means, but Russia does. They have done it before.
The soviets did it not Russia. Massive difference.
China couldn’t support Russia without the Navy I disagree, logistics are poor yes but they will be able to build up just as NK has been able to gradually put 10,000 troops training in Eastern Russia. A lot depends on the wars length but as NATO won’t invade Russia they will have a long, long time to add strength and logistics to the equation. Anyway they could do it via the high north at sea unless the US was able to take area control there which won’t be easy and European navies will have virtually no role in that, especially without the US being involved.
Jim, if we are fighting Russia and China at the same time, Chinese air and land power will be a factor and you can’t ignore it however much you wish you could.
Both Russia and China are predominantly continental land based powers but for the West control of SLOC are a prerequisite to reinforce each theatre mainly from the US. That is our combined strength but also a weakness and largely because that control has been vested in the Anglo-sphere for so long we seem blind to what we have.
To take your point about land and air power the same issue applies to the Western European members of NATO. If the US had to deploy against both Russia and China then our superiority would be much diminished. However, Europe could hold the Russians but at sea and in the air they could undoubtedly be a challenge to Western Europe.
For the U.K. in our maritime domain that means a strong navy and Air Force that can protect our resources and deploy our army where we need it.
I think we can all agree we are currently too weak at sea, on land and in the air
“For the U.K. in our maritime domain that means a strong navy and Air Force that can protect our resources and deploy our army where we need it.I think we can all agree we are currently too weak at sea, on land and in the air.”
Nicely summed up. Those statements allow mean we need to address our serious defence short falls or face ever rising risks to our way of life and our freedom.
Cheers CR
Allow – alone…
I think that is the great future danger I agree and the fact that MAGA still seems to see China and Russia as separate threats is truly difficult to fathom. This is all one conflict with different fronts and that is personified by the recent exchange that China now supports Russia in Ukraine while Russia supports China in Taiwan. Indeed no way NK would commit forces without Chinese permission. This is effectively China committing to the Russian cause while being able to deny it. They will be watching NATO and western responses closely, if it’s nothing I fear for the future.
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.
The Russian army has preformed badly. The Russian Navy has preformed much MUCH worse. You’re just choosing to ignore it, and ignore the complete imbalance between NATO sea power and Russian sea power that if anything, dwarfs the difference between the land forces.
The only place Russia will have any freedom at sea is in the Barents Sea and High Arctic. Subs are a concern but as long as US are involved only for a certain period. They simply can’t win a naval way their surface fleet will be decimated very quickly many of their ships are Soviet relics.
Exactly. Subs are a concern but NATO’s Frigates outnumber those by a factor of 10 to 1, before you start to factor in the fact that NATO’s SSN fleet dwarfs Russia’s (and those SSN’s will also be hunting the Russian SSN, with aid from our ASW aircraft).
Take the USA out of these equations eg what would NATO have without the USA?
I ask this question simply because of Trump and the risk of an isolationist government coming into power, willing to accept Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe and the NATO superiority isn’t that good. This is a real risk in the next few months and something the rest of NATO needs to be wise and alert too.
Sure we can numerically match Russia and probably have qualitative superiority, especially in destroyers, SSKs, carriers and frigates but Russia’s nuclear attack submarine fleet might be a problem. France and UK have 11 current serviceable SSNs. Those are the only nuclear attack submarines in Europe and the rest of NATO. The vast majority of NATOs SSNs are USN los Angeles, sea wolf and Virginia class subs.
France are building 2 more (Suffren class) to replace Reuben class vessels that are outdated and worn out with a projected 3 more planned for a total of 6 SSNs (direct 1:1 replacement for Reuben class). Whilst the 7th Astute class is still under construction
There is a strong argument to continuously build Astute until Aukus is ready to begin construction (in service date of late 2030s is too long away). Maybe add another 2-4 Astute subs onto the programme, especially if one is going to be permanently deployed to homebase in Western Australia.
If you take the USA out of the equation it’s still pretty one sided. Russia’s SSN and SSBN fleet is bigger, but not by a large margin. Russia has 16 total SSN’s (including unservicable ones) vs NATO’s 13 total, but there are still a 10-1 ratio of NATO Frigates to Russian SSN without the US.
🤣🤣🤣
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 the professional spearheads. A war of attrition should the Americans disappear won’t be a walk in the park for land forces especially as the Russian forces as poor as they have been will have gained much experience from actual war fighting. We have been far too complacent for years, so we shouldn’t be in this matter either, especially if thousands of North Korean and after the recent mutual commitment even potentially Chinese forces come into play.
Probably not Estonia; if Estonia called up all their reserves, including their paramilitary light infantry local defence forces, the wartime Estonian Armed Forces are not much larger than the UK’s, and would have no growth margin with a little over 1 million in population.
Jim, I don’t see this referenced in the article. I don’t get your ‘army first’ comment. Does NATO have a preference for land forces? I had not noticed that.
Some of western Europe’s NATO members have quite small regular armies – I think the US reinforcements would therefore make a big difference to Europe’s land picture.
NATO first is shorthand for pulling back to Europe, which is where Starmer wants to be, and not just for defence.
We don’t have a lot of choice mind. Reality takes precedence.
True, along as it’s literally first, not first and only.
‘… where possible, seize opportunities presented by working closely with allies.”
Build our navy in someone else’s country ‘to save money’.
I suspect that the decision to put the threat to NATO central to defence is driven more by this government’s wish to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese, rather than any perceived threat from Russia.
I’m not getting involved with a discussion on NATO vs Russia as it’s a complete no brainer. Instead I’ll actually comment in the Article and what lies behind it, which daft as it sounds is probably why UKDJ wrote it.
A NI Unionist MP has asked a very subtle question regarding UK adopting NATO 1st strategy, that’s basically a move away from the Far East, Middle East etc.
Obvious reason for him to do so is it would effect jobs in the SB industry and supply chain, that shouldn’t be surprise given the sitting on hands by HMG regarding H&W.
The Government answer was basically a very polite way of ducking any answer !
RFA is on its knees, Amphibious lift is now in the same boat and the last Shipyard that can replace the 20k tonne + ships in UK has its head on the block.
That’s the story, not if NATO can deal with the Russian Navy. It’s about the future of the RNs ability to operate outside the NATO area and without the FSS, MRSS and a fully crewed RFA it can’t.
Just have a look at RN Frigates returning mid NATO exercise to port as we can’t RAS them and have to pay £££ for others to do so.
👍
If Trump gets back in power ? What’s to say USA stays in NATO ? Then I wonder what the Strategy would be and how many Country’s would stay in the club.So best never to underestimate USSR, Specially with friends like China,N.Korean .Think we need to go down the same road has Poland.