British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has agreed bilateral security deals with Finland and Sweden, promising that the United Kingdom will defend both nations if invaded.

The agreement is reciprocal but the primary aim is of course to guarantee the security of Sweden and Finland during the process of applying for NATO membership.

Russia’s foreign ministry has issued veiled threats of “consequences” against Stockholm and Helsinki if they join NATO, arguably making the case for NATO membership for the nations.

“It’s worth emphasizing that if Sweden were attacked and looked to us for help and support, then we would provide it, but it’s up to Sweden to make the request and to spell out exactly what support is requested,” Johnson told reporters during a joint press conference with his Swedish counterpart.

“We are steadfast and unequivocal in our support to both Sweden and Finland and the signing of these security declarations is a symbol of the everlasting assurance between our nations. These are not a short term stop gap, but a long term commitment to bolster military ties and global stability, and fortify Europe’s defences for generations to come”, Johnson added.

The declarations, say the UK Government, will allow the UK to cooperate with key Nordic partners and their armed forces, in all domains, including cyberspace.

“They will also allow for closer collaboration on new technology and intelligence gathering. As part of increased defence cooperation with Sweden and Finland, the Prime Minister will offer to increase deployments to the region, including with Royal Air Force, British Army and Royal Navy assets and personnel.

Both Sweden and Finland have played a key role in supporting Ukraine to defend itself in recent weeks and months, while British, Swedish and Finnish forces have exercised together across the High North and the Baltics.”

Both nations are already part of the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force taskforce, which brings together 10 countries in support of stability and security in the North Atlantic, Baltic Sea Region and the High North.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
207 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bulkhead
Bulkhead
8 days ago

Just what are we going to defend them with ?

Jack
Jack
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Ask Ukraine how helpful the UK has been even without UK troops being on the front line, in the trenches.

Andy P
Andy P
8 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Agree Jack although we maybe need to be ordering more ‘stuff’ as we’ve given a lot of gear to Ukraine already. My instinct is that the cupboards are pretty bare at the moment so maybe not much we could offer to our new friends in the short term. Hopefully we’re quietly restocking as we go and this is more than just a PR thing for Boris to be all statesmanly.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
8 days ago
Reply to  Andy P

One would like to think so but sadly we know full well what Johnsons inclinations are. I suspect he feels pretty safe offering this knowing that Russia is so tied up in Ukraine there isn’t an ice cube chance in hell that there would be any significant foray into either nation for the foreseeable future… i.e. the time it takes them to get accepted into NATO so yes there is undoubtedly an element of Boris doing his usual pr job. Just hope it doesn’t backfire with the armed forces who will take the brunt and that they can at least… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
8 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

I can see the Baltic Nations (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia – probably Denmark and Norway as well) expanding on this.

Last edited 8 days ago by Daveyb
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
8 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

They already have in one respect..the UK led Joint Expeditionary Force, an ideal Euro/NATO role for the UK., made up of countries with a fresher attitude than some of the old EU crowd.

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Big fan of the Baltic states, their attitude to Russia, to history and to their future! Tough people who have been screwed over in the past and won’t let it happen again! Serious attitude to their defence considering their size and GDP!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

Sweden has no border with Russia, so how likely is aRussian attack? Finland, on the other hand….

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
8 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

It’s Boris bash time again. You see anyone else out there leading the charge for the Ukraine?

maurice10
8 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Well said Geoff, what I’ve seen so far is a Prime Minister who is not afraid of taking bold steps to support these relatively small populations. The only issue is committing forces we may find challenging to deploy, due to dwindling numbers. However, the frontline is not the British coast but these northwestern states. An urgent review of UK defense is probably bubbling away under Whitehall as we speak, and I suspect a modest increase in foot soldiers will soon be announced?

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

The Army needs a new AFV fleet more than more people with equipment older than their grandads.

Meirion X
Meirion X
7 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

The problem is Geoff, is that Wallace asked for a discussion on an increase in defence spending in the MoD, but Boris blocked it.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
7 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Sadly, but maybe understandably Joe Public looks at rising fuel costs and food inflation and yelps. The other side of the coin of course is that if there is a time to increase spending it’s know. At the very least we must upgrade the lethality of all the kit we have got or is on order.
Ironically there are huge lumps of money being thrown at other items, much of which like the NHS has never been costed against the required services.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

The MOD got a rise in budget last year despite the pandemic. The public want the NHS and the cost of living sorting out, sadly the country cant keep on borrowing at ever increasing rates and they are doing whats needed to attempt to balance the books.

If he proposes even more money for the MOD it will not go down well by the mass majority of people.

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  James

I suspect the public would be perfectly indifferent to increased spending on defence. Indeed they know Governments aren’t there to bail them out of energy price fluctutions and they really want the NHS reformed and funded correctly so it is there for them when they need it.

Steve
Steve
7 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

I would quite like our government to do what France has done and apply a windfall tax on the energy companies to help bring down the costs, ideally providing some tax reduction for the poorer end of the population, which I am not in. Governments can help, they just choose not to.

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  Steve

France is in a strong position in terms of power generation. They have secure supplies from nuclear power and benefit from revenue from power exports. The UK wants to follow (belatedly) their lead and build a new nuclear power station every year. Their plan is to get the power companies to invest their profits in new cleaner technologies and transition from oil & gas thus creating a future for the companies and preventing the Government from coming up with the money. The chancellor still has a windfall tax on the table & is making thinly veiled threats to the industry… Read more »

Steve
Steve
7 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

That is the official line yeah, but the head of BP and Shell confirmed they would still invest in the UK even if a windfall tax was levied. Now that might be a lie for PR reasons and they might have told the government the truth on the QT, but it’s a struggle these days to trust anything our government says, so who knows.

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Since the dawn of time Governments have been evasive & economical with what they say. I tend to look at their actions and wonder if anyone else could or would have done any better including the opposition, journalists & previous ministers. I haven’t made up my mind about Boris yet but respect he was the country’s choice. Certainly I think he has done a good job in Ukraine but he needs to set us on a path to energy security, fixing the NHS etc. etc. which is a tall order for anyone. My view for what its worth is that… Read more »

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

lets see if the civil service cuts actually happen, boris is great at saying he will do something and then never actually deliverying. To me covid has meant no matter what he does next he has to go, too many people died when they really should not have done and too mcuh money was stolen from the public purse in a period were only morally bankrupt people would consider it. Ukraine is a bit of a mixed bag, providing the weapons to them has been first rate and as Boris didnt’ take immidiate credit for it when they started to… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

On Ukraine Boris should and will meet his counterparts on a NATO level. Only national Governments can act on defence matters – the EU does not have the necessary consenus. The UK may well have played a critical part in preventing Putin from gaining a foothold in Ukraine & moved the US to quickly support thus bolstering the Ukrainians’s ability to defend their country. The EU has done precious little mainly because it cannot. We will now enter a trade war with the EU over NI. We must effectively dismantle the agreement and rebuild something which suits everyone. This will… Read more »

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

We might be entering into a trade war with the EU over boris oven ready deal and the US has indicated if we do they will side on the EU side, so we will enter a trade war with the two biggest economies in the world, that can only end badly for us. Not only that breaking a treaty after only a couple of years will destroy our international rep, as there is no break clauses in it, we would just be single handed breaching international law. The gov has been threatening to do that since the start and so… Read more »

Last edited 6 days ago by Steve
Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Personally I am reconciled to the fact that Brexit has happened and that we will get into disputes. It is what the country signed up for. I am also content that we need to sort out the NI issue. Security concerns are under the remit of our security services and we should allow them to do their job. It is odd for an apparently friendly power to raise such an issue in public – perhaps they have an ulterior motive?

Rick
Rick
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

With the Russian invasion and Covid causing serious supply issues, can’t we call this a national emergency? My family have still not recovered from the 2008 crash.

James
James
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Whilst I agree with what you say the reality is if the government does a new budget and puts forward 5 billion for defence people will go mental at the moment that the money should be put into tax cuts and to do something about reducing fuel/energy bills. We are in a rose tinted area on this forum and we would all love more defence spending but we are a minority.

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Really do you think so. My observations suggest that defence gets hardly a mention in the media. Can’t remember any comments about the recent rise in spending. After the recent announcement Boris might eliminate the MOD and move the functions to the relevant service & then announce a 90,000 increase in the Army 😀

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Surely this will be a multinational effort with NATO as the endgame. Boris is simply leading the way. To mess with the nordic states now would inevitably draw in a conflict with NATO which based on current performance Russia would struggle with. Any increases Ben might have wanted to discuss would not bear fruit for years if not decades.

Last edited 7 days ago by Mark B
David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Apparently he’s a Russian agent according to some on here.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
7 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

👁 They’re watching!

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

🕵😂

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

He does the right thing and as usual has to be slated for every move.

Want an example of a politician doing a PR stunt, look at Macron. Before his election he was very active in the Ukraine situation, now been re-elected whats happened, couple of phone calls to wind Putin up?

When is Boris’s election? Hes not doing it for PR hes doing it for the security of wider Europe and I for one am glad hes done what hes done for Ukraine and backing up other countries in Sweden and Finland.

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

Sweden & Finland are members of NATO now in effect and Russia knows it. To attack the Fins would invite a response Russia might have difficulty digesting – they have regrouped but are still failing to make progress in Ukraine. Why would the Russians think it a good time to open a second front? I’m not sure I understand your comments about Boris? You like his actions but are questioning his motives? Could it be that he is simply doing the job we pay him for which is being a decisive PM? Putin’s escapade in Ukraine has proved to everyone… Read more »

Rob N
Rob N
6 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

It does mean that if we ever get attacked by the French we can call on our Northern friends.

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

True and probably the Ukraine😀 It is probably in the plans once the EU army has been established circa 2075

Bill watson
Bill watson
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Wouldn’t have enough troops to fill a front line

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

I’ve still got my trusty peashooter.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

We can but three guys in Sweden, two guys in Finland and half an F35B on a part time basis. Surely that would do it? Joking apart we have seen the effect of a smaller more determined army on the Russians. The Swedes and the Finns would put up a good fight themselves and their command and control would be at least as good as the Ukrainians plus it would be possible to use overt NATO assets. All that said the temperature dial has gone up, a lot, and I do think that some urgent overt investment is needed if… Read more »

Nicholas
Nicholas
8 days ago

Exactly right.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 days ago

To be honest I think Finland would chew up and spit out russia if it tried to invade. Defence is a national pass time and passion for the Finnish population. Literally every part of Finnish society has a planned role in national defence and every member of the population has military training. They also have a lunatic supply of fires and a geography that acts as a natural fortress. Even the USSR never actually invaded fully after WW2 just held them to a very eastern focused neutrality.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Good points, but Finland still lost a fair chuck of territory to the USSR in WW2.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes but that was after 6 years of bleed the USSR, the peace treaty was Basicaly a return to pre 1939 boarders and neutrally. The USSR suffered around 300,000 dead and 500,000 casualties an ever really got beyond the border region. In all of continent Europe Helsinki was the only capital city other than Moscow that was not captured. The drivers for the piece treaty was the Soviet Union did not want to burn the treasure and blood it would have actually taken to destroy Finland and Finland was happy to stay neutral for not having to fight a war… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Great answer Jonathan. Many thanks.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I doubt that . Western Europe and Ukraine the population are totally different. Ukrainians lived with Russians not long ago . In western Europe with the woke generation they won’t fight ! That said Finland the people are tougher than western Europeans so they will resist more than western Europeans, I agree on that point.

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Tougher than Western Europeans? Really? Please provide proof a 21 year old Finnish bloke is tougher then a British/Dutch etc 21 year old bloke with similar military training? Silly comment.

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Sorry I forgot to ask “pretend to be British James” what nationality are you really? Answers would be good for a change, thanks.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

There you go showing your far right colours ! Nobody said Fin soldiers are tougher than British soldiers. I’m not going to be lectured by an anti Semitic guy like you period ! And yes I did say above that Fin are tougher western Europeans in general population sense as they have military training and just have an old fashioned culture unlike many neo woke generations in western Europe that never saw a military weapon busy with Kardashians . Ever heard of freedom of speech ?? Do you want to be the next UK dictator deciding what people can say… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Wow froth and sweat, you need to take a chill pill and put your handbag away! Re-read you’re reply to me and then think if it’s relevant or even coherent! 2 out of 10 I’m afraid you must try harder. But, at least your amusing with your anti -British rants!

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Did I imagine all the conflicts that the British armed forces have participated in and all those service men and women who sacrificed everything in service of their country. If you think Western European’s will not fight your a fool as would be anyone who made that mistake. Just because the “Woke” generation as you call them have different ideas than there parents is irrelevant. Every authoritarian regime makes the same stupid mistake, push a democracy to hard and they will bury you in blood, Nikita Khrushchev thought the same way you did, the 1960s US was weak and corrupt….right… Read more »

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Every country will fight some more than others , we saw France in the second world war .. then again the French where neighbors to the most powerful military in Europe whereas the UK was lucky and fortified in an island , however my point is some will fight more than others and I’m totally convinced many in western Europe with men under attack their population is not ready to fight wars . I’m sorry Sweden where kids are told to chose their gender and confused is not Afghanistan with battle hardened men willing to take on any war machine… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago
Reply to  James

The french third republic was rotted from the top down. On paper it was actually more powerful than Germany military, it was a broken state. I just don’t agree that western democracies are there. I personally think that the changes in society around views on gender etc make no difference to a nations willingness or ability to fight. The British armed forces are not suddenly any weaker or less willing to fight because of gender discussions in wider society. People are generally far more willing to fight for their own freedom and what they care about.

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

I see you never did an Afghan tour, as the Western nations beat the Talibs tactically every single time. I saw young western kids working and fighting hard, from many nations. It was politics that lost Afghan, not the people on the ground and if your not smart enough to realise that then thats an issue about your lack of subject matter knowledge.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
5 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Well said pal 👍

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Well a single squadron of our F35s could probably handle the entire Russian Air Force on current performance.
Then maybe a squadron of Typhoons to ground-attack any antique armoured vehicles the Russians drag out of their stores.
Refit those out-of-date Harpoons to the F23s as they’d obviously be good enough for any Russian vessels that dare to leave port.

All over in time for tea?

Last edited 8 days ago by Sean
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  Sean

I worry more about our army (very small, old AFVs, little artillery, capability gaps) being able to make as much progress agasinst the Russian Army.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Well with air-superiority established I’d hope our army could mainly spend their time calling up AAC Apaches or RAF ground-strikes and avoid as much direct action as possible.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Hi Sean, no war was ever won by air power alone. At some stage the army has actually got to advance, seize ground, eject the invader and/or destroy the enemy in close combat.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The army will need to advance, secure the ground, but after that hopefully just mopping-up operations after the main force is destroyed from the air.
That should be the aim, to minimise close combat on the ground and hence casualties. Its certainly doable these days with precision guided munitions once air superiority is achieved.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

That is putting a lot of faith in achieving air superiority – the Russians should have been able to achieve it, but hasn’t in Ukraine.
We did achieve air superiority in Gulf War 1 and 2 – there was still a heck of a land war though.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The Russians were never going to achieve air superiority once the west started supplying Ukraine with modern weaponry. Our air forces are way in advance of the Russians too, with regards, technology, training, etc.
There was but given the superiority of our ground forces compared to Iraqs, it was fine to go in rather than have the air-force destroy everything. You just have to look at the Challengers stats, zero tanks lost to enemy fire. Cheaper to take out the Iraqi tanks with shells than missiles from aircraft 🤷🏻‍♂️

Meirion X
Meirion X
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I wouldn’t have thought Finland was tank country, Graham?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Hi Meirion, Not sure I mentioned tanks, however tanks can be used in the Defence as well as the Offence – in BAOR days we would certainly have used our tanks most often in the Defence, but periodically using them to do Counter-Attacks when conditions were favourable.
Finland believes in heavy armour, though. She has 100 Leo2A6 (FCS all just about to be upgraded), 222 IFVs, 439 tracked APCs, 700 wheeled APCs.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Tell them that ! ” Airborne thinks you are not British if you raise concerns or have different views to this . It seems extremist want to censor this forum now

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Not at all pal I’m just challenging your anti British posts and asking why you changed your name from Alex to James then posted a comment supporting Alex’s garbage post! Please explain.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
8 days ago
Reply to  Sean

The reality is that the Swedes have a very decent airforce and I’m sure the Gripen would be good enough to handle a lot of the taskings against Russian antiques. The Finns is a lot smaller but still very good kit. I’d be pretty sure everything is well maintained and works. But as you say the combo of UK F35B and Typhoon backed up by Rivet and P8 would leave the Russians for dust. P8 can carry Harpoon and can do the AShM role. Other Nordics can be counted on Danes spring to mi d and I suspect the Dutch… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

👍

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Well all the Russians are really going to be able of doing is launch cyber attacks etc. I expect GCHQ’s experience and expertise will come in handy in combating these.

Last edited 8 days ago by Sean
nonsense
nonsense
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

I’m sure Sweden and Finland will do nothing when Britain is threatened by Russia, either in Britain’s airspace or on the seabed. 

Stupid diplomacy , stupid policy.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

We didn’t expect Belgium in WW1 or Poland in WW2 to rush to our aid.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

I have more faith in our new allies.

Russia is good at threats, as we’ve seen in Ukraine it can ‘talk the talk but can’t walk the walk’…

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

I’m not sure what threat to the British isles we could not face TBH. All Russia could really do to the U.K. is throw cruise missiles our way, which would lead to a response that would be far worse on Russia. There is little chance that the Russian navy or airforce would be able to exist outside of deep in a few fortress areas if the U.K. decided it was going after it, our platforms simply outclass the Russian navy and airforce that the pain would be extreme. Then the only other option for Russia becomes nuclear and luckily for… Read more »

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

Thats why its a ‘mutual’ agreement, it goes both ways.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

Anything to back that up, or are you just talking out of your arse?

Anyway, we are going i to this knowing full well that the possibility of Russia attacking the UK is almost zero. We know that it’s far, far, far more likely that we’d be called to help Finland and Sweden.

And we still offered and did it because we’re not a shit country at heart. Troublemaker? Sure, at times. It desn’t matter as we’re doing the right thing here.

You trolls can either shut up or go live in Russia (if you don’t already).

Mac
Mac
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Plenty.

F-35s, Typhoons, Apache AH64s, Cruise missile strikes, SIGNIT, aerial refuelling as well as Special Forces wreaking havoc on Russian supply lines & rear artillery positions.

..its not all about massive amounts of boots on the ground.

Last edited 8 days ago by Mac
Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
8 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

As Jack says. It’s as much a political message as anything, since the assumption appears to be that Sweden / Finland will join NATO. Our input therefore is to semi-plug the gap before this occurs in order to dissuade Russia from anything rash (Rus’?). Probably not necessary, as it happens, if Vlad – or as likely his military, now – say that’s enough for now, thanks Putin old bean. It’s a tragedy for the West and Russia combined that events have come to this, due purely to that Wkr. But then grasping political isolation from potential international admiration is a… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
8 days ago

We need to find the extra funding to acquire all of the equipment and personnel required to defend ourselves and them if we are required to do so. An increase of £20B per year over the next five years would clearly be possible I would have thought? It’s no longer about “where’s the money coming from” but where’s the trouble coming from and when? It was also interesting to note how China is learning quickly from the Ukraine conflict, so an air-launched anti-ship capability would be a must for the RAF as I’ve mentioned numerous times before. “The aircraft carrier Liaoning of… Read more »

J-15_fighter_of_Chinese_Navy_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning_conducts_live_firing_and_refueling_training_exercises_925_001.jpg
Last edited 8 days ago by Nigel Collins
David
David
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

FCASW will be available to the RAF, along with Spear and Spear EW.
If we end up fighting China it will be alongside Australia who bought 200 LRASM and of course the US.
The uK is simply not going to raise defence spending by 50%.
Across Nato however there will be increases, ans with Russian military loses, Nato should have ample to deter them.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
8 days ago
Reply to  David

How many long-range air-launched anti-ship missiles do we have currently? Spear on F-35B when?

Where did Germany find 100B from at short notice?

What air defence system do we currently have to defend against missile attacks in numbers and at range?

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Given Germany has hugely underspent on its armed-forces for 30 years they should have saved a hell of a lot more than the €100bn they not decided to spend. So should’ve been dead easy for them to find that.

On land we have Sky Sabre, at sea Sea Ceptor on T23s and Asters on the T45s. There’s usually a couple of T45s around the U.K. which would also enhance defence of the U.K. against missiles.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Germany has a larger economy than ours and has borrowed much less than we have over a very long period of time. It also probably controls an awful lot of the ECB resources in the background so can very easily find that money spread over a number of years.

In an economic war Germany would out do the UK very easily, they also dont have an NHS to pay for or a nuclear deterrent so posing comparisons of the defence spending/budgets from both countries is not realistic.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Makes for an interesting read. Defence cuts effectively paid for UK welfare state for 60 years – but that looks impossible after Ukraine Published: March 7, 2022 The great peace dividend “The UK currently spends slightly over 2% of GDP on defence each year, amounting to some £45 billion in 2021, or about £660 per person. This has fallen substantially over time. In the mid-1950s, the UK spent almost 8% of GDP on defence. That fell to about 4% in 1980, 3% in 1990, and around 2% today. At the same time, spending on the health service has grown from around 3%… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Nigel Collins
James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Germany spends more on their healthcare than the UK and has a larger welfare state , it’s just that the Germans are more efficient, example they won’t fund a system like the NHS that simply doesn’t work ! You can throw as much money as you like at the NHS and it will still have problems. That’s why politicians love the NHS its politicised and it’s something they can always use in debates against the opposite whether in government or opposition. And in general sense the German population save money 💰 most don’t hold multiple credit cards and their governments… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

The US is sure it has got the right number of carriers. The UK needs 3 carriers and 1 LPH – minimum.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

2 carriers and 2-4 LPH might be more realistic.

The chances of building another QEC are zero. The chances of a one off are tiny as all the cost is in #1.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Actually the article above says the US Reckons it doesn’t, only currently 11 of the 12 now needed, plus likely to drop as they go through the replacement process. Fortunately they have a close ally with a couple now.

Why would the U.K. need another carrier?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, thanks for the correction on the US carrier point. UK – we had 3 carriers from the 1980s. The Navy always used to have the ‘rule of 3’ to be sure of having 1 ship on task. Explanation: 1 ship is on task, 1 is undergoing major refit and 1 is either in transit, on training or alongside for minor repairs & crew leave. With just 2 carriers, there is little problem now as both are quite new and availability is high but as they age the rule of 3 will start to kick in – we will have… Read more »

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I believe the RN is moving away from the rule of three thanks to the greater reliability of machinery and equipment, better maintenance, and selling-off vessels to other nations before they become really clapped-out. Changes to crewing practices, essentially adopting what’s done in the commercial sector, are also allowing ships to rack up more time at sea compared to previously. Though admittedly I doubt they’d do this with carrier crews. We needed both carriers in the Falklands because their capacity was so poor. Each of the QE could field alone as many aircraft as Invincible and Hermes combined. BTW –… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Moving away from the rule of 3 must be the work of a bean counter or politician!
I take your point about Op Corporate, but if we did have a supercarrier back then it would have been all eggs in 1 basket – would that have been wise – or would we still have wanted 2 carriers for redundancy?

Sean
Sean
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Re Operation Corporate, 2 carriers did provide redundancy to an extent, but I believe the thinking at the time was that if one of them was rendered combat ineffective or even sunk then we wouldn’t have been capable of continuing. That’s why the USN was prepping one of its amphibious carriers for loan to the RN as a replacement harrier carrier.

So really redundancy was dependent on an ally loaning us a carrier rather than having 2 ourselves, because 1 on its own couldn’t field a large enough air wing.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

That’s an interesting point. I recently read that we deployed 38 Harriers on Op Corporate, about 10 more than I thought we did, but I don’t know how they were split between the 2 carriers. If it was an even split and we lost 19 Harriers if one carrier had become ineffective – could we have won the war with the remaining 19 (assuming that all Harriers were lost on the combat ineffective carrier, but of course many may have flown off). If we have to deploy naval aviation in future for a fairly major conflict what thoughts of redundancy… Read more »

Sean
Sean
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

We’ll both carriers sailed with Sea Harriers and these were supplemented by those aboard Atlantic Conveyer: spare Sea Harriers and RAF Harriers. Plus 2 were left at Ascension to defend it from possible attack. If a carrier had been lost, presumably some of its Harriers would have survived; eg those in patrol. But would the surviving carrier already have been at capacity, in terms of space, ground crew for them, supplies etc. It’s possible the saved ones would have add to be reserved as spares, landed elsewhere – on one of the container ships – until needed. I think redundancy… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

In relation to our carriers, this looks very promising. General Atomics announces MQ-9B STOL upgrade for carrier operations13 MAY 2022 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc (GA-ASI) said on 10 May that it is developing a kit to provide short take-off and landing (STOL) capability on its MQ-9B SkyGuardian and SeaGuardian unmanned aerial systems (UASs). The MQ-9B STOL option will utilise a wing and tail kit that can be installed on the platform in the hanger or on a flight line in less than a day, according to the company. The kit can be removed to return the aircraft to conventional… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Three would be the ideal number as you point out, the question remains as to when this might happen due to the low number of F-35s currently available to us until block 4 is hopefully sorted out by 2029. We might be better off in the meantime increasing the launch weight of a possible future catapult launch/recovery system to cater for other types of aircraft? “The potential catapult would ideally launch aircraft of up to 24,948kg (55,000lbs). The weight limit of the traps would be below that needed to catch well-equipped carrier aircraft like the F-18 or F-35C.” https://www.naval-technology.com/analysis/uk-carrier-cats-and-traps/ F/A-18s… Read more »

boeing-super-hornet-1608561267.jpg
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Short take off but arrested recovery is really the worst of all types. You have to train lots to be able to undertake arrested recovery but have all the disadvantages of light payload/fuel load. The aircraft themselves have to be strengthened to withstand the forces on landing making them heavier.
The Indians are stuck with this design until the get catapults or V/stol aircraft. Personally I think there future carriers should be catapult equipped as I don’t think the F35b is an option for them and they are then tied to that type as it’s the only V/stol aircraft

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I don’t think it would be unreasonable to have a heavyweight Anti ship missile on our front line fighters. In the long run I think spear 3 will be a better option generally ( it’s ability to saturate and attack cleverly will be better than any Heavyweight Anti ship missile). But I think in the meantime we should be looking and something.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Marte ER already has that ability and can be fitted to Typhoon now.
Spear three will be useful to have also.

“Eurofighter Typhoon Anti-Ship Missile Capability with MBDA Marte-ER”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjE9aNlmKZc

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Yes agree Nigel, for a small investment it would be useful to have that navel strike ability.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

20Bn a year for 5 years?? That’s never going to happen. Do you not watch the news and notice the current state of the economy? And the pressures on all government departments for more money. The increase in defence spending by the Germans is only bringing them roughly to what we already spend, and have being spending for a long time.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

China have many of the same fundamental problems Russia have, especially historically (Vietnam kicked their arses). They do have more and better equipment, and many more bodies to throw around, but they also have a significantly harder target to conquer.

And the US (and thus allies too) is also far more active and willing to engage in the Far East.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
8 days ago

Apparently we now have the smallest army in Western Europe, which can only take to the field with obsolete and ancient equipment. After the latest defence cuts (to 20,000 infantry) and the Ajax fiasco the British Army is demoralised and apprehensive about the possibillity of having to fight a peer adversary in central/eastern Europe -.at the end of a long logistics chain

What is Johnsonski up to, making promises to support Sweden and Finland that could not possibly be kept without conscription? He needs to sit down with Lt General Ralph Wooddisse who should explain the implications to him

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
8 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I wouldn’t say that all the kit was ancient: it isn’t. The issue is more things like tanks and armoured vehicles which are quite old. But there again it is easy to focus on the vehicle rather than the system in and on it. It would be a false premises to say ‘because the Russians used old kit and did badly therefore the UK using old(ish) kit would do badly’ The first thing to recognises is that training and coordination between Russia and UK is at opposite ends of the spectrum. The second thing to recognise is that most UK… Read more »

Sean
Sean
8 days ago

👍🏻

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
8 days ago

Don’t take this the wrong way – I like much of what you post here. Indeed our Challenger II tanks are only just starting the upgrade to Ch3. The Warrior upgrade was cancelled after £400 million was spent. Thales UK did get a £100 million maintenance and upgrade contract for Stormer Starstreak in 2021 but the Stormers themselves are ancient. But this equipment is what our chaps and chapesses will have to fight with! The AS-90 self propelled gun last underwent a capability enhancement programme in 2008 and 2009, primarily relating to upgrades of the AS-90’s electronic system. Rumour has… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Sky Sabre is about the only thing the army has got that is new!

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

You should read Arthur C Clarke’s “Superiority” – you don’t necessarily what the very latest kit. Proven technology is more useful than cutting edge.

The army’s it’s got NLAW, which the Ukrainians are demonstrating is useful.
The Apaches in the Army Air Corp are pretty formidable too, and getting upgrades.

It’s also about to get hundreds of Boxers.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, thanks for the tip about the book. Arthur C Clark was a genuine visionary and predicted much of the world we know today. I will seek it out. The British Army (in which I served in for 34 years) has a good track record in muddling through (meant very nicely), even when it is opposed by a larger or well/better equipped foe. We are getting replacement Apaches but only 50 to replace 67. I am less of a fan of Boxer in its Warrior-replacement guise – we would have done better by moderninsing WR with the WCSP package. I… Read more »

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Firstly, let me thank you for your service. I count myself lucky that I’m the first generation in 4 generations past that hasn’t had to serve our country in the military. “Superiority” is a short story, which you should be able to find for free in the web. It’s hilariously funny while making a valid point about the bleeding edge of technology. I don’t understand the Apache decision either, given their effectiveness against armoured vehicles. Perhaps it’s being redirected to armed ground-attack drones, which can fulfil the same role but without putting servicemen in danger? While Boxer is innovative in… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Hi Sean, thanks for your nice comments. The decision to buy just 50 new Apache to replace 67 previous ones is….to save money! The slimy politicos will tell you that the reduced buy is because a new Apache is x% more capable than the old one. The ‘small’ order is not because armed drones can do the same – if that was the case we would have bought 200 -300 armed drones and no Apaches. We need a mix of kit – I once counted that there were 10 or more ways to kill a tank – that is not… Read more »

peter Wait
peter Wait
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

If the Warrior was upgraded by BAE with the bushmaster cannon it would not have suffered from turret wobble when fired ! CTA 40 and inexperienced L.M. was a mistake !

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  peter Wait

Maybe. Bushmaster is only 25mm, lighter calibre than the RARDEN. Army wants to go up to 40mm.
Where do you get the turret wobble story from? If so, might it have been resolved?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Don’t worry you won’t offend me with any reasoned post: I might learn something!

I totally agree that the army armoured vehicle programmes are a total shambles.

I am surprised that AS-90’s are in that poor a state that they cannot be sent…..

But I do agree that money needs to be spent on physical stuff that is developed and not more pie in the sky programs. Some of it may be COTS but not everything could or should be.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago

I hear that most of the AS90 barrels are shot out. Not sure why they have not been replaced.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago

CR2, WR, AS90 and CVR(T) are not good examples of upgraded kit.

It must also surely be hard to maintain 50-year-old (yo) CVR(T)s, 40 yo WRs, 30 yo AS90s, 25 yo Challys.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Totally agree that old stuff is very much harder to maintain.

But if it is better than the junk your enemy has it is still better – provided it works!

peter Wait
peter Wait
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Parts for old vehicles are expensive to make in small numbers, not very profitable for manufacturer thus long lead times . Some will be obsolete electronic technology. Original manufacturers may also have gone out of business. Make more sense for the Government to own a machine shop to make some parts although against their privatisation dogma !

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  peter Wait

Parts obsolescence is one reason for upgrades to in-service equipment. Better that than to make old parts whether in a Government machine shop or by Industry.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I bet the Russians would give anything to have this ‘obsolete and ancient’ equipment or to be able to field such well trained, disciplined and organised troops.

BTW why do you insist on casting Johnson as being Polish?

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

He’s being ‘clever’

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

We might be able to supply a BG to Sweden and Finland apiece, with some difficulty, on top of all the other deployments in eastern/northern Europe and worldwide.
I had not heard General Ralph’s name before – he must have a low profile. I am sure PM is listening to CGS.
I hope politicians are regretting cutting the army below the 120,000 mandated for the post-Cold War army under the Options for Change review, itself a sizable reduction on what we had before.

David loyd
David loyd
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Ralph Wooddisse was awarded the MC for bravery under fire in Kosovo and has had a long military career in Ulster, the Bosnia war, Iraq and Afghan. He was appointed Assistant Chief of the General Staff in November 2018 and was promoted Lt. General and became Commander Field Army in April 2021

He is considered an outstanding fighting officer and the field army is in good hands with him as OC

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  David loyd

Thanks David, I served in the army up to 2009 and had not heard of him then.
I guess he does not ‘do much press’ as I hadn’t heard of him until yesterday. Sounds like a really good pick for his current role – and I hope he has some influence on structures and informing equipment requirements.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

“Apparently we now have the smallest army in Western Europe”

Blatantly not true 🤷🏻‍♂️

Farouk
Farouk
7 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

German army is 65k strong,

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

We didn’t lose 20k infantry?

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Sorry re read to 20k infantry, agree with your thought process of defence cuts leading to a lack of depth and our ability to do what Boris is promising! However Infantry numbers are about right, we need to increase our OS, CS and CSS more than we need more infantry lads!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Exactly. We have numerous battalions, some reduced to a few hundred posts, with no CS CSS to brigade them.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Airborne, amazed (given your cap badge) to hear you say we have about the right numbers of Infantry! Just hope that NI Troubles never re-start – as well as being a tragedy, it would suck the Infantry dry.

Very true what you say about OS, CS and CSS. Brigades without any CS or CSS – or precious little – just cannot function.

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

At the moment with the state the Army is in we need to concentrate on getting the BCTs up to strength with logistics and CS, OS etc. If we have a general uplift yes more infantry would be good but we need to prioritise the support arms and the RA as a matter of urgency mate. Cheers.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Tell this people that please ! Some here attacked my views on this ! They think they still have an empire here! Boris needs sort out his military budget and it’s efficiency first and have an army large enough to take on at least our European neighbors let alone a large size army like that of Russia . This clown 🤡 is embarrassing that is touring Europe making false promises while the army is cut to the bone 🦴. Shame on him !

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

You don’t have views Alex (12 months ago) sorry now James who supported Alex previous post with a new avatar (any explanation for that) you just rant anti British chuff and it is sad.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The smallest in army in Western Europe? That’s nonsense, so smaller than -Ireland , Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, denmark, etc etc. France and Germany possibly but it’s not a Willy waving competition on size. It’s not how big it is it’s what you do with it that counts. (So I’ve been told)😂😂😂 While the army have made some errors with kit procurement it’s going to get better. Boxer coming online, more variants to follow. Ajax either dumped or fixed, challenger 3. There are also the important parts like MAN trucks, Foxhounds etc. As Ukraine has shown the lighter equipment can quickly… Read more »

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
8 days ago

I see Dmitry Medvedev has been reported as saying he expects the proxy war between Russia and NATO in Ukraine will turn into direct conflict increasing the likelihood of full scale nuclear war. Obviously the Kremlin trying to ratchet up the pressure warning off Finland in the same message. There’s no doubt Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal with some hi-tech delivery systems, but it would be their choice to go down that route to armageddon and I’m pretty sure Xi’s statement that their relationship has no limits just might come back and bite him in the arse, but thats… Read more »

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

That Russia now resorting to such improbable scare-mongering betrays how desperate they are now feeling over their failed war.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
8 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Thats it in a nutshell really.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Pretty much. They have a decreasing number of professional soldiers, and plugging the gaps with conscripts, Cechens, Syrians, Wagner Mercs, etc, hasn’t helped much at all.

Anybody else remember all that boasting by Putin’s puppet Kadyrov, claiming his men could take Ukrainian cities easily?

James
James
7 days ago

Chechens are Russian citizens for the record and within Russian Federation borders . Britain uses the Gurkhas that are not from within our borders. Syrians however are foreigners , but Ukraine uses thousands of foreign fighters too . It’s a mess all and the only losers in this war are Ukrainian civilians, that’s why I think the only way out is direct negotiation between Russia and Ukraine. Many want to prolong the war to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian civilians . Anyone that has such intend wants Ukraine to look like Aleppo Syria which would be a catastrophe.

Last edited 7 days ago by James
Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
7 days ago
Reply to  James

That depends on the Chechens you ask, the Russians have been fighting the Chechens on and off for decades, in fact there are even some fighting FOR Ukraine. And is not remotely comparable to the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas choose of their own volition to fight in the Britisn Army and actually have standards compared to the dogs Putin sends in to commit atrocities against Ukranians. And can I say Wow! Do you sound like a Russian bot. Yes, Ukraine uses foreign fighters, but they are volunteers sympathetic with a people whose homeland is being invaded and who are being subjected… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago

Agreed, ive caught him out on previous posts and he wont answer my questions in regard to this. He just does the usual troll SOP of going onto a rant and avoiding the question and content.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  James

How do you negotiate with an enemy that was consistently lied, broken treaties, disregarded the rule of international law, and flagrantly commits war crimes?
Negotiating with Putin would be as pointless as negotiating with Hitler. And we saw how the Munich ‘pierce in our time’ negotiations worked out.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  James

You go tell that to most Ukrainians. There’s no lasting peace to be talked about until one side losses. Ukrainians feel incredibly violated. You’re not going to be able to reconcile them now. Russia have clearly shown they will only accept complete capitulation by Ukraine in the long term. And the Gurkhas are not merecenaries. Foreign fighters? Yes. Fighting for money? Yes, but all soldiers get paid. They are a fully integrated part of the British armed forces and for their service get extensive rights in the UK (not as much as they should, and certainly not historically, but that’s… Read more »

Chris
Chris
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Nobody except russia wanted this war. As for the civilians of Ukraine what other choice do they have, either fight or be the victims of yet more war crimes.

Marked
Marked
8 days ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

Its just their usual tactic of resorting to nuclear threats. Getting boring now.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago

Everyone asking what we defend them with forget that Sweden and Finland are quite capable of defending themselves with or without Great Britain.
This is symbolic between natural allies.
The way some are describing this is like they just sit there while we do the heavy lifting. It’s not like that.

John Clark
John Clark
8 days ago

Spot on Daniele, as ever. Both Finland and Sweden are more than capable of beating back Putin’s useless conventional forces without any help.

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Agreed! 👍

Shelley
Shelley
8 days ago

I totally agree, Daniele, and I’m afraid the headline doesn’t help (nor the previous one on the same subject). ‘Commits to defending…’ is a big sideways step from ‘…providing support…’ and only when requested in whatever form. Johnson didn’t, as far a I can see, use the word ‘defend’. He did use ‘support’. We should stick to that.This isn’t a mini Article 5.

spyintheskyuk
spyintheskyuk
8 days ago

Indeed Finland has the largest number of artillery in Europe and can put up to 250,000 reservists in the battlefield, Sweden has some of the highest tech around indeed I read only last week That Sweden has had more cooperative tech requests (whatever the US calls them) from US Agencies to assess their suitability for US service relating its weapon/electronics/support gear, than any other Country has received and Saab has been very active of course in enabling Digital twinning for the US future combat initiatives and indeed its future trainer. So as I say above any intrusive action by Russia… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
8 days ago
Reply to  spyintheskyuk

Plus RAF and Apache.

We do have a lot of top end kit.

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago

Yes these are two very competent regional powers, any support we give will be around specialist areas, maybe air support such as fifth generation fighter support, ASW, ISTAR etc. Interdicting/area denial to the Russian navy and airforce as well as providing supplies and financial support for continued war fighting as we do with Ukriane. Finland especially is probably one of the most well defended nations on earth, it actually makes Israel look unprepared, the entire nation is trained and ready with plans on what will happen in the case of invasions, every citizen has military training and every organisation a… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Jonathan
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Amazing, respect to the Finns!

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Excellent points. Quite frankly if this Russian army went to war with Finland my money would be on Finland.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Finland also has 100 Leo2A6 (all about to have an upgraded FCS), 222 IFVs, 439 tracked APCs, 700 whd APCs.
(I wish we had that much arty – I see US and Canada are giving M777s to Ukraine – we still don’t have those ourselves!)

Simon
Simon
7 days ago

Yep, spot on

Andrew D
Andrew D
8 days ago

All for making a stand ,but would be nice if the head’s of state talk about peace for a change.And for Boris don’t get to big for your guns he should be remained we are not the USA 😷

peter fernch
peter fernch
8 days ago

I wonder if Boris is loshing his marbles , first Japan and now Finland and SWeden being promised Britain would defend them with what an Army of 80000 about 150tanks.
Quite astonishing

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
8 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Are you under the impression that support exclusively means land-based attritional warfare? Clearly the UK isn’t suited for that. But enforcing blockades, conducting missile strikes, challenging the enemy in the air (both over land and sea) and supplying weapons systems is something which is very in our wheelhouse

Sean
Sean
8 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Japan’s an island…
The primary objective would be preventing the Chinese landing in the first place. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Last edited 8 days ago by Sean
James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Ah yes the MOD only has access to a few front line troops and 150 tanks, nothing else at all. Rolls eyes.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Well both Finland or Sweden would greatly welcome 80,000 troops and 150 tanks given what they have

2BDF2FD1-45B5-4F2A-B9BC-59B2E52AA771.png
James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Oh No why did you say that ? According to some like ” Airborne ” you are not British or must be some Russian agent if you offer any critique against the lack of resources and unrealistic promises to the world by the clown 🤡 Boris who is investigated by the police

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  James

You don’t offer critique, you just complain and sound like you’re excusing Putler.

And I hate Johnson for what it’s worth. These support commitments are one of the few things he’s done right though.

Last edited 7 days ago by Tams
Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Oh dear using my name again, I really have got under your skin Alex! Gotcha! Easy! You need to calm yourself down son and be more constructive.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

Our expeditionary forces are top notch.

And as an island nation, well protected from pretty much any likely adversaries, that’s all we need to offer support. Those countries wouldn’t need or perhaps even want our normal ground forces helping them. They’d want our high-tech stuff that is mainly expeditionary focussed (and therefore can get to them quickly).

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
8 days ago

Interesting that they stopped short of being under the nuclear umbrella

Michael S.
Michael S.
8 days ago

Since Finland is part of EU, there is a legal obligation for some (not all) EU member states according to Article 47 EU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty… Read more »

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Michael S.

The key in that is that it ‘allows’ Germany, France, Spain etc to aid them.

That means they have a ‘choice’ and sadly that choice is not normally the right one from those countries based on history. More chance of Argentina sending troops over than Spain doing anything other than finding a way to moan about Gibraltar.

nonsense
nonsense
8 days ago

What are the tangible benefits of Britain that this will bring?

If the price of eggs goes up, labor or the SNP or Sinn Fein will win popular support.

And endless chaos.

Not to be welcomed on military sites, but I think Britain’s current foreign military policy has failed

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

We don’t support friendly western nations on our Continent to bring us ‘tangible benefits’. It is the right thing to do.

DMJ
DMJ
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

From the general tone of November’s comments I suspect we have another troll

DMJ
DMJ
8 days ago
Reply to  DMJ

Nonsense not November

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
7 days ago
Reply to  DMJ

He’s very well named!!

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The big question that everybody is avoiding is would we declare war officially on Russia if it attacked Finland before it joined NATO and commit British troops to fight the Russians ? If not then we just are barking from the sidelines like we are doing in Ukraine as cheerleaders . This sort of things are no joke and the risks involved are tremendously high when you have Putin openly threatening nuclear war. Did we talk to our population the risks of nuclear war ? Even if it’s just tactical nuclear war? I think it’s something we must debate with… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by James
Jon
Jon
7 days ago
Reply to  James

I wonder if a Russian tank commander on the receiving end of an NLAW would consider our help to the Ukraine “just barking from the sidelines”. And is Kiev really the sidelines?

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

More useless Putin puppy eyes talk. Barking from the side lines most amusing, I wonder if the useless Russkies are thinking the same as they are getting their arses handed to them with the various amounts of top notch kit we are sending the Ukrainians.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Don’t panic!
The UK would not unilaterally declare war on Russia if Russia attacked Finland before Finland had joined NATO. Boris promises to support Finland – that could mean just the supply of military kit and intelligence – it doesn’t mean declaration of war and the deployment of virtually all our armed forces to Finland.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

Well nonsenseova, the tangible benefits are we stand up to an authoritarian regime that’s undermining the international rule of law, while defending a fellow democracy that like us believes in the rule of law. Plus it will allow us to sleep at night knowing we’ve done the right and decent thing, because here in the U.K. we have a conscience.

The only “chaos” would be in a further humiliated and defeated Russia.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

Why does having a defence pact have to benefit the price of goods in a supermarket? I think you will find the war in Ukraine causing oil prices to skyrocket has impacted that more than anything.

Jon
Jon
7 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

We’d have done it anyway, so we might as well make that clear to Putin up front; then there’s less chance we’ll need to.

David
David
8 days ago

If I was Finland, I wouldn’t be too concerned with a Russian invasion right now – or anytime soon for that matter. They are getting their arses handed to them in the Ukraine and aren’t in a position to do anything militarily against Finland and Putin knows it – and he knows we know it.

They will move some nukes close to the Finish border and that’ll be it.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
7 days ago

It worries me that the PM makes such a commitment before Sweden and Finland have NATO membership.

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 days ago

I wonder what Biden thanks has the USA is the big guy in NATO yet Boris is doing all the talking but a bit odd 🏋

Meirion X
Meirion X
7 days ago

we are learning from our mistake, of not giving any security guarantees to Ukraine, before they eventuality join NATO.

Last edited 7 days ago by Meirion X
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago

He makes the commitment precisely because Finland and Sweden are not yet members of NATO. Ukraine was not yet a member of NATO and Russia took advantage of that.

Besides if those Nordic countries were members of NATO it would not be Boris’ place to make a commitment to support in the event of Russian invasion – Article 5 would do that.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago

I bet Ukraine wishes someone had promised them security support before achieving NATO membership.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago

Umm, that’s the entire point of making the commitment?

The entire point is to address the grey area between applying and admission.

We wouldn’t bother talking about it if it were about after admission, as offering support is a legal obligation at that point.

farouk
farouk
7 days ago

In 1939 17 year old Christopher Lee found himself sent to Finland in which to back up the fins after Moscow launched an invasion, I have to ask how many 17 year social justice warriors would do similar today.

James
James
7 days ago

Total nonesense! This EU countries hate Britain so much they won’t even fix or agree to an agreement on Northern Ireland trade issue. Yet Boris wants British soldiers dying for EU countries? Besides the entire army is like 70k too small . It is dangerous to flirt with the idea to fight a nuclear power country with a much larger military outside the NATO framework!

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  James

With a much larger military that cant even make inroads into a country on its border…………………

Why would the EU want to fix the Northern Ireland issue, they will continue to use that for as long as possible as a stick to beat the UK with because it chose to leave.

Tams
Tams
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Use the edit feature next time genius.

James
James
2 days ago
Reply to  Tams

Why exactly? I was replying to someone who sadly is using the same name as me.

Andrew
Andrew
7 days ago

Defend them with what troops? Our Army is so tiny and committed elsewhere (and getting smaller) that we could only send a token force.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

The MOD has more than just a small highly specialised ground force at its disposal.

Andrew
Andrew
7 days ago
Reply to  James

True, we have an equally tiny Navy and Air Force. It would only take a few losses to cripple any expeditionary force.

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

You are being realistic ! I totally agree with you , some here patriotism has blinded them where they will risk putting soldiers at risk due government negligence and we know what did to British soldiers in Iraq

James
James
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Small but exceptionally well trained and in most parts very well equipped, having sheer numbers is doing wonders for Russia isnt it?

Andrew
Andrew
2 days ago
Reply to  James

I get the point you are making but you still need some mass, which the UK does not have. It will only take a small number of losses to cripple our ability to effectively fight.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Think you’ll find the only Army, Navy and Airforce getting smaller is Russia’s thanks to the Ukrainians 😆

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Boris did not say UK would ‘defend Sweden and Finland’. He will offer ‘assistance’, which could mean supplying ilitary hardware and intelligence.
Even if a token force did deploy to those countries it would help them hugely as they would be troops from a NATO nation and Putin could not attack them in-country without risking Article 5 retaliation.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago

Look at what can be done in a rush. Brimstone launched from back of flatbed van in Ukraine.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/improvised-truck-mounted-brimstone-missile-launcher-emerges-in-ukraine

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Amazing what can be done with top end kit when the situation requires.

Does make you wonder how much of the budget is actually wasted on ‘integration and trials’ i.e HSE departments bleeding the system dry.

Albion
Albion
7 days ago

With staements like that, maybe he needs to focus on UK defence spending?

James
James
7 days ago
Reply to  Albion

Tell ” Airborne ” that to him you are a troll if you point out things he agrees not with . You read it right Airborne It’s Alex from the Kremlin saying that 😂🙈

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Then why did you change your name from Alex to James and then post a comment stating “Alex is right blah blah” silly silly person. I see to be under your skin as you are even commenting about me to others, as you are getting challenging and found out! Please reply as it’s most amusing.

Airborne
Airborne
6 days ago
Reply to  James

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1c5a94e7feb19a0d24cb846daa9552ec?s=64&d=identicon&r=g James  1 year ago Alex is right the Royal Navy is not well armed offensive wise and has been noted many times and enemies are aware of it! The destroyers must be better armed and the early warning capabilities must be improved . I’m sure the F35 anti ship capabilities will improve soon . But yeah the F35 will take out any Rafael before they even see the F35 coming This is your first posts as James, after you changed your avatar name, from Alex, supporting Alex. Yaaaaaaaaaawn you trolls make this far to easy. Not sure you are… Read more »

Chris
Chris
6 days ago
Reply to  James

Apparently, this is doing the rounds in Russia.
A Russian wife turned to her husband and asked, “What’s this special military operation our glorious leader keeps talking about?”
Her husband replied, “It’s a proxy war between Russia and NATO.”
“Oh, right. How’s it going?”
“Well,” he replied, “so far we’ve lost 24,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks, 200 aircraft, numerous helicopters, and loads of armoured vehicles and artillery pieces. and our flag ship along with other naval pieces”
“Wow! What about NATO?”
“They haven’t turned up yet.”

Rob N
Rob N
6 days ago

I do not think Russia is in a position to invade any other country at the moment… not to mention the way they have been performing militarily I doubt the could cope with UK, Finland and the USA….

peter Wait
peter Wait
5 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Russia has resorted to abducting Ukrainian orphans due to birth rate falling below 1.5 . Population reduction will lead to decline !