British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has held meetings in The Hague, Brussels and Berlin amid tensions with Russia.
According to a Government press release, with the continuing Russian threat to the people and sovereignty of Ukraine, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace held talks with his counterparts in the Netherlands and Germany this week, as well as with the NATO Secretary-General, to discuss a coordinated NATO response.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was quoted as saying:
“Germany and the Netherlands are great friends of the United Kingdom. From my meetings with Ministers Ollongren and Lambrecht, and my discussions with Secretary Stoltenberg, I have no doubt that NATO is united in its determination to uphold European Security and that any further Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a strategic mistake met by swift and severe consequences.”
After holding discussions with the Dutch Minister of Defence Kajsa Ollongren in the Hague, the Secretary of State travelled on to Brussels for talks with the Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Tod D. Wolters.
“He then travelled to Berlin for his first visit since the formation of the new German government and the appointment of the new German defence minister, Christine Lambrecht. He was welcomed to the Defence Ministry by a military guard of honour before laying a wreath at the memorial.”
I’ve been following the musings of the The institute for the study of war since ISIS decided to come out of their cave and utter’Alis snack bar’ across the levant. They have knocked out a few very interesting articles on the Ukraine and their latest is well worth a butchers: PUTIN’S LIKELY COURSE OF ACTION IN UKRAINE: UPDATED COURSE OF ACTION ASSESSMENT Note the link above takes you to a round up of their actual article, which is a PDF file (found in that article) Here is a wee snapshot of the above round up: Executive Summary: Russian President Vladimir Putin… Read more »
Seems like a fair assessment. A limited offensive to cause political instability and claim land populated primarily by ethnic Russians fits Putin’s historical doctrine.
If we take that as the likely course of action what response does that leave NATO and Ukraine with? It invalidates a defence in depth and safeguarding critical locations like Kiev and other major cities, as beyond bombardment they’re not likely to be targets. Letting Russia push in and mounting a strong counter offensive would seem to be a better strategy
interesting summary I think it all depends on which one Putin sees as his primary objective, push NATO and take advantage of any weakness, secure the Donbas or play for the whole Ukraine. personally I think he’s going for NATO first, Donbas security a close second and invading Ukraine an unlikely third ( I think a missile/more limited attack will depend on how unified and damaging he thinks the NATO response will Be to this, so I think that’s going to be the test of how NATO has responded and how weak Putin thinks NATO is). I think there are… Read more »
The final paragraph is crucial from a NATO perspective. Challenges will not end here and there are other significant belligerents looking on in fascination. Though Kyiv is probably the principal fulcrum for Ukraine. Perfectly content to take down Putin’s air assets, and choke points either into occupied territory or lines of advance. Nothing is black and white, politically. Regardless, no country has the right to decide another state’s political direction when no aggression has manifested from that state. Revealing that those Baltic and eastern European countries with intimate knowledge of the USSR reversed political and security direction as soon as… Read more »
That’s different to how the US see it. Their Primary assessment is that if he Russians do invade, is that they will push all the way to the Dnieper River. This will secure the main fresh water lake that is needed to feed the Crimea. Kiev is on the Dnieper, so its likely they will bypass and encircle it. There are at least 5 cities on the eastern side of the Dnieper, so they have said its likely the Russians will do the same with them. Two of the cities (Kharkiv and Dnipro) are major rail hubs. Which either captured… Read more »
Very interesting Bond, but if that is what your leaders expect, we will give them a nasty surprise.
The report was released by a think tank who are made up of ex CIA, NSA type people. The US although sometimes blinkered to the outside World can at times be quite astute.
Keep stroking that cat!
An excellent appraisal. Putin is in what chess players term ‘zugzwang’ – where any move means destruction. He cannot now retreat or his long cultivated status as a strong man in the historic Rus mode will be at an end. If he does try to play the Action Man, as soon as the Russians move further into Ukraine the effect will be to unite an absolute mini-United Nations against Russia. The doubters in Berlin, basically all of the leadership will be over ruled by plain fact. Countries from Portugal to Finland, Sweden to Greece and even, possibly, Turkey – Eire!?… Read more »
Putin can retreat and claim to be the peacemaker, alleging that NATO is the warmongerer. He can control Ukraine by eliminating those who oppose him by a few cups of poisoned tea, and other underhand methods. He took Crimea without a bloody invasion – he knows how to achieve his aims without having to get 100,000 troops to invade Ukraine.
Alis snack Bar Farouk, I thought they were referring to Ali’s snack bar, outside Morton in the Marsh?
Thanks for clearing that one up mate…..
Very interesting Farouk. One point overlooked is that Ukraine has the third largest army in Europe. It has north of 170,000 troops in 18 brigades plus 8 reserve brigades, predominantly armoured and mechanised. They have been upgrading their old kit for several years now and so have a reasonable quantity to put in the field. With 100,000 or even 150,000 Russian troops, Putin can not count on even parity of numbers. We know what he wants, the majority and minority Russian-speaking provinces. The key one is Kharkov in the north-east, which is geographically part of the Don Valley and where… Read more »
Unlike in 1936 when we began a rearmament program I haven’t seen a huge amount of action yet here, beyond aggravating RU. Are we procuring more Sky Sabre to defend COGs? are we procuring ASuW sets so our warships stand a chance? are we still planning to chop the C130 fleet? So far it seems tough talk is aligned with tough cuts and little positive action.
It is 1938, but with a far more provocative British Empire and no rearmament programme in sight.
There’s certainly an interesting comparison between the late 1930’s and today. The fact that Nazi Germany was hell bent on controlling Europe, kicking off with establishing a Greater German Reich certainly chimes with todays Russian State thinking. Putin appears to be intent on re – establishing control over former Soviet Republics and former client States with his bullying demands. Perhaps when he attacked Georgia and the Crimean Peninsula and nothing was really done, he was emboldened to push on? There is one massive difference, Germany had rearmed to the point where invasion was the only possible outcome, Russia is nowhere… Read more »
Perhaps Russia isn’t Nazi Germany… but I have a slightly different suggestion. Russia is Italy, which was Germany’s (China) weaker ally who wanted to regain glory. Russia has some scary weapons, like its missiles, like Italy had rebuilt a formidable (though inferior) navy. They invaded territories (near the British Empire) that destabilised Northern Africa. Prior to World War II, Italy started first and as did Japan. We have had the minor precursor of Crimea, (equivalent to Manchuria), which the West more or less ignored bar sanctions (just as oil was sanctioned then). Now it is time for the main prelude… Read more »
Absolutely, it’s got the ‘potential’ shall we say…..
God save the world from little big men.
Ha ha, I said that as well, I think your close to the truth. Russia is a bit of a side show, China is the main course.
China always plays the long game. There modernisation program has been evident for the last 20 to 30 years. After getting their arses handed to them by Vietnam in that short border war. Their forces have gone through dramatic changes. Where they looked at both the Russian and Western systems, copied and then amended to worked best for them. Their Marines and Paratrooper divisions, definitely look like a copy of the USMC and Russian paras. Taiwan is that thorn in the side of the beautiful cultural revolution. President Xi has said that Taiwan will re-join with mainland China in his… Read more »
As a UK defence targeted site, I suppose that I should not have been surprised that whilst knowledge of UK oriented stuff is really good and sometimes exceptional, that the level of bias and lack of knowledge in areas outside the UK is not to the same level. Your comments John are a classic example. Taking them point by point, What evidence is there that current Russian/Putin thinking/strategy is to bully/take over former USSR states? Who attacked who first in Georgia? Did Russia attack Crimea or just take it over in stages? Are you aware of just how much Russian… Read more »
John wrote: Who attacked who first in Georgia? The time frame for the 2008 bunfight makes it quite clear it was instigated by Moscow in which to put Georgia in its place: which all started when 2 carbombs were detonated by South Ossetia inside Georgia which saw them take limited action, followed by their ceasefire which South Ossetia ignored and suprise suprise Moscow just happened to have an entire army in the neighbourhood all tooled up and armed for bear. August 1 – 2 car bombs on a road near Tskhinvali, which had been engineered by South Ossetian separatists, injured five… Read more »
Thank you, its a bit of a read so will respond when I have taken it in.
It basically tells you what you need to know John, in a typically consise and detailed reply by Farouk. The Russians phycology is typically push or be pushed, it alway has been. Ask anyone who has worked in Russia, or for Russian companies. I’ve done both over the years and it’s a prevailing corporate and political standpoint in Russia. The Russians are a warm and friendly people, but they are still beaten down by their employers and political overmasters. Appeasement simply will not work, it is taken as an absolute sign of weakness in Russia and you will be pushed… Read more »
To answer your question regarding Ukrainian rearmament, money has been ‘ lent’ to the Ukraine to refurbish large quantities of stored equipment, some modernisation also…. To add to that, NATO training teams have accompanied certain other donated weapon systems (the public release of donated ‘Man op’ AT systems was for Russian digestion). The training teams have been instrumental in helping Ukraine plan and train for defence in depth, countering typical Russian Blitzkrieg with artillery support tactics. Ukraine can probably mobilise 500,000 troops if war comes, a core of 200,000 plus hundreds of thousands of reservists, who will make the Russians… Read more »
Thank you. I suspect all here hope it never comes to that and it is looking a bit more hopeful to that end following the meeting in Paris on Wednesday, with a followup in two weeks and the Zelensky/Biden call yesterday.
Absolutely John, we all hope and pray it doesn’t….
What I suppose we really need John is all countries in Europe feeling secure. Hopefully we will see concessions, probably on both side in the weeks or months ahead, that will lead to it. Personally I think that Russia, having made its point and created the discussion with NATO, will change its focus to other parts of the World, which are growing strategically more important to it all the time, especially its role in the Belt and Road initiative running through the countries to its south and China. It is likely that within3-4 years a second, bigger pipeline will be… Read more »
John wrote: It is likely that within3-4 years a second, bigger pipeline will be up and running taking the same quantity of gas that Europe takes, from the same gas fields but to China and Europe seems blind to the danger. When in uniform i used to subscribe to the Economist and i read years ago that Russia was build a huge gas pipe line to China, it was completed in 2019 and supplies China (As of 2019) with 10 billion cubic metres as of last year which is set to rise to 38 Billion in 2 years time. Russia… Read more »
I don’t know where your report came from but the generally accepted version of events is by the EU who put a team on the job within months tasked to find out what happened, the results of which are in this document, published 9/2009. Whilst our dispute is on the start of the war this it is well worth the read going back into the causes and I would refer you to page 10 onward. https://echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf Starting your list of events on the 1st August seems seems strange as events like you describe had been building for months. The first… Read more »
John wrote:
I did ‘A’ level Economics in 6th Form, There i learnt about the Economist and I subscribed to it for virtually all my 22 . It was (and still is) a common sight on the shelves at WHS, so I’m a little surprised you didn’t recognise it when I mentioned it.
I got an E in A level economics back in 1965 and used to read the Economist as well but gave up about 30 years ago as it took too long to read.
Ooops, my comment on not knowing where the report came from was supposed to point at your history of the Georgian War not your comments on the gas pipeline. Yes Power of Siberia is up and running and is pumping at volumes ahead of schedule. Power of Siberia 2 planning is well underway with the route almost fixed now that the Mongolia section has been OK’d. Work will almost certainly start this year. Unlike PoS1 the source of this gas is the same fields as the gas to Europe which gives Europe a potential problem it doesn’t seem to have… Read more »
John wrote:
Ooops, my comment on not knowing where the report came from was supposed to point at your history of the Georgian War
John,
Not a problem, and thank you for clarifying.
I think the letter that President Putin released just recently on the reuniting of the Rus peoples under one banner is evidence enough!
That was aimed at Russia and Belarus.
I don’t know, johninMKski.
Hitler did Saarland, then Austria, then the Czech Sudetenland, before the big one, Poland.
Putin has annexed Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Trandniestr de facto and is now on Donbas and the big one, Ukraine.
Remarkably similar track records. Remarkably similar nationalist rhetoric about ‘uniting the motherland’, meaning seizing neighbouring territories containing some German/Russian speakers.
The same agitprop, fifth column political and cyber action against not only Ukraine but Estonia, Latvia and others.
Putin’s letter merely restates his known geopolitical ambitions, for everyone to read, not just his domestic nationalist nutcases.
Latvia. I arrived in Latvia in 2013 and lived in a really Russian district. I was teaching senior Civil Servants. Russian agitation was palpable, a Russian (GRU) officer interrogated me and demanded to know why I was there; the local Russian populace were very hostile, although, as I learnt, tge Latvians had been more than a tad gifting in feeding dissent. An international ice hockey match saw a group of super fit Russians file into my local pub, sip halces of lager, watch Russia win, never shout a word and when an older bloke said let’s go, files out… they… Read more »
No need, I get your point and wouldn’t dispute it. Your post is one of the good aspects of this site, the wide quoting of personal experience. Thank you for sharing it.
Hi John, To paraphrase Churchill during the 1940s, when commenting about an expansionist USSR and eastern Europe: Russia certainly might be able to initially swallow Ukraine – but digesting a country with an angry population of 40 million will be a different problem!
How very true, not many people realise that there was an active Ukrainian resistance right into the 1950’s, it was eventually brutally put down by the Soviets, but, pride hurt from the annexation of Crimea and in a far stronger Military position than they were, Ukraine will punch back hard if Russia attacks, of that I have no doubt…
Still less people know that the Latvian and Lithuanian Forest brothers fought on into the 60s, again, brutally put down.
You might find this interesting, filmed over a ten year period.
“A portrait of the last living generation of everyday people to participate in the Third Reich.
Men and women ranging from former SS officers to children who grew up in Hitler’s Germany speak for the first time about their memories and perceptions of some of the greatest crimes in human history.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0013vf3/storyville-final-account
Provocative British Empire? I don’t get that.
Its too late for a rearmament programme. Many military analysts are predicting invasion in February!
Beyond Javelin and Stingers I would be interested to know what weapons the US has supplied to or procured for Ukraine and how quickly they can be be made effective. What Ukraine need is AA missiles: Patriot, Iron Dome, Sky Sabre, Aster…but you need skills and time to set these up. If I had to guess I would say the C130s will be replaced by extra A400s and/or C27s. The AShM debate lemon has been squeezed dry I think. If we need something we can buy a few Harpoon Block II from Australia. Agree your Sky Sabre point. I would… Read more »
We had already agreed to sell Ukraine Sea Ceptor for their frigates.
Sky Sabre is essentially the same system on wheels.
Even a couple of batteries of that with reloads would totally change the calculus. If you could reliably take down attack helos and over watch?
Just wondering…what would happen if in 5 years’ time Ukraine eventually gets taken over by Russia, either as a result of military action or by “revolution” followed by installation of a Moscow controlled puppet government? Then you’d have first rate Western equipment for direct evaluation by adversaries, e.g. Sea Ceptor and ECM ?
I don’t think we would give them ECM.
The Ceptor sale was announced previously wrt to their frigate/corvette buy.
More importantly you could take out aircraft intent on launching LGBs. Ceptor has a quoted range of 25miles….further than most glide bombs. The Iskanders are a problem.
I agree.
I think if you double the stated range you might be about right. But I am only guessing!
The weapon the US has, as far as we know, supplied the most of is the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition. Given the trench systems on the front line this is potentially a very important weapon for the Ukrainian Army.
As ive said on here on other threads Ukraine already has a comprehensive selection of AA assets,outdated and in need of updates yes but they certainly have them in quantity.Russia only has a handful of SU57 in use so the threats they are likely to face they are capable of dealing with.Id be very wary of potentially handing Russia the latest AA Systems on a plate.
I suspect that we would supply the MkI variant which will have the simpler seeker head and earlier software. This would be more than adequate to upset the apple cart. We might even be supplying, Russian style, the Export Model. Russian never sells the full bore version of what it has. Targeting information as coordinates would be fed by River Joint / Satellite so local radars are probably not needed. So the sensitive fire control stuff / radar/ radar interface would not be anywhere on land. I wonder if MLAWS can be remote fired. Just set up CCTV monitored by… Read more »
This is not really close to the 1930s, before Germany became a military superpower it first became an industrial one. Russia is not really in any economic or industrial shape to truly threaten NATO, beyond the unfortunate Triggering of the end of humanity. Russia for all its strengths is still an economic minnow compared to the large Western Europe nations ( U.K.Germany and France). Remove MAD from the table and an Russian aggression would be easier to manage. Yes it can threaten a smaller weak direct neighbour like Ukraine, but it would not be able to effect a conquest of… Read more »
We don’t have a crystal ball unfortunately. The broad parallels are similar, ie the risk of serious state on state conflict getting increasingly possible. We’re supplying Ukraine with lethal equipment and we house a battle group on RU’s door step and with it the risks of spillover conflict are increasing and we’re ill prepared in any event.
I would respectfully suggest that our leaders, when no-one else is listening are not quite so sangine about Russia’s conventional abilities. Economically they are in excellent shape with virtually no debt, unlike us and especially the US who are having to spend tomorrow’s money just to keep going today. Industrially they are doing rather well in the military field with large numbers of ships, tanks, missiles, aircraft etc with civil aircraft coming along well. As part of import substitution they have caught up on composites and are one of only 4 countries producing passenger jet engines, I could go on.… Read more »
Hi John to be honest I don’t really agree with you on the economic state of Russia. It’s very dependent on oil and gas that are in reality not going to be much use beyond a decade ( we are going to either stop using hydrocarbons or to be blunt most of humanity will be dead in a 6 degree+ catastrophic warming cascade). Most of Russian industrial capacity is in the same state British industry found itself in the 50s, with warn out plants decades out of date. So unless Russia finds massive investment its industry is in a pretty… Read more »
You make some valid points there Jonathan but I am still of my original opinion. I agree re the China danger but it looks a bit like they have no choice given the way that the US has turned both into its enemies, when the US is more powerful than both individually yet can no longer fight on two fronts. Bad timing I’d say. For probably the first time since the Cuba crisis, when Russia seems to have engineered a situation that forced the US to remove its missiles from Turkey, it now believes it is strong enough to look… Read more »
“…NATO is a defensive alliance with an expansionist goal that has invaded other nations.”
But only tactically for operational purposes etc. One instance NATO invaded was a terrorist government only recognised by two countries.
😂
Russia is not Nazi Germany and Russia is not the Soviet Union. Both Nazi Germany and the USSR wanted to overturn the entire international order. The Russian Federation has no such ideological objectives. The Russian Federation is more akin to Tsarist Russia perhaps. The West in the meantime has far overreached itself. It simply does not have the military weight to credibly defend Ukraine (most NATO states having signficantly reduced their defence capabilities) and most NATO countries have absolutely no interest or political will to do so. All of this means that Ukraine, for historical and strategic reasons is vital… Read more »
Hi Roy, In the context of the late 1930s – I don’t really believe that either Nazi Germany nor the USSR wanted to overturn the “entire international order”. Hitler desired an empire in eastern Europe, plus Stalin had long given-up on international revolution – but wanted to recover territories lost in 1918 (essentially, he had become a Red Tsar). But I absolutely agree with you on the vital geopolitical importance of Ukraine to Russia. As the historian Norman Stone once wrote, with the incorporation of Ukraine, Russia is a global power – but without Ukraine, Russia is like Canada with… Read more »
Agree with you on Russia today.
But Nazi Germany did not only want to overturn the existing order, it wanted to obliterate it. There was no “stop line” for Hitler; it is something Churchill recognized long before most people did. The USSR is trickier as it arguably became more conservative as the decades passed. But Marxism-Leninism ultimately still sought to destroy liberalism and the West (much like the Nazis also sought to do). In my view, neither the Nazi system nor Marxism-Leninism could ultimately live with the West.
Yes agreed, it was after all the stated aim of the USSR to liberate us all from the tyranny of capitalism ( or some other such). It was really only the fact that the USSR had the sense not to trigger the end of the human race that prevented us all being unhappy little communists.
I really don’t get Norman Stone’s comment. How does the incorporation of Ukraine make Russia a global power? It just makes the largest country in the world a bit bigger still.
You are wrong Roy, that Ukraine is not vital to the West. There is a lot of Ukrainian heritage, millions actually, in a few Western countries including in the UK. They want Ukraine to be part of the West. Also Ukraine is now a big grain exporter to Europe.
The US/NATO still has a lot of airpower that could be deployed to Ukraine or in neighbouring countries.
A “vital” interest means an interest you are willing to go to war over. In the case of a peer-on-peer conflict, it means even risking potential nuclear conflict. It means potentially being willing to put London at risk. Even in a conflict with a non-nuclear adversary, a willingness to go to war means you are willing to put your soldiers on the frontline and have them killed. I am not sure what in Ukraine is worth that for the UK.
The final unlikely but possible out come of a war between nuclear powers is the end of humanity. Even a limited exchange of around 100 tactical weapons would lead to starvation across the globe lasting around a decade and killing a couple of billion. A full NATO Russia nuclear exchange would end the human race and most of the animal and plant life on the planet. modern modelling on soot impact from burning cities Showed that the nuclear winter modelling of the Cold War was way to conservative ( as they looked at particles blasted into the high atmosphere from… Read more »
The best way to remove Russia from Chinese control is to overthrow the Putin regime. Even if the outcome is not democratic, the new leadership may be able to do business with the US/NATO.
Um that’s not really the way forward as it would just prove to Russia that the west is a threat, then you have to consider what would replace it (there are even nastier people). Sticking your snout in and trying to change regimes is a great way to solidify a nation against you. it reminded me of a conversation I had on a night shift with a consultant from Iraq. He had left Iraq for a better life and was not a fan of SH, but as we sat there in between patients watching the 24-hour news on the second… Read more »
I was not advocating a Iraq type war to remove a regime, but seed a uprising from economic upheaval etc.
Interesting that you focus on boosting the navy and the RAF. Surely we need to be boosting the army? Do you really predict a naval war when the threat is from Russian ground troops crossing a land border?
I don’t think a land conflict would extend to NATO territory. I’m not predicting a naval or air war either, but we need to be prepared in the event. There’s a saying ‘control the skies, you control the battlefield’. whilst as a sea faring nation we need control of the sea lanes for our sustained existence. Yes I’d prioritise RAF/ RN, as it takes years to train a pilot and even longer to build a ship, whilst for the army it’s 6 months for phase 1 and phase 2. Of course basic equipment such as GBAD should be boosted.
Hi PRJ, I seem to be one of only a very few who doubt Putin would launch a full-scale invasion into Ukraine – he needs 200,000 troops for a start and only has 100,000 in place plus he would almost certainly lose more from the decision than he might gain. He has amassed his troops for entirely another purpose – its all maskirovka. No Russian could forget the debacle of their invading Afghanistan. Totally agree with your quoted mantra – thats why Op Sealion did not happen for the Nazis! I am glad to see that army GBAD is being… Read more »
You make good points, why would Putin risk his current power base, it’s never been higher? What is the risk v’s reward balance here for Putin?
re: Army – as we saw from Armenia/ Azeri conflict the future is loiter munitions, there’s no longer anywhere to hide on the battlefield. I fear for the future of troops/ armour/ AFVs without control of the airspace dominated by loiter munitions.
As you say the risk reward ratio is terrible for him. On one side, his population doesn’t want anything to do with Ukraine again, other than protecting the over 1M of their citizens in Donbas. Whilst on the other, if he does anything in Ukraine it will be painted as an ‘invasion’ and all hell will break loose.
Cough… cables… cough, cough, SLOCs… cough
You are right, it is all words from HMG, when at the least they should be looking at halting the latest round of defence cuts. We seem to have altered the old maxim to walk noisily and carry a short stick. It is amazing how governmental spin can make sending one little battalion to Estonia and a Typhoon flight to Cyprus sound , to a gullible public,i like some big decisive rmilitary response. At least the Telegraph is questioning the wisdom of the latest defence cuts and the Mail is reporting the Labour shadow defence minister saying the 5,000 cut… Read more »
The British Army’s current armour crisis could not come at a worse time. I have no doubt any plans to kill off Warrior in the next few years will be placed on ice? An up-armoured Warrior will still be an excellent platform and in combination with Boxer (when adequate numbers are available) should allow the Army to make a significant contribution to the current European build-up. Sadly, the UK will have to field the current fleet, with no or little, modern enhancements unlike many of its NATO members……it’s very embarrassing!
The UK contribution as a whole would be embarrassing. The army with no armoured capability versus an armoured force would be sacrificial lambs, artillery in desperate need of modernisation, only the Apaches would be any worthwhile contribution. The RAF has genuinely top line multi role aircraft. But so few in number all but a handful would be tied to defending the UK. No use at all in Europe. Only the Royal Navy would offer anything worthwhile through anti sub operations in the North Atlantic. Trump was spot on when he complained of nato freeloaders hiding behind the US. For all… Read more »
All we have is dodgy book keeping so it appears we meet 2% while gutting our forces capabilities. Russian or Chinese sabatouers couldn’t have done a better job than our useless politicians.
We’ve hung people for treason who did less damage to the country than our elected leaders.
The important bit there is “elected leaders“ the reason out armed forces have been cash starved is because of out electorates priorities. I have always been a politically active individual and both campaigned and stood for elections and the last set of data I had showed that our electorate has for the last decade been obsessed with: 1) lower government spending 2) brexit ( either for or against) 3)immigration control 4) local services ( busses, bins and libraries) next after this was a few stables: 5) police and law 6) housing and mortgages 7) NHS and social care ( care… Read more »
That’s where 20 years worth of bureaucratic incompetent bumbling has got us…
Perhaps we should stop the rot, turn this situation around, rebuild armoured capability sharpish and get 300 of the latest spec Abraham’s from Uncle Sam, like Poland is sensibly doing.
Chally3 is woefully few in number at 148, considerable development and testing to do, impossible to build the number up beyond the 227 (bar a few hulls in store) and long out of production.
Add to this, it’s 8 years away…..
This isn’t going to lead to WW3. So MOD will keep going on its way (as will HM Treasury). Chally 3 will be decent tho not many of them and yes it will take a while. Russia’s main weapons are cyber hacking and such – it doesn’t want the fallout of a full blown war and can’t afford one.
We can all hope this is nothing more than Little man syndrome bluster, just how crazy is Putin?
I guess we find out shortly….
John , Just received this over whats-app, enjoy: “Vladimir Putin, to get on the good side of voters, goes to visit a school in Moscow to have a chat with the kids. He talks to them about how Russia is a powerful nation and how he wants the best for the people. At the end of the talk there is a section for questions. Little Sasha puts her hand up and says, “I have two questions. Why did the Russians take Crimea and why are we sending troops to the Ukraine?” Putin says, “Good questions”. But just as he is… Read more »
Excellent mate, summing it up beautifully!
😂😂
Nice!😂😂
Not sure what use 300 tanks would be for our Army. Poland, yes, they are in the most vulnerable location and are doing all they can so that they are not overrun yet again. Where would we site our tanks is the obvious question and how would we move them?
Afternoon John, in short, the Army should never have dropped below 300, its allows for four Armoured Regiments and a healthy reserve.
I would suggest this new (theoretical) BAOR type standing force, should be based in Poland, ‘if’ things continue to escalate and we need to expand the Army again.
That is the only logical place to put them John. Where in the past we have had lots of Polish workers come here this would be a bit of role reversal with our workers (soldiers) going there. But the Poles wouldn’t be paying them so our soldiers would not have the chance, as the Poles did, to send Polish money back to the UK to fund cars/houses etc here.
Unless they get part time evening jobs…..
A Warrior makes an excellent night club taxi, get 7 drunks in, plus one laying down and easy to hose out….
It would be a shit to park in the taxi rank.
I wouldn’t be too worried about parking dinks….😂
Really?
Surely you just drive over everything else in the rank?
I don’t think any of the other drivers would argue if you queue jumped for fares either?
Yes but your insurance premiums for next year would be brutal.
Which is what we did in Germany… Hence, why they regretted our withdrawal.
Yes all that extra money and employment into the local economy. A bit like Suffolk around Lakenheath/Mildenhall.
And your point is? Someone has to defend the only unsinkable US aircraft carrier, why not the US… 😉
My point was just comparing the effect of our, BAOR days especially, money on the local economy in Germany with US spend in the UK economy. Invariably regarded as very positive.
Yes, as always the logistics. We won’t have either the brigades or the CS/CSS to go with an increase to 300 Tanks if the reduction of 3 to 2 Armoured Infantry Brigades is continued to its planned conclusion. I favour concentrating on the Royal Artillery over the RAC. The 140 odd we will have can furnish the 2 regiments we have left. Beyond arming our small army to the teeth, with the RA at the helm, lets prioritise the RN and the RAF. Through them, the RM and army units can reinforce Norway, secure our seas and airspace, and GIUK… Read more »
It’s a start!
The UK is upgrading 148 of the British Army’s 227 Challenger 2 tanks to the Challenger 3
“The first six tank hulls that have undergone an automotive improvement as part of the UK’s Challenger 3 upgrade have been delivered, Janes learned at the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) 2022 conference being held in London from 24 to 27 January.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/iav-2022-challenger-3-upgrade-under-way
Thanks for this Nigel.
The main problem for me is the glacial pace of this. 148 over a decade or so?
Indeed, I’ve often wondered why we didn’t opt for the Leopard 2A7+ near term bearing in mind our interest in the next generation of combat vehicles from Germany and France plus Boxer? https://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard-2-a7-main-battle-tank/ “LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany — The British Ministry of Defence has opened discussions with France and Germany about signing up as an observer on their next-generation Main Ground Combat System program, according to government and industry officials in the U.K. and Germany. Details of exactly what access the British will get to the program remain unclear, as a possible pact wouldn’t be signed until later this year.… Read more »
Sad that we need to get “observer” status given our illustrious history of producing armoured vehicles in this nation.
Who caused the closure of the armoured vehicle factories, Vickers, and R/O again? Losing the timeline now, was it Blair or did Major put the nail in the coffin?
I recall Major closed the RARDE’s.
Successive cuts over the past 20+ years have left us where we are and at times like this, it’s not a good place to be.
I’m sure if we went with the LEOPARD 2 A7+ new tech from the next-gen tank could have been installed to keep them current, instead, we will have a MBT with no future after this upgrade and no commonality with our European partners in any future conflicts.
Ultimately, one could ascribe shareholder greed and ROI for closures… as much Rtn as possible and screw the consequences; humans are greedy and minded to think in the short term. Who knew?
The current kitchen draw of blunt knives in the UK Army’s arsenal is very alarming, especially as the ‘Bear’ appears to be getting restless? Any British army officer worth his or her salt must be feeling a little uncomfortable at the moment, knowing it can’t match the majority of armour fielded by Russia. The endless claptrap by military theologians about MBT’s being redundant has led to the UK only being able to field 148 CH3’s from 2027 onwards, and 220 CH2’s if called upon today!. The danger of a land war in Europe is as real today as it was… Read more »
Very true Maurice……
I agree, whilst the quality and quantity of Russia’s land forces and AD in particular has increased over the past ten years or so, it is as much the reduction in NATO’s forces capabilities confronting them that gives the Russians the belief that, perhaps for the first time in 40/50 or so years, they have the upper hand in NW Europe. This is allowing them to finally point out, from a position of strength, to the US/NATO the commitments they made in the OECD Agreements about mutual security in Europe, rather than, as in the past, taking it on the… Read more »
I suppose the question has to be, Is it in our interest to fund large armoured formations, when others can do that. let’s be really honest, Eastern Europe is not going to stand or fall on a smallish British armoured expeditionary force. what we need is: 1)actually more fast jet squadrons so we can support air defences on the northern flank. 2)more ability to move the marines and army we have. 3)more navel assets to close the North Atlantic to any enemy’s shipping. 4) maximise the power projection of air and navel assets to hold a nation at risk. We… Read more »
NATO needs to send 200 fast jets to Romania/Bulgaria. The best help we can give Ukraine is air superiority.
In diplomatic terms NATO could declare a No – Fly Zone over the Ukraine, which might be seen to be a lesser step than providing Air Superiority per se. Hillary Clinton had proposed something similar over Syria had she became POTUS, but either way it would be unacceptable to Russia, the mere mention of it could be potentially catastrophic.
But what if the Russians, fighting to protect their nationals in Donbas, shoot down a NATO aircraft that got too close?
Or conversely, what if it was Russia that declared the no fly zone, bit like the US has control over eastern Syria against the wishes of Damascus?
They’ve already shot down a civilian airliner. Russia has no authority on the matter.
The simplest answer to both of your points is no – one knows,hopefully there won’t be an escalation of the situation for us to find out.
Agree with you. Those situations are highly likely to occur. Hopefully the situation will become clearer after the second Paris meeting in 2 weeks.
Just reread my comment, I meant “unlikely” in first sentence. Sorry.
What chance China is coordinating an attack on Taiwan with a Russian attack on Ukraine, hell that’s what I’d do in their shoes. Maybe the Iranians decide to blockade the Straits of Hormuz too.
UK defence spending starting to look well short of the mark…
I said the same thing almost a year ago…
If I were a betting man, I’d say China are watching very closely and weighing up their options. I’d also note that China very recently carried out the largest air incursion into Taiwanese airspace they have ever done.
Convenient timing. That being said the PLAN aren’t where they need to be to properly assault Taiwan. Getting there quite quickly though!
A little like the Ukraine, Taiwan wouldn’t just roll over, they are very well equipped and an amphibious invasion would be a very bloody affair indeed.. Taiwan has prepared for a PLA invasion for years and taken many detailed measures to counter it. Assuming it didn’t start a disastrous war with the US, the sanctions that would follow would be hugely damaging to the Chinese economy and it would be the catalyst for a true SE Asian NATO to form, with the US as guarantor. They would find an impenetrable military and political wall, built around their southern borders and… Read more »
Don’t forget kim in Korea too whilst the US is focused elsewhere. Despite what our politicians think the world still has a good collection of nut cases just waiting for an opportunity…
Thankfully Russia is exposed on two fronts.
The US is likely more concerned with dealing with China, so if that were gotten out of the way (no, China do not have the capacity to ultimately win a war with the US and allies), they could target the now weakened Russian Far East.
You’d have thought someone would have brought out an updated Axis and Allies that we used to play… Christ, every section in every Army would be playing and the extension packs would earn a mint.
Heart’s of Iron IV.
You forgot the North Koreans Marching South,
At this point, if Russia invades any of Ukraine, NATO need to massively increase deployments and investment in members bordering or near Russia. Russia claim to feel threatened, but it is them doing the threatening. If a reduction in the ‘threat’ is what they want yet still attack, then an actual threat needs to be shown to them. It is they who are threatening. NATO is purely a defensive organisation that only still exists because Russia has appeared and shown itself to be a threat. You can ignore and walk away from a bully at school. You or the bully… Read more »
What he said!
There are some that would dispute that NATO is a defensive organisation. If it was it would have packed up and gone home in the 1990s after the USSR and Warsaw Pact folded. No, it has always been a strategic weapon. What Russia is complianing about is way more sophisticated than just ‘feeling threatened’. Completely ignored by the whole MSM is the actuality of their case which is based on two OECD Agreements signed up to by 36 odd European countries and the US. In it the states agreed not to put a neighbouring states’ security at risk, which included… Read more »
I’m not going to even bother reading your comment.
We all know you’re a Russian shill, Ivan. And as much fun as it has been having you in these comments, I think it’s time you moved on.
I’ll just leave you with this: Russia is not trusted in the slightest and that is why NATO has expanded. NATO has no intentions of invading Russia.
Don’t dismiss my comments due to your perception of my bias. Your perception is wrong. If Russia can be trusted is not really relevant in what is going on currently. Ask yourself why we and the US have a different view as to what is going on around Ukraine to France, Germany and Ukraine’s leadership, with us trying to inflame the situation and the Ukrainians in particular trying to calm it down. Our actions are causing big problems for the people there.
Genuine question, do you have an interest in defence matters in general? Or are they only the stories regarding Russia, its leader and its “foreign policies”? Its just that we see NIL comments regarding other matters. Just a polite question.
I’ve answered this question to another poster. Yes I have an interest in the military in general but especially planes. My father and brother were both Wg Cdr one in fighter control the other movements, so its kinda in the blood. First went ‘down the hole’ in a radar station in about 1960/1. I then ended up selling mainframe computers to the RAF. My interest then went into backgrpound mode apart from going to airshows, especially Mildenhall. It fired up again in early 2014 when a US site I was on, mp.net (military photos) started a thread on Ukraine and… Read more »
Thanks for your considerate reply! I have to say, firstly that your posts and replies are always polite, mature and informative. You posts and response, even to negative comments, are considerate and that’s a nice change. But your post content, while informative and, as you say, is in your sphere of interest does raise a number of posters eyebrows. This is simply because, in every post or response there is no criticism, either constructive or otherwise, of Putin, his policies and current and previous Russian activities. I am a firm believer in the efforts at Western democracies, with all the… Read more »
Troll. Look at Peder, TH, Harold. That is a Troll. At least John in MK knows his stuff, does not want the UK disarmed like other Trolls we had, and is polite. Compared to some others that is fine by me. Do I think he is a Troll? No. Do I think he is actually Russian? No. He simply sees things differently. Some of what he says I agree with, some I don’t agree with. Although I comment on plenty there is much I will never contribute in any meaningful way to, like the SA80 thread. Because I don’t know.… Read more »
Mate good assessment, as we know the sad trolls from old. As I said John knows his stuff and we all have areas where we are SME or where most of our interest lies. My only concern is the continued support and lack of criticism of a leader and policies which makes for a fair and non biased contribution. But then again we see that I’m many areas, look at the Labour Party or the Guardian newspaper 😂 cheers mate!
Much more eloquently and patiently put than I could!
I’ve just become fed up with his posts. And I’m not sure that being well written is better or worse. Sure, they are readable and sometimes informative, but it also comes across either incredibly insincere or someone who is very naïve.
I’m concerned that he’s actually part of a more sophisticated Russian operation. And if not, then we’ve still got someone who’s been manipulated by Russian propaganda.
Thanks for your kind words. I try to report what I read from the position of a third party watching both sides of what is effectively Cold War 2.0, gathering and sifting information with an emphasis on what is up now. Information that may be missed by some here and which is going, if I am right, to hot up over the next month or so. Most commentators out there are either ‘top level’ strategy like Mercouris or ‘in the weeds’ like Rob Lee. I try to incorporate both. As you say some here do not like what I report,… Read more »
Hi there, It would not be so bad if you put in a few facts every once and a while, but it was the Ex WP countries that wanted to join Nato after the the Soviet Union imploded. As they knew the Russian Bear would re-awaken and look to reinstate its foot print over Europe and after living under the Russian jack boot for so long they preferred the free living life style of Western Europe to the repressive regime of the Russian state. Mr Putin has done his home work though and has seeded our academic institutions, poilitical parties… Read more »
I object to your insulting insinuation that I am “just looking to make a fast buck on others misery”. Doesn’t this site have rules about that? I put as many facts as I can in my posts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you, the information is out there. In the early mid 90’s there was no indication that Russia was ever going to slip back to the old days. To the contary it was becoming increasingly westernised with exchange visits and even US advisors in all their ministries and our bankers everywhere. Joining NATO was effectively… Read more »
That is strait out of Mr Putin’s hand book. It is people like you who should be investigated and band from public forums as you constantly change the facts to suit your masters version of history. In the 1990’s EU was expanding and was seen by many in the East as a way out of the poverty trap that they had been stuck in under the old Soviet system that is the reason why they joined the EU. The Baltic states new dam well they could not stand up to even a weakened Russia so “they” asked Nato for membership.… Read more »
Whilst I basically agree with your Baltics getting out of poverty the link between the EU and NATO is, I believe, tigher than you may think. I have read nowhere that Putin or any other Russian is advocating the rejection of Poland and the Baltics or a wish to re-establish the old Soviet system. Can you provide sources?
Mate, have you not been reading the news? Russia want NATO to withdraw forces from the Baltics and Eastern members.
This can only be so that they can extend their sphere of influence on them. There’s no way that Russian military brass and top bureaucrats actually think that NATO is currently set up for an invasion of Russia.
I don’t know but there is a chance that I am deeper into the news than others. Have you read Lavrov’s Q&A last week where he details their demands on the US? It centers on the commitments made in 2010 in this document that Russia is now asking be respected, which may involve changes in military positioning in some countries, including itself. Para 3 refers.
https://www.ieee.es/en/Galerias/fichero/OtrasPublicaciones/Internacional/AstanaConmemorativeDeclaration2010.pdf
The stated aims of Mr Putin himself said in writing to the USA and Nato that Nato has to pull back to pre 1990 positions so that Russia can use the old Baltic states along with Poland, Bulgaria, Czech, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary as the buffer zone for the Russians. Effectively giving Mr Putin the green light to do as he pleases and having no understanding or care of what the people in those countries want for themselves. He (Mr Putin) has been seeding the West with people like yourself to twist and turn all historical records so it looks… Read more »
See my reply to Tams above. Its all about honouring Agreements, that incidentally we signed. If a Party, even the size of Russia, is not strong enough to stand up for themselves whilst changes happen that is not good, if they then get to believing they have that strength that can be a real problem. That is where we are now and it puts OECD on the line.
How about Mr Putin respecting the treaties his country signed along with the UK and the USA to respect and help the Ukraine so that it gave up its Nuclear arsenal. Mr Putin cannot be trusted and for him or his aids to start waiving bits of paper in the air is bordering on pathetic, He has zero respect for his own country’s citizens so the people from other countries have no chance. As I have previously stated he has done his work well in seeding the UK, USA and mainland Europe with people all through the media, education and… Read more »
When Turkey joined NATO in the Cold War, and became a neighbour of the former USSR, on its boarders, did the USSR threaten to invade it? Or had a problem with Turkey being a member of NATO?
No idea.
Oh that fist bump is so cringe. It’s like ur grandad drunk at a party trying to do the robot dance
Ah chuckle:
https://i.postimg.cc/tgL8fJM8/Untitled-1.jpg
Ah the infamous Iskander M or K carrying a pair of SSC-7 or 8 cruise missiles, the reason the US gave for leaving the INF Treaty i.e. Russia breaking it.
Definitely not a Pantsir of any variant as per the caption. Well spotted.
There now appear however to be lots of Iskanders now in Belarus.
john wrote: Ah the infamous Iskander M or K carrying a pair of SSC-7 or 8 cruise missiles, the reason the US gave for leaving the INF Treaty i.e. Russia breaking it. Have a look at the missiles again, they are slimmer than the Iskander the vehicle in question is carrying the Bastion cruise missile. Here is a video of the missile system in use in Syria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktyfus5ma6g Not to be confused with the Iskander K which is the missile system the US was concerned about , which led to them pulling out of the INF treaty, the difference in… Read more »
Yes, Bastion probably with Onyx, not Iskander K with SSC-7 or 8.
Not sure if you noticed but the Russians are starting to load the Bastion system with lighter Kh-35U missiles for smaller targets whilst in the future their hypersonic missiles will increase the range from 300 to 1500km. As part of their unified Naval information and control system, the RuN practice targeting the Bastions from their ships.
If only we had a Commando Bde for rapid re-inforcement of Northern climes with an instant readiness Parachute Bde for s
Southern climes and a Bde dedicated to the AML ready to deploy…
Looks wistfully into the distance at what once was….