Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (EFIS) reports that Russia is expanding its armed forces in a way that “not only supports Russia’s war effort in Ukraine but also prepares for a potential future war with NATO.”
The findings, part of EFIS’s annual intelligence report published on 12 February, align with the Institute for the Study of War’s (ISW) assessments that Moscow is setting the stage for a larger conflict in the medium to long term.
EFIS analysts conclude that while “the pace of the Russian military’s rearmament will depend on the duration and outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine,” Russia is actively mobilising more resources despite the extensive losses on the battlefield. If the conflict in Ukraine were to end under terms favourable to Moscow or become a frozen conflict, the EFIS suggests that Russian forces “will be permanently stationed in more significant numbers than before 24 February 2022” along the borders of NATO member states near Russia—including Estonia.
The EFIS report also highlights Russia’s push to develop and centralise drone operations and production. The intelligence service notes that Moscow intends to invest on average €1 million (about $1 million) annually until 2030 into the “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” National Project. The goal is to establish 48 research and production centres across Russia, consolidate the country’s drone design and manufacturing, and introduce drone-related education into “75 percent of all Russian schools.” According to the EFIS, Russia seeks to reduce its dependence on Western technology by turning to third parties—primarily the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—to acquire components. EFIS analysts estimate that “up to 80 percent of sanctioned Western components likely reach Russia through the PRC.”
The report includes details on the 44th Army Corps, formed in the newly re-established Leningrad Military District, as a tangible example of Russia’s capacity to “expand and modernise its armed forces.” Despite extensive casualties—“the largest post-World War II human losses on the battlefield”—EFIS states that Russia has grown its forces beyond pre-war levels of 600,000-700,000 personnel. By 2026, the Kremlin reportedly aims to have a 1.5 million-strong military. Near Estonia, Russia has formed or reorganised multiple units, such as the 69th and 68th Motor Rifle Divisions, showcasing “Russia’s capacity to create large military formations in a relatively short time.”
Estonian intelligence officials and the ISW both warn that Russia’s expanding force posture, combined with its continued push for self-reliant arms production, points to a strategic shift beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. The EFIS underscores the possibility that Russia’s ongoing military reforms and expansions could place NATO border states—like Estonia—in a more precarious security position if Moscow deems it necessary to station large contingents of troops close to alliance frontiers.
The full EFIS report, including details about the 44th Army Corps, can be found via the following link: Russia’s armed forces are expanding: The example of the 44th Army Corps (Estonian version available here)
“Despite suffering the largest post-World War II human losses on the battlefield, Russia’s armed forces are growing. … The fact that both an army corps and a motorised rifle division were assembled near Estonia within a single year demonstrates Russia’s capacity to create large military formations in a relatively short time.”
– EFIS 2025 Annual Report
Donkey powered logistics trains stretching from Rostov to Rotterdam
Never ever underestimate your enemy and especially political will.. the win is the one willing to fight and loss people.. western liberal democracies have shown an appalling lack of will.. so Russia may very well think it could win.
Over estimating an enemy is just as dangerous, the UK’s propensity for nihilism while assuming that everything ever where else is better than us is our greatest weakness.
Just as in 1938 this can lead to deep paralysis.
Russia lacks the population, economy and technology to truly threaten Europe, the only way it can succeed is by forcing Europe in to a malaise. They can’t even beet a small poor country like ukraine.
Yes but you deter because if a war starts with a peer you loss even if you win..and to deter your enemies you need to show them that they will be utterly destroyed with no hope of achieving their objectives..essentially deterrence is based on showing and having the capability to kick the shit out of your enemy without any doubt as soon as doubt come into it the deterrent fails and your I. An existential war burning 30% + of your GDP and destroying your economy for a generation…best just to assume the high end of what your enemies can do and then be better.
Also you are assuming that population and industry are the bedrock of victory..it’s not the bedrock of victory is political will..they US has been defeated by any number of enemies in the last 80 years because its had very little political will…Europe is fragmented and many nations ( Germany and Hungary and Germany and Spain and Germany) will have almost no political will to fight and will likely actually try to prevent action against Russia.
Let’s say I would be happier to have Ukraine on our side, they will be the most reliable troops the west can put into the fight while beyond Poland and the Czechs and Finns I am not sure beyond the professional soldiers Europe will have substantial reliable reserves to introduce. Yes we may indeed overate but then in 1941 we totally underestimated the Japanese and in the end we only have to be wrong once so prefer to be on the over estimate side of the equation. The Germans overrun most of Europe with a supply chain dominated by horses after all.
Hold on there Spyinthesky, are you under the impression the Russian Military couldn’t wipe out Ukraines Military in like 72hrs if that was their objective?
Remember the Biden/Deep State propaganda machine is giving the nightly news fake stories & false narratives, subjecting the west to a narrative that has zero reality in it.
But let point out some facts to you that have been hidden from us as best they can.
Putin went into Ukraine with a very small force, for a peace keeping. Ukrainian civilians live in a small region within Ukrainian borders, but consider themselves Russian. They speak it, live it and have been asking Putin for help because Zelinsky has been oppressing them, making life impossible for them.
Asking help from the terrible treatment they have been suffering, was the main reason Putin went into Ukraine. It is also why he used a very small incursion force with a small relief force, but of course Biden and his corrupt and treasonous pact of idiots twisted the entire situation. Bidens lies along with the Deep State narratives has convinced the world of fallacy after fallacy.
The Biden Crime family is only sending weapons to Ukraine to make billions for their bank accounts. Billions of Dollars of U.S. taxpayer money was being laundered through the FTX Exchange, converted to Crypto, then converting it back into U.S. money onward to bank accounts like Maxi Waters, Chuck Shumars, Obama, Clinton, Bidens and the rest of the Evil Democratic Cabal. Notice when it came to track down the Campaign contribution money that Sam Bankman-Fried was sending to the Democratic Party. The contributions are all on the Blockchain, they are public info and are there for all to see on the Blockchain, but of course the prosecutors made up some totally ridiculous storey, saying it wasn’t worth pursuing because it wouldn’t add to his jail time and most likely end up in a dead end road….lol
Sorry got off track abit, but there is so much more going on more than what we are being led to believe. Putin was actually trying to be the good guy this time and it all got twisted. Being that Putin & Zelinsky has already worked out a peace treaty over 18 months ago but Biden sent U.K.’s crazy haired Prime Minister to put a stop to the peace talks was a very sad missed opportunity. What if the human race was to end because of Nuclear Missiles? All so the Biden Crime Family can grow their bank accounts.
Biden will go down as the the worst U.S. President we have ever have
Okay Vlad.
The only one threatening nuclear war was Putin.
The only one who has expressed expansionary views is Putin.(in his own words, in his own book and by his own actions).
Putins ‘Special Military Operation’ which you brand as peacekeeping was an invasion by force, beyond the 2014 borders he agreed to. He broke yet another agreement and yet again has tried to expand further into Ukraine.
Jason you are full of shit.step away from Putins ring hole.
Hold on there Spyinthesky, are you under the impression the Russian Military couldn’t wipe out Ukraines Military in like 72hrs if that was their objective?
Remember the Biden/Deep State propaganda machine is giving the nightly news fake stories & false narratives, subjecting the west to a narrative that has zero reality in it.
But let point out some facts to you that have been hidden from us as best they can.
Putin went into Ukraine with a very small force, for a peace keeping. Ukrainian civilians live in a small region within Ukrainian borders, but consider themselves Russian. They speak it, live it and have been asking Putin for help because Zelinsky has been oppressing them, making life impossible for them.
Asking help from the terrible treatment they have been suffering, was the main reason Putin went into Ukraine. It is also why he used a very small incursion force with a small relief force, but of course Biden and his corrupt and treasonous pact of idiots twisted the entire situation. Bidens lies along with the Deep State narratives has convinced the world of fallacy after fallacy.
The Biden Crime family is only sending weapons to Ukraine to make billions for their bank accounts. Billions of Dollars of U.S. taxpayer money was being laundered through the FTX Exchange, converted to Crypto, then converting it back into U.S. money onward to bank accounts like Maxi Waters, Chuck Shumars, Obama, Clinton, Bidens and the rest of the Evil Democratic Cabal. Notice when it came to track down the Campaign contribution money that Sam Bankman-Fried was sending to the Democratic Party. The contributions are all on the Blockchain, they are public info and are there for all to see on the Blockchain, but of course the prosecutors made up some totally ridiculous storey, saying it wasn’t worth pursuing because it wouldn’t add to his jail time and most likely end up in a dead end road….lol
Sorry got off track abit, but there is so much more going on more than what we are being led to believe. Putin was actually trying to be the good guy this time and it all got twisted. Being that Putin & Zelinsky has already worked out a peace treaty over 18 months ago but Biden sent U.K.’s crazy haired Prime Minister to put a stop to the peace talks was a very sad missed opportunity. What if the human race was to end because of Nuclear Missiles? All so the Biden Crime Family can grow their bank accounts.
Biden will go down as the the worst U.S. President we have ever have
Trump forces a ‘peace’ in Ukraine.
100k European forces are tied town as peacekeepers.
Russian forces can pivot to the Balkans.
(Just one idea.)
Pivot to the Baltic is more likely.
maybe not to Rotterdam, but donkeys would be plenty to cover the few hundred km to the Baltic capitals.
Sure they spend about 3% GDP on defence, but 3% x 0 = 0. Why i hate these % GDP figures, they mean nothing. what matters is mass and capability.
FYI according to wikipedia
Estonia Armed forces = 7,700 active personnel (3,500 conscripts) / population 1.4 mliion (22% ethnic Russians)
Latvian Armed forces = 17,345 active personnel / pop. 1.8 million (24% ethnic Russians)
Lithuanian Armed forces = 23,000 active personnel / pop. 2.9 million (5% ethnic Russians)
combined they have less than dozen helicopters and not a single fighter jet, not even an old soviet Mig 21 in a dusty hangar
sure they could muster reserve troops and can draft from their small populations, but that would be too late since Russian tanks would already be in their capitals.
What tanks?
Estonia,s intelligence service is just propaganda, Russia is not able to advance a few meters in Ukraine and they say they,ll invade all Europe, not possible to be more clowns.
No but they may just destabilise and take over the Baltic states….
Sorry, What ? How far have Russia advanced into Ukraine ?
They have taken – and hold both Crimea & The Dondas regions, and if they are allowed to hold both of those as part of any ‘peace deal’ via appeasement then their strategic operation will have borne fruit will it not?
I would suspect Moldova , Eastonia etc. would then be concerned- and rightfully so.
Because the West is supplying arms and ammunition via Poland and Romania.
But if Russia attacks through Belorussia (as it did when it attacked Ukraine) but this time to the north to close the Suwałki Gap between Belorussia and Kaliningrad then NATO reinforcement and resupply becomes difficult. The Baltic States would be cut-off and with air and sea the only options.
Putin wants to destroy NATO, and the easiest way would be to cause Article V to fail. Under Trump there is a far greater threat of the USA not honouring the Article V commitment than at anytime since the formation of NATO. Would Trump go to war with Russia just to defend the Baltic States?… That is the gamble Putin could take, to acquire the Baltic States and break NATO.
I mean, I wouldn’t want to face down an article V even without the US getting involved if I was Putin.
If the US doesn’t get involved I doubt there would be an invocation of article 5 that everyone else would back.
And in an instant, Article V becomes worthless and Putin wins…
I don’t think so… NATO Europe has modern air force… That’s all I would take for Ukraine to finally be able to advance again.
If Putin waits until China surrounds and threatens Taiwan he can be prtetty sure that Trump will only be facing one way. We need to be aware that the Baltics are under real threat if Trump throws Ukraine to the wolves.
Don’t underestimate the enemy.
I’d rather we fund our defence properly and then, if/when it comes to a war find out we’ve actually overprepared for it than underprepared.
Ukraine is a large country with a large military who has been at war since 2014 and has a heavily fortified Eastern border. Estonia and Lithuania however…..
In the end if Russia goes to war with NATO we are looking at spending 30% of our GDP, shattering our economy for a generation and seeing 100,000 dead and that’s if we win.. we could see the end of civilisation as the worst outcome.. spending 5% of GDP defence is a very small cost if we can deter that… to be clear if we fail to deter war we loss even if we win.
European boots need to be on Ukrainian soil in days, not weeks, not months. Russia needs to believe that we will guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty.
Why would they? We don’t. We can’t.
In which case we can’t guarantee the Baltic States and after that Gotland and then the Baltic Sea becomes at least in the east a Russian lake not a NATO one. Wouldn’t want to be in Sweden, Norway and Finland should that occur. If they fall we are all gonners.
Unless Europe rallies to Ukraine’s aid before Trump’s deal is done, NATO will be in poor shape. Only the US and front line countries have the troops to put into Ukraine, and the frontliners need to be defending themselves. Meanwhile Trump and Putin are reported to be dividing up the spoils.
I agree 100% -Paul
Colin Brooks AKA Dung AKA Firebird
Paul, it remains to be seen if Putin would accept Europeans in the peacekeeping force, especially ENATO nations. Putin may insist on UN pecekeepers from states that have not actively supported Ukraine, such as India.
Anyway, if I am wrong and it were to be European peacekeepers, sadly the British Army could only supply an embarrassingly small force.
Totally, agree.
Have I mentioned that we spent 48% in WW1 and 52% in WW2..? 🙂 Kinda makes 5% look like a good don’t it. 2.5% isn’t nearly enough to repair the damage done to the RN and RAF, let alone the Army as well.
It is looking increasingly as if Putin’s confidence is on the up. The West’s inability to properly supply Ukraine is now coming home to roost.
It looks as if an early peace is not in eNATO interests to be honest. Sounds cruel to Ukraine, but while Russia is pinned down in Ukraine it will take them longer to rearm and be ready for a fight with eNATO. Medium to long term… hmm say 7 to 15 years if I’m optimistic. Our idiot politicians need to reindustrialise and build up our armed forces as a matter of national urgency if we are to deter aggression.
The worrying question mark is the US nuclear umbrella and can we maintain our if the US starts to get awkward the Trident?
Blimey, things are moving fast..!
Cheers CR
Yes indeed, also completely agree on the nuclear umbrella.. trump would and could turn off access to the trident maintenance pool … not sure how long our missiles would be effective.
The problem is nuclear ballistic missile submarines are not missile agnostic, they are built around the missiles they carry.
We may need to even think about ensuring we have a sovereign capability for maintaining our trident missiles.. or that we at least have a back up around a possible full triad.. time to chat to the French about a joint new generation nuclear air launched cruise missile and a joint new generation SLBM.
I agree we badly need air launched options. Russia would test us with battlefield weaponry believing we would not dare retaliate with our strategic weapons. Without the US we would be sitting ducks even with some French coverage.
So all the previous rhetoric around our nuclear deterent being totally under our ‘control’ was in fact somewhat ‘misleading’ then.
I would say they were correct, in that it’s a UK decision when to deploy it so its independent..but if the U.S. decides to pull the maintenance contract then it’s not long term viable..in the same way the F35s would not be…
It’s why some of us bash on about sovereign capability and the importance of the military industrial complex and the need to invest in and support it.
@ Jonathan (dontxca just hate this new improved forum).. Yes I get that but it does somewhat make the independence moot if there’s nothing available to fire. Same as the F35B (as you point out)…this is something I have mentioned in the past we have put all our carrier eggs in one basket regards the aircraft. Now is seems the chikens may be coning home to roast with this megalomaniac in the White House. I had a forlorn hope his posturing was to get eNato to spend more money on ( mostly US manufactured) Defence, but it seems recent events are showing him for the nut job many thought him to be. I’m not so sure where this leaves 5 eyes and/or and the USAUK agreement but It look like we (UK) could.find ourselves stuck between a rock & a hard place…At the very least Tempest looks like it’s gone up the list for crucial funding if nothing else.
As I’ve said on an earlier article it has become apparent giving up BAOR will go down as one of the biggest blunders in British Military History just to save a few pounds. Hope the Politicians and 2*s who signed off on that one are proud of themselves while living it large on their Gold Plated Pensions.
I do t really agree.
What would BAOR have done between 1997 and 2014?
Got very bored, polished lots of boots and had a jolly good time. A military force needs a focus. There wasn’t one. Otherwise it goes stale quickly.
What I’m more concerned about is the amount that wasn’t invested in three services as home and the ludicrous ongoing cuts after 2014 when gently ramping up investment to send a clear signal was the order of the day.
The lack of signal list 2014 is the red flag for me. At that point an idiot would have realised that Putin was a bully and bullies only respond to overwhelming force.
It would have been better to have the stick in hand instead of scrambling about now huffing and puffing on the world stage as we are now especially the training capability for starters.
Although Hareems sure would have been busy.
I agree with you that we have been caught with our trousers down since 2014 it was CTU this CTU that while Russia was making plans again.
Looking back it is looking very similar to lost opportunities in the thirties when documents tell us as big a bully as he was Hitler would have held back thinking they were not prepared for war even in their plans till 1941. The Wests weakness then led to his over confidence but that over confidence effectively worked for the initial stages and had it not been for Churchill would have probably won him the war. The only alternative would have been years later Stalin winning it hardly an encouraging thought.
I wonder if there is something of the old Cat A, B and C formations where C was basically a shell headshed and B was equipped with 1950s equipment and mostly reservists/conscripts and only A had the knats gonads of kit – of today, I see the flaw with that history but I’d proffer Russia might just be bullshitting a tad about building up Divisions here and there. Thoughts?
In the short term I would be surprised if they anything other museum pieces in some of the units, but two things spring to mind.
1) The assessment above suggests that significant supplies of Western commuter chips are getting through to Russia via China so they may well be able to continue to produce some of their more advanced weapons in quantity;
2) The Russians might be holding back some of their better equipment for NATO, e.g. they have not deployed the T-14 Armata MBT which they are building in small numbers. Of course, the latter might be that they fear that it might be about as robust as a T-72..!
The risk is that Russia is on a war footing and spending about 25% of GDP in defence. Although their economy has taken a hit and is not on a par with Europe their costs are also lower, so they will probably achieve quite bit in the medium term as far as rearmament is concerned. Plenty of time to European politicians to take their eyes of the ball..!
Cheers CR
I read Davey mention their better units were not committed to UKR but are further north and west of Moscow.
What are the better units? VDV and Naval Infantry used to be considered the cream of the Russian Crop, now both units are mostly in body bags. The 4th Guards Tank Division was considered one of the best in the Russian army, now most of it’s Tanks are in Ukrainian hands. The only units I can think off that have been held back are the parade ground formations.
You just have to look at the demographics of the Russia casualties, after the first beheading failed what was left of the professional Russian army was removed back to Russia, it’s also not been using its young conscripts, instead they are just doing there service and going back to civilian life. They have instead filled up the field army in Ukraine with older reservists, foreigners, prisoners and the desperate..that is why the average age of the Russia soldiers in Ukraine is moving to around 50. They have been preserving their young men.
Interestingly Ukraine has been doing the same as your exempt from front line service until 25 and the average age of front line Ukrainian solders is 42-45.
It may not be an old man’s war but it is a middle aged man’s war…as both nations have preserved their youth.
Yes. In the Cold War most of their Cat A were in the GSFG, with fewer in the western USSR and some in the far east opposite China.
The second echelon to move west into eastern Europe I recall were mostly Cat B. Cat C were in the interior districts of the USSR.
They’re stripping the old kit away from store already it will take many years for them to build up.
That must be matched by European NATO, but NOT at the expense of the RN which agitators in the Daily Telegraph and the Army are still hinting at.
It’s not and or it has to be an and.. simple put I think we have hit a 5% gdp moment. Back to a 1990 forces level
30 major surface escorts
12 SSNs
12 fast jet squadrons
3 actually deployable divisions 2 armoured, 1 light Mec
We also need to look at the nuclear umbrella we now need a deterrent that allows no conceivable Russian state to survive.. from a European perspective that’s 1000 warheads and a full triad.
I agree but you don’t need 5% of GDP for that force level. More like 3%.
You don’t need 5% to maintain the issue the UK has is we are in massive capital deficit if you tot up the capital expenditure it’s huge..so it needs to be 5% for the foreseeable.
Those figures don’t stack up, you could not physically spend 5% of GDP on defence in the near term, not enough people want to join the military to employ and global industrial capacity just can’t produce weapons at that pace much less UK industry.
The military would literally be returning funds to the treasury each year. You can’t just double nearly triple a budget like defence over night.
Just look at the programme capital costs that’s where it comes from..not manpower
Just an GBAD system burns 5 billion
If you actually got the armoured vehicles the army needed for 3 divisions you would burn 15 billion
4 more front line fighter squadrons 10 billion
11 more major surface combatants 10 billion
5 more SSNs 6 billion
See just the capital costs for what I suggested is almost 60 billion over about order all that over 5 years and that’s around .5% just on capital cost..before you hit basing costs and annual costs.
Any rational analysis of the state of the current state of the British Armed forces would suggest that in order to stop things getting any worse that we should now be in the Treasury “Just shut up and sign the cheques mode” and not in some absurd metaphysical discussion about future share of GDP.
An intention to grow the defence budget tomorrow doesn’t stop ships being mothballed or sold today. Neither does it make makes your airspace any safer from missile attack because your too mean and skint a to buy a GBAD capability.
More aptly promises of jam tomorrow is pretty hopeless at conjuring soldiers out of thin air in order to allow you to grandstand on the world stage by fictionally deploying them along a huge border in an attempt to keep some very grumpy and trigger happy Russians out.
I’m forced to conclude that politicians may just be too stupid and too venal to manage Defence properly. Perhaps they should be forced to sit an exam on the subject before they are allowed to open their mouths or make decisions about it. But if I hear one more politician brag about meeting a 2% figure of GDP whilst in reality the world is on fire….
Really do you Want to destroy Russian territory ? , do you think russians will not answer? , what do you want , nuclear destrucción?, some Times I don,t understand some persons here.
The best Way to deter Russia is to increase at least to 3% defence spending and please relax your wishes of nuclear war.
Being penny wise & pound foolish has got us nothing but pain. Like the poor lads cutting around in soft top landies in our misadventures in the middle east shitting it they were going to get brassed up because some bean counter who’s never been on patrol thought as has been thought for the past 30 years that as always we can just make do. If we are going to be serious about a European wide re-arm we need to get it right first time 5% now is better than 35%-45% down the line when we are in the middle of a one hell of a war if it ends up going the way everyone is proclaiming it could worse case scenario.
The only way to deter is of the deterrent is complete and overwhelming, if Putin does not believe any deterrent was complete he will test it and that would create a tragedy…PAX atomica is a proven concept..but to have PAX atomica you must have MAD.
Of course Russia is preparing for a war with NATO.
Some Times they say here that Russian armed forces are full of scrap and unable to defeat even to a small country and at tle same time they say Russia will invade all Europe.
Please clarify
Well it could be different people giving various opinions based on different views. To treat this forum as one voice with a single opinion is rather misunderstanding the point of a forum.
Ok what will nato do about it ???
NATO HQ will almost certainly increase the 2% figure to around 3%.
All that needs to happen is a simple surgical strike…. That’ll remove the cancer once and for all.
Rearmament needs to happen know. Less talking more doing PLEASE!!. Can we not spend up the build program of the Type 26’s 31’s Challengers, Batch 4 Typhoons. There are some clear messages that can be sent and quickly. We have a short window whilst Russia replenishes its Ukrainian losses. We need to rebuild the Defence capability PDQ. Less Wind Turbines more Tanks & Ships!! Russia only understands on thing and that is the Projection & Deliverability of Power.
Don’t know about others but things we need to order immediately as I contemplate it start with more Typhoons ordered, getting the Self propelled gun requirement sorted and ordered and presumably pushing ahead urgently with Brimstone (or equivalent) and ASRAAM/CAMM/LMM based platforms even if they are rather less than gold plated and enter an an urgent study into the viability of enabling either South Korean or Panther tanks to be acquired and preferably built here as Poland and Ukraine seem to have managed. Our Challenger force needs back up even if it’s in preparation rather than an immediate decision. What other immediate decisions however do others think vital now not many months down the line, it’s not like they are for the most part ordered and received overnight. Some things just seem obvious and don’t need a defence review to tell us.
“Intelligence warns Russia ‘preparing for war with NATO’”
Meanwhile, water is wet, air is dry.
Tragic that everyone has only themselves to blame, and we find ourselves in this nearly impotent condition. Has Russia EVER NOT been preparing for war against NATO? When the USSR changed its name to simply Russia, everyone threw down their arms and sang Kumbaya, as if in one fell swoop the entire civilized world suffered amnesia of the last 100 years of Communist aggression—overt and covert.
It’s not even a case of “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me” because we weren’t fooled the first time. We’re just stupid.
Trouble is there needs to be a complete restructuring of ENATO because essentially the alliance was built around US leadership and enablers.. this has now gone.. which effectively means NATO has defacto gone. Europe needs a massive and pretty immediate realignment..
It’s not just massive increases in defence expenditure it’s a whole knew approach.. this unfortunately does essentially mean a European army and the EU is going to want to play the major role in this..
If it was not so tragic it would be funny that what trump has done will create what he hates most, a very coherent and strong EU..with its own military structure..
While Europe has a million plus active soldiers, a lot of these are from smaller nations with just one or two brigades. As most countries like to have a few tanks, these smaller countries account for a large proportion of Europe’s armoured units. Surely a plan needs to be put in place to integrate these units into more useful larger formations.
I recognise that the standard of some of these units needs addressing, for example Portugal’s armoured brigade has Leo A6s, but it’s infantry is still in M113s (only mention Portugal as currently there on holiday)
Not really. Integrating Brigades, or even having Separate Brigades (as the Ukrainians do or the old British Field Forces) isn’t that hard to manage. The bigger issue is the lack of Corps and Army level commands and enablers within Europe.
Thanks Dern. there are about 8 ARRC-like Corp level commands in eNATO. Do you think we need more or do you have concern with how experienced each of these are.
As the US is the default Army command for NATO, do you think they would be happy for an eNATO army command HQ to be developed?
So let me answer your second question first:
The US has said it wants ENATO to step up, they can’t then get pissy if they create their own command structures. Unless the objective is a) to serve Europe up to Putin on a Platter or b) For the US to have it’s cake and eat it too.
So on too your initial point: the 8 Corps Commands are NATO, not European Commands, so the whole US thing applies, but also: Most of those Corps are paper HQ’s, with no permenently assigned units (or when they have assigned units you can count the number of battalions on one hand). I don’t think a single NATO 3* HQ has any Corps level Artillery.
So: I think a Coherent and Strong EU needs it’s own 3* commands that can slot into NATO when required, rather than relying on NATO commands that will always have a US element to them. I think those European 3* commands need to have a working orbat of assigned divisions, not a brigade from Germany if the month ends in R and one from France the rest of the year. And I think those 3* commands need to have their own Corps level assets, which, at present, very few European Countries invest in.
Regarding small country brigades, I was not suggesting that they had to form part of another countries division (you have previously told me that is not required 😄), but in war do we know who will be commanding them and, geographically, what will their role be.
As you mentioned, having independent brigades is not an issue, with 1st brigade in the 1980s being a good example, but it was know that this unit was going to come under danish command for defending the entrance to the Baltics.
This goes back to the lack of 3* commands in Europe.
So for example, you could have a mostly German Corps, consisting of the 10th and 1st Panzer Divisions, with the Belgian Motorised Brigade serving as an independent Brigade in the Corps.
Jonathan, it is far too hard to construct a European army. Need to build on and develop the pre-existing structures such as the 11-nation Eurocorps, ARRC, 10-nation JEF.
Any structure will do as long as it’s separate from NATO but complements NATO ( just incase the US sees sense and does not kill nato off).
Yup. There needs to be a seperate non-NATO European Chain of Command so the Europe can fight without NATO, but if an Article V situation happens Europe can go “Well the 1st (Polish) Armoured Corps and 10th (German) Armoured Corps are ready to go, Mr Four Star NATO General, here you go.”
Russia has generally performed badly in land warfare ( and even worse at sea). In WW1, it was comprehensively defeated by Germany that was still deploying most of its forces in the West. The Red Army was defeated by Estonia and Poland in 1920. In 1939, it suffered huge casualties in its war against Finland, achieving only modest gains. In 1941, it barely managed to avoid total defeat by Germany, aided by the latter’s strategic ineptitude. Only from late 1942, did it begin to perform competently.
Since 1945, Russian has had little experience of peer/ near peer warfare. Operations to crush civilian uprisings in EastGermany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia were little more than police actions. Its attempt to control Afghanistan was disastrous- despite its lack of operational restraints, it suffered heavy casualties,far greater than those suffered by Western forces during its longer engagement.
Again in the Chechen wars against lightly armed guerillas, the Russian army performed poorly, suffering heavy casualties and succeeding eventually only by destroying Grozny.
Its war against Ukraine has exhibited an even greater degree of incompetence. The failure of the southward armoured assault towards Kyiv was astonishing. A country that had
slowly achieved competence in all arms operations by copying German methods seemed to have forgotten all it had learned.
Trying to rebuild a competent force is therefore no surprise. How willing Russia is to risk another military adventure which will,even if successful, be of little benefit, is much more doubtful.
The real threat to the West is the clown in the White House and his even more idiotic VP.
The Russians convinced the world and themselves they were god at fighting despite their long list of mostly failures.
You are fundamentally correct only numbers gave them real advantage and thankfully these days their immediate population is little more than twice ours. My worry is still the amount of that population they can exploit as compared to Western Democracies but to keep their industry going they will struggle to add more to the front line and certainly whereas they thought Ukraine would be a matter of weeks and then 40 mil more Slavs to use as cannon fodder thereafter in a long term war with Europe unless others came to their aid they simply would not be able to sustain it. Hopefully that will prevent the madness but still wouldn’t presume Putin sees it that way. The position of Turkey could be crucial in overall balance, if they supported Euro NATO then numbers would be overwhelmingly against Russia and would mean their southern flank would be almost defenceless especially as Turkish allies like Azerbaijan would inevitably become involved and who knows where Kazakhstan or even Chechnya would see their best interests lay.
Turkey is very important but I think Germany is the key. France, UK and Poland will step up along with JEf countries. If Germany follows suit then all the EU will be onboard. Germany is the big question, its weak willed and potentially very divided especially with the AFD in play.
I think Germany will probably not, it’s essentially at best neutral leaning and worse Russia aligned.
Peter S, right! USSR won WW2 only because Stalin recruited a million man army from Central Asia. Russia record of battle loses out number battle field wins,’ bigly.’. Hitler, Napoleon lost to the cold Bitter Russian winters and Russia perseverance, which was a defensive battle for Russia. Being in an invasion mode, was aided by the Asian army during WW2, by themselves Russia is incompetent. P s, please don’t insult clowns. The real threat is the racist, fascist in the WH and his co Pres, Musk
SDSR must move to a threats based defence posture and we don’t commit to a percentage but we do commit to achieve a force level needed to defeat the threats
When we do that the following emerges as a requirement
RAF 35-40,000 personnel.
16+ Poseidon MPA
7 Wedgetails AWACS
90+ F35B
Typhoons, new tranche 4 with 36-48 aircraft allowing tranche 1 retirement or more accurately sold to Ukraine.
A400M. Additional 9-12 aircraft
GBAD for airfields
RN Additional 2-4 type 26s. Further batch of 5x Type 31s
Drone motherships X4 for protection of sub sea key infrastructure
FSS+ MRSS X6
Either order an interim 2-4 type 212 AiP subs or get AUKUS ordered and built as damn quickly as we can or an additional number of Astute class. Crucially the number of subs we operate has to increase within the next 5 years.
Or large unmanned sub surface drones that can undertake the patrol and hunter killer role. X12 vessels needed.
Army
All C2s to C3 standard
IFV to replace warrior. Ascod or Boxer?
Archer SPGs x90
Put 10,000 troops back onto the Army’s order of battle
GBAD. We need a compact 4×4 mounted anti drone solution, backed up by ECM/ECCM and radar guided guns and medium and SHORAD.
IF we can do that on 2.5% fine but more likely need to get to 3% and get that done immediately
Yes I would agree with all that and I think it’s doable on 3% of GDP.
I also think it’s likely we will participate in a pulled European fund of around €200 billion for rearmament with the UK getting between 10 and 15%. It’s almost certain those funds won’t be spendable on US products which is likely to make Eurofighter as well SAMP/T very attractive systems as opposed to Patriot and F35.
I don’t see any AIP subs as they will take more than 10 years to acquire and the Type 93 will likely cover most if the roles an AIP SSK can.
That would not be doable on 3% not in the short term.
Very well explained but forget it with current british politicians..
The Army needs 40k+ Injection of manpower ASAP, Cabrit was finishing people off before their time we need mass right now if we are going to be serious about this or it will be another bodge job and you will all be shaking your heads when we dip to 69K this year.
I expect the contributors to this site who know their stuff can probably argue all day about how much spend is needed and more precisely what manpower and kit is needed to make the UK into fit a proper shape for air sea and land conflict against nations rather than insurgents. But what are we really short of? And dare I ask, are two aircraft carriers with (limited?) numbers of F-35B of much use in a European conflict?
I feel now is the time to leave the US to worry about China now they seem less keen to worry about us. Could we ditch the carriers, buy more missile defence frigates and change to F-35As from Bs?
To be honest the carrier are very good for the Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean..if Europe is going to compete on the global stage it does need to be able to generate carrier battle groups..infact if there is a proper US Europe split then in reality France needs to get an extra CBG so Europe can generate 2 carriers.
The carriers are needed. No doubt about that. We just need to make sure their battle group and airwing deliver the ships huge potential
I can tell you right now 40k+ people need to be recruited and the fleet sat overlooking the open road on Chetwynd Barracks needs to be fixed and brought online or sold off instead of being jurassic park.
I mean fleet of vehicles before anyone tries to get crazy
what are those vehicles and what are they doing?
A graveyard of Mastiffs that will need to be brought online to patrol the now heaviest mined area in Europe, HETS and knackered ELPS will need to get fixed as well and the busted MGOBs that haven’t already been sold or given away will have to be cannibalised and made ready to go.
After any Ukraine deal/sell-out Putin will have to either
• wind down defence spending, and give the Russian economy time to recover before then rebuilding before any future military adventure, or
• pivot and attack another state, Moldova, Georgia, or the Baltics within the next two years.
The Russian economy cannot withstand the current financial war costs for more than another couple of years.
Defence expenditure is far higher than official figures due to the Kremlin forcing the banking sector to loan money to the armament industry. This alone has left Russia on the brink of a financial collapse and widespread bank-runs.
Russia’s economy is suffering due to lost sales and sanctions. Gazprom is now losing billions of dollars per year, for the first time in its history.
Russia’s Soviet-era reserves of military equipment will run out within this period, and the Ukraine is destroying it new equipment faster than the Russians can build it.
Russia might be tactically winning metres of ground here and there with their meat grinder attacks. But strategically, Ukraine has worn Russia down to the point where this war will end within the next 2 years regardless of any peace negotiations.
After any Ukraine deal/sell-out Putin will have to either
• wind down defence spending, and give the Russian economy time to recover before then rebuilding before any future military adventure, or
• pivot and attack another state, Moldova, Georgia, or the Baltics within the next two years.
The Russian economy cannot withstand the current financial war costs for more than another couple of years.
Defence expenditure is far higher than official figures due to the Kremlin forcing the banking sector to loan money to the armament industry. This alone has left Russia on the brink of a financial collapse and widespread bank-runs.
Russia’s economy is suffering due to lost sales and sanctions. Gazprom is now losing billions of dollars per year, for the first time in its history.
Russia’s Soviet-era reserves of military equipment will run out within this period, and the Ukraine is destroying it new equipment faster than the Russians can build it.
Russia might be tactically winning metres of ground here and there with their meat grinder attacks. But strategically, Ukraine has worn Russia down to the point where this war will end within the next 2 years regardless of any peace negotiations.
As we saw with Prigozhin mutiny, Putin is not as invulnerable as he projects himself to be.
The problem is Russia is a different entity from Putin and it’s what’s in the interest of Putin is that is the key. If he thinks building a nationalist, anti-west militaristic nation is in his interests then that is the Russia he will build. If he believes it is in his interest to grow Russia militarily or politically then that is how Russia will behave.
Prepare for the political annexation of Belarus because that is what is coming next and after that the movement of large number of Russian soldiers right next to the borders of the baltic states. Where they will sit menacingly looking for an opportunity to arise from a militarily weak and politically fractured West.
Facing down and containing a future anti-west Russia is going to be far, far more expensive for Europe than the feeble minds of Merkel and Cameron ever dreamed of.