NATO and Ukraine discuss Russian military build-up on border

You keep me right captain 🍺

*slow reluctant clap*

The burning question who is more prepared for action? Which side will be better coordinated for a rapid action? Has Russia got the upper hand here, if so, are we looking at another Sudetenland situation, plenty of rhetoric and posing but? Considering many NATO members are part of the EU and take several weeks to choose the canteen coffee, where do we really stand in terms of opposing Russia? As always folks, it will be down to the US and UK to decide how matters progress…..yes the UK who no longer believe in the might of heavy armour, yet may need to bolster current forces with more heavy metal. Something is very lopsided with the latest UK Defence cuts, especially in the face of growing Russian activity. I can see some back peddling on the horizon.

I honestly don’t believe we can depend on the USA either. Look at the last 20 years of its foreign policy. They have committed folly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are now exiting in disgrace. Just like Vietnam.

I think it’s high time we really stopped looking at the US as the leader of foreign policy. It may have the most muscle, but it doesn’t have a clue how to use it. CANZUK would open the door for the UK to rise to a superpower status once more, while having partners that are our kith and kin, smart, loyal and true warriors.

As for the EU, pffff. They just signed a trade deal with China, who is committing genocide and creating gulags for its own people. Germany has just clamped its own balls into a Russian vice, by becoming dependent on the latter’s oil.

I personally don’t have confidence in either US or EU.

I commented recently about a possible compact of understanding between Germany and Russia, so you are correct about German dependency on the Bear. I simply can’t see how Germany can be committed to NATO, when its so dependant on Russia to exist as a modern industrial nation? Sadly, the EU is as maneuverable as bucket of porridge, and can’t be relied upon to quickly act on anything.

Russia knows this, and I believe intends to flex its muscles where the chances of major international conflict are slight. The salami slicing of its foreign policy follows a similar path to that of Hitler prior to WW2, where the rest of the World did sod all, apart from strong diplomatic language of disapproval.

The US must be applauded for its commitment towards global defence but like most democratic nations, witnesses regular government administrational changes, that makes long term foreign and military planning difficult.

Well said George. Although the US is part of the anglosphere it has proven unreliable. Beijing Biden, the usurper currently squatting in the Whitehouse, has already sold out to China. Free elections are finished in the USA too. There will be no help coming from them in the foreseeable future.
Free from EU shackles we have growing room. And the Wuhan CCP Pandemic has given us the hunger to grow like never before. If Boris stops being a Doris and grows a pair. We could abolish the overseas aid budget and build, build build!

I wouldn’t even say they are part of the Anglo-sphere. Just being able to speak English is a very low bar in my view. Their political structure is based on Ancient Rome. Even their national animal is the eagle. Their thinking on liberty and freedom is based on French revolutionary thought. And the majority of their ruling class is Irish Catholic, i.e. Reagan, JFK, Clintons, Biden, etc. So they’re a weird mix, but not Anglo-centric in my opinion.

David Starkey has some magnificent insights into all of this. He is master of history and has said on many occaisions, the UK and US are so different it’s hard to comprehend beyond the droning on of ‘special relationship’.

We will just have to differ on that one. We British come from the British isles. Recent political boundaries are irrelevant. Although English is the dominant language it is not the only one spoken in Great Britain. The anglosphere is not defined by language but it is symbolised by it.
The original and ultimately victorious colonisers of America were all British. They named their settlements after the places they came from. Washington, York, Boston, etc. Or British royalty. The old families along the entire Appalachian mountains are Scots, Irish, English and kept their culture alive. We share much more than DNA.
The legal systems in both the U.K. and the U.S. share the same historical common law roots, and are for that reason quite similar. Magna Carta and our common law heritage have assured some commonality, even in divergence. I can go on and on.

Lets hope so because GB has cut so much defence spending since 1991. HM. Gov has forgotten that it’s first duty is defence.
But Russia is not the USSR with countless reserves of armour. A, B and C class regiments operating all manner of AFVs back to T55/64. With the added numbers from Warsaw Pact satellite nations, rolling fwd like a steam roller. Then again, Ukraine is not far from the Rodina and it’s air cover.

You can get injection now, for the clap.

On that note I wonder if Ukraine secretly managed to keep an Ace up it’s Sleeve………. just in case!.

No, all of the nuclear capability of the Ukraine was dismantald with American and Brits watching. I was in the Ukraine at the time rebuilding the national telecoms network. Even then there were issues with Ukrainian and Russian peoples, it was like we are independent now so you will not tell us what to do anymore, its my country not yours. I met several who came out of Russian jails because they wanted Ukranian independence, they were really anti Russian. What many people don’t know is even the language is diffrent as is the alphabet, Ukrainians speak Russian, but Russians don’t speak Ukrainian, the Russians look apon the Ukrainians as children, they even call the country little Russia (Mala Russ).

Noises coming out of Ukraine now are that if they fail to be accepted as a NATO member they will look to (re) aquire Nuclear Weapons.

Ok faulty memory bank on France!

I agree a moment was allowed to pass with Crimea.

For me the main issue that your question highlighted was the fact that NATO does not have the number of ships or subs necessary to properly defend the Altantic SLOC’s (Sea Line of Communication).

The USN only has 80 to 90 escorts, so the tier one readiness ships are spread way too thinly across the globe.

The Royal Navy has 17 escorts if we are being honest. Although the French have more escorts they are not all high end ships as the French have a number of patrol frigates that protect the few remaining sovereign overseas territories and they will likely split their forces between the Atlantic and Med.

The other major navy in NATO are the Italians, but they will likely keep their fleet in the Med to watch the Russians operating out of Syria.

I haven’t added up the total number of escorts in NATO but I would be surprised if it added to up more than 100, with a good number in the Med. Apply the rule of 3’s for readiness and the escort fleet is looking horribly thin.

I cannot see NATO winning a third Battle of the Atlantic, especially if China decided to support Russia with subs transitting under the polar ice.

As have I said, NATO will want to keep the Ukrainian Crisis in the Ukraine…

Cheers CR

I think NZ need to up their game for their own security.

FYI the UK is in Northern Ireland 😉

Isn’t that exactly what Putin is doing towards the Ukraine?

Yes frank that was my point I was trying too explain to Lordtemplar.

Certainly not, there is always a Middle Way – an Equipment Plan that is Affordable and Sustainable, more resistant to the Pressures of government changes and the Treasury – remember ‘ better is the enemy of good enough’.

We haven’t got into the state of recent decades where the richest get away with nominal taxes & offshoring wealth, states shrinking quality & quantity of services, including cuts that practically dismantle defences by accident. Successive governments have allowed this to happen & only occasionaly cry crocodile tears, tinkering with the edges rather than resolving it properly & fairly.

Trade agreements were narrowly defeated in the last decade which would’ve allowed corporations to sue the UK if they did anything that they felt harmed their buisnesses.
If we are democracies then the rich & powerful dictating everything to suit themselves & crushing everybody else should’nt even be possible.

Blind yourself with sci-fi all you want, it’s a Western addiction, but most knowlageable people don’t think our army is big enough even before we consider anything Putin or the Chinese may start. For all the hi-tech wizardry that may or may not prove effective, we still have outdated 2nd rate artilliary. We’d struggle against most medium nations. 70-80,000 troops probably means c10,000 combat troops & they’d quickly burn out in sustained ops.

Yeah, like we need to go to war against either China or Russia without any allies 🤦‍♂️
I don’t need to blind myself with sci-fi, I work for one of the world’s leading technology design companies. Much of what I see in our labs would be regarded as sci-fi by you.

As for taxes, well you’re completely befuddled. The main issue is due to corporations offshoring profits to the likes of Luxembourg and Ireland; ie Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. You can blame a certain Jean Claude Junker as PM of Luxembourg for that.

You’re completely wrong with regards to the trade agreements too. 🤷‍♂️

2 Type 23’s being cut before any T26’s let alone 31’s are built, 20 plus Typhoons, All T1 Hawks, A third of CH2’s, all Warriors, another few thousand Army Personnel, Fewer Wedgetails, Puma, Bell, Gazelle all cut, 48 F35B’s not the original 138, C130’s cut, Mine Hunters…. this is all on top of previous cuts which have been going on for many many Decades. Do you Recall anything now ?

Equipment that isn’t useable or obsolete, so not cuts. Or do you want to kill needlessly our servicemen by sending them into the frontline in obsolete and dangerous vehicles and aircraft? 🤷‍♂️
I suppose you would’ve bemoaned the scrapping of our men o’ war when we started building Dreadnoughts…

The Mine Hunters are being replaced by Mine Hunting UAVs.
The final number of F35B’s not yet set but it is more than 48, we never ordered 138 which was the aspiration before UAVs and Tempest were even thought of.
The Warriors were obsolete and their life extension programme was turning into a Nimrod fiasco.
Etc etc.

The actual details destroy your political narrative.

Hi Sean

Some of what you say I’d agree with. There needs to be a balance between quality and quantity, too often there isn’t IMO in areas that really matter. They are airpower, the RN, and artillery and enablers for the army.

But you mention details. The devil is always in the detail.

The Mine hunting replacements while more advanced and welcome cannot self deploy. No sign of dedicated mother ships to launch them as yet, meaning other valuable assets do it which could be in use elsewhere. And the RN’s MCMV have used remote systems for years, it is not new.

F35B I agree, people far too hung up on the 138 number. I’d bite your had off for 70.

Typhoon T1 is still disappointing as they, the Hercs and other ISTAR assets were some of the few positives of 2015SDSR, which seems to have never occurred as its findings have been reversed.

Warrior. The army needs an IFV alongside its Tanks. I was happy with Boxer but others far more knowledgeable than me explain it lacks the Warriors capability over terrain.
And Boxer currently has a pea shooter for armament! It is a fudge on MoD/ Army’s part as they tried to buy everything at once rather than getting the Tanks, CVRT and Warrior replaced. The money existed for this in 2015 then they went for Boxer instead.

Tank numbers I’m fine with. We will only field 2 regiments worth anyway plus RWY (R). They need to be top spec though.

Personnel numbers wise I’m not so concerned with myself as long as the army is better organised at the end of it. It is not a 10,000 cut as the army were not at 82,000. It is more like 3-4000. I agree, we do not need a big army.
We DO need a bigger RN, RAF, and a capable intelligence community and DSF as the tip.

Will the RN grow? Will have to see.

Scott goes before MROSS arrives.
3 FSS hopefully replace 3 Fort.
T23 paid off early I can accept as I understand the rationale behind the decision. But their replacements are years away, and in the short term the RN gets smaller and will government change its mind in the future while spinning the positives now?
As I pointed out above, 2015 SDSR positives were reversed here in 2021.

Budget up, good. But for how long? Most seems to be going on plugging holes, on R&D, and Tempest. 2 Billion on Tempest could just end up jam tomorrow while governments fat cat share holder friends line their pockets now. But I support the programme. If it comes to fruition excellent, we should build our own equipment.
In the 2010 cuts the jam was the F35.

Hercules. I cannot accept the cut of those putting the mission on the 22 Atlas, despite the greater capability, size, and expanding missions of that force.

Elephant in the room. Successor subs into core budget. Horrific move my George Osborne not reversed.
Previously, by most accounts, operating costs were paid by MoD and rest was paid by central government. That and pensions added are eating into the MoD’s money and a glance at the equipment plan on Submarines shows that, although that pie includes AWE, SSN and SSE.

I really don’t think the captain has a political narrative as you say. All governments have cut the forces, constantly.
He is just sick to the back teeth with it!!! I used to be the same, probably worse. Now days I try to see the positives too.

I’d bet money that the additional T32 frigates will end up replacing the mine-hunters, acting as motherships for the newly purchased anti-mine UAVs. In theory the mine hunters has secondary roles as OPV’s, instead we’ll have frigates that can fulfil the anti-mine role. Given the cost and limited number of vessels the RN can have, having fewer specialist classes is a prudent move if the capability is as good as or better than previous specialist classes.

F35B aspiration was over the 50 year lifetime of the programme. Now we can honestly ask will there actually be any manned combat aircraft 50 years from now given recent technological advances. I’d hope for maybe 80, though we may yet see LM produce a drone derivative of it.

Hopefully the government will effectively tie the hands of future governments by repeating what was done with the carriers, and including cancellation clauses in the contracts that have a larger penalty than fulfilling it. It’s the only way to get long-term commitment to a programme that can span several government terms.

The Hercules and Atlas effectively fulfil the same role, so reducing maintenance costs by only continuing with one. Hopefully we can get a good resale value on the Hercules. (Personally I’m not sure if it’s the right choice given the issues with Atlas…)

Yes George Osborne was a b@stard, moving the nuclear deterrent from Treasury to MOD funding. Thankfully he no-longer holds ministerial power. Reversing such a move would be resisted by the mandarins at the Treasury.

I don’t see Tempest as being a project to funnel money to the government mate’s in return for backhanders. There’s been similar allegations about PPE contracts during the pandemic yet no hard evidence. Yet if you look at say Germany, politicians have already lost their posts and are being charged with bribery over PPE contracts.

Army vehicle acquisition is a mess in part due to Blair’s decision to go into Iraq and the army needing vehicles to operate against insurgent warfare rather than peer nation armies. Unless a large amount of money was to be ponied up to overcome past mistakes, there was always going to have to be cuts here.
But with regards to the army, unless the U.K. is facing an existential land threat such as the French deciding to realise Napoleon’s dream and storm ashore on Brighton beach then a large army force is unusable. It is now publicly and politically unacceptable for a never ending stream of body bags returning to the U.K. This limits how and where we can commit large numbers of soldiers.
Maximising punch while minimising potential casualties is why we will continue to see growth in air and naval forces and reductions in ground forces. It is also, in addition to lower cost, why growth in naval and air power will increasingly be focussed on unmanned rather than manned capabilities.