Britain’s defence chief reminded Russia that NATO air forces – which outnumber Russia’s 3 to 1 – would quickly establish air superiority and that NATO warships would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic.
Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin gave a keynote speech at Chatham House Security and Defence Conference on 27 February 2024.
The following is an excerpt.
“Britain is safe. We are safe because we are part of NATO, the world’s largest and strongest alliance and also because we are a responsible nuclear power.
That doesn’t mean that we couldn’t face attacks. We already do every day in the cyber domain. We could have random attacks in space, on underwater cables, and attempted violations of our air and maritime sovereignty. The most likely protagonist is Russia. We have been clear about that. But the dilemma for Russia is huge.
The inescapable fact is that any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.
The thousands of Allied troops currently stationed in Poland and the Baltic states could draw on the 3.5 million uniformed personnel across the Alliance for reinforcement.
NATO’s combat air forces – which outnumber Russia’s 3 to 1 – would quickly establish air superiority. NATO’s maritime forces would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic, just as Ukraine pushed the Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.
Britain would be at the heart of this response, contributing 25% of Alliance strength at sea, and 10% of land and air, plus our cyber and space capabilities, and our Special Forces. This is an Alliance that is becoming stronger all the time. Growing from 30 to 32 nations. With a collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia. And a total defence budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia and China combined.
Plus NATO has the additional strategic depth of a population of over 1 billion. And sitting above all of this is NATO as a nuclear alliance. The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.”
How many NATO politicians know where the Barents sea is, I’m not sure some of the UK politicians know 😀
But they all know where the Med is. That’s the North South divide in a nutshell.
😆
Well all those in the Nordic Countries of which we now have 2 more, so hopefully they can inform any others who don’t.
Hang on a minute….. “UK would contribute 25% of Alliance strength at sea”….. Huh ? …… There are some 30 plus Countries in NATO and We account for 25% ? …….. Shirley you jest 😃
it’s a bold claim given that the RN and RFA equate to 21.3% of the US Navy in terms of hulls (and that includes all of the tiny little patrol boats)
Bold claim indeed…… Especially as we only have one Carrier, Two Destroyers, 5 Frigates and maybe a couple of Asstoots currently active…… Who writes this stuff ?
Yes where as every other navy has 100% of assets active at all times. It’s just the RN that is in the unfortunate position of having to do maintenance and rest periods.
If only Britain was not so s**t at everything.
And where exactly did I say any of that ?
🤣
Very little of the US fleet is assigned to NATO tasking. Much of ours is. In terms of the NATO fast reaction force we could well contribute 25% of the naval forces. You just have to be very selective as to which group of ships you are talking about.
Well please tell us which group you think quantifies this statement…. because all I can see is a massive Lie/BS …… You really think that the UK can contribute 25% of Sea based NATO Assets ??????
Well for example if it’s referring to “Ships currently under NATO (as opposed to individual nations) command” (or Tonnage under NATO command) then it’s entirely possible that it’s neither a lie nor BS. I’ve not done the maths and frankly I’m both too busy and don’t care enough about this particular claim to check up on it, but yeah, entirely possible.
Ok… so you just can’t say then….. 🙄 i call it BS personally…..
And you can’t say it either, but instead of taking a measured approach and thinking of the potential implications and in which way that statement might be correct you’ve got your panties in a twist and shouting angrily about it and making yourself generally look a bit foolish.
I took a measured approach, it is based on my knowledge of the size of the NATO Partners Navies…..that’s how I came to my conclusion….. But don’t let facts stand in the way of your predictable response…
I’ll not insult you with equally Childish remarks either.
Your approach is not measured because you are so wedded to your personal definition that you’re unwilling to step outside the box and look at how that definition could be accurate.
It isn’t a reference to any of those simple metrics- it’s a reference to a complicated modelling and analysis effort that we and other allies undertake to assess how much actual effect can be deployed at the sharp end of things. The figure he’s come up with is roughly in line with the estimates I’ve seen for the relative contribution of the UK to NATO’s overall capability (~15% of overall capability, so 25% of the naval aspect is consistent with that). The mere fact that Frank thinks a simple justification of the conclusion of hundreds of pages of analysis can be given in an online discussion forum tells you all you need to know about the value of his opinion.
Nice reply, especially the last bit…. I too read your comments on this “online discussion forum” and share the same conclusion …
So he’s saying 25% of the NATO naval response in the Baltic and Barents Sea to Russian encroachment on a NATO country would be British.
At least that’s how I read it.
Well that’s good to see your Reading of it…… I could see a 50% version on that basis….. wow, how powerful we are. 🙄
Then due to our commitment to Scandinavia there could be accuracy in the statement, otherwise if NATO outnumbers Russia 4 to 1 in ships it would mean our navy is the same size as Russias. However as surely Russias biggest fleet is in the Barents sea added to whatever is in the Baltic I still find those figures tough to accept whatever one thinks of the quality differential.
Evening @Spy, the Russian Northern Fleet is by far their largest fleet, but in terms of ships – frigate size and above it is a shadow of what it was during the cold war.
I believe that they will be lucky to scrape together 6-8 frigate size and above surface units. They still have a lot of old corvettes and Patrol boats, but by far their largest arm these days is their Submarine fleet.
From my understanding of analysis of the Russian northern fleet, they would essentially hole up in the Kola Peninsula/Barents sea bastion and dare NATO to come after them and hurl long range missile at NATO bases and keep themselves as a fleet in being….
Im not sure shifting them will be quite as easy as some think as Russia has invested a lot of time and money in a defence in depth in what is a very hard region to operate offensively in.
Clearly if the Russian navy came out of the Barents Sea to play in the greenland and Norwegian Sea with NATO navy’s it would be turned into so much scrap metal….
You are really referring to their SM arm (SSGNs) of the fleet as their surface fleet is more geared up towards ASW/ASuW and AAW ops.
It’s over 2200 miles from the top of Norway to say London, so they would have to venture out a certain distance, but thar works both ways. NATO SSN/GNs/ aircraft sitting in the North Norwegian sea could fire Tomahawks and the like into the Kola whilst remaining outside of Russian waters by some distance.
It would be a very attritional business, but, they would loose all their naval base infrastructure rapidly IMO before NATO bases suffered the same fate.
You don’t actually have to go after them, just deny them facilities to rearm/re provision.
It’s an interesting dilemma for both them and NATO.
They may or may not want to risk their SSNs playing with NATO in the Norwegian Sea…but apparently they have now effectively refitted all their SSNs with large long range missile armaments..I suspect they will try and keep the majority of the SSN/SSGN fleet as fleet in being and only use them to attack NATO bases in range of the Barents Sea bastion…they may try and chance their arm and get within a 1000km of the UK….surface fleet wise everything I have read says that will stay in the Barents Sea bastion as part of a defence in-depth…one of the big worries is that they will probably have their strategic deterrent hidden in the same bastion and you don’t want to attack a strategic deterrent…that would be bad.
That might have worked in the 80’s but not now. With Finland in nato they are f**ked.
Certainly during the Cold War the Soviets expected to bastion the waters where the SSBNs were hiding, which would have occupied most of their surface combatants. Cf. UK/US/Fr approach of hiding out in the mid-Atlantic. I believe it was a doctrine necessitated by the inability of the Russians at the time to build sufficiently quiet boats.
Interestingly is bases are just 50 miles from NATO territory. It won’t be able to go to sea with out getting sunk by SSN’s and it won’t be able to stay in port without getting hit by storm shadow. It’s now in artillery range of a NATO boarder.
Much of the Russian fleet surely is not fit to leave port let alone the Barents Sea. I assume you are discounting those Russian assets?
Also if the initial plan is to bottle up Russian ships then obviously Russia has no operational carriers so the UK could be supplying the only carrier in the area.?
The Russian Northern Fleet contains roughly 15 or so major surface combatants these days – frigate size and above. You could reasonably argue that roughly 50% are unavailable for deployment due to various issues (refit/maintenance/lack of spares etc), which is where I am coming from. They also dont really have a credible support/replenishment system (RFA function) to keep them resupplied at sea, so would likely remain relatively close to the Barents.
NATO might well adopt a Sea Denial strategy by forward deploying several SSN/GNs(we would probably have 15-20 SSN/GNs available to rotate around) into the Barents to keep the Russians busy, whilst using a CSG further out employing a Sea Control strategy. Any such CSG would require 3-4 ASW surface units, 2-3 AAW units and 1-2 SSNs as well as a re-supply element. NATO could employ 1x UK, 1 x Fr and 1 x US Carrier for such a mission on a rotational basis. This would effectively free up several US CSG that could be rotated elsewhere(Pacific) whilst keeping the lid on the North Atlantic. Of course any escalation in the Red Sea/Gulf region would complicate matters significantly in this scenario.
Take a look at NATO Navy Ship strength on Google….. I can’t post the link but It does show the total of ships per member.
The UK comes in at 11th place with 73 Ships (2023 figures) the top 10 have a combined total of 1400 Ships….. These are all NATO Members….
Yes but you’re not reading it with the view that the UK is s**t at everything.
If you change your mindset you realise we have the worlds fourth largest core defence budget and we dont have a military and that we all doomed 😀
Silence in the ranks Frazer. 😂
The vast majority of the US fleet is in the info pacific defending areas not covered by Article 6.
5
Yes. as Jon said not all of US navy is assigned to NATO whereas essentially all of the RN is due to our location. Where we have problems with broken down ships and unavailability of hulls along with lack of hulls is shared among European nations its not unique to blighty
Tonnage is what he is sighting
May be he;s using some strange NATO top trumps type strength calculation like an SSN is worth 4 frgiates, carrier = 8 frigates, a destroyer 2 etc 😀
Ok I’ll rise to it….. and don’t call me Shirley.. .ah Ariplane movie just love it, bit non PC for todays crowd though.
It’s just so inaccurate a statement……. I’m maybe a bit too tuned in to this whole thing but 25% just seems incredibly inconceivable….. Airplane was way more believable to be honest…..😂
You are having a go at people who aren’t agreeing with you. But you aren’t offering up anything that proves the Admiral wrong? I think i know who I will believe.
So Expat, ever spent time in Turkish prison 🤣🤣😂😂
give me a vector Victor , rodger Rodger – Airplane gem moments!
Or.
We need to get them to a hospital…. a hospital, what is it?….. Big building with lots of patients 😀
No I’m not surely, and stop calling me Jest 😜
Do they mean 25% of Blue water ships?
Yes….. yes… no….no…. Fecked if I know really…..
Figures don’t make any sense if we outnumber Russia on the sea by so much we can’t be anywhere near that %. Piffle, and there’s a word I don’t think I have ever used before.
Might it be the US government’s desire to have something somewhere else in case Chairman Xu hits Tiawain and Jonny Jong Un rolls down the 38th parallel.
We have the worlds fourth largest navy by tonnage and third largest by active tonnage and second by capability.
Links please….. On paper….RN Strength in 2023 was 73 ships in total….. We are 11th place in NATO and 31st place in the World…. Go take a look on Google.
Stop calling me Shirley!
Chief of the General Staff, Mark Carleton-Smith, 2018
I’m so glad to know the situation has improved since 2018. I’ll have to write to that nice Mr Putin and ask him to invade somewhere else. I’m not sure how, but war in Europe seems to have made my country so much safer.
Lol….. These folk just live in a different World……. Just take a look at the Russians…. One Bloke is responsible for tens of thousands of dead Servicemen/Women…. if not hundreds of Thousands….. just like in WW2…… and our “Leaders” have their heads buried in the sand/up their own Arse…… Then they will expect our Children to go and fight and Die just to save their sorry lives…….. History is littered with death on a huge scale just to massage their Ego’s…….
Totally agree. It’s the west’s and the EUs fault that we are now at this point. Putin should have been heeled in long ago, but no nothing done about him. Salisbury fiasco was the thing for me!!!.
It’s now in a way going back to 1939 and the nazis invading Poland. It’s simple he needs to be stopped! God forbid if he conquers Ukraine! Which country next.
I hate saying this, but it’s about time the west/ Europe/ NATO stepped in directly.
We never learn from history, and just a total lack of common sense or backbone.
Sooooo… you think that having soldiers from multiple nuclear armed states engaged in combat with each other is a good idea?
Did he say that ? Are you not just creating arguments ?
The way I read it mate, MC wants NATO to intervene in Ukraine. Which I think risks combat with Russia IF Putin does not blink.
Do we need to at this point?
Hello Daniele. I think the West dropped the ball (or refused to pick it up) when Putin invaded the Crimea.
“The UN should have thrown the sanctions book at Russia re the Crimea – lock ,stock, the lot.”
Well yes, the world sat back. They then had the World Cup in 2018 and everyone was raving how well the Russians had hosted it.
But on Ukraine, I’m totally against getting involved beyond where we are already for a non NATO nation. The risks are too high.
We have already stated our red lines re stepping “one inch” into a NATO nation.
that sounds like a wise policy Daniele.
Too many “yee haa” comments for me personally. But all have an opinion, which is fine.
I was wary of getting too involved before Feb 2022 and was accused of being a Russian sympathiser. No, I like to look at both sides and tread carefully with bears about.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Going all gung no into UKR isn’t speaking softly. It’s a massive gamble with people’s lives.
Being clear on NATO red lines and arming ourselves to the teeth so aggressors see we can defend ourselves is what is required while helping Ukraine as much as we can.
Completely agree with your commentary Mate.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick” -the policy of the wise.
And when that doesn’t work, Drop Nukes… I think that’s how it went in WW2 ? 😄
aah yes but only the teeny weeny nukes, 😎
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They saved more lives than they took. In the Cold War NATO was outnumbered so the nuclear option was the go to resort.
But even then I’ve never been convinced that Russian numbers would have prevailed, with NATOs dominance of the night skies and tech, training advantage.
Back then the Pentagon would also overplay the Russian threat to get more money.
Today, there is no Politbureau to reign the Premier in either, which is another reason why I prefer caution to getting directly involved.
I’m not disagreeing….. I seem to be attracting some pretty skewed thinking members replies here…… My comment was purely an answer to the Carry a big Stick one……. 🤔
You’re fine mate, carry on.
Agree completely….be very very clear on our red lines…have a very credibility military force ( that’s 4% GDP credible)…but also don’t be so arrogant as to step over your enemies red lines….or if you do then expect them to react in the same way you would ( although I think part of the problem is the west had not bothered to enforce its own red lines and so therefore seems to not respect others…..and just sees everything through a lens or immediate self interest..or that on one would dare interfere with the morality perfect and all powerful west).
👍
Yes I agree, we should up the armaments level and give them better air to air capabilities to really start taking out the Russian airforce but no NATO forces in the war.
The lesson I’ve learned today is way too many commentators on this site have not paid attention to the Cold War, and the danger that period posed to the world.
Unfortunately people tend to forget once large power blocks start direct conflict they will not stop until one is essentially knocked out via strategic exhaustion or complete destruction…and that Nuclear states all have tripwires around existential threats like complete military collapse…and those tripwires involve strategic exchanges and any strategic exchanges between the main nuclear powers will effectively end humanity. Simply put a direct war with Russia will likely kill everyone….it’s why the USSR never invaded the west even though it really really wanted to.
I was part of that cold war, with my 30 second life expectancy once the Warsaw pact forces appeared in the Detmold gap! Poof! Gone!
The biggest difference between being in combat with Russia in Ukraine formally and arming and training Ukrainians is that we risk the lives of our military. We are already on Putin’s s**t list, so nothing will change there.
Provided we announce that we will only attack into Russian territory (which excludes Crimea) to neutralise missile batteries pointing at Ukraine, sending in NATO planes to control the air and bomb Russian positions on the ground in Ukraine would not be an existential threat to Russia. It would nevertheless be a massive escalation and a calculated risk to shorten the war to weeks. Of course that’s what Putin thought when he went in. It would have to be full throttle. NATO (or more likely a coalition of the willing) going in half-hearted would be the worst possible option.
Trying to limit the war geographially is risky, particularly because of the annexation of Crimea, but the upside, destroying Putin’s manifest destiny, showing China the downside of pissing off America, potentially stablising everything outside of the Middle East, is huge too.
I’m sure Putin would want to escalate if that happened, but I don’t know if he could. As Adm Radakin pointed out, we’d bottle up his Nothern and Baltic fleets. Japan and Korea would limit him in the Pacific. He can’t march into Poland without triggering a full blown war on Russian territory.
It’s not a choice I’d want to have to decide, and I imagine NATO leaders don’t want to either. Which is why I think the destruction of eastern Ukraine will continue and the war will last for years more.
NATO Intervened in the Yugoslavia Conflict…………. What’s the difference ? ….. oh yes, It’s those pesky Nukes again….
So Frank, please explain to me how you envisage NATO troops intervening in Ukraine against Russia without getting into combat with Russian forces? Are you suggesting we link arms and slowly walk towards the Russians and hope they don’t shoot?
NATO troops stepping in, directly, in Ukraine means we’d be in a Shooting War with Russia. And that is a sobering enough thought that if someone is suggesting it the implications need to be pointed out, you being a bit salty with me because I don’t agree with your ranting about “bullshit” not withstanding.
Your constant barrage of childish insults just makes you look foolish. As does your inability to actually understand what people write….
Oh dear, Frank’s a bit upset boo hoo.I see you failed to answer a very simple question, so far so standard for you.
It simply may not be our choice and deciding which decisions make that more or less likely is not straightforward. The 30s certainly showed us that.
If you are talking about Putin for example crossing into Estonia, then I agree, that’s not up to us and our hand would be forced. But I think there’s a reason that Ukraine was invaded, and Estonia wasn’t.
Would that reason include consideration of the belt and road project? It provides an interesting link to the red sea situation and the northern trade route.
To add https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/ukraine-chinas-burning-bridge-to-europe/
Letting the soldiers of one nuke armed run amok should not be an option. So yes, employ our conventional forces to stop them. If we just allow them to get away with it because they have nukes, then we’ve completely failed at deterrence & statecraft ourselves.
Standing off & allowing UKR to be devestated & slowly defeated on Russian terms by our inadequate support just hastens the day we have to use our nukes to defend our survival(Although once nukes are used, everyone loses).
We’re just defending UKR to the last Ukranian at the moment, leaving UKR forces with insufficient ammo to repulse attacks.
As you said, once nukes are used everyone looses. Once a nuclear powers conventional forces are deployed in combat against a nuclear power then we’re on a quick trip to Nukes being used. And everyone loses.
The best way to win this game right now is to give the Ukrainians every tool they need to win, but not fight the Russians directly.
The issue is we cannot go around changing our red lines to suit our own geopolitical or national self interest at that time…doing that will lead to a catastrophic war…Ukraine is not part of NATO, it never has been…I’m sorry but the reality is NATO troops going into Ukraine will mean a war between NATO and Russia..a war which Russian will keep fighting and the only way we could stop that would be an attack on Russian soil as well as the complete destruction of Russias. Armed forces…we do that Russia will very likely launch a nuclear strike…if our conventional forces were collapsed and we were being attacked on our home soil we would launch..every nuclear power would…That is very different between a war causes because Russia invaded a NATO country….Its not our job to police the world..just defend our selves and our treaty bound allies….I’m sorry but the brutal truth is Ukraine liberating it’s Eastern provinces is not worth the risk of our nation and population being destroyed in nuclear fire…what we can do is everything possible to help Ukraine that is not a direct shooting war with Russia…but in the end the reality is that Ukraine does not have the mass to completely defeat Russia and we are realistically looking at supporting Ukraine to be in the best possible place to negotiate a peace.
J for PM.
Reason. Sense. Where do I vote?
Do you think Putin took the fact that Ukraine are not Nuclear Armed into account when he invaded them?
I don’t think multiple Nuclear powers being engaged should necessarily be any different to multiple conventional forces as
I’m not sure any Nuclear power would use them even if their conventional forces were failing.
I assume we wouldn’t as according to Radakin we are ‘a responsible Nuclear Power’ so we wouldn’t just lob nukes over willy nilly …would Russia …thats the big question.
I’m sure Putin will threaten that but he would do wouldn’t he.
He has to deflect , and generate that doubt ,he has nothing to lose by suggesting otherwise – if he didn’t he knows he be in for a good hiding.
I’m not suggesting NATO shoud get drectly involved as it falls outside of their remit so to speak , but I’m saying that we shouldnlt NOT get involved just because Putin threatens escalation – thats just cow towing to a bully.
I mean yes? You don’t think if Ukraine had had the ability to turn Moscow into a radioactive wasteland within an hour there wouldn’t have been some much more serious deliberation before any sort of invasion? Putin wants to survive, he wants to rebuild the Russian Empire, and neither of those happen when Moscow is turned into Hiroshima x100 (to borrow a phrase from Team America).
I suggest you look at what was happening around the Cuban missile crisis if you don’t think that Nuclear Powers would press the button. Nuclear Arsenals are not what they where in the 70’s and 80’s, but it’s still enough to end our prospects as a civilised species (maybe even as a species period), so direct armed confrontation between Nuclear Powers really needs to be avoided unfortunately.
We’re not NOT involved though, we’re fighitng this war as we have many before, by supplying proxies (Our friends in Ukraine) or fighting Russia’s Proxies (the Houthis). Outside of that we’ve kind of missed the window for any kind of boots on the ground intervention.
Hi Dern , The West should have done more sanction wise when Putin “annexed” the Crimea. He appears to follow the Hitler approach in the late 30’s- gambling that the West would be indifferent. Hence the Ukraine invasion.
The UN should have thrown the sanctions book at Russia re Crimes – lock ,stock, the lot.
Heya Klonkie, when Putin was invading Crimea and the Donbass there was an opportunity, because Putin was determined to portray it as an internal Ukranian affair, it still would have been very dangerous to deploy NATO troops, it would have probably put us in as precarious a situation as Korea did, when MacArthur wanted to start Nuking the Chinese.
I don’t think the West was indifferent to the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, and we certainly stepped up a lot of programs and if we hadn’t Feb 22 would have been a very different ball game.
But the UN sanctioning Russia? That would never happen. Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC and has a Veto, that it would 100% use if the UN was trying to sanction them unfortunately.
Good insights Dern – you have outlined the situation very well.
The problem is Russia is a nuclear state with the ability to end humanity, nuclear powers in a direct kinetic war without a deniability factor would court the end of humanity..( Russian and NATO forces killed each other any number of times during the Cold War…but it was always with a veneer of deniability and always in conflicts that were not existential).
The real problem is at the moment no one has completely clear red lines….the west is living in an arrogant dream in which the “end of history” was real and not just a fantasy..while at the same time reducing its force levels and showing no actual will to enforce red lines unless it suits individual national interest.
Is it a nightmare that Russia has invaded Ukraine..yes it is but in reality Russian invaded Ukraine 10 years ago not 2 and the west did sod all as it wanted cheap oil and was quite happy for Russia to chip away at Ukraine as long as it did not look like Russia would win..all of a sudden when it looks like Ukraine may have actually fallen 2 years ago the west has a shit fit…that does not look to the world like leading a fair world order it looks like what it was self interest….anyhow back to sending in troops to Ukraine…if NATO and Russia end up in a shooting war…what are we going to do how does it end….Russia will not suddenly go fair cop gov they will keep fighting…the only way NATO could stop Russia from fighting would be to destroy its ability to fight to do that we would have to attack the Russian homeland….every nuclear power in the world has pretty much the same nuclear trigger in regards to a massive attack on its homeland and destruction of its military and that is a strategic nuclear strike.
In reality the only way to have sorted out and returned Ukraine to its full sovereign boarders was for the west to have provided massive levels of support from 2014 onward so Ukraine could have destroyed the Russian backed insurgents and fortified its boarders….we did not…now in reality Ukraine cannot win against Russia…especially not with the level of aid from the west…the Russian economy is 10 times that or Ukraine its population 3 times bigger…no nation can beat those odds..Russia is now producing more modern MBTs each month than are being lost….it’s MBT production is now at over 1000 a year….is the west providing Ukraine a 1000 MBTs a year…nope it’s not.
so what do we do…well Ukraine cannot drive Russia from its borders…that’s simply not going to happen…and at some point Ukraine will suffer strategic exhaustion…so the only thing the west can do is send in NATO forces and fight a war of destruction with Russia which will lead to Russia launching a nuclear attack when NATO gets to the point it has to crush its military….or provide enough support so Ukraine can stabilise and force an ending to hostilities….
Then NATO needs to stop with the idiocy of a 2% defence budge and start spending 4% or GDP to make sure NATOs eastern boarder is a fortress Putin knows he cannot engage…..it also needs to pump a shed load of military funding into Ukraine to ensure in a future war Ukraine is to difficult to crack…essentially stability through overwhelming force….we then need to set realistic red line and start engaging in all the none kinetic domains of warfare..
Then we have to look at china and sort of try and wrap our very arrogant western heads around the fact other nations have red lines too and that Taiwan and china are actually one nation dived by civil war…and that sticking our noses into a civil war with one side being a nuclear armed super power is a great way to start world war three unless we can convince that super power that it cannot conceive any way it can win….so we either sod off back over the other side of chinas red line or we arm for war and make it clear we will bury china and take back Taiwan whatever the cost ( and if anyone thinks that’s not risking Armageddon as well think again)…again we need to start engaging in all the non kinetic domains of warfare..china is and has been attacking using these domains we need to do the same as at the Same time set our own red lines (that don’t involve someone else’s civil war).
The West is playing a dangerous game of not respecting our enemies and not understanding their motivations or the potential outcomes…and outcome is that is we all die, every single one of us.
Russia is playing a dangerous game too and they understand our sensibilities all too well. They just don’t care. Why should we allow them to continue to disassemble the post-WW2 rules-based order because we aren’t “understanding their motivations”? Putin wants Russia to have more power (I’m sure he would argue: restore its natural power). That’s all we need to know. Everything else is so obscured by lies and bluster that any messages we get are certainly designed to make us give Putin what he wants from us: free rein in the Russian region.
Of course we could do that. We could abandon Ukraine: Georgia and Moldova too, and set up a new Iron Curtain. We’d all be temporarily safe (if we can resist Putin’s follow-up Baltic states history lesson) and we could go back to buying cheap Russian gas. Until China says, I want some of that too. So we promise no interference in the South China Sea, and bundle the bordering countries into China’s regional hegemony along with Taiwan. India says, just a minute, I want, and so it goes on. Until Iran, supported by a more powerful Russia pipes up: I want…. At which point the Middle East goes up in flames and WW3 starts.
If we want to allow Great Powers to carve up the world, 19th century style, we have accept the massive risk associated with redrawing the map, and even the possibility of a WW1 style ending. If we don’t want the carve up, we have to stop it as close to the beginning as possible. Stopping it is risky. So is not stopping it.
What rules based post war order are you talking about…is this the order of bloody conflicts in the 1950s…or the bipolar order of MAD between The 1960s to 1990 or the western liberal democracy enforced end of history between 1990 and 2010 where there was unipolar order…simply put that is gone and we are now entering another bi/multi polar world.
in reality there is no such thing as a rules based order there is and always has been simply power and the application of power…and what the powerful want….the US and west have invaded or intervened in any country they wanted to from the 1990s because there was not other power to stop them…now we have to consider our steps and also consider what other powers want…unless we are willing to face and prosecute a war of destruction in the face of nuclear powers that could end humanity.
It is not that we want to accept great powers carving up the world…it’s that great powers are caving up the world…we are pissed because the west deluded itself into thing it won and there were no other great powers left..only western liberal democracy. We were deluded in think, liberal democracy was the state of being all nations would follow…AKA the “end of history and the last man” as proposed by Francis Fukuyama…the problem is it’s complete BS and Fukuyama was talking complete rubbish…most of the world cannot stand the wests idea of a “rules based order” and want what they want…and just like the west when other cultures try to dominate their way of thinking they are willing to fight for what they want…
So what do we do..if we insist on a western world order we will be fighting a world war and that war will be a war to destruction or complete strategic exhaustion..it will be a war involving all the nuclear powers and have a high likelihood of triggering a catastrophic nuclear exchange….
Therefore we must set our red lines..ensure they are taking into account other powers red lines…make it clear this is ours not yours and that is your..then have the forces to enforce our area of influence…but we must be ready to die and bleed for it..not just send out our soldiers to die for us..but our red lines need to be defined by things we are willing to see our nation burn for..because that’s the risk…not. Not A few hundred soldiers dead, but the death of everyone.
I will put a simple question to you…for Taiwan and Ukraine to remain independent are you willing to see yourself, everyone you know, your entire family, your whole culture and the vast majority of humanity either burn in nuclear fire, die in agony from the effects of radiation or slowly starve to death….if the answer is No…..then I’m sorry but the western idea of a world order gone and we will have to exist in a multipolar world and accept that some nations will be subsumed and controlled/conquered by others…just has we have controlled and conquered….need I remind you that the wests war on terror created the biggest wave of violence in 65 years was a global conflict that lasted 20 years and killed 4.5 million people….
The simple truth is the rest of the world does not give a stuff about our western ideas of a rules based order..because they are our rules not theirs….we can only enforce it if we have the power and will to do against the combined will and power of the rest of the world…in truth we don’t and so it’s gone…we have to decide what we do have the power and will to enforce…..
I’m talking about a notional order that suggests nation states should have a level of autonomy and be treated equally in international law; not Western hegemony. That order may be going, but it hasn’t yet gone. And you are absolutely right that it has to be enforced if it is to continue. I’d love to see the proof of your assertion that the world outside of the Western block doesn’t give a stuff about that. When BRIC aligned South Africa took Israel to the International Court, that was them giving a stuff. Or are you arguing through definition? Countries that don’t subscribe to democracy are “the rest of the world”, so by definition the rest of the world doesn’t subscribe to democracy? Perhaps some countries don’t care about the autonomy of other countries, but there are precious few that don’t care about their own.
The minute we agree to regional hegemony and say to a smaller country, you are in such and such a country’s region and all your resources and political will must bow to them, we throw democracy out of the window by extention for the majority and are restoring colonialism by another name. Of course there will always be a level of realpolitik, but the kind of “do what we say or we’ll take over your country because you are a subordinate people” philosophy with which we see Russia treating Ukraine Georgia and Belarus is not the norm. The US throws its weight around, but it doesn’t claim sovereignty. It may say the rules don’t always apply to the US, but it doesn’t say there should be no rules. Which country has the US annexed in the last 100 years? That’s not an apology for US invasions nor US companies following up and stealing resources, which I don’t support.
Your question is as absurd as it is loaded. How could Taiwan or Ukraine possibly be independent in a nuclear holocaust? Your wording confuses probability with certainty. The first question should be, do I think the chances of Armageddon are higher or lower if we defend an independent Taiwan and Ukraine? In the short term I think the chances of Armageddon are higher if we defend them. In the long term I think the chances are far lower if we defend them successfully. Only then can you ask am I willing to see a higher probability of a world in flames for independence? If I thought you subscribed to the head in the sand, live another day philosophy, I’d accept that the short term was good enough for you. But you don’t normally.
I could be idealistic and simply say until all of us are free, none of us are, but there’s also a practicality to freedom that makes it worth defending as much as the ideal.
As for The War on Terror, that was America not playing by the rules. It’s worth holding them to account for it. Which you can’t do if there are no rules!
By the way, the “indirect” death total you quote includes barely associated deaths, such as disease in the Yemen civil war, caused by a Houthi take over of Sanaa not by George Bush. If an American sneezed somewhere in Asia, the Watson Institute blamed all deaths within 100 miles on the War on Terror, include those it could only surmise. I might as well add up deaths in the Tibetan annexation and Mongolian repression with those of the Great Chinese Famine and claim deaths in the ten of millions. I think the Chinese famine just sneaks in under your 65 year limit. The million or two deaths directly associated with the Cultural Revolution certainly do: I don’t think anyone has totted up the indirect total for that one. For example how many suicides were caused by forced displacements and outlawing psychiatry? I should probably add in all the non-births associated with the one child policy and Uyghur forced sterilisations. We can call them all The Chinese Madness and come up with an equally meaningless grand total.
I’m sorry Jon the question I put to you is not absurd or loaded. It is simply the highest level likely risk of undertaking a military intervention in which NATO troops are actively engaged with another nuclear power. If the risk was realised you and everyone you have ever known will die horribly..that is the simple truth. I understand it’s hard to accept that as a realistic risk.But that is the risk if the west undertakes military intervention against another nuclear power…therefore when the west sets its red lines against other nuclear powers the question of accepting the risk of everything we have ever know being destroyed must and should be the major consideration….you cannot use the assumption that risk will not be realised…you must always work on the assumption that a catastrophic risk will be realised and then work down to mitigate it to the point is unlikely as possible.
As for your example of international order..South Africa taking Israel on..you said it yourself South Africa are a BRIC aligned nation and highly anti western..in specific they also have a lot of animosity to Israel..essentially due to most African nations putting a lot of international pressure on Israel in the 60s and 70s at the behest of the gulf states Israel become very close with the South African apartheid government also the African National Congress and Palestinian liberal organisations have been close allies for a very long time..South Africa is not independent in this at all..neither are BRIC as they very much see Israel as part of the U.S. hegemony..infact we can see how committed South Africa and BRIC are to the international order as they all refused to support a UN resolution around the sovereignty of Ukraine and the end of the fighting in Ukraine as they would not support the west even when it’s very clearly in the right….
As for my causally figures around the war on terror..yes you always include indirect casualties…to do otherwise is to hide the true impact..if you destroy a nation’s infrastructure that deaths caused by that are wartime casualties as much as the person killed by a bomb…famine and disease have aways been as much a part of warfare as the sword gun or bullet…they have alway killed more people.
in regard to chances of destruction by nuclear war..they only long term case study we have is the Cold War. This gave us a good understanding of a bio polar world and that fact that as long as major nuclear powers do not directly engage each other they are unlikely to engage in nuclear war as long as they do not engage in direct conflict and do not cross each others red lines..even if that means accepting some stuff the other finds very unpleasant…the only time we came close was one one side mistook the others red line..therefore ensure we understand the red line of our enemies and we have set realistic red lines that they understand fundamentally important to our continued survival as a species. Simply put in regards to nuclear powers only draw a red line you are willing to die for and make sure you don’t cross the red lines your enemies are willing to die for..and always make sure your red lines do not cross over ( this is the profound problem we face in Taiwan..the U.S. has drawn a red line over something china is willing to risk dying for) .
As for the rules based order post 1945…there have been 271 wars since then..and only 71 UN peace keeping interventions…these all happened after a peace had been agreed and we’re monitoring missions only..of the 271 wars the UN has only ever agreed to authorise us of force in 3 of these ( Yugoslavia, Somalia and Sierra Leon…which where basically against small groups of extremists..not nation state members of the UN).
there have also been three times in which the UN has agreed collectively to go to war..it did this on two occasions.
1) Korea ( at the time china was not a member of the security council..if it was the UN would not have been able to intervene).
2) kuwait in 91..as Iraq had been a western ally before going rogue..so is one of the few times everyone considered the Same nation an enemy…Russia was also in disarray and did not know were it was going.
3) 2002 the threat of military intervention if Iraq did not comply with disarmament…this was not an agreement to go to war and did not give a UN mandate for the U.S. UK invasion of Iraq…they did this outside of the UN.
There are also lots of loop holes in the UN charter and international law..around pre-emptive strike..essentially a nation can use this to strike a threat first…this the the whole Iraq WMD issue in Iraq..basically any nation can attack another if it feels threatened it does not need to wait to be attacked.
There is then the protection of nationals..essentially you can go to war and invade another county if someone holding your passport is threatened..the U.S. used this a fair bit to invade random small countries..Dominican republic 1965 invasion and occupation and change of government, Grenada in 1983 invasion occupation and change of government, Panama 1989,invasion occupation and change of government….essentially the U.S. has always been very willing to invade and change the government of small counties it considers important.
Does the UN do good things..yes it helps in many ways…but the reality is the 5 permanent seats on the UK security council are held by the five nations with strategic nuclear arsenals that could trigger Armageddon and its primary purpose is not in reality to prevent war and aggression that happens all the time and the UN only intervenes ( other than with words) when the strategic and geopolitical needs of the five permanent members of the security council are not crossed….generally most significant interventions are made by the key international powers or regional powers.
you noted that American broke the rules around the war on terror….in reality the U.S. and the other major powers make the rules and will never be held to account in a meaningful way..( they UN can no more stop the US invading who it wants ( and it does frequently) than it can China or Russia )that is why the majority of the world don’t particularly support the present US based order and are pushing against it or ignore it.
In reality only power matters, alway has always will..the UN and present international order is nothing more than a framework in which that power is expressed…I would love it to be otherwise…but the 12,500 nuclear warheads, 27.5 million armed forces personal, 53,000 Millitary aircraft sort of show that everyone agrees power matters more than anything.
Let me just answer your first point first.
Yes. I agree with that apart from the word likely. We’ve seen conflict between India and Pakistan and we are not all dead yet. But you ignored my point: that it’s also the highest level risk of not intervening too, that the world fracturing into regional hegemonies risks nuclear proliferation and the handing of nukes and other WMD to non-state actors, and everyone you have ever known dying horribly because we didn’t keep as tight a lid on it as we could or should.
For that matter, it’s also the the highest level of risk in supporting Ukraine from arm’s length as we are doing now. You have selected one particular red line, NATO troops in direct conflict with a nuclear power, and that’s fair enough, but don’t pretend your particular selection of red line is the only one your logic supports. I picked a different one to examine Frank’s view: we might be better off confronting Russia in Ukraine, adding the caveat as long as we don’t invade Russia itself.
I told you what aspect of the rules based order I was talking about — acceptance of the idea of national sovereignty and I’ll make explicit the security of borders — even though it is breached in practice, and you seem to have ignored that too, instead answering some straw man argument about warfare I never posed. I never claimed the UN was some awesome, fool-proof, watertight guarrantor of peace and fairness. It isn’t. It’s not even the best we have. That would be a combination of factors including the UN, the International Courts, and the occasional sticking up for the little guy against the autocracies by the Westen-led international community. None of which are close to perfect, but are many times better than the ideological madness dictatorships can and do impose.
I think how the power is used matters too. That’s why we get to pick a side.
Hi Jon I use the word likely as defined with risk management methodology..in that something has around a 51% change of occurring …( using the Australian risk management matrix…it’s a very specific language set..it does not mean I believe it will occur but I grade it at likely ( the other scores grade from 1-5 1)rare at less than 5%, 2) unlikely 5-20%,3) possible 21%-51%, 4) likely 51%-70% 5) almost certain 71% or higher)..if we ever engaged in a shooting war with Russia I believe that grading the risk as anything under a 50% risk of nuclear exchange would be foolish in the extreme…we have leaked copes of Russia nuclear posture we know significant loss of forces would trigger the use of nuclear weapons.
as for India and Pakistan..they came close a couple of years ago simply after a few air raid and shooting down one fighter in 2019..
“He believed the Pakistanis had begun to prepare their nuclear weapons for a strike. India, he informed me, was contemplating its own escalation,” Pompeo wrote.
so if the CIA had credible information that India and Pakistan were on the brink after 41 solders we killed on one side and a fighter shot down on the other..what do you think will happen if nation joins a shooting war against 150,000 Russia. Troops…
I did not poss some straw man argument, I pointed out that actually no one really respects sovereign boarders I’d there own interests are at stake and the west is the worst for that…as I pointed out the US has invaded any number of sovereign nations over that last 50 years and removed/put in place governments…the Soviet Union did the same when it was a world power and as we move from a unipolar world to a bi or multi polar world we see the same happening again…infact Russia has been happy invading other counties for the last 20 years as well…we only get our dander up when it affects our area of influence and our geopolitical/geostrategic power…as I stated the number of conflicts and breach’s of sovereignty we get involved with or the UN actually mandates in is small compared to the number that occur…
I think the difference between you and me is I don’t believe in any real morality in geopolitics..which I’m afraid history backs..there is simply national interest and the power to pursue that national interest..as a moral person I find it sickening but I cannot change how humanity works at a macro level.
So foe the acceptance of national sovereignty..everyone accepts that unless it gets in the way of their own nation interest and then they will find a reason ignore it…
also how do you define sovereignty its a moving feast and different people will have differing views..Taiwan is not even recognised as a nation by the UN and only 12 tiny nations recognise it..we don’t the UD does not..so according to international law…the both the CCP and ROC are the claimed governments of china….not two separate nations….so how do you defend the sovereignty of a nation that does not exist…? ..
Many of the worlds modern nations were created by the dissolution of empires in the 20c and are quite arbitrary…it’s one of the reasons we see civil wars or conflicts..( the Indian Pakistani conflict for instance, the source of which is that fact. Britain drew the boarders of the nations on a map and they have been fighting about it ever since..and why should they both accept something which was created by the British empire ? )
as for dictatorships sorry to disappoint but many parts of the world are happy with that approach, not everyone wants western democracy…I’m afraid you are living the paradigm of the end of history..it’s just not fact..the majority of the Chinese don’t want democracy…many of our allies in the Middle East are not democracies..we have many allies who are totalitarian or authoritarian governments…
Now I’m not saying the west should not fight it’s own interests and appease every authoritarian…but it is and alway has been about “our own interest” so yes we need very clear red lines…and we have been weak about that….we let the people gas civilian populations and did nothing…we retreat from many red lines and we are and look weak..but we have to be very very careful..I would love to liberate Ukraine but…actually I do not believe the risk to my nation is worth it..Russia is not going to back away from the fight so you must decide is that specific fight worth dying for..not for any high purpose..but now today is it ? That is the question…
I don’t agree with your thoughts intervention being the way to preventing a multi polar world filled with people who don’t like western democracies..I’m sorry but that is already here..fighting a war in Ukraine will not prevent that…the best way to reduce the risk of our destruction in this new world order is not fighting to take back the old world order as that will lead to misery and death beyond imagination. What we need is very good deterrent approach …not leaping into a war…our problem is we are not willing to pay for the deterrent…if we want to avoid a global war…sending troops into Ukraine is not the solution ( that will just kick it off) ..the solution is NATO countries starting to spend at least 4% of GDP and arming themselves to the teeth as well as arming to the teeth those nations who we consider friends if not allies and saying this is our line, cross it and we all burn…that worked in the Cold War….the interventionist post Cold War “the west has won” approach has failed and we need a new approach.
To be fair, he’s not wrong. If NATO went to War with Russia, Russia would loose. A lot of people get very upset about this country or that country not meeting an arbitrary 2% spending limit but the bottom line is, as it stands, if everyone held up their actual (not imagined) commitment to Article 5, then Russia would be toast.
The only real question would be: Would anyone press the Nuclear Button.
Well before that would be how many Countries committed to Article 5 and how quickly, that might dictate the chances of a nuclear conflict. If most do then Russia is toast and your question is then pertinent.
The thing is, if Article 5 isn’t honoured then Russia won’t be fighting NATO. Russia vs Finland and the UK eg is not the same thing as Russia v NATO>
The problem is Russia is not going to likely just roll over and take its kicking from NATO it will licks its wounds and keep coming back for more ( it’s what most nations do ) so NATO would need to strike at Russians forces in Russia and it’s capability to regenerate forces….at that point pretty much every nuclear power has the same trigger point…if someone nation destroyed our armed forces and attacked our homeland and ability to regenerate forces…we would very likely be considering use of nuclear weapons…France has always made it clear….any invasion of France would lead to a nuclear response…..
If we use Ukraine and hypothetically the West went in and either pushed Russian forces back into Russia or simply wiped them out/forced a surrender but didnt attack Russian mainland I doubt the button would be pressed.
If the forces then continued into Russian territory (Putin would struggle to twist what was going on) then that would make the likelihood of it escalating to the big red button stage very real indeed.
Regardless Trump looks likely to be back in the potential hot seat and that may have consequences on its own!
But large nation states like Russia would not simply go fine you win..they would regenerate forces and attack back..the only way to prevent that would be to attack Russia and complex destroy its armed forces and capability to regenerate…and if we did that…once large powers go to war they don’t stop until strategic exhaustion or destruction……
It’s symptomatic madness that we’e still fighting over the 2% when that is the peacetime minimum contrubution target. The threats are well beyond peacetime levels.
Something can’t be a minimum and a target. Anyway it was a goal that defence ministers made without much reference to their governments (what’s that about sovereign countries supposedly being able to make their own rules and not have supranational organizations force laws on them in an undemocratic manner? It’s not a hugely serious point but it’s always worth reflecting on). Trump seized on it as populist rhetoric and essentially lied about it (what a shocker). Frankly I don’t care what % of GDP is spent anywhere, I wouldn’t be horrified to see less spent, if we could make a coherent European Orbat.
Agreed 👍
On paper yes. But do you think all NATO countries would immediately put the pedal to the metal as soon as a Russian steps foot in one of the latecomer Eastern European members? Or do you think there would be snivelling excuses and a desperate scrabble for off-ramps from the usual suspects? Say one thing for the Orcs, they have homogeny and the will to fight. Honestly im not so sure that NATO have the political will to bring all that technological advantage to bear. I don’t think we will tolerate mass battle casualties like the Orcs or Ukrainians.
Depends who is in the White House.
(Also nobody thought we’d tolerate mass battle casualties in 39 or 14 either…)
Exactly if Trump gets the key and says no to fight is mate Putin how many NATO members would fight or drop out ,Russia get to win Ukraine for lack of weapons from the USA and Europe he may well decide to take a few smaller nations on .Hate to say it but would the UK fight without our USA friend’s🤔 let’s hope we never fine out .🙏
A Trump re-election would be disasterous for the West and for the United States. The US has basically made sure it’s Primus inter Pares in NATO and if the US, or made it clear under Trump it would be unreliable we’d have to make a European Defence Organisation without the US. Equally Taiwan, Japan, Australia would have to be looking at how to re-orient themselves away from the US because if Europe, America’s biggest market, can’t rely on the US, then why would they be able to count on them?
As you said, lets hope the Democrats win (for all sorts of reasons but for the sake of the Constitution and the US’s foreign relations in particular).
Although you also have to remember that article five does not define what the response will be…that would be up to each individual nation…and it can range from a some form of military aid package to a nuclear exchange…it’s why every component of NATO still actually needs to be able to defend itself and why a county like Poland is moving to a 4% GDP spend on defence as that is a more realistic figure.
Talk about “big it up”? Somebody had a good line of coke or too much to drink 😅
25%of sea? 10% of land? 10% of air? Whose arse did he pull those figures from?
His dog barked every time he upped the figure and you can guarantee his dog is called Churchill so he wouldn’t dare contradict him. Sort of self fulfilling prophesy therefore.
….great. So lets use our vast resource advantage wisely and give Ukraine the weapons and ammunition at the scale they need to win.
It is a fairly upbeat speech, trying probably to counterbalance the downbeat and often inaccurate reporting in the press. It also points to areas where we need to do more.
But the assessment of the danger of Russia – more threatening but less capable than long thought- is sound. Huge Russian forces have been fought to a standstill by Ukraine, using what are obviously superior western weapons. Russia’s air force has been rendered ineffective, its Black Sea fleet driven away from Ukraine,; its army has suffered massive losses of manpower and modern equipment.
In a conventional conflict with NATO, Russia would lose heavily.
The emphasis is very different from the integrated review in which Russia was only mentioned in passing and a wider UK global role promoted.
What is missing is any suggestion of growing defence resources beyond making better use of what we have. Since 2000, army numbers have shrunk by 30%, RN by 23% and RAF by 42%. The latter is particularly worrying given how much Western capability depends on air superiority.
Hope there’s a NATO plan to tackle whatever is in Kaliningrad and for the UK to have a bit more urgency with its GBAD beyond CAMM. There’s always plenty of free advice of what to do from us all here on UKDJ! … Lol 😂
Its hard to know what would really happen. Air defences and drones have set the style of warfare. Nato is limited in respect of both these areas as it has always relied on obtaining air supremacy. If they failed to gain it and the war went into trench warfare mode nato would have issues as it doesn’t have the layered ground based air defences that it should have. Mines and drones would destroy any armored advantage.
I think Russia would lose, just from a numbers game perspective but not sure it would be quiet as simple as made out.
Let’s hope we don’t find out, as either way people die.
Putin has no chance- he is aware of this fact- Ukraine has already destroyed his military and nothing is left to stop NATO- only nuclear terror might save him for now. Otherwise he is very afraid of even a suggestion that NATO is thinking seriously about evicting him from Ukraine.
This is obviously based upon a best case scenario as a Trump presidency could radically change those nato statistics. Not only that but a number of other countries preparedness levels are very problematic.
Don’t post often, but I thought I’d drop my 10 cents worth of opinion. I served in the RN for 14 year and currently live in one of the Redist cities, of the Redist counties, in Georgia USA. Trump central!
The 2% of GDP is total BS, and we all know it. Once pensions and the deterrent is taken out it’s much less. The numbers game the UK governments of the day (any day) in the past 30 years have been a joke to those who follow defense matters. But the average minion laps it up. “All I want is my taxes cut, more money for the NHS, social security, local government etc”. Voters today put defense really low on the totem pole, mainly because there’s nothing in it for them.
As for article 5 and the current US attitude to it. Europe AND the UK have not be living up to their obligations for years, and the US been made aware of that by that idiot Trump, and others who has used it to gain votes and piss off the voters here. Like it or not its works rather well. Yup 9/11 is the only time article 5 was triggered. Your average voter in the US really couldn’t give a toss, Trump and company don’t give a toss either. That he and others haven’t lumped the UK with Europe in not paying the ‘fair share’ is surprising to say the least.
Europe and the UK really need to make plans to defeat Putin without the help of the US. They maybe really busy elsewhere!
Absolutely mate ,have your self a British 🍺 👍 🇬🇧
I agree that Europe generally needs to do more, and that despite fiddling the figures we are on a par with France and Italy, ahead of Germany but behind Poland and the Baltics.
But may I ask what Americans really think their spending is? I have just checked and most sources put it at 3.5 but take out pensions and Nucs and it is around 2.5. So the difference is actually far smaller than the noise suggests.
Afternoon Chris,
To answer your question, and this is a personal observation, the average voter hears $800 BILLION being spent to protect the world. What they see (or are told to see) is the US is having to pick up the slack, yet again! Europe has decided that defense of their nations isn’t really a priority, because, ya know the good old US of A will come a running.
We, on this site and others, can spout off percentages, and how they are calculated all day long, the average dude just hears $800 BILLION. “WTF why?” Is it ignorance on their part? Not really, the toxicity of politics and the spinning of the ‘facts’ to benefit certain politicians has a lot to do with it. ‘Just imagine how many illegals can be stopped, or roads fixed for $800 BILLION, healthcare could be so much cheaper, my kids could go to better funded schools, more police funding. $800 frickin BILLION’.
For the most part, they think ‘the Brits’ are at least doing something, bombing Yemen with them, but sending just one warship, oh well, at least they try! The Brits always have our backs, don’t they(?). Ukraine, it’s in frickin Europe, it’s a European problem. Why are my tax dollars being spent there? They have a really hard time understanding that all the equipment being sent is already brought and paid for, that sending it to Ukraine is way cheaper than paying to dismantle equipment at the end of its ‘useful’ life. Now if you talk to veterans, it’s a little different. Their attitude is ‘Hey Mother F#$ker freedom ain’t FREE, pay the f#$k UP!!! Personally I can’t argue with that.
I hope I’ve given you an idea of how the average American perceives the situation, percentages don’t mean a damn thing. What’s 2.5-3% GDP in the UK these days? The $800 billion I’ve used is a rounded up amount, which includes other stuff thrown in the defense budget. You can pick it apart and say this much goes to this agency, or that agency not directly associated with defense, like the Corp of Engineers, again that doesn’t matter.
Most importantly it’s an election year, and this one will has the prospect of dividing this country like no other since the civil war.
America is the richest country in the world. If the world order changes, America’s prosperity may decline with it. That’s why you spend money to police the system, not to keep the world safe.
The polarisation of US society is promoted and intensified by the disinformation campaigning of Russia and China. You are under attack, but you are so busy tearing strips off the other side, that you’ve forgotten who the real other side is.
Republicans and Democrats, the same side. US and Europe, the same side. We British promise not to set fire to the White House again, if you promise you won’t either.
Afternoon Jon,
On a national level there’s nothing I can disagree with in your post. I was asked my take on what the average American thinks.
I live in a small city called Dahlonega, at the southern end of the Appalachian Mtns beautiful area. Look it up. Just like the UK and almost everywhere else in the 1st world, the average person goes to work busts their ass, and does his best for his family and wants more for their kids than they had. Sound pretty familiar right? These are the same citizens who signed on in droves after 9/11. Did their bit for the flag, believed they did the right thing, and for what? Shite is still the same, nothing got fixed, the only thing that happened was the WHITE CROSSES increased along the roadsides in every small town. So when someone shouts loud enough ‘800 billion WTF!!!!. ‘We pay for our healthcare, our cities need more money, my taxes are too high, my children’s school needs more money etc’. Except for healthcare, I’m fairly certain you can see their point. This is the reason politics have become so toxic here, this is the basic reason for Trump and Co. In Dahlonega and most of middle America his BS strikes a nerve. Can’t say I blame them, to be honest.
Americans are getting fed up with the status quo. Europe, as a whole, has about the same GDP as the US. Where are their 12 carriers, 70 odd DDGs, 3000 MBTs etc, etc. American interest has been on the Pacific and the Middle East, has been for the last 20 plus years. They can’t fight two wars at the same time. I know the EU is made up of 27 different countries, but they just love to spout off how united they are, except when it comes to standing up for themselves. That’s how the average American sees it.
You may believe this post probably doesn’t belong on a defense website/blog. Bit too much politics, bit too much hearsay, It’s not about the average citizen. I would suggest the opposite. Defense is a part of politics and ALL politics becomes local. The Boss on here ,George, often writes about it trying to counter the Scottish independence crowd, same here.
The faster Russia would lose a conventional war with NATO the faster we would find ourselves in a global nuclear war. Counting planes, tanks, and ships is all very nice but this isn’t 1914; as soon as one side started to lose they would resort to nuclear weapons and then the other side would be forced to respond in kind. No one would win a war between Russia and NATO.
But that’s the point Richard. It prevents Russia picking a fight with us and vice versa because losing is of no use to either side. This document was aimed at a domestic audience (in the most part). Without giving away too many details it looks like there is a fair degree of optimism without going overboard. This forum does tend to attract some negative thoughts so perhaps some balance is needed.
Broadly speaking it seems reasonable. Though supporting our two carriers under operational circumstances must reduce our available fleet, especially if we are to bottle up the Russian Navy. But since they are essentially a continent based force with land based objectives this is really of lesser importance than our ability to repel cross border invasions. Bottling up their navy makes resupply of NATO countries somewhat safer.