The UK government has reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to NATO, pledging a ‘NATO first’ defence strategy in an article written by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Defence Secretary John Healey in The Telegraph ahead of the NATO 75th anniversary summit in Washington DC.
According to a press release, this approach underscores the importance of NATO in ensuring the safety and prosperity of the UK and its allies.
In their joint article, Lammy and Healey highlighted the historical significance of NATO, established 75 years ago by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who united 12 nations from Western Europe and North America under the principle that “an attack on one is an attack on us all.”
They spoke of the alliance’s expansion to 32 nations and its continued relevance in the face of rising global threats and geopolitical competition.
“The first duty of any government is to keep the country safe and protect its citizens. We cannot have stability and prosperity without security. NATO is therefore the ultimate guarantor of all allies’ ability to live freely and build a secure, more prosperous future for their people,” Lammy and Healey wrote in the press release. They further stated: “Our government’s commitment to NATO is therefore unshakeable. We will have a ‘NATO first’ defence strategy. European security will be our foreign and defence priority. Our commitment to Britain’s nuclear deterrent is absolute.”
The ministers also reiterated the government’s promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as possible and called on all NATO allies to adopt this new target. “We will increase spending to 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, whilst arguing all NATO allies should adopt this as a new defence target. And we will launch a Strategic Defence Review, so we are fighting fit to defend against any adversary,” they wrote.
Highlighting the strategic threats posed by Russia, Lammy and Healey underscored the necessity of strengthening defences to deter President Vladimir Putin and supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
They noted their pre-election visits to Kyiv, where they assured Ukrainian leaders of the UK’s steadfast support. “We must strengthen our defences to deter Putin effectively. And we must reinvigorate our support for the brave people of Ukraine, as they defend their freedom against Vladimir Putin’s new form of fascism,” the article stated.
The ministers also discussed the importance of revitalising relations with European partners to address the current security challenges. They pointed to recent visits to Germany, Poland, and Sweden, which aimed to bolster support for Ukraine and explore further collaboration with European allies. “We have begun discussions about how we can do more with European partners. Bilaterally, we will leverage our tightly connected defence industries to strengthen our defences and support Ukraine,” they wrote.
Looking beyond Europe, the article mentioned the UK’s commitment to strengthening other alliances that enhance British security. This includes fully realising the potential of AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States. The ministers expressed their determination to ensure Britain remains a formidable and reliable ally, building the foundations for an era of renewal. “As we, alongside Keir Starmer, look to reconnect Britain on the world stage, we will be fully committed to strengthening other alliances that enhance British security in this increasingly insecure world. We will ensure AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States, fully delivers its potential,” they wrote.
Reflecting on the legacy of Ernest Bevin, Lammy and Healey concluded with a call for unity among those who believe in freedom and international law, quoting Bevin’s vision of peace and security for future generations. They pledged that the spirit of Bevin would live on in the new government, guiding its efforts to maintain a strong and reconnected Britain.
“Those who believe in freedom and international law must stand together, stand for what’s right – just as Bevin did 75 years ago,” they wrote. “Under our government, Britain will be confident in our purpose, clear-eyed about the challenges and determined to invest in our collective strength.”
To be honest I think a NATO-first strategy makes sense.
We don’t have the manpower or the resources to commit to the east. Even if we went to 3-4% of GDP I think we should ensure that, should the US have to divert attention east to China, we can still fight Russia.
I think we should keep all assets around the Atlantic – North, Med, and South (Falklands and Caribbean) and let the US, Australia, Japan and South Korea take care of the East.
“The East.” So, east of the Gulf area.
1 small Joint Logistics site, Naval Party in Singapore.
1 Gurkha Battalion in Brunei as Far East Theatre Reserve.
1 helicopter Flight, also Brunei.
1 Jungle Warfare School in Brunei.
1 Signals Troop in Brunei.
1 Naval party in Diego Garcia.
A scattering of small elements making up British Gurkhas Nepal, including a Signals element.
This force level has been there for decades.
The Brunei elements I believe are paid for by the Sultan.
Recently added.
2 RN OPVs.
Skynet SGS, contractor operated, in Australia.
This is WHY this emphasis of NATO first is baseless politicians waffle. There is so little out there anyway.
Even if one adds the small forces in the Gulf region, the South Atlantic, and elsewhere, we are already NATO first.
The newly rebranded Army GRF Global Response Force in the UK can deploy beyond Europe, or inside of it.
Now if they mean CSG 25 to the Far East, get on and say so, and cancel, like I’ve expected them to for some time. Even that is meaningless, as a CSG is displaying it’s flexibility to be able to deploy as HMG require, yet can still be allocated to NATO.
To be fair, NATO first doesnt, or shouldn’t, mean NATO only.
Fair one with the small deployments you mentioned. I suppose I meant more along CSG25, and not deploying a carrier to the Pacific should SHTF in Taiwan, as the moment NATO goes East, Russia will stir up again.
Italy has deployed it’s carrier to the Indo-Pacific, this summer. Does anyone know when the French plan to deploy CdG carrier to the East? Maybe they can do rotations with RN CSG?
Making sure there is a European NATO carrier group available in home waters.
Are carrier groups really for home waters?
Surely they are to project power/maritime aviation some considerable distance from home waters ie to where we cannot deploy land-based air power to.
I would say this is more about setting the baseline for the defence review and resetting/stating the Europe risk…the posts Cold War 1998 defence white paper reset the UK defence paradigm away from a core function of supporting NATO..
Page 25 1998 white paper:
“The UK will no longer maintain forces to meet a strategic attack on NATO. This statement is important since it, in a sense it reverses half a century of UK defence planning. From the onset of the Cold War and increasingly thereafter, the UK defence effort was dedicated to NATO. forces outside of Western Europe were to be drawn from those allocated to NATO. This assumption is now reversed, no longer is the force structure primarily defined by the contribution to NATO, but rather by the need to launch expeditionary operations. It is therefore the missions which UK forces are likely to perform which will determine force structure rather than commitment”
This was a really significant paradigm shift and essentially said we are not ever going to be fighting a war in Europe and NATO will never be fighting a major defensive war again..Now through all other defence reviews and white papers this essential paradigm has not shifted…they have tinkered and cut “ mission capabilities and likely missions”…but not changed that..we are not really threatened defence posture.
what they are doing is drawing a line under the 97 defence review and white paper…
Good background evidence to be fair.
Se my response to Jonathan. I’m far less optimistic
Starmer just yesterday , if we don’t exercise we’ll be ill prepared to fight their. We only found out the T45 couldn’t handle the Gulf by deploying it there.
‘Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington on Wednesday, he also signalled that helping NATO defend Europe from Russian aggression will be deemed a higher priority than sending military ships, jets and soldiers on exercises to Asia’
To be honest, Europe should be the core priority, followed by the eastern Indian Ocean followed by supporting pacific allies…that does not mean we should stop engaging in the pacific, we need to stay engaged with the pacific to show that we can move and support against china as a deterrent..but our key focus does need to be Russia…that’s the enemy which is an existential threat to us…china is an existential threat to friends and at a strategic level US hegemony. In the same way the US carrier force is pivoted and deployed so that as it’s key as a priority it can put 5-6 carriers into the eastern Pacific if the ballon goes up…Europe and the eastern Indian Ocean are not the priority but still get support from a carrier.
The thing is sending anything to Asia, even with the tilt to the Pacific has always been second fiddle to Europe. We’ve done the odd sub unit joint ex with Japan in recent years, and beyond that? RGR keeps a Battalion in Brunei, as it always has, 2 Rivers, and the occasional coy light infantry ex with the Aussie’s, maybe a patrol comp in the Jungle… I mean it’s not exactly a huge force laydown.
Meanwhile in Europe we’re forward deploying battlegroups to Estonia and Coy Groups to Poland, doing joint air defence exercises in Romania, Steadfast Defender, Arctic training in Norway and Sweden, Standing Maritime Groups, Cyprus, 3 Div is basically earmarked to fight Russia…. I just don’t see how “Europe is a higher priority than Asia for us” has ever not been true?
It’s simply reversing the 1998 white paper..which essentially moved NATO as secondary to expeditionary forces..now NATO is first and expeditionary second.
In 1998 our defence posture moved to:
“no longer is the force structure primarily defined by the contribution to NATO, but rather by the need to launch expeditionary operations.”
so essentially they are resetting to a pre 1998 stance.
I mean I have issues with that idea, for starters because supporting NATO remains expeditionary. In terms of how force structure and orbats will be arranged, or even equipment, I don’t see what changes this means.
3rd Armoured? That’s pretty much dedicated to NATO.
1st Division? Okay 16AA is globally focused but they do a lot of work in Europe and with NATO, 7 Brigade often is wheels up in Europe. 4th Light is non deployable so not at all expeditionary.
ASOB? Rangers are integrating into NATO SOF structures, and consistently work with their NATO counterparts, and have long had deployments within Europe.
Typhoon? Outside of dropping bombs on people in the Middle East the RAF has been Europe Focused for ages.
Airlift? You’re going to want to airlift things to Eastern Europe and the continent or Scandinavia.
Helicopters? Still going to want to be able to do HAF/MEDEVAC/ETC
F-35? Something’s gotta take down those S-400’s.
Carriers? Fighter Aircraft can’t close the GIUK gap, and something has to shoot down Russian Long Range Bombers in the North Sea and hunt Submarines.
P-8? Gotta patrol the GIUK Gap.
Soverign Bases and Brunei? We’re going to want to keep those,
No reason why we will not keep all that..we had expeditionary forces and capabilities before 98, when we formally switched to an expeditionary focus..personally I think people are getting theirselves all twisted up for a statement that is perfectly rational..” we need to focus on NATO”…no one has switched off east of suez or closed any sovereign bases… if the new defence review guts our expeditionary forces and closes all engagements east of Suez we can all rant away..until then I think people need to calm down a bit….it’s just showing Putin that everyone is focused on NATO.
The problem is mate is that Healey’s rhetoric for some time has indicated precisely that. He only shut up once missiles started flying in the Red Sea,
I’m going to be hopeful of a balanced:
1) “NATO first” policy…because European NATO is now the most likely first place we will see the west engaged in a major war and we ( France, UK, Germany, Poland, Italy ) need to be the major players in that war..not expect the U.S. to deploy massive forces….because they need to be focused on the pacific…and causing the US to look away from the pacific is what china wants.
2) backed up by constant significant and meaningful Indian ocean presence.because our enemies are trying to disrupt the Indian ocean and gulf shipping lanes and the European navel powers need to be pushing a lot of resources that way..again china wants the US to have the fifth fleet locked down in fighting in the western Indian Ocean..the European navies need to be able to show it can relieve the major task groups of the fifth fleet at short notice..so they can fight in the south west pacific.
3)with appropriate Pacific engagement, to help deter china and show that we are with the US in this..in reality though the tyranny of distance and common sense means the European navies will not fight in the pacific (apart from maybe an SSN and any forward based frigates)..they will be needed to free up the fifth fleet to transit into the south west pacific..and to free up the fifth fleet the European navies will need to keep the Iranian backed nutter under control as well as fight the PLAN in the Indian Ocean…most of the time the PLAN have two battle groups in the Indian Ocean.. each of 3 ships..they will undoubtedly have their CBG in the Indian ocean when they kick off..as they have created specific basing in east Africa for their new 70,000 ton carrier..so there will be plenty for the RN to fight without travelling for 6 weeks to the pacific.
4) and a constant south Atlantic deterrent ( because the BAT and the Falklands are important and someone will steal them if we are not looking) …
…until the new defence white paper drops I’m going to be thinking the best, that Labour are not stupid and know all this ..my policy is trust until proven incompetence..then write the letter.
I’m not saying we won’t keep all that:
I’m saying “We will need to focus on NATO” means nothing to me because I don’t see what the shift is.
I suspect it’s more a statement of intend for consumption across the international community than anything else.
Jeez, withdrawal symptoms already. Looking East to Russia, what about all the very long supply chains going back further to South East, Middle East, Suez-Gulf?! Does the UK want to have less access and influence to the Indo-Pacific and having some presence even to defend international shipping lanes and free trade? Sounds a bit of “thinking globally but acting [more] locally” happening here. At least AUKUS, FPDA, 5 Eyes are still there. And wasn’t some in the US wanting a “SEATO” South East Asia Treaty Organisation like NATO? Good luck with that!
There are interesting consequences for the wider military picture beyond the tangible J3/5 that we all like to consider. It will likely change the priority for filling NATO assignments and potentially the caliber of personnel we look to deploy into European billets. The soft/smart power considerations are also significant, the funding and staffing of embassy defence sections are always under threat from Mil Cap/FCDO and they regularly compete with each other for resources. It was recently announced that we are the ‘second most influential country’ after the USA, this needs to be exploited even if it is not as sexy as sending Rangers to train allies or forward deploying warships. One thing I am sure most people will agree with is that whilst we do not have enough people, our training is exceptional and those we do have are decent enough quality to make a difference. We have historically ‘punched above our weight’ in NATO staffs and (from personal experience) tend to be relied on for a more polished output than some of our NATO allies. There are a lot of experienced staff officers acorss the services that could add a lot of value to NATO and bring a lot of credibility to the UK military as a result (even if it means they don’t get to go home to a warm bed in Portsmouth, Aldershot, High Wickham, London – delete as required). Make best use of the resources we have available now whilst we restore the foundations of the Services and there are far more resources in the military than just shiny kit. Similar arguments applicable to cyber and signal priorities; personnel training exchanges at all phases; focus of MOU development for overflight and territorial waters access; logistics and engineering commonality; and the priorities and opportunities of the military industrial complex (although both AUKUS and GCAP have pacific partnerships).
Post BREXIT (regardless of what we think of the politics) there is a need to reestablish the UK in a leadership position across Europe. This refocusing has potential beyond the narrow military focus. Shame they didn’t push Ben Wallace for the Sec Gen role however as that could have been quite a coup.
NDG
👍Exactly!
The new strategy is missing the point, of that of some allies(DPRK) of NATO’s main enemy, are based in the Far East.
But it’s not about enemies it about doing the opposite of your political opponents it’s chapter 3 of politics for dummies 😀
Surely we’re spreading ourselves thin, then?
So explain why the US should bother with NATO, they get attacked we just smile say carry on, we get attacked and expect them to come running. Seems utterly pointless arrangement for the US.
So far the Nato Treaty has only been activated once. The USA was attacked, they called and everyone turned up. Three of their allies took heavier casulties in Afganistan than they did. The UK, Denmark and Australia. Then Trump threw away a won war.
Now Trump for the USA says they may not turn up if there is a major war in Europe over a budget squabble. FO Trump.
This exactly. The only time NATO has come running to anyone’s aid, it was NATO coming to help the US. And even though our nations where in the middle of a long peace, with no threat from Russia or anyone else, nobody asked “Well what is the US doing for us?” before following them into the Sandbox for Afghan.
I think you miss my point.
We don’t have the troops, aircraft or naval assets to be in two places at once, and it’s extremely likely, almost guaranteed that if the US fought China over Taiwan that Russia would try its luck in the Baltic States or elsewhere, thinking NATO weak without the US.
Surely, with our forces the size they currently are, they’d be more effective in one theatre than splitting them in two.
My point is that we’d still be helping by picking up a lot of the slack left when US forces depart Europe for the Far East.
But it’s an assumption if war broke out between China and US Russia would attack Europe. Russia can’t fight Europe even without the US on equal terms and would quickly resort to tactical nukes. We either respond in kind or quickly get around a table. Europe war with Russia would be over very quickly, and the stakes are so.high it will never start. Another factor is Russias biggest backer is China, the only reason Russian factories can produce arms is because China is supplying components and machinery, this would dry up quickly when China needs those resources itself.
I myphed that people are actually saying we won’t fight with the US in any other theatre than Europe !!
What makes sense to me in prioritisation is:
First – defence of the UK & BOTs;
Second – substantial contribution to NATO for security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area;
Third – best effort contribution to RoW security and stability (with allies of course), especially of the seas.
Best effort contribution. Graham with wooly non committal phrases like that have you considered running as an MP😀
Haha. Just painting a big broad picture as I see it, not writing Policy.
More talk, more promise, more waffle, no action. Business as usual. If Labour want to talk “tough” the very least they can do is match the Tories with a commitment to 2.5 per cent by 2030. As for the Defence Review, a review of what? The only way is up surely, and judging by the first week I can’t see that happening.
Hi Geoff, I’m kinda worried as well but think we need to give them a little time to see if anything good comes from them being in power. 🇬🇧
As you say Cj we will have to see what the defence review comes up with. I doubt I ever achieved anything but I shall have my tuppence worth and send in some thoughts as I have done before. Who knows ???🙄
God loves a trier 🙏
God doesn’t require perfection, only effort 🙂
Post WW2 world order was created and maintained by a few civilised clubs or communities which bought into the principle of mutual rights and obligations: NATO, the EEC, GATT. These clubs have become too big and unbalanced. The EEC has become the EU empire with progressive powerful nations having to discipline errant members. Too many European NATO ‘partners’ are defaulting on their obligations. If you want the benefits of a club you have to buy into the obligations. What we are seeing is the breaking up of the old order and the formation of a new world order. E,g, a new security based Europe which includes the UK to replace the EU. The Russians want to make sure they survive as one of the global blocks in this process. They are isolated and weak so they use bullying and ‘guerilla tactics’ ( proxies, hybrid warfare) to create as much disorder as they can to drain the resources of the US and Europe. Because of our location and history the UK is key link between the N.American block and our European block. Russia, India and China are separate blocks in the new world order. Because if the geography if the Pacific Japan, the Philippines and Australia need credible defences and strong partnerships with the US and the UK if they are not to be dominated by China. We are seeing all of this happening.
Are they asking for input? I did that too, back in the day.
Don’t know but the last🙄 lot did.
I look forward to seeing your thoughts Geoff.
i don’t think it’s fair to make that statement less than a week into the government..before even the state opening…let’s actually wait to make those statements until we have seen what they actually plan to do…I’m not making a comment until we get the defence review….
Maybe not butI’ve read five different articles in this first week. Healey, lammy and Starmer are all coming out with a versiion of Not in the first term, ie the next five years. Not good. We shall see.
No new Government can be extremely specific about defence posture and spending until they have understood what cash they have been left and also done a Defence Review of their own.
Due to the timong of the NATO summit, we have now heard something of the direction of Labour thinking as regards philosophy which will underpin policy. I would not expect to have heard more than that barely a week on from the Election.
You ask: why have a Defence Review – it is what all new Governments do. They cannot slavishly conform to a policy created by the Conservatives. The Tories’ IR Refresh23 and associated DCP were highly suspect anyway as they advocated no additional manpower or platforms were required as a lesson from the Russo-Ukraine war – the army would still be cut by 10,000 posts and the tank fleet decline to 148 tanks.
2.5% GDP is so last week. HMG need to keep up. 😝
For me, our forces are overwhelmingly NATO orientated anyway.
So a bit of a gimmick, that improves….nothing.
Sorry, all you Labour fanboys.
Agree it’s a nothing statement..but they are less than a week in and making supportive statements during a nato summit is important ( after all some politicians have cut NATO with some iffy support statements and Russia and china do listen to statements) I will see what the defence review delivers or not….if they don’t deliver they will get a stiff letter.
Positive statements/articles by HMG Ministers may prove to be beneficial; positive actions by HMG would prove to be exponentially more useful.
Indeed, words do count, but in the end it’s actions that get you changes and outcomes that matter.
Hi M8 Army isn’t my thing but do you know what is happening with Belize and Suffield ? Everyone is focussed on the East but to me there are some deployments that to me just make little sense.
Why have a Training facility in Canada when we have so few AFV left and it’s useless 6 months of the year ?
Why have a Training facility for Tropical and Jungle fighting in Belize when we have a similar presence in Brunei (and the Sultan pays the bill) ?
Recently we have had an enhanced Naval presence in the Gulf but due to their vulnerability neither Bahrain or Al Duqm were utilised, so what’s the point ?
Simple fact is that due to Iranian missiles and drones any RN ships at either facility are sitting ducks.
If we do need to keep a presence out there then I’d bug out to Diego Garcia as it is officially a Joint Base.
But if we don’t do that why do we maintain a presence on Diego Garcia other to raise the flag, I’d be intrigued to hear a logical reason. Last week the US refused permission for a British legal team to go there to interview some illegal immigrants. It’s supposed to be British territory !
All these little bits add up and divert attention, numbers and money away from the prime tasking and I think it’s quite right we should review them.
The bit that concerns me most is it’s fine to publicly state that NATO First is our prime Strategic commitment as that’s been patently bloody obvious since 2014.
But it doesn’t mean we will withdraw everything it would be political suicide to withdraw from Falklands, Gibraltar and Cyprus.
Hi mate.
Yes, I’d read of the legal tussle at BIOT, pretty outrageous. But also pretty outrageous how we treated the chagos people in the 1st place to ready the place for the US.
It’s literally to raise the flag I think where the UK contribution is concerned.
There is a RN party. The rest is all American. It’s usefulness to us is in the intell assets there which we, as UKUSA partners, are privy to, and we may, I’m unsure, have a very small presence there in that capacity.
Belize AFAIK remains as BATSUB, and trains LI Battalions.
Brueni differs as the SF make use of the JWS there, I’m not aware of other LI Bns beyond the resident Gurkha Bn using it.
It also acts as a handy flag in the ground and location of the in theatre reserve, either 1 or 2 Bn RGR.
Dern commented on both recently I recall, so will be able to provide exact details I’m probably missing.
Suffield, as in BATUS, was wound down a few years ago. We still use it, but not now AFAIK for all arms manoeuvre BGs. We’ve lost so much mass in armour what remains was returned to Europe where it is needed, which was sensible.
Belize and Suffield also are not really deployments though, they are training assets which are important.
You’d want our infantry to have training in jungle, just as you’d have them trained in savannah, so we have BATSUK in Kenya for that.
I’m of the same opinion, as I stated, re NATO. We are already overwhelmingly committed to it, but I get Js differing take on the statement.
The other issue for me regards these small dots on the map are strategic considerations which apply to some of them. Airfields, intelligence, and jumping off points for SOF, SF, for Grey Zone tasks.
They give us reach other nations of our size lack, which is why I’m so bloody anxious and keep banging this drum.
Falklands, Cyprus and Gibraltar are the primary 3, plus 3 other locations in the ME.
I’m not so concerned with Bahrain or Al Duqm as much myself.
And Ascension, vital and must not be relinquished.
Funny enough I’ve always wanted to visit Ascension and St Helena.
I understand only military or contractors can usually visit the former?
This is all very well but if the US leaves NATO in the next few years, will there still be a NATO. I mean would, for instance, Turkey send troops to defend Sweden or Greece? Would Hungary or Slovakia send troops to defend anyone? Germanys reluctance to do anything without the ok from the US is also a major concern. If Trump decides Europe is no longer an American issue, I can’t see NATO lasting!
Realignment. Next week at Blenheim Palace Starmer hosts a group called the European Political Community. He sees the UK as ‘re-engaging’ with the world ( post Brexit) and is positioning the UK as leader of European defence and security. He is using that positioning as a lever for better trade and security relationships with the EU knowing that the US would welcome the freedom to focus its military in the Pacific, on China. Douglas Alexander ( Minister of State for Business and Trade) and Ed Milliband ( Secretary of State for Energy Security) might get foreign office roles, This looks to me like a thought through strategy for UK post Brexit foreign affairs which has been prepared in advance in anticipation of a labour govt. ( There’s no way EU heads of state would accept Tory leadership). To quote Biden, the UK is the knot that ties the US to Europe. The EPC looks like the new Europe – it includes the UK and the idea is that it should be able to defend itself.
Yes, post Brexit,,the EU was sort of ambivalent on the need to defend Europe and therefore what the UK had was not valued as something on the table…
Now…we are facing a European war against a nuclear armed aggressive fascist…the U.S. is looking like it could become a flacky Ally and at best is seriously pissed with a lack of European willingness to defend itself…
Suddenly..the fact the UK owns over 50% of Europes carriers…its best air defence destroyers, over 50% of its SSN fleet as well as 50% of its nuclear deterrent and significant portions of its strategic air lift as well as other capabilities ..may just start to percolate through and start to mean something.
So effectively NATO is dead Europe will give Donald what he needs to justify quiting NATO and our government will be the main actor.
Note we own almost none of the intelligence assets NATO relies massively on the US. As it does for tactical nukes. So our goto response is…
Jeeezz and everyone was saying the adults are now in charge 😀
NATO is not dead, clearly the UK governments posture is now NATO focused. But clearly there is also the opportunity to have discussions with the EU as well….we do have to be ready for the fact the US may have a change in strategic direction…to not consider this would be profoundly naive. Also point out to our European allies that we do provide a hell of a lot that needs to be considered is important as well..why would you not try and lever every advantage…after all we already have defence agreements that are complementary to NATO with other European nations..it’s called the joint expeditionary force.
NATO is dead if we’re not prepared to fight for each other which is the direction it’s heading. It nieve to think US would not change strategy given what it will get in return from the NATO agreement.
Obviously if you backed Labour you’ll defend the Europe centric policy. I don’t have that shackle attached. 😀
Well we do need a European focus..but that does not stop engagement across the globe, or reduce the need..…you can and should balance your assets to your risks..at present we are looking at a shooting war in Europe as well as a shooting war in the western Indian Ocean…these will and should suck a lot of our time and energy, but we still need to show our ability to deploy into the pacific as china needs to see deterrent…
I just don’t see anything wrong in making it clear that we have now moved away from the 1998 defence white paper in which our defence policy was based on expeditionary warfare first and NATO second…a NATO first policy makes sense.
Trump will do what trump does and anything we do will be irrelevant to his actions…he may or may not trash NATO if he gets in, I suspect he will create a major split, as the first thing he will do is remove all support to Ukraine.
But us having agreements with European nations in no way weakens or breaks NATO…as I said we already have a number of them..NATO is not a coverall treaty, it never was and never will be it’s a framework. We even have specific bilateral agreements on defence just between the US and UK..no one ever said that breaks NATO.
Isn’t a little bit arrogant to not taken into account the view of and American voter by saying its all Trump. Afterall you have just voted for a party that will put the defence of Europe first. Now I’m an American voter on the doorstep why should I vote to stay in NATO, especially as Europe is now saying it will defend itself. Sell Starmers defence dream to me as an American politician.
When I say trump I mean every person that votes for him…the consequences of suffrage is a shared responsibility. And as I cannot list or know all 160millions voters in the US using the name trump is not a bit of arrogance it’s just practical.
But in truth a lot of Americans I have talked to, really don’t see the point of spending their tax dollars on defending Europe ( I would say from my discussions it’s 50/50) and they specifically don’t like spending it defending Ukraine..infact a small number I have talked to doubt even the conflict is happing.
As for staying in NATO if Europe says it will defend itself…that’s in my discussions with Americans is is exactly what every American I’ve chatted to would want…they would like a NATO in which we help each other when then shit hits the fan..not suck from the US taxpayers tit for basic defence needs…most of them really want Europe to be able to sort iself out and get a bit of US support if it goes completely tits up..in the same way as they want to be Abel to focus on managing the pacific and only ask for help when if needed….infact the US does not really like to much Europe in the pacific…they can easily shift from seeing it as helping and showing a willingness to help the US out if needed to European imperialism and getting over involved in the pacific…( Need we forget, the US would have happily seen the back of the RN in the Pacific campaign).
You have shocked me by saying, in effect, that the UK does not have significant intelligence assets. If that was the case we would have nothing to contribute to ‘5 Eyes’.
Of course we have assets but Europe does have anywhere near the US capabilities in airborne or satellites for instance. It will take Europe a couple of decades to catchup with where the US is.
I have not seen a tally of assets (USA vs Europe) but you may well be right. It is not necessarily the quantity though – the quality counts too. Some ‘US intelligence failures’ have been jaw-dropping – its worth googling that phrase. I also think that we do HUMINT better than the Americans too.
The Americans were very impressed by the JSG by all accounts. We also have a longer history of involvement in Asia, the Middle East and Africa due to our historical links there, regards the capabilities of the SIS vs CIA in HUMINT.
I had not been familiar with the JSG until you mentioned it – I can see why the Americans were so impressed.
You may have come across them when you were on Op Banner? Called the FRU. Or laterly possibly JCU (NI)
Very controversial.
I’m still in certain whether they exist today or if the role has just been subsumed into the DHU.
I did not deploy on Op Banner. Clearly the JSG don’t make the Press very often, or I might have heard of them!
They don’t, but under their previous name, they did. Stevens enquiry.
I could list several UK Intelligence organisations that are duel staffed by both UK and US personnel.
Withdrawl of the US elements is catastrophic and would harm UK intelligence and defence immensely.
Yes. It looks a little more likely that Trump might win but I don’t think he would pull US personnel out of these dual-manned organisations or would abandon NATO.
It might be an open question whether Trump survives until the election…
Fair point. His Secret Service detail did a lousy prep job before the Trump Rally.
It does.
The problem is they are hand in glove with US assets due to the UKUSA agreement. I would say it is not possible to separate them without extensive damage to both.
This is primarily in the GCHQ/NSA area and the UK tri service units that support them.
Thanks mate. I know this is one of your favourite subjects and you are ‘on point’.
You could say, as these elements are UKUSA, that they’d in theory not be affected by a hypothetical US withdrawl. But I’m doubtful. They’re UK based.
Would the US leave NATO but leave it’s infrastructure and forces in place in Europe, no. Europe would rightly say, get out.
I think the idea of Trump leaving NATO is overcooked anyway. He’s rightly pissed at many European nations not taking things seriously.
Trump can’t leave NATO (rescind membership) without Congressional approval. What he could do on his own volition, is have the US formally withdraw from the integrated military command structure, as France did under de Gaulle and for some time after. That’s if the worlds only superpower really did want to be isolationist and have reduced power and influence in the world.
Thanks mate. Interesting if they did.
SACEUR is always an American. And deputy SACEUR always, I think, a Brit.
That would get the rivalries going.
“Positioning the UK as leader of European defence and security”. Nobody cared 4 years ago so that was never an option but Mad Vlad has changed that narrative! It’s not a thought through strategy. If there was no conflict on European soil it wouldn’t be an option for any British government in my opinion. The EU was happy to punish us as they saw fit despite punishing itself. So to set an example so no other country thought of leaving!
But to do that the UK has to lead which means increasing GDP on defence. Actions speak louder than words! As for the UK being the knot that ties the US to Europe, in 5 months time that knot could slowly start unraveling. The US is the glue that holds NATO together!
We are seeing a realignment of the post WW2 world order. Starmer is at NATO meeting this week. Next week Starmer hosts European leaders at Blenheim palace – a new group called the European Political Community. This group has been created for the defence and security of Europe. It is a subset of NATO and both the UK and the EU in turn are subsetS of this EPC. The UK is a member of NATO and the EPC. Aukus is a new grouping. Note that the UK is a member of all 3 groups. Our global influence is pivotal. There is a sequence. First task is to build these relationships and agree the mutual obligations which underpin them. Second job is to work these obligations through to a defence strategy – what do our partners need us to do, what do we commit to? Third task is to decide size and character of the forces we need and action the recruitment and re-equipment programs. As I see it these tasks are taking place in parallel. Not ideal but as you say, with Mad Vlad we need to hustle.
You forgot to mention JEF😬. It’s ironic really. Mad Vlad has suddenly put the UK in demand what with GCAP also! All these commitments come at a price. Speculate to accumulate as the saying goes!
…and to think some people still say that the UK is not a global power or global player!!
All this and winning the Euros?
…it’s too much 😀
😂
That all suggests role specialisation with the various European countries undertaking certain defence roles but not all. We have though always covered the entire spectrum of armed conflict. Might we drop certain roles/tasks?
Good question Graham. Bit above my pay grade really….back of fag packet defence review :-). I suppose it depends from which perspective you are looking. So, from a NATO/European ( biggest threat) perspective the UK might expect to take prime responsibility – leadership and contribution say for N. Atlantic, Barents Sea, N. Western flank but also be a contributor with some specialisms to other areas. This is sort of the way things are going ….strong asw frigate force + scalable amphibious capability + air defence…with bare minimum credible heavy armour contribution to eastern Europe. Repeat the same review for each region in which we have an interest, total up and out comes the answer as to what forces we need. Seems to me the US has the most interest ( with Australia) in AP and leads the capability, Australia is No 2 and we and Japan are No 3 – a sub, a lrg, a couple of opvs and an occasional csg trip – if its all quiet on the western front. Not sure where S.Korea fits in. Africa looks ungovernable – run by corrupt regimes, Boko Haram and Wagner….hence all the refugees.
S. America is out of bounds except for the Falklands. Things will hot up as the ice melts at both poles and if the Chinese navy decides to accompany its global fishing fleet. I see the Chinese are doing joint exercises with Belorussia. Wonder what language they are using. Fun times ahead. Sleep well.
We have had the odd African excursion – Sierra Leone a couple of times.
Might add the Eastern Atlantic for RN.
Might add something for the RAF to do!
The Yanks might persuade us to join them in another ‘coalition of the willing’ campaign somewhere unexpected.
But I think your fag packet defence review covers the ground!
My amateur review is about to replaced by a professional one. Announcement today of the people Starmer has appointed to do the govt defence review: Lord Robertson (a former secretary general of NATO), Richard Barrons, a retired UK 4 star general and Fiona Hill, a former White House Advisor to Trump.
Robertson reported as viewing China as the major threat; sees it as the leader of the group China, Russia, Iran and N. Korea.
Also reported today is a comment made by Trump’s presidential running mate; that he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine. Always good to know where you stand.
Thanks. I reminded folk last week that Blair’s SDR took 14 months. Did I hear somewhere that this SDR would report in the second half of 2025?
I like the Review team – previously they have been anonymous, I think. Fiona Hill is a Russia specialist. Thank goodness there is no HMT rep centre stage, but they will be consulted. It will be interesting to see how the threat from the Asia-Pacific region (China, North Korea) is painted in the final report, and whether in a military sense if global Britain is ‘back on’.
It will also be interesting to see if there is a modest uplift for Defence ahead of the SDR reporting, so that there is some attempt to deal with problems that are flagged up now.
Senator JD Vance’s statement fills me with horror. Could European nations dramatically increase their military aid to UKR if US stops theirs?
Trump wants to resolve the Russo-Ukraine war in a 24 hr period if elected, no doubt by pressuring Zelensky to cave into a Russian-orientated peace deal.
I think the review publish date is Q1 2025; as soon as it makes sense after the US election, with just enough time to check how the land lies. Trump’s running mate Vance yesterday called the UK the first Islamic country to have the nuclear bomb – he is more Trump than Trump. It should help that Robertson’s view on China lines up exactly with that of Austin Powell. But I don’t know if he keeps his job when the president changes. It is looking as if Ukraine territory could be sacrificed- just what Putin has been hoping for of course.
I don’t think we have intentionally delayed publication until after the US General Election before – that would look as if we are controlled or influenced by USA. Still it makes sense for it to be not discordant from certain aspects of US foreign and defence policy.
I just looked up the Vance quote – its unbelievable. Pakistan was the first Muslim nation to have the bomb. We are by no stretch of the imagination and according to any definition at all an Islamist country under Labour or previously under Conservatives. What is the man thinking?
What is the point about Lord Robertson who may or may not keep his job when the US president changes? He does not work for the current President.
Who is Austin Powell?
Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. What I meant was, is the secretary of defense Austin Powell, a presidential appointment?
I still don’t know who Austin Powell is. Could you mean Lloyd Austin?
As US Sec of Defense then of course he is a Presidential appointee as are all members of Biden’s government.
It remains to be seen if Biden will be the next President of course.
I don’t think HMG should be overly interested or concerned at who the next US Sec of Defense is.
Yes, Lloyd Austin, my mistake.
Well one sure way to get US to leave is tell them we’re not going to fight with you outside if Europe. If we’re not going to exercise in Asia then we’ll not be prepared to fight there. US need Europe more than the reverse, Russia has played its hand and it was weak, the only way Russia can win in Europe is nukes at which point it’s game over for us all. China is the real threat to the US in the Pacific, if Europe’s not going to step up to that challenge in the Pacific NATO is far less relevant to the US.
I don’t think anyone has said any such thing…clearly European nations do need a renewed focus on fighting a peer war in Europe as that is now a real possibility. No one has said we are pulling out of the pacific region and abandoning our pacific partners..and anyway if china went to war with the US NATO would end up being involved as china would inevitably attack the continental US in some way which would trigger NATO.
Has anybody suggested they wouldn’t help the US if they triggered article 5? It would be interesting to see who would help out with what though if they did!
There been several comments on here that Europe should focus on Europe and US on the Pacific. That level of thinking means NATO is pointless.
The U.S. already focuses on the pacific…most of their key foreign and military policy development since 2005 has massively focused on the pacific…most of their carrier fleet is based in the pacific, the majority of the SSN fleet…the U.S. has a far greater focus on the pacific…the US wants the European nations to be more focused and put more capacity into Europe so the U.S. can worry about the pacific…why would they want Europe to pivot way from Europe…that’s not sensible..the U.S. want European NATO to be able to handle its own affairs..so the U.S. is only supporting in Europe and for Europe to be able take the strain if the pacific kicks off…
In the case of a Sino US war..the U.S. will need European Navies to focus on taking the strain in the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, gulf…so it can move the fifth fleet into the southern pacific/south China see…it will not want European navies steaming for a month, bypassing the fifth fleet just so they can help out instead..when they Could free up the fifth fleets CBG, expeditionary strike group and SSN force…
It simply makes no sense to hammer forces with the tyranny of distance just to turn up, when you can designate areas of responsibility and focus…so your forces can be more effective doing things closer to home and logistic hubs..and when it comes to fighting china that means Europe navy’s will probably end up fighting chinas Indian Ocean fleets in the western Indian ocean.
Security of the Euro-Atlantic region is pointless?
It means if you divi it up it nakes NATO pointless. Us and Europe just focus on their areas of concern.
What’s being said is US has forces in Europe but if it needs to fight in Pacific Europe will back fill. So if Europe can back fill why have US forces in the first instance? The US can just restucture and focus on the Pacific. Likewise if there no threat in Europe an US is at war in the Pacific we won’t be deploying because our force structure doesn’t allow it and we’ve not trained there or test new equipment and assets their. Essentially the agreement where we all step in should one get attacked is now broken and flawed.
Imagine stood on the doorstep of a US voter and explaining why NATO is so important to them. ” I can assure you our key NATO allie Britain will make its ‘best efforts’ to support us” .You may well get a rather negative response, of course the response back is “think about the stability and economic benefits of a strong Europe” But the retort comes “they have already raised spend
but only to focus on their own defence”. That wouldn’t sell the longevity of the agreement to me.
You voted for a political party that would prioritise our European defence, so why wouldn’t an American voter put their defence first and vote the same way. From their perspective NATO is looking increasingly pointless.
Clearly NATO is stronger with the USA fully engaged. But if the US ever did leave NATO (unlikely in my view), I think NATO would survive as a Canada/Europe mutual security organisation. Because no single European nation would be able to defend themselves against a threat from Russian armed force – and defeat it comprehensively.
I don’t follow your backfill argument. If the US has to fight in the Pacific, possibly against China, are you saying that they would withdraw their forces from Europe?…and that Europe would have to somehow make up for the loss of US forces in Europe?
If US and China fight each other that is not a matter for Article 5, unless China strikes the US homeland.
Surely the US voter knows that the only time Article 5 was invoked was when the US homeland was attacked and all of NATO responded.
Yeah that’s nonsense. The world is too small and too interconnected now for that to be relevant. Probably relevant when NATO was formed but not today!
Every NATO country rallied to the US cause when Article 5 was called in 2001….and a lot of non-NATO countries too!
Let’s be honest,2001 was a completely different scenario to a possible future conflict with China! The Taliban wasn’t supplying the world with cheap goods or had nukes.
Of course every conflict scenario is different to another. But Article 5 does not differentiate between types of scenarios.
Dern’s answer is spot-on. If China attacked CONUS it would be a different story.
Hi Graham, I don’t dispute Dern is correct. I’ll give you a for instance. The US could have a Nimitz in the Pacific, one in the Indian Ocean and one in Mediterranean. Russia or China could sink 2 out of 3 and not get NATO involved. If you was an American would you be happy with that? Or they could sink a QE in the pacific and NATO wouldn’t get involved. Or any other ally for that matter if the wording is be that specific. Because the wording also states “or forces, vessels or aircraft in or over these territories”. NATO of 1949 isn’t the same as of today. NATO needs to change or, from a US perspective at least, it becomes irrelevant! You can see why Trump gets the hump about it!
Hi Nevis (or should I call you Ben!),
Your 3 US aircraft carrier scenarios – I would hope that Americans well informed about NATO would know that it provides mutual security within the Euro-Atlantic area…and not outside it..and that any response is for the wolrds only superpower to decide upon itself.
If China sinks a QE-class carrier in the Pacific, I am clear that Article 5 would not be triggered and that therefore there is no obligation on the other 31 NATO nations to join with us in a NATO operation to take on China. It is interesting to speculate on what might happen, though.
There might be just diplomatic action if China admits it was a mistake and expresses profuse regret. If it was definitely to instigate war, then we would have to see where our allies stand, especially the US. There might be an an operation comprising a coalition of the willing against China, possibly limited in scope to hobbling the freedom of manouevre of the Chines navy, but possibly involving more than that.
Some thought that NATO after the Cold War might become irrelevant and fade away, its raison d’etre having evaporated. Instead NATO reinvented itself and grew from strength with 16 more nations having joined – and NATO having embarked on 23 military operations since then (9 ops in Bosnia-Herzogovina, 2 in Kosovo,the rest in North Macedonia, US airspace, the Med, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Indian Ocean, Libya).
In agree that NATO is very different from that of 1949. As I have pointed out it has changed a great deal over the years and none more so than after the Cold War.
No doubt you want NATO’s remit to be greatly expanded – to encompass just about any conflict or shooting incident involving members military assets spread across the globe. I doubt NATO would easily do that, for all sorts of reasons.
To take a real rather than hypothetical example. Israel attacked the USS Liberty (a USN technical research ship (spy ship)) using fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967. The attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian NSA employee), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship. The ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula. If NATO then had an extended remit, Article 5 would have been declared and NATO may have gone to war with Israel. [Granted it was during the Six-Day War, and Israel quickly came up with the excuse that they thought the ship was Egyptian].
Another real-world example of a ship of a NATO member being attacked in international waters, and way outside the NATO Euro-Atlantic area.
USS Pueblo, a spy ship, which the US insisted was operating in international waters, beyond North Korea territorial waters.
On 23 January 1968, the ship was attacked and captured by a North Korean vessel, in what became known as the “Pueblo incident” or the “Pueblo crisis”.
The ship was attacked by North Korean forces comprising: two light frigates (submarine chasers), 4 MTBs and 2 MiG-21s. One of the 83 crew was killed, the Captain wounded by shrapnel – and the vessel was seized (and was never returned).
Under your concept, Article 5 would have been declared and NATO would have found itself at war with North Korea. How many NATO members would have been pleased at the thought of war with North Korea, when their own continent was not threatened?.
The wording of Article V is:
Any conflict in the Pacific, by default is not in Europe or North America, so the US can’t trigger Article V for a Pacific War (also an attack on Taiwan wouldn’t trigger Article V as Taiwan isn’t a NATO member).
If China launched a pre-emptive strike against Guam or against a Nimitz carrier with the loss of 5000 US personnel, would you not think that would be considered an attack on North America or at the very least the Americans would consider that an attack on North America?
No, it wouldn’t. The NATO charter is very specific, it states, as part of Article 6:
An attack on Guam would fail to activate Article V due to:
(A) Guam not being part of North America. North America is a Geographic term, not a political term. This is why “The Algerian Departments of France” get their own specific mention, because at the time of the founding of NATO, Algeria WAS France, more so than Guam is part of America, but it was outside of Europe.
(B) Guam is south of the Tropic of Cancer.
(C) Guam is not in the North Atlantic (the only area that Article 6 makes consideration for Islands in).
That’s why the UK did not invoke Article V in 1982 btw.
I believe that the US once had a poicy of being able to fight 2 very major wars simultaneously, then it dropped to 1.5 and now I think it is 2 wars near-simultaneously. Not an expert, maybe our US contributors could help.
Anyway, the US needs reliable fighting (European) allies to be able to prosecute 2 major wars simultaneously. A reason the US is likely to stay in NATO and maintain their European military connections.
Personally, I don’t think the US will quit NATO. I being a bit of protagonist though to highlight how dangerous some of the thinking that’s setting in could be. And the main problem with the thinking is it’s just to do the opposite to last party and to drive us back towards the EU. Let’s be honest if Ukraine hadn’t happened Labour would scraping around for another reason to not be global. Not that the Tories actually were.
Exactly.
Thanks. If Labour wants to abandon the Pacific tilt, then that would mostly impact on the Navy?
Also, many think that Starmer wants to at least rejoin the Single Market. Is that credible?
I voted remain so I’d be up for rejoining but I was never pro EU version of European defence. The navy may.not suffer as we’ll be creating 1000s of sqkm of offshore infrastructure that needs defending but the asset required for a more local defence are different. We have 2 carriers very capable SSNs that are assets that should play a global role and we should have a strategic aim to do that and fund it. Send an OPV to the Pacific isn’t a global strategy either so I’m non plused if they’re withdrawn. it’s a concern we’ll be leaving allies like Australia and NZ out in the cold. Yes AUKUS will continue and so will 5 eyes but that’s about it.
We should pick some things to do globally but do them we’ll imo then we have something tangible to to offer our non European allies without breaking the bank. Sadly that won’t happen because labour decided to to just do the opposite of the Tories without actually thinking it through.
I agree that the Navy should not suffer as we are a global player and so have always had a bluewater navy.
But there is little money in the kitty for defence expansion in all 5 environments so ‘re-balancing’ may occur.
At the moment AUKUS is a trading entity, focussed on procuring SSNs, not a mutual defence pact. We are not committing bluewater naval assets to AUKUS.
policy!
NATO is irrelevant to the Pacific. Article V does not apply there.
The US will not surrender its membership of NATO but Trump if elected might choose to leave the integrated military command structure as de Gaulle did.
NATO would continue for Europe’s benefit even without the US (in whole or in part) – no European nation, especially the small ones, can achieve effective security on their own against a sizeable external threat.
I think they’re trying to ensure that everyone realizes the Corby years are over. Maybe it doesn’t mean much, yet, but they are making the right noises. It is however a bit ironic that it was Blairs 1998 defence review that prioritized expeditionary warfare and gave us aircraft carriers and not much else. Although with their huge majority, they don’t need to bother, I would like to see an all party approach to defence. It needs long term planning and funding, especially as design and build timescales are now so long for all major equipment programmes.
PS never a labour voter.
I honestly think is more about setting the baseline for the defence review and resetting/stating the Europe risk…if you remember a long time again the Labour 1998 defence white paper reset the UK defence paradigm away from a core function of supporting NATO..
Page 25 1998 white paper:
“The UK will no longer maintain forces to meet a strategic attack on NATO. This statement is important since it, in a sense it reverses half a century of UK defence planning. From the onset of the Cold War and increasingly thereafter, the UK defence effort was dedicated to NATO. forces outside of Western Europe were to be drawn from those allocated to NATO. This assumption is now reversed, no longer is the force structure primarily defined by the contribution to NATO, but rather by the need to launch expeditionary operations. It is therefore the missions which UK forces are likely to perform which will determine force structure rather than commitment”
This was a really significant paradigm shift and essentially said we are not ever going to be fighting a war in Europe and NATO will never be fighting a major defensive war again..Now through all other defence reviews and white papers this essential paradigm has not shifted…they have tinkered and cut “ mission capabilities and likely missions”…but not changed that..we are not really threatened defence posture.
I think this is therefore indicating that the new defence review will see a pretty massive paradigm shift…using the words:
“NATO first “
” European security with be our foreign and defence priority”
“ defend against any adversary”
” Putin and his new form of fascism”
essentially rolled back the 1998 white paper and puts us back in the Cold War.
So they should. Europe is on our back door. The Pacific is the other side of the world. I suspect the Tory focus there was a case of reimagining the ‘Empire’.
If China fights the US over Taiwan, the fact that it’s on the other side of the world will make no difference. Our economy will melt down as fast as any other country’s, and probably faster than most as we have a high-tech economy reliant on Taiwanese chips.
There is no region in the world that isn’t interelated with all the rest. Even Antarctica will become increasingly politicised over the next twenty years. Ignoring the South Atlantic because it’s not covered by NATO also isn’t an option that will end well.
The late Bronze Age collapse needs to be taught in schools as an object lesson to Little Englanders.
Quite right, but part of the picture is to reduce dependency on cheap Chinese products. This means re-shoring of manufacturing capability. Even in partnership with Australia, New Zealand and US we can only ever play a very minor role. Our main focus always has been closer to home and Russia is the major aggressor. We cannot even keep our own forces equipped and of a suitable size to deal with our doorstep. Europe has to be a far more immediate priority. Boost our capability here and that can also boost far way support. We struggle to send a single carrier strike group, whose effectiveness is eliminated with one single missile! We need to walk before we run, and making sure that we can resupply ammunition, and replace damaged equipment, increase manpower applies to whereevr we need to defend our interests. It isn’t in China’s interest to do too much as the ‘West’ are who keeps their economy afloat. It doesn’t mean they won’t do anything, but we couldn’t stop them overrunning Taiwan anyway. They have proximity and vastly overwhelming manpower.
Methinks your use of the word Empire more belies your poltical leanings ,than your strategics ones.
You clearly don’t understand irony or rhetoric! I refer to a certain Mr Johnson’s meandering bumbles. Nothing to do with leanings or beliefs on my part.
But in such a situation what assets do we have to put into the fight against China that are more than token or a symbolic show of unity?
Whereas we can dominate the GIUK gap along with Canada and Norway very well should Russia kick off again – which they almost certainly would if the US and China went to war.
No it wasn’t, it was about trade.
GCAP, AUKUS, CPTPP, and a wider footprint for our minimal forces there by the CGS displaying its capability to deploy at range from the UK.
The area is a huge growth market, and China is rattling sabres.
The UK, as a P5 UNSC member and one of the worlds biggest economies, should be out there.
That Labour look like they might withdraw to Europe, with all the geostrategic implications of that, horrifies me.
And as I pointed out earlier, our forces are NATO orientated already.
This announcement to me smacks of getting ready to justify cut cut cut as “we don’t need to go beyond European NATO any more” when in fact, we do.
Overseas territories, Op Shader, trouble in the Middle East, we can and must maintain our footprint, however minimal.
Of Course it’s all about Trade, it always has been right the way back to the Romans. Funnily enough it’s why I don’t think Trump will do a knee jerk and pull out of Europe and NATO. But I’d bet money on him reading the riot act to the 7 NATO countries that are doing sweet FA about the 2% on Defence but nothing more.
One thing about Trump is if your on his naughty step you really know about it as he doesn’t pull his punches.
If he did pull out I suspect the US Tech co’s and Military Industrial Complex would go ape at him, the US exports huge Billions of Tech and military equipment to Europe.
As for Starmer making a big announcement about NATO 1st, it’s pretty funny when you think about it. It’s either Bluster or he is massively misinformed, far from pulling back we are about to do the exact opposite and only an idiot would reverse that.
We have a signed Treaty Obligation to permanently station and support an SSN in Australia in 2 years time.
So I’m pretty confidant he may chop a few small establishments overseas but it would be madness to cancel CSG25 or risk AUKUS.
Yes and trade with what used to be the ‘Empire’. Though it is more a case of trying to find business partners to try and fill the gaps left by Brexit. In most cases it is also about us being sold to, or exporting tax-payer cash to other countries.
China is no longer the other side of the world! Here they are dipping a toe into Belarus right next door to NATO! Small beginnings and all that.
Don’t forget:
Akrotiri, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dhekelia, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.
Those are yours and you’ll need ships.
It goes a little further than that. The UK has been asked on several occasions over the years to render military assistance to friendly Commonwealth nations, just one example was the intervention at the request of the Sierra Leone government (Op PALLISER in May 2000).
Then there are Services Protected (or Assisted) Evacuations of British dependents from a country in conflict (eg Sudan last year)
….and Humanitarian operations eg relief after hurricanes in the Caribbean.