UK Government outlines steps to strengthen NATO role

Hi J.
As always, I appreciate your positive take, I hope you’re correct.

It feels to me more like a hockey team, on a cold January morning, trying to get each others’ spirits up to avoid doing work individually.
In other words we just need one part of government to step up and prove it can be done and the rest will follow suit.

Indeed, in the end you do have to come out of the circle and someone has to smash it into the back of the net…I’m sort of hoping the defence review will be the circle breaking and team getting on with scoring.

Me too with that last point.
This analogy has gone on long enough, methinks.
Are you a big hockey player, Jonathan? Most people would have gone for Football there.

Hockey is more “fun” and is more nuanced than football..also smacking a Puck with a big old stick is a lot more therapeutic than kicking a ball.

Puck? An ice hockey man?
I never had the coordination for football. Hitting things really hard just seems to work better.

Yep Bristol…bit of a hub for ice hockey…

Hi David, mate.
I am indeed. I’d also remind that to me, the only Peace Dividend cuts that were justified were the 91 OFC.
So 95 FLF, 97 SDSR, 2004 NC, the period between 2004 and 2009, 2010 SDSR, 2015, 2021 were not Peace Dividend, they were cuts.
That is actually apolitical as BOTH mainstream parties were responsible for those.
Until Labour give me something to be positive about, and so far they’ve done sweet FA apart from announcing a review and resisting going to 2.5, I’ll keep up this tune.
Having read we are spending over 100 Billion over the next decade on nuclear, plus tens of billions thrown at AUKUS, and another 9 billion allocated to GCAP, all industrial with no resultant increase whatsoever to our conventional forces that are literally disappearing at a rate of knots as HMG prioritises the MIC, I feel right to be fearful.
Just to add, I support all 3 of those, but not if they result in the funeral pyre of conventional forces.

I’m in violent agreement with you except, we should have never drawn down so quickly and the Blair rush to make everyone and their dog have a Degree led to degree deflation and a social bar to those unlucky enough to be able to afford one.

Indeed it was essentially a small second world military..with an economy five times smaller than Russia, the fact Russia has been fighting a war with Ukraine and not winning for a decade..sort of shows what will happen if it takes on an enemy with 5 times its military mass and well over 10 times its economic might and 10 times its population…its a war Russia can only lose catastrophically..with or without a thermo nuclear ending.

Turkey’s generally not considered part of Europe though.

I think Turkey would beg to differ, it’s certainly European NATO.

It can beg to differ all it likes, but it isn’t.

I honestly think that if the US pulled the plug on NATO the European nations would possibly develop a treaty that did not include turkey, I suspect it would depend on Turkey playing more as a team player..I also think any European NATO treaty would be more solid as the more open to interpretation bits of the NATO treaty were put there by the U.S…I think a Euro treaty would be a lot more..you will defend a nation under attack..you will declare war on a nation attacking another treaty nation…NATO as is has massive get out of war free cards built in.

Question: What is more important, ENATO expenditure? Or ENATO capabilities?

Expenditures and capabilities significantly correlated.

That’s not answering the question. Try again.

I remember when there was a virtually inevitable war against the Warsaw Pact.
That turned out to be wrong.
China is way more vulnerable than Russia was, its oil supply is precarious.

? Current events demonstrate PRC has access to a discounted, stable petrochemical supply.

Actually hope your observation re CW I proves to be correct again for CW II. 🤞Simply wouldn’t place a large wager on that outcome.

I wonder – their stash might be large, I doubt it would last that long.
Otherwise, their supply would be Russia. That would cause a resurgent Russia.
All this is bollocks if the war turns VERY hot of course.
If it stays conventional, it is easy to block the middle east route. Russia might supply China on its own. But trade would stop. China would not need so much oil, but what would happen after a few months?
A new stalemate, China cannot win – it is the new Japan! (Of WW2 concept).

I do wonder, what could we do against a continental Russian oil pipeline?

Bit of a ramble, am drinking, rugger on in Cardiff this afternoon.

Indeed, was just pointing that NATO does still have a level of jeopardy for European NATO members in regards to the pacific..people often forget that NATO has a western boarder as well and it ends official 12 NMs into the pacific from the North American coastline..war comes to that coast and it triggers artice five. It’s also worth remembering that article five was triggered last not with an act of armed aggression by an army navy or airforce..but by a terror attack, so it leaves it open that any form of attack could trigger an article five intervention.

personally I think when you look at the scope of a likely US sino war, the Chinese warfighting paradigm as well as the fact no one ever won major peer war without taking it to peoples homes it’s inevitable that NATO would become involved..if china goes to war with the US it will be a total war…China believes you win by destroying your enemies political will to fight..by attacking them in every possible way in every possible place and at every possible time, it also knows it has no hope of winning a contained conventional set piece conflict against the US..it will go large or go home.

As I said, I don’t think that Article V would be successfully triggered by a pre-existing War coming to America’s coast. An opening attack starting on American Soil? Sure, whether Terror or not. But not “The War started in the Pacific and then expanded to the continental US.” And I can’t see any European governments letting themselves be dragged into a War because America failed to contain it to the Pacific.

*Edit* Not reading the treaty this way effectively invalidates it as a Defensive Alliance. Because if the treaty is and article V is interpreted this way, Poland could drag NATO into a War by, for example, invading Russia, letting some Russian troops cross the border into Poland, or letting Russia bomb Warsaw and then activating Article V. So while I believe the NATO articles are vague, the intention clearly is that an “armed attack” means the opening of hostilities (either via conventional or asymmetric means) rather than hostilities at some point escalating onto relevant soil.

Finally I’d add that even if the two of us (I don’t but for the sake of argument) might agree that the text could mean that a Chinese escalation onto the US mainland could be an excuse for the US to invoke Article V, a lot of European governments will not see it that way and will argue from my position, as they’ll want to stay out of a US-China war. Extending NATO’s remit beyond it’s current borders, as my original point stated, would mean tying Europe much more closely to American foreign policy blunders.

Hmmm…actually, believe ChiComs have every expectation of winning a conventional war w/ the US and multiple partners. However, fully anticipate the conflict will escalate, sooner rather than later, as both sides opt for an attempted first strike to decapitate the opposition. Then it’s goodbye Mr. Chips. NK will be glassed, perhaps Incidentally, but probably w/ malice aforethought. The Israelis will conduct instant urban renewal w/in Iran and probably have some inventory left over to go calling upon the Orcs, if deemed necessary. ENATO may be relatively unscathed in these excganges, but will be vastly disadvantaged by the Orcs, who will be totally unconstrained by nuke prohibitions from that point.*

* A strictly non-official assessment of possible/probable coming attractions.

Pretty sure the next Fuh- I mean POTUS would withdraw American troops and give the PRC anything it wanted, that’s his track record so far.

If hostilities do commence, game over.

Trouble with that one is the CCP can now terminate right back, they now have MAD. It’s a bit of an issue really, very worrying all around.

Less so now w/ 500 available warheads, than in 2035, w/ a projected PRC inventory of 1500 warheads. But yes, a significant concern for at least the US, if not ENATO.

Yes unfortunately, 500 warheads would end the U.S….interestingly it would also catapult the rest of the world into starvation. So even if Europe never got hit by a nuclear weapon from china, if china and the U.S. jointly dumped a couple of thousands warheads on each other..no one is walking away healthy…it would be the same for the US if Europe and Russian decide to glass each other.

if you look at the crop modelling as well as black soot modelling from a low kiloton ( A bombs over over big strategic H bombs) 100 warhead exchange, you would see around 10% of the worlds food production lost for just under a decade…that was modelling around an Indian Pakistan exchange..that would create really significant food shortages and starvation.. you move that to 2000 strategic warheads and the world simply stops producing mass agricultural food supplies for a decade…mass starvation everywhere, no matter which nations were glassed in the exchange.

essentially any of the major nuclear powers go live and it’s bye boys civilisation from a decade of mass starvation.

Always thought the Aussies and Kiwis may have an opportunity to ride it out. Area surrounding HMAS Stirling will be glassed post AUKUS, but Australia is a large landmass. Would presume w/adequate prep, some would survive. The Kiwis may grow tired of mutton, but otherwise should be in decent shape post apocalypse. Probably the odd Pacific Islander as well, simply have to avoid consuming the glowing fish.