Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

The rough school of mathematics:-
COIN - force density of 20 soldiers per 1000 civvies, if you want to run a rules based police operation.
Defending the Baltics - Military speaking a minimum force of at least 3 Brigades to support the local forces and RAND actually mentioned 7 Brigades. Given the UK has a single battalion group and NATO managed a single brigade in total, so whatever deterrence was intended. The force composition is insufficient and is not a serious attempt to defend the baltics.

Conclusions:-
1. Even our big brains are absolutely certain that Russia will not invade. (proof: the tiny forces deployed).
2. The UK simply doesn't have the forces anymore to do anything, but participate at a minor level.
3. Russia seems to have keyed in on a basic principle that much of europes population is unrepresented and democracy is a sham, to deliver different governments and the same policy. So Russia won't do anything but nudge and wait, confident that time is working for them.
Cheers again comrade Tommy
 
I'm pretty sure the Government have zero plans on invading any countries any time soon - we're skint.

We've got no money left after covid and paying furlough for people + all the money that needs to be spent on upgrading the infrastructure. We don't have unlimited funds so we need to spend wisely.

What is the biggest threat to us? Cyber or being invaded?
I'm pretty sure the government have zero plans to drop Instant Sunshine on any countries any time soon. But skint or not, they will still find the money to keep Trident. And rightly so.

I doubt that many people would disagree that Cyber Warfare is a growing threat and we need to upgrade both our defensive and offensive capabilities in that area. But it should not be at the expense, no pun intended, of other capabilities that might be equally vital in the long run.

Threats can have a nasty habit of appearing out of the clear blue sky and catching people unawares. It is prudent to maintain as wide a range of options as possible, as one cannot be certain exactly what response will be required. As McMillan eloquently put it, "Events, dear boy, events!"
 
I can’t say definitively that that’s bollox, but I’m prepared to say it is.
Well let’s agree to disagree, as I’ve been told different, its even in the public domain attributed to a VSO.
 
So in effect, your opinion is "screw the UN, or the rule of law, just kill who you want / where you want, no comeback?" Interesting.



No, they figured that targetting the individuals in Russia who made those decisions, is better than screwing over the whole of the Russian population. It's certainly more constructive.

Britain has gone to war for less - but it chose to do things through mediation, not direct retribution (as far as we know). Which hurts Putin more - a war that he wouldn't mind (because it will push up oil prices, and get him votes for his next election), or a pile of his key supporters discovering that they can't go on holiday to their favourite destinations, that some of their offshore money is frozen, and they now have problems doing business?
Those nations that frequently carry out assassinations, covert capture & extraction of undesirables (including all the major powers on the UN Security Council) seem to get away with it, while those individuals targetted by sanctions seem to survive well enough even without holidays and foreign investments.
 
Get real, the only UK citizen killed by your NBC attacks was that junkie woman in Salisbury.
The 2 Russians targetted there got better, and the 1 killed by polonium was Russian too.
An act of war, you say, and what did the UK do about it, militarily? Sweet FA, because those in power see no benefit in starting a war with Russia because they offed (or tried to) a few traitors.
Please be aware that Dawn Sturgess was an alcoholic, not a junkie. The drug dealer was her boyfriend Charlie.

I know members of her family well, and knew Dawn to a degree. One of her family is also a member Arrse


Despite attempts by the trolls to shift blame onto an overdose rather than Russia it has also been confirmed that drugs were not in her bloodstream.


Sergei Skripal is a traitor, but that doesn’t make it OK to endanger the general public

Litvinenko was guilty of investigating the corruption that led to putting Putin in power

.... and to add Scott Young - dodgy dealer who got rich from Putin’s friends before falling out of a window. They don’t mind about the nationality of who they finish off
 
Last edited:
I fear you've misunderstood the concept of deterrence or trip wire force.

The force needed to defend it is significant and expensive - so nobody wants to commit that force into the region for an indeterminate period

Not doing something in response to Russian actions could give the wrong impression that we wont act if Russia attacks (echos of scrapping a ice breaker perhaps)

The force in situ is not sufficient to stop a physical attack - but its not intended to, what it does do is make clear that to take those places you will have to attack British / German / French / others Forces - in doing so you make conflict with all inevitable as such the intent is to deter Russia from attacking not by strength of forces committed but by dint of multinationality
1. The force in situ deters nothing, because the russians I'm sure, think it could be knocked over in 48 hours.
2. NATO is by no means united on the principle of a full shooting war and so your trip wire is meaningless.
3. A token force to be sacrificed on principles that aren't respected by your enemy, is void of logic and likely encourage an attack, in the same way setting up a patrol base in an insurgent area is guaranteed to draw fire.
 
Have we now established that it’s now OK for the Queen to have as many horses in her army as she wants?
Not just because it’s her toy set but we have now resolved that it doesn’t matter that there are more horses than tanks as none of them will scare off the Russians
 
We keep just enough forces in the Baltics to look the part and irritate the Russians, but no enough we cannot get them out in quick sprint to Poland if the Russians come over and call our bluff.
Its all rather pointless posturing by NATO when there are more pressing matters to occupy it.
It's exactly the point of NATO.
 
Ahem....... I’ll just leave this here!


I‘m not an expert but, I really didn’t think you could make the armed forces any smaller than what they currently are without causing some real structural damage to the defence of the nation.

Everybody else, particularly those who could be regarded as potential belligerents, seems to be getting larger and possibly more adventurous.

To be honest, it’s a lot more complex than this little meme but does anybody really know what makes this bloke tick and just how has he got to where he is?
 
No, it just reinforced their (false) notion of political relations as a zero-sum game.

The extension of a protective shield to nations and peoples who are historically and culturally close to you and want to maintain their self-determination against a power which has time and again proved itself to be inimical to them was and remains a positive thing for all concerned. That Moscow views it as a threat speaks volumes for the Muscovite mentality.
interesting how this thread has morphed.
Condottiere: this is not about you, but this is important. NATO may be fracturing, the EU is fracturing (don’t want to get into the details) but I want to add to what you say (and disagree to some extent).
The biggest player in Europe is Germany. Despite many on here saying that Germany and Russia are historical enemies, they are far from it. A massive manufacturing base near to a massive production base will only form stronger alliances. NATO can send troops to the Baltic States and Poland as much as it wants, but economics will win.
What happens to the countries in between, like Poland, remains to be seen.
I remain optimistic.
 
I would be cautious about comparing NI with Basra and Helmand for many reasons but

I agree and this is the heart of the manpower issue. If you remove crossborder operations and have a ROE which makes it a certainity, you can't even contain the violence around your base. All our recent failures are down to both options been off the table, which then falls back to a policing one.

Even if we deployed the entire army it couldn't perform an adequate COIN, on a population size larger than 4 million people and given its generally only able to deploy a tenth of that force
Quite possibly but compare and contrast force size, population size and density, geographic size between NI, Basra and Helmand.... there wasn’t enough troops deployed.


the question of fighting a valid COIN only exists, if a local force exists before we even bother to start.
Absolutely agree or go build such a force in short order. But that force has to uphold the Rule of law and be impartial in upholding human rights as does any outside force which is deployed.

The British Army was deployed on the streets of NI because the RUC had lost control and didn’t have the trust of a sizeably minority of the population as they failed to protect them and in some cases were complicit in what was happening.

Any force (police or military) needs the confidence and support of the population to do its job. That is especially true in COIN. so you are better off if at all possible using precision limited violence and living among the population (ie don’t commute to the town you are protecting). That makes you very vulnerable but it really is the only way to deny the vital ground to the enemy.
 
Ahem....... I’ll just leave this here!


I‘m not an expert but, I really didn’t think you could make the armed forces any smaller than what they currently are without causing some real structural damage to the defence of the nation.

Everybody else, particularly those who could be regarded as potential belligerents, seems to be getting larger and possibly more adventurous.

To be honest, it’s a lot more complex than this little meme but does anybody really know what makes this bloke tick and just how has he got to where he is?
If it was me not sure about cutting the numbers but the British Army needs rebalancing IMHO so that The ability to project combat power (Government policy being a Division plus) is provided and protected and if that means cuts to what is not essential in that (while also being able to provide for other roles)....
 
1. The force in situ deters nothing, because the russians I'm sure, think it could be knocked over in 48 hours.
2. NATO is by no means united on the principle of a full shooting war and so your trip wire is meaningless.
3. A token force to be sacrificed on principles that aren't respected by your enemy, is void of logic and likely encourage an attack, in the same way setting up a patrol base in an insurgent area is guaranteed to draw fire.
Voice of Moscow calling!
 
interesting how this thread has morphed.
Condottiere: this is not about you, but this is important. NATO may be fracturing, the EU is fracturing (don’t want to get into the details) but I want to add to what you say (and disagree to some extent).
The biggest player in Europe is Germany. Despite many on here saying that Germany and Russia are historical enemies, they are far from it. A massive manufacturing base near to a massive production base will only form stronger alliances. NATO can send troops to the Baltic States and Poland as much as it wants, but economics will win.
What happens to the countries in between, like Poland, remains to be seen.
I remain optimistic.
You make a valid point. Historically Germany (to include its most recent great power antecedents) has oscillated between cooperation with and hostility to Russia. Moscow is actively working to disrupt and dissolve NATO and one of its ploys is economic enticement of Germany.

Now Russian info-Ops will be actively seeking to promote hostility between Poland and Germany. To this end they unfortunately already have willing collaborators in both countries.
 
1. The force in situ deters nothing, because the russians I'm sure, think it could be knocked over in 48 hours.
2. NATO is by no means united on the principle of a full shooting war and so your trip wire is meaningless.
That wooshing sound is the point going right over your head

re 1

Weve all agreed the force is insufficient to deal with an attack - thats not been disputed - The fact you (and Photex) keep banging on about this only highlights to the world you havent grasped the concept of deterrence.

re2
Whist ive no doubt you are correct there will be vacillations and excuses not to take direct action
Britain France and the US all have troops there - knocking them over in 48 hours is all well and good but youve inflicted casualties - There is no way France, the UK or the US are going to say oh well fair enough - It will mean war -
So Russia isnt going to go charging into Estonia because whether the US is really willing to fight another war in Europe or not - once they kill US servicemen the wars on.


The logic you are using would see the UK and France either renege or call it quits in 1939 -
 
1. The force in situ deters nothing, because the russians I'm sure, think it could be knocked over in 48 hours.
2. NATO is by no means united on the principle of a full shooting war and so your trip wire is meaningless.
3. A token force to be sacrificed on principles that aren't respected by your enemy, is void of logic and likely encourage an attack, in the same way setting up a patrol base in an insurgent area is guaranteed to draw fire.
History shows Operations such as Vantage do work.
 

Latest Threads

Top