UK military ill-prepared to defend an attack, says retired chief

[Heathrow Harry]

The armed forces are ill-prepared to defend the UK against a serious military attack, a senior commander has warned the defence secretary.

In a memo before he retired in April as head of Joint Forces Command, Gen Sir Richard Barrons said key capabilities had been stripped out to save money.
He said Whitehall was "preserving the shop window" with items like aircraft carriers, the Financial Times reports. (https://www.ft.com/content/36f47240-7c0e-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e)

Defence officials said Sir Richard had backed the last defence review.

It followed the government's decision to raise defence spending by nearly £5bn by 2020-21 and its pledge to meet Nato's target to spend 2% of GDP on defence for the rest of the decade. Sir Richard said: "Capability that is foundational to all major armed forces has been withered by design." He said critical technical and logistical capabilities had been "iteratively stripped out. "Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory," he said.  "Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort."

The Army "has grown used to operating from safe bases in the middle of its operating area, against opponents who do not manoeuvre at scale", he said.

Manpower in all three services was dangerously squeezed and Navy ships and RAF planes had become used to depending on US support, he said.
"Key capabilities such as radars, fire control systems and missile stocks are deficient," he said. "There is a sense that modern conflict is ordained to be only as small and as short term as we want to afford, and that is absurd... The failure to come to terms with this will not matter at all if we are lucky in the way the world happens to turn out, but it could matter a very great deal if even a few of the risks now at large conspire against the UK."

Sir Richard served as head of Joint Forces Command between 2013 and 2016, a role that saw him in charge of more than 20,000 military and civilian personnel across all three services. It is not the first time a senior British military commander has spoken against defence cuts. But BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said other criticism had not contained so much detail or been expressed as starkly. A defence source has questioned the motive behind the release of the memo, wondering if it was "sour grapes" as Sir Richard had been one of the candidates put forward for promotion as head of the armed forces but was turned down.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Our defence review last year put in place a plan for more ships, planes and troops at readiness, alongside greater spending on cyber and special forces. That plan was backed by a rising defence budget. "And, crucially, it was backed by all of the service chiefs, who were heavily involved putting it together."

[2Planks]

Former General reveals 'planning assumptions' that were valid for some years before I left.


Has he got a book coming out, or a lecture tour?
I note the Beeb has latched onto the sour grapes over Sir Stu's appointment.

[Pontius Navigator]

Apart from stating the bleedin obvious when was it really different?

During the Cold War we had lots more forces, were they capable then of stopping an all out attack? In the 60s we projected power with substantial overseas basing which contributed to stability as far as Asia. As we withdrew our forces shrank, things became less stable and our ability to deploy in different theatres disappeared.

[MSOCS]

A defence source has questioned the motive behind the release of the memo, wondering if it was "sour grapes" as Sir Richard had been one of the candidates put forward for promotion as head of the armed forces but was turned down.


Pretty much this....

I'm not in any way suggesting Gen B is anything but a top drawer VSO, however, if you're in the business of making a difference, the time for such critique was some time ago, not when you're drawing on the pension.

His comments will sadly be forgotten by this coming Tuesday.

I hope his next job interview is better than his last.

[Two's in]

Yes, far safer to assume these are just the ramblings of a bitter old has-been, rather than some obvious and pointed criticisms of a Defence strategy led by mandarins at the Treasury. Far safer.

[MPN11]

I have to ask ... Who is going to attack the UK directly?

[racedo]

Govt asked for more money by Army boss....................

[The Helpful Stacker]

I have to ask ... Who is going to attack the UK directly?

Indeed.

Another of Sandhurst's finest gobbing-off as he heads off to pasture.

[Brian W May]

Let me get this straight:

WE are a little 'democratic' country off the NW coast of Europe and have been subjected to decades of Defence cuts, and we're deeply in debt.

THEY are a huge totalitarian regime with a massive military and a boss that actually controls his country and doesn't over-worry about human rights issues.

WE are not capable of defending ourself in case of a conflict . . .

HOW MUCH DID THEY PAY HIM TO WORK THIS OUT BEFORE HE RETIRED? (on full pay)

Go figure . . . I'm shocked.

[Onceapilot]

We have a pretty weak defence against a Vogon constructor fleet as well!:oh: Maybe he might realign his threat vs reality threshold? Also, how do some of these VSOs presume to brief what should be (if it is valid) classified information in the open press?:=

OAP

[airborne_artist]

The General thinks we can't defend ourselves against an attack from Russia/others?

WTF does he think we are in NATO for?

And why does he think Russia/the others will come past all the others in W Europe/US/Canada to attack us?

Only a gash Corporal from a funny regiment. Ignore me.

[jindabyne]

Some sad ramblings here.

The General is correct.

[Chugalug2]

Have to agree with your comments jindabyne. Talk softly, carry big stick. Who is going to attack us? The next enemy to do so, that's who. Years of picking our enemies ourselves (usually those with little or no air power of their own) seem to have blinded us to the real purpose of our air power, and all this two days after BoB day!

[The Sultan]

That is why you have nukes. Been a pretty good defense.

The Sultan

[newt]

So why did he not make the point when head of the Army? This happens time and time again! They only fall on theirs swords after they leave!! Off to the bunker with a glass of something strong!👿

[Treble one]

Without going into any operational details of course, if say there was a mass attack on the UK by hostile aircraft, is there a plan in place to generate enough aircraft quickly enough to counter a threat?


Or do we just have our QRA aircraft plus any replacement aircraft in reserve?


I'm assuming that other NATO countries would be a tad interested in seeing, say, a mass formation of bombers heading towards the UKADR (from the East I was thinking), and act accordingly?

[pax britanica]

I read this story and then the other army story that the UK will block any EU army. (quite how we will do that I am not sure as it is unlikely the Eu will take any notice of us)

Is there any harm in an EU army- which would not be instead of NATO but would make NATO potentially more effective as it would reduce membership to manageable size and with US presidents saying Europe needs to stand on its own two feet a much larger integrated force would be betetr at replacing to whatever degree gaps left by withdrawl of US forces and be more of a counterweight to the US domination of NTO as by far and away the largest memeber ?

To me it seems a good idea as no EU state can really afford a proper army any more except perhaps France which has its own accounting system so an Eu army would over time see huge savings in equipment and diversity in manning -no need for Skiing Royal marines as the Scandis and Eastern europeans would do that . I would have thought UK would do pretty well in terms of key jobs as we are more experienced than most other EU armies and probably reasonably well regarded because of our history. Our squaddies have more actual combat than most and would benefit from the better weapons and kit it seems other armies usually have even if we have better-ie more experience soldiers (an example of this is the recent BBC documentary about Afghanistan and Helmland province. A much smaller Uk unit had replace 100 Danes holding a small village against the aliban. Our guys looked very competent and did well but had two peashooter machine guns and a couple of WW2 era mortars but the Danes had 6 fifty cal brownings plus a lot of rockets .

So overall I would think we would do well out of an EU army so why the immediate and vehement UK government opposition?

[glad rag]

That is why you have nukes. Been a pretty good defense.

The Sultan

The Russian Confederation has mandated the first use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.

As for those who cannot see beyond their masters paycheck, the squandering of billions on weapon systems that are, by their own admission, unready, untried, and even when delivered, are not at the designed operating parameters is completely immoral.

[glad rag]

Without going into any operational details of course, if say there was a mass attack on the UK by hostile aircraft, is there a plan in place to generate enough aircraft quickly enough to counter a threat?


Or do we just have our QRA aircraft plus any replacement aircraft in reserve?

I'm assuming that other NATO countries would be a tad interested in seeing, say, a mass formation of bombers heading towards the UKADR (from the East I was thinking), and act accordingly?

Looking at the cluster **** the AD force fell into post concrete wall felling and the opposition's ability to gather intel from open and corporate sources I doubt that they have any doubts to our "capability"..

[Pontius Navigator]

Treble One, the only defence against a mass raid on UK, bolt from the blue, would be response in kind. The only high alert response is Trident.

Game, set, match or score draw.

The V-Force could mount an effective retaliatory response in 4-5 hours (other than QRA), I think the air defence force was a couple of hours faster. Apart from QRA neither force could meet the bolt from the blue.

Today many things have changed. Fewer fighters; fewer bases(targets); more people live off base with many over an hour away.

Is there a plan? Don't know. I do know we hung into the Fortress Britain plans just in case. In a remarkably short time they became out of date. Squadrons equipped, changed bases, units moved, and there was no high level interest in maintaining what were essentially history documents.

[NutLoose]

Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.

Rather like the exChancellor pushing the Northern power house crap, the fact that he could have done something tangible about it when he was in the position too, it just shows him as using it as a stepping stone to resurrect his career.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius is correct - Trident is our backstop against an attack by Russia

I found the General's ramblings seriuosly weird - as if we are going to be fighting the Ruskis on our own - God knows how they'd get here - a few bombers round N Cape otherwise they have all of Eurpe in the way...............

Good job we've got friends there eh? .... Oh... I forgot............

[Chugalug2]

Nutloose:-
doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.

Not that you feel particularly strongly about them, eh Nutty? Having disposed of the messenger though, there is still his message to consider...

HH:-
Trident is our backstop against an attack by Russia
That rather supposes that they will obligingly Nuke us first, doesn't it? Also, the good General didn't mention the Russians anyway, did he? Pre Entente Cordiale France rather than Germany was odds on to be next on our dance card. "Events, dear boy", as someone once remarked...

As for NATO, it seems that the EU has a rather different cunning plan that would now rather exclude us. If the EU itself unravels of course then "interesting times" are just around the corner. We need to be stocking up on big sticks right now it seems to me.

[Genstabler]

Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.
Your screw, or is it a chip, is getting loose again Nutty. When he is serving he is not free to make statements. Perhaps he did try to rock the boat and that is why the politicos wouldn't promote him to the top job. I presume you don't know the man so your opinion is worthless. Please feel free to express it though.

[A_Van]

Gentlemen,what are you really talking about?

Since the times when more or less serious multi-nation European wars began in the end of 18th century, Russia (the tzar empire, then soviet empire and, nowadays, a wild capitalistic regime) never had plans to invade or attack British territory. Putting "all the lyrics" aside and speaking just military wise, there were never enough ships to bring enough troops across the pond.

The worst case scenario might be a conflict between the US/NATO and Russian forces triggered by an unintentional strike on one part by another, somewhere in the Middle East or Asia. Taking just a yesterday's case: because of poor or unprofessional ISR services, the US planes seriously hit the Syrian army. Erroneously, as they say. Who knows, maybe the next time they hit, in the same way, a Russian base? No doubt they would get much more in response and the hell might start, but unlikely to enter the BM exchange phase. Anyway, Britain is too far away from such areas.Your planes even cannot reach a potential conflict area from the Island, thus their bases would be of no interest to strike back.

My advice is to relax and sleep well :-)

[MSOCS]

A_Vanski,

Taking your national pride to one side for a second, please remember that Russian Federation aircraft have been indiscriminately bombing Assad's enemies (i.e. the wider Syrian, rebel populous) since they entered the conflict for their own self-serving ends. When I say "indiscriminately bombing" I refer to SU-34 and TU bombers releasing sticks of 30+ year-old iron bombs over large areas of Syrian turf.

The US have apparently made an error. In that regard, it's perhaps fortunate for you resurgent "reds" that the US aren't in the game of publishing and then spinning the errors of Russian forces' conduct in each instance.

As to your point regarding the UK's security, nobody with a serious hand in Defence has really considered a direct, physical, Russian attack a distinct threat. However, Putin underestimates the resolve of NATO and Article 5, regardless of the fumbling state the EU finds itself in. Therefore, any threat to NATO, as a whole, will be met every member. We've been there before and know the consequences.

Anyway, you Russkies will be out of cash just over a year from now.

Ouch.

[racedo]

Taking your national pride to one side for a second, please remember that Russian Federation aircraft have been indiscriminately bombing Assad's enemies (i.e. the wider Syrian, rebel populous) since they entered the conflict for their own self-serving ends. When I say "indiscriminately bombing" I refer to SU-34 and TU bombers releasing sticks of 30+ year-old iron bombs over large areas of Syrian turf.


As invited by the legitimate Government of Syria against an enemy aided and supported by Turkey/US/UK/France/Saudi Arabia/Qatar.

Under what law were the above countrys using to aid people shooting and murdering people.

We have had 2 reports this year, Chilcott on Iraq and Commons Select on Libya................... neither of which gave any credibility to Government lies of what they required military to do.



The US have apparently made an error. In that regard, it's perhaps fortunate for you resurgent "reds" that the US aren't in the game of publishing and then spinning the errors of Russian forces' conduct in each instance.

Doubtful error as they spend billions of Satellites and then avoid IS............. which they have done for a long time, 75% of the Operations pre Sept 2015 on supposed IS positions returned without firing a shot. It because US worried about "Civilian" casualties. Maybe it has to do with IS being funded by Saudi's and Qatari's that all of a sudden civilian casualties were a concern.


As to your point regarding the UK's security, nobody with a serious hand in Defence has really considered a direct, physical, Russian attack a distinct threat. However, Putin underestimates the resolve of NATO and Article 5, regardless of the fumbling state the EU finds itself in. Therefore, any threat to NATO, as a whole, will be met every member. We've been there before and know the consequence

WTF would Russia want to attack and invade UK for ?

[Frostchamber]

It's perhaps a bit of a shame that he chose to take as his example the scenario of a direct attack on the UK by Russia. Even back in the cold war days when our forces were much bigger I don't think anyone ever imagined we would be in a position to take on the Soviet Union single-handedly. Indeed ISTR in the event of a frontal attack, the combined forces of NATO in Europe were expected to be in steady reverse gear while buying enough time for US reinforcements to arrive or until such time as buckets of sunshine were invoked.

That and the "sour grapes" allegation has distracted from the fact that he raises some valid concerns about what we're resourced to do, should world events force us to go beyond beyond peacetime or limited operations whose time and duration we choose.

Forgetting a frontal Russian assault, how much do we have in the cupboard as scenarios notch up step by step in what is after all an increasingly unpredictable and unstable world? Is the UK weapons inventory just fine? Has the optimum balance been struck, given that we live in a democracy? Or has the peace dividend been cashed in so enthusiastically that we're running a bit too much of a risk given the times we live in? I know what I think, but clearly a range of views are available.

In waiting until after retirement he has been no different to a succession of other top brass. People might feel it should be different, but it isn't - and anyway, as has been noted, rocking the boat internally may well be what cost him.

[Herod]

Is there any harm in an EU army

Yes, in that it takes resources from NATO.Add to that, how many of Europe's nations will take an order from Brussels to go to war? Oh, I forgot, Junker has said that it will remove the last shreds of national sovereignty.

The plot, according to the papers, is that France and Germany would field a force stronger than NATO. Perhaps the German Chancellor and the French President have never heard of the USA?

NATO works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Hangarshuffle]

There is a slowly developing sound of a penny dropping among the paper reading British peoples that something is not right with the UK military. The Daily Mail has consistently ran a story for weeks about the alleged failings of the Type 45 class languishing in Portsmouth, and the new carrier build problem is well known.
Other failings are equally pounced upon by the press and I think overall the perception is not that good..
But are the British even sure about what they want their military to do anymore? Protect them, yes, but how?
Expeditionary ground warfare- no.
Border control to dispel (by force) unarmed illegal immigrants? Probably. Air Defence from unknown unspoken half guessed threats? Yes, this has massive resonance still, especially bombing raids/air attack as history shows us.
My two cents? We will eventually leave NATO anyway, after a major falling out with our European allies triggered by money which was originally triggered by BREXIT. I'm serious - I've said this before, we will eventually leave them to it. We will eventually build a high level layered air defence system and smarter future air weapons system at the total expense of our land army. In fact the RN and RAF will be possibly an amalgamation to do just that, with very little traditional Army left at all to fight anywhere, least of all Russia in mainland Europe. We will keep a future ICBM system as "an insurance" at massive expense , so its likely if they do attack anyway and succeed its just about 50/50 we are straight to nuclear weaponry anyway. As I said, my two cents. And I probably gave more thought to this highly debateable strategy/ musing in 20 minutes than Dave C. gave in 5 years as PM. Goodnight.

[ExGrunt]

Pretty on par for the course, doesn't have the balls to go public and tell it how it is when in post, probably worried about his pension, totally spineless bunch of sycophants.

I am no great fan of the last 20 years of VSOs, and agree 'self serving' seems pretty high up their priorities. That said I believe this was an internal memo which was sent when in post.

[Melchett01]

Not entirely sure what to make of this. The immediate obvious response is to say 'hello hello, recently retired General, pension in the bag, starts to criticise now out of uniform.' But I think that misses part of the story - he was in the running for CDS, and from numerous sources, was believed to be a strong contender. So when he didn't get it, it was a surprise to many and comments such as:

"Counter-terrorism is the limit of up-to-date plans and preparations to secure our airspace, waters and territory," he said.  "Neither the UK homeland nor a deployed force could be protected from a concerted Russian air effort."

might well be seen as a swipe at the Establishment. After all, Defence's CT capability, as is, resides in JFC at the 4-star level. So to say this, his previous command, is the only bit of the ship in decent order whilst the single Services are not so well prepared can only be seen as a Jim Bowen/Bullseye-esque 'here's what you could have won' if you'd picked me moment to Fallon.

As for the Army growing used to operating from safe bases in the middle of nowhere, you then have to ask how much he was responsible for that. Deployed operations are largely the responsibility of PJHQ and CJO, both his area. Or is this another suggestion that politicians and senior single service staffs are not prepared to take risk on operations and therefore we haven't been as successful as we might have otherwise been? When you look at what happened to the US commanders who were effectively sacked after the Battle of Bastion, is it any wonder commanders aren't prepared to take risk.

As for the rest, well it's true. We're stretched to past the point of no return without considerable recapitalisation and breathing space to do so effectively and sustainably, not just in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet . We will get neither. And the idea of an effective rising defence budget is utter rubbish when one considers defence inflation, constantly changing political decisions, and a budget focused on procuring exquisite technology that will arrive in too small a number to be effective. A total more suited to a regional actor and which will be unable to satisfy a political requirement to act on the global stage, and which per unit will be so expensive that it nobody will want to take the blame for losing a single aircraft, ship or tank. It comes to something when it looks as though we are heading to a situation where it will be politically more acceptable to lose a campaign than a ship or aircraft. After all, you can fudge the former but not the latter, so maybe this influences a risk averse attitude and planning ops from safe locations in the middle of nowhere.

As for the Defence source, did whomever it was really believe what they were saying? It's that sort of delusion rubbish that's got us in this mess. Whomever it was needs to start taking their meds and take a very long lie down in a dark room until the insanity has passed. They are clearly so far removed from the frontline that they lack the credibility to be any position of authority. Whitehall warriors at their worst.

[peter we]

Anyway, you Russkies will be out of cash just over a year from now.

Ouch.
Rather sooner, next month or two the reserves will be gone.

[Jackonicko]

The good general was interviewed on Radio 4's PM programme on Saturday afternoon. He said:

"If you’re wrestling with too much programme and not enough budget, year on year, you have to do something about it. Particularly if you’re in a climate where the nation wants to spend its money on other things, and then you’re dealing with the effects of austerity from 2008 onwards. So what do you do? You hire fewer people and you buy less kit and then you resource it less well. So you have to strip money out of the engineering support, you take stocks off the shelves, and you use it less, and that is hollowing out. And that has been, in most respects, I think, an entirely reasonable thing to do, because no-one felt that we were in great existential peril. And now I think we need to ask ourselves two questions.

The first thing is, do we feel more threatened now, are we at more risk. Because if we do then maybe we should do something about it.

And secondly you have to look at what potential opponents have, and people that we’re not on the greatest terms with, who we don’t necessarily align our national interests with, they have looked very thoughtfully at Western military capability and over a period of time have invested in things that are designed to either keep it at arms’ length or to counter it.

Q: Are we at more risk, because you say in the memo that there is no military plan to defend the UK against conventional armed conflict – which sounds rather worrying. Is that true, are we in danger from Russia for example, which has been building up its forces?

Russia and other countres have changed the way that they prosecute competition, confrontation and conflict. And you’ve seen that in Crimea, and Ukraine and Georgia. And you see aspects of that, just waged in a small way in places like the Baltic States, from time to time. That’s about hybrid warfare and the use of proxies and cyber.

Is our current inventory and way of doing business fit to deal with this new way of warfare. And then you align it with two things. One is changing capability. So, for example, until very recently, the UK was not in range, and therefore not at risk from things like conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, so weapons that appear at great speed, that have not a nuclear weapon on the end but a conventional weapon, that are very very precise. And I think most people would want the Armed Forces to know how to deal with those things, and to be equipped to deal with them. And the answer to that question is a bit mixed.

The fact is that what Russia has, it holds at a higher state of readiness, so we have allowed a window of opportunism or miscalculation to arise, and really, all I’m arguing for is, let’s take our eyes off defending the assumptions of a reasonably comfortable recent past and have a look as the world as it’s turning out in terms of situations and capability and method and just test our defence solution against that.

And I think we’ll find that means that you might take some of the stuff that we’re already going to have and use it differently, and then I think, seizing on the advantages of the information age I think we’ll decide we want to buy some different stuff for a different future.

Q: Why then did you speak out just before you retired? Did you speak out sooner? Did you want to speak out sooner?

Many of these issues I am absolutely clear I have been talking about for five years and for a number of appointments. And I’ve also felt that I wasn’t able to persuade Government – and this is a lot more the Ministry of Defence - I wasn’t able to persuade Government to consider a lot of these things because there were other things to worry about terrorism for example, and the many other claims on the public purse.

The defence review last year, I felt, was a success, and there were some decisions taken that …. For example the bold decision taken to peg defence spending at 2% of GDP reversed the decline of decades. I thought that was courageous and very successful.

The decision to switch some investment – more money in special forces, to buy the P-9 (Sic) reconnaissance aircraft, to make sure we had 100% availability of the carriers, I thought that was all very good.

But that was all really a discussion about marginal change to the equipment programme and frankly a rather desparate search for efficiencies in defence to pay for those up areas. It wasn’t a very broad ranging or transformative debate. And I argued in the approach to that defence review, through it and after it, that if you like a normal jogging approach was not going to meet the demands of the future and I feel now as a matter of conscience, now that I’m no longer a public servant that it’s time that we tried to have that debate.

I felt that I could never get the debate started because it was held to be a bit abstract, difficult and expensive. And as a result of that we just focused on the marginal fight to preserve the defence programme broadly as it is, within the bold move to commit 2% of GDP.

(Q: EU army?)

It’s almost a dialogue of the deaf, because what I think the EU means in constructing a European Army is a very light, almost paramilitary thing with the sort of capability that you need to do peacekeeping or a humanitarian intervention. That is not the debate that we need to be having. We need to be talking about how you deal with really high end, high tech threats, not re-setting the bounds of the former Cold War. And I fear that this sort of European army agenda will take away attention and resources from the debate that we really need to have.

[Not_a_boffin]

Thanks Jacko - an interesting dit.

That appears to be eminently sensible - "lets put some depth and sustainability back into our force structure" and add some marginal stuff to existing equipment to counter specific threats - thinking.

What he seems to be suggesting is that there is a real need to debate whether 2% GDP is sufficient - as opposed to the default assumptions prevalent throughout defence that we will always need to do more with less (ie budgets will always flatline or reduce) and that people are too expensive and should therefore be minimised. Both valid arguments, but not facts and not necessarily sustainable beyond a certain point.

You can see why it (and it's messenger - sorry!) might end up being unpopular in Whitehall.

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH for years we've suffered from a lack of PEOPLE - the poor bloody infantry, marine engineers, aircraft mechanics.

Never any shortage of SO's, managers and consultants but in the end we're always short of the guys at the bottom of the ladder

We spend money on platforms but without the manpower its all a bit of a waste

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius is correct - Trident is our backstop against an attack by Russia
As is being in an Alliance called NATO. The EU and NATO are different political alliances which serve different political purposes. Some of those purposes overlap, some do not. Indeed ISTR in the event of a frontal attack, the combined forces of NATO in Europe were expected to be in steady reverse gear while buying enough time for US reinforcements to arrive or until such time as buckets of sunshine were invoked. I think you are forgetting the US Seventh Army, USAREUR, etc, multiple Corps of which were in place in the American sector of West Germany. REFORGER was all about coming across the pond to come to the aid of ALL NATO allies who were in battle in the Central European plane, including a few hundred thousand Americans, Lots of Germans, Brits, Dutch, French ... etcetera. Your memory has a few holes, though some of it is correct.

I am still puzzled at why anyone thinks that the UK will be leaving NATO? Seriously: how does that advance the interests of the UK?

[radeng]

I seem to remember reading that until about 1935, the Treasury insisted that the Defence Budget be predicated on "no war for ten years". Seems a similar thing today.....

[oldmansquipper]

Sadly.....Yet another "No sh*t? Sherlock" moment

[Out Of Trim]

I am still puzzled at why anyone thinks that the UK will be leaving NATO? Seriously: how does that advance the interests of the UK?

You're not the only one!

I'm not sure why Hangarshuffle thinks that we would. It would be a very stupid move and therefore very unlikely.

[NutLoose]

For example the bold decision taken to peg defence spending at 2% of GDP reversed the decline of decades. I thought that was courageous and very successful.

Surely that does not reverse anything, it simply puts a brake on further reductions in capability, though with ageing equipment does that amount actually allow for replacement sustainability to keep those assets at the stripped down state the military is at now? Or does it truly represent a chance to actually increase military spending to recover some of the lost capabilities?

[Heathrow Harry]

depnds on the relative performance of the economy and inflation in defence costs

as defence costs seems to increase much faster than any others then yes you gradually slip behind.

On the other hand if you keep up the provision (such as on the NHS) the country eventually runs out of cash for anything else

[racedo]

Anyway, you Russkies will be out of cash just over a year from now.

Ouch.

That old one

Russia debt to GDP 17.7%
UK debt to GDP 89.2 %

Russia Gold reserves 1500 tonnes
UK Gold 310 tonnes

[Heathrow Harry]

Bloomberg:-

As Russia’s government counts the months to an economic rebound, a bellwether of investment is nearing levels of distress last seen during the throes of a recession seven years ago.

The value of construction works plunged 9 percent from a year earlier in May, the worst showing since October, even as industrial production grew for a second month and consumer indicators from real wages to unemployment improved (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-20/russian-consumer-demand-wobbles-as-pressure-on-inflation-subdued). A gauge of business confidence in construction dropped to minus 19 last quarter, only two points above the trough reached in 2009, according to a report by an institute (https://issek.hse.ru/en/) at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.“The recession we are seeing in construction is significantly more painful than in other main industries of the economy,” said Georgy Ostapkovich (https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/10445541), head of the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge that conducted the study based on Federal Statistics Service data.
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iAPVMDIreogQ/v2/488x-1.png

President Vladimir Putin is looking to harness investment (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-19/russia-rewrites-blueprint-for-growth-as-recession-dooms-consumer) to guide the economy from the longest recession of his 16 years in power after consumer demand collapsed and the worst oil crash in a generation clobbered the public finances of the world’s biggest energy exporter. Together with real estate operations, construction -- which VTB Capital and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. say is a close proxy for investment -- contributed almost 16 percent to gross domestic product in 2015.

ecord Slump

If the outlook and performance of the industry is any indication, an investment-led spurt will be slow to materialize. Capital spending has already posted the longest stretch of declines since at least 1995, when Bloomberg started compiling the data. The Economy Ministry forecasts it will shrink as much 3.1 percent this year.
A bout of falling prices is also afflicting construction, continuing uninterrupted since June 2015. In dollar terms, prices for real estate are down 65 percent since their peak in 2008. The ruble has appreciated more than 12 percent against the dollar this year after a 20 percent loss in 2015.
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iuKFmtoyJw_E/v2/488x-1.png

As Russians wait for prices to rebound, the risk is that the release of pent-up demand will eventually translate into a spike in prices and inflation expectations, according to Ostapkovich.

“Some potential buyers are caught in a deflation trap,” he said. “They are waiting for prices for housing to decline further, trying to catch the bottom.”