NATO and/or the 'Indo Pacific Shift'?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If I remember correctly, there are British troops in Estonia and Poland, RAF Typhoons regularly commit to NATO air policing and other aircraft perform other NATO missions, and we frequently commit forces at sea. We have signed to to the NATO Response force and committed a carrier capability and amphibious forces, and our nuclear deterrent is declared to NATO.

How do we square the increased NATO commitment in response to the potential Russian threat with the 'Indo-Pacific tilt' we keep hearing about, and cuts?

Surely NATO and Gulf commitments come first?

[Easy Street]

Seeing as much has been made of the 'integrated' nature of the Integrated Review, it's probably worth reminding ourselves that the military is but one of the levers of state power, alongside diplomacy and economics, plus information if you subscribe to US doctrine (I like the DIME mnemonic). As such it is quite possible for the UK to enact an Indo-Pacific foreign policy 'tilt' without much of a military aspect to it. And as you rightly point out, there will not be a great deal available to deploy anyway.

I did have to chuckle at such a concern being raised by as distinguished a long-term advocate for the carriers as WEBF. Many arguments on here over the years have expressed concern that the QEC, undoubtedly 'nice to have' but by no means essential for the UK's most vital military tasks, would prove unduly tempting to politicians eager to deploy them far and wide in support of diplomatic objectives that hitherto have been adequately serviced by smaller vessels (and without taking a sizeable proportion of our available combat aircraft out of the NATO region). And so it looks to be shaping up, with South China Sea FONOPS on the deployment plan.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You could also argue that NATO is our most important priority, and it needs the ability to protect transatlantic reinforcements - for with a carrier provides multiple ASW helicopters with dipping sonar to work with the frigates with towed array sonar, and fighter aircraft to act on conjunction with surface warships.

We have enough ships to put together a strike group on our own, but in the NATO theatre allies would contribute frigates/destroyers, and submarines. There are other NATO tasks too, and the ongoing commitment to the Arabian/Persian Gulf. We also have CASD to support.

Army and RAF assets are also dual hatred and part of the 30/30/30/30 plan.

Are we willing to contribute less to NATO in order to increase our Indo Pacific presence?

[safetypee]

Are we willing to contribute less to NATO in order to increase our Indo Pacific presence?

Note the history; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization

[etudiant]

You could also argue that NATO is our most important priority, and it needs the ability to protect transatlantic reinforcements - for with a carrier provides multiple ASW helicopters with dipping sonar to work with the frigates with towed array sonar, and fighter aircraft to act on conjunction with surface warships.

We have enough ships to put together a strike group on our own, but in the NATO theatre allies would contribute frigates/destroyers, and submarines. There are other NATO tasks too, and the ongoing commitment to the Arabian/Persian Gulf. We also have CASD to support.

Army and RAF assets are also dual hatred and part of the 30/30/30/30 plan.

Are we willing to contribute less to NATO in order to increase our Indo Pacific presence?

Does NATO still serve a purpose?
From the outside, NATO seems to be on an offensive, pushing bases and joint exercises ever closer to the Russian frontier. What is gained by this?
Meanwhile, China is eating everyone's lunch and we are pushing Russia into China's arms by ongoing sanctions.
Are we sure that this is a sensible policy?

[West Coast]

An organization iso a mission.

[Asturias56]

I don't see eye to eye with WEBF on RN carriers but I think it's a very good question - why is the UK adding tasks in areas where, TBH it can add very little militarily when there are places a lot closer to home where we might be able to make a difference. To me the idea that the UK is going to get mixed up in a war over Korea or Taiwan is madness. Forces would be m much better used to try and stabilise places in N & W Africa for example where the numbers are more in our favour and the impact is much higher

[Hot 'n' High]

.... From the outside, NATO seems to be on an offensive, pushing bases and joint exercises ever closer to the Russian frontier. What is gained by this?

For the reason behind this I believe you need to take a detailed look at the rise of Putin and what has been going on, both military and, more significantly, economically in Russia since the 1990s .... and even before! A very important element is the concept/value of the "near abroad" to the Kremlin. The start of the link below is a very simplified summary - it is what Russia has continually been up to over the decades that illustrates the true value/importance of the "near abroad" to them which is outside the scope of the link.

To an extent, the reaction by the West to what Russia was doing in it's "near abroad" was very slow in coming - the euphoria of the "Peace Dividend" etc rather took the West's eyes off the game being played out in Russia wrt the old Soviet Union. And the Russian's reach is now rather more Global (economically) as well - a very interesting "opportunistic" game being played out by Putin et al. Even old Trump links back into organised Russian crime and that is probably the only reason he was still around (by that I mean as someone who could become a Political figure!) to become POTUS! Even that is a fascinating story in itself!!! Anyway, the link .....https://www.memri.org/reports/near-abroad-%E2%80%93-key-explanatory-concept-russian-foreign-policy

.... Meanwhile, China is eating everyone's lunch and we are pushing Russia into China's arms by ongoing sanctions.
Are we sure that this is a sensible policy?

And, interestingly, the article also covers this as it's "Part B".

The link should not be treated as a total explanation particularly re the various relationships to the West of Russia - it's just a top-level summary; for the detail there are a couple of good books which chart what has been going on since even before the Wall came down in '89. Read into it and then decide for yourself is the best way. And, yes, Russia will "use" China but how far they trust each other is another question. Note to self - something else to dig into!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The most likely flashpoint between Russia and NATO is the Baltics.

I would kindly ask the reader to look at Fire and Ice: A New Maritime Strategy for NATO's Northern Flank (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf)

The chapter entitled The Modern Strategic Context starts:

Just as the beginning of the Berlin Blockade in 1948 ended any realistic hope that a post-war accommodation could be met with the Soviet Union, the 2014 decision by Russia to seize the Crimean Peninsula and facilitate a violent rebellion in the east of Ukraine erased almost any prospect of positive relations between Moscow and the West for however long the current Kremlin leadership remains in power. The subsequent 2015 Russian intervention in Syria and 2016 interference in the US presidential election has only cemented this position further. While previous episodes including cyber-attacks, the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, various spy scandals, document leaks, missile defence, and the Kremlin’s crackdown on protesters following the 2011 elections – worsened the situation, it was the war in Ukraine that acted as the decisive break.

These increasingly strained relations between Moscow and the US-led West have run in parallel to a major redevelopment of the Russian Armed Forces. Although still far from the juggernaut of the USSR’s military, the end result has been the development of a force that is well-suited towards the two leading priorities of the Kremlin – domestic regime survival, and the linked issue of ensuring Russia is seen as a global player

Moving on the the chapter entitled The Conflict Scenario, there is a basic scenario:

In spring 2024, protests erupt in Russia following the tainted election of Vladimir Putin’s anointed successor. National Guard forces manage to prevent activists occupying some of the most sensitive areas around Moscow, but opposition action continues. The Kremlin believes that the popular protests are being orchestrated by the West.

Faced with a continuing crisis, the authorities have three choices: a violent crackdown, drastic reform, or externalising the problem with diversionary foreign action. The use of extreme force against protestors in isolation – the ‘Tiananmen Square option’ – is judged to run the risk of provoking defections from the security forces and the certain imposition of devastating sanctions against Russia that it has little ability to counter. Serious reform is out of the question, as only a wholesale dismantling and replacement of the current leadership would be able to produce the desired effect – something unacceptable to the ruling elite.

It is therefore concluded that a catch-all solution to both internal and external pressure is required, and a controlled conflict with NATO is judged to be the best – or rather least worst – option. This is a contingency the Russian government has spent many years laying the groundwork for amongst the public.

As Russian scholar Lilia Shevtosva highlighted in her appraisal of Moscow’s attitude towards the West in 2010:

“The Russian campaign to intimidate the West, backed up with “light artillery” [propaganda] on television, has yet another goal: to lay the groundwork for a monumental distraction if the domestic situation in Russia begins to deteriorate rapidly. The militaristic rhetoric, symbolism and pageantry… are clearly intended to create an enemy that Russia will bravely confront when the Kremlin finds itself unable to pull the country out of a future crisis.”

The targets of this war are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These countries have been selected as they are judged to provide the optimal path for securing a rapid and sustainable victory against NATO forces.

Domestically, the primary aim of the offensive is to undercut the protests by generating a ‘rally around the flag’ effect amongst Russia’s population, and provide an environment within which the security forces would be better able to execute an internal clampdown without fragmenting. At the international level, it is designed to act as asymmetric pushback against what Moscow perceives to be the West’s meddling in its internal affairs; undermine (and ideally cripple) NATO by demonstrating that the Alliance lacks the resolve to defend its members; and secure a favourable post war negotiating position for Russia. As has occurred in other similar conflicts, the Russian attack will be triggered by a series of false flag strikes against Moscow’s interests.

The Kremlin is under no illusions about the reality of the conflict on which it is embarking. At a minimum, the immediate result will be serious sanctions that will only exacerbate Russia’s economic problems. It is also aware that any increase generated in support for the government could be difficult to sustain, as was the case following the Crimea annexation. However, it is judged that with the leverage provided by the occupation of three NATO and EU members, Russia would be better placed to negotiate away sanctions than it would be in the aftermath of a ‘crackdown only’ policy. In the context of the possible limited duration of increased public support, it is concluded that even a window of a few months would be sufficient to suppress the opposition for the foreseeable future and secure the lifting of the expected economic blockade.

The paper then describes the role NATO naval forces, including carriers, would play in dealing with attempts to interdict NATO Sea Lines of Communication or to attack NATO's vulnerable points.

Also see: Striking the Balance: US Army Force Posture in Europe, 2028 (https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/3729.pdf)

[Aegis8]

The most likely flashpoint between Russia and NATO is the Baltics......

This reads like propaganda to get more Nato funding or wishful thinking from the west. The reality in Russia is far removed from this and it would take a Nato invasion of Russia for any conventional war to start. These writeups seem to assume that Russians are stupid and/or have no access to foreign news/info so they can make informed choices. There are enough domestic issues and nobody wants to be saddled with 3 more poor Baltic states, who don't want to be part of the Russian Federation. Russian forces dying in a foreign country does not sit well with Russians, Syria demonstrated this. So there will be no public support for any cross border adventures. This is not what Nato/the West wants to hear or see, so the war drums must be beaten ever more loudly to drown out common sense and reality.

Perhaps Nato and the West should try actual diplomacy and not just preach to and place demands Russia.

My 2 cents.

[minigundiplomat]

I don't see eye to eye with WEBF on RN carriers but I think it's a very good question - why is the UK adding tasks in areas where, TBH it can add very little militarily when there are places a lot closer to home where we might be able to make a difference. To me the idea that the UK is going to get mixed up in a war over Korea or Taiwan is madness. Forces would be m much better used to try and stabilise places in N & W Africa for example where the numbers are more in our favour and the impact is much higher

N&W Africa is mainly francophile - let Manu squander French blood and treasure there. The UK's force projection in the Pacific is a positioning play for trade.

[Asturias56]

I was thinking more of ensuring stability so half of West Africa doesn't head for Europe

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The EU cannot defend Europe alone - Stoltenberg (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-eu-cannot-defend-europe-alone-stoltenberg/)

It is not only about money. It is also about geography. Iceland and Norway in the North are gateways to the Arctic. Turkey in the south borders Syria and Iraq. And in the west, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom link together both sides of the Atlantic. All of these countries are critical for the defence of Europe.

And most of all, it is about politics. Any attempt to divide Europe from North America will weaken NATO. But it will also divide Europe. Only a strong NATO can keep our almost one billion people safe in a more dangerous world. So I do not believe in Europe alone. Or North America alone. I believe in Europe and North America together. In NATO. In strategic solidarity.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This reads like propaganda to get more Nato funding or wishful thinking from the west. The reality in Russia is far removed from this and it would take a Nato invasion of Russia for any conventional war to start. These writeups seem to assume that Russians are stupid and/or have no access to foreign news/info so they can make informed choices. There are enough domestic issues and nobody wants to be saddled with 3 more poor Baltic states, who don't want to be part of the Russian Federation. Russian forces dying in a foreign country does not sit well with Russians, Syria demonstrated this. So there will be no public support for any cross border adventures. This is not what Nato/the West wants to hear or see, so the war drums must be beaten ever more loudly to drown out common sense and reality.

Perhaps Nato and the West should try actual diplomacy and not just preach to and place demands Russia.

My 2 cents.

The problem is not the Russian people. Russia should be a major part of the World and international affairs. The problem is Putin, and his cronies, who have tied their personal interests to national policy. There is a worry that any successor might be worse.

[Asturias56]

Putin has said many times he wants to wind the clock back to the old Russian "sphere of influence". He denies that the Ukraine etc are "real" countries

[minigundiplomat]

I was thinking more of ensuring stability so half of West Africa doesn't head for Europe

As I said Asturias, thats Europe's issue now, not necessarilty the UK's anymore.

[racedo]

NATO's purpose ended at the end of the Cold War.

However there were and still are many people who have enjoyed the personal benefits that come with being a member of NATO. Those who enjoy them are against giving them up because in truth it would devalue their vaulted status they believe they have.

Since the Cold War ended, there have been attempt after attempt to reivent NATO, to use whatever justification they can. Otherwise it becomes the "Emperors New Clothes" with nothing of substance behind it.

Anything Russia does within its own borders is trumpeted up as being a threat to a member of NATO yet any action by a NATO member is overlooked.

The real danger is that the continued poking of the bear elicits a response, NATO will parrot as a justification for conflict and a "I told you so", all very fine until buckets of sunshine start.

USSR lost 1 in 7 of its population during WW2, UK lost 451,000 or less than 1% and had it suffered at same rate then 6.3 Million more UK citizens would have died, US lost 419,000 or 0.3%, if suffered the same casualties US would have lost 18 Million citizens. No amount of spinning will make the figures different.

Nobody seems to be able to answer about WTF would the Russians do with the Baltic states or other places if they invaded, there is not exactly a requirement for additional land.

War is ultimately about economic theft, west however with US Federal Debt 25% bigger than economy and individual State debt adding couple of trillion $$ onto this then ultimately something has to give. It is only a matter of time before the Debt burden does to the US what it did to the USSR in late 1980's. Issue then becomes "What Then ?"

[racedo]

Putin has said many times he wants to wind the clock back to the old Russian "sphere of influence". He denies that the Ukraine etc are "real" countries

When US / UK / France talk of spheres of influence it seen as people bringing land of milk and honey to people, like Iraq, Libya, etc. Funny how ungrateful these people are in not welcoming these permanent visitors.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Before implementing any cuts to forces, given our public commitment to increasing our NATO contributions - will our politicians consult with the US and other allies because of the potential impact on the alliance? In the 1970s they did listen to SACLANT et al and take steps to mitigate against the loss of capabilities as ships were retired early or without replacement.

See this old document - The Defence Review - consultation with allies (1975) (https://www.agda.ae/en/catalogue/tna/fco/8/2475/n/28)

10. As regards the Atlantic and Channel Commands, I am glad to be able to say that we are ready to convert HERMES to the CVS role two years earlier than we planned to do i.e. in 1976 instead of 1978; to earmark the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ENGADINE for assignment to CINCCHAN; and to earmark some additional aircraft for assignment to SACLANT in the visual reconnaissance role.

The precise accomplishment of these objectives will have to be a matter for further consultation.

[Asturias56]

"As I said Asturias, that's Europe's issue now, not necessarilty the UK's anymore."

You think they'll stop at Calais?

[Asturias56]

"will our politicians consult with the US and other allies because of the potential impact on the alliance? "

Unlikely - they look at the finances and the opinion polls and then the Daily Mail & the Torygraph

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Does the Euro Atlantic region include the Western Arctic?

Royal Navy to defend Arctic trade as ice melts - The Times (http://thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-navy-to-defend-arctic-trade-as-ice-melts-0d6pt2p8c)

The Royal Navy will have a regular presence in the Arctic Circle to counter the Russian strategic advantage over trade routes that will open as the ice caps melt, sources have revealed. A frigate will join a multinational task force in the Barents Sea in the coming months amid concerns that climate change (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/climate-change) could see Moscow establish control over polar regions.

Does the region include the transatlantic cables (https://www.navylookout.com/the-threat-to-worlds-communications-backbone-the-vulnerability-of-undersea-cables/)?

Does it include the Mediterranean - where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is very active (https://cimsec.org/russian-black-sea-fleet-activity-in-the-eastern-mediterranean-sea-implications-for-the-israeli-navy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=russian-black-sea-fleet-activity-in-the-eastern-mediterranean-sea-implications-for-the-israeli-navy)?

[Asturias56]

I saw that - I was trying to see the strategic significance of a trade route that connects those two vast manufacturing hubs of N Norway & Alaska - and is in Russian waters almost al the way..................

[Easy Street]

Nobody seems to be able to answer about WTF would the Russians do with the Baltic states or other places if they invaded, there is not exactly a requirement for additional land.

After Crimea, eastern Ukraine and Georgia, none of which are particularly 'useful', I rather think that the burden is on you (and those who think like you) to explain why Russia wouldn't do the same to the Baltic states if they weren't in NATO or if the alliance had ceased to exist.

'NATO shouldn't have expanded eastward' is not a useful answer, given that we are where we are.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One more thing - Chokepoints (https://cimsec.org/chiseled-in-space-temporary-non-geographic-chokepoints-in-the-battle-of-the-atlantic/)!

Much can be gained, then, by conceptualizing chokepoints more broadly as areas of temporary advantage that may be created or destroyed through the application of either new capabilities or existing ones in ingenuous ways to create an outsized advantage.

A weakly defended Atlantic could become a chokepoint.

[racedo]

After Crimea, eastern Ukraine and Georgia, none of which are particularly 'useful', I rather think that the burden is on you (and those who think like you) to explain why Russia wouldn't do the same to the Baltic states if they weren't in NATO or if the alliance had ceased to exist.


Crimea is Russian, always has been, the 1954 present to Ukraine didn't change a thing. The people there sought to exit Ukaine as they wished no part of it in 1990's but were threatened with war. They wished to have the right to self determine their future but seemingly the West doesn't like that unless it is in their interests to do so. In 2014 after the US funded Maiden sq push they sought to determine their own future but it didn't suit the west. Democracy is about allowing people decide unless you don't like the answer. The fact there is no campaign in Crimea to rejoin Ukraine tells you how the people are about their decision. Vicky Nuland is back in Biden administration so fully expect war to restart.

Eastern Ukraine residents saw what was happening in Kiev, it was a nationalist anti Russian push of the Govt. Taking over of Govt buildings and violence was ok in Kiev. The residents in Eastern Ukraine did the same thing, Kiev didn't like what they saw and used military forces against the people, Ukrainian Govt attacked its own population. Not unsurprisingly the people there saw who was doing it and refused to allow the neo nazis get on with it. It is not unsurprising that Stepan Bandera is worshipped in Western Ukraine, he was a Hitler loving Nazi collaborator who now Kiev happy to have statues erected to. It was not unsurprising that Russia supported people who are ethnically Russian.

In relation to Ukraine the oft claimed population of 43 Million, a pure work of fiction, Poland has between 3 and 4 million since 2014 as people en bloc left, Poland has been the largest issuer of residency permits in EU27 in 2019, 80% of those issued were by Poland to Ukrainians. Germany was the second destination in EU. Many have left for Russia. If supposedly the new regime was all sweetness and light why have milllions left ? Speaking to some Ukrainins in London with teenage sons, they moved because the right wings gangs knocking on doors informing you that your son is joining Svoboda or other neo nazi groups was not what they wanted. This is what the Wehemacht did. Ukraine population likely 33 million if that. Unfortunately my enemies enemy who worships nazis thugs and allows them in Govt shouldn't be my friend.

In relation to Georgia the areas are populated by Ethnic Russians, Georgia decided it want to go to war and got shocked at the response. The people there have never wished to be part of Georgia. Politicians egged on by external forces demand that X is their whole terrritory even though they hold no saw in anything there. Let the people decide.

Latvia enacting laws against anyone who has Russian ethnic origins, refusing citizenship and throw people out of jobs because of their heritage will ultimately only have one result. Instead of building a nation they are destroying it. Cancelling any right to be taught in your families language you have had for generations and discimination.

The assumption is that it is far away and an enemy so its ok, look closer to home. If Scotland obtains its independence and then starts discrimination against English people because of their origins including allowing attacks on them would anybody expect London to stay silent.

Also Northern Ireland when likely Irish unity occurs, would it be acceptable for Dublin to destroy any British cultural references in NI, build statues for PIRA everywhere and claim it doesn't matter you are Etnically British and have lived here for 200 years, you have no rights. I would also fully expect London to be involved including militarily were it to occur.

The idea that somehow Russia wants to invade the Uk is laughable, bearing in mind it is ungovernable in many places to the elected Govt, then how exactly would an invading power control it and what exactly has the UK that Russia would want ? Its women ......beer...... work culture.

I fully see Russia acting to support Ethnic Russian populations that are in danger of persecution or death, just like I fully expect Israel to support any Jewish population and other countrys likewise.

Pretending because one country does it is wrong while another doing it is ok, even when they laud and celebrate Nazis, is a bit like the West supplying Al Qaeda with arms and forgetting 9/11 didn't happen

[racedo]

A weekly defended Atlantic could become a chokepoint.

One question

Exactly why does Russia supposedly wish to attack and takeover the west ?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One question

Exactly why does Russia supposedly wish to attack and takeover the west ?

We are not talking about a Cold War style invasion with the Third Shock Army pouring across the border between East and West Germany. We are talking of the possibility of the Putin regime using force, or being tempted to, in the former Soviet republics. The current leadership in Moscow is determined to hold onto power at all costs, and may seek conflict to distract the population and the Putin regime has been setting up the West as a bogeyman for a number of years now. Russian submarine and air activity in the Atlantic is back to a level comparable with that in the Cold War - do you think that it is prudent for us to keep an eye of them?

In any case, there are other potential threats in the NATO theatre, such as the presence of the forces of the People's Republic of China operating in the Atlantic, over events in Africa or the Middle East over spilling into the Mediterranean or beyond.

[Lonewolf_50]

NATO's purpose ended at the end of the Cold War. The political leadership of 16 nations did not share your opinion. It's a political organization, and they found use for it.
Also, since you are an old fart like me who lived through it, when would you say that the cold war actually ended?

[minigundiplomat]

You think they'll stop at Calais?

History would suggest so, but then traditionally the only threat to the UK has been from European nations. Toujours la meme......

[Asturias56]

"I fully see Russia acting to support Ethnic Russian populations that are in danger of persecution or death, just like I fully expect Israel to support any Jewish population and other countrys likewise."

A well worn route used by large countries to bully smaller ones - Hitler in Czechoslovakia fro example

[Not_a_boffin]

A weekly defended Atlantic could become a chokepoint.

Is that one day a week? Or one week per month?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Is that one day a week? Or one week per month?

Well spotted. I was not referring to the Thursday War.

This article from the Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/faroes-back-map-global-powers-vying-influence-tiny-strategic/) is interesting, but it seems to think the the main reason for the significance of the Faroe Islands is due to the Arctic:

Mr Olesen puts this down to increased general tension between Russia and Nato more generally, and more specifically, to increased Russian activity in the Arctic since 2014 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/04/putin-making-power-grab-arctic-west-needs-wise-prepare-conflict/), when it created a new Arctic Strategic Command based around the Northern Fleet.In the past five years, Russian activity in the Northern Atlantic has returned to Cold War levels (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/10/royal-navy-leads-four-nation-arctic-mission-block-russian-dominance/), with the country's long-range nuclear submarines and jets constantly testing Nato surveillance capabilities.

The British Royal Navy is reportedly planning to establish a regular presence in the Arctic Circle amid growing concerns that climate change melting ice caps could allow Russia and China to exploit strategic new shipping lanes (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/27/arctic-trading-route-must-remain-free-first-sea-lord-says/) there.

Once up and running, the reestablished Faroes radar station will help to close the gap in radar coverage left after the UK reactivated a radar station on Unst in the Shetland Islands in 2018.

"If you take a look at the radar coverage of the Nato countries in the northern Atlantic area and in the Arctic, and pop them onto a map, you can see these big holes over Greenland and over the Faroe Islands," Mr Olesen explains.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Am I right in thinking the UK is committed to the NATO Joint Expeditionary Force, and that as such we are formally committed to NATO? The 'Indo Pacific tilt' will not change that. It also means we need to have sufficient forces for NATO activities such as this. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/11/20210311-lancaster-baltic)

Frigates HMS Lancaster (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet/frigates/type-23/hms-lancaster) and Westminster (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet/frigates/type-23/hms-westminster), tanker RFA Tiderace (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-fleet-auxiliary/tankers/rfa-tiderace) and vessels from all three Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – have joined forces for a concerted demonstration of Britain’s commitment to the security and stability of the region.

The deployment is another test of elements of the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force – a partnership of nine northern European nations committed to working together on operations as varied as warfighting through to humanitarian assistance and defence engagement.“Some of the UK’s closest and most steadfast Allies are found in the Baltics. This deployment is both the latest example of a long and proud history of defence cooperation and a clear demonstration of the capability of the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force,” said Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

“As the first maritime patrol of made up of exclusively JEF nations, we are ensuring our ships and people are ready to operate in challenging conditions alongside our Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Swedish allies.”

The Royal Navy ships have been joined by Estonian minelayer Wambola, Latvian patrol vessel Jelgava, and from Lithuania minelayer Jotvingis and patrol ship Selis, plus aircraft from the Swedish Air Force, with the focus on maritime security and freedom of navigation in the Baltic.

“It is a real privilege to command the first task group of this type and I have been impressed by the capabilities on display from our partner nations,” said Commander Will Blackett, Commanding Officer of Portsmouth-based Lancaster which is flagship of the naval force.

Hopefully the Government will remember things like this when the defence review is announced.

[racedo]

The current leadership in Moscow is determined to hold onto power at all costs, and may seek conflict to distract the population and the Putin regime has been setting up the West as a bogeyman for a number of years now. Russian submarine and air activity in the Atlantic is back to a level comparable with that in the Cold War - do you think that it is prudent for us to keep an eye of them?

In any case, there are other potential threats in the NATO theatre, such as the presence of the forces of the People's Republic of China operating in the Atlantic, over events in Africa or the Middle East over spilling into the Mediterranean or beyond.

Ok for USN to be doing whatever it wants around the world but how dare China come into the Atlantic.

Putin is under no threat at home, he stopped the oligarchs ripping off Russia, invested heavily at home and despite what western media thinks he really is popular for standing up for the people.

The Russia making the west a bogeyman idea is laughable when you find BBC engaging in this funded by Foreign Office.

NATO never did reduce flights in or around Russia, nobody asks why not.

[racedo]

The political leadership of 16 nations did not share your opinion. It's a political organization, and they found use for it.
Also, since you are an old fart like me who lived through it, when would you say that the cold war actually ended?

It ended in the east with the collpse of the USSR, the mentality never ended within Senior military Intelligence in the west. Losing an opponent meant their reason for existence, their wealth and the MIC couldn't be allowed to lose out.

Instead of supporting Russia in the early 90's when the economy collapsed there were way too many happy to rip it off and do everything they could to destroy it. Supporting it you would have an ally, ripping it off would only last for a period of time.

Governments close by complain when Russia started moving units closer to the border with the west into old bases that had been reduced in size. What escapes people is that Russia had removed forces closer to western borders in a big drawdown but seeing a desire of Nato allies want bases and military forces stationed closer they acted.

When you have been invaded from the West 3 times in just over 100 years and have lost 35 million people via that route then you make a call that a 4th time will not happen. Entierly logical when you look at it that way.

[racedo]

A well worn route used by large countries to bully smaller ones - Hitler in Czechoslovakia fro example

Or invading Grenada to suposedly protect some students who openly stated they were not under threat.

[minigundiplomat]

Putin is under no threat at home, he stopped the oligarchs ripping off Russia, invested heavily at home and despite what western media thinks he really is popular for standing up for the people.

Agreed, during time I spent in Russia he was exceptionally popular, but I believe that popularity peaked a couple of years ago.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Ok for USN to be doing whatever it wants around the world but how dare China come into the Atlantic.

Putin is under no threat at home, he stopped the oligarchs ripping off Russia, invested heavily at home and despite what western media thinks he really is popular for standing up for the people.

The Russia making the west a bogeyman idea is laughable when you find BBC engaging in this funded by Foreign Office.

NATO never did reduce flights in or around Russia, nobody asks why not.

Putin popular? Then who do you explain things like this (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed)?

A Moscow court has sentenced Alexei Navalny to two years and eight months in a prison colony in a landmark decision for Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on the country’s leading opposition figure.

The move triggered marches in Moscow and the arrest of more than 1,000 protesters.

Navalny, who has accused the Russian president and his allies of stealing billions, was jailed for violating parole from a 2014 sentence for embezzlement in a case he has said was politically motivated.

After the verdict, several hundred Navalny supporters marched in central Moscow. Videos by local media or shared on social media showed police in body armour hitting protesters with staves. More than 1,000 people were arrested across the country in the course of the day, according to the independent monitoring group OVD-info.

The court’s decision makes Navalny the most prominent political prisoner in Russia and may be the most important verdict against a foe of Putin’s since the 2005 jailing of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

As for Putin's mentality (and I assume his cronies are the same), try reading this from (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-winner-effect/201403/the-danger-lurks-inside-vladimir-putins-brain)Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-winner-effect/201403/the-danger-lurks-inside-vladimir-putins-brain):

Now, Putin’s contempt for others is spreading far beyond his cabinet to include the entire western leadership (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/leadership), from Cameron to Obama. Putin’s personality (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/personality) and thinking have become grossly distorted by the effects of enormous, largely unfettered power on his brain. Since then, Putin has invaded the Crimea and engineered the swift dissolution of a country.

Interpreting political behaviour in psychological terms is always a risk: Ukraine’s ethnic balance is a fragile one and there is the scent (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/scent) of possible Crimean oil reserves as a juicy incentive for Putin’s political adventurism. But perhaps most politically-useful of all, is the whipped-up nationalist fervour to bolster Putin’s hold over a decaying Russian economy with its ageing workforce and corrupt institutions.

But, after 15 years in power, psychological factors have to be taken into consideration in analysing Putin’s actions and, more importantly, in deciding how to respond to them. And contempt must be considered as one of the most important elements of his psychology. It is not only contempt for what he almost regards as weak—and, possibly in his macho world view, effeminate—western leaders. More important is his contempt for their institutions such as international treaties and laws.

Putin was brought up under a Marxist-Lenninist worldview where there was a strong tradition of regarding such things as instruments of capitalist or bourgeois oppression, to be treated with, well, contempt. He grew up in a culture where the ends justified the means. And this is why he could so easily tear up an international treaty with Ukraine guaranteeing its independence in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.

I do not have the slightest doubt that Putin intends to stay in power at least until 2024 and perhaps beyond. There can be little doubt that his brain has been neurologically and physically changed so much that he firmly and genuinely believes that without him, Russia is doomed. Absolute power for long periods makes you blind to risk, highly egocentric, narcissistic (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/narcissism) and utterly devoid of self-awareness. They also make you see other people as objects and the emotional-cognitive consequence of all this is…contempt.

It is very likely that he feels contempt for the potential political leaders who might succeed him, just as much as he feels contempt for anyone—for instance Ukrainians—who thwart him. A recent report (http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/things-you-didnt-know-about-russian-president-vladimir-putin/story-fnh81p7g-1226845669588) said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has talked with Putin more than any other leader in the last few weeks, reported feeling “bewildered” by Putin. After speaking with him, the report claimed, she said she was not sure he was in touch with reality, telling US President Obama that Putin was “in another world”.

Summing up in the last paragraph:

So how should the West respond? Psychologically speaking, the very worst response would be appeasement because this will simply fuel his contempt and strengthen the justification for his position. Strong consequences have to follow from his contempt for international law and treaties. This will cost the West dearly, economically speaking, but the longer-term costs of appeasement will make the costs of strong, early action appear trivial in retrospect.@ihrobertson

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Comment section (https://editions.shephardmedia.com/2021/03/05/nw-02-21-comment/pugpig_index.html) of Naval Warfare by Sheppard Media:

Before all this, the UK has to understand what the navy is for in terms of geopolitical and military direction. Might a rush to sail East of Suez in a scramble towards the Indo-Pacific leave home defence a little lacklustre?

A debate broke out during a March sitting of the UK defence committee as it gathered evidence into the perennial angst that afflicts the MoD and wider political class – the UK-US relationship and its role in the NATO alliance. This debate, with academics and defence experts on the virtual stand as it were, failed to find a firm consensus as to where the focus should be.

Should it be in the Indo-Pacific? Well, perhaps yes. More than one defence commentator has said that there is very little point in sending a carrier strike group over there as part of a one-off global tour, as the word ‘presence’ implies a necessary persistence. Maybe more forward-deployed assets should be sent into the Gulf instead.

But then focus on the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East and where does that leave the North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, Barents Sea or Arctic? How should the UK involve itself in the Eastern Mediterranean, where NATO member Turkey looks as though it may well be keen on leaving the alliance’s orbit, preferring the riches and political obligations of Russia and China?

[etudiant]

Putin popular? Then who do you explain things like this (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed)?

A Moscow court has sentenced Alexei Navalny to two years and eight months in a prison colony in a landmark decision for Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on the country’s leading opposition figure.

The move triggered marches in Moscow and the arrest of more than 1,000 protesters.

Navalny, who has accused the Russian president and his allies of stealing billions, was jailed for violating parole from a 2014 sentence for embezzlement in a case he has said was politically motivated.

After the verdict, several hundred Navalny supporters marched in central Moscow. Videos by local media or shared on social media showed police in body armour hitting protesters with staves. More than 1,000 people were arrested across the country in the course of the day, according to the independent monitoring group OVD-info.

The court’s decision makes Navalny the most prominent political prisoner in Russia and may be the most important verdict against a foe of Putin’s since the 2005 jailing of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

As for Putin's mentality (and I assume his cronies are the same), try reading this from (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-winner-effect/201403/the-danger-lurks-inside-vladimir-putins-brain)Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-winner-effect/201403/the-danger-lurks-inside-vladimir-putins-brain):

Now, Putin’s contempt for others is spreading far beyond his cabinet to include the entire western leadership (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/leadership), from Cameron to Obama. Putin’s personality (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/personality) and thinking have become grossly distorted by the effects of enormous, largely unfettered power on his brain. Since then, Putin has invaded the Crimea and engineered the swift dissolution of a country.

Interpreting political behaviour in psychological terms is always a risk: Ukraine’s ethnic balance is a fragile one and there is the scent (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/scent) of possible Crimean oil reserves as a juicy incentive for Putin’s political adventurism. But perhaps most politically-useful of all, is the whipped-up nationalist fervour to bolster Putin’s hold over a decaying Russian economy with its ageing workforce and corrupt institutions.

But, after 15 years in power, psychological factors have to be taken into consideration in analysing Putin’s actions and, more importantly, in deciding how to respond to them. And contempt must be considered as one of the most important elements of his psychology. It is not only contempt for what he almost regards as weak—and, possibly in his macho world view, effeminate—western leaders. More important is his contempt for their institutions such as international treaties and laws.

Putin was brought up under a Marxist-Lenninist worldview where there was a strong tradition of regarding such things as instruments of capitalist or bourgeois oppression, to be treated with, well, contempt. He grew up in a culture where the ends justified the means. And this is why he could so easily tear up an international treaty with Ukraine guaranteeing its independence in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.

I do not have the slightest doubt that Putin intends to stay in power at least until 2024 and perhaps beyond. There can be little doubt that his brain has been neurologically and physically changed so much that he firmly and genuinely believes that without him, Russia is doomed. Absolute power for long periods makes you blind to risk, highly egocentric, narcissistic (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/narcissism) and utterly devoid of self-awareness. They also make you see other people as objects and the emotional-cognitive consequence of all this is…contempt.

It is very likely that he feels contempt for the potential political leaders who might succeed him, just as much as he feels contempt for anyone—for instance Ukrainians—who thwart him. A recent report (http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/things-you-didnt-know-about-russian-president-vladimir-putin/story-fnh81p7g-1226845669588) said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has talked with Putin more than any other leader in the last few weeks, reported feeling “bewildered” by Putin. After speaking with him, the report claimed, she said she was not sure he was in touch with reality, telling US President Obama that Putin was “in another world”.

Summing up in the last paragraph:

So how should the West respond? Psychologically speaking, the very worst response would be appeasement because this will simply fuel his contempt and strengthen the justification for his position. Strong consequences have to follow from his contempt for international law and treaties. This will cost the West dearly, economically speaking, but the longer-term costs of appeasement will make the costs of strong, early action appear trivial in retrospect.@ihrobertson

Imho, Psychology Today is not a very confidence inspiring source for evaluating anyone, particularly political leaders. Putin seems to be the faceman who expresses Russian policy, which is demonstrably driven by quite classical nationalism.
Separately, Putin's popularity or lack thereof largely reflects Russia's economic circumstances, which are currently reduced by the slump in oil and gas prices, compounded by the impact of sanctions.

[Hot 'n' High]

Hi racedo, always interesting to see your take on such matters. Perhaps I may give you my thoughts on some of the points you raise.

.....Instead of supporting Russia in the early 90's when the economy collapsed there were way too many happy to rip it off and do everything they could to destroy it. Supporting it you would have an ally, ripping it off would only last for a period of time.

There is an alternative narrative to the one you imply (simply the West ripping off the Russian economy) which is that it was the oligarchs (and other Russians) ripping off Russia as you yourself said in another Post. I'm not saying that there were not some in the West who were more than happy to help the oligarchs - greed is universal after all - even Trump ended up being involved in the flow of Russian money into Property in the West. But what is very interesting is how the oligarchs came into being in the first place - to run a cunning plan by the Party to hide funds abroad as the Soviet Union started to collapse. Others are linked to things like the "oil for food" scams of the early 90's - even Putin's name is linked to that one from his time as Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. What was designed to provide the basics for the Russian people also lined the pockets of those Russians involved. And, via them, their opposite numbers in the West no doubt!

......... he stopped the oligarchs ripping off Russia.......

You are dead right there! Putin certainly brought the oligarchs to heel big time - the same oligarchs set up to siphon off Party funds into safety in the West became greedy and realised they could actually keep the loot for themselves. Again, an alternative narrative to yours is that Putin and the old ex-KGB cronies wanted the loot for themselves, particularly since it was the KGB who'd help set up the corporate infrastructure for that initial flight of money to the safety of the West. They were simply taking back what they saw as theirs. However, in an odd way, that then links in to the next point which I find fascinating......

......... Putin is under no threat at home, ..... invested heavily at home and despite what western media thinks he really is popular for standing up for the people. ........

Here I would agree with you. Many have referred to Putin as being a "mirror" - reflecting back what people want to see rather than what is actually happening. For many that's enough to ensure their support. But for those who see the "mirror" for what it is - such as people like Alexander Litvinenko - well, look what happens. Now, whether the investment is for the good of the Russian people or for the furtherance of Putin's strategic ideals is a moot point; inevitably there is some overlap as you have to provide for your population but the profits then go to a select few. Some of those profits go toward furthering Russian strategic wishes, some remain in pockets. There seems a curious blurring of what is "state money" and what is "private money". Putin seems to see it as one - "Make your profits, enjoy the lifestyle - but I may need you to help fund the furtherance of a strategic goal when I ask". The rich in Russia who survive today have learned to play that game.

.............. When you have been invaded from the West 3 times in just over 100 years and have lost 35 million people via that route then you make a call that a 4th time will not happen. Entierly logical when you look at it that way.

Now, that is actually why all this is going on - as you say racedo, "entirely logical" and, one could argue that all the above has, to some degree, an input into regenerating/preserving Russia's "greatness". Is the West squeaky-clean? Of course not. Does Putin see that he is doing anything wrong? Probably not - he probably sees that what he makes as being fair reward for his efforts in making Russia great again - and that, ultimately, the money is that "blended" or "dual use" money so he'd better make the most of it while he can. Personally, I don't see Russia going to war in the way that was envisaged during the Cold War. For a start, with so much money tied up in the West now, Russia can't afford to rock the boat too much. The "new Cold War" will, I suspect, see power projection through far more subtle means using that financial presence in the West to assist in that work. And things like Nord Stream 2 will be quite a bargaining chip - all part of Russia's "new greatness".

It's actually quite fascinating - if you step back from the emotions. Anyway, just my view - for what it's worth! :ok:

[racedo]

Putin popular? Then who do you explain things like this (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed)?

A Moscow court has sentenced Alexei Navalny to two years and eight months in a prison colony in a landmark decision for Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on the country’s leading opposition figure.

The move triggered marches in Moscow and the arrest of more than 1,000 protesters.

Navalny, who has accused the Russian president and his allies of stealing billions, was jailed for violating parole from a 2014 sentence for embezzlement in a case he has said was politically motivated.

This is up there with self appointed Jean Guaido as President of Venezuala, Navalny a open xenophobe is not a leading opposition figure, despite the western media claiming it, Vladamir Zhironosky is more popular.Mind you if being a leading opposition figure is 2% in an opinion poll then Screaming Lord Sutch was one.

Russians are well aware of Navalny's team seeking more funds from western intelligence agencies and his open disdain for Russian people.

He is a useful tool for the West, nothing more.

If blaming the courts system as being Kremlin controlled then they must have not got the message in 2013, because even though convicted of embezzlement they allowed him run.

[racedo]

Agreed, during time I spent in Russia he was exceptionally popular, but I believe that popularity peaked a couple of years ago.

In Jan 21 it seems "only" at 65% https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/

Clearly he must stand down. Boris Johnson said so, when Boris asked if his own 42% approval meant he should also step down he laughed and said it is different.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With a defence review coming up we keep hearing the phrase 'Indo Pacific tilt' - but what does this mean? Hopefully it will not mean forgetting security issues closer to home.

[downsizer]

With a defence review coming up we keep hearing the phrase 'Indo Pacific tilt' - but what does this mean? Hopefully it will not mean forgetting security issues closer to home.

Have you been furloughed or laid off or something?

[racedo]

Hi racedo, always interesting to see your take on such matters. Perhaps I may give you my thoughts on some of the points you raise.

It's actually quite fascinating - if you step back from the emotions. Anyway, just my view - for what it's worth! :ok:

A well reasoned and thought out viewpoint. :ok:

[racedo]

With a defence review coming up we keep hearing the phrase 'Indo Pacific tilt' - but what does this mean? Hopefully it will not mean forgetting security issues closer to home.

If UK Govt believe it has strategic right to move defence forces around the world cloe to other people's territory then it cannot at same time complain if other people act in their own strategic interests.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

International waters are free for all.

My point was am I getting hung up over what the phrase 'Indo Pacific tilt' actually means? Tilt - move in sloping position, which suggests both that it can be put back if needed, and that the base remains where it was - as in 'leaning'. Therefore it does not imply abandonment of NATO/the Atlantic/etc. Forces will be deployed as needed.

Semantics eh?

Role on STDE21!

[Lonewolf_50]

It ended in the east with the collpse of the USSR, the mentality never ended within Senior military Intelligence in the west. Losing an opponent meant their reason for existence, their wealth and the MIC couldn't be allowed to lose out. I cannot agree with you, and I'll tell you why. The cold war ended at the end of 1995, with the deployment of a Russian Brigade into the northern IFOR sector with an American Brigade. For a brief time, and during a period of positive engagement from East to West, both sides of the old Cold War committed themselves to a thorny European Security Problem (the mess in Bosnia) together.
It amazed me at the time, and delighted me. I never thought I'd see it happen.

Unfortunately, that brief period of attempted shared purpose never built the kind of momentum, in part due to another case of paranoia that was notable by its absence in your post. This wasn't Russian paranoia, it was the paranoia of Russia's closest neighbors.

Russian Paranoia, by the way, goes back long before Operation Barbarosa or WW I - it is centuries old. Look to the east, and the waves of steppe riders who invaded and made Russia into the Golden Horde. When you have been invaded from the West 3 times in just over 100 years and have lost 35 million people via that route then you make a call that a 4th time will not happen. Entirely logical when you look at it that way. Indeed, that will induce a certain wariness in the Russian outlook, and if one imagines one's self looking from Moscow to the West I am not surprised to see a profound wariness.

So why was it that you neglected the political fact that all of their neighbors were Paranoid regarding the Russians. (Maybe not Belarus?)

Romania, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ... shall I go on?
Wariness is a Two Way street. While there was some bad policy making after the Wall went down, in terms of attempts to exploit Russia, you are taking an overly narrow view of the geopolitical situation.

The most unfortunate tipping point, I feel, was the 1999 bombing of Serbia. I think that whatever good will had been built up between Russia and the West suffered a blow that was never recovered from in terms of building a modicum of trust.

That's two decades ago. The momentum for building a new pattern of mistrust has not been checked. It saddens me: what could have been.

Beyond that, the pivot to the Pacific that Obama initiated a few years back was, in my view, About Damned Time!
And it's about 20 years late, but I guess better late than never has to apply.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Here is an article (https://cimsec.org/implementing-national-maritime-strategy-with-a-shrunken-fleet/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=implementing-national-maritime-strategy-with-a-shrunken-fleet) by a retired USN Officer about the problem of a limited number of ships and too many places.

An answer can be found in U.S. Air Force air power theory. That theory asserts that air power is a scarce but mobile resource. These two characteristics imply that it must be subject to centralized management such that can be applied strategically across the theater. This logic can be scaled up and applied to sea power on a global basis. In other words, the nation’s sea power, at least the allocation of it, should be managed by a staff in Washington that has a global perspective. Sea power, given the reduced size of the fleet, is a scarce asset whose application must be managed strategically.

As far as I know we have no plans to permanently assign capabilities to geographical areas - for all of the talk of the Indo Pacific, we still have commitments in the Arabian Gulf, and have a strong presence in the North Atlantic was named as one of the pillars of the Future Navy. We have committed a carrier capability to NATO (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-commits-carrier-strike-group-to-nato-readiness-initiative/), and also amphibious forces. None of this means they cannot be deployed elsewhere in the World, but it does mean they cannot be permanently East of Singapore. Given that NATO plans for deploying thirty major warships, thirty squadrons of combat aircraft, and thirty mechanised infantry battalions within thirty days this is feasible.

“The JEF is a partnership of like-minded nations that provides a high-readiness force of over 10,000 personnel. It is committed to supporting global and regional peace, stability and security either on its own or through multinational institutions such as NATO. Made up of northern European nations, the JEF’s prime interest is in Euro-Atlantic security with efforts focused on but not limited to the High North, North Atlantic and Baltic regions where it can complement the NATO deterrence efforts in the region. The signing of a joint declaration to make a substantial commitment to the NATO Readiness Initiative recognises this and the Readiness Initiative’s future contribution to European peace and security.

According to S of S Defence: “A Global Britain will continue to play a leading role in NATO, working with multiple Allies and contributing a range of capabilities, cementing the UK as a Tier 1 military power. That was clearly demonstrated today with the declaration that the Joint Expeditionary Force will contribute to the NATO Readiness Initiative. including through a UK-led land brigade and the UK Carrier Strike Group.”

[Asturias56]

Still talk in the Times today of scrapping 3 frigates in Tuesday's announcement

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yet on the Ministry of Defence website, the big news story is two RN frigates and an RFA tanker leading a security patrol in the Baltic (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-royal-navy-leads-an-international-task-group-of-warships-on-a-security-patrol-of-the-baltic).

There have been other operations close to home involving multiple warships and aircraft - such as this one in late 2020 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/december/04/200412-russian-monitoring) (three frigates, two patrol vessels, two RFA tankers, and Typhoon and F-35B Lightning aircraft involved), or this one last August (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/august/19/200819-royal-navy-monitor-heightened-russian-activity-in-waters-close-the-uk), or this one last March (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/march/26/200326-royal-navy-shadows-seven-russian-ships).

It would be hard to find any part of the Armed Forces that is not busy.

[etudiant]

Yet on the Ministry of Defence website, the big news story is two RN frigates and an RFA tanker leading a security patrol in the Baltic (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-royal-navy-leads-an-international-task-group-of-warships-on-a-security-patrol-of-the-baltic).

There have been other operations close to home involving multiple warships and aircraft - such as this one in late 2020 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/december/04/200412-russian-monitoring) (three frigates, two patrol vessels, two RFA tankers, and Typhoon and F-35B Lightning aircraft involved), or this one last August (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/august/19/200819-royal-navy-monitor-heightened-russian-activity-in-waters-close-the-uk), or this one last March (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/march/26/200326-royal-navy-shadows-seven-russian-ships).

It would be hard to find any part of the Armed Forces that is not busy.

Busy does not justify the effort, it needs a clear rationale and benefit apart from the training/preparation aspect. One can always keep an Armed Force busy, it is just very expensive to do so.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

According to The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uks-new-foreign-policy-russia-is-no1-danger-n59m8skjq):

UK’s new foreign policy — Russia is No 1 danger

Britain will treat Russia as a “hostile state” but China primarily as a commercial “competitor”, according to a landmark review of British foreign policy that Boris Johnson will publish on Tuesday.

The integrated review of security, defence and foreign policy will set out plans to boost spending on Britain’s offensive cyberwarfare capability to combat Moscow and Beijing.

As for the alliance of Russia, Iran, and China: (https://thenewstrace.com/the-triple-alliance-of-china-russia-and-iran-shows-its-military-muscle-and-challenges-biden/136315/)

The China-Russia-Iran axis is consolidated and prepares to confront the interests of the United States around the globe. A good example of what is happening are the second joint naval maneuvers in just over a year that begin this next week in the Indian Ocean. At the end of December 2019, they were held in the Gulf of Oman. And it is not the only level of cooperation of these three countries: Russia and Iran support the Bashar al Assad regime in Syria and coordinate their military actions; The three are operating in coordination in Venezuela and several African countries; they maintain close alliances with other regional powers....

[Asturias56]

" The three are operating in coordination in Venezuela and several African countries"

That'll be the mighty Venezuelan Navy who's most recent escapade was to have one of their vessels brushed off and almost sunk by a cruise liner?

[rattman]

f and almost sunk by a cruise liner?

No almost it did actually sink

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A NATO publication: 2021 (http://www.cjoscoe.org/infosite/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Bow-Wave.pdf)Cutting the Bow Wave (http://www.cjoscoe.org/infosite/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Bow-Wave.pdf)

The Atlantic Nexus

The North Atlantic, Arctic and Baltic regions form a strategic ‘Atlantic Nexus’. As recently demonstrated in the Russian navy’s 2019 Exercise Ocean Shield, assets from both the Northern and Baltic fleets can be redirected to concentrate force across this area. The character of the Atlantic Nexus has changed remarkably since the Cold War. Then, as now, NATO’s critical challenge in the North Atlantic is to protect the sea lines of communication and transatlantic resupply in a conflict by keeping Russian forces contained above the Norwegian Sea. But the Arctic, once valuable only as the cover for Russia’s nuclear - powered, ballistic missile - carrying submarine force, is now a contested civil and economic space. Furthermore, the Baltic dilemma is inverted from its Cold War manifestation: then NATO’s strategy was to keep the Soviet Navy from breaking out into the Atlantic through the Danish Straits or the Kattegat; today, the strategy focuses on ensuring that NATO maritime forces can break in to help defend its Baltic Allies.

The Atlantic Nexus disappeared from NATO’s agenda after the demise of the Soviet Union, and until recently few were adept in the art of transatlantic maritime resupply. Since 2014, NATO has recognised the challenge and in 2018 empowered MARCOM as the 360 - degree Maritime Theatre Component Command while establishing Joint Force Command Norfolk with the mandate to secure Atlantic sea lines of communication. The US Second Fleet has been stood up again with a strong Arctic and North Atlantic focus. The German navy is developing a Baltic-facing maritime headquarters at Rostock with the ambition to take on coordination and (during a conflict) command roles for Allied naval forces in the Baltic. The Polish Navy is developing a similar capability.

At the heart of this Atlantic challenge is the submarine threat. Recent years have seen an explosion in studies on the need to protect transatlantic sea lines of communication against the Russian submarine force as part of NATO’s credible deterrent posture. These have been paralleled by conversations and planning inside the Alliance. Unsurprisingly, reinvigorating NATO’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is a high priority for NATO and MARCOM. More than any other form of naval warfare, ASW operations must battle the elements as much as an adversary. The sheer size of the oceans presents difficulties for both attacker and defender, not least as the result of the reduced fleets of surface ships, submarines and maritime patrol aircraft on all sides. New technology also portends a change in both the lethality of submarines and the possibility of detecting them by non-acoustic means.

But there is a second dilemma in relation to the Atlantic Nexus: the peacetime impact of the Russian navy’s ‘Kalibrisation’ coupled with these forces’ presence in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This leaves the western flank of Europe potentially vulnerable to missile attack from the sea. Although of limited use in a protracted and major conflict, such naval forces fit well with a hybrid strategy based on a short-war model that seeks to intimidate the Alliance into backing down in a crisis.

Effective deterrence in this scenario depends on NATO’s ability to counter that threat and assure Allies through its credible naval capability and persistent presence when needed, before crisis occurs. That requires a fully resourced Standing Naval Force and close coordination among Allied forces operating under national command.

The defence of Norway and Iceland presents unusual joint challenges that have maritime power at their core. Both countries occupy critical strategic space in the Atlantic Nexus. Carrier strike and amphibious power projection provide the main, although by no means exclusive, sword and shield in contesting the North Atlantic in a conflict. New questions abound: how can NATO best use aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic given today’s technologies? How does the Kalibrisation of the Russian fleet alter both Russian and NATO strategy? Arguably, Norway and Iceland are even more valuable to the Alliance deterrent posture today than during the Cold War, given NATO’s need to reinforce its ability to operate in contested northern waters against credible adversary forces.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the same article:

Operationally, NATO's current deterrence challenge is to sense danger early, project forces rapidly and further remove any belief of an easy win or fait accompli from an adversary’s calculus. No one can win a long war of attrition with the NATO Alliance, and potential adversaries know it; the test of deterrence today is precluding a misguided attempt to launch a short war for limited goals. NATO needs not only to have the means to make that case, but also to communicate that message effectively.

[pr00ne]

Quote from reply to a question from the PM this afternoon, "at least after the review we will have 24 frigates rather than the 15 we have now!"

Which is interesting as we actually have 13...

[Asturias56]

"Develop the next generation of naval vessels, including Type 32 frigates and Fleet Solid Support ships, and deliver our plans for eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates.

Progress our Carrier Strike capabilities, with at least 48 F-35s by 2025.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Global Britain in a competitive age (http://The UK is a European country with global interests, as an open economy and a maritime trading nation with a large diaspora. Our future prosperity will be enhanced by deepening our economic connections with dynamic parts of the world such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, as well as trade with Europe. The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain)

Paragraph 17 of the overview

The UK is a European country with global interests, as an open economy and a maritime trading nation with a large diaspora. Our future prosperity will be enhanced by deepening our economic connections with dynamic parts of the world such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, as well as trade with Europe. The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain.

Paragraph 32 iii

NATO will remain the foundation of collective security in our home region of the Euro-Atlantic, where Russia remains the most acute threat to our security.

Somewhere there is something about "twenty four frigates by the end of the decade" but I cannot find it. Not sure how that works out with numbers....

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

WEBF,

No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.

That explains it!

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1371831326035283972

Anyway - wonder what the response will be from the new right will be? I am talking about the anti NATO, pro Russia, anti democracy loonies?

[Asturias56]

I don't think anyone really believes that we're going to be able to defend the Atlantic seaways, penetrate the Barents AND take on the PLA(N) WEBF

Most people thinks its just BoJo PR

[Hipper]

NATO's purpose ended at the end of the Cold War.

However there were and still are many people who have enjoyed the personal benefits that come with being a member of NATO. Those who enjoy them are against giving them up because in truth it would devalue their vaulted status they believe they have.

Since the Cold War ended, there have been attempt after attempt to reivent NATO, to use whatever justification they can. Otherwise it becomes the "Emperors New Clothes" with nothing of substance behind it.

Anything Russia does within its own borders is trumpeted up as being a threat to a member of NATO yet any action by a NATO member is overlooked.

The real danger is that the continued poking of the bear elicits a response, NATO will parrot as a justification for conflict and a "I told you so", all very fine until buckets of sunshine start.

USSR lost 1 in 7 of its population during WW2, UK lost 451,000 or less than 1% and had it suffered at same rate then 6.3 Million more UK citizens would have died, US lost 419,000 or 0.3%, if suffered the same casualties US would have lost 18 Million citizens. No amount of spinning will make the figures different.

Nobody seems to be able to answer about WTF would the Russians do with the Baltic states or other places if they invaded, there is not exactly a requirement for additional land.

War is ultimately about economic theft, west however with US Federal Debt 25% bigger than economy and individual State debt adding couple of trillion $$ onto this then ultimately something has to give. It is only a matter of time before the Debt burden does to the US what it did to the USSR in late 1980's. Issue then becomes "What Then ?"

On the subject of war losses of population, it's true the figures are staggering but if we had lost those sort of numbers I doubt there would have been anymore taste for the war. Our politicians are answerable to us. Stalin was perhaps only answerable to his immediate colleagues if that. I get the impression he simply did not care about numbers lost.

So the real question on population losses is 'are these WW2 losses really part of the thinking of today's Russian people or more importantly today's Russian politicians?'. I suspect they are just our way of trying to look at their perspective.

[HAS59]

24 Frigates.

Boris did say
"By the end of this decade we will have twenty four frigates as opposed to the fifteen we have today."
I watched again on the BBC Parliament site and if anyone cares to listen it is at the 46 minute point.

[Frostchamber]

Pretty sure he should have said 24 escorts (ie frigates and destroyers) - there has been talk of an aspiration to increase from the current 19 to 24, by means of the Type32. But having all 24 in service by the end of the decade (as opposed to in service or in build) sounds an unfeasible stretch. If the true situation is an expansion to 24 escorts overall by the early 2030s that wouldn't be such a bad outcome.

[Asturias56]

By then the RN will be thinking about the T45 replacement.............

[Asturias56]

If there are only 15 escorts around that really means there are 5 available for service- if the RN send a couple with the QE to the S China Sea and one to the Barents they're getting a bit sparse everywhere else...........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Someone put together an infographic on the Navy Lookout feed and showed that it was possible to increase frigate and destroyer numbers to 24, but not until 2035 or thereabouts, with current ships leaving service as planned. All very confusing. A56 things are bit more nuanced that just one in three being active.

[Asturias56]

"things are bit more nuanced that just one in three being active." - but that's the well worn rule of thumb used by people like the USN and the RN SSBN fleet WEBF

I just cannot believe that they are thinking of cutting the number of escorts NOW with the usual fairy-tale "we'll order a load more later" excuse. I think the RN needs at least 30 to cover the various roles the politicians keep loading on to them - remember what Nelson kept asking for................... frigates, not ships of the line

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Cuts would be a bad thing and cause problems, but building up to twenty four cannot be achieved until half way throughout the next decade - unless some current ships are kept in service longer.

As for nuance, the ships that are not deployed as such will do the short duration UK and NATO tasks which are actually really important. I was also referring to different levels of readiness.

[Not_a_boffin]

The one in three is for overall force sizing - a long term average. It's not for figuring out how many ships will be available each week/month/year.

While not desirable, a short-term reduction may actually be less damaging than you'd think. There's an unusual confluence of programmes at the minute, which leaves more DD/FF in upkeep than is usual (T45 PIP and T23 SLEP/PGMU) compounded by a lack of industrial capacity (and funds) to execute those quickly. Losing a GP 23 or two saves you several tens of £M in upkeep funds, reduces the industrial burden so you get the more valuable ships (ASW T23) done earlier and the replacement date falls within the delivery window for T26/T31.

Not ideal, but some of those 23s really are in Triggers broom territory. Someone has (rightly) queried whether that money would be better spent addressing the future.

[Asturias56]

Good points Boffin - but I (and I'm sure you) can remember far too many examples where a UK Govt ( of either Party) claimed they "intended" to buy x F-35's or Frigates or .... and then, year by year the numbers fell steadily until the armed services only got 30-50% of what had been promised. :{

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just a few years ago the Ministerial directives to the RN included putting every possible ship to sea and 'sweating' current platforms. To support this, there have been structural changes regarding personnel and increasing personnel numbers by 3000 over three years.

Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.

NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....

[rattman]

Just a few years ago the Ministerial directives to the RN included putting every possible ship to sea and 'sweating' current platforms. To support this, there have been structural changes regarding personnel and increasing personnel numbers by 3000 over three years.

Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.

NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....

Escorting the carriers in peace time is probably one of the least important roles. You could pick up any number of other countries that would be willing to send a ship or two over to get some training in escorting a carrier

[Asturias56]

yeah but it doesn't look good...................... and it still doesn't fill the holes when you really need escorts

Anyone who would trust BoJo's promises is going to get a nasty surprise - his history is littered with mistruths

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Another reminder that we do need frigates and destroyers:

THIRD STRIKE FROM HMS MONTROSE AS NAVY BAGS £3 MILLION DRUGS (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/22/20210322-montrose-drugs)

Drugs worth more than £3m to terrorists have been seized by Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose – her third bust in little over a month.

The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.

It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/february/17/20210217-montrose-drugs) in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.

[etudiant]

Another reminder that we do need frigates and destroyers: THIRD STRIKE FROM HMS MONTROSE AS NAVY BAGS £3 MILLION DRUGS (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/22/20210322-montrose-drugs)Drugs worth more than £3m to terrorists have been seized by Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose – her third bust in little over a month.

The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.

It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/february/17/20210217-montrose-drugs) in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.

This is silly.
The value of the drugs seized is always inflated hugely by measuring it at street prices, which include all the retail distribution markups essential to move an illegal product.
The bulk real value is at most a few percent of what is stated. Meanwhile, the military and the drug industry get more acquainted with each other.
Ask Mexico how well that worked out.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1374047481361793041


HMS Trent (OPV) to be Gibraltar based

One Bay class LSD(A) to be turned into a Littoral Support Ship

Hunt and Sandown classes withdrawn slowly

Possibly more F-35Bs

Two Type 23s to go - presumably this means Monmouth (has been languishing and waiting for refit - and an FTRS skeleton crew) and one of the older non 2087/Merlin ones

20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the decade - does that mean running on other T23s longer to achieve the 24 the Prime Minister spoke of last week, which has slipped to 'early in the next decade'?

NATO commitments continue, with Russia named as the main hostile state threat. Continued commitments to CASD and carrier operations.

[etudiant]

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1374047481361793041


HMS Trent (OPV) to be Gibraltar based

One Bay class LSD(A) to be turned into a Littoral Support Ship

Hunt and Sandown classes withdrawn slowly

Possibly more F-35Bs

Two Type 23s to go - presumably this means Monmouth (has been languishing and waiting for refit - and an FTRS skeleton crew) and one of the older non 2087/Merlin ones

20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the decade - does that mean running on other T23s longer to achieve the 24 the Prime Minister spoke of last week, which has slipped to 'early in the next decade'?

NATO commitments continue, with Russia named as the main hostile state threat. Continued commitments to CASD and carrier operations.

Dumb question, was there a theme to this pudding?

I'm a New Yorker, Navy League lifer and often cannot understand the logic of the procurement decisions of the US Navy.
But HMGs defence strategies and decisions are in another realm.
Could someone maybe help put it into a coherent framework?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It could have been worse - a lot worse.

[etudiant]

It could have been worse - a lot worse.

You are so right, that is what is worrisome, more money and less capability.
If this is how they treat the green wood, how will they treat the dry?

[Asturias56]

Still pretty bad - they didn't cancel the last SSN, they're repurposing some stuff and there'll be a fall (supposedly temporary) in the number of surface escorts.

Only time will tell if they order enough replacements. HMG's record on THAT is not good

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are we creating a precedent in 'running on' existing ships? From the First Sea Lord's message (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/23/1sl-message-on-integrated-review):

We will run on two of the Trafalgar-class submarines.

[Asturias56]

It's not uncommon - delivery is always later than planned - just about every class of vessel has been run on in the last 70 years. At least they confirmed they were going to build 7 Stutes. personally I'd keep building them at a steady rate

[WE Branch Fanatic]

No plan ever survives contact with reality.

Back to 1SL's statement: We will operate both carriers, buy more F-35 jets and sort out the support shipping for the carriers.

That links with the amazing deployment that heads east at the end of May, taking in over 40 countries and 70 visits.

Our carriers are the best design in the world. Our jets are the best in the world.

We’re going to use them in NATO and around the world to protect our allies, our interests and our trade.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It's not uncommon - delivery is always later than planned - just about every class of vessel has been run on in the last 70 years. At least they confirmed they were going to build 7 Stutes. personally I'd keep building them at a steady rate


Yes - but the days of them not being fully manned and/or awaiting major refits are coming to an end.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1375739191653511168

See also the RN page about her refit and regeneration. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/26/20210326-portland-sails)

The revamp of the flotilla, which began in 2014, sees a total bow-to-stern mast-to-keel overhaul of the backbone ships of the Fleet to ensure the 23s can serve into the middle of the next decade, keeping pace with the latest threats and tech.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

NATO Foreign Ministers discuss Russia - UK Defence Journal (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nato-foreign-ministers-discuss-russia/)

“While our relationship with Russia remains very difficult, our meeting today demonstrates strong agreement among Allies and with our partners. Despite years of pressure and efforts to engage in a meaningful dialogue, Russia has increased its pattern of repressive behaviour at home and aggressive behaviour abroad. In Russia, we still see violent oppression of political dissent.

And we call for the immediate release of Alexei Navalny and other peaceful demonstrators who have been arrested. Abroad, Russia undermines and destabilizes its neighbours, including Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova. It supports the crackdown on Belarus, and tries to interfere in the Western Balkans region.

Russia continues its wide-ranging military build-up. From the Baltic to the Black Sea. In the Middle East and North Africa. And from the Mediterranean to the Arctic. Allies have called out Russia’s disinformation and propaganda.”

[Asturias56]

well , yes so really not a good timr to be cutting anything in the front line IMHO on the basis of "jam tomorrow"

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hard to disagree with that - but eleven frigates fully modernised and manned is an improvement over thirteen with a number only partly manned. The RN is in the process of increasing personnel numbers by three thousand over three years.

I am not sure that the cuts to Challenger tank numbers or to the RAF air transport fleet were consistent with increased threats and commitments.

[henra]

Britain will treat Russia as a “hostile state” but China primarily as a commercial “competitor”, according to a landmark review of British foreign policy that Boris Johnson will publish on Tuesday.

That is really ridiculous or even ludicrous.
Russia has not even half the GDP of Germany. Its commercial strength is rather in decline. Its potential for conquering and permanently occupying Countires which don't have a majority share of ethinc Russian poulation is really limited and rather declining. Its conventional Military does not even fully match continental Europe's.
Only its Nuclear Force is still on par with whole NATO and leagues above that of Europe. So conventionally only a limited Power but a massive Nuclear Power.
On the other hand we have a China which will be replacing the US as #1 Economic Super Power in no time. It is increasing its Military capabilities at a breathtaking rate. It is pretty openly stating its aspirations in the whole Region and acting accordingly. It's increasing its conventional power at an alarming rate and is using that for bullying Taiwan, Australia, Korea and Japan.
In 10 Years from now there will be ~50 operational Russian Stealth Fighters and 500 Chinese. Easily. The same goes for Long Range Air to Sea/Surface Missiles. And wait for the next strategic (Stealth-) Bomber. Guess who will field this!? The next Full Size CATOBAR Aircraft Carrier, to be equipped with Stealth Fighters and Drones? The list goes on and on.

That said our Economic Dependence on China has grown to a point where this can't be openly adressed anymore in the 'West'. Instead we have to blame a deputy scapegoat (Russia) when in reality it's clear who is the real Threat.
White Elefant in the Room....

[Jackonicko]

I am not sure that the cuts to Challenger tank numbers or to the RAF air transport fleet were consistent with increased threats and commitments.

No ****, Sherlock!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

henra

I think you underestimate Russia and the danger that the Putin regime poses. Of course it is nowhere never the Cold War Soviet threat, but that does not mean it does not exist. Putin, Xi, and the Iranian leadership are allies.

The actual policy announced by the Prime Minister noted challenges from all three, but sensibly stated that security in the Euro Atlantic theatre was the priority and the prerequisite for a more Global role.

Jackonicko

Long time no see! Welcome back. I was replying to Asturias56.

[Asturias56]

Big countries push small countries around - the British did it, the Americans do it and China has learnt the lessons. They're going to be #1 or #2 so you'll see some oppressive behavior - but I don't think they're interested in a fight - except over Taiwan - that's the only thing they'd risk a war over

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hopefully things have moved on a bit since then.

The UK and the international rules based system - Dr Nicholas Wright (https://fpc.org.uk/the-uk-and-the-international-rules-based-system/)

The IRBS has evolved as a means of developing – to the extent possible – predictability and stability between states as sovereign actors. At a basic level it can be understood as encompassing three main components: (i) formal structures and institutions – e.g. the UN, IMF, WTO, etc. – and also regional organisations such as the EU, ASEAN and NATO; (ii) rules, treaties and international law – e.g. the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UN Refugee Convention, or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and (iii) the norms and values that have developed around and through these – e.g. support and promotion of democracy, equality, and human rights. Many of these were deliberately established and/or have evolved primarily since the end of the Second World War as a means of managing and regulating how states interact.

[Asturias56]

I'm sure President Putin (and the lat President Trump) read that every night before going to bed................ :E

[minigundiplomat]

Big countries push small countries around - the British did it, the Americans do it

The French did it with Indochina and North Africa, Belgium did it with the Congo, Spanish with Mexico and South America, Portuguese with Brazil, Dutch with East Indies, German's with ..... ok lets skip that.

The British and the Americans only differed in being competent at it.

[etudiant]

The French did it with Indochina and North Africa, Belgium did it with the Congo, Spanish with Mexico and South America, Portuguese with Brazil, Dutch with East Indies, German's with ..... ok lets skip that.

The British and the Americans only differed in being competent at it.
\
After Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd shudder to see what incompetent would look like.

[minigundiplomat]

After Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd shudder to see what incompetent would look like.

Probably a lot like the Setif and Guelma massacres in Algeria, My Trach in Vietnam, Leopold II cleansing of the Congo, Aushwitz, Lidice, Oradour sur Glane, the Incas........ I could go on.

My point was that pushing around smaller countries is not a uniquely UK or US action, as was suggested. The Europeans have quietly airbrushed out the bits of their history they don't like.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Russian forces massing on border with Ukraine - UK Defence Journal (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-forces-begin-massing-on-border-with-ukraine/)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You may be interested in these comments about the Moscow worldview - from here (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/russian-troop-movements-reported-near-ukraine.304396/page-15#post-10693682).

A short and not exclusive summary of the “Muscovite Mentality”.

1. For a Muscovite it is inconceivable that state power is not concentrated at the apex of the pyramid. In Muscovy, this is at the Kremlin and usually rests in one man or a small cabal. No important decision can be made by any other organ. A Muscovite genuinely believes that all political and economic power in the West, is ultimately controlled from Washington - just as Moscow strives to control all political and economic power in as large an area as it can, so does Washington. Multiple power centres cannot be allowed to exist within a political entity, as this undermines the power of the centre.

2. A Muscovite sees world affairs as a giant “zero-sum game” with the strings being pulled by the major power centres. For a Muscovite the “Main Adversary” remains the USA. So anything which a Muscovite perceives as detrimental to Muscovy is advantageous to the USA. An independent Ukraine is detrimental to Muscovy, therefore the USA must be causing the independence movement there. For a Muscovite independent NGOs undermine the power of the State, therefore they must be operating under the aegis of Washington. Any citizen of Russia that protests against the Kremlin, is perceived by a Muscovite to be weakening the State, therefore they are being supported by Washington and can be considered traitors.

3. The concept of “Rule of Law” is totally alien to a Muscovite. A Muscovite firmly believes that “the law” is just a tool to serve the ruler in order to make the State strong. It is for the ruler to make the law and to apply it or change it as required.

4. The concept of “Separation of Powers” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The “Executive” is the only Power. The “Legislative” and the “Judicial” are mere [often cosmetic] appendages to facilitate the rule of the “Executive”.

5. The concept of “Separation of Church and State” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The Church serves the State and it is inconceivable that the Church can be regarded as a separate power base.

6. The concept of an empowered “Civil Society” is totally alien to a Muscovite. There can be no organisations which are not answerable to the State. The citizen is there to serve the State. The State is not there to serve the citizen, but to use him/her as it sees fit.

7. The concept of a “Free Press” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The media is there to serve the State. The media must reflect the State position. If independent media offer a different point of view, then they are attacking the State and are seen as traitorous. Of course as this is seen as detrimental to the State, it therefore must have the backing of Washington.

8. The Muscovite sees the world from this point of view and naturally assumes that the rest of the world must have a similar viewpoint [for a Muscovite any different viewpoint is obviously unnatural]. As Muscovy sees all other political entities as competitors in a “zero-sum game”, therefore they all must view Muscovy in the same way. As Muscovy is therefore constantly under threat, it must defend itself. Attack is the best form of defence, therefore Muscovite aggression is logically defensive in nature and thus Muscovy pursues a “peace-loving” policy [even when invading other countries]. There is no contradiction in the “Muscovite mindset”.

9. Muscovy currently feels extremely threatened. Not from without, but from within. The peoples of “all the Russias” are finally, slowly but surely realising that there is a truth in the world that is not the “truth” of the Kremlin. That there is another way of organising a society than that which has been forced upon them by Muscovy for centuries. The countries and nations that had been subjugated to the “Muscovite Yoke” are incrementally breaking away and making it successfully in the modern “free” world. That Ukraine, the seat of the original great principality of Kievan Rus [the legacy of which was stolen and warped by Muscovy] was moving away from Muscovite control, precipitated a crisis. If the so called “Little Russians” can embrace change in the organisation of their society - what will stop the so called “Great Russians” from following suit? [Incidentally the Muscovites coined the terms “Little and Great Russians”. The inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus were originally called “Rusi” or “Ruthenes” as opposed to the “Rossiyani” further east in the Principalities of Pskov, Novgorod, Muscovy etc.]

10. The "Muscovite mindset" also appears to be quite racist. This explains the pre-occupation with the West and particularly the USA as the "Main Adversary"; whereas a more logical conclusion would be that the primary threat to Russia, in terms of sovereignty (economic and political) is from China. But the Muscovite tends to look down arrogantly on non-Europeans (conveniently forgetting his own historic tutelage at the hands of the Mongols). However, it is because of this that the "Muscovite mindset" views the Chinese political system as similar to its own and thus not a threat in the way the Western political system is, in its potential to undermine the control of the Kremlin through its (perceived insidious) appeal to the masses.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Also see this article from the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute: Delivering Global Britain - A Naval Perspective (https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/april/delivering-global-britain-naval-perspective)

The arrival of Admiral Tony Radakin as First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff in 2019 saw the release of a new vision for the Royal Navy that focuses on five main parts: (1) greater investment in the North Atlantic for the security of the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent; (2) delivery of the U.K.’s carrier strike capability; (3) delivery of the future commando force; (4) forward presence; and (5) increased use of technology and innovation. The North Atlantic is the main arterial lifeline to the United Kingdom, as well as the hiding place for its nuclear deterrent, and therefore will always be of the highest importance to the Royal Navy.

Carriers

In support of all five globally deployed OPVs and HMS Montrose in the Gulf, the First Sea Lord’s plan is to operate at least one carrier strike group (CSG) out of the United Kingdom. This will surge as required to deliver the higher-level capabilities that may be needed anywhere in the world, but basing in the United Kingdom underlines its commitment to NATO and the Atlantic.

Amphibious capabilities

In addition to the carrier strike group, future commando force will deliver a littoral strike capability. This is likely to be delivered through two littoral response groups (LRGs). The first will be based out of the United Kingdom to support the Northern Flank and European interests.....

[etudiant]

You may be interested in these comments about the Moscow worldview - from here (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/russian-troop-movements-reported-near-ukraine.304396/page-15#post-10693682).

A short and not exclusive summary of the “Muscovite Mentality”.

1. For a Muscovite it is inconceivable that state power is not concentrated at the apex of the pyramid. In Muscovy, this is at the Kremlin and usually rests in one man or a small cabal. No important decision can be made by any other organ. A Muscovite genuinely believes that all political and economic power in the West, is ultimately controlled from Washington - just as Moscow strives to control all political and economic power in as large an area as it can, so does Washington. Multiple power centres cannot be allowed to exist within a political entity, as this undermines the power of the centre.

2. A Muscovite sees world affairs as a giant “zero-sum game” with the strings being pulled by the major power centres. For a Muscovite the “Main Adversary” remains the USA. So anything which a Muscovite perceives as detrimental to Muscovy is advantageous to the USA. An independent Ukraine is detrimental to Muscovy, therefore the USA must be causing the independence movement there. For a Muscovite independent NGOs undermine the power of the State, therefore they must be operating under the aegis of Washington. Any citizen of Russia that protests against the Kremlin, is perceived by a Muscovite to be weakening the State, therefore they are being supported by Washington and can be considered traitors.

3. The concept of “Rule of Law” is totally alien to a Muscovite. A Muscovite firmly believes that “the law” is just a tool to serve the ruler in order to make the State strong. It is for the ruler to make the law and to apply it or change it as required.

4. The concept of “Separation of Powers” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The “Executive” is the only Power. The “Legislative” and the “Judicial” are mere [often cosmetic] appendages to facilitate the rule of the “Executive”.

5. The concept of “Separation of Church and State” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The Church serves the State and it is inconceivable that the Church can be regarded as a separate power base.

6. The concept of an empowered “Civil Society” is totally alien to a Muscovite. There can be no organisations which are not answerable to the State. The citizen is there to serve the State. The State is not there to serve the citizen, but to use him/her as it sees fit.

7. The concept of a “Free Press” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The media is there to serve the State. The media must reflect the State position. If independent media offer a different point of view, then they are attacking the State and are seen as traitorous. Of course as this is seen as detrimental to the State, it therefore must have the backing of Washington.

8. The Muscovite sees the world from this point of view and naturally assumes that the rest of the world must have a similar viewpoint [for a Muscovite any different viewpoint is obviously unnatural]. As Muscovy sees all other political entities as competitors in a “zero-sum game”, therefore they all must view Muscovy in the same way. As Muscovy is therefore constantly under threat, it must defend itself. Attack is the best form of defence, therefore Muscovite aggression is logically defensive in nature and thus Muscovy pursues a “peace-loving” policy [even when invading other countries]. There is no contradiction in the “Muscovite mindset”.

9. Muscovy currently feels extremely threatened. Not from without, but from within. The peoples of “all the Russias” are finally, slowly but surely realising that there is a truth in the world that is not the “truth” of the Kremlin. That there is another way of organising a society than that which has been forced upon them by Muscovy for centuries. The countries and nations that had been subjugated to the “Muscovite Yoke” are incrementally breaking away and making it successfully in the modern “free” world. That Ukraine, the seat of the original great principality of Kievan Rus [the legacy of which was stolen and warped by Muscovy] was moving away from Muscovite control, precipitated a crisis. If the so called “Little Russians” can embrace change in the organisation of their society - what will stop the so called “Great Russians” from following suit? [Incidentally the Muscovites coined the terms “Little and Great Russians”. The inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus were originally called “Rusi” or “Ruthenes” as opposed to the “Rossiyani” further east in the Principalities of Pskov, Novgorod, Muscovy etc.]

10. The "Muscovite mindset" also appears to be quite racist. This explains the pre-occupation with the West and particularly the USA as the "Main Adversary"; whereas a more logical conclusion would be that the primary threat to Russia, in terms of sovereignty (economic and political) is from China. But the Muscovite tends to look down arrogantly on non-Europeans (conveniently forgetting his own historic tutelage at the hands of the Mongols). However, it is because of this that the "Muscovite mindset" views the Chinese political system as similar to its own and thus not a threat in the way the Western political system is, in its potential to undermine the control of the Kremlin through its (perceived insidious) appeal to the masses.

As offered by some guy writing as 'Condottiere' in some blog.
Not sure I'd take that as gospel

[Asturias56]

he'd previously posted in arsse................

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Regardless of how much of it applies to Russia and the Putin regime, it demonstrates how what we term as 'The West' is not defined by Geography, skin colour, or faith, but by societal and constitutional things. These include things such as limits on political power, separation of executive and judicial powers, the rule of law, a free media, and things like that.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Kremlin is intimidating Europe with a military threat and at the same time is stepping up anti-European propaganda. This is clearly seen in the narratives of pro-Kremlin media in Ukraine, the main direction of which is now set by the statements of Russian top officials.

From On the brink of a new Cold War. (https://isans.org/articles-en/on-the-brink-of-a-new-cold-war.html)

[Asturias56]

Is that news????

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This is a reminder that NATO relies on being able to move equipment by sea, even within the European theatre:

https://twitter.com/YorukIsik/status/1383105701682286601?s=20

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-strategic-long-shot-more-warships-in-the-indo-pacific/

Europe’s strategic long-shot: More warships in the Indo-Pacific

Naval ambitions come as part of EU’s strategy to extend its Asian reach and counter the rise of China

[Courtney Mil]

We seem to be diverting into ships, with little or no aviation connection.

[Courtney Mil]

We are discussing two very different theatres of operation. We are equipping ourselves for Northern Europe/North Atlantic ops. A couple of carriers and a handful of F-35s does not make us a global super-power. The very idea of this would mean stretching ourselves way too far.

It would take SEATO II to do that.

[T28B]

We seem to be diverting into ships, with little or no aviation connection.
Aircraft (to include rotary wing aircraft) fly from Royal Navy ships, do they not? :ok: The observation that you make in your follow on post, in terms of overreach, are hard to disagree with.

[West Coast]

T28

You're the admin, so you get to set the rules, I respect that. Isn’t there a danger however of limiting a conversation strictly to aviation content while ignoring content that composes other facets of the situation?

Of the balloon flies, it’ll circle back to all kinds of aviation content.

[Asturias56]

We could just remove the "Avaition" from the threads title? To be serious ll military operations are interconnected these days - its many many years since you silo the issues I'm afraid

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some news stories that hint at things in UK home waters, Northern Europe and the North Atlantic:

Westminster sees out winter with a ranging patrol (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/april/20/210420-westminster-sees-out-winter-with-a-ranging-patrol)

HMS Westminster returned home yesterday following a highly successful 15-week deployment protecting the UK’s interests in home waters, North Atlantic and Northern Europe.

Rear Admiral Simon Asquith OBE, the Royal Navy’s Commander Operations, embarked during the morning to welcome the frigate back to her base port at the conclusion of this patrol.

It took her from the Baltic to the Channel Islands, including monitoring a passing Russian submarine. Deployment also took in various trials, training and exercises, including working with the RAF’s new P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Royal Navy tracks eight warships through UK waters (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/april/19/210419-royal-navy-tracks-eight-warships-through-uk-waters)

The Royal Navy has kept close watch on seven warships and one submarine passing in opposite directions through the Channel.

Three British patrol ships – Portsmouth-based sisters HMS Tyne, Severn and Mersey – have been called upon to monitor the presence of seven Russian Federation Navy vessels plus an Algerian submarine as they sailed past the British Isles.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

For the UK and Europe, the Atlantic and Mediterranean represent the gateway to the Indo-Pacific.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1388061490733793285

[etudiant]

For the UK and Europe, the Atlantic and Mediterranean represent the gateway to the Indo-Pacific.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1388061490733793285

Truly a long corridor beyond that 'gateway'.
The few hulls that can be sent far from home have no local Indo-Pacific sustaining infrastructure, so they come to the fight late and exhausted from a very long patrol.
At best they serve as tripwires, something that will surely impact morale.
I honestly don't understand how such as disjointed policy can pass muster. Admittedly, coherence is apparently not a requirement in the Pacific Theater either.

[Asturias56]

"so they come to the fight late and exhausted from a very long patrol."

And we all know how that turns out when the opposition have a few weeks to prepare..

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x370/chromolithograph_print_kasai_torajiro_battle_of_port_ce18638 b7ca57e40dc5dcb156c97e7f596e0cda6.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Truly a long corridor beyond that 'gateway'.
The few hulls that can be sent far from home have no local Indo-Pacific sustaining infrastructure, so they come to the fight late and exhausted from a very long patrol.
At best they serve as tripwires, something that will surely impact morale.
I honestly don't understand how such as disjointed policy can pass muster. Admittedly, coherence is apparently not a requirement in the Pacific Theater either.

This is a peacetime deployment, with diplomatic objectives as well as contributing to NATO and other alliances.

You also seem to assume that the Atlantic, Medditeranean, etc will not be contested by Russia or China. The PLA Navy is increasingly present in waters West of Suez. Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are allies.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

No surprises...

https://mobile.twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1396211101415747586

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wonder if some people might be interest in this Chatham House publication?

Myths and misconceptions in the date on Russia (https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/2021-05-13-myths-misconceptions-debate-russia-nixey-et-al_0.pdf)