I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
The difference is that our military capacity is still relatively high, we could increase defence spending from $55bn to $85bn within two or three years and increase the size of our forces quite considerably. In Germany they could raise spending from $45bn to $100bn and it wouldn't make any difference. They have 25 years of neglect to wipe away first which means mega spending on infrastructure, logistics and equipment before they get value for money.
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Gosh, you really are down on Britain at the moment aren't you.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Gosh, you really are down on Britain at the moment aren't you.
Nope, I am down on those who would put our national security and economy at risk to secure Brexit.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Absolutely agree. I'm just pointing out that demanding absolutely zero fees is also ridiculous.
Indeed, as long as they are proportional to the costs in running the trade agreements and arbitration, rather than the EU budget as a whole.
I suggested earlier that a voluntary scheme of contributions by London banks wishing to avail 'Passporting' rights might raise some serious cash for the EU, on the basis that the contributions are seen to come from those banks participating, rather than the British taxpayer. That might make everyone happy.
I suggested similar, but was shot down by some of the nutjobs.
If the EU wishes to allow 'foreign' banks to operate there with certain conditions, that's between the EU, the banks involved, their shareholders and regulators. But you know that anyway!
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then g position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then g position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then g position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
Yes, probably better than you. But you specifically said Western Europe.
Do you think there is an obvious threat to Western Europe at the moment - or are you just building strawmen, as you seem to be doing a lot today...
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Gosh, you really are down on Britain at the moment aren't you.
Nope, I am down on those who would put our national security and economy at risk to secure Brexit.
More lattes, less democracy.
It is a slogan. Not likely a winning one, looking at current polling, but a slogan nonetheless.
Oh, and of course it is arguable that Brexit will make us richer and more nationally secure. But that doesn't fit with your worldview, does it? Funny how I can accept that it might not, but you don't seem to be able to accept that it might....
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Absolutely agree. I'm just pointing out that demanding absolutely zero fees is also ridiculous.
Indeed, as long as they are proportional to the costs in running the trade agreements and arbitration, rather than the EU budget as a whole.
I suggested earlier that a voluntary scheme of contributions by London banks wishing to avail 'Passporting' rights might raise some serious cash for the EU, on the basis that the contributions are seen to come from those banks participating, rather than the British taxpayer. That might make everyone happy.
I suggested similar, but was shot down by some of the nutjobs.
If the EU wishes to allow 'foreign' banks to operate there with certain conditions, that's between the EU, the banks involved, their shareholders and regulators. But you know that anyway!
I honestly think yours and Robert's idea will fly with 95+% of the population.
Hey, it is bankers coughing up and pro-EU, so the SJW brigade will even support it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has runNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then g position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a wholeNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Gosh, you really are down on Britain at the moment aren't you.
Nope, I am down on those who would put our national security and economy at risk to secure Brexit.
More lattes, less democracy.
It is a slogan. Not likely a winning one, looking at current polling, but a slogan nonetheless.
Oh, and of course it is arguable that Brexit will make us richer and more nationally secure. But that doesn't fit with your worldview, does it? Funny how I can accept that it might not, but you don't seem to be able to accept that it might....
I think a Norway-style relationship with the EU and membership of a strong North Atlantic mutual defence pact could certainly be very good news for a UK outside the EU. So you are wrong. Again.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
An £11bn annual gap in defence spending gets very big cumulatively over a relatively short period of time.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has runNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then g position, let alone an advantage.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
So what? We were allies with Russia in the two major conflicts that straddled the creation of the USSR. Why do we now need to base our defence policy around a relic?
...The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a wholeNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Gosh, you really are down on Britain at the moment aren't you.
Nope, I am down on those who would put our national security and economy at risk to secure Brexit.
More lattes, less democracy.
It is a slogan. Not likely a winning one, looking at current polling, but a slogan nonetheless.
Oh, and of course it is arguable that Brexit will make us richer and more nationally secure. But that doesn't fit with your worldview, does it? Funny how I can accept that it might not, but you don't seem to be able to accept that it might....
I think a Norway-style relationship with the EU and membership of a strong North Atlantic mutual defence pact could certainly be very good news for a UK outside the EU. So you are wrong. Again.
Then we agree! A period of optimism from Remainers would be appreciated.
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
I think the difference is in numbers and the way we deploy our ground forces.
The UK has a small but very good ground army, focussed on tactical successes with marines and special forces - whereas the Russians prefer to play the numbers game with troops, even if they are young conscripts who are badly trained, poorly equipped, with broken supply lines and too much vodka. If they were to ever meet each other face to face, the likely result would be a bloodbath - possibly on both sides.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has runNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
Theantage.
We for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that weurope is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
So what? We were allies with Russia in the two major conflicts that straddled the creation of the USSR. Why do we now need to base our defence policy around a relic?
Russian nationalism is not a relic, it is real. Recently it has led to hundreds of entirely innocent European and Asian civilians being shot out of the sky by a missile. It has also led to murder committed in London and countless very serious cyber security attacks, not to mention threats to energy supply lines.
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
The difference is that our military capacity is still relatively high, we could increase defence spending from $55bn to $85bn within two or three years and increase the size of our forces quite considerably. In Germany they could raise spending from $45bn to $100bn and it wouldn't make any difference. They have 25 years of neglect to wipe away first which means mega spending on infrastructure, logistics and equipment before they get value for money.
Mr. Max, I don't think we could increase our forces to any worthwhile degree inside two or three years, even if the money and political will were there to do so. You can, it is true, train an infantryman to a reasonable standard in about six months but that is the tip of the iceberg. If that infantryman is to do anything worthwhile then their is a whole chain of leaders that need to be in place and they take a whole lot longer to acquire the necessary skills.
Then there are the other arms that have to be there, the tankies, the loggies, the medical services and so on and so forth all require serious training time.
Furthermore, there has to be the military infrastructure to build the weapons, vehicles, ships and all the kit. I am not sure that actually exists anymore. And there has to be the real estate on which to train and house the expanded forces, most of that has been sold off.
In reality it would take at least ten years and tens of billions of pounds to expand our forces to any worthwhile degree. It would probably also need a return to conscription (the RN cannot crew its existing ships).
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
Mr Llama - finally the correct spelling - you know better than most that the Baltic's will be a land-war (hence we do not need a larger army). As to the air-fuel artty then blame government for high-tech solutions - minimal collateral-impact - with accontants oversight.
I miss Red Trouser's anecdotes: Towing a Scimitar through the Iraqui desert was a classic. And sorry about the news of your Hereford hooligan former associate: I would like to contribute to some fund in thanks (but do it via vanilla pm but, please, exclude your 'temperance' society).
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
I think the difference is in numbers and the way we deploy our ground forces.
The UK has a small but very good ground army, focussed on tactical successes with marines and special forces - whereas the Russians prefer to play the numbers game with troops, even if they are young conscripts who are badly trained, poorly equipped, with broken supply lines and too much vodka. If they were to ever meet each other face to face, the likely result would be a bloodbath - possibly on both sides.
It's also inconceivable that in such a battle, the UK would be fighting without allies.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of The idea that the EU can simply.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has runNot say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
Theantage.
We for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that weurope is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
So what? We were allies with Russia in the two major conflicts that straddled the creation of the USSR. Why do we now need to base our defence policy around a relic?
Russian nationalism is not a relic, it is real. Recently it has led to hundreds of entirely innocent European and Asian civilians being shot out of the sky by a missile. It has also led to murder committed in London and countless very serious cyber security attacks, not to mention threats to energy supply lines.
Do you consider it possible to interpret Russia's actions as defensive in nature due to being encircled by a hostile alliance populated with strategists who actively want to provoke the same collapse of the Russian Federation as happened to the Soviet Union?
As I read this I thought Tyson after the Brexit vote as a classic example of his awful "disenfranchisement Statement" amongst other views.
I have also read various others espouse similar views in various ways one or two fairly extremely most with subtlety and sadly almost without being aware.
All our turns will come with time and provides time to reflect.........
We actually have a rather similar capability to Russia, when it comes to "out of area" operations. Don't let the big conscript army and the thousands of rusty tanks fool you - $66Bn for them vs $55Bn for us.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
Are you sure about that, old chap. I suppose it depends on what you are talking about when you say "out of area". However, we aren't really talking about out of are operations but the defence of the Eastern members of NATO. What could the UK realistically contribute to that?
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
An £11bn annual gap in defence spending gets very big cumulatively over a relatively short period of time.
Mr. O, I don't think it is useful to compare spending because there is no direct link between dollars spent and capability obtained. Even if we did spend an extra $11bn a year we would never match the size of the Russian air force, for example. The costs are just so much higher here.
Then there is the issue of the efficiency of procurement. As noted several times Japan has a similar budget to the UK but manages to get a lot more out of it than we do.
Finally there is Osborne's legacy of including pensions and part of the intelligence spend in the defence budget so he and his mate could pretend to be meeting the 2% NATO target. Osborne also announced in 2010 that the cost of the nuclear deterrent, which had previously been carried in a separate budget would be borne out of the MoD budget. A big effective defence cut, though to be fair I am not sure what has happened to that plan.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that weurope is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
So what? We were allies with Russia in the two major conflicts that straddled the creation of the USSR. Why do we now need to base our defence policy around a relic?
Russian nationalism is not a relic, it is real. Recently it has led to hundreds of entirely innocent European and Asian civilians being shot out of the sky by a missile. It has also led to murder committed in London and countless very serious cyber security attacks, not to mention threats to energy supply lines.
Do you consider it possible to interpret Russia's actions as defensive in nature due to being encircled by a hostile alliance populated with strategists who actively want to provoke the same collapse of the Russian Federation as happened to the Soviet Union?
Some will no doubt interpret it in that light but they'd be wrong to do so. The accession of Central Europe and the Baltic states to the EU and NATO (and the Eurozone in the Baltics' case), was defensive. They are not hostile to Moscow as such; they are deeply wary of it.
That said, to a Russian nationalist, the European agenda would ultimately include incorporating Russia into the EU, which would to them mean stripping it of that which makes it Russian, and prior to that, would mean encircling it with not just eastern Europe but also the Caucusus states too. That that ambition has had to take a backseat doesn't mean they're not unaware of it.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
The UK has a small but very good ground army, focussed on tactical successes with marines and special forces - whereas the Russians prefer to play the numbers game with troops, even if they are young conscripts who are badly trained, poorly equipped, with broken supply lines and too much vodka. If they were to ever meet each other face to face, the likely result would be a bloodbath - possibly on both sides.
I hesitate to say this (and I'm willing to be contradicted), but looking at the evidence since 1900 (or even since 2000), there is an argument for saying the British Army is limited in its applications. "Focusing on tactical successes" is a polite way of saying "not winning".
If we're talking about a Russian invasion of the Baltics, I don't think we could force them to leave. Supply line problems would act in their favour, not ours.
Additionally, if we assume the Russians would apply their existing Ukranian tactics in the Baltics (insert , train insurgents, lie about it, claim activities are local disaffected, rely on a lazy West to not enquire too closely) then not only would they probably win, we'd have people on this board blaming the Balts for hurting the Russian boots with their faces.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
And neither is a match for the Russians.
That said, given that weurope is a direct threat to us.
Where has this straw man threat to Western Europe come from?
Do you understand what NATO is and why it exists?
The USSR is no more.
Russian nationalism pre-dates the USSR and has survived it.
So what? We were allies with Russia in the two major conflicts that straddled the creation of the USSR. Why do we now need to base our defence policy around a relic?
Russian nationalism is not a relic, it is real. Recently it has led to hundreds of entirely innocent European and Asian civilians being shot out of the sky by a missile. It has also led to murder committed in London and countless very serious cyber security attacks, not to mention threats to energy supply lines.
Do you consider it possible to interpret Russia's actions as defensive in nature due to being encircled by a hostile alliance populated with strategists who actively want to provoke the same collapse of the Russian Federation as happened to the Soviet Union?
Some will no doubt interpret it in that light but they'd be wrong to do so. The accession of Central Europe and the Baltic states to the EU and NATO (and the Eurozone in the Baltics' case), was defensive. They are not hostile to Moscow as such; they are deeply wary of it.
That said, to a Russian nationalist, the European agenda would ultimately include incorporating Russia into the EU, which would to them mean stripping it of that which makes it Russian, and prior to that, would mean encircling it with not just eastern Europe but also the Caucusus states too. That that ambition has had to take a backseat doesn't mean they're not unaware of it.
It doesn't matter why the Eastern European countries chose to join NATO only that they did and that NATO's sole raison d'etre is to contain Russia. There is still persistent pressure in the US establishment to get Georgia into NATO too.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
The USMC bought the Harrier 'cos the SixDayWar showed what you could do if you bombed runways. Being bought by the USA is not unique: they bought the Canberra and Hawk. And the Harrier has problems: it's difficult to maintain, it doesn't carry a big payload and it's vulnerable in certain circs (see Gulf War). But as a carrier-based weapon to support a marine landing (see Falklands) it's pretty good.
Mr. Max, I don't think we could increase our forces to any worthwhile degree inside two or three years, even if the money and political will were there to do so. You can, it is true, train an infantryman to a reasonable standard in about six months but that is the tip of the iceberg. If that infantryman is to do anything worthwhile then their is a whole chain of leaders that need to be in place and they take a whole lot longer to acquire the necessary skills.
Then there are the other arms that have to be there, the tankies, the loggies, the medical services and so on and so forth all require serious training time.
Furthermore, there has to be the military infrastructure to build the weapons, vehicles, ships and all the kit. I am not sure that actually exists anymore. And there has to be the real estate on which to train and house the expanded forces, most of that has been sold off.
In reality it would take at least ten years and tens of billions of pounds to expand our forces to any worthwhile degree. It would probably also need a return to conscription (the RN cannot crew its existing ships).
I think the difference is that our downsizing of the military was still quite recent, the capacity to train and arm a larger infantry still exists here where I don't think it does in Germany. Increasing military spending here would immediately be seen in a rise in the size of the forces, I don't think that can be disputed. On Osborne's trickery, yes we'd need to increase the defence budget by about £6bn overnight to ameliorate the full additional costs that have been added since 2010.
On Russia, $65bn in Russia is worth a lot more than $55bn over here. They have an almost fully vertically integrated defence industry which means we should look at their 4.5% GDP in PPP terms which is actually about $170bn, not the paper value $65bn. That's why people who say that Russia's defence spending being similar to ours are wrong. Their $65bn buys them a lot more than our $55bn. In general I think we'd need to up our defence spending to $85bn and France would need to do the same before we could say Europe had enough military strength to see off a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, or at least enough to deter Putin if Trump pulls the NATO collective action clause for nations not meeting the 2% criteria.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
English Electric. Two designs, the Canberra and the Lightning. Two of the most dramatically innovative designs of their day. The Canberra was bought by the USAF.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
English Electric. Two designs, the Canberra and the Lightning. Two of the most dramatically innovative designs of their day. The Canberra was bought by the USAF.
English Electric - now we're talking! Deltics, Hoovers, Syphons....
Mr Llama - finally the correct spelling - you know better than most that the Baltic's will be a land-war (hence we do not need a larger army). As to the air-fuel artty then blame government for high-tech solutions - minimal collateral-impact - with accontants oversight.
I miss Red Trouser's anecdotes: Towing a Scimitar through the Iraqui desert was a classic. And sorry about the news of your Hereford hooligan former associate: I would like to contribute to some fund in thanks (but do it via vanilla pm but, please, exclude your 'temperance' society).
Cheers
Mr. Thoughts, Really! The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Society does not accept donations under any circumstances. Its modest administration costs are covered by members' subscriptions and the outings it organises ( I have the privilege of being Hon Sec Outings Committee) are paid for ad hoc by members who participate.
Anyway no need for private messages, I'll tell you the same as I would anyone who wants to make a donation in relation to anything to do with the armed forces. The Ex-Forces Mental Welfare Society (now stupidly re-named Combat Stress) does fantastic work with and for those suffering with, and sometimes crippled by, invisible wounds.
As for Red Trousers, it has been a while since I have been over to Think Defence but yes he did make me laugh. A paid up military eccentric if ever there was one. It was officers like that, and, God knows, there were enough of them that made army life such fun.
Any experts on the U.S constitution in here? Are there any civil liberties Trump could suspend IF he wanted to say in an emergency as President? Or would he need the aproval of Congress first?
I heard Obama has suspended heabus corpus now? If true, why is that even his power. Thanx.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
English Electric. Two designs, the Canberra and the Lightning. Two of the most dramatically innovative designs of their day. The Canberra was bought by the USAF.
Good shouts.
Can I put a word in for the lovely Gloster Meteor? It gave us a start to the jet age, saw service in WWII, set two official air speed records, sold all over the world, and a couple are still in use with Martin Baker. Yet often forgotten in favour of its successors.
They also looked beautiful, as did the Vulcan and early Canberras without the offset nose bulge
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
The USMC bought the Harrier 'cos the SixDayWar showed what you could do if you bombed runways. Being bought by the USA is not unique: they bought the Canberra and Hawk. And the Harrier has problems: it's difficult to maintain, it doesn't carry a big payload and it's vulnerable in certain circs (see Gulf War). But as a carrier-based weapon to support a marine landing (see Falklands) it's pretty good.
Aye, the Harrier certainly wasn't perfect but it did work unlike it's competitors, it's still an amazing sight to see one hovering 30 ft up.
The Hunter probably has claims to be the prettiest post war aircraft, as proprortionally perfect as a Spitfire without the attendant mythology.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics.. That's where the threat is, particularly when these countries also border your own. Invading Ukraine is extremely worrying. Invading an EU or NATO member would cross the line.
Of course Trump will prefer dealing with Putin than Juncker. Even the people of Luxembourg got tired of dealing with Juncker.
As for the rest, the Cold War was a titanic struggle for World Domination between 2 rival Superpowers in ideological and economic systems. Russia is not the USSR, it's neither a superpower nor a communist country, and it's interests are limited to the Former USSR and some countries with past alliances.
It's very difficult to explain why a Conservative and Capitalist Russia that is a fraction of the size and power of the USSR is a threat to the West, especially towards those of right wing leniency's.
Western Governments shooting their own feet (Iraq War, Eurozone, Refugee Crisis) have done far more to harm the West than even the USSR at it's height could ever dream of.
Today's world looks more like a game of Diplomacy rather that the rigid structure of the Cold War.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
It's a good argument. Would you consider, say, the Harrier, Hunter, Hawk, or even the Vulcan in counter-argument? They were all world class in their own way
Harrier for sure, so innovative that the USMC was willing to buy it.
The USMC bought the Harrier 'cos the SixDayWar showed what you could do if you bombed runways. Being bought by the USA is not unique: they bought the Canberra and Hawk. And the Harrier has problems: it's difficult to maintain, it doesn't carry a big payload and it's vulnerable in certain circs (see Gulf War). But as a carrier-based weapon to support a marine landing (see Falklands) it's pretty good.
Aye, the Harrier certainly wasn't perfect but it did work unlike it's competitors, it's still an amazing sight to see one hovering 30 ft up.
The Hunter probably has claims to be the prettiest post war aircraft, as proprortionally perfect as a Spitfire without the attendant mythology.
Any experts on the U.S constitution in here? Are there any civil liberties Trump could suspend IF he wanted to say in an emergency as President? Or would he need the aproval of Congress first?
I heard Obama has suspended heabus corpus now? If true, why is that even his power. Thanx.
Nonsense from start to finish.
The Patriot Act is no longer in place, and no one in Congress is going to vote for something similar ever again.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
Given the earlier experience of 2004, saying 'Yanukovich' and 'democratically elected' in the same sentence is a little odd.
Yanukovich is a paid ally and stooge of Russia. You could easily prepend your post with another paragraph stating how Russia was interfering in Ukranian politics earlier on.
Any experts on the U.S constitution in here? Are there any civil liberties Trump could suspend IF he wanted to say in an emergency as President? Or would he need the aproval of Congress first?
I heard Obama has suspended heabus corpus now? If true, why is that even his power. Thanx.
It seems to be debatable, with the weight of arguments that suspension is a matter for the legislature, not the Presidency:
"Congress has suspended the writ only three times: South Carolina in 1871 (to deal with the Ku Klux Klan); the Philippines in 1905 (in connection with the local revolt); and Hawaii during World War II."
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
Russia's response was absolutely not the same thing. They invaded Ukraine. We didn't.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics, particularly when these countries border your own.. That's where the threat is. Ukraine is extremely worrying. An EU or NATO member would cross the line.
At the risk of boring you with a recitation of fact, it was NATO (for which read America) that brought down Yanukovich (the democratically elected President of Ukraine), using the protests following the declining of the EU association agreement as a trigger. In doing so, they effectively removed from Russia a vitally strategic seaport and would have drastically upset the balance of power on Russia's borders. Depending on where you stand, that's either a brilliant master-stroke, or a dangerous escalation, but it happened, and it was the first move.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
Russia's response was absolutely not the same thing. They invaded Ukraine. We didn't.
Comments
Edited extra bit: ahem, for* you.
Essentially, in Europe there are 2 serious militaries - the UK and France.
That said, given that we are in Europe and would be directly and adversely affected by westwards Russian expansion the notion of isolationism if we don't get the Brexit deal we deserve is ridiculous. Any threat to western Europe is a direct threat to us.
Do you think there is an obvious threat to Western Europe at the moment - or are you just building strawmen, as you seem to be doing a lot today...
It is a slogan. Not likely a winning one, looking at current polling, but a slogan nonetheless.
Oh, and of course it is arguable that Brexit will make us richer and more nationally secure. But that doesn't fit with your worldview, does it? Funny how I can accept that it might not, but you don't seem to be able to accept that it might....
Hey, it is bankers coughing up and pro-EU, so the SJW brigade will even support it.
Given a few months notice we might, with maximum effort, be able to field one under equipped division but I doubt we could keep it in the field and fighting for very long. Our army is just too small.
Furthermore there was an MoD paper circulating a few months ago pointing out that in some areas (e.g artillery) The Sovs now have not only more kit but better kit, so much so that we would be outmatched in any conflict.
At sea we are dependent on the submarines for any offensive capability and there aren't many of those either. The surface fleet, such as it is, might on a good day be able to defend itself but not much more than that.
It might be true that we have better forces than most but that doesn't mean with have a capability big enough for a hot war with a serious opponent.
The UK has a small but very good ground army, focussed on tactical successes with marines and special forces - whereas the Russians prefer to play the numbers game with troops, even if they are young conscripts who are badly trained, poorly equipped, with broken supply lines and too much vodka. If they were to ever meet each other face to face, the likely result would be a bloodbath - possibly on both sides.
Then there are the other arms that have to be there, the tankies, the loggies, the medical services and so on and so forth all require serious training time.
Furthermore, there has to be the military infrastructure to build the weapons, vehicles, ships and all the kit. I am not sure that actually exists anymore. And there has to be the real estate on which to train and house the expanded forces, most of that has been sold off.
In reality it would take at least ten years and tens of billions of pounds to expand our forces to any worthwhile degree. It would probably also need a return to conscription (the RN cannot crew its existing ships).
I miss Red Trouser's anecdotes: Towing a Scimitar through the Iraqui desert was a classic. And sorry about the news of your Hereford hooligan former associate: I would like to contribute to some fund in thanks (but do it via vanilla pm but, please, exclude your 'temperance' society).
Cheers
Off for the afternoon now. Will be putting a tenner on West Ham to end Tottenham's rather unimpressive unbeaten start to the PL season this evening.
The greatest postwar aircraft England designed was the Blackburn Buccaneer. Famous for trawling tumbleweed.
Please do not encourage the inverse - and modern-spelling - to occur. Lates!
I have also read various others espouse similar views in various ways one or two fairly extremely most with subtlety and sadly almost without being aware.
All our turns will come with time and provides time to reflect.........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3951568/How-young-declared-war-old-m-fighting-JOHN-SUTHERLAND-Brexit-encouraged-state-condoned-campaign-wipe-nation-s-wrinklies.html
Then there is the issue of the efficiency of procurement. As noted several times Japan has a similar budget to the UK but manages to get a lot more out of it than we do.
Finally there is Osborne's legacy of including pensions and part of the intelligence spend in the defence budget so he and his mate could pretend to be meeting the 2% NATO target. Osborne also announced in 2010 that the cost of the nuclear deterrent, which had previously been carried in a separate budget would be borne out of the MoD budget. A big effective defence cut, though to be fair I am not sure what has happened to that plan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/heavyweight-brexiteers-go-public-as-60-tory-mps-demand-clean-bre/
Offered without comment - apart from that this doesnt surprise me, given Gove spoke this position for Vote Leave during the ref.
"Clean" Brexit has all the cleanliness of a guillotine. Too bad about the twitching body left behind.
That said, to a Russian nationalist, the European agenda would ultimately include incorporating Russia into the EU, which would to them mean stripping it of that which makes it Russian, and prior to that, would mean encircling it with not just eastern Europe but also the Caucusus states too. That that ambition has had to take a backseat doesn't mean they're not unaware of it.
If we're talking about a Russian invasion of the Baltics, I don't think we could force them to leave. Supply line problems would act in their favour, not ours.
Additionally, if we assume the Russians would apply their existing Ukranian tactics in the Baltics (insert , train insurgents, lie about it, claim activities are local disaffected, rely on a lazy West to not enquire too closely) then not only would they probably win, we'd have people on this board blaming the Balts for hurting the Russian boots with their faces.
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked...
On Russia, $65bn in Russia is worth a lot more than $55bn over here. They have an almost fully vertically integrated defence industry which means we should look at their 4.5% GDP in PPP terms which is actually about $170bn, not the paper value $65bn. That's why people who say that Russia's defence spending being similar to ours are wrong. Their $65bn buys them a lot more than our $55bn. In general I think we'd need to up our defence spending to $85bn and France would need to do the same before we could say Europe had enough military strength to see off a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, or at least enough to deter Putin if Trump pulls the NATO collective action clause for nations not meeting the 2% criteria.
Anyway no need for private messages, I'll tell you the same as I would anyone who wants to make a donation in relation to anything to do with the armed forces. The Ex-Forces Mental Welfare Society (now stupidly re-named Combat Stress) does fantastic work with and for those suffering with, and sometimes crippled by, invisible wounds.
As for Red Trousers, it has been a while since I have been over to Think Defence but yes he did make me laugh. A paid up military eccentric if ever there was one. It was officers like that, and, God knows, there were enough of them that made army life such fun.
I heard Obama has suspended heabus corpus now? If true, why is that even his power. Thanx.
Can I put a word in for the lovely Gloster Meteor? It gave us a start to the jet age, saw service in WWII, set two official air speed records, sold all over the world, and a couple are still in use with Martin Baker. Yet often forgotten in favour of its successors.
They also looked beautiful, as did the Vulcan and early Canberras without the offset nose bulge
The Hunter probably has claims to be the prettiest post war aircraft, as proprortionally perfect as a Spitfire without the attendant mythology.
A very important point. Being a murderous despot t isn't sufficient to be a threat to the west, although Putin certainly is murderous despot. Carpet bombing your own city as Putin did to Grozny is remarkable. We got on perfectly fine with Saddam Hussein until he stupidly invaded Kuwait. But there are diplomatic norms of behaviour that even murderous despots like Putin are expected to adhere to. These include not invading neighbouring countries because you think it's time to liven up your domestic politics.. That's where the threat is, particularly when these countries also border your own. Invading Ukraine is extremely worrying. Invading an EU or NATO member would cross the line.
Of course Trump will prefer dealing with Putin than Juncker.
Even the people of Luxembourg got tired of dealing with Juncker.
As for the rest, the Cold War was a titanic struggle for World Domination between 2 rival Superpowers in ideological and economic systems. Russia is not the USSR, it's neither a superpower nor a communist country, and it's interests are limited to the Former USSR and some countries with past alliances.
It's very difficult to explain why a Conservative and Capitalist Russia that is a fraction of the size and power of the USSR is a threat to the West, especially towards those of right wing leniency's.
Western Governments shooting their own feet (Iraq War, Eurozone, Refugee Crisis) have done far more to harm the West than even the USSR at it's height could ever dream of.
Today's world looks more like a game of Diplomacy rather that the rigid structure of the Cold War.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/799975438848323584
The Patriot Act is no longer in place, and no one in Congress is going to vote for something similar ever again.
Russia's response was essentially to do the same thing - use a large discontented populous and through it's own covert and overt support, get back the influence it lost. Again you can approve or disapprove depending on where you stand, but it seems odd to wag the finger at Russian black ops destabilising the region when that's exactly what the US did to create the situation in the first place. You destabilise, foment, terrorise; I aid brave revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
Yanukovich is a paid ally and stooge of Russia. You could easily prepend your post with another paragraph stating how Russia was interfering in Ukranian politics earlier on.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/61/habeas-corpus
Notable from the article:
"Congress has suspended the writ only three times: South Carolina in 1871 (to deal with the Ku Klux Klan); the Philippines in 1905 (in connection with the local revolt); and Hawaii during World War II."