Current Affairs Ukraine

[PhilM]

I think the figures you quote for a U.K. standing army of between 300-500k is a fantasy figure - only under full mobilisation (conscription) could we hope to achieve those levels.

I’d say 200K is the realistic figure we should be looking at. Even that figure would take years of reform and restructure to achieve.

Are we talking about the army or military as a whole? In terms of the army, a two-hundred thousand figure is itself fanciful due to a multitude of reasons.

We'd be decades off having that figures unless we saw a mass uptake in recruitment and spending, and even then we'd be massively short of equipment.

I mentioned a few days ago that the BA currently has the equipment to put a maximum if around 40,000 troops in the field, with the effective figure much less.

We've shrunk the number of permanent defence bases (e.g. beds); the stocks of personal equipment has been reduced; in terms of armour, k'in ell it's tragic.

Many regiments have been amalgamated and lost, with countless battalions disappearing as part of the efficiency reforms.

In short, the army is less than half what it was in '89 when you consider the number of regulars.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Are we talking about the army or military as a whole? In terms of the army, a two-hundred thousand figure is itself fanciful due to a multitude of reasons.

We'd be decades off having that figures unless we saw a mass uptake in recruitment and spending, and even then we'd be massively short of equipment.

I mentioned a few days ago that the BA currently has the equipment to put a maximum if around 40,000 troops in the field, with the effective figure much less.

We've shrunk the number of permanent defence bases (e.g. beds); the stocks of personal equipment has been reduced; in terms of armour, k'in ell it's tragic.

Many regiments have been amalgamated and lost, with countless battalions disappearing as part of the efficiency reforms.

In short, the army is less than half what it was in '89 when you consider the number of regulars.

If I think back to the 80’s and the cold war we had a standing army of over 300k. Given that we are now in the midst of a new Cold War a standing army ( and I’m talking Army not military) of approx 200k is not unrealistic.

As you pointed out, decades of managed decline see us at the figures we are today. So only a major change of policy and vision is required. It will take years to achieve but given the current and future threats we face then we must reverse any planned cuts to the army and start investing in its future.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Time will tell. If there is very strong resistance then the Russians might think twice. A few retaliatory strikes on military infrastructure within Russia might be useful now to turn opinion against the war.

Asked this to pro Russian poster living in the US, the response I ve got...

"Putin is always open to peace agreement, but only to one that takes into account Russian nearest plans.
You know, I told this many times. Putin does not really negotiate. His current offer is the best one you are ever going to get. The next ones will be increasingly worse.
Before February 24 the war probably could have been averted by conceding Crimea, LDNR, constitutional neutrality, making Russian the second official language and lifting all sanctions.
Now probably - I am guessing, it would be the same plus all Donbass, including western Donetsk parts currently controlled by Ukraine plus whatever is on Russian side of frontline now ( meaning Kherson oblast' and 60+ % of Zaporozhie oblast ). Of course, Ukraine would not consider that at this point.
In a couple of months, when the rest of Donetsk oblast are taken by Russia, the terms would include the rest of Zaporozhie.
And so on. At some point Ukrainians will no longer have choice.
As I said, realistically one of two events need to happen for real chance for peace - at least one of current leaders of Russia or Ukraine needs to go. These two will never agree."

 

[PhilM]

If I think back to the 80’s and the cold war we had a standing army of over 300k. Given that we are now in the midst of a new Cold War a standing army ( and I’m talking Army not military) of approx 200k is not unrealistic.

As you pointed out, decades of managed decline see us at the figures we are today. So only a major change of policy and vision is required. It will take years to achieve but given the current and future threats we face then we must reverse any planned cuts to the army and start investing in its future.

Although I'd always advocate a larger force, I simply don't think it's realistic when you consider the current political agenda - the ol' zeitgist.
The last time the army had 200,000 men was 1961, with a steady decline to '89 with just less than 160,000. By '97, less than ten years later, we were at 100k.

In 1989, military spending was over 4% of GDP whereas now we're struggling to get to the 2.5% promised, with a massive shortfall in suitable equipment.

Fanciful may not have been the correct word - no offence was intended - but rather I meant I simply can't see those in Whitehall pushing for it.

The spending required would be huge and the malaise of the past thirty years means we're way behind where we should be; politically, they've accepted it.

The days of the British Army being a formidable beast are going - we're a reactionary force. God, we have the ammunition for thirty days and that's it.

 

[Yarrgh]

Asked this to pro Russian poster living in the US, the response I ve got...

"Putin is always open to peace agreement, but only to one that takes into account Russian nearest plans.
You know, I told this many times. Putin does not really negotiate. His current offer is the best one you are ever going to get. The next ones will be increasingly worse.
Before February 24 the war probably could have been averted by conceding Crimea, LDNR, constitutional neutrality, making Russian the second official language and lifting all sanctions.
Now probably - I am guessing, it would be the same plus all Donbass, including western Donetsk parts currently controlled by Ukraine plus whatever is on Russian side of frontline now ( meaning Kherson oblast' and 60+ % of Zaporozhie oblast ). Of course, Ukraine would not consider that at this point.
In a couple of months, when the rest of Donetsk oblast are taken by Russia, the terms would include the rest of Zaporozhie.
And so on. At some point Ukrainians will no longer have choice.
As I said, realistically one of two events need to happen for real chance for peace - at least one of current leaders of Russia or Ukraine needs to go. These two will never agree."

I think he's probably correct

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Although I'd always advocate a larger force, I simply don't think it's realistic when you consider the current political agenda - the ol' zeitgist.
The last time the army had 200,000 men was 1961, with a steady decline to '89 with just less than 160,000. By '97, less than ten years later, we were at 100k.

In 1989, military spending was over 4% of GDP whereas now we're struggling to get to the 2.5% promised, with a massive shortfall in suitable equipment.

Fanciful may not have been the correct word - no offence was intended - but rather I meant I simply can't see those in Whitehall pushing for it.

The spending required would be huge and the malaise of the past thirty years means we're way behind where we should be; politically, they've accepted it.

The days of the British Army being a formidable beast are going - we're a reactionary force. God, we have the ammunition for thirty days and that's it.

As you say a GDP spend of anything approaching 4% on defence is way over the hill atm.

I think though that defence planning (Ammo reserves etc) is a big takeaway for us from the war in Ukraine. I would expect a major strategic review of our armed forces capability in the very near future and if we don’t radically change our path then we will be in big trouble.

I also think the army have been outmanoeuvred in Whitehall by the Navy and RAF when it comes to defence reviews. I mean do we really need 2 aircraft carriers? We can’t crew or support two carrier battle groups at any one time.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Although I'd always advocate a larger force, I simply don't think it's realistic when you consider the current political agenda - the ol' zeitgist.
The last time the army had 200,000 men was 1961, with a steady decline to '89 with just less than 160,000. By '97, less than ten years later, we were at 100k.

In 1989, military spending was over 4% of GDP whereas now we're struggling to get to the 2.5% promised, with a massive shortfall in suitable equipment.

Fanciful may not have been the correct word - no offence was intended - but rather I meant I simply can't see those in Whitehall pushing for it.

The spending required would be huge and the malaise of the past thirty years means we're way behind where we should be; politically, they've accepted it.

The days of the British Army being a formidable beast are going - we're a reactionary force. God, we have the ammunition for thirty days and that's it.

 

[devogue]

Analysis on current stage of the war from a pro-Russian source from the LPR.

 

[davids]

Sad to see another city taken by Russia,just means a longer war with more civilian deaths to meet the aims of the Nato politicians insisting the war can only end when Russia is expelled from the Crimea.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Sad to see

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Sad to see another city taken by Russia,just means a longer war with more civilian deaths to meet the aims of the Nato politicians insisting the war can only end when Russia is expelled from the Crimea.

Jesus christ

 

[davids]

Jesus christ

So successive visiting EU and Nato heads of state haven't promised Ukraine military aid until that aim is met?

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

So successive visiting EU and Nato heads of state haven't promised Ukraine military aid until that aim is met?

It is what Zelenskiy wants not NATO "politicians"

 

[jaspercabbage]

Sad to see another city taken by Russia,just means a longer war with more civilian deaths to meet the aims of the Nato politicians insisting the war can only end when Russia is expelled from the Crimea.

SAD? I'm sure you w@nked yourself dry.

 

[PhilM]

As you say a GDP spend of anything approaching 4% on defence is way over the hill atm.

I think though that defence planning (Ammo reserves etc) is a big takeaway for us from the war in Ukraine. I would expect a major strategic review of our armed forces capability in the very near future and if we don’t radically change our path then we will be in big trouble.

I also think the army have been outmanoeuvred in Whitehall by the Navy and RAF when it comes to defence reviews. I mean do we really need 2 aircraft carriers? We can’t crew or support two carrier battle groups at any one time.

A difficult one to answer as in the future we may need aircraft carriers if China becomes the global thread. Also, we've moved away from boots on the ground.

The main thing is its a projection of power on if we're going to police states or deal with global terrorism, which was deemed the key threat, you need air power.

This is where the carriers come to play, yet as you mention we're way off actually being able to field them properly with the Type 45s still struggling with turbines.

Already, the number of Type 26s and 31s probably won't be enough what they've either promised or desired, so there's questions on how they'll be deployed.

But let's get back the point at hand - the army. We've got ageing and dwindling numbers of tanks; the Warrior IFV need replacing and that looks jeopardised.

How many rounds for the L118 do you think we have? I'll tell you.. not enough.