Kateryna Girnyk18:16, 05/28/24
European generals are worried that the British army will not be able to help in the fight against Russia if the conflict starts.
European generals and diplomats are worried about Britain’s shrinking military and whether it is big enough to face a “high-intensity” conflict.
According to The Times , the British government has announced that it will reduce the army from 82,000 to 73,000 by 2025, which will be the smallest figure since Napoleon. That goal is already almost reached, with the army standing at 73,190 as more soldiers are leaving the army than are being recruited.
According to the newspaper, senior American generals have previously questioned Britain’s status as a top-level combatant and warned that Britain can no longer rely on the United States to fill gaps in its capabilities. Now several senior European figures have expressed fears that the army will not be large enough to help fight Russia if a conflict breaks out.
“There are concerns about the British army. We see that they are facing difficulties in terms of human resources as well as equipment capabilities. The number of soldiers will be reduced in the coming months,” said one European general.
According to the military, there is a problem with the size of all European armies, given that they will have to face Russia in the coming years: “The main problem is the ability of the army to withstand a high-intensity conflict. You have to have mass, you have to have numbers. In Ukraine, you you can see that we must have the mass to fight the Russian army,” they added.
Britain has previously said it could deploy two divisions – the 1st Division, which is the army’s global response arm of more than 30,000, and the 3rd Division, an armored division of roughly the same number.
“However, in reality, members of parliament and military experts warn that Britain will find it difficult to deploy a combat division as planned due to a lack of resources. Its army is believed to lack such important capabilities as artillery and air defense,” The Times notes.
Ministers and military chiefs previously ignored the size of the army, saying that its efficiency and availability were more important. However, one European diplomat said that “mobility is a key factor, but size certainly matters.”
The threat of war between the EU and Russia
Earlier, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that against the background of the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and the repeated threats of the ruler of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, the European Union should prepare for a possible war and take measures for joint armaments.
In April, The Times wrote that the storm of war is approaching Europe . If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, there are fears that Putin will continue to invade neighboring EU states.
(C)UNIAN 2024
Thats really a low number. Sounds only the Home Guard of Captain Mainwaring stands.
France Army 165.000 soldiers, with 100.000 gendarmerie, 265.000. To compair………….
Partly deployed to New Caledonia…
Not sure about your figures for France.
According to Wiki, it’s 118,600 active personnel, plus 23,000 reserve.
Yes it’s piss poor.
We were able to send 50,000 combat troops to Korea and another 50,000 to both Gulf wars in more recent times.
In the 1950’s and 60’s there were more than 50,000 British troops in Germany alone; “The Army of the Rhine.” It was a formidable force; armed with tactical nukes. At that time total numbers were 350,000; down from 3.5 million in WW2.
It has been stripped down to an absurdly small level now. However, there is also the navy’s Royal Marines; elite commandos; c. 7500 soldiers, plus Special Forces such as the SAS, SBS etc, about 5000. Also 5000 Gurkhas and 30,000 reserves.
We need to get back to 300,000 regulars in double quick time; as the Poles are.
If elected, Rishi will bring back compulsory national service, which I’d say is essential.
Interestingly, British teenagers when polled were quite warm to the idea.
I am not against compulsary service, in fact I am in favour. But whether this is useful is always very questionable, as it is a huge drain on resources, as you spend a lot of money paying and training people that will be gone in 6 months. And this will also take the time of regular forces that are scarse.
Also, with conscription you also take in a lot of people not really fit for the army, that you will nevertheless need to train.
In the UK’s case, I think it might be more efficient to spend the money on more contract soldiers.
Conscription is a good thing as you will have a more combat ready population in case of a big war, but it will be at the expense of an already very small regular army.
When we ended national service in (I think) 1960, Britain was a fully militarised society, spending 6% of GDP on defence, 350,000 combat troops and a much larger navy and airforce than we have now.
We have to get back to those days now in light of putler’s satanic ambitions.
As happened then, a lot of young lads in future will discover that they actually have skills and attributes that are a good fit for service life.
Militarising the country is great for the economy; it creates enormous opportunities in ancillary work.
Not good…
And this is taking Great Britain’s military industrial base and military to a “war footing”???? Well I guess this is another reason Putin is smiling so much in public now.
As I have commented on other posts, Europe after one fall of the USSR declared an end to history and stripped their militaries to essentially nothing, relying on the US military and free loading on the US taxpayer. They took the resulting “peace dividend” and spent it on bloated social programs. Now they literally cannot afford to continue their existing social programs and provide any sort of serious military to defend the selves and their allies.
Here we are ten years after Russia took over Crimea and Great Britain( who compared to others at least did their best to retain some serious military capability) are down to this joke of an army.
God help us all.