UK Defence Forum

Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 pictured sailing in formation in the North Sea:


From foreground to background, left to right:
FGS Rhoen
ESPS Juan de Borbón
HMS Duncan
FGS Ludwigshafen
NRP Alvares Cabral

Source: https://twitter.com/NATO_MARCOM/status/ ... 7008916480

Edit:


https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/ ... 6107179008


https://twitter.com/NATO_MARCOM/status/ ... 5347945472

Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 in Devonport over the weekend:

http://forces.tv/89920372

NATO ships set sail from Plymouth

A group of NATO warships have set off from Plymouth following a four-day visit to the city.

The Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, comprising ships from the Royal Navy, the Spanish and Portuguese navies and a German auxiliary tanker, berthed in HM Naval Base, berthed in Devonport last week.

The group will now sail to a European port after completing training in Plymouth. The crews are also planning a Christmas break, while remaining on short-notice for tasking.

The crews of HMS Duncan, FGS Rhoen (German Navy), NRP Alvares Cabral (Portugese Navy) and the flagship ESPS Almirante Juan de Borbon (Spanish Navy), met senior naval officers and Plymouth civic leaders with formal receptions in the city and on the flagship.

Read more: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/8203-na ... story.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... in-brexit/

France 'aiming to take Nato leadership role from Britain after Brexit'

Even more reason to reassure our Nato allies by increasing the defence budget....

Interesting that the BBC reported it early this morning but is vanished form later news segments. Shows how much defence is rated as news worthy by the PC Elite at the BBC.

I doubt the author of the Torygraph piece knows much about Berlin Plus agreements, making the connection to the n;o 2 commander post
- may be someone checked?

Todays meeting would be the perfect opportunity to announce increased defence spending to demonstrate our commitment to Nato, the central and Eastern European states and to pressure other European Nato members to pay their way....will it happen???

Yes.

Why do you think we padded up the numbers after the NATO Wales gettogether
- to be able to bang the drum?
- and I am all for it

BTW: Poland and Lithuania are well on track, the latter aiming for 2.4-2.5%
Then there are the laggards: UK, Estonia, where is France these days(?); Greece not counted as they and Turkey have rather different reasons for the high expenditure
And then the rest of the "bunch"...

Well Hammond will have the headroom for it now that he has significantly increased GDP forecasts for 2017-2018 (and 2016 finished stronger too) so if HMG is going to increase funding in next month's budget, we would surely get an indication of it this morning...so fingers crossed...(for a real increase not Cameron/Osborne style fiddling of the numbers)

Heh-heh,

the £6.4 bn allocation, found from he back of the sofa, will then shrink accordingly.

dmereifield wrote:Todays meeting would be the perfect opportunity to announce increased defence spending to demonstrate our commitment to Nato, the central and Eastern European states and to pressure other European Nato members to pay their way....will it happen???

Just a little taster, from a Minister within the Cabinet:
" it is in our interest and Europe’s to keep NATO strong and to deter and dissuade Russia from this course.

It hopes to stay below the threshold for response.

But we must be clear-eyed in exposing its actions and calling on all NATO members to recommit to strengthening our collective defence.

It’s vital we demonstrate NATO is as essential to peace now as it was then. President Trump is 100% backing NATO and Europe needs show that it does too. 19 of the 28 EU member states don’t spend 1.5% of GDP on defence; five (and by no means the poorest five) don’t spend 1%. After we leave, EU counties will pay only 20% of NATO’s bills.

So he is right to challenge NATO to raise its game. All members need to step up to ensure NATO fulfils its role as the cornerstone of the West’s defence as effectively as possible.

That means, not five, but all members making a step change by meeting the 2 per cent commitment. We’re doing that, others need to too."

I am all for pushing all NATO members to increase their defence spending to a minimum of 2% of GDP but it is a bit rich for us to try to take the high ground as we actually spend far less than 2% on ACTUAL defence. The much talked about padding would be a good subject for a FOI request but I doubt anything would be forth coming. Again I am all fro other security areas to be covered by the Defence budget and therefore included but the money needs to come with the responsibilities from the Home Office and so on, all of it.

There seems to be some kind of tie-up developing between the Syria and Ukraine situations.

The cease fire in the SW of Syria was part of the PR from the G20 (I am sure the other 18 were happy to meet with Ivanka) and immediately afterwards Tillerson went to Ukraine, whereto the ex US NATO ambassador has been named as a special representative to follow up with those (yes, plural) cease fire agreements
- Ukraine has managed to stabilise its mix of pros (when this all started they had gone all pro) and conscripts and is able to rotate 3 bdes through the flash point areas on a continuous basis
- they are very concerned about the strength of Soviet formations that will turn up on their Belo Russian border in the context of Zapad 17, drawing their own troops North, away from those areas where a delicate balance has been achieved
- hence, Kurt Volker sent onto the scene. The OSCE mission (SMM) continues to provide "boots" on the ground, but seems to have been stuck (hamster like) in what they call "a key instrument for early warning, conflict prevention and resolution, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation, also called the “conflict cycle.” ["] The faster the mission runs, the more the factors outside their control seem to perpetuate the situation as it is

Tillerson's arrival seemed to be a very relaxed matter: after receiving the welcomes from three pretty girls, he resumed chewing his gum (while getting into the armoured Suburban, to be driven away)
- Harrison Ford was in the back of one of those in the "Mission in Colombia" film; they did not seem RPG proof (may be that's just Hollywod?).

And half-way between Syria and Ukraine, one NATO members standing is getting wobbly:
"[German Foreign Minister] Gabriel said that Germans traveling to Turkey were incurring "risks," and the ministry website recommended Germans should exercise "heightened caution" when visiting Turkey since "consular access" to Germans detained in Turkey had been "restricted in violation of the obligations of international law."

Read more: Germany reviews export credits to Turkey over blacklisted firms

Gabriel said that the measures were being taken after consulting with both conservative chancellor Angela Merkel and Social Democratic chairman and chancellor candidate Martin Schulz."
- difficult to handle with so many Turkish people in the country, and with voting rights in the coming election
- so every step agreed on a cross-party basis, to avoid "this" becoming an election issue

The quote is from DW (saves using google translate with the main papers)

Turkey's position is getting far worse than just wobbly. They no longer have any chance of joining the EU and if the US didn't need the air base in Turkey of operation in Syria and Iraq it would be even worse. The country's Government is no longer committed to NATO but rather to its own standing in the region. It can no longer be termed a secular country under its current leadership and it sees itself as becoming the dominant power in that region. It knows it has the EU over a barrel with the migrant issue, and is happy to play its elations with Russia off against those with NATO. In fact NATO would do better to invite Israel to join and kick out Turkey based on common interests.

LordJim wrote:It can no longer be termed a secular country under its current leadership and it sees itself as becoming the dominant power in that region. It knows it has the EU over a barrel with the migrant issue, and is happy to play its elations with Russia off against those with NATO.

Quite an accurate description. Let's remember that the common market access deal is v favourable to Turkey (both sides have since long recognised that out of the 50+ chapters for membership negotiations TO START and Turkey will need to "tick the box" ONE has been completed, 20% permanently blocked by some current members subject to specific grievances, must say though that micro-issues realting to Cyprus etc), so letting them fall onto the WTO terms by removing that treaty would kick the stool from under the Turkish economy. However, this would be punishing the 50% of the population who just wish Erdogan away.

According to a confidential report, NATO would not be able to cope with a possible Russian aggression.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 73947.html

Is anyone surprised.

Frenchie wrote:According to a confidential report, NATO would not be able to cope with a possible Russian aggression.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 73947.html

So, a 3-4:1 superiority in number of soldiers, tanks, aircraft etc. isn't enough?

Not if you cannot get the troops etc. where they are needed, when they are needed and then support them.

Well NATO has a new member/partner............. they must be taking advantage to open new markets for there product

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colo ... SKCN1IR0E8

So now NATO will protect their supply lines to Europe in wartime.

Frenchie wrote:According to a confidential report, NATO would not be able to cope with a possible Russian aggression.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 73947.html

That Oct 2017 piece was to prepare the political ground (in Germany, mainly) for the signing of the "military Schengen" agreement.

In the below, though, there is the N.Atlantic piece which is still WIP (nothing heard of such new US Command, exc. the reactivation of the Atlantic Fleet) feeding into the priorities of our MDP and NATO large scale excercises in the next Qrtr+.

"The provision of supplies must likewise be reorganized, a need that has led to a proposal to establish two new command posts with a total staff of 2,000. A new maritime command in the U.S., modeled after the Supreme Allied Command in the Cold War, is to organize the safe passage of soldiers and materiel to Europe. The sea route, many high-ranking NATO officers believe, could prove to be the alliance's Achilles heel in a worst-case scenario. In classified meetings focused on command reform, analysts have warned that Russian submarines are present in the Atlantic, though they go largely undetected. Attacks on NATO troop convoys could hardly be defended against as things currently stand.

But the distribution of supplies in Europe is also problematic, a concern that an additional command is to address. Its task would be that of planning and safeguarding logistics between Central Europe and NATO member states to the east. The hope is to ensure mobility and to better protect areas west of the alliance's outer border. While the concept may sound rather technical, it is actually nothing less than the rebirth of the mobilization concept adhered to during the Cold War."

Finally some progress. However, NATO's military command need to be given back some of its authority it lost after the end of the Cold War. IF they have to wait of the "Committee", before they can do anything things will happen too fast for NATO forces to react. Mind you Germany especially won't like this idea.

When there is the will, there is a way:
https://www.statista.com/chart/6626/def ... ic-states/