NATO’s plan to vastly increase its forward force is wishful thinking, and the UK’s struggle for military relevance is a perfect case in point. London is falling and Britain’s military decline exposes NATO’s collapse in credibility and capability.

The secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Jens Stoltenberg, recently announced the US-led military bloc’s goal of expanding its so-called ‘Response Force’ from its current strength of 40,000 to a force of more than 300,000 troops.

https://i0.wp.com/camaraderielimited.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/skynews-jens-stoltenberg-jens-stoltenberg-nato_4757153-850x491.jpg?resize=696%2C402&ssl=1

We will enhance our battle groups in the eastern part of the Alliance up to brigade-levels, Stoltenberg declared. We will transform the NATO Response Force and increase the number of our high readiness forces to well over 300,000.

The announcement, made at the end of NATO’s annual summit, held in Madrid, Spain, apparently took several defense officials from the NATO membership by surprise, with one such official calling Stoltenberg’s figures number magic.

Stoltenberg appeared to be working from a concept that had been developed within NATO headquarters based upon assumptions made by his staffers, as opposed to anything resembling coordinated policy among the defense organizations of the 30 nations that make up the bloc.

https://i0.wp.com/newsmedia.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cbc17082735d7bf024837be6b4656b75-1024x625.jpg?resize=696%2C425&ssl=1

Confusion is the name of the game at NATO these days, with the alliance still reeling from last year’s Afghan debacle and unable to adequately disguise the impotence shown in the face of Russia’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine.

The bloc is but a shadow of its former self, a pathetic collection of under-funded military organizations more suited for the parade ground than the battlefield.

No military organization more represents this colossal collapse in credibility and capability than the British Army. Even before the current Ukraine crisis kicked off, the British military served more as an object of derision than a template of professionalism.

https://i0.wp.com/www.expressandstar.com/resizer/H5sPrOUXetszUI7UMgXYI7UqABk=/1200x0/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mna/JQFSQ5KLAVEANFM76FXYPRBF2Y.jpg?w=696&ssl=1

Take, by way of example, the visit of UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace to Zagreb, Croatia in early February 2022.

Croatian President Zoran Milanovic accused the British of trying to incite Ukraine into a war with Russia, as opposed to trying to address Russia’s concerns over the existing European security framework.

Wallace flew to Zagreb for consultations, only to be rebuked by Milanovic, who refused to meet with him, noting that he only met with the defense ministers of superpowers, adding that the UK has left the EU, and this gives it less importance.

https://i0.wp.com/air.euro2day.gr/media/resizedpics/picsMain930/13/1479913-ustoops-east-930-2.jpg?w=696&ssl=1

But London keeps putting a brave face on a sorry reality. Take, for example, the offer of written security assurances to Sweden and Finland made by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

These pledges were designed to bolster the resolve of the two Nordic nations as they considered their applications to join NATO.

But there was no substance to the British offer, if for no other reason than the British had nothing in the way of viable military capability to offer either the Swedes or the Finns.

https://i0.wp.com/mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-enlargement-of-NATO-1949-2018.png?w=696&ssl=1

Even as Johnson proffered the proverbial hand of assistance to his newfound Nordic allies, the UK Ministry of Defense was wrestling with planned force reductions that would see the British Army cut from its current established strength of 82,000 to 72,500 by 2025.

The actual strength of the British Army is around 76,500, reflecting ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention.

Even these numbers are misleading – the British Army is only capable of generating one fully combat-ready maneuver brigade of 3,500 to 4,000 men with all the necessary equipment and support.

https://i0.wp.com/images.thestar.com/uqoFa-Hdf9Vj9Pzev7lc8zYX5hU=/1200x793/smart/filters:cb(2700061000)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2012/05/18/walkom_after_afghanistan_failure_nato_should_scale_back_or_call_it_quits/natoflags.jpeg?w=696&ssl=1

The reality is that the UK is already on the hook for a reinforced battalion-sized battle group that is to be deployed to Estonia as part of NATO’s so-called enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) posture.

The British military is joining three other similarly-sized battle groups fielded by the USA in Poland, Germany in Lithuania, and Canada in Latvia, it is questionable whether the British could even accomplish this limited task.

Given what we now know about the reality of modern warfare, courtesy of the ongoing Russian operation in Ukraine, the British battle group would have a life expectancy on an actual European battlefield of less than a week.

https://i0.wp.com/i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/e1/ca/d9e1ca46834ff58daf27d102a7bf019f.jpg?w=696&ssl=1

Artillery is the king of battle, and the British and Estonians are lacking when it comes to generating anywhere near enough tubes to counter the overwhelming fire support expected to be generated by any hostile Russian force.

Stoltenberg’s hypothetical 300,000-strong Response Force envisions the existing battle groups to be expanded to brigade-sized formations, ironically tasking the British to generate more combat power at a time when it is actively seeking to reduce its overall manpower levels.

There would literally be nothing left to back up Boris Johnson’s bold offer of substantive military assistance to Sweden and Finland, leaving the British prime minister looking more like the captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, issuing directives and acting as if his words had any impact, all while his ship is sinking.

RT. com / ABC Flash Point News 2022.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Layton
Larry Layton
Member
18-07-22 11:01

NATO Countries have used their membership of NATO to justifiy reducing their Armed Forces based on the assumption that if one is attacked, we all pull together – but what hasn’t been taken into account by Jens Stoltenberg is the immense waste and destruction of stability in the World – thanks to NATO, and the false sense of Security it brings.

Valkry
Valkry
Member
Reply to  Larry Layton
18-07-22 11:04

comment image

UK Sinister Development
UK Sinister Development
Member
18-07-22 11:02

Statista show that British Armed Forces had around 375,000 armed prior to WW1 and 320,000 prior to WW2. In 1962 this figure went from 424,000 down to 320,000 in 1983 and is now about 148,000 in 2022.

Big Wanna
Big Wanna
Member
18-07-22 11:03

All European armies are much the same as UK maybe a bit better but not much.

Donnchadh
Donnchadh
Guest
18-07-22 11:43

The UK,s “days of glory” as a colonial power are far over real life dictates apart from “The City ” its a nearly third world country -totally open -near zero consumer laws ( CA going full time on Facebook ) country being fed cheap and nasty goods via US Big Media/Big Business . The UK Armed Forces current “established strength ” is around 76,000 -the British Army is only capable of generating 1 fully combat-ready “battlegroup ” and has anyone seen the very “woke ” adverts for new recruits–no wonder young men dont want to know and what do they… Read more »

Donnchadh
Donnchadh
Guest
Reply to  baronmaya
20-07-22 16:27

Yes copying America who have downgraded entrance exams so that comparatively uneducated young people can enlist also reading the USCIS.gov/military website foreigners can still gain US Citizenship by enlisting.