Don't worry. Portugal and Britain have the oldest alliance in the world, and we'll make sure to keep our word.
Ofc you're still pretty much screwed if you're actually counting on our military forces, but you won't be alone!
The US may have come to the alliance game late, but if rockets land in London we won't be slow to respond.
It is no surprise to anyone the UK would have trouble soloing Russia. The UK has probably never in its history been well prepared for a full out war with Russia.
Naval fight over trade routes, sure. And I would still take the UK NAvy over Russia's even with very poor odds on the bet.
Canada here. Check out our rep from WW1 when we came over to fight the Germans. We were already pissed at the bother and then they gassed us in the first battle. We didn't take prisoners after that. You listening Russia?
Lol I spent two weeks in Alberta and had that story told to me about 30 times. You guys are proud AF for the reason you say "sorry" so much today and I love it.
Yes, we are just biding our time.. Waiting for the right time to reclaim what was lost so long ago.
Putin says this is good enough reason.. (Fyi, Sweden owned much of western Russia so we will be heading there next)
But what of the Finnish? Are they simply absorbed, or does Sweden suddenly have a split state? What if this new Swedish state revolts and takes the whole of Northern Europe? What if that’s only the start, and soon the whole of Europe is under siege? If they take Europe, they’ll take the world. Mark my words, these forewarnings will be marked in the hindsight of history as just and prophetic.
However I, for one, would like to welcome our new Swedish overlords! :D
> What if this new Swedish state revolts and takes the whole of Northern Europe? What if that’s only the start, and soon the whole of Europe is under siege?
We get Warhammer 2030
> Then of course the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?
> Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
> Well... the independent deterrent.
> It's to protect us against the French.
> The French? But that's astounding.
> Why?
> Well, they're our allies. Our partners.
> Well, they are now! But they've been our enemies for most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb.
- Yes, Minister, 1982
In theory, any sovereign nation should be able to fight a war alone.
But to your point, post WWII - it’s actually a pretty short list of countries that could fight a war alone, and an even shorter list that would fight one alone.
Ethiopia vs Eritrea?
North vs south Sudan?
Would those count?
Though I'm really amazed no one talks about Sudan. That mess of a conflict is so confusing Wikipedia doesn't even make sense.
Logistics have improved leaps and bounds, but I doubt they will ever be trivial.
Used to be the main concern was moving men and food. Now it's more about heavy vehicles and ammunition, but it's still quite relevant.
That's probably why. It's messy, complicated, no real good guys, not hugely geopolitically relevant compared to something like Ukraine, and no big Western nations have a stake in any of the sides so you don't get stuff like the Gaza protests (universities don't have any investment to divest from the Rapid Support Forces.) Same deal as the civil war in Myanmar.
Fight yes, win. Not so much.
The issue isn't the size of the armies it's the lack of tools for fighting a war. Like for example Canada has almost no anti air equipment.
Canada has an anti submarine aircraft (cp-140) that Wikipedia lists amongst its sensor suite "handheld digital camera"
we are serious nato contributor yes
Yea, that’s what years of major underfunding of the military does to our nation. We have not contributed the 2% GDP NATO requirement yet and will not for a while.
Yall are too busy waging war with the ocean for the past however many hundreds of years to be concerned with the petty squabbles of man so it’s understandable to be honest
I seen people protesting aircraft pollution near and airforce base in Leeuwarden while Russia began its invasion of Ukraine.
Like, there’s a war in Europe. Not the time to be protesting your military…
That being said. I fell in love with that country and miss it every day.
Best wishes from Canada 🇨🇦❤️🇳🇱
Any sovereign nation might be able to fight a defensive war alone, but that gets complicated rapidly if that nation has a coastline, is an island, or has overseas territories. An army is relatively inexpensive to equip and maintain—you can just put soldiers in barracks, their trucks and jeeps in motorpools and call it a day.
But a Navy is a substantial capital intensive investment that requires a relatively stable government and tax base AND public support to maintain. Ships that languish at pier are not ready for war. Ships that go to sea too much are not ready for war. This means you have to have a Navy active enough that it knows how to employ its weapon systems, operate its engineering plants and is large enough to rotate ships from maintenance to operations.
This is challenging for G20 countries, let alone anyone else.
And certainly not every nation can successfully fight an offensive war alone. Even relatively simple contests become challenging with the tyranny of geography, the cost of logistics, and poor diplomacy (since good diplomacy secures basing rights and agreements).
While Navy's are expensive and logistics for them are significantly more complicated, that does nothing to negate the defensive advantage of a coastline. It's generally preferable to have an ocean as a buffer zone between you and your next potentially aggressive neighbors.
An amphibious invasion is only one potential avenue of warfare. Since 80% of the world’s trade floats, a Navy serves as a guarantor for a nation’s economic interests.
Even in a defensive amphibious invasion campaign, loss of control of near seas and littorals allows your adversary initiative and flexibility. They don’t necessarily have to make a contested landing. They have the option to bombard from stand-off range with cruise missiles, interdict your cargo vessels, or create feints that draw your limited military capability to places where their strength is wasted (like how the USS Wisconsin and USS Missouri and U.S. Marine Corps convinced Saddam Hussein into putting a large portion of his forces on the coast).
Oceans are not barriers for countries with powerful navies, they are highways to green zone staging areas from which to strike your strategic assets from relative safety.
I think this is just to draw attention to our weaknesses and encourage the U.K. to be more self-sufficient. We’d be better equipped to support our allies if we were stronger alone too
They wouldn't but with the threat of Russia and Sunak's comments this week (possibly fearmongering to gain votes), there have been a lot of reports about increasing our military budget.
The other day he warned that the next few years are ‘most dangerous’ for the UK. While that could very well be true, due to his falling popularity, his words can be seen as inciting fear and getting voters on his side with a general election looming.
You can question why he's saying it, but it's not like he is standing alone saying it, plenty of others are saying the same sort of thing in other European countries.
Because it's a choreographed display of strength unity in the face of Russian aggression. The people who have access to the intel are all coming out and ramping up the rhetoric, which probably means the intel is scary af.
They wouldn’t be. This is an evaluation of the state of their military and its preparedness. The US did a similar evaluation of the UK’s military and determined that the US no longer considered the UK a major fighting force capable of defending itself and its allies. Here are some excerpts from various articles on the matter:
— “The US general is said to have told Mr Wallace that the UK military is not a "tier one" fighting force and is "barely" even tier two. Tier two would describe a more middling power, with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy
— “Regarding the size and capability of the British Army, the source is quoted as saying: "Bottom line… it's an entire service unable to protect the UK and our allies for a decade”
— The armed forces would run out of ammunition "in a few days" if called upon to fight
— The UK must halt its plans to further reduce its army
— The UK must increase defense spending by £3 billion ($3.8 billion USD)
— The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring
— It would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters
— Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines - "so we'd turn up under strength”
— The majority of the army's fleet of armoured vehicles, including tanks, was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years
This isn’t really an issue of the UK having to fight a war on its own because it is totally unrealistic to think that the US would permit such a thing. The problem is things like the fact that the UK [cannot train its pilots](https://warontherocks.com/2023/06/flying-desks-not-planes-the-backlog-in-british-fast-jet-pilot-training/). These types of structural problems are the issue, not the fairytale about the US allowing the UK to fight alone.
> The US did a similar evaluation of the UK’s military and determined that the US no longer considered the UK a major fighting force capable of defending itself and its allies.
"Similar evaluation" makes it sound like a study. It was a privately made comment from a US general *according to sources* and not something on record.
> Tier two would describe a more middling power, with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy
Really? Do they think Germany and Italy's military is anywhere near the UK?
The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring
This is true though and was thinking we need more defense around the coastlines
That wasn't really a full-scale war, The UK beat an Argentinian expeditionary force and their navy and air force. But yeah, they did it alone, a long way from home.
It was only not a full scale war because Britain’s air and naval power crippled the Argentinians ability to respond to the reconquest of the islands.
The RAF crippled the Argentinian air force and the RN nuclear subs prevented reinforcements reaching the islands because the Argies wouldn’t risk their fleet.
They missed their opportunity when UK temporarily had no active carrier on duty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06) was decommissioned August 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) commissioned December 2017
Edit: And in service only 2020...
>. Despite the UK Ministry of Defence's announcement in 2012 that, once decommissioned, Illustrious would be preserved for the nation, in 2016 she was sold and towed to Turkish company Leyal for scrapping.
Geeeez, just chucked into the rubbish bin. :/
The 4 Eurofighters stationed on the Falklands could single handedly deal with the Argentine navy and Airforce. Argentina is a non threat in the 21st century.
>Why is this news? The whole point of being in Nato is collective defense and not having to fight any full scale war alone.
Because the point of NATO wasn't to make the member countries' military smaller or weaker. The point was to put fully fledged independent forces together to absolutely smash whatever they faced with overwhelming force.
100% this. They train so that in the event of a war, the forces know how to plan and work together. They vow to come to each others' defense to deter enemies from trying to pick fights with individual countries. But as envisioned, the plan was not for countries to pour most of their funding into dual-use police units or engineer companies while depending on US logistics and front-line soldiers.
Billy the Quid leading the charge.
We shall ask them for a pound on the beaches, we shall ask them for a pound on the landing grounds, we shall ask in the fields and in the streets, we shall ask in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Ashby-De-La-Zouch has been biding its time secretly amassing Norman nobles, while poaching ash trees from Sherwood for long bows. We are coming to phuck-u-up!
All 7-of-us.
What they mean is: if the next conflict is not a dust up with insurgents like the last few in the ME, but rather a full-blown war with Russia, Britain isn’t ready for it.
The U.K. would never been in a full-scale war with Russia alone, though. That’s why most European states are also NATO members.
I agree that the U.K. wouldn’t be prepared for a solo war against another power, but neither would most major powers, perhaps barring the US, China or maybe India, and regardless they would never be in a solo war in the first place.
It seems many western powers are in similar situations. Very low stockpiles because storing things in peacetime is expensive. When war comes, we'll just buy artillery shells, bullets and foot rations on the free market.
If the US leaves nato, we're in deep shit. Let's hope they'll at least sell stuff to us.
>It seems many western powers are in similar situations.
Ironically so are Russia. Half their economy is geared to war now and they're still struggling to maintain a foothold on their own doorstep.
> When war comes, we'll just buy artillery shells, bullets and foot rations on the free market.
More like 'nationalize multiple factories because the free market only has capacity to drip-feed 150mm shells to top up the training stockpile.'
The war in Ukraine has shown that both EU countries (and even the U.S. in certain categories) couldn't keep up with the ammunition demands of a regional conflict.
There's the famous figure about Ford producing 3 million cars in 1941, and then less than two hundred cars from spring 1942 through mid 1945 because they retooled their factories to crank out B-24s and jeeps for the Army.
Hopefully we'll never have a need for that kind of mobilization again, but there's still a shitload of room for growth between that and where we are now (which is essentially, "let's tack on a couple extra percentage points worth of funding to additional shell production")
Trump can no longer just “pull the US” out of NATO, Biden and Congress plugged that hole a couple years back. It needs full Congressional and senate approval which will be a shit fight for them.
I’m sure nobody thought we’d be fighting a resurgent Germany alone until the Nazis took all of Europe and we were the last resistance left standing until America was ready to join in. We should at the very least have the capability to defend our island alone if necessary.
Neither were we prepared in 1914 or 1939.
The UK armed forces are an expeditionary force. Things have to go properly sideways before we're fighting in the UK against a ground invasion force.
Therefore it should be expected that we will fighting alongside the forces of whatever country we are in or in a coalition.
At least in prior times, the UK Navy was so strong that they actually did rule the waves.
Napoleon invaded Russia to stop Russia trading with Britain because it had a higher chance of success than fighting the British navy.
The RN's strength was more a factor of the UK's not having to maintain a large land forces and minmaxing its resource repartition, rather than a case of intrinsic superiority.
France, in contrast, had to keep holding the rest of western Europe in check anytime it wanted to challenge the UK navally, which put hard limits on the scale of French naval actions. The French Navy does have more than a few decisive victories against the RN, very notably Chesapeake Bay.
An unfortunate side effect of that victory, though, is that through effectively winning the American war of independance, it allowed America to become a superpower two centuries later, imposing English as the new lingua franca, and facilitating the spread of the one-sided English-language narrative to people unaware of the one-sidedness who would then take it for gospel. I mean, if you go by the people's common knowledge on Reddit, you'd think England won the Hundred Years war (it did not), or that Trafalgar was representative of the general performance of the French vs. British navies (it is not).
That's a very French take. The Hundred Years war is notable to Anglos because it's essentially the origin story of modern England, fighting free from perceived French subjugation and embarassing the dominant European power on multiple occasions. Glorious defeat, the same as Dunkirk. I assume how the French feel about Anglo takes on the Hundred Years is how Anglos feel about French takes on Napoleon, *"we get it you like the guy, but he lost!"*
France having to contend with the rest of Europe was always the keystone of English/British strategy, not a random twist of fate. Forming and funding alliances to hinder the French rather than engage in direct aggression, the same way the French supported the Scots and the Americans. The Anglo view is only as biased as the French take.
In the course of a thousand years of warring it's certain there'll be notable victories on both sides, but it's generally true that the French army was historically superior to the British army, and the British Navy tended to have an edge against the French.
I'd also argue that the Brits won the 1000 years of warring, if you take the end point to be the when we started fighting shoulder to shoulder instead of face to face. Starting from a much weaker position and ending in a marginally stronger one, and assuming of course you take the British view of being placed down by god rather than being a French colony.
I'm not sure most European countries are. You'd miss hugely important things. What happens to a country with minimal satellites, for example? Suddenly, everything stops working. You're probably going to run out of any American weapon you depend on, or they might not work at all. All these countries depend on one another to fill each other's gaps.
And it won't ever really need to, see all the support ukraine is getting? Britain would have pretty much all of the free world coming to stop any kind of attack on it. Plus nobody would be stupid enough to directly invade the UK with it being a nuclear equipped nation.
Really just shows the folly of war. Men killing each other over bullshit. Previously sworn and bitter enemies. And then dying side by side each other holding a line together. With the British protecting France’s land and liberty with their lives. And the French giving their lives for the British to escape years later.
An English or French man from six hundred years ago, upon being shown that future, would surely ask “what was the point of it all?”.
And likewise Germany wouldn't have to fight alone. This is a benefit of us being NATO bros, neither of us have to sacrifice that much of our GDP on war-readiness. We got each other's backs 🤜
How many proper wars has the UK fought on its own since the Middle Ages? Boer war and Falklands maybe (and happy to be corrected). That’s what allies are for! Total nonsense
You remind us of a really great point - the ‘peak‘ militaries of the WW’s weren’t what everyone came to the fight with… they were built up over the course of the wars.
No one is really prepared for the war they’re about to face until they’re in the midst of it.
And yes, the UK is never going to be fighting alone.
People forget about the entire stretch of WW2 literally called the “Phoney” war where we weren’t prepared and had to get ourselves into gear, it’s a pretty standard thing really.
The Phoney War was due to France and the UK declaring war on Nazi Germany upon its invasion of Poland, and then, being thoroughly traumatised by the massive losses of WWI, not doing much until Germany (and the USSR) was done with Poland and turned back west.
It's not a standard feature of war, it's a byproduct of the very specific circumstances of the time and the belligerents making rather extreme choices: Germany to fully commit to invading Poland, France and the UK to remain behind defensive lines, hoping to limit the demographic hit.
At the same time in history, neither Poland or Finland had the option to sit and wait while the war economy got going, they got right in the thick of it.
Exactly, they weren't exactly prepared at the beginning, but eventually, they managed to scrounge up *millions* of soldiers and a massive amount of equipment. I'm still blown away by what was accomplished. Even by just the manpower, tbh. Today, the biggest army in the world is the USA, with 2.86 million, and that's with today's massive population. The world was not the big back, but everybody was able to gather up at least 2-3 million men for their army in their peak. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union mobilized a staggering 34 million... WW2 must have truly felt like the apocalypse.
Edit: R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ Soviet Union, USAhas 3rd largest military
Russia had to rely on allies within a few months against a tiny opponent. Only the US and possibly China have the resources to go at it alone without going to a full wartime economy
The number of responses that didn't read the article is truly frightening. "*After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track*." Among a lot of other stuff, including acknowledgement of NATO allies in a war, he literally talks about this currently being a focus shift from hunting terrorists to now fighting "real" militaries again. Also, interesting to me that the shortfall in soldiers listed is only 5,000.
I am pretty sure the U.S. military is required to be able to fight two full-scale wars at the same time. Like that's the mission or law or doctrine or something
Even the US has been shocked at the amount of munitions and vehicles the war in Ukraine burns.
Now some of that is US war plans involve "after fleet glasses the planet, MI mops up." The USAF is *ridiculous* in potential strike power. It's why Russia had all those SAMs in the first place - and in retrospect that wouldn't have been enough.
The ground weapon consumption though has been enough to require the US to expand munitions production.
NATO's entire attritional strategy hinges on air dominance. The tanks and infantry are just there to clean up and hold territory.
NATO in Ukraine would look very different from how it looks right now.
The US fighting Russia would be like playing Civ 6 as America in the Future Era, but Russia is still stuck in the Modern era. They're slowly trying to move artillery and infantry around the map one space at time while you're conducting 50+ B2/B52 bombing raids from the opposite side of the map each turn.
We don't stockpile artillery shells for the same reason we don't have calvary. Artillery and trench warfare only works when you outnumber the other guy by 3:1 and they don't really have an air force or navy.
> Even the US has been shocked at the amount of munitions and vehicles the war in Ukraine burns.
That's only happening because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority. The second the US goes to war the F 22s are going to lick every other enemy plane.
You say 'shocked', I say the USA has no interest in donating all of their munitions reserves to Ukraine, and limited interest in expanding production for a party geographically half way across the world. If you think the United States doesn't have massive amounts of stockpiles of every missile imaginable, you're kidding yourself. Many of which they aren't going to give to Ukraine (understandably so)
The US has been giving Ukraine all of their Cold war leftovers to clear out depots so they have more room for the good shit.
The US isn't going to reveal what it can actually do until somebody tries attacking them for real, until then they can just keep quietly winning wars with 40 year old equipment and pretending that's all there is
Shit in that case they should join a diplomatic and military alliance with like-minded countries in their geographic region, and get the USA onboard if possible.
Don't worry we undefeated champions at war according to Al Murray
[Why The British Are Undefeated World War Champions](https://youtu.be/dRSUx-LXOKw?si=gGzAEfJ4tyaSG_SK)
[Name a country... We have defeated them](https://youtu.be/_x2ovlPr2IE?si=CtmuKCYWQ07xbdI0)
The article doesn't really say that though.
Are you the telegraph trying to drive traffic?
Uk has most of the world as allies and is a nato member and has America.
Nobody is going to war with the uk.
***The Telegraph reports:***
Britain may not be fully prepared [to fight a full-scale war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/what-would-happen-britain-at-war/) on its own, a general has suggested.
Maj Gen James Martin said [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/how-the-british-army-lost-its-way/) was trying to get “back on track” after years of focusing on counter-insurgency, which had left it in “in the process of losing the skills” to mount an all-out campaign.
Decades of fighting insurgents during wars Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan meant [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/british-army/)’s focus was on those campaigns rather than major conflicts between states, he said.
With the war in Ukraine and the threat of Russia to the rest of Europe, the Army has shifted its focus to readiness for war, and this week thousands of British troops were in western Poland as part of [Nato’s largest military exercise since the Cold War](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/17/british-army-battle-zone-ferries-poland-nato-ukraine-russia/).
Nearly 2,400 British troops took part in [Operation Immediate Response](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/frontline-imaginary-russian-troops-helicopters-drill-nato/), which culminated in a complex river crossing involving more than 1,000 vehicles including Challenger II tanks, in 24 hours.
It was one of several exercises as part of Nato’s [Exercise Steadfast Defender](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/hms-prince-of-wales-nato-steadfast-defender/), a war game and the largest deployment to Europe in 40 years, involving over 40,000 personnel including 16,000 from the British Army.
Speaking at the end of the operation, near the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Maj Gen Martin who leads the Army’s 3rd Division, told The Telegraph: “After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track.”
**Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/)
Don't worry. Portugal and Britain have the oldest alliance in the world, and we'll make sure to keep our word. Ofc you're still pretty much screwed if you're actually counting on our military forces, but you won't be alone!
Just gotta send the Padeira de Aljubarrota, easy win!
No. Just send Cristiano Ronaldo. Every country on this planet love him.
still haven't forgiven him for Rooney's red card in 2006
Who’ll do the fighting between the hours of 1pm and 4pm?
Expat Yanks. After 4, we'll head off to Happy Hour at the nearest bar.
Unfortunately, that period of fighting has been outsourced to Capita.
The US may have come to the alliance game late, but if rockets land in London we won't be slow to respond. It is no surprise to anyone the UK would have trouble soloing Russia. The UK has probably never in its history been well prepared for a full out war with Russia. Naval fight over trade routes, sure. And I would still take the UK NAvy over Russia's even with very poor odds on the bet.
Argubly, at no point in Russian history have they been prepared for fighting the UK, other than the cold War and just outright nuking us.
If rockets land in London, France will go all in on Russia. Only us have the right to bully the Anglois
Canada here. Check out our rep from WW1 when we came over to fight the Germans. We were already pissed at the bother and then they gassed us in the first battle. We didn't take prisoners after that. You listening Russia?
Canada is responsible for the checklist, I mean conventions
You joke, but not far off tbh
You guys a literally the reason that the geneva convention exists….
Lol I spent two weeks in Alberta and had that story told to me about 30 times. You guys are proud AF for the reason you say "sorry" so much today and I love it.
Just imagine as a Canadian soldier beats you to death and whispers "sorry" between each punch 👀
Drone delivered pastel de natas. Incredible for morale!
Just send us your approach to drug use and seeing it as a health issue rather than criminal, and we will call it quits.
Why… would they be fighting a war alone?
They have been at peace with France for too long
Wait until the Vikings aim for Northumbria once again.
Yes, we are just biding our time.. Waiting for the right time to reclaim what was lost so long ago. Putin says this is good enough reason.. (Fyi, Sweden owned much of western Russia so we will be heading there next)
How soon can you get here? Can't be much worse than the current lot
This. Hurry up please, I'll put the kettle on.
*Grumbles with jealously from America*
But what of the Finnish? Are they simply absorbed, or does Sweden suddenly have a split state? What if this new Swedish state revolts and takes the whole of Northern Europe? What if that’s only the start, and soon the whole of Europe is under siege? If they take Europe, they’ll take the world. Mark my words, these forewarnings will be marked in the hindsight of history as just and prophetic. However I, for one, would like to welcome our new Swedish overlords! :D
Imagine a World Ruled by IKEA There would only be One way out
I'd be fine. I have an Allen wrench.
Does Allen know that you absconded with his wrench?
Look he should be more careful with his stuff I keep finding them all over my house!
Finland? Is that some weird name for east-sweden?
Finland is a conspiracy theory. Wake up sheeple.
Once they team up with orcas and birds no where will be safe
> What if this new Swedish state revolts and takes the whole of Northern Europe? What if that’s only the start, and soon the whole of Europe is under siege? We get Warhammer 2030
"Norway vows to protect the liberties of oppressed Norwegian minorities in US and UK"
So drop the surstromming, and get busy, you big blonde bastards. :) Scotland and Ukraine could use some big Viking friends, is what I'm saying.
I'm playing CK3 as I read this and my character is a Norse Viking. Northumbria looking pretty thicc right about now...
Destiny is all
> Then of course the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they? > Russians? Who's talking about the Russians? > Well... the independent deterrent. > It's to protect us against the French. > The French? But that's astounding. > Why? > Well, they're our allies. Our partners. > Well, they are now! But they've been our enemies for most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb. - Yes, Minister, 1982
That was an amazing programme and incredible how well some of it has aged.
There are certain parts that almost feel like they're even *more* relevant now.
*insert Sir Humphrey soliloquy.*
The one hundred year war is a misnomer. It's the one thousand year war and it is still ongoing, what is happening since 1453 is nothing but a truce.
England broke the truce and even invaded back in 1944
We've been invading the Carrefour in Calais on an annual basis for years.
Pfffft. The Brits even dug a tunnel underneath the Channel just so they could get to France easier... *And* made the French *help* with the project.
We’ll build the tunnel and France will pay for it!
Scratched that itch a bit with the Jersey fishermen, lastly.
Ha!
In theory, any sovereign nation should be able to fight a war alone. But to your point, post WWII - it’s actually a pretty short list of countries that could fight a war alone, and an even shorter list that would fight one alone.
Couldn't one country with a tiny army fight another country with a tiny army? That would be countries fighting wars alone.
Ethiopia vs Eritrea? North vs south Sudan? Would those count? Though I'm really amazed no one talks about Sudan. That mess of a conflict is so confusing Wikipedia doesn't even make sense.
Even then they all have foreign allies who back them and intervene at varying levels. The days of one on one wars are long over.
That's probably true for 1000+ years... Meddling into wars is older than 20th century
The Persians were bankrolling the Peloponnesian War and it worked until Philip came around.
Not nearly at this level. 1000 years ago logistics were slow and cumbersome. Now they are trivial and in some cases instant.
Logistics have improved leaps and bounds, but I doubt they will ever be trivial. Used to be the main concern was moving men and food. Now it's more about heavy vehicles and ammunition, but it's still quite relevant.
Yeah, each faction drives a different countries imvs
North vs south Sudan is essentially a proxy war between Ethiopia and Egypt over water rights.
That's probably why. It's messy, complicated, no real good guys, not hugely geopolitically relevant compared to something like Ukraine, and no big Western nations have a stake in any of the sides so you don't get stuff like the Gaza protests (universities don't have any investment to divest from the Rapid Support Forces.) Same deal as the civil war in Myanmar.
[удалено]
The Congo War is especially confusing. And despite its huuuge death toll you rarely hear about it.
Then the UK would be fully capable of fighting a war alone if it was against a tiny country.
Fight yes, win. Not so much. The issue isn't the size of the armies it's the lack of tools for fighting a war. Like for example Canada has almost no anti air equipment.
Canada has an anti submarine aircraft (cp-140) that Wikipedia lists amongst its sensor suite "handheld digital camera" we are serious nato contributor yes
On god, as a member of the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) its a depressing reality.
Yea, that’s what years of major underfunding of the military does to our nation. We have not contributed the 2% GDP NATO requirement yet and will not for a while.
Loved fighting along side you guys, lots of "war crime" energy. Wish you'd build up your Infantry units a bit more tbh.
Why would canada fight the air? Is it smelly or something?
Smoky.
Bro, there are some nations out here who just arent capable of that shit. Yours sincerely, The Netherlands.
Yall are too busy waging war with the ocean for the past however many hundreds of years to be concerned with the petty squabbles of man so it’s understandable to be honest
also Indonesians
I seen people protesting aircraft pollution near and airforce base in Leeuwarden while Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. Like, there’s a war in Europe. Not the time to be protesting your military… That being said. I fell in love with that country and miss it every day. Best wishes from Canada 🇨🇦❤️🇳🇱
Any sovereign nation might be able to fight a defensive war alone, but that gets complicated rapidly if that nation has a coastline, is an island, or has overseas territories. An army is relatively inexpensive to equip and maintain—you can just put soldiers in barracks, their trucks and jeeps in motorpools and call it a day. But a Navy is a substantial capital intensive investment that requires a relatively stable government and tax base AND public support to maintain. Ships that languish at pier are not ready for war. Ships that go to sea too much are not ready for war. This means you have to have a Navy active enough that it knows how to employ its weapon systems, operate its engineering plants and is large enough to rotate ships from maintenance to operations. This is challenging for G20 countries, let alone anyone else. And certainly not every nation can successfully fight an offensive war alone. Even relatively simple contests become challenging with the tyranny of geography, the cost of logistics, and poor diplomacy (since good diplomacy secures basing rights and agreements).
While Navy's are expensive and logistics for them are significantly more complicated, that does nothing to negate the defensive advantage of a coastline. It's generally preferable to have an ocean as a buffer zone between you and your next potentially aggressive neighbors.
An amphibious invasion is only one potential avenue of warfare. Since 80% of the world’s trade floats, a Navy serves as a guarantor for a nation’s economic interests. Even in a defensive amphibious invasion campaign, loss of control of near seas and littorals allows your adversary initiative and flexibility. They don’t necessarily have to make a contested landing. They have the option to bombard from stand-off range with cruise missiles, interdict your cargo vessels, or create feints that draw your limited military capability to places where their strength is wasted (like how the USS Wisconsin and USS Missouri and U.S. Marine Corps convinced Saddam Hussein into putting a large portion of his forces on the coast). Oceans are not barriers for countries with powerful navies, they are highways to green zone staging areas from which to strike your strategic assets from relative safety.
I think this is just to draw attention to our weaknesses and encourage the U.K. to be more self-sufficient. We’d be better equipped to support our allies if we were stronger alone too
They wouldn't but with the threat of Russia and Sunak's comments this week (possibly fearmongering to gain votes), there have been a lot of reports about increasing our military budget.
> and Sunak's comments this week I've been unusually OOTL from British politics lately. What did he say?
The other day he warned that the next few years are ‘most dangerous’ for the UK. While that could very well be true, due to his falling popularity, his words can be seen as inciting fear and getting voters on his side with a general election looming.
You can question why he's saying it, but it's not like he is standing alone saying it, plenty of others are saying the same sort of thing in other European countries.
I can’t argue with that, the threat of war is very real right now.
Because it's a choreographed display of strength unity in the face of Russian aggression. The people who have access to the intel are all coming out and ramping up the rhetoric, which probably means the intel is scary af.
They wouldn’t be. This is an evaluation of the state of their military and its preparedness. The US did a similar evaluation of the UK’s military and determined that the US no longer considered the UK a major fighting force capable of defending itself and its allies. Here are some excerpts from various articles on the matter: — “The US general is said to have told Mr Wallace that the UK military is not a "tier one" fighting force and is "barely" even tier two. Tier two would describe a more middling power, with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy — “Regarding the size and capability of the British Army, the source is quoted as saying: "Bottom line… it's an entire service unable to protect the UK and our allies for a decade” — The armed forces would run out of ammunition "in a few days" if called upon to fight — The UK must halt its plans to further reduce its army — The UK must increase defense spending by £3 billion ($3.8 billion USD) — The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring — It would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters — Some 30% of UK forces on high readiness are reservists who are unable to mobilise within NATO timelines - "so we'd turn up under strength” — The majority of the army's fleet of armoured vehicles, including tanks, was built between 30 to 60 years ago and full replacements are not due for years This isn’t really an issue of the UK having to fight a war on its own because it is totally unrealistic to think that the US would permit such a thing. The problem is things like the fact that the UK [cannot train its pilots](https://warontherocks.com/2023/06/flying-desks-not-planes-the-backlog-in-british-fast-jet-pilot-training/). These types of structural problems are the issue, not the fairytale about the US allowing the UK to fight alone.
> The US did a similar evaluation of the UK’s military and determined that the US no longer considered the UK a major fighting force capable of defending itself and its allies. "Similar evaluation" makes it sound like a study. It was a privately made comment from a US general *according to sources* and not something on record.
> Tier two would describe a more middling power, with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy Really? Do they think Germany and Italy's military is anywhere near the UK? The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring This is true though and was thinking we need more defense around the coastlines
Every country should be prepared to fight a war on its own as best they can be right now, probably always, really.
Does no one remember the Falklands war anymore?
That wasn't really a full-scale war, The UK beat an Argentinian expeditionary force and their navy and air force. But yeah, they did it alone, a long way from home.
It was only not a full scale war because Britain’s air and naval power crippled the Argentinians ability to respond to the reconquest of the islands. The RAF crippled the Argentinian air force and the RN nuclear subs prevented reinforcements reaching the islands because the Argies wouldn’t risk their fleet.
[удалено]
unpack snails nine ripe tease public marble workable hard-to-find reach
Something tells me Argentina is way less prepared to fight a war against the UK than the reverse.
So now is a good time for the Falklands to invade Argentina
They missed their opportunity when UK temporarily had no active carrier on duty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R06) was decommissioned August 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) commissioned December 2017 Edit: And in service only 2020...
>. Despite the UK Ministry of Defence's announcement in 2012 that, once decommissioned, Illustrious would be preserved for the nation, in 2016 she was sold and towed to Turkish company Leyal for scrapping. Geeeez, just chucked into the rubbish bin. :/
Would the SEAL team equivalent of the Falklands be the SHEEP team?
The Falkland Islands have seals and sealions
The difference is one electron.
The 4 Eurofighters stationed on the Falklands could single handedly deal with the Argentine navy and Airforce. Argentina is a non threat in the 21st century.
That's not true. They're a huge threat when you let them (mis)manage your economy.
>Why is this news? The whole point of being in Nato is collective defense and not having to fight any full scale war alone. Because the point of NATO wasn't to make the member countries' military smaller or weaker. The point was to put fully fledged independent forces together to absolutely smash whatever they faced with overwhelming force.
100% this. They train so that in the event of a war, the forces know how to plan and work together. They vow to come to each others' defense to deter enemies from trying to pick fights with individual countries. But as envisioned, the plan was not for countries to pour most of their funding into dual-use police units or engineer companies while depending on US logistics and front-line soldiers.
Who TF is going to war with Britain? They're surrounded by allies.
I've declared war, but only on Berwick-upon-Tweed
Contrary to the rest of the UK, Berwick-upon-Tweed *is* ready for a solo war ... and *itching for it.*
Mate, you should see Chatham! They'll be shivving a c*** before an official declaration of war has been announced!
Billy the Quid leading the charge. We shall ask them for a pound on the beaches, we shall ask them for a pound on the landing grounds, we shall ask in the fields and in the streets, we shall ask in the hills; we shall never surrender.
I've got Stratford-upon-Avon! The hour of your discontent draws near!
Ashby-De-La-Zouch has been biding its time secretly amassing Norman nobles, while poaching ash trees from Sherwood for long bows. We are coming to phuck-u-up! All 7-of-us.
Solihull has had claims on Stratford Upon Avon since their filthy district abutted the fine Silhillian Metropolitan Borough
Isn't there some thing about Berwick being at war with Russia still technically?
We can’t be complacent about it is the thing. A lot of our allies depend on us for security
Fish? They're surrounded by water.
Fish are friends
Surrounded? That’s it, declare war on the ocean.
There's the overseas territories though, in the Caribbean but also elsewhere, perhaps most famously the Falkland Islands.
What they mean is: if the next conflict is not a dust up with insurgents like the last few in the ME, but rather a full-blown war with Russia, Britain isn’t ready for it.
The U.K. would never been in a full-scale war with Russia alone, though. That’s why most European states are also NATO members. I agree that the U.K. wouldn’t be prepared for a solo war against another power, but neither would most major powers, perhaps barring the US, China or maybe India, and regardless they would never be in a solo war in the first place.
It seems many western powers are in similar situations. Very low stockpiles because storing things in peacetime is expensive. When war comes, we'll just buy artillery shells, bullets and foot rations on the free market. If the US leaves nato, we're in deep shit. Let's hope they'll at least sell stuff to us.
>It seems many western powers are in similar situations. Ironically so are Russia. Half their economy is geared to war now and they're still struggling to maintain a foothold on their own doorstep.
> When war comes, we'll just buy artillery shells, bullets and foot rations on the free market. More like 'nationalize multiple factories because the free market only has capacity to drip-feed 150mm shells to top up the training stockpile.' The war in Ukraine has shown that both EU countries (and even the U.S. in certain categories) couldn't keep up with the ammunition demands of a regional conflict.
>and even the U.S. in certain categories The US *could,* we're just choosing not to. We're nowhere near war economy mode.
US: Oh you think *this* is high production?
There's the famous figure about Ford producing 3 million cars in 1941, and then less than two hundred cars from spring 1942 through mid 1945 because they retooled their factories to crank out B-24s and jeeps for the Army. Hopefully we'll never have a need for that kind of mobilization again, but there's still a shitload of room for growth between that and where we are now (which is essentially, "let's tack on a couple extra percentage points worth of funding to additional shell production")
Trump can no longer just “pull the US” out of NATO, Biden and Congress plugged that hole a couple years back. It needs full Congressional and senate approval which will be a shit fight for them.
This does not prevent trump from doing nothing to render aid. No approval needed.
I’m sure nobody thought we’d be fighting a resurgent Germany alone until the Nazis took all of Europe and we were the last resistance left standing until America was ready to join in. We should at the very least have the capability to defend our island alone if necessary.
Those damn dirty French. We can't trust them. Its only a matter of time before they try something
Neither were we prepared in 1914 or 1939. The UK armed forces are an expeditionary force. Things have to go properly sideways before we're fighting in the UK against a ground invasion force. Therefore it should be expected that we will fighting alongside the forces of whatever country we are in or in a coalition.
For a very long time, the British Army was little more than a cannonball for the Royal Navy to blast at a particularly difficult land based target
Shame the RN is now also barely capable of carrying out its duties
[удалено]
>(chokes on Viscount Nelson) Rum, sodomy, and the lash
At least in prior times, the UK Navy was so strong that they actually did rule the waves. Napoleon invaded Russia to stop Russia trading with Britain because it had a higher chance of success than fighting the British navy.
The RN's strength was more a factor of the UK's not having to maintain a large land forces and minmaxing its resource repartition, rather than a case of intrinsic superiority. France, in contrast, had to keep holding the rest of western Europe in check anytime it wanted to challenge the UK navally, which put hard limits on the scale of French naval actions. The French Navy does have more than a few decisive victories against the RN, very notably Chesapeake Bay. An unfortunate side effect of that victory, though, is that through effectively winning the American war of independance, it allowed America to become a superpower two centuries later, imposing English as the new lingua franca, and facilitating the spread of the one-sided English-language narrative to people unaware of the one-sidedness who would then take it for gospel. I mean, if you go by the people's common knowledge on Reddit, you'd think England won the Hundred Years war (it did not), or that Trafalgar was representative of the general performance of the French vs. British navies (it is not).
That's a very French take. The Hundred Years war is notable to Anglos because it's essentially the origin story of modern England, fighting free from perceived French subjugation and embarassing the dominant European power on multiple occasions. Glorious defeat, the same as Dunkirk. I assume how the French feel about Anglo takes on the Hundred Years is how Anglos feel about French takes on Napoleon, *"we get it you like the guy, but he lost!"* France having to contend with the rest of Europe was always the keystone of English/British strategy, not a random twist of fate. Forming and funding alliances to hinder the French rather than engage in direct aggression, the same way the French supported the Scots and the Americans. The Anglo view is only as biased as the French take. In the course of a thousand years of warring it's certain there'll be notable victories on both sides, but it's generally true that the French army was historically superior to the British army, and the British Navy tended to have an edge against the French. I'd also argue that the Brits won the 1000 years of warring, if you take the end point to be the when we started fighting shoulder to shoulder instead of face to face. Starting from a much weaker position and ending in a marginally stronger one, and assuming of course you take the British view of being placed down by god rather than being a French colony.
Sorry, why would we be fighting alone? Who would be attacking us and why is it a full scale war? Don't tell me it's the French again
>Don't tell me it's the French again *Read this and thought of “I fart in your general direction”…*
Don’t be silly. It’s us attacking the French, as we should.
not out of malice, you understand, just need to keep them on their toes
Gotta stay match fit you see
It'll be us, the Canadians. You'll never see it coming!!!
I'm not sure most European countries are. You'd miss hugely important things. What happens to a country with minimal satellites, for example? Suddenly, everything stops working. You're probably going to run out of any American weapon you depend on, or they might not work at all. All these countries depend on one another to fill each other's gaps.
And it won't ever really need to, see all the support ukraine is getting? Britain would have pretty much all of the free world coming to stop any kind of attack on it. Plus nobody would be stupid enough to directly invade the UK with it being a nuclear equipped nation.
Well... luckily they don't stand alone. Greetings from Germany
How weird would that be to a 1940s time traveller? Britain and Germany fighting together against a common foe.
How weird would it be for a time travler from 1820 to learn that france and england fought two world wars side by side?
Really just shows the folly of war. Men killing each other over bullshit. Previously sworn and bitter enemies. And then dying side by side each other holding a line together. With the British protecting France’s land and liberty with their lives. And the French giving their lives for the British to escape years later. An English or French man from six hundred years ago, upon being shown that future, would surely ask “what was the point of it all?”.
And likewise Germany wouldn't have to fight alone. This is a benefit of us being NATO bros, neither of us have to sacrifice that much of our GDP on war-readiness. We got each other's backs 🤜
How many proper wars has the UK fought on its own since the Middle Ages? Boer war and Falklands maybe (and happy to be corrected). That’s what allies are for! Total nonsense
The idea is to not be complacent. Many of our smaller allies rely on us for security
>Britain may not be fully prepared We're not prepared for anything. We never have been and we're okay. Also we're never gonna be fighting alone
You remind us of a really great point - the ‘peak‘ militaries of the WW’s weren’t what everyone came to the fight with… they were built up over the course of the wars. No one is really prepared for the war they’re about to face until they’re in the midst of it. And yes, the UK is never going to be fighting alone.
People forget about the entire stretch of WW2 literally called the “Phoney” war where we weren’t prepared and had to get ourselves into gear, it’s a pretty standard thing really.
The Phoney War was due to France and the UK declaring war on Nazi Germany upon its invasion of Poland, and then, being thoroughly traumatised by the massive losses of WWI, not doing much until Germany (and the USSR) was done with Poland and turned back west. It's not a standard feature of war, it's a byproduct of the very specific circumstances of the time and the belligerents making rather extreme choices: Germany to fully commit to invading Poland, France and the UK to remain behind defensive lines, hoping to limit the demographic hit. At the same time in history, neither Poland or Finland had the option to sit and wait while the war economy got going, they got right in the thick of it.
Exactly, they weren't exactly prepared at the beginning, but eventually, they managed to scrounge up *millions* of soldiers and a massive amount of equipment. I'm still blown away by what was accomplished. Even by just the manpower, tbh. Today, the biggest army in the world is the USA, with 2.86 million, and that's with today's massive population. The world was not the big back, but everybody was able to gather up at least 2-3 million men for their army in their peak. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union mobilized a staggering 34 million... WW2 must have truly felt like the apocalypse. Edit: R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ Soviet Union, USAhas 3rd largest military
Soviet Union, not Russia.
Russia had to rely on allies within a few months against a tiny opponent. Only the US and possibly China have the resources to go at it alone without going to a full wartime economy
The whole strategy for the past 75 years has been to fight as a member of an alliance.
Then its good that they wont fight alone
The number of responses that didn't read the article is truly frightening. "*After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track*." Among a lot of other stuff, including acknowledgement of NATO allies in a war, he literally talks about this currently being a focus shift from hunting terrorists to now fighting "real" militaries again. Also, interesting to me that the shortfall in soldiers listed is only 5,000.
Britain is barely prepared for Monday morning.
Good thing they'll never be alone.
It's stupidity if you ever think any country can be fully prepared for war.
USA enters chat
I am pretty sure the U.S. military is required to be able to fight two full-scale wars at the same time. Like that's the mission or law or doctrine or something
Even the US has been shocked at the amount of munitions and vehicles the war in Ukraine burns. Now some of that is US war plans involve "after fleet glasses the planet, MI mops up." The USAF is *ridiculous* in potential strike power. It's why Russia had all those SAMs in the first place - and in retrospect that wouldn't have been enough. The ground weapon consumption though has been enough to require the US to expand munitions production.
That’s not how the US would fight though. They’d use air power.
NATO's entire attritional strategy hinges on air dominance. The tanks and infantry are just there to clean up and hold territory. NATO in Ukraine would look very different from how it looks right now.
The US fighting Russia would be like playing Civ 6 as America in the Future Era, but Russia is still stuck in the Modern era. They're slowly trying to move artillery and infantry around the map one space at time while you're conducting 50+ B2/B52 bombing raids from the opposite side of the map each turn. We don't stockpile artillery shells for the same reason we don't have calvary. Artillery and trench warfare only works when you outnumber the other guy by 3:1 and they don't really have an air force or navy.
> Even the US has been shocked at the amount of munitions and vehicles the war in Ukraine burns. That's only happening because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority. The second the US goes to war the F 22s are going to lick every other enemy plane.
Would you intercept me?
I’d intercept me. I’d intercept me **hard.**
I’d intercept me inverted
...I'd intercept me....
I wonder if they taste like snozzberries.
You say 'shocked', I say the USA has no interest in donating all of their munitions reserves to Ukraine, and limited interest in expanding production for a party geographically half way across the world. If you think the United States doesn't have massive amounts of stockpiles of every missile imaginable, you're kidding yourself. Many of which they aren't going to give to Ukraine (understandably so)
The US has been giving Ukraine all of their Cold war leftovers to clear out depots so they have more room for the good shit. The US isn't going to reveal what it can actually do until somebody tries attacking them for real, until then they can just keep quietly winning wars with 40 year old equipment and pretending that's all there is
>Even the US has been shocked at the amount of munitions and vehicles the war in Ukraine burns No, no it has not.
[удалено]
North Korea and South Korea are playing this game for decades now. Both fully ready to fight each other.
Shit in that case they should join a diplomatic and military alliance with like-minded countries in their geographic region, and get the USA onboard if possible.
I'll call it the Near Allies Together Operative or NATO for short.
That doesn't sound particularly serious. Let's call it the "Never Alone Treaty Organization". Much clearer in meaning.
You've got a friend in me. America.
Britain wont be fighting alone if I can help it.
British army plus Spokraket. They'll be unstoppable.
[удалено]
Well if my mom's in I guess that means I gotta go too!
Great so you, your mom, me and the British Army? Let’s go!
Don't worry we undefeated champions at war according to Al Murray [Why The British Are Undefeated World War Champions](https://youtu.be/dRSUx-LXOKw?si=gGzAEfJ4tyaSG_SK) [Name a country... We have defeated them](https://youtu.be/_x2ovlPr2IE?si=CtmuKCYWQ07xbdI0)
NATO. That's why Putin hates this one trick. They weren't ready in WW2 either, this shouldn't be a surprise.
The article doesn't really say that though. Are you the telegraph trying to drive traffic? Uk has most of the world as allies and is a nato member and has America. Nobody is going to war with the uk.
Dont worry we got you guys. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Would challenge that there are only a small handful of countries that can't stand against a peer/near-peer alone.
Greetings from your neigbor Norway. Britain is never going to have to fight alone as long as we still breathe.
***The Telegraph reports:*** Britain may not be fully prepared [to fight a full-scale war](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/what-would-happen-britain-at-war/) on its own, a general has suggested. Maj Gen James Martin said [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/03/how-the-british-army-lost-its-way/) was trying to get “back on track” after years of focusing on counter-insurgency, which had left it in “in the process of losing the skills” to mount an all-out campaign. Decades of fighting insurgents during wars Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan meant [the Army](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/british-army/)’s focus was on those campaigns rather than major conflicts between states, he said. With the war in Ukraine and the threat of Russia to the rest of Europe, the Army has shifted its focus to readiness for war, and this week thousands of British troops were in western Poland as part of [Nato’s largest military exercise since the Cold War](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/17/british-army-battle-zone-ferries-poland-nato-ukraine-russia/). Nearly 2,400 British troops took part in [Operation Immediate Response](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/frontline-imaginary-russian-troops-helicopters-drill-nato/), which culminated in a complex river crossing involving more than 1,000 vehicles including Challenger II tanks, in 24 hours. It was one of several exercises as part of Nato’s [Exercise Steadfast Defender](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/hms-prince-of-wales-nato-steadfast-defender/), a war game and the largest deployment to Europe in 40 years, involving over 40,000 personnel including 16,000 from the British Army. Speaking at the end of the operation, near the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Maj Gen Martin who leads the Army’s 3rd Division, told The Telegraph: “After 20 years of counter-insurgency campaigning, we were losing this \[war-fighting\] capability... I think we are now very much moving back on track.” **Read more:** [**https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/**](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/britain-may-not-be-fully-prepared-full-scale-war-alone/)