Outside of NATO yes, in the Nordics then a forward based brigade, and home a trained and scalable land army to defend the UK and it’s BOTs.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑20 Mar 2024, 22:54 So following that direction of travel results in what exactly? An army specialising in small groups of elite troops and SF?
Who would say “no thanks” if what you are doing is helping to train, equip and provide specialist tier one capabilities. It’s not about commanding other nations, see Ukraine, it’s working with nations that are aligned to your interests.A British Army focused on training other nations armies?
Perhaps it’s now the role of the British Army to turn up in the nick of time and command other nations armies? How long will it be before other nations start to say “no thanks”?
If you are looking to impose your will by the use of force you are in the wrong century, that’s what we are fighting against.
No what’s not a strategy is pretending you can do things you cannot and failing spectacularly causing death and further death - I reference Afghanistan and Iraq as recent examples but there are plenty more throughout history.None of that a serious strategy for a country spending over £50bn per annum on defence?
What is it carriers or amphibious forces or a middle sized continental land force.
It’s the opposite, it’s not about the number of tanks, battalions, aircraft and frigates it’s about qualitative enablers, it’s as much about boring things such as airlift, intelligence, reconnaissance, logistics, air defence, BMD, long range strike, technology and people. Without these everything else is cannon fodder.It’s sounds more like a strategy that prioritises all the sexy bits and leaves others to do the heavy lifting.
It’s unsustainable post Feb22.
Edit: my apologies I completely misunderstood / misread your last comment, I’ve updated my text.