“The UK pulls its weight without being involved in
another British Army of the Rhine.”

1. The time is well overdue for Britain to make clear to its NATO partners that:
   1. The rapid response to any incursion overland by Russia into NATO territory must, in the first instance, be the combined responsibility of those nations which share a physical border with the Russian Nation and the landlocked nations that form the vulnerable second tier of European defence.
   2. As an Island Nation, Britain’s principal contribution to NATO defence is in the maritime arena.
2. The Mail Online article of 12 February demonstrates a disturbing unwillingness of U.K.’s Ministry of Defence and Government to properly recognise the fundamental facts presented at paragraph 1, above.

Rapid response to a Russian offensive.

3. The war in Ukraine has laid bare many military investment weaknesses within the NATO alliance, not least of which is the poor military capability, commitment and reliability of Germany. Of equal import, the Ukraine affair has demonstrated the enormous cost in terms of treasure and blood that results from “boots on the ground” confrontations. Advances in weapon system technology have demonstrated unambiguously that such confrontations can represent a “no win” reality for both sides. Deterrence through wise investment in military capability should now be the rule for all NATO nations, particularly Britain – where investment in weapon systems that have no real rapid response mobility must be deemed as anachronistic.
4. The Article headlines NATO Chiefs complaining that “Britain’s Armed Forces are too small to combat Russia”. This reveals the undue reliance that our European partners have placed on Britain in the past to defend them from Russian aggression. Is it not time that those partners invest much more in their own military defence and, at the same time, recognise the vital role played by U.K.’s maritime forces in conjunction with the U.S. Navy – and to which some NATO members do not contribute.
5. Lord Dannatt appears very unwilling to accept the premise at paragraph 1, b, above. He appears to ignore the immobility and lack of practical utility of the heavy armour stationed in the UK, which has no realistic role to play in the defence of the homeland base against either air or naval attack: “‘But we absolutely must not only replenish our stocks but also make a major new investment into our land forces. The planned cuts in the strength of our Army must be stopped and ideally reversed.’” I would suggest that a larger standing army stationed on the homeland base does not provide any deterrence at all to Russia or our other enemies and should not be countenanced by our Government.
6. Within the Mail Online Article, the final comment is entirely relevant to the above: “The [Government] spokesman added that an upcoming review would set out ‘further how the UK will play a global role and equip our personnel with the capabilities needed’”. Hopefully, any review will take note of all the above, and will concentrate on expanding the Royal Navy that does have a major global deterrence role to play in support of NATO and our other Allies.