Відео

America is less of a democracy than European countries... The US is reigned by Corporate greed...

The US democracy is anything but a democracy! It´s a fake democratic show, controlled by very few.

This video is in my wheelhouse, I have, in a small way, contributed to the debate here in the UK. Britain has two main problems. The first is political, a lack of consistency in defence policy and this extends back at least a decade before the end of the Cold War, the only constant being nuclear deterrence. The second is structural, an overly powerful Treasury (our finance department), it effectively decides what every other department can spend and always tries to cut spending. Ambition. Britain is a fifth the size of the of the US and wants to have the same capabilities as the US military but a fifth the size. This doesn't work, for a start defence economics doesn't work that way for reasons discussed in the video and also because the UK economy only generates 75% of that if the US per capita. Iraq and Afghanistan showed the failure of attempting to be the US in miniature. The MOD decided Britain could run its own province in both but on a shoestring budget and without providing commanders with the necessary capabilities. The past quarter century has also brought home other realities with which the UK was not equipped to deal. First the problem of partnership with the US in procurement, every so often uk governments go into a transatlantic deal fondly believing they are full partners and they always get a nasty surprise. This time they invested heavily in F-35 development with the promise of an equivalent share of the work. Of course Congress shot that down by cancelling the alternative engine amongst other things. Second was the potential unreliability of the US as evidenced by the Trump administration, this has meant all European powers now require a backup to their backup. Third is Ukraine, where the run down of the British Army has been obvious. To find a path through these dilemmas clear long term policy goals need to be set, ones that provide a doctrine for governments going forward. They should name broad capabilities that we wish to have indigenously, those where we are happy to buy in and simply operate equipment made elsewhere, and those which we will rely on our security partners to provide. UK procurement is amongst the worst in the west but this means it's an area where much improvement can be made. Those responsible for the army have a recent history of making bad decisions and failing to recognise their own sink cost fallacies. Maintaining a small fleet of unique tanks that we no longer have the capacity to design and build is ridiculous, if we are to maintain an armoured force the best solution is to aquire something off the shelf without gold plating it to fit our supposedly unique requirements. This solution goes equally well for all the other combat vehicles the UK has struggled to procure. The RAF has dominated priorities in the recent past and they've pretty much been able to buy the best of everything, this has to change and they fo need to learn good enough is good enough. Naval procurement has been best, we maintain excellent capability to design and build submarines, have had the sense to buy in designs for surface combatants, the exceptions are the troubled carriers and lack of mass. One area where the UK could excel is how we look after our service members. Currently they are badly paid, poorly cared for, and have terrible housing. The first is simply a money question and a commitment needs to be made to keep their pay at an equivalent to a certain level elsewhere, the second requires getting in external HR experts to fix the broken system, and the third requires recognising that investment is more than a defence cost, it improves the general housing stock over the long term.

Hmmm, England needs C-130 airlift (200 planes) to move an airborne division (which doesn't exist) to Estonia in anticipation of a offensive into the Baltics which may, or may not occur. That could be Englands contribution to the NATO effort to repel an anticipated "special military operation" into the high north. Those forces could be on station in 18 hours. NATO forces will not arrive by sea-air sooner than that, and won't be there to defend Estonia in 30 days. Sea lanes and rail lines will be interdicted preventing heavy forces from arriving to influence the battle. Go airborne....

I always assume that a military can only really go where the diplomats lead. After all, how can one act kinetically if one has no clue as to context? Or how permissive the environment is? Perhaps we should be looking at the UK's diplomatic footprint to get some idea of future capability and deployability. Am i being naive? I hear dark mutterings about the state of our diplomatic service, but have no expertise. Anybody care to enlighten me?

UK Armed forces have been run into the ground due to political and financial incompetence.Successive governments from the Thatcher /Reagan era onwards have cut manpower numbers to dangerously low levels and re direct the money ,often into our massive welfare system, while believing we can still maintain an offensive force with less and less people which is delusional. The UK has no task force capability and no Expeditionary Force capability anymore rendering us reliant on NATO completely whereas in the past we had everything needed.The UK is in dire straights.

The only thing on the evening news relating to a foreign country that may interest the general public is: « the cold front is coming from Canada »

For the defence industrial base (specifically Land forces) the solution appears to me to be consolidation. Making use of the Ajax, Boxer & Supacat platforms to generate lots of “adequate” vehicles for a variety of roles, rather than trying to build bespoke MBT’s on a different platform. An example would be adopting a 120mm equipped Ajax variant for which there is already a proof of concept to replace the Challenger 3 or augment it as 148 is not enough. While it would be less capable, we need to compromise somewhere as you say.

Every conflict the UK has been involved in since ww2 bar the falklands war has relied almost exclusively on the army! We can certainly concentrate on the RAF and Royal Navy, however what will we do when we require troops for other deployments? The army is already overstretched covering the current demands and this is effecting retention and therefore capability. How will our NATO allies feel about us stepping away from ground commitments to concentrate on the Naval and Air capability?

Thanks for your work here. And many points mentioned are difficult, awkward and unpleasant - compared to screwing eyes tightly closed, left and right hands with fingers crossed and saying the magic word, which gives the power of whatever. European and British industry has taken another massive and permanent hit due to unaffordable energy that drives up the price of everything, often at multiple levels from beginning to end of production. Sadly, no good will come from the new defence review, based on historic performance which has put UK defence in this position today.

Americans treat politics like a sport, complete with odds, analyses, play-by-plays and post-game wrap-ups. Just as in sports, once they've pick one team as their "favourite" they simply cannot bring themselves to root for the other side. This inevitably makes the two-party system confrontational by allowing little room for any possible third opinion alternatives.

this video seems to be a hit, congratulations and keep up the good work I enjoy all your videos.

That’s the difference the US military has unlimited funds and resources. The UK does not we struggle with 2% for Defence let alone 3% which it should be. Your right bad decisions have been made since the Cold War.

He makes great points. However, every country the French have gone to absolutely hates France. It's funny the written criticizes America in Vietnam given that the US got there in the first place to save face for the French. The French where actually trying to fight a conventional war in the middle of the jungle and got beaten badly at it, as shown at their defeat in Dien Bien Phu. In US experience idk where the Americans lost any large scale battle of that magnitude.

France italy spain portugal Belgium and Germany up until very recently. Was are still not currently paying 2% of GDP on defence. France Spain and Italy have similar population and similar size economies. Why should the uk spend 3% of GDP on defence if countries on the mainland of Europe are not paying even 2% The u.s needs to give europe including us in the uk a kick up the ass. The u.s needs to concentrate on pacific with china. Europe main security concern it obviously Russia. However if NATO excluding us spends just 3% of GDP on defence I'm sure 30 countries is enough to deter Russis from further aggression.

The British army and navy can't even defend their own borders with thousands of illegal Immigrants getting into Britain in dinkys they are a disgrace to their uniform they are cowards

Fighting the wrong war.... in 1998 tony blair hosted the eu china summit in London where technological agreements were signed....so blind to whats actually going on

These british defense Ambitions are hilarious. Firstly, "Force Projection" has nothing to do with Defense, and shouldn't even touch that budget. "Ability to deal with anything, anywhere" is something a bullied 6-7 year old would wish for, as he has no clue what could happen as a result of his actions, once he strikes back. And "Industrial capacity" means getting all those miners back to work, the Thatcher/Reagan era has put out of business. Good luck with that, because that cuts into budgets aswell, as without subsidies nobody will go back to that arduous labour. Without a good salary and health insurance. (NHS funding). The bold faced cheek, RUSI presents here, shows it has no clue what else has to be in order, to get a" War-considering" Economy going.(education, affordable housing, food, and services, good wages for meaningful performance, like in health care. Why would someone defend someone (in this case, the state) who doesn't care for them in return? Motivation issue. I mean what was the last "WAR" Britain won? The Falkland War. Because if we're honest, Vietnam and Iraq didn't pan out the way NATO wanted, neither did North Korea, and Afghanistan was another NATO-disaster. Yes, i think, Britain could still win against Argentina. But not against an enemy, that has a similar military budget. PERIOD "dealing" with. Russia? or China? In Hollywood maybe. Unfortunately, Britain invests in BIG MILITARY TECH projects, which are so valuable, it can't risk to lose them in the end. Does the "Yamato effect" ring any bells? The Flagship of the japanese navy stayed in port as an air defense battery and PR-stunt to motivate troops there, for years. That's what you get for these "Big-Budget-for-Big-Weapons-programs". Protracted Wars are the Future (Forever Wars). And 5 to 10 Suicide Drones can wreak as much Havoc as a fully laden F-35. Guess what is "resupplied" faster and cheaper? Nuclear Deterrence? How long is that going to work once somebody dropped one? Hours? Days? And where exactly can you mine your own Plutonium, Caesium, or Tritium? Oh wait, it's a "dependency" on our "partners". Too bad, shipping lanes might get blocked or plane Transports might be intercepted by conventional weapons. Guess that's a Non-starter, out of the box. The "I, wish (whatever)....AND WORLD PEACE"- speeches at "Miss World"-contests have a higher chance to come true, than what britain's RUSI wants. As i said: HILARIOUS. The only thing on this list that deserves any proper attention, is the Background. Should be a Monthy python drawing.

Small army, small navy, small airforce. Small defence budget. Procurement problems. No cats on carriers. Selling defence companies, Sold H&K, closed Enfield small arms works. Sold Cobham. Tornado,Harrier, withdrawn from service. Tempest will never fly. F35 short range. F20 would have meant more quantity. Russia does more with less.

Maybe you should have just asked the Russians

This is a pointless discussion when in the UK an average of 2.4 million children a month (or 17% of all children) are living in homes with food insecurity.

This is a great vid because it let's you see what actually undermind the entire war effort, based on the experience of someone who psrticipated in the strategy. Unlike much of what you see online, which is often the schizophrenic blabbing from some fat 50 year old who is off his opiods.

I was sure the George Floyd mural would do it. Pride month too. Just bad luck I guess.

On his analysis of the Falklands campaign. It's to put it pretty pathetic & sloppy. It's the extreme gross ineptitude of the Argie Air Force in the formulation of its operational doctrine to counter the RN expeditionary fleet in regard to which part of the Falklands expenditary fleet that actually needed to be engaged to secure the Falklands/Malvinas from the British Marines & Army. They chose to engage & target frigrates, which was a grossly inept mistake. The target should have been the merchant vessels supporting the landing force & fleet auxiliaries carrying the landing force & its support. Why was targeting & engaging frigates & destroyer unnecessarily. That was because the Argies had a prefect working knowledge of what Sea Dart & what Type 42 missle destroyers were capable of the area air defence lower attitude capabilites of Sea Dart of what it could or more specifically what it could not actually do. In regard to the very few frigrates that had Sea Wolf then. They knew somewhat of its capabilites that while it is formidable, it was limited essentially to effective point defence of itself or another ship very, very closely nearby which merchant vessels can't attain the ship handling to be so close & not endanger its escort by hitting it. Therefore there was no real need to go after the surface combatants but to only focus on the vessles transporting the landing force & its support+sustainment. If it was taken out, then the ability of the British to recover the Falklands evaporate. 😊

The US was tricked into fighting Israel’s wars after Mossad stage the perfect false flag operation. Or in short , American has no business in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria

To Michael Shurkin: How could the American colonies be democratic when over half the people (women) could not vote? I don't know what dictionary you are using but I can't find your definition ... anywhere.

I think Charles M. Faulkner summed it up best when he observed that the large land war such as ww1 ran contrary to the British perception that there was a uniquely British way of war, which found its typical example in the Seven Years War, with its emphasis on the navy and seizing of the enemy's overseas possessions. The thing is, the Golden Cavalry of St George might not be so easy to saddle up, nowadays.

Britain does not plan to field their own ACG at all, they expect to deploy their carriers protected by a battle group that must include allied ships.

Britain does not do all the maintenance, production or development on its nuclear deterrent. For all three pillars, it relies on the US to varying degrees. This should make things cheaper, but it's not apparent that that is the case. Its running costs are lower than France's (about half), but the French maintain two methods of delivery, and also have their own tactical nuclear capability. Realistically speaking, tactical nukes are the ones that are most likely to be used in the (very) near future.

It's unclear whether the UK has all those Overseas Territories in order to have a global presence, or whether it has a global presence because it has all those OTs.

What Americans should understand about democracy in America is that for real democracy, a vote is a vote is a vote, no matter what state it comes from. The Electoral College is a perversion of democracy which taints the American version and must be abolished for the USA to mature into a genuine democracy.

Re the 'anything, anywhere, because one never knows' category: Some extra detail I would add in here is a need to retain a minimum viable capability in every area which you might conceivably need in future, even if the medium-term justification seems slim. (Unless you are utterly convinced that the capability belongs in the past, like mounted cavalry). So, even if you think that a tank force is no longer a priority for the British army then it's still worth keeping a residual force of say 60-80 tanks so as to preserve all the knowledge and experience of operating a tank force. And along with retaining the core of such a force there should also be serious and regularly-updated planning for how such a force could be regenerated and expanded in the future, should priorities change in the future or new technology emerges.

Pax Americana is defeating itself with idiotic ambitions.

At 3:18, you imply that Iran is not interested in advancing its own interests, and at 3:38, you say that it is one of those few countries "for which resentment plays such a powerful role." You then go on to talk about how religious the leadership is, stating at 5:08 that they don't make “rational” calculations of their interests and act out of bigotry and religious fundamentalism. You have no proof that their religious beliefs drive their behavior vis-a-vis the outside world. It can easily be claimed that they act entirely out of their national interest-they are using religion to increase their dominance and soft power in the Arab world. I don't know if they believe in the religion they preach, but claiming the mantle of true Islam is helping them spread their influence all over the Muslim world. Every large country wants to dominate their region. There's nothing at all irrational in the way Iran is behaving. Its biggest rival is Israel, and its second biggest is Saudi Arabia. Iran is using Islam to stir up proxies that will attack their biggest regional rival. I imagine that they plan first to get rid of Israel and then take over Saudi Arabia. This is an entirely rational plan. I've heard people say, "Anyone who believes in fundamental Islam can't be rational.” This is not true; religious people tend to compartmentalize their beliefs. A person can be brilliant in science yet ascribe to a religion that makes no rational sense. I've known more than a few such people in my lifetime. It's a well-known phenomenon.

Very good video. You are right, in many areas we have refused to make the hard choices

Britain has always been strongest when focussed on naval strength with air power to back it up closer to home. Those capabilities along with a small but elite army- e.g. SAS, airborne and elite professional army to retain skills and abilities. We are a fading power and need to build our wealth again

Government does depend on the culture of the people who are to be governed. In Afghanistan I would have gone for a system of local warlords, governed by a central government in Kabul. Rather like a medieval system of nobles with a king over the nobles. That is a system that Afghans could have understood and accepted. I would say what the world needs is an organisation that can practice nation rebuilding. And the objective of that would be to get failed States into functioning countries. That would be done by getting a system of government set up that suited that country. Not governed by what was thought to be best for the country but what would work for that country. Then after the country became successful it would donate 2% of its GDP to help other countries to be reformed. I would expect mistakes to be made but with experience, the system should work. It is like any other project and worth doing because it would reduce world problems and increase wealth.

I was a British Soldier who had served in Afghanistan. Immediately after the second world war the American policy was to dissolve our Empire. Granted we were broke and exhausted. Worst of all from then on to this day we remain under your thumb. We are a declined and demoralized nation that doesn't recognize itself. We have gone and elected the Labour party who will break us further. Don't expect much from us now. Afghanistan and Iraq which I took part in. That was the last of the best of us. The Americans should dissolve their Empire.

Nobody wants to join the UK military. my dad recently retired and did training of recruits for the royal marines. he said the numbers and quality of recruits is so poor that most that pass nowadays would have been turned away 20 years ago. many are functionally illiterate, unfit, and unmotivated. why would anyone want to fight for a country that is being invaded, and only deploys its military to assist its master in the middle east?

funny , I've seen recently a milinium7 vid about the F-35 and its major drawback - the Just In Time delivery of spares (!)

The UK can’t choose… so we please no one. Only superpowers can have it all. We still want it all but can’t afford it. Nukes and aircraft carriers with top tech component power around the world…and massive reserves and scalability to fight attritional war in Europe. Jack of all trades, I’m afraid.

Thanks for this video, it raises some very interesting points. My I ask what your thoughts are on the UK withdrawing global focus on regional capabilities? And if we removed our nuclear deterrence where you would refocus these resources to?

Informative

From a Brit a really interesting video, clearly the best man for man military in the world but that has been an excuse for minimal defence spending for too long !

psst. hey guise. a war of attrition between two conscript armies ... might not look at all like a war waged by highly trained well-led professional armies equipped with the best weaponry in the world against lol kleptocratic conscript armies with shit kit and worse "leadership". lol. i can't even keep a straight face. Sure, there are lessons in the Ukraine war but one lesson is: the next war is never like the last war.

18:30 Oh god, a clueless neverserved claiming "NATO lacks capacity". Please quit mouthshitting buzzwords. You look ignorant (and likely are: i don't think you are lying). Continental NATO outproduces Russian artillery in munitions and tubes by At Least 3 to 1. Add in the USA and Canada for even more overmatch. Qualitatively, across the board, INCLUDING artillery NATO equipment is consistently outperforming Russian equipment, so much so that even our gear from 30 years ago out-performs their Current equipment, otherwise Russia would not be running out of T-90s. Feel free to add airpower... again, NATO's equipment is quantitatively and qualitatively superior to Russia. You basically misapprehend things entirely. May or may not have noticed the UK deploying its QE carriers to the South China sea recently. I was going to say something polite and reserved like "I think you have misperceived British strategy, force structure, threats, roles, and operations." but when you claim -- with no statstical backing whatsoever -- that "NATO lacks capacity" you're just mouthshitting buzzwords. Stop. Britain has a force structure adequate to the actual tasks it faces. Welcome to Americans are blabbermouths and I am not.

Shurkin, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Perun's presentations and his procurement-based perspectives. I think he did videos on the UK and France too.

I wrote something long - but as this idiot kept speaking. jeesus, Russian trolls are more stupid than I thought my neighbours in Russia could be. Russia PLEASE send this dude to the frontline, since I agree - this one is useless and deserves to be returned to his new frontlines while demonstrating "Russian analytical brainpower" per 2024. This is horribly shameful for anyone who ever thought "Russians can think".

I enjoyed the Video Maybe ad some sources I don't give a f about power point

In my view the UK is a fading power, and it will keep in this descent to irrelevance because it favors an economic system based on rents and where a large part of the economic surplus gets skimmed through the City of London financial services. That has meant that productivity gains are difficult to realize and the tax base is growing very slowly. In terms of procurement and design of systems there are often cases of accumulation of bad decisions that hope to bring short term savings only to cause more costs later on or compromised operability. I see the UK's indecision more in line with a political elite that comes from the service sectors, that has a limited understanding of technical and operational realities. And are in many ways like the French military and political elites previous to the first world war. Just too embroiled in their own political machinations to see what's in front of them.