British Armed Forces 'in crisis' as threat of Putin looms | Lord Dannatt

[@dadoots1551]

The Government really needs to listen to this guy!

[@mediapartners9950]

Excellent analysis by Lord Dannatt 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@williamthompson4389]

We could save £8 million a day by turning illegal immigrants back and not providing hotel accommodation for them!

[@rhijcdx.w]

Or we could put them to work in factories to build up our army.

[@geoffreydron1496]

Someone tell Canada to pay more.

[@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu]

Deterence will always be cheaper. The public should accept the realities and set expectations accordingly.

[@alexbort3082]

And good relations is even cheaper

[@junehill4636]

Starmer ...do something NOW to address this really serious issue...and listen to Dannett someone who knows !!!

[@phillipmiller1247]

Everyone talks about the 2% of GDP requirement in NATO, but the second NATO requirement has been even more flagrantly violated than the first. The second requirement is that 20% of the 2% be invested each year in upgrading military equipment, hardware, and supplies. The reason so many European countries' contributions to Ukraine have been so pathetic is that they don't have it to give. They don't have it because they have flagrantly violated the second requirement, and ignored for decades their degraded capabilities. Of course they could buy it from the US, and arrange for it to be shipped to Ukraine, but they're not about to do that.

[@s0ycapitan]

It would be better to specify military competences. Unless this is just an elaborate money laundering scheme to rob the taxpayers.

[@allenrenfro8837]

so....the Tories left British Armed Forces in shambles but will blame Labour for Tory failures

[@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu]

British armed forces had been deteriorating for far longer than 14 years. But yes, the tories will do what the tories do and blame labour for everything.

[@ArtyFactual_Intelligence]

This is no time to be fighting 19th century wars with 20th century armaments. New warfare is cyber. ONLY

[@stephennelmes4557]

This has been going on since the late 70s. The pay has always been poor, but you just got on with it as it was the life we chose. What was absolutely inexcusable was the penny pinching when it came to weapons. I'm not going to deride the SA80 , everyone has done that already. The Navy constantly gets expensive ships but refuses to arm them. Type 22 batch 1 & 2 frigates were almost defenceless with only 4 Exocet & 12 Seawolf, 22 & 3.5 NM range respectively. Things aren't much better today. The Type 45 destroyers are around a billion £ each, great ships, and radars, but only 48 missiles. I hope the PWO ( A ) has nerves of steel. There is a midlife upgrade in the pipeline with an extra 24 Sea ceptors or even the Mk 41 VLS 🙏🙏 offering far more capability and flexibility with American weapons as well as the ability to quad pack Sea captor...... Sorry for the rant. RIM RAM wouldn't go amiss on the carrier's either.

[@johnf3885]

So... you need to go back to the 1950s when the defense budget was 10% of GDP until Labour started cutting it to pieces. So don't you dare blame everything on the Tories.

[@berain-vo9ur]

@@stephennelmes4557 Exocet has a surface to surface range of over 40...maybe next time do a few seconds research?

[@user-kq5ke5yb6k]

Not getting the message: Canada

[@mikeincalifornia]

The war with Russia resulted from European expansionism and aggression, fueled by the Europeans' desire to achieve global hegemony. It has nothing to do with Canada or the US. If the Europeans want a war then that's their choice. But there's no reason to drag the rest of the world into it.

[@anthonymichaelwilson8401]

We need global peace ☮️

[@ArtyFactual_Intelligence]

It's the only way to fight the real enemy, which is Climate Change.

[@oldowleye3161]

No brains there ?… what is the part of this story that you don’t understand ?… or you are just a bot that works for the russian or chinese terrorist regimes ?…

[@skaracaesar4789]

Instead of so many billions spending for wars and defence, how about allocate those amount for settling peace?

[@robertatkins9419]

I hope that people will remember and bear in mind what Lord Dannatt says here, particularly the next time they hear - quite possibly on this very platform - some tough talking big mouth call on sending British troops into Ukraine, as the former British Defence Secretary did, and as the bellicose rhetoric of the new 'Labour' government already alarmingly portends.

[@wattyler6075]

When is this country going to realise it's no longer a world power & look after our own security & stop being world policemen.

[@Novella47]

Dont worry your immigrant army can fight it 😂😂😂

[@russellspeed1693]

So, in a round about sort of way, Tricky-Dicky is admitting that the plan always was to throw Ukr under the bus.

[@DA-of9sv]

I totally support what he is saying however I don't think we will spend more. Tbf the 29 european countries need to deter by getting to 3% themselves.

[@timknight2834]

The reality is the uk needs to spend at least 4% of GDP on defence to have an effective, army, navy and air force, post war the average GDP until the early 80s was actually over 7% of GDP. All forces need to increase in size as well as having more equipment, the UK armed forces are the smaller than they ever have been

[@HeavyDragoon]

Let's be Frank Lord Dannat had been serving since 1971 being commissioned in The Green Howard's the fact that.. quote "He was responsible for implementing a controversial reorganisation of the infantry, which eventually resulted in his regiment, the Green Howards, being amalgamated into the Yorkshire Regiment." Has not helped In the way like he (and many others) "rolled over and got their tummies tickled" One CANNOT DE-AMALGAMATE Regiments! So actually Lord Dannat has completely missed his own boat on this one in the fact that he too is part of the reason (the British Army in particular) is in this position. The reason (and this was explained at length when on my JNCO'S course) is "leadership is for one to lead, to lead by example also to make decisions that others shy away from. Leadership is not like water..which always takes the easy route..one must sometimes make decisions that are not popular, not only with one's subordinates but also with one's higher authorities (this last sentence particularly poiniont being that Lord Dannant should have spoken up at the time both to the powers that be and also publicly to state his displeasure (that we see here in this recent podcast) or indeed have resigned...but instead no.. I am afraid Lord Dannant did not have the moral courage at the time but now talks a "good job" here after the "horse has bolted"

[@Mark-mu6bc]

Thats why rishi sunak wanted national service back again

[@jedde-wiltonholmes3549]

yeah look how that turned out....

[@ScottPerkinsLCMT]

With a war raging in Europe it is pathetic that after two years Europeans are still spending so little on defense.

[@user-kq4hf8se5b]

Trump said European NATO was weak. You all cried.

[@berain-vo9ur]

America is weaker...last time the US won a war was against HONDURAS.

[@rhijcdx.w]

Trump also said he is innocent whilst being found guilty of lying 34 times in a court of law MAGA cried more.

[@rhijcdx.w]

Trump is not fit for office. The world knows it.

[@user-hz7pr8lc4v]

We'll get it sorted then

[@idonthavealoginname]

Always the same old tired conversation about spending based a % of GDP when in fact we need twice as many soldiers than we currently have.We barely have 70,000 troops and we have no Expeditionary Force capability and no amphibious capability .The UK armed forces has been destroyed by Tory cuts.

[@JesterEric]

The problem is the cost of weapons. Russia pays $1000 per 152mm artillery shell. NATO 155mm shells cost at least $4000. Russia spending $120 billion is the equivalent of the UK spending $500 billion and that's not taking into account huge differences in wages, bloated administration costs and the negative affects of mandatory diversity

[@californiadreamin8423]

@@JesterEric. I assume you can provide a source for your information.

[@JesterEric]

@@californiadreamin8423 the cost of a US M795 Shell is $5000 (Feb 24). Average NATO cost $4000 and the figure $1000 for Russia comes from Sky News. Russian arms industry is integrated and state owned. They also have all raw materials needed

[@californiadreamin8423]

@@JesterEric Well if it comes from Sky News.

[@allansmith3837]

That ship sailed a long time before the last tory government. Every British government since the end off WW2 has cut our military Both Labour and Tory. Who in there right mind would go and die a horrible death in a muddy field in a hole in the ground in Ukraine for a country that despises them in a War for American money men.

[@user-od1pe2ip2n]

UK already broke 😂😂😂😂

[@rhijcdx.w]

Stop trying to degrade the UK you speak for you not all...DOH.

[@TheGreatStKat]

@@user-od1pe2ip2n silly boy, only the tory's, as usual, your friends

[@Mark-mu6bc]

Ukraine are running out of troops

[@claudiabenson3167]

In 1935 soldiers and weapons were cheap. So no comparison with today.

[@icu17siberia]

not in 1935 pounds they weren't. Uk went broke in WW2

[@MrCalls1]

That’s kind of corrected for by using %gdp. If 3% of the economy was being spent on the war depeartment, that’s 1 in every 33 pounds that changes hands in the economy being war related. That’d mean the same as now, because labour and material costs increased both inside and outside the war department. What should’ve actually emerged was greater slack in the civilian economy. If you only need 97%(1935) or 52%(1940) to have an economy without starvation or mass boredom, surely with greater productivity in the civilian economy it should be possible to squeeze that allocation of resources to civilian survival should be possible. Unfortunately after the 70s labour saving technologies spend and capital reinvestment have been cut massively to support a more short termist view under the end of the post-war consensus. This was because of fears of labour, and has resulted in sluggish growth in productivity ever since, which has meant our living standards aren’t following anything like the 1945-1975 trend with reduced weekly hours needed to sustain a comfortable life. If we had continued on that course we might have had more slack to rededicate more of the economy to defence.

[@savaisakovic3857]

"Ukraine is buying a time for us". How humanly!

[@brianholding4357]

🇺🇦🇬🇧

[@maykolee]

🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu]

🇺🇦🇿🇦

[@AlexBunda-sn5yn]

🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@anthonymichaelwilson8401]

The only military crisis is Ukraine and the British army involvement 😊

[@rhijcdx.w]

Noone on this planet is taking the USA seriously EVER again if Trump wins. We have no relationship with Trump he is ALL about himself not America not Europe and not Russia!

[@JesterEric]

If we had conscription like Russia we could pay the conscripts peanuts. That would save huge amounts of money. Ukraine is sending conscripts to the front line after a few days training. A professional army trained for years is a luxury

[@MrCalls1]

The simple track is we should make plain our commitment. +0.1% gdp to the defence budget till we exceed 3% on defence. At that point we can still squeeze it back down without major industrial malfunctions when the time passes. That means 3% in 2031. And 1% gdp on direct transfers to Ukraine per year. Create a small office and we either transfer the money directly, transfer equipment, or procure equipment/munitions on their behalf ever single year in perpetuity till the war is won. Then we can campaign to export this model to our 25 fellow Europeans. Just 1% transfer from every state for ever would be great sign to Russia of our long term resilience. And would be the sort of money that the defence industry could plan around.

[@mr.mayhem7402]

Ah yes, the Putins.

[@NullbYte-gk5jq]

MR Dannat been eating too much beetroot??😂

[@IbHansen-ic9yr]

Yes, England, which is in the g7 and has a super good military, must be at least 4 percent, the big countries must always lead the way..

[@annehersey9895]

As an American, I’m still putting my faith in the American people that we will NEVER re-elect Donald Trump!!!

[@user-mz3in7vo5b]

Trump is IMMUNE, he will be installed, regardless....

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

As for OUR role in NATO (nothing to do with the odious EU), it must be to secure the east North Atlantic sea routes + Atlantic/Arctic passages, Norwegian and North Seas, reinforce our Scandinavian allies to hold NATO's northern flank and provide theatre depth for NATO air ops generally. It should NOT be big land-force deployments to the central European Front. SO OUR NO1 PRIORITY MUST BE REGROWING & UPGRADING THE RN AND RAF. Not big numerical full time army increases! Regrowth to 80,000 + big increase in relevant platforms + systems should be preferred!