Military chief says UK forces would be ready to fight a war with Russia

[@IMDunn-oy9cd]

I'm a retired US servicemember and had the privilege of serving with British troops. They were fantastic - absolutely top notch. Their support from their government was appalling.

[@nelotharen8599]

great guys but totally under funded.

[@1chish]

@@nelotharen8599 Underfunded? What the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO? A $65 Bn budget that is increasing year on year in the next 5 years is 'underfunded'? Stop peddling this nonsense.

[@TheMVCoho]

@@1chish Did you even watch this video, if you had, you couldn't write such nonsense,. Point is simply this the UK has cut away the armed forces to an appalling low level in terms of numbers of persons and updated equipment. You can't be defend the entire kingdom with a handful of troops.

[@billymorris-watts3766]

To fight in Eastern Europe we would need 100,000 troops realistically and hundreds of vehicles to support and hold any significant territory.....which is doable by 2030 but probably not atm

[@1chish]

@@TheMVCoho No of course I didn't watch it Dufus... 🤦‍♂ And where was my comment 'nonsense' given I was countering the allegation we are 'underfunded'? provide ONE factual counter argument rather than emotive cow manure. Given we have a few more than a 'handful' of troops' (emotive cow manure again) and we are an island its not the army that would defending the British Isles. So who exactly do you think is going to invade us and then lets compare some facts. Cow manure free zone please .....

[@allo-other]

If the British military has been underfunded, then those in charge of assigning funds are to blame. Looking at you, politicians.

[@afc8981]

The British army has been given billions of pounds to be spend on new vehicles over the last decade and a bit and has nothing to show for it. Procurement and project management need to be fixed before the army gets an extra penny to spend. They'll just waste it otherwise.

[@garagenigel]

It's not underfunded! The French get more for their money! Where is our money going?

[@garrywynne1218]

@@garagenigel- not on equipment that’s for sure

[@ztaylor82]

Its Europe and the EU has reduced military depending on collective strength instead. Now we're paying the price

[@allo-other]

@@ztaylor82 Irrelevant and, since the EU is about economic, not military, cooperation, inaccurate. The video and my comment are about the British military.

[@rudolphraindeer295]

Mp's asking for honesty? no hypocrisy here.

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

The four Ls of The Nazi keeps you square?

[@lyndon_daly1889]

what a joke Russia would Finnish us!

[@danielwhyatt3278]

They were right to ask these questions. We all agree with them. These are the very same things we’ve been asking and saying for well over a decade, if not two decades now and the Army chiefs have just kept rebutting on their previous statements. Well, current events have proven them to be incorrect. We need new equipment in the thousands and more soldiers by tens of thousands.

[@Bob10009]

That’s down to the politicians, not the military. They are the ones holding the purse strings tightly closed for 40years.

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

Great question there from The Gestapo.

[@grahamellis6029]

You can see why Tony was picked as defence chief, he's a yes man through and through.

[@willw8011]

Any high ranking officer will be a politician first and foremost.

[@1chish]

Not sure he said yes to any of these MPs. But whatever ....

[@frank-ko6de]

Yes man is helping nobody. Furthermore, how does a Navy guy help with the land forces when he has no expertise in that area?

[@1chish]

@@frank-ko6de Maybe because as Chief of the Defence Staff he has 'staff' that do have specialist expertise in a variety of areas. Dear oh dear ...

[@frank-ko6de]

@@1chish This 🤡🤡🤡🤡 can't even use critical thinking to answer a simple question. And you wonder why the Army has no equipment. Dear, oh, dear...😶😶😶😶

[@michaellawrence1322]

What he fails to take into account is the fact that the people who have to fight in this antiquated rubbish would end up dying very very quickly.

[@barrywood5357]

How can our Armed forces fight when consecutive governments have stripped them back to the bone to please the bean counters that say we will never go to war again. they say we are the best but we are fighting with bows and arrows compared to some of the forces in the world.

[@JustAnotherThisDJ]

Exactly

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

He's a yes man, that's how he got the job. We could fight the Russians because they are useless. I'd send Mark Francois first though.

[@keithdurose7057]

The responsibility of proving the country with a viable fighting force is basically made ip of two things. Equipment and those that use it. Those that use equipement can be trained to operate whatever they are issued with. To the best of their ability. This has been done by those in command of manpower and training. In this case, represented by the Admiral. The equipment should be identified as the best for the type of warfare that the forces are expecting to fight. This costs money. It is the responsinility of procurement. Here are two problems. What equipment is needed. How much will it cost? So instead of designing horses for courses. A universal camel is agreed on. This is again the case. And the result costs way more in the long term. It also prevents the users from getting what they need. Ergo. The current situation. Cost cutting lies at the feet of the Treasury not at the feet of the Command structure. Politicuans should sometimes be less paradoxical and more realistic on defence spending on the reqired equipment. For example. A 40mm high velocity gun in a semiautomated turret on a warroor would be a more effective and cost effective solution than the still not in production Ajax. The South Korean Panther K2 MBT. Licence built with an up graded Chalenger motor and transmission together with the Isreali designed anti projectil defence system could be very effective in the short term at least. Providing commonalty with Polands purchase of this AFV.

[@suburbia2050]

"bows and arrows" what hysterical nonsense!

[@1chish]

Not sure a $65 Bn budget increasing by $11 Bn over the next 4 years is in any way being "stripped back to the bone" So how much would you cut the MHS to give more to the Forces? Oh I know lets just abandon our welfare system ..... And 'bows and arrows'? God save us.

[@user-mjg1067]

I'm an ex British Soldier, in my humble opinion I think the UK Forces would be able to fight for 4 days a week would be a stretch, if it was against Russia

[@Taiyeb.1Z]

Right?

[@drexelmildraff7580]

The Roman Empire thought the same way in its last days before it was destroyed by Germanic tribes. It still thought it was a major power, while it hadn't been for a long, long time. The British Empire seems to currently be in the same state of lack of reality.

[@johnbobson1557]

I think the Empire is of course long gone, but I take your point. I do think it is an issue throughout the West. We've just grown fat, lazy and complacent and live on past hurrahs of the 1800's.

[@Anonymous-ur6dl]

Uk wouldn't last one day against Russia 😢

[@ObviousTroll2016]

"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies"

[@matthewbaynham6286]

I notice the question wasn't about winning a war against Russia, but just fighting. It is rather strange for politicians to continuously cut the budgets so that the MOD can't buy all the new equipment and the MOD have to make cut backs in the number of personal, and these cuts are from politicians. But then the blame apparently somehow lies with the guy in uniform. Perhaps the politicians shouldn't have made cuts to the budget for the MOD, year after year after year. It's always a never ending stream of cut backs. Politicians should be the ones to face cut backs and the MOD should be given enough budget to actually win a war against Russia, not just fight a war.

[@jej3451]

Indeed. The relevant question should be whether the UK could win overwhelmingly, such that Russia would be deterred from even trying.

[@Bobafett72]

I was thinking the same thing mate. He can only work with the budget he is given. So give him more if you want upgrades etc. Plus more personnel and more retention...simple really. means more budget commitment.

[@evanguillen6805]

The nukes will go off before any land war between them lol.

[@eviloverlordsean]

Why in heaven's name did Russia choose to attack Ukraine last year? Because they thought their potential adversaries were weak. The British military will fight to the ends of their lives with fruit knives if needs be, but if you want real victory? Fund them.

[@ConradAinger]

The UK win a war with Russia? It could not even begin to fight one. What would the war plan be, an advance on Moscow? Grandiose delusions

[@patshiels5429]

Is he drunk

[@danielbailey5849]

Probably or on something ,

[@seandonoghue8197]

Ukraine have lost more Solider than the entire British Military. What is this man talking about. We have neither the manufacturing base. Logistical capability, resources or professional manpower to fight Russia. This is madness.

[@sydive130]

I served 37 years, early years in BAOR when Russia was just a few hours away if they decided to have a pop! 80,000 plus troops and assets and I think we would have had a problem! What have we got left now? No hercs, no harriers, half a dozen F35’s, a few Typhoons, A400s with problems, 432’s that were old in 85 when I learnt drive them, need I go on. We couldn’t defend the Isle of Wight , let alone take on Russia even with its own depleted forces……

[@philipsudron]

Some Slingsby gliders possibly

[@richardgibson1553]

Why Russia anyway??

[@Red-74-]

Being an ex serviceman, I can tell you numbers matter, we would give a good account of ourselves but russia would beat us through sheer numbers on all fronts. Also we are hindered by the fact that the MOD and government are minge bags when it comes to money spending on our brave armed forces.

[@trace7410]

Another deluded debate.. He is living in cloud cookoo land..

[@keithgoodrick-meech3921]

I was in the UK military from 1976-1984. We had some equipment from WW2. There is no way we could take on Russia. Only a fool would suggest that we could.

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

Great question from The Gestapo there?

[@Grizathvili]

You're right, never ever fight a bear when they are in anger, furious, and has many hands and claws. Better play dead rather than courageous.

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

What like The Nazi you mean?

[@xclonejager6959]

Are we hell... We make out we are far better than we are, Our kit is decades old and is horrendously unready for an actual combat deployment due to the supply chain not keeping up with demand or upgrade packages not being rolled out probably or in full, Were lacking in almost every area and would be almost entirely dependent on our allies after a few weeks of low intently combat ops

[@pantherowow77]

@@donnythedealer9110 You're right. They bought a couple of those Ajax vehicles so everything should be alright 👍

[@RoachChaddjr]

Comparing to Russia's arsenal I don't think we'd be any less effective than them.

[@danielbailey5849]

@@pantherowow77Ajax coast lots of money and got problems with them

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

@@danielbailey5849not to mention the abhorrent level of delivery for those at around 3 a month? For a total for 200 at the end??

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

@@bobs_1429 but having so many troops with that quality can denote a certain level of capabilities, you can send 30,000 soldiers to a war zone but if they come under heavy fighting and potentially get wiped out or largely destroyed, that leaves very few left over with the current state of the army, hell we barely have 3 whole divisions left in active service not counting reserves, barely 5 at most. Send 2 abroad to two areas that’s only two areas of a certain size you can control/defend and launch counter attacks, but they get largely destroyed that’s a lot of capabilities lost and cannot be replaced for months. if the budget increases and this cutting allows for faster filling out, then put the extra money towards bringing it to 120,000 active personnel sooner rather than later.

[@dannyfeller7034]

I love how it’s MPs grilling military about readiness when it’s the MPs that have actively been making bad decisions reducing the capability. How can we say we are ready to fight a war? Major conflicts in the past have required use of our Merchant Navy which has been ultimately destroyed due to lack of interest and lack of protection from government.

[@TheThundertaker]

Select committees aren't the government, who are to blame for cuts. The defence select committee is right to ask the tough questions of an Admiral who has been appointed by the government and essentially got where he is because he wasn't willing to rock the boat confronting his political masters.

[@keithdurose7057]

As an island nation. The merchant fleet is absolutely critical. I agree. In reality. The Atlantic Conveyor was, as the Argentines identified it. The third aircraft carrier during Op Corperate. The Falklands war. After it was sunk by an exocete missile. If it wasn't for her sister ship, the Atlantic Causeway. The airstrip at Port San Carlos would not have been built. Seriously jeopardizing the harrier combat air patrols. Sid's Strip as it was known. Allowed the fleet to stand off to the East. Out of range of the Argentine aircraft. While facilitating refuelling and extending the range of the RN and RAF Harriers. The fuel coming from Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. Via ship to shore refuelling equipment.

[@malpowys2029]

Who's he kidding....Lol

[@danielbailey5849]

Probably him self and all the governments , let face it even the government think the military is ready not realising the cut back there caused

[@StevenHanover]

Why fight if there are tactical nukes. Quit fighting and lets go rescue Mars

[@death_parade]

Rescue Mars? How about you get to orbit first lol.

[@JustAnotherThisDJ]

It's not the generals fault is it when your the ones driving this country

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

Yoy get the military you pay for and ours has suffered cuts after cuts for over a decade. Don't vote for the ones that cut spending to the bone.

[@danielbailey5849]

True but shouldn’t ask a admiral who only knows about the navy not about any other branch like army or royal air forces strength he will tell a lie , general of the army won’t to quite became no one will listen to him or realised how bad the military is

[@MrRisingg]

​@@danielbailey5849he's chief of the armed forces.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

​@danielbailey5849 he's the chief of defence, he knows about the other branches and he has been trying to fix the mess the government's over the last 40/50 years have managed to make

[@lizu47]

Who is here after the UK GENERAL said that "UK ARMY wont last 2 Month against RUSSIA" in January 2024

[@keithsimpson8335]

The military personal we have in the UK are at the very top of their profession, the committee is right to point out, the lack of modern equipment. I always find it annoying that senior military commanders, only criticise their political masters after they've retired. If some would just man-up and tell the truth, instead of protecting their own jobs.

[@paulingle2060]

It's the politicians who are to blame for the state of our armed forces

[@robertatkins9419]

That's right, pass the buck and blame others

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

Looks like they are preparing for civil war to me!

[@Emily-y8o5s]

Not sure which idiots would fight for this government

[@oliverpedder-platt9629]

They are bang on with the tank. The Scimitars are ancient kit by this point and the Ajax to replace them is in development hell. The challenger 2 is still a capable vehicle but isn’t designed for major conflict and it’s replacement, the challenger 3 is only bringing them up to meet current standards and isn’t really an investment for the future

[@dennisberson9649]

We don’t have any Scimitar any more

[@oliverpedder-platt9629]

@@dennisberson9649 Case and point

[@suburbia2050]

Very bot like name, and bot like nonsense. Challenger isn't designed for a major conflict+?! what exactly do you think it was designed for?! The challenger platform is one of a handful of tanks that has actually seen a large scale battle. You do realise it is quite typical for military platforms to take decades to design and build and have a least a 20 year life span.

[@meme4one]

Challenger and CR2 were designed exactly for large scale conflicts like those expected during the cold war. Literally their entire use case. It's all the newer wheeled vehicles bought for Afghanistan that would struggle in Russian mud.

[@danielbailey5849]

@@dennisberson9649we still got them but expect this year but might change , we will keep them but short amount

[@mosthaunted2]

If he thinks the UK could beat Russia on their own right now, then he's deluded.

[@marknorville9827]

We are part of NATO so we would not be alone. Do the maths

[@mosthaunted2]

@@marknorville9827 I'm not including NATO.

[@mosthaunted2]

@@marknorville9827 I'm talking about the defence of the UK on our own, we could not defend and attack Russia at the same time for very long.

[@danielbailey5849]

@@marknorville9827if doesn’t matter if we in nato or not the problem is we not ready or capability to fight in long war , Ukraine destroyedinf our military capability our government destroyed the military all together,

[@danielbailey5849]

⁠@@mosthaunted2can’t hold defend or attack alone time even the British army generals said we won’t fight for long war , not with we give eveything to Ukraine , we give Ukraine tanks , air defence, anti tank weapons , artillery and ammunition and helicopters and other types of vehicles what made uk military weak and lest capability to fight , Ukraine fire loads of missile not realised it take time to make them and send them off

[@DRUMNERD]

Can't they just admit they've hollowed our forces out and we need things brought up to standard and more of them/people - not less.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

Problem is they don't get a say in what we get rid of and keep. If it was up thr people like that admiral there we would still have a big navy, still have a well quiped army and air force

[@danielbailey5849]

Not really even the admirals won’t admit it , admirals just force on Royal Navy not on other military forces

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@danielbailey5849 the admiral talking there is chief of defence staff. That's his Jon.

[@WilkyTheFlyingScotsman]

@@richardboote6689 again. He is Chief of Defence Staff. His job is with all Branches not just the RN.

[@davidharris4062]

Three out of 6 Type 45 Destroyers are in dry dock having major refits

[@danielbailey5849]

Yes true but getting better weapons and getting a laser , we need more frigates and destroyer and submarine

[@thomassmith5395]

And it’s been like that since they first came out 😂

[@thomassmith5395]

@@danielbailey5849it’s alright getting more weapons but when a ship can’t operate out at sea it’s useless

[@death_parade]

@@danielbailey5849 Laser? What power rating? What role?

[@johnchapman6013]

That's R.N. propaganda statement. The real reason All officers are undergoing LGBTQ training a 2 week course . I read about it in May .

[@StreetsOfRage2]

How can we have the 5th highest military budget on the planet, yet our forces are so depleted and neglected? So many heads need to roll to make way for far more competent leaders. It's beyond pathetic what they're doing to the British military. SORT IT OUT!!

[@Waywind420]

UK military is not actually underfunded, it enjoys a 1.9-2% GDP spending on the military which is fine, it's proportionally higher than China 1.7% The recommended spending for NATO members is 2% and the UK is one of the only countries actually near that (Italy 1.5% , France 1.9%, Spain 1.5% , Germany 1.6%). 1 in every 25 British citizens are military veterans, so you have a pool of perhaps 600-700k former soldiers between age 18-40 to call into service during wartime. That's more than enough to defend the UK from any conventional Russian expeditionary force and given Russian forces would also have to cut through the entire EU to reach the UK with an invasion force the likelihood of that happening is astronomical. What the UK does need to do is probably increase the budget to 2.5%, not shut down one of the only steelworks companies in the country (I'm looking at you Port Talbot) and actually establish a couple more factories for ammunition/ supplies/ vehicle manufacturing.

[@davidbell5470]

the CDS seemed shocked when someone questioned his Yes answer, this is what you get when you put 'yes' men in charge, no idea, absolutey no idea of ground capabilities either, im sure he has ensured that Naval capabilities get lots of attention. our troops deserve better than this, we deserve better than this!

[@lukedelport8231]

Was this not the same bunch of politicians who said the army needed cuts

[@garagenigel]

We couldn't do it on our own! No chance! Fact!

[@LFX27]

We are like half of what we were 40 years ago.

[@diamondbill9805]

That man is so woke, totally Unbelievable.

[@williamtraynor-kean7214]

The worst CDS, the army has 72K, this bloke is just interested in his aircraft carriers which unfortunately cannot operate conventional aircraft, so no AEW aircraft so no better off than in the Falklands dependency on radar which cannot see over the horizon. The army is still using FV432 which has been upgraded but was in service when I joined in 1967, the RAF has not enough Typhoons not the pilots to fly them and a handful of F35 Lightnings. The only area we can beat the Russians is in our diversity training.

[@buttonworld77]

I dont like to downplay our military but we have reached rock bottom in terms of numbers, I can only speculate on what that means in terms of capability. The oldest airforce in the world has less than 100 flight ready fighter jets but we're told they're the best so thats ok. The senior service has now dropped to the lowest number of frigates ever but are still expected to 'project power' like a blue water navy should. And our once great army is now reduced to giving advisory service to other eastern European based armies because our external footprint is so small. When will our politicians stop playing chess with our armed forces?

[@joecater894]

well, the f35 is extremely capable and of course, they have defender and co for defences. F35 lot lot more capable than harriers. Having said that, def need more ships..

[@normanboyes4983]

Talking out of yer arse - you have zero understanding what the CDS does or what Radakin specifically does.

[@death_parade]

@@buttonworld77 "The best"? RAF Typhoons don't even have AESA radars. Best my a$$. F-35 might be, but then, the ones UK has is the F-35B and those don't have anti-ship missiles integrated yet.

[@Laser82]

unedermanned, under equipped, under paid, under appreciated, over worked, Recruitment fail, Retention fail, morale XXXL Low, Pensions a disaster on many fronts. There's no wonder many of us are just leaving and giving up. Remember no matter how bad it gets never take the sad way out. Please get help.

[@scotthunter7140]

The higher echelon of our MOD are afraid to say we are in trouble. As an army, we are broken. In any way, not just equipment.

[@percyvolnar8010]

Being "Ready to fight a war with Russia" and "Winning a war against Russia" are 2 entirely different things.....

[@keighlancoe5933]

The UK has 26,350 infantryman, including the RAF Regiment, Parachute Regiment & Royal Marines in that figure. The Ukrainians and Russians are losing about 500 men each per day, give or take. If we were fighting in Ukraine, we would have lost the entirety of our infantry force within a month as half would be wounded and the other dead. The UK now has a Defence Force, not an army.

[@CDNR711]

Wait did he already admit that the UK wasn’t able to respond due to ammo, kit and personal shortages.

[@johnchapman6013]

UK got 2 weeks worth of Ammo at full attack Russia have 2 years , Russia now employ 3,250,000 million people in Armament factory's. British biggest employer is Tesco .😂😂

[@lau28683]

Don't trust politicians

[@jonymanay]

All the free weapons and vehicles sent to Ukraine didnt make a difference.. These guys know their military isnt gonna cut it. Yet they say they are ready.

[@obamaosama6819]

Is there a full video of this discussion?

[@TheLastCrumb.]

Truthful answer is no

[@philchristmas4071]

The real questions that need to be asked in the US and UK military. Is how did incompetence and corruption run rampant without someone blowing the whistle. With our combined military budgets our armor, artillery, Navy fleet and everything else should be better. Everytime we try to field a new vevicle, you just know, here comes another 15-30 billion dollar development with no new vehicle. M1161 Growler, Littoral combat ships, Zumwalt, Ajax, UK leaves boxer to only rejoin and Comanche just to name a few huge losses of resources. With all of this technology we can't do what our military could do 50-100 years ago. We can't build anything without huge cost overruns, delivery dates steadily being pushed back to only have something underperform. Yet, no one is ever held accountable for all of these failures.

[@iamspartacus8219]

This Admiral is just a yes man waiting for his knighthood. Telling them what they want to hear, not necessarily reality.

[@professorchris3515]

He already has a knighthood.

[@robertstibz9506]

Just shows what fools we have in charge of military 😮

[@johnnunn8688]

Please explain your flawed reasoning?

[@07thomasd]

What is it, 3 years since the land rover contract ran out and Land rover refused to renew it because they simply dont make the ancient parts anymore...? We still dont have a deal for new vehicles. Meanwhile our fleet of "landy's" from the 60's & 70's are literally falling apart and have a top speed of 50mph. The fleet alone isnt fit for purpose. How are troops supposed to transit in a full scale conventional war against a superpower? The land rover issue is but the tip of the iceberg of a monumental stack of problems caused by underfunding and budget cuts. And even that hasnt been resolved in 3 years without a contract. Meanwhile the army is spending money on pride flags to fly above camps for 1 month each year.... Wise spending as always.

[@Bob10009]

When the politicians that are responsible for decimating the defence budget for decades , blame the army for having outdated vehicles…..🤦🏻‍♂️

[@mastervortex2086]

Ironic how MP's are asking about honesty.

[@robharris8844U]

The financial waste in the military is continually disappearing into a bottomless pit - that is where the problem is as there tends to be little audit control. Counting every bullet is unworkable but spending on large projects should be audited so that money is available for other forces than the one at hand.

[@ReallyFarFarAway]

This answer seem to be falling short of the mark .. 🤔 ..

[@wendyharbon7290]

Fight a two minute war, OK maybe a 7 day war at best! Anything longer the British Armed Forces, would very quickly start runing out of erything, Because of Conservative Defence Cuts or Under Funding of HMF too, for the last 13 years! Unless the American agreed to a new round of Land Lease, arms support for the UK again, but what would the UK Government offer to the Americians in return, land lease of all of London and the Home Counties too? We be in the same position the Ukraine 🇺🇦 Government and Military, found itself in February 2022, fighting to survive with what is laying around, including weapons from the 1st and 2nd World Wars, plus military hardware out of museums maybe too!

[@danielbailey5849]

Ukraine destroyed uk military capability

[@cathalwalker3308]

@@danielbailey5849o the whole UK military is destroyed because they gave Ukraine 14 tanks ? 🤣🤣what a joke of a military. RUSSIA HAS 10,000 TANKS

[@danielbailey5849]

⁠@@cathalwalker3308first get your fact right first we dint just send tanks we also send air defence, anti tank weapons , artillery systems,drones , different types of armourd vehicles and helicopters, different types of missile for artillery and storm shadows and brimstone missile, weapons , grenade launchers, grenades , ammunition , £4.6 billion military assistance and more money , and send more equipment that why Ukraine destroyed it

[@jarviscockapoo343]

Instead of criticism give him the budget he needs 🤔

[@danielbailey5849]

Totally agree but for all armourd forces and stop the cutting personally and low the Sanard so people can join up , sign up and you in like the old days

[@Music5362]

As an island with many island dependencies with much of the trade via shipping, why don't we mainly invest in marine and air defence to serve the UK's actual interests rather than armoured battle groups to serve the interests of other countries.

[@joecater894]

because as a nato member we have overseas commitments.

[@Music5362]

@@joecater894 and I agree with that. We should use our naval and air forces as part of NATO. The problem comes when the UKs interests are challenged out side of the NATO area, we're on our own.

[@michaeledmondson8603]

we have obligations under the NATO treaty to provide land forces when needed.

[@joecater894]

@@Music5362 .. yes, like the falks. Something like that can easily happen again.. might not be falks this time.. might be something else.. which is why UK forces need to have the ability to work alone if needed. but its not likely to be a large ground offensive ; might be another island though.

[@Music5362]

@@michaeledmondson8603 Not only would we supply our improved navy and air forces, but also our small land forces for sure.

[@ztaylor82]

Course we would! Fight tooth and nail despite our military has been reduced largely in past decades

[@trampertravels]

I find it annoying that the Admiral is barracked by a bunch of political nobodies, said nobodies and the rest of Parliament being responsible for the lack of investment in the military land forces. It will take 20 years to bring the land forces back up to a reasonably effective fighting strength. The military was at it's fittest in 1989 and it was the Government under Prime Minister John Major, which enacted the major cuts to the British Military Land Forces.

[@JJ_Khailha]

FUND THE MILITARY THEN!!!

[@miketiger6205]

Fight who Russia lol give your head are wobble

[@columbus7950]

Defence is radically underfunded in this less more unstable world.

[@Ultimate93V]

I got a friend at UK forces. UK is not able to wage a war abroad. But only defend. Hence congrats to the ministry to sticking to the name

[@BucyKalman]

I am sick and tired of those MPs in the Defence Select Committee, some of whom were in government not so long ago, talking down the British armed forces and advertising to the enemy that they are useless and not ready to fight today in an all-out war. That is not only incorrect as the CDS said, but actually reckless and irresponsible.

[@RobMcGinley81]

It's sad when the Politicains are less "Politician" than the Chief.

[@mark.J6708]

What's unit readiness levels, the real ones? What's manning levels?

[@biddyboy1570]

Secret

[@danielbailey5849]

All British army personnel is reading levels for any conflict or crisis, that why British army soldiers training regularly and adapting new tactics and technology , 16 air assault is ready in short notice go in operation

[@xclonejager6959]

We claim to have a division ready but the reality is very different, most regiments would struggle to arive at a combat zone intact let alone conduct combat ops

[@koolyman]

I thought he would have given a 'no' answer and made the case for better funding...

[@Cheiff117]

WE ARE NOT READY ! THE GOVERNEMENT CUT SO MUCH !

[@clivemaskell2439]

The admiral is more concerned for his own career, hes well aware what happens to those who are outspoken about telling the truth.

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

Capable my arse, I’m goin through the process of joining the navy and tbh I’m appalled by the utter lack of sympathy the government has for funding the forces, cutting back on army numbers despite increasing defence spending is beyond a joke. Get the extra 0.6%gdp into the budget yesterday and get the numbers up for weapons and equipment at the very least!! hell if anything get the airforce it’s originally planned 138 f35B’s AND increase the number of tanks from 148 challenger 3’s to almost 200, those you can acquire potentially much faster than a ship. While I’m happy that the Royal Navy plans to expand, and is expanding their ship building capabilities to do so more quickly, it’s coming w a day late and a £ short, assuming we can stop Russians and china from starting war in the next 7 years we may have a force that’s as powerful as they claim

[@Digger1971]

😂😂are you in for a shock when you join up

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

@@Digger1971 what’s that meant to mean

[@Digger1971]

I would not wish to damper your optism. Enjoy your time in the mob

[@splatoonistproductions5345]

@@Digger1971 well thank you, since it’s the only option I have left at this point I hope to even get past the medical

[@cathalwalker3308]

The UK needs to have at least 800 Challengers

[@quirkygreece]

I wouldn’t trust anything that Mark Francois is involved in as far as I could throw a Challenger 2.

[@maiwandtanha5579]

The good thing is that these minsters don’t want to send their kids to these wars

[@johncrook7705]

The smallest armed forces being given a overreach mission. We have the best fighting men and women but amazingly a government not paying up a war insurance policy.

[@ChristopherMiskimmon-j7g]

The current government is in no position make demands like that.

[@RussTillling]

Arguing about the costs and needs for armies and navies have gone back in time forever. Elizabeth I was the first I believe to have a permanent, standing navy.

[@andrewrowlands5840]

We the British do not have enough fighting men and women 75000 and dropping to even meet the criteria to even be called an Army? We used to have an Army of 250,000 men and women in the 1980s until the endless governments cut and cut and cut until we lost all our experienced NCOs and men. If we go to war (Of which I hope we never do) we will be in big trouble as we were in WW2 at Dunkirk and that was with an expeditionary force of over 250,000 men. Our army is now smaller than the army that Wellington took to fight Napoleon.

[@Just_lift_anyone]

99% of people in this meeting are just worrying about their bonuses.

[@richardgibson1553]

Wrong question. Would the UK armed forces be in a position to win a war against Russia if one started tonight. I mean I’d be ready to fight Tyson Fury but I’m damn sure I’m not lasting more than the first punch.

[@JonathanSteadman2003]

🥹😭😱😱😱

[@paulreid7129]

So many cuts over the years now when we need military we r struggling. We have the best trained personnel in the world just not enough of them due to cutting recruitment and investment over the years. Should always keep our forces up to date.

[@MrScottskiuk]

I am afraid that there is only one word for that admiral - it begins with L ends in R and has a I A in it too.

[@BlobB-kn9ww]

That commander is the worst type he is a yes man says yes we can to anything all the time instead of saying get our forces the gear they need.

[@baggy1067]

Simple response. “Our armed forces are where they are today due to consecutive government failures. You cut money every year and yet it’s our fault “. Be honest be blunt

[@gregowski_pl]

but remember, the UK is not alone, it is in NATO. The question should be whether our military, with the support of NATO, is able to fight Russia? The answer is "absolutely yes!" Especially now that Russia has already lost so much equipment and troops.

[@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я]

the answer is no. and I’ll tell you a secret, this is the United States and NATO lost all ammunition, artillery and missiles there. in Russia, the production of weapons has increased several times.

[@gregowski_pl]

@@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я OH wow, no. US and NATO didn't even use 5% od their ammo in this war. But that's a fact, and you preffer secret lies, don't you?

[@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я]

@@gregowski_pl no, US used Himars main supply of missiles, now you're also spending Storm Shadow. And you have spent all the 155 mm ammunition for the artillery. You could not give it to Ukraine, at the beginning of the war, you gave them only 5 thousand shells per day, while Russia used 20-60 thousand shells per day there. Now your arsenals are empty even Biden has admitted this, which is why you're sending cluster bombs there. While there are millions of these Soviet shells in Russia, we also increased the production of shells 10 times a year. You also spent a lot of tanks and armored vehicles there, Ukraine lost more than 100 armored vehicles and more than 100 tanks in 3 weeks. Russia will produce 1,600 new tanks this year, while NATO cannot even produce 100. Russia is not showing its full potential. In Orthodoxy, a world war is described, you will see after 2025 what it means to fight against Russia. It will be scary for you, believe me.

[@mikewinston8709]

Utter rubbish. We are too weak and woke….😂

[@Heretican]

Surprised the CDS could keep a straight face saying that

[@johnnunn8688]

Showed Warrior there. Warrior has been a stalwart and the troops love it, so why we getting rid, rather than refurbishing/upgrading?

[@talicadk]

Too many points in the UK and for that matter the EU armies. We trained two battle groupings to go head to head with Russia and both got smacked so hard. I have very hard time believing any of our countries will do well in a fight with Russia.

[@DarrenJamiesonJamieson]

Yes, but are they ready to fight a war against me?

[@BinnyBongBaron_AoE]

If the Tories didn't fund the military, I doubt Labour will. Very sad.

[@ThatsMrFrank]

Obvious lie to not look weak during a time of conflict, lets be honest

[@danielbailey5849]

If you think that you definitely taking drugs or not right in your head , we need more artillery, tanks and vehicles also more personnel and more helicopters and more different equipment

[@suburbia2050]

"more different equipment" I can see the keyboard monkeys are out in force

[@danielbailey5849]

@@suburbia2050there different of equipment uk military needs I’m not going type everything down for you, go on google search about British army equipment it will show you, seen like you a horrible person got nothing better to do in you sad life

[@gareththomas9461]

😂 Love the way they are asking an Admiral about Tanks. Head of the armed forces or not. Just don’t ask him about ships and aircraft!

[@TheJaseface]

The Kit isnt the main problem - Retention of quality soldiers is. And they fail to recognize this. The problem with the Army is over worked undermanned battalions - Troops signing off in droves is putting pressure on the guys and gals who stay in to work more with less than capable resources. Then they have enough and seek careers elsewhere. Those are facts. And on top of it all, All incentives to make a career out of the forces is rapidly diminishing. Fighting for promotion against yes men who do minimal work yet tick the boxes is rife. Cash incentives gone - now its all be dual qualified in this dual qualified in that, they disguise it as a way to promote above your peers but in reality its a simple stop gap to be trawled by the army to fill gaps in jobs that are dangerously undermanned.

[@jeffreywright4656]

The army has 157 Challenger 2 tanks - Hoe many tanks has Russia got?

[@simonbird1973]

That’s why we have 1000s of NLAW’S

[@jej3451]

Strictly speaking, he didn't lie. But it's because (1) Britain has allies, and (2) the Russian army is in even worse shape.

[@lachlanchester8142]

@@richardboote6689well they weren’t asked about china you plum

[@jej3451]

@@richardboote6689 I haven't but that wasn't the question.

[@sebby324]

@@richardboote6689f we went to war with Russia we would also be going to war with: China, Iran, Belarus, Armenia , Tajikistan , Kyrgyzstan, Syria , North Korea and technically India but they probably wouldn’t get involved same with Brazil

[@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я]

NATO is very weakened, the US is now also in crisis. You said about Russia. the Russian army is now incredibly strong, it is more than 500 thousand people who have the combat experience of modern warfare against the strongest army in Europe (after Russia). And Russia does not use all its power there, missile strikes on cities and nuclear weapons. If a war against NATO starts (you will see it in 2025), then Russia will simply destroy NATO, believe me.

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

​@@СерхиоБускетс-ф7яexactly don't forget to mention NATO got defeated in Afghanistan after being there for 20 years 😂😂