DEFENCE – OR THE LACK OF IT And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from farThanks for reading Major Gordon Corrigan's Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Ancestral voices prophesying war! In June 2022 General Sir Patrick Sanders was appointed Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army. With the war in Ukraine then four months old Sanders issued an instruction to the army telling them to train for war in Europe. Shortly after that he said publicly that the government’s decision to reduce the size of the army was ‘perverse’. Politicians do not like soldiers pointing out uncomfortable truths, indeed the Chief of Defence staff, Admiral Sir Anthony Radkin, was forbidden by government to give television interviews on Remembrance Sunday last year, terrified that he might expose their lack of commitment to the defence of the nation. Soon after Sanders’ pronouncement the Ministry of Defence announced that his tour as CGS, normally three to four years, would be cut short to two years, and that he would be replaced by Lieutenant General Sir Roland Walker, whom the politicians presumably feel will be more amenable, As Walker is a Guardsman of independent means they may be disappointed. With but a few months to go before his enforced retirement, Sanders obviously feels unconstrained and has recently called for a massive expansion of the army to fight what he sees as an inevitable war with Russia. While he did not specifically mention conscription, that is what he meant, prompting from Downing Street an immediate denial of any thoughts of compulsory military service.
Chris, I take your point about the Cold War threat but then our armed forces were big enough to put up a pretty robust defence if the 4th Guards Shock Army crossed the IGB (re my comparison of 1960 v 2024). Now they are not. Then there was no question of NATO's resolve, now there is. I shall probably end up commanding the Kent Home Guard!
yes, at the very beginning of my military service we still had some national servicemen in British regiments. If they signed on for the extra year, i.e. three rather than two, they got a considerable increase in pay. You can make soldier in three, but not easy in only two.
You are of course quite right - Baltic, not Balkan, although I suppose the latter could come later. Kaliningrad could, I think, be snuffed out quite quickly although the original blockade had to be given up. It's importance is the ice free port for the Baltic fleet so taking it out could achieve two objects.
1) The aircraft you are thinking of are MiGs and Sukhois, not Soyuz.
2) We both have time in our respective Army's ranks in the Cold War era, you much more than me (I caught the very tail end). I push back that we are now closer to war than at any point since 1945. 1952 (the US sent more forces to Europe during the actual hot Korean War than Korea)? 1956? 1961? 1968? 1983?
There has been a recent well-spring of amazing old documentaries and long form news reports from the 1970-1988 era of the Cold War showing up on various channels on YouTube. The real tensions are palpable whether showing US Army forces patrolling on the Inter-German Border and on 15 minute alert or anti-nuke protesters in West Germany. The Soviets were fairly capable back then from a size and quality perspective, especially compared to the Russians of 2022-2024, and the nuclear threat on both sides was massive.
I am not saying war today is impossible. I just push back on your comparison. We were damn lucky to survive the 70s and 80s.
Chris, I take your point about the Cold War threat but then our armed forces were big enough to put up a pretty robust defence if the 4th Guards Shock Army crossed the IGB (re my comparison of 1960 v 2024). Now they are not. Then there was no question of NATO's resolve, now there is. I shall probably end up commanding the Kent Home Guard!
Demographics are likely to be a major driver behind the increasing deployment of AI, drones, robots weapons, etc as we use technology to replace unavailable bodies. And recruitment is likely to try a national service model in which everybody “serves” but with some degree of choice between roles in the civilian sector such as education, environmental work, social and disaster relief alongside military service...accompanied by a pay/benefits package for the military. The pre lottery draft saw people volunteer rather than wait to get drafted in exchange for a greater say over their service experience so a national service plan should see a similar if smaller benefit.
Yes, I assume you meant Baltic rather than Balkans when you paired them with Finland, and the existence of Kaliningrad in this case is a major problem. The question is how soon Russia might expect to be fighting NATO there which means there will avert to be a period of recovery and force regeneration after Ukraine though the geography of a Baltic Front reduces the size of the force needed. Finland will be targeted as a rear area for the Baltic Front but to do more directly against Finland requires a far larger force so that is likely to come later.
Surely it's in precisely the scenario in which NATO's resolve falters over invoking article 5 for the Baltics that a Russian attack on the UK would be less likely?
Perfectly sensible for the Americans not to risk Chicago for Manchester - why risk Manchester for Talinn?
Chris, I take your point about the Cold War threat but then our armed forces were big enough to put up a pretty robust defence if the 4th Guards Shock Army crossed the IGB (re my comparison of 1960 v 2024). Now they are not. Then there was no question of NATO's resolve, now there is. I shall probably end up commanding the Kent Home Guard!
yes, at the very beginning of my military service we still had some national servicemen in British regiments. If they signed on for the extra year, i.e. three rather than two, they got a considerable increase in pay. You can make soldier in three, but not easy in only two.
Well I think that if we don't Russia is only encouraged to go on trying to get back the Tsarist empire.
You are of course quite right - Baltic, not Balkan, although I suppose the latter could come later. Kaliningrad could, I think, be snuffed out quite quickly although the original blockade had to be given up. It's importance is the ice free port for the Baltic fleet so taking it out could achieve two objects.
Gordon,
Big fan as you know.
Two quibbles, one minor and one major.
1) The aircraft you are thinking of are MiGs and Sukhois, not Soyuz.
2) We both have time in our respective Army's ranks in the Cold War era, you much more than me (I caught the very tail end). I push back that we are now closer to war than at any point since 1945. 1952 (the US sent more forces to Europe during the actual hot Korean War than Korea)? 1956? 1961? 1968? 1983?
There has been a recent well-spring of amazing old documentaries and long form news reports from the 1970-1988 era of the Cold War showing up on various channels on YouTube. The real tensions are palpable whether showing US Army forces patrolling on the Inter-German Border and on 15 minute alert or anti-nuke protesters in West Germany. The Soviets were fairly capable back then from a size and quality perspective, especially compared to the Russians of 2022-2024, and the nuclear threat on both sides was massive.
I am not saying war today is impossible. I just push back on your comparison. We were damn lucky to survive the 70s and 80s.
Chris
Gordon Corrigan
just now
Author
Chris, I take your point about the Cold War threat but then our armed forces were big enough to put up a pretty robust defence if the 4th Guards Shock Army crossed the IGB (re my comparison of 1960 v 2024). Now they are not. Then there was no question of NATO's resolve, now there is. I shall probably end up commanding the Kent Home Guard!
The Kent Home Guard is quite the posh unit I hear.
Demographics are likely to be a major driver behind the increasing deployment of AI, drones, robots weapons, etc as we use technology to replace unavailable bodies. And recruitment is likely to try a national service model in which everybody “serves” but with some degree of choice between roles in the civilian sector such as education, environmental work, social and disaster relief alongside military service...accompanied by a pay/benefits package for the military. The pre lottery draft saw people volunteer rather than wait to get drafted in exchange for a greater say over their service experience so a national service plan should see a similar if smaller benefit.
Yes, I assume you meant Baltic rather than Balkans when you paired them with Finland, and the existence of Kaliningrad in this case is a major problem. The question is how soon Russia might expect to be fighting NATO there which means there will avert to be a period of recovery and force regeneration after Ukraine though the geography of a Baltic Front reduces the size of the force needed. Finland will be targeted as a rear area for the Baltic Front but to do more directly against Finland requires a far larger force so that is likely to come later.
Surely it's in precisely the scenario in which NATO's resolve falters over invoking article 5 for the Baltics that a Russian attack on the UK would be less likely?
Perfectly sensible for the Americans not to risk Chicago for Manchester - why risk Manchester for Talinn?