International General Sir Patrick Sanders: Britain Must Train Citizen Army Immediately

Are You Concerned About a Major Escalation of Warfare?

  • Yes, absolutely (it looks likely)

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Yes, but only a little (I kinda doubt it)

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • No, I'm not concerned (a world war won't happen)

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No, I'm not concerned (no war involving Western super powers will happen whatsoever)

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

Siver!

Sedriques Dumbass Belt
Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
26,142
Reaction score
53,229

Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, the head of the Army has said.
General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that an increase in reserve forces alone "would not be enough".
He highlighted the threat from Russia and pointed to steps being taken by other European nations to put their populations on a "war footing".
He also called for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces.
In a speech at an armoured vehicle conference, Gen Sir Patrick was not making an argument for conscription - where men of fighting age are required to enlist in the military - but rather laying the foundations for a voluntary call up if war broke out.
He talked about the need for the UK's "pre-war generation" to prepare for the possibility of war and said that was a "whole-of-nation undertaking".
This is not the first time Gen Sir Patrick has warned of the increasing threat of war and expressed concerns about Britain's lack of readiness.
On Wednesday, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) said Russia's war in Ukraine was about much more than seizing territory, saying it was about defeating our system and way of life.
He has already argued to reverse to recent cuts to the size of the Army. It is now a professional force of around 73,000, compared to around 100,000 in 2010.
In his speech he said Britain needed an army designed to expand rapidly.
"Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough," he said, as he also called for more to be done to modernise and equip the armed forces.
"We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare - and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking," he said. "Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.
"But we've been here before, and workforce alone does not create capability."
He highlighted steps being taken in countries like Sweden and Finland - where the threat of Russia looms closer - to put their nations more on a war footing.
Other senior Nato military commanders have also recently been calling on the alliance to ready itself for a potential conflict.
Such warnings make politicians nervous.
In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister's spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.
One senior Conservative MP told the BBC he did not think Rishi Sunak had fully appreciated the threat posed by Russia.
The MP said that might be because the prime minister when growing up had not experienced the existential threat posed by the old Soviet Union during the Cold War era.
Gen Sir Patrick said the nation could not afford to make the same mistakes of 1914, when it failed to perceive the escalations that led to World War One.
He said over the last 30 years the Army had halved in size, with a 28% reduction in the last 12 years, but added that despite challenges in recruitment applications to join the Army were at the highest level in six years.
Gen Sir Patrick has been a vocal critic of cuts to troop numbers and military spending and will be replaced as CGS in June by General Sir Roly Walker.
He has not been the only one to criticise cuts, with former CGS General Lord Dannatt saying the UK risked a repeat of the 1930s unless it invested more in its armed forces last week.

---


Two things are kind of sad here.

1) that the UK has found itself in a position without any kind of viable land army for an actual war

and

2) the BBC seem to be pushing narratives of potential (and ongoing obviously) war very heavily.

Aside from Sweden's preparations for war, aside even from the fact the BBC have recently discussed UK MP's missives regarding how we are in a 'pre-war era', just yesterday there was an article discussing whether North Korea are preparing for an actual war against South Korea or not.

Now, a day later, it's this: Britain must train a citizen army according to a high-ranking military official.

Looks like Europe is being prepped for the very real likelihood for an extended and wide-ranging conflict with Russia and 'chums'.

Again, this timeline very likely indicates concerns that a Trump Presidency effectively ends US support for Europe/NATO, leaving Europe to fend for itself (and, in future, for the US to have to fend for itself when Europe is no longer a capable ally on the global stage) - but it also concerns the situation Israel and how easily the Middle Eastern conflict could get out of hand, as well as potential for conflict in Asia with tensions between both China/Taiwan and North Korea/South Korea allegedly simmering.

Are you concerned, Sherbros? Or is this just 'worst case scenario' prep? Or, is it irresponsible journalism from the BBC?
 
Europe and NATO should be concerned about what a Trump presidency means for them. Americans should be concerned about what happens Europe stops relying on us.

But I don't think there's any major conflicts coming in the near future involving Western Europe. I definitely don't think the UK has to worry about a land war. It's really more a question of proxy wars ramping up, imo.
 
its normal for a high ranking military man to question the under effectiveness of the UK armed forces considering how much they have been cut in recent years. cant see hordes of people rushing to sign up either. especially given how they are treated when they come home with injuries. lack of housing and jobs , support for them.
 
its normal for a high ranking military man to question the under effectiveness of the UK armed forces considering how much they have been cut in recent years. cant see hordes of people rushing to sign up either. especially given how they are treated when they come home with injuries. lack of housing and jobs , support for them.

Note also how much money this would save as opposed to employing a big army full time.
 
(1) The British armed forces are too small and have had too little money spent on them for too long.
(2) The Russian government isn't a threat or a realistic potential threat.
(3) There are actual threats but it would break the rules to discuss this.
(4) Large scale conscription in 2024 or the foreseeable future would fail utterly.
 

Britain should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a war on land in the future, the head of the Army has said.
General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that an increase in reserve forces alone "would not be enough".
He highlighted the threat from Russia and pointed to steps being taken by other European nations to put their populations on a "war footing".
He also called for more to be done to equip and modernise the UK's armed forces.
In a speech at an armoured vehicle conference, Gen Sir Patrick was not making an argument for conscription - where men of fighting age are required to enlist in the military - but rather laying the foundations for a voluntary call up if war broke out.
He talked about the need for the UK's "pre-war generation" to prepare for the possibility of war and said that was a "whole-of-nation undertaking".
This is not the first time Gen Sir Patrick has warned of the increasing threat of war and expressed concerns about Britain's lack of readiness.
On Wednesday, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff (CGS) said Russia's war in Ukraine was about much more than seizing territory, saying it was about defeating our system and way of life.
He has already argued to reverse to recent cuts to the size of the Army. It is now a professional force of around 73,000, compared to around 100,000 in 2010.
In his speech he said Britain needed an army designed to expand rapidly.
"Within the next three years, it must be credible to talk of a British Army of 120,000, folding in our reserve and strategic reserve. But this is not enough," he said, as he also called for more to be done to modernise and equip the armed forces.
"We will not be immune and as the pre-war generation we must similarly prepare - and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking," he said. "Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars; citizen armies win them.
"But we've been here before, and workforce alone does not create capability."
He highlighted steps being taken in countries like Sweden and Finland - where the threat of Russia looms closer - to put their nations more on a war footing.
Other senior Nato military commanders have also recently been calling on the alliance to ready itself for a potential conflict.
Such warnings make politicians nervous.
In response to Gen Sir Patrick speech the UK prime minister's spokesman said hypothetical scenarios of a future potential conflict were not helpful and ruled out any move towards a conscription model for the Army.
One senior Conservative MP told the BBC he did not think Rishi Sunak had fully appreciated the threat posed by Russia.
The MP said that might be because the prime minister when growing up had not experienced the existential threat posed by the old Soviet Union during the Cold War era.
Gen Sir Patrick said the nation could not afford to make the same mistakes of 1914, when it failed to perceive the escalations that led to World War One.
He said over the last 30 years the Army had halved in size, with a 28% reduction in the last 12 years, but added that despite challenges in recruitment applications to join the Army were at the highest level in six years.
Gen Sir Patrick has been a vocal critic of cuts to troop numbers and military spending and will be replaced as CGS in June by General Sir Roly Walker.
He has not been the only one to criticise cuts, with former CGS General Lord Dannatt saying the UK risked a repeat of the 1930s unless it invested more in its armed forces last week.

---


Two things are kind of sad here.

1) that the UK has found itself in a position without any kind of viable land army for an actual war

and

2) the BBC seem to be pushing narratives of potential (and ongoing obviously) war very heavily.

Aside from Sweden's preparations for war, aside even from the fact the BBC have recently discussed UK MP's missives regarding how we are in a 'pre-war era', just yesterday there was an article discussing whether North Korea are preparing for an actual war against South Korea or not.

Now, a day later, it's this: Britain must train a citizen army according to a high-ranking military official.

Looks like Europe is being prepped for the very real likelihood for an extended and wide-ranging conflict with Russia and 'chums'.

Again, this timeline very likely indicates concerns that a Trump Presidency effectively ends US support for Europe/NATO, leaving Europe to fend for itself (and, in future, for the US to have to fend for itself when Europe is no longer a capable ally on the global stage) - but it also concerns the situation Israel and how easily the Middle Eastern conflict could get out of hand, as well as potential for conflict in Asia with tensions between both China/Taiwan and North Korea/South Korea allegedly simmering.

Are you concerned, Sherbros? Or is this just 'worst case scenario' prep? Or, is it irresponsible journalism from the BBC?

- The UK misstreatment of their own defenses forces are a stupidity.
In the case of need. It's better to have a prepared force and dont use, than needing one and dont having it!
 
Eh they'll be more " global war " but British American etc troops won't be dying in mass numbers.

Doubtful war will be on the land in any Western power for generations personally. Military is far to advanced wars will always be fought in someone else's lands.

It'll just be more proxy warfare and more regular civilians being fucked up over in developing nations. Standard fare I guess.


On a side note. It's blatantly obvious nato / usa is involved in a open proxy war with Russia but we don't call it " cold war "?

I mean throughout the " cold war " Russia and usa worked together with some of their more advanced technology the entire way through. ( international space station etc ) which I always found bloody odd. Now relations are that bad it's been halted.
 
Well, the farther into the future this happens in thr Uk, the less likely it will be based on demographics alone.
 
Back
Top