Matthew Savill

4.1K posts

Matthew Savill

Matthew Savill

@MTSavill

Director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute @RUSI_org; recovering former civil servant; all views expressed here are my own.

Katılım Şubat 2024
944 Takip Edilen3.7K Takipçiler
Matthew Savill
Matthew Savill@MTSavill·
More details here: aimed more at Brigade Combat Teams and the Multi-Domain Task Force (though reductions here will be of concern in terms of European deterrence). cbsnews.com/news/trump-ger…
English
0
0
0
423
Matthew Savill
Matthew Savill@MTSavill·
Not only does this weaken messaging about the US commitment to European security, but it might actually have an impact on US sovereign operations - though 5,000 is a not a wholesale cut, given there are generally assumed to be about 35,000 personnel in Germany.
English
1
1
1
415
Matthew Savill retweetledi
RUSI
RUSI@RUSI_org·
'Should the German government be unwilling to force industry into costly compromises with the French, lack of clarity on long-term financing and industrial limitations mean it must pursue another multinational programme', write @MilAvHistory and Dr @linus_terhorst in the latest #RUSICommentary. rusi.org/explore-our-re…
English
1
5
17
3.6K
Matthew Savill
Matthew Savill@MTSavill·
And the third is a reasonable ambition if we want to lead on European security - and it sounds like the Navy is thinking jus that based on the announcements made this week. But this really is where turning up with both quality and some mass will matter, and the UK has work to do.
Matthew Savill tweet media
English
1
0
1
236
Matthew Savill
Matthew Savill@MTSavill·
The second test sounds good. I'd certainly like a UK force to be able to defeat any *equivalent force*, but is this meant to be the UK alone against another state? If the 'peer' is Russia or China, that's...optimistic. So this should be about a net assessment of counterparts.
Matthew Savill tweet media
English
1
0
2
258
Matthew Savill
Matthew Savill@MTSavill·
This is an important contribution to the current defence debate, and largely describes the challenges of 'hollow forces' the Strategic Defence Review was intended to address. But it makes a number of errors or dubious points, which are unhelpful given the author.
Tom Tugendhat@TomTugendhat

We now face a choice. Rebuild capability. Reform legal frameworks. Restore seriousness. Or continue and accept the consequences. You can read the full piece in the @Telegraph telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/2…

English
2
5
15
4.7K