Matthew Savill

Another excellent newsletter from @FRHoffmann1.

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…

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.

We should wait and see if this is implemented, or if it is coercive signalling, but the US military presence in Germany is a significant enabler for *US* operations elsewhere. It has a major medical facility, logistics, training area, air bases and the HQ for support to Ukraine.

@TomCotterillX @Telegraph 🫡

@MTSavill @Telegraph Thanks mate, good spot. Innocent mistake, I believe but I’ve asked for it to be tweaked.

@TomCotterillX does the work of pointing out that Sky Sabre has replaced the old Rapier system. The @Telegraph pictures team: ‘never mind, let’s stick a picture of Rapier in anyway and call it Sky Sabre’…

'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…

Yes, because the problem here is all with the UK side of the equation...honestly, what *is* this vapid nonsense?

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.

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.

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.