The first few minuets (about 7) are mostly fluff. But the rest when CotDS is actually talking is pretty interesting. Specifically calling out current threats by name, and talking about past threats. Interesting to me that he called out Russia on imbedding them selves in anti-vax groups for example.
Certainly not a video for everyone, but some of you may find this as interesting as I did.
Its why we have a battalion of infantry permanently in Estonia camped on the Russian border
Thatās laughableā¦
What is one battalion going to do against a determined and sized force from Russia?
Even at the height of the cold war in the 1980s the entire British and NATO defence doctrine essentially rested on sacrificing the British Army in Germany to slow a potential tank advance from Russia to buy diplomats (a maximum of) 24 to 48 hours prior to the deployment of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Which we all know would have escalated rapidly to the larger ICBM variety.
This Battalion in Estonia is purely a demonstration of NATOs intent. It isnāt meant as a force provider or even to provide a strong point with which to resupply into.
Be under no illusion.
If either Russia or China now, decides to roll over the hills and plains of Asia and/or Europe, there is pretty much sweet FA we can do to stop it.
Thoughts contrary to this are singular fantasy.
The real question is why dont theyā¦
Simples, why bother taking large swathes of territory in a huge 19th or 20th Century style invasion when you can simply use newer technologies to achieve your aim of political destabalisation, naturalisation and propaganda far far more effectively.
Or as China is now demonstrating, just pick away at the āprizeā parts you want. Oil fields, shipping lanes, etc.
Taking a whole country, means subjegating, controlling and providing for that populace. Else you end up with a Vietnam or Iraq.
1 battalionā¦ 
we (Donald or Boris) could push that red button
because they know Donald or Boris could hit that red buttonā¦
yes they could, and yes theyād have a good head start on us and at best the allies would slow the advanceā¦but with the nuclear option in the back pocket that option acts as a sufficient deterrent to stop such advances as without it, the mutually assured destruction is a given, and doubt Vladimir nor Xi Jinping are keen to be the āKingā of a world not worth commanding
What is it they say about being an fool?
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
in the same manner, far better to be seen as a threat than to prove it but end up the loser anyway 
The point of the Battalion in Estonia is to make it impossible for Russia to invade without involving NATO. Unlike their previous trips in Georgia or the Ukraine where they were quite happy to put large armoured forces over the border and annex areas of the country. Any attempt to do the same in Estonia etc cant be done without killing a few hundred Western Soldiers and for all of his bluster Putin doesnāt want a Conventional war with NATO.
The Russian Army of today isnāt the romping stomping red army of the 1970ās-1980ās, it it came to a full blown conventional war they couldnāt win outright and whatās the point of becoming a complete International Pariah to conquer Estonia.
And because economically, Russia couldnāt sustain even a small war against NATO. Despite the large numbers of tanks and manpower, their military budget is similar to the UKās and a much larger proportion of their GDP.
Putin and those around him are interested in keeping power and enriching themselves, not in bankrupting their country or risking forfeiting their overseas assets.
Irrelevant.
Estonia joined NATO in 2004 and so is covered under article 5.
Yes, there is always nuclear deterrence.
But that rather mitigates the presence of the single battalion in estonia.
If we are reliant on deterrence then we dont need the battalion there!
agreedā¦
The battalion will be glorified speed humps just like we were in Germany in the 80ās.
Exactly my point.
Correct, but the point of the forward deployed unit is to make it clear that article 5 will be enacted.
It prevents the Russians from making the mistake that if they can invade and win before the rest of NATO can react that they will have gotten away with it. (The same mistake that Saddam made with Kuwait and the Argentinians made with the Falklands).
The idea being that the UK canāt ignore 600 dead soldiers.
Iām sure the battalion will be thrilled to hear that!
The eFP BGās act as a really, really sensitive tripwire. Article 5 is also a tripwire, but itās quite a floppy one, with lots of stretch in it - as Greece and Turkey are about to discover.
For the last 10 years Russiaās calculation is not that they would prevail in any military conflict with NATO, itās that we wonāt turn up, and so theyād win by defaultā¦
Iāve reviewed this independently of the other mods, and have deleted a few posts on both sides. Carry on as you were.
Especially when you consider that in reality not all NATO members are equal in the eyes of the ābigā members. Having forces from those big members there who would also come under fire is much more likely to trigger Article 5.