Complexity was probably a major reason. But pay is also a reason as it’s tied so closely to rank. If we paid more for each rank it would have been easier to stay with the associated names/positions.

Well observed, there has been a bit of disconnect between ranks and units that dates back a long way. Flights, commanded by squadron leaders etc. It has been like that since at least the Second World War. Everything is basically at least one rank out!

6/ The UK needs to ask itself some tough questions about its ambition outside Europe - it will probably need to spend every precious penny to defending Europe. ENDS

5/ Pete Hegseth may have been making a broad political point about Europe stepping up, but what he has done is opened a constitutional can of worms. Putin will be overjoyed - Europe needs to see this as an opportunity and not a threat. And it starts with standing up for Ukraine.

4/ NATO needs to reconfigure for this new paradigm with appointments and roles allocated more appropriately. The NAC also needs to consider the specific voting rights of any Nation that doesn’t make a full commitment to the Charter’s Articles.

3/ NATO spending by %GDP is irrelevant now, what is needed is a coherent European force structure which deters and meets its threats in Europe, if necessary, without US participation or assistance. This will require more investment.

2/ He wasn’t specific about US responsibilities under article V - so the US needs to make its position clear on this and address what US Forces can be relied upon either immediately or as reinforcements.

KFOR would have been similar, but Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self defence.

“Occupation forces” was only relevant at the time when the Charter came into being. As written, the Charter wouldn’t cover NATO troops in Ukraine. I suspect it would have to be under UN auspices.

I wonder if the model subtracts value for statements or actions by leaders of countries that undermine security or deterrence…..?

The UK undoubtedly needs to invest in an Integrated Air & Missile Defence system. But the answer is not to use ships to do it against static locations such as the UK and overseas bases - that would be a very expensive solution.

Whereas, an anti tank guided missile can attain speeds of 200m/s if ground lunched (NLAW) or 450m/s if air launched (Brimstone). It’s physics folks.