What do you think of these two different articles with interviews from Mark Rutte and Keir Giles about Russia's capabilities to attack NATO once Ukraine War is over, especially if they are victorious.
Rutte thinks NATO should prepare for war and really invest on defense, because Russia might try something in next four-five years. Sure, this is, really not nothing new statements, as many others have said the same, but it's bit different coming from head honcho of NATO
Giles believes once war in Ukraine is over, Russia might attack one or more NATO members. Giles doesn't believe this would be WW3 scenario, but this would be more of an test on limits on Article 5
For Rutte, there is no way Russia attacks NATO. It couldn't spare even a few thousand soldiers or a few dozen fighter jets to help defend Assad's regime from a group of rebel fighters advancing on the ground without air cover or their own planes.
Russia has been fighting now for over 4 months to try to liberate a small Russian city called Sudzha held by Ukraine to protect its borders. So how big is Sudzha to be so difficult for Russia to liberate? Peacetime population 5,000. Russia enlisted the help of 11,000 North Korean soldiers to try to liberate it and still can't do it.
NATO has vastly superior equipment to Ukraine. There is no way Russia can consider attacking any NATO country.
All this is about after the war, for many years after the war, and for a hypothetical scenario when instead of more sensibly focusing on rebuilding its economy and transitioning to a peace time economy, that Russia decides after losing the war in Ukraine, that what it needs is another war with NATO of all things, and devotes all its economy to rebuilding to try to get back to its 2022 capabilities though without the vast Soviet Union stockpiles which are now largely gone.
And the aim of Rutte is to make sure that NATO stays strong to prevent Russia even thinking about attacking.
That is the job of NATO leaders to prepare for a worst possible case even if it is very implausible. That way we are safe whatever happens.
We don't know how the war will end but the scenario they say we must prepare for is a rather implausible one.
Also for some reason they seem to think we need to be ready to fight a war with Russia that lasts for weeks of months like the Ukraine war.
But if Ukraine had the NATO F-35s and tomahawks the war would be over in days.
The only reason they have a static front line with the soldiers fighting such a long war of attrition is because Ukraine can't get air dominance.
NATO would have air dominance instantly and if Ukraine was a NATO country - they could then fly over any part of occupied Ukraine or indeed Russia itself with their radar invisible F-35s with the radar cross-seciton of a baked potato. And the technology gap is growing not diminishing due to the much greater GDP of NATO and Russia's corruption which continues through the war.
Remember that military people have a different perspective. They run lots of implausible scenarios in order to be ready for almost anything. Also they are constantly arguing for more money for the military because in their view that is needed to keep NATO safe.
They often present rather one-sided reasoning in order to make the case stronger for more military spending - not deceitfully, just in the way that a debater or politician does when arguing for something they believe in.
Thre is no risk of a world war or nuclear war and NATO will make sure that Russia in the future can never attack NTO.
BLOG: Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids:
“we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and
“we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation”
Then on Keir Giles, that article is behind a paywall for me. But that scenario is impossible because of the NATO Response Force.
The idea would be that Russia tries attacking some small region of NATO that it expects won't cause much of a reaction in the hope that NATO does nothing while indecisive about what to do. E.g. a small part of Estonia.
But this won't work because NATO partners have guaranteed their NATO response force to all member countries.
As soon as their article 5 request is approved they have access to a 40,000 strong force - which will eventually increase to 300,000 once the war is over. It has soldiers from many member countries but they don't depend on the decision of those countries. Once article 5 is approved then they can be deployed to anywhere they are needed.
QUOTE STARTS
This includes:
* a command and control element: Operational command of the NRF alternates between Allied Joint Force Commands in Brunssum and Naples;
* the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF): This NRF element – about 20,000 strong – includes a multinational land brigade of around 5,000 troops and air, maritime and SOF components. Leading elements are ready to move within two to three days. Allies assume the lead role for the VJTF on a rotational basis;
* the Initial Follow-On Forces Group (IFFG): These are high-readiness forces that can deploy quickly following the VJTF, in response to a crisis. They are made up of two multinational brigades;
* a maritime component: it is based on the Standing NATO Maritime Groups (SNMGs) and the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Groups (SNMCMGs);
* a combat air and air-support component;
* Special Operations Forces; and
* a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence task force.
Before use, the NRF will be tailored (adjusted in size and capability) to match the demands of any specific operation to which it is committed.
The VJTF and Initial Follow-on Forces are based in their home countries, but are able to deploy to wherever they are needed for exercises, crisis response or collective defence. The VJTF participated in its first deployment exercise in Poland in June 2015 and is regularly tested during exercises on its ability to deploy and respond to any arising crisis.
Leadership of the VJTF rotates on an annual basis, with one Ally designated as the lead country and other Allies participating.
Altogether, the enhanced NRF comprises around 40,000 troops.
So - that scenario can't happen. Even if it is somewhere small just a village or a small city of 1000 people, then Estonia or whatever it is will call in the NATO response force which will see Russia off.
Especially with its vast technological superiority.
So more on Rutte: aturally they prepare for worst case scenarios that may be very implausible. They prepare for them not because they want them to happen but to prevent them happening.
It's obvious Putin can't attack NATO right now being so very weak he can't even retake Sudzha population 5000+ or protect Assads' regime.
And NATO is vastly stronger than Russia.
So they prepare for a future in case once the war is over Russia goes all out to build up its military as much as possible once the fighting is over.
Probably Russia won't even do that. Depending how the war ends it will likely be pre-occupied with just rebuilding its economy. It knows it can never catch up with NATO. technology just not got the GDP to do it.
And even if it does in reality NATO has nothing to worry about, vastly superior technology and vastly greater GDP.
But if Russia does start a rapid rebuild of its miltiary instead of its civilian economy once the war is over then NATO will be ready for it, to match it and more.
Of course the optimal result of all that is that Russia decides it can't win that fight and can never be competitive with NATO militarily and focus on rebuilding its civilian economy instead.
It might decide to just rely on its deterrent to stop other countries invading Russia and focus on rebuilding the Russian Federation. It might give up on expansionist goals to take over countries in Europe like Ukraine or Georgia. It is already greatly diminished in global power in the Middle East and Africa and might just continue like that too.
At which point people might point to NATO and say "look you said we needed to boost our defense funding to stop Russia - but Russia isn't even trying to compete".
But if that happens then NATO's determination now to boost spending might be the very thing that helps persuade Russia to not try to compete with it.
Thank you for your response. Puts my mind on ease a bit. I didn't notice the paywall as I found link in Finnish article explaining it. So this is rough English translation on that:
Russia is planning an attack against one or more NATO countries, says Keir Giles, a researcher at the British think tank Chatham House, in an interview with Hufvudstadsbladet.
- The clock starts ticking as soon as Russia ends its military operations in Ukraine. Then Russia can build up its army faster without using some of the resources in Ukraine, says Giles.
According to him, there is currently a consensus among the military leadership and defense ministers that an attack against NATO is in Russia's plans.
According to experts, Russia has succeeded in rebuilding its military power faster than predicted. Russia has also moved to a military economy, which contributes to the reconstruction of troops, the filling of weapon and ammunition stores, and the increase of equipment.
Giles has previously spoken, for example, about Russia's hybrid influence and sabotage attempts aimed at European countries. According to Giles, Russian activity has increased.
– It is impossible to say whether it is due to the fact that Russia uses more resources for this. Or are they just careless and get caught, or have intelligence services become better at spotting and preventing this kind of thing, Giles pondered in an interview with the Financial Times.
Last summer, there was a discussion in Finland about the statement of retired Major General Pekka Tover, a member of the EU Parliament, in which he said that Finland was at war with Russia.
It raised a lot of objections. According to Giles, Finland, Europe or NATO are not at war with Russia, but Russia sees the matter differently.
Giles does not consider the major war likely, because Russia knows that it could not come out victorious with NATO joining forces. Instead, he believes that Russia might try to test NATO's unity, credibility and the validity of its fifth article.
This it could do, for example, by launching a limited attack against one NATO country. An attack against a single country could cause division and show that NATO is not capable of a united response, Giles told HBL.
Okay - that's the same thing really. He just needs to check the NATO website to find out about the NATO response force and Russia surely knows about it and so NATO is capable of a united response to an attack against a country. Because no discussion is needed, the allies have ALREADY committed their forces to respond.
With 40,000 that by the end of the war will be 300,000 or more.
So his idea that an attack on a single country would show division doesn't make sense. The only initial discussion would be about whether it is an article 5 situation which it would obviously be
So - there are two possibilities here
1. He doesn't know about the NATO response force which is incredible, not believable or
2. He is deliberately not mentioning it for some reason - likely to try to persuade the reader of something by presenting only one side of an argument.
The likely reason for 2. would be to leave it out because it weakens his argument for strengthening NATO'S military capability.
Also that account of what is happening in Russia doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Russia have managed to keep going with the shells by buying shells from North Korea, they are not able to shell at the rates they did in 2022, that they have managed to ramp up productions of Shahed drones and hypersonic missiles, but they are using all the ones they make and they are not anywhere near able to produce as many tanks as they lose. They lose more than 1,000 tanks a year and can make a few dozen a year. They keep going by rejuvenating old tanks from the vast Soviet era stockpiles.
They are also nowhere near able to make up for the losses of the sunk ships of the Black Sea fleet, lost a third of the Black Sea fleet.
In the air, they have lost several irreplaceable Soviet era aerial command ships, their fighter jets are certainly being destroyed faster than they can make new ones. Also they are flying them far more often than in peace time and that wears them out.
And the Ukrainians keep blowing up their munitions dumps and fuel dumps.
They started with 10 times as many fighter jets as the Ukrainians and still have a vast majority but not getting stronger for sure, getting weaker.
They have probably lost the port of Tartus in Syria, they are dependent on the rebels as to how long they keep it.
And they are technologically far weaker than NATO. They have advanced since 2022 in some areas - in drone warfare obviously and in glide bombs. But they can't reconstitute the things they have lost since 2022 while fighting and continuing to lose fighter jets, tanks etc far faster than they can make them. It will take them years to reconstitute what they are losing right now especially since they are also losing the people with the skills needed especially pilots which take a long time to train.
And if you go to the Chatham House discussion about what is next then the consensus is very much the other way that Russia has no such ambition. John Foreman, Former Defence Attaché Moscow and Kyiv. Defence analyst says that (summarizing his main points):
* Putin is not Stalin or Hitler
* we are NOT at any risk of a world war
* there is no intelligence to suggest Putin wants to attack NATO
* The opposite, it is very clear Russia wants to keep the conflict local to Ukraine.
The presenter asked the rest of the panel to comment on this. They agreed with no further comments.
The ENTIRE PANEL at Chatham House agreed with John Foreman's assessment.
Going against this relentless ‘Nato is next’ narrative is Britain’s Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. In a recent speech at Chatham House, a London think tank, he provided a welcome tonic. Radakin chided the recent ‘confused’ and ‘alarmist’ public debate. He challenged some doom-mongers, saying: ‘we are not on the cusp of war with Russia. We are not about to be invaded. No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term. Britain is safe.’ Radakin highlighted Nato’s extensive nuclear and conventional capabilities, and its considerable economic, technological and demographic advantages over a sclerotic Russia. He concluded: ‘Putin doesn’t want a conflict with Nato because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.’
Radakin is right. Russia remains, and is likely to remain, in term of both numbers and quality, at a military disadvantage to Nato. But not only would Russia lose quickly; Russia neither has the intent nor military capability to launch an armed attack on Nato in the first place.
Thank you for this Robert, it has really put my mind at ease.
Oh great glad it helped :). Hope to finish it soon.
What do you think of these two different articles with interviews from Mark Rutte and Keir Giles about Russia's capabilities to attack NATO once Ukraine War is over, especially if they are victorious.
Rutte thinks NATO should prepare for war and really invest on defense, because Russia might try something in next four-five years. Sure, this is, really not nothing new statements, as many others have said the same, but it's bit different coming from head honcho of NATO
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly41x7eg71o
Giles believes once war in Ukraine is over, Russia might attack one or more NATO members. Giles doesn't believe this would be WW3 scenario, but this would be more of an test on limits on Article 5
https://www.hbl.fi/artikel/keir-giles-ryssland-planerar-en-attack-mot-nato/
What do you think?
For Rutte, there is no way Russia attacks NATO. It couldn't spare even a few thousand soldiers or a few dozen fighter jets to help defend Assad's regime from a group of rebel fighters advancing on the ground without air cover or their own planes.
Russia has been fighting now for over 4 months to try to liberate a small Russian city called Sudzha held by Ukraine to protect its borders. So how big is Sudzha to be so difficult for Russia to liberate? Peacetime population 5,000. Russia enlisted the help of 11,000 North Korean soldiers to try to liberate it and still can't do it.
NATO has vastly superior equipment to Ukraine. There is no way Russia can consider attacking any NATO country.
All this is about after the war, for many years after the war, and for a hypothetical scenario when instead of more sensibly focusing on rebuilding its economy and transitioning to a peace time economy, that Russia decides after losing the war in Ukraine, that what it needs is another war with NATO of all things, and devotes all its economy to rebuilding to try to get back to its 2022 capabilities though without the vast Soviet Union stockpiles which are now largely gone.
And the aim of Rutte is to make sure that NATO stays strong to prevent Russia even thinking about attacking.
That is the job of NATO leaders to prepare for a worst possible case even if it is very implausible. That way we are safe whatever happens.
We don't know how the war will end but the scenario they say we must prepare for is a rather implausible one.
Also for some reason they seem to think we need to be ready to fight a war with Russia that lasts for weeks of months like the Ukraine war.
But if Ukraine had the NATO F-35s and tomahawks the war would be over in days.
The only reason they have a static front line with the soldiers fighting such a long war of attrition is because Ukraine can't get air dominance.
NATO would have air dominance instantly and if Ukraine was a NATO country - they could then fly over any part of occupied Ukraine or indeed Russia itself with their radar invisible F-35s with the radar cross-seciton of a baked potato. And the technology gap is growing not diminishing due to the much greater GDP of NATO and Russia's corruption which continues through the war.
Remember that military people have a different perspective. They run lots of implausible scenarios in order to be ready for almost anything. Also they are constantly arguing for more money for the military because in their view that is needed to keep NATO safe.
They often present rather one-sided reasoning in order to make the case stronger for more military spending - not deceitfully, just in the way that a debater or politician does when arguing for something they believe in.
Thre is no risk of a world war or nuclear war and NATO will make sure that Russia in the future can never attack NTO.
BLOG: Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids:
“we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and
“we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation”
- shortened version
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/sky-news-military-analyst-sean-bell-bed
Then on Keir Giles, that article is behind a paywall for me. But that scenario is impossible because of the NATO Response Force.
The idea would be that Russia tries attacking some small region of NATO that it expects won't cause much of a reaction in the hope that NATO does nothing while indecisive about what to do. E.g. a small part of Estonia.
But this won't work because NATO partners have guaranteed their NATO response force to all member countries.
As soon as their article 5 request is approved they have access to a 40,000 strong force - which will eventually increase to 300,000 once the war is over. It has soldiers from many member countries but they don't depend on the decision of those countries. Once article 5 is approved then they can be deployed to anywhere they are needed.
QUOTE STARTS
This includes:
* a command and control element: Operational command of the NRF alternates between Allied Joint Force Commands in Brunssum and Naples;
* the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF): This NRF element – about 20,000 strong – includes a multinational land brigade of around 5,000 troops and air, maritime and SOF components. Leading elements are ready to move within two to three days. Allies assume the lead role for the VJTF on a rotational basis;
* the Initial Follow-On Forces Group (IFFG): These are high-readiness forces that can deploy quickly following the VJTF, in response to a crisis. They are made up of two multinational brigades;
* a maritime component: it is based on the Standing NATO Maritime Groups (SNMGs) and the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Groups (SNMCMGs);
* a combat air and air-support component;
* Special Operations Forces; and
* a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence task force.
Before use, the NRF will be tailored (adjusted in size and capability) to match the demands of any specific operation to which it is committed.
The VJTF and Initial Follow-on Forces are based in their home countries, but are able to deploy to wherever they are needed for exercises, crisis response or collective defence. The VJTF participated in its first deployment exercise in Poland in June 2015 and is regularly tested during exercises on its ability to deploy and respond to any arising crisis.
Leadership of the VJTF rotates on an annual basis, with one Ally designated as the lead country and other Allies participating.
Altogether, the enhanced NRF comprises around 40,000 troops.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm
So - that scenario can't happen. Even if it is somewhere small just a village or a small city of 1000 people, then Estonia or whatever it is will call in the NATO response force which will see Russia off.
Especially with its vast technological superiority.
So more on Rutte: aturally they prepare for worst case scenarios that may be very implausible. They prepare for them not because they want them to happen but to prevent them happening.
It's obvious Putin can't attack NATO right now being so very weak he can't even retake Sudzha population 5000+ or protect Assads' regime.
And NATO is vastly stronger than Russia.
So they prepare for a future in case once the war is over Russia goes all out to build up its military as much as possible once the fighting is over.
Probably Russia won't even do that. Depending how the war ends it will likely be pre-occupied with just rebuilding its economy. It knows it can never catch up with NATO. technology just not got the GDP to do it.
And even if it does in reality NATO has nothing to worry about, vastly superior technology and vastly greater GDP.
But if Russia does start a rapid rebuild of its miltiary instead of its civilian economy once the war is over then NATO will be ready for it, to match it and more.
Of course the optimal result of all that is that Russia decides it can't win that fight and can never be competitive with NATO militarily and focus on rebuilding its civilian economy instead.
It might decide to just rely on its deterrent to stop other countries invading Russia and focus on rebuilding the Russian Federation. It might give up on expansionist goals to take over countries in Europe like Ukraine or Georgia. It is already greatly diminished in global power in the Middle East and Africa and might just continue like that too.
At which point people might point to NATO and say "look you said we needed to boost our defense funding to stop Russia - but Russia isn't even trying to compete".
But if that happens then NATO's determination now to boost spending might be the very thing that helps persuade Russia to not try to compete with it.
So - that may well be how he is thinking.
Thank you for your response. Puts my mind on ease a bit. I didn't notice the paywall as I found link in Finnish article explaining it. So this is rough English translation on that:
Russia is planning an attack against one or more NATO countries, says Keir Giles, a researcher at the British think tank Chatham House, in an interview with Hufvudstadsbladet.
- The clock starts ticking as soon as Russia ends its military operations in Ukraine. Then Russia can build up its army faster without using some of the resources in Ukraine, says Giles.
According to him, there is currently a consensus among the military leadership and defense ministers that an attack against NATO is in Russia's plans.
According to experts, Russia has succeeded in rebuilding its military power faster than predicted. Russia has also moved to a military economy, which contributes to the reconstruction of troops, the filling of weapon and ammunition stores, and the increase of equipment.
Giles has previously spoken, for example, about Russia's hybrid influence and sabotage attempts aimed at European countries. According to Giles, Russian activity has increased.
– It is impossible to say whether it is due to the fact that Russia uses more resources for this. Or are they just careless and get caught, or have intelligence services become better at spotting and preventing this kind of thing, Giles pondered in an interview with the Financial Times.
Last summer, there was a discussion in Finland about the statement of retired Major General Pekka Tover, a member of the EU Parliament, in which he said that Finland was at war with Russia.
It raised a lot of objections. According to Giles, Finland, Europe or NATO are not at war with Russia, but Russia sees the matter differently.
Giles does not consider the major war likely, because Russia knows that it could not come out victorious with NATO joining forces. Instead, he believes that Russia might try to test NATO's unity, credibility and the validity of its fifth article.
This it could do, for example, by launching a limited attack against one NATO country. An attack against a single country could cause division and show that NATO is not capable of a united response, Giles told HBL.
Okay - that's the same thing really. He just needs to check the NATO website to find out about the NATO response force and Russia surely knows about it and so NATO is capable of a united response to an attack against a country. Because no discussion is needed, the allies have ALREADY committed their forces to respond.
With 40,000 that by the end of the war will be 300,000 or more.
So his idea that an attack on a single country would show division doesn't make sense. The only initial discussion would be about whether it is an article 5 situation which it would obviously be
So - there are two possibilities here
1. He doesn't know about the NATO response force which is incredible, not believable or
2. He is deliberately not mentioning it for some reason - likely to try to persuade the reader of something by presenting only one side of an argument.
The likely reason for 2. would be to leave it out because it weakens his argument for strengthening NATO'S military capability.
Also that account of what is happening in Russia doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Russia have managed to keep going with the shells by buying shells from North Korea, they are not able to shell at the rates they did in 2022, that they have managed to ramp up productions of Shahed drones and hypersonic missiles, but they are using all the ones they make and they are not anywhere near able to produce as many tanks as they lose. They lose more than 1,000 tanks a year and can make a few dozen a year. They keep going by rejuvenating old tanks from the vast Soviet era stockpiles.
They are also nowhere near able to make up for the losses of the sunk ships of the Black Sea fleet, lost a third of the Black Sea fleet.
In the air, they have lost several irreplaceable Soviet era aerial command ships, their fighter jets are certainly being destroyed faster than they can make new ones. Also they are flying them far more often than in peace time and that wears them out.
And the Ukrainians keep blowing up their munitions dumps and fuel dumps.
They started with 10 times as many fighter jets as the Ukrainians and still have a vast majority but not getting stronger for sure, getting weaker.
They have probably lost the port of Tartus in Syria, they are dependent on the rebels as to how long they keep it.
And they are technologically far weaker than NATO. They have advanced since 2022 in some areas - in drone warfare obviously and in glide bombs. But they can't reconstitute the things they have lost since 2022 while fighting and continuing to lose fighter jets, tanks etc far faster than they can make them. It will take them years to reconstitute what they are losing right now especially since they are also losing the people with the skills needed especially pilots which take a long time to train.
And if you go to the Chatham House discussion about what is next then the consensus is very much the other way that Russia has no such ambition. John Foreman, Former Defence Attaché Moscow and Kyiv. Defence analyst says that (summarizing his main points):
* Putin is not Stalin or Hitler
* we are NOT at any risk of a world war
* there is no intelligence to suggest Putin wants to attack NATO
* The opposite, it is very clear Russia wants to keep the conflict local to Ukraine.
The presenter asked the rest of the panel to comment on this. They agreed with no further comments.
The ENTIRE PANEL at Chatham House agreed with John Foreman's assessment.
https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Chatham_House_discussion:_all_agreed_Russia_does_not_want_to_attack_NATO
In his article in the Spectator he says:
QUOTE STARTS
Going against this relentless ‘Nato is next’ narrative is Britain’s Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. In a recent speech at Chatham House, a London think tank, he provided a welcome tonic. Radakin chided the recent ‘confused’ and ‘alarmist’ public debate. He challenged some doom-mongers, saying: ‘we are not on the cusp of war with Russia. We are not about to be invaded. No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term. Britain is safe.’ Radakin highlighted Nato’s extensive nuclear and conventional capabilities, and its considerable economic, technological and demographic advantages over a sclerotic Russia. He concluded: ‘Putin doesn’t want a conflict with Nato because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.’
Radakin is right. Russia remains, and is likely to remain, in term of both numbers and quality, at a military disadvantage to Nato. But not only would Russia lose quickly; Russia neither has the intent nor military capability to launch an armed attack on Nato in the first place.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/russia-will-not-attack-nato/
Then he tweeted again on 4th December:
TWEET NATO is (still) not next https://x.com/John_ForemanCBE/status/1864405048890896629
See:
BLOG: Chatham House discussion: all agreed Russia does not want to attack NATO
https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Chatham_House_discussion:_all_agreed_Russia_does_not_want_to_attack_NATO
Also my:
BLOG: Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids:
“we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and
“we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation”
- shortened version
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/sky-news-military-analyst-sean-bell-bed