Date:
Author: Kenton White, Lecturer in Strategic Studies and International Relations, University of Reading
Original article: https://theconversation.com/why-the-british-army-is-so-unprepared-to-send-troops-to-ukraine-250123
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said that Britain is “ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary”.
While reports suggest these would be “peacekeeping” forces, the reality is that true peacekeepers must be impartial. British troops placed to support Ukraine could certainly be seen as “partial”. And the positioning of British forces in Ukraine would fit the Russian narrative that casts Nato as the aggressor.
Ukraine is not a member of Nato, but the goal of Nato membership is enshrined in its constitution. British forces involved in any sort of fighting in Ukraine would not enable article 5, which states that each member will regard an attack on any other member as an attack on themselves and assist it, to be invoked. Additionally, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that European troops deployed to Ukraine should not be covered under article 5.
The weakness with Starmer’s idea is that Britain does not have the wherewithal to provide enough troops, supplies and weapons to act as a real deterrent. This isn’t too dissimilar from the state of British forces when faced with war in Europe more than a century ago.
In 1914 Lord Kitchener, then secretary of state for war, speaking of the cabinet’s decision to go to war in Europe, thundered, “Did they remember, when they went headlong into a war like this, that they were without an army, and without any preparation to equip one?”
Small numbers would be nothing more than a “speed-bump” against a large attack, as the British Expeditionary Force was in 1914 and again in 1940. Poor preparation, small numbers and limited equipment meant their deployment was more an indication of Britain’s support, rather than real capability to fight a long war against a peer enemy.
Britain is again in this position. Years of spending cuts have removed the ability of British forces to prosecute a war against a peer adversary for an extended time. The number of troops has fallen from 100,000 full-time trained personnel in 2000, to approximately 70,000 today.
Read more:
US says European security no longer its primary focus – the shift has been years in the making
Britain also does not have the capacity to manufacture at the levels required for a modern war. Much will be needed for immediate capital investment, such as manufacturing capacity for arms and ammunition. Longer-term investment will be required for arms production, as will the reinstatement of supporting infrastructure, such as airfields and storage facilities abandoned after the end of the cold war, both within Britain and across Europe.
There is no solution to the immediate problem except increasing the money available for defence. But Britain, and many other Nato members, have been unwilling to increase spending on defence, even though the current capabilities have been run down to such an extent that European nations cannot field a capable force.
Defence spending
US president Donald Trump has called for Nato countries to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP from the current Nato target of 2%. This would be very difficult to achieve in Britain’s current financial situation without spending cuts elsewhere.
While it has been reported that defence chiefs are pushing for a rise to 2.65% of GDP, Starmer indicated he would resist pressure to increase spending above 2.5%.
The last time the UK spent more than 5% of its GDP on defence was in the height of the cold war. The current international situation has already begun to shift into two distinct blocs similar to the east-west split between 1945 and 1991. However, the bipolar balance of the cold war has been replaced with an increasing instability, as displayed by Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine.
Replacing lost capacity is almost always more expensive than maintaining it. Had the governments of past decades maintained the capabilities of the armed forces, the overall cost would most likely have been lower than the amount the nation will now have to invest to obtain the same level of defence.
Each defence review since 1957 has led to cuts to the defence budget in real terms. Reductions in the military budget continue because, previously, nothing presented a sufficient sub-nuclear threat to the nation deemed significant enough to reverse them. Those cuts are now so deep that the nation is on the edge of being unable to defend itself, let alone project military power abroad in any significant capacity.
Tolga Akmen/EPA-EFE
The prime minister wrote: “We have got to show we are truly serious about our own defence and bearing our own burden.” This assertion is quickly undermined by the indication that he won’t increase spending anytime soon.
None of the western members of Nato have shown any willingness to significantly increase their defence spending. Great Britain expects to spend £56.4 billion for 2024-25, amounting to approximately 2.3% of GDP. But this includes £0.65 billion in pensions and benefits, and £0.22 billion in “arms-length bodies” that do not contribute to the defence establishment in any practical terms.
Britain and Nato have had clear warning since 2014 to correct the deficiencies of their defences. All have chosen to ignore the developing threat from Russia. The impression is that not only are we hoping for the best, but we are planning for the best too.
Lord Tedder, chief of the air staff after the second world war, wrote, “It is at the outset of war that time is the supreme factor.” Three years into the war in Ukraine, and it is clear that Nato missed the opportunity to strengthen its defences in the early stages. It now faces a significant increase in defence spending simply to make up the shortfall from previous decades.