Category Archives: Defence

Britain, Defence, Government, Military, Politics, Society

Strategic Defence Review: Falls far short of being “war ready”

DEFENCE

THE UK GOVERNMENT has unveiled its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) with great fanfare. Headed by former NATO chief George Robertson, it has been presented as a “root and branch review” of our military policy, and points the way to “a new era for defence”.

How pitiful then that the announcement has been overshadowed by the Defence Secretary quibbling over how much the Government is willing to spend. Just days ago, John Healey declared there was “no doubt” the UK would hit its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP (from the current 2.3 per cent) on defence by 2034, and promised a “certain decade of rising defence spending”. But that commitment now seems less than cast iron, as Healey has retreated to the language of “aims” and “ambitions” when referring to the target.

If he didn’t know how much he’s spending immediately prior to the SDR then what confidence can we have in any of his and Starmer’s promises? It betrays a disarray at the heart of defence, for the Defence Secretary’s main job is to get the money right.

That aside, some of the review’s proposals that have been in the public domain for a while are welcome – in particular, the revelation that the Government will build six new munitions factories, given that our industrial capacity has been depleted for decades.

Supplying arms to Ukraine since 2022 has severely diminished our stocks. Expanding home-grown munitions manufacturing will allow us to replenish our stores and reduce our reliance on the US and Germany. And the jobs it will create, including hundreds of highly skilled roles, can only be a good thing.

The Government’s decision to build up to 12 attack submarines as part of the AUKUS programme run by Australia, the UK and US will also create thousands of jobs. Questions remain, however, on just how many of these submarines will fall under the command of the Royal Navy or go to the Royal Australian Navy. Any expansion of our conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet must also be matched by investment in recruiting and retraining personnel, as the service desperately struggles to man its fleet as it is.

It also appears that the Government is finally taking seriously the possibility of the UK coming under ballistic missile attack, with the review pledging to introduce new defence “shields”. While an Israel-style Iron Dome system to intercept long-range aerial attacks sounds justified, it would be prohibitively expensive to envelop the whole of the British Isles. Nonetheless we do need much more than the nothing we have today – namely, missile defences over key strategic targets like government buildings, airfields, and manufacturing hubs.

Yet, the announcement of 7,000 new British-built “missiles” is concerning if that number also includes attack drones, as Healey has indicated. If actual missiles turn out to be a small proportion of this total, such a move will hardly jangle nerves in Moscow or Beijing. The Russians continue to launch hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukraine most nights and China has over 10,000 missiles ready to fire.

And when it comes to drones, what type are we investing in? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have made light work of taking out the US’s £22million MQ-9 Reaper drones, downing six of them in the last three months.

We need to expand and diversify our stocks, training soldiers to operate lightweight, cheap drones, in particular, which have proved so nimble and deadly above the steppes of Ukraine.

So, while there is much to welcome and applaud in this review, there is also much more to be done. Elsewhere, reports have emerged that the Government is in highly sensitive talks to buy F35A fighter jets, which can carry nuclear bombs.

This would broaden our nuclear deterrent beyond our four Vanguard-class submarines but would also tie us to yet more US technology. The warplane can use only the B61-12 bomb – stocks of which are strictly controlled by the Pentagon.

Nor would the jet, which needs a longer runway to take off, be compatible with the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers – so the flight decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will remain embarrassingly bare. And we are still shamefully unable to train our own pilots. The current Hawk T2 training aircraft is so unreliable that the RAF is sending new pilots overseas to earn their wings. A replacement is urgently needed.

On the ground, our armoured personnel carriers lack anti-tank systems, making them little more than battlefield taxis. The troops they carry will also be dangerously exposed on any future frontline because they have virtually no air cover, due to so few aircraft, pilots and drones.

The latest hi-tech kit and equipment is always welcome but it’s useless without the personnel to put it to use in action. One critical thing the Ukraine war has taught us is that troop numbers are important – and we seriously need more recruits in every branch of the Armed Forces.

Healey is expected to set a long-term target for increasing the size of the Army, but some suspect that increase will largely come from a mooted “Home Guard” force, which will be established to protect domestic infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants.

If the review fails to commit us to expand the Army to at least 100,000 full-time soldiers (up from just 73,000), we will remain incapable of prosecuting a land offensive in eastern Europe were Russia to invade a NATO ally, at a time when the US is retreating from the European theatre.

Given the current budgetary constraints, it is unlikely the SDR will get the UK anywhere close to being “war ready”. The financial resources just aren’t available.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, France, Government, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Europe can deal with America’s perfidy

A NEW WORLD ORDER

Intro: Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world

A WATERSHED moment is upon us as Britain and the entire European continent faces a turning point, a second Zeitenwende, and a new world order. Whichever turn of phrase best describes the dramatic shifts unfolding since Donald Trump began his second US presidential term in January, one thing is certain: nothing will be the same again. The key question now is what, in practical terms, Europe can and will do to meet this challenge. Is this paradigm shift in the world order Europe’s moment, when it finally comes of age as a global player? Or will the EU and its close neighbours collectively fail to rise to the occasion, condemning their citizens to an era of domination by bigger and more determined rapacious powers?

With incautious recklessness, Donald Trump is in the process of attempting to do three extraordinary things. First, he is trying to force Ukraine, which has spent more than three years under murderous assault, to accept a “peace deal” on inimical terms dictated by himself and the aggressor, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Second, in a stunning reversal of US policy, he is seeking a rapprochement with Moscow that includes re-establishing full political and diplomatic relations, lifting sanctions and launching joint economic partnerships. Third, he is telling Europeans they must henceforth defend themselves; that the US, in effect, is no longer a loyal, reliable partner or even necessarily a friend, and that NATO, for 76 years the solid bedrock of transatlantic security, is dispensable.

European leaders are broadly united in their alarm at all three of these unwise, irrational, and dangerous interventions. At the same time, most accept that even if Trump didn’t hold office, a change in the balance of US-Europe relations is inescapable and more than overdue. In a national address, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, summed up the position well: “Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow,” he said. “The war in Ukraine… continues with the same intensity [but] the US, our ally, has changed its position.” As a result, Europe was entering a new era of self-reliance.

Mr Macron, like many others, was accused of appeasing Putin in 2022. He has learned better since. He warns now that Russian imperialist aggression “knows no borders”, directly threatening France and Europe. This is not just talk. He has shown imaginative leadership, producing a tentative plan for a staged ceasefire that has Ukrainian support, lobbying, flattering, and even correcting Trump to his face in the Oval Office. The French president has also been promoting an Anglo-French proposal to deploy a European “assurance force” in Ukraine composed of a so-called coalition of the willing.

There has been repeated recourse in recent days for Europe to “step up” as a matter of urgency. Germany surprised many with a positive leap into the future. A country that nurtures visceral horror of debt announced a spectacular U-turn of its own – the amending of its Basic Law to permit multibillion-euro investments in defence and national infrastructure. Quite remarkable given that Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrat who held off the far-right to win last month’s federal election, has a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Not any more. And he has gone further even than Macron in urging Europe’s “independence” from the US and pledging ongoing, expanded military aid for Kyiv. Other European leaders, notably Donald Tusk, have “stepped up” in commendable ways, too. Poland’s prime minister is in an unenviable position. A strong adherent in the transatlantic alliance, he, like so many others, now must feel utterly betrayed by Trump. There is a real sense of perfidy in the air. NATO is a crucial shield for Poland, as it is for the three neighbouring Baltic republics.

Keir Starmer also recognises the historic nature of this moment, and has risen to meet it. He has worked assiduously and with due care to restrain Trump’s worst instincts. His evident contempt, displayed in the House of Commons, for the ignorant comments of US vice-president JD Vance about “random countries” showed he is not afraid to push back. The PM’s collaboration with EU leaders is a very welcome post-Brexit development that should be extended beyond defence and security. Yet like them, the UK faces daunting hurdles.

These challenges – on reducing Europe’s reliance on America, boosting its defences, and maintaining support for Ukraine – were the focus of the emergency EU summit. As is often the case in Brussels, the results were mixed. New overall defence spending of £670bn was agreed. But whether it ever materialises will depend on national governments’ willingness to borrow. The usual divisions were apparent – such as Hungary blocking a joint statement on Ukraine. Within NATO, most member states, like Britain, are now committing to higher spending. Non-EU countries, such as Norway, are also piling in. Oslo is belatedly, yet commendably, doubling its aid to Kyiv.

Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world. But how effective Europe can be in rescuing Ukraine in the short term from a developing Trump-Putin axis is in serious doubt. Trump still refuses to provide Kyiv with meaningful post-war security guarantees. His suspension of military aid, mapping, and intelligence assistance is encouraging Russia to intensify attacks. More civilians are dying each day because of Trump’s treachery. With each passing day, Ukraine is further brutalised and degraded. A just peace looks further away than ever. 

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine and Europe are in a race against time

UKRAINE

Intro: The suspension of US military aid to Ukraine is a severe punishing blow

JUST exactly how long do Ukraine and Europe have to respond to US betrayal? When Russia launched its full-scale invasion three years ago, each day that Kyiv held out was deemed a victory. The west rallied to Ukraine’s support at equally remarkable speed.

But now, since Donald Trump’s re-election as US President, his administration has turned upon the victim, has embraced the aggressor, and Europe is in the process of accelerating nascent plans to bolster Ukraine by pursuing security independence. America’s allies blame the extraordinary Oval office confrontation between Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr Trump, and JD Vance for the shocking decision to halt all US military aid. Others suspect that the administration was seeking a pretext for the suspension. Zelensky has pledged to “work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts” and expressed gratitude for his first-term approval of acquiring from the US the Javelin missile defence system.

Whether such platitudes are enough, only time will tell. The suspension of all military aid concluded a rancorous fortnight in which Mr Trump attacked Zelensky as a “dictator”, the US sided with Russia against western allies at the UN, and the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, suspended offensive cyber operations against Moscow. There have also been reports that the US is preparing plans for loosening the economic pressure on Russia – even as it imposes punitive trade tariffs on allies. Little wonder, then, that the Kremlin crows that Washington “largely coincides with our vision”. Vladimir Putin has reportedly offered to mediate US-Iran nuclear talks.

Military analysts suggest that Ukraine’s forces should be able to continue fighting at their current rate for a few months if US aid does not resume, depending on what it has stockpiled. Though it is far less dependent on the US than three years ago, key elements like Patriot air defence missiles will be difficult to replace. If US logistical and intelligence assistance were completed suspended, those would be further punishing blows.

The American President is in a hurry – hence his angry threat that Mr Zelensky “won’t be around very long” if he doesn’t cut a deal soon. These remarks came after the Ukrainian president suggested that the end of the war was “very, very far away”. Still, he has also squandered leverage he might have exerted on Moscow. He has emboldened Russia to pursue its revanchist aims.

The US has already undermined central tenets of Sir Keir Starmer’s approach – maintaining military support for Kyiv and economic pressure on Moscow, and creating a “coalition of the willing” to guarantee Ukrainian security. Mr Vance derided “20,000 troops from some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years”, then claimed he was not referring to Britain or France.

European leaders must continue to try and buy time, deferring further US perfidy, and hasten rearmament for themselves and Ukraine. Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, has announced a plan, including changes to EU fiscal rules, which she said could mobilise nearly Euros800bn for defence spending. A rival operator to Elon Musk’s Starlink is in direct talks with European leaders about satellite and communication services.

Nonetheless this is an administration which moves abruptly and erratically. Ukraine and Europe are racing against the clock, not knowing when zero hour will arrive. It is likely to be sooner rather than later.

Standard