When Sergey Lavrov famously said that Vladimir Putin only had three advisers – Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and Peter the Great – he was correctly pointing to the motivation at the heart of Putin’s strategic intent and the purpose of his war in Ukraine. Anyone who believes that Putin will agree to a voluntary end to this war is indulging in serious and dangerous wishful thinking.
All reasonable people would like to see end an end to the killing on both sides and an end to the destruction of the land of Ukraine but such an outcome will only be achieved if Vladimir Putin feels such pressure on himself that his personal position and leadership is in serious question.
As an unreconstructed KGB colonel whose beloved Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were destroyed by the unity of Nato and the West in the late 1980s, Putin wishes his epitaph to celebrate the heroic Russian leader who divided and destroyed the West and restored Russian pride. That is his objective, and until that extraordinary conversation in St Peter’s Basilica on Saturday with Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump seemed to be playing into Putin’s hands, either willingly or unwittingly. To be charitable, it may be more of the latter, but the result could be the same – a potential disaster for Ukraine and decades of insecurity for Europe. Rather than bullying Ukraine into accepting the loss of part of its sovereign territory in return for a short-term ceasefire which Russia will undoubtedly break when it has refurbished its armed forces, the focus of pressure should be fiercely on the Russian economy. Rising prices, steep inflation, international isolation of the Kremlin elite amongst other factors are more likely to discredit or topple Putin and end the war, than meekly blessing his illegal annexation of Crimea. In the meantime, the Ukrainian armed forces and economy must be given all that they need to keep an unrelenting pressure on the Russian military on the battlefield, at sea and in the air. It will continue to be ugly and bloody, but it will be noble and right.
The parallels with the late 1930’s have well been worked over already and this time, unlike Czechoslovakia being sacrificed in 1938 without consultation, President Zelensky is invited into the conversation, albeit with a gun to his head. Worse still, the man holding the gun has been trying steal his victim’s natural wealth and pretend that this is some kind of legitimate deal. These are harsh criticisms, and a British government spokesperson could not voice them, but independent commentators can see the reality of the situation. To his credit, our Prime Minister is trying to walk a series of tightropes tying together a trade deal and good relations with the United States, unwavering support for Ukraine, closer trading and defence relations with the European Union and burnishing the United Kingdom’s position on the world stage. It is an enormous challenge.
At the heart of that challenge is the ticking time bomb of the war in Ukraine. Blood and treasure are being sacrificed every day. When Donald Trump realises that he cannot conclude his deal with Vladimir Putin anytime soon, it has already been suggested that he will walk away and switch his attention elsewhere. In any event, he has signalled that the United States intends to reduce its military support to Europe and on that point his intention is legitimate.
This places the onus squarely on the European governments and their national economies. Those closest to Russia are already digging deep into their resource pool and generating more money for defence by one means or another. Why else would Sweden and Finland have chosen this moment to join Nato with Poland now spending 4.7 per cent of its GDP on defence and Germany planning to create a 500 billion euro defence fund?
Why else would worried Baltic States be withdrawing from international agreements banning the use of certain defensive weapon systems? These countries can feel the heat, smell the fear and are taking substantive action now. They have all experienced the devasting costs of fighting deadly wars and now quite correctly believe that paying a much higher premium today to deter future war represents strategic investment in their best national and collective European security interests.
In contrast to these decisive initiatives, the United Kingdom government has announced a meagre rise in defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. This was only financed by raiding our international development budget, thereby diminishing our soft power which is a key component of our ability to exercise influence on the world stage.
Meanwhile, the much-heralded Strategic Defence Review is yet to be published. There is a general pledge to increase defence spending to 3 per cent by the end of the decade and if the SDR is to be of real value, it must set out the pathway to that higher level of expenditure. However, the extent of the hollowing out of our armed forces by successive governments since the end of the Cold War demands a defence budget nearer to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Even though the Prime Minister will have enjoyed his recent night embarked in HMS Prince of Wales as she leads a major naval deployment to the Indo-Pacific region, he must realise that our military capability is skin deep and that the highest defence priority for the United Kingdom is the security of Europe.
The Chancellor will hold the purse strings tightly, but it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to direct more money towards defence. With little projected growth in the economy and borrowing levels well above forecast, the Government will have to confront the remaining option – to raise taxes. Adherence to manifesto pledges is admirable but when the international context has changed to the extent that it has since the Labour Party manifesto was drafted last year, the mark of real leadership is to have the courage to reevaluate the situation and take different decisions. It will need a concerted public communications campaign to explain to the electorate why VAT or Income Tax must rise, but many in the business community are expecting this. To govern is to choose and some choices are painful. Far better to take pain in our pocket now to deter war than face the utter disaster of fighting one later. The Ukrainians are buying us time to rearm – we must not waste it.
General the Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL is a former Chief of the General Staff – the professional head of the British Army. He is co-author of Korea – War without End to be published on 22 May by Osprey/Bloomsbury
When Sergey Lavrov famously said that Vladimir Putin only had three advisers – Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and Peter the Great – he was correctly pointing to the motivation at the heart of Putin’s strategic intent and the purpose of his war in Ukraine. Anyone who believes that Putin will agree to a voluntary end to this war is indulging in serious and dangerous wishful thinking.
All reasonable people would like to see end an end to the killing on both sides and an end to the destruction of the land of Ukraine but such an outcome will only be achieved if Vladimir Putin feels such pressure on himself that his personal position and leadership is in serious question.
As an unreconstructed KGB colonel whose beloved Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were destroyed by the unity of Nato and the West in the late 1980s, Putin wishes his epitaph to celebrate the heroic Russian leader who divided and destroyed the West and restored Russian pride. That is his objective, and until that extraordinary conversation in St Peter’s Basilica on Saturday with Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump seemed to be playing into Putin’s hands, either willingly or unwittingly. To be charitable, it may be more of the latter, but the result could be the same – a potential disaster for Ukraine and decades of insecurity for Europe. Rather than bullying Ukraine into accepting the loss of part of its sovereign territory in return for a short-term ceasefire which Russia will undoubtedly break when it has refurbished its armed forces, the focus of pressure should be fiercely on the Russian economy. Rising prices, steep inflation, international isolation of the Kremlin elite amongst other factors are more likely to discredit or topple Putin and end the war, than meekly blessing his illegal annexation of Crimea. In the meantime, the Ukrainian armed forces and economy must be given all that they need to keep an unrelenting pressure on the Russian military on the battlefield, at sea and in the air. It will continue to be ugly and bloody, but it will be noble and right.
The parallels with the late 1930’s have well been worked over already and this time, unlike Czechoslovakia being sacrificed in 1938 without consultation, President Zelensky is invited into the conversation, albeit with a gun to his head. Worse still, the man holding the gun has been trying steal his victim’s natural wealth and pretend that this is some kind of legitimate deal. These are harsh criticisms, and a British government spokesperson could not voice them, but independent commentators can see the reality of the situation. To his credit, our Prime Minister is trying to walk a series of tightropes tying together a trade deal and good relations with the United States, unwavering support for Ukraine, closer trading and defence relations with the European Union and burnishing the United Kingdom’s position on the world stage. It is an enormous challenge.
At the heart of that challenge is the ticking time bomb of the war in Ukraine. Blood and treasure are being sacrificed every day. When Donald Trump realises that he cannot conclude his deal with Vladimir Putin anytime soon, it has already been suggested that he will walk away and switch his attention elsewhere. In any event, he has signalled that the United States intends to reduce its military support to Europe and on that point his intention is legitimate.
This places the onus squarely on the European governments and their national economies. Those closest to Russia are already digging deep into their resource pool and generating more money for defence by one means or another. Why else would Sweden and Finland have chosen this moment to join Nato with Poland now spending 4.7 per cent of its GDP on defence and Germany planning to create a 500 billion euro defence fund?
Why else would worried Baltic States be withdrawing from international agreements banning the use of certain defensive weapon systems? These countries can feel the heat, smell the fear and are taking substantive action now. They have all experienced the devasting costs of fighting deadly wars and now quite correctly believe that paying a much higher premium today to deter future war represents strategic investment in their best national and collective European security interests.
In contrast to these decisive initiatives, the United Kingdom government has announced a meagre rise in defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. This was only financed by raiding our international development budget, thereby diminishing our soft power which is a key component of our ability to exercise influence on the world stage.
Meanwhile, the much-heralded Strategic Defence Review is yet to be published. There is a general pledge to increase defence spending to 3 per cent by the end of the decade and if the SDR is to be of real value, it must set out the pathway to that higher level of expenditure. However, the extent of the hollowing out of our armed forces by successive governments since the end of the Cold War demands a defence budget nearer to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Even though the Prime Minister will have enjoyed his recent night embarked in HMS Prince of Wales as she leads a major naval deployment to the Indo-Pacific region, he must realise that our military capability is skin deep and that the highest defence priority for the United Kingdom is the security of Europe.
The Chancellor will hold the purse strings tightly, but it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to direct more money towards defence. With little projected growth in the economy and borrowing levels well above forecast, the Government will have to confront the remaining option – to raise taxes. Adherence to manifesto pledges is admirable but when the international context has changed to the extent that it has since the Labour Party manifesto was drafted last year, the mark of real leadership is to have the courage to reevaluate the situation and take different decisions. It will need a concerted public communications campaign to explain to the electorate why VAT or Income Tax must rise, but many in the business community are expecting this. To govern is to choose and some choices are painful. Far better to take pain in our pocket now to deter war than face the utter disaster of fighting one later. The Ukrainians are buying us time to rearm – we must not waste it.
General the Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL is a former Chief of the General Staff – the professional head of the British Army. He is co-author of Korea – War without End to be published on 22 May by Osprey/Bloomsbury