As Keir Starmer and his advisors return from Paris having been shamed by Washington into finally pulling their finger out on defence, here are some cold hard realities.
First, the idea of deploying a peacekeeping force to Ukraine is indeed noble and may be necessary. And British soldiers are as good as any in the world. But there are now fewer than 75,000 of them.
The numbers simply do not add up. Ukraine would require in excess of 100,000 personnel, if the peacekeeping force is to provide some form of safety against Russia. Just a casual glance at the demilitarised zone on the Korean peninsula and how many forces are still tied down there demonstrates the numbers required of such a mission.
The UK could feasibly deploy at most a brigade, between 3-5,000 troops, and a Corps level Headquarters which would probably be needed, for between 24-36 months. This would strain the Army immensely given current commitments and record high levels of non-deployable troops. Half of Europe has already declared itself out of the fight before talks have even properly begun – providing an excellent illustration of just how stupid all the posturing talk of a “European army” was. A lot more troops will need to come from somewhere: we shouldn’t send ours to stand alone.
Another reality that needs facing up to is the state of the Army at the moment. The situation facing our forces is nothing short of bleak. Today’s younger generation do not want to join up. Even if they do, the recruiting system is broken and many simply give up. The housing is dreadful. Equipment programmes are always delayed and overbudget, and often produce dreadful kit.
Often enough there is no kit at all. Many of our artillery regiments have no weapons and/or very little ammunition, everything having been sent to Ukraine and only a few replacements obtained. Many regiments and battalions are still using obsolete equipment while they wait for new vehicles that should have been delivered long ago.
A lot of money needs to be spent just to get the existing Army – and the other services – up to par for yesterday’s world, in which the US guaranteed European security.
But Keir Starmer has been dragging his feet on Defence spending ever since he got elected. Everyone knows that a major increase is needed just to repair the long years of neglect: but Starmer won’t commit even to 2.5 per cent of GDP, the bare minimum that was needed even for yesterday’s world. And that was yesterday: today he’s talking about a major, open-ended commitment which will cost billions and stretch the Army to its limits even if everything goes well.
To send UK servicemen and women into harm’s way but not be prepared to fund them adequately is shameful. Starmer’s government appears bent on lawfare, not warfare.
Robert Clark is a Defence Fellow at the Yorktown Institute in Washington DC. Prior to this he served in the British Army
As Keir Starmer and his advisors return from Paris having been shamed by Washington into finally pulling their finger out on defence, here are some cold hard realities.
First, the idea of deploying a peacekeeping force to Ukraine is indeed noble and may be necessary. And British soldiers are as good as any in the world. But there are now fewer than 75,000 of them.
The numbers simply do not add up. Ukraine would require in excess of 100,000 personnel, if the peacekeeping force is to provide some form of safety against Russia. Just a casual glance at the demilitarised zone on the Korean peninsula and how many forces are still tied down there demonstrates the numbers required of such a mission.
The UK could feasibly deploy at most a brigade, between 3-5,000 troops, and a Corps level Headquarters which would probably be needed, for between 24-36 months. This would strain the Army immensely given current commitments and record high levels of non-deployable troops. Half of Europe has already declared itself out of the fight before talks have even properly begun – providing an excellent illustration of just how stupid all the posturing talk of a “European army” was. A lot more troops will need to come from somewhere: we shouldn’t send ours to stand alone.
Another reality that needs facing up to is the state of the Army at the moment. The situation facing our forces is nothing short of bleak. Today’s younger generation do not want to join up. Even if they do, the recruiting system is broken and many simply give up. The housing is dreadful. Equipment programmes are always delayed and overbudget, and often produce dreadful kit.
Often enough there is no kit at all. Many of our artillery regiments have no weapons and/or very little ammunition, everything having been sent to Ukraine and only a few replacements obtained. Many regiments and battalions are still using obsolete equipment while they wait for new vehicles that should have been delivered long ago.
A lot of money needs to be spent just to get the existing Army – and the other services – up to par for yesterday’s world, in which the US guaranteed European security.
But Keir Starmer has been dragging his feet on Defence spending ever since he got elected. Everyone knows that a major increase is needed just to repair the long years of neglect: but Starmer won’t commit even to 2.5 per cent of GDP, the bare minimum that was needed even for yesterday’s world. And that was yesterday: today he’s talking about a major, open-ended commitment which will cost billions and stretch the Army to its limits even if everything goes well.
To send UK servicemen and women into harm’s way but not be prepared to fund them adequately is shameful. Starmer’s government appears bent on lawfare, not warfare.
Robert Clark is a Defence Fellow at the Yorktown Institute in Washington DC. Prior to this he served in the British Army