UKRAINE: A WAKE-UP CALL

A House of Lords report, entitled ‘Ukraine: a wake-up call’, into the UK’s defence preparedness makes disappointing reading. The report asserts that the UK is unprepared for a protracted, large-scale war. Further: ‘the evidence we heard pointed to the size of the Army being inadequate’, and that ‘The war in Ukraine has also underscored the need for an agile industrial base to meet the demands of a dynamic battlefield and underpin our Armed Forces’ credibility.’

The report rightly points out that the USA is keen to refocus ‘its priorities towards the Indo-Pacific’, which means that Europe needs to be more able to defend itself against Russian aggression. The report urges that the UK needs to work with the EU and the ‘Global South’ (where its soft power and foreign aid may allegedly have influence), even though it recognises that the Global South is more sympathetic to China and Russia and is ‘becoming more assertive’. The report endorses the need for increased spending on defence.

The report makes the case that an army of less than 73,000 that has been ‘hollowed out’ is no longer big enough to fight a prolonged conflict nor fulfil the UK’s NATO aspirations. It also highlights the reduction in the size of the reserves (the Territorial Army). In January 2024, ‘General Sir Patrick Sanders, then still Chief of the General Staff, said that the Army must be urgently expanded to around 120,000 within three years.’ The report concludes: ‘We therefore question whether the British Army is prepared to meet the growing threat posed by Russia to European security.’

What the report does not do, is consider whether the UK should adapt its commitments given its smaller army, rather than assuming it is necessary to expand the size of the army. Nor does it consider what useful role that larger army might fulfil. The UK is not a continental power and has never had a large army compared to the continental powers. The Ukrainian army is around 1.2 million strong and Poland is expanding its armed forces rapidly. Then there is Germany, Italy and France, as well as the other Eastern European countries. Including reserves, the European NATO countries and Ukraine have around 2 million troops. Then there is the USA. In what way would an extra 50,000 UK troops make a difference and would that difference be worth the cost?

The report proceeds to bemoan the contraction of the defence industrial base, and the need to reverse this. It urges more collaboration with other European countries. The report makes no reference to the closing down of steel production and the UK’s impending inability to produce virgin (high quality) steel necessary for ships, armoured vehicles etc.

The importance of air power was bluntly stated: ‘Witnesses to this inquiry repeatedly underscored the importance of air superiority, without which a conflict can fast turn into an attritional land war, as has been the case in Ukraine.’ Yet again, ‘We heard throughout our inquiry that the UK’s air defence systems have been hollowed out. This is deeply concerning. The UK’s air defences were described to us as “negligible” due to years of under-investment and an over-reliance on NATO partner capabilities.’

The report says that although the UK enjoys geographical safety, being some distance from Russia, it remains ‘an attractive target as it serves as the primary base for US forces entering Europe [and] is still vulnerable to attacks from long-range missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and standoff munitions fired by combat aircraft and stealth fighters’.

There is little mention of the Royal Navy. Perhaps this is to avoid raising the necessity to produce virgin steel to build ships. However, if the USA has to fight a major war with China in the Pacific, it is less likely to be deploying its naval fleets to ensure free movement on the seas in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. It is likely to be concentrating naval power in the Pacific Ocean to fight China’s already larger fleet (it has more warships than the USA, and is rapidly building more). China is planning to be militarily ready to invade Taiwan in 2027, reportedly.

A properly functioning and powerful Royal Navy is needed. Currently, both aircraft carriers are without a full complement of aircraft. The entirety of the attack submarine fleet is inactive and in dock. Both landing ships are inactive and in dock, as are 4 of the 6 Type-45 destroyers and 4 of the 9 Type-23 Frigates. Rear Admiral Perry has pointed out: ‘Most of the ships and submarines are ridiculously old. They’re still in service because we’re taking too long to build replacements. The Chinese navy are producing ships in as little as a year and a half, we are taking closer to seven years.’

To restore the RAF to having the same fighter strength as it had during the Cold War, around 900 fighters, would make a very big difference to the security of the UK and to NATO. Restoring the Royal Navy to being the third largest in the world, as it was in the 1970s would make a big difference. We need to put aircraft on our aircraft carriers. Increasing the army by another 50,000 would make little difference to NATO. As an island, Britain does not need a large army.

Instead of trying to bribe an ungrateful Global South with vast sums of British taxpayers’ money, £15 billion should be deducted from the foreign aid budget and, instead, invested in new fighters and ships for the RAF and Royal Navy. The Scunthorpe steel furnaces should not be closed, and ownership should be transferred from a Chinese company to a British one.

The designs for the warships and the F-35 fighters (which have British jump-jet technology) already exist. Currently, for both the RAF and Royal Navy, the UK plans are to purchase 74 F-35 fighters by 2033, and has already got 33 of them with another 15 due for delivery in 2025. This is pathetic and such numbers are no more than a token gesture. The two aircraft carriers alone need around 70-odd fighters. We need to place the orders for far more fighters and more warships now, and GET ON WITH IT.

It would help if we were able to build the F-35 fighters in the UK, especially if we were placing a much larger order. We need the expertise to maintain them and building them here would help acquire that.

This is what the report should have said.