UKRAINE AND UK DEFENCE

On taking office in 2010, the Tory-led coalition government immediately cut defence and increased foreign aid. In cash terms, between 2010 and 2023 the amount given away in foreign aid was £172.32 billion. The largesse is currently running at in excess of £15.4 billion per annum, which means it will reach at least £188 billion once the 2024 giveaway is added.

HS2 high speed rail is another expensive abomination started by the Tories. It is overdue and massively over budget. Originally, the plan was to build a new high speed rail line from London to Birmingham and on to Manchester, Leeds and up to Scotland (eventually). Warnings of the greed and incompetence of those running the escapade came in thick and fast. The average salaries were in excess of £100,000. Graveyards were dug up, properties compulsory purchased, the countryside desecrated. Local discontent was widespread.

As the original estimate of £37.5 billion (2009 prices) rocketed to well in excess of £100 billion (and rising), first the eastern leg to Leeds was scrapped in 2021,then the northern leg to Manchester was scrapped in October 2023. All that now remains is a London to Birmingham plan. As much as £27 billion has already been spent and completing the reduced scheme is costed at £67 billion, with one independent assessment forecasting that cost to be as high as £87.8 billion. A huge sum of taxpayers’ money to be spent on a railway nobody wants, other than a handful of activists and politicians.

The election of President Trump and his stated aim of ending the Ukraine war by doing some sort of deal has caused consternation in Europe. NATO was slow and ramshackle in its response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The European countries are not giving enough in aid to Ukraine to enable that country to drive out the invader. Even with US aid, Ukraine is struggling to hold its own, and is currently being slowly driven back in its south east.

Russia’s President Putin has made clear that he does not regard Ukraine as a valid country. He regards it as Russian territory. He regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he would like to reinstate – by force if necessary. This puts him on a collision course with NATO, several of whose countries were formerly under Soviet rule.

Should the USA withdraw support, then Ukraine will have to fight on regardless or else agree a peace deal. Currently, US support to Ukraine is larger than that of the European NATO countries. Should Ukraine fight on, as they are determined to do, then it will be dependent upon support from the Europeans, who will need to raise their game and increase their aid.

When the USA ended military aid to South Vietnam and Afghanistan when both were fighting against their enemies, both countries collapsed: South Vietnam after a couple of years of fierce fighting and Afghanistan almost immediately (see here). With Afghanistan, the other NATO countries followed the USA’s decision to withdraw. For their own security, the European NATO countries cannot afford to allow a repetition with Ukraine.

Any peace deal, either willingly agreed or imposed, is worth little if it renders Ukraine defenceless. A cessation of aid and the collapse in morale could have devastating consequences in the event of a resumption of Russian aggression. Russia has previously set out its conditions for peace that included the disarmament of Ukraine, a bar on Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU, and a denazification programme (the details of which were not explained). Ukraine is unlikely to agree to terms such as this, and if it were so foolish as to do so then further Russian aggression is highly likely.

The USA is keen to pivot to the Pacific where China is preparing to invade Taiwan. It also has the volatile Middle East to consider and the fate of Israel. This is a long-term problem. Israel needs US support for its current war against Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are proxies for Iran. Naturally, the USA will wish to avoid having to fight an alliance of enemies (Russia, Iran, China and North Korea) at once. Such might be described as World War III.

It is unforgivable that the NATO countries cannot outproduce a klepto-communist state such as Russia in weapons. For example, Ukraine has been complaining for a long time that it gets about 10 per cent of the artillery shells it needs. How can it win a war with Russia when Russia can fire 10 times as many artillery rounds as Ukraine?

According to the ‘Commons Library Research Briefing’, dated 24 September 2024, since the start of the Russian invasion (February 2022), the USA has donated $55.9 billion in military assistance. Further funds might be rushed through by the Biden administration, but the issue is unclear as is the amount.

By comparison, the UK has donated £12.8 billion, of which £7.8 billion is for military assistance. The Labour government has committed to continue military aid at £3 billion per year going forward.

Denmark has donated €6.7 billion to date. France’s military aid was €3.9 billion in 2022-2023, and a further €3 billion was earmarked for 2024. As of February 2024, Germany has donated €28 billion since the invasion, including sums committed to support Ukraine over the next few years. Italy’s donation to date has been between $1- 2 billion. As of June 2024, the Netherlands has donated €3.1 billion in military aid. Poland has been a major supplier of heavy weapons including tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and ammunition, and its aid totalled an estimated €4 billion by July 2024. Swedish military aid to date has reached €4.2 billion. The EU has donated economic aid. Most other countries have also made donations.

There is some big talk that the EU might create an EU army. This chatter has been around for some time. Regardless, Poland is rapidly expanding its military capability and both Sweden and Finland have recently joined NATO (they can see the looming danger).

The UK’s donation to Ukraine of around £3 billion per annum is coming out of the defence budget, which means that the aid to Ukraine diminishes the UK’s military capability. For reasons set out here, there is a good case for the UK to concentrate on the RAF and the Royal Navy. NATO’s European countries and Ukraine already have around 2 million in ground forces – excluding both the UK and the USA. There is little to be gained by the UK spending money trying to expand its army.

To restore the RAF to having the same fighter strength it had during the Cold War (around 900 fighters) would cost around £90 billion. By comparison, Russia has around 800 fighter and interceptor aircraft, as well as many other various strike aircraft. Ukraine has only around 70 fighter aircraft. With around 900 fighters, certainly with fighters from other countries in support, then the RAF would have the numbers to defeat the Russian air force and establish air superiority.

To restore the Royal Navy to the same strength it had in the 1970s and 1980s (between 50 and 100 surface ships) would require around 3-4 new ships per year, costing around £1 billion each (possibly less). Obviously weapons would also be required. The designs for the aircraft, destroyers and frigates already exist.

Given the stagnant UK economy and its ruinously high taxation and borrowing levels, from where is the money to be found? Is there other expenditure that could be reallocated and better spent on the defence of the realm (the top priority of any responsible government)? Had the £200 billion squandered on HS2 and foreign aid since 2010 been more responsibly spent, then we would not have to ponder this issue, as the aircraft and ships would already have been bought and paid for.

The UK should reallocate £15 billion from its bloated and wasteful foreign aid budget to defence, and likewise cancel HS2 and spend the budgeted £67 billion on defence too. This should be ring-fenced for aircraft, ships and accompanying weaponry. We could fund the extra manpower needed by the RAF and Royal Navy by reducing the bloated civil service which, under the Tories, increased from 384,000 in 2016 to 513,205 by June 2024.