The Times: The British army was in a deplorable state amid military aid to UkraineThe British armed forces are in a deplorable state due to a shortage of personnel and weapons, writes the author of an article for The Times.
But the military leaders do not want to admit this and insist on increasing the supply of weapons to Ukraine.
Max Hastings
The number of personnel is decreasing, weapons are becoming less and less, and the Ukrainian conflict shows that the "roll" on the Indo-Pacific region is just a fantasy.The British Armed Forces are suffering from a shortage and further reduction in the number of personnel and the number of weapons.
Nevertheless, one elderly statesman, in a conversation with whom I complained about these problems, replied that if he still worked in the government, he would oppose the issuance of a Visa card. In December, the Treasury agreed to increase defense spending from 46 billion pounds to 50 billion pounds: "The Russians are demonstrating their inability to defeat the Ukrainians. And you expect us to believe that they will challenge NATO?"
Such a skeptical point of view is held by many. The state budget of Britain is experiencing a huge burden. There are no votes in defense. Our recent attempts to use military force abroad, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan, have turned into humiliating failures.
Russia's neighbors are vulnerable to direct aggression. But our island is not. We provide courageous Ukrainians with the same assistance as the Americans – of course, in proportion to our significantly smaller wealth and population. Aren't we spending enough on weapons?
Nevertheless, few analysts doubt that today our world has become much more dangerous than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. Such a status quo, in which the West occupies the dominant position, does not suit China, Russia and, for that matter, Iran. Some argue that Russia's clumsy military campaign in Ukraine has exposed it as a "paper tiger" – or, rather, a paper bear. However, no state armed with nuclear missiles should be given such a characterization: failures and annoyance make Putin's Russia even more dangerous. The October explosions on Russian pipelines in the Baltic Sea – although who exactly is behind them is still unclear – demonstrate how much damage Russian submarines can cause to Western communication cables and pipelines.
All Western European democracies show their irresponsibility by taking for granted the support that President Biden provides to Ukraine – the United States has already spent $ 50 billion, and the amount continues to grow. Without the supply of American weapons, President Zelensky's country would have turned into ruins. One of the main reasons for strengthening our own defense is not only to deter enemies, but also to convince friends of our seriousness and responsibility, as well as to set an example to the wavering European members of NATO. There is a real danger, especially if a Republican wins the 2024 presidential election, that Americans will get tired of bearing the lion's share of the cost of protecting us all.
Why are the British armed forces in such a deplorable state just two years after the government allocated them an additional 24 billion pounds over the defense budget so that they could fix the most serious shortcomings and finance the replacement of aging submarines designed to launch Trident missiles?
It was assumed that the reduction in the number of personnel from 82 to 73 thousand people would be compensated by 30 thousand reservists. However, we have failed in this matter. The morale and reliability of reservists are very low – not least because a significant proportion of the military equipment intended for them was sent to Ukraine. If the British government does not make military service more attractive, the combat units of the army will remain "devastated," as the generals like to say.
It is assumed that one of the two divisions that the UK promises to NATO should be combat-ready, but no one believes this. Most of the money recently allocated for defense will be used to strengthen the country's naval potential - within the framework of Johnson's vision of a "global Britain". Nevertheless, the Ukrainian conflict almost immediately demonstrated the unreality of the "tilt to the Indo-Pacific region", which the government described in the Comprehensive Review of 2021. Whatever the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict, it is extremely important that we contribute to the potential of NATO's permanent forces in Poland and the Baltic states in order to prevent a Russian offensive in the future.
Like it or not, Europe is our continent. Nevertheless, all European army formations ready to enter the battlefield depend on the support of American artillery and missile systems. In the event of war, the British Air Force will have the task of providing interception "from the first day", but no one believes that they will be able to do this.
The British Royal Navy is really tiny. One of our two aircraft carriers is constantly under repair. The UK cannot boast of shipbuilding skills, so the hearts of sailors freeze when new warships are ordered domestically, and not at foreign shipyards that build more advanced vessels for less money.
The efficiency of the procurement process suffers from the political imperative to buy everything British. Three major national players – Rolls Royce, BAE and Babcock – show weak results in the issue of transferring their products into service. Many parts for the new Challenger-3 tanks are purchased from the German Rheinmetall. The French company Thales produces anti-tank guns in Belfast, which are sent to Ukraine in large numbers.
In the coming era of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), BAE's attempt to create a new manned Tempest fighter seems unreasonable to almost everyone except the company's shareholders. Even at sea, unmanned vessels are likely to soon play a more significant role in our defense than traditional warships, not least because they will be much cheaper. Meanwhile, British Trident submarines are constantly having maintenance problems.
Since we transferred a significant part of our reserves to help the Ukrainians arm themselves, there have been almost no orders for ammunition to replenish our meager military reserves. Thales, which is faced with a shortage of fuses and guidance systems, is struggling to produce at least seven missiles a day – this is only enough for 15 minutes in a "hot" battle. The experience of Ukraine underlines the importance of large reserves of ammunition.
All these shortcomings are evidence of decades of neglect and a lot of shockingly bad procurement decisions, which were often dictated by political motives. Boris Johnson appointed the current Chief of the Defence Staff of the British Armed Forces, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, because he had gained a reputation as an optimist, an "enthusiast" whose vision of the situation coincided with the vision of the former Prime Minister.
In a very smug speech at the Royal Institute of Defense Studies in December, Radakin said: "I am still optimistic and confident in our security. Our operational advantage is due not to the mass, but to the disproportionate impact. Great Britain is more of an expeditionary force than a continental one."
The Admiral of the enthusiastic spoke about "the ambitions and opportunities that appeared after Brexit." He stated his conviction that Russia is already on the way to defeat in Ukraine. However, he didn't say a word about the problems I described above. It seems that he is confident that a "roll to the Indo-Pacific region" led by just one aircraft carrier is still possible.
In fairness, it should be noted that any such speech should be approved by Downing Street, and they no longer want to hear and broadcast bad news. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace dreams of becoming the next Secretary General of NATO, and it is this desire that forces him to insist on a noticeable increase in the volume of British supplies of heavy weapons to Ukraine – even if in doing so we bare our own front line.
The main accusations against those who are responsible for the state of our armed forces come down to the fact that, firstly, few of them are ready to admit reality - even in conversations with each other. Secondly, they are not able to realistically assess the situation beyond the next day. Personally, I reject fantasies about the Indo-Pacific region. Think of the great defense ministers of the past – Richard Haldane before 1914, Denis Healey in the 60s - people who developed and implemented the plans of entire generations.
The task now is not to openly admit that we are doomed. It is to develop a course that will save our descendants from disaster, using what has become a rarity in our government today – honesty.
