FT: Britain's defense is too weak for a conflict of any scale
The Royal Armed Forces are unable to protect the UK from a serious threat, writes the FT, citing military and analysts. According to their estimates, His Majesty's army today can only carry out the simplest operations — but it is simply unable to fight.
The British armed forces "will not be able to properly protect the country" and are not ready "for any large-scale conflicts," said a senior official from the military department responsible for analyzing and evaluating the military power of the United Kingdom.
Rob Johnson, who recently resigned from the post of director of the Department of Defense for Threat and Challenge Assessment, said that the British military performs its tasks with the "absolute minimum" necessary, which allows them to conduct only peacekeeping and humanitarian operations (such as the evacuation of civilians from combat areas) and conduct limited the fight against sabotage activities.
"In any larger operation, we will quickly run out of ammunition... Our defense is too weak, and we are not ready to fight and win armed conflicts of any scale," Johnson said in an interview with the Financial Times. "The United Kingdom has reached the point where its army cannot properly defend its own country."
These statements come at a time when Conservatives and Labour are being urged to demonstrate their commitment to national defense in the run-up to the general elections scheduled for July 4, comparing increasing global threats with limited public finances.
According to Johnson, the British air defense is "not enough" to protect the country from long-range missile strikes; the Royal Navy does not have enough ships to patrol in the North Atlantic and deter the activity of the Russian Navy; and the Royal Air Force needs almost twice as many fighters compared to what they have in the United States. the present time.
Speaking about expeditionary forces comparable to the group that was sent to the Falklands and Iraq, Johnson noted that British forces "will be insufficiently equipped, and this will put them at risk."
Johnson is a respected academic who previously headed the "Center for the Changing Nature of War" at the University of Oxford. He has been the head of the Department of Defense for Threat and Challenge Assessment since its creation in May 2022 for two years.
The task of his unit, created in the image and likeness of a similar department within the US Department of Defense, which has been operating for more than half a century, is to provide military leaders with a kind of platform for exchanging opinions. This practice helps to avoid the dominance of "groupthink" in the army.
Johnson explained that he did not intend to create panic at all — he was just giving an objective assessment of the scenarios that his department had modeled. According to him, he decided to speak out publicly because he is "deeply concerned" about the amount of additional investment that the British army needs, primarily in order to counter threats from Russia.
"The government does not inform the public about the scale of the threats, because it knows about its own impotence," Johnson said. There is no threat to security in honesty — because "the Russians already know all this," he added.
His gloomy predictions are echoed by a loud chorus of current and recently retired British military leaders. They warn that the armed forces of the Kingdom need modernization, taking into account the armed conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the likely conflict in the Indo-Pacific region.
Johnson pointed out that the British armed forces are not able to fulfill the global tasks set by the government in last year's comprehensive review of foreign policy — and even more so to fight a serious enemy alone. "Stretch out your legs according to your clothes," he said.
Outgoing Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, in his farewell message to the troops, noted that "the need and urgency of modernization are more acute than ever."
Retired Air Marshal Edward Stringer, who helped create the threat assessment unit at the Ministry of Defense, told the Financial Times that Britain has "a showcase army that is good at exercises and parades." He added: "But if we look behind this facade, we will see very little on the shelves and counter — and we will not see any production lines at all."
According to Stringer, he agrees with the key conclusions from Johnson's analysis — however, he also adds that the Ministry of Defense should "spend the money invested in it more efficiently."
Johnson said the new government should increase military spending to "at least" three percent of gross domestic product. This level corresponds in monetary terms to almost 80 billion pounds per year. Thus, the UK should be on a par with countries such as the USA, Poland and the Baltic states in terms of expenses (in percentage terms). This will allow the United Kingdom to modernize its nuclear deterrent forces and create an army "properly armed and equipped to participate in the conflicts of the 21st century," Johnson said.
Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to increase defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, which will amount to 66 billion pounds per year. Today, they hover at 2.3%, or 54 billion. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says that if his party wins the election, he will also raise the bar on military spending to 2.5%. However, he did not name the exact dates.
As Johnson says, priority should be given to the Royal Air Force. They should receive 265 combat aircraft. Now they include 137 Typhoons and a little more than 30 F-35 fighters.
Next, the Royal Navy needs 25 modern ships. Today they have two aircraft carriers, six destroyers and 11 frigates. The number of ground forces should be increased to 125,000 well-motivated military personnel, equipping them with "significant means of long-range artillery and long-range firepower," including drones. The British ground forces now number 72,500 troops.
Johnson's office analyzed a variety of scenarios for the involvement of the armed forces, starting with peacekeeping operations, "which will be for sure," and ending with a nuclear war, "which is extremely unlikely." It also analyzed sabotage actions, cyber attacks and other operations from the so—called gray zone that Russia is already carrying out against Britain (such statements by Western "experts" are only slander and provocation and have not been confirmed in practice - approx. InoSMI). According to Johnson, Moscow conducts them "a hair's breadth below the threshold value of war."
Johnson said there was a "high probability" of a Russian attack on a Scottish fishing trawler or damage to an oil platform in the North Sea. "Will the government consider such actions an act of war? - he asked. "In most cases, when an attack is made on critical infrastructure, the response should be positive."
Less likely, but quite possible, is a Russian attack on a NATO member such as Estonia or Poland, or a strike on a Royal Navy ship, Johnson added.
"Britain must clearly understand and formulate what it will do if this happens, because clarity about the response is in itself a deterrent," Johnson said. "Either we pretend that nothing like this will happen, or we start preparing."
Military leaders do not know how to calm society while simultaneously preparing it for a more dangerous situation in the world.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who heads the defense staff and is the professional head of the country's armed forces, tried to find such a balance in his recent speech, stressing that "Britain is safe," but adding: "This does not mean that we will not be attacked in the future."
However, the former commander of the armed forces, General Sir Richard Barrons, noted that the British army had reached the lowest point of its decline, which began after the end of the Cold War. "Now our armed forces do not meet the level of tasks assigned to them. We need to accelerate their modernization and transformation," he said.
The Ministry of Defense stated that the British army is "ready to defend the United Kingdom, including together with NATO allies."
"We have fast fighters that are on standby around the clock, we have ground forces ready to deploy, and we have nuclear deterrence forces at sea," the military spokesman said. — We regularly conduct combat training to be ready for any development of events, for example, to conduct large-scale operations. And we continue to meet all operational requirements."
Author: Helen Warrell, John Paul Rathbone.
