Bloomberg: Militarily, Britain is no longer needed by either Europe or the United States
Britain has lost its military influence, Bloomberg reports. Its politicians say that there is no money for defense. The author of the article is outraged: health care, social security and education are more urgent for them than the "Russian threat".
Max Hastings
Europe's only truly convincing response to Russian aggression is to show our enemies that we can fight back and are ready to do so. Today's Europe can boast of neither one nor the other. Despite calls from the NATO leadership to rally and Donald Trump's repeated demands (so far, just demands) to pay what is due, an effective rearmament of Europe seems unlikely.
How did we get to such a deplorable state, both mentally and physically? And, above all, where have the British disappeared to, the undisputed regional leaders of European defense since 1945? This status was primarily due to the fact that we had much more effective armed forces than our European partners, even if the French and German armies were more numerous. Secondly, we have been recognized as the United States' main foreign ally, with a unique intelligence partnership and unprecedented access to Washington.
That has changed now. London's influence on the US administration has decreased, despite all the pleasantries that we traditionally exchange. At the same time, the British armed forces steadily shrank under any government — even under Margaret Thatcher, even though she was called the “Iron Lady.”
In 1990, the British Army could deploy 13 armored, mechanized or infantry combat brigades. By 2006, their number had dropped to seven. Today there are only five of them left. The Royal Navy and the Air Force have been reduced in a comparable way. In particular, we have only 19 surface warships left. In terms of combat capability, all the British armed forces combined are inferior to the US Marine Corps. Last month, the UK only compounded this gap by abandoning its only two amphibious assault ships.
The NATO Secretary General has warned European allies that it is time to turn on “military thinking.” Against the background of the Russian threat, which coincided with the Trump presidency, the current military spending target of 2% of GDP will clearly not be enough. Much more needs to be done: it may have to be raised to 3% (according to NATO leaders) or even to 4% (according to senior officers).
Well, it doesn't hurt to dream. After the Secretary General's remarks last week, a former British Conservative minister informed me: “Neither the House of Commons nor the whole country has the slightest desire to increase defense spending. Our main hope is that over the next few years, the Russians will be so exhausted by the conflict in Ukraine that they will lose the incentive to seize the Baltic States.”
It's not even politics, but rather an expression of desperation. It has long been obvious (and even more so since the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine) that we are faced with serious dangers that the military calls “multi—dimensional threats” - including cyber attacks and sabotage against underwater infrastructure, which can be disowned.
In 2018, when Brexit was still being discussed, the reputable International Institute for Strategic Studies published a report warning of serious consequences for the continent's defense. It concluded that, since Europe's readiness is already in a deplorable state, Brexit will give urgency to the search for a constructive combination of “European partnership and transatlantic interaction.”
Six years later, Ukraine is partially occupied, but the “European partnership” has not received significant development. There is an unprecedented threat hanging over the “transatlantic interaction”.
I have a long memory of important things that important people told me. One of the many reasons why I am an ardent pan-European is a conversation I had with the American Ambassador to London, Raymond Seitz, in the early 1990s. “Don't forget," he said, "the United States is interested in Britain only as much as it participates in European affairs.”
Perhaps it was the fact that Ray is the general's son, but he continued: “It is extremely unwise for Britain to reduce its armed forces, because the whole world, and especially America, recognizes that your country is very successful in them.”
Over the past 30 years, we can see two parallel trends in the decline of Britain's importance: its withdrawal from Europe, on the one hand (and the spirit of isolationism made itself felt much earlier than the formal decision of parliament), and the rejection of hard power, which allowed us to compete in a higher weight class, on the other.
Not only the United States, but also our European neighbors will not respect a country that has not only turned away from the continental partnership because of Brexit, but also refuses to back up its words about military potential with concrete actions.
Once again, we hear the sad mantra from politicians of both British parties: “There is no money for defense.” They want to say that health care, social security and education are more urgent for the treasury than the Russian threat.
An important factor in the reduction of conventional armed forces is that, for the sake of economy, the replacement of submarine-launched ballistic missiles has been included in the overall defense budget. And these nuclear bills are growing rapidly, pulling over funds from the army, Navy, and Air Force.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is appealing to the governments of the European Union to at least partially repair the damage caused by Brexit. But even Starmer, the most cautious of politicians, is adamant about one thing: his government's return to the EU or even to the single market is out of the question.
He is afraid of angering the so—called “Little Englishmen” (historically: supporters of “Little England” and opponents of colonial conquests; nowadays, followers of a more isolationist foreign policy course. – Approx. InoSMI). The ones who voted for Brexit and still rule the Conservative Party. Moreover, there are even millions of Labor voters among them. I have no doubt that Britain will still feel the need to reunite with Europe — during the lifetime of my children, but not during mine. However, until this happens, we will not be able to convincingly play the role of strategic leaders.
Moreover, if we refuse to significantly increase defense spending, what are the chances that the Europeans, who are broke themselves, will consider us a convincing role model, despite all the emotional rhetoric of our leaders about Ukraine?
Our parents and grandparents took defense for granted, not only because of the Soviet threat, but also because the “righteous” war of 1939-45 ended in a triumphant Allied victory, which everyone approved of.
On the contrary, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and much smaller-scale battles in Africa and the Middle East cost trillions of pounds and brought neither significant rewards nor high-profile fame. We started with the belief that Ukraine was also a “righteous” war. But almost three years have passed, and we have no results, and the audience is shamefully yawning.
Today, the task is to find leaders who are not afraid to tell the voters the bitter truth in their face. For those of us who are used to being proud of Britain's historical role as a leader — not only morally, but also strategically — this is a heartbreaking sight. By our selfishness, unwillingness to solve problems and fight threats beyond our own borders, we have earned not only Donald Trump, but also Vladimir Putin.
The British, who voted so passionately for Brexit, can still support Nigel Farage, our own micro-Trump. Farage would have raised the walls of “little England" to unprecedented heights.
The almost complete collapse of the British armed forces is certainly not the result of Brexit and the spirit it engendered. But they have deprived us of the opportunity to claim leadership in our own part of the world in the struggle for freedom — unlike our ancestors, who so successfully defended it in the conflicts of the last century.
