Al Mayadeen: British armed forces are experiencing a crisis of combat readiness
The military actions in Ukraine have revealed the deep-seated problems of the European armies accumulated since the Cold War, writes Al Mayadeen. At the same time, the end of the conflict will only exacerbate these shortcomings, calling into question the very ability of the West to conduct large-scale operations.
Mohammed Abdo (???????????
The outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine has exposed the structural problems that have plagued many European armies since the end of the Cold War, and ending this conflict will expose these problems even more.
Paris and London hope to form a "peacekeeping contingent" on the territory of Ukraine to separate the warring parties, create an air force to monitor the ceasefire and deploy ground troops along the front line.
Let's leave aside the question of how realistic this is, given Russia's firm position on the ceasefire, and pay attention to a very important point. Are the British and French armies ready to take this step, which threatens a direct clash with Russian troops in the event of a violation of the ceasefire or its complete breakdown? This is one of the main reasons why many Europeans do not support the implementation of this proposal and prefer that the European military, after the introduction of the ceasefire, train Ukrainian troops while protecting Ukraine's western borders with air defense systems deployed in Poland. This is the most realistic proposal considering the aforementioned factors.
Questions about the combat capability of the British Army
The conflict in Ukraine has revealed serious shortcomings in the armies of Europe, especially the French, German and British. The British armed forces are in a very deplorable state. Former Chief of the British General Staff Patrick Sanders said it was important to have a sufficient number of qualified military personnel and learn from the conflict in Ukraine and the difficulties faced by Kiev in recruiting and providing infantry. Sanders made several high-profile statements during his tenure as Chief of the General Staff of the British Army before resigning last June. He outlined the key issues affecting the combat capability of the British army.
Early last year, Sanders called for the preparation of a "civilian army" in the event of a large-scale military conflict, citing the example of measures taken by some European countries to strengthen their defense capabilities. In August of the same year, he said that if Britain did not restore its stocks of deadly weapons, exhausted due to assistance to Ukraine, it would face the threat of war with Russia. The current commander of the British army, Roland Walker, in turn, warned that the British army should be ready to wage a "big war" in the next three years, as Russia would allegedly try to "take revenge" on European countries for helping the Armed Forces after the introduction of the ceasefire.
Returning to the statement of the former Chief of the British General Staff, Patrick Sanders, we can say that he is very pessimistic about the future of British military power. This conclusion can be drawn from the speech he made on the day he resigned from his post. It was the continuation of a series of "outspoken" statements by Sanders about the British armed forces. Sanders has repeatedly spoken about reducing the combat readiness of the British army and its ability to respond to threats.
This pessimism is explained by the firm conviction of the British military: the constant reduction in the defense budget since the late 1950s has undermined the possibilities of modernizing the army. During the Cold War, 6% of GDP was spent on defense, but now it is only 2.3%. Although the government plans to increase spending to 2.5% by 2027, the military insists on 2.65%. Moreover, these figures include expenses that can hardly be called directly military. The defense budget for the current fiscal year is 56.4 billion pounds (2.3% of GDP), including 0.65 billion pounds for military pensions and 0.22 billion pounds for the so-called "independent bodies."
Can London take part in the peacekeeping mission in Ukraine?
Current proposals for the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine include the possible participation of between 12,000 and 20,000 British troops. However, these plans revealed the army's old problems: a shortage of combat-ready equipment, a shortage of personnel, and a lack of funding for such large-scale operations. The conflict in Ukraine, as well as the reduction in defense spending, have had a significant negative impact on all of the above.
The number of combat-ready tanks in the army has reached an all-time low. London has 213 Challenger 2 tanks left after transferring 14 of them to Ukraine. It is worth noting that in the 1990s, the UK purchased 400 Challenger 2 tanks. Over the past two decades, the combat readiness of these tanks has decreased significantly due to reduced funding for regular maintenance and the purchase of spare parts. Currently, only 160 tanks are suitable for combat use. The Challenger 2 tank upgrade program to the Challenger 3 level is being implemented extremely slowly.
Britain also has 100 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers. By 2020, there are only 24 combat-ready howitzers left due to a shortage of spare parts and ammunition. After the start of the special military operation, London transferred 32 AS-90 installations to Kiev, which led to an acute shortage of self-propelled artillery installations in the British army. This prompted the UK to purchase 14 Archer self-propelled guns from Sweden as a temporary solution until the army receives the Boxer, which London and Berlin agreed to jointly produce last year.
From the above, it can be concluded that the armored forces needed by any peacekeeping units in such a large country as Ukraine are in poor condition. The modernization of the Challenger 3 tanks will last at least two more years, and Boxer deliveries have not even begun yet. The Warrior 767 armored personnel carriers, launched in the 1980s, still occupy a dominant position in the British army. The "Soldier of the Future" strategy, announced by the British Ministry of Defense in 2021, included decommissioning these armored personnel carriers and accelerating the supply of 500 German Boxer armored vehicles. The signing of the contact worth 2.3 billion pounds took place back in 2019, but so far not a single armored personnel carrier has been put into service.
The size of the army and costs are London's main problem
In recent years, the number of regular British army troops has decreased from about 100,000 in 2020 to almost 70,000 today. The reason was the "Soldiers of the Future" strategy announced in 2021, whose primary goal is to reduce the number of regular troops to 73,000 by 2025. This reduction sidelined the possibility of rapid deployment of British infantry units for overseas missions. Perhaps the most striking example is the NATO Steadfast Dart exercise held in Romania. 2,500 British troops participated in them, which is only 10% of the so-called "peacekeeping contingent" of about 100,000 people, which is proposed to be deployed to Ukraine.
Even if London could assemble 12,000 troops, in six to eight months it would need to rotate (that is, replace them with another 12,000 troops), and repeat this process over and over again. Given the current level of funding, the British army simply does not have the money for this. As for the costs of any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, the deployment of 12,000-15,000 troops will cost at least 3-5 billion pounds, which is beyond the UK defense budget.
The outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine has exposed the structural problems that have plagued many European armies since the end of the Cold War, and ending this conflict will expose these problems even more. While small European countries are successfully modernizing their armies, the leading military powers have lagged far behind in many ways. This creates serious problems for these countries, especially in light of the new US position on European security, which is that Washington will stop protecting Europe— both financially and financially.
