What, it should be asked, does Vladimir Putin see when he peers across at the British armed forces? It cannot be claimed that they fill him with dread. All agree – and it is not unpatriotic, or disrespectful to service personnel, to say so – that for all the professionalism and bravery of HM Forces, their capacity has been “hollowed out” over a very long time. Britain is vulnerable. It has been for years.
Long after the post-Cold War “peace dividend” had ceased, and Russia’s rampant revanchism became clear, the British government clung to the convenient pretence that Russia could still be deterred, and that, in any case, Nato and the US security guarantee would forever protect our continent.
As a result, our forces are understaffed, and equipment needs replacing. But the time to make a start in such investment was about a decade ago, when David Cameron was still running his austerity-driven government.
Britain’s defence deficiencies, which date back at least that far in their origins – especially in the Royal Navy – have been embarrassingly obvious in Cyprus and the Persian Gulf. Our forces are well behind in the new drone technology that threatens to make older methods of European warfare obsolete. The UK should be good at intelligence and cybersecurity, but then again, so is the enemy. It is difficult to see any areas of clear advantage.
It is becoming impossible to ignore. All the complacent illusions that have cocooned policymakers since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990 have now been dispelled, either by President Putin or, more recently, by Donald Trump, and sometimes by both. The Kremlin’s ambition to rebuild the empire built by the Romanovs and Josef Stalin could hardly be more evident.
Nor could Washington’s desire to allow it to do so. America’s membership of Nato is now explicitly in doubt. Whatever the Atlantic Treaty may say, and however the US Congress tries to restrain its president, it is apparent that the sacred “all for one and one for all” commitment – Article 5 – has become conditional and doubtful with President Trump as commander in chief of the US armed forces. In short – and he has almost said as much – if Russia invaded Estonia, the US would not come to the rescue.
Recent events in Iran have only served to embitter Mr Trump even further, so far as his allies in Europe are concerned. Reportedly, the Trump administration is conducting an “audit” of European countries’ responses to his pleas for help in the Persian Gulf. The results will determine whether the US retains bases in the relevant territories. If these are withdrawn, that in turn will crucially weaken the deterrent presented to an aggressor – which risks emboldening the territorially ambitious President Putin. Crucial aid for Ukraine is also being held up again, as an act of spite by Washington. Worse could follow.
So what Putin sees across what’s left of “the West” is weakness. He sees the most successful alliance in the history of the world dissolving in real time, and all of its European members being cut adrift by America.
There is no unity among the Europeans. The European Union is not cut out to be a defence community, not least because some of its members, notably Hungary (at least for the time being), act as Russian agents. That feebleness would be fatally complete should one or more of the militarily significant EU powers – France, Germany and Poland – also fall to the populist hard right. The same goes for a Reform UK takeover in Britain. In a few years’ time, we could all be run by Viktor Orbanites, even if the Hungarian people eject their leader this weekend.
Unlike Nato, which has kept the peace for 77 years and won the Cold War, there is no new permanent European security architecture built on shared values and interests. There is not even much coordination on defence procurement and planning beyond some ad hoc initiatives and Sir Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing”. The most militarily formidable European nation today is Ukraine, and that is not how it should be.
When Putin sees the state of Nato and the West today, he smiles the smile of a man who has won a battle without firing a shot. The deeply uncomfortable truths facing the British government are as follows: first, that the UK can no longer necessarily rely on the US, and second, that it cannot depend in the long term on its closest European allies, even if they are loyal and reliable now.
The upshot is that Britain will increasingly have to rely on its own resources, and its own determination, to develop its armed forces to such an extent that they can at least defend the homeland and deter missile, drone and cyber attacks. That should be the theme of the (overdue) Defence Investment Plan. The political message should be that we cannot assume that Reform UK will defend Britain’s national interests. That is why the prime minister is right to call for the country to invest in “credible defence”.
The defence minister, John Healey, and his colleagues tell us that Britain is “ready” to defend itself; his immediate predecessor, Ben Wallace, says that this is “palpably untrue ... it doesn’t in any way deter or con the Russians”. Sadly, that is nearer the mark.
Despite having the right instincts, and an outstanding naval success in recent weeks against Russian espionage, Mr Healey has not yet proved that Britain’s defences are safe in Labour’s hands. Nor, more importantly, has that been shown, forcefully or consistently, to the Kremlin.
Trump’s plan to leave Nato can only decrease global stability
As a fragile ceasefire buckles, Trump must finally show he can say no to Netanyahu
Whatever it takes, the UK must help this fragile Iran ceasefire hold
Labour must seize its second chance to drive through welfare reform
Patients have run out of patience with striking doctors – as have their colleagues
As Iran absorbs the world’s attention, we cannot forget about Ukraine
