Among the many interested readers of the new Strategic Defence Review – the public, the military, defence suppliers, and allies – one of the most important is Vladimir Putin.
For too long, the UK and the West underappreciated how closely the Kremlin watches what our policies, actions and military posture say about our willingness – or otherwise – to confront Russian aggression.
As far back as 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, Russia’s reading of our appetite for deterrence has been that we are a paper tiger. Far more dangerous is the fact that we repeatedly proved that interpretation to be correct.
When Mitt Romney challenged for the US presidency, Barack Obama mocked him live on television for identifying Russia as a geopolitical threat, declaring that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back”.
Unfortunately for everyone, Romney was right, and Russians watch American TV like anybody else. Within 18 months, Putin’s army of “little green men” had crossed into Ukraine to occupy Crimea and swathes of the Donbas.
The Kremlin’s conclusion was that they could push the boundaries – invade and occupy, blast civilian airliners out of the sky, murder people in European capitals, deploy radiological and chemical weapons on Britain’s streets, cut underwater cables – with little consequence.
As the new Strategic Defence Review makes clear, the 1980s foreign policy is well and truly back. In Sir Keir Starmer’s words: “We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces.”
And there’s the issue: apparently, warfighting readiness is not currently the “central purpose of our armed forces”. Small wonder Russia believes it can commit crimes against Ukraine, this country and our allies. Nonetheless, it’s good to hear the Prime Minister argue that the post-Cold War “peace dividend” must now be reversed.
What will Putin make of the Strategic Defence Review?
There are a number of components to a successful deterrent, which the Prime Minister evidently understands: “The most effective way to deter them is to be ready – and, frankly, to show them that we’re ready. To deliver peace through strength.” The Victorian music hall number which first gave rise to the term “jingoism” (written in a different century, but also about confronting a rising Russian threat) offers a handy guide to persuasive deterrence: “We don’t want to fight, but by Jingo if we do, we’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too.”
The Government intends to provide “the ships” (and more) – a new submarine every 18 months via the Aukus alliance hammered out by Boris Johnson’s government, a “hybrid Royal Navy”, an increased domestic artillery manufacturing base and “world-leading drone capabilities and battlefield technology”.
As for “the men”, the supply of personnel is less sure. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, argued for greater troop numbers, but the fact he cannot now commit to that this Parliament suggests the Treasury wasn’t willing to play ball.
Evidently the matter of “the money” is most contentious. The underpinning of the SDR is that defence spending will rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP, as Starmer promised, by 2027 – and that it must then rise to 3 per cent by 2034. The latter was “certain”, according to Healey mere days ago, but is now downgraded to an “ambition”, which the Prime Minister refuses to promise.
Without the money, the ships and the men become much harder to achieve. So, too, does the other key element of persuasive deterrence: the plausible will to use your forces if necessary.
Even if we get a new submarine fleet, modern kit, and an increase in the number of armed forces personnel, Putin still doesn’t believe that we have the will to use it, and then it will all be for naught. He’ll continue to push at what he believes to be an open door, and then either he will get away with it again, breeding worse and greater aggression, or we will be compelled to call his bluff. Either outcome would be a humanitarian, defence and economic disaster.
square PATRICK COCKBURN Britain’s future is more uncertain than at any time since 1945
Read More
The minimum the SDR’s plans need in order to be credible is the necessary cash to make them happen. Allowing any doubt to creep in at the outset about whether the proposals will be fully implemented reduces their value and purpose.
Particularly if this state of “warfighting readiness” won’t be fully achieved until 2034, we should be doing all we can to communicate rising lethality and absolute resolve from day one.
One aspect which must not be neglected is the potential to learn from the Ukrainians. They are living proof that necessity is the mother of invention – starved of weaponry by wobbly Western allies, they look to their own ingenuity to fight an asymmetric war against their invader.
From maritime drones which allowed them to defeat the Russian Black Sea fleet without a fleet of their own to the amazing drone operation over the weekend which inflicted the worst day for the Russian air force since the Second World War, all without risking any Ukrainian conventional aircraft, they hold vital insights on the future of warfare. As their ally, we should capitalise on their experience.
You can be certain that the Russians will learn from the Ukrainian example, even if we do not. Right now, we have a golden opportunity to steal a march. If we pass that up, and then in 2034 our shiny new subs, our huge aircraft carriers or our own air bases are taken out by Russian drones costing a few thousand quid, we will rue our complacency.
Mark Wallace is Chief Executive of Total Politics Group
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Putin will be reading the UK’s defence review – and laughing )
Also on site :
- Broncos sign TE Caden Prieskorn after injury hits the position
- '90s Heartthrob Shows Off Hidden Talent—and Fans Are Obsessed
- Pornhub threatens to pull out of France