Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the United Kingdom is “ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by placing our personal troops on the ground if required.”
While reviews suggest these would be “peacekeeping” causes, the reality is that real peacekeepers may be objective. It is possible to say that English troops supporting Ukraine are “partial” in this context. Additionally, the American forces ‘ location in Ukraine would meet the Russian storyline that depicts NATO as the aggressor.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but the goal of NATO membership is enshrined in its law. Article 5, which states that each member will consider an assault on any other part as an attack on themselves and to support it, would not be permitted by American forces involved in any kind of battling in Ukraine.
Also, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that Western forces deployed to Ukraine , should not be covered , under Article 5.
The issue with Starmer’s theory is that the UK is unable to provide enough troops, materials, and weapons to actually serve as a barrier. This is not particularly diverse from how American troops were fighting in Europe more than a century before.
In 1914 Lord Kitchener, next secretary of state for war, speaking of the commission’s decision to go to war in Europe, thundered,” Did they realize, when they went headlong into a warfare like this, that they were without an troops, and without any planning to equip one”?
Small numbers would be nothing more than a” speed-bump” against a massive attack, as the British Expeditionary Force was in 1914 and again in 1940. Their implementation was more indicative of Britain’s support than its actual ability to fight a long battle against a peer enemy due to poor preparation, limited resources, and smaller numbers.
Britain is again in this place. The potential of American forces to fight a peer adversary for an extended period of time has been eliminated due to years of spending cuts. The number of soldiers has fallen from 100, 000 full-time skilled staff in 2000, to nearly 70, 000 nowadays.
Additionally, Britain is unable to produce the goods needed for a contemporary conflict. Much will be needed for urgent capital investment, such as manufacturing capability for arms and ammunition.
Longer-term investment may be required for arms generation, as will the resumption of supporting equipment, such as airports and storage services abandoned after the end of the Cold War, both within Britain and across Europe.
There is only a solution to the quick issue, aside from increasing the amount of money available for defense. Despite the fact that Europe’s existing features have been reduced to the point where they are insufficient, Britain and many other NATO members have remained afraid to raise spending on defence.
Defense spending squabbles
Donald Trump, the US president, has urged NATO nations to increase their defense spending from the current NATO target of 2 % to 5 % of GDP. Without cutting spending elsewhere, this would be very difficult to accomplish in the current financial climate of Britain.
While it has been reported that defense chiefs are urging GDP to increase to 2.65 %, Starmer said he would not be under pressure to raise spending above 2.5 %.
At the height of the Cold War, the UK spent more than 5 % of its GDP on defense. Similar to the east-west split between 1945 and 1991, the current international situation has already started to morph into two distinct blocs.
However, the bipolar balance of the Cold War has been replaced with an increasing instability, as displayed by Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine.
Replacing lost capacity is almost always more expensive than maintaining it. The overall cost would most likely have been lower than the amount the nation will now have to invest to obtain the same level of defense had the governments of the past decades maintained the capabilities of the armed forces.
Since 1957, every defense review has resulted in real budget cuts to the defense budget. Nothing presented a sufficient sub-nuclear threat to the nation that was deemed significant enough to prevent them, so military budget reductions continue.
The country is now in such a position to protect itself from such drastic cuts that they are making it impossible to effectively project military power abroad.
We must show that we are truly concerned with our own defense and burden, the prime minister wrote. The implication that he won’t increase spending any time soon quickly undermines this assertion.
None of the NATO members from the West have shown a willingness to significantly increase their defense spending. Great Britain expects to spend £56.4 billion ( US$ 71.1 billion ) for 2024-25, amounting to approximately 2.3 % of GDP.
But this includes £0.65 billion in pensions and benefits, and £0.22 billion in “arms-length bodies” that do not contribute to the defense establishment in any practical terms.
Since 2014, Britain and NATO have been given clear instructions on how to improve their defenses. Everyone has chosen to ignore Russia’s growing threat. We have the impression that we are planning for the best as well as the best.
Lord Tedder, chief of the air staff after the Second World War, wrote,” It is at the outset of war that time is the supreme factor”. It is obvious that NATO missed an opportunity to strengthen its defenses in the first three years of the conflict in Ukraine.
To make up for the deficit from the prior decades, it is now facing a significant increase in defense spending.
University of Reading lecturer in strategic studies and international relations
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.