Peace at any Price?
Dr Robert Johnson
Secretary Hegsheth's statement on 12 February 25 has caused considerable concern amongst NATO member states. While making reference to America's significant contribution to the alliance, which is undoubted, and to Ukraine's defence, the American Defence Secretary nevertheless put the Europeans on notice that the United States would not be supporting Ukraine's defence for the restoration of its sovereign borders, that talks with Russia were underway, and that Ukraine would not be permitted to join NATO. For some considerable time, the United States has demanded that the Europeans do more for their own defence. This insistence can be traced back to the presidency of Barack Obama. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, in its second phase in 2022, prompted a moderate increase in the European nations’ defence spending and the decision by Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. However, in response to President Trump’s position, the NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, noted that NATO member states need to increase their production of munitions and defence capabilities as a matter of urgency.
President Trump hints that the Article 5 commitment, that each member state commits itself to come to the aid of any other member state that is subjected to armed attack, is less certain and America's priority is to focus on the threat posed by the expansion of Chinese military power. Again, this is not new. Since the Obama administration, United States has ‘pivoted to Asia.’ The implication has been, since then, that the Europeans were required to provide for their own defence to a far greater extent. When Russia made a bid to capture the entirety of Ukraine, United States increased its military presence in Europe on a temporary basis, and, in a careful calibration of resourcing to avoid escalation with Russia, it provided a generous package of financial and military aid. Many members of the Trump administration believe that this provision of military resources is no more than a drain on the United States and perhaps even perpetuates a conflict which would otherwise come to an end. Europeans are concerned that this haste to end the conflict, at the expense of Ukraine's territorial and possibly political independence, sets a dangerous precedent where Russia could launch invasions of other territories including of European member states. If America is less willing to intervene in support of those member states, they fear they lack the resources sufficient to defeat Russia.
A lack of preparation and enabled capability naturally breeds a perception of insecurity. However, the United Kingdom and France both possess independent nuclear weapon capabilities and well-equipped, expeditionary armed forces. Collectively, the British and European member states have a vast air force of several thousand combat aircraft, hundreds of warships and submarines, three aircraft carriers, and at least six army corps. If mobilised, Britain and Europe could generate over 2 million military personnel. There are some gaps in capabilities, in areas such as space surveillance, but the United Kingdom possesses much of its own capability in these areas.
The moment has therefore come for the United Kingdom, in close association with France, to lead Europe's defence. The UK possesses an advanced and powerful navy. The RAF has the capability to project power as well as defend British and north Atlantic airspace. It has advanced surveillance capabilities. It has a number of headquarters with highly trained staff, including a Corps headquarters. It has rapid reaction capabilities including the outstanding 16 Air Assault Brigade and Royal Marine Commandos. It is widely recognised that the UK has some of the finest Special Forces in the world.
The UK is therefore in an ideal position to provide the defence leadership of Europe and the North Atlantic. It should lead by example. It should make an immediate declaration that it will spend 3% of its GDP on defence in 2025 and raise that to 3.5% in 2026. It should set out to increase it shipbuilding to provide at least eight Type 26 and fourteen Type 31 warships and four more submarines. It should increase the RAF by four squadrons and arm them with long range munitions. It should purchase from United States M1 A1 variant D Abrams main battle tanks, and American self-propelled artillery to augment the expansion of its own service launched missile capabilities, ground-based air defence, and electronic warfare units. It should reverse the trend in the reduction of the size the British Army and form two new divisions, each of four combat brigades, equipped with the latest in long-range fires, advanced munitions, and drone technologies. The UK should develop its resilience through a programme of planning, civil defence, and nationwide integrated ballistic, air, and missile defence. The defence industrial base should be expanded with advanced automated manufacturing. The Ministry of Defence should rehearse being placed on a war footing.
The UK has a golden opportunity, as America turns to Asia, to lead in regional defence. It has many of the capabilities, the professional forces, and leadership it needs. Investment now will enhance its deterrence and that of its allies to make the risk of armed conflict unlikely. Does this government have the ability and will to defend the nation? Will the government give us the tools? Can it speak for Britain?
