Total victory over Russia cannot be bought cheap
Britain is still living under the delusion that we do not need to radically increase spending on defence
There is undeniably a degree of truth in the latest US intelligence assessment that one of Vladimir Putin’s key calculations is that, by preparing to fight a protracted military campaign in Ukraine, he can count on the West eventually losing interest in the conflict. It is no coincidence that the Russian president’s decision to launch the massive military build-up that preceded February’s invasion of Ukraine began shortly after the Biden administration oversaw the appalling capitulation of Western forces in Afghanistan last summer.
Indeed, Putin’s more aggressive military stance, whether in Syria or the heart of Europe, can be traced back to another memorable failure of will on the part of the Western alliance in 2013, when the British and American governments reneged on their threat to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against Syria’s civilian population.
To date, Western support for the
Ukrainian cause remains robust, with Washington this week approving a $40 billion aid package. Britain and other Nato states continue to channel much needed military equipment and funds to Kyiv.
Nevertheless, with the conflict undoubtedly contributing to the mounting cost of living crisis facing most developed countries, Putin has good reason to believe that, the longer the fighting continues, the more likely Western politicians are to come under pressure to concentrate their energies on domestic concerns.
As Avril Haines, Mr Biden’s director of national intelligence, told a meeting of Congressional leaders earlier this week: “Putin most likely judges that Russia has a greater ability, and willingness, to endure challenges than his adversaries, and he is probably counting on US and EU resolve to weaken as food shortages, inflation and energy worsen.”
Mr Putin’s masochistic approach to the Ukraine conflict, which has seen Russian forces suffer mass casualties and caused a likely 10 per cent fall in Russia’s GDP, certainly bears little resemblance to Western attitudes, where the emphasis is on maintaining support for Kyiv without incurring direct casualties.
Even so, while the Russian leader clearly believes his more ruthless attitude will ultimately deliver success on the battlefield, he is taking a big gamble by underestimating Western resolve. Putin is already guilty of having gravely misjudged the mood in the West when he launched his invasion, believing there was little appetite for supporting Ukraine.
And while the resolve shown by Nato countries in aiding the Ukrainian cause has been admirable, there is much more that needs to be done to dissuade Russia from the notion that it can ultimately achieve victory – not least with regard to the West’s ability to defend itself from further acts of Russian aggression.
This is particularly true in Britain, where Boris Johnson’s Government has persuaded itself that, having invested heavily in a new military equipment programme last year, the Armed Forces are well-prepared to counter the Russian threat, when the opposite is the case.
Downing Street might highlight the fact that it correctly identified Russia as posing “the most acute threat” to Britain’s security in last year’s Integrated Review of foreign and defence policy. But it is less willing to concede that its proposals for countering that threat now look completely out of touch following events in Ukraine.
As General Sir Mark Carleton-smith, the Army chief, spells out in a revealing interview in Soldier Magazine, at the time the review was conducted, the overwhelming view in security circles was that the Russian threat would manifest itself in increased cyber attacks or attempts to undermine political stability in Europe. Instead, by using crude conventional force to achieve its goals in Ukraine, Russia has completely changed the nature of the threat. Sir Mark is now warning that the size of the Army, which is in the process of being reduced to its smallest since the 1700s, is not sufficient to deal with the threat posed by Russia and other hostile states.
“I am not comfortable with an Army of just 73,000,” he said. “It is too small.”
Nor is it just the Army that believes Britain’s military dispositions are inadequate to deal with future challenges. Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, has publicly called for a significant increase in defence spending, while attempts by Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, to warn that the cost of living crisis could have a negative impact on the defence budget were reportedly rebuffed at Mr Johnson’s behest.
This outlook is shortsighted, to say the least. It is all very well for the Prime Minister, as he did yesterday, to sign new defence pacts with allies such as Sweden, but they do not amount to much if we do not have the military firepower to back them up.
To demonstrate that Britain and its allies are, like Russia, in it for the long haul, the Government needs to address the deficiencies in our national defences as a matter of urgency, and let the nation know that Mr Putin cannot be defeated on the cheap.
read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion