Britain is perilously exposed to Putin’s hybrid war

The Russians know that we lack the resources to properly defend our critical infrastructure

If anything illustrates the absolute necessity of Britain making substantial improvements to its military strength, it is the alarming sabotage attack that has taken place on the Nord Stream gas pipelines, one of Europe’s main energy arteries.

For a decade or more, our military chiefs have been warning that we need to improve our ability to protect the nation’s vital infrastructure, from undersea communications cables to energy supplies. By targeting our critical infrastructure, a hostile state can bring the nation to a standstill by cutting its energy supplies just as easily as it can by launching a conventional strike.

Now, following this week’s suspected attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, the threat has become a grim reality.

Although the Kremlin, predictably, has denied any involvement in the attacks, the damage to the pipelines, which has resulted in a kilometre-wide gas emissions bubbling to the surface close to the Danish coast, is being blamed on Moscow. Russia has made repeated threats to disrupt Europe’s energy supplies this winter to bully the West into dropping its support for Ukraine. The likelihood of attacks taking place against pipelines even prompted the Biden administration to alert the German government, which has relied heavily on Russia for its energy needs, to take the appropriate precautions.

The possibility of Russia carrying out such an attack, moreover, was flagged up earlier this year by Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of Britain’s Armed Forces, when he warned of the “phenomenal increase in Russian submarine and underwater activity in the past 20 years”, which has been initiated by the Kremlin precisely to carry out this type of attack against key Western infrastructure.

Although it may be some time before investigators establish the precise cause of the pipeline damage – it could be several weeks before the area is secure enough to carry out a detailed underwater investigation – the very fact that a key element in Europe’s energy infrastructure has suffered such a potentially catastrophic setback should serve as a timely warning to Liz Truss and her team that they have no time to lose with their ambitious plan to revive Britain’s military strength.

In one of her first acts as prime minister, Truss, who wants to see defence spending rise to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade, has committed herself to a radical overhaul of the Armed Forces to ensure they are capable of tackling the type of threat posed by Putin’s Russia.

By so doing, she is challenging the conclusions reached by last year’s Integrated Review of our national defences, which placed the emphasis squarely on developing new technology, such as artificial intelligence and cyber warfare, at the expense of heavy armour, such as tanks, warplanes and warships.

As a consequence, the Army is being reduced to its smallest level since the pre-napoleonic era, the Royal Navy has insufficient numbers of warplanes to fly off the decks of its two new aircraft carriers, and the Royal Air Force is worryingly short of fighter aircraft.

Few in the military doubt that new technology has a key role to play in Britain’s future war-fighting strength. There are a number of companies already making key contributions to our capabilities in this area, such as the British firm Improbable Defence, which has adopted its gaming technology to provide the military with enhanced battlefield coordination, while the German firm Helsing has introduced the benefits of artificial intelligence to traditional heavy armour, such as tanks.

Even so, introducing new technology is only part of the story. As the Ukraine conflict has demonstrated, to prevail against a determined foe like Russia, you need significant numbers of well-trained troops and heavy armour to seize and hold territory, as well as high-tech capabilities such as cyber and AI to direct them and protect them from hi-tech threats, such as drones.

Yet, thanks to the conclusions reached by last year’s review and the constraints imposed by the current defence budget, the balance has shifted decisively in favour of new technology at the expense of “boots on the ground”. The dire implications of this imbalance is reflected in reports that the Government is about to halve the number of British soldiers serving in Estonia – seen as a vital front-line against Russian aggression – because the Army is just too small to sustain the deployment beyond Christmas.

At a time when Putin is continuing to undermine the West, from disrupting energy supplies to threatening nuclear retaliation, these shortcomings in Britain’s military dispositions send entirely the wrong message to Moscow.

Truss herself, before becoming prime minister, spoke of the “false choices” of choosing technology over conventional arms. The reality is we need both, with technology enhancing our traditional war-fighting strength, not replacing it. For, as General Sir Patrick Sanders, Chief of the General Staff, aptly noted earlier this year: “You can’t cyber your way across a river.”