(Alamy)
4 minute read
It is a common belief that support votes do not exist. In the upcoming general election, there is a good chance that the defense camp will be treated with more than the usual shoddy treatment.
It is not just the usual suspects, myself included, who argue that Britain is not ready for war and that our armed forces are not capable of carrying out long-term, sophisticated operations. Some of our closest allies and NATO partners have expressed doubts about our readiness and capabilities, national newspapers have given front page coverage of our inadequacies, and the House Defense Committee has criticized our It clearly criticizes the state of the military. This is not a matter of party politics; it is rapidly becoming a national emergency.
A further invasion of another European country, almost certainly a NATO member, would bring Europe and Britain to war
While we may be concerned about the situation in the broader Middle East region, the immediate threat to this country’s security comes from Russia. President Vladimir Putin has brought war back to Europe and he must be defeated. It is essential for peace and stability in Europe that Ukraine continues its full support to oppose and reverse Putin’s aggression. There can be no compromise or negotiation. If President Putin were to retain one square kilometer of Ukrainian territory, his use of force, contrary to international law, would have been successful.
The prospect of further aggression against another European country, almost certainly a member of NATO, would bring Europe and Britain to war through the common cause enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Involvement in Middle East wars is voluntary. Participation in European wars becomes a treaty obligation.
To prevent war, we must pay the price of deterrence. Bullies exploit weaknesses, but respect strengths. Theodore Roosevelt said that success in international diplomacy is achieved when you are soft spoken but carry a big stick. There are many similarities to the 1930s, but in Munich Neville Chamberlain spoke loudly but only carried an umbrella. Neither England nor France had big sticks. The cost was the devastating World War II and the Holocaust. If Britain had had a well-trained army with modern weaponry ready to deploy in Europe in the late 1930s when Hitler was at full strength, both the war and the Holocaust might have been prevented.
In 1935, defense spending was less than 3 percent of GDP, but the outbreak of war in 1939 forced it to increase to 18 percent. And in 1940, when we were fighting for survival, this figure was 46 percent. The consequences of not investing in deterrence are the disastrous costs of war. Currently, our country spends about 2.3 percent on defense, which results in a completely inadequate defense capability. I am not criticizing our men and women in uniform or our leadership, but our military today is too small, poorly equipped, and unsustainable.
There is always an appetite to get better value from the £50bn we currently spend on defence, but the absolute amount is too small. During the Cold War, Japan spent approximately 5% of its GDP on defense. As a result of the deterrence provided by this level of spending, the Cold War never escalated. Successive peace dividends are putting us at risk of war again.
The parallels to the 1930s are not just historical indulgences, they are real. In 1940, our military was defeated in France because it failed to rearm and modernize. Are we doomed to repeat history?
Late last year I gave Grant Shapps a copy of his next book. From Victory to Defeat: British Army 1918-1940 I co-authored it with Dr. Robert Lyman. I hope he read it. I also gave a copy to John Healy.
Lord Dannatt, Crossbench Peer, Former British War Secretary
Politics Home Newsletter
Get the inside scoop on what your legislators and legislators are talking about. Sign up for the House of Commons morning email for the latest insights and reactions from MPs, policymakers and organizations.