Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that Britain is "ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine by sending its troops to the ground if necessary," Reuters writes.
Although it is claimed that these would be “peacekeeping” forces, true peacekeepers must be impartial. British troops supporting Ukraine would certainly be seen as biased, and their deployment in Ukraine would fit into the Russian narrative that portrays NATO as the aggressor.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but the goal of NATO membership is enshrined in its constitution. Any British military involvement in Ukraine would not trigger NATO's Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. In addition, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that European troops deployed to Ukraine would not be covered by Article 5.
The problem with Starmer's idea is that Britain does not have enough soldiers, resources and weapons to be a serious deterrent. The situation is not much different from the one on the eve of the First World War.
In 1914, Lord Kitchener, then Secretary of State for War, condemned the government's decision to enter the European war, saying: "Did they realise, when they rushed headlong into this war, that they had no army, nor were they prepared to equip one?"
A small number of troops would be no more than a “sidebar” in the event of a major attack, as was the case with the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and 1940. Poor preparation, small numbers of soldiers, and limited equipment meant that the British presence at that time was symbolic support rather than real military power.
Britain finds itself in a similar situation again. Years of budget cuts have reduced the capacity of the British military to wage a long-term war against a serious adversary. The number of soldiers has fallen from 100.000 trained personnel in 2000 to around 70.000 today.
Britain also lacks the manufacturing capacity for modern warfare. Urgent investment is needed in arms and ammunition production, as well as long-term investment in rebuilding military facilities, including airfields and warehouses abandoned after the Cold War.
The only solution is to increase the defense budget. But Britain and many other NATO members are not ready for that. US President Donald Trump has called on NATO countries to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, from the current target of 2 percent. Britain faces economic constraints that would make it difficult to achieve this goal without drastic cuts in other sectors.
Although military officials are calling for a budget increase to 2,65 percent of GDP, Starmer has indicated that he will not support growth above 2,5 percent.
The last time Britain spent more than 5 percent of GDP on defense was at the height of the Cold War. Today, the world is once again becoming divided into two blocs, similar to the East-West divide of 1945–1991, but with greater instability, illustrated by Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine.
Rebuilding lost capabilities is almost always more expensive than maintaining them. If previous governments had maintained military power, the total cost would likely be less than the investment now needed to return to former levels of defense.
Every British defence policy review since 1957 has meant a real reduction in the military budget. These cuts were possible because there was no threat sufficient to reverse them. Now these cuts have reached a level where Britain can barely defend itself.
The Prime Minister has stated: “We must show that we are serious about our own defense and taking on our own burdens.” However, his unwillingness to increase the defense budget calls this claim into question.
Western NATO members have shown no willingness to seriously increase their defense budgets. Britain plans to spend £56,4 billion in 2024-25, about 2,3 percent of GDP, but that amount includes £0,65 billion for pensions and benefits, as well as £0,22 billion for organizations that have no direct impact on military power.
Britain and NATO have had clear warnings since 2014 to strengthen their defense capabilities, but have ignored the threat from Russia. It seems that we are not just hoping for the best, but planning for the worst.
Lord Tedder, the former commander of the British air force, wrote: “At the beginning of a war, time is the most important factor.” Three years after the start of the war in Ukraine, it is clear that NATO missed the opportunity to strengthen its defenses in time. It now faces a significant budget increase just to make up for decades of cuts.
Bonus video:
