Despite a promised uplift in defense spending, the U.K.’s military is currently underpowered. Defence Secretary John Healey told POLITICO last year that the country’s armed forces are not “ready to fight” a war and need to be “more effective” in deterring future aggression against NATO members.
Marina Morin, from the war studies department of King’s College London, said this should be a major concern for the peacekeeping effort. “The U.K. and European partners have not, at least in the public space, articulated any sort of a coherent strategy," she warned.
Morin asked: “How long can we realistically support Ukraine if we need to re-arm because our own stockpiles are empty? You can say to Ukraine ‘we will support you as long as it takes,’ but those words don't mean anything if you cannot follow through."
The U.K. Ministry of Defence has relied heavily on the recommendations of the damning Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war of the 2000s for its own guidance on planning for a military operation. But some fear those conclusions are now being ignored.
In particular, Ed Arnold, senior research fellow at RUSI and an army veteran, highlighted the need set out by Chilcot to have a clear idea of what success would look like in any intervention. “It’s a noble endeavor from the U.K. and the others in Europe, but it’s also potentially a terrible idea,” Arnold said. “We don't know what the mission is.”
Outside the room
U.K. officials insist this is the wrong way to think about it, and maintain that the commitment to underpin a peace deal needs to be made as swiftly and forcefully as possible.