Prime Minister Keir Starmer has underscored the need for a “once-in-a-generation” response to secure lasting peace in Ukraine and protect European security.
Writing in The Telegraph on 17 February 2025, the Prime Minister described the stakes as “existential for Europe as a whole,” arguing that “securing a lasting peace in Ukraine that safeguards its sovereignty… is essential if we are to deter Putin from further aggression.”
He emphasised the collaborative nature of the task, stressing that the United States and Europe must “continue to work closely together,” while the UK plays a “unique role” by convening and chairing high-level meetings such as the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.
Mr Starmer called on European allies to “step up further to meet the demands of [their] own security,” pointing to President Trump’s insistence that European nations increase defence spending. Non-US NATO members, he noted, have raised their spending by 20 per cent over the past year, yet the Prime Minister believes more can be done.
“We must not relent in our efforts to get the kit Ukrainians need for their fighters on the front line,” he stated, highlighting Britain’s own commitment of “£3 billion a year until at least 2030” in military support.
A key moment in his article came when the Prime Minister acknowledged the potential for British troops to help guarantee Ukraine’s security if necessary—something he described as a serious step requiring the utmost responsibility.
“Any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent,” he wrote. Mr Starmer also stressed that any future negotiations must involve Ukraine “at the table,” warning that anything short of this would validate “Putin’s position that Ukraine is not a real nation.”
Turning to the United States, the Prime Minister emphasised the importance of an American security guarantee “for a lasting peace,” expressing plans to meet with President Trump alongside G7 partners to “help secure the strong deal we need.”
He then urged Western nations to apply greater economic pressure on Russia, saying that “working together, the US, Europe and all our G7 allies should seek to go further” in targeting oil revenues and any financial institutions that facilitate sanctions evasion.
Concluding, Mr Starmer reminded readers that “peace comes through strength,” and cautioned that “weakness leads to war.” As Europe considers its next moves, the Prime Minister framed the urgency of taking action as both a moral imperative for “the values and freedoms we hold dear,” and a cornerstone of national and continental security.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Bit above my pay grade but sounds good. Makes sense to re-organise the MOD such that you can better implement what the SDR comes up with.
probably split off Cyber forces and transfer to the home office budget along with security services.
Space Command into separate force and task space command with ballistic missile defence.
Beyond that I don’t see any need for reorganization.
Depends what you mean, as the Security services” are already in the Home Office Budget, or more accurately the SIA.
The Security Service is MI5.
Cyber, as we discussed at length recently, is unlikely to be moved as it is integral to several parts of Strategic Command,a military organisation.
The NCF itself is a combination of the MoD and the Intelligence community.
Space Command is an interesting one. Taking ABM defence, assume you mean if we bought actual ABM systems?
Space Command already covers warning.
Yes, I’m looking at Space Command operating something like Arrow 3 designed for exo atmospheric interception a with a secondary anti satellite capability.
My rationale on moving cyber to home office budget is that cyber attacks in the UK are criminal offences. Also we should not see our military budget eroded to pay for policing issues. Offensive cyber operations could remain inside the MoD budget.
I think the problem with cyber and criminality is that, with actual states doing it, not just a gang of criminals, it becomes very much part of the grey zone.
So, for example, if an outside Cyber attack targeted the modern day version of the DCN, Defence Communications Network, why would that be a Home Office matter? These are MoD, military systems, and the MoD has MoD, military teams to deal with it.
We shall have to continue to agree to disagree, as I see it very much as overlapping all areas and the Home office has no place looking into classified MoD, military systems!
On Offensive Cyber, while keeping it in the military MoD budget, part of GCHQ do that too, and they’re FC&DO! 😆
I really Jim as Daniele says cyber attacks are actually now all essentially part of political warfare and china and Russia firmly believe that you actually win wars through political warfare..they are attacking now through direct cyber attacks and via information warfare on social media..if a proper war was actually going to kick of their attacks would exponentially increase as they try to sap the will to fight of the nations they are attacking…so cyber and information warfare are fundamentally part of winning any war, not a criminal issue in that context.
Listening to the speech I think he split off nuclear, not cyber.
That would be interesting to give DNE its own budget, outside of MoD.
Would make sense of the AUKUS enterprise.
If that was done and 2.5% was real then it would be more than useful.
Yes, the other reason for doing it is the link with industry and economic growth. My understanding of the way labour govt approaches policy is by way of what they term ‘mission led’ projects; Marianna Mazzucato – Mission lead Economy. If you split off nuclear you more easily achieve a direct vertical integration of defence strategy with economic benefit and visibility of associated costs, subsidies, technologies etc.
Smoke.
Mirrors.
…stable door
🏇🎠
I am hoping we get the go ahead on this EUR 200 billion defence fund for EU + Norway and UK. This should really give rearmament and munch needed boost. It remains to be seen if Ireland, Hungary or Slovakia will try and kill it though as well as what happens with the AFD in Germany. Also very much expecting an emergency budget in the UK in April to raise taxes. Labour will be able to use the current crisis as political cover the break campaign promises. The media is virtually begging for income tax rises now.
“Begging for income tax rises” really not seen that! The obvious and sensible way is to cut back on meaningless virtue signalling projects overseas which are wasting £ b,s! Net zero another impossible dream to achieve in the time frame mad ed wants,do it at a pace the country can afford.
When you actually dig down into Govt spending there are loads of savings to be made and that does include the wat the MOD works.
Perhaps we can get Elon in to the UK next to find these easy savings. 🤔
He’d fire the Foreign Office because he’d think it employed foreigners.
Yeah after Elon did such a great job firing all the Dept of Energy staff that design and manage the USA’s nuclear weapon stockpile… they’re still scrabbling trying to ensure everyone they fired comes back to work for them.
Meanwhile they’ve now started firing people at the FAA, because air safety is the USA is so unnecessary…
I hope those Dept of Energy staff all fired by Elon refuse to come back without a significant pay rise.
You realy have no clue.
The staff should offer to come back for a bonus of 8 month’s pay, provided the government agree to it within a week.
Jim come on you know that there are costs to be saved,just for instance the ludicrous plan that says if depts don’t t spend their budget for the year next years is cut accordingly! What kind of nonsense is that? The health minister tells the NHS to not hire DEI managers ,what posts are the are then advertised for £80/120 k a year in the NHS?
You don’t need numptys like musk to see it!
Most people have a profound miss understanding what equality officers and managers do in the NHS..it’s actually a really important set of roles and has got f%#k all to do with virtue signalling and everything to do with saving money and keeping services running.
Reason 1:So around 25%-30% of NHS healthcare professionals are from ethic minorities and or non British origin..essentially they are ensuring we are in a good place to keep recruiting from the places we’re you can still actually recruit healthcare professionals…(and don’t tell me train more..because that would require decades that we don’t have.. you need to take your most highly qualified and experienced staff away from work to train people and it takes a 15 years to train a consultant)… so that’s one key job they do…we don’t encourage minorities to work in health for WOKE reasons we do it because if we did not there would be no DRs or nurses and the next time you were very ill you would just die.
Reason 2 10% of the population are ethic minority and another larger percentage are hard to reach groups..those groups tend not to use up stream ( cheaper and more effective and efficient healthcare) they only us down stream healthcare ( accident and emergency when it’s all gone wrong)..this puts a massive strain on emergency services as well as increases the costs of care as they are in hospitals beds for longer…so we engage with them up stream to try and head of the healthcare issues down stream..it’s called saving the taxpayer money..
And I know what I’m taking about because of was both a strategic lead for emergency care as well as an emergency care workforce lead and the equality managers I worked with were brilliant..the one we had during covid would drive out to every traveler site engage with them and check for covid etc.
“because that would require decades that we don’t have.”
Ridiculous. The typical anti ambitious thinking in Europe. You really are obsolete.
Please tell me why Xiaomi is what it is today despite being created in 2010?
Btw what DEI USA had in when it had lots 1st gen immigrants…
I’m sure there are costs to save, successive politicians have been trying to save costs for decades and failed all the while not doing what needs to be done because they promise to pay for stuff through cost savings. It’s time to pony up and stop pretending there is an easy way to do this.
Jonathan spitting facts again. ^_^
Well Jonathan,a couple of questions,
1, was there rampant racism in the NHS before DEI posts were invented?,I’m sure we recruited abroad with no problems
2, wasn’t there a position of district nurse who’s purpose was to visit schools and vulnerable groups etc?
3, why is it my cousin can book up to 12 interpreters a day for the people who can’t or won’t speak English when visiting her hospital (Craigavon) after all if I was unlucky enough to need treatment abroad it would be down to me to be able to communicate!!The point is all of the things you said were important were already being done before these posts were created!
Even the health secretary has realised this and actually told hospitals to stop hiring them,so these hospitals need to be asked why they are defying his instructions.
1. Yes there was discrimination in the NHS before EDI staff existed, as there was across society. And yes, the victims put up with it. There is still discrimination in the NHS and society (although I believe the UK to be the most tolerant – and certainly diverse – society in the world). There are now initiatives to ensure that gay, black and disabled people can have access to healthcare AND access to healthcare jobs equal to anyone else.
2. Yes, there was a position of district nurse and they went into communities. Now local medical practitioners can understand issues, sensitivities or factors that affect treatment, or access to treatment, unique to the people, communities and cultures they are dealing with. This ultimately reduces the long term cost of healthcare. The fact you resent these people being here is a separate issue.
3. Your cousin can book up to 12 interpreters because there are up to 12 people for whom English isn’t their first language requiring treatment and that is something where miscommunication could be problematic. Surely that’s obvious? You would get a translator if you were abroad, although in all probability, they would be able to speak YOUR language as good as you can.
Just because you read on the internet that something you don’t understand is bad, doesn’t mean that it’s bad.
@ Alex..decades we don’t have..is because it takes decades to create a healthcare workforce..and we don’t have one of the right size..you can trash talk that all you want but I actually have been on the sharp end of both working in emergency care and development of its workforce I know how many we need and how long it takes to develop training pipelines and how long it takes to train and develop these workforces..if the UK starts now we could have the correct healthcare workforce in around 20 years…because we around 300,000 short and you can only train so many per year..it just is what it is.
@jim, there are efficiency savings, but you have to invest to get them, in healthcare cheap is not efficient..because Upstream care is essentially more efficient and effective over a person’s life, but you have to pay for it early on.
” because it takes decades to create a healthcare workforce.”
It don’t.
That is only possible to be said with general unacceptable low standards and lack of ambition of health care in our societies.
That is the real discrimination, people of all colors go there fragilized and accept the unacceptable that they would not tolerate from any other product.
Probably only education and media are worse.
@ alex sorry but it does
How long does it take to create a consultant surgeon.. about 15 years, to create a senior ED nurses who can run a department shift about 7-10.
If we started training a large cohort of GPs now they will be qualified GPs in around 12-15 years. But first we have to creat the training places and to create training places you need the senior clinical staff with the time freed up to supervise and train..which means you need extra staff…so maybe listen to the person with 30 years of actual on the ground knowledge training and experience…or you could just hold your own opinions and be happy with the shite services we have and not listen.
I’ve spent decades training new clinical staff, expanding my own expertise and trying to increase the pipeline of training for hard to find clinical groups… I would love it if we actually had the places to train the nurses we needed..but we don’t and actually even if we started tomorrow and majicked up those hundred or so thousand extra training places..time scale wise we would get
1) staff nurses who actually have the experience needed 5 years
2) middle level nurses to run wards etc 7 years
3) senior nurses such as senior ED nurses etc 10 years
4) actual qualified drs middle grade 8-10 years
5) consultants 15 years
6) pharmacies who can work in the community 7-8 years
So if you think you can make a healthcare professional workforce in a couple of years be my guest..ignore the expert in the room.Because even if we were offered all the money in the world we can probably only at the most ambitious expand our training pipelines by around 10% per year…because we don’t have the placements, teaching staff or the extra clinical time to provide supervision…so at best speed with all the money and people actually wanting to do these jobs it would be a decade before we could upscale the pipelines for all the places we really need.
Shall I tell you another truth… we tried to expand the nurse training in this country..shall I tell you what has happened, we could not fill the spaces on offer, so they are being shut down, because people don’t want to be nurses, spending their lives having to constantly update and expand their skills, spending years learning, then spending the rest of their careers doing shift work, getting assaulted and abused and watching kids and people die horribly and suffer, for less pay than a plumber…
So no we cannot create a workforce in a few years..we have to steel it from second and third world countries and the sad truth is that’s what the US does as well.
Jeez you do realise the target is 2050 and climate change is a threat to military as it causes risk of war
Go tell China, India and the USA, all of whom are laughing themselves stupid as they watch us race to being a complete non-entity in the manufacturing world!
The same China that will be responsible for 60% of all the world’s renewable energy capacity by 2030? The same China who invested $900 billion in renewables in 2023 alone – equal to the rest of the world’s investment in fossil fuels combined – and that was the sector that contributed the largest proportion of growth the their economy? The same Chinese that also account for one-third of global manufacturing capacity? Yeh… who wants to be like them when we can continue to suck up to unreliable trading partners such the Americans, the Arabs or the Russians for a dirty and diminishing source of fuel completely out of our control, set only to increase in price and that transfers all our wealth to people who seek to undermine us.
If the world is affected by climate change that’s going to cost many more billions to fix. Tax social media firms to pay for this (and defence), call it a tariff as that seems to be more in fashion
Ireland isn’t going to veto it, much more likely Putin’s useful idiots will, Hungary is still blocking some of the funds to Ukraine even now.
Then be serious when it comes to defence increase the defence budget and ensure we spend it wisely, scrap the chagos island deal and work with the eu when it comes to defence unless you take the actions needed then words are meaningless
Trouble is, says one thing, does another. That response needs to include increasing the strength of the UK’s armed forces – not much actual movement there. We should also start building our own manufacturing capacity. Plus a bit more than £3 billion a year in direct help to Ukraine would be useful. Chances are that the US is going to dump Ukraine so we need to help take up some of the slack.
Agreed, Europe (UK+EU+Norway) should be prepared to step up and cover any loss of funding from the USA for Ukraine. Trump might be a surrender monkey but Europe needs to prove to Russia, China, and the world that we are in it for the long-haul. Europe may be a collection of nations, but together it has superpower wealth (and consequently military potential).
Trump isn’t a surrender monkey, he’s far worse. He’s looking to carve up Ukraine between himself and Putin. Putin will get 20% and Trump is insisting on 50% of the natural resources of the other 80% in perpetuity, or at least until Zelensky “pays back” a random number that Trump made up. Putin will also get the crippling of Ukraine that he wants and the impossibility of it ever joining NATO.
We are almost at a point where we have as much of a moral duty to stop Trump as we do stopping Putin.
Finally someone on here seeing things for what they are
Indeed!
Jon, Don, ,, now some European leaders are considering US as an adversary. They are a few years too late and off the mark by a bit. US is now more of an enemy than Russia for Europe, Canada, Gaza, Greenland, Iran, others
You can’t say that just because we disagree with Trump, America is our enemy. I don’t consider the US an enemy at all, nevermind more of an enemy than Russia. Nevertheless, we should still be trying to stop Trump’s current plans.
The U.S. is not an enemy, it’s a bit confused as to who its friends are and how it should be treating them, but it’s not an enemy
“Jon, Don, ,, now some European leaders are considering US as an adversary. They are a few years too late and off the mark by a bit. US is now more of an enemy than Russia for Europe, Canada, Gaza, Greenland, Iran, others”
Trump is very moderate regarding West Europe, after all the only external entity that West Europeans hate is USA.
Europeans for example don’t have bad words for Iranians that have been attacking civilian and military Euro ships, jailing Europeans and assassinating their own opposition in Europe.
The deranged Western Europe is psychological case.
Trump will not dump Ukraine. What he will do is turn it into the 51st state – in payment for guaranteeing what Zelensky will claim as ‘sovereignty.’ The UK and France will provide a token force of ‘peacekeepers’ and claim credit for saving Nato. The EU will be humiliated and Russia will preserve her status as a superpower block.
You have to laugh don’t you.
Even if the Government increased spending to 3%, it would take 20 years to build back to minimum levels.
An extra 20 billion a year would slowly turn it round.
My suggested Minimum levels being the following.
Army: around 100,000 with a healthy Army reserve 40/50 thousand, rebuilt ‘fully rounded’ capabilites, MBT, Artillery etc.
Navy: surface Combatants back to 30, 12 SSN’s, rebuilt Amphibious capability (along with Royal Marines).
Carriers properly funded with project Ark Royal ‘fully’ implemented.
With 4 Squadrons of F35B and drones.
RFA increased in size to support this force level.
RAF returned to 12 Fast Jet Squadrons and beefed up with Loyal Wing man.
40 A400, 12 P8’s along with Sea Guardian drones to back them up
This would in turn require much of the rundown MOD estate massively refurbished and upgraded, including military housing.
Are you including the 4 RN F-35B squadrons in the Royal Navy as part of the 12 RAF squadrons, or in addition to them?
I think 8x Typhoon squadrons, plus OCU, OEU and spares (circa 160 airframes) plus 4 F-35B squadrons etc al, around 90 airframes would be about right.
The only thing I would change is I would maybe go for 9 typhoon squadrons and 3 F35b..just because the typhoons are more efficient.
I’m thinking more long term Jonathan, until we get Tempest, F35B will be our day one of war door kicker.
I would rather be able to deploy and sustain a QE Class with 36 fets on board.
4 squadrons would allow that on a short term operation.
I think RAF would be happy with more mass on either side of F35B or Typhoon TBH. Both have their uses and they both have crossover uses.
Don’t forget that F35B also has the Harrier GR roles so army would probably like more F35B.
It would take pressure off and make it more realistic to generate force on QECs.
12 is the number all up – agreed!
That’s what I was thinking Steve, eventually becoming 8 Tempest, 4 F35B squadrons, plus Loyal Wingman for both, preferably a single Carrier capable type.
That would represent a minimum ‘serious’ force level and an adaptable defence/ offensive force.
Imagine if we could contribute three F35B squadrons, flying from a QE Class and three Tempest Squadrons land based to an international military operation.
That would represent a very significant day one of war capability.
That would be great, but there’s more chance of catching a bus to the moon than seeing this happen!!
Sensible plan.
unsure about a return to 30 surface warships – seems a stretch . I’m in agreement re 12 sqns of fast jet. Can’t see SDR 25 doing much in capability growth however. Still. I hope I’m proved wrong
Klonkie, how does having 30 surface warships deal with Putin in Europe?
“Even if the Government increased spending to 3%, it would take 20 years to build back to minimum levels.”
Because things move too slow in West.
Infuriating. It’s almost like people with brains have been saying this the ENTIRE time the stupid notion of “peace dividend” was attempted
Well sasid.
Levi, the peace dividend taken in and about 1990-92, post Cold War, was understandable. The British Army reduced from 160k regs to 120k. Two divisions came back home from Germany, leaving just one warfighting ‘heavy metal’ division there. Tank numbers reduced from 900 to a mere 435. SPG numbers reduced to 179.
What was wholly unacceptable was for further cuts to happen after that, with no reduction in Threat as justification.
– What was wholly unacceptable was for further cuts to happen after that, with no reduction in Threat as justification.
Hear, hear!
If it happens, I won’t eat my hat, as that’s impalatable and will make me ill.
But I’d be amazed.
Starmer talks the talk, like they all do.
So far, LPDs gone.
Waves gone.
Puma gone.
Watchkeeper gone.
Even if those were in C&M, or “the Tories did it first miss” ( actually it was Labour from 97 to 2010 ) or that Puma Watchleeper might end up being “replaced” one day, these are backwards steps.
No increases in army personnel numbers.
No clarity or admittance of what 2.5 % contains (pensions, Ukraine money, nuclear ) so it’s just sound bytes.
Endless vagueness as to when. It was needed years ago.
Stop warning and act.
As I keep saying, you fool no one.
…disposal sale of prime military strategic and tactical assets/war reserves not looking too clever now eh!
(various HM Govs over the last 70-years)
Yes they could make some very key and easy lines in the sand..
1) recommission bulwark
2) keep the waves in extended readiness
3) convert all the challengers to 3
4) do a warrior lifex
5) order puma replacement immediately
All low cost but make a statement.
Exactly so.
Totally agree, it would at least send a signal, here but no further….
I’d go further. Want firepower order 24 more Apache E and the promised extra 27 F35Bs immediately.
More Archer SPGs
Get a new IFV ordered. Ascod with 40mm canon would be good or just CV90 series and replace warrior with immediate effect.
Get direct energy weapons and point defence
systems for the army. Mounted on 4×4 chassis
APS for all armoured vehicles entering combat zone
Order 4 more type 26 and another batch of 5 type 31s.
Merlins- get another batch of new builds going. They are the best ASW platform in NATO
Otherwise agree with all you’ve said.
Mr Bell…and get more than the 6 SkySabre AD systems that the army has. Goodness knows how many Rapier Fire Units we used to have!
Just so. Well past the time to stop talking and put up the money…….
” peace comes from military strength” So Sir Keir, I presume there will be no further cuts and defence spending will immediately increase to 2.5 per cent? Otherwise there is no point you having publicity shots in full combat gear whilst saying that we are not increasing spending.
Immediately increase to 2.5% and also increase further to 3% by 2030 at the latest.
Not enough and too slow
Absolutely, a commitment to 3% by 2030, would inform the SDSR and lay out a path for the additional 20 billion annual funding coming online over the reviews 5 year term.
More or less what Ben Wallace was saying on Sky this evening.
Judging by media reports the SDR was in big trouble and the events of the last week will have made it all but irrelevant . Can we afford to wait for the 5 th rewrite before we start to dig ourselves out of this hole?
Increasing the defence budget, buying additional Typhoons, F35s, helicopters, transport aircraft, ships tomorrow that is the easy part. Without people to operate them , maintain them, provide logistical support etc we’ll have a lot of equipment slowly deteriorating away.
Also without growth higher than inflation that 2.5% target means nothing & will slowly become very little.
To all of those suffering from TDS. The only one in Washington who takes Keir Starmer somewhat seriously is Donald Trump, no one else does.
That’s likely because no one else in Washington appears to be serious, From Drunken Fox News hosts to wrestlers, Russian Trolls, conspiracy theorist and anti vaxer your government appears more like a circus than anything serious people would elect.
China is laughing its ass off at you now.
And Russia and North Korea….Trumps making friends everywhere… all the while they are measuring the US up for its geopolitical coffin…. It reminds me of a communist called Stalin falling for a facists called Hitler and thinking he was his friend.
🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗 Peace comes from Military strength 💪 dear me , MR Starmer at 2.5% really and while your at it tell all the former PMs for the last 30yrs 😴
Lets see if he comes up with the money and the orders of kit. Warm words a to do list and wish list do not do any thing. Order some over dues kit then,
The future and immediate future is unmanned – drones, AI drones. Sea drones, lethal drones!
If this isn’t grasped our ground forces will end up like those from NK! Unless this is the focus alongside GBAD and countering them then we’re failing to learn from the last few years. This is the priority – not manned platforms?
So if it’s that important
Move forward the findings of the defence review and make it not conditional on spending.
It now needs a complete pivot as well:
The British army is now potentially “likely” to be fighting a European war. But not the European war it was planning for. There are now 4) likely areas the British army may end up fighting as it rubs up against Russia
1) the Baltic states. These are areas with a large number of rivers and lakes, bogs, upland and lowlands…crap bridges..woodlands..also a place where space cannot be exchanged for time as the depth is 100 miles and these is a very good chance the land rout out could be cut. Any forces placed in the Baltic liable to be cut off unless they are swift, will need to be lighter for the terrain..essentially Mec infantry with wheels with lighter IFV, APC, armoured cav and wheeled armour with direct fire and wheeled lighter type fires…slow and heavy armour may not be the best for the Baltic states.
2) south Eastern Europe..this is essentially muddy plains and forests.with the major on mud. Heavy wheeled vehicles are going to get bogged down and restricted to roads for a lot of the time..the mud sessions will stop mobile warfare and allow massive building of areas denial.
3) the high north ( Norway etc) same as it always was..for the marines and amphibious craft very specialist.
4) Not Europe, but a European war would kick off a conflict between Russia and Europe in Africa for resources and to protect aligned nations. Would require light probably air Mobile troops.
Steps within that south Eastern Europe ( Ukraine after a peace) this should be focused around 3rd armoured division ( tracked ) with 3 fully deployable heavy brigades and one mec brigade…essentially 3rd Uk division becomes the UKs contribution to south Eastern Europe.
1) convert every challenger tank we can get our hands on to challenger 3 ( that should involve getting any back from ukriane when there is a peace)…these are modern MBTs at 5 million a pop, that’s less than the cost of an IFV or boxer. Essentially ensure there are 3 armoured regiments so one is always in south Eastern Europe and one is ready to deploy on a month.
2) Modernisation of every warrior we can get, this will be cheap as chips..if a challenger 3 costs 5 million a warrior life extension could be done for way less. Then rebuild up to 6 armoured infantry battalions, 2 based in south Eastern Europe, 2 at one months notice.
3) heavy Mec brigade of 4 Mec battalions..1-2 based in say Poland with combat support to allow fast response either to Baltics or Ukraine.
4) these 4 brigates would need organic Combat support, armoured cav, tracked self propelled artillery, long range precision fires, medical, engineering, logistic.
Steps supporting the Baltics, 1st division needs to transition from a global responce division to a Mec divisions sculptures around the Baltic battlefields.
1) 4th and 7th need to be proper mec brigades, 4 battalions each in a decent mid weight Stanag 3-4 APC, each with full Combat support, light cav, wheeled fires ( just order archer ). These mec brigades will also need some form of wheeled direct fire plaform ( as the french and Italians have)
2) the hard swallow will be another mec brigades same as above..this needs to be formed from the extra battalions that undertake the global deployments.this would give three mec brigades one of which would be deployed to the Baltics, one on 1 months notice
3) 16 air assault becomes an mobile brigade, would essentially be the one ready to deploy globally and potentially you would Base the ready battalion in Cyprus. You would see this expended to take all the world wide deployments. Including Falklands and Bruni, both Gurkha regiments placed in the air mobile brigade. You would also ensure access to protected patrol vehicles for the brigade.
4) ensure each brigade has organic area air defence ( camm) and each battalion has organised close in air defence and anti drone defence.
5) ensure each battalion has organic drone warfare operations offensive and ISTAR, ensure each brigade has long range done based ISTAR, linked to its fires.
You’re looking at a lot bigger army for what is really now needed in Europe if this realignment is real, so better start planning to recruit up to 100,000
Airforce wise. The move to essentially 4 front line typhoon and 2-3 F35 b will need to end and there will need to be a significant increase in mass, with the most efficient aircraft front line fighting, which is typhoon.
1) move to 8-9 front line typhoon squadrons ( with Falklands flight, OCU, and test evaluation) that’s around 150-160 single seat typhoons or an order for an extra 60-65 aircraft.
2) stick at three squadrons of F35b it pains me to say it but 3 squadrons and OCU will be enough to deploy one carrier battle group and we need mass so more typhoons.. so 78 aircraft.
3) AEW we need to purchase a lot more, this is fundamentally important. Probably 9 in 3 squadrons
4) more ASW martime patrol..probably 12 + drones across four 3 squadrons
5) look at a tactical lift Platform that has pan European range.. 900-1100 miles. Basically the Uk needs lots of tactical lift that can get to and from the Baltics in one go.
6) move the medium lift rotor to the army as they know what they need and the RAF are just playing at it. ( personally I would move the heavy lift rotor as well because range wise it’s essentially an army in theatre asset).
7) reconfigure the RAF regiment to GBAD for core military infrastructure and have its entire primary focus on that.
NAVY
It must focus on, supporting the northern flank, attack of the Russian bastions ( up to an including penetrating the Kara sea ), protecting the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Red Sea, gulf and Indian Ocean sea lanes as well as protection of our south Atlantic interests..the pacific is no longer our problem.
1) moving back to a 30 large surface combatant fleet of 30 ships 30% ASW, 30% AAW and 30% GP.
2) developing a 10+ strong patrol and Mine warfare fleet, 2000-3000 tone autonomous vehicle mother ships with self protection. For local infrastructure security and mine warfare.
3) amphibious vessels that can project the RM into the northern flank ( Norway ) up to max brigade level. 6 assault ships that can carry up to 2 companies each. These assault ships should be dual purpose and be able to act as mother ships for autonomous vessels to help with local infrastructure security and mine warfare if not supporting amphibious operations, they should have self protection and be able to provided long range fires for marines.
4) carrier battle group should now be sculpted for battles in the high north and attacking Russian bastions as well as supporting sea lane protect in the Indian Ocean area.
5) RFA to be able to support a single Indian occean carrier battle group as well as Atlantic and northern occean opps. Provide strategic sea lift for a brigade into or out of the Baltic states.
6) RM reconfigured to fight a peer in the high north with all required combat support.
Nuclear forces
provide 30%-50% of a European MAD capability ( 1000 warheads with 500 deployed would provide MAD ) should consider expanding triad to air launched weapons sharing i. The French new development of air launched weapons and..with air launched options for typhoons based in Eastern Europe. Work with France to ensure 3 European ballistic missile armed subs on patrol at all times, increase warhead load on each ballistic missile sub to 100.
Home defence
Redevelop Civil defence..
Finally I’m not even sure if the NATO treaty is fit for purpose if the U.S. are not playing ball…so maybe a new European defence treaty that aligns with but is not dependent on NATO working.
A knowledgeable and thought through post. In the political circumstances and given the number and scale of the gaps, and the financial constraints we need to prioritise; to focus on risk and restoring credibility of deterrence. As others have said, it seems to me the highest priority by some way, is the capability to deploy a suitably equipped expeditionary division to Europe: army numbers +9-10k + vehicles, weapons and ability to get there ( MRSS x6 and more A400s). In the case of the RN with T26, T31 and T45 programs, rebuilding is further advanced; I think the issue is more scale than credibility but I agree your MCM point. Agree more fast jets, but I would make do with 3 squadrons of F-35 and order another 12-24 Typhoons.
Paul, an army division of 9,000 – 10,000. Thats a very small division!
If we can’t rely on America’s nuclear umbrella and have to provide half the deterrence for Europe along with France, we’d need at least ten billion a year more to step up. 500 warheads is a lot to move up to, more than double our current capability, I think. 250 deployable warheads is also whole different thing. It’s hard to know if we can even deliver that many reentry vehicles with most holding decoys, but we certainly can’t deliver 250 warheads. Nor will that improve under Dreadnought. There’s a really interesting article in The Thin Pinstripe Line that highlights just how marginal our deterrent is. Far closer to the line than I’d previously thought.
Thank you for sharing this, broadly I support your thoughts. Some thoughts from me.
1. UKAUS is a huge investment and the protection of trade routes means we can’t ignore the pacific. By increasing our submarine presence in the pacific we would make a valuable contribution.
2. Without the USA NATO/Europe only has a strategic nuclear deterrence (UK & France). We should consider reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons.
3. Please can we get serious about the enablers (logistics, engineering, intelligence, communications etc). Teeth without the tail are just shiny toys!
3. Ukraine are using 1000’s of €300 drones to destroy everything from individuals to tanks. While Switchbalde 300 are $100k each. Not every thing we buy needs to be gold plated.
4. What do we need to do to now, to enable an effective transition to a mass mobilisation armed forces, in the event of a major war?
Best just bin Trident and save a few quid. Starmer would never push the button in any circumstances it would infringe so many Human Rights principals he holds dear and Mad Vlad knows it.
So your solution is cuts. How well did that work for us last time we tried it?
Trident is needed more than ever with the US being an unreliable ally. Its impossible to deter a nuclear power with only conventional forces.
The problem is maintenance of trident is depends on the US, I’m of the opinion we should almost suck up the cost and change to working with the French on a joint sovereign project… if Trump and Russia agree a deal that includes cutting the UK trident systems, there would be little we could do.
Who are you talking to Kier? You are the Prime Minister. If you want to increase our military strength then get on with it. You’re the only one who can.
Gareth, he’s afraid of what Rachel Reeves might say. She will not allow an early increase in military spend.
To be fair a prime minister can remove a chancellor if they get to irritating.
All means nothing with out the right amount of £££££s to persuade the lads of the future to put on greens/dark blue/light blue suits. Plenty o better paid jobs in civvy street. A coming recession might help recruitment. So many cut backs over recent years, do we have the decent barrack spaces to give everyone a bed space?
JJ, If you cut the army by 10k posts, why would you then be concerned about lacking bedspaces?
Most of us have been arguing this for decades whilst various HMGs(incuding this one!-More RFAs, Albion LPDs & Frigate) have cut ever further to obscurity whilst blindsiding the public.
Putin has a fit over the idea of European troops peacekeeping in UKR but it’s OK for him to employ NK troops & mercenaries. He could stop this war anytime.
How’s Trumps insane boast that he can end the war in 24hours going?
Offering everything Putin wants whilst ignoring the needs, rights & damages done to the other side is a drievous insult to all his allies & UKR.
Trump has no idea. Lives in an echo-box environment stoked by lies & Russian properganda.
He’s a crook & patsy of a war criminal. Putin must be delightes at such an easy fool to manipulate as potus.
Starmer also needs to build far more capacity into the NHS so if we get drawn into the UKR war or another Russian attack on eastern Europe/Scandinavia we have the caopacity to deal with the resulting casualties.
For all the celebration of raising the defence budget from just under 2% to “2.3%”, we’ve only seen further cuts rather than any increase in our forces.
The very least Starmer could do is reverse the cuts planned right now.
I know polictically the goverment is holding the sdsr until after the budget kicks in, in April, so they know what if any money they have, but words are cheap, time to actually start rearmimg.
Steve, I read recently that Rachel from Accounts does not agree to raising Defence spend to 2.5% until 2032, irrespective as to what SDR says…. and she wears the trousers!
I suspect Rachel us being told what is happening..especially as she’s not looked so shiny over that last month.
Sir Starmer! Old Donnie’s Tulsi insist that it was Nato expansion that provokes Russia to war against Nazi Nato in Ukraine. Western powers has belief that Peace thru Strength is the answer. But was not Nato a Strength?? Too much strength causes the other side to be stronger?? Example, China had only around 400 nukes, US plans to update and upgrade their 5000 nukes, costing over$1 trillion. China is now increasing their nukes to at least 1000 and new, better 6th gen Warplanes. Peace thru Strength is more than double a sided sword. Sir Starmer, what about Sir Newton’s 3rd law?? Is old Donnie serious? He just floated an idea of cutting military budgets in half?! But he also believes in Peace thru Strength. It’s so confusing.
Is your name really Keith?!
Clearly not.
I’m confused
Oh hark at him the big hard warrior not the metro-sexual bleeding heart middle-class leftie human rights lawyer he once was. He is of course a professional liar like the rest of them. Trump will make him look an absolute berk when they meet..
A lot of wishful thinking here. Reality will be a small increase to 2.5% by 2030. Paid for by raiding none ring fenced departments and projected economic growth.
This we know will not represent much of an increase in defense capacity especially when taking into account the current defense spending black hole that will need to be filled first.
Not being negative, just realistic.