At a CEPA briefing on Friday, 7 February 2025, panel chair Edward Lucas steered the conversation towards the challenges of enforcing a ceasefire in Ukraine.
The discussion quickly shifted to the broader issue of military capacity amid mounting pressures on Western forces, with former US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster offering a stark assessment of the state of British Army capabilities to the journalists present, myself included.
To add context to his views, it is useful to recall the background of H.R. McMaster. Born on 24 July 1962 in Philadelphia, McMaster hails from a military family and graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1984. During the Gulf War, then-Captain McMaster commanded Eagle Troop in the Battle of 73 Easting, where his decisive leadership resulted in the destruction of 28 Iraqi tanks in a mere 23 minutes—an achievement that earned him the Silver Star and established his reputation as a formidable tactician. This performance is still widely studied in military circles as a model of effective combat leadership.
After the Gulf War, McMaster furthered his education by earning a PhD in American history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His subsequent work, notably the bestselling book Dereliction of Duty, critiqued past military leadership during the Vietnam War and reshaped discussions on strategic command. He continued to command key units, including the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, where his innovative counterinsurgency tactics proved decisive.
In February 2017, McMaster was appointed the 25th United States National Security Advisor under President Donald Trump—a role in which he emphasised strength and burden sharing among allies. Even after resigning in April 2018, he has remained influential as a lecturer and strategic adviser, lending considerable weight to his insights at forums such as the CEPA briefing.
Commenting on the capacity of European armed forces at the briefing, McMaster stated emphatically:
“Look at the British Army right now. I mean, it makes me want to cry, almost.”
He explained that while the British Army remains professional and capable, it now lacks the necessary capacity to sustain large-scale operations. He elaborated that this shortfall is not unique to the UK but is symptomatic of a broader issue affecting Western militaries—a consequence of post-Cold War defence strategies.
“We’ve been on this model for a long time that we could achieve security by investing more and more money in fewer and fewer exquisite systems. We traded off the size of the force for capabilities, but what we’re seeing in Ukraine is a return to the importance of force size. The capacity of the force matters.”
He warned that if the multinational force intended to enforce a ceasefire in Ukraine is not credible, it risks becoming “a really tempting target for Putin,” potentially undermining Western credibility. McMaster underscored that any such force must not only counter conventional military threats but also be resilient against hybrid warfare and non-traditional forms of aggression.
“Any force that comes must be capable of defeating all forms of Russian aggression—conventional, hybrid, and beyond. Without reflecting the military realities on the ground, there’s never been a favourable political outcome to a war.”
These remarks come at a time when European leaders, including those in Britain, are grappling with significant capacity challenges and contemplating major reforms to modernise their armed forces. McMaster’s pointed observation about the British Army encapsulated the urgency of reassessing defence capabilities in light of the current geopolitical landscape.
As the briefing concluded, the panel’s discussion on military capacity—bolstered by McMaster’s extensive military background and candid comments—highlighted a critical need for renewed investment and strategic planning among Western allies to ensure a credible deterrent and sustainable peace in Ukraine.
To add some balance here, I asked a currently serving senior officer about the remarks. Wishing to remain unnamed, he told me “The British Army is currently meeting every commitment we’re asked to”.
While we are meeting every commitment at the moment will we be able to meet the ultimate full scale commitment required for a general war?
Very doubtful for any extended period of time!
The simple answer, sadly, is no. Also we are only meeting existing commitments becayse they do not need forces at the same time. Rwenty years of shambolic politics have made a nonsense of our armed forces and I can’t see things getting any better.
Join the club.
Don’t push in line, there’s a queue for crying here
Yep tell us something we don’t all ready know…
Isn’t the actual problem that Army are after perfect systems that get in the way of good systems.
Perfect systems take forever to develop and are very risk then out of date when ready to be introduced and so cut.
There is a lot to be said for moving fast.
For example you end up deploying platforms using state of the art 1990’s electronics that are already hard to support as it is obsolete.
You wouldn’t dream of having a 1990’s computer at home for anything useful.
Slow development cycles are a real issue. As you have to go round again to remove the obsolescence before prototype serials are produced.
Wow, retired General thinks Army needs more money, quick call the Daily Mail.
It often amazes me how apparent professionals can look at the war in Ukraine and draw comparisons with NATO forces. Like they seem to discount the fact that air forces exist and the army’s role in major conflict is of tertiary importance. They watch two third world army’s slogging it out with artillery and tell everyone how we can’t do that so we must be inferior. Iraq and Iran spent 8 years doing the same and NATO armed forces still cut through the Iraqi army in hours. We conquered the 4th largest army in the world and only used 60,000 artillery shells.
Very little of what you say is accurate. RUSMIL have extensive and truly integrated air defence systems, this means the air battle is likely to result in Russian air superiority behind the blue line of FLOT making our ground units critically important, and simultaneously placing them at considerable risk. HR McMaster is entirely correct when it comes to peer warfare – we (UK) are simply not capable of sustaining any action, in my opinion because we’ve been hollowed out since the mid 1990s and shaped for COIN operations.
Also, look up your definitions of first, second and third world.
Is your name Alan or Artificial Intelligence?
The USAF spent quite a lot of the gulf war, and a significant chunk of their training since, on SEAD and DEAD missions. I’d argue that the ELINT-aircraft-missile kill chain for missiles like AARGM is more refined and robust than the detection and firing systems in stuff like S400.
Their IFF systems are so bad they can’t even turn the radar on with friendly fighters around, and they have had even less practice against a NATO style combined arms approach.
I’m not saying that any aspect of our defence is infallible, but it isn’t as hopeless as you make out.
The issue is not so much can we defeat a Russian offensive, because the obvious answer is yes NATO could. But peers wars are not about the short war or one campaign. They are all about who wins the long painful slog. A peer existential war is not a competitive Martial arts scored bout , it’s a no rules fight between two heavy weight bare knuckle boxers hitting each other until one either gives up through collapse of political will or falter from strategic exhaustion.
The west has show that although it’s still the master of the short campaign, it has not shown evidence that it has the political will or the depth of resource for the long drawn out existential peer conflict. Infact it’s showing the opposite to its enemies and china and Russia both know this.
Is their SHORAD donkey based?
Quite agree Jim, as mentioned before, too much is said about our military in a negative way. When push comes to shove, the UK military pulls it off. Yes we have a small military, however, it’s one of the best in the world where many aspire to be. After all do we have a military so big that many would be just not doing much and watering down the skills set and professionalism.
Cheers
George
Morning Jim, Unfortunately he is absolutely correct as the force levels required for Gulf Wars no longer exist, we cannot deploy our excellent forces in any meaningful mass in more than one place. And the bit that gets me is “Any force that comes, must be capable of defeating all forms of Russian aggression”, anything less is not a deterrent. It’s pretty obvious but the implication is it involves NATO having to deploy a full on mass “all arms force” complete with long term support, supply’s and accommodation on the Ukrainian / Russian DMZ.
So the bulk of the British Army would be deployed at the southern end of an 830 mile border and will be tied there (just like the US in Korea), which is a nightmare as Putins next target is supposedly the Baltic states, which is where we are supposed to be able to deploy in wartime.
Who’s Trump working for ?
I think it’s time to join him with the tissues. 😢
I mean the current procurements of Boxer and Ajax now seem on track and we may well end up with 2 excellent vehicles.
It’s a massive issue that we have completely skipped a whole generation of armoured vehicles. The Warrior is 40 years old and the Bulldog— despite some upgrades 20 years ago— is over 60.
So it’s a race against time to get the new vehicles into service before the former become completely obsolete.
We need to get much better at buying off the shelf, spiral development and in service upgrades.
Simple fact is that we have gone too far in reducing the size of the army. Realistically the army would be totally unable to provide a reasonable size force in Germany, the Baltic/Arctic, home protection in a war situation and also protect our overseas possessions… we physically don’t have enough to cover all the bases. If it comes to war, we need to. If we want to deter the likes of Russia we need to show Russia we can. We can’t rely on America – under Trump they are worse than China – and do really need to make ourselves as self sufficient as possible. Will it happen? Course not.
We is the whole of Europe though.
There’s no scenario in 2025 where we fight Russia alone.
And certainly not without air supremacy.
McMasters criticism of the size of the British Army is right- it is small with only limited reserves of personnel and weapons. But there is another question he should consider. What has the biggest defence budget in the world, the USA’s, actually achieved since WW2?
Uneasy stalemate in Korea
Defeat in Vietnam
Iraqi freedom that spawned ISIS
Failure in Afghanistan
Only Desert Storm was truly successful in its aims- the liberation of Kuwait.
The use of force only works properly if war aims are clearly defined and there is no better alternative. Having very large forces makes it more likely that a state will resort to their use when it might be wiser not to. Force size should be determined by clear definition of what is expected of it. Can the British Army defend the UK from conventional attack? Yes. Can it protect UK overseas territories? Yes. Can it play a major part in the defence of NATO allies? Not on the scale of the days of BAOR. But should it even try to? The real peace dividend has been the liberation of Eastern Europe and it’s joining western institutions. Russia now faces an alliance that even without the USA has a population and economy several times greater.
What Britain needs is the ability to scale up its forces in a crisis- bigger and better balanced reserves, rather than an increase in full time professionals.
And McMaster perhaps should recognize that it is largely the use of exquisite Western supplied PGMs that has allowed a much smaller weaker force to fight one of the worlds largest to a standstill.
That’s right Peter, as my reply to Jim. Many make fun of the UK military, and yes it’s small and could be larger. However to what degree should the size be? The UK when faced with a major conflict and defence of our interests normally pulls it off!
Cheers
George
I don’t think anyone is actually denying we don’t have professional soldiers well able to do their job!
Your point about always managing to “pull it off” is probably why we are in this state now,BUT there will be a point where we cannot manage to do so!
Quite agree Jim, as mentioned before, too much is said about our military in a negative way. When push comes to shove, the UK military pulls it off. Yes we have a small military, however, it’s one of the best in the world where many aspire to be. After all do we have a military so big that many would be just not doing much and watering down the skills set and professionalism.
Cheers
George
Russia are using donkeys and camels to re-supply ammunition.
The mistake would be to stop supporting Ukraine now even if USA do and take a crazy Trump plan for peace.
Dont give Putin a chance to re-arm or re-group.