In light of the 75th anniversary of the foundation of NATO this year and the most recent revelations about the personnel needs of Ukraine as they enter their third year of defending themselves against Putin, this article will consider how these two potential fissures in the fabric of global defence strike straight to the heart of the UKs most significant oversight – readiness.
What does readiness mean? How do we ensure we have it, and why do I think that in the ever-changing and particularly fractious climate of geopolitical tension, Scotland is well-placed to create an armed force ready for modern-day defence?
Crucially, I hope to detail how this is less about military brute and more about the core underpinnings of the concept of defence, which are centred on a social democratic understanding of what it takes to create a successful armed force.
Written by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire since 2015 and SNP Defence Spokesperson since 2023, this article is part of our series exploring diverse perspectives on defence and security issues. While the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the UK Defence Journal, we believe in the importance of presenting a variety of viewpoints. Understanding different perspectives is essential for a comprehensive grasp of complex subjects. For more articles in this series, please click here.
Speaking of military brute, let’s turn first to Putin and a quote from Politico regarding Russia’s nuclear arsenal to frame the difference between perceived military strength and a strategic approach to defensive longevity to see just why it is so crucial that we strip back and reconsider what readiness truly means;
“From a military-technical point of view, of course, we are ready,” …“We have them with us all the time, constantly in a state of combat readiness.”
Given the recent Defence Committee Report ‘Ready for War’ published in February, Putins words are ringing in the ears of the UK Government and the MOD, especially given their notion of readiness – or their lack thereof.
The ‘readiness’ of the UK armed forces might seem a distant and separate issue from Putin’s threats of nuclear war, but it goes straight to the heart of how the UK perceives its abilities in both a defensive and offensive capacity and the structure of Western defensive collaboration. What I have discussed in previous articles, as well as what feels relentless like shouting into a void in Westminster, is the disparity between what the UK would like its defensive capacity to be and what it actually is.
‘Readiness’ can be neatly packaged as the ability to deploy personnel and equipment within a set timeframe and for the armed forces to sustain effective deployment until the end of the mission. The MOD’s rebranded agenda of “deter, lead, defend” seemed to, on the surface, address the UKGs’ misconception of readiness—and certainly made lots of grand sweeping declarations.
The Secretary of State spoke of the UK’s pioneering defence technologies, and plans for military modernisation – flashy but empty terms such as “nuclear enterprise”, the ”formidable deterrent” of the Royal Navy, and a serious belief that all of the necessary bricks are being laid to protect UK assets, persons and security interests in what the UK Government is declaring is the current “pre-war world; at the same time it is increasingly clear that the necessity of Ukraine in their defence against Russian aggression is not a lack of formidability, the need for modernisation, nor even a desperation for technological enterprise – it is quite simply, more people, more ammunition, more time.
This narrative follows what we see time and time again, most recently in the approach to defence spending in the Spring Budget, is the preoccupation with being the biggest bully in the playground, outgunning, out arming, out tech-ing even those who we consider our equals and allies, in an attempt to be seen as a dissuading threat to our enemies.
What the Committee declared was its biggest hinderance in the publication of this report was the inability to adequately access information regarding the UKs military readiness. Frustratingly, but not surprising was one of the conclusions of the Readiness report was that the UK armed forces have:
“deployed above their capacity in response to the worsening security situation, but all have capability shortfalls and stockpile shortages and are losing personnel faster than they can recruit them. They are also consistently overstretched, and this has negatively impacted retention as well as delayed the development of warfighting readiness. Either the Ministry of Defence must be fully funded to engage in operations whilst also developing warfighting readiness; or the Government must reduce the operational burden on the Armed Forces”
This all sounds hauntingly similar to the most recent reports regarding Ukraine’s defensive capacity, which stated that there is an inadequacy of soldiers in training, a significant lack of Ukrainian reservists, which is having a knock-on impact on current serving Ukrainian military forces, and the impossibility of Western allies to supply necessary equipment to Ukraine, such as artillery.
Ukraine is expected to recruit up to 500,000 men in 2024, while new research states that 48% of men are not prepared to fight. Similarly, the UK Government is in the midst of a deteriorating recruitment crisis while simultaneously declaring that it is prepared for the new and aggressive global threats.
What can we take from this? Ukraine have rallied and exceeded expectations of their defensive capacity over the last two years, but they shouldn’t have had to. The impending threats from Russia that we are all now aware of should have been a warning to the UK Government that ‘readiness’ is not just a concept to let parliamentary committees debate and stress over but encapsulates a seriously misjudged element of any functioning armed forces and defensive strategy.
In a world at war, with definitive conclusions being thrown at the MOD regarding their categorical inability to establish a working armed force, it seems outrageous to see the MOD budget shrinking – and yet, here we are, facing a £3B cut in spending between 2023-2025 as per the revelations in the recent Spring Budget.
Given the MOD’s narrative that they still hope to grow defence spending beyond its NATO commitment to 2% of GDP to 2.5%, the only realistic conclusion that can be drawn from this reality is that aid to Ukraine will be tapered out.
Taking into consideration the geopolitical fragility and needs of the world’s collective defensive strategies in the face of US presidential elections, China’s increase of military budget to 7.2% whilst also admitting the failure of Trident at the same time as the UK Gov is teasing the idea of a £205 Billion replacement system, a remaining, unaddressed £17 Billion equipment black hole – to name but a few inconsistencies – perhaps the MOD should be focusing its resources on establishing a productivity plan with a realistic strategy in line with actual capacity, and how attention could be paid to ensuring that the resources that are at their disposal are functioning.
What would a functioning – let alone ready – armed forces look like? Well, for starters, it’s a bottom-up job. To ensure that recruitment levelled out, not only would the dystopian culture of the armed forces have to be addressed, but fundamental needs met, such as accommodation, wages, and security for personnel families. Denmark, a state which an Independent Scotland would aspire to in many respects, but especially regarding their approach to defence, has recently stated that they plan to begin to conscript women for military service – following in the footsteps of Norway and Finland. While I’m not saying Scotland, or the UK, should plan to conscript, Denmark’s decision is an indication of the steps towards defensive readiness, which can be displayed once a state has established the necessary commitments to culture, gender equality, quality of life – which is subsequently crucial to ensure a nations mobilization potential and strategic capacity.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “… we are not rearming in Denmark because we want war, destruction, or suffering. We are rearming right now to avoid war and in a world where the international order is being challenged.” If this doesn’t perfectly sum up the juxtaposition between where our armed forces need to be and the reality of current global threats and the need for defensive readiness, I don’t know what does.
Spending below the NATO requirement of 2% on their defence, at 1.4%, Denmark is making moves that are within their current budgetary and resource capacity, in actions which are intended to bolster their deterrence, understanding that though Russia does not pose a direct threat to Denmark, the motivation behind the effort to ensure that they are a functioning contributor to European and democratic security. Denmark understands that this begins with the feeling of readiness of each member of their armed forces.
The UK Government could take a leaf out of this book. History details the scramble to be “ready” for war, and yet the UK still seems unable to adequately address the functional building blocks of this readiness. This lack of readiness has a significant knock-on effect, and one which the Budget and Westminster seem ill-equipped to address.
Click here to explore the ‘Scotland’s Defence: Perspectives and Possibilities’ series, an exclusive UK Defence Journal series by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, SNP Defence Spokesperson.
At the heart of the UK Defence Journal’s mission is our commitment to journalistic integrity. Our role is not to dictate opinions but to present information in a fair and balanced manner, allowing our readers to form their own informed views. This series exemplifies our dedication to offering diverse perspectives in the realm of defence and security. Our aim is to ignite discussions and deepen understanding among its readers, irrespective of their stance on Scottish independence. The importance of exploring varied viewpoints in shaping an informed public discourse cannot be overstated.
You can read the rest of the series here.
Regardless of the ‘I’ question, the reality of the peril we may be in is clear, including what we need to do about it. We need more people shouting out about this. Russia and China may well be ‘merely’ seeking to recreate their old borders but even if they achieve that they are still a significant threat. As recent events in Moscow show it is all very well assimilating other countries but imposing an alien culture on them will always produce opponents which require policing and the heavy handed police state methods produce more enemies than friends, so there would… Read more »
Bit of a brain drain going on if three soldiers are leaving for everyone joining , don’t know what idiot renewed the Crapita contract when it was clearly failing!
Anybody else notice the irony from the Scottish Defence minister when he lauds Putin regards his vison of readiness in stark contrast to his myopic vison of what he perceives the British vision is and he does that by citing Putins willingness to use Nuclear weapons I quote from above: Speaking of military brute, let’s turn first to Putin and a quote from Politico regarding Russia’s nuclear arsenal to frame the difference between perceived military strength and a strategic approach to defensive longevity to see just why it is so crucial that we strip back and reconsider what readiness truly… Read more »
I object, I’m not in sixth form yet and I could come up with better than this 🙃
The points are clear for most to see. The U.K. cannot have a carrier force, a decent escort force of expensive ships, nuclear submarines and a nuclear weapons, have a large airforce capable of all types of ops, and an army capable of all types of warfare equipped with expensive equipment of 72,000 plus reserves with world wide deployments tasks on the current budget. Add in funding 6th gen aircraft and loads of other new stuff and Now cut the budget some more as is happening and we see it’s impossible. The U.K. is an expensive country to have forces… Read more »
Well put very succinctly
As a developed western nation with a liberal outlook. The other thing we need to contend with, that Russia and China don’t need to contend with. Are people’s expectations on living standards. With inflationary costs, people expect a higher living standard. Sadly this costs and needs to be paid for. Today’s school leavers expect x,y and x. In Russia those living on n the countryside don’t have those expectations. Which means daily wages are much lower and therefore Russia can afford much more personnel in their military. Be interesting to see what a Russian ex-serviceman’s pension is compared to mine?… Read more »
I don’t see these cuts everyone is talking about and I do see a RN (for example) in a better place than it was 20 years ago. We now have a couple of carriers bought and paid for we didn’t have before. We have new Frigates on the production line. We have destroyers being fixed. The RAF are getting more kit – not as much as we might like as quickly as we might like but we are getting there.
Are we being overly negative?
In the government’s Spring budget 2024 the budget allocated to the Ministry of Defence goes down by £2.2 billion, from £35 billion in 2023-24 to £32.8 billion in 2024-25. A brutal 6% cut which is already feeding through as fewer operational warships, aircraft and soldiers as so many other costs are contractually fixed. Only the c.10% cut to the MOD’s 2010-11 budget has been worse in the last 40 years. Shapps is loyally toeing the party line by claiming that there is actually a [still laughable] 1.8% increase in UK defence spending by including £2.5 billion of promised military aid… Read more »
I am baffled when people suggest that pensions for the services shouldn’t come out of the defence budget. What nonsense. The pensions should always have come out of the defence budget as should the nuclear deterent etc. You take the hit on the budget when the money comes out of the bank account. Simple as that. Future generations will be getting the benefit of the carriers in 2069 apparantly however that capital cost has been paid in full in recent years. I’m also puzzled as to which budget people think this stuff should hit. Education?, NHS? Also why on earth… Read more »
I believe the Nuclear deterent (and the pensions ?) Were included in teh MOD budget by Osburne to ensure we met the 2% NATO requirement. I don’t believe either ere included prior to thaf and i dont think they should be included now…most definitely NOT the Nuclear deterent which is a strategic UK government capability. Both these commitments impact on conventional forces and we need to ensure those forces are fit for purpose. The budget needs to increase to facilitate this…as for what gets cut…well seems they can find money when it suits so why should anything get cut… or… Read more »
Ukraine aid would be better placed in the Foreign Office budget, which could buy equipment from the MoD?
The FO deal with diplomacy. When that fails it is down to MOD to step in. Bad move to have the FO waving weapons around.
Grizzler when NATO started gibbering on about 2% the civil service would have pointed out that actually other departments had long been reporting areas of their budgets which actually belonged to defence and were being reported in the wrong place. The action of any sensible politician would be to say that funds should be reported in the right place especially with shed loads of auditors running aroundsaying everything was out of control. Just because the Nuclear Deterrent is strategic does not mean it is not part of Defence. It is both. The MOD could have a conventional defence area ring… Read more »
It’s not confusing for the budget. The military pension’s always were funded from the same dept that funds all pensions. The nuclear programs that got the U.K. a bomb was a costly program that would have cost more than the defence budget at the time and was a high priority of government at the time. When it was decided by government to base the nuclear weapons on subs it wasn’t the MOD that payed for it on their own. It’s a weapon that only the highest leaders in the country could call to being used and thus is really of… Read more »
MS just because you have been putting things down to the wrong budget for ages doesn’t make it correct. The Nuclear deterent has for the last 75 years done what it says on the tin – deter. Providing the world with the longest period of world peace thus far.The weapon just needs to exist to be effective. All major costs in the military are under political and parliamentary scrutiny & investment is being made. Especially in the RN. 2 large Carriers. 6 Destroyers all six at least 3-5 times as powerful as what went before. Now a replacement of all… Read more »
Don’t see these cuts? Your history reading needs to go back a bit further!
Unlike some Nick I don’t need to read the history as I was there when it happened. I remember conflicts and peacetime where much of the RN was old, leaky had little in the way of weapons. I remember times when virtually nothing of conseqence seem planned. Now at least things are happening. There is no point in dreaming of a worderful future Nick unless you have a practical way of protecting it. I think that is happening now and some are being far too negative.
Ditto. However, instead of replacing at the time the peace dividend meant taking ships and capability out of service and allowing manpower to dissappear. While modern vessels are more capable it still only takes one missile to take one out, so in a peer conflict unlike those we have undertaken since the Falklands we have very little and it will take a lot of time to build up again.
Russia will avoid conflict with any NATO country because Russia could never win. The UK demonstrated solidarity with Ukraine as has most of the free world. Ukraine has taken our ‘peer’ adversary and given him a good beating despite the losses Ukraine has suffered.
It seems to be one cheap drone which is capable of taking out the Russian Navy. The UK is investing in modern cutting edge tech which will be much cheaper and much better.
Oh and many of the Type 23s were built in the decade after the peace dividend. They need replacing.
Don’t see these cuts? The army was right-sized (ie reduced by 40,000) for the Cold War at 120,000 regulars – it is now heading to 73,000 after multiple cuts since the early 90s. From 386 CR2 tanks originally purchased to 148 CR3s. From 179 AS90s originally purchased to barely 50. All IFVs to be taken out of service (and replaced by an over-costly, wheeled, poorly armed APC). The army now cannot deploy a brigade group on enduring operations without recourse to reservists or RM. The army does not have a ready-to-deploy warfighting division of three similar manouevre brigades with modern… Read more »
Whilst I take your points Graham I also note that you have accepted that a change in size is appropriate depending upon hot or cold war. After 1991 things changed again and we were looking at a peacetime army. Beyond the 1990s did we have any role in defending mainland Europe at all? Was it even necessary? From a strategic perspective it is obvious that renewal of the RN and RAF is obvious. The Army is a little different because it was unclear what exactly were it’s objectives in the coming decades. The other issue with the Army was that… Read more »
20 years ago.
U.K. forces in 2001
Army: 109,700. RN: 42,800. RAF:54,700.
2023: army 79,000(soon 72,000).RN 32,590. RAF: 31,900.
So army down 30%, R
RN and marines down 24%
RAF down 41%
Navy fleet is roughly half the size it was in 2000.
RAF has less than half the aircraft it had in 2000.
Army has less than half as much equipment as it had in 2000.
In the last 3 years the navy has went from 77 major ships to 68. That number is still expected to drop further.
I could go on but the trend is clear.
Seriously MS? How many type 42s would they have had to deploy to the red sea to provide the protection coming from one type 45. Your statistics only take you so far and don’t allow for an increase in capability. It also doesn’t take into account the fact that we had equipment to play a major role in pushing back the soviet union whereas now the only serious enemy is Russia and most of the Soviet Union of old is first in line taking Russia off at the knees. Then the EU countries are next in line and we and… Read more »
I wonder how they will afford it all….
#205b for Trident replacement….is that viable given other needs. ….an economic alternative could be to build total fleet of 12 AUKUS units which are coming with vertical launch. Incremental costs of boats 8 to 12 would be a fraction of 4 x boat Trident replacement. VL load out options can include conventional and Nuc tipped FC/AS. At any moment 1 x AUKUS sub can be designated detterent boat with a heavier nuc load out. Others at sea may carry a handful to offer at sea redundancy and geographical spread. FC/AS can be deployed by AUKUS subs, FF/DD and Tempest offering… Read more »
Sadly not really, as the AUKUS sub VL tubes will be limited to housing sub-launched cruise missiles or sub launched short to medium range missiles. For something like Trident, the tubes need to be much longer. For an intercontinental rocket, you have to contend with the rocket equation. Which basically states to increase range, you increase thrust, but also have to increase propellant mass to maintain that thrust. Bearing in mind you have to overcome the initial static margin of the rocket’s mass at rest. Then accelerate it! In layman’s terms, you have to carry more fuel to go higher,… Read more »
sadly DaveyB you hadn’t read my post fully. Not advocating Trident in AUKUS, advocating giving up the Single unreliable Trident basket and moving to Nuc tip FC/AS replacement for Stormshadow / Tomahawk. Wont provide multiple x Armageddon capability but would be more efficient, and in a European / regional theatre sense provide enough deterrence…at a fraction of cost with potential launch platforms across SSN / FF/DD and Fast Jet / Tempest / Large UAV. something has to change
You would put the AUKUS boats at great Risk of being detected and sunk, due to the limited range of cruise missiles. The subs would need to be within range of the target, that means being closed to shore especially of the Eurasian land mass.
Please look at the map of Eurasian land mass.
You could be lucky to target just St.Petersburg from parts of North Sea!
No greater risk than when launching conventional cruise missiles in land attack mode, as they will be designed to do. The FC/AS will have a ‘deep strike’ land attack version will it not?
The UKDJ is a wonderful organisation for which I for one am grateful to have access to, and I understand the need to air a broad range of opinions. However why give someone who wants to destroy the United Kingdom, space to present such a looong ramble as per above? I couldn’t find the time or interest to read it.
No offence George.
Sorry gents. Maybe I am just getting grumpy in my old age…
I don’t thing George agrees with him, he’s pointed out in the past that he’s a Unionist. The point is more to at least allow other points of view, otherwise this place would become just another Internet echo chamber.
Hi SB-without putting words in Georges mouth, I would think I know where he stands and my head tells me that of course it is healthy to allow debate but then I think-break up the UK, damage the whole and the parts, spend huge sums to dismantle good stuff and make new stuff, rUK stuck with the cost of the absolutely necessary Nuclear Insurance, Scotland joining others in bad mouthing Nukes but silently happy that rUK retain theirs to cover them if the sh*te hits the fan. etc etc.
It’s the same guff he always comes out with!Mr Cole is his main man on here to agree with him but when it’s pointed out quite reasonably the pitfalls of a.SDF it’s all negative on our part! Still if the Scottish people get their act together he may well be gone soon.
All correct Jacko.
Not sure why we get quite so much from this SNP gent. Is it possible to have other points of view provided? UKDJ does a pretty good job of impartiality, except on this one issue. Might be availability or access / willingness to offer opinions, but I would be happy to see some other views.
It is amusing to read what the dying SNP loons spout about.
More of this crap!
It’s kind of obvious that Sunak has brought the Treasury “Defencephobe” mindset into 10 Downing Street. The reluctant spend of 2% of GDP is enough to convince him that he’s doing a good job. He is indifferent about what that funding actually delivers and whether or not it actually provides an adequate defence relative to the threats we face. This is not rational government. Our defence funding has barely changed since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We have an aggressive psychopath rampaging in the East aimed at delivering a foreign policy objectives of re-establishing a Russian Empire. To achieve that outcome… Read more »
A great post that absolutely hits the nail on the head. Sunak is a technocrat manager, not a national leader of note. He cannot spot the biggest threats to our country and has no idea of prioritising issues.
The UK is very different to the majority of NATO members as we have commitments across the globe & the only way we can fulfil our NATO & global commitments is by having a larger military which means a larger defence budget. Having global commitments requires the ability to transport personal & equipment quickly but the RAF withdraws the Hercules, frigates are withdrawn, Bulwark is mothballed & the new medium helicopter programme is delayed. It’s ok saying we are buying more helicopters, frigates etc, but the world is an unpredictable place & saying we will be ready for war in… Read more »