In the light, or rather shadow, of the Ukrainian War, the UK must prepare to resume its historic role of “fighting in Europe, once again” and “forging an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat”.
The words are from General Patrick Sanders, the new commander of the British Army, in a letter to soldiers released on Sunday (19) by the country’s press. He took office on the 13th, and recalled being the first chief of staff, the official name of the post, to take office since 1941 “in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power”.
These are words in line with the growing perception among Europeans that the conflict in Ukraine could go on for a long time. On the same Sunday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the Western military alliance must strengthen for years of war.
It is an attempt to avoid the so-called war fatigue, already pointed out by politicians in several European countries, such as the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. On the field, the Russians continue their brutal offensive in Donbass (eastern Ukraine), while strengthening their positions on the land bridge linking this region already dominated by pro-Moscow separatists with Crimea, annexed in 2014.
The British case has particularities. In both world conflicts, its role in the European theater with expeditionary forces and at sea was central, but today its power is more limited — even if it is first among the secondary powers.
Sanders evidences this. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underlines our primary purpose of protecting the UK by being ready to fight and win wars on land,” he said. “There is now a burning imperative to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in combat. We are the generation that must prepare the army to fight in Europe once again.”
The government of Boris, the prime minister who came into office on the back of a break with the European Union, is in a moment of great fragility. He had already embarked on a militaristic adventure, expanding spending and finalizing no less than two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers, albeit under criticism over the ability to operate them.
London wants to prove itself a worthy ally of American pretensions, supporting Washington’s Cold War 2.0 against China. Hence the reinforcement of its traditional naval power and the military agreement with the USA and Australia.
In Europe, during the Ukrainian War, Boris signed with one of the most aggressive leaders of NATO, affiliated with the warmongering current led by the US and the countries of Eastern Europe, Poland ahead. The big central countries, Germany and France, always adopt greater caution, even for the economic interests in the relationship with Valdimir Putin.
Critics, however, see in London’s assertiveness its political weakness. Indeed, Boris is at the moment of greatest contestation of his government, having won a no-confidence motion that made explicit his loss of control in the Conservative Party.
Talking bluntly against the Russians while the Ukrainians are fighting is a low-cost tactic, therefore. It is also a way for the military to protect itself from civilian outbursts: if the leadership wants to be tough on Moscow, it is necessary to provide resources to do so, this is the message.
The UK, in nominal terms, held the world’s third largest defense budget in 2021, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London): $71.6 billion, just above India and Russia and behind China (US $207.3 billion) and the US ($754 billion). The war has already changed, however, all that reality.
Germans, for example, have tripled their spending (in 2021, seventh in the world, at $56.1 billion) this year alone. And the Russian and Chinese expenditure in dollars is concealed by the cost of producing weapons in the countries, which is lower. Applying this purchasing power parity criterion, Moscow’s spending in 2021 was the third largest in the world, at $178 billion.
