By Nicholas Drummond
Vladimir Putin has sparked Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War 2. This week the number of Russian soldiers killed or seriously wounded reached a new daily high of 1,700. According to US estimates, Russia has now lost 700,000 casualties while Ukraine has sustained 120,000.
Russia’s president claims his actions are a justifiable response to NATO expansion. But Poland, Hungary and Czechia, who joined in 1999, only did so to align themselves politically and economically with Europe, not to threaten Russia. In fact, Putin’s own willingness to use military force inside the Russian Federation is what has most encouraged former Soviet satellites to join NATO. His brutal suppression of separatists in Chechnya led to Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia joining in 2004.
Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, followed by his 2014 annexation of Crimea have exposed him as an old school dictator. His goal is to recreate the former Soviet Union and restore Russia’s status as a global superpower, despite it having an economy smaller than Italy’s. And now Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has led Sweden and Finland to join NATO.
To make matters worse, Putin has used nuclear blackmail to discourage Western support for Ukraine. In October 2022, his overwhelming frustration at the lack of Russian progress, and his fury with the West for supplying aid, led the White House to believe that Putin was about to use tactical nuclear weapons. Luckily it did not happen.
The ongoing provision of military aid to Ukraine means that the threat of nuclear weapons being used has not receded. The West’s tacit strategy seems to be to provide support, but not enough to trigger unintended escalation. This means we have been unable to contribute what Ukraine needs to achieve a decisive effect that forces a Russian withdrawal.
After more than 1,000 days of fighting, the war has become an attritional stalemate. It has been costly for Russia both militarily and economically. In addition to human casualties, its army has lost thousands of tanks, armoured vehicles, and artillery pieces. Failure to achieve his goals has weakened Putin at home and in the eyes of his allies. Despite oil revenues from China, the question is how long can the Russian economy withstand the strain placed upon it? When Putin runs out of soldiers, equipment and money, the only thing left will be his nuclear arsenal.
Donald Trump declared during the run-up to the US election that he could end the conflict in 24 hours. In reality, Putin will only accept a peace deal that ends the war on his terms. Similarly, Zelensky is unlikely to agree to anything that surrenders a single inch of Ukrainian soil. It also needs to be stated that any deal allowing Putin to declare victory would be appeasement. It might lead to peace in the short-term, but it would strengthen him at home and in the eyes of China, North Korea, and Iran. It would give him the breathing space he desperately needs to rebuild his shattered economy and army. He would likely call upon China and North Korea to help him. Their massive military inventories could potentially help Putin regenerate and re-equip his armed forces in less than five years. However long it takes, a re-constituted Russia would be more lethal, bolder, and less easy to deter. Most important, allowing Putin to get away with unprovoked aggression would send a terrible message to China. It might feel empowered to seize Taiwan.
Even if Putin was content to halt his army where it is now and allow a buffer zone to be established between Russia and Ukraine, he would still be active elsewhere. He wants payback for the support the West has provided to his enemy. So we can expect Russian proxies to cause mischief in Africa and the Middle East. Putin will sponsor Grey Zone operations in Europe, including sabotage, disinformation, hacking, and he will interfere in our democratic processes.
We must hope that Trump understands and accepts the risks posed by Russia and China, and how any response he might make could make a wider conflict more rather than less probable. Should Trump terminate US military support for Ukraine, European nations would need to shoulder this responsibility or let Ukraine fall into Russian hands. Whatever happens, Europe will need to spend more to defend itself. During his previous administration, Trump stated that members of NATO needed to achieve a target defence budget of at least 2% of GDP. This was before Russia invaded Ukraine. Recent events will only increase American pressure on Europe to ramp-up spending beyond this level.
Worse still Trump could decide to reduce the USA’s commitment in Europe to focus on China. In this scenario, even spending 4% of GDP on defence might not be enough. Ultimately, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has created the most dangerous, volatile and unpredictable geopolitical environment since WW2.
If we want to deter Russia, then we need to get serious about defence. We don’t need to give the three armed services a blank cheque. We merely need to fill the most glaring holes. While the Royal Navy needs more frigates, the British Army more heavy tracked armour, and the Royal Air Force more combat aircraft, the elephant in the room is the need for more personnel. Ideally, the Navy needs 50,000 sailors, the Army needs 100,000 soldiers, and the Air Force needs 50,000 air and ground crew. Even if we decided to increase the headcount cap tomorrow, it would take several years to reach anything like these personnel levels.
We can look at our armed forces in terms size, structure, composition, and key capabilities, but what really gives each service teeth is the industrial base behind it. We need to re-shore the production of many systems we have long since outsourced. We need to re-build stockpiles of munitions and critical materiel. We need to boost national resilience, remembering that we are an island nation that depends on vital supplies reaching us by sea.
The UK’s budgetary response to the dangers we face has barely offset the impact of post-Covid-19 and post-Brexit inflation on defence. So far, nothing has been done to expand our military capabilities. Time is running out. Our parents considered themselves part of the post-war generation, but if we don’t start to take Russia seriously, our children will be part of a pre-war generation.

I can sense that the UK, in its bones, just doesn’t think Russia will test NATO directly when it is bogged down in Ukraine. To me this explains why we are not rearming with any urgency. But how long do we have? Maybe Ukraine could hold out for another 3-5 years. Hard to see the holes in UK defence fixed within that timeframe at the current pace. First on the big spending list must be UK GBAD, no sign of a theatre standard capability. Second on the list is munitions of all classes, hard to tell given we don’t know what’s in the locker and how much is earmarked for Ukraine. Third is facing down the Russian northern fleet and long range aviation command, and the ships and subs to do it year round are years away. Combat air is stuck in a quandary: build mass with existing platforms or save the UK aerospace industry and honour its international agreement for Tempest. Meanwhile we cling to the notion that we must generate and sustain a divisional ground committment, and lead a corps, oh and the RM will reinforce Norway. The cuts this week are the first sign that maybe whole capabilities will go to fix these quandaries. A lot more will need to go to create the financial headroom required to meet the threat.
LikeLike
Although I would echo his calls to rearm,I think that on the whole sadly this is all wishful thinking.
We have become a “non” country lacking in any clear identity reflected by a policy vacuum. Our current government are openly questioning who our friends or allies should be.Along with this confusion (partly as a result of liberalism and demographics) , goes economic and social confusion.Are we a marxist nation?Do Britons want to be a leading power,or a rule taker?Perhaps China and Russia will be benevolent enough to us if they think we do not really exist as a cohesive nation.If our military is so chaotic and defanged as not to be a threat.But above all, if they see that no consensus exists to use a military,then why have one at all?If we have no clear national ideology,if we are lost in a world of ultra liberal confusion,a world in which moral relativity thrives, a world in which we lack any clear identity,then surely we have no enemies or allies ?This actually is Starmer and Lammies stated policy.Hence the Chagos present/message to China,we are withdrawing from the ideological augument.We will be happy to exist as a small nation in the sliver of space between America and Authoritaianism,Russia and China.Starmer does not want a military.
Perhaps the great powers will not worry about “little Britain”.Personally I think that this is the Labour governments form of real politic,pragmatic realism or whatever you want to call it.Labour gravitates to becoming an authoritarian nanny state central government, promoting their ill defined social values in the name of “all” over the rights and freedoms of the individual.Any value goes ,so long as the individual is crushed.Just look at the changes in our language.”Our NHS”,”our Farmers”..add nauseum. Is this a bad thing? “Our” apathetic population is easily led in any direction,the politicians have increasingly realised that the majority want nothing more than to be allowed to hide in mediocrity.Britons do not want the costs and responcibilities of leadership.Like ostriches they want to hide,not just from the bogie man but from their own history.Like the unsucessful children of hugely sucessful parents , they want nothing more but to forget the failures of their own stewardship of a dying civilization.Britain will increasingly become smaller in both stature and ambition.The labour doctrine and policy seems to be that if we have nothing that others do not already have then they will leave us alone.That is the Labour government policy.
Needless to say America will never be this, the defining glue that binds America is the dream,a dream empowered by hope and the chance of huge success and also huge failure but at least an environment in which the individual can try.A libertarian nation at its core,instictively Americans know this…hence Trump.America is bound together by a shared belief in the right of the individual to to dream and do, and that is why America is a threat ,it allows the space necessary for paradign shifts in the economic world we live in.Authoritarians hate change not controlled by them.As do the entrenched industrialists supporting the democrats.America represents unfettered change,good or bad..(bad usually fails).People like Starmer,Putin and Li Jin Ping hate this , they are anti history,anti revolutionary,anti Darwinism, anti change and a result above all, hate the worlds biggest driver of unmitigated ,undirected change.America.
So Nicolas I think you and I should probably move to the States?If however if there is a solution to our drift into outright mediocrity please get in touch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crimea is not part of Russia as your map suggest. It belongs to Ukraine and should be yellow.
LikeLike