by Henry Hill
Wednesday, 30
March 2022
Spotted
10:30

Why is the UK shrinking its army in response to Ukraine?

Ministers are invoking dubious analysis to justify cutbacks
by Henry Hill
Credit: Getty

It’s always handy when global developments happen to vindicate the exact policy you were embarking upon before they occurred. But such claimed connections are seldom true.

The war in Ukraine has upended strategic thinking in Europe. Countries such as Germany are planning to ramp up defence spending and are reconsidering policies, such as shuttering nuclear power stations, which would have left them even more dependent on Russia.

Unfortunately, these shockwaves seem to have petered out somewhere over the English Channel. Instead of reconsidering the UK’s military posture, the Government is instead trying to insist that the situation in Ukraine vindicates its latest round of planned defence cuts.

Speaking in Parliament this week, James Heappey, the Armed Forces Minister, argued:

“Hide to survive” is the tag coming out of many war games and from what we are seeing in real life in Ukraine. The vision is for a more agile, more lethal infantry that is able to disperse and bring effect on to the enemy […] small bands of determined people with the right missile technology are far more lethal than any opposing armoured force might prove to be.
- James Heappey, Hansard

Although we should be very careful about drawing firm conclusions from the footage coming out of Ukraine, the state of the information war being what it is, it does seem to be the case that the Ukrainians are making good use of small, well-equipped infantry units.

But Heappey’s position is, on a broader level, nonsensical. The key to success has not just been possessing such formations, but having enough of those formations. According to the Institute for Strategic Studies, Kyiv has over 125,000 ground troops. For comparison, the current Integrated Review plans to slash the strength of the British Army’s infantry section to 19,400 soldiers, backed by inadequate armour.

It might be the case that, soldier for soldier, such a force could handily outfight the Russians. That no longer seems as high a bar as it did a couple of months ago. But it could not fight them in several places at once. The logic of such small numbers is the expectation that British forces will operate largely as auxiliaries for an allied — which means American — war effort.

This attitude reflects another long-running vice in British defence thinking. Heappey says that:

I would choose to have a land force that has been modernised and made relevant to the modern battle again, rather than necessarily standing behind larger numbers.
- James Heappey, Hansard

Time and again, the UK has insisted on top-of-the-range kit (of the sort the Americans get), but without the budget to sustain numbers. That means every new generation of ships et al is smaller than the last one. Each ship can indeed do a lot more than its predecessors, but the overall fleet can be in fewer places at once.

Heappey’s thinking suggests the same logic afflicts the Army. Ministers should stop pretending that a defence approach focused on getting costs down is going to deliver a stronger and more effective Armed Forces.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 months ago

Why? Because those clever little gels and cheps at the Treasury have decided that the UK can’t afford the premium for even a 3rd party fire and theft policy against an uncertain future, so have told the politicians to find a reason not to pay one. They’ve never been wrong, or at least, never been called up to fight when they have been wrong (every time), so that’s all right.

Rupert Carnegie
Rupert Carnegie
3 months ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

It was ever thus
1) It was not until March 1939 that the Treasury would let the Army order anti-tank guns since it felt that the Army should never fight European armies and Britain should rely on the RAF. A year later there was an agreed requirement for over 10,000 anti-tank guns but only a 100 a month being produced.
2) From the 1950s until the first Gulf War HMT argued consistently that since the Army should never deploy tanks outside Europe there was no need to make sure they could operate in Middle Eastern temperatures. This despite the supply of oil from the Middle East being the known Achilles heel of western strategy.
and so on. I fear there is such a cultural gap between the two organisations that the Army will always suffer disproportionate cuts compared to the Navy and RAF in peacetime and then have to be expanded too hastily in emergencies.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago

Was it not the late A.J.P. Taylor who said the “definition of a Great Power is one that can fight a Great War”?
Well, we haven’t been able to do so since 1916, so we must expect the Army to shrink accordingly.
However the recent deployment of ‘wimmin’ in the Front Line may just improve its current lamentable combat effectiveness.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
3 months ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

What’s wrong with women on the front line? The YPJ for the Kurds are very effective front line soldiers

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Ask the Israelis and the US Marines, and also use your imagination!
If I was to spell it out on UnHerd I would be ‘cancelled’.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
3 months ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

Israel has women serving on the front line, and has mandatory national service for females. The main reason for women not joining regiments such as the SAS is to prevent romantic relationships forming

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Less than 4% of Israeli women in the combat arms. Virtually none in the infantry.
May I ask, have you ever been an Infantry Officer and served in an active service theatre?
Finally look at women in HM Submarines, an absolute disgrace, amusingly described as “Up Periscope “!

For bedtime thought just think of how they actually urinate and defecate whilst on a fighting patrol, and how the rest of the patrol are likely to act. Plus never forget the 28 day curse, “nature does nothing without a purpose “. *

(* Aristotle.)

Last edited 3 months ago by ARNAUD ALMARIC
Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

No, there are no women in the SAS because they haven’t a hope in hell of passing selection.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
3 months ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

Most wouldn’t I agree, but that isn’t the reason they’re barred from trying

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Little more than indisciplined terrorists.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
3 months ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

You for some reason miss the Second World War. France actually provided many more troops than Great Britain in the First.

During the 1944 Normandy landings, the US landed 73,000 troops Britain and Canada 83,000. Elsewhere it states 14,000 Canadians, in other words there were almost as many British as American.

However the broader point is that given the pretentions of Britain to still be at least a middle ranking power, there is far too small an Army and Navy.

Last edited 3 months ago by Andrew Fisher
ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Britain’s entire effort in WW II was paid for by the USA. We were a bankrupt, belligerent, supplicant, suffering from a severe case of self-delusion.

By 1916 we had a many men
in the field as the French.

R S Foster
R S Foster
3 months ago

…we have a moat, so we need first and foremost to be a sea and air power…and we are definitely moving in the right direction in both those areas. On the ground, we need limited numbers of highly effective land troops for expeditionary warfare, and to stiffen and support…and indeed train and equip…our allies….
…but we can, and should, leave tank war on the Central Front to Germany…who finally seem to have woken up and smelt the coffee.
This is the basis on which we won the “first” world war between 1757/63…and the “second” between 1792/1815…and created the largest Empire the world has ever seen. In our history, the events of the last hundred years from the BEF to the BAOR are an aberration.
Our route was to maintain “Command of the Ocean” …which we have clearly ceded to the USA…but where we can still do a great deal more to our own benefit and that of our allies than practically anyone else but them.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  R S Foster

Your forgot to mention that much of our victory in both WWI 1756-3 (5) and WWII 1792-1815 was due to our payment of simply enormous subsidies to our European ‘Allies’ to do the ground battle and serious killing in Europe.

We tried this again in 1914-16, but sadly ran out of cash, and the game was up!

R S Foster
R S Foster
3 months ago
Reply to  ARNAUD ALMARIC

…quite right…and indeed in the current situation we are again subsidizing the ones doing the fighting, which is exactly what I would advocate. But we need the Command of the Ocean (including the skies over it) to get the money and the kit there…and enough highly trained soldiers to explain it’s use and help out in areas where our professionalism and long experience are useful. But not enough to be tempted to recreate the BAOR…

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 months ago
Reply to  R S Foster

3000 people crossed that ‘moat’ illegally in rubber dinghies in the last month. We might need a bigger boat…

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

H.M.S. Hood perhaps?

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

The SBS for example?

David Harris
David Harris
3 months ago
Reply to  GA Woolley

Er, we might need a bigger moat.

David McDowell
David McDowell
3 months ago

The short answer is so that we can spend more on ‘our precious NHS’. Clearly defence spending needs to increase to 3% of GNP to provide adequate defences against advanced weapons and cyber-war, never mind manpower, but that’s not going to happen.

Last edited 3 months ago by David McDowell
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
3 months ago

Crap kit is just part of a long British Army history…

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
3 months ago

Like the dreaded SA 80.

GA Woolley
GA Woolley
3 months ago

Heappey’s position on every level is nonsensical. Planning to fight the last war before it is the last war is progress of a sort, but it might be better to wait until it is the last war, and some analysis of why it went the way it did has been carried out so we know how to fight it. Still, so long as our next opponent doesn’t learn the lessons of better joint and combined arms operation, synchronising intelligence, infantry, armour, artillery, and logistical support, we’ll be alright. Numbers for engaging in 2 conflicts matter less than the ability to bring up reserves, replace casualties, and sustain longrunning operations with roulement. And, as one military analyst remarked, quantity has a quality all of its own. The French went the way of light mobile infantry units in their pre-WW1 doctrine of ‘attacque a l’outrance’. It didn’t turn too well at Verdun or in the trenches.

R Wright
R Wright
3 months ago

If we’re going to be U.S puppet our armed forces may as well look the part.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
3 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

A US ally, which is not the same thing, and in any case rather better than being a Nazi or Soviet puppet, which were two possible 20th century alternatives.

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
3 months ago

I cannot foresee an occasion on which Britain would go to war against another great power, in which it was not operating as part of a wider coalition. Given this, I think it’s reasonable that British armed forces are tailored to provide the capabilities our allies may lack, just as they will supply those aspects the British military is weaker in. We should not be looking to build a redundant ground force when this could be better provided by our allies.

David McDowell
David McDowell
3 months ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Neither can I but our collective strength and willingness to fight must be an effective deterrent. At present neither our strength nor the willingness amongst some of our so-called allies exist.

Andrew Masterman
Andrew Masterman
3 months ago

Arguably our response to Ukraine demonstrates why it makes sense to reduce Army numbers. Post Afghanistan/Iraq, we’re not willing to commit British soldiers to high intensity combat (or even counterinsurgency warfare) for fear of casualties mother than in the direct defence of the UK. As an island, any existential threat to the UK must come by air, sea or cyber and so these are the areas in which to invest for our defence. We need to meet our NATO commitments but should do so in those environments. The land threat should be countered by our continental allies with territory to defend and who can forward mount defensive formations indefinitely. We don’t need a new BAOR – we just need Germany to provide properly for its own defence.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
3 months ago

The Channel and the Navy are not enough, especially if a hegemonic power were to gain air superiority, as the Germans might well have done in 1940.

It is erroneous to think that that Britain rarely fought wars on the Continent. It did so often, albeit in alliance with other powers and also subsidising them. Marlborough and Wellington are obvious examples.

I’m all for making the best use of military resources, but it seems rather cowardly as well as foolish to leave the Germans to do it, especially given their recent pacifist record.

Justin Clark
Justin Clark
3 months ago

and having a nuclear capability certainly makes us feel harder than others, right?