“You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way.”- Anthony Eden
Defence is an insurance policy against an uncertain future. No sane citizen would ever want their nation to go to war, but history suggests that the earlier military intervention is considered, the more likely deterrence is effective. Following the brutal horrors of WW1, Europe conducted a “Peace Ballot”, which concluded that Europe should never again go to war on the European continent; however, 5 years later the world was – once again – at war.
In 1938, with tensions mounting in Europe, the UK PM Neville Chamberlain famously signed the Munich Agreement which agreed territorial concessions to avoid the UK getting dragged into a war with Nazi Germany. Chamberlain famously declared the Agreement secured “peace in our time”, yet within the year the UK was at war with Germany. The Government’s efforts to appease Hitler (a diplomatic negotiation policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power) had failed, spectacularly.
In Western democracies the military serve their political masters. Senior military leaders have a lifetime of experience of military operations, and understand well the sacrifice, commitment and risks associated with ill-prepared military action. The challenge therefore is to ensure that political masters make informed decisions to ensure that the military is equipped, trained and ready to defeat our nation’s enemies.
However, the relationship between the military and government is complex. The Prussian theorist Carl von Clauswitz famously described the paradoxical trinity as a tension between the three fundamental elements of war: the Politicians (motivated by popularism), the People (who want protection) and the Army (make the ultimate sacrifice). In less stable governments, this tension sometimes manifests in military coups, where military leaders lose faith in their political masters and take matters into their own hands.
The UK might not experience military coups regularly (thank goodness!), but that does not mean that politicians and senior military leaders are always aligned and unified. The relationship has become more complex since the end of the Cold War, as the UK’s focus on wars of national survival was replaced by politically motivated wars of choice.
So, is the military voice in critical national defence issues suitably influential? Can the Chief of the Defence Staff influence defence Grand Strategy?
Although there is a public face of unity, military leaders are heavily censored by their political masters. However, the foundations of peace and security for the past 80 years are being challenged, and 2 clear challenges are emerging:
Ukraine
European leaders appear aligned with consistent promises of robust financial and military support for Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. However, after 3 years of war and with Russia in the ascendancy on the battlefield, is the current approach credible? Russia is winning – slowly, painfully and at massive loss, but winning nevertheless. The west’s support for Ukraine has helped it “stay in the fight” but not stopped Russia. With US support no longer guaranteed, what is Europe’s new political/military strategy?
President Trump clearly wants to stop the war, but the current strategy of appeasement is not working, and comparisons with Chamberlain abound. Nobody in the west wants a war with Russia, but students of history will see much greater long-term risk unless the west counters Russian aggression with force – credible, robust and committed force. A vulnerable Ukraine is a vulnerable Europe, yet the west has the military means to halt Russia’s grinding war of attrition very swiftly if it had the political resolve to do so. Russia is weakened militarily, but Putin’s consistent threatening rhetoric about escalation has scared the west into a strategy of appeasement rather than confrontation. The advice of the UK military chiefs might not be palatable, but Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine, and he must be stopped or risk far more significant strategic consequences.
Strategic Defence Review
Politically, the UK Government faces some difficult choices, with conflicting priorities for limited resources. However, the number 1 priority for any government is the protection of its people. Although the government is committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% GDP, the SDR process is designed to match the UK Government’s ambitions with defence resources. The UK armed forces are configured for wars of choice – the focus for the past 3 decades – and not for wars of national survival. Huge capability gaps abound that will take decades to address.
Worse still, our stockpiles of weapons have been depleted (in some cases significantly) which increases the risk that the UK is not sufficiently equipped to meet its defence obligations. And a central pillar of our national security – NATO – now appears to be beyond its sell-by date. Alliances will be crucial to the UK’s national security, as will a strategy of re-equipping, re-configuring, and building a credible military capability that deters potential adversaries.
All this comes at a cost. A significant cost.
Historically there are “few votes” in the defence arena, which traditionally results in political leaders focusing more on healthcare and the welfare state. However, the European security landscape has changed – profoundly – and the military chiefs must use their collective influence and experience to ensure that their political masters understand the gravity of the situation. Over the past few decades, the government of the day has steadily limited the opportunity for military leaders to speak freely about the developing threats to our national security. President Trump’s sweeping cull of the US senior military leadership further undermines the critical balance of Clauzwitz’s holy trinity, with inevitable consequences for military influence and preparedness.
Although Defence of the nation is the primary responsibility of government, wrestling with conflicting priorities is a significant challenge. The military is subservient to the government of the day, but its leaders have unrivalled experience and expertise in the art of warfighting and have a legal and moral obligation to protect and equip the armed forces to meet the challenges presented.
The government commissioned a SDR when it came into power to look at the threats facing the UK and the force structure required to ensure national security. However, since that time the global security environment has changed. The US decision to focus on the Indo-Pacific and leave the Europeans to “deal with Russia” has profound implications for European security, and for NATO.
This challenge will not be met by the usual SDR diet of efficiencies and reform. This is a once-in-a-generation shift in the global security environment, which requires a fundamental review of the structure, equipment and roles of the nation’s warfighting capability.
This requires experts in military grand strategy, industrial enterprise and political grand statesmanship to confront harsh realities. The resulting medicine might be unpalatable, but perhaps the only way to address 35 years of military demise and the huge capability gaps that currently risk leaving our nation increasingly ill-prepared and vulnerable.
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.” – Sun Tzu
If you enjoyed this piece, click here to read Sean’s previous episode on the military challenges facing the UK and listen to Sean’s podcast series ‘InDefence’ here on Spotify.
