In February 2015, I wrote a piece for the Sunday Telegraph, arguing that” Nato powers must give the Ukrainians the capabilities they most require in order to defend themselves against the military superiority of the pro-Russian separatists and their Kremlin allies.”
At the time, it was regarded as unnecessarily provocative and hostile. In the same article. I said that “Western nations are too afraid to reallocate funds from their welfare-addicted domestic populations to their national security budgets, and Russia knows it. This cannot continue”.
Yet, here we are, more than a decade later, having to make the same political arguments, except that, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have paid the price for Putin’s brutal and bloody ambitions.
Two weeks ago, Keir Starmer’s Government announced its defence review. The contents of the review were laudable, having been overseen by the experienced and dependable Labour veteran, Lord Robertson.
The problem, however, was one that has faced so many defence reviews and defence secretaries in recent decades, namely that it was not underwritten by the Treasury. In other words, the defence review was merely a wish list which may or may not be fulfilled in the future.
Rather than giving a full commitment to fund what the government itself believes is necessary for our national security, the Prime Minister merely stated that it was the government’s “ambition” to do so in a reasonable timescale.
It's time to break out of the straitjacket. The drums of war are beating louder than ever before — Liam FoxIt is time for Western politicians, including here in Britain, to break out of the straitjacket of domestic politics and spending constraints and fulfil their primary duty to our country, and that is to recognise that the primary role of any government is the defence and safety of its people.
We can begin by accepting that the peace dividend that came with the end of the Cold War is now a historical relic. It will be many decades, if ever, before we can see our defence spending drop to the levels that we have taken for granted since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Politicians need to both understand and explain to the electorate that defence is not a discretionary spend but needs to be at a level proportionate to the risks we face in the world.
With Russia openly aggressive in Europe, with Iran threatening its own region and beyond and with China increasingly assertive in the South China Sea and in the cyber world, we need to ensure that our budgets provide us with the necessary programmes to update and expand our defences while at the same time re-establishing our credibility in deterrence.
Deterrence requires us to persuade any potential aggressor that we not only possess the necessary military capabilities but also have the political will to use them if required.
Sadly, the situation in Ukraine is a classic example of the failure of deterrence. While we must never miss the opportunity to remind the world that the war in Ukraine is primarily a result of Russian aggression, we must also be willing to admit that it represents the failure of the free world to adequately check the ambitions of Putin, which have been all too clear for decades.
The sanctions regime that was introduced in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea should have been introduced after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. Too little, too late meant that Putin drew the conclusion that he would be able to make further incursions without serious Western measures being implemented.
Wishful thinking is a reckless basis for foreign or security policy. Defence contracts, which can take years to bring to fruition, need to be funded with real money from the Treasury.
Russia, Iran or China will not be deterred by the Prime Minister’s “ambition” to give Britain adequate defence at some, undefined, point in the future.
Governments are elected to do what is necessary, not what is popular. That begins with ensuring that our country and our people are properly protected from external threats. History will be a brutal judge if they fail in that duty.
Most Read
