Ministry Of Defence
In my annual lecture last December, I spoke of an extraordinarily dangerous security outlook, and the opening weeks of 2024 have sadly served to reinforce that view.
This is also a year of big elections: in the US, the UK, the EU and elsewhere. And its very welcome that matters of defence and security are subject to public scrutiny and debate.
There is certainly a strategic shift underway. As highlighted in both the Integrated Reviews in 2021 and 2023, a traditional era of state-on-state competition and geopolitical volatility has resurfaced.
That has already warranted careful re-consideration of many of the assumptions of the past thirty years. And we have been honest in acknowledging that whilst the themes and direction are as expected, the pace and intensity is greater than forecast. We have a war in Europe that shows no signs of abating in the short term. And we have a war in the Middle East with attendant risks to implode across the region and impact on the globe.
But I worry that the public debate that has played out over recent weeks risks becoming confused and some remarks are alarmist.
The starting point for any discussion must be an intellectually honest assessment of the threats our country faces and our options to respond.
This needs to be done in a way that is measured and responsible.
This speech is my attempt to inject a sense of perspective back into this debate both on the nature of the threats we face, and the fundamentals of Britains strength and security in the world.
I want to do that by offering four viewpoints as Head of the Armed Forces.
First, to reassure those who may have been alarmed by some of the recent commentary - Britain is secure. And to remind people of the extraordinary security we have through both our being in NATO and our being a nuclear power.
Secondly, some reflections and observations about Russia. How it has struggled in Ukraine. How we have been surprised at its military weakness. The predicament that it now has and how that has worsened by a strengthened NATO.
Third, what the UK is doing to buttress against these longer-term threats and how we are focusing on a strategy that emphasises nuclear, maritime and air, and a British Army that is rooted in NATO. And all this is underscored with extraordinary men and women who serve in uniform, supported by phenomenal intelligence agencies, and great civil servants.
Fourth, is just to be plain about the responsibility of the Chiefs and to reflect on how government works. My obligation as CDS, and the obligation of all the Chiefs, is to focus on delivering the most from the Armed Forces today. We can always do better and we advise ministers on what more might be needed for the future. But it is for politicians to decide how much resource is allocated and where and how this is balanced with wider demands of government. Those are sensitive conversations. They are best done in private.
First, let me scotch some of the more sensationalist headlines of late.
We are not on the cusp of war with Russia.
We are not about to be invaded.
No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term.
Britain is safe.
We are safe because we are part of NATO, the worlds largest and strongest alliance and also because we are a responsible nuclear power.
That doesnt mean that we couldnt face attacks. We already do every day in the cyber domain. We could have random attacks in space, on underwater cables, and attempted violations of our air and maritime sovereignty. The most likely protagonist is Russia. We have been clear about that.
But the dilemma for Russia is huge.
The inescapable fact is that any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.
The thousands of Allied troops currently stationed in Poland and the Baltic states could draw on the 3.5 million uniformed personnel across the Alliance for reinforcement.
NATOs combat air forces which outnumber Russias 3 to 1 would quickly establish air superiority.
NATOs maritime forces would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic, just as Ukraine pushed the Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.
Britain would be at the heart of this response, contributing 25% of Alliance strength at sea, and 10% of land and air, plus our cyber and space capabilities, and our Special Forces.
This is an Alliance that is becoming stronger all the time. Growing from 30 to 32 nations. With a collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia. And a total defence budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia and China combined.
Plus NATO has the additional strategic depth of a population of over 1 billion. And sitting above all of this is NATO as a nuclear alliance.
The biggest reason that Putin doesnt want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.
Secondly, can we take some time to pause and reflect on Russias so-called Special Military Operation in Ukraine? It was supposed to take between 3 days and 3 weeks. It was supposed to subjugate Ukraines population. It was supposed to take about two thirds of Ukraines territory. It was supposed to stop Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.
Putin has failed in all of these strategic objectives. At the operational level, Russia has demonstrated its continued inability to fight in a joint way. Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air. Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy and Ukraines maritime trade is reaching back to pre-war levels. Russias Army has lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.
At the tactical level, Russia gained Bahkmut an area just over 40 square kilometres - after 9 months of fighting. Avdiivka is about 29 square kilometres. That has taken 5 months and some 17 thousand Russian lives and over 30 thousand injured.
To pose a realistic threat to NATOs Eastern flank within the next 2-5 years, Russia will need to reconstitute her tanks and armoured vehicles, rebuild her stocks of long-range missiles and artillery munitions and extract itself from a protracted and difficult war in Ukraine.
I am not saying that Russia is not dangerous. It has demonstrated that with the aggression it employs both domestically and internationally.
But at the same time it is also significantly less capable than we anticipated following its disastrous illegal invasion into Ukraine. And it faces an even stronger straitjacket with the introduction of Finland and Sweden into NATO. Both theses are true and can exist at the same time: a Russia that is more dangerous and less capable than we thought. And it is the more dangerous Russia that we and NATO are responding to.
Consequently, my third point is that recent talk of a Britain that is undefended, and an Armed Forces chronically imperilled, is way off the mark.
Look at all we have contributed over the past two-and-a-half years. Strengthening our commitment to NATO. Bolstering the Baltic states. A presence in the Arctic circle. The campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. Leading and galvanising the response in Ukraine. The evacuation from Sudan. Reassuring Guyana. Protecting trade in the Red Sea. Combatting the Houthi threat. Time-and-again the British Armed Forces have stepped up to do our bit. And thats without even considering our domestic roles.
The Middle East is a case in point. We are the second largest coalition partner in Iraq. We have a base in Bahrain, where we provide mine hunters, a support ship and a frigate. Second again to America.
We are in the Combined Air Operations Centre in Qatar overseeing air operations across the whole region. Again, second only to America.
Then we can add in an extra frigate and destroyer in the region, our operations in the Red Sea are getting seriously up threat to protect our merchant ships.
Staying in the region, we have access to an enormous land training area in Oman twice the size of our one in Canada where we are training alongside our Omani friends and many others in the region, usually with a battalion at a time. Plus we have access to a port in Duqm that can take all our ships.
Venture further and we have more bases in Diego Garcia and Cyprus. In Cyprus we have extraordinary facilities, as well as a further two battalions and our fast jets and support aircraft.
And at sea we have Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships ready to provide humanitarian aid. This is an extraordinary lay down that no other nation other than America can match.
And our people are doing what they are trained to do. With equipment like the Type 45 destroyer that was designed for precisely this purpose. Defending Britains interests. Keeping the trade flowing and the lights on.
Our Typhoon force is in action once again. This follows ten years of operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria which has seen more than 10,000 sorties, 4,000 precision weapon releases, and 1,400 enemy combatants killed or wounded.
All of this is backed by a Defence Equipment and Support organisation that is overseeing 2,600 contracts, and over 550 programmes. Those deliver 98% of key user requirements, and it achieves 90% of strategic milestones and, contrary to perception, delivers well to budget.
Yes, we have issues and problems that we need to get after. We need deeper stockpiles of ammunition. We currently spend over a billion pounds a year on munitions procurement and repair, and