How ready would the UK be for any war with Russia?

Yahoo

04-03-2025

Donald Trump decision to pause the delivery of all military aid to war-torn Ukraine sent shockwaves through Kyiv and the rest of Europe.
The US, which is ripping up the history books in its increasing alignment with Russia, made the decision following a fiery meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump and JD Vance last Friday.
It brought an abrupt and premature end to supposed talks between the two, with the president and vice president's treatment of the Ukrainian leader also sparking international condemnation across Europe.
Trump has repeatedly stated he wants Europe to take on greater responsibility for its own security - and that of Ukraine's following any successful peace negotiations - and not rely solely on the US. As a result, UK recently increased its defence spending to 2.5% of the GDP, extricating the funds from the international aid budget.
Starmer said by doing so, the UK would "meet the challenges of our volatile world", and that without Ukraine being properly protected from Putin, "Europe will only become more unstable".
When Trump met Starmer just last week, he asked whether the UK would be in a position to single-handedly take on Russia. While the question was met with confusion, the UK increasing its involvement in the Ukraine-Russian war is far from off the table.
We spoke to experts about their thoughts on the conflict, the UK's position, and the potential repercussions if it takes any further action.
To understand the UK's current military position, its worth taking stock of its defence spending over the last few decades.
The UK's defence budget was reduced in the early 1990s due to the policy of peace dividend following the end of the Cold War.
The peace dividend meant that many Western nations - like the UK and the US - reduced military spending, redirecting those resources to civilian purposes, such as education, healthcare and housing.
This changed in the early 2000s, when the UK significantly increased its military spend during the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war.
But after a period of decline from 2009-2015 due to the government's austerity policy, spending increased again following the Ukraine crisis.
In November 2020, the UK government committed to a significant increase in military spending, with an additional £16.5 billion allocated, mostly for investment in technology.
However, despite this cash injection — and the government's renewed commitment to funding — the UK is not in a position to enter a conflict, according to some.
"Logistically we are nowhere near able to commit to a long-term campaign anywhere," Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in International Security at the University of Portsmouth told Yahoo News.
"We don't have the manpower, we don't have the munitions and we don't have the production line in terms of defence assets to simply be able to conduct a long-term campaign on our own," Townley added.
Nicholas Drummond, a former UK soldier and defence industry analyst, echoes this view, detailing the picture on the ground.
"In theory, the UK has two land divisions, with six brigades. A division is 25,000 people, and a brigade is 4,000 or 5,000," he told Yahoo News. "In theory, we have six brigades, but in practice, only two of those are actually deployable at the moment. That's not an armoured brigade, that's an Air Assault Brigade, and a Light Mechanised Brigade."
In addition, Drummond said the UK would be reluctant to even send the brigades that are fighting fit "because they don't have the heavy armour".
"You definitely need heavy armour with the artillery threat that you have in Ukraine," he explained, noting that it is a slow turnaround to produce the right specialist equipment.
"Added to that, factoring in the lead times for producing new military equipment... you're looking at a minimum of 36 months to start delivering stuff ordered today", he added.
Even if the UK's military intervention in the conflict was limited to installing troops in Ukraine for peacekeeping purposes, Townley warns that it could be seen as an act of aggression by Russia.
While peacekeeping troops can get involved in combat, it is not their primary role, and would only be used to protect civilians, defend a mandate, or as a form self-defence.
"Ultimately, we are a long way from being able to act independently and without any support from either our cousins across the sea or our colleagues in Europe," Townley said.
"Russia, as always, has already said it doesn't want any peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. If we did it as part of a Nato force, Russia wants nothing to do with that."
Russia is also able to veto any UN efforts to put any peacekeeping troops into Ukraine.
"If we were to do it on our own or with one or two international partners, one would have to make sure that Russia is fully supportive of this," Townley added.
Stationing peacekeeping troops is also a continuous effort, and comes with an additional set of problems.
"The UK would have to reinforce those troops according to need, and also commit to a longer conflict than we're willing to get involved in," Townley said.
Of course, the government would also need to take public opinion into account.
"I think there's a great deal of enthusiasm for us to support Ukraine and to make sure that Ukraine remains its independence from Russia, but my feeling is there is not the enthusiasm for us to put boots on the ground in a major long-term conflict," Townley added.
A YouGov poll from October last year showed a split view on whether the UK should send troops to Ukraine.
Though a more recent survey from last week indicated, for now at least, a greater appetite among the British public.
Separate to placing boots on the ground in a foreign land, it's acknowledged that the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are not what they at the conclusion of the Cold War 35 years ago.
"We don't have the refuelling assets to be able to conduct long-term independent operations overseas, so we would have to be based somewhere close by," Townley said.
"Our Navy has shrunk dramatically since the Falklands conflict, when it was the last real major show of British naval power."
Townley believes that the government needs to "invest considerably" in its Armed Forces, at "every level".
"We also need to improve not only recruitment into the Armed Forces, which is extremely hit-and-miss at the moment, but to also improve retention. As much as the Armed Forces are failing to hit their recruitment targets, they're also losing people hand over fist because the infrastructure.
"In particular, and the working conditions and the culture within the Armed Forces is in need of some serious modernisation and investment," he added.
Drummond has also urged the government to look at its defence spending — even with its renewed 2.5% GDP commitment.
"We let our conventional defence weaken to such a degree, that now nuclear weapons risk being our only result to aggression," he said. "We urgently need to spend money on the army, we need to open the taps. We are in a very, very difficult position."