As the Ukrainians give a masterclass in modern war, our Government rehashes old plans

Telegraph

4 days ago

On Sunday one of the most successful attacks so far on Russia by Ukraine took place. Thousands of miles from the front line a trucks pulled up for what the drivers believed were innocent rendezvous with customers. Not long after the trucks stopped the roofs of the trailers slid open and swarms of small drones took off to attack nearby Russian strategic bomber bases.
Within minutes these little drones, that cost no more than a few hundred dollars each, had obliterated $7bn dollars worth of aircraft. Five bases were hit, one of them over 6,000 miles away from Kyiv. By the end of the day 30 per cent of Russia's strategic bomber fleet was destroyed. These same aircraft had until recently been bombing civilian areas in Ukraine from safely out of reach of the Ukrainian military – or so Russia thought.
These bombers – mostly Russian Tu-95 Bears and Tu-22 Backfires – are also a key part of Russia's nuclear strike force. We should rejoice that these aircraft were hit. We should salute the bravery and ingenuity of Ukraine's SBU – its secret service. I'd bet that the whole operation was done without foreign (including US) assistance. It didn't use western equipment: no Himars, Storm Shadow or ATACMS. It was arguably one of the most important and successful strikes of the war. No country can suffer such a strategic loss and not be knocked backwards. I learnt long before the war never to underestimate the Ukrainians. The Russians didn't learn and they are rightly paying for it.
It is ironic that on the same day as this innovative strike the Labour Government was trumpeting (well actually re-announcing to be honest) billions of pounds of submarines to be delivered in the 2040-2050s. The threat is the here and now. The next decade will be the most challenging of our generation. Now is the time to re-arm. But that isn't going to happen under Rachel Reeves.
Yesterday's Strategic Defence Review was only part one of a three-part plan by this Government to modernise defence. We have waited nearly a year for what was originally billed as a big reset, designed to re-establish Labour's defence credentials after the disaster that was Jeremy Corbyn. It was also supposed to answer Nato and US demands for the UK to up our game on securing Europe. And it was supposed to embrace further the lessons of Ukraine.
But despite numerous statements from Keir Starmer and John Healey that we are in a very dangerous world and we need to face down the threat, the Secretary of State failed to get the money he needed from the Treasury. And it shows. Spin has replaced substance. In a sad attempt to paper over the fact he didn't get what he asked for John Healey and his team have had to resort to re-announcing programmes and capabilities put in place by the last Conservative Government.
I had to pinch myself as announcement after announcement simply rehashed what was already being done. The Complex weapons announcement, cyber, the nuclear warhead program, integrated targeting – all were part of the last defence review refresh. And in some desperate effort to try and persuade the US that we really are serious the Prime Minister confirmed that the UK would build four more submarines than already planned – in the late 2040s! Even Putin will be dead by then. It's hardly a message destined to strike fear into anyone's heart.
From the start this review has had a huge flaw. I am sure Labour thought it was a clever wheeze to outsource it to two respected but out of date individuals but it alienated the serving Chiefs of the armed forces and robbed the review of the most up to date knowledge of the new way of warfare.
At times the review seemed to be a battle between the retired and the serving. If you haven't been involved in Ukraine, you simply cannot grasp the depth of the threat and reforms required. Add to that constant interfering by the Treasury and you get a review that is devoid of answers or even money to fund the here and now. Take for example the 'Nato first pledge' – it sounds good but we have tumbled to 9 th in the Nato funding tables.
As many of us suspected this review was all about buying time for Rachel Reeves and still Labour are stalling on the decisions needed. The review itself has some good things in it – but it also lacks detail whenever a spending commitment is made, with an obvious example being UK air defence. If at the outset of this review the team had been given a proper year-by-year spending profile climbing to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 then it would have, I am sure, been more specific and more bold.
In the end we can all argue over defence equipment. Are tanks are better than drones? Are aircraft carriers necessary in today's world? Each Secretary of State will have their own priorities informed by the serving personnel of the day. But in the end the only thing that matters to the men and women of the Armed forces is whether the Secretary of State fought their corner and got the funds to protect them and equip them, and that whatever ambition the Government has for defence it is properly funded, not hollow.
Sadly, despite the spin it didn't happen. Maybe Donald Trump will do John Healey's job for him at the Nato summit this month and insist on 3 per cent by 2030. Trump to the rescue? Not something you usually hear from me!