Trident, Vanguard and Successor: A Guide to the British Deterrent

As the date of the main gate decision on "Trident" edges ever closer the debate on the UK's nuclear deterrent has intensified. Heated arguments have flown back and forth between those who see renewal as necessary and those who disagree strongly with it on ethical, financial and practical grounds. While it's a positive sign that the debate has been conducted in the public sphere, to a much greater extent than most defence issues, there remains a great deal of misinformation and confusion surrounding the specifics and the terminology of "Trident" renewal. Unfortunately, while there are a few exceptions, the reporting of defence issues by the major public outlets is often patchy, biased and sometimes downright inaccurate. In this piece I hope to address the specifics of the system colloquially known as "Trident" and provide the facts (along with some context) on renewal, along with some of my own views on the key issues and misconceptions that surround the nuclear deterrent. Rather than engaging in the moral arguments surrounding nuclear weapons this piece is purely designed to address the technical issues, as well as some of the less than accurate public and media perceptions of the deterrent.

The Vanguard Class:

Britain's nuclear weapons are currently carried aboard the four submarines of the Vanguard class, operated by the Royal Navy. The entered service between 1993 and 1996 and are the largest submarines operated by the UK. At just under 16,000 tons submerged they're roughly twice the size of the Astute class nuclear powered attack boats and three times the size of the older Trafalgar class submarines. Each boat has a compliment of ~135 Officers and Ratings, but has twice that number assigned to it, forming two full ships companies referred to as the "port" and "starboard" crews. This ensures that the deterrent boat will never be prevented from sailing due to illness or injury amongst critical members of the team needed to run the boat, as there are always spares available. While one crew is deployed the other will either be on leave or in training. In order to provide "Continuous At Sea Deterrence" or CASD the four submarines rotate, with one armed and deployed in an undisclosed location, one in training and preparing to deploy, one undergoing short term repairs and one in deep refit. In this way there has always been one nuclear-armed British submarine at sea at all times since patrols began in April 1969. Following on from their predecessors the Vanguard class operate from HM Naval Base Clyde, sometimes referred to as Faslane.

The Vanguard Class are officially referred to as SSBNs (which stands for Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear) meaning that they are not only powered by a nuclear reactor but also carry nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. The class are powered by the Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, enabling the submarines to remain underwater for months on end, limited only by food supplies for the crew. Each Vanguard class submarine can carry up to sixteen Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. However, due to the UK's participation in multilateral arms reduction since the end of the Cold War they're now believed to routinely sail with only eight. The Vanguard class also carry conventional torpedoes for self-defence against other submarines and surface ships. Construction of the four Vanguard class submarines cost the UK around £15 billion, just over £1 billion a year spread over twelve years from the keel of the first boat being laid in 1986 to the completion of the fourth and final boat in 1998. Although the boats have an expected lifespan of twenty five years, a substantial life-extension programme will enable them to serve an additional ten to ensure a seamless transition from the Vanguard class to the "Successor" submarine class.

Key Issues and Misconceptions:

-Although the mainstay of Britain's nuclear deterrent has been provided by "Continuous At Sea Deterrence" for almost a half century now, some believe the operation of the four deterrent submarines imposes a serious burden on the Royal Navy. Of the roughly 4,000 Officers and Ratings of the submarine service around a quarter or more are likely assigned to the deterrent submarines. In addition a frigate, attack submarines and submarine hunting aircraft are needed to protect the deterrent boat as it enters and leaves the Royal Navy's base on the Clyde.

-Some commentators have described the CASD system as a leftover from the Cold War, unsuited to a world where Terrorism and cyber warfare will become the real threats in future. However, with an increasingly aggressive Russia modernising its own nuclear forces, others would suggest that the system still remains relevant to today's problems as well as providing insurance against unexpected future threats. While both arguments have some merit, it is interesting to note that all other nuclear powers either possess, are renewing or are pursuing a submarine-based deterrent. The broad perception abroad seems to be that submarine-launched ballistic missiles are both relevant and a credible means of deterrence.

-While it has been claimed that the boats might be vulnerable to some form of cyber attack it is doubtful that this is actually the case. The deterrent submarines operate a closed computer system, so any would-be attacker would have to actually get on-board and introduce such a computer virus manually. The development of software that could attack the submarine's vital systems would also require in-depth knowledge of the system in the first place, something that a hostile state or terrorist group would find all but impossible to acquire. Even then, as with most RN vessels, the submarine will have manual and analogue back-up systems should the computerised primaries fail. All told it would be almost impossible to conduct a successful cyber attack on the existing nuclear deterrent submarines.

-In the last few years there have also been a spate of articles expressing concern about the safety of the submarines, citing hundreds of accidents as well as tens of fires, equipment failures and "nuclear incidents" on board as evidence of a profoundly unsafe system. However, taken at face value and without any context these figures can be extremely misleading. For example: while it's true that fires occasionally occur on all Royal Navy warships, almost all are extinguished within seconds of breaking out. Even in the event of a serious fire, the Royal Navy rightly maintains some of the highest standards in the world when it comes to firefighting and damage control (having thoroughly learned the lessons of the Falklands War). As for "nuclear incidents", none of the twelve "Category B" events that have occurred since 2009 threatened the release of nuclear material into the environment or atmosphere. Nor did they endanger workers or the public. As it stands, a Category B incident is defined as: "actual or high potential for a contained release [of radiation] within building or submarine or unplanned exposure to radiation". According to the Ministry of Defence, most of these incidents were minor.

-There is also a misconception amongst some less well informed observers that because all UK submarines are "nuclear" they all carry nuclear weapons. This is not the case, Britain currently operates two separate types of submarine: the four nuclear armed SSBNs of the Vanguard class and the seven nuclear powered but conventionally armed SSNs (Ship, Submersible, Nuclear) of the Astute and Trafalgar classes. While all UK submarines are powered by a nuclear reactor, only the four boats of the Vanguard class carry ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

The "Successor" Submarines:

The "Successor" submarine is intended as the replacement for the existing Vanguard class, with the first boat expected to enter service in 2028. The class is expected to have a service life of around thirty years, with the fourth boat likely to operate well into the 2060s. Unlike the Vanguard class the Successor will have four fewer ballistic missile tubes, a total of twelve rather than the Vanguards' sixteen. These tubes will be a shared design with the US Navy, who are looking to start replacing their Ohio Class ballistic missile submarines within a similar time frame. Each "Common Missile Compartment" will contain four launch tubes, Successor will have three such compartments, whereas the American SSBN-X (their next generation ballistic missile submarine) will have four or more. This will enable the UK and US to pursue a common replacement for the Trident II D5 missile when it goes out of service in the 2040s. As it stands the government's current intention is to maintain the number of missiles (eight) and warheads (forty) carried by the Vanguard submarines with the transition to Successor. In 2011 it was agreed that the Successor submarines would use the Rolls Royce PWR3 reactor, an "Anglicised" version of the US Navy's latest design. The new reactor is expected to be safer and cheaper to maintain over the boats' thirty year lifespan, when compared with the PWR2 that currently powers the Vanguard and Astute classes.

As it stands, little concrete information exists in the public sphere beyond relatively broad specifications and a few concept images (like the one shown above). However, from historical precedent and educated guesswork we can safely assume that the Successor boats will be significantly quieter than their predecessors, just as the Astute class are markedly quieter than the Trafalgar class that came before them. Like the Vanguard class they will also carry conventional torpedoes for self-defence. It seems unlikely that the relatively successful dual-crew system would not be carried over to the new deterrent submarines.

Key Issues and Misconceptions:

-A few people have also claimed that the ballistic missile submarine will soon be made obsolete by underwater drones, and other unmanned systems, that can listen for and detect submarines and unmanned aircraft that are currently being developed. They argue that the Successor class would be hopelessly vulnerable to such systems, as it would lose its ability to hide. These commentators forget that these technologies are far from new, during the Cold War NATO erected vast arrays of fixed hydrophones to detect Soviet submarines in the North Atlantic, and certainly not foolproof. With every generation submarine detection equipment has become more sensitive, yet the boats continue to get quieter in response. Each measure developed to detect the submarine is met with a countermeasure in response. Not only have the boats changed beyond all recognition since their primitive beginnings at the turn of the twentieth century, but so have the tactics employed to hide them. Examining the lessons of history it seems unlikely that a single innovation in anti-submarine warfare will, at a stroke, render the submarine obsolete.

-There appears to also be a presumption that the Successor submarines are extremely expensive, as they form the biggest chunk of the expenditure necessary for the renewal of the UK's nuclear deterrent. There is also a perception that the programme costs have increased significantly since it was first announced in 2007. However, much of the apparent increase in the cost of replacement has been due to inflation. The 2006 defence white paper on the issue laid down an estimated price of £15-20bn for the whole nuclear renewal programme,most of which would be the cost of the new submarines. When adjusted for GDP inflation to match 2014 prices the "cost" rises to between £17.5 and 23.5bn for the whole programme. While the higher figure closely matches the "between £20 and 30bn" price-tag stated by the government, it may also have been stretched to encompass costs previously not included, such as through-life expenditures, decommissioning and safe disposal of the boats and their nuclear reactors. On top of this the Treasury has added a £10bn contingency fund, the purpose of which is somewhat opaque; but could conceivably be the government hedging against a second Scottish referendum (and the need to reconstruct facilities elsewhere) or simply prudent management to ensure the delivery of a critical defence equipment programme.

-There is also a view that the cost of the Successor submarines, the major expense involved in renewal of the nuclear deterrent, could easily be transferred to bolster the UK's conventional forces that have been run down over a long period of time. However, upon close examination of the issue the issue is far more complex than many realise. Firstly the shortfall in work for the nuclear submarine construction facilities at Barrow in Furness would have to be made up with a substantial order of more Astute class nuclear-powered attack submarines. Likely more than five boats costing £750 million each, so many more conventionally armed submarines would likely impose through-life costs and crew requirements similar to the nuclear deterrent boats that they would replace. It is likely that we would eventually end up having to build two classes of conventionally armed, but nuclear-powered, submarines in order to sustain the design and industrial base necessary to continue producing attack submarines. The cost of safely decommissioning the nuclear weapons facility at Coulport would also be very substantial and eat into any short-term savings made. Also to be considered is that, in the event of Trident cancellation, some or all of the money saved would inevitably be siphoned off by the Treasury and redirected into other areas of government (as many anti-nuclear figures argue should be the case) such as: health, education, welfare etc... It is by no means clear that cancelling the successor submarines would lead to a substantial re-investment in conventional forces and would almost inevitably impose significant second-order costs. While long-term savings would indeed be made, it would not be the panacea for either conventional defence, or other areas of government spending, that some make it out to be.

The Trident II D5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile:

The UGM-133 Trident II, or Trident II D5, is a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) with a range of more than 7,500 miles and a payload of up to twelve nuclear-armed Multiple Independently-targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs). The missile first entered service with the US Navy in 1990 and later with the Royal Navy in 1993 when the first of the Vanguard class submarines entered service. Unlike conventional and cruise missiles the Trident II D5 leaves the earth's atmosphere for part of its trajectory, acting like a multi-stage rocket, before its warheads return to earth and strike their targets. The missile is principally guided by an on-board astro-inertial guidance system, that can be supplemented by GPS to increase its accuracy. From what is publicly available this system takes account of the submarine's relative position to its target and uses a fixed object (in this case a star) as a reference point to guide the missile onto its target. At present the UK leases 58 of these missiles from the United States, which are drawn from a common pool shared by the US Navy's Atlantic SSBN squadron. Unlike its predecessor, Polaris, the missiles are not serviced in the UK but at the Lockheed Martin plant in King's Bay Georgia along with the US Navy's missiles. 

Key Issues and Misconceptions:

-While the recent discussion on the subject of the British nuclear deterrent has been framed as the renewal, or replacement, of Trident; in fact the Trident II D5 missile is set to remain in-service with the Royal Navy and US Navy into the 2040s. It is one of the few components of the overall system that, while it will receive a substantial life extension, will not be replaced for many years to come.

-Often the most contentious arguments over the UK deterrent relate to its independence from the United States, specifically the degree of operational control that the Americans could exert over the British system. Firstly, it is necessary to clearly state that the US do not possess a "kill switch" that would render the UK's missiles inert or would prevent them from being fired. As the US Navy's own missiles are of the exact same design, drawn from the same pool as the UK's, such a safeguard (if it existed) would therefore also render a major component of their own deterrent useless. Nor does the US government possess the ability to remotely destroy the missiles once launched, such a system would open their own deterrent up to being disabled by a potential enemy, should they steal the means of "self-destructing" the missiles. The system is designed so that, short of being actively shot down, once released the missiles cannot be stopped. There is also the suggestion that the US could simply "turn off the GPS", even if it were as simple as those that claim this make out; disabling the GPS would simply make the missiles marginally less accurate. Their primary means of guidance, the astro-inertial star sight system, is designed to function without input from GPS. The retention of this older system is likely deliberate, as it prevents the US/UK deterrent from being disabled by an attack on the American GPS satellite network. While the US could withhold gravitational data and weather reports over the intended target area, this would simply degrade the accuracy of a British nuclear strike and would not be able to prevent it. For all intents and purposes the UK deterrent is Operationally Independent: meaning that the US have no means to stop the UK from conducting a nuclear strike, short of shooting down the British missiles.

-With respect to the independence of the system it is true that should the US decide to withhold access to its missile servicing facilities it could eventually render the UK's Trident II D5 missiles unusable. According to Parliamentary estimates his would likely take many months, if not a year or more, to achieve. However, given the UK's extremely close relationship with the United States and the existing unprecedented level of co-operation in the field of nuclear weapons and delivery systems the chance of this actually happening would best be described as extremely remote. At the least it would require a severe political break between the UK and US, significantly worse than that which occurred during the Suez Crisis. In the author's opinion, this remains extremely unlikely and the US will almost certainly remain a highly dependable partner in this field. This is not least because the joint submarine deterrent using the Trident missile strengthens the American nuclear guarantee of Europe significantly. Fundamentally it ensures that a potential enemy could not tell a British attack from an American one, this means that Britain could force a general nuclear exchange with the United States if the US were to renege on its commitment to the defence of Europe during a crisis. This inextricably ties the American strategic deterrent to the defence of Europe, something the US are very much aware of and value.

-There have been plenty of commentators keen to express the obsolescence of the Trident missile system, describing it as a "Cold War relic" designed to destroy Moscow and St Petersberg. While there is a grain of truth at the heart of this argument, it too is misleading. The British deterrent was, at the time of the Cold War designed around the so-called "Moscow criterion". In short this was the requirement that the British delivery system be able to penetrate the defences around the Soviet capital and conduct a successful nuclear strike against it. Initially this meant that the RAF's V-bomber force was equipped to break through Soviet air defences in order to reach their targets. However, as Soviet defences improved it became clear that air-launched weapons (even primitive cruise missiles like the RAF's Blue Steel) would not be sufficient. So the UK turned to submarine launched ballistic missiles: first Polaris, then an improved version of Polaris codenamed "Chevaline" and later Trident. These improvements all ensured the UK could respond to aggression with an assured response, capable of penetrating even the most sophisticated integrated air and missile defense system in the world. The "Moscow criterion" remains relevant because, if the UK can be sure of its ability to carry out a successful nuclear response against the most heavily defended target in the world, then it can be sure of a successful nuclear response anywhere else. This strengthens the deterrent power of the overall system, because crucially it remains highly credible in all circumstances.

The W76 Nuclear Warhead:

After the retirement of the RAF's remaining WE.117 air-dropped nuclear bombs in 1998 the W76 became the only warhead in service with the UK armed forces. It is believed to be an "Anglicised" copy of an American design, although the details of its internal components are mostly classified. What is known is that the warhead sits within the conical Mk. 4 re-entry vehicle (a mock-up of which is pictured above). With a declared maximum yield of 100 kilotons of TNT the W76 is around seven times more powerful than the Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War. However, some sources indicate that the UK's possesses weapons with a variable yield, down to as low as 10 kilotons, in order to provide decision makers with a more flexible and proportionate nuclear response (if such a thing exists). Between one and twelve warheads can be carried by each Trident II D5 missile. It is believed that the 40 deployed warheads are spread unevenly amongst the eight missiles carried aboard the deterrent submarine. These are believed to be mixed with dummy warheads, decoys and penetration aids in order to ensure the success of a UK strike conducted against an area protected by a sophisticated missile-defence system.

The UK's warheads are designed and manufactured at the two Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield. There is a high degree of collaboration with the US' counterpart facilities at the Los Alamos site in New Mexico and the Sandia & Lawrence Livermore laboratories in California. The UK's weapons are also stored at the Royal Naval Armament Depot (RNAD) at Coulport, which is jointly run by a subsidiary of AWE and Lockheed Martin, where they are mated with the Trident II D5 missiles and loaded onto the deterrent submarines. Although the UK continues to refuse to release the exact details of its nuclear arsenal, it is believed to possess a total stockpile of 225 weapons, with around 160 of those being operational at any one time.

Key Issues and Misconceptions:

-Some have questioned the independence of the UK's deterrent on the grounds that the AWE uses a number of "off the shelf" components, procured from the United States, in Britain's nuclear weapons. According to a report submitted to Parliament these include: the firing mechanism, Neutron generator, gas reservoir and Mk. 4 re-entry vehicle. While it is true that Britain would find it difficult to immediately source replacements if the US chose to withhold these components, it would be well within the UK's capacity to manufacture them. As the AWE possesses the full designs for the W76 warhead, creating native versions of certain components wouldn't be prohibitively difficult; if the commitment was made to continue with the deterrent under such circumstances. However, as with the withholding of support for the UK's Trident II missiles, the likelihood of the US actually doing this remains extremely remote.

-There have also been questions raised, notably in Parliament, about the possibility of dangerous nuclear emissions from RNAD Coulport. According to data released by the Ministry of Defence emissions were well within the safety limits set by both the MoD and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) between 2009 and 2012. For comparison, in 2012 the Hunterston B civil nuclear power station discharged around 370 times the Tritium gas of RNAD Coulport, while still being within the safe limits set by SEPA. The emissions from the nuclear storage facility can be considered so small in comparison as to be negligible, posing no health risk to those living on or around the facility.

-Also of concern to some is the vulnerability of the UK's nuclear weapons to seizure by terrorists, especially considering that they're transported by road between AWE Aldermaston and RNAD Coulport. However, it must first be stated that successfully intercepting and seizing a warhead from one of these convoys would require a level of intelligence gathering and combat capacity beyond any militant group currently operating on the British Isles. Not only are the times and routes of these convoys national secrets of the highest order, revealed only to regional police forces hours before the convoy moves through their jurisdiction, but they are also extremely heavily guarded. Not only does each convoy have a range of civilian emergency teams to deal with any contingency, from safety experts to firefighters, but it is guarded by armed Ministry of Defence Police officers of the Special Escort Group, and likely also special forces personnel. Each convoy is continuously tracked by the police and is in constant radio communication with support forces should an incident occur. Successfully plotting an attack on one would be nearly impossible, something reserved more to the pages of a Tom Clancy novel than reality.

-Some may also worry that the weapons themselves are inherently unstable and dangerous, threatening to trigger a nuclear explosion at any moment should somebody make a mistake. This is categorically not the case, the bomb itself is built to do a very specific thing: evenly compress the core of nuclear material (likely highly enriched Plutonium in the case of the W76) until it reaches the critical point at which a chain reaction occurs and causes a "nuclear explosion" as we know it. In order to achieve this, the device uses explosives precisely placed around the core, and crucially: detonated at the same instant. On two occasions during the early years of the Cold War US aircraft armed with nuclear weapons crashed, unevenly detonating the explosives in their nuclear weapons. Instead of causing a nuclear explosion it merely shattered the core and spread toxic plutonium dust over a small area. Even in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear weapon exposed to the extreme shock of an air crash followed by an explosion, the weapons didn't explode. Unlike some conventional explosives nuclear material will not explode if dropped, burned or exposed to an uneven explosion. Thankfully nuclear weapons are almost impossible to inadvertently detonate.


There you have it, a reasonably examination of the technical details of the UK nuclear deterrent, addressing some of the issues raised in the recent debate and some of the popular misconceptions about the UK's nuclear forces. Hopefully by collecting a broad range of information in one place I can help contribute, in some small way, to improving a debate which is too often mired in inaccurate perceptions.

Thoughts on a Grand Strategy for Britain

"I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

-Viscount Palmerston, 1848

Of the 194 independent states currently in existence you would be hard pressed to find many that have more potential than the United Kingdom. As I explained here and here the British state has a raft of in-built advantages, from its globally engaged and powerful economy to the range of useful overseas territories, modern armed forces and an impressive diplomatic footprint. And yet, since the end of the Second World War, Britain has lurched from crisis to crisis with events and political short termism dictating national strategy. Since the 1956 Suez Crisis the relationship with the United States, never one of equals, has steadily come to replace British strategy abroad. At home the relationship with the European Union and it's predecessors has also curtailed national strategic decision making. For the best part of a century an uneasy hodgepodge of US and European grand strategy has effectively been British grand strategy. This has led to the steady atrophying of a unique political and military culture, that was decidedly un-American and un-European, with no real replacement. While much world-class strategic thought still goes on in the UK it is largely confined to Academic spheres, lacking integration with mainstream politics and public consciousness. What must be recognised to move forwards is that our current approach has been broadly unsuccessful and that what's needed is a distinct and British grand strategy, designed to use the UK's strengths to secure and advance its national interests in the long term.

To begin to formulate a grand strategy first a question must be asked and answered: "what will Britain's vital national interests in the coming century, and beyond, be?". I would argue some are obvious and eternal; the enduring territorial integrity of the British isles, the continued existence of the United Kingdom as a single political entity, economic prosperity, stability, the protection of British citizens wherever they may be and the sustainment of the Western liberal order. Simple, direct and broad in scope these are what I conceive Britain's long-term interests to be. To define UK interests too narrowly and specifically would ensure that the resulting analysis would eventually become dated and increasingly irrelevant. It also avoids falling into the trap of confusing values with interests. Although the sustainment of the Western liberal order is a vital national interest, it's expansion is not. Events in the last decade and a half have shown that trying to forcefully expand the borders of the Western order is usually futile and has unintended consequences. That said, states willingly wishing to join that club should be admitted with open arms; as Eastern Europe was after the collapse of Soviet Communism. For these reasons the interests that drive grand strategy must be broadly defined and enduring. If the ends sought are to be broadly defined and eternal, then the ways used to achieve them; the grand strategy, must take an equally broad approach to the UK's geo-strategic challenges.

In contrast with simple political or military strategy, which draw upon distinct resources to achieve specific goals in the short to medium term, grand strategy aims to combine all aspects of national power and influence in pursuit of its aims. When applying narrow forms of power, be they military, diplomatic, economic or otherwise, Britain often fails to live up to its potential. The United Kingdom does not have the most powerful global economy, the military might of a vast continental state, or the raw influence to be the essential diplomatic power broker. However, when taken together it's easy to see that Britain has nearly unrivaled national power across the whole spectrum. The British armed forces may not be the most powerful, but they have a range of impressive capabilities and can still "go to the crisis" with decisive force if needed. The UK wields impressive influence through it's global diplomatic presence, with seats in countless international organisations; not least of which is permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Although it's true that Britain can't compete with the vast resources of China and the United States for economic power, only a fool would call the UK economically weak. While the 2008 financial crisis hit key sectors of the economy hard Britain is currently amongst the fastest growing economies in Europe, a dynamic medium-sized economy with a strong tradition of the rule of law and the ability to efficiently mobilise its resources. If there is one aspect of national power in which Britain excels, yet continues to underutilise, it is cultural. While feelings on Britain's imperial period are decidedly mixed, the overriding legacies of Empire: the Anglosphere, the Commonwealth, English as the global language of commerce, the export of British common law and institutions as well as the "Westminster system" of government tend to be positive ones that (if used correctly) will continue to enhance UK power. If Britain wishes to protect and advance its national interests it must be done by wielding comprehensive, rather than narrow and specific, national power.

At it's most successful Britain applied economic, military, diplomatic
and cultural power effectively in pursuit of its interests.

Before beginning to look at an overarching national strategy it's necessary to examine what has prevented the UK from doing so over the last half century or so. The outcome of the 1956 Suez war, the "last gasp of the imperial lion", effectively shackled much of British foreign policy to that of the United States. Whether the Americans intended for that to be the outcome is up for debate, but the practical long-term consequence was an ever closer foreign policy union between the two great Anglosphere nations; a union that has increasingly become dominated by the senior partner. While the "Special Relationship" has not been one of true equals for a very long time, on it's own it doesn't explain the British dependence on America's foreign policy leadership.

For that we must look at to the period of decolonisation after the Second World War and the growth of an unhelpful Eurocentric view of the world. Although the decision for Britain to withdraw from its vast Empire after 1945 was certainly, in hindsight, the correct one; the imperial possessions that were being abandoned were too often confused with structures established to protect the UK's overseas interests. It is easy to forget that when Britain first acquired an Empire, its territories existed to provide a string of naval bases that supported maritime forces capable of defending and advancing British interests. The vast land empire, which emerged later as a product of the Industrial Revolution, overlaid the original structure and obscured its purpose. Bases, and the commitments they underpinned, in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and South China Sea were abandoned in the decolonisation drive. During this process the expectation was often that the United States would become Britain's proxy in the abandoned regions, who would defend British national interests at little to no cost to the UK. While the Americans certainly did enter these regions as the guarantor of stability, they came with their own economic and diplomatic agendas that often didn't match Britain's. It is too easy to forget that while the US is a diplomatic, military and cultural ally of the first order; it remains an economic competitor and undeniably self-interested in that regard.

The second factor that has contributed to the atrophy of British grand strategic thought is the increasingly Eurocentric approach to foreign policy, instigated by the Cold War and exacerbated by the period of relative decline in the late 1960s and through the 1970s. At that time there was a belief, strongly held by some, that in the future the United Kingdom could redefine itself as a mid-sized European power; rather than as a great power situated in Europe but with interests and concerns that spread far beyond the continent. This view contributed to the UK's steady collapse down to a continental defence posture, designed for the Cold War confrontation in Europe, that was ill-suited to the defence and advancement of it's interests elsewhere. A concerted effort was also made  to abandon much of Britain's presence outside Europe throughout that period, although the retreat from 'East of Suez' was the most prominent, Mediterranean and South Atlantic commitments were also drawn down. All of this, combined with a degree of fatalism amongst decision makers, often meant that the draw down from what were perceived as imperial commitments was pushed further and faster than it should have been. To some extent Britain's improved economic condition (and the boost given to national confidence by victory in the Falklands and the Gulf) curbed the worst of the declinist tendency amongst policymakers for a time. 

Now, however, after a grueling decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan we are seeing a return to timid passivity in the face of some of the gravest crises since the end of the Cold War a quarter century ago. Such behavior is placing greater burdens on an already overburdened United States, still a vital and potent ally, as well as failing to support British national interests. There is also the uncomfortable fact that the United Kingdom is often led, handled and judged as if it were a smaller and less potent copy of the United States. An apparent ignorance of what must be done to maximise Britain's international power is particularly concerning. Too often have leaders missed the basic truth that a country with the will to be engaged and active on the international stage will always "punch above its weight", whereas those too timid to do so will usually remain on the sidelines. In the event of a crisis there is often much to lose and little to be gained by not being involved, or at least possessing the ability to become involved at short-notice. 

The willingness and ability to "go to the crisis" with decisive force has set the
UK apart from other countries over the centuries.

The lesson of the last sixty years is clear: while allies are often essential to the success of British engagement abroad they are a very poor substitute for sovereign capabilities and action. Therefore, before a grand strategy tailored to Britain's situation can be developed, there must be some degree of separation from the foreign policy goals of the United States and from the European continent. While policymakers will likely still find that UK and US interests often align closely, making co-operation highly desirable, a more independent and mercenary approach should be taken when interests conflict. As for the affairs of the European continent, they stand as more of an impediment to a global strategy for Britain than anything else. While stability in Europe is an important, likely essential, component for a successful global Britain, protracted continental commitments have almost always proved an expensive distraction. Only when it's vital national interests are at stake should the UK consider entering into binding continental commitments. "Business as usual" on the continent would be the exercise of influence through diplomatic and economic means, backed up by UK-based armed forces that could be deployed in the event of a serious crisis.

On the subject of Europe, the gravest threat is likely to remain an embittered, revanchist Russia. While Putin's conservative clique remain in power it seems likely that tensions will be high, as liberal Western values collide with Russia's deeply conservative world view on the fringes of Eastern Europe. The challenge for Britain is that Eastern Europe is fundamentally a theater where it's military influence will always be rather limited. "Blue water" maritime forces are not well suited to the enclosed waters of the Baltic, threatened as they are by Russian air power and missiles based in their enclave at Kaliningrad. It is fundamentally a continental theatre, where a maritime power such as Britain would find it impossible to contribute significant forces; certainly without compromising it's global limited-war power projection capabilities. As it stands, a power vacuum exists in Eastern Europe. Following the recent withdrawal of the last substantial American ground forces, the two heavy brigade combat teams, from Germany almost all of NATO's first class military capability is now situated to the West of Germany. Although the US has issued an abrupt volte face, returning some of the heavy equipment it withdrew in 2013, Europe is approaching a tipping point. The continuous presence of large American conventional forces can no longer be considered to be a certain prospect.Without enough high-readiness conventional forces positioned nearby, to balance Russia's ability to rapidly mobilise very large numbers of troops (demonstrated time and again by "snap" military drills and maneuvers), the situation will remain unstable and potentially quite dangerous.

The return of large-scale US forces to Germany in the long term is something that cannot be counted upon, as a growing confrontation with China in the Pacific continues to exert a powerful draw on overstretched American military resources. Instead, in order to secure the integrity of the NATO alliance (and by extension the Western liberal order in Eastern Europe) Germany must be rehabilitated as a continental great power, integrated into the defence of Eastern Europe. Although the burden of history weighs heavy the most effective means of balancing Russian power in the long-term is to have the other great power in the region, Germany, fully and actively committed to regional security through NATO. The logical question that follows this conclusion is "what does this have to do with the United Kingdom?", presuming Britain wouldn't be able to exert the influence to instigate such a significant policy change. While it's true that the decision would ultimately rest with the Germans, there is still much the UK could do to help move them in that direction. As one of the most influential members of NATO, with strong transatlantic links to the most influential member, much could be done within the alliance to set the direction and agenda of it's future commitments to Eastern Europe. In recent years Germany has also proved more willing to deploy its armed forces outside its borders, in an alliance context, than in the past. With the right incentives and multilateral direction, their participation in combat and reconstruction operations in Afghanistan could prove to be a watershed moment, the first step along a road leading to a more normal position in the international system. It's not impossible to conceive that this precedent could be used to begin the shift to a regionally deployable Bundeswehr, capable of balancing Russia along with predominantly Eastern European NATO allies.

Europe will not be able to count on the United States continuing to commit large,
expensive, military forces to it's defence, while its interests elsewhere are pressured.

Any attempt to use Germany to balance Russian power must also address the thorny issue of the former's energy dependence on the latter. While it is true that Germany imports some ~40% of its natural gas from the Russian Federation, there are several factors that make the use of the "energy weapon" against Germany a much more unattractive prospect than its use against other Eastern European states. First and foremost is the sheer quantity of Russian natural gas imported by Germany, about a quarter of what Gazprom exports to Europe. Shutting off supply to Germany for a long period of time would likely do serious damage to the Russian state owned energy sector, already struggling in the wake of the collapse in the price of oil. Nor could the energy weapon be used briefly to any great effect either, unlike the Eastern European countries subjected to a punitive gas shutoff in 2009 Germany has substantial storage capacity (equal to ~50% of their annual needs). As Germany is an especially unattractive target, hardened against the Russian "energy weapon", it should not stand as the overwhelming impediment to a more engaged German defence posture in Eastern Europe that it might be considered to be.

The reader might, rightly, ask why building a new structure to guarantee the security and stability of Central and Eastern Europe was the first issue addressed when discussing a British grand strategy. In order for the UK to focus it's efforts where it is best equipped to do so, outside the European continent, it needs a measure of freedom from continental commitments. While Britain will always have an important part to play in European defence, through NATO, it needs to be recognised that the UK is best able to contribute on the alliance's "maritime flanks" rather than a distant Eastern "central front". Failing to create new structures within NATO to guarantee the security of Eastern Europe, with Germany playing a key role, will continue to leave that region dangerously exposed to an illiberal Russia. In the long-term the United States will not continue to be the ultimate guarantor of European security forever. They will inevitably continue to be an invaluable ally, and a vital pillar of NATO, but we need to be prepared to take up much of the slack they will leave as their forces are drawn down to a size that allows them to balance their other global commitments.

While Britain will always be tied much more closely to the security of Europe by dint of its geographical proximity than the United States, it too must look to balance its commitment to the continent against a much broader demi-global role stretching from the Atlantic to the far reaches of the Indian Ocean. In order for the UK to secure its interests beyond Europe it first needs a measure of stability in Europe. As history shows us, this will require working alongside and supporting continental allies, rather than attempting to replace them. As it stands Britain is a powerful country, with a broad range of advantages and tools at its disposal, constrained by a lack of independent strategic thought, over-reliance on others in the sphere of foreign policy and a volatile European situation. Before a coherent grand strategy can emerge these problems need to be tackled, not by abandoning old alliances and roles but by reinventing and reinvigorating them so that they better suit our current needs and those of our allies. It also needs to recognise that Britain's strengths lie in the maritime sphere, and that this is where we must focus our efforts if we are to successfully defend and advance our interests.

Geographic Fatalism: Maps and Why the West isn't Doomed

Maps are amongst the most ingeniously deceptive objects in existence today, for they can make the strong appear weak and the weak appear strong. Maps give you just enough information to come to the wrong conclusions about the way the world is ordered, and the meaning of national power. People tend to fall into the trap of presuming that, when it comes to countries, bigger is better. Strength is assumed to stem from the number of square kilometres of land a state governs, the size of its population, how many soldiers it commands, and its economic produce: measured in tonnes of coal, steel and grain.

There's just one problem with this neat, ordered, view of the world. It's almost completely wrong. It can't explain how the tiny merchant republic of Venice was able to march into the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and burn it to the ground. It can't explain how Portugal and Holland carved out trading empires, that brought them fabulous wealth, from countries many times their size. Nor can it explain how Britain repeatedly and consistently humiliated China, the largest country in the world, throughout the nineteenth century. Maps paint a profoundly misleading picture of the world. They ignore the fact that the larger a country is, the more difficult it becomes to administer and defend. As a state gains "mass" it commonly loses agility and efficiency. The largest countries, with one notable exception, are usually fatally undermined by corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency.

Map of perceived corruption, with the most
corrupt countries in red and the least in blue.

While there are a few enormous countries which dominate vast swathes of the earth's surface they have often proved to be "titans with feet of clay", backwards and underdeveloped because their territory is far too large to centrally manage with any real hope of success. So often shrewd diplomacy, limited aims, good organisation and technical prowess have allowed smaller nations to humble larger ones. It is so often the case that the most successful states, able to project power and influence far beyond their borders, are rarely the largest. Instead they are those that best balance "mass" and resources with efficiency, agility and crucially the will to act.

Britain's experience of Empire is an almost perfect example of how territory alone does not bring power. Having slowly won a vast land empire, over the course of two hundred years, by the middle of the twentieth century the cost of administering that territory had begun to exceed the income it generated. Nor was the Empire an endless source of useful military power, for it consumed the bulk of the British and colonial armies in static garrisons, and most of the Royal Navy policing and protecting its communications. This was a far cry from the early days of Britain's rise to great power status, where the nation's resources were ruthlessly directed into the effort to control maritime trade. A handful of possessions in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Caribbean and Indian Ocean provided staging grounds for the projection of maritime power and the control of commerce.

The obvious exception to the rule would appear to be the United States, a very large country with the ability to mobilise its resources with sufficient efficiency to produce a degree of international power not before seen in human history. However, let us not forget that it was not until very recently that it attained the hegemonic position it now occupies. It also mustn't be forgotten that the USA's current position was built upon its status as the sole great power to survive the Second World War relatively unscathed. Its rivals were so damaged by the war that in 1945 the US alone accounted for half of global economic output. The war mobilised enough of their economy to generate power that was unrivalled by all but the Soviet Union. Without a sound economic base underpinning their power the Communist bloc, led by the USSR, ended up bankrupting themselves trying to keep pace with the US. By the 1980s the US was spending 7% of it's GDP on defence, while the Soviets were spending 27%. The period of unusual US economic strength from 1945 to the early 1970s laid the foundations for the hegemon we know today. What made it a reality, however, was the US' geostrategic position. The modern continental United States is effectively an island, bounded by the sea to the East and West and incredibly weak neighbours to the North and South. This allows the US government to look beyond the American continent when it comes to securing their interests, instead of having a myopic fixation on their land borders. Despite this, there are clear signs that US power is slowly waning. Now that its economy only accounts for a fifth of global GDP it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to remain the comprehensive superpower we have known. In short, while the United States certainly bucks the trend it remains an atypical example: briefly blessed with overwhelming economic dominance and benefiting from a highly advantageous geographical position. As for corruption and inefficiency, the federal system alleviates some of the worst effects of trying to run such a vast country with a centralised government. That said, there is still enormous waste in the US system. Routine complaints of pork barrel politics, bloated federal government and waste just go to show that the US isn't immune to the problems inherent in managing such a vast country.

The US is a strategic island, able to deploy it's resources to further its
Interests rather than to defend it's borders.

Time and again it's been demonstrated that well organised, efficient and willing small and medium sized countries can out maneuver and defeat their much larger counterparts. In the case of the latter so much effort is invested in simply running vast countries that they rarely have the spare resources or the will to routinely reach far beyond their own borders. This explains why countries like Britain, France, Germany and Japan continue to exert as much or greater influence as countries many times their size, with vastly larger populations and far greater resources to call upon. When large states are able to mobilise their "mass", turning it towards a specific goal, they are nigh - unstoppable: as the Soviet Union and United States demonstrated during the Second World War. However, such mobilisation is extremely difficult to sustain over the long term. With the country usually falling back into a more natural, inward-looking, state of existence.

For the forseeable future it would seem that medium-sized European states, along with the USA, will remain powerful and competitive. Western states, networked and efficient, have advantages that will ensure their continued relevance. Whatever happens, the economic rise of the BRIC countries will be singularly difficult to translate into other forms of power and influence. Their sheer size and vast populations bring as many burdens with them as they do benefits. Drawing simple conclusions about power from maps will lead you to make deterministic assumptions about the power dynamics that govern the international system. Those that believe China will supplant the United States as a global superpower have bought into the lie that territory, resources and population equate to power. A more nuanced examination would show that for all its mass China remains politically fragile, inward looking and largely isolated.

The "rise of the rest" is a defining reality of the twenty first century, but that doesn't mean that large states with big populations are destined to inherit the earth. Historically this has not been the case, it is doubtful that it will be in the future. Unfortunately maps have convinced some that scale correlates closely with power and influence. Thankfully for the West this isn't the case.

Soldiers from the Sea: Imagining a Future for the British Army

"The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy"

- Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary 1905-1916

The recent history of the British Army has been one of apparently relentless decline. At the height of the Cold War in 1960 the UK had 316,000 Soldiers, many of whom were still National Service conscripts. The service's core purpose was at that time brutally evident, the defence of Western Europe in the case of a Soviet incursion. Now the Cold War is over, and the number of troops stands at 82,000 (plus a planned 30,000 reserves by 2020). It is fair to say that the Army has shrunk very significantly. What matters though is asking seriously if we should be worried by this fact, and if we are then should the decline in troop numbers be reversed?

When looking at what the shape of tomorrow's British Army should be it's only logical to start with an examination of yesterday's Army. By asking: why were there 316,000 Soldiers in 1960, and what were they doing? The major commitment, as I've already mentioned, was to the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR), and the defence of West Germany against the Soviet Third Shock Army. It is also often forgotten that the BAOR was also an army of occupation, a product of the outcome of the Second World War, with substantial civil duties and powers. In 1960 it's strength stood at 52,000 men of all ranks, fewer than the 55,000 requested by NATO. Although this seems an impressive force it is important to note that the War Office was under no illusions that it would not be an effective force if it were required to fight a major war against the Soviets. The intention was to reinforce this number with some 114,000 troops based in the UK if the Soviets were detected mobilising for war. In reality, even with these reinforcements the BAOR would still have been horribly overmatched by it's intended opponent. Estimates made in the early 1970s were that they could hold the Soviets for 48-72 hours through conventional means alone. It's true purpose was always to act as a demonstration of the UK's continuing commitment to NATO and, like the rest of NATOs forces in Germany, to act as a tripwire for the release of nuclear weapons.
The army of 1960 also retained a substantial role in policing the UK's remaining colonies as many made the, often difficult, transition to independent states. During the Malayan Emergency, which reached it's conclusion in 1960, the UK had some 35,000 troops deployed to that country alone.
Finally there were enough forces set aside for a modest sized "fire brigade", available at short notice and deployable in the event of a crisis.

In summary, the army of 1960 was:
1.Mostly committed to NATO and the defence of West Germany.
2.Responsible for Imperial defence and overseeing the ongoing process of decolonisation.
3.Able to deploy a moderately sized force, at short notice, in support of UK interests in the event of a crisis.

The first two commitments, by their very nature, required a large continental-style army; something that the UK had historically not maintained in peacetime until after the First World War. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the handing over of Britain's last major imperial possession, Hong Kong, in the 1990s two of the major reasons for a large British army had disappeared. The 1990 "Options for Change" defence review saw an 18% cut in manpower across the board, with the army reduced to 120,000, mostly through cuts to the combat arms. It's successor, the 1994 "Front Line First" review, saw much smaller reductions, falling mainly on support and logistics structures. Reductions have continued since then, although no single review imposed reductions as great as those under Options for Change, the regular Army has decreased in size by 38,000 since the 120,000 level set in 1990. Many former soldiers and members of the press have lamented the drop in the Army's size, most claiming that the UK is slowly becoming unable to conduct substantial ground operations and high-end warfighting. In the author's opinion this gives the lie to the idea that Britain has ever really been able to do these things alone. With the exception of the World Wars, both of which we fought in coalition with continental allies, the British Army has never been especially good at fighting large continental wars. It usually winds up to be too small and institutionally amateurish at the higher levels of command to be really effective. Some parts of the Army tend to perform better than others and the performance of individual regiments tends to depend more on the quality of individual officers and NCOs, and the command teams they form, than on an effective universal doctrine. Even the comparatively large army of 1960 could not hope to contend with it's intended enemy, the Soviet Third Shock Army, without the use of nuclear weapons and the help of it's European and US allies.

1st Battalion the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment on parade in 1969, part of Britain's large Cold War army

The large Army of the Cold War is now a relic of the past and the future looks set to include a much smaller role for the land component of Britain's armed forces. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated that the Army could not sustain an enduring commitment, of an operationally useful size, for the purpose of counterinsurgency warfare. Nor was the force especially well equipped to deal with such a commitment. It took a major effort on the part of all three services to eventually sustain 10,000 British Soldiers and Marines in Helmand province. It would eventually take a combined force of more than double that to begin the process of winning a measure of security for the local population. The force deployed to Afghanistan was neither large enough nor well enough equipped with transport helicopters and suitable vehicles, to do the job asked of them. The UK's involvement in these two wars came at significant expense, with disproportionate cuts falling on the RAF and Royal Navy in the 2003 defence review in order to sustain the Army's strength for operations in both countries. Now Britain's involvement in both wars has come to an end it's necessary to assess what the army was able to achieve in five years in Iraq and thirteen in Afghanistan. Aside from preserving a somewhat larger army for the ten years from 2001 to 2011 the conflicts have proved to be bloody (for modern wars), expensive and have achieved little in the way of furthering the UK's international interests. They have also done immense damage to the prestige and standing of the British Army in the eyes of the United States. I would argue that the army has no foreseeable future in enduring counterinsurgency operations. It's experience of efficient counterinsurgency methods in the context of "colonial policing" is now far less relevant than it was during the wars of decolonisation, when the UK usually had direct control over large native police, military forces and civil institutions as well as extensive expertise on the countries they were fighting in. This would almost certainly not be the case in any future counterinsurgency operation, with the possible exception of the unlikely chance that the IRA returns to armed struggle in Northern Ireland.

This all now begs the question: what is the modern British Army actually for? 

There is no doubt that the success of military operations will always hinge on the ability of the armed forces to effect events on land. While control of the air and sea can be helpful, even essential, to achieving this aim it is their effect on events on the ground which ultimately matters. How, then, do we go about getting the most out of a comparatively small regular army?

The force structure currently envisioned by the government, entitled "Future Force 2020", includes a number of promising changes to the overall force structure. By assigning specific units to regions of interest or concern to the UK there is substantial scope, if correctly exploited, for substantial improvements to the army's institutional understanding of the unique problems and challenges faced in those areas. It also puts a greater focus on preventative measures such as native capability building and defence engagement, rather than allowing states to fail before intervening in a significant (and usually costly) way. In order to make the most of this structural change the increasing investment in intelligence needs to be kept up and effectively co-ordinated with the activities of the regional brigades. Improved co-ordination with the Department For International Development (DFID) and Foreign Office will also be necessary to realise the aim of conducting early and effective preventative action. To achieve the close interdepartmental civil/military co-ordination needed regional command teams, which would provide overall direction and leadership, should to be developed. They need only be small civilian-led organisations, equipped with area experts and put in command of substantial civil and military resources, to achieve the government's strategic goals in their area of responsibility. Returning to the Army, improving our capability for regional defence engagement will mean enduring deployments of small numbers of troops, in and around potential trouble spots. It is encouraging to see that their presence in Africa, an area with a young population and vast economic potential, is likely to be increased. If the UK follows in the footsteps of their successful training missions in Sierra Leone and Kenya there is much that could be achieved at a low cost and with small numbers of troops.

The areas of responsibility for Future Force 2020's regional brigades

That said, the army will always have an important role for when things do not go to plan, when preventative measures occasionally fail the Army will need the ability to go to the crisis and effect events on the ground. Now we can return to the third role I outlined when looking at the 1960 structure:

Able to deploy a moderately sized force, at short notice, in support of UK interests in the event of a crisis.

This will be just as necessary for the Army of tomorrow as it has been in the past. The ability to surge and sustain a capable land force into a potentially hostile area requires a broad array of specialised equipment. There are a few predictions that we can make about the shape and core requirements of such a force, based on the Future Force 2020 structure. The Army's main surge strength seems to be invested in the "Reaction Force", made up of 16 Air Assault Brigade ready to move at very short notice and 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division made up of three armoured infantry brigades on rotation, with one at short notice and the other two available with longer notice. These slot into the broader Joint Rapid Reaction Force, the tri-service structure whose land component also includes 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. It's undeniable that either the bulk or the entirety of any UK reaction force would need to be moved, supplied and possibly introduced into the area of operations by sea. With uncertainty about where the next military mission may come from, Britain no longer has the luxury of being able to pre-position it's heavy equipment and quickly fly troops out to crew it when needed, as was the case for the BAOR. Despite this fact, the UK's rundown of it's military sealift since 2011 has become worryingly apparent. One of the UK's two Albion class LPDs has now been mothballed, the helicopter assault ship HMS Ocean will be paid off without replacement in 2018, RFA Largs Bay was sold to the Royal Australian Navy in 2011 and two of the six Point Class RO-RO merchant ships leased by the MOD had their contracts terminated. In total this amounts to a loss of almost a quarter of the UK's sealift. In real terms the cut has likely been even deeper, because of the demands of maintenance for the remaining platforms. Having a smaller, more regionally engaged and better equipped army will do Britain no good if it isn't deployable enough to "go to the crisis" and remain there until the job is done.

Sealift will become an essential force multiplier for a smaller army in the future

Unless we wish to become wholly reliant on the goodwill of the United States to cover our logistical needs then a substantial investment in military and civilian sealift will be necessary. The ability to move significant numbers of well equipped troops nearly anywhere in the world at a few weeks notice is essential if the UK is to make the most of a small but powerful army in the future. The costs involved in expanding the sealift force needn't be prohibitive either, the RFA's Bay Class cost £130 million each (2006 prices) or about a third the cost of a Type 26 Frigate. HMS Ocean, the centerpiece of the amphibious fleet, cost about the same as a Type 23 Frigate. Also to be considered is that the manning costs of sealift vessels operated by the RFA is substantially lower than that of Royal Navy warships of a comparable size.

In summary, the British Army at it's peacetime numerical height in the 1940s-1960s was neither large nor well enough equipped to actually fight the war it was intended for against the USSR. In the years that followed successive governments reduced the size of the army until it constituted a large, but still conventionally impotent, nuclear tripwire as part of NATO. Since the disintegration of the communist bloc between 1989-91 the army has seen even further reductions, largely as a function of the draw down from it's Cold War posture in Europe. There is now little popular or political stomach for protracted counterinsurgency operations following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the focus in future will become prevention through native capability building and defence engagement, with a robust intervention force available in the event of a crisis. In the author's opinion, to really make the most out of a smaller army the UK needs to be looking seriously at expanding it's sealift capability so the smaller army can remain a highly deployable independent force.

The Bear and the Lion: Russia and Britain, European outsiders?

If there is a single word which sums up the Anglo - Russian geo-strategic rivalry it is history. To be precise the 200 years of history after 1815 have, with few notable exceptions, featured foreign policy competition between these two states. Both sit on the periphery of the European continent, separated from the core not only by geography but also different political traditions from the central European states. For Britain constitutional monarchy, liberal values and the rule of law have formed the basis of political life for two hundred years. In contrast the Russian system has tended towards autocracy, illiberalism, and the rule of oligarchs, with each political 'dynasty' eventually collapsing and giving way to the next. The Russian Federation under President Putin is simply the latest expression of a political culture that dates back hundreds of years.

It is fair to say that both countries are located in Europe, but neither is truly European. Both look outside of the continent for important aspects of their national character. Britain's cultural, economic and military ties with the Anglosphere states (The United States, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) exert a powerful force that still draws the country away from the politics of the European core. Similarly, the vast and sparsely populated territory east of the Ural mountains lends Russia its distinct Eurasian character. In times past this distinct Eurasian Russian-ness was coupled with the Communist ideology and a command economy to form a variant for state organisation very different from the Western model. Over a quarter century since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the dissolution of the Soviet Union Russia is still yet to demonstrate any significant moves towards becoming more European. Britain's Atlanticist traditions, especially its 'special relationship' with the United States has exerted a similar draw on Britain away from a purely European future.

So what to make of the conflict in the Ukraine? To really get an understanding of what is driving Russia's involvement in the country it is essential to consider natural defensive barriers as more than a way of keeping hostile armies out of a state's territory, but also a means of insulating that same state from unwanted foreign influences. Both Britain and Russia used their natural defenses to insulate themselves from the political ideas carried by the armies of revolutionary France in the 19th century and fascist Germany in the 20th. To understand why the Ukraine is so vital to Russia's perceived security interests it is necessary to understand the nature of Russia's particular natural defensive advantage. While the English Channel obviously constitutes a formidable British 'moat' the thousand or more miles between the nearest Western NATO state and the Russian Capital is what insulates the 'Russian system' from unwanted European influences. Until recently pro-Russian regimes in Belarus and the Ukraine, and the reluctance of NATO to station troops in the Baltic States, has maintained an ideological and military protective buffer zone between central Europe and Russia. It now seems inevitable that the collapse of the corrupt regime of President Yanukovych in 2014, and its replacement with a Westward looking provisional government, would have illicited a response from Russia in any case.

Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine, winter 2014.

The speed and ferocity of the response seems to have taken many Western capitals by surprise, war had returned to Europe seemingly out of the blue. 'Little Green Men' suddenly appeared in the Crimea and so much confusion and doubt was sown that before a coherent response could be formulated the Russian flag was flying in Sevastopol. By the time the smoke had cleared and it had become obvious that Russia was waging near open war against one of its neighbors their troops and Eastern Ukrainian separatists had occupied over a third of the country. The NATO response to date has included the imposition of damaging sanctions on Russia, which have reportedly shaved 9% off the GDP of an economy already struggling due to the recent collapse in oil and gas prices. The US plans to station equipment for an armored brigade in Poland, and the forces assigned to the Baltic air patrol mission (active since 2004) have had small additions made to them. While certain news outlets in the UK have hailed the crisis in Ukraine as the beginning of 'a new Cold War', for which Britain is woefully unprepared, the Western reaction has generally been rather subdued.

So, should more be done? Is this really the first move by a resurgent and militarist Russia bent on re-establishing its domination over Eastern Europe? To both questions I would issue a resounding no. Russia has fallen far since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the state has become increasingly reliant on the export of oil and gas for much of its revenue and the tumble in prices since the American 'fracking revolution' is hitting them hard. The Russian armed forces may appear formidably large on paper, but much of their equipment is old or obsolete. Of their 12,800(!) tanks only 2600 are assigned to 'active' units, and 1700 of those are aging Soviet-built T-72s. In total Russia possesses around 900 relatively modern tanks assigned to active military units. In comparison the US army has just under 1200 extremely modern M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks in its inventory, some of which have already been moved back into bases in Germany. In truth, while the Russian armed forces look large and impressive on parade in Red Square, in an offensive conventional war against NATO they would lose badly. Make no mistake, we won't be seeing the Third Shock Army rolling through the Fulda Gap anytime soon. Instead, I would argue that Russia is fighting in the Ukraine in an attempt to preserve a rump buffer zone between them and the pro-European government in the West of that country. Without this their leaders fear that a Westward looking 'Europeanised' Ukraine will eventually undermine the current system to such an extent that it could bring about civil unrest and the possibility of another revolution. Russia is fighting to remain an European outsider, because to be anything else would mean the collapse of the current system of corruption and patronage that underwrites the power of President Putin.

The Russian armed forces: formidably large but largely obsolete

So where does this leave Britain? If Russia feels threatened by European ideas to such an extent that it is willing to go to war with its neighbors, in spite of the serious economic damage that it has incurred for doing so, then it seems that we're dealing with that rarest of things, a 'vital national interest'. While it is nice for Britain to support freedom and democracy around the world, and we should politically oppose the illegal annexation of any and all Ukranian territory by Russia in forums like the UN and EU, a less corrupt Ukraine is not worth radically altering our defence and foreign policy posture towards Russia for. Their track record of intervening in neighboring states to prevent the spread of Western institutions like NATO, just look at the 2008 war in Georgia, seems pretty clear. If institutions like the EU and NATO want to expand into these areas then they should expect serious push back from a Russian regime that believes it is fighting to preserve its long term existence. In the opinion of the author it is simply not worth meddling in these areas. Talk of arming the regime in West Ukraine is dangerous. Russia has already made it clear that they are not going to be overly cautious or use half-measures, they're playing for keeps. We have to ask ourselves to what extent are we seriously invested in a Western future for Ukraine, and are we willing to go as far as Russia has to achieve that?

In the meantime Britain is fighting its own battle to remain the other 'European outsider'. In the capitals of Europe and in Brussels the future direction of the European Union, and Britain's place in it, is being shaped. Like Russia, Britain is struggling against the embrace of a purely European future, as powerful cultural and political forces ensure that we will continue to question and challenge many European institutions, from an outsider's standpoint.