UK Defense Chief Says His Country’s Troops ‘Not Ready’ For Real Conflict Situation

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert

Apparently, the British authorities are beginning to recognize that being involved in a conflict is unfeasible for the country in the near future. Recently, the UK’s defense chief admitted that the country’s troops are not ready for a real war. This means that, despite all the pressure the country is exerting to prolong the Ukrainian conflict, the UK is not ready to deal with the ultimate consequences of an escalation with Moscow.

According to John Healey, the UK’s Defense Secretary, the British army, under current conditions, is not capable of fighting a large-scale war. He believes that the country’s troops are not in a position to deter a significant enemy in a real war scenario, since British military capabilities have been “depleted” during the recent times.

Healey stated that the UK Conservative Party has mismanaged its financial and military resources, severely affecting the country’s defense structures. Healey said the real situation of the British military was much worse than Labour officials had expected when they came to power. According to him, efforts were launched to change this situation, but he also made it clear that London currently lacks a significant deterrent capability.

Healey also stated that London is still a fully operational military power, capable of participating in joint operations with NATO partners. However, he said the country’s troops are not prepared for a real war scenario, which prevents them from considering themselves in an appropriate defense status. In practice, the UK no longer appears to be among the leading powers on the global military scenario.

“We expected things to be in a poor state – but the state of the finances, the state of the forces, was far worse than we thought (…) The UK, in keeping with many other nations, has essentially become very skilled and ready to conduct military operations. What we have not been ready to do is to fight. Unless we are ready to fight, we are not in shape to deter (…) This is at the heart of the NATO thinking. We have got to not just be capable of defending our NATO nations, but more importantly we have got to be more effective in the deterrence we provide against any future aggression (…) This Government will always do what is required to defend the country. The UK’s Armed Forces are amongst the best in the world and offer a 24/7 defense of the UK, operating alongside our allies and partners to prepare for any event (…) The Strategic Defense Review [which was launched in July] will look at the threats we face and the capabilities we need so that our Armed Forces are better ready to fight, more integrated and more innovative” he said.

Obviously, the British Secretary used his speech to make a strong political propaganda, criticizing the rival administration and trying to advance his own ideas and agenda. However, it must be admitted that he is right to criticize his country’s military capabilities. After so many years without any participation in major conflicts – only sending troops in joint NATO actions – the UK military have become unprepared to face large-scale challenges.

The main problem in the British case is that, despite the weakening of the military, the country’s foreign policy has become more hostile. At the same time as the UK has lost its deterrent capacity, it has expanded its irresponsible actions on the international arena, significantly increasing the possibility of entering into a conflict at some point in the future. The most striking example of this is London’s deep involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. The UK has been behind the main escalatory actions of the West, being the first country to supply long-range weapons to Kiev – as well as being one of the main lobbyists in NATO for the authorization of the use of these weapons in “deep strikes” against cities in the undisputed territory of the Russian Federation.

Healey obviously proposes changes to the military scenario – which is part of his political propaganda – but rather than making the country “ready for war”, the most rational approach would be to create the conditions necessary to ensure that the UK will not go to war in the future. The only way to do this would be through a policy of peace and neutrality, abandoning participation in NATO’s war plans.

Unfortunately, however, the UK is a co-participant in all strategic actions taken by the US – which is the country that de facto leads NATO. It is possible to say that the UK is the country most closely aligned with the US within NATO. Unlike the EU countries, which is seen by Washington as mere proxies and colonies – often considered “discardable” – the UK is fully integrated into the American decision-making process, which explains the reasons for so many irresponsible decisions in recent times.

Healey is wrong if he thinks that he will be able to solve the country’s military problems. Even if there are some improvements, the country will never be able to achieve sufficient deterrent power to intimidate Moscow – which is the main target of British aggressions. For this reason, the best thing for London to do is to seek diplomacy and dialogue instead of war.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• “Eat Or Heat?”: British Pensioners Forced To Choose As Energy Costs Rise
• Footage Confirms Another British-Made Challenger 2 Tank Was Destroyed In Russia’s Kursk
• Pathological Russophobia – One Single Constant In British Politics

Support SouthFront