WHITHER UKRAINE?
In February 2022 when Russia’s ‘special military operation’ invaded Ukraine, the United Kingdom was the first country to declare unequivocal support, immediately sending large quantities of her own stocks of the excellent shoulder-operated anti-tank missile NLAW, which largely contributed to the utter defeat of the Russian attempt to capture Kyiv (Kiev that was) from the north. Next the USA announced support, then somewhat reluctantly Germany and France came on board and soon, with the vocal exception of Hungary, all of NATO was solidly behind Ukraine. What began with the supply of only defensive weapons metamorphosed into the provision of artillery, mortars, missiles and, eventually, main battle tanks and the promise of F16 jet fighters.
While the USA greatly outstripped other supporting nations in the provision of weaponry and money, it was the UK that first promised and supplied tanks, thus acting as a catalyst for others to do the same. The Russian advance was stopped and Ukraine prepared to recover her lost territory. Much was made of a proposed major spring, then summer and finally autumn offensive of 2023, which those of us with any military experience at all knew would be a long struggle of attrition, with the inevitably slow progress necessitated by massive Russian defence lines, anti-tank obstacles and minefields. Much of the public, and many politicians who should have known better, expected a spectacular overrun of the Donbas, a veritable blitzkrieg, and were surprised and disappointed when that did not happen.
Political and public opinion is fickle, and already cracks are appearing in the Western response to Russian aggression. In the US Republican politicians are refusing to authorise the next tranche of money and weaponry to Ukraine as part of an internal political dogfight to force the Democrat president to adopt the Trump plan of building a wall along the border with Mexico. Slovakia, previously a supplier of arms to Ukraine and a transit route for other donors, has stopped its supplies and if the Law and Justice Party had won the recent Polish election Poland too would have withdrawn its support, which as the major transit route for British and American supplies to Ukraine would have been very serious indeed. As it was, Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition formed the new government, continuing support of Ukraine, but as his coalition includes the New Left party which includes members of the old Polish Communist Party, that coalition may not be entirely stable. Currently Ukrainian attempts to continue the offensive are stalled due to a shortage of ammunition, which had been expected to arrive from the US and the EU. The EU, Hungary dissenting, is willing to supply what it can but its own stocks are running out. Within NATO combat fatigue is setting in.
Looking to the future, Donald Trump looks almost certain to win the US presidential election in 2024. He has never been firmly in support of NATO and while he will probably baulk at leaving it, he may well decide that war in Eastern Europe is none of America’s business and that the USA’s vital interests are not at stake. In that case funding would be cut off and Germany and France, never wholeheartedly in support of Ukraine’s war, might well withdraw too, or suggest peace terms which would be wholly unacceptable to Ukraine. That would leave the UK.
The UK is currently at war with Russia by proxy. We supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition and we train their soldiers. A British convoy carrying arms to Ukraine trundling along through Poland is a legitimate military target and legally Russia would be entitled to attack it. The same applies to the camps in UK which train Ukrainian infantry recruits. What prevents Russia from doing so is Article 5 of the NATO treaty which says that an attack on one member is to be regarded as an attack on them all. If, however, Russia sees that American support is withdrawn or half-hearted at best, and other members of NATO are increasingly less robust in support for Ukraine, the temptation to attack a British convoy without the risk of NATO retaliation may well be irresistible. In that case we would face Russia alone, and good though the British army is, it has been run down and starved of investment to the extent that it could not alone take on Russia in a conventional war. The Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has effectively been sacked for saying that the planned reduction of the army to 72,500, a decision made before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, was ‘perverse’. UK stocks of missiles and ammunition have been dangerously run down and are not being replaced in anything like the quantities required. This leaves British politicians with the options of a military defeat, a humiliating climb down or the use of nuclear weapons. No British government is likely to sanction a nuclear first strike (although commanders of ballistic missile submarines might!) so the nightmare scenario of Russians holding victory parades down Whitehall is not entirely far-fetched.
Let us be in no doubt: if Ukraine loses this war, through a failure on the part of the West, we and the Baltic states will be next. Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
Only disagree in that there's a very small chance Trump wins the election. He has to convince a lot of people that he won't do what he did the first time and he's not even trying to do so.
It would be imprudent this far ahead of next November's balloting to concede the election outcome. Even in normal years the polls taken this early were not reliable predictors and our pollsters these days have trouble reaching reliable respondents among a population worn down by internet and telephone spammers wanting to talk about extended auto warranties. A certain degree of concern and perhaps alarm is warranted but not yet panic.