Britain has begun revising its defense strategy based on new threats - IS and Russia. In this impulse, the British are in solidarity with the main allies - the United States, which will help partners in working on a strategy. Pressing on the "Russian threat", the British are not only acting in tandem with the Americans, but also trying to defend the interests of their military-industrial complex, saving the defense budget from cuts.
“We have to admit that the atmosphere of external threats is thickening,” said Philip Dunn, a spokesman for the British Department of Defense, who holds the post of the so-called junior secretary in charge of logistics (which is roughly in line with the Russian tradition of the deputy defense secretary for procurement). Thus, during a visit to the United States, he described the first revision of the UK's national defense strategy in five years. The threats that Dunn outlined are considered by his American colleagues to be very serious: this is the Islamic State, as well as Russia. And the kingdom's defense strategy will be revised with the participation of the United States.
Russia on a par with IS
The UK has finally begun revising its national defense and security strategy, Philip Dunn said at a lunch hosted by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen's consulting company. The goal is to “refresh the national risk assessment” in the light of emerging “threats”. The composition and technical equipment of the kingdom's armed forces will undergo changes in order to combat the "Islamic State" and "contain Russia," Interfax reports, citing the American Internet publication Defense One.
"Russia is testing our readiness for strength, and we give an adequate response to every attempt," Dunn said in an interview with his American colleagues. By strength tests, he meant flights of Russian combat aircraft near the airspace of the kingdom, as well as other European countries, which is reported with an enviable frequency. Combat aircraft of the Royal Air Force, in order to provide answers, are in constant readiness at two air bases in the country, the minister said. And from next year, the British Typhoon multipurpose fighters will resume patrolling the airspace of the Baltic countries.
Philip Dunn talked about this in the United States for a reason. The purpose of his visit, according to the minister himself, was to "invite the United States to participate in the review of our defense and security strategy."
Budget interest
Earlier, the UK has already announced the need to increase defense spending over the next five years. The reason was both the threat from IS and "Russian aggression". Prime Minister David Cameron said in mid-July that he will do everything possible to provide the country with drones, spy planes and elite armed forces, "which will provide a unique opportunity to confront threats at their origin." The “evolving threat” of terrorism poses a particular danger, he said. The growing aggressiveness of Russia, along with IS and hackers, is one of the main threats facing the UK, he is sure.
Cameron's promises were backed up by Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, who said the country would raise its defense budget to 2 percent of GDP next year, which is required of all NATO member states.
However, for Cameron, who traditionally calls for throwing all his forces into war, there are a number of significant obstacles that neither Fallon nor his colleague Philip Dunn speaks about. All actions must be approved by parliament, where there is a sufficient number of opponents to increase defense spending.
As recently as July 21, Treasury Secretary George Osborne announced that the country's budget would have to be cut by another £ 20 billion. All government budgets are proposed to be cut by 25-40 percent, with a £ 12 billion cut in social spending recently approved. This caused a storm of indignation among British residents and even resulted in protests and clashes with the police. The residents are especially outraged by the fact that the government allows cuts in social programs, but does not touch the defense sector.
Martin McCauley, an expert on Russia at the University of London, noted in an interview with RT TV that the Russian threat is being inflated by British politicians precisely in order to defend the defense budget. We are not talking about increasing it - it is important at least to avoid reducing it. "In a recent speech, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond compared the 'threat' from Russia to the Islamic State group in order to shape the image of the 'huge and evil bear' and thus defend the pledged expenses before the Treasury, which requires all ministries to cut the budget." - he reminded. The expert also called these statements "posturing", since Russia's potential does not mean that it is going to attack Great Britain.
Recall that in 2015 the UK cut its military budget to its lowest level in 25 years. Expenditures should amount to only 1.88% of GDP, despite the fact that in 2014 this figure was higher than required by the Alliance - 2.07%.
Savings instead of waste
The editor-in-chief of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovsky notes that, despite all the statements of the representatives of Great Britain, no additional funds have been allocated for the defense of the kingdom in recent years. “They are not increasing the military budget. In the framework of the current economic situation in Europe in general and in Britain in particular, this is out of the question. Statements about the desire to increase defense spending over the past five years have been made on an absolute basis. If you look at the share of military spending in the military budget, it remains unchanged,”Murakhovsky explains in an interview with the VZGLYAD newspaper.
They are not ready to increase expenses: this is not visible either in their programs or in their capabilities. “They have abandoned the program to modernize their armored vehicles, they are experiencing serious difficulties with the maintenance of even the current composition of the navy. The number of tanks that they planned to keep in a state of constant combat readiness has been reduced from 400 to 250. There are many serious problems, we have to save,”Murakhovsky notes.
The saved funds are used for participation in joint European programs, the expert specifies. “For example, on the creation of a single European military transport aircraft A-400. They also plan to purchase American fifth-generation F-35 fighters, which will require huge costs. The emphasis is on the development of expeditionary capabilities: these are the Air Force, the Navy and small ground units, mainly special forces."
During the bombing of Libya, the strike aircraft of France and Great Britain played the main role, and even then the shortcomings in resources and in the availability of high-precision means of the aviation position affected. “At the end of this campaign, the British Air Force experienced significant difficulties. If the question were about a large-scale war, then it is clear that the British Air Force cannot cope with such tasks. They are involved in strikes against IS positions, but this can hardly be called a large-scale operation. When the bombing of Yugoslavia was going on, Britain also made a small contribution to the air strikes. The main burden fell on the American aviation, - Murakhovsky recalled. - The country is now not focusing its forces on the conduct of independent large-scale military operations. At best, it acts as one of the elements of the NATO military machine in the European theater of operations."
Heading for the loss of sovereignty
Britain does not play any independent role in the framework of the so-called containment of Russia, the source concludes. “They are just an element within NATO's military structure. They actively participate in joint exercises, including in the Baltics, as well as in western Ukraine, but they participate symbolically - the forces are insignificant. Without NATO support, Britain will not even be able to wage a regional war,”the expert said.
The UK has traditionally focused on the navy, but it has also declined significantly since World War II. “It is no longer the second in the world, as it was several decades ago. Nevertheless, it has a number of components that are very important for the country's defense: nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles. But we must bear in mind that these are American, not British missiles,”Murakhovsky recalled.
The Alliance cannot allocate additional funds to Britain, because it simply does not fall within its area of responsibility, the expert recalled. “NATO, as a structure, does not have an independent budget and does not purchase weapons. They carry out coordination work, allocating money only for the maintenance of management structures. As for the rest, only the NATO states themselves are engaged in providing their armed forces,”he said.
A joint discussion of a defense strategy fits well into the format of relations that has developed between the UK and the United States, the source said. “The British are the United States' greatest military ally. They support all the military operations that they have conducted over the past 20 years. Considering that this is a nuclear power, the military alliance is very serious, - Murakhovsky believes. - It is clear that they almost completely coordinate their strategy with the United States. Of course, this is a course towards the loss of sovereignty,”he added.
The partnership also explains the common threats that the United States and Great Britain have noted for themselves - IS and Russia. “As for the issues of Russia, the British even acted as lead singers here. The Iron Curtain was not invented by the Americans, but by the British. This is a British policy that has been implemented for centuries,”he recalled.
