British politicians and generals love talking about their country’s leadership in Europe. Take this press release from last week on the British contribution to the Steadfast Dart exercise in Romania and Bulgaria, which starts on January 13.

“UK’s 1st Division will be in command of all of NATO’s land forces in the exercise, continuing Britain’s proud tradition of leadership in NATO.“

Sounds great. But dig a little deeper. The headline mentions “Thousands of British troops.” This stretches the numbers: the press release mentions 2,600 (hardly “thousands”), and “personnel”, i.e. not all of them in uniform. And they are not deployed in one go, but over the eight weeks of the exercise. 

Worse, the original version of the press release stated that this will be “the first overseas deployment of a UK division since 2003.” That would indeed be big news. A division is around 15,000 strong. with all the support and logistics staff needed to fight independently. It is shocking but true that the last time Britain sent such a force abroad was during the Gulf War in 2003-4.

Nowadays a war-fighting division is just what Britain is supposed to be contributing to NATO. But my country’s over-stretched, ill-equipped, poorly-funded, under-manned, morale-blitzed armed forces are unable to do this (just as they are also unable to play their full part in NATO’s air and maritime efforts). 

Critics were therefore quick to ask the Ministry of Defence in London to justify the assertion that Britain was now, by some stroke of magical genius, deploying this mythical division to Bulgaria and Romania. The MOD response was to reissue the press release, minus the sentence mentioning the division’s “deployment”. True, the 1^st Division will be in command. But mostly of other countries’ soldiers. 

That barely fixes the PR problem and does nothing to solve the real one. Britain’s allies admire Britain’s military brains. But they are losing confidence in its military muscle, and they are increasingly cross with politicians’ dithering. Keir Starmer’s government hides behind yet another thumb-sucking exercise, the Strategic Defence Review. This is due (supposedly) to publish its conclusions next month. But money is tight and the political will to find more is lacking. But the drumbeat of concern is ever-louder and more urgent. 

The current row in Britain is about air and missile defence, something that other countries are investing heavily in. Britain’s Sea Viper system is excellent, (always assuming that the Royal Navy has a seaworthy Type-45 destroyer in the right place at the right time). But only for the first day of a war, after which stockpiles would be exhausted and defences overwhelmed. With bombs and rockets raining down on Britain’s cities, the government would face a choice between using the last-ditch nuclear deterrent or capitulating. 

That is alarming news for British citizens, who are just waking up to the idea that direct attacks could succeed. It is also troubling for anyone who relies on Britain as a military ally. 

Britain relies on what Francis Tusa, a defence pundit, calls the “1,700km duvet”: the distance between its shores and Russia. NATO allies, supposedly, will deal with aggressors long before they reach the UK. That might be a sensible strategy were Britain a fully engaged, trustworthy member of the alliance. But in the event of a war, allied countries will be fully stretched protecting their own territory from air and missile attack. How many of their scarce air defence resources will they devote to deal with missiles heading to Britain? 

In short: Britain’s government is gambling that allies care more about its defence than it does. An odd definition of leadership. 

Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.

The post The Weakest Link: Britain appeared first on CEPA.