Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stated that Britain is “ready and willing” to contribute to Ukraine’s security, including the potential deployment of British troops. However, there are significant challenges to such a move, raising questions about Britain’s military capability and strategic positioning.
Reports suggest these would be “peacekeeping” forces, yet true peacekeepers must remain neutral. British troops in Ukraine would not be impartial, potentially reinforcing Russia’s narrative that NATO is acting as an aggressor. Additionally, as Ukraine is not a NATO member, Article 5, the alliance’s collective defence clause, would not be triggered.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has also clarified that European troops deployed in Ukraine would not be covered under NATO’s protective umbrella, meaning British forces could be left vulnerable if conflict escalated.
Declining Military Readiness
Years of defence cuts have significantly weakened the British Army’s ability to sustain an extended conflict. The number of full-time trained personnel has dropped from 100,000 in 2000 to approximately 70,000 today. Limited resources, declining equipment stockpiles, and reduced manufacturing capacity make any large-scale deployment increasingly difficult.
Historically, under-preparation has hindered British military effectiveness. In both 1914 and 1940, the British Expeditionary Force was deployed with insufficient resources, serving more as a symbolic gesture than a formidable fighting force. A small British deployment to Ukraine today would likely face similar limitations, offering support but lacking the strength to act as a real deterrent.
Defence Spending Challenges
Britain’s ability to produce arms and ammunition has declined due to years of underinvestment. Many airfields, storage facilities, and production lines abandoned after the Cold War would require significant reinvestment. The UK’s current defence budget stands at £56.4 billion, roughly 2.3% of GDP, but a portion of this is allocated to pensions and administrative costs rather than direct military capability.
While NATO’s target for defence spending is 2% of GDP, former US President Donald Trump has called for an increase to 5%, a figure that would be difficult for Britain to meet without major cuts elsewhere. Defence chiefs have proposed a rise to 2.65%, but Starmer has indicated he is unlikely to go beyond 2.5%.
During the Cold War, Britain regularly spent over 5% of GDP on defence. Today, the global security landscape is becoming increasingly volatile, with Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia underscoring the need for stronger military readiness. However, replacing lost capacity is far costlier than maintaining it, and Britain now faces an uphill battle to rebuild its forces.
Missed Opportunities for Strengthening Defence
Since 2014, Russia’s military ambitions have been evident, yet NATO members, including Britain, have not significantly bolstered their defences. This delay has made the cost of strengthening military capabilities even greater.
Lord Tedder, Chief of the Air Staff after the Second World War, famously stated: “It is at the outset of war that time is the supreme factor.” Three years into the Ukraine conflict, NATO has missed key opportunities to prepare, and the financial burden of addressing these shortcomings continues to grow.
Britain’s current military funding, when adjusted for non-operational expenses, falls short of what is needed to maintain a robust defence force. Without a fundamental shift in defence policy, the UK risks being unable to defend itself adequately, let alone project military power abroad.
While the political will to support Ukraine may exist, Britain’s military capability remains in question. Without increased investment and strategic restructuring, any troop deployment would be more symbolic than operationally effective.
