Russia’s large-scale war against Ukraine will soon enter its fifth year. Mysterious incidents of a so-called „hybrid war” are on the rise in Europe, increasing tensions. And in the United Kingdom, military chiefs have warned that we must prepare for war if we want to avoid it.
But if the unimaginable were to happen and war with Russia were to break out, could the UK fight for more than a few weeks?, wonders Frank Gardner, a journalist and retired officer of the British Army. Currently, he is the security correspondent for BBC.
"We do not plan to go to war with Europe. But if Europe wants and starts the war, we are prepared." This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 2, accusing European countries of hindering US efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.
To be clear, it is extremely unlikely for the UK to ever find itself in a war with Russia alone, without the support of NATO allies, emphasizes Frank Gardner.
But Putin's words were an uncomfortable reminder that a war between Russia and NATO countries, including the UK, may not be as far off as people had hoped.
What Could War Look Like in the Technology Era
"Well, that's strange. I have no signal on my phone." "Me neither. I'm offline. What's happening?" This hypothetical scenario is just one way we could know that a war with Russia has begun or is about to begin.
This signal interruption could be followed by the inability to make bank payments for essential goods such as food and fuel. Food distribution would be disrupted, and the supply of electricity would be compromised.
There are many ways to wage war, not just the wave of drones, bombs, and rockets so tragically familiar to the citizens of Ukraine.
Modern society, based on technology, is heavily reliant on the network of submarine cables and pipelines that connect the UK to the rest of the world, carrying data, financial transactions, and energy.
It is believed that the secretive activities of Russian spy ships, such as the Yantar, have explored these cables in search of potential sabotage in times of war, which is why the Royal Navy has recently invested in a fleet of underwater drones equipped with integrated sensors.
In a war, these hidden, unseen actions, combined with an almost inevitable attempt to "blind" Western satellites from space, would seriously hinder the UK's ability to fight and could wreak havoc on civil society.
At a recent conference in London titled "Combatting War," organized by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a group of Whitehall experts, military and political figures gathered to discuss whether the UK's current armed forces would be able to sustain a prolonged conflict before running out of troops, ammunition, and spare parts.
"There is little evidence that the UK has a plan to wage a war lasting more than a few weeks," says Hamish Mundell from RUSI.
According to him, to wage a long war, you need adequate reserves. "You need a second and even a third tier; personnel, platforms, and logistical chains that can absorb losses and continue the fight. But these are notably absent from the current design of British forces."
Russia's "Low-Quality" Army
Two of the biggest military lessons from the war in Ukraine are, first, that drones are now an integral part of modern warfare at every level, and second, that "mass" or a large volume of personnel and military equipment matters.
Russia's army is generally of very low quality. Its soldiers are poorly equipped, poorly led, and poorly fed. Their life expectancy in the "drone zone" in eastern Ukraine is short.
The UK's Defense Intelligence Service estimates that since the start of the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia's army has suffered over 1.1 million casualties - killed, wounded, captured, or missing.
Even conservative estimates put the number of Russians killed at 150,000. Ukraine has also suffered numerous casualties, but the figures are hard to determine.
However, Russia has managed to tap into such a large reserve of labor that it has so far been able to replace monthly battlefield losses.
And Russia's economy has been on a war footing for over three years: an economist was appointed to lead the Ministry of Defense, while its factories are producing more drones, missiles, and artillery shells.
According to a recent report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Russia produces around 150 tanks, 550 infantry fighting vehicles, 120 Lancet drones, and over 50 artillery pieces monthly.
The West, Far from Russia's Mass Weapon Production
The UK and most of its Western allies are simply not even close to this point. Analysts say that it would take years for Western European factories to approach Russia's mass weapon production.
"The ground war in Ukraine has undoubtedly shown that mass weapon production is absolutely vital for anyone facing Russia on land," says Keir Giles, a Russia expert at the Chatham House think tank.
"And it has been demonstrated that it is essential to have substantial reserves, far more numerous than regular permanent armed forces," he says.
National Military Service
France and Germany have recently taken steps to revive a voluntary national military service system for 18-year-olds.
Former head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, suggested in 2024, the year he retired, that the UK should train what he called a "citizen army" to fight in a future ground war. However, his successor rejected the idea.
"I think it's a cultural issue within the UK," says Ed Arnold, a senior researcher at RUSI.
"So, if you look at the states that are now moving towards military service - such as Sweden, Germany, and France - these are states that, culturally, still have an institutional memory of the period when they had that system," he added.
"The reality is that our armed forces cannot survive on a diet of government manipulation, excessive spending commitments, and empty rhetoric," said Ben Wallace, who was Defense Secretary in the Conservative government from 2019 to 2023, to the BBC.
In response to this, a spokesperson for the current Labour Defense Secretary, John Healey, stated: "This characterization is unfounded. We have increased defense spending by £5 billion just this year, signed 1,000 major contracts since the election, and increased spending with British businesses by 6% above inflation in the past year."
He points to a new defense agreement with Norway and a new £300 million investment in the Royal Navy's laser weapon: "We are a government investing in transforming our forces, investing in our military personnel."
Long Underfunded British Defense
But this is not about party politics. It's about the fact that British defense has been underfunded for so long that the country is now dangerously vulnerable in several areas, especially in air defense.
There are also issues of timing and inefficiency. Defense contracts often take years to materialize. Billions of pounds have been spent on Ajax, a lagging armored vehicle project that is still plagued by problems. Meanwhile, NATO has warned that Russia could be able to launch an attack on an allied country within three to five years.
At the end of the Cold War (between NATO and the Soviet Union) in 1990, the UK spent 4.1% of GDP on defense. The following year, it deployed over 45,000 soldiers to help evacuate the invading army of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.
Today, with multiple pressures on the economy, the government is striving to reach a target of 2.5% of GDP by 2027, while Russia spends nearly 7%.
On paper, the British Army counts around 74,000 soldiers, but Ed Arnold from RUSI emphasizes that once you subtract medically non-deployable soldiers, attachés worldwide, and others not part of formed units, then its actual deployable strength is only 54,000.
In the event of a war, says Justin Crump from Sibylline, on land, the British Army would most likely be degraded - unable to fight effectively - within a few weeks.
Suggestions That the UK Is Already "at War"
Some commentators have suggested that the UK is already "at war" with Russia. They refer to what is known as "hybrid" or "gray zone" warfare, which includes cyberattacks, disinformation, and alleged drone launches near NATO countries' airports and military bases.
But as concerning as these may be, they pale in comparison to the crisis that would be triggered by a Russian military attack on a NATO country, especially if it involved occupying territories and killing people.
There are several potential conflict points here, where NATO military chiefs fear that if Putin were allowed to achieve his goals in Ukraine, he could ultimately seek new targets for aggression.
A potential target is the Suwalki Gap, a 100 km border stretch between Poland and Lithuania, both NATO countries. This is all that separates Russia's ally Belarus from the Russian exclave Kaliningrad on the Baltic coast.
Conquering this border and opening a route along it would, in theory, provide Moscow with direct access to its strategic base on the Baltic Sea.
The Baltic states themselves are other potential points of conflict. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were once part of the Soviet Union and were ruled from Moscow.
All voted for independence and later joined NATO, but all have Russian-speaking minorities, hence the risk that Putin might be tempted to send troops across the border "to protect them from persecution."
The city of Narva in eastern Estonia, for example, is an obvious potential target here, as the majority of its population speaks Russian and is just across the river from the giant Russian fortress of Ivangorod.
A British battle group, consisting of around 900 troops, has been stationed in Estonia, approximately 128 kilometers west of Narva, since 2017.
Another possible crisis point is the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, which is administered by Norway, but where Moscow already has a foothold in the mining town of Barentsburg.