Rupert Wieloch

The pronouncement by a former Prime Minister that Britain should send non-combat troops to safe parts of Ukraine is very misleading. In the first place, we have all seen that no part of Ukraine is safe from Russian missile, or drone attacks – the front line is everywhere. More importantly, the notion that the British Army has non-combat troops is false. All British soldiers are first and foremost taught to fight; their secondary skill set might take them to different echelons, but logisticians, administrators, medics and mechanics must be able to pass their personal weapons test every year, as well as other battlefield competences.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that we should send British troops to Ukraine now to demonstrate to Russia that the West believes Ukraine must remain a free, independent country in Europe. Waiting for a ceasefire, as the current government suggests, only plays into Putin’s hands and allows him to keep advancing in the Donbas.

The talk about defence spending is also poorly articulated. We need politicians to translate 3.5% of GDP into meaningfulness (i.e. what it costs to send brigades, ships and aircraft to war and sustain them for two or three years). It is time to instil a readiness culture in Britain, including the reintroduction of national service for all British school-leavers.

I am looking forward to giving my talk on two iconic battles of the Korean War tomorrow evening. As we sit between the 75th anniversaries of the Inchon Landings and the Battle of Imjin, it is worth reflecting on four lessons from that three year war, which resulted in over 2 Million deaths.

The first lesson is how the Free World came together to fight an authoritarian regime that invaded its neighbour. We saw the same thing when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The second is how President Truman said no when General MacArthur demanded that he should widen the war for all-out victory. Above all else, avoid nuclear Armageddon.

The third is about humanitarian operations to save refugees (the Miracle of Christmas) and prevent the forcible repatriation of prisoners when it is known they will be slaughtered (as happened to the Cossacks after World War II).

The fourth is how 73 years after the armistice, there is still no peace treaty and the Demilitarized Zone is the most heavily guarded frontier in the World. As MacArthur said: “There is no substitute for Victory”.

Each of these lessons is relevant to what is happening in Ukraine four years after Russia launched a full-scale invasion into its neighbour. If there is an armistice this year, we don’t have far to look for a precedent.

Centurion Tank At The Time Of The Korean War

Three topics relevant to British Armed Forces tempted me to provide some context this week. However, I will save my observations about UN Failures, Chinese Security and Defence and The World’s Policeman for later in the month. Instead, I will concentrate on reinforcing my previous post about the false accusation that the USA never asked for military support in Afghanistan with evidence from two archival reports.

The first is drawn from the MoD lessons learned report from Afghanistan in 2002. “Following the defeat and removal of the Taleban regime in late 2001, the UK main effort focused on the leadership of ISAF to stabilise Kabul and ensure the meeting of the Loya Jurga in June. Meanwhile, US forces concentrated on the destruction of the remaining enemy pockets of resistance, particularly in the south-east, culminating in Operation Anaconda launched on 1 March 2002. The US was surprised at the ferocity of this battle and lost 8 men KIA… On 15 March 2002, the US formally requested the deployment of a UK fighting force and three days later [our] Secretary of State announced the deployment of a battle group, based on 45 Commando Royal Marines to come under tactical command of Commander 10 US Mountain Division.” In this role, Task Force Jacana as it was known, undertook four deliberate operations on the front line before it was withdrawn in July. There were many tactical lessons identified, but strategically, the mission was a huge success as it sent a powerful message to both friendly and hostile nations and allowed the Loya Jurga trouble-free progress against a background of relative security.

The second substantial US request came in 2005. Up to this point, British Armed Forces had run a very successful Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in the north of the country. Washington now asked London if it would take over the PRT in Helmand Province as it was having difficulty gaining traction outside of the provincial capital. I deployed in October with the planning team to Kandahar, where a Royal Air Force Harrier flight was based. My task was to map out the urgent operational requirements for soldiers, vehicles, helicopters and the costs of third line support. There were also officers there to advise on reconstruction and economic alternatives to opium production. At that time, it was envisaged that we would send the Royal Anglian Regiment in 2006. However, this was changed to Headquarters 16 Air Assault Brigade together with a Parachute battalion. The resulting combat operation has been well-covered by the media in the past fortnight.

My final thought on this is to recognise the loss and sacrifices of all NATO nations in Afghanistan. I was a member of a guard of honour in Kandahar to say farewell to a Chinook crew that had been shot down. It was not just US and UK troops in that Ramp Parade saluting the dead as they were carried onto the C-17. All the national contingents were represented. To denigrate their contribution, as we heard last week, really is beyond the pale.

Helmand Task Force Planning Group in Kandahar 2005

The government’s announcement this week that the age limit for the Strategic Reserve (former armed forces personnel) will increase by a ten years to 65 is unsurprising. This means not only that those born between 1961 and 1971 will now be liable to mobilisation in the event of a war with Russia, but also that 60 year-old specialists might be sent to Ukraine and other hot-spots if their rare skills are required by the military. This might for example affect doctors, civil engineers, or even cyber-warriors. But why make this announcement now?

One of the key reasons is that those younger than 55 will have no personal experience of preparing for war against Russia. Whereas those born in the 1960s not only will have experience of the relevant Pillars of British Defence Policy from 1989 (Defence of the Home Base, Continental Commitment on the Central Front and Flanks of Europe, Maritime Commitment), but they may also have experience of our two most important wars of that era, the liberations of the Falklands and Kuwait.

In theory, the change does make sense, but in practice there will be huge problems. Similar to all contact sports, fighting is a young person’s game. How many 60 year-olds are still playing rugby, or can pass a battle fitness test by running one and a half miles in 12 minutes and then do an 12 hour shift on the front line, or in an ops room?

This policy may paper over some cracks, but it does not address the real problem the government faces of recruiting and sustaining a meaningful armoured formation that can deploy and fight a long war. It’s time for National Conscription!

In General Shane Hackett’s outstanding book about World War III, which was based on the United Kingdom’s Defence Planning Assumptions in the 1970s, Britain’s principal ally in the Middle East was not Israel or Saudi Arabia, but Persia. Our 20th century history is littered with instances when we waged war against former allies. For example, in World War I we fought alongside Italy and Japan, both of which became enemies in World War II. Will 2026, be remembered as another of these occasions when an aggressive former ally becomes our enemy?

To my mind, the global upheaval we are experiencing is similar to those in 1935 and 1979 when Italy broke the League of Nations and the Shah of Iran was overthrown. Responding to the latest conflicts and threats of military interventions, the United Nations has proven to be as inept as its predecessor at keeping the Peace, so we are now into an era of Partisan War.

No doubt our government will attempt to survive the new Threat by adapting like a chameleon. However, some hard choices lie ahead if we are to prepare Gen Z for the worst case scenario – the military break up of NATO.

Two weeks ago, I suggested that President Trump had done a deal with President Putin that effectively traded Ukraine for Venezuela and allowed each other to militarily subsume two of the largest sovereign states on the planet. Yesterday, this idea was realised as the World witnessed a generation defining event when America struck at strategic targets inside Venezuela and captured President Maduro (for the record the size of Venezuela is 912,050 square kilometres – it is more than twice the size of Iraq).

Newscasters and commentators have struggled to put this into context. Channel 4 tried to liken it to the Millennium interventions into Afghanistan, Iraq (and Libya), with their associated troubles. This was rightly swatted away because a) those expeditions were in response to the most heinous crime in human history (9/11) and b) they occurred in countries with deep sectarian and/or historical schisms.

Others have suggested that Putin and Trump are attempting to take us back to the Cold War era, when the World was effectively managed by the two Superpowers. However, this model does not work for me partly because the World is more disordered now than after WWII and partly because the World’s demographics and wealth have shifted over the past 50 years with China, India and Arabia tilting the balance.

It is well-known that Putin thought little of the Soviet system and harks back further to Tsarist era, when Russia built its Empire by leaning on its neighbours walls until they crumbled. We also know that President Trump admires Putin’s methodology. So the question is: will this be another Iraq or Vietnam with puppet-regimes dogged by military insurgency, or will it be more like the Philippines, when President Aguinaldo was captured by American forces on 23 March 1901 and the country was later governed as a US Territory? Only time will tell.