Rupert Wieloch

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.

My idea of a gap year is when school leavers fill the time between school and university (usually 14 months) with “no-commitment” growing-up activities, such as travel, adventure, art, sport and short-term, money-earning jobs. Of course, it can also mean post university and career gaps, but by then people are more fixed in their minds in terms of values and attitude.

The British Military Gap Year Scheme which was announced yesterday is not quite like this. For a start, it requires a two-year commitment and entails a three month basic military training course. All it seems to be doing, is reducing the normal three-year commitment to two. The under-25s who enrol in this scheme will not deploy on active operations, which seems strange to me because these are the best bits – barrack life can be pretty dull and monotonous.

I completely support the sentiments of encouraging families to consider the military as worthwhile careers and the so-called “whole-of-society” approach to defence and deterrence, but this announcement provides no detail about what skills will be offered and unfortunately will not fill the real Armed Forces Gap.

Recruit Training 25 Years Ago

I cannot believe the Libya is still using Colonel Gaddafi’s private jet aircraft for their military chiefs’ flights. In 2012, I was flown from Mitiga Air Base to El Adem in one of Gaddafi’s Falcon 50 jets. Even to my layman’s eyes it was clear that maintenance schedules were not being completed because the tradesmen had sold their tools during the civil war to buy food for their families. The fleet of MiGs, Sukhois and Falcons needed to be replaced and the infrastructure renovated. The Chief of the Libyan Air Force invited me to bring out British contractors to bid for the work, which I managed to do before the end of my tour.

The tragic crash of the Libyan Falcon 50 that caused the death of their Army Chief, General Haddad and other military officials in Turkey has put this aircraft in the spotlight again. Between the three possible causes of a terrorist attack, pilot error or bad-maintenance, my guess is the third. Given the amount of oil and gas money in Libya it seems extraordinary that the government has not upgraded their VIP aircraft since the overthrow of Gadhaffi.

Maintenance Hangar At The Libyan Airbase in El Adem

Following the tragic death of Corporal George Hooley last week, the Media has highlighted the case of an ex-British soldier captured on the front line soon after joining the Ukrainian Foreign Legion last year. The UK’s Foreign Office statement demanding that Russia “stop using prisoners of war for political and propaganda purposes” reminds me that not much has changed since 1920, when the British soldiers in my book, Churchill’s Abandoned Prisoners, were deceived by Bolshevik Commissars and incarcerated in political prisons in Moscow.

However, this was not the main event this week. The news that the EU is providing more financial support for Ukraine is very welcome, but the Russian President’s end-of-year address catches the eye as the centrepiece. The fact that Putin no longer portrays the USA as his biggest threat even though the US Commander-in-Chief is now attacking Russia’s most important trading and military ally in Latin America makes me think something dramatic has changed this year. Have Putin and Trump agreed an undeclared deal behind the scenes – Ukraine for Venezuela?

My first thoughts this week are for the family of the brave paratrooper, who became the first confirmed death of a serving member of the British armed forces in Ukraine.

Corporal Hooley’s sad demise raises many questions about the undeclared use of troops on military operations. In 2011, I was one of many such soldiers who were deployed in a war zone with limited political authority. We were given a military mission, but knew that our activities would be denied officially, if we were caught.

I can understand why the British government does not wish to reveal the full extent of the British military mission in Ukraine. Ever since Parliament voted not to intervene in Syria when Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, there has been a reluctance to engage in high-end fighting. However, if the head of NATO is correct about Russia’s capability and plans to launch further attacks against European countries, then we really must shake people out of their complacency and educate them about casualties in war.

What also needs to change is PJHQ’s medallic recognition for our soldiers in Ukraine. These courageous men and women should be awarded the General Service Medal 2008, rather than the less prestigious Tier 4, Wider Service Medal, which is what they receive now.

Readiness has been in the news again this week, with Putin stating on Tuesday that “Russia did not want to fight Europe, but was “ready” for war if necessary”. This news played a part in the German government’s vote on Friday to reintroduce military conscription, albeit on a voluntary basis.

Together with France, which announced similar plans last month, Germany will join the NATO Flank countries (Scandinavia, Greece and Turkey) and Baltic Three (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) to visibly increase their readiness for war with Russia. But what about Britain?

When I toured the United Kingdom, speaking to large audiences in towns and cities 25 years ago, I was often asked about the reintroduction of national service. At that time, the British Army did not wish to waste precious resources on solving society’s perceived problem of a lack of self discipline among young people. We had more than enough volunteers to sustain the “Best Small Army in the World” at over 100,000 professional soldiers.

Today we face a different challenge. Young people are accused of self-entitlement and the British Army is no longer capable of deploying an armoured division at short notice to fight high-intensity armoured warfare, as we did in 2003. Realising this situation, I have changed my tune and I am now fully behind the movement to reintroduce National Service for all school leavers. It doesn’t have to be military, but it does have to be a contribution to society and a commitment to the community – perhaps medical or mucking-out. As in World War II, certain employments should be classed as reserved occupations e.g. mining, manufacturing and munitions. The aim should be clear: to be ready to fulfil Article 5 commitments to our Allies, if Russia invades a NATO nation.

Para Musicians – Courtesy of MoD

The Ajax programme dates to when I was Head of Reliability in the Ministry of Defence in 2008, after FRES was cancelled by the Chief of the General Staff. Unfortunately, the MoD in its wisdom closed the Reliability Group after I deployed to Baghdad and as a result there was insufficient technical oversight of the programme in the competition phase, before contracts were signed in 2014.

To my mind, the reliability problems and technical issues that have delayed the introduction of this vital equipment can be put down to the indiscriminate culling of system design engineers at Abbey Wood in the shadow of the merger of the old Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation. Under a culture of “Change” and “Efficiencies”, the delivery of aircraft, ships and tanks suffered subsequently you cannot ask Defence Contractors to mark their own homework!

If the MoD had spent more on technical oversight in the early stage of the programme and less on McKinsey change management fees, we would not have wasted so much money further down the line. More importantly, Ajax would now be integrated into British Armoured Brigade Combat Teams and we would be closer to being able to fulfil our commitments to NATO Allies.

When Will We Have Full Operating Capability?