Rupert Wieloch

In Baghdad, I had the honour of attending Iraqi Ministerial meetings and US Senate Briefings so I was fortunate to be present at one of the pivotal decisions in 2008 that brought about the withdrawal of US troops from the Green Zone. This was the Iraqi decision to buy Naval Patrol Craft from Malaysia, rather than from Washington. After this multi-million pound deal was announced, a distinguished US Senator was heard to say: “Don’t They Know They Owe Us?”

The two types of delusion that were behind this (Iraqis believing they were free to choose and Americans believing that Iraqis should be grateful for the US occupation) were played out again in Washington between President Trump and President Zelensky this week. But there is a third delusion that has also raised its head and that is the belief that a nation can conjure combat military capability from nothing. It takes years of team practice to build an effective armoured battle-group, but the British Army, with misguided concepts such as Whole Fleet Management and Casualty Aversion Wokery is nowhere near the standards needed for an Operational Readiness Test, let alone a complex peacekeeping deployment.

We need to remember Kofi Anan’s hard-earned wisdom about the best peacekeepers being trained for full-scale war. There is only one answer to this conundrum, but it will be politically unpopular, economically taxing, diplomatically demanding and militarily challenging.

Tank Warfare Is A Lost Art

When President Trump negotiated a US withdrawal agreement from Afghanistan five years ago, it precipitated a Taliban takeover and chaotic scenes across the country 18 months later. After his cosy with President Putin and spat with President Zelensky this week, will history repeat itself in Europe?

The first thing to say is that France and the United Kingdom are looking as isolated at the United Nations as they did during the Suez crisis. The difference though is very stark with Suez marking the end of European Imperialism, whereas the current crisis leading potentially to the end of European Democracy.

There are plenty of 21st century precedents of US conflict withdrawal, including Bosnia in 2004 and Baghdad in 2010. The former led to an EU Mission, which was guaranteed by NATO Over The Horizon Forces. The latter left a void, which allowed Islamic State to develop as an international force and in turn, led to ten more years of war. The abandonment of Syria by President Obama in 2013 did not end well either.

Untying US commitments to Ukraine (and Eastern Europe) will not be easy. It is certainly possible for Trump to pull the plug on the troops, arms, missiles and connected surveillance systems that are based in the former Warsaw Pact countries, which are now part of NATO. But ultimately, would that solve his economic problems at home, or give him Allies to do what Washington wants to do in the Middle East and Persia?

Happier Days For NATO Allies

One of the illusions that political leaders attempt with their populations is to try and make people believe the God of War can be controlled. However, in my experience, once Mars has been unleashed, it is not possible to corral him until the innate energy of conflict has been spent. It is like striving to contain a hurricane in a box.

It’s also true that in this day and age, the war lords on the front line (and their henchmen) take perverse pride in controlling the freedom of movement in their zones and ignoring their own political masters. On the third anniversary of Putin’s so-called Special Military Operation (SMO), there is little sign of Russian withdrawal or Ukrainian defeatism, so despite all the political hype in the Capital Cities of Europe and America, we are no closer to peace in Ukraine than we were a week ago.

On Sky News, I was asked about a possible Peacekeeping operation in Ukraine, but people seem to forget that this type of operation needs an international mandate from the United Nations to be legal and I do not see the Security Council, as it is currently formed, agreeing any Resolution in the near future. That is not to say that we shouldn’t prepare our troops for such an undertaking because it would need a highly trained force (at least nine months) to be capable for such a mission.

So what are we left with on the third anniversary of the SMO? A deep sense of sympathy for the people of Ukraine and especially those who have lost family and those currently serving, under fire, on the Front Line. A moment to pause and reflect.

The political statements by US, EU and UK leaders this week were a gift to Chess-Master Putin and an acknowledgement of what I wrote in my last posting. Sure enough, Trump delivered his “Bizarre-eccentricity”, which caught the World by surprise. Except that it shouldn’t have because he has been singing from the same songsheet for ten years. He believes European countries are not pulling their weight in matters of Defence (a fair criticism); he admires the way Putin turned Russia around from the failed state of the 1990s into a global powerhouse; and he cares as little about the territorial integrity of Ukraine as he does about the right of Palestinians to live in Gaza. So will his rapprochment with the Russian President lead to Peace In Our Time, or will it lead to a European Union force deploying boots on the ground in Ukraine?

Despite the predicament that Ukraine finds itself in after three hard years, I do not believe that her army will capitulate like Syria’s did in December last year. However, if the US withdraws its military assistance, it is only a matter of time before the Russian Army breaks through the front line. In the short term, I do not see the EU having the capabilities to replace the USA or even to deploy an effective Peace Support Operation because they always place ridiculous caveats on commanders when it comes to casualties.

I have written before about what Putin wants from this war, which above all is to end NATO’s encroachment of Russia. With Finland and Sweden joining NATO in 2023 and 2024, it looked as if he had failed in this objective, but if he persuades Trump to cut the lifeblood to the 75 year-old pensioner, he will have achieved more than any of his Soviet predecessors. The stakes are really high because so many European countries have run down their Armed Forces and relegated their military to Cattle Class. As Kipling wrote: For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ Chuck him out, the brute!” But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot…

Tommy Saving His Country

As we approach the anniversary of Putin’s “special operation”, there will be much wringing of hands in Western Capitals and no doubt a Trump “Bizentrecky”. However, we must always remember that the true start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was 2014, not 2022. That said the span and intensity of fighting increased significantly three years ago; with everything from traditional trench warfare to modern drone attacks and Special Forces operations leading to the tragic milestone of a million casualties.

Despite Donald Trump’s reassurance, we are as far away from peace in Eastern Europe as we have ever been. The Russian Army, supported by anti-American allies such as North Korea, has made steady progress during the winter months. Putin has solved the two challenges he faced of economic sanctions and ageing demographics, so it is likely that he will continue to take more Ukrainian land this year – unless the balance of power shifts with a serious NATO intervention.

However, the quandary for the West remains the same as it was three years ago. If the war continues, Russia will continue to slowly gain more land, but if a peace is agreed that allows Putin to keep the Crimea and so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, this will reward the aggressor and punish the victim. The bottom line is that there is little appetite (and no votes) in the high-tech, social-media influencing Western world for putting “boots on the ground” and risking nuclear Armageddon. So all that will be done is to send more truck-loads of weapons, ammunition and humanitarian assistance, but this will only delay the inevitable…

Russian Artillery Used in Ukraine

Before Russia lost its war with Japan and expanded its interests in the Balkans, it was aggressively attempting to assimilate its neighbours into its Empire. Although it succeeded in the Baltic countries and Poland, it was unsuccessful in Finland, despite the efforts of the Governor General, Nikolay Bobrikov, to fully integrate Suomi through the February Manifesto of 1899.

The history of how Finland resisted Russian aggression over many years and eventually gained and held onto its independence is a salutary lesson, which we would do well to remember as we approach the third anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Blackwood’s article in July 1899 (the year it published Heart of Darkness), epitomised the role of free British press in exposing the truth behind dictatorial regimes, which used secret police to quell public unrest. This pivotal role continues today through organisations such as The Frontline Club in London, which is showing Dancing with the Russian Bear later this month. This is a critical insight into the question why the West has misread Putin and definitely worth watching.

Moscow May Parade

Today, I reminded myself of the Russo-Japanese War, which began with a surprise attack on the Russian Pacific Fleet in 1904 (a pre-empt for Pearl Harbour). This conflict is important because it not only changed the face of modern warfare, but it also set in motion a sequence of events that led directly to the global catastrophes that characterised the first half of the twentieth century.

At its heart, this little-known struggle was about territorial ambitions in Manchuria and Korea, but the two massive battlefield victories at Muckden in March 1925 and in the Tsushima Strait two months later sealed Russia’s total defeat and forced the Tsar to sue for peace. This led Russia to focus their foreign policy more towards the Balkans, where they caused the “Bosnian Crisis” of 1908 and in turn, sowed the seeds of the assassination of Archduke France Ferdinand six years later.

The Japanese victory, which was a wake-up call for the West, was partly due to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty that had been signed in 1902. This pact balanced the odds by preventing Russia’s ally, France, from deploying troops because if Paris joined the fight, then London would enter the war on the opposite side. The controversial treaty put Britain at odds not only with France and Russia, but also with the USA, which was competing with Japan for Pacific colonies.

Returning to 2025, as I read the over-simplified commentaries about Putin and Russia that were re-hashed this week, I sense we are as far away from understanding how to end the Ukraine war as at any time in the past two years. Russia’s economy is in better shape than ever because it is still trading with some of the richest and largest countries in the world. The West’s strategy of economic warfare is outdated, so we must use other levers of power to re-balance the equation and achieve our aims. It is worth looking at history for some inspiration from the past.

British War Correspondent at the Battle of Mukden

Whatever one thinks of the events of the past 16 months in Gaza, we all have to acknowledge that the World would be a far worse place without the Red Cross Movement.

The fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been selected to act as the go-between for the hostage handover, over other humanitarian organisations such as the United Nations, is very telling. Its hard-earned reputation for impartiality and independence is its most important asset, but this has not been maintained without huge challenges.

After several ICRC field-workers were killed in places such as Chechnya, I was invited to Geneva as the first serving military officer to work in their headquarters. They had genuine concerns that unlike the World Wars, when my grandmother was a red cross nurse, they were now seen as legitimate targets by terrorist organisations. This was compounded by the fact that Special Forces soldiers were impersonating them to gain access behind the lines.

As we begin 2025 with renewed hope for peace in the Middle East, and relief for those affected by the current conflict, we need to acknowledge and applaud the courage of the ICRC in maintaining morality in war.

Fighting Spirit is an ethereal quality, which is an essential element of a combat unit. In many ways, it is the defining feature of a regiment’s fitness because it is the vital attribute that makes soldiers sacrifice themselves for their mates in the heat of battle.

After the Cold War, there was a lamentable loss of this characteristic. In the 1990s, there was an insidious mantra purported by influential officers who had not seen battle, claiming that UN Peacekeeping was not worth dying for. This idea became so widespread that the Chief of Defence Staff, Charles Guthrie, published an article stating that the British Army was losing its way due to its UN commitments (it also led to the US Government refusing to take on peacekeeping missions).

Twelve years of tough wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ensured that Fighting Spirit was back in vogue. Although the Army had lost its ability to manoeuvre at scale, it nevertheless comprised many courageous young men and women, who individually were battle-hardened and knew all about Fighting Spirit.

Now in 2025, there are increasing signs that we have lost this trait. It is rare for teachers in British schools, or celebrity media influencers in society to promote its value. A predominant policy of Do Nothing in the face of hard challenges, of individualism over team and rewriting history are insidiously weakening the Armed Forces. Our Special Forces are one of the very few places where Fighting Spirit is maintained. That is why I am not supporting the BBC’s witch-hunt into the SAS, which is based on a Royal Navy malcontent’s evidence.

Fighting Spirit at El Alamein (Kidney Ridge) depicted by Terence Cuneo

The use of Special Forces changed dramatically after 9/11. During the Cold War the roles of these regular and territorial elite forces included stay-behind-information-gathering and countering Soviet Spetsnaz. Special Forces were also used for Out-Of-Area operations, such as the Dhofar Campaign in the Gulf and in Northern Ireland to support the Civil Authorities. During the Civil-War in Bosnia, they played an important communications role in places such as Maglaj, where I was based in 1995.

After 9/11, there was a high-level discussion about the use of Special Forces for targeted assassination against the planners of the worst terrorist atrocity against American and British people (similar ethical debates were held about the use of torture and nuclear weapons). Apart from the moral aspects, the nub of the debate was the consequences and effects on other troops and the question: “would it make people feel safer?”

The British Government took a different stance to the US Government, with much tighter rules placed on British Special Forces. There were a few contraventions, which were reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, such as members of the SAS pretending to be NGOs in Afghanistan, but overall, British Special Forces were held in check by London… until Helmand became very messy.

Everything changed in Britain after Parliament voted against taking action when Assad used chemical weapons on his people in 2013. Since then, the Government has been reluctant to hold any vote about the use of Armed Forces and instead, they deployed Special Forces and precision weaponry with US Forces, which work to a different ethical regime. It is therefore no surprise to me that this week it was announced that nine members of UK Special Forces could face prosecution over alleged war crimes in Syria. It is the inevitable consequence of politicians bypassing the chain of command and confusing the ethical rules of engagement.

Working with Special Forces in Libya