UK military too weak to stop war or protect nation, says former commander

Lord Alan West says the government's move away traditional military equipment 'is dangerously simplistic'

British soldiers prepare for Swift Response 22 exercises carried out by Nato allied troops at Krivolak army base, North Macedonia, on May 12. Reuters

Britain’s armed forces are too weak to prevent war or protect the nation in the event of conflict, said Labour peer Lord Alan West of Spithead, who served as first sea lord from 2002 to 2006.

The former top commander said the services were “too small” and stressed the need to increase defence spending.

Mr West delivered his verdict as peers debated at Westminster the effects of the war in Ukraine after the Russian invasion, which has increased international tension.

“There’s considerable truth in the view that wars are won not on the battlefield but by building up military capability beforehand," Mr West told Parliament.

"It’s noticed by competitors, particularly dictators, and therefore it prevents war but it takes time.

“Many of us have warned of chronic underfunding and we have been told time and again we were wrong.

“The reality is our armed forces are too weak to prevent war … and if there is war, and I am afraid one day there probably will be, they lack the equipment and manpower to keep us safe.

“Our army, navy and air force are too small. They lack the ability to withstand the inevitable attrition and are insufficiently equipped with state-of-the-art, fully maintained and sufficient core stocks for the inevitably high war-usage rates.

“Numbers do matter, whether it’s ships, aircraft or people. The reduction of the army to 72,500 is a step too far," the former security minister said.

“There seems to be a belief in government that future wars will be fought solely in cyber space using advanced technologies … and there’s no need for traditional military equipment and numbers.

"That is dangerously simplistic nonsense. Clearly those new things are very important to the way we fight war, but you need more than that.

“The advantages of high-tech in helping the Ukrainians have been highlighted in this recent conflict, but the Ukrainians still need boots on the ground.

“The government have a choice over whether we spend what is required to ensure the safety of our nation in defence terms, to stop world war, look after our dependencies and our people, or not.

"At present, I believe they are getting the choice wrong. With war raging in Europe and possibly extending to a world war, there is a need for an immediate uplift in defence spending.”

Former head of the British Army, Lord Richard Dannatt, also urged more defence spending.

“We need more armour, more artillery and we need more manpower," Mr Dannatt said. "To have an army that is going down to the smallest size in the last 200 years is completely unacceptable."

Former head of the armed forces Lord Jock Stirrup said the ammunition stocks of the UK and other Nato members were inadequate and stressed the need to boost them.

“The war in Ukraine has reminded those of those who may have forgotten of the appalling rate at which munitions are expended in high-intensity conflict," said Mr Stirrup, an independent crossbencher.

“For too many years we and other Nato nations have taken too much risk with our munitions stocks.

“They were already inadequate and they have rightly been depleted further because of the need to supply Ukraine.

“We now need a concerted effort to bring ammunition stocks across all three services not just back to where they were, but to where they should have been in the first place, and we must press our Nato allies to do the same.”

Foreign minister Lord Zac Goldsmith of Richmond Park responded: “We are increasing defence spending by over £24 billion ($30bn) over the next four years.

"That is the biggest investment in the UK armed forces since the end of the Cold War.”

He also highlighted the extensive military support being provided to Ukraine.