Shameful Army cuts

Much has been made of Britain’s help for Ukraine in terms of equipment and political support from the outset. It has helped give the impression that we are a growing military power. But the reality is somewhat different, as attested by one of the country’s most senior Army officers. In an interview with The Telegraph, Lt Gen Tim Radford, who is stepping down as Nato’s Deputy Senior Allied Commander Europe, questions the rapid rundown in the Army, now smaller than at any time since Waterloo.

When Lt Gen Radford joined up in 1985, the Army had 300,000 troops. Now it has around 70,000. Asked whether the British Armed Forces still carry weight with their allies, let alone their potential enemies, he replied: “We’re just holding on [and] we are in danger of not holding on … we’ve got to be really careful that we don’t slip too low.”

This is a damning indictment from such a senior officer who is able to discern the UK’s reputation in Nato from close quarters. By comparison, France has a much larger standing army, quite apart from paramilitary units such as the Gendarmerie.

Since 2010, Conservative-led governments have allowed our Army to be cut far too much because they were unprepared to reduce public spending enough in other areas. The Army has now lost around one third of its fighting strength. It struggles to provide the 5,000 combat troops needed to fulfil its leadership role within Nato’s rapid reaction force, let alone field and sustain a division-strength force, as it had done during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Britain pressing for Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, to be the next secretary-general of Nato, we can hardly be surprised if our allies wonder if we are pulling our weight sufficiently anymore to justify the appointment.