LONDON \u2014 Russia\u2019s war on Ukraine is raising questions about whether the Conservative government here needs to rethink a recent review of its defense plans while digging deeper to fund possible changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It has been just 12 months since the government took the wraps off what it called the \u201cIntegrated Review\u201d of defense, security and foreign policy. Among the changes to be implemented was a pivot to the Asia-Pacific region and a transformation of the military towards hi-tech capabilities like space, cyber, and artificial intelligence, away from conventional weapons like main battle tanks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, there are mixed views about just what the war in the Ukraine means for British thinking. Some say a wholesale refresh of the Integrated Review will be necessary. Others are not entirely sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Royal Institute of International Affairs think tank, better known as Chatham House, reckons the British remain largely on the right track, although analysts say the scramble to secure oil and gas supplies to offset Russian deliveries is already driving change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is entirely possible for the U.K. government to argue the Integrated Review does not need substantial change, given that it identified both Russia and China as potential threats to British interests,\u201d the think tank argued in a recent commentary piece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Its analysts warned there were dangers involved in swinging too far back towards Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is a genuine danger that if those advocating a resurrection of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) are listened to, then the threat posed by China will be neglected,\u201d the paper said. \u201cThe real question is how to manage the risks and threats from both Russia and China,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dan Darling, the senior European military analyst at U.S.-based Forecast International, said it\u2019s too early to be drawing many conclusions from the conflict in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHow do you measure tomorrow\u2019s conflict scenarios based upon a few weeks of a war that, so far, indicate Russia is not the conventional military threat that previous analyses suggested?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe review certainly noted Russia as a security threat, but how much emphasis should be given to protection of Eastern and Northern Europe versus the touted tilt towards the Asia-Pacific? The answer to that could in turn affect downstream procurement goals and British force posture in different regions of the world,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Either way, no discussion about British defense policy goes on for long without the issue of funding, or rather lack of it, raising its head.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Chatham House commentary was no exception. It said the invasion of Ukraine highlighted the \u201cinherent flaw\u201d in the plan: a disconnect between the vision set out by the prime minister and the requisite means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe review was predicated on the U.K. \u2018free-riding\u2019 on the U.S. commitment to NATO while deferring many of its defense needs to the second half of this decade, at the earliest,\u201d analysts wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Labour, Britain\u2019s main opposition party in Parliament, has also waded into the debate, finding itself in agreement with many Conservative lawmakers advocating for more cash for defense and a rethink of the review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
John Healey, the shadow defense secretary, said the government should respond to the crisis in a similar fashion to how Britain reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMinisters must respond to new threats to U.K. and European security, just as the Labour government did after the 9\/11 attacks with the largest sustained increase in defense spending for two decades,\u201d Healey told the Guardian newspaper Mar 30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Integrated Review didn\u2019t forecast \u201ceither a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan or invasion of the Ukraine,\u201d he said. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific had taken European security for grant and needed to be looked at again, the Labour politician argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Howard Wheeldon, a defense consultant at Wheeldon Strategic Advisory in London, agreed that the Russian invasion required the government to look again at its underlying assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is now a clear need for a serious Integrated Review refresh,\u201d he said. \u201cHowever, it is clear that the U.K. has no intention yet of following Germany in respect of raising the defense budget.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n