The UK’s Defence Crisis Amidst Growing Geopolitical Tensions
The United Kingdom and its European allies are currently confronting a serious defence crisis, sparked by a notable shift in U.S. foreign policy under President Trump. His alignment with Russia during discussions at the UN Security Council, coupled with cooperation with Vladimir Putin for a potential peace agreement regarding Ukraine, has raised significant concerns within Europe. Furthermore, his remarks targeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a trend toward increasing trade isolationism have alarmed defence officials across the continent.
In light of these developments, military insiders in the UK and Europe are increasingly advocating for the region to take greater responsibility for its own security, moving away from an over-reliance on an increasingly unpredictable Washington. In response to these pressing issues, Keir Starmer recently announced an unexpected £13 billion increase in British defence spending, shortly before his visit to Washington, D.C. to engage with Trump.
As Europe evaluates its defensive posture, The i Paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the capabilities of British forces and how they stack up against Russia.
UK Military Manpower
At the conclusion of the Cold War, the UK’s military personnel numbers stood at approximately 308,800 across its three main services: the Army, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force. However, by the beginning of this year, this figure had dwindled to just 180,779, including nearly 137,000 regular service members, 32,000 volunteer reservists, over 4,000 Gurkhas, and 8,000 other personnel.
The bulk of these forces, numbering 108,413, belong to the Army, while the Royal Navy has 37,601 personnel, and the Royal Air Force comprises 34,765 members. The decline in the UK’s military capabilities has been a consistent trend since the 1990s, compounded by ongoing funding cuts. In the past two years alone, nearly 20,000 service members have departed from the armed forces, further straining the military’s capacity.
Government data released in 2024 indicated a concerning reduction in the number of personnel deemed medically deployable over the last three years. In April 2024, the Armed Forces fell below the established target size for full-time trained strength for the first time since its inception, with the RAF falling short by a significant 10 percent.
The challenges faced by the UK military revolve around both recruitment and retention. Between 1999/2000 and 2023/24, there have only been six years where the number of recruits joining the UK Regular Forces exceeded the number leaving, according to a Parliamentary briefing. Additionally, the total number of trained reserves has declined in recent years from a peak of 33,010 in July 2020. While the trained strength of the armed forces reserve increased by 29 percent between October 2013 and April 2024, only the RAF managed to reach its target size for reservists.
Despite these challenges, the Army leadership does not view dwindling manpower as an insurmountable obstacle. General Sir Roly Walker, the head of the Army, has acknowledged that the UK now maintains a “medium-size army,” yet he expressed optimism, promising to “double our fighting power in three years and triple it by the end of the decade” through an emphasis on modernization and the utilization of technological advances and artificial intelligence to enhance capabilities. In the event of a conflict, the UK would likely collaborate with its NATO allies, which, as of 2019, had a combined strength of nearly 3.5 million personnel, including troops and civilians. This number is expected to have risen significantly following Finland’s accession in 2023 and Sweden’s in 2024, alongside increased defence spending and recruitment from several NATO member states since the onset of the war in Ukraine.
Russian Military Manpower
In contrast, Russian military forces have been on the rise since the Cold War, boasting numbers that far exceed those of British forces, although they still represent less than half of NATO’s collective capabilities. As of September 2024, President Vladimir Putin mandated an increase in the regular size of the Russian army by 180,000 troops, bringing the total to 1.5 million active servicemen. This expansion marks the third occasion since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 that Putin has increased military personnel.
Russia benefits from a larger population pool for recruitment, with approximately 143 million citizens compared to the UK’s 68 million. Nevertheless, the Kremlin has faced significant casualties in Ukraine, with estimates suggesting around 700,000 soldiers killed or wounded and an additional 400,000 rendered unfit for duty. Russia has encountered difficulties in rapidly recruiting to replenish its losses, resorting to drafting troops from North Korea and releasing convicts from prisons to maintain its numbers. However, these new recruits are generally less well-trained than traditional UK forces, and morale within the Russian ranks has proven challenging to sustain.
Putin’s recruitment figures have been ambiguous; in December 2023, he claimed that 490,000 contracted soldiers had joined the armed forces in the preceding year, only to later revise that figure to “more than 300,000.” An analysis of Russia’s annual budgetary report revealed approximately 330,000 one-time payments made to contracted soldiers during that timeframe, according to the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Preliminary data from the first three quarters of 2024 indicates that fewer than 230,000 individuals enlisted in the Russian military between January and September, with CEPA projecting an additional 60,000 to 70,000 recruits in the final quarter, potentially raising the total recruitment for the previous year to around 300,000.
UK Military Equipment
As of 2023, the UK possesses a fleet of 10 submarines and 72 naval vessels. The British military operates 3,207 pieces of combat equipment, including 845 armoured personnel carriers and 882 armoured fighting vehicles. This represents a reduction of 433 units since 2022, attributed to the planned retirement of certain equipment in anticipation of replacements, as well as contributions to Ukraine.
In terms of artillery, the UK fields 212 pieces, alongside 148 engineering equipment units. The air capabilities of the UK Armed Forces include 564 fixed-wing aircraft and 294 rotary-wing aircraft. Furthermore, the UK maintains approximately 225 nuclear warheads, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. However, the UK lacks an integrated air defence system akin to Israel’s Iron Dome; instead, each military branch operates its own system to counter incoming missile threats.
Russian Military Equipment
Last year, Russian armed forces were reported to have around 4,780 barrel artillery pieces, 1,130 multiple-launch rocket systems, 2,060 tanks, and approximately 7,080 various armoured fighting vehicles, as per assessments by leading defence think-tank RUSI. These ground assets are complemented by 290 helicopters, including 110 attack helicopters, and 310 fast jets. The Russian Navy is notable for its substantial submarine fleet, comprising around 64 vessels, along with an estimated 5,580 nuclear warheads, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
However, Russia has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity to deploy inexpensive, commercially available technology to counter NATO’s advanced and costly weaponry. During a visit to a NATO base in Romania, officials informed The i Paper that drones priced as low as £850 present “one of the most significant threats” to NATO defences, capable of neutralizing multi-million-pound air defence systems.
In a bid to underscore its long-term commitment to Ukraine, the UK has announced a 100-year support agreement earlier this year.
Evaluating the UK’s Military Readiness for Conflict
Dr. Marina Miron, a specialist in the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London, highlights that the effectiveness of the UK—and NATO as a whole—largely hinges on the nature of the conflict they might engage in. “The prevailing understanding is that any future confrontation would likely resemble a war of attrition, heavily reliant on artillery and firepower. Historically, Russia and Ukraine have excelled in this type of warfare,” she stated.
She further remarked, “There have been longstanding hopes for brief conflicts that rely extensively on air power, minimizing troop deployment and contact with the enemy. However, the situation in Ukraine has been quite the opposite, with most combat taking place on the ground.” Dr. Miron expressed concerns about repeated cuts to the UK’s military budget, noting that other European nations are also grappling with resource limitations. “Post-Cold War, the vision of future warfare became ambiguous due to the absence of a clear adversary. Personnel numbers were drastically reduced, and there was an increased focus on air power instead.”
Dr. Miron cited a troubling incident in 2015 when German forces had to use painted broomsticks in lieu of actual firearms during a NATO exercise due to severe equipment shortages. “Spain used to boast a formidable naval fleet but now struggles to maintain its own vessels,” she added.
Moreover, she emphasized that the cuts and declines in UK military capabilities have been exacerbated since Brexit. “This is particularly problematic if conflict extends into space; the UK previously relied on Europe’s Galileo space programme, but since Brexit, that support has been lost.” British soldiers were seen training in a forest during an exercise in February in Smardan, Romania (Photo: Andrei Pungovschi/Getty Images).
Dr. Miron cautioned against over-reliance on new technology as a substitute for personnel. “The war in Ukraine necessitates constant updates in technology. Every two weeks, Russia adapts its electronic warfare capabilities, and Ukraine must adjust its drones accordingly,” she explained. “Even if NATO possesses superior technology, it lacks sufficient equipment. The prevailing assumption is that NATO has about 90 days’ worth of precision munitions. What happens after that?”
These resource challenges would be further complicated if the U.S. were to withdraw from NATO, a possibility hinted at by Trump. “NATO relies heavily on U.S. logistics, planning, and command structures. A U.S. pullout would present a significant dilemma, and uncertainty looms over what will transpire during Starmer’s meeting with Trump,” Dr. Miron concluded.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence asserted that British armed forces remain “among the best in the world and are always prepared to defend the UK.” They emphasized, “Safeguarding national security is the cornerstone of our Plan for Change, which is why the Prime Minister has announced the most substantial sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, boosting funding to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, equating to an increase of £13.4 billion in cash terms. The Strategic Defence Review will outline how we will utilize the new funding to invest in modern capabilities, ensuring our security at home and strength abroad.”
