LONDON — Britain likes to think of itself as the de facto European leader of NATO.
After all, the U.K. has the second-largest defense budget of any NATO country after the U.S. — and widespread experience in military operations over the last few decades. And London is one of just two European nuclear powers, alongside Paris.
So when Keir Starmer on Monday pledged British peacekeeping troops to support any future Ukraine-Russia peace deal, it will have come as no great surprise to the U.K.’s allies — particularly as U.S. President Donald Trump pushes Europe to take on a much greater role in Ukraine’s security.
Yet Starmer’s projection of confidence belies what is recognized in Whitehall and among Britain’s military chiefs: The British Army is a bit of a mess.
Indeed, Britain’s standing as the strongest European military force in NATO is perhaps more of an indictment of Europe’s defense capabilities — than a sign of the U.K.’s own strength.
Defence Secretary John Healey said he discovered upon entering government last year that Britain was not ready to fight a war. “And unless we are ready to fight, we are not in a shape to deter,” he said.
A failed consensus
Britain’s share of defense spending as a percentage of GDP fell dramatically after the Cold War ended, and plateaued at the start of the 21st century.
While the precise level has inched up or down since then, Britain proportionally spends around as much on defense now as it did at the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003.
Recent governments have prioritized spending on modern high-tech equipment, while simultaneously cutting troop numbers.
Ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued in 2021 that “the old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over,” saying “there are other, better things we should be investing in … in the future combat air system, in cyber — this is how warfare in the future is going to be.”
It’s a line that aged fast. Russia invaded Ukraine just a few months later, in what has become a protracted land battle. It was, however, in line with a long-held consensus across the West.
H.R. McMaster, Trump’s former national security adviser, told a London event on Monday that “none of our armies are big enough” and that “the U.S. Marine Corps is bigger than the British army.”
“We can tell ourselves lies about that, because we have this really nifty kit, and more FPV [First-Person View] drones or something,” he said. “But actually, the [victory] often goes to the side with the bigger battalions.”
With the very real prospect of British troops now being deployed overseas, even in a peacekeeping capacity, the British government appears aware of the need to urgently boost troop numbers.
Starmer is expected soon to announce a big uptick in defense spending on an accelerated timetable — even as the Treasury pushes government departments across the board to find savings.
Additionally, the British government has already begun to roll out reforms to accelerate lengthy recruitment times for new British Army personnel.
A Ministry of Defence insider, granted anonymity to discuss internal government thinking, said there would be a package of measures announced in the U.K.’s upcoming defense review, due later this spring, on improving benefits for British military personnel in a bid to improve retention.
“The biggest problems we hear from current service-people are around pay, childcare and housing,” they said. “Expect to see something on all these areas in the defense review.”
Numbers game
These reforms, however, will take years to filter through the system — and may do little to help the government cobble together a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine.
In January, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said “at least 200,000” peacekeepers would be needed if the war ends at the negotiating table.
If Trump’s insistence on no American troops in such a force holds firm, and if Germany and Poland stick to their apparent opposition to deploying troops, Starmer would need to lead the charge.
This may be difficult considering Britain has just 75,000 full-time army personnel — many of whom will be in non-battlefield roles — and around 24,000 in the Army Reserves.
Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army and in post under the last Labour government, told the BBC on Monday that “we haven’t got the numbers and we haven’t got the equipment to put a large force onto the ground for an extended period of time.”
“Now, if Keir Starmer wants to do that, that’s fine, the British army will always stand up to the plate, but here we go again: We’ve got to have the right number of people with the right amount of equipment and the right amount of training, and start to fund that now,” he added.
Starmer’s spokesperson refused several times on Monday to answer whether Britain has enough troops to send a significant peacekeeping force to Ukraine.
He added it would be “premature” to discuss the details of any peacekeeping force.
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director at London’s RUSI think tank, said any deal would need to have American involvement — despite what the White House is saying at the moment.
“The PM has said the U.S. is essential to providing a security guarantee to Ukraine,” Chalmers pointed out. “If the U.S. provides this, then a U.K. force can be quite small, even if it is there to fight, for its role will be to tripwire American intervention.”
But he added: “It is hard to imagine Russia accepting a large force composed mainly of NATO members as part of a deal.”
Speaking after a three-hour summit of European leaders Monday evening, Starmer — who heads to Washington for talks with Trump next week — seemed to acknowledge this reality.
“Europe must play its role, and I’m prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement,” he said. “But there must be a U.S. backstop, because a U.S. security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again.”
If that message falls on deaf ears in D.C., Britain’s prime minister may soon have to put his money where his mouth is.