War With Russia? The UK Defence Establishment Is More Divided Than You Think

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Johanna Ross, journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland

We always knew a Boris Johnson government was going to be a bit of a rollercoaster ride. But I don’t think anyone predicted ‘excitement’ like we saw in the Black Sea last week when a British warship deliberately provoked Russia by sailing near the Crimean coast.

The fact is, the UK Prime Minister nearly took us to war, in what was a move designed to show that Britain doesn’t only ‘talk tough’ but ‘act tough’. The stunt didn’t pay off: it was a massive miscalculation which has invited widespread condemnation – and not only from outsiders.

When it comes to Russia policy, particularly regarding Crimea, the British defence establishment is not as united as it would like people to think. First, there are the definite war hawks or Russophobes, if you will. We know of their existence from the Integrity Initiative document leaks in 2018, in which they flirted with the ideas of blowing up Sevastopol harbour, of returning Crimea, and even all-out war with Russia.  These documents are still relevant today, as not only was the Integrity Initiative organisation funded by the Ministry of Defence but the British position vis-a-vis Russia has not changed and has in fact become more aggressive since; the proposals in these documents are likely similar to what is discussed today.

Those in the military establishment intent on pushing Britain towards conflict are precisely the same officials who engineered last week’s Black Sea altercation. And despite the Defence Secretary’s insistence at the time that the Defender was ‘merely engaged in routine transit’, it became clear from classified papers left at a Kent bus stop by a senior civil servant several days later, that this couldn’t have been further from the truth. Aside from the fact that yet another Johnson cabinet minister has been found to have lied (and got away with it) this reveals in itself that not all the officials in the room at the time of planning the provocation agreed it was the right course of action. 

The Times details that an alternative route was suggested during discussions that would not provoke Russia but it was ‘seen as cowardly by officials’ as it would portray Britain as ‘being scared/running away’. Amongst those arguing for a less confrontational route, was the UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who reportedly warned Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, ‘that sailing a warship near Crimea risked antagonising Russia’, arguing for a ‘less confident route’. Clearly, Ben Wallace, backed by his boss, Boris Johnson, wanted however to ‘challenge’ Russia’s position on Crimea. Not only is he seven years late however, but he clearly has not the slightest inkling of what conflict with Russia means.

Perhaps, together with Johnson, Wallace was testing Putin on what he said earlier this year in his annual state of the nation speech: “I hope no one will think of crossing a red line in relation to Russia…The organisers of any provocations against our [national] security will regret this as they have never regretted anything before.” They clearly didn’t pay attention when the Russian President said his country’s response “asymmetrical, swift and harsh”. In any case, Wallace and Johnson are ignorant and foolish pursuing this belligerent approach.  The days of the ‘Crimean war’ are long gone; war today between great powers would mean nuclear holocaust.

Another individual who seems to have opposed the Black Sea incident was General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of Defence Staff, who told The Times last week that the risk of war with Russia was giving him sleepless nights. He warned that the confrontation involving the British Defender was an example of ‘a miscalculation that comes from unwarranted escalation’ – a concept he frequently refers to and warns about. Although expressing it politely, Carter’s suggestion that it’s ‘the type of thing one needs to think quite hard about’ can clearly be read as ‘we didn’t think this through; it could have led to war’.

It appears therefore that the Black Sea incident did not have General Carter’s backing. Indeed, he seems to be in favour of more subtle ways of deterrence in this era of hybrid war. In a speech in December last year, he proposed ‘escalating in the cyber dimension while toning down our posture in the air or maritime dimension’.  He’s also a big fan of soft power. Boris Johnson, however, clearly has other ideas. As a former magazine editor, he loves creating big stories that grab the headlines; he wants to shout about ‘Global Britain’ from the rooftops. Not long after Carter’s speech therefore, it was reported that Johnson was ‘tired’ of him and wanted a replacement. Rumours spread that the Defence Chief would be out by June.

As to who would replace him, it has been said either Ben Wallace’s favourite, General Sir Patrick Sanders, or Johnson’s preferred option, a fellow old Etonian, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, would fill the role. Patrick Sanders views Russia as the ‘acute and most menacing threat’ and speaks of competing ‘below the threshold of war to deter war’. Carleton-Smith, in interviews, advocates the use of more lethal and precise weapons that he believes modern warfare requires.  He personally sought to renew Britain’s military presence both in Europe and around the globe as he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with what became almost the complete domestication of the British army after 2010. The general has spoken about the importance of a UK presence in Germany so military support can be deployed to the Baltic states and Poland at a moment’s notice. Regardless of who is selected, we can deduce that Carter’s replacement will continue to ramp up the pressure on Russia, particularly when it comes to Crimea.

It was reported on Monday that the individual responsible for the leak of the secret papers had been identified “and could be charged under the Official Secrets Act” and that “Ministry of Defence police have been called in” to investigate how and why it happened. But there is no doubt that the whistleblower has done us all a service in exposing yet more lies told by Johnson’s government; lies which covered up a dangerously irresponsible act of provocation of another state.  The biggest concern about this whole episode is this: the war hawks won, not those urging caution. That doesn’t bode well for the future.

You can follow the author on Twitter.

Source: InfoBrics