Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 20 January 2023. © Richard Kemp

Kyiv had hoped for a clear green light from Germany at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting at Ramstein air base on Friday to provide them with Leopard 2 battle tanks. Instead, the new German defence minister, Boris Pistorius, equivocated all day, at one stage saying it could take a month to reach a decision.

That sort of procrastination might be acceptable in peace time, but this is a war in which every day counts. We’re almost one year into the most deadly conflict in Europe since 1945 and Germany has been an unreliable partner since the start. First, they only wanted to send 5000 helmets while other countries quickly dispatched lethal weapons; now they have been dithering over tanks, dividing NATO, putting all of the West in a difficult position and – worst of all – jeopardising Ukraine’s war effort.

Poland leads a group of Western countries that want to send in some of the Leopards they bought from Germany. Technically they need permission from Berlin to do so. Yet such is the strength of feeling that the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday that this country may send the German-made tanks to Kyiv without this approval. ‘Consent is a secondary issue here,’ he remarked.

The contrast between Warsaw and Berlin could not be greater. Poland has done exactly what Germany should have done and promised to do. It’s becoming a European military superpower: with a far smaller GDP it already has more tanks and howitzers than Germany and is on course to have a much larger army, with a target of 300,000 troops by 2035, compared with Germany’s current 170,000 which shows little realistic signs of increasing any time soon. In fact, the German chancellor is already backtracking on promises he made in the wake of Putin’s invasion, admitting last month that his intention to meet NATO’s minimum 2% of GDP defence spend starting this year is unlikely to be achieved until 2025 at the earliest.

The Poles have also embarrassed Germany with their fearlessness. On paper, due to its history in the Soviet Union and geographical Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Express, 7 January 2023. © Richard Kemp

Prince Harry has made much of his security concerns but publicly announcing he personally killed 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan is like shooting himself in the foot. It will re-kindle jihadist animosity against him and incite some who want to take revenge.

His accusation that the British Army trains its soldiers to see their enemies as ‘chess pieces’ to be swept off the board, in other words dehumanising them, will also feed into jihadist propaganda, potentially encouraging wider attacks within the UK.

It will also be seized on by lawyers who want to prosecute British soldiers on allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment of enemy prisoners because it paints a picture of a military that indoctrinates its troops to act against the Geneva conventions that require enemy dead, wounded or captured to be treated with respect.

Harry’s description of how British soldiers are conditioned for combat is the opposite of the truth. They are trained to give enemy dead a decent burial, to handle prisoners humanely and to treat the wounded as they would treat their own. There are plenty of examples of British wounded finding themselves in the same field hospital ward as injured Afghan captives.

Of course when their blood is up, some soldiers act differently as is the nature of war, but that is not because of their training as Harry falsely suggests.

He also makes a play of his own humanity, writing that he made it his mission ‘never go to bed with any doubt whether I had done the right thing … whether I had shot at Taliban and only Taliban, without civilians in the vicinity. I wanted to return to Great Britain with all my limbs, but more than that I wanted to get home with my conscience intact.’ Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 30 December 2022. © Richard Kemp

Russia reportedly seeks to launch a major offensive in Ukraine in the coming months. Putin’s legacy, his power and even his life may depend on a decisive victory to justify the immense damage he has inflicted on his own country, not to mention on Ukraine, since the war began. He has caused an estimated 100,000 Russian military casualties so far: a devastating figure that grows by the day.

Given Russia’s size – and its history of fighting mass manpower conflicts, treating its troops as expendable – some seem to think that they can keep this up almost indefinitely. In reality, though, these battle casualties could be Putin’s Achilles’ heel.

His initial plan was to quickly vanquish Ukraine and cow the West by the act of invasion alone. The small size of his force – just 190,000 men – was clearly not intended for a protracted conflict against stiff opposition. As the war unfolded, his generals focused on killing as many Ukrainians as possible, mainly with massed artillery barrages and ballistic missiles, while being ready to give up territory to preserve their thinly-spread army; in effect, buying time to mobilise the number of troops they know they need to eventually overwhelm the country.

That mobilisation, however, has been fraught with difficulties, not least hundreds of thousands of Russian men fleeing the country to avoid fighting, accompanied by large anti-Kremlin protests. Estimates suggest around 100,000 of newly mobilised troops have been deployed so far – barely enough to replace the casualties sustained. Leaving aside the lack of training and equipment shortfalls of these new recruits, Moscow at present simply does not have the numbers to decisively overcome resistance from the depleted Ukrainian army.

We shall see how many of the remaining 200,000 that are claimed actually appear on the battlefield. Whatever happens, Moscow is evidently concerned about its ability to build up enough forces, even Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 20 December 2022. © Richard Kemp

Margaret Thatcher understood the need to keep bean-counters away from military strategy, which is why she banned her chancellor from attending the war cabinet during the Falklands conflict. Now there is concern that Rishi Sunak is doing the opposite, defaulting to the investment banker’s mentality by reportedly ordering a data-driven review of British military assistance to Ukraine.

There are suspicions that his purpose is to save money despite government protestations that the review seeks to ensure we are providing the best possible assistance. The truth is that this cannot be done by Whitehall cost-benefit analysis, but only by our military commanders deciding what is needed and how it can best be supplied through close liaison with Ukrainian generals and international partners. A review at this time, whatever its findings, can only hamper that vital work as the officers directly involved have their efforts diverted into feeding into civil service analysts.

This is war by spreadsheet. What can the calculation be? Square miles of territory taken back, tanks knocked out or Russians in body bags per pound spent? Conducting reviews while this conflict rages constrains what should be the only goal: to give Zelensky the men, machines and munitions he needs to overcome the enemy.

The Prime Minister told an audience in Estonia this week: ‘Putin is realising that he cannot win on the battlefield.’ That may be good rhetoric but it is not reality. If such thinking lies behind his urge to review British support, his generals need to disabuse him by explaining that Ukraine can still lose this war and will do so if Western support is in any way diminished. In fact, significantly greater resources from Britain and the West are needed now, for Russia is intensifying its war on Ukrainian cities and Zelensky faces a major offensive from Putin’s newly-mobilised forces.

Britain has played the leading international role in defending Ukraine against Russia from the very beginning of the invasion. Any sign of Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 17 December 2022. © Richard Kemp

Rumours of Putin’s imminent escape to Venezuela are greatly exaggerated, as Mark Twain might have said. This flight of fancy has been triggered by the cancellation of an annual press conference and other high profile fixtures, including the Russian dictator’s traditional ice hockey match in Red Square, although a simpler explanation for that might be the optics of the president capering around on the ice while his men are freezing at the front.

That being said, any ruthless despot worth his salt has a Plan B up his sleeve in case the axe gets too close to his neck. Alas, we’re not there yet. It’s unlikely Putin’s generals are telling him that the game is up in Ukraine because, true or not, that’s definitely something he does not want to hear. Instead, despite everything, as they did at the beginning of the year, the military chiefs will be assuring him that victory can be his.

To save his own skin and salvage something of his tattered reputation, Putin has no other option but to vanquish Ukraine. With 100,000 soldiers killed or wounded, Russia isolated on the world stage and its economy savaged, he cannot possibly consider reverting to the pre-February status quo or anything like it no matter how many off-ramp arrows the French president flashes in front of him.

Hence the Ukrainian general staff say Putin is preparing to launch a major offensive between January and March, with Kyiv as the target. There has been increased Russian military activity in Belarus over recent weeks, but it is not clear whether that amounts to a demonstration of force to tie up large numbers of Ukrainian troops, or a real threat to Kyiv and to supply lines from Poland.

Those who reckon Putin would not contemplate another ground assault against Ukraine’s capital after failing so ignominiously earlier in the year are not looking through the eyes of a dictator who has boxed himself into a corner, whose neck is on the line and who is surrounded by yes men. Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2022. © Richard Kemp

If you hold out an olive branch to a bear it will take your arm off. Winter has barely begun and there are already worrying signs that major European countries – and the EU – are weakening their stance on Ukraine and playing into Russian hands.

During his state visit last week to the United States, French president Emmanuel Macron told reporters that Europe should prepare a new security architecture taking into account Russian concerns about Nato’s expansion of its borders, preparing to provide guarantees if Russian president Vladimir Putin agrees to negotiations on ending the war.

German chancellor Olaf Scholz, too, spoke of welcoming Russia back into the fold after the conflict, and on Friday was on the phone with Putin for an hour.

Meanwhile, EU foreign policy chief Ursula von der Leyen tweeted a video claiming 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died or been injured since the invasion began, later doctoring it to remove reference to casualties after a strong backlash from Kyiv. Posting it in the first place suggests she was trying to signal the true cost of the war in order to promote dialogue. Parroting the Kremlin’s casualty estimates only helps Russia – Putin’s bombardment of Ukrainian energy infrastructure in recent weeks has partly been to create a humanitarian disaster to make European knees tremble and force a new wave of refugees into the West.

The EU’s answer to that should not be panicky talk of concessions, but immediate strengthening of Ukrainian air defences; sending more generators, fuel and supplies to get battered Ukrainian cities back on their feet.

It is true to say that Putin isn’t going to withdraw from Ukraine any time soon and Zelensky isn’t going to capitulate. Short of Kyiv pushing Russian troops out by military force, this war will only end Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 22 November 2022. © Richard Kemp

The Russians have long considered ‘General Winter’ to be their trusted ally. Hitler found this to his cost when he invaded the USSR in 1941, having failed to learn from Napoleon’s retreat across the snow-covered steppe in 1812. But in both of these campaigns winter was just one factor. Those who think freezing temperatures in Ukraine will favour Russia now are fundamentally wrong.

For one thing, the Ukrainians are not Germans or Frenchmen. Like the Russians, they are accustomed to snow, ice and plunging temperatures. They know how to live and survive in it, as did the Finns when Stalin invaded in 1939 and was bested by a much smaller army in a freezing war for its territory.

Those who have fought in sub-zero conditions know that winter warfare is as much about fighting off the cold as it is about dodging shells and bullets. Even though both sides in this war are acclimatised, the cold weather will hit them hard as frostbite threatens to cripple and kill. Shivering in a frozen dug-out or abandoned farmhouse with no prospect of respite from the weather can penetrate even the toughest soldier’s mind, and make him turn in on himself. It is then that hypothermia strikes, sometimes fatally.

In such conditions training is all-important, with soldiers taught to look out for each other to spot early signs of deterioration. The Ukrainian troops are better trained and more disciplined than the Russian invaders and therefore better able to cope.

Cold weather clothing keeps soldiers alive and fighting in winter conditions. Ukraine’s men are mostly well-equipped, often with supplies sent in by its allies. The Russians are less so, with reports of newly mobilised soldiers having to find their own coats, hats and sleeping bags to make up for stocks that have disappeared into the black market to line the pockets of their quartermasters.

In all wars and in all seasons, morale is the most important factor in battle, and never more so than in winter. Here the Ukrainians will Continue reading →