Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2022. © Richard Kemp

Allegations by Ukrainian forces that Russia launched a chemical attack on soldiers and civilians in Mariupol on Monday are under investigation. If it is confirmed, how will Nato react?

President Biden has declared chemical weapons a red line. He said in March: ‘It would trigger a response in kind’. British Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said yesterday that any use of chemical weapons by Russia in its attacks on Ukraine ‘will get a response and all options are on the table’.

Are all options really on the table, including a military option? Perhaps a strike against Russia’s drone or rocket forces responsible for a chemical attack, or even known chemical weapons plants or stockpiles inside Russia? It may be that such an attack would be unlikely to trigger the nuclear reaction that Putin likes to threaten and which has cowed Nato. But it is likely that Moscow would retaliate by a counter strike against Nato forces in Europe, triggering an escalation potentially leading to world war.

If that was actually in the thinking of Nato’s leadership then by now they should have ordered general mobilisation of their forces, especially air forces, and fully-loaded aircraft carriers should already be at sea.

The reality is that Biden and other Nato leaders have made clear that they will not intervene militarily in the war in Ukraine, and nothing they have said about chemical weapons suggests this particular war crime would be an exception. In their vague talk about responses all have been careful to avoid any suggestion that crossing this red line could lead to a military strike.

They remember Obama’s red line in 2012 when he said unequivocally that chemical weapons use by Assad would trigger direct US military Continue reading →

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

The Russian campaign in Ukraine may have reached its culminating point. In short, Russian forces may no longer be able to achieve their strategic objective by offensive operations. If so, it would mark a turning point.

It would not, however, mean the war is over, or that Ukraine has achieved victory. An effective stalemate might see the war entering an even more devastating phase, with Russian forces digging in and switching from wide-scale ground attack to besieging, bombarding and starving the major cities, while reinforcing and preparing for a renewed offensive.

Indications that Vladimir Putin may believe his campaign has culminated include a new defensive effort to interdict combat supplies and troops being pushed into the fight. In recent days we have seen attacks in the west against logistics bases, airfields and concentration centres for foreign volunteers. Cyber attacks – already widely used inside Ukraine – may now be extended to Nato countries to deter and disrupt supply of munitions and intelligence.

Putin may also plan to deploy chemical weapons to break the deadlock; President Biden warned of this yesterday. Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, over which Putin presided, caused devastating physical and psychological effects that proved decisive.

Reaching a strategic culminating point does not mean Russia cannot continue local tactical manoeuvre. Russian air operations, surprisingly limited so far given their massive superiority, have been intensifying in recent days. Russia will continue to tie down Ukrainian forces, including by threatening amphibious assault against Odessa and feints towards Kyiv.

We will see continued efforts to seize Mariupol, a vital objective for Putin, completing his land corridor between annexed Crimea and the Russian border. Gaining Mariupol would be a major element of his Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Mirror, 18 March 2022. © Richard Kemp

Putin’s war in Ukraine could easily escalate onto NATO territory and Britain is not ready. Since the end of the Cold War successive governments have savagely cut our armed forces so that today the army, navy and air force are all shadows of their former selves.

The army had insufficient troop numbers and combat equipment to hold its own against jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in both theatres had to call on US reinforcements to fill the gaps. Fighting Russian tanks, artillery and planes in Europe will be much more demanding than dealing with jihadist gangs in the Middle East and south Asia, even though Putin’s forces in Ukraine have shown themselves to be far less capable than most people thought.

It is too late to rebuild our forces to face an immediate threat. The same goes for all other European countries, which is one reason why NATO has been forced to stand and watch as the Russians tear our neighbours apart. We must hope that the economic damage inflicted on Moscow, plus the Ukrainians’ stiff resistance, are enough to blunt Putin’s plans for future aggression in Europe.

But hope is not a strategy and we should immediately start to build up our forces to deter Putin with military strength and be ready to fight him if that doesn’t work. Last year’s defence review slashed our conventional forces even more, spending instead on cyber, drones, space and artificial intelligence. These are all essential to our defences but so are tanks, artillery, anti-air missiles, armoured infantry and combat planes.

The Chancellor must immediately double Britain’s defence budget. This will be even more painful as we suffer increasingly tough economic conditions post-Covid and as the consequences of our sanctions against Russia bite us too. But it will be less painful than failure to defeat Putin the next time he lashes out.

Image: PxHere

A version of this article was published in The Daily Express, 7 March 2022. © Richard Kemp

On Saturday a humanitarian corridor was arranged to allow civilians in the southern port of Mariupol to escape the fighting. The exodus was abandoned as Russian forces continued to shell the city. A further effort, also disrupted by Russian breaches of the ceasefire, began yesterday morning. This amounts to a test of Russia’s resolve to allow civilians out of other besieged cities before intensive attacks are launched against them.

Meanwhile Russia’s offensive grinds inexorably on, with a land corridor pretty much established between Crimea and Donetsk, one of Putin’s key objectives for this war. Much of the coastline along the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea is now under Moscow’s control. Russian forces continue to push west towards Odessa which, when taken, will effectively deny Ukraine all its sea ports. On Friday it was made known that Ukraine’s naval flagship, the Hetman Sahaidachny, was scuttled early in the war rather than allowing it to fall into enemy hands. The tragic fate of this ship stands as an epitaph for Britain’s agreement signed last year to rebuild Ukraine’s navy, including construction of new bases on the Sea of Asov and Black Sea.

In the north, Russia continues its onslaught against Kharkov and is progressively encircling Kiev with forces advancing on the city from the east, north east and north west. As well as direct Russia-Ukraine talks, planned to resume today, there have been further attempts to mediate by Israel and France. Unless these efforts lead to some kind of diplomatic breakthrough — likely to mean President Zelenskiy’s capitulation — it is hard to see how the Russian army does not eventually overcome Ukraine’s staunch resistance.

Without revealing their own casualty figures, Ukraine claims to have killed 11,000 Russian soldiers. Russia says only 500 of their own troops have died. Neither can be believed. Ukraine’s numbers are intended to boost morale, supporting the widespread talk of Russian Continue reading →

Article published by the Gatestone Institute, 6 March 2022. © Richard Kemp

NATO’s strategic objective should now be to bring down Russian President Vladimir Putin and see him replaced by a less dangerous leader. If he fails to achieve his goals in Ukraine, harsh constraints are imposed on Russian oligarchs, and suffering is inflicted on ordinary citizens by Western diplomatic and economic action; his current adventure might cause him to self-destruct.

If that does not happen, Putin will remain a permanent threat to NATO, Europe and the world. Russian law now allows him to hold onto power at least until 2036. He apparently aims to re-create the Soviet Union in a new form and restore Russia’s superpower status by pushing NATO back, regaining Moscow’s dominion over its eastern neighbours. He is now also demanding the nuclear disarming of Europe.

Putin’s next targets could be Moldova or the Baltic states which, like Ukraine, he reportedly considers illegitimate and properly part of Russia’s sphere. If further suffering and bloodshed are to be avoided, the West must do all it can to ensure his current aggression fails. At last we are seeing unity among NATO countries, with unprecedented sanctions already beginning to bite and the Russian economy heading towards freefall. To halt Putin’s broader ambitions, it is also essential that NATO keep the Ukrainian army fighting and that includes financing the war effort and getting lethal weapons and military equipment to Ukrainian forces.

In the event, as seems likely, that Putin does prevail in Ukraine, we should now also be preparing to support a resistance movement against a potential Russian army of occupation. That would include supplying weapons, intelligence and surveillance, as well as offensive cyber capabilities, and sending in undeclared advisors to help. Moscow should be driven into a quagmire in Ukraine, with a stream of body bags heading back to Russia (rather than mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the mobile crematoria that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy says are ominously following behind Russian forces). It is not that we want to see Russian conscripts killed, Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 26 February 2022. © Richard Kemp

We see uncanny similarities between Russia’s aggression in Ukraine today and Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, both encouraged by weakness and appeasement in western Europe. British military preparedness in the 1930s and today are also starkly similar. After the First World War our forces were neglected despite a rising threat from Germany, to the extent they were unable to resist the Nazi scything through France. Since the end of the Cold War, we have greedily spent the ‘peace dividend’ on welfare and other projects while degrading our armed forces in the face of growing threats from Russia and China.

Putin’s invasion is withering confirmation of the misjudgements many of us recognised when we read with disbelief the defence review last year that compounded the damage. The navy and airforce were relatively unscathed but the army was devastated, cut by almost 10,000 to just 72,500 – less than half the number Putin lined up on the Ukraine border.

Even as Russian troops were assembling last year – including 1,200 tanks – the MOD was preparing to reduce our meagre tank force from 227 to 148. Tanks can’t fight without infantry alongside in armoured combat vehicles. Ours were due to be upgraded but are now being scrapped altogether, eventually to be replaced by vehicles without comparable potency. With eight former infantry battalions cut in half and assigned to train foreign forces, we will only be able to field around 12,000 infantry – the men that always bear the brunt of the fighting. Even this paltry figure is optimistic; never in my 30 years’ service was the infantry ever manned to its authorised strength due to a dysfunctional recruiting system.

Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of Continue reading →