TALK OF UK MILITARY DEPLOYMENT TO UKRAINE IS ‘PREMATURE’ SAYS FROMER ARMY CHIEF

DEPLOYING British troops to Ukraine any time soon would be “premature” due to the training and new equipment that would be required, according to a former head of the Army.

Lord Richard Dannatt warned that the government may have to put up taxes for everyone to pay for the cost.

Asked about the Prime Minister’s suggestion that British troops could be sent as peacekeepers, he said on GB News: “I think it’s rather premature. There are many steps that have got to be taken before we get as far as deploying a peacekeeping force.

“The Prime Minister has said he’s ready and willing. Well, he might be willing, but I can tell you the British Army isn’t ready to do that and would take quite some time to become ready.

“And indeed, the sort of size of force which we would need to contribute – I’m not at all sure that we’ve got the necessary equipment in the necessary numbers to be able to carry that out.

“So there’s a long way to go before this becomes possible. But clearly, Keir Starmer wants to put something on the table, and he’s willing to put British boots on the ground on the table.”

Asked if the suggested number of 10,000 troops would be feasible, he said: “Those figures are figures that are being used at the present moment.

“I think it would have to be determined by what the mission and what the nature of the peacekeeping force was going to be, whether it required large numbers of troops, physically inter-positioning between Ukrainian and Russian troops, which, if you think about it, is potentially extraordinarily dangerous, given that they will have fought over these front lines for quite some time.

“There’ll be a tremendous amount of unexploded ordnance present, which will require troops, whichever nationality they come from, being in well-protected vehicles.

“It’s also a question of how much of this can be done from aerial surveillance and from drone surveillance. So there are many technical issues that would have to be determined.

“But I think, for the sake of argument, against that along that very long front line, to say 100,000 troops and Britain might be able to produce 5,000 to 10,000 of those.”

He added: “As you were saying a few minutes ago, the way that we do these…sustained deployments is for force of 10,000 deployed, we would try and we would try and put in place an 18 to 24 month tour interval.

“So that means, if we’re going for an 18-month tour interval, we’ve got one group of troops deployed, we’ve got three others in the pipeline, training or recovering or carrying on with other duties.

“And if we go for a 24-month tour interval, which we have tried to do in the past, that’s five groups.

“If you work on 10,000 troops, it could be 40,000 that are tied up, or 50,000 that are tied up. And my goodness, the total strength of the British Army at present moment is 73,000 and they’re not all sitting in barracks doing nothing.

“They’re extraordinarily busy on other deterrent tasks, forward deployment tasks, and other tasks around the world.

“We’ve got to get real here. We’ve got to get real in terms of time scale. We’ve got to get real in terms of just what is practically possible to do. And then, of course, there’s ‘what is it going to cost?’

“And as I’ve already hinted, that the amount of equipment that is available currently would not match the task. Let’s face it, if we deploy a force, it’s got to be able to look after itself, protect itself.

“We gave all our AS90 155mm guns to Ukraine early in the war. We’ve not had the money to refurbish our Warrior infantry fighting vehicles. We’ve reduced the number of tactical helicopters, the amount of tactical air lift that we’ve got available.

“There are a lot of holes in our inventory, which would need to be addressed very quickly before we could put a meaningful, well protected force into the field to carry out this very difficult task.”

On convincing the public about sending troops, Lord Dannatt said: “I think the narrative has got to change and I think government has got to change it.

“I think it’s got to change it in two ways. It’s got to change in terms of the nation’s willingness to spend more of our national treasure on defence, and given the other pressures on Rachel Reeves’ budget, shock, horror, we may have to consider raising taxes and all shoulder a bit more of a burden.

“And then the other aspect of this is the willingness and acceptance by the general public that we’re prepared to put a force of 10,000-strong, a contingent of that sort of size, into a multinational force to endeavour to police a ceasefire.

“This is not an easy task in any shape or form. And we have to be honest, I think we’re quite premature about discussing this.

“And you have to ask the question of two or three questions, under what flag would that force operate? Would it be a NATO flag? I don’t think Putin would ever allow NATO troops under their flag so close to his border.

“Would it be an EU flag? That’s a difficult one for us, but not in the EU anymore, as far as I’m aware. Would it be under the UN flag? Again, another big issue.

“There are issues of command and control and flaking it out and just, would Putin be prepared to accept international troops right up close to the Russian front line? There’s a long way to go on this.”