Crew members wave goodbye to family and friends as HMS Dragon sets sail from Portsmouth Harbour on Tuesday(Image: Leon Neal/Getty Images)
Amid the chaos of the United States-Israel attacks on Iran, the continuing Russian war in Ukraine and a serious decline in the strength of the relationship between Europe and the United States, what should Keir Starmer and the British Government do?
The answer is clear: Be more like Finland.
Admittedly, the land of a thousand lakes has an almost 900-mile border with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and would be on the front line of any aggression, if Russia decided to extend its expansionist ambitions into Europe.
That kind of proximity to a military threat must surely focus minds. Finland, with its military conscription, its extension of the age at which reservists can be called up, and the big orders it has placed for US fighter jets, underlines the nervousness with which it eyes its nearest foreign neighbour.
I’m not suggesting the UK should bring back compulsory military service – although it might usefully be included as an option as part of a period of public service for all 18 to 25-year-olds. And I wonder about the wisdom of calling up reservists nearly as old as me!
But if the detail of the Finnish defence policies would, necessarily, differ from what would be ideal in Britain, the principles hold good and, in particular, the general attitude to the importance of defence that is notable in that country.
At a panel debate at the most recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb was asked if Europe could defend itself without the military support of the United States. He was unequivocal in answering in the affirmative. His reasoning was based on Finland’s own defences. As the 31st – and most recent – nation to join Nato, Finland is clearly more than pulling its weight and on the way to becoming among the biggest defence spenders as a proportion of GDP in Europe.
But the Finnish president is also upbeat about the military strength of Europe as a whole. He is right to see that, despite an over-indulgence in the peace dividend, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the continent does have the power, as a collection of like-minded nations, even with Britain outside of the EU, to muster a military strength sufficient to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russia in a hot war.
Deterrence, conventional and nuclear, is of course the best way to ensure that assertion is never tested. Finland is among those showing the way. It is for the rest of Europe, including Britain, to follow, with investment in defence appropriate for its size and priorities.
At the moment, however, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by next year and 3% by the end of the Parliament, there is too little communication with the British people about the sacrifices that will have to be made to make those aspirations a reality and, in all likelihood, extend them. And with a General Election in 2029, how likely is it that an unpopular Labour Government will want to campaign on the potential for raising taxes or reducing public services – or both – to provide the necessary investment in manpower and equipment to bolster our Armed Forces?
In Finland, a large proportion of the population is reminded almost every day of the proximity of a hostile Russian state that has already shown its willingness to start a war. Russian aggression has already prompted Finland to close its eastern border, causing economic damage but demonstrating the need for military strength.
In the UK, as an island nation, we can often feel insulated from such threats.
Iran’s retaliation following the attacks from the US and Israel has, however, demonstrated that any nation, including the UK, is vulnerable to attack, however hard Keir Starmer tries to distance Britain from any support for the US action.
The slow – some would say embarrassingly so – response of UK forces to the threat from Iran to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is, in part, down to political reticence to support the US action. But it is also a symptom of Britain’s failure to update and invest in its military strength, particularly the Royal Navy.
Successive governments, Labour, Conservative and coalition, have allowed our defences to run down over generations. Diverting funds from military spending to public investment in areas more popular with the public, like the NHS, pensions and other more ‘saleable’ aspects of public life, has proved too tempting for politicians. As the perceived threat from war diminished, they took the opportunity to make cuts.
Sadly those days are over. The world is back in what, many historians argue, is its more natural state of tension and the risk of conflict. Every citizen of Europe has to get used to that and make the necessary sacrifices.
The Finns are well ahead of the curve. We must, in a manner appropriate to Britain, follow suit. The course is clear – be more Finland. It’s the only way.