Britain needs new tanks to defeat Putin

In 2007 President Putin gave a thumper of a speech to the Munich Security Conference that effectively said: “Watch out – Russia is coming back.” His threat to rekindle Moscow’s influence across Slavic Europe was ignored, and a year later he proved true to his word and invaded Georgia.

Here we are 16 years later – still without a coherent Russia strategy, hesitating as Russia prepares for a massive spring offensive in Ukraine. 

All this is encapsulated in the infuriating, bewildering impasse over tanks in Europe. Not over how many might head Ukraine’s way, but – in some countries – whether they should be sent at all. 

Despite repeated declarations from Western capitals that we “stand with Ukraine”, President Zelensky has every right to feel abandoned. 

In truth, all this is nothing new. Throughout this existential battle of dictatorship versus democracy, good versus evil, the West has proved, at best, half-hearted. Providing enough weaponry to stop Ukraine losing but, as proved at the Ramstein debacle, inadequate offensive kit to enable Ukraine to win. 

This condemns both Ukraine and ourselves to a dragged out conflict, a potential stalemate and, at worst, a strategic defeat. 

Once NATO declared at the start of the conflict that it would not formally respond to, or intervene in, Russia’s illegal invasion it gave Putin licence to act with impunity and increase the level of risk he could take – effectively unchallenged – on the battlefield. It even granted him space to completely re-group after a hopeless initial invasion. 

The 1000-mile battle line has changed little in months. The danger is that if Ukraine cannot break the stalemate soon, countering Russia’s expected spring offensive, then voices calling for talks will grow, leaving Ukraine weak and vulnerable to attack in future years, and many more Ukrainian citizens and soldiers unnecessarily dead and maimed in their cities and on the frontlines.

This spotlight on land warfare in Ukraine offers major lessons for Britain. Firstly, it has illustrated how the utility of modern drones, longer range missiles, real-time satellite imagery and cyber warfare contribute to the spectrum of combat effectiveness. 

We can now see that the tilt to space, cyber and maritime domains has left the British Army too small and obsolete. The soon to be refreshed Integrated Review must address this. 

Second, it has been the wake-up call that – contrary to first appearances when the war began – the tank remains critically relevant. 

We can now say with confidence that Western tanks are vastly superior to the old Soviet ones. Their ability to punch through enemy defences, seize and hold ground, fight at night and fire accurately on the move is potentially war winning. This shock action is as relevant today as it was in achieving victory in 1918.

Whilst the UK has done well to push the envelope in the quality and quantity of military support sent by a timid West, we can now clearly see that a squadron of Challenger II tanks alone is not enough to change the course of this war. Indeed, our land warfare capability including tanks, armoured personnel carriers and reconnaissance vehicles is in a sorry state of affairs. 

In short: our tanks are over 20 years old, soon to be reduced to 148 from 900 a decade ago. Our Warrior Armoured Fighting Vehicles are over 26 years old. Worse still, the Warrior is being replaced by the German-made Boxer; a wheeled, not tracked, vehicle that has no turret. Our Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle is over 50 years old. It should have been replaced by the Ajax three years ago, but a litany of procurement problems means it’s unclear if this will go ahead. 

If tanks are the answer to defeat our most dangerous adversary, we need a lot more state of the art armour to make the British Army a viable fighting force in future, its arms effective for British soldiers or foreign ones. It is heavy metal on the ground in Europe that will halt Putin’s expansion west, not solely heavy metal on the high seas, in space or the skies.  

Ultimately, the penny must drop at home and aboard in three ways, recognising these three essential truths: 

First, today’s conflict is not just about Ukraine, but Russia exploiting a risk-averse West to enable Putin's 16 year-old mission to recapture Moscow’s Soviet-era influence. 

Second, we need secure and strong allies. Whatever Germany’s final decision on their Leopard 2 tanks, they risk permanently damaging their reputation amongst NATO members by restricting other nations who use the Leopard from gifting these tanks to Ukraine. Where might this leave us in future with the German made Boxer that is supposed to replace our Warrior? Will Berlin place limitations on how it might be deployed? 

Third, there is a worrying absence of international leadership as to how we collectively respond. What is our objective in this conflict apart from wringing hands and hoping for the best? This is no time for strategic ambiguity, let alone quibbling over tanks. 

This spring will see a decisive crisis on the battlefield. The West is in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Rt. Hon. Tobias Ellwood MP is chair of the Defence Select Committee. Colonel (Retd) Hamish de Bretton-Gordon OBE is a former commander of UK & NATO CBRN Forces.