LONDON — Russia’s war on Ukraine raises questions about whether the Conservative government here should rethink a recent review of its defense plans while digging deeper to fund possible changes.

It has been just 12 months since the government unveiled what it called the “integrated review” of defence, security and foreign policy. Among the changes to be implemented were a pivot to the Asia-Pacific region and a transformation of the military towards high-tech capabilities like space, cyber and artificial intelligence, away from conventional weapons like tanks. main battles.

Now opinions are divided on what the war in Ukraine means for British thought. Some say a full update of the built-in exam will be needed. Others aren’t entirely sure.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs think tank, better known as Chatham House, says Britain remains largely on track, although analysts say the rush to secure oil and gas supplies for offsetting Russian deliveries is already driving the change.

“It is entirely possible for the British government to argue that the integrated review does not need substantial changes, given that it has identified both Russia and China as potential threats to interests. British,” the think tank argued in a recent comment.

Its analysts have warned that there are dangers in going too far back to Europe.

“There is a real danger that if those advocating the resurrection of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) are listened to, the threat posed by China will be overlooked,” the newspaper said. “The real question is how to manage the risks and threats from Russia and China,” he added.

Dan Darling, senior European military analyst at US-based Forecast International, said it was too early to draw many conclusions from the conflict in Europe.

“How do you measure future conflict scenarios based on a few weeks of warfare that so far indicate that Russia is not the conventional military threat suggested by previous analyses?” He asked.

“The review certainly noted Russia as a security threat, but how much importance should be given to protecting Eastern and Northern Europe against the announced tilt towards Asia-Pacific? The response to this could in turn affect downstream supply objectives and the posture of British forces in different parts of the world,” he said.

Be that as it may, no discussion of British defense policy lasts long without the question of funding, or rather the lack thereof, arising.

Chatham House’s commentary was no exception. He said the invasion of Ukraine had exposed the “inherent flaw” of the plan: a disconnect between the vision set out by the prime minister and the means necessary.

“The review was premised on the UK’s ‘free-riding’ of America’s commitment to NATO while postponing many of its defense requirements to the second half of this decade, at the earliest,” they said. analysts write.

Labour, Britain’s main opposition party in parliament, also jumped into the debate, finding themselves onside with many Tory lawmakers advocating more money for defense and an overhaul of the exam.

John Healey, the shadow defense secretary, said the government should respond to the crisis the same way Britain responded to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

‘Ministers must respond to new security threats to the UK and Europe, just as the Labor government did after the 9/11 attacks with the biggest sustained increase in defense spending for two decades’ , Healey told the Guardian newspaper on March 30.

The Integrated Review did not foresee “neither a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan nor an invasion of Ukraine”, he said. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific had taken European security for granted and needed to be reconsidered, argued the Labor politician.

Howard Wheeldon, defense consultant at Wheeldon Strategic Advisory in London, agreed that the Russian invasion forced the government to revisit its underlying assumptions.

“There is now a clear need for a serious refresh of the integrated exam,” he said. “However, it is clear that the UK does not yet intend to follow Germany in increasing the defense budget.”

Some analysts and politicians here hoped Chancellor Rishi Sunak would address the funding issue when he unveiled a mini-budget on March 23.

In unveiling these economic forecasts, military spending was not mentioned, as Sunak preferred to talk about domestic tax issues and soaring increases in the cost of living. Defense was already adequately funded through a £24.1billion increase in earmarked capital spending over the next four years, the government argued.

Darling says those calling for more money face an uphill battle for more money, given spending demands elsewhere in government.

“How do you convince the Treasury to approve more defense spending so soon after Boris Johnson announced the £24.1bn top-up?” He asked. “The answer, judging by Sunak’s recent financial update to parliament last week, appears to be no,” he said.