OUR departing Defence Secretary has warned that our Armed Forces could be involved in a major conflict by 2030.
His prediction is sobering and not unsurprising.
Our involvement with Ukraine has increased tension with Russia, while China invests heavily in defence and threatens international trade routes in the South China Sea and Taiwan.
And let’s not forget terrorism and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.
On Tuesday, the Government released an updated version of the Integrated Review, published in 2021.
Ben Wallace defended the reduction of the army by 10,000, saying it was either that or “giving them a pitchfork”.
With the defence budget standing at a paltry two per cent of GDP, I understand his logic.
It is regrettable that defence is always regarded as the poor relation when it comes to spending, when it should be any government’s top priority.
However, it’s too tempting for politicians to be swayed by voters who want money spent in other areas.
Another argument pushed by many is that we no longer need a large army.
They point to Ukraine and how a relatively small army is using technology to combat a larger and better equipped opponent.
The evidence points to the contrary, with many thousands of Ukrainians killed and wounded.
Yes, we would operate with our NATO allies in a major conflict, but for how long?
Our reserves may be committed, but are small in number and lack funding,
It’s claimed we could field a Division (all-arms unit of circa 10,000 troops), but few believe it.
As a member of the Defence Committee, I have been privileged to meet many in our Armed Forces and most tell me they are overstretched and underfunded.
Our duty to defend the realm must be paid for in full.