The U.K.’s Royal Navy was just barely able to find the forces necessary to constrain this hostile Russian activity, which was designed to locate undersea infrastructure for future sabotage. This reflects a broader concern: With the exception of France, which retains a credible submarine and surface fleet, the failure of European nations to invest in their naval forces is enabling Russia to exploit NATO defenses. This situation is also restricting America’s ability to refocus military resources on China’s threat in the Pacific.

CAN THE US CANCEL IRAN’S HORMUZ GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD?

European governments can’t credibly claim surprise at Russia’s resurgent maritime threat. They’ve had more than 15 years to prepare for it. Way back in April 2011, Vladimir Putin first announced his plans for a massive naval buildup. Putin said this was necessary to prevent Russia from falling under “foreign command.” And the funds have kept flowing.

In contrast, it was only President Donald Trump’s return to office (and not the February 2022 start of the worst war in Europe since 1945) that shoved complacent European governments to end their freeloading under America’s defense umbrella. And even then, defense investments have varied wildly from nation to nation. Some, such as the Baltics, Poland, and Germany, have risen to the challenge. The Scandinavians, Denmark, and the Netherlands are not far behind.

But major powers such as the U.K. and France are still dithering with only half-hearted spending boosts. Other European powers such as Italy, Spain, and Belgium continue to treat defense obligations as a joke.

One major problem is that Europe’s naval malaise is forcing the U.S. Navy to maintain a heavy attack-submarine presence in the Atlantic Ocean. As of right now, all five of the U.K.’s active Astute-Class attack submarines are currently undergoing maintenance.

This is a major problem amid escalating Chinese aggression towards Taiwan, a reality which demands a refocusing of U.S. military assets. A successful Chinese conquest of that island democracy would be catastrophic for U.S. security and prosperity, after all. U.S. concerns here cannot be understated.

Adm. Sam Paparo, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, has repeatedly made clear his particular concern over the lack of attack submarines at his disposal. As China’s People’s Liberation Army-Navy continues to make leaps in capability and scale, America’s dominance of undersea warfare takes on ever increasing import. But when the U.K. can’t get any of its attack submarines to sea, the burden of shadowing Russian ballistic missile submarines falls on the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, France. This shadowing operation is a priceless centerpiece of America’s security being that it feasibly allows the U.S. to sink Russian submarines before they can launch their nuclear missiles in the event of war. And even if not nuclear in nature, Russian escalation is coming.

British admirals are surely praying that this escalation occurs on land. Because their readiness crisis only begins with the submarine service. Due to its lack of anti-ship missiles and low warship readiness, the entirety of the deployable Royal Navy would today struggle to fight even three capable warships of a kind such as China’s Type 055 destroyers.

Again, this weakness is especially important regarding Russia, which, while hamstrung in Ukraine, retains a formidable and increasingly quiet submarine fleet. Due to the attack submarine deficit, however, the Royal Air Force’s P-8 anti-submarine warfare aircraft and the Navy’s Type-23 frigates now serve as the linchpin of the U.K.’s maritime defense. Notably, none of the U.K.’s surface warships are currently armed with the heavy torpedoes needed to sink enemy surface warships.

It gets worse.

Only two of Britain’s Type-23 frigates (there are only five total operational) are armed with the new anti-ship Naval Strike Missile. The other three Type-23s lack anti-ship missiles of any kind. Out of the six Type-45 destroyers, only three are currently operational. And while superb for air defense, none of these Type-45s yet possesses anti-ship missiles. Similarly, while the U.K.’s two aircraft carriers are operational, their air wings lack anti-ship missiles, pending integration of a new weapon. These F-35B jets would thus have to neuter their otherwise formidable stealth profiles by entering the close-in killing zone of enemy warships in order to drop bombs on them. Finally, Royal Navy helicopters carry only light anti-ship missiles, which lack the necessary punch to confront larger enemy warships.

The U.K.’s ability to respond rapidly in a crisis beyond British waters weakens the special relationship. In a crisis today, the U.K. could not even get submarines into the Pacific. Nor anywhere. During the recent war in Iran, for example, the French navy was able to deploy far more warships far more quickly than the U.K. It took the U.K. one week to get its HMS Dragon destroyer out of port as the Iran crisis grew. The ship then quickly broke down on arriving in the Mediterranean Sea, spending weeks undergoing repairs in Cyprus.

Soon to leave office, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently saw his defense secretary resign over his refusal to adequately increase defense spending. Starmer’s defense investment plan, released this week, is woefully short on resourcing and short on details of where the new funds will be sourced from. The presumptive new prime minister, Andy Burnham, must do better.

Sadly, newly announced plans to replace planned destroyers with “Common Combat Vessels” drone motherships are cost-saving measures, not bold modernization. These new vessels will lack the firepower and durability of traditional destroyers. And facing an enemy such as Russia or China, you need warships that can fire, and defend against, a lot of missiles.

The current situation is unsustainable. A war with China would force the U.S. to choose between deterring Russia and the real potential of losing a century-defining Pacific war. European allies must, then, urgently generate the ability to keep more warships at sea, especially anti-submarine forces. Money counts, but if limited in time or amount, the fundamental problem will remain unaddressed.

WHAT TIM SHEEHY GETS RIGHT AND WRONG ABOUT IRAN’S THREAT

Contemplating this malaise, these allies should recognize that they are appearing both unreliable to America and fragile to a Russia seeking vengeance over European support for Ukraine. As he loses on Ukrainian ground, Putin will push ever harder under the sea.

Things must change. Until then, let us hope Britain’s famed naval hero, Lord Horatio Nelson, haunts British politicians from the grave.