Reform UK must set out clear plans for Ukraine, NATO and defence spending, writes Major General Tim Cross CBE

With the latest US midterm results and the final couple of years of the Trump presidency in play, maybe Nigel Farage’s party will now be prepared to speak out clearly on where it stands. It needs to.

What we need from Reform UK is unequivocal support for Ukraine in their war against Putin’s Russia.

That war has escalated every year since their invasion and that escalation will continue.

Putin is determined to force Ukraine to accept defeat – and he will do anything to bring that about, including flattening Kyiv and destroying Ukraine’s national critical infrastructure, as well as its ability to provide and distribute energy, water, food, and all the other utilities and necessities of life, along with data centres, road and rail networks, and communications facilities.

So, a clear policy laying out Reform UK’s determination to stand firm against Putin and ensure the UK provides everything we can to enable Ukraine to continue the fight – however long it takes.

Following this, a clear statement Reform UK will increase the UK defence budget to meet the Nato target of 3.5 per cent of GDP, including a clear timetable of when that would be achieved and how they would find the necessary money.

And, along with that, clarity on what would and would not be included in that 3.5 per cent.

Previous governments have basically fiddled the figures by including all kinds of expenditure that failed to add anything to the UK’s “fighting power”… like my pension!

The 3.5 per cent must only include capabilities that directly improve our ability to fight and win on the battlefields in the oceans, the sky and on land.

Next, a clarity about endorsing the recent Strategic Defence Review, which, whilst not perfect, was an excellent piece of work.

We do not need to “review” it again or kick the can down the road by calling for another one.

That clarity includes our continuing support to Nato, to an independent nuclear deterrent, and to rebuilding the UK’s conventional fighting power.

This requires spelling out how they will both ensure we can fight and sustain high-intensity war-fighting operations if and when necessary, as well as engaging in the “hybrid” and “grey-zone” warfare that is happening every day in, for example, the cyber world — with disinformation campaigns and direct cyber-attacks on businesses — as well as small-scale physical proxy attacks on both military and non-military targets.

Crucially, this means having sufficient mass in fighting ships, submarines, combat aircraft and land forces – in both manned and unmanned systems — along with the numbers of trained people to fight them and the necessary logistics to sustain that fight.

So, there is work to be done.

Let us hope whoever is appointed has the necessary ability to do it.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter