As recent events have shown, conflicts unfold with unexpected speed and ferocity. It means we go to war with the Army we have today, not the one we hope to cobble together in 6 to 12 months’ time. As it was in the Falklands, it is a case of: “come as you are, bring what you can.”

In the past, we viewed our peacetime Army as the core around which a larger wartime force would be built. This is now an unrealistic expectation. We no longer have the luxury of time. The force we have at the outset of a crisis is the force that will ultimately be decisive. The reason for this is nuclear weapons. They have eliminated total war but not all war.

The physical presence of forces on the ground can pre-emptively prevent the loss of vital territory. They can also deliver a political and military response that either buys vital negotiating time before we resort to WMD or, better still, prevents their use entirely. But without a sufficient mass able to draw a line in the sand, our only recourse will be nuclear weapons. Or to accept the loss of sovereign territory.

If Ukraine had not maintained an army capable of holding-off the initial Russian assault, Kyiv would have been seized, Zelensky would have been toppled, and it would have been game over. Instead, Ukraine’s Armed Forces were able to inflict a comprehensive defeat.

Ukraine’s initial success in the first few weeks was crucial. It enabled Zelensky to galvanise global support. A trickle of military aid became a flood. As the war has progressed, Russian territorial gains have been stemmed, while its army has been forced to pay an ever higher price in terms of lives lost and materiel destroyed. It is too soon to call a Ukrainian victory, but it some type of peace deal may soon be agreed. If it does, the bloody nose Ukraine has given to Russia means that Russia will likely think twice before having another go. Meanwhile, Ukraine has established itself as an independent state to a greater extent than it ever has before.