Red Tape Warfare: How Home Office Bureaucracy Hampers Ukrainian Defense Efforts

Under the bright skies of this recent week, we ventured up the hill overlooking Dover's bustling port. Across the channel, the sun-kissed shores of France lay in plain view, a scene often favored by those undertaking perilous journeys from France – a record-breaking 534 individuals braved the crossing under similar conditions just last Sunday. Yet, our gaze was directed elsewhere as we traversed through mud, brambles, and wild garlic, ascending toward a formidable double fence adorned with high metal spikes and wire, watched over by vigilant security cameras. Beyond this barrier stood the sprawling grounds of GXO Logistics, a company renowned for its prowess in engineering efficient supply chains.

However, our attention was drawn to a supply chain stifled not by inefficiency, but by government decree. Several months ago, I recounted here the valiant endeavors of Ukraine in extending their battlefront beyond the Dnipro River, currently under the occupation of Vladimir Putin's forces. Sustaining three vital bridgeheads in the region necessitated the clandestine transport of troops, armaments, and casualties through the intricate network of the river's channels. These perilous journeys, fraught with the ever-looming threat of Russian aerial dominance, demand light, inconspicuous vessels to evade detection.

In support of this cause, the British populace has demonstrated unparalleled generosity. Organizations like MissionUkraine.uk, which I had the privilege of accompanying on a mission to Ukraine last year, have rallied British donors and volunteers to procure, refurbish, and deliver small boats essential for navigating Ukraine's waterways to military units in need. Echoing historical valor, Ukrainians aspire to transform the "small boats" of clandestine migrants into the "little ships" of resistance against Russian aggression. Remarkably, the boats arriving on British shores seldom return, serving as one-way transports for human traffickers – a resource the Border Force and Home Office disregard.

Why not repurpose these vessels for a noble cause, extending a lifeline to a friend in dire need?

Despite Rishi Sunak's reiterated commitment to doing "whatever it takes" to ensure Ukrainian victory, a remarkably simple gesture remains elusive from a British standpoint – the act of handing over small boats. The Home Office, however, appears reticent, shrouding the fate and whereabouts of these vessels in secrecy. This prompted our expedition – accompanied by our photographer, Paul Grover, and Dmytro Tomkin from MissionUkraine – to scale the heights above Dover, culminating in the deployment of a drone by Paul upon reaching the double fence.

Through aerial reconnaissance, we discovered several rows of the coveted assets neatly arranged and labeled: 20 RIBs, 62 deflated and folded inflatable boats, and 131 engines. A substantial find, yet merely a fraction of the stockpile accumulated after nearly 30,000 arrivals on British shores last year and over 5,000 thus far this year, preceding the anticipated surge in summer migrations.

Curiously, the Home Office adamantly rebuffs the "little ships" initiative. Despite numerous appeals from MPs, organizations, and individuals since its public proposal in January, the Home Office remains obstinate. Yesterday, the Home Secretary's spokesperson erroneously claimed that the Ukrainian government had not requested the boats, contrary to the embassy's formal request in February, coupled with an offer to assume full responsibility for them. Initially, there was mention of retaining the vessels as evidence for criminal proceedings against people-traffickers, a rationale now seemingly abandoned.

The latest objection, as articulated by Michael Tomlinson, the minister of state for countering illegal migration, revolves around the purported unseaworthiness of these inflatables. In a standard response to an MP's inquiry, Tomlinson asserted their lethally hazardous nature, citing monthly fatal incidents involving such craft. Yet, the question lingers: are these concerns genuine, or merely a smokescreen obscuring a deeper reluctance to aid Ukraine's cause?

Mr. Tomlinson continues his assertion: "The notion that these boats could serve the Ukrainians in ferrying wounded soldiers across the Dnipro, though well-intentioned, is impractical. These boats pose a danger even to the fit and healthy, let alone those incapacitated individuals who may be unable to react as the boats inevitably falter." (I believe Mr. Tomlinson means "founder".)

As mentioned earlier, the Home Office's rejection is not only resolute but also misinformed and disparaging. Who better understands the capabilities of such boats than the Ukrainians themselves? Mr. Tomlinson asserts they wouldn't suffice for transporting the wounded, oblivious to the fact that similar boats, sourced elsewhere, have been fulfilling precisely that role for months. The Ukrainian forces rely on them out of necessity, knowing full well the risks associated with these small vessels. Each boat, after a mere few weeks of service, succumbs to damage from bullets and shrapnel, warranting its scrapping.

Perhaps a meeting with a Ukrainian delegation could enlighten Mr. Tomlinson on alternative means of evacuating the wounded from the front lines. Additionally, they could address concerns regarding seaworthiness. The Ukrainians understand that these boats aren't currently suited for the Dnipro – although, notably, it's a mere fraction of the width of the English Channel. Organizations like MissionUkraine.uk are tasked with refurbishing and adapting these boats and engines for their intended purpose. Naturally, they reject any boats unfit for repurposing, relying on their expertise to determine what will effectively serve their needs. Might their judgment not surpass Mr. Tomlinson's?

These ministerial responses appear deliberately obtuse, potentially masking deeper reasons for rejection. The bureaucratic stubbornness around health and safety, which seems incongruous in the context of combatting the Russians, is sadly familiar. What baffles is the government's failure to address this issue politically. Despite months of advocacy, even London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, eventually relented to allow Ulez scrappage cars to be sent to Ukraine. Why then, are the Tories trailing behind? Here lies a nearly cost-free opportunity for the government to aid our embattled ally and repurpose the remnants of its failed attempts to curb illegal migration.

The Home Office's hostility and the complete inertia exhibited by Home Secretary James Cleverly are profoundly perplexing.

In conclusion, the continued resistance from the Home Office and the glaring inaction of Home Secretary James Cleverly remain baffling in the face of a clear opportunity to assist Ukraine and repurpose resources for a noble cause. It is imperative for the government to reassess its stance, recognizing the urgency of supporting our ally and demonstrating solidarity in times of need. Failure to do so not only undermines the spirit of cooperation but also overlooks a chance to make a tangible difference with minimal cost. It's time for action, not apathy, from those entrusted with our nation's leadership.