The Tribune

By PETER YOUNG

The words of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer last week said it all. In presenting his government’s newly-published Strategic Defence Review, he stated that, with national security fundamental to Britain as a country, a steep change in the nation’s defence capability was required to meet a steep change in the nature of the new security threat it now faced.

The vision of the new review is to make Britain “secure at home, strong abroad”. It is important not only in Britain itself but also to its NATO partners and to antagonistic Russia after its invasion of Ukraine and threat to other countries in Europe, including its cyber attacks against them. It is a lengthy document that can, of course, be found online. But, for ease of reference, I hope it might be worth examining briefly in today’s column some of its content.

The prime minister explained the existence of a new era for defence and security, as Russia was waging war on the continent of Europe while also probing Britain’s defences at home with daily cyber attacks. Global instability, he said, affected economic security by driving down growth and pushing up prices and the cost of living. So, with dangerous times ahead, the review, which the current government had set in course shortly after being elected in July last year, constituted a blueprint and an ambitious roadmap for much-needed reform.

The review recognises the requirement for the UK and other European governments to invest in their own defence. It provides a sobering analysis of the threats facing Britain and proposes a comprehensive plan to deal with them. These are summed up as putting NATO first, keeping up with the pace of innovation in weapons’ procurement and ensuring the UK is “war-fighting ready” – including retention of the nuclear deterrent – particularly if Britain is forced into war.

Starmer reminded his audience that his government had announced recently the largest sustained increase in defence expenditure since the Cold War by committing to spending at a level of 2.5 percent of GDP and an ambition to reach three percent in the next Parliament. This would enable the UK to take greater responsibility for its collective self-defence within NATO.

Moreover, according to a general briefing at the launch of the review, there has apparently been a shift of mindset under the current UK government to put security and defence at the front and centre of its basic principles and practices in order to involve the whole of society in ensuring that the country is in a state of war readiness. But for the government to be talking in such stark terms at this stage about readiness for war will surely be of concern to some people who are unaware of the seriousness of current developments.

Thus, it seems that the review has reflected what is essentially a new way of government thinking about the UK’s defence amid a rapidly changing geopolitical picture. So there will be an emphasis on driving jobs and prosperity through cooperation between industry and government involving procurement reforms in relation to weapons and military equipment and supplies.

This new approach is supposed to set the path for the next decade and beyond. However, notwithstanding official assurances, there is public scepticism about the extent to which such new cooperation can be put into practice.

From a study of the UK press, it is evident that many in Britain have doubts about implementation of all this despite the positive and encouraging remarks about the defence review by Starmer and his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey.

In the longer term, will a Labour government really go along with this proposed drive for greater realism and resolve? Commentators are already wondering whether the Labour party will pay more than lip service to the idea of stronger national defences. Will the armed forces, they ask, actually receive the extra cash when there are huge pressures on government spending and the Left of the party will probably not tolerate priority being given to defence above welfare, the National Health Service and public sector wages?

Interestingly, attitudes seem to be changing in other European capitals. There is now growing pressure from the US government to persuade them to increase their NATO military budgets – and some are doing so – even higher than the well-known existing level of two percent of GDP. Furthermore, reportedly, Secretary General Mark Rutte will be formally unveiling a proposal at the NATO summit in The Hague at the end of this month to raise the spending level for member states to five percent – 3.5 percent on defence capabilities and an additional 1.5 percent on broader security-related investments. It comes as no surprise that there are also reports that the US president is pushing for this and is also said to be threatening to withdraw some American troops from Europe.

Finally, since Britain’s Strategic Defence Review sets out what needs to be done, it seems to be widely assumed that, by presenting it publicly last week, the prime minister has indicated the government’s agreement to it. Given the UK’s security needs and the soundness of the review’s recommendations, it appears unlikely that there will be any serious objection by the general public. So, presumably, the next step will be for the government to put up the money and make new commitments to longer term future expenditure – in response to the new era of defence and security referred to by the prime minister.