Starmer's directionless national security strategy fools no one
Yesterday saw the publication of the UK's national security strategy (NSS) 2025, Security for the British people in a dangerous world. It had been announced in February and promised before this week's Nato summit (in fact, it was released on the summit's first day). The Prime Minister argued it would pull together a number of extant reviews: the Strategic Defence Review, the AUKUS review, the Defence Industrial Strategy, the China audit, the FCDO's three internal reviews and the strategy for countering state threats, among others.
The danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is
It was obvious at the time that this sequencing was nonsensical. The UK's first national security strategy, Security in an interdependent world, was a product of Gordon Brown's government, issued in 2008, and it was genuinely innovative. It was meant to conceptualise 'national security' in a new and broad way, taking in not just traditional elements like military operations, diplomacy, intelligence and counter-terrorism, but 'threats to individual citizens and to our way of life, as well as to the integrity and interests of the state'.
Brown billed it as 'a single, overarching strategy bringing together the objectives and plans of all departments, agencies and forces involved in protecting our national security' From it flowed a number of discrete tasks and policies. The approach was not complicated: determine the big picture, then decide how to support it in practical terms.
Starmer's national security strategy has done almost the opposite (though that ascribes to it too much coherence). We have seen the Strategic Defence Review setting out the future shape and tasks of the armed forces, three internal FCDO reviews have reported to the Foreign Secretary (but not released) and as much of the China audit as we will see is in the National Security Strategy.
Meanwhile the Defence Industrial Strategy is a work in progress, and the AUKUS review risks being made irrelevant by the Trump administration's own re-examination. So it is neither top-down, nor bottom-up, but rather lacking any direction at all. I wouldn't have started from here.
One important element of the NSS is an announcement on expenditure. The Nato summit is expected to agree a spending target of 5 per cent of GDP, made up of 3.5 per cent on core defence capabilities and 1.5 per cent on 'resilience and security'. The NSS contains an 'historic commitment to spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security', which is encouraging, but the detail is teeming with devils.
First, the date by which the UK is expected to meet this level of spending is 2035. That is at least two general elections away; Vladimir Putin will turn 83 and Donald Trump will be 89, if either is spared. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy's Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines will be coming out of service. It is a long time away, and it remains a target without any practical steps to reach it.
The NSS also widens the scope of 'national security' further than ever before. Including energy policy may seem defensible, but attaching the label to 'green growth', 'inequality' or 'stripping out red tape' starts to stretch credibility. The interdepartmental nature of the 'national security' umbrella is vital – but the danger is that if everything is 'national security', then nothing is.
This matters because if the government simply moves spending from one column on its mother of all spreadsheets to another, it does not acquire a new capability. Equally, there is no deterrent effect on Russia or China, or 'Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm' – as Elizabeth I once so neatly put it. If the Prime Minister designates Border Security Command as a 'national security' asset, that is £150 million he had already earmarked, not new investment.
The 2008 national security strategy was a serious and systematic attempt, supervised and delivered by Robert Hannigan and Patrick Turner, to design an overarching framework for the defence of the UK and its interests, then develop policies to support that framework. Its 2025 successor does not –by its nature and timing cannot – achieve that same goal.
The national security strategy is not all bad; it comes in large part from the pen of the formidable Professor John Bew, who spent five years in Downing Street as foreign policy adviser to four successive prime ministers. But he has been asked to change the tyres on a moving car, creating a strategy around half a dozen other reviews in various stages of progress. There must be very serious concerns now that it is little more than a centripetal instrument for pulling in enough government expenditure nominally to meet our Nato obligations. Our allies are unlikely to be fooled, and our enemies will certainly not be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Mrs Robinson review – the politician whose joyful underdog triumph made the establishment suck lemons
It's rare for a politician to cry on camera because they're so moved, especially in a legacy-cementing retrospective. But it happens several times in Aoife Kelleher's feature-length profile of the former Irish president, Mary Robinson. Whether it's pride in the Irish national identity, sympathy with the disenfranchised or grave fear of how the climate crisis will affect future generations, Robinson is not afraid to let her emotions show and is, indeed, unable to avoid it. In those moments, we see the core of her enduring popularity. As captured by this programme, Robinson is a leader who actually, genuinely cares, about people and principles. A conventionally structured film – archive clips, journalist talking heads, an interview with Robinson herself – begins with her latter-day incarnation as an environmental campaigner before flipping us back to postwar County Mayo, where Mary Bourke grew up competing with four brothers. Despite being 'shy' and a 'bookworm', she was filled with an impulse to 'make life more fair', and sought to implement that via the study of law at Trinity College, Dublin, where she met her future husband, Nicholas Robinson. A spell at Harvard meant she was in the US to witness protests against the Vietnam war and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. 'What is law when all of this is happening?', Robinson remembers thinking. Back at home, she practised law but was soon drawn into politics and was persuaded to run in the 1990 presidential election. Her initial misgivings about the post being an irrelevant ceremonial institution soon gave way to a realisation that it could be a platform from which to advocate globally for human rights. And so, at a time when Ireland was still deeply misogynist, this little-known woman stood as a rank outsider against the slicked grey hair, ballooning double-breasted suit and contrived bar-room bonhomie of old warhorse Brian Lenihan. Lenihan's party, centre-right traditionalists Fianna Fáil, had never lost a presidential election, but the charismatic Robinson's ability to connect with a tired, downtrodden populace was already seeing her begin to draw level in the polls when a Lenihan acolyte launched a sexist personal attack on her in a radio interview. This gaffe provoked many female Lenihan supporters to switch sides. Robinson's campaign, depicted to the sound of Cannonball by the Breeders, became unstoppable: the footage of her accepting the nomination, smiling freely while Lenihan and beleaguered Fianna Fáil taoiseach Charles Haughey stand behind her looking as if they've sucked on lemons, is a moment of purely joyful underdog triumph. Her presidency was profoundly different from any of her predecessors. Setting up a continuously lit lantern in the window of her official residence to represent members of the Irish diaspora who had been driven away by discrimination and oppression, Robinson made headlines by meeting with Queen Elizabeth II and Gerry Adams – not at the same time – before travelling to Somalia to draw attention to famine, and to Rwanda in the aftermath of genocide. At home, Ireland's positions on gender equality and sexual freedom fundamentally changed, with Robinson's drive to give voice to the voiceless playing a major part. She quit in 1997 before the end of her term, a move that is not the only decision she candidly describes as a 'mistake' – although why it was so bad to renege on her deal with the Irish when her presidency only had a few months to run isn't properly explained. She'd been lured away by the prospect of becoming the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and here the film gently prompts questions about Robinson's politics. Sign up to What's On Get the best TV reviews, news and features in your inbox every Monday after newsletter promotion Now she could take on key transgressors, criticising Serbia, China, Russia and, indeed, the US, on the subject of Guantánamo Bay and the deliberately vague 'war on terror'. The US responded by levering her out of her job, then awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom some years later. Watching this film, it's hard not to wonder whether Robinson represents the best of and the limitations of rational, progressive liberalism: she spoke truth to power, her admirers would say, but others might say that she often politely asked power if it wouldn't mind awfully reining it in a bit, and power said no. The concern abides as we see Robinson, now 81, acting as chair of The Elders, a prestigious pressure group founded by Nelson Mandela. Doing the rounds of conferences, seminars and campaign launches, Robinson is seen being brought to tears by melting glaciers, while giving speeches to green activists. The climate crisis might be the ultimate example of asking nicely not working, but perhaps someone listening to Robinson will take a more radical step forward: if they do, they'll be the latest in a line of countless people inspired by a woman whose desire to do the right thing has never wavered. Mrs Robinson airs on Sky Documentaries and streams on Now, on Sunday, 17 August.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Europe joins forces to shield Zelensky from a second Trump grilling
European leaders will want to form a human shield around Volodymyr Zelensky when they arrive in Washington on Monday. The last time the Ukrainian president was in the White House's Oval Office, he was berated by his American hosts, denied lunch and ejected from the West Wing ahead of schedule. 'You don't have the cards,' Donald Trump told Mr Zelensky during their heated row. Now, he is heading back to Washington with the whole deck. For Kyiv's most ardent European allies, that scene in February was reminiscent of their worst nightmares. It was a devastating blow to their hopes of aiding the war-torn country, which many believe is impossible without the help of the Americans. From that moment, the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Rutte have acted as if they were spiritual advisers coaching Mr Zelensky through each and every encounter with Mr Trump. Sensing that the next meeting could be the most perilous yet, the Europeans have ripped up their August holiday plans and decided to join. For weeks, Sir Keir, the Prime Minister, David Lammy, his Foreign Secretary, and British diplomats have been cautioning against backing Mr Trump into a corner. They feared Kyiv and Europe could easily trigger a public reaction from the US President that can't be walked back. Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary-general, who recently called the American 'daddy', has taken a similar approach, love-bombing the American at every opportunity in the hope he maintains support for the military alliance and Ukraine. Mr Macron, France's president, Friedrich Merz, Germany's chancellor, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission's president, Alexander Stubb, Finland's president, and Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister, all have their own tactics for keeping order. They will all be flanking Mr Zelensky when he lands in Washington on Monday in a remarkable show of unity and strength. A Western official familiar with preparations for the meeting said the leaders had all come together because Mr Trump listens to them and respects them. They joined Mr Zelensky on a call with the US president to help drive home Ukraine and Europe's position before his Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin. They were also there for the 90-minute debrief, where it was first raised that the Ukrainian president could travel to Washington for a similar summit. It was on this call that it was first mooted that a European leader could join Mr Zelensky amid fears he could once again be ganged up on by the Americans. Diplomatic sources said Britain, France and Germany had taken the lead on preparing for the meeting, especially briefing the Ukrainian delegation on how best not to upset Mr Trump. This, according to European officials, would be extremely difficult as the US President had appeared to endorse a peace plan proposed by Putin to end the war. Under the plan, Ukraine would surrender the eastern Donetsk region to Moscow as the price for peace. Mr Trump also claimed he no longer backed the idea of an unconditional ceasefire paving the way for negotiations, and instead told European leaders and Mr Zelensky he favoured moving straight to a peace deal. These proposals cross the red lines that have consistently been set out by the Ukrainian leader and his European allies. But there was a recognition that this message couldn't be delivered directly to Mr Trump by Mr Zelensky because it would effectively set his peace efforts back to square one. Instead, it was decided that the Europeans would be the ones to deliver the news to the US president. One by one, it was announced that European leaders would be joining the meeting. First came Mr Stubb, who has bonded with Mr Trump over their shared love for golf. Then Ms Meloni, the American's favourite European leader, cancelled her holiday to attend. Mr Macron, Mr Merz, Mr Rutte and Sir Keir made their own separate announcements. As for Mr Zelensky, he travelled to Brussels, where he would hold talks with Mrs von der Leyen and join a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing while sitting alongside the Commission Before the call, involving dozens of European leaders, the Ukrainian president and EU figurehead went public to set out their positions. For Mr Zelensky, it was simple, he would not cede territory not occupied by Russian forces. 'Russia is still unsuccessful in the Donetsk region and Putin has been unable to take it for 12 years. The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land,' the Ukrainian president told reporters unusually gathered on a Sunday in the Commission's Berlaymont headquarters. It will be his task to convince Mr Trump that the demands by Putin for Donetsk are an unreasonable price for peace. Mr Macron tried on Sunday. 'There is only one state that proposes a peace that would be a capitulation: Russia,' he said. But the problem Mr Zelensky faces is that the Americans appear to have already decided surrendering the 30 per cent of the eastern region not occupied by Russia is an acceptable request by Moscow. 'There is an important discussion to be had with regard to Donetsk and what would happen there,' Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's Russia envoy, told CNN, suggesting that Putin had ended his demand for control over other Ukrainian regions where he occupies territory. Meanwhile, Mrs von der Leyen set out Europe's position, saying: 'First, we must have strong security guarantees to protect both Ukraine and Europe's vital security interests. Ukraine must be able to uphold its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. 'There can be no limitations on Ukrainian armed forces, be it cooperation with other third countries, or assistance from other third countries – no limitations for the Ukrainian armed forces. As I have often said, Ukraine must become a steel porcupine, indigestible for potential invaders.' Sunday's press conference between Mr Zelensky and Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, revealed many of the points the Euro contingent will be pressing on Monday. One, pushing back on the idea of handing over all of Donetsk to Putin. Two, demanding an end to Russia's attacks before proper talks. Three, meaningful security guarantees backed up by the US for Ukraine after peace. The Europeans will take the lead on securing meaningful security guarantees, including from the US, for Ukraine. Diplomatic sources believe that they have secured a major concession from Putin to allow 'Article 5-style' protections for Kyiv, referring to Nato's mutual defence clause. Mr Zelensky said Mr Trump had agreed to join those guarantees, but added: 'There are no details how it will work.' It will be a balancing act for all the parties involved, one wrong step could set back both Europe and Ukraine's relationships with Mr Trump. What is clear, both Europe and Kyiv believe this is a pivotal moment that requires a demonstration of unity that even the US President cannot ignore.
BreakingNews.ie
42 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Starmer hails Zelenskiy's desire for ‘just peace' amid fears of Russian land grab
Keir Starmer has hailed Volodymyr Zelenskiy's desire for a 'just and lasting peace' in Ukraine, amid worries a Russian land grab could result from negotiations to end the war. The British Prime Minister and French President Emmanuel Macron chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon, where allied leaders prepared for a meeting with US President Donald Trump alongside Mr Zelenskiy in Washington on Monday. Advertisement European leaders appear poised to join Mr Zelenskiy in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian president, after his last encounter with his American counterpart in the Oval Office resulted in a diplomatic crisis. Giving a readout of the video call between coalition allies, a Downing Street spokesman said: 'The leaders reaffirmed their continued support to Ukraine, and praised President Zelenskiy's desire for a just and lasting peace as he prepares for further consultations with President Trump in Washington DC. 'The leaders also commended President Trump's commitment to providing security guarantees to Ukraine, in which the coalition of the willing will play a vital role through the Multinational Force Ukraine, among other measures. 'They re-emphasised the readiness to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased, and to help secure Ukraine's skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine's armed forces.' Advertisement The call followed fears that Mr Trump may have been swayed by Vladimir Putin's demands for ending the war when the pair met in Alaska on Friday. News reports suggested Mr Putin wants full control of Donetsk and Luhansk, two occupied Ukrainian regions, in exchange for withdrawing troops from other areas. Mr Trump is inclined to press the Ukrainian president to accept the demands at their meeting on Monday, the reports added. President Donald Trump listens as Russia's President Vladimir Putin speaks during a news conference (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP) The US leader also appeared to change his mind about the need for a ceasefire following his meeting with Mr Putin, who has refused to lay down arms ahead of a sustained peace deal. Advertisement US secretary of state Marco Rubio has since insisted Russia will face 'additional consequences' if no peace deal is reached. Fresh sanctions are not off the table, Mr Rubio told American broadcasters, though he claimed they would not lead Russia to accept a ceasefire. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said it did not matter that Mr Trump was no longer aiming for a ceasefire before brokering a wider peace, as either would 'stop the killing'. Appearing alongside her at a press conference before the coalition of the willing call, Mr Zelensky agreed, but insisted negotiations needed to result in the 'correct steps to have lasting peace, to stop Putin' rather than simply a pause in the war. Advertisement Earlier, Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Mr Putin had agreed to Nato-like protection for Ukraine for the first time at the Alaska summit, as a concession to western allies. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' he told CNN. European leaders on Saturday suggested Mr Trump had indicated he is now willing to provide American air support for the alliance, a 'security guarantee' said to be vital to its operation. Those travelling to Washington on Monday alongside Mr Starmer includes Mr Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Finland's Alexander Stubb, EU Commission president Ms von der Leyen and Nato chief Mark Rutte. Advertisement Ahead of the Oval Office encounter, the allies are likely to be mindful of the previous time Mr Zelenskiy appeared in the room – February's bust-up, which resulted in American aid to Ukraine being temporarily halted.
