Starmer Seeks Nuclear Build-Up in Sweeping UK Military Revamp
Prime Minister Keir Starmer backed a sweeping overhaul of the British military yet refused to commit to the full extent of spending increases that experts said is necessary to protect the UK from growing global threats.
The UK will move to a position of 'war-fighting readiness,' Starmer said, as his government announced plans to expand its nuclear deterrence and submarine fleet and ramp up investment in its industrial base and military capability. Britain will also begin talks with the US on taking an enhanced role in NATO's nuclear deterrence.
Defense Secretary John Healey revealed the strategic defense review, commissioned by the government, to Parliament on Monday, promising to adopt all of the 140-page report's recommendations.
'The threats we face are now more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the Cold War,' Healey said. 'We prevent wars by being strong enough to fight and win them.'
However, the review rests on the assumption that UK defense spending will rise to the equivalent of 3% of GDP by 2034. 'We are confident that the transformation we propose for the harder world we now live in is affordable over ten years, given these promised new resources,' wrote the authors, former Labour defense secretary George Robertson, former joint forces commander Richard Barrons and foreign policy expert Fiona Hill.
Earlier on Monday, Starmer declined to commit to the 3% target — which Labour has described as an 'ambition' — until he knows where the money would come from. 'I don't believe in performative fantasy politics, and certainly not on defense and security,' he said during a media conference.
Even if the UK can get on track to spend 3% of its national output on defense in the next parliament, the report warns that 'it may be necessary to go faster' due to the turbulent geopolitical environment.
Starmer and his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, are reluctant to make spending commitments without details of how they will be funded, partly through fear of bond markets turning on the UK's large public debt pile. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told Times Radio on Monday that Britain's defense plans will likely need to be funded through 'really quite chunky tax increases,' even though Reeves has said she won't repeat last autumn's revenue-raising budget.
Former foreign secretary Jack Straw also said taxes would have to rise, but a poll from YouGov said over half of Britons don't want to pay more for better defenses.
Britain's long-awaited defense review comes amid doubts over US willingness to guarantee security in Europe at a time of Russian aggression, a geopolitical shift under Donald Trump's presidency that has already spurred the UK government to announce plans to ramp up defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product in 2027 from about 2.3% currently. The review laid out a string of major policies to rebuild military capacity.
'If you want to deter conflict, then the best way to do that is to prepare for conflict,' Starmer told BBC radio on Monday, ahead of the publication of the government's strategic defense review scheduled for later in the day. 'The world has changed: we need to be ready.'
British defense stocks pushed higher on Monday, with shares in Babcock International Group Plc rising to the highest since May 2017, and BAE Systems Plc and QinetiQ Group also gaining.
Nevertheless, the review risks being overshadowed by Starmer's ambiguity over when Britain will raise defense spending to 3% of national output, a goal that still falls short of NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's proposal that members should spend at least 3.5% on core defense activities. Trump has demanded they spend 5%.
The new nuclear investment comes alongside the building of six new munitions factories to create an 'always on' industrial production, buying as many as 7,000 long-range missiles and investing in cybersecurity and stockpiles of support equipment.
Monday's review follows a period of underinvestment in the country's defense industry that has seen the size of the UK army shrink to its smallest since the Napoleonic era.
An end to the so-called 'peace dividend' will put more pressure on the country's stretched public finances, with Reeves set to unveil departments' budget settlements at the multi-year spending review on June 11. Higher military spending comes at a time of multiple demands on the public purse, from health care to prisons.
'All of Labour's strategic defense review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them,' Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge said in a statement on Sunday.
The Sunday Times reported that the Labour government wants to buy American-made fighter jets capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. The review will also recommend new defensive shields to protect the country from enemy missiles as well as reestablishing a civilian home guard, according to the report.
Russia's war in Ukraine has brought the state of European defenses into the spotlight in recent years, with Starmer saying the UK 'can't ignore' the threat posed by Vladimir Putin's regime. Moscow launched one of its longest drone and missile attacks against Kyiv this weekend, while Ukrainian drones hit several strategic airfields in Russia, escalating tensions ahead of crucial talks in Istanbul on Monday aimed at securing a ceasefire in the years-long conflict.
With assistance from Andrew Atkinson and Morwenna Coniam.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Russian strike kills 5, including 1 year old, hours after Trump calls Putin
At least five people, including a one-year-old child, were killed in a Russian drone strike on the northern Ukrainian city of Pryluky overnight, regional governor Viacheslav Chaus said Thursday. The attack came just hours after Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin 'very strongly' said that Russia will retaliate for Ukraine's weekend drone attacks on Russian military airfields. Six more people were wounded in the attack and have been hospitalized, Chaus said. According to him, six Shahed-type drones struck residential areas of Pryluky early Thursday morning, causing severe damage to residential buildings. Hours later, seventeen people were wounded in a Russian drone strike on the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv early Thursday, including children, a pregnant woman, and a 93-year-old woman, regional head Oleh Syniehubov wrote on Telegram. At around 1:05 a.m., Shahed-type drones struck two apartment buildings in the city's Slobidskyi district, causing fires and destroying several private vehicles. 'By launching attacks while people sleep in their homes, the enemy once again confirms its tactic of insidious terror,' Syniehubov wrote on Telegram.
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Defence alert: Crypto is turning into a geopolitical weapon
"I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies… Unregulated crypto assets can facilitate unlawful behaviour." That was Donald Trump in 2019, when he still voiced concerns shared by central bankers, International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists and financial crime experts across the world. The consensus was clear: crypto, while technologically innovative, lacked both intrinsic value and sovereign backing, and undermined anti-money laundering regimes as well as monetary integrity. Fast forward to 2025. Better educated perhaps by the America crypto lobby's campaign cheques and the sweat equity gifted to his family, Trump, now US president again, recently signed Executive Order 14178. A stroke of the pen dismantled many of the regulatory guard-rails once deemed essential. Not long after, the Trump family entered the crypto business. One of their earliest strategic partners was Pakistan, a state associated with cross-border terrorism, shady finances and furtive fund diversion. Also Read: The triumph of crypto bros: Don't just shrug and move on What should India make of a superpower whose political leaders launch private currencies? Or of a country where former convicts are rehabilitated as strategic advisors to sovereign crypto councils? Are we witnessing a global power in search of infinite minting rights without democratic oversight but with the full cover of plausible deniability? Changpeng Zhao, former CEO of Binance, pleaded guilty to serious anti-money laundering failures, spent time in US custody and paid $4.3 billion for a settlement. His crypto exchange facilitated transactions for sanctioned groups like Hamas—flows that would never get past a regulated banking system. The Binance blow-up should have ended his financial career. Instead, he now advises Pakistan's official crypto task force. Justin Sun, whose firm invested $30 million in Trump-linked World Liberty Financial, was under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for civil fraud. Today, he is a front-row guest at US political fund-raisers. Are crypto dealings the new way to buy influence in the US? This seems like a gateway through which otherwise ineligible actors—be it individuals, regimes or rogue states—are quietly admitted into the global financial order, now that the need for institutional legitimacy appears to be receding behind the opacity that once resulted in exclusion. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | De-dollarization: Trump should target crypto, not Brics It's a return to Cold War-style shadow financing, but with the support of blockchains instead of banks. So much for the superpower that lectures the world on clean governance. When financial opacity is rebranded as innovation, geopolitics takes on a new form we should all be wary of. The IMF and World Bank have been vocal in their concerns. The IMF has warned that widespread adoption of private cryptocurrencies threatens monetary sovereignty, enables illicit flows and undermines capital controls, especially in emerging markets. We saw disruptions in El Salvador, Nigeria, and Lebanon, where crypto experiments coincided with capital volatility and institutional erosion. Terror finance remains an enduring threat to global security. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has repeatedly highlighted how terrorist groups exploit crypto to bypass formal banking oversight. Yet, Pakistan has FATF clearance. For a country like India—on the front-line of cross-border terrorism—this is a real risk. Crypto has operationalized what could be described as 'eHawala': borderless transfers in real time that can stay hidden. A sovereign nation should not let private entities mint currency, however trendy or popular it proves. To its credit, the Reserve Bank of India saw this coming. Its resistance to private cryptocurrency is neither timidity nor technophobia—it is an assertion of monetary sovereignty. In today's world, capital flows can be weaponized. It is therefore a matter of national security to ensure such weapons are not aimed at us. Also Read: Trump's crypto reserve: An odd idea with a silver lining for the world Yet, the pressure to capitulate is mounting. Global crypto platforms, freshly repackaged as fintech innovations, have been pushing for softer regulation. In India, domestic actors have lobbied against India's high tax on crypto gains by arguing that crypto capital must be stopped from fleeing offshore. In matters of financial security, arguing that crypto should remain unchecked because conventional checks aren't flawless is not just illogical, but dangerously juvenile. Even if the US exerts diplomatic pressure, India mustn't oblige. Instead, India should put systems in place for crypto deterrence. Cutting-edge surveillance tools, forensic finance capabilities and offensive digital arsenals could be deployed against adversarial scenarios of crypto being used as a Trojan horse to destabilize our financial system. Just as strategic weapons are kept discreet, so must this. The future of finance may well be digital. But that future must be guided by sovereign plans, not determined by offshore hype or patronage games. In the crypto age, our sovereignty must be defended with the same strategic intent that we apply to borders, seas, airspace and cyberspace. Crypto is now a geopolitical instrument and potentially a vector of strategic harm. It needs to be viewed as a weaponizable tool, even as we secure our financial architecture from any threat it may pose. This is no longer a matter for committees to discuss. It is a political decision—one that cannot be deferred without consequences. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda'
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Labour Has No Choice But to Break Its Promises
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Most governments, of whatever political stripe, would agree there's never enough money to go around. It's a problem that's particularly acute for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as he prepares to launch the results of his year-old administration's 'comprehensive spending review,' setting out budgets for each department for the next few years. Starmer's team not only lacks the funds to deliver what they'd like to do during their time in power, they don't have the money to do what they've already committed to. Something has to give, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will ultimately need to do at least one of three things: slash spending, raise taxes or increase borrowing. Right now, she's not being clear which. Voters deserve at least a vague understanding of what tough decisions need to be made. It's a clarity Starmer and Reeves have seemed unwilling or unable to provide; instead, they've hoped for economic expansion to bring additional tax revenue to pay for their plans. Unfortunately, the boom is proving elusive: The OECD has downgraded Britain's growth forecast to 1% from 1.2% for 2026. Much of that contraction, the OECD said, is due to Donald Trump's tariffs, which may not be as punitive for the UK as on much of the rest of the world. But they will still likely have a significant impact, even if Britain can stave off 50% tariffs on steel within the capricious president's capricious new five-week deadline. Trump's move to pull back in Ukraine is also adding pressure on the British economy. This week, a UK government defense review confirmed an 'ambition' to raise spending on the military to 3% of gross domestic product, a hike Starmer believes is necessary as he continues to pursue his plan for a 'coalition of the willing' to counter the threat from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine without depending on the US. As my Bloomberg Economics colleague Dan Hanson has calculated, this would cost £17.3 billion by 2029-30, the equivalent of an increase in debt of 1.5 percentage points. NATO, which is preparing to gather this month, is pushing for a hike to 3.5% of members' GDP, rising to 5%, which Bloomberg calculates would cost the UK £350 billion ($475 billion). When she sets out her CSR on Wednesday, Reeves should be overt about how much the unfavorable economic winds are driven by Trump — voters are more likely to accept pain if they understand the reasons for it. And she should go further and provide a coherent sense of what the government believes, an ideological prism though which tricky choices can be viewed. It's something severely lacking from the government's messaging. Having witnessed the disastrous mini-budget of Liz Truss and following painful tax rises on farmers and employers in last October's budget, the mantra from Starmer and Reeves had been that the books would be balanced not via further borrowing or tax increases but through departmental cuts. That commitment was difficult for a left-leaning government that would rather be spending money on things it cares about, but it was at least intellectually coherent. It's no longer clear that the government will stand firm. Last month, Starmer unwisely gave in to pressure from his own MPs to partially reverse the move to withdraw winter fuel benefits from pensioners. The reversal revealed a soft underbelly in the iron chancellor's armor. Labour MPs are now pressing Reeves to also end a controversial two-child benefit limit and relax plans to remove some disability benefits, even if that means either increasing borrowing or taxes. If she does stick to her guns and square the fiscal circle by spending restraint, the UK will surely fall into the austerity she has vowed to resist. At minimum, she'll have to let go of manifesto commitments such as halving violence against women and girls, making homes more energy efficient and building affordable social housing. There is no way Labour can avoid breaking some of its promises; now we need to know the rationale shaping which promises they are. None of this is simple — which is why it's important the government's priorities are made explicit. Instead, Starmer is offering mixed messaging. In speeches and interviews, he's said his first priority is the defense of the realm, but also that he sees nothing more important than protecting 'working people' from the consequences of market turmoil, and also that he believes 'profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty.' As Labour resists the threat from the upstart populist Reform UK party, Starmer has pledged to fix public services, slash NHS waiting lists and reduce immigration by making it harder to come to Britain to work and study (which Bloomberg estimates will cost £9 billion by 2028-2029.) At the same time, the PM seeks to drive growth through a youth-mobility arrangement with the European Union that leaves him vulnerable to accusations of open borders. Does he avoid strikes by boosting public-sector pay or focus on keeping down inflation? Encourage entrepreneurship or tax the rich so that many quit these shores? No wonder voters are confused — they've been given no framework within which to anticipate where the ax will fall or how else the government will make the sums add up. If Starmer's team doesn't lay out a clear vision for how they'll approach these touch choices, then they'll be more than confused — they'll be let down. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Rosa Prince is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering UK politics and policy. She was formerly an editor and writer at Politico and the Daily Telegraph, and is the author of 'Comrade Corbyn' and 'Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister.' More stories like this are available on
