Keir Starmer has just revealed his defence shopping list. Here's what should have been on it

Telegraph

2 days ago

For decades, British defence policy has willed the end but not the means. Prime ministers have made soaring speeches, filled with promises to strengthen the Armed Forces, but without demonstrating how all the glittering equipment programmes will be paid for.
Incredibly, not even Europe's biggest war since 1945 has been enough to end this dismal pattern. Sir Keir Starmer duly announced a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) replete with grandiose phrases (a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation') but no new money.
The Prime Minister could only restate his existing pledge to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2027, with an 'ambition' to hit 3 per cent 'in the next Parliament', which means by 2034.
So what should have been done? The answer can be summed up in three words: money, mass and drones.
Money
First and foremost, the Prime Minister should have committed to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2029 at the latest – aligning Britain with what is fast becoming the European consensus.
Every Nato country bordering Russia now treats 3 per cent as the bare minimum. Poland already spends more than 4 per cent and intends to exceed 5 next year. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all above 3 per cent and climbing toward 5, while Finland aims to reach 3 per cent by 2029.
Yet Britain has only expressed an 'ambition' to reach that target five years later. What assumptions is the Government making about Russia's military trajectory? Is Sir Keir confident that Moscow will be unable to invade a Nato ally or launch a broader war in Europe before 2034?
If so, why does his assessment differ so starkly from that of Germany's defence chief, General Carsten Breuer, who warned this week that Russia could be ready to strike a Nato country by 2029? 'This is what the analysts are assessing,' Breuer said. 'So we have to be ready by 2029.'
Being ready by 2034 will be of little use if – heaven forbid – the German assessment proves correct. To show true seriousness of purpose, Sir Keir should have set out a clear path to reaching 3 per cent by 2029, with a year-by-year breakdown of spending commitments.
Mass
One of the clearest lessons from the war in Ukraine is that numbers matter. No amount of advanced technology or cyber capability can offset the brutal reality that high-intensity warfare exacts a devastating human toll. Armies must be large enough to absorb heavy losses and still regenerate their fighting strength.
It is astonishing that a nation of nearly 70 million has struggled to maintain an army of just 82,000 – the modest target set in the 2015 Defence Review. Today, the Army's trained strength has slipped below 73,000 and continues to fall.
The Russian army, by contrast, is recruiting about 30,000 new soldiers every month, which means that Vladimir Putin is replicating the entire British Army every 10 weeks.
If the Government were serious, it would be doing everything in its power to grow the Army – starting with schools and universities, which should be championing military careers as proudly as any other.
Instead, despite talk of a 'whole-of-society approach', Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed on Monday that Army numbers won't rise for another four years.
By failing to do whatever it takes to expand the regular Army, the Government risks giving the impression that it has ignored a prime lesson of Ukraine's struggle and still underestimates the significance of mass.
Mass does not apply simply to the Army. The SDR promises that Britain will build 'up to' 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines to replace the current Astute class by the end of the 2030s. That is good news – but the qualifying phrase is revealing.
Governments use the phrase 'up to' when they know they will not build the maximum number, but want to give the impression that they might. Far better if Mr Healey had secured the budget increase that would have allowed the deletion of 'up to'.
Recommendation 34 of the Defence Review says the Government must 'confirm the intended numbers' of new submarines 'as soon as possible'. Indeed. But time will not make this decision any easier. The failure to agree a final number is yet another sign that this Defence Review follows the worst traditions of its predecessors.
Drones
Ukraine has just crippled the air-launched component of Russia's nuclear arsenal by sending swarms of armed drones to destroy enemy bombers on their bases.
Earlier, Ukraine crippled the Russian Black Sea fleet and forced it from its home port of Sevastopol by unleashing fleets of autonomous marine drones.
Meanwhile, on the front line, drones have become the single biggest killer – hunting down individual soldiers and making it impossible for either side to deploy main battle tanks or armoured personnel carriers in combat.
Drones, sensors and artillery have combined to create a battlefield where Ukraine routinely breaks up Russian attacks with heavy casualties.
The lesson is unmistakable: to be able to fight Russia, Britain needs more drones.
Here, the picture in the Defence Review is far better. Mr Healey said that Britain would 'double investment in autonomous systems' and 'learn the lessons of Ukraine', focusing even more on high technology.
British aircraft carriers will be the first in Europe to go to sea with 'hybrid air wings' – combining manned and unmanned aircraft. The Royal Navy will become a 'hybrid force,' deploying both conventional warships and 'autonomous vessels.'
The RAF will increasingly operate 'autonomous fighters' alongside its Typhoon and F-35 jets, capable of 'defending Britain's skies and striking anywhere in the world.'
The Defence Review says the Army will become 10 times more lethal by integrating its existing formations with 'land drone swarms.'
So there is some good news, even if the pattern of grand announcements without new funding is sadly familiar.
But drones alone do not convey seriousness of purpose as clearly as increased spending and manpower.
By failing to do what is necessary – and what many of our European allies are already doing – Sir Keir has squandered the chance to demonstrate that he truly grasps the gravity of the moment.