What UK's Strategic Defense Review means for Ukraine
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on June 2 that the United Kingdom is moving to "warfighting readiness," in large part in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the threat Russia poses to Europe.
He made the comment as his government unveiled its latest Strategic Defense Review, which U.K. General Richard Barrons, one of the review's authors, described as the "most profound" change in U.K. defense in 150 years.
The review sets out ambitious new targets, including at least 12 new attack submarines, fleets of drones and autonomous vehicles, as well as 7,000 new long-range weapons.
Yet it also comes with urgent warnings.
The review reveals that the U.K.'s Armed Forces are currently unprepared to fight adversaries such as Russia or China, nor could they conduct high-intensity warfare in a war like that in Ukraine.
Insufficient munition stockpiles, low troop numbers, and ageing equipment are just a few of the weaknesses underpinning its assessment.
"The speed of development in Ukraine is so far ahead of what countries like the U.K. is capable of."
But as well as committing to bolstering its own defense capabilities, the U.K. must also manage the commitments already made to Kyiv, which it has vowed to support with a "100-year partnership."
The U.K. has been one of Kyiv's closest supporters since the start of the full-scale invasion, and the review reiterates long-term support for Ukraine, committing 3 billion pounds ($4.06 billion) annually in military aid.
"The bottom line is that all of this is about defending the U.K. after the conflict moves on from Ukraine primarily," Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, a U.K.-based think tank, told the Kyiv Independent.
"Whether it's positive, negative, or catastrophic, either way, that's when the U.K. and its allies need to be ready for Russia's next move."
The U.K. wants to create a more flexible procurement process, as demonstrated by that developed by Ukraine throughout the full-scale invasion, a dynamic it says would be vital should the U.K. deploy troops in support of a ceasefire.
The review urges deeper defense industrial collaboration, including joint ventures and helping Ukraine access global markets, as well as rebuilding and sustaining its defense sector.
This could include helping Ukraine service Soviet-era equipment still used abroad. The U.K. also aims to learn from Ukraine's experience in modern warfare, particularly in land combat, drones, and hybrid threats.
However, the review highlights challenges — U.K. stockpiles of weapons such as Storm Shadow long-range missiles have been depleted through its support to Ukraine, and years of underinvestment have weakened domestic defense capacity.
The U.K. has announced that it will build six new munition factories. This indicates a significant attempt to address one of the key criticisms of European defense, which is its lack of industrial base and reliance on U.S. support.
While U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey has said that "we should expect to see new factories opening very soon," it is not clear how quickly this will translate into meaningful battlefield assistance for Ukraine's Armed Forces.
"The speed of development in Ukraine is so far ahead of what countries like the U.K. are capable of, the best-case outcome for Ukraine would just be sending the money there to build stuff," Giles said.
When asked how Ukraine could be best supported outside of the recommendations in the review, Giles said the "maximum support" should be given to Ukraine, without the hesitancy about doing damage to Russia."
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge Orders J&J Subsidiary to Pay $442 Million in Antitrust Lawsuit
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) is one of the best Dow stocks to invest in. Recently, a federal judge ruled that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary must pay $442 million in damages after a jury concluded last month that the company had broken antitrust laws by withholding support from hospitals that used reprocessed catheters. U.S. District Judge James Selna ordered the company to pay three times the $147 million in damages awarded by the jury, as permitted under antitrust regulations. This sum does not include legal fees or other related costs. Daniel Vukelich, CEO of the Association of Medical Device Reprocessors, described the decision as 'a seismic result.' In response, a Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) spokesperson said the company intends to appeal the verdict but will comply with the court's decision and any required relief for now. The spokesperson added, 'We strongly disagree with the jury's verdict and believe it will not withstand appellate review.' Innovative Health sued Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ)'s Biosense Webster in 2019, claiming the company used its market power to block hospitals from using reprocessed heart-mapping catheters by tying support for its Carto 3 system to purchases of its own products. A jury found Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) violated antitrust laws by withholding support for the reprocessed devices. AMDR's CEO said the ruling signals that anti-competitive tactics against reprocessing won't be tolerated. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. While we acknowledge the potential of JNJ as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure. None.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump proposes axing all climate rules for power plants
The Trump administration is moving to ax all climate rules alongside Biden-era and pollution rules for power plants. The moves come as the Trump administration looks to promote a fossil fueled future — and are expected to worsen global warming and air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that power plants' greenhouse gas emissions 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution' and therefore should not be regulated. In effect, this proposal would overturn Biden-era rules that required existing coal and new gas plants to capture at least 90 percent of their carbon emissions and tighten restrictions on coal plants' releases of mercury and other toxic metals. The climate rule that the Trump administration is proposing to ax would have prevented 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions between the years 2038 and 2047 – emissions equivalent to taking more than 300 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year, according to Biden-era projections. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to regulate fossil fuels 'out of existence.' 'According to many, the primary purpose of these Biden-Harris administration regulations was to destroy industries that didn't align with their narrow-minded climate change zealotry,' he said. Together, these rules have been criticized as being designed to regulate coal, oil and gas out of existence.' The administration's moves were criticized by environmental advocates, who said they would both worsen climate change and expose Americans to more air pollution. 'The Trump EPA is recklessly disregarding its responsibility under our nation's clean air laws to protect the American people from mercury, arsenic and climate pollution from industrial smokestacks,' Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a written statement. The administration appears to be going further than even the first Trump administration on power plants. During Trump's first tenure, the EPA put forward weakened power plant rules that would be easier to comply with, while now it is proposing to stop regulating planet-warming emissions from the sector entirely. Updated at 3:37 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.