A Nato overhaul is the only option for the future of UK defence
Keir Starmer 's embrace of defence-first and nuclear future is the key development in British politics since Brexit. There can be little doubt the choice is not a choice at all. It is a decision forced on the British government by the world's changing situation.
The truism that everything has changed for Europe could not be more on-point. The post-Cold War peace dividend has been exposed as an exercise in delusion.
How quickly the defence establishment must now embrace an entirely different way of framing the security challenges a country like the UK must master.
For a start, it is not a matter of preparing for attack but one of being ready for full-scale confrontation. This kind of readiness is both a state of mind for officialdom and a shared enterprise across society.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the expansion of the nuclear arsenal following the Labour government's Strategic Defence Review, released on Monday. Still under a year since the UK voted for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it is remarkable how far he has travelled to fulfil his pledge to the ' first duty ' of any government as defence.
The composition of the panel that led the Strategic Defence Review was a clue to how deep its task would run. It included Lord Robertson, an ex-Nato Secretary General; Fiona Hill, a British-born former American national security lead on Russia and retired general Richard Barrons. They wrote on Monday about how Britain faces a world dominated by state-level confrontation while it is shaken by population growth, climate change, nuclear proliferation and the digital age.
Appointed last year, the three leaders have had to make several course corrections, not least around the policies coming out of US President Donald Trump's administration. What they applauded in their article was that the committed by the UK to go from 2.5 per cent to three per cent GDP spending on defence would create the resources to fund the change they were suggesting.
Donald Trump's election has had a trigger effect all across Europe. The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has straight up called for Germany to spend 5 per cent of its GDP on defence.
Whatever Russia's direction, the need identified in the review is now for the Europeans to adopt a 'modernised Nato First approach'
As experts long concluded, well before Trump, that US strategy was all about China, now Europe's strategy is all about Russia. America's pullback is only one part of the picture, now that it is inevitable.
As ever, when a rivalry is a two-sided street an element of synthesis emerges. Russia has found itself with a war economy that is much more dynamic than western economists predicted. The Labour government in the UK is selling its defence plans as a form of reindustrialisation. Germany's Vorsprung durch Technik (Progress through Technology) economy has struggled to produce real growth for most of this decade. Mr Trump, too, talks of revitalising his country's industrial base, saying a nation must be built on steel. Three years into the Ukraine war all these blocs are in a symbiotic place, moving in a similar direction but not united on the overall ambitions of their policies.
Ugly truths that cannot be avoided are what's at play as the scramble for arms plays out.
The question of how good the growth from defence spending will be is a hard one to get right. For sure, it means the states must set the market. About three years ago, I was at a conference where one of the sponsors from a large US defence firm stated his company was only going to build a single extra production line when a client (read government) committed £100 million ($135.4 million) in orders for its output.
By retooling the Russian industrial base for war Mr Putin has created certain internal dynamics that have boosted his position. The reality of a war economy with working-age men pushed to the frontlines gives the Kremlin a lot of internal sway. The very generous death payments for soldiers are recycled as spending power in some of the most worn down parts of Russia.
At the same time, the returns are next to nothing on the battlefield. Ukraine's resourceful playbook grows ever more audacious as evidenced by Sunday's reported drone attacks on the strategic bomber fleet. With the UK rushing to upgrade its nuclear position, a blow like that suffered by sabotage is a strategic reverse for Russia.
The sustainable position that Kremlin hopes for is growing increasingly dependent on the talks and resolution offered by Mr Trump. Leave that too late and Russia will truly be left with only the laws of diminishing returns to keep going.
Whatever Russia's direction, the need identified in the SDR is now for the Europeans to adopt a 'modernised Nato First approach'. There are vast sums now being committed by London and officials hope that economic growth will be boosted by the programme of investments.
Despite this the SDR reminds Mr Starmer that an overhaul of Nato is the only effective, affordable option for the UK. That is coded language for America moving out and the Europeans taking their own theatre of security much more seriously than before.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Starmer is running out of road
Most people in Britain think that Keir Starmer has outlived any use he might have had as Labour leader, according to YouGov's bimonthly poll of the prime minister's popularity. Some 40 percent think he should resign as leader, and only 37 percent think he should stay on, according to the May survey. The same thing happened in January, with only a blip in between. In another YouGov poll, Starmer is disliked by 51 percent of the population and only popular with 22 percent. It hasn't always been this way. Before this year, you had to go back to autumn 2021, long before he was prime minister, to find statistics that showed most people thought Starmer should resign. And Starmer is dragging the whole government down with him. Labour's drop in the opinion polls in its first 10 months of power is the largest of any newly elected UK government in 40 years, according to a Guardian analysis. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The drop in approval is comparable to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's fall from grace in February 2022, when Partygate was at its peak. The areas where voters think the government is least capable of solving problems are health, housing and the economy. As the Guardian reported, the proportion of the public who think Labour can handle these problems the best has dropped since the party took power. "The biggest drops were recorded in health, housing and the economy." This is terrible news for Labour, since they are precisely the problems that the government has pledged to solve. Power struggle The recent Runcorn by-election result and the council election results on the same day crystallised all these concerns in the minds of Labour MPs, especially those who are more worried about staying in office than about their constituents' welfare. After all, Runcorn was the 49th safest Labour seat in the country, and it was lost to Reform. Soft left MPs are now urging Angela Rayner, Labour's ineffective deputy leader, to challenge Starmer. Ignore Starmer's theatrics. Gaza's trail of blood leads straight to his door Read More » Those on the traditional left, the remains of Corbynism in the parliamentary Labour Party, don't want to be left out of a post-Starmer struggle for the leadership. Consequently, MP John McDonnell called for a rank-and-file challenge to Starmer within days of the rumours about Rayner's possible challenge becoming public. McDonnell painted a devastating picture of the party leadership, asserting that a power struggle was taking place already: 'What we are now witnessing is a panicked, half-hearted policy retreat, while the backroom boys - Morgan McSweeney in the leader's office and Nick Parrott in the deputy leader's office - fight between themselves.' Starmer is already reacting to this pressure. The rhetorical U-turn over Gaza is the most obvious concession to critics, although it is also a response to signs that the US administration is finding Israel's genocidal policy in Gaza to be more of a hindrance than a help in its overall plan to revive the Abraham Accords. But Starmer's partial retreat on winter fuel allowance is also meant to take the sting out of his critics' case. The problem for Starmer is that this kind of 'messy reset', as the New Statesman described it, will further deepen the crisis in Labour. Indeed, Starmer may be about to learn the truth of historian Alexis de Tocqueville's adage that 'the most dangerous moment for a bad government is generally that in which it sets about reform'. Petulant mantra Starmer has shown that he is only really good at one thing: attacking the left. He is a classic Thermidorian figure, seemingly from the left but transmuting into the nemesis of Corbynism. What is equally obvious is that these factional skills are of little use in running a government. Starmer's frequently issued mantra of 'I won't stand for it' - whatever today's 'it' might be - may sound authoritative in internal party debates, but simply comes across as petulant amid recalcitrant economic realities. The more he gives ground, the more hollow and inconsistent he sounds The more he gives ground, the more hollow and inconsistent he sounds. It is very unlikely that his rigidity and sense of entitlement will allow him to find another model of leadership, not least because of the utter conventionality of his economic and social programme. More seriously, just as he is attempting to placate the left, he is also making gross adaptations to Reform leader Nigel Farage's racist rhetoric. This is making an already threadbare ideology look positively self-contradictory at best, and openly racist at worst. So it very much looks as if the wheels are coming off the Starmer wagon. But does this mean he will be replaced before the next election? He still has some reserves, including a whopping Commons majority, which will insulate him from opposition attacks and backbench rebellions - unless they are of tsunami proportions. Writing on the wall Starmer is also blessed with his Tory opponent, Kemi Badenoch, who is even more unpopular than Starmer, and seems even less effective as a leader. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey is more popular than Starmer with a negative rating of minus 8, compared to Starmer's negative rating of minus 46, but it's hard to say whether - given that his every public appearance is an ill-conceived stunt - Davey is a politician or a personality who has escaped from BBC light entertainment. But these are advantages of limited value when the real challenge that Starmer faces is from Farage's Reform. UK local elections: Starmer's betrayal of voters is handing England to Reform Read More » Farage is more popular than Starmer, and Reform has effectively replaced the Tories as the main right-wing opposition to Labour. Starmer is building Reform support through his economic attacks on the welfare state, fuelling discontent within Labour, and by mimicking Farage's hostility towards refugees. Rayner supporters are talking of the council and other elections in 2026 as a watershed moment for Starmer's leadership. But it could be sooner. One or two more by-election losses could push already-nervous Labour MPs to don the white coats and head over to 10 Downing Street. Reform is the most obvious beneficiary. But Labour is so low in the polls that in some constituencies, it could lose to the SNP in Scotland or to the Liberal Democrats in other places. A left alliance of independents, rumoured to be the project that former leader Jeremy Corbyn is working on, would also threaten Labour's arrogant assumption that progressives have no one else to support. The writing is on the wall for Starmer, and time may be much shorter than he imagines. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Best photos of June 5: From new Indian recruits in Kashmir to dawn prayers on Mount Arafat
• Increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 but given 'turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster' • Prioritise a shift towards working with AI and autonomous systems • Invest in the resilience of military space systems. • Number of active reserves should be increased by 20% • More F-35 fighter jets required in the next decade • New 'hybrid Navy' with AUKUS submarines and autonomous vessels
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
UK pensions investing in private markets may be right idea, wrong time: Peacock
(The views expressed here are those of the author, the former head of communications at the Bank of England.) The UK government, searching for ways to jump-start the economy, has trumpeted a deal with pension funds to invest more in infrastructure, green energy and cutting-edge businesses. But this may be an example of the right idea at the wrong time. Earlier this month, finance minister Rachel Reeves inked an agreement with 17 UK pension providers that she said would enable them to invest 10% of their portfolios in private markets, with half of that ringfenced for UK assets. That, she said, would unleash up to £50 billion of investment for UK business and infrastructure projects by 2030. But getting to this figure requires some aggressive assumptions, even for a pensions industry that experts estimate holds nearly £3 trillion in assets. And, importantly, the pledge is voluntary, not binding. That's for good reason, though, as pressing pension funds to invest in a certain way could cut across their obligation to act in the best interests of future pensioners. Reeves has not ruled out mandating how funds should invest, although she has said does not believe it will be necessary. That has caused some alarm in the industry. The Association of British Insurers' statement in support of the accord made clear that the commitment was subject to the sector's fiduciary duty to its customers. And even if we acknowledge that allowing – but not forcing – UK pensions to invest in UK private businesses has significant merit, given that the UK needs a boost and private markets are offering attractive returns, there is also the issue of timing. The plan would likely have been easier to sell during the dozen years up to late 2021 when interest rates remained close to zero. Now a fund can get almost 5% on 10-year gilts, and many major equity markets are offering bumper returns. While pensions' return targets are typically higher than 5%, the need to 'stretch for yield' is no longer as acute. Indeed, many pension funds today appear to be in decent shape. Data from the Pension Protection Fund show the aggregate funding ratio for UK defined benefit pension funds was around 85% a decade ago, compared with 125% now. The number of schemes in deficit has dwindled from nearly 5,000 to just 1,400. DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS Most private sector pensions are now defined contribution schemes, which do not offer a guaranteed pay-out and instead depend on the size of the pot an employee builds up over their career and the fund's ability to invest to ensure that its assets match its liabilities. This matching issue is one reason that regulators may be concerned about pensions investing in more hard-to-sell assets. Private markets are significantly more illiquid than publicly listed equities and bonds. The flipside of this, of course, is that privates tend to be less volatile during crises. But this illiquidity could mean that funds would be forced to sell more liquid assets in a panic, regardless of the quality of those easy-to-sell assets. The chaos that engulfed pension funds after Liz Truss's ill-conceived 'mini budget' three years ago caused a scramble to sell assets remains fresh in the memory. Additionally, privates are less well-regulated than publicly traded assets and typically more challenging to value because less information is easily available. This is especially the case when it comes to start-up companies, which could soar, but which more often will fizzle out. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE A safer route to raising UK productivity may be having the government borrow more to invest in infrastructure and green energy. Pensions can simply lap up that excess debt. The demand appears to be there if this year's gilt sales are anything to go by. A raft of auctions has generally seen bids outstrip the amount of bonds on offer by roughly a factor of three. In theory, the additional debt the government is taking on now would be offset in the future by higher growth. And a shift toward 'industrial policy' would be in line with what has been seen recently in China – particularly with green technologies like electric vehicles – and in the U.S. Of course, this is assuming that the UK government will be able to invest wisely, including in emerging technologies. Alternatively, the government could consider supporting more public-private partnerships, possibly underwriting a small proportion of a project's cost on a first-loss basis to leverage private sector involvement. Overall, the most important thing is to spur the development of productive schemes that UK pensions – and others – can invest in. But pensions certainly should not invest just because ministers want them to. (The views expressed here are those of Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters). (Writing by Mike Peacock; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Toby Chopra)
