Sir Keir is not yet willing to commit fully to the nation's defence

Telegraph

2 days ago

Sir Keir Starmer did his best to strike a statesmanlike pose yesterday as he announced the conclusions of Labour's long-awaited Defence Review, claiming that it would move the UK's Armed Forces to a position of 'war-fighting readiness', while making Britain a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation'. And, at a time when the global threat environment becomes more challenging by the day, it is clear that the Government is fully aware that more needs to be done to ensure that the nation can defend itself against hostile states such as Russia.
Furthermore, to judge by the announcements made by Sir Keir and Defence Secretary John Healey yesterday, there is recognition that the slow and steady decline in the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces that has taken place during the era of the 'peace dividend' is no longer tolerable.
For the UK to defend itself, there has to be a serious upgrade both in the military firepower available, as well as the indigenous industrial base that is so essential to maintaining supplies of vital weaponry.
In this respect, the recommendations made by the Government's Strategic Defence Review represent a step in the right direction, even if they only address some of the shortcomings facing the military.
At the heart of the Government's programme is an ambition to upgrade the nation's nuclear capabilities, with £15 billion of investment earmarked for the nuclear warhead programme. In addition, the Government is aiming to expand the conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet, with up to 12 new boats to be built.
The focus on these key areas of our national defence structure is related to the new Aukus pact signed by the UK, Australia and the US in 2021 to enhance security in the Indo-Pacific region.
In addition, the Government is aiming to acquire a number of US-made jet fighters that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a move that will significantly expand the military's ability to deliver tactical nuclear options across a wide range of scenarios, rather than relying solely on the strategic Trident missile systems.
Other welcome changes outlined in the review include a move to increase stockpiles of munitions and other military equipment, with the Forces working closely with industry to ensure that production can be increased rapidly in the event of conflict. The military has often before found itself in the embarrassing position of having to ask key allies such as the US to provide urgent supplies after British stockpiles have been exhausted after just a few days of fighting.
The procurement of up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons, whose utility has been amply demonstrated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, will mean that, in future, Britain will be able to protect its own interests rather than constantly relying on allies to bail us out.
The creation of a new Cyber Command, meanwhile, reflects the fact that, in the ever-changing complexion of the modern-battlefield, cyber operations have become as crucial to modern war-fighting operations as conventional weapons.
While the focus on these areas reflect the changing nature of the threats we face, there will undoubtedly be those who believe that not enough attention is being paid to the glaring deficiencies in other areas of military strength, such as the diminished size of the Army, the overall lack of fast fighter jets and the scarcity of surface warships. The fact that the shortcomings in these crucial areas of our national defence are not fully addressed reflects a woeful lack of ambition on the part of Sir Keir's administration.
And, even though the Defence Review sets out a number of new priorities, the primary question remains: how the Government intends to pay for it.
When Sir Keir unveiled his plans in a speech in Glasgow yesterday, he insisted he was committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, but that his aim to raise spending to 3 per cent by 2034 was only an 'ambition'.
Three per cent is now seen as the bare minimum by Nato leaders. Indeed, a consensus is building around a figure of 3.5 per cent. Setting aside the likelihood that Sir Keir will still be resident in Downing Street in nine years' time, his inability to commit to such an increase will inevitably raise doubts about his Government's commitment to improving our defences.
Sir Keir's inability to provide a clear-cut commitment to raise spending to the level necessary to provide a tangible boost in capability is also unlikely to placate some of the more hawkish voices in the Trump administration. They argue that European nations like the UK are not making sufficient investment in our own defences. At a time when the White House is seriously questioning its future relationship with Nato, any suggestion that a key ally like the UK is not taking its defence obligations seriously could ultimately spell the end for the transatlantic alliance and the Special Relationship.