Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors

Telegraph

3 days ago

Three words sum up the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer's bold pledge to make the UK's Armed Forces 'battle ready' in the wake of the latest defence review. They have nothing to do with enhancing the defence of the realm.
Time and again the ambitious programme, set out in the 144-page report, to revitalise our military after more than a decade of woeful decline is undermined by the catch-all caveat 'when funding allows'.
Thus, while the review concedes that the Army, which is now smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars, could do with increasing its manpower, the modest uplift proposed by the review will only be implemented if the relevant funds become available.
The procurement of other equipment deemed vital to safeguarding our national defence is subjected to the same budgetary constraints.
While the review argues that the previous government's decision to cut the number of operational E-7 early warning and control aircraft from five to three needs to be reversed, this, too, will only happen 'when funding allows'.
Boeing's E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are deemed to be a vital component in controlling the battlespace during armed conflict with their advanced radar systems, and would be a vital asset in the event of war breaking out with a hostile country like Russia.
Yet, despite the review issuing a dire warning about the worsening 'geopolitical context', there is a distinct lack of urgency about the Government's claim to make the country an 'armour-clad nation'.
So, when Starmer talks, as he did when announcing the conclusions of Labour's Strategic Defence Review, about making Britain 'safer and stronger', the truth is that he is simply indulging in wishful thinking.
This is a Prime Minister who, only a few weeks ago, was talking enthusiastically about putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of his 'coalition of the willing'.
But he knew full well that the UK does not have the military resources necessary to sustain such a mission. Starmer's bold plan to dispatch a European 'reassurance' force to Ukraine has now been quietly watered down to a more realistic support mission for the Ukrainian military.
The Starmer's empty rhetoric regarding his grand ambitions for the defence review is likely to suffer a similar fate. It will inevitably become clear that, despite his boast that he is overseeing 'the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War', the actual funding being made available is negligible.
Starmer's smoke and mirrors defence pledges are part of a long and undistinguished tradition of British governments making ambitious spending commitments for the Armed Forces they have absolutely no chance of fulfilling.
Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, for example, made much political capital out of his claim that he had raised defence spending above the minimum 2 per cent of GDP level required by Nato. Closer examination of the figures showed this could only be met by 'efficiency savings' in defence spending that were unachievable.
It was the same with Rishi Sunak's pledge last year to raise UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent. The move was immediately compromised by the qualification that such an increase would only be possible 'as soon as the economic conditions allow'.
Starmer's policy of over-promising and under-delivering on defence spending is very much in this dishonourable tradition.
But the Prime Minister's difficulty is compounded by the fact that the global-threat environment is becoming more dangerous by the day. So his hollow pledges will come under far greater scrutiny than those made by his predecessors. This is particularly the case where the UK's Nato allies are concerned.
Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has already fired the first shot, over Starmer's ambivalence about when the money will be made available to fund his rearmament programme. Rutte warns that Nato will require the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence as part of his plan to 'equalise' European defence spending with the US.
Starmer has indicated his ultimate 'ambition' is to raise spending to 3.5 per cent by 2034, but has given no clear explanation about how to achieve this figure. As one of the main premises of his defence review is that the UK should focus on being a 'Nato first' military force, failing to meet Rutte's ambitious target could prove to be deeply embarrassing.
Starmer will need to take care that his empty defence pledges do not further inflame the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. They already believe that the Europeans are taking the US for a ride when it comes to defence spending.
Nato's European member states are likely to come under intense American scrutiny at the summit being held in The Hague later this month. If the Trump administration concludes that Starmer's boasts about increasing UK defence spending do not add up, the Prime Minister could find himself in for a very tough ride indeed.