Britain prepares for war (just don’t ask about the cost)

LONDON — Keir Starmer has made a big play of getting the U.K. “ready for war” — but his spending plans are anything but.

Speaking ahead of the launch of Monday’s strategic defense review (SDR), the prime minister said he would move the country to “warfighting readiness, as the central purpose of our armed forces.”

The SDR, a major piece of work outlining the biggest threats facing the U.K. and how to meet them, set out more than 60 new measures designed to strengthen the country’s ability to fight and to help protect its allies.

It recommended the U.K. expand its submarine program, which should create 30,000 new jobs; spend £1.5 billion on technology to speed up decisions on the battlefield; and develop the Royal Navy as a "hybrid" force, blending drones with warships, submarines and aircraft.

The report said the U.K. should be focused on responding to common threats facing European allies, described as a “NATO-first approach.”

The weight of those words was somewhat undercut by Starmer's tepid language on defense spending. While the PM has committed to boosting the budget to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, the “ambition” of raising that to 3 percent remains “subject to economic and fiscal conditions.”

The equivocation has drawn concern among MPs and in defense circles that the U.K. lacks a plan to meet the most serious challenge the SDR flagged: The threat posed by Russian aggression.

As the report spelled out: “State conflict has returned to Europe, with Russia demonstrating its willingness to use military force, inflict harm on civilians, and threaten the use of nuclear weapons to achieve its goals.”

‘Mobilizing the nation’

Starmer visited the Govan shipyard in Glasgow as he prepared for the SDR to land, telling journalists that his aim was to bring “unity of purpose to the whole of the United Kingdom” and to “mobilize the nation in a common cause.”

He painted a vision of a country engaged in a war mindset, later fleshed out in the text of the review, which spoke of the need for a “whole-of-society” approach. 

The SDR's recommendations included a renewed focus on home defense, an expansion of the Cadet force, and a “defence readiness bill” granting the government powers to mobilize reserves and industry should crisis escalate into conflict. Separately, Defense Secretary John Healey promised the U.K. would have 76,000 regular army troops by 2034.

At every stage, Healey and Starmer were at pains to show that bolstering both the U.K.’s defenses and those of its European neighbors will create new jobs at home and aid the quest for economic growth.

“That’s what underpins all of the PM’s thinking about defense,” said one No. 10 official, granted anonymity to speak candidly. 

But Starmer is caught in a bind even as he seeks to link the nation’s defense to economic growth, with the ambition of his plans constrained by the Treasury and Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

When Starmer announced he would move to up defense spending to the equivalent of 2.5 percent of GDP — currently around £85 billion — Healey's allies claimed this commitment was partly down to careful and consistent lobbying by the defense secretary.

Healey has not yet won the battle to set a firm commitment on reaching 3 percent, however. Starmer’s spokesman said that would come “in the next parliament,” which could stretch as late as 2034. 

A problem delayed

Politicians and defense analysts alike have argued this falls short of what’s needed to underwrite the promises in the SDR.

James Cartlidge, the shadow defense secretary, said: "All of Labour's Strategic Defence Review promises will be taken with a pinch of salt unless they can show there will actually be enough money to pay for them."

The Liberal Democrats’ defense spokesperson, Helen Maguire, warned the review “risks becoming a damp squib."

Marion Messmer, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, said it was “surprising” that the U.K. “would increase defense spending a little bit, but then kick the commitment to 3 percent so far down the road.”

The timeline is also significant because of varying assessments as to how quickly Russia could pose a threat to NATO countries after the war in Ukraine ends. While the SDR does not make its own assessment, it notes: “Russia’s war economy, if sustained, will enable it to rebuild its land capabilities more quickly in the event of a ceasefire in Ukraine.”

Setting out the SDR in parliament, Healey responded to his critics: “I see the way the chancellor is fixing the economic foundations after 14 years of failure under the Conservative government, and I have no doubt that we will meet our ambition to hit 3 percent of spending on defense in the next parliament.”

Whitehall officials pointed out they could not be expected to give a firm timeline for the higher spending commitment beyond the terms of the spending review being undertaken by Reeves, which only covers the next five years.

They highlighted Starmer’s assurance that he was “100 percent confident” that the measures set out in the review “can be delivered” — subject to the state of public finances.

The deadline for raising spending is also not the most important aspect of the U.K.'s response. Messmer said the government’s ability to speed up procurement to secure equipment such as drones would give a clue as to their seriousness about responding to the threat from Russia — something emphasized throughout the SDR. 

Ministers cannot avoid questions over the 3 percent figure altogether, though, since they are the ones who dangled it in the first place.

These questions will only grow more pertinent in the run-up to the NATO summit at the end of June, where the U.K. and its allies will come under pressure to commit to spend 3.5 percent or even 5 percent of GDP on their militaries.