Even if the Kremlin wasn’t shell-shocked by Sunday’s devastating drone attack on military targets across Russia by Ukraine’s intelligence service, would today’s UK Strategic Defence Review be awaited with bated breath in Moscow?
As Keir Starmer talks of achieving 2.5 per cent of GDP spent on defence early in the next parliament, Vladimir Putin increases spending year-on-year by about 3.5 per cent. Some 40 per cent of Russia’s budget now goes on defence and security, notably prosecuting its war with Ukraine.
But Russia has learned lessons from that conflict – even if the utter humiliation of their air force shows they need to learn more, and fast. With its east Asian allies, China and North Korea, it has been assiduously studying the lessons of its war. After three years of conflict, the British military, like other Nato allies, is beginning to recognise that the Ukrainians have more to teach Western armed forces about contemporary warfare and its likely evolution than we have to teach them.
The seriousness of the security outlook is clear when Starmer talks about “preparing for conflict” and moving the country towards “war-fighting readiness”, which raises the spectre of conflict – not merely boosting deterrence. But talk is cheap, and improving defence and security is very expensive.
It is not just that Britain’s forces need large-scale re-equipment, but our Lilliputian army and navy need a serious increase in uniformed numbers. Properly paid personnel do not come cheap for countries like ours. What Russia and China actually get for their defence spending in terms of sharp teeth is masked by how little they pay rank-and-file soldiers, though Putin has had to offer generous bonuses to volunteers to fight in Ukraine.
The prime minister’s uncomfortable interview with Nick Robinson on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning brought out the uncertainties of how soon and how much of any boost of defence spending will be realised; 2034 is not a firm date set by the PM, but an “ambition” for reaching 3 per cent of GDP on defence spending. There has been talk by the defence secretary about an overall mix of 5 per cent of GDP on both classic military expenditure (tanks, ships and planes) as well as security costs like intelligence, but also domestic countermeasures.
The fact that Starmer feels it necessary to sell national security as “job creation” suggests a mentality that posits the fringe benefits of securing national defence as its key purpose. This is what cynics call “military Keynesianism”, using taxpayers' cash to engage in classic economic pump-priming, using government spending to stimulate economic activity and buoy up popularity in key constituencies.
The fact that the prime minister is launching the Strategic Defence Review in Glasgow, home to much of Britain’s shrunken shipbuilding and military industry, shows how defence is a domestic issue. On the eve of a crucial Holyrood by-election in Falkirk, where Nigel Farage’s Reform poses a serious challenge, the PM decried Farage as “pro-Russian” and a threat to the country’s economy.
Of course, big-ticket items like nuclear-powered attack submarines cannot be conjured out of thin air. They take time to build. But pencilling in their coming into service in the late 2030s means that the Royal Navy will, for now, have to rely on an ageing and dwindling fleet. Worse still, there are serious doubts about whether the so-called AUKUS submarines, to be built jointly for the US and Australian navies as well as our own, will actually be ready in a dozen or so years.
Anyone aware of the history of overruns in Western defence procurement would not bet on just-in-time delivery from UK and US dockyards, which will be sorely stretched to build the surface vessels and subs on time. Meanwhile, China is churning out warships and support vessels at a pace not seen since the Second World War, when the United States flooded the oceans with warships and Liberty cargo carriers.
It is not Starmer’s fault that Britain, in particular, but the West in general, has been paying itself a post-Cold War peace dividend since 1989, as though things haven’t been seriously souring with Russia for well over 10 years. Yet talking tough will backfire unless difficult and expensive decisions are taken and stuck to.
Who can guarantee that Starmer or even his key ministers will still be in office in 2029, let alone in the framework of this review into the 2030s? In any case, won’t the Labour consensus behind a defence build-up fray if the economy flatlines and social spending stalls, not least if Putin is shrewd enough to dial down the war in Ukraine with a ceasefire that removes the “urgency” of the defence issue?
That won’t remove the Chinese challenge to the West – but, to most people in Britain, that remains a remote issue for now. Another defence review could be in the offing within a decade. They are the one thing the MoD produces on time.
Here’s what you need to know about Britain’s new nuclear fleet
Keir Starmer has found Nigel Farage’s weak spot – and it is Trussonomics
I want the Greens to be a populist party – here’s how
There’s now a surefire way to defeat ‘left-wing’ Nigel Farage
Calling David Cameron a ‘man baby’ for resigning over Brexit is childish
I went to a DwP benefit cut consultation: here’s what I found
