Is UK's new defence plan transformational or too little, too late?

Keir Starmer has finally unveiled his long-awaited Strategic Defence Review but there are already questions about how much it will really achieve, and when.

The 130-page report of the review, led by former Nato secretary general Lord Robertson, sets out the UK's defence strategy for the next decade. It calls for a move to a "war-fighting readiness" and the creation of a "defence dividend", using security investment to drive growth. Facilitating this will be a move to a "New Hybrid Navy", combining aircraft, drones, warships and 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines, a "10-times more lethal army" and a "next generation RAF", among a host of other recommendations.

It is a "plan for transformation", Defence Secretary John Healey told MPs, but its critics are already asking where the money will be found to back up its lofty rhetoric.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What did the commentators say?

The review is "systematic and detailed, but it remains an exercise in tightly bounded ambition", said The Guardian's editorial board. "It speaks of daily cyberattacks and undersea sabotage but proposes no systemic institutional overhaul or acute surge in resilience."

Among its "provisos" are its "terms of reference, which were extraordinarily restrictive", said The Spectator. This meant that those leading the review "were not able to consider the future of the nuclear deterrent; the pre-eminence of Nato in the UK's defence policy planning; any aspect of military or financial assistance to Ukraine; the UK's commitments in the Indo-Pacific, the Gulf and the Middle East, or significant examination of spending levels and requirements". While "not a bad document", it is a "disappointing one" that fails to set out a "clear strategic purpose and narrative".

Given Britain's ever-growing security concerns, the review "should be about more than missiles and missions", said The Guardian. "It must also be about whether the country can keep the lights on, the gas flowing, the internet up and the truth intact. This review sees the threats, but not yet the system needed to confront them. In that gap lies the peril."

What next?

This is the first defence review since 1989 not to recommend a cut to the armed forces and it has already been "overshadowed by a row over money", said The Independent.

The government has committed to raising defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% by 2027, with the "ambition" to go to 3% by the end of the next parliament. The failure of the PM and his defence secretary to commit fully to the 3% increase "is not only infuriating but disturbing", and raises serious questions about whether the review "is of any value at all", said The Times' editorial board.

The "problem with this evasion" is that it "does the opposite of deterring potential adversaries. The Russians know all about Potemkin villages and they can spot a Potemkin defence policy."

With Donald Trump already calling for member states to go beyond 3% of GDP spending on defence, the defence review will "not cut the mustard" when it comes to deterring Russian aggression, Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, told Times Radio. "It's like saying to Adolf Hitler, 'Please don't attack us till 1946 because we're not going to be ready.'"