When he came to power last year, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised a "defense dividend." Defense spending would increase to 3.5 percent over the coming years, with additional money intended to rebuild what had become a depleted military and create 430,000 additional jobs.
That commitment was made in response to the latest Strategic Defense Review, headed by former defense minister and NATO secretary general Lord George Robertson. On Sept. 12, 2001, he invoked for the first and only time ever NATO's Article Five, sending the alliance to war in Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
A quarter of a century later, the British military has diminished significantly. The Royal Navy is down to 15 destroyers and frigates and two aircraft carriers of questionable reliability. It has so few advanced fighter jets that the U.S. Marines were tasked to fill in the numbers. And of seven Astute Class nuclear attack submarines, only one is fully operational.
Retired Army General Sir Richard Barrons, a member of the Strategic Defense Review committee, observed that the Army was only capable of seizing a small English village. The second sea lord has been recalled from retirement, suggesting an absence of senior naval leadership.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive voices have welcomed Starmer's commitment to increasing defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, arguing that sustained investment is necessary to restore Britain's military capabilities after years of underfunding. Supporters note that the defense dividend would create 430,000 jobs, providing economic benefits alongside security improvements.
The Strategic Defense Review, led by the highly respected Lord George Robertson, provides a roadmap for modernizing British forces. Progressive analysts argue that investing in unmanned platforms and hybrid force structures represents a forward-thinking approach to defense, making efficient use of limited resources.
Supporters of the current direction point to Russia's war in Ukraine as evidence that smaller nations can resist larger adversaries through innovative use of relatively cheap weapons systems, including drones. They argue that Britain's proposed Porcupine Defense strategy, emphasizing unmanned platforms from seabed to space augmented by manned forces, reflects lessons learned from ongoing conflicts.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative critics have expressed skepticism about whether the 3.5 percent defense spending commitment will actually be honored, noting that previous governments have made promises without delivering. They argue that the current state of Britain's military represents a failure of political leadership and strategic planning.
Conservative voices are concerned about the decline of Britain's traditional military capabilities, including the reduction of the Royal Navy to 15 destroyers and frigates and questions about aircraft carrier reliability. Critics note that relying on the U.S. Marines to provide fighter jet coverage highlights the extent of British military gaps.
Some conservative commentators have questioned whether a strategy centered on unmanned platforms and disruption represents a proper deterrent. They argue that Britain must maintain robust traditional military capabilities, particularly a strong nuclear deterrent, rather than relying on asymmetric approaches that may prove insufficient against peer adversaries.
What the Numbers Show
The British military currently operates with 15 destroyers and frigates, down from historical levels. Of seven Astute Class nuclear attack submarines, only one is fully operational. The Royal Air Force has so few advanced fighter jets that U.S. Marines have been deployed to supplement British capabilities.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has committed to increasing defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP over the coming years. The Strategic Defense Review projects that this additional spending would create 430,000 jobs.
Britain maintains a strategic nuclear deterrent consisting of four nuclear ballistic missile submarines. The program to build follow-on submarines has experienced delays and cost overruns, the extent of which has been reported as considerable.
The new head of the Royal Navy is a Royal Marine, not a sailor, and the second sea lord has been recalled from retirement to address leadership gaps. Two Royal Air Force officers are currently in charge of the AUKUS program to supply Australia with nuclear attack submarines.
The Bottom Line
Britain's military, once among the world's most formidable, has been significantly reduced after decades of budget constraints and strategic choices. The Starmer government's commitment to increasing defense spending to 3.5 percent represents an attempt to reverse this decline, though critics question whether the promise will be fulfilled.
The Strategic Defense Review proposes a new approach centered on unmanned platforms and disruption rather than traditional deterrence, drawing lessons from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza where smaller nations have resisted larger powers through asymmetric means. The Royal Navy has begun creating a hybrid force investing in unmanned systems and lower-cost manned platforms.
The challenge facing Britain's defense establishment is whether increased funding will materialize and whether the proposed strategy of unmanned platforms and disruption can provide credible deterrence against potential threats, particularly from Russia. The bottom line remains uncertain: Britannia may not rule the waves again, but it could sustain and maintain a credible force if the political will and resources align.