Ted Jeffery is co-founder of Defence On The Brink.
Last week, Donald Trump demonstrated what many Western leaders have failed to do over the past decade.
He had some actual leadership on the issue of defence spending. In his usual bombastic manner, he declared that NATO members should spend 5% of their GDP on defence. His reasoning was, ‘If you don’t pay your bills, then America won’t protect you’.
Now, I’m no fan of the incoming President’s character. He is a highly flawed individual who can be spiteful if he doesn’t get his way. But on the issue of defence, this is irrelevant. His blunt statement cuts through the noise and underscores a harsh truth.
Trump’s warnings about NATO funding might be uncomfortable to hear, and the prospect of him pulling the U.S. out of NATO is unnerving. But if leaders like Keir Starmer fail to act now, Trump’s threats will be the least of their worries.
Over the last decade, our Government has hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Regular troop numbers have decreased to the point that even the former Head of the Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has insisted that civilians would need to be called up to bulk up our forces.
And yet, as reported this weekend, this Government appears unwilling to boost our defence budget until the 2030s.
Starmer has already delayed any immediate increase in defence spending by announcing a “Strategic Defence Review” (SDR), set to be published “sometime in the spring.” This review will analyse the current issues, identify priorities, and outline necessary funding levels. But let’s be honest: we already know some of the answers. Ammunition stockpiles are critically low, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and our procurement severely lacks value for money.
The SDR should be a guide for how to spend a predetermined budget, not a smokescreen, to avoid making hard decisions. Yet all Starmer is doing is delaying the work needed to rebuild our defence industrial base and restore military readiness. Investing in defence is not just about keeping Britain secure and creating a credible deterrent. With increased expenditure comes manufacturing and innovation, which also drive economic growth. Creating high-skilled jobs and fostering technological advancement.
Just look at the British Army’s newly developed DragonFire laser.
By launching this review, the PM has done nothing but kick any decisions on defence expenditure into the long grass and instead focus his efforts on what he believes are the vote winners… such as public sector pay rises, an affordable energy strategy, and the classic… smashing the gangs. Basically, anything he can package into an attractive press release and sell to the public to convince them the “grown-ups are back in charge.”
I recently posted on my platform, Defence On The Brink, that an MoD insider claimed the first draft of the SDR recommended spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Still, it was sent back by the Government for being “too expensive”. While this anecdote is unconfirmed, it aligns with the broader trend: our political leaders are reluctant to prioritise national security, no matter the cost to our country’s safety and credibility.
At the end of the Cold War, the UK was spending around 3.8 per cent. If experts are correct—that we have already entered a phase of Cold War 2.0—then surely our expenditures should exceed that. Today’s world, marked by Russian aggression, Chinese espionage, and growing instability in the Middle East, demands that the UK prepare for sustained competition akin to the Cold War.
Let’s look at Ukraine. Suppose President Trump shifts U.S. focus and attention from Eastern Europe to what’s happening in the South China Sea. In that case, European NATO members will no doubt be left with the responsibility of supporting Kyiv. A colleague of mine who used to be a British diplomat based in Ukraine told me that in 2022 Britain played a great leading role in not just supplying aid but marshalling support behind the scenes. He went on to tell me that his great fear now is that Britain no longer has that same leadership.
A real lack of diplomatic backbone.
Britain must be prepared to fill that gap and demonstrate its value as a leading NATO signatory. Failing to meet such an obligation risks eroding trust among allies and inviting aggression from adversaries.
The Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer risks our national security. Our army is not fit for purpose, our Navy can deploy a capability, but it is unsustainable, and our air force is woefully inadequate. Everything you hope your PM would address on Day 1 has not even been addressed on Day 193.
We cannot afford to leave the country’s defences to chance or to Labour. Britain deserves better.
Ted Jeffery is co-founder of Defence On The Brink.
Last week, Donald Trump demonstrated what many Western leaders have failed to do over the past decade.
He had some actual leadership on the issue of defence spending. In his usual bombastic manner, he declared that NATO members should spend 5% of their GDP on defence. His reasoning was, ‘If you don’t pay your bills, then America won’t protect you’.
Now, I’m no fan of the incoming President’s character. He is a highly flawed individual who can be spiteful if he doesn’t get his way. But on the issue of defence, this is irrelevant. His blunt statement cuts through the noise and underscores a harsh truth.
Trump’s warnings about NATO funding might be uncomfortable to hear, and the prospect of him pulling the U.S. out of NATO is unnerving. But if leaders like Keir Starmer fail to act now, Trump’s threats will be the least of their worries.
Over the last decade, our Government has hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Regular troop numbers have decreased to the point that even the former Head of the Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has insisted that civilians would need to be called up to bulk up our forces.
And yet, as reported this weekend, this Government appears unwilling to boost our defence budget until the 2030s.
Starmer has already delayed any immediate increase in defence spending by announcing a “Strategic Defence Review” (SDR), set to be published “sometime in the spring.” This review will analyse the current issues, identify priorities, and outline necessary funding levels. But let’s be honest: we already know some of the answers. Ammunition stockpiles are critically low, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and our procurement severely lacks value for money.
The SDR should be a guide for how to spend a predetermined budget, not a smokescreen, to avoid making hard decisions. Yet all Starmer is doing is delaying the work needed to rebuild our defence industrial base and restore military readiness. Investing in defence is not just about keeping Britain secure and creating a credible deterrent. With increased expenditure comes manufacturing and innovation, which also drive economic growth. Creating high-skilled jobs and fostering technological advancement.
Just look at the British Army’s newly developed DragonFire laser.
By launching this review, the PM has done nothing but kick any decisions on defence expenditure into the long grass and instead focus his efforts on what he believes are the vote winners… such as public sector pay rises, an affordable energy strategy, and the classic… smashing the gangs. Basically, anything he can package into an attractive press release and sell to the public to convince them the “grown-ups are back in charge.”
I recently posted on my platform, Defence On The Brink, that an MoD insider claimed the first draft of the SDR recommended spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Still, it was sent back by the Government for being “too expensive”. While this anecdote is unconfirmed, it aligns with the broader trend: our political leaders are reluctant to prioritise national security, no matter the cost to our country’s safety and credibility.
At the end of the Cold War, the UK was spending around 3.8 per cent. If experts are correct—that we have already entered a phase of Cold War 2.0—then surely our expenditures should exceed that. Today’s world, marked by Russian aggression, Chinese espionage, and growing instability in the Middle East, demands that the UK prepare for sustained competition akin to the Cold War.
Let’s look at Ukraine. Suppose President Trump shifts U.S. focus and attention from Eastern Europe to what’s happening in the South China Sea. In that case, European NATO members will no doubt be left with the responsibility of supporting Kyiv. A colleague of mine who used to be a British diplomat based in Ukraine told me that in 2022 Britain played a great leading role in not just supplying aid but marshalling support behind the scenes. He went on to tell me that his great fear now is that Britain no longer has that same leadership.
A real lack of diplomatic backbone.
Britain must be prepared to fill that gap and demonstrate its value as a leading NATO signatory. Failing to meet such an obligation risks eroding trust among allies and inviting aggression from adversaries.
The Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer risks our national security. Our army is not fit for purpose, our Navy can deploy a capability, but it is unsustainable, and our air force is woefully inadequate. Everything you hope your PM would address on Day 1 has not even been addressed on Day 193.
We cannot afford to leave the country’s defences to chance or to Labour. Britain deserves better.