All governments have a defence strategy, which typically outlines the threats and how the government proposes to respond to those threats. The current UK strategy claims to be an integrated review of defence, development and foreign policy. However, it actually has a proliferation of strategies, which as a RUSI paper puts it, ‘the Review depends on too many other ‘strategies’ that have not had the same guiding mind, fall short of the lofty ambition in the capping document and do not connect the Integrated Review’s ends with the requisite ways and means. The suite of strategies is weakened as a result.’
I was recently asked to write a briefing note on the UK defence strategy as part of a Europe-wide analysis of how Western European nations are responding to the Ukraine War. I had looked at some of this in a paper I wrote for Prospect on defence procurement earlier this year. I enjoy working with European colleagues as it gives you a different perspective on domestic policy.
Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, has had to publish a revised strategy today. In fairness, defence reviews can often rapidly become outdated. While the Integrated Review recognised the threat of Russia, it probably couldn’t have anticipated the invasion of Ukraine. This means the downgrading of conventional forces (reducing the Army to 72,500 soldiers) and the emphasis on an ill-defined ‘Global Britain’ looked short-sighted when large-scale fighting occurred in European cities. For political reasons, the review also played down the importance of EU cooperation at a time when the EU is strengthening its security and defence policy.
We now need a more realistic strategy, returning to the continental strategy the UK had for much of the last century. Military mass is still required on land, sea and air, with digital augmenting the strategy, not replacing it. Even the Royal Navy, which arguably did better than the Army in the last review, is stretched painfully thin with new deployments worldwide. The Ukraine War has demonstrated the continued importance of artillery, and while armoured vehicles will evolve, they are not obsolete. Technology matters, but mass still counts on the battlefield.
The Johnson/Truss era included some fanciful commitments to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. RUSI estimates that 3% would cost an extra £157bn by 2030, the equivalent of raising income tax by 5p. That isn't going to happen, whoever wins the next General Election. There is a welcome commitment to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP. This has cross-party support, although the Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healy, has rightly argued that too much of that extra money is needed to plug a £17 billion black hole in the MoD's budget.
Ben Wallace will be leaving the Cabinet at the next reshuffle, which is a pity as he is one of the more respected ministers in a struggling government. He wanted to be the next NATO Secretary-General, but Britain’s reducing post-Brexit influence was unlikely to deliver that. He has said he will speak out if the 2.5% pledge is not delivered. Meanwhile, he is left to unveil an updated defence strategy with no new money. It was evident from the European workshop I attended that other European countries are increasing their spending. While they may have started from behind the UK, they don't have our fanciful global pretensions.
So, Wallace is left with robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the much-criticised army cuts will go ahead to ensure there is sufficient cash to replenish stocks depleted by supplies to Ukraine. However, the update does at least appear to recognise that the European stage has changed, and lessons need to be learned from Ukraine—the 'battle-lab' as Wallace puts it.
The three-front war scenario (Russia, Far East and Africa) comes in for some scathing commentary from Simon Jenkins in today’s Guardian. He argues that none of these scenarios is a plausible threat to national security, ‘They emerge from some vague notion about “Britain’s role in the world”, echoed by Boris Johnson down the mustier corridors of Whitehall.’ He won’t be reassured by today’s paper which says, ‘We need to be able to compete, challenge and contest threats globally.’
We should also remember that Defence spending remains a crucial part of the Scottish economy. The latest data shows jobs have increased by one-third to 33,500 - contributing £3.2bn to the Scottish economy. The space sector is a big part of that growth. Much-needed meaningful reform of defence procurement still seems a long way off. Today’s paper feels like a rehash of old rhetoric.
The armed forces play a vital role in protecting and safeguarding the UK. At a time when full-scale war has returned to Europe, and external threats are continually changing, that role has never been more critical. It remains to be seen if today’s refresh provides the means to respond to an uncertain world.
