“When we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to dissuade them is to be ready and, frankly, to show them that we are ready to ensure peace through strength,” argues British Prime Minister Keir Strmer
The United Kingdom will build new attack submarines, invest thousands of millions of nuclear warheads and move on to “ready-to-war,” Prime Minister Keir Stmerer said on Monday, shortly before the publication of a historical review of the country’s future forces.
The Stmerer government has said it will build “up to” 12 new attack submarines as part of its Aukus partnership with the United States and Australia, replacing the country’s current seven submarines class from the late 2030s.
And it will also launch a “historical renewal” of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, supported by an investment of 17.77 billion euros, Starmer said in a speech in Scotland on Monday.
The announcements were made on the same day of publication of the long -awaited United Kingdom Defense Review of the British Armed Forces, which outlined how the British Armed Forces would seek “immediate” change to greater use of autonomy and AI, following Ukraine experiences in his war with Russia.
“When we are directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to determine them is to be ready and, frankly, to show them that we are ready to ensure peace through strength,” Stmerer said on Monday.
But Starmer refused to define the schedule for his promise that Great Britain’s general expenses would reach 3% of the UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The increase, announced earlier this year, should be reached by the end of the next legislature in 2034, but depends on economic conditions.
And the Prime Minister did not specify where the money will come from to pay the new weaponry; He had already announced cuts in the UK help budget to finance the increase in defense spending, and on Monday, he refused to rule out similar measures.
Starmer promised to transform the United Kingdom into a “ready -made nation for battle and armored.” Andy Buchanan/PA/AP
According to the 144 -page review, the units in the future will be composed of only 20% of manned vehicles, with the rest of the capacities divided between “reusable” platforms, such as drones that survive repeated missions, and 40% of single weapons, such as missiles or attacks.
The royal navy should “advance to a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet”, and the two UK aircraft carriers (the largest in Europe) will be used as a base for European aircraft and drones, not just British.
Meanwhile, under the waves, non -manned submarines and sensors will polish the North Atlantic against Russian military movements.
However, some of these capabilities will require a decade of investment and development, told CNN to Dr. Marion Messmer, senior researcher at think tank Chatham House.
This goes far beyond the forecast of certain European countries that Russia may be ready to militarily threaten European borders six months to a few years after the end of the fighting with Ukraine.
Even so, the increase in investment in the UK’s nuclear abilities, as well as the potential integration with the European dissuasion described in the document, will reach a sensitive point in Moscow, he explained.
The UK’s fiscal promise falls short of the promises of defense spending on some NATO countries, whose spending has been carefully analyzed by US President Donald Trump.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said last month that NATO members would “presumed” to agree with a 5% defense expenditures at NATO summit in June, a significant increase over the 2% target agreed in 2014.
According to NATO data to 2024, only Poland’s defense expenses were over 4% of GDP, although Latvia and Estonia promised increases to 5% and Italy promised an increase to between 3.5% and 5% of GDP. US defense expenses were 3.38% of GDP by 2024, accounting for about 64% of NATO’s total expenses.
Just a few weeks before NATO allies agree on a significantly higher spending target, “it seems a little risky for the UK government to have essentially cornered” at a 2.5% spending limit of GDP, analyst Messmer told CNN.
The ambition of the United Kingdom of leading NATO is not in line with spending that is located in the middle of the platoon among NATO allies, he said.
Fight the Russian threat
The invasion of Ukraine through Russia – and the subsequent pressure of the Trump administration over the European nations to increase their own military capabilities – triggered a race among Europe’s main military powers to increase their readiness and combat the Russian threat if the White House removes its support for Kiev.
The United Kingdom “cannot ignore the threat Russia represents,” Stmerer told BBC on Monday. “Russia has shown in recent weeks that it hasn’t taken peace seriously, and we have to be prepared.”
Strmer said on Monday that he intended to turn the UK into a “ready-made battle nation, with the strongest alliances and the most advanced abilities, equipped for the coming decades.”
Government deputy and member of the British Parliament Defense Commission, Fred Thomas, told CNN that the revision was a “bold plan” and the first since the 1980s that he argued to do more, and no less, with the United Kingdom Armed Forces.
However, today’s British Armed Forces are far from their Cold War predecessors. With less than half of the force of the regular armed forces in 1989, the British army is a shadow of what it was before. In 1989, defense spending represented 4.1% of GDP.
“If you want to prepare for tomorrow’s war, you need to make sure it’s at least ready for today’s war. And we’re not ready for today’s war,” said Deputy Thomas.
Planning responsible expects machines to compensate for the lack of labor.
As part of the “fundamental transformation of functioning” of the British Armed Forces, the review has recommended allowing all sensors and weapons of the Armed Forces to work together, using IA to predict threats and accelerate decision making.
10 times more lethal?
Combining conventional armored armored forces and “terrestrial drone swarms”, the review boasted to create a 10-time army than the British army is currently.
In an article published in the Financial Times on May 31, Deputy Thomas criticized the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense for his “profound cultural and structural resistance to change”, but said he had reasons to have hope in the recommendations presented in today’s review.
Sometimes Franco – the review highlighted how the focus on “exquisite” capabilities masked the “emptying” of the combat capacity of the Armed Forces – the document also offered a somewhat optimistic view of the British Armed Forces.
This contrasts with many comments in the British press, which criticized the increasing size, the acquisition of problematic and inefficient equipment and the faults of conduct that plagues the British Armed Forces in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Analyst Messmer advised caution about some of the promises of the review.
“Ten times more lethal is something that sounds good, but I really would like to see more evidence,” he said. “I think it’s more marketing than anything else.”
Given the decades of reducing investment in the British Armed Forces, questions about the deterrent and nuclear weapons of Britain were raised, especially due to their dependence on the US supply chain. Over the past eight years, the United Kingdom has publicly recognized two nuclear missile tests, one of them in the waters off Florida, when simulated missiles have not fired as intended.
