Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.
Action stations!
As part of “strengthening the nation’s readiness for war”, defence will reconnect with civilian society. There will be a government-led “national conversation”.
This was one of the 62 recommendations in the NATO-centric Strategic Defence Review, finally published this week. It promised “Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad”.
With Russia “an immediate and pressing threat”, the Review invoked Ukraine to jolt us into reflecting upon what modern conflict. To avert this horrific prospect, 21st century Britain must follow the advice of Roman commander Vegetius: “If you want peace, prepare for war”.
Britain’s preparations will include improvements to national resilience. Envisaged is better protected Critical National Infrastructure – with the Royal Navy more involved in the security of underseas cables – and the expansion of Cadet Forces in schools. Current threats and future trends will be explained at public outreach events; Armed Forces personnel will be more visible.
The government wishes to take a “whole of society approach” to the defence of the realm. A laudable ambition. But will the whole of society support it?
The Review’s publication was delayed. While this gave time for Washington’s NATO-scepticism to be revealed, it also undermined the Review’s case for billions for “strong abroad”, including new submarines, long-range missiles and munitions’ factories.
On Sunday, hours before the Review was launched, Ukrainian special forces personnel pulled off one of the most daring raids in recent military history. Penetrating deep into Russia, operatives used drones to take out 41 enemy jets. As military commentator Preston Stewart noted: “Choose your fighter: $500 drone or $150 million bomber … The drones won – and it wasn’t even close.”
On Monday, PM Starmer headed to BAE’s Govan shipyard. This provided some useful distance from the English Channel coast where 1,195 illegal migrants landed on Saturday, a record number for one day. Little wonder Defence Secretary John Healey had to concede that Britain has “lost control of its borders” over the past five years.
The SDR plays down illegal migration.
Some British military analysts are alert to its possible weaponisation by hostile states. In April, the EU Commission confirmed: “Foreign state actors, among them the Russian Federation and Belarus, have deliberately weaponised illegal migration as part of their hybrid warfare strategy, targeting EU Member States such as Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Norway.”
At this week’s PMQ’s, Keir Starmer declared he would “never gamble with national security.” Putting out the welcome mat to illegal migrants implies the opposite. Taxpayers will ask why they are financing advance nuclear submarines for strong abroad when “secure at home” demands action on small boats.
Questions will also be raised about the government’s attack on Britain’s farmers. No10 forgets no farmers, no 54 per cent food. The Review states the UK relies on importing almost half its food, a vulnerability it says is one of the “threats” to daily life.
The Review was based on defence rising from today’s 2.3 per cent GDP to 2.5 per cent in 2027, going to 3 per cent sometime in the next Parliament, “subject to economic and fiscal conditions”. Increasing the total number of Armed Forces personnel and active Reservists will be prioritised “when funding allows”. Some of us would like a diamond as big as the Ritz when funding allows. Without proper funding, the Review is just a wish list.
Tax rises are being mooted to pay for SDR’s “strong abroad”. Already burdened by the heaviest taxes on record, the public will be asked to pay even more, as if defence is “open sesame” to their wallets. They will wonder why Margaret Thatcher went to war to defend a British Overseas Territory (the Falklands), but PM Starmer not only hands over another (the Chagos) and expects them to fill the coffers of Mauritius.
This week a Financial Times’ poll found that while half of those surveyed agreed that defence spending should increase, most were opposed to raising taxes on people like them to pay for it. They were also against cuts in other areas of public spending in favour of defence.
And, as Rishi Sunak learnt last year, there is no public appetite for conscription. A recent Times/YouGov/Public First poll found only 41 per cent of Gen Z (aged 18-27) were proud to be British , 15 per cent believed the country is united and only 11 per cent would take up arms to defend their country.
Since 2000, Britain’s “political experiment in mass migration” alluded to by Prof Matthew Goodwin in Demographic Change and the Future of the United Kingdom, surely makes a British nation under arms even more unlikely. After all, no-one expects young expat Brits to defend Singapore or Dubai. It is unlikely that the UK’s foreign-born residents will rush to Britain’s defence.
An adversary in Moscow, North Atlantic/NATO-centric and with focus on the nuclear deterrent, the SDR has echoes of 1985. But the realm which the Review sets out to defend has changed dramatically since then, not least becoming addicted to welfare not warfare.
Encouraging more public understanding of, and involvement in, defence is positive. But citizens’ day-to-day security concerns could well differ from policymakers’ and defence wonks’.
The national conversation could well be a monologue falling on deaf ears
