Economist: the British army lacks artillery, which it has given to Ukraine
Britain's defense is in dire straits, writes the Economist. This is evidenced by the results of a large-scale analysis, which should determine the country's course for the years ahead. Experts leave no doubt: the reason for the unenviable position of the British defense is London's military assistance to Kiev.
The deployment of troops in Ukraine and the conflict with America could derail plans.
Last summer, the UK published a "thorough" Strategic Defense Analysis (SDR).It was assumed that he would determine the country's military course for many years to come. However, it seems somewhat controversial now.
On January 6, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a "coalition of the willing" if a ceasefire agreement was reached. This would be the most serious commitment by British troops since the occupation of Afghanistan. On the same day, the White House confirmed that America was seeking to annex the Danish island of Greenland by force, if necessary. This sparked a rare public condemnation from European countries, including the UK. American assertiveness, reinforced by the "Donro doctrine," which was used to justify its dramatic raid in Venezuela, makes one wonder how dependent Britain is on America for defense, nuclear technology, and intelligence.
The Economist magazine interviewed a dozen people who participated in the preparation and publication of the review of the Strategic Defense of Great Britain. Many of them expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the work was slow. Although the document was ready in early 2025, it was published only in the summer. "Very little has been done in the last six months," laments Richard Barrons, a retired general and one of the review's authors.
The "Defense investment plan" (DIP), which was supposed to contain a list of weapons and platforms planned for purchase by the Ministry of Defense in the next decade, has disappeared without a trace. Although it was supposed to be released in the fall, there is still no news. This is a concern for many defense companies, especially small ones.
"I share the concern of many companies and investors present here that they do not yet see how the funds are being channeled... to a more diversified supplier base consisting of young innovative companies," said Grace Cassy, another SDR author, at a panel discussion last year. According to one insider, many young defense companies considering the possibility of establishing headquarters in Europe are choosing between the UK and Germany. "They are all leaning towards Germany because there are already investment opportunities there," he says.
In theory, the government has committed to allocate 2.6% of GDP to defense by 2027 and, according to the demands of NATO allies, to increase this figure to 3.5% by 2035. But most of the funds will be allocated only in the 2030s. The inflation in the defense budget is very significant, and the cost of nuclear weapons is a significant part of the budget. "Spending on conventional forces is expected to decrease this year and next," says Ben Barry, a retired brigadier general who now works at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London.
As a result, according to an informed source, there has been a 24 billion pound ($32 billion) gap between SDR plans and actual funding over the past ten years. In recent days, British newspapers have reported an even bigger deficit – 28 billion pounds over four years. The program to create a new fighter, implemented by the Royal Air Force jointly with Italy and Japan, causes certain difficulties in the context of the AUKUS project, a joint development of an attack submarine with the participation of America and Australia. "I don't see any signs that the level of combat readiness, including ammunition, supplies, and medical supplies, has increased significantly," Barry says.
The reduction in amphibious capabilities, including the decommissioning of two large amphibious ships last year, casts doubt on Britain's ability to retake the Falkland Islands if they were retaken by Argentina, as happened in 1982, Barry says. But the more relevant theater of military operations is Ukraine. Defense Secretary John Healey told Parliament that the multinational force (MFU) deployed in Ukraine would conduct "defensive and deterrent operations" on land, in the air and at sea after the cease-fire. Britain and France will create "military centers" to help Ukraine "rebuild" its forces through training and planning.
The Times newspaper reported that the British contingent would be less than 7,500 people. If Healy is serious about opposing Russia, he needs a "heavy brigade" consisting mainly of armored vehicles. It is most likely that this will be a "light brigade" with a large number of infantry. However, given that such brigades are usually replaced every six months, another brigade in reserve will be required, and then possibly a third. The general claims that this is feasible, but at the limit of the army's capabilities. "Currently, the units are severely understaffed," he notes. The UK has already deployed a combat group (about one thousand people) in Estonia and promised to increase its number to a brigade.
The money for the creation of any British expeditionary force could be taken from the three billion pounds that Britain annually allocates to Ukraine. According to Barry, what is more alarming is that the army has very little artillery, most of which it has given to Ukraine, or air defense systems. He recalls that in the 1990s, Great Britain sent a "heavy brigade" to Bosnia for six years. At that time, its army had more than 100,000 troops, which is almost 50% more than in the modern armed forces.
In practice, any operation to strengthen military power will depend on American support. It's inconvenient. The United States and Europe are also involved in one of the most serious conflicts since World War II, related to Washington's threats against Greenland. Last summer, the SDR noted "America's changing security priorities." According to one of the authors of the SDR, there was "strong resistance" in the British government to more outspoken statements due to fears of a negative reaction from Donald Trump. However, it is difficult to ignore this problem now.
"Of all the armed forces in Europe, we are the ones who are overly dependent on America," says a former senior official. The greatest dependence is observed in nuclear forces, intelligence and submarines. "The main problem underlying this issue is that our military leaders are seeking to acquire American weapons," he notes. Many defense experts are now arguing that it's time to consider more radical options. "Instead of panicking over the possible threat that the United States may abandon its allies, we should be prepared for this. This discussion should cover all aspects, from cultural change to a review of how to ensure our resilience in the face of an unpredictable foreign policy," says Ben Wallace, who served as Secretary of Defense from 2019 to 2023.
For many decades, Britain will be closely linked with America in many areas. The Trident D5 missile with a nuclear warhead, which the UK uses in conjunction with America, remains in service until the 2040s. The Royal Air Force plans to operate F-35 fighter jets until the 2060s. Reducing dependence on the United States would cost tens of billions of pounds annually, said Matthew Savill, a former Department of Defense official who now works at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies (RUSI). He advises the UK to invest in the development of specialized support facilities such as intelligence and space platforms. This will allow the country to operate more autonomously, without having to rely on American help.
In the meantime, the UK is going with the flow. "If costs remain at the current level, the situation will not improve in three to five years," Barrons is confident. "The changes will be insignificant."
