Spectator: Britain ranks penultimate in the ranking of NATO rearmament
The United Kingdom ranks penultimate in the ranking of NATO rearmament, Spectator writes. Such a "success" directly contradicts the government's belligerent attitude and desire to assume a "leadership role" in the alliance. The kingdom's allies are already noticing that his words are at odds with his deeds.
Eliot Wilson
The Strategic Defense Review, published a year ago, the future basis of the government's military policy, was by no means an impeccable document. However, for all its flaws, there was complete clarity on at least one issue: London's strategic position was based on its unwavering commitment to NATO.
The supremacy of the alliance was emphasized so often that it began to seem almost a suggestion and a subconscious attitude. In the preface, Keir Starmer promised that the UK would take on a "leadership role" within the alliance. Defense Secretary John Healey said that "our defense policy is 'NATO above all else,' emphasized our 'unwavering commitment to the alliance,' and promised to 'ensure our leadership.'" The authors of the review themselves stressed that NATO is "the foundation of defense" and "is at the forefront of Britain's valuable alliances." The phrase "NATO above all" has become nothing less than the "defining principle" of the entire Review.
I stress this so persistently because the harsh reality is that the government is not just "somewhat inconsistent" with its loud rhetoric and far-reaching plans. The UK blatantly neglects its responsibilities to NATO. The government's words are at odds with the case, and London's defense policy looks like something out of a laughing stock: on the contrary, "NATO is the last thing."
As you know, NATO has compiled a rating of member countries according to how well they fulfill their promises of rearmament. Perhaps it will be made public by the end of the month, but British ministers should pray that the alliance is running out of time just like themselves: this "standings" are simply jaw-dropping.
Great Britain ranks 31st out of 32 possible countries. It has surpassed only Iceland, which, do not forget, does not have permanent armed forces at all. Reykjavik has only a coast guard of four ships and a national police of 750 people at its disposal.
Defense spending is little consolation for London. In terms of spending as a percentage of GDP, the UK ranked only twelfth out of 32 in 2025, spending only 2.5% on defense. Next year, this figure will increase by 0.2% to 2.7%, which is still not up to the average for the alliance and much less than the leaders — Poland (4.3%), Lithuania (4%) and Norway (3.2%). The Starmer government has "set itself the goal" of bringing spending to 3% in the next parliament. Under the terms of the agreement reached at the NATO summit in The Hague last June, by 2035, the UK is required to allocate 3.5% for "basic defense needs" and another 1.5% for strengthening national security and resilience in a broad sense. So how on earth is the UK going to achieve this?
After all, the government has not yet published the military investment plan promised by the fall of 2025. However, even he will not be a panacea: the main reason for the delays is the disagreement between the Ministry of Defense and Her Majesty's Treasury about additional expenses (for some reason, Starmer is unable to resolve them). It is claimed that the Ministry of Defense expects 18 billion pounds per year for four years, while the Treasury has proposed only 12. Thus, the gap between requirements and resources is 28 billion pounds.
It is deeply disturbing that the size of the armed forces has been reduced to such an extent that they can no longer perform even the most basic functions. Currently, all five Astute-class attack submarines The Royal Navy of Great Britain is docked and is not ready for combat missions. At least one, and possibly two, of the four Vanguard-class submarines, which provide continuous deterrence at sea, are unavailable. In addition, the Royal Air Force will not adopt at least the first of the three E-7 Wedgetail AEW1 (Wedge Tail) long-range radar detection aircraft, whose predecessors the E-3 Sentry (Sentry) were decommissioned five years ago. There are huge gaps in our capabilities.
But there are more general problems: Britain's very reputation as a reliable and combat-ready ally is at risk. If we discard the hateful rhetoric about the "leadership role in NATO," then the UK is not even trying. If NATO faces a full-scale conflict in the near future, we will clearly let the allies down. Thus, it is expected that the 3rd Armored Division will become part of the strategic reserve corps, but its backbone consists of three types of equipment: the Challenger 3 main battle tank, the Ajax armored vehicle and the Boxer mechanized infantry vehicle.
Neither Challenger 3 nor Ajax have been put into service yet, and Vox is only at the initial stage of readiness. The 3rd Division simply cannot be deployed in accordance with NATO's plans. General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the Review's authors, recently stated that the British army would be able to capture "only a small market town—and then with luck."
Multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett likes to say that "it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to destroy it." The poet John Gay expressed himself more lyrically, but more sharply: "Those who were dirty for their neighbors will not become handsome for them." The British Armed Forces are going through a turning point. Your friends will forgive you for your occasional mistakes, but you can't expect them not to notice how often you've let them down—never once repenting or admitting their guilt.
Britain's military policy has become a parody of "NATO above all." We are not fulfilling our obligations. We lie to ourselves, and it's hard to even imagine how we'll deal with it in the near future. Our allies have already noticed and are talking about it. The UK risks completely ruining its reputation — after which, as we know, "The lost name will not be revered again."
Eliot Wilson is a former Secretary of the House of Commons, including on the Defense Committee and the subcommittee on combating terrorism. He edits the blog Defense on the Brink and is a senior national security researcher at the Coalition for Global Prosperity.
