The British defense review has a great ambition. Now he needs money

The British Defense Review was invited to make its recommendations in the budgetary constraints of the expenditure of 2.5% of the GDP on the defense.

But it is already clear that to achieve its objectives to transform the British armed forces, to prepare them for war, there will have to be more money.

The examination welcomes the “ambition” of the government to spend 3% by 2034. But it also indicates that “as we live at more turbulent times, it may be necessary to go faster”. Several NATO allies have already committed to spending more than 5%.

But a source of defense told the BBC that even the government’s commitment to build up to 12 new attack submarines, as indicated in the exam, would require an increase in defense expenses to at least 3% of GDP.

At a glance: key points of the government’s defense strategy

The ministers say they believe that they will reach this target in the following parliament, but there are no deadlines or guarantees.

The review highlights the war in Ukraine as proof of the rise in threats and the rapid pace of change. The exaggerated message is that the British armed forces and the nation must transform to be ready for the possibility of war.

Russia is described as an immediate threat. China is a sophisticated and persistent challenge. Iran and North Korea are described by regional disruptors.

The journal prevents the unpredictability of these threats, as well as the speed of change “has created new threats and alarming vulnerabilities” for Great Britain.

The examination indicates that the British army must undergo a revolution – a pivot of new ways of fighting.

One of the reports, General Sir Richard Barron, described him as the “deepest” change from British defense in 150 years.

There will be more drones and autonomous systems, as well as other technologies operate software and artificial intelligence, to accelerate battlefield decisions. Essentially, what is already happening in Ukraine.

There will always be “heavy metal”, such as tanks, fighter planes and warships, but working more alongside autonomous systems.

It is not only the army that will have to change. The examination requires an “approach to society”.

He says that the government must have plans to carry out a transition to war if necessary. There should be a “bill on defense preparation” to give the government more powers to support the mobilization of industry and reservations, if necessary.

The nation must do more to protect its national critical infrastructures, including pipes and submarine cables. The examination indicates that “an accent renewed on home defense and resilience is vital”.

The work says that this is the first defense review in a quarter of a century which will not lead to a reduction in the overall size of the armed forces.

Meanwhile, the regular army has lost tens of thousands of soldiers. In 2010, it was more than one hundred thousand forts, and now it is just over 71,000 – still below its target force of 73,000.

The examination highlights the need to combat crises in recruitment, retention and low moral. He says that there should be an increase in the size of the regular army.

John Healy, the defense secretary, said in the municipalities on Monday that the regular army would have increased to 76,000 – but after the next elections and without a precise date. It was not funded either.

The examination provides solid reasons to invest more in defense and national security.

Many of those who have read it could reasonably conclude that this will require a significant uprising in defense expenses.

So far, this increase has been progressive – not transformational. Other NATO allies agree on growing perils around the world – and have responded by spending much more.