Keir Starmer’s recently unveiled Strategic Defence Review (SDR) marks one of the most ambitious military policy overhauls in a generation, promising to transform Britain’s defence capabilities by 2034. With pledges to increase the army’s size to 76,000 personnel, build up to 12 SSN-AUKUS nuclear submarines, and create a new cyber command, the review outlines a future-facing vision that seeks to reassert Britain’s global security role. Yet, for all its ambition, the review raises more questions than it answers, chief among them: can it solve any of the UK’s pressing defence problems?
At the core of the SDR lies an effort to address long-standing gaps in readiness and resilience, particularly in response to global threats from Russia, China, and emerging cyber warfare. Starmer has committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with the potential to reach 3% by 2034. However, the review stops short of providing detailed costings, timelines, or implementation frameworks. Without these, critics argue the plan risks becoming an aspirational document rather than a functional strategy. Britain’s Ministry of Defence has a troubled history of procurement failures, from the Ajax armoured vehicles to spiralling costs in naval construction, and many fear the same fate awaits parts of the SDR without systemic reform.
Moreover, the review leans heavily on future growth assumptions and political will, both of which are inherently fragile. Economic pressures and competing domestic priorities, such as health and education, could undermine sustained investment in defence. The British public, while generally supportive of security initiatives, has shown little appetite for steep defence increases at the expense of social services. This raises concerns about whether the necessary funding will be politically viable over the long term.
Another significant challenge is operational. The British Army has struggled with recruitment and retention in recent years. Expanding personnel numbers will require not only attractive incentives but also a broader cultural shift to make military service more appealing in today’s society. Meanwhile, promises of cutting-edge cyber capabilities and advanced missile defence systems will hinge on rapid technological development and close cooperation with allies like the U.S. and Australia.
In essence, Starmer’s defence review is a bold attempt to modernise Britain’s armed forces and restore strategic credibility. But ambition alone won’t fix the deeply entrenched structural and fiscal challenges that have long plagued UK defence. Without hard numbers, strong oversight, and a realistic implementation roadmap, the review may fall short of delivering the lasting impact it promises.
