Latest news with #GeorgeRobertson
Scotsman
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Former Nato Secretary-General's terrifying warning about state of UK's defences shows why we need to 'wake up'
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Given he was a UK Defence Secretary, Nato Secretary-General and recently co-wrote a Strategic Defence Review for the Westminster government, George Robertson is worth listening to on military matters. And, speaking in a debate on the review in the House of Lords, Lord Robertson stressed repeatedly that 'this country and its people are not safe' because of the state of our Armed Forces. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'When we say in the report [the review] that we are unprepared, it is an understatement,' he warned. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare.' If Ukraine is defeated by Vladimir Putin's forces, he is likely to turn his attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members (Picture: Genya Savilov) | AFP via Getty Images No more peace dividend Not that long ago, the risk that this country might be involved in such a conflict was relatively small. The UK was, therefore, able to enjoy a 'peace dividend' that saw the size of our Armed Forces fall to historically low levels, with the money saved used for other public spending priorities. And that was a good thing. However, the world has changed dramatically in three main ways: Vladimir Putin's corruption of Russian democracy and his invasion of Ukraine; the rise of isolationism in US politics, as expressed by Donald Trump's 'America first' slogan; and the increasing military might of China. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Suddenly the UK has found itself facing a possible future in which Russia defeats Ukraine and then turns its attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members; the US, under Trump or a fellow traveller, decides to leave Europe to its own defences; and China invades Taiwan. The problem is few people recognise the potential dangers. Former Conservative defence minister Nicholas Soames said 'unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack'.
AllAfrica
13-06-2025
- Business
- AllAfrica
UK's strategic defense posture still includes East of Suez roles
Originally published by Pacific Forum, this article is republished with permission. The launch of the United Kingdom's Strategic Defence Review has finally set down a clear direction for the UK's strategic posture for at least a parliament, perhaps longer. The most instrumental element in the paper is the decision to focus on the Euro-Atlantic as the priority region. This was already understood, but there have been at least two decades of the UK flirting with an East of Suez strategy. This included development of a robust defense attaché network in Southeast Asia, the long courtship of China – and then India – for growth, and the resurgence of UK military assets to the region in the name of defending maritime sea lanes and a 'free and open' Indo-Pacific. While it's true that this SDR was written by externals, led by Lord George Robertson, Dr. Fiona Hill, CMG, and General Sir Richard Barrons, the Labour government has already stamped its seal of approval by accepting all 62 recommendations. So what exactly does it say about the UK's 'Indo-Pacific strategy?' Well, the document is a realization that the US 'Pivot' to the Indo-Pacific region is here to stay. This was made clear after the Biden administration re-released an Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2022 to put its stamp on the Trump strategy of 2019. Both strategies began with the starting point that the United States as an 'Indo-Pacific power' or 'Indo-Pacific nation.' While resources and political attention have – at times – remained stubbornly centered around the Middle East and CENTCOM and with Europe and EUCOM, the arrival of Elbridge Colby (a one-time Pacific Forum 'young leader') on the strategic scene in the United States has for now crowned the Indo-Pacific Pivot as the United States' priority region. The rise of China in this region, and the shift of political, military, and economic weight from Europe to Asia has cemented this shift. Colby's ratification as undersecretary of defense for policy has also added an explicit message to the Europeans: The dribbling of small amounts of assets to the Indo-Pacific is unnecessary; the United States would infinitely prefer that European powers – France, Germany and the UK – focus on the Euro-Atlantic and deal with Russia. The SDR wisely accommodates this resource imperative, while still providing a place for UK interests and support to the US and its allies in the region. If one looks at the number of times 'Indo-Pacific' is mentioned in the document (17), it is notable that this is down from a high of 32 mentions in the 2021 Integrated Review. Still, it is still better than the Strategic Defence Review of 1998 or the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, documents which mentioned 'Asia' five times and two times respectively. The 2025 SDR states that NATO-first does not mean NATO-only, putting the list of priorities as Euro-Atlantic, Middle East, and Indo-Pacific in that order. It states that 'the Indo-Pacific is strategically important to the UK as a global economic and political powerhouse and arena of increasing geopolitical tension.' It notes the strong partnerships the UK has in the region – ASEAN, Australia, Brunei, Japan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, New Zealand and Pakistan come in for special mention – and, of course, China. The SDR's position on China is probably closest to that of the UK Ministry of Defence and –sadly – does not reflect broader opinion across government in Whitehall. China is a 'sophisticated and persistent threat,' which behaves aggressively in the South China Sea and has escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait. It notes the fact that China has supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine and that the US-China relationship will be a 'key factor' in global security. It also notes the threats provided by Beijing's military build-up, nuclear modernization and technological and cyber capabilities and recommends the maintenance of UK-China military-to-military communications. Given that US-China mil-to-mil relations are extremely limited now and constantly under pressure from China over US arms sales to Taiwan, this might prove a helpful channel in time. Notably, it recognizes that most of the UK's adversaries will likely field Chinese technology – an important observation in its own right. The SDR's integrated approach toward the Indo-Pacific region is consistent with the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, and consistent with the overall security interests of its closest partners, Japan and Australia, which are rapidly becoming the more important partners of choice across a number of different metrics. First, both are key partners in intelligence-sharing, both work closely with the United States to demonstrate deterrent capability in military exercises in the region and both are defense industrial partners of choice. With Japan, the UK is developing the Meteor, a joint new air-to-air missile (JNAAM) and the Global Combat Air Programme (with Italy), though this latter effort is under pressure. With Australia, there is even more by way of 'production deterrence' in the form of the AUKUS submarine and technology programs. The rotation of UK Astute-class submarines to HMAS Stiling, in Australia, planned as early as 2027 will be an immense boon to deterrence and warfighting capability. So what's missing from the SDR? Well, with respect to the authors, there are a few things: The recent murmurings of disquiet about a lack of progress in AUKUS Pillar 2 is an issue. London and Canberra now need to press upon newly arrived Trump officials their thoughts on the blockage and what can be done to expedite things at the resourcing, regulatory, and organizational level. This needs to be done at a time when the White House is shifting the US trade environment, so this will be difficult. In addition, the UK Ministry of Defence needs to think about what posture it needs to 'surge' military forces into the region in a crisis. The MOD needs to provide options and these range from inter-changeability exercises for UK assets visiting the region to developing a more mature presence in INDOPACOM – through a mid-size consulate in Honolulu run at the ambassadorial level by someone with close links to MOD. The options include joining the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience – if this has not already occurred – and supporting 'production deterrence.' It might mean co-production on long-range munitions in the wide expanse of the Pacific. And, finally, it needs to develop – alone or in tandem with the US – hubs for maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) so that it can operate at the long-distances required by the operational environment. Dr. John Hemmings (john. @ is deputy director at the Council on Geostrategy in London and senior advisor at Pacific Forum.
Irish Times
12-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Britain to move closer to ‘warfighting readiness' as review calls for defence overhaul
Britain plans a new fleet of attack submarines, a £15 billion overhaul of its nuclear weaponry and a 'home guard' volunteer force to protect infrastructure such as airports, as UK prime minister Keir Starmer promised to get his nation ready for war. The promise came as the British government on Monday published a strategic defence review (SDR) led by former Nato chief George Robertson . It said Britain must prepare to fight a war in Europe or the Atlantic and made sweeping recommendations to upgrade its forces. 'We are moving to warfighting readiness,' said Mr Starmer, as he launched his government's response to the SDR on Monday morning at a Glasgow shipyard, in advance of the formal publication of the document in Westminster later in the afternoon. 'The threat we now face is more serious, more immediate and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War,' the prime minister told Britons, as he cited potential threats from Russia , cyber attacks and 'new nuclear risks'. READ MORE Mr Robertson, meanwhile, warned the 'only effective, affordable' option for Britain was to stick with a 'Nato-first' approach, despite worries within the US-led military alliance that Washington's commitment could wane under president Donald Trump . The SDR, which was ordered by the UK's Labour government when it took power 11 months ago, made more than 60 recommendations to counter a 'new era of threat' for Britain. It cited an 'immediate and pressing' danger from Russia and the 'sophisticated and persistent challenge' posed by China . As part of its response to the threats outlined in the review, the UK government has promised to build a dozen nuclear-powered, conventionally armed attack submarines that would begin to enter service from the late 2030s. Its current fleet of nine submarines includes five attack vessels, but some of these are due to exit service. It is believed that Britain may also seek to acquire fighter jets capable of firing nuclear weapons from the sky; its current nuclear arsenal is sea-based. The shift to jets was not detailed in the report but was briefed to some UK media by officials in Westminster. The SDR also recommended further investment in drone attack technology, as well as a volunteer force to protect against aerial attack by enemy drones in Britain. The UK is also believed to be planning fresh investment in its missile defence systems. [ Explainer: what is Keir Starmer's Brexit reset deal? Opens in new window ] At a briefing for journalists in Westminster, a spokesman for 10 Downing Street said Britain was not planning to bring back military conscription, after reporters queried remarks by Mr Starmer for 'every part of society' to get involved in protecting Britain. The spokesman said the prime minister meant there should be a 'whole of society' approach involving, for example, British scientists and engineers to boost innovation. The focus on the SDR chimed with a growing sense of anxiety in Britain over the military threats its government believes the nation faces. The Conservatives and even the Liberal Democrats have criticised the Labour government for not acting with sufficient urgency to rebuild the UK's armed forces. Hovering over the debate, however, are growing fiscal restraints that threaten to hobble the Labour government's plans to renew the UK's public services. Britain currently spends 2.3 per cent of its GDP on defence, and has promised to boost this to 2.5 per cent by 2027/28. Mr Starmer has stated an aspiration to boost this further to 3 per cent by the end of the next parliament – an aim that the SDR suggested was essential to 'establish the affordability' of the recommendations in the review. The London-based Institute of Fiscal Studies, however, suggested that 'chunky' tax rises would be necessary to meet those commitments, which some of the UK's Nato allies in Europe have already hinted may not be enough.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Battle Lines: Can the UK afford to defend itself from Russia?
Lord George Robertson, former Nato Secretary General and lead author of the UK's new Strategic Defence Review, talks to Roland about what it will take for Britain to be warfighting ready. His message is a vital clarion call for the British government and general public to wake up to the very real threat posed by Russia and the scale of change that needs to be undertaken: 'This is not business as usual.' But with President Donald Trump's call for spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence likely to be adopted by Nato later this month, is a commitment of 2.5 per cent and an ambition of 3 per cent by 2034 enough? And are ordinary British people ready for the sacrifices involved in creating a credible deterrence to protect the UK? Listen to Battle Lines using the audio player in this article or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your favourite podcast app. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Guardian
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls
Defence reviews and foreign policy resets seem to turn up almost as often as the Sussexes' lifestyle brand relaunches these days. Labour's strategic defence review this week comes less than two years after the Conservatives' hardly less detailed defence white paper in July 2023, which in turn was a 'refresh' of Boris Johnson's ambitious integrated review of defence and foreign policy of March 2021. By this measure, it must be doubtful if, come the 2030s, analysts will look back on Keir Starmer and John Healey's review and say it broke the mould. The Labour government was entitled to try to put its own stamp on defence policy, of course, and its review team of George Robertson, Richard Barrons and Fiona Hill did a good, reasonably independent job. Yet this 2020s pattern of repeated strategic adaptation and refocus feels like the new normal now. It is also true that grand strategy does not often survive prolonged contact with the real world. In wartime, as the US general, later president, Dwight Eisenhower once put it, plans are useless but planning is essential. Today, though, war is no longer an academic possibility. So defence policy must adapt afresh, and at pace. Labour's defence review does not always do this convincingly. Most of the imperatives and innovations of the day revolve around resisting the threat from Russia and adapting to the new weaponry of the drone and cyber age. At times, though, this is hard to reconcile with the review's dogged assumption that the transatlantic alliance will remain the bedrock of that resistance. Johnson's 2021 review aimed to recast British foreign policy in the light of Brexit. In some ways, like Johnson's delusional British tilt towards Asia, it represents a worldview that has gone with the wind. In others, especially on Russia, it describes a conflict that still confronts Starmer today. Yet Johnson's review came out as Covid was starting to upend the global economy and before Russia invaded Ukraine. The 2023 refresh took those newer convulsions on board but could not, in its turn, know about the most recent disruption: Donald Trump's return. It is pathetic and shameful that Trump's name does not appear once throughout the new defence review's 140 pages. Its absence reflects Labour's – and London's – bred-in-the-bone fear of offending the US president. Even so, it cannot disguise that this is a defence review for Britain in an age of greater US isolationism. Trump's unreliability and his administration's manifest contempt for Europe cast a long shadow over the whole document and over the government's determination, even in the context of next week's Whitehall spending review, to prioritise defence in line with Nato urgings. Since history never stops, this week's review may itself soon look out of date. Events may grab hold of the steering wheel at any time. China may invade Taiwan, for example, or Russia turn up the heat in the Baltic or against Moldova. Iran may finally test a nuclear weapon. Trump may annex Greenland. Even the ending of the Ukraine war, not just its continuation as before, would necessitate a big course correction and reshifting of priorities for British policy too. If there is a thread running through the document, it is that 21st-century Britain is a big, but not a global power, whose security priority lies in Europe, not elsewhere. The overriding goals for British defence policy are thus, as always, to defend the nation against direct threats, and to make the necessary contribution to the maintenance of peace, freedom and commerce on the European continent. Brexit did not change that. But it was a dramatic illustration of how easy it is to delude a nation that there are magic answers to grindingly difficult problems. It is a mistake, however, to seek blind refuge in the belief that the world has always been a conflicted and messy place, and therefore to assume that 2025 is merely another unfortunate iteration of it. This may indeed be true in a very long view sense. But it does not adequately explain why 21st century governments in many liberal democracies – not least in Britain – struggle to mobilise national support to bring about almost any big and effective change, not just in defence policy but domestically. It is not enough to blame Russia alone for the suffering in Ukraine, or to denounce the United States uniquely for turning its back on European security – even though both are hugely culpable. Part of the problem also lies closer to home. The issue is that while the liberal democratic nation state is the only meaningful game in town, it is no longer delivering what it once seemed uniquely capable of providing for its people. The run-down of defence following the end of the cold war is merely one example of this widely felt failure, albeit an important one. One can select others from most areas of national life. They range from not embracing the digital revolution sufficiently to help rebuild British industry and education, through the failure to prioritise the care of an increasingly ageing population and the cynical depletion of parts of the welfare state, to the shameful pollution of rivers and lakes, the disdain for localism and the wilful neglect of national culture. The results of this are inescapably wounding to politics itself. The most striking thing that has happened in the last 11 months is that Labour has managed to turn an election victory into what looks increasingly likely to be an election defeat when the time comes. Why has this happened? Not because Starmer and his ministers are bad people, or because they have bad values or even bad policies. Certainly not because voters want the Conservatives back. It has happened because liberal democratic governments are no longer able to command the necessary sustained public confidence, even through rocky times, to deliver what people once instinctively looked to them for. That was true of the defence review this week, which was launched on to a sea of scepticism about Labour's ability to pay for its plans. It will be even more true of the spending review in a few days' time. The strands that once meaningfully bound people together within a shared national framework are weaker now. They may not be irreparable. But repairing them requires a lot of humility as well as much determination and a sprinkling of genius. There are no quick answers and it is a massively hard task. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
