UK launches defense overhaul — but is it too little, too late?

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Monday a overhaul of defense expenses of the United Kingdom, warning Great Britain that it faces “the war in Europe”.

“We are going to prepare for war,” said Starmer by revealing the government’s “strategic defense review” at a time of increased vulnerability on the continent, the United Kingdom affirming that the threat and instability posed by Russia and other adversaries cannot be ignored. “

The defense plans of the United Kingdom include the construction of 12 new nuclear nuclear attack submarines, a boost to the manufacture of drones, missiles and munitions, as well as Cyber-war capacity meeting.

Starmer said that the United Kingdom’s defense expenses would reach 2.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2027 and expose the ambition “to increase this to 3% of GDP in the following parliament-that is to say by 2034-” When economic and tax conditions allow it “. Estimates born Suggest that the UK’s defense expenses as GDP share were 2.33% in 2024, above the 2% target of the alliance set in 2014.

One of the United Kingdom’s priorities has been to strengthen the NATO coalition, the Prime Minister said, adding that Great Britain’s defense policy “will still be NATO first.”

NATO wants its 32 members commit to spending 5% of GDP for defense And an infrastructure linked to security by 2032 and should put pressure for this goal at its next meeting from June 24 to 25.

Analysts and economists argue that while UK’s defense plans are new welcome in uncertain times, they could ultimately prove to be too little, too late – and that they could potentially be difficult to deliver, given tax constraints to the United Kingdom

Defense expenses brutally resumed among NATO members because Trump was the last in power. In 2018, at the height of the irritation of the head of the White House with the military block, only six Member States reached the target of 2%, including the United States. This is compared to 23 members in 2024, According to NATO data.

While some have greatly exceeded this threshold – such as Poland, Estonia, the United States, Latvia and Greece – the major economic powers, including Canada, Spain and Italy, are part of the delayers below the contribution threshold.

No member of NATO has yet achieved the 5% expenses target Suggest by Trump or the secretary general of NATO, Mark Rutte.

Some NATO allies have already given a scouring response to the 2.5% defense spending target of the United Kingdom to the Minister of Defense of Lithuania – who spent around 2.8% of GDP in defense in 2024 – It would have been to the BBC that this figure was “old news”.

Starmer also refused to engage in an explicit calendar for the moment when the United Kingdom could increase its defense expenses to 3% in the following Parliament (2029-2034), telling the BBC earlier on Monday that it “will not engage on the precise date, until I cannot be sure precisely from where money comes from the way we can commit ourselves”.

The European aerospace and defense sector has hosted the spending plans, the Stoxx 600 Aerospace and Defense index up 0.45% on Monday.

But although “the spending plan is unequivocal positive for the sector … The impact will be progressive and backwards,” said Loredana Muharremi, actions analyst in Morningstar on Monday.

She noted that even if the defense of the United Kingdom “supports the modernization of the nuclear warhead, the expansion of the underwater fleet within the framework of the Aukus program, the production of scaling ammunition and improved investments in cyber and long-term strike capacities”, they could still not be below the wider defense ambitions and NATO.

“While the British government considers that these expenditure objectives are sufficient to achieve its national security objectives, they can still be increasing expectations of NATO and the United States, the Trump administration urging a faster route to 3% by 2029.”

Defense experts argue that throwing more money in La Défense will not be transformative into itself.

“The target of expenditure of 2.5% of GDP is not such a significant increase to be truly” transformational “- at least, not taking into account the current state of the armed forces,” said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said in the analysis Before the exam.

“To be transformational, he will have to considerably cut and reshape the armed forces by taking risks in certain areas to transform others,” he noted.

The boost of several billion pounds per year should probably be used to fill the gaps in ammunition and other weapons, infrastructure and logistics stocks, and in favor of personnel, remuneration and recruitment conditions, he said.

But to make “radical additions rather than military capacities”, it will require major choices on the early retirement of capacities or reductions of figures, “he said.

“Defense has already been here in terms of promise new capacities prescribed by the early loss of others due to budgetary pressure.”