A recent report, The Strategic Defence Review, Britain and Sea Power, published by the Council on Geostrategy, argues for a renewed focus on British sea power as a cornerstone of both national security and economic stability.
Authored by Dr Emma Salisbury and James Rogers, the report advocates for a “NATO-first” defence posture, aligning with the current Labour government’s commitment to fortifying the UK’s role within the Atlantic alliance.
The report notes that “the sea power remains central to the national effort,” especially given Britain’s reliance on maritime trade and secure sea routes. Salisbury and Rogers highlight that approximately 95% of British trade by volume is conducted by sea, underscoring the necessity of a robust naval presence to safeguard these routes against disruptions from piracy or geopolitical tensions.
The report highlights, “For an island nation such as the UK, the sea is a critical lifeline for the economy,” stressing that sea power is essential not only for economic growth but also for fulfilling the Net Zero agenda due to the UK’s extensive offshore wind infrastructure.
This map, from the #SeaPowerLaboratory‘s new #Primer by @james_rogers @salisbot shows how 🇬🇧 is ideally positioned to be a #maritime leader in #NATO 👇https://t.co/ANIIZS7fGX pic.twitter.com/NQ96RzEW2S
— Council on Geostrategy (@ConGeostrategy) November 6, 2024
From a security perspective, the report describes a “NATO-first approach” as critical for collective defence in an increasingly volatile global environment, with particular reference to Russia’s activities. Salisbury and Rogers point out that, despite the strain on Russian land and air forces due to the conflict in Ukraine, Russia’s naval assets, particularly its submarines, remain largely operational. “The UK’s ability to project naval strength and conduct anti-access/area denial operations is paramount to countering Russia’s naval capabilities,” they assert, pointing out the need for continued investment in submarines and maritime patrol aircraft.
The report also calls for increasing the UK’s defence budget to 2.5% of GDP, aiming to improve readiness and coordination among the armed forces. It highlights the significance of the Royal Navy within NATO’s deterrence framework, noting that sea power can rapidly respond to crises and protect vital infrastructure, both at home and abroad. “Naval assets can deter threats to the homeland, important infrastructure, and to allies and partners,” Salisbury and Rogers explain, adding that a robust navy reinforces the UK’s commitment to NATO’s deterrence posture.
Recognising the need for a comprehensive maritime strategy, the report introduces the Council on Geostrategy’s “Sea Power Laboratory,” which will act as a forum to “increase awareness of the importance of sea power to Britain’s national enterprise.” This initiative, according to the Council, will bring together stakeholders from various sectors to generate fresh ideas and challenge traditional approaches to maritime policy.
Salisbury and Rogers argue, “The Sea Power Laboratory will act as a marketplace of ideas, fostering an environment to challenge outmoded ideas, generate new thinking, and ultimately feed it into the policymaking process.”
In conclusion, the report reinforces that “sea power provides the UK with the flexibility to respond rapidly to crises, whether military or humanitarian,” advocating for a whole-of-nation approach to strengthen Britain’s maritime strategy in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
If the current defence budget is running at 2.2-2.3% GDP, is going to 2.5% GDP going to make any difference in real terms? It should be 3.0% GDP minimum.
It will make a difference but you are right that it needs to be more.
I think we need to put aside the GDP benchmark for good. It does us no favours.
As long as NATO use it then I can’t see it changing. News from the US may mean we end up at 2.5% sooner than would have been the case.
Yep, if the economy was to shrink then any government could claim still to have increased in defence spending by % of GDP.
I would put 3% as a minimum. Not going to happen, but we can’t trust the US any more and Europe has to be considered fragile. The army is a ridiculous size, conventional naval component is inadequate and the air force is barely acceptable in terms of size.
I will be amazed if we get anywhere near 2.5 per cent this side of 2030 and with our foreign secretary personally attacking Trump, along with the mayor of London and umpteen Labour MP’s doing the same, I don’t see much help coming from that direction. Lammy is more dangerous than the Russians.
The FS attacked Trump years ago, yes stupid but more history than Vance describing him as Hitler. As for the Mayor he was the one who has been regularly attacked by Trump and his ass sniffers and in a deeply offensive racist manor. How many insults does this Country have to take before we actually grow a pair stop laying down and apologising, I mean seriously Trumps treatment of Teresa May was disgracefully disrespectful and one thing is certain the only people he has ever shown remote respect for are those who do indeed stand up to him.
Our geographic position and international relationships have led our defence posture over five centuries. The sea is where our power can count. Such a conclusion as this report comes to is merely re-stating an obvious historical reality.
Yep.
RN, RAF, Intelligence community first.
That does not mean I want to see the Army whittled away to fund it or any further drop from 73K. The Army is still needed at at least 2 Division strength, with one of those for the main front facing Russia and the other for both expeditionary operations further afield, in conjunction with the RN and the RAF who would put them there, or on NATO flanks like Finland Norway.
In short, HMG need to spend more money to fund this.
I predict they will not.
We’ll be lucky to see two fully equipped brigades, never mind divisions. Your three priorities though are perfectly correct. We do at least have the foundations with the RN and the RAF to move forward.
Well we have 4 Brigades rather than the 6 I would like to see, as the other 2 are incomplete. And that can be fixed by a few adjustments in 4 Brigade and a restructure of 1 Bde. Both are doable if the Army stops going round in circles and re organises itself internally and sticks to a plan, and if HMG fund the incremental increases in a few key areas. I have no faith in the ability of either at this time. I’d remind readers that even after the dreadful 2010 cuts the Army with its A2020 set up… Read more »
True but how long would those ships last without serious aircover.
Predict the AUKUS defence partnership will become an increasingly important feature of UK/US “special relationship” during the course of the next US administration. Regardless of his views re NATO, The Donald will avidly support any measure which constrains the PRC, thus AUKUS will prove to be the Trump (😁) card in intergovernmental relations. RN could be enroute to a historic expansion of SSN flotilla quality and quantity. 🤔
Could be but unlikely.
Well there is that way of looking at it or there is the concern that a Man who came to power on the meme of America First and others indeed America Only, and thinks tariffs is the sweetest word in the World, then how does he feel about loosening ITAR which is vital to any success of AUKUS developments moving forward. His support for Taiwan is very up to debate currently so whether he sees Australia as just another hanger on rather than a vital protector of the southern flank.
Just wanting more of everything isn’t very useful. But at least the article recognizes that Russian submarines remain a major threat. On current plans, UK will have at most- * 8 ASW frigates * 9 Poseidon * 7 SSNs. Russia has over 57 full size submarines both nuclear and diesel. UK resources are far too small to counter this threat. NATO first is an improvement on Tilt to the Pacific but we are building T31s whose declared purpose is to be globally forward deployed, replacing or augmenting the OPVs. They have no ASW capability, unlike the original Danish design. China… Read more »
+3 replacements for Sterling Castle
+2 replacements for Proteus
+ 6 German SSKs
Take your point but as things stand the threat from Russia and China while not totally tied at the hip yet are still pretty much two flanks of the same developing World conflict. Whatever their differences they, with their allies are intent on crushing the west beyond it surviving as a tame market for their goods and leaving the US as an increasingly isolated island it can eventually ignore. Russias aim is to increase its power and influence through fear and disagreement in Europe while both want to weaken western resolve and unity to achieve that longer term aim. Literally… Read more »
The collapse in the numbers of RN minesweepers/hunters over the last 30 years is a worry.
If NATO is to survive the return of Trump, significant defence spending uplifts will be required from most members. That means Starmer will need to pull his finger out and get to 2.5% ASAP.