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.
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.
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. 🤔