A major Defence Committee report released today raises persistent concerns about the UK’s force structure, readiness and ability to meet core NATO obligations, including the Article 3 requirement to “maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
The committee argues that the UK’s diminishing mass, slow delivery of promised capabilities and failure to resource homeland defence programmes place both national security and alliance credibility at risk.
The report sits within a broader warning about the UK’s ability to defend its homeland and overseas territories. It concludes that the UK remains a leading European military power, but that leadership is increasingly fragile because the UK and its European allies “have failed to invest in critical capabilities and remain over reliant on the US.” Committee chair Tan Dhesi MP says “we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand,” citing Russian aggression, disinformation and repeated airspace incursions. He argues that readiness must now be treated as a priority and that the UK should lead efforts to replace US capabilities if Washington steps back.
Alongside these themes, the report’s NATO section highlights specific structural weaknesses. The committee notes that the UK holds 1,053 NATO posts, with “8% unfilled in mid 2025,” and that families deployed to NATO installations face “inconvenience and in some cases hardship,” including disrupted medical care and careers. It says the government’s stated NATO First posture cannot function without a stronger force base.
The conclusions are stark. The report states that witnesses pointed to “a lack of mass, delays in developing promised capabilities in line with NDPP timelines, and a failure by the UK to meet its Article 3 commitments.” It adds: “We were concerned to hear that the UK’s lack of mass is denuding its leadership in NATO.” It goes on to describe insufficient resourcing for Article 3 as “a further failure of leadership.”
Beyond NATO, the report criticises the sluggish progress of the Home Defence Programme, noting that work remains unfinished a year after its intended completion. It says cross government working on resilience is “nowhere near where it needs to be,” and describes Cabinet Office leadership as “inward focused.” It urges the government to publish a clear timetable and repeats calls for a Minister of Homeland Security.
To address the shortcomings, the committee recommends that the government set out how it will implement the Strategic Defence Review, publish annual updates, and provide classified briefings on NATO commitments. It says ministers must articulate a coherent plan to strengthen the defence industrial base and avoid over dependence on the United States. It also supports a national public engagement effort, arguing that “the public need to understand not only the necessity of defence but also their role in it.”
Dhesi frames the report as the committee’s foundational piece of work this parliament, saying it “should be a wake up call for the Ministry of Defence.”
Blimey, I thought it said “Stinking Mess” there for a brief moment.
Must wake up properly.
(double meaning in that one).
‘There is an unequivocal need for the UK to redouble its efforts within the Alliance and to step up its contribution to Euro-Atlantic security more broadly—particularly as Russian aggression across Europe grows and as the United States of America (US) adapts its regional priorities. The defining principle of this Review is therefore ‘NATO First’
‘Role 2: Deter and defend in the Euro-Atlantic: providing one of two Strategic Reserve Corps to NATO…The Army must modernise the two divisions and the Corps HQ that it provides to NATO as one of the Alliance’s two Strategic Reserves Corps (SRC). The SRC should be led by the Corps HQ (Allied Rapid Reaction Corps) and enabled by, and command, Corps-level capability.’
SDR 2025
Where are we, at the moment?
‘I can absolutely assure the Committee that we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time.’
Gen. Sir Patrick Sanders, H of C Defence Committee Oral evidence: Armed Forces Readiness, 7 November 2023
How much time do we have? If Ukraine crumbles, maybe two to three years….
What to do?
Drop net zero. The (modelled) assumptions upon which ‘net zero’ is based are very far from being scientifically evidenced in any case. At a conservative estimate, that will free up 1-2% of GDP immediately.
‘BEIS’s [the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s] own analysis find the costs to be 40% higher, at around £70bn per annum, but still within the annual cost envelope of 1–2% of GDP estimated by the Committee. On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of a trillion pounds.’
We know what to do with a 1-2% increase to the Defence spending because we have just had a Strategic Defence Review.
One word. Banjaxed. Because lack of political will and commitment by a succession of governments? Because of a lack of realistic vision, we are not a world power. The focus has to be Europe, the Atlantic and far north. When will people wake up to facts? I guess when Chicom ships are based in Murmansk.
The critical bit is cabinet office inward focussed.
The sole focus is on disguising how little is being done.
Nothing to see here, every thing is fine no problems triple the lethality by 2030, lots of projects and meetings and focus groups on it. No need to buy new kit or even get the stuff we ordered working properly its all good. We are ready for war. The out going CDS would not lie would he or bend the truth. By 2030 we will be ready we have service plans, a few ideas and some may be stuff lined up.
I can not see the problem, smaller army a lot less kit, saves money. job done.
FINALLY. This is FINALLY being talked about.
The Defence Committee have been producing reports like this for a decade. Nothing happens. Senior members of the military are still talking about balancing warnings with an obligation not to panic the people.
When will it be the right time for the people to panic?