Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned Europe must shift away from “overdependence” on the United States and towards “interdependence”, calling for a more European-led NATO underpinned by deeper UK-EU defence and industrial cooperation.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned European leaders that the continent must take far greater responsibility for its own security, arguing that Europe needs to move away from “overdependence” on the United States and towards a new model of “interdependence”.
Speaking during a major address at the Munich Security Conference, Starmer said the security environment had shifted dramatically and that European states could no longer treat war as a distant concern. He warned that Russia’s aggression was now being felt across the continent through disinformation, cyber-attacks and sabotage, alongside its ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Starmer argued that Europe must respond with a step change in military readiness and defence industrial cooperation, saying hard power had become “the currency of the age”. He said European states must be able to deter aggression and, if required, be ready to fight to protect their populations and values.
The Prime Minister described the United States as an “indispensable power” and said its contribution to European security over the past 80 years was unparalleled. However, he said Europe needed to recognise that Washington now expected Europeans to take primary responsibility for their own defence, and warned that the continent must adapt accordingly.
Starmer rejected the idea that Europe could simply replace American capabilities, but argued that European security required a long-term shift in investment and cooperation. He said Europe should focus on reducing dependencies and building deeper coordination between allies, describing this as a move from “over-dependence to interdependence” and part of a wider effort to build a more European-led NATO.
He also criticised what he described as inefficiency and duplication in European defence procurement, pointing to the wide range of equipment types in service across the continent. Starmer said Europe operated more than 20 types of frigate, 10 types of fighter aircraft and over 10 types of main battle tank, describing this as “wildly inefficient” and harmful to collective security.
Starmer argued that the war in Ukraine had demonstrated the need for faster and more coordinated action, and warned that Russia was continuing to re-arm and rebuild its industrial base despite heavy losses. He cited NATO assessments that Russia could be ready to use military force against the Alliance by the end of the decade, warning that even a peace deal in Ukraine would not automatically reduce the threat to Europe.
The Prime Minister also called for deeper UK-EU cooperation across defence, industry, technology and the wider economy, describing this as central to strengthening European security. He said the UK was “not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore” and argued that turning inward would amount to surrender in a dangerous world.
Starmer warned that European leaders must be prepared to make difficult decisions and build public consent for increased defence spending and rearmament, arguing that political hesitation could allow extremist voices to fill the vacuum. He said the “status quo is not fit for purpose” and insisted Europe must act together to deliver a stronger defence posture.
I’ll give Starmer his due, he sure can speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! Show us your DIP, man, and we’ll decide which side to believe.
I agree, this is the same shit the last government did, talk a good game then fail to pay up. It’s now February, the DIP was suppose to be published in August. There is no longer even a mention of it anymore in government circles.
If Starmer wants to change the narrative away from Mandelson and to shine a clear light of the populism of the greens and reform then the DIP needs to be published quickly. Otherwise he is just as full of shit as Farrage and Polanski.
Pretty much that.
The last government did actually order T26, T31 and Solids Support. As well as ordering the 48 F35B and having a budget line for the ~74 and starting GCAP.
This government has cut lots of things but failed to start any large projects.
last government was in for 14 years, they “started” many things just never figured out how to pay for them.
Not enough but they be better than the labour government before and after
👍
Anyone with a brain knew this decades ago!
So what has Starmer & co done about it so far. Basically nothing. All mouth and no trousers. UK needs to put its money where its mouth is. Else it should learn to sit quietly on the sidelines.
Fine words, but empty without a plan & budget to rapidly build a bigger Army, Navy, Air force & everything else needed for modern warfare. £35 billion found to further fund Ukraine, that’s good. Now we need extra funding & sorting out tortuous equipment programs for our own forces. Leaving the forces languishing at all time lows is nothing like the speaches portray. It is treacherous to siort change all our allies with abysmal force levels & soul destroying for those serving. Talk is cheap. Get off your knees & start walking.
35 billion is dirt cheap. War is an expensive business. How much to you seriously think wide scale war in Europe is going to cost? Dead people tend to concentrate the mind. Especially if they are yours.
…short change…
Getting to 2.6% is a good start, but that extra could be swallowed fixing the issues with our current force structure and manning levels. Pay/accommodation. Sorting out the RFA, submarine maintenance backlog, get the deterrent patrols back down to a more sustainable 3/4 month cycle. fast jet pilot training, aircraft engineer numbers, A new fast jet trainer/Red Arrows replacement. And that’s just a tiny part of a long list of requirements and capabilitys that need attention before we can even think about expansion in any areas.
Too true.
The new RAF trainer is critical. As are more fast jets. However clever RAF is at force generation with the existing ~150 airframes: more frames and more effectors are needed.
Everyone wants to replace the USA but nobody wants to be the replacement.
Since at least the 1990s, and really going back to the Cold War, successive US administrations have pressed European NATO members to spend more and reduce reliance on American capabilities. The pressure ramped up after the 2014 Wales 2% pledge and again very publicly under Trump, but this debate is hardly new. It has never been just about headline spending either. It is also about capability gaps, readiness, ammunition stockpiles and high end enablers that Europe still relies heavily on the US to provide. Thankfully, due to pressure from Trump, members have now agreed to 3.5% on core defence spending, but there is still a lack of urgency from most.
If these warnings, a full scale attrition war on the continent and an increasingly unpredictable world aren’t enough, then what exactly is this government waiting for? Starmer can lecture other leaders all he wants. Some are already massively increasing defence spending. Others are still dragging their feet, but that’s ultimately down to them. A speech from him won’t change that. This government can’t be blamed for all of the defence cuts that started in the 1990s, but we’re coming up to two years now, so what have they tangibly delivered for the armed forces so far?
Right now, Russia is the direct and immediate threat to NATO. European NATO members should be in a position where deterring Russia without the US is a no brainer, but the panic from leaders recently is a result of underinvestment over the years. While Europe is focused on the immediate threat, the US is looking at the bigger picture and long term challenges. Analysts and NATO strategists have long highlighted China as the principal long term strategic challenge. The alliance has repeatedly noted that Beijing’s technological, economic and military ambitions, from advanced military and emerging technologies to supply chain influence and global power projection, pose systemic challenges going forward. As soon as the war in Ukraine ends, a lot of the focus, especially public focus, will shift back to China just like before the war.
Empty words has usual .He makes these speeches to other nations and at the same he does nothing for our own defence but cut and won’t invest more money in the defence budget .Now he knows he can’t hide behind our American friend’s no more so he’s telling Europe to do more so he can hide behind them and no intention of increasing British forces or buying more ship’s ,Aircraft, Tanks etc .And this morning on the news the foreign Secretary saying were jointly building Frigiters with Norway ,when in reality been built in the UK and when finish going strait two the Norwegian navy making the RN wait and make do with the Type23 . OR is she just clueless like she was in her former job .
So we are ‘Hiding behind our European friends’, are we?
Today’s NATO figures do not bear out your claim. Defence spending as a % of GDP among the 5 main countries reads:
UK: 2.4%
France: 2.05%
Italy: 2.01%
Germany: 2.0%
Spain: 2.0%
Hi Cripes the figures you show is no were near enough to be honest I don’t really care about other countries defence budget although it all helps to give NATO more Punch. However I do really care about our Defence budget there’s talk of it going to 3•5% and then 5% by 2030 .Today’s news they was talk about the Starmer government bringing defence spending forward .Personnel I don’t think he will but hope I’m wrong .When I related to hide behind European nations in my former post, I mean by this Starmer will look at what resources they have and rely heavily on them so he doesn’t have put more money in the defence pot. Absolutely by no means do I mean our forces , believe me I know this one and I did say STARMER quite clearly .IT’S time for him to stop talking the talk and walk the walk .But if you think our budget is fine then good luck .
while I agree with the premise, that’s rich coming from Starmer who announced the acquisition F35A with B61 nukes just a few months back.
plenty in Europe have been saying the same, but it’s contradicted by their actions ie DK and Belgium recently announcing procurement of additional F35, all this AFTER the Greenland debacle.
actions speak louder than words, so we will see.
words will have to backed up with £ for defence
I expect all of the other leaders were thinking ‘well go on then!’.
This government seem not to realise that while they have been dithering a lot of our allies have simply got on with increasing spending and quite a few of them have left the UK behind. We are no longer in a position of strength relative to European NATO even in the maritime domain, which is terrible.
The die was cast on the maritime mess back in the 1990’s with the delays to GCS and T II class of submarines.
We also have a staggering level of sea blindness as a British culture.
Despite it being impossible to get more than a day’s drive from the sea the number of people my own age who just view the military as ‘army’, even among those who consider themselves politically and geopolitically aware. I think a not insignificant part of it comes of the fact that during the Cold War and ever since (for practically the first time ever) the professional army has been larger than the RN and consequently whenever media needs a soundbite there are more retired generals than retired admirals. So we get headlines and interviews moaning about the small size of the Army while the Navy is, in a very un-British way, relegated to a niche topic and the public sort of assumes that it’s all OK at sea.
There is also the civilian side. Except for those who have spent a significant amount of time around ports and the sea most young people just see Amazon warehouses and trucks on motorways and assume that trade is a luxury rather than a way of bringing in the things that keep people alive. Even when geography lessons went into the origins of food and clothing materials the maps just drew a great circle route into the centre of the UK, as if it all got flown in. And the railways are used less and less for cargo (at least where I live) so their significance as something more than convenient transportation is being forgotten.
appears to be a lack of awareness / interest in the population about the poor state of uk defence.
Mostly due to the American argument that vast defence spending gets in the way of healthcare, I think most people have a dim perception that defence is ~30% of government spending and thus assume everything is fine (because the headlines are about Navy spending which they assume is a small proportion of the military) when in reality it is ~7%.
Order a couple of extra aircraft carriers then, ohh yeah I forgot us and the Europeans have no interest in paying for it.
As others have said, go on then, put your money where your mouth is. Defence investment plan is on hold because it was ready end of last year but Starmer blocked it because he couldn’t fund it.
And what is the Labour government doing about it? Withdrawing the two LPDs, the Hercules, Argus, etc. without replacement, and so far not a single order for additional aircraft, ships, or tanks—a curious way of not depending on the United States.
🥱 Starmer, Pollard, Healey, Labour.
Words.
But Farage is a man of action 😂
😂😂
They’re all the same.
He’s not in power. He’s not the one crashing the economy or holding the purse strings
Farage is a great little yapper but he has never, ever delivered anything. When he was in the EU Parliament, he couldn’t even be bothered to turn up to meetings unless he could use the forum to grandstand to the crowd and burnish his own reputation.
He’s just another Boris Johnson in that he’s very, very lazy and so love the sound of his own voice.
If he’s then solution to our problems, we’re doomed because he has no little interest (and even less ability) to do anything about them.
And no, I am not a fan of Starmer either.
Several European states are drastically increasing their military readiness, despite the expense- particularly the Poles and the Baltic states. Starmer’s government…not so much. And complaining about the varied different warship classes that different nations field is just stupid- they all build ships to meet their own national requirements, and this is not a problem for the alliance as long as they practice interoperability. If anything- a range of different platforms hedges against exploitable single points of failure.
Put our money where your mouth is PM!
In real terms – Defence spending is being cut.
BBC reporting that Starmer Is indicating bringing forward the 3% target to 2029, to boost the military now.
Let’s hope so.
I’ve seen that too, it does look like Starmer genuinely wants to increase spending.
It just feels at the moment like the decisions aren’t really up to him. There was an interesting paper recently called the ‘say-do gap’ which outlines a lot of the Treasury concerns about rapidly ramping up Defence.
Yes, saw that. His Munich speech also referred to ‘faster’ increases in spending. Finding the money and getting his left wing MPs on board will be the issue. Cutting the exorbitant SEND spending would be a good start: local authorities being ripped off by private provision.
That would be great, but it’s chatter behind the scenes for now. I didn’t watch any of the speeches, so I didn’t see Starmer’s ‘powerful’ speech. You would have thought that, if it was definitely going to happen, he would have loved announcing it in Munich. I don’t watch much TV in general, only when the F1 season is on. I did get into curling for a bit, though, and ‘strangely’ found myself backing the Italian team… 👩🏻🔧
3% by 2029 is still a substantive real terms cut
Even assuming high defence‑specific inflation, nominal spending from 2.3 % of GDP today to 3 % by 2029 should comfortably outpace cost increases.
O.7% increase over 3 years will outpace inflation!
That’s Racheal Reeves standard economics 🤣
🫣🤣
Is this Diane Abbott??
It’s not just a 0.7 % increase — that’s looking at the percentage of GDP in isolation. Moving from 2.3 % to 3 % of GDP over four years represents a 30 % increase in nominal funding.
The wait for the DIP has become a major point of friction between the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, and the UK’s Defence Industry. Originally promised for Summer 2025 alongside the SDR, it has been pushed back several times and is now tentatively expected in March 2026.
The delay essentially boils down to three “battles” happening behind the scenes.
Battle Number One. (Please read that as BATT-le… NUM-ber… WUUUHN! Bottom-heavy, not shouted from the throat but projected from your diaphragm, you got it.)
… any way, the “Black Hole” vs the “Fiscal Rules”.
The most significant hurdle is the reported £28 billion funding gap over the next four years.
The conflict here is that while Treasury is insisting that the DIP must be “fully costed” within existing fiscal rules, there is a push from Number 10 to potentially loosen fiscal rules specifically for defence investment, allowing the government to borrow more to fund major projects.
The delay is waiting game with the Gov. holding off the DIP until the Spring Spending Review in March to see if the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts provide enough ‘headroom’ to announce the 2.5% GDP spending path without breaking the bank. (… “a sudden, audible catch of breath rippled across the crowd.”)
Battle Number Two. The high-stakes procurement decisions. The DIP isn’t just a strategy document; it’s a shopping list. The government is currently paralyzed by three massive, undecided contracts.
– The new medium helicopter, Leonardo is the last bidder standing. The government must decide before March when Leonardo’s bid expires, whether to commit £1 billion or scrap it.
– Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP/Tempest) there are ongoing debates about whether the UK can afford this sixth-generation fighter alone, find further investors or if it needs to scale back. For me GCAP is a must, but it can’t become a money pit. (i can’t imagine it being mismanaged like everything GDGB touches.)
– Sovereign vs. Off-the-Shelf, apparently there is some internal tension over whether to buy British to support jobs or buy cheaper, “off-the-shelf” equipment from the US like Lockheed Martin’s Skynet 6 bid, which would be faster but damage the UK industrial base. (considering the state of the UK’s piggy bank, buying OTS US kit might need to go on for a bit longer for certain items.)
Battle Number Three. The “Segmented” Reform.
Luke Pollard, recently announced a new “segmented approach” to procurement, which is set to launch on April 1. The redesigning of how the MoD buys gear, splitting it into –
“Major Platforms” with a 2-year cycle.
“Upgrades” with a 1-year cycle.
“Digital/AI” with a 3-month cycle.
The Gov. argues they can’t release the DIP until this new system is ready to handle the money. 🤭
Critics, however, argue this is just “admin-shuffling” to mask the lack of actual funds. (Oh! wtaf … that’s news to me … “no funds” you say.)
Key dates to watch.
March 3, 2026 – Spring Budget & OBR Forecast (This will likely determine the “affordability” of the DIP). 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞
Late March 2026 – The current “soft” deadline for the DIP’s release.🤞🤞
April 1, 2026 – Launch of the new procurement reform system.🤞
Informative post. Thx.
Last I looked GCAP is a three way split.
April 1st…….
Interestingly it’s now being reported that starmer wants to move up fast on the 3% of GDP for defence by 2029 ( the end of the Parliament and not by the. Ext Parliament ).. it seems our Kiera may actually mean what he says.. the issue seems to be treasury “ reluctance”..with some interesting debates in cabinet.
One wonders if the treasury can in anyway consider and conceptualise risk beyond the in year budget.
I can’t wait to rely on the French when everything kicks off. History has shown us how quick they surrender.
Were the periods when the French conquered most of Europe not taught in your school?!
Fully agree Robert. There is an extra £13bn in the defence budget, which is very handy and may enable us to plug some of the legacy underfunding gaps in service pay, housing and infrastructure, and tackle some of the backlog of gapped and elderly equipment that is due for replacement. I very much doubt that there will be enough to cover the current long list of new equipment planned, let alone the full leap envisaged into transformational unmanned systems.
There is certainly no chance of increasing force levels or adding more new goodies on a defence budget of 2.5% of GDP, not when it has to include the massive cost of defence nuclear, which consumes nearly as much of the procurement budget as the three single services together.
BBC reports today that HMG is looking at ways of increasing defence spend further. The chances of extra money being swiped from other departments to pay for defence is slender, it would into a wall of opposition from the electorate. Borrowing money for an instant boost to equipment procurement, like the EU’s SAFE fund, looks the only realistic route. But the Treasury is likely to push back on that as it would threaten the fiscal rules and might spook the markets.
Yes apparently Starmer wants to move to 3% before the end of the parliament and not in the next parliament.. it would make a proud difference if that happens.. apparently the treasury is not as usual keen.. so we will see.. but it it was 3% by the end of the parliament 29/30.. that would be huge.
Meanwhile the UK Defence Chiefs are apparently being required to present plans for immediate “deep cuts” to plug a £5 bn p.a. gap in the defence budget. I must admit to wondering how a gap of that size has emerged despite some extra money over the last five years, combined with an approximately 10% reduction (far more by some measures) in the size of the armed forces over the same period. Dreadnought and the Defence Nuclear Organisation seems to becoming a NHS like black hole that keeps asking for more more more, at a devastating cost to conventional forces.
One major problem that we tend to overlook is the black hole in the defence budget, a legacy from the previous government. It was reported, Public Accounts Cttee or NAO IIRC, as £17bn two or three years ago, so probably £18bn now due to inflation.
I think this may include.the oddball spending estimate that the RN put in, which was a wishlist that didn’t bear any resemblance to their budget, which led to no finished defence budget forecast for that year.
%18bn or anything like it wipes out all the new money on the table.
.
Even the NAO doesn’t have full visibility of MOD budgets. I know this first hand, in 2005/6 I was employed by the NAO to review MOD major projects. I had the required security clearances but the MOD still refused to cooperate, so I spent 18 boring months twiddly my fingers before moving to a new job.
The thing we forget about NHS spending is it’s essentially entirely linked to ageing.. as we keep ageing and life expectancy grows so the NHS bill grows exponentially.. the big difference between 1980 and 2025 is an extra decade of life up from about 72 to 82.. the problem is that is not healthy life due to changes in lifestyle it’s an extra decade of unhealthy life created by incredibly expensive medical interventions..
So between the ages of 30-60 costs are around £1500 per person.. then from 65 they rise to£3000 per person and in your 70-80s is more like £8000 per person by the time you hit 85 your healthcare costs are 7 times more expensive than an under 65 person..with the last year of life costing over £40,000
The percent of those over 70 in 1980 was 8% of the population now it’s 15% and within 40 years it will be 21%…
It is a terrible truth we have to face if we all want a life expectancy in the 80s then we will need to pay more and more and more.. because a population that dies at 70 is cheap for every year over 70 we each cost a fortune in government expenditure.
Trump is like a songbird, forcing the chicks out the nest so they’ll grow up
Except that’s not what he’s doing is it.
He’s cutting US defence expenditure to win domestic votes, he foesn’t care tuppence about the allied defence of Europe or anywhere else.
He hates the EU with a passion, because it is a roadblock to untrammelled US hegemony. This because Europe has the wotld’s second highest GDP, ahead of China and not far behind the USA, has a population 50%.larger than the US and is committed to the rule of international law and the UN, rather than a dictatorial Trumpian might-is-right philosophy. So Europe is too big to be bullied by him and too versed in history to be impressed by his rambling antics.
So Europe is under attack from the Trump gang. They would love Europe to be a collection.of independent states with no EU, so they are more vulnerable to US bullying and of course US sales. Hence their support for Brexit and the oddball nationalist, anti EU gang of Orban, Fico and… Putin of course, anyone who wants to break up European economic, financial and political unity and strength.
He is just leading the US public over a cliff. We have to hope they will wake up by the Midterms…
.
are you serious, the EU almost confiscated russia assets, and would have done so if belgium hadn’t got cold feet, it’s also true they have frozen russian assets for a political reason, that’s against international law, i.e. they don’t give a monkeys about a rules based under, unless it suits them to
i’d agree, the US sees the EU negatively, and so do many other countries, it is after all a trading bloc which spouts free trade but exists behind a massive tariff wall
there’s no doubt trump has an agenda to force the european’s to take more responsibility fot their own defence, even the european see that now, why do you think rutte called him ‘daddy’, i stand by my analogy, you’d see it if you weren’t so obviously full of hate yourself
Why do you label objective, informed criticism as ‘hate’? It is such a dull MAGA way of dealing with things they don’t care to hear.
What Trump has inadvertently done is stir up Europe and turn it from a willing, supportive ally into a future economic, political and military rival, of considerable size and weight. That will be a fine legacy.from his presidency.
why do you lable projecting negative emotions onto somebody as ‘objective’, is it because liberal’s can only deal with two dimensional problems ?
what trump has done is made the europeans realise they have to be responsible for their own defence, and he’s had to take a more forthright approach than during his last tenure to make them understand, in the long run this is to both the US’s and europe’s benefit, europe will never be a military rival unless they’re prepared to build a massive nuclear arsenal, neither will they be an economic rival, understand the US needs to be economically strong to maintain it’s military might, it will certainly be an alliance of more equal partners, but the US will remain the dominant partner for the forseeable future, so i stand by my analogy
do you understand now ?