The United Kingdom and United States must actively manage their evolving geopolitical priorities if they are to preserve and strengthen their longstanding defence and security partnership, according to a new report by the Council on Geostrategy.
The publication argues that while both allies continue to recognise common threats—including rising military coordination between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—differences in regional focus and strategic priorities risk undermining the coherence of the so-called ‘special relationship’.
The report is supported by senior voices from both countries. Former UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon and retired US Admiral Harry Harris both issue forewords, calling for a more deliberate effort to modernise the alliance for what Fallon describes as “the new geopolitical age that we must face together”.
The report notes that while the UK remains heavily focused on Russian aggression in the Euro-Atlantic, US attention is increasingly dominated by the Indo-Pacific and the military and technological challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China. This divergence is not necessarily problematic, the report finds, but must be actively managed if the alliance is to remain strategically effective.
“The alliance can prosper even if we prioritise different theatres,” said Dr John Hemmings, Deputy Director for Geopolitics at the Council. “I’m less sure it will prosper if we disagree on our adversaries. At the end of the day, this is core.”
In outlining a path forward, the report calls for deeper collaboration on military production, rare earths supply chains, and emerging technology regulation, while also urging both governments to maintain flexible regional strategies and enhance defence industrial cooperation.
Among the key areas of convergence identified are shared concerns over the limits of globalisation, the re-emergence of great power competition, and the need to rebuild defence industrial capacity. These shared factors provide a strong foundation for renewed cooperation, the authors argue.
Sir Michael Fallon warns that the UK must be prepared to shoulder more of the burden in NATO if the US is drawn further into Indo-Pacific contingencies. “Britain needs to be ready to increase its commitments… if and when any American troops and assets are more urgently required to defend their own homeland,” he writes.
Admiral Harris, formerly Commander of US Pacific Command and later Ambassador to South Korea, adds that the alliance should not be taken for granted. “Geopolitical shifts, technological advancements and economic realignments… necessitate a reassessment of the traditional dynamics between America and Britain.”
The authors conclude that, despite the growing pressures of global competition, the UK and US remain each other’s most important allies into the 2030s. The challenge now is to update the relationship to ensure it remains fit for purpose in an era of accelerating geopolitical change.
Assuming the UK does increase military spending to 3.5% of GDP we are going to end up with quite a substantial force. Running a back of the fag packet calculation that might equate to something like over 350 fast jets, 30+ surface combatants and an army back to 120,000.
Given the low recruitment numbers and difficulty retaining people nowadays I’m not convinced we can spend as much as 3.5% of GDP without some form of draft.
I don’t know it depends on focus…because we have some areas of we really need to work up hard
Just capital wise
1) the conversational strategic deterrent.. we do need lots of long range missiles.. the ability to fling stuff and hurt Russia is a huge requirement.. those 2000km+ missiles are going to costs a fortune…7000 long range cruise missiles.. that’s 15-20billion
2) air defend including ballistic missile defence.. they have put 1 billion down but a worthwhile one will be a good 5-10 billion
3) surface fleet.. the plans are there to get it to 19 again.. but it needs to be 30+ that’s another 5-10 billion
4) an extra 5 SSNs over present numbers.. and replacement for 12 total.. your looking at 50million
5) nuclear arsenal expansion and rebuilding 15 billion..but I bet they will need to double the size of the stockpile so another 15 billion on top…
Essentially you can eat 100billion in extra capital costs before you get to the RAF and 6th generation fighters or the army. Tempest has a 12 billion budget to replace around 100 typhoons.. so if you say purchase another 70 f35 that’s 7-8 billion and then if you double the tempest order to 200 your looking at about 32 billion in fast jet recapitalisation… that’s a lot. To be honest I would be happy with 6 F35 squadrons and 6 tempest squadrons.. for around 250 fast jets.
Sure but worth remembering that according to the government all the extras like 12 SSN’s and 7000 cruise missiles where factored in on a spending profile of 2.5% raising to maybe 3%. Also a large part of our spending 0.3% is going on Ukraine aid which won’t last forever.
You could be looking at something close to a doubling in core military spending over a sustained period but having an inability to double the manpower.
We already have one of the highest equipment spends in the world.
Important to avoid the same kind of cluster f**k we had with DFID were they were pissing money up the wall to spend the 0.7% each year. We also need to avoid becoming uncompetitive like US defence contractors.
There is only so much stuff a service based economy with full employment can actually make. 1.5% of GDP extra that we have now committed to is an insane sum of money £45 billion a year. That would pay for the entire Trident renewal program in 1 year. You could replace every fast jet in the RAF every 6 months with that amount of money. You could buy a new Queen Elizabeth carrier class each month.
It’s an interesting paper that highlights one key point.. the utter and catastrophic failure of Neoliberal economic models in combating a Mercantile power. Essentially the mixture of a Nationalist Communist state that is willing to engage in a Mercantile approach completely negates the Neoliberal free market approach.. basically the free market globalisation only works amongst peer free market states that are willing to have some form of baseline rule set….
The paper at its core recommends the ending of the Neoliberal free market and that western Nations adopt a mercantile approach to the rest of the world and only have a free market approach in the west and internally … this is actually a big problem for the UK as it has a very limited internal mark..and essentially the EU and US have an advantage of large internal markets with a great deal of built in protections ..this is an essential point of possible divergence between the UK US and EU and does need addressing or the Uk will be forced to fully engage with china and its satellite markets to stay viable..the Uk either sacrifices its own economy, retains its globalist approach ( so strengthening the authoritarian Mercantile states ) or the EU and US need for give around free markets. This is essentially the same for nations such as Japan, Canada, NewZealand, Australia and Korea.. their need for markets essentially bleeds the west and strengthens the authoritarian Mercantile states.. only the US and EU can answer this by dropping the protectionism in their large markets.
The other interesting point raised is strategic divergence between European nations and the U.S.It is actually helpful in that it highlights that US Pacific tilt is not really about getting pissed of with Europe ( although US political systems play it that way) its the fact that the U.S. can no long look both east and west and expect to win.. it makes it very clear that there is a very good chance the US will be in an existential war and it will need every resource it has to fight in the pacific if that happens.. essentially the US cannot both participants in Europe and fight china.. it is essentially because the U.S. has now hit the same point the British empire did.. it cannot protect all its areas of interest. And the UK and rest of Europe needs take over Europe.
Now this is where I disagree with the paper a bit because it essentially says the UK needs to be everything the US needs in a partner and I simply believe it’s unrealistic for the UK to do everything in the paper. The paper basically states that the UK needs to fill the leadership void in European NATO, and focus on the wider global picture such as sea control in the western Indian Ocean as well as support the U.S. in the pacific..
So leadership in NATO from the UK ? it also says that Germany and Poland need to take on responsibility for land security of the western NATO border.. now I’m sorry I don’t for a second think the power houses of the EU will take on responsibility for western border security and then say OK let’s have the UK provide the leadership.. not happening, when the U.S. pulls its resources from Europe to the pacific leadership in Europe will pass to the EU.. I think anything else is a fairytale..yes the UK and US may not want that.. but Germany, France, Poland, Italy etc will insist. So in regards to leadership in European nato I think it will be based around the EU and the UK will get to Co-ordination of the artic and leading on North Atlantic security…I suspect the French will end up with the Mediterranean and North Africa as their lead area. But the heart will be the EU.
As for the rest.. it does not much mention France and Italy in regards to the Indian Ocean.. but I suspect the UK,France and Italy will need to work together around the Indian Ocean and what that looks like. Finally UK involvement in the pacific… this is beginning to really stress things a bit and I honestly think the UK may need to pull back and say not something we can be involved in..if the UK has to lead in the north, lead in the North Atlantic as well as secure its significant interests in the south Atlantic as well as be a major European player in the Indian Ocean it does not have enough to be in the pacific…
Essentially I think this gives a picture of what a new NATO needs looks like.. essentially a liberal democracy club that supports and looks to enhanced strength through protectionist trade within itself and a profoundly mercantile approach outside. But with an understanding that different parts of the Alliance focus on different area.. Most of Europe focused in on the eastern border.. the U.S. focused on western border, with the UK focused on the northern seas and oceans, supporting the wider Indian Ocean mission and its own south Atlantic requirements.. but with that understanding comes the fact the US will not get significant support in the pacific from Europe and the European nations will not get significant support…not because of a falling out or unwillingness to support but because we need to accept and acknowledge that NATO has two borders a half a world apart and it’s just not strategically viable for NATO nations to focus on the border that is an ocean away from them. That is also a NATO that you could invite the liberal pacific powers into ( a sort of NAPTO)..personally I think an extended Atlantic/Pacific alliance..with set areas of responsibility may be the only way to go with increased Chinese, Russian mutual support.
Who remembers that DIY Stencil rubbing art, you know, the one where you had a blank background like a Zoo and you rubbed a pencil on the back of an animal transfer ?
I used to love adding different animals to a Zoo theme.
Looks like the Nimitz is finished, now for the QE. Shall we add Harriers ? how about some “Sea Typhoons”, or “Tomcats” ?
Look, It’s Friday, It’s been a long week and I’ve had too much Sun.