As anger and disgust continues to grow about a Labour Prime Minister supporting cuts to chronically ill and disabled people’s benefits, Starmer now spreads fear in the minds of millions when launching his Strategic Defence Review (SDR).

He stated, “we face war in Europe…new nuclear risks, daily cyber-attacks… growing Russian aggression in our waters… menacing our skies.”

He thanked Lord Robertson, who was appointed to lead this SDR and was the man who initiated the SDR in 1998 for “delivering a blueprint to make Britain safer and stronger, a battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances”. Be very afraid of what he describes as “this moment of danger and threat for our country” because he wants to “mobilise the nation in a common cause…every part of society, every citizen of this country has a role to play.”

This is warmongering on an unprecedented scale by the worst Prime Minister we have ever known. As CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt made clear the government is “intent on worsening the crises…increasing nuclear threats does not make us safer…it channels hundreds of billions of public funds into arms companies and their shareholders pockets….it is absolutely urgent that voices calling for a halt to this reckless war drive are heard.”

But our voices will not be heard unless we make it happen.

The SDR makes it clear “As we reform Defence and increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, the SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK.”

That is deranged wishful thinking. Starmer is clearly wanting to please the President of the United States. But it will not be enough. Trump has stated that Europe must take care of its own defence needs and increase their arms spending to 5% so the US can shift its attention to China.

Starmer was very clear about what is going to happen “We are moving to warfighting readiness as the central purpose of our armed forces”

He wants to “build a fighting force that is more integrated, more ready, more lethal than ever” and as if that isn’t enough, he intends to “create an army which is ten times more lethal by 2035”.

The report also welcome’s Starmer’s launch of a national conversation on defence and security which “will involve two-years of series of public outreach events across the UK, explaining current threats and future trends, the role wider society must play in the UK’s security and resilience, and the rationale for investing more in defence and security as an insurance policy.

He is instructing the MOD to “Work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools and expand in-school and community-based Cadet Forces across the country by 30% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 250,000 in the longer term.”

If that is not enough, Starmer wants to speed up mass recruitment by drastically shortening the period between applicants expressing interest and joining. A more modern, accommodating approach is required, including “more flexible medical and fitness standards, reducing the number of pre-existing conditions that are a barrier to entry; and shorter commitments that give people a flavour of military careers, offering them a route in while building skills and experience they can take with them for life.”

It is a shameful disgrace that the UK is one of only fifteen countries in the world that still allows the military enlistment of children aged 16. We should be ending all recruitment of children for military purposes and not making it easier or compulsory.

Starmer is sending a clear message to the rest of the EU that they need to adopt similar proposals Trump is likely to welcome. There will be a grotesque push to embrace the 5% target by others in Europe.

John Healey the UK Defence Secretary failed to rule out tax rises to pay for Britain’s “war readiness” amid some concerns that the government does not have enough money to fund the plans already outlined in the SDR. He is clear the government will “set out how we’ll pay for future increases in the future” and he is “100 per cent confident” the target would be met.

Several economists are not convinced and have warned that significant tax rises will be needed. No Cold War Britain will argue strongly against any big increase in defence spending especially when public services are massively struggling and the number of children in poverty in the UK has reached its highest level since comparative records began in 2002. In the year to April 2024, there were 4.45 million children living in a household of relative low income after housing costs are deducted - the government's own standard measure for poverty.

‘Welfare Not Warfare’ must be our message as we pursue our agenda for peace and no more wars. Everyone needs to register their rejection of the Strategic Defence Review.

 The strategic weakness of the review is the primacy of a ‘NATO first’ strategy. With NATO dominated by the United States and its determination to maintain the US’s hegemonic position in the world this ‘NATO first’ policy has taken Britain into many aggressive wars, with or without NATO, over the last 40 years: including Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Ukraine, Palestine, Syria and Yemen. And Britain continues this aggressive military role at the behest of the US: its navy participating in ‘exercises’ in the South China Sea, its partnership in the nuclear based AUKUS pact, the U.K./Japan 2023 defence agreement, the sale of the Chagos islands to Mauritius while keeping the US/UK military base in Diego Garcia, a pivotal launch pad for their military actions.

Defence or Aggression

These wars and aggressions have caused massive destruction and the loss of millions of lives. Not one of these actions has been taken against a country that has attacked Britain, all have been acts of aggression. The UK’s subservience to the US, rather than charting a truly independent path and a peaceful approach globally, is central to the defence review.

The role the UK currently plays in Israel’s offensive against the Palestinians amply demonstrates the aggressive framework of UK policy – with the UK military providing assistance to Israel and the UK government ensuring the flow of supplies to the IDF.

Propaganda is needed to win support for increased military spending

This ‘NATO first’, subservience to the US approach has immensely damaging consequences for the U.K. domestically and for its standing globally. Falsification and propaganda are needed to try to win public support for a so called ‘defence strategy’ that includes the significant increases in military spending directed by Trump. Welfare spending and investment in infrastructure and economic development will be cut to meet these increases, industrial development will be distorted, there will be scant regard to the existential threat of climate change and living standards of the population will deteriorate. The assertion that greater military spending will boost the economy has almost no support among economists and is flatly contradicted by both empirical studies and historical experience. Moreover, the U.K. will be asked to make trade agreements contrary to its interests in support of the US foreign policy objectives. The UK’s ongoing military aggression will make both Britain and the world more vulnerable to risks and far less secure.

So, we have a ‘defence’ review when what is proposed is not ‘defence’ at all. Instead, military spending will be increased in order to continue to finance attacks on other countries whether directly or via proxies. Defence will of course be needed should any of these countries decide to respond in kind. How effective Britain’s defence will be in such an event cannot be assured by the proposed measures in the defence review. It would be madness to consider that arming a few aircraft with nuclear missiles would make Britain more secure. Security could be achieved more effectively and with no cost if the U.K. stopped threatening to attack a mightily armed country like Russia.

Also, the proposal to build more nuclear-powered attack submarines, likely to be added to the AUKUS forces threatening China, risks the launch of a US-led war with potentially devastating consequences for large parts of humanity, including in the UK.

George Robertson, who heads up the Strategic defence review told British reporters that the U.K. and its NATO allies are “confronted by a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together” referring to Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.

And yet there is not a single shred of evidence ever given that any of those countries threaten Britain. On the contrary the UK is a willing ally of the US in its current soft power economic attacks on China and in its military build up against China. The U.K. has financed and provided military support for the US proxy war against Russia and implemented far reaching sanctions. In seeking to extend the Ukraine war, whatever the casualties and destruction, rather than do all possible to achieve a peaceful and negotiated outcome, the U.K. government increases the risks of military escalation. And yet the myths of risks to U.K. security posed by Russia and China are repeated ad nauseam in a racist propaganda war exactly designed to persuade voters to support increased military spending even if that will undermine their standards of life.

Welfare or warfare

The UK government has already succumbed to US and NATO demands for member countries to increase military spending. It plans for an increase in military spending of 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament. Initial increases will be covered by a substantial cut to the foreign aid budget but after that cuts to public services, welfare and other government departments are anticipated.

Recent figures for poverty in the U.K. show that 1 in 5 people were in poverty, that is just over 14 million people. The UK government claims it cannot afford to deal with this level of poverty and in fact it is some of the most deprived people who will experience greater hardship as a result of current government cuts to welfare spending. In these circumstances it is unconscionable that the U.K. government should consider increasing military spending in order to support US military actions. Support for people in the U.K. by engaging in peaceful cooperation and development in a multi-polar world is the alternative needed here to release vital resources.

Impact on economic growth of increased military spending

The IMF anticipates the UK’s GDP growth for 2025 will be 1.1%. This compares for example with its estimates for Russia 1.5%, US 1.8%, Brazil 2%, Saudi Arabia 3%, China 4% and India 6.2%. With U.K. growth at such a low level, investment in infrastructure and economic development needs to be a priority rather than using resources for weapons of war. Military spending, unlike other spending, produces little benefit to the overall economy. Analysis shows that military spending creates far fewer jobs than spending in other sectors. Spending on health for example is two and a half times more jobs rich than military spending.

Negative effect on UK of US soft power attacks

Each successive war that Britain has engaged in to pursue the interests of the US has undermined Britain’s reputation and standing with other countries. This matters because the US is no longer the sole global economic superpower. In effect, doing the US’s bidding has made people in this country worse off.

This is not just true in terms of trade, although that remains vital to living standards. It is also true in other areas, culturally, diplomatically and in international education and science.

As the Defence Review reinforces the overall belligerent stance on foreign policy, and will be seen as such by other countries, it will tend to reinforce this estrangement from large parts of the world

The increased risks to the U.K. from global warming

Increased military spending impacts on global warming in a twofold way: the contribution to increased carbon emissions from military activity and the transfer of resources to military spending and away from tackling climate change.

The most important issue in Gaza by far is the human consequences of the genocidal policies carried out by Israel, but researchers estimate that the long term cost of Israel’s military destruction of Gaza and its recent military exchanges with Yemen, Iran and Lebanon is equivalent to charging 2.6 billion smart phones or running 84 gas power plants for a year. (Guardian 30.5.25)

The UK’s Climate Change Committee’s assessment is that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the country’s 2030 target are currently covered by credible plans. But with adequate resources “The transition to Net Zero can deliver investment, lower bills and energy security…..It is a way for the government to serve both the people of today and the people of tomorrow.” Prof. Piers Foster, interim Chair, CCC

With spending on environmental protection at 1.5% of GDP (2022) resources should be shifted from military to environment to avoid the existential threats to humanity from increased militarisation and climate change.

To conclude:

No Cold War was established as an international campaign in 2020 concerned at the increasingly aggressive statements and actions being taken by the US government in regard to China. We believe that any New Cold War (and any consequent hot war) would run entirely counter to the interests of humanity. It is from this perspective that we address the U.K. government’s Strategic Defence Review.

No Cold War Britain stands in favour of maximum global cooperation in order to tackle the enormous challenges humanity faces as a species. For the U.K. this means keeping the ‘Defence budget’ to the minimum needed for actual defence, engaging with other countries on the basis of mutual respect and cooperation and settling disputes through negotiation and dialogue rather than on paths of military destruction. Thus, monies could be used to ensure viable social protections and public services; improve living standards, equality and quality of life, for sustainable growth and development and for international relations based on fraternity.

(9/6/2025)