A former Nato chief demands more cash while fixing Britain’s global role. Before billions are spent, ministers must define the purpose of its military
G
eorge Robertson’s claims about the prime minister’s “corrosive complacency” over Britain’s safety made headlines. But it is a howl of pain, not a sober security analysis. The former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review (SDR) wants Downing Street to back his view of Britain’s role in the world – as Robin to America’s Batman – with billions of pounds of cash. But his argument takes for granted what should be under scrutiny: Britain’s global military role itself.
Donald Trump’s threats over Greenland, his disregard for international law and his U-turn over the Chagos deal expose the fragility of Britain’s defence assumptions. Before spending billions, those commitments must be re-examined. Lord Robertson’s claim of a £28bn black hole assumes that the current strategy is the correct one. But if that strategy – with its emphasis on global deployment and alliance commitments – is open to question, then the funding gap may reflect overstretch rather than insufficient spending.
The world is a dangerous place. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Iran war and China’s rising power make for unsettling times. But the calculation within Whitehall seems to be that Britain is not at any serious imminent risk. That is why a rise in military spending is promised – but with most of the increase delayed until the 2030s. The peer is understandably furious that current defence expenditure plans – which are subject to the chancellor’s self-imposed restraints – remain underfunded and unresolved.
