The UK must raise defence spending

The danger with any defence review is that it ends up fighting the last war or failing to anticipate the next threat. We are about to have the third in 10 years, which suggests the long-term planning that supposedly underpinned the previous reviews has been found wanting.
The current review has been undertaken by, among others, Lord Robertson who as Labour defence secretary under Tony Blair oversaw an earlier iteration completed in 1998. It created the Joint Reaction Force and most controversially commissioned two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers seen at the time as a sop to Scottish shipyards and Labour's MPs north of the Border.
One of those carriers, HMS Prince of Wales, together with accompanying strike group, is on an eight-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific at a time when tensions with China are growing. The US defense secretary Pete Hegseth has somewhat alarmingly suggested that a possible assault on Taiwan is imminent. This has been denied in Beijing but the military build up is ominous and is causing concern in the region.
Australia's defence minister has called on China to explain why it needs to have 'such an extraordinary military build-up'. His counterpart in the Philippines has called China 'absolutely irresponsible and reckless' in its actions.In the face of this development, the £6 billion investment in carriers able to project UK power as part of a wider coalition designed to stop Chinese expansionism does not seem such a poor investment after all.
It has taken close to 30 years for the threat to materialise in the way it has, which is precisely what a strategic review is supposed to do – look to the long term. The latest takes place against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, something that was considered highly unlikely as recently as the 2015 review, even though by then Crimea had been annexed by Moscow.
Anticipating the threats to national, regional and global security is difficult but they have not really changed that much in the past three decades. The biggest upheaval is in the willingness of the US to continue bankrolling the rest of the democratic world, which it is no longer prepared to do.
The new reality is that much more money needs to be spent on defence than the 2.5 per cent of GDP promised by the Government. Unless we see a financial commitment commensurate to the threat this latest review risks foundering before it takes off.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions, U.S. officials say

The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the U.S. should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran. It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Experts and officials are closely watching to see whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a U.S.-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Experts say that Diego Garcia is in an ideal position to operate in the Middle East. The United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 bombers. Israel said on Saturday it had killed a veteran Iranian commander during attacks by both sides in the more than week-long air war, while Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear program while under threat. Israel says Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, while Iran says its atomic program is only for peaceful purposes. Trump has said he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses," he said. Reuters was first to report this week the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe and other military assets to the Middle East, including the deployment of more fighter jets. An aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific is also heading to the Middle East.

Boston Globe

an hour ago

• Boston Globe

This is ground zero in Trump's trade war

The Port of Los Angeles, along with a nearby facility in Long Beach, makes up a shipping complex that stretches across nearly 75 miles of Southern California shoreline. The ports are a bellwether for trade and the U.S. economy. Together, they move an astonishing 40% of the goods that come into the United States via containers. They also account for 30% of what the country exports. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As Trump's chaotic and aggressive tariff strategy has seesawed this year, activity here has, too. That has threatened the livelihood of the roughly 100,000 workers at the port complex and complicated life for the hundreds of thousands of companies that bring goods through the port each year. The trends at the port hint at the pain that will ripple through the broader economy in the coming months as fewer and higher-priced goods travel from ports and warehouses to U.S. stores and consumers. Advertisement The ports experienced a surge of activity this year when shippers rushed to bring in goods before tariffs that reached their highest levels in a century. That rush has faded, and trade has become more sluggish. With higher tariffs set to snap back within weeks, importers and port workers remain cautious, unsure of what their futures will hold. Advertisement Most arrivals to the Southern California ports come from China. After Trump ratcheted up tariffs on Chinese goods to at least 145% in April, many shipments between the world's two largest economies came to a halt. From March to April, U.S. imports and the trade deficit plummeted by the biggest volume on record. In the roughly four weeks that the 145% tariffs were in effect, future bookings to send shipping containers from China to the United States plunged by half from a year earlier, according to data from Vizion and Dun & Bradstreet, which track global shipping activity. In May, Chinese exports to the United States were down roughly 35% from a year earlier, the biggest drop in decades apart from the pandemic. For the Port of Los Angeles in particular, May was the slowest month in more than two years. Now the port is preparing for another uptick in traffic, a delayed reaction after the president paused some levies in April so he could negotiate new trade deals. Bookings have since rebounded modestly, especially after an agreement in early May between the United States and China to reduce some of the tariffs they specifically targeted against each other. The surges and crashes are lowering the supply of certain goods. They are also pushing up the costs for companies to import goods. The cost of shipping a container to Southern California from China has doubled since the start of March, according to data from Freightos, a shipping marketplace, as importers try to find space on vessels in case tariffs increase. Advertisement For some economists, these compounding forces hold ominous implications. While inflation this year has stayed relatively steady so far, economists say the higher cost for imports could filter more noticeably into prices in stores later this year. Consumer demand could also weaken, a reaction in part to rash purchasing in the early months of 2025 before tariffs took effect. Companies and people rushed to buy machinery and cars, furniture and computers, meaning they could most likely spend less later this year. Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics, said the tariffs posed a 'very significant threat to the economy' that would become visible in the next few months. 'The hit to the economy is dead ahead,' he said. 'We haven't dodged that bullet.' The ports are an illustration of the effects of globalization that Trump criticizes. As factories moved abroad over decades, particularly to China, the ports formed one end of a busy ocean superhighway. Most of that traffic flows in one direction. For every four containers that arrive stuffed with foreign cars, textiles and toys, only one is sent out filled with corn, soybeans and other U.S. exports. The other three containers often return empty -- evidence of the trade deficit that the president rails against. Trump has used tariffs to try to force Americans to buy more domestically made goods instead. The problem, critics say, is that this strategy threatens many jobs that Americans hold now, which are dependent on trade, without much indication that manufacturing could thrive again in the United States. Advertisement Only 8% of Americans work in manufacturing, down from 22% in 1980. Since Trump has returned to office and adopted protectionist policies, the number of manufacturing jobs is still roughly flat, according to the Labor Department. In fact, spending on the construction of new factories has slumped in recent months. 'Maybe it's a worthwhile goal to incentivize manufacturing jobs, but the way that we're going about it is putting a lot of other jobs at risk,' said Mario Cordero, the CEO of the Port of Long Beach. The days of U.S. manufacturing dominance, he added, are 'long gone.' Today, the ports are an economic engine in their own right, supporting the communities that blanket the rolling coastal hills leading down to San Pedro Bay. Across Southern California, port officials estimate, 1 million jobs are tied to the port, including truckers, warehouse workers, manufacturers and freight forwarders. Their jobs now hinge on the terms of trade set by the president. On the recent Thursday, the effects of the tariffs were evident in the union hiring hall across the channel from the Port of Los Angeles where dockworkers go each morning to claim new assignments. The screens displaying jobs for daily workers showed about 40% fewer positions than normal. Some truckers say tariffs have already hammered their business. Erick Gordon, the vice president of Redefined Transportation, a trucking business based in Long Beach, said he was moving roughly half the number of containers that he did last year. In response, his company had lowered its rates, pushed harder to get new business and let half its drivers go. He has had to sink money into his business just to hang on for now. Advertisement 'They're almost killing the industry,' he said. 'It's survival mode.' The last time the United States raised tariffs so high was nearly a century ago, when Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. The move was meant to protect U.S. businesses during the Great Depression. It instead instigated a global trade war and deepened the economic crisis. Within two years, imports fell 40%. It took years for trade to recover. The Port of Los Angeles was founded two decades before, in 1907, and it blossomed because of its connection to major railroads. In the 1960s, the advent of the shipping container and the growth of factories in Asia began to transform the port. By the end of the 1980s, the Port of Los Angeles had eclipsed the ports of New York and New Jersey as the country's largest. After China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, Chinese factories and the port grew in tandem. Now 45% of the port's business is connected to China, followed by Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan. It receives some of the world's largest container ships, stretching the length of four football fields and holding tens of thousands of steel containers. Over the last decade, the ports have undergone a crash course in dealing with disruption. They say it has helped them in the current moment. Trump's trade war against China during his first term hit the ports hard. Shipments from China dropped sharply, though traffic from some other countries, like Vietnam, grew double digits. Advertisement With the onset of the pandemic, factories shuttered in China, and imports plunged again. Then the ports experienced an uptick as Americans stuck at home began mass ordering exercise equipment, office furniture, toys and video games. Jon Poelma, the managing director of APM Terminals, which is part of the Port of Los Angeles, said the pandemic had taught the port lessons about handling the shortages and surges it was seeing now, including how to maximize space when the port is overcrowded and better share information to speed up the flow of cargo. 'We got used to it,' he said. 'We tested our ability to handle pain.' Last month, dozens of semi trucks and self-driving straddle carriers were buzzing around the terminal, stacking pink, white, blue and gray containers. Hulking blue container ships stained with rust rose up behind the stacks. The part of the port that Poelma runs -- the biggest container terminal in the Western Hemisphere -- was emptier than in previous weeks. But it was still performing well compared with last year, in part because of its partnership with a major shipping alliance used by big retailers that have continued to bring in shipments when smaller companies have not. Poelma admitted that most importers were having trouble trying to figure out how to forecast demand. And he did not see those challenges abating anytime soon. 'The one thing that is certain is that it continues to be very uncertain,' he said. This article originally appeared in

Politico

2 hours ago

• Politico

‘Great American battle' commemorated on 250th anniversary

NEW YORK — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes,' which came out in 2011. 'But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. A day-long reenactment of the battle got underway Saturday morning with the seaside city of Gloucester standing in for Charlestown. Organizers chose a state park some 35 miles (56 kilometers) from Boston to stage the battle because such activity is prohibited at the actual site. Hundreds of onlookers watched as sharpshooters positioned on a rocky outcropping fired upon red-coated British sailors landing in the harbor. During the actual battle, British soldiers responded by setting a fire to drive them off and used the smoke to mask their movements. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. 'The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'