UK launches overhaul – but it’s too little, too late?

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a major overhaul for the UK defense spending on Monday, warns that Britain threatens a “war in Europe”.

“We move on to the war,” said Starmer, presenting the long-awaited government “strategic defense” inspection during a reinforced vulnerability on the continent, and the United Kingdom stated that the threat and instability representing Russia and other opponents cannot be ignored. “

UK protection plans include the construction of 12 new submarines running on nuclear, stimulating drones, missiles and ammunition as well as Strengthening Cyber ​​-Vin capabilities.

Starmer said that by 2027, the UK defense spending would increase to 2.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and laid out “ambitions” to increase it to 3% of GDP in the next parliament – that is, by 2034 – “if economic and fiscal conditions allow.” According to estimates born Suggest that the UK defense spending as a GDP share was 2.33% in 2024 than the 2% of the Alliance’s target set out in 2014.

One of the priorities of the UK was to strengthen the NATO coalition, the Prime Minister said, adding that the defense policy of the UK “will always be NATO”.

NATO wants its 32 members is obliged to spend 5% GDP on defense And the infrastructure associated with security by 2032, and is planned to push for this purpose if it will meet next June 24-25.

Analysts and economists claim that at a time UK Defense Plans Whether the news is welcomed in uncertain times they end up being too little

However, defense costs rose sharply among NATO members as Trump was the last in power. In 2018, in the midst of annoyance of the White House leader with the military bloc, only six member countries reached 2% of the goal, including the United States. That compares with 23 members in 2024, According to NATO.

While some significantly exceeded this threshold – such as Poland, Estonia, the United States, Latvia and Greece – the main economic states, including Canada, Spain and Italy, are some of the back thresholds.

No NATO member has reached the 5 -percent expense target Proposed by the Secretary -General of Trump or NATO Mark Rute.

Some NATO allies have already answered 2.5% of the target expenses in the UK with the Lithuanian Defense Minister – which spent 2.8% of GDP in 2024 – – – conducted 2.8% GDP – – – – – It is reported that the BBC reports that the figure was “old news”.

Starmer also refused to take a clear term when the UK could increase defense costs to 3% in the next parliament (2029-2034), informing the BBC on Monday that it would not “take on the accurate date until I can make money from this one.”

The European Aerospace and Defensive Sector welcomed the expense plans, and on Monday the Aerospace and Defense Stoxx 600 increased by 0.45%.

But although “the expense plan is clearly positive for the sector … the impact will be gradual and loaded,” said Loredan Muharemi on Monday, Morningstar’s stock analyst.

She noted that while the UK defense plans “support the modernization of the nuclear combat part, the expansion of the submarine fleet within the Aukus program, the scale production of ammunition and the expansion of investment in the cyber-and distant strike opportunities, they can still avoid more defense.

“While the UK government believes that these expenses are sufficient to achieve national security goals, they can still abandon NATO and USA expectations, and Trump’s administration calls for a faster path up to 3% by 2029.”

Meanwhile, defense experts claim that no more money in defense will be transformed in itself.

“The purpose of the cost of 2.5% of GDP is not so significant increase that the truly” transformational ” – at least, not considering the current state of the Armed Forces,” Matthew Savil, director of the Military Sciences at the Royal Institute of the United Services (Russia) said in the analysis On the eve of the review.

“In order to be transformed, he will need to reduce and significantly remake the armed forces, risking in some areas to transform others,” he said.

Increasing a few billion pounds a year is likely to be used first to fill the gaps in ammunition and other weapons, infrastructure and logistics reserves, as well as in support of personnel conditions, payment and set, he said.

But in order to make “radical rather than gradual additions to military capabilities”, it “requires a great choice for early retirement opportunities or reducing the number,” he said.

“The defense was previously here in terms of the promise of new opportunities that are of early loss of others from the budget pressure.”