Hard Choices and Hard Power: What the Strategic Defence Review says about Britain’s position in the world 

Ben Young, Intern
10/06/2025

With the backdrop of the most dangerous geopolitical climate since the end of the Cold War, the government last week unveiled its Strategic Defence Review (SDR). Rich in rhetoric and bristling with ambitions, the SDR details plans for expanded submarine fleets, airborne nuclear deterrents, cyber investments, and army restructuring. However, the document highlights a fairly depressing reality: Britain is struggling to define its strategic identity in a world where old certainties have collapsed, and new dangers are rising fast.

Since the last major review of Britain’s security and defence policy in March 2021,   Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, America’s new Secretary of Defence believes that China is on the verge of invading Taiwan, the Israeli Defence Force has been mobilised for over 18 months, and Britain’s number of army personnel has fallen to its lowest level since 1793.

These geopolitical tensions are straining the unity of the ‘West’ and NATO.  While past defence reviews spoke of peace dividends and luxuries such as humanitarian peacekeeping, this review is built on a sobering foundation; the return of high-intensity warfare to Europe’s doorstep, and the decline of American reliability as an unquestioned pillar of UK security.

Strategically, the review places Britain at the heart of NATO, but it does so while reimagining the UK’s role as a transatlantic ‘bridge’ between a more self-reliant Europe and a distracted, Pacific-focused United States. As tensions between Brussels and Washington grow – fuelled by shifting political winds in the US and diverging security priorities – Britain’s diplomatic skill will become as important as its military power.

Another area in which Britain has the will and capability to become a leader is military technology. The SDR aims to make the British Army 10 times more lethal, harnessing conventional weapons, but also incorporating more modern methods such as drones and AI to fulfil this goal. Britain’s military-industrial complex, by no means the size of America’s, is a capable and successful industry, and the government has signalled its confidence by increasing investment in BAE Systems and Rolls Royce.

As geostrategy expert Dr John Hemmings rightly identifies, the UK has spotted an opportunity to lead a ‘European security renaissance’ from within NATO. Yet for that leadership to matter, Britain must first lead by example. It cannot press allies to significantly increase defence commitments while it commits a now underwhelming 2.5% of GDP to defence spending. To provide any leadership, Britain must accept its current commitments will look half-hearted to its more vulnerable allies, and it must be quick off the block in meeting these new expectations. The new spending commitment means £84 billion will be spent on defence annually, which is a startling figure given the “tough choices” expected at this week’s spending review. 

At home, the gap between the SDR’s rhetoric and the current reality of Britain’s Armed Forces has fed political criticism. The Conservatives have used the SDR to attack Labour’s credibility on defence, accusing the government of failing to match its ambitions with actual resources and there is cross-party consensus the government needs to do more as Britain falls behind its peers in a field it used to lead. It will take years for Britain to acquire the necessary equipment and personnel to be war-ready, and a government that may have to prove that readiness in future will not want to face the consequences of being underprepared.

The Strategic Defence Review underscores a nation at a crossroads – rich in ambition but constrained by fiscal realities. While the UK reaffirms its commitment to NATO and aspires to lead a European security renaissance, its current defence spending lags behind emerging expectations. To maintain credibility and influence, Britain must not only articulate its strategic vision but also align its resources accordingly to avoid diminishing its role on the global stage.

Increasing the defence spend to 2.5% of GDP may be underwhelming in the context of what our allies have committed, but it will have a significant knock-on effect in terms of the UK’s domestic spend. Tomorrow’s Spending Review, announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, will outline the trade-offs required to shift Britain into ‘warfighting readiness’.