The British government published its new “defence” strategy on June 2.
According to a summary carried by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), it “aims to put a ‘stronger, more lethal’ Nato at the forefront of British defence plans as the country boosts its nuclear deterrent, rebuilds munitions and weapons stockpiles and invests billions of pounds into technologically advanced warfare methods.”
Filled with bellicose, Cold War rhetoric, the strategy, as reported by the SCMP:
- Recommends that Britain should begin discussions with the US and NATO on the “potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”. The government wants to achieve this by renewing its existing nuclear deterrent, investing £15 billion (US$20 billion) in its warhead programme.
- The review is explicit in the need for Britain to play a greater role in nuclear deterrence, as the only European country to assign its nuclear capability to the defence of NATO – something that France does not currently do. The need for stepped-up UK action is driven by “the unprecedented challenge” of the US facing two “near-peer” nuclear powers in Russia and China.
- With Trident already absorbing much of the UK’s defence expenditure, the policy is likely to be expensive. As well as the investment in nuclear warheads, Britain plans to build as many as 12 new submarines.
- The study also describes China as a “sophisticated and persistent challenge” while falling short of calling it a threat – in line with the government’s existing approach to the Asian nation. It does warn, however, that the UK is likely to face Chinese technology wherever and with whomever it fights.
Simon Tisdall, foreign affairs commentator for the Guardian newspaper, described the new strategy as escalating the global nuclear arms race and “bringing us closer to Armageddon.”
He writes: “Plans by Keir Starmer’s government to modernise and potentially expand Britain’s nuclear weapons arsenal, unveiled in the 2025 strategic defence review (SDR), seriously undermine international non-proliferation efforts… This dangerous path leads in one direction only: towards the normalisation of nuclear warfare.
“These unconscionable proposals are a far cry from the days when Robin Cook, Labour’s foreign secretary from 1997 to 2001, championed unilateral nuclear disarmament and helped scrap the UK’s airdropped gravity bombs. They are a continuation of a redundant, inhuman, immoral, potentially international law-breaking deterrence policy that cash-strapped Britain can ill afford, will struggle to implement at cost and on time, and which perpetuates illusions about its global power status.”
Responding to the review, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Defence rebuked Britain for hyping up the so-called “China threat”. He urged the British side to perceive China in a correct manner and objectively and rationally view China and its military development. “The British side should make more practical efforts to contribute to the growth of relations between the two countries and their militaries.”
In an opinion article, China Military Online wrote:
“The UK is attempting to advance its defence strategy through ‘military Keynesianism’, yet its implementation faces numerous challenges. Amid growing global instability, the UK increasingly perceives a challenge to its traditional maritime dominance. In particular, London is concerned that it needs to enhance its deterrence capabilities after the strategic pivot of the US to the Asia-Pacific. Meanwhile, it seeks to assert leadership within NATO by boosting defence investment and reinforcing its role as a pillar of European security.
“Moreover, Brexit has led to a decline in the UK’s international influence, while the national economy remains mired in prolonged stagnation. Although the British government is confident in its efforts to strengthen defence capabilities, it continues to face numerous challenges in actual implementation.
“Alistair Carns once hypothesised that, based on current casualty rates observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the British Army would be ‘wiped out’ in just over a month.” [Cairns is a Labour MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Veterans and People, and a former Royal Marine Commando.]
In its June 3 editorial, the Morning Star pointed out that, “Britain is the real threat to peace”. The paper writes:
“Keir Starmer justifies the immense increases in military spending stretching years into the future by reference to ‘threats’ to Britain from purportedly hostile states.
“The defence review outlining their plans identified four such states – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It is a list instructive of the mind of the British Establishment and its historical amnesia. Take China first.
“Over the last 200 years these are things China has not done – it has not fought two wars to force drug addiction on the British people. It has not militarily intervened to put down a disturbance here. It has not annexed the Isle of Wight as a colony for more than 100 years. It is not today sailing its aircraft carriers around our shores, nor forming new military pacts with other powers directed at our integrity.
“Yet Britain has done, or is doing, all these things to China.”
The editorial concludes: “Internationalism demands resistance to British militarism and imperialism.”
Workers Weekly, an online publication of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (RCPBML), wrote:
“To be clear, Starmer’s so-called ‘threats from abroad’ stated in the SDR are the ‘growing links between Russia, China, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ as military threats to Britain. As many have said already, who is threatening whom? There are no threats to Britain from any of these countries either from the past, or now. Russia, China, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have never threatened Britain with invasion. On the contrary, it is a matter of record that Britain has invaded all of these countries, Russia, China, Iran and Korea, colonising parts of China, and causing millions of deaths in all of these countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today Britain is supporting the NATO proxy regime in Ukraine against Russia, has been arming Israel and bombing Yemen in support of Israeli genocide on Iran’s doorstep and is again sending its one working aircraft carrier, HMS ‘Prince of Wales’, to pathetically stalk China in East Asia to try and build its AUKUS military alliance against China with Australia and the US.”
Referring to the parliamentary debate on the SDR, Workers Weekly observes:
“At first the Defence Secretary’s announcement in Parliament was overshadowed over hiding the SDR document from the Commons for as long as possible before MPs could read it. It was also revealed that Starmer and the Defence Secretary had given the SDR document to major defence companies on the morning of the debate. In fact, it took some points of order before the minister could be persuaded that his statement should be made available to MPs before he spoke. This, of course, gave no time for MPs to consider it, or even read it properly… Only two MPs spoke out against it in the debate. Ellie Chowns, North Herefordshire (Green), said that ‘this Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world-they make it more dangerous…’ Jeremy Corbyn, Islington North (Independent), said that it was ‘disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts…’”
Editorial Note: Besides the welcome contributions from Green MP Ellie Chowns [who was actually cut off in mid-sentence by the Deputy Speaker] and Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn there were two other welcome and principled interventions in the debate.
Zarah Sultana, Independent MP [her membership of the Parliamentary Labour Party having been withdrawn by the Starmer regime] for Coventry South said:
“While the Government pledge to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, funnelling hundreds of billions in public money to arms companies and their shareholders, and continuing to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are at the same time slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap, and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners. How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?”
Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East said:
“The 12 new nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines will almost double the UK’s fleet of such submarines. Given that those submarines are to be shared with non-nuclear Australia, does that not go against the UK’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? As they are part of the AUKUS treaty – a treaty with the USA as well as Australia – and focused in the Asia-Pacific, does that not risk adding to the growing tensions between the USA and China and make us all less safe?”
The full text of Ellie Chowns’ intervention reads:
“This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world – they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads- weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons – at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because —”
And that from Jeremy Corbyn:
“The world is in the midst of an arms race. Last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, $2.7 trillion was spent on arms – a 9% increase on the previous year. The Secretary of State is proposing a substantial increase in defence expenditure by this country. I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity – poverty and hunger – that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely, we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.”
The full text of the debate may be read here.
On the eve of the government publishing its SDR, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) published an Alternative Defence Review.
It was proposed by CND in response to the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) union’s decision to “campaign with other trade unions and peace organisations to convene a labour and peace movement summit to work out the basis of a new foreign policy with the promotion of peace and social justice at its heart.” The Alternative Defence Review (ADR) is intended to be a contribution towards this.
Having outlined the steady build up of US hostility towards China in recent years, the ADR notes:
“The election of Donald Trump has changed the focus of US military aggression from Russia to China. The US administration’s focus on Greenland and Panama are real and represent, for the Trump strategists, key and credible attempts to gain major new sources of minerals and strategic control of the Arctic (Greenland) and to control trade routes (China to Brazil, Cuba, Nigeria, Angola).”
The full text of the ADR can be read here.
Scarcely more than two weeks after the publication of the government’s review, as if on cue, the Royal Navy provocatively sailed the HMS Spey warship through China’s Taiwan Strait on June 18. It was the first such incident in four years. The BBC reported that it occurred as “a UK carrier strike group arrives in the region for a deployment that will last several months,” adding:
“HMS Spey is one of two British warships permanently on patrol in the Indo-Pacific. Its passage through the Taiwan Strait comes as a UK carrier strike group, led by HMS Prince of Wales’ aircraft carrier, arrives in the Indo-Pacific region for an eight-month stint.
“British PM Keir Starmer has described it as one of the carrier’s largest deployments this century that is aimed at ‘sending a clear message of strength to our adversaries, and a message of unity and purpose to our allies’. Around 4,000 UK military personnel are taking part in the deployment.”
A spokesperson for China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) noted that: “Troops assigned to the Chinese PLA Eastern Theatre Command (ETC) tracked and monitored the action of the UK warship throughout the process and dealt with it effectively,” and added: “The troops of the PLA Eastern Theatre Command will remain on high alert at all times and resolutely counter all threats and provocations.”
The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency, China Military Online, the Morning Star and Workers Weekly.
Chinese defense ministry rebukes Britain for hyping up “China threat” in report
BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) — A Chinese defense spokesperson on Monday rebuked Britain for hyping up the so-called “China threat” in its recent strategic defense evaluation report.
Jiang Bin, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense, made the remarks in response to a media inquiry regarding the document issued by the British government.
China adheres to the path of peaceful development and pursues a national defense policy that is defensive in nature. It has always been a defender, builder and contributor to security in the Asia-Pacific region, said Jiang.
He urged the British side to perceive China in a correct manner, objectively and rationally view China and its military development, and stop propagating the so-called “China threat.”
The British side should make more practical efforts to contribute to the growth of relations between the two countries and their militaries, Jiang added.
It is easier said than done for the UK to move to “warfighting readiness”
June 6 (China Military) — On June 2 local time, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer released the Strategic Defense Review (SDR), announcing a shift of the British Armed Forces to a state of “warfighting readiness,” with a strengthened focus on long-range strike capabilities, cyber operations, and military production capacity.
This is the first major defense strategy document issued by Keir Starmer since he took office in July last year. It will serve as the guiding principle for the UK’s active warfighting posture in the next five years. The UK is attempting to advance its defense strategy through “military Keynesianism”, yet its implementation faces numerous challenges.
62 recommendations concerning the future of the UK Armed Forces have been proposed in the SDR, all of which have been accepted. Key recommendations include the construction of up to 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines and an additional £15 billion investment in the sovereign nuclear warhead program to ensure the continuity of the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent (CASD), the procurement of 7,000 domestically produced missiles and drones, the construction of at least six new energetics and munitions factories to enable uninterrupted production, and the creation of a Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities (CEMA) Command with a dedicated £1 billion investment to enhance digital warfare capabilities.
The UK’s decision to release the SDR is, first and foremost, a response to mounting geopolitical pressure. Amid growing global instability, the UK increasingly perceives a challenge to its traditional maritime dominance. In particular, London is concerned that it needs to enhance its deterrence capabilities after the strategic pivot of the US to the Asia-Pacific. Meanwhile, it seeks to assert leadership within NATO by boosting defense investment and reinforcing its role as a pillar of European security.
Moreover, Brexit has led to a decline in the UK’s international influence, while the national economy remains mired in prolonged stagnation.
Although the British government is confident in its efforts to strengthen defense capabilities, it continues to face numerous challenges in actual implementation.
First, there is a contradiction between the relatively limited funding and the increasingly diverse defense demands. Although Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans to raise defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027 and build a strong military force by 2035, the UK is currently facing fiscal constraints. Domestic inflation remains persistently high, and economic growth faces multiple challenges, including delayed structural adjustments and instability in the global economy.
Secondly, the British defense industry is plagued by a number of problems. While the Labour government has sought to guide and intervene in its development, previous coalition and Conservative governments placed greater reliance on market forces and competition mechanisms, lacking long-term strategic planning. As a result, inconsistent policy approaches across successive administrations have led to fragmented and incoherent development in the UK’s defense industry in recent years.
In terms of military-industrial cooperation, the post-Brexit Britain has faced significant constraints in collaborating with the EU on defense and technology sharing due to delays in cross-border trade, increased tariff barriers, and diminished political and military mutual trust. Moreover, the UK remains heavily reliant on the US in several key areas of military technology and lacks independent research and development capabilities.
For instance, although the UK claims to possess an independent and controllable nuclear deterrent, its nuclear pillar, the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system, still relies on the US for both manufacturing and maintenance.
In addition, since the end of the Cold War, the British Armed Forces have pursued a strategy of “lightweight transformation.” However, this strategic shift has revealed serious shortcomings in addressing the demands of modern high-intensity conflicts.
The British Army’s heavy armored units are widely regarded as severely “hollowed out.”
In the Royal Navy, aircraft carriers and destroyers frequently suffer from mechanical failures and maintenance issues, while the current generation of frigates significantly lags behind comparable platforms in service with other major countries.
As for the Royal Air Force, its mainstay fighter remains the Typhoon FGR4, a fourth-generation aircraft, while its fifth-generation F-35B fleet is limited in number and must be shared with the Royal Navy’s carrier air wing.
Meanwhile, despite recent increases in military personnel salaries, British service members continue to leave the armed forces at an alarming rate. The British Army currently has just over 70,000 active personnel, marking the lowest level since the Napoleonic Wars in 1823. Among them, more than 16,000 can only carry out limited military tasks. In the Royal Air Force, as many as 3,721 personnel have been deemed “unfit for combat.” Within the Royal Navy, 2,922 sailors are “completely unable to deploy at sea,” while another 2,363 are medically restricted in their military capabilities.
Alistair Carns once hypothesized that, based on current casualty rates observed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the British Army would be “wiped out” in just over a month.
Britain is the real threat to peace
June 3 (Morning Star) — Keir Starmer justifies the immense increases in military spending stretching years into the future by reference to “threats” to Britain from purportedly hostile states.
The defence review outlining their plans identified four such states — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
It is a list instructive of the mind of the British Establishment and its historical amnesia. Take China first.
Over the last 200 years these are things China has not done — it has not fought two wars to force drug addiction on the British people. It has not militarily intervened to put down a disturbance here.
It has not annexed the Isle of Wight as a colony for more than 100 years. It is not today sailing its aircraft carriers around our shores, nor forming new military pacts with other powers directed at our integrity.
Yet Britain has done, or is doing, all these things to China.
Likewise, Russia has never landed troops in Scotland with the purpose of overthrowing the British government, as Britain did during the civil wars after the October Revolution.
Nor are there Russian troops parked on our frontier, although there are plenty of British forces in the Baltic states abutting Russia.
Neither this nor any previous Iranian regime has organised a clandestine coup to overthrow an elected Westminster government. Yet that was what Britain’s MI6, in alliance with the United States, did in Iran in 1953.
That led to a quarter-century of dictatorship by the Shah, underwritten and supported throughout by Britain. The Royal Navy today patrols the Persian Gulf — clue in the name — but scan the horizon of the North Sea as one might, one can not catch a sight of an Iranian warship.
And North Korea was laid waste by British troops, again in concert with the US, to stop its socialist unification in 1950. But no North Korean soldier has as much as set foot on British soil.
Who is the real threat here? Both the historical record and contemporary politics show that it is the armed forces of imperialist Britain which menace independent countries across the world, not the other way around.
That is why the arms spending increases — with 3 per cent of GDP going on the military likely only a first step given Nato’s war frenzy — will not only fail to make Britain safer, it will ramp up conflict in many theatres, from Europe to the Middle East to the Pacific.
Starmer claims that he is making Britian “war-ready.” Yet this century alone, while supposedly basking in a “peace dividend,” Britain has waged aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
Plans to deploy British forces to Ukraine only underline the point. If this is the record before the country is “war-ready” what can we expect once the neo-imperialists of Whitehall are still more tooled up?
Ultimately, it is the politics of war, not the technology of it, which is decisive. A big army of a peaceful power, like China, is far less of a menace than a smaller one in aggressive hands.
Almost the entire record of the British Establishment throughout the ages shows that it cannot be trusted with large armed forces. Today it deploys those forces, usually at the behest of the US, to enforce a world order privileging British capitalist interests.
Millions have paid the price for that order. Even were the arms build-up not coming at the expense of the immediate interests of working people here, no-one in the labour or progressive movements can welcome giving our rulers renewed resources for aggression and domination.
Internationalism demands resistance to British militarism and imperialism.
Starmer’s Attempt to Put Britain on “War-Fighting Readiness” Cannot Be Accepted
June 7 (Workers’ Weekly) — On Monday, June 2, BAE Systems plc, the flagship of Britain’s militarised economy and one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world, hosted the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at its Govan shipyard, Scotland. This is where Starmer chose to announce the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) [1] in his almost illiterate and provocative remarks before its publication and even before Parliament had seen its findings. The SDR has been led by Labour peer and former NATO secretary-general George Robertson.[2]
Starmer arrogantly announced in his speech that his Ministers (not Parliament, be it noted) had decided to implement the 62 recommendations of the SDR to make Britain “a battle-ready, armour-clad nation” at “war-fighting readiness”, claiming this was in response to threats from abroad – particularly Russia and a rising China. He also claimed that this would be paid for by “increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament” – something which even the media and opposition in Parliament later disputed.
Starmer justified his announcement in saying that “we are being directly threatened by states with advanced military forces” and that “the most effective way to deter them is to be ready and frankly to show them that we’re ready to deliver peace through strength”. He emphasised the SDR “whole-of-society approach-widening participation in national resilience, and renewing the Nation’s contract with those who serve”.
By claiming that Britain “is being directly threatened” and that the government response must be “peace through strength” and a “contract with those who serve”, Starmer aims to turn Britain’s already military-dominated economy into a fully militarised economy and to put British society on a war footing. In so doing, the arms manufacturers and military industries will receive billions of pounds in orders. Starmer is attempting to get people and society to “serve” BAE systems and the whole warmongering elite and go against their own well-being and interests for real peace and security.
To be clear, Starmer’s so-called “threats from abroad” stated in the SDR are the “growing links between Russia, China, Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” as military threats to Britain. As many have said already, who is threatening whom? There are no threats to Britain from any of these countries either from the past, or now. Russia, China, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have never threatened Britain with invasion. On the contrary, it is a matter of record that Britain has invaded all of these countries, Russia, China, Iran and Korea, colonising parts of China, and causing millions of deaths in all of these countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today Britain is supporting the NATO proxy regime in Ukraine against Russia, has been arming Israel and bombing Yemen in support of Israeli genocide on Iran’s doorstep and is again sending its one working aircraft carrier, HMS “Prince of Wales”, to pathetically stalk China in East Asia to try and build its AUKUS military alliance against China with Australia and the US.
Debacle of House of Commons debate
Following Starmer’s announcement, to the willing ears of BAE systems, the Strategic Defence Review was then later officially “debated” in Parliament. Defence secretary John Healey also emphasised the UK’s shift towards “war-fighting readiness”, again citing and claiming there were growing threats abroad from Russia and a rising China. The SDR recommendations, that the army “restores their readiness to fight, and reverse the ‘hollowing out’ of foundational capabilities” reflects indeed the whole state of the economy that has been hollowed out by successive governments, wrecking our health and social services by continuing to invest in these war industries and taking a direction for the economy that makes huge profits for the rich. In this dire situation, where society is being increasingly impoverished, the SDR claims they should build 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines as part of the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the US, that they would build at least six new munitions and energetics factories and will focus on drones, AI, and cyber warfare with a New Digital Targeting Web in 2027. The review also includes major defence investments including 7,000 long range weapons, £1.5 billion for at least six new munitions factories, £15 billion for a UK nuclear warhead programme.
At first the Defence Secretary’s announcement in Parliament was overshadowed over hiding the SDR document from the Commons for as long as possible before MPs could read it. It was also revealed that Starmer and the Defence Secretary had given the SDR document to major defence companies on the morning of the debate. In fact, it took some points of order before the minister could be persuaded that his statement should be made available to MPs before he spoke. This, of course, gave no time for MPs to consider it, or even read it properly. Even so, almost all of the cartel parties’ MPs who spoke backed the 130-page review out of hand claiming that it would support the “defence” and “security” of Britain and “provide jobs” and “investment”. Only two MPs spoke out against it in the debate. Ellie Chowns, North Herefordshire (Green), said that “this Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world-they make it more dangerous…” Jeremy Corbyn, Islington North (Independent), said that it was “disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts…”
Apart from these two contributions, there was no attempt to discuss the Strategic Defence Review from the point of view of what peace and security for the British people entails. Any reading of the SDR reveals that it is disinformation to say it is about the defence, or security of the country. In fact, Defence Secretary John Healey instead emphasised that Britain’s army needed to become “10 times more lethal” as Starmer had said, claiming there was an “immediate and pressing threat” from Russia and the rise of China. He said: “We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence.” Starmer had said: “The new era of threats demands a new era for defence and security, not just to survive in this new world, but to lead. We will never gamble with our national security, instead we will act in the national interest.”
Here, Starmer and Healey are referring to the SDR’s complaint about the world and Britain’s role in the failing ambitions of the Anglo-US west that is confronted by the “growing multipolarity” and that the “intensifying strategic competition will make it more difficult for the UK and its allies to shape the world and events in their interests”. In other words, this militarising of Britain’s economy and society is not about “defence” or “security” of the British people but rather for the ruling elite of Britain and its allies to attempt to shape the world in their interests. The perspective of “renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve” is one of the most dangerous attempts in recent years to disinform the working class and people of Britain that their defence and security is in line with the predatory interests of the oligopolies and huge war industries like BAE systems where Starmer made the announcement. The reactionary ruling elites cannot accept that there is a changing world where Britain and its dominions and allies around the world face the reality of dealing with new powers and whole continents; nor can they take on board that, most importantly, the peoples and their resistance movements in Palestine and all around the world do not accept Anglo-US domination and dictate.
Fraudulence and warmongering of the Strategic Defence Review
The mendacious Strategic Defence Review is not about security for the British people and certainly not about peace. The fact is that peace and security are indivisible, and so militarisation that is aimed at imperialist interests abroad only leads to insecurity and war. The more the Starmer government, like the governments before it, promotes war preparation as providing “home security” or the “security of Europe”, as Starmer and the SDR say, the more fraudulent these narratives become about the causes of these ongoing wars in the world. Saying that Putin is responsible for launching “unprovoked aggression” against Ukraine is an assertion against the facts of what led to Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, which simply don’t figure into the equation. It is enough for Starmer to say this is so because, presumably, Putin is a dictator who threatens world peace. This deliberately ignores everything that took place when the US violated all understandings following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and started expanding NATO eastward up to the borders of Russia, making NATO an existential threat to Russia in their eyes.
The premise of the Strategic Defence Review is that Britain must maintain its nefarious role in the world at all costs even if this threatens further wars that Britain cannot win and further impoverishes the British people. The SDR defends the arming of Israel by lauding the 20% of the US F-35 that is manufactured in Britain. It lauds the asset of the Akrotiri and Dhekélia sovereign base area of British overseas territory in Cyprus, from which it sends its cargo of death and its spy planes to Israel and Gaza as well launching its joint bombing attacks on Yemen that the SDR supports.
The Strategic Defence Review continues to blame Hamas for the deaths in Israel and Gaza when Britain has always refused to recognise the national rights of the Palestinians and been a major perpetrator of the occupation of Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinian people since the 1948 Nakba. The SDR claims that Britain’s security guarantees are linked to the US, NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), AUKUS and declares that the cause of peace is threatened by China, Russia, Iran and the DPRK, as well the resistance movements of the peoples of the world who are fighting for their right to be and to realise their aspirations for peace, freedom and democracy. The SDR labels them “non-state” actors against Britain’s interest saying “the armed Forces remain optimised for conflicts primarily fought against non-state actors on Europe’s periphery and beyond”.
The call of the day
The Strategic Defence Review will have no takers among the working class and people who desire peace. It is necessary to take heed of the aims of the SDR and to organise against it and what it stands for. The lie about “renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve” is a dangerous attempt to get British people to betray their own interests for peace and security and instead to serve the warmongers and must be opposed. Starmer and the government’s attempt to further step up its militarisation and support for Israel’s daily war crimes against the Palestinians is unacceptable and must continue to be opposed. The attempt of Starmer and the government to involve Britain further in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia is totally unacceptable and must continue to be opposed.
The call of the day is for the people to speak out in their own name for all that serves their own interests for peace and security. The context is the fight for a new direction for the economy and society that meets the needs of all and defends the rights of all. The context is for political renewal against the police powers of the cartel party system in Westminster and for modern democratic arrangements which empower the people, not those with power and privilege. The aim for the working class and people must be always to prepare the conditions to establish an Anti-War Pro-Social Government in Britain.
Notes
1. PM’s remarks on the Strategic Defence Review:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-remarks-on-the-strategic-defence-review-2-june-2025
2. Policy paper – The Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad, June 2 2025
Full document 144 pages:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad
Two Page document:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683dbe63d23a62e5d32680de/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_two-pager.pdf
Document in Welsh: Adolygiad Amddiffyn Strategol 2025: Adolygiad Amddiffyn Strategol 2025:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/adolygiad-amddiffyn-strategol-2025-gwneud-prydain-yn-fwy-diogel-yn-gadarn-gartref-yn-gydnerth-dramor
The SDR’s vision for UK Defence:
• Move to warfighting readiness—establishing a more lethal ‘integrated force’ equipped for the future, and strengthened homeland defence.
• Engine for growth—driving jobs and prosperity through a new partnership with industry, radical procurement reforms and backing UK businesses.
• ‘NATO first’—stepping up on European security by leading in NATO, with strengthened nuclear, new tech and updated conventional capabilities.
• UK innovation driven by lessons from Ukraine—harnessing drones, data and digital warfare to make our Armed Forces stronger and safer.
• Whole-of-society approach—widening participation in national resilience, and renewing the Nation’s contract with those who serve.
PLA spokesperson slams UK warship’s sailing through Taiwan Strait
BEIJING, June 20 (China Military) — On June 18th, the UK’s offshore patrol vessel (OPV) HMS Spey sailed through the Taiwan Strait and hyped it up publicly. Troops assigned to the Chinese PLA Eastern Theater Command (ETC) tracked and monitored the action of the UK warship throughout the process and dealt with it effectively, said Senior Captain Liu Runke, spokesperson for the navy of the Chinese PLA ETC, in a written statement released on Friday.
The spokesperson slammed that the UK’s relevant remarks distorted the legal principles and confused the public, and its actions were deliberately intended to disrupt the situation, undermining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. “The troops of the PLA Eastern Theater Command will remain on high alert at all times and resolutely counter all threats and provocations,” stressed the spokesperson.