Defence Review Co-Author Slams Starmer's 'Bizarre' Lack of Urgency on Military
A co-author of Britain's strategic defence review has joined mounting criticism of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's leadership on military policy, issuing a stark warning about what she describes as a 'bizarre' lack of urgency in defence planning. Fiona Hill, a former chief adviser to the White House on Russia, has echoed the concerns of her co-author George Robertson, a peer and former head of Nato, who previously accused the government of displaying 'corrosive complacency'.
Robertson's Public Frustration and Treasury 'Vandalism' Claims
Lord Robertson has publicly aired his frustration over the government's failure to present its detailed 10-year spending plans for defence following the publication of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) last June. In a speech delivered in Salisbury, Wiltshire, on Tuesday night, he escalated his criticism by accusing 'non-military experts in the Treasury' of engaging in 'vandalism'. He warned emphatically that 'we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget'.
Robertson disclosed that he had a discussion with Defence Secretary John Healey on Monday regarding his intervention, revealing that Healey was 'extremely angry with me'. He defended his outspoken stance, stating, 'They don't want these headlines but sometimes you have to say it. That's what I said last night to John. I believe my country is in danger.' Regarding the government's delay in providing defence spending details, he added, 'I don't understand it any more than you ... No doubt it will come out, in, as they constantly say, due course.'
Hill's Warning on Urgency and Leadership
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian, Fiona Hill, who worked for Donald Trump during his first term, elaborated on her concerns. She stated that she believes Number 10's lack of urgency in putting Britain on a war footing is 'bizarre', particularly given the current global security landscape. Hill explained, 'What George is saying, very bluntly, is there is basically a lack of resolute leadership on this. Because everybody's worried about votes and, you know, reactions, and all of this on the left and on the right.'
She emphasised the non-partisan nature of the issue, arguing, 'The political situation, you know, for the [Labour] party, is not good, but as George has been saying, this is a UK strategic defence review and, frankly, if anybody wants to make political points, I would suggest that it's shame on them. Big time.' Hill highlighted specific risks, noting, 'I think we can see [the risk], just look at what is happening in the Gulf. You think we couldn't get a nice drone on the Shard [building in London]?'
Wider Criticisms and Economic Implications
General Richard Barrons, another co-author of the SDR, told the BBC's Today programme that there is 'an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.' He cautioned that 'The US cavalry is not coming to bail us out now,' and pointed out that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are currently 'undernourished'.
Hill warned that the government's failure to announce its defence spending plans is leading to a loss of confidence within the British defence sector and among financial investors. She detailed, 'Companies that are British, that have really important armaments and other equipment, are not getting the orders and so they are looking elsewhere and some are folding. The City has been standing by – George and Richard have been constantly talking to them – getting ready to put together investment funds and things but if there is no signal from the Ministry of Defence then they will go and do deals with the US, which is always what happens.'
Additionally, Hill identified a broader problem: the government has yet to communicate to the public the necessity of building civil defence and resilience in preparation for potential conflict.
Political Reactions and Internal Labour Tensions
Earlier on Tuesday, Robertson's suggestion that public spending cuts might be necessary to fund defence prompted a sharp response from Labour MP Diane Abbott. She accused Robertson of prioritising 'guns before butter' and warned that Labour could lose votes to the Greens if Starmer followed the peer's advice. Abbott stated, 'We have already slashed foreign aid, and to cut welfare to spend on armaments is appalling. People are going to start to wonder why they are voting Labour in the first place. It is not going to help us electorally.'
John Hutton, a former defence secretary, added his voice to the debate, asserting that the UK has 18 months to demonstrate proper defence financing to deter Vladimir Putin from military action against British interests. He called on Chancellor Rachel Reeves to utilise flexibility in her fiscal rules to borrow more for defence, similar to Germany's approach. Hutton argued, 'I think there's a significant gap in our credibility in Nato to provide a conventional deterrence to any possible Russian aggression, which I think is now more likely to happen than not.'
Committee Concerns and Government Response
Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough who chairs the cross-party Commons defence select committee, expressed concern over Robertson's identification of the Treasury as a primary blocker. Dhesi noted, 'Lord Robertson's public intervention is sobering. It is damning that a man of his stature and experience has to speak out publicly to get his message heard. When it comes to defence, the government's rhetoric promising action does not yet align with reality. Lord Robertson has pointed at the Treasury as a blocker. Treasury ministers have repeatedly refused to appear before the defence committee, giving every impression that they are trying to avoid accountability.'
In response, a government spokesperson defended the administration's record, stating that the SDR is 'backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, with a total of over £270bn being invested across this parliament.' However, critics argue that without detailed, long-term spending plans, this commitment remains insufficient to address the urgent threats facing the nation.
