The War In Europe

Britain's Momentous Defence Policy Review 2 June 2025

It is perhaps auspicious that tonight I am writing to you from a commune in South West France in the Charente-Maritime. The region became part of the Vichy regime in World War Two due to France spending billions on the wrong sort of defence. As I have said many times in this series of blogs, the future changes every day; it is just a shame you have to travel so far down the wrong path to find out you made all the wrong choices. At this critical time I am still holding out for the better path, and today, the fork in the path to the future is much more significant than most days. That is because Britain just declared war on Russia.

There has been no formal declaration, of course. Such niceties seem less than functional in an age of instant universal communication. There can be no confusion over where we stand today. Today, Britain, in the content of its defence review statement, made its declaration very clear.

The substance contained in the declaration of intent was detailed. Four new strategic submarines (already under construction). Twelve new nuclear attack submarines. Six thousand new missiles and the aircraft to deploy them. The construction of six new munitions factories to provide a permanent supply of materiel to do the job. An increase in investment in the Navy, Air Force and Army for training and recruitment. An increase in remuneration for all those in the forces and joining the forces in the future.

In addition to all this, the policy on nuclear weapons has also changed. For decades Britain has used a nuclear deterrence strategy. A small but effective fleet of ballistic missile submarines armed with strategic nuclear weapons. This posture employs the MAD or Armageddon philosophy. Any attack on Britain will be met by a nuclear response big enough to make anyone think twice. How big? Britain has circa 250 nuclear weapons, each warhead 15 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb. This is not excessive at all in Arms Race terms where the number and destructive scale of the Russian and American nuclear arsenals reached tens of thousands of warheads and multiple megatons per warhead. But in cold hard terms Britain's small nuclear deterrent is sufficient. Russia has ten cities with over one million inhabitants. When all is said and done, Britain can deliver twenty-five warheads each 15x Hiroshima per city. That would be an inefficient way to fight a war, but it demonstrates the potential deference of even a small force.¹

In the first major redirection of Britain's nuclear defence posture since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Britain has moved to a war fighting mode and this will be the status for the future. Britain will create an independent second arm for its nuclear capability. One able to deliver tactical, rather than strategic weapons. In short, battlefield nuclear weapons to be used as part of Britain's war fighting capacity.

This leaves two questions.

How credible is this claim to be repositioning the nation's defence?

And how likely is it this will come to pass?

Let's put it this way. I don't think there is a single person in the UK who has watched the events of the past few years and has a grasp of history who has any doubts about the necessity, and the costs, of this repositioning. There will be political manoeuvring, there always is, but nobody serious will question the need for a robust sovereign response to the threats we now face. It will be very hard for anyone in opposition to argue that leaving the nation without defence is the best policy. More likely the opposition will quibble about the details and argue how is it going to be paid for? The argument that the government haven't gone far enough and we can't afford it anyway will be difficult to sustain for very long, but such is the state of the opposition they may well try.

Many wish it were otherwise. Many are fearful of the consequences that may follow and some are in denial. The same could be said of the British population in 1938 when Chamberlain visited Hitler and returned with a piece of paper. In that same year surveys held by the newspapers of the day reported 92% of the population wanted to avoid war with Germany. Eleven months later the first evacuation of children from Britain's major cities began, and no one was surprised. I sense the same wish for a less interesting future combined with pragmatic realism is now in play.

But what is the likelihood of Britain delivering on its plan? The Defence Review statement by the Prime Minister made it clear that this restructuring is now part of the economic recovery of the nation. Rebuilding the armed forces means rebuilding large sections of the economy. Research and Development, advanced engineering, advanced manufacturing, the liberal employment of AI in weapon systems and in the tools to build them all play a strategic role in accelerating Britain's ability to compete on the global stage. For once, the British elite understand that science and engineering are more important than banking. It is truly shameful that Russia has to hold a metaphorical gun to their heads to make them see this, but it has had the necessary effect.

The government have laid out an ambitious response to the war in Europe. A response that few will seriously challenge. But what does this mean for the near future? This is where the danger lies. Putin's Russia now has a very narrow window in which to respond to halt this escalation. The new German Chancellor Merz has shown the way for European nations to circumvent the NATO trigger set by Putin by committing to building its advanced weapons in Ukraine for Ukraine to deploy as it sees fit. This audacious manoeuvre sidesteps the Russian NATO gambit by helping Ukraine deploy NATO class weapons without NATO being involved. This has severely frightened the Kremlin. Britain's announcement today increases the pressure on the Kremlin to seek a genuine attempt to negotiate a peace settlement.

Putin has a problem far beyond anything he may have dreamed of that fateful day when he ordered the decapitation strike of Ukraine. The status of Russia as a global power is at stake. His personal reputation is at stake. Indeed, should he fail, his personal safety is at stake.

The stakes for Russia and Europe rarely get much higher.

And the future changes every day.

1. Amended to correct a technical error