UK Defence in 'Peril': Former NATO Chief Accuses Starmer Government of 'Corrosive Complacency'

A Damning Indictment from Within

Lord George Robertson, the former Labour defence secretary who authored the government's own Strategic Defence Review, has launched a scathing attack on Sir Keir Starmer's administration, declaring Britain's national security "in peril" and accusing the political leadership of "corrosive complacency." In a speech delivered in Salisbury on Tuesday, Robertson—who now serves as a key government adviser—warned that the UK is "underprepared," "underinsured," and "under attack." His intervention marks a rare and pointed criticism from a senior figure within the government's own advisory structure, signaling deep internal fractures over how seriously the administration is treating defence threats.

"We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget."

Robertson's most provocative claim targets the Treasury, accusing "non-military experts" there of "vandalism" for their approach to defence funding. The core grievance: while the Strategic Defence Review was published in June 2025 and accepted by the government in full—all 62 recommendations—the crucial 10-year investment plan to fund it has been repeatedly delayed. Robertson told the Financial Times that Sir Keir was "not willing to make the necessary investment," a statement that directly contradicts the government's public position.

The Funding Crisis and Political Impasse

The numbers reveal the tension at the heart of this dispute. The UK spent 2.3% of GDP on defence last year—approximately £66 billion—yet the government has committed to reaching 3% by the end of the next Parliament and 3.5% on core defence by 2035. By contrast, welfare spending is forecast to consume 10.6% of GDP, or £322.6 billion, in 2025-26. Robertson's suggestion that the government could redirect welfare funds to defence appears deliberate political provocation; the government previously abandoned efforts to cut welfare spending after fierce opposition from backbench Labour MPs.

The Strategic Defence Review itself outlines ambitious restructuring: a NATO-first defence policy, a shift to "war-fighting readiness," an £11 billion annual budget for front-line equipment, and a "new hybrid Royal Navy" equipped with aircraft, drones, warships, and submarines to patrol the North Atlantic and beyond. Yet these plans remain unfunded, with reports indicating disagreements within government about both how to finance the SDR and existing defence commitments. Prime Minister Starmer has said the investment plan was being "finalised" on his desk, but months after the review's publication, no formal funding mechanism exists.

"There is a corrosive complacency today in Britain's political leadership. Lip service is paid to the risks, the threats, the bright red signals of danger."

The Geopolitical Backdrop: Trump, NATO, and Ukraine

Robertson's warnings arrive at a moment of acute strategic vulnerability for Britain. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump's return to the US presidency, NATO has come under unprecedented pressure to boost defence spending. Trump secured an agreement raising NATO's collective commitment to 5% of member states' GDP by 2035—at least 3.5% on core defence and up to 1.5% on security-related infrastructure. Trump himself called this a "big win for Europe and Western civilisation." Yet paradoxically, the same US president has threatened to withdraw American support for NATO, claiming the organisation "wasn't there when we needed them."

General Sir Richard Barrons, another author of the Strategic Defence Review, echoed Robertson's concerns, warning of "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." Barrons predicted a future European NATO doing "much more" while the US does "much less," declaring bluntly: "The US cavalry is not coming to bail us out now." He specifically criticized the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as "too small and too undernourished."

The Middle East Complication

The urgency of Robertson's warning is underscored by the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. A joint US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28 prompted questions about why British military assets weren't positioned sooner to respond. Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Richard Knighton told the BBC last month that he rejected accusations of being ill-prepared but acknowledged we are living through "probably the most dangerous time of the last 30 years." There were notable delays in deploying a Royal Navy destroyer to the region despite months of visible US military build-up.

Starmer has firmly resisted pressure to join the conflict, refusing to participate in Trump's proposed military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The Prime Minister stated to the BBC: "Whatever the pressure—and there's been some considerable pressure—we're not getting dragged into the war." On Tuesday, he chaired the first meeting of a new Middle East Response Committee, replacing ad-hoc emergency Cobra meetings, to coordinate diplomatic and economic responses to the conflict.

Political Responses and the Government's Defence

The government's official response frames defence investment in the most generous light possible: over £270 billion invested across the current Parliament represents "the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War." A spokesperson insisted the government is "delivering on the Strategic Defence Review to meet the threats we face." Yet this figure includes commitments spread across years and does not address the immediate challenge of funding the specific recommendations contained in the review itself.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch seized on Robertson's criticisms, agreeing "we need to get serious" on defence and suggesting the Tories would "repurpose funds from net zero projects to invest in our military." This comment reveals how deeply defence funding has become entangled with broader spending priorities and ideological divisions within Westminster.

Robertson's intervention suggests the government faces a critical credibility problem: it commissioned a major defence review, accepted all recommendations publicly, yet appears unable or unwilling to fund them. Whether this represents genuine Treasury reluctance or political calculation about welfare spending remains unclear—but the fact that a government adviser felt compelled to deliver such a withering public critique indicates the gap between rhetoric and reality has become impossible to ignore.