What has the Integrated Review achieved five years after publication?
The Big Ask | No. 11.2026
Five years ago, on 16th March 2021, the Integrated Review was published. Entitled ‘Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy’, the strategy appraised and redefined the United Kingdom’s (UK) position in the world. When announced in February 2020, Her Majesty’s Government ‘committed to hold the largest review of the UK’s foreign, defence, security and development policy since the end of the Cold War.’
But what impact has the Integrated Review had on British foreign and defence policy? Was it really as ambitious and extensive as promised? To mark the fifth anniversary of the strategy’s publication, for this week’s Big Ask we asked five experts: What has the Integrated Review achieved five years after publication?
Honorary Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Director, Oxford Strategy, Statecraft, and Technology (Changing Character of War) Centre
Since the publication of the Integrated Review, the international security situation has deteriorated rapidly. While deterred from a direct attack on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Russia still harboured the ambitions it articulated in its ultimatum of December 2021: to divide the alliance and to ‘de-militarise’ Eastern Europe, rendering these sovereign states into no more than clients of the Russian Federation.
The Kremlin chose to invade Ukraine with overwhelming force, but also to continue its attacks on the UK using ‘hybrid’ measures. Let us not forget that Russia used both a chemical weapon and a radiological weapon on British soil, killing people in the UK.
The objective of the Integrated Review was to bring together the various levers of government – in defence, security, finance, aid, and the economy– to serve agreed national interests and counter such sub-threshold action. But the unity of purpose has not been sustained.
Energy policy today is at odds with the objectives of energy security. Legal instruments appear to protect the rights of individuals who are a security risk, while legislation seeks to prosecute soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. Separating the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and National Security Strategy (NSS) has created different priorities.
In sum, since the Integrated Review was published, Britain has taken a retrograde step, does not exhibit foresight, and does not have a coherent national strategy.
Charles Parton OBE
Honorary Fellow and Chief Adviser, China Observatory, Council on Geostrategy
No British political party would disagree with the objectives that the Integrated Review set for the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Shorn of repetition, it promised to:
Invest in enhanced PRC-facing capabilities;
Pursue a positive trade and investment relationship;
Protect national and economic security (e.g., critical national infrastructure, sensitive technology, critical supply chains) and values (calling the PRC out where it threatened values, interests, or existing agreements);
Introduce legislation to give the security agencies and police necessary powers; and
Cooperate in tackling transnational challenges.
The PRC was labelled ‘the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security’. However, the review did not add ‘and also to national security’ (by contrast, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] is clear that economic and national security are the same thing).
The scorecard is wan. Both the Conservative and Labour governments have been strong on slogans (‘protect, align, engage’; and ‘cooperate, compete, challenge’), but weak on strategy and clear guidance.
Investment in educating civil servants on the PRC (sadly not at the senior levels) has risen, as has consultation of China experts, although claims of having set up a ‘China Experts’ Advisory Group’ suggest a more structured approach than the reality of ad hoc meetings. Unlike its predecessor, the current government has pursued a more positive trade and investment relationship, although its belief that British growth is dependent on the PRC shows a lamentable understanding of how the CCP thinks and operates.
On security and protection, there have been advances in legislation (e.g., the National Security and Investment Act, National Security Act, and Procurement Act), but laws are only as good as their implementation. The new National Protective Security Authority is a renaming of MI5’s Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure. It provides businesses and other organisations with expert security advice, and the Research Collaboration Advisory Team aims to raise awareness in science and technology research institutions as to when working with the PRC is acceptable or not.
Those who hoped that HM Government’s ‘China Audit’ would be a cracker saw only a damp squib.
Co-founder (Research), Council on Geostrategy
The Integrated Review was a revolutionary document. Rather than acting as a conventional ‘national security strategy’, its aim was to initiate the intellectual reset of British foreign, security, and defence policy. It challenged the post-Cold War complacency and flawed assumptions of successive governments. It dismantled the idea that the world was improving and that integration was a desirable end goal, and acknowledged the stark reality of geopolitical competition, state-based threats (such as those from Russia), the blurring lines between peace and war, and the centrality of the sovereign national powerbase. It served, in many ways, as a genuine grand strategy for the 2020s.
The Integrated Review’s impact has been extensive. It inspired a new strategic vocabulary within the institutions charged with crafting and delivering British foreign, security, and defence policy. Today, they focus less on international development and multilateralism, and more on ‘strategic advantage’, establishing new minilateral frameworks to counter rivals, rebuilding and extending Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and forging partnerships that link the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific. Indeed, the UK’s participation in AUKUS in late 2021, and its robust response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, are difficult to imagine outside of the Integrated Review’s intellectual framework.
Ultimately, the Integrated Review began to sweep away the harmful assumptions of previous eras. It established a robust intellectual foundation for the future, upon which the Integrated Review Refresh (IRR), the SDR, and the NSS, have all subsequently built. There is still work to be done to strengthen Britain further, but the Integrated Review marks the moment where the ‘ship-of-state’ began to turn.
Research Fellow (Indo-Pacific Geopolitics), Council on Geostrategy, and PhD Student, Department of International History, London School of Economics and Political Science
There is ample evidence to say that HM Government has delivered on the Integrated Review’s promise to ‘tilt’ to the Indo-Pacific. Over the past five years, the UK has joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), established AUKUS, and has become an Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Dialogue Partner. Meanwhile, Britain has deepened ties with key partners including Australia, India, and Japan.
With support across the House of Commons for these developments, the region is a permanent pillar of British policy (to use the lingo of 2023’s IRR).
But where does this pillar stand in comparison to other interests and regions of the world, and what is next for the UK’s engagement? These questions are most pertinent when it comes to promoting national security.
Geography is destiny, and when it comes to defence there was never any question that, beyond Britain’s shores, HM Government’s priority is the defence of Europe. Government ministers are also quite correct to say that ‘NATO-first’ does not mean ‘NATO only’. Yet, the SDR fudges what comes next, recommending ‘the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific as the next priority regions’.
Is this not a disguised way of saying ‘third’? Indeed, this is saying something given the UK’s seeming inability (unwillingness aside) to defend its interests in the Gulf over the past few weeks. Moving forward, if the Indo-Pacific is to remain a genuine pillar rather than an afterthought, Britain should prove that last year’s Carrier Strike Group deployment was a stepping stone to sustained operational engagement, not just a curtain call.
Adjunct Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Senior Lecturer, School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews
The Integrated Review stands out for its systematic and rigorous assessment of the international environment. Rather than a mere cost-cutting exercise, it began from first principles and then defined the UK’s strategic priorities. It diagnosed the Indo-Pacific region as the epicentre of future international relations, featuring both the fastest-growing economies and the world’s greatest systemic challenge in the PRC. The Integrated Review’s recommendation logically followed from this – an Indo-Pacific ‘tilt’ – wherein increased military and diplomatic engagement with the region would yield economic and geopolitical gains.
No modern British strategy document was as well thought-out as the Integrated Review. Equally, no modern British strategy document has become so rapidly obsolete.
While the Integrated Review defined Russia as an ‘acute threat’, it received second billing to the PRC. The Kremlin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, however, changed this equation. Although Russia may be a power in decline, today it stands out as the greatest threat to the UK and European nations due to the following factors:
Its willingness to suffer over one million casualties in a war of aggression;
Its penchant for engaging in nuclear brinksmanship; and
Its systematic engagement in sub-threshold warfare.
The other thing that has changed is the United States (US). Part of the grand bargain implicit in the Integrated Review is that Britain would support America in the Indo-Pacific, while the US would continue to underwrite European security. Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the US fundamentally shifted this equation. Disdainful of NATO, covetous of allies’ territory, and incapable of making long-term commitments, the US is today a weak rod for the UK to lean upon in formulating its foreign policy.
Ultimately, the Integrated Review was a masterful document for its time, which turned out to be very short.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?