Welcome to the 69th Cable, our weekly roundup of British foreign and defence policy.
As Europe’s security environment worsens, exemplified by recent incursions into North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries airspace and an increase in espionage and sabotage across the continent, the House of Commons Defence Committee has published a report on the United Kingdom’s (UK) contribution to European security. A critical assessment, it claims that Britain, is ‘nowhere near’ ready to defend itself, its overseas territories and allies from a military attack.
The report highlights that the UK remains reliant on the United States (US) and is not spending enough on its own security. It calls for ‘readiness’ as a key objective, preparing the defence industrial base for extended collective defence and initiating national conversations on national security. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Chair of the Defence Committee, said ‘wars aren’t won just by generals, but by the whole of the population getting behind the Armed Forces and playing our part.’
The report also argues that while the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and National Security Strategy (NSS) should be commended for their ambitious goals, they need further detail on prioritisation and capability trade offs to deliver His Majesty’s (HM) Government’s NATO-first approach.
Welcome back to The Cable!
On 13th November, Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary, hosted Andrii Sybiha, Foreign Minister of Ukraine, to discuss the next steps of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership. Ukrainian recovery was underlined as a priority for British security, with HM Government pledging £5.2 million to fund critical national infrastructure, such as hospitals and roads.
MI5 has issued a new espionage warning following reports of Chinese spies posing as recruitment agents on Linkedin, in a ‘widespread’ operation to access UK government information. A letter was sent out to Members of Parliament to warn them of ‘relentless attempts’ to interfere in British sovereign affairs.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has scoped 13 disused oil refineries and chemical plants for redevelopment into explosives and ammunition factories. It has done so as part of a £6 billion programme to increase munitions and energetics production in support of NATO-wide rearmament plans.
On 13th November, the MOD launched a £50 million funding opportunity for the development of novel blood products, to improve emergency trauma care and address critical blood challenges. The outcomes of this funding opportunity are expected to be published by Spring 2027.
For additional defence news stories, follow this link to the DSEI Gateway news portal.
On 18th November, the United Nations Security Council voted to adopt the US resolution for the Gaza peace plan presented by Donald Trump, President of the US. Following the vote, Cooper called for international cooperation to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero announced a new Energy Resilience Strategy to set out priorities for safeguarding critical energy infrastructure, such as cables and substations, against evolving risks. The strategy follows a fire at the National Grid’s North Hyde substation, which led to widespread disruption at Heathrow Airport.
How competitors frame Britain
Russia Today released propaganda this week claiming that Britain ‘can’t afford peace in Ukraine’ as it needs war to conceal economic stagnation, fill political vacuums and restore international relevance. The article claims that the war in Ukraine continues ‘not because diplomacy is impossible, but because London has built a political and economic machine that depends on conflict.’ This is another clear example of Russia avoiding blame for its own actions.
Following recent reports of MOD staff being instructed not to discuss sensitive topics or connect work devices to People’s Republic of China (PRC) made Electric Vehicles (EVs). The Global Times released a response this week implying that British preventative measures amount to ‘presumptions of guilt’ and do not stem from security but ‘discomfort and alert towards China’s technological leadership’. It claims that free and open nations, unable to win in market competition, have to resort to using ‘national security’ as a trade weapon. Beijing is once again attempting to deflect from the legitimate security risk it poses to free and open nations.
Is the UK SAFE?
Ongoing negotiations between the UK and the European Union (EU) for London to join the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defence fund are stalling. Britain has offered to pay 1% of Brussels’ initial demand of £5.8 billion, Brussels has countered this offer with a reduction to £1.7 billion. A significant cut, but still considerably more than what the UK appears to be willing to pay.
Agreement before the 30th November deadline is looking unlikely. For starters, there are entrenched internal EU divisions. Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have reportedly warned that not reaching an agreement would send retrograde signals to Russia. Whereas other countries, supposedly led by France, argue that the UK should not be allowed to benefit from EU schemes without making the necessary contributions or abiding by the common rules: and of course that competition with British firms for contracts is not desired by many European countries out to defend the interests of their own industry.
The UK, for its part, has been keen to stress the importance of signalling collective strength to Russia and contributing to European (rather than limited to just EU countries) defensive autonomy.
It is also important to note that lack of access to SAFE does not lock British industry out of defence contracts with EU allies, or SAFE funded programmes for that matter. As it stands, EU countries can already spend up to 35% of rearmament funds with UK defence companies, if the deal with SAFE goes through this increases to 50%, a 15 percentage point difference. Additionally, SAFE – if fully utilised – only accounts for 10% of total expected EU defence expenditure. These factors are reflected through statements given by UK officials, one of which was quoted as saying ‘It is not reasonable for the UK to pay additional costs to the EU just for the privilege of our industry supplying EU customers’ equipment at market prices.’
The long story short is this: while access to SAFE is preferable, especially as a way for British firms to achieve a competitive advantage against other non-EU countries seeking to do defence business in the EU, this is only if it comes at a much, much lower cost. Britain would otherwise face the prospect of paying money into a pot it has no guarantee of getting anything out of. It is worth highlighting that if the £5.8 billion the EU is asking for was simply spent by HM Government on its own defence needs, this would guarantee an economic return.
If you found this Cable useful, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about this Cable? Why not leave a comment below?
It was also ludcrous to write and publish the National Security Strategy *after* the Strategic Defence Review. But everything is so late, like the Defence Industrial Strategy and the (still-not-published) Defence Investment Plan. The Defence Readiness Bill hasn't even been drafted.