NATO Standing and Future Defence Strategy

High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face. Unless you power up with a so far personal loan A so far personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got suuper speed since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you signed Visit sofi. com slash power to learn more That's soFi d. com slash PW E Moans originated by Sofi Bank NA, member of theIC terms of Cnditions supppply NMLS six nine six eight nine one This episode of the story is sponsored by PWC Technology doesn't wait and neither should you Staying competitive means getting ahead, not just keeping up PWC takes you further with tech, from optimizing the systems that put your data to work to scaling AI from proof of concept to competitive edge PWC helps you meet tomorrow's tech demands so you can compete at a speed that rewrites the rules. Discover more at pwc. co dot u I'm M Ka Aris and I'm a producer on the story Earlier this afternoon, Defense Secretary John Heeeley announced his resignation over the government's much delayed defense investment plan plan was supposed to be published last autumn But according to Kirstammer, it will be released ahead of the NATO summit next month. Heeey also revealed that the plan flls short of the government's commitment to raise defense spending to three percent of GDP by twenty thirty In this extra afternoon episode of the Story We're handing over to our Tes radio colleague, John Pinar for the latest John Heey's sudden resignation came as a shock, yet, somehow without being a particular surprise, it has dealt a massive blow to the already battered authority of the Prime M minister and left Keirstarmer badly weakened, to the extent that that's even possible. It's also left the chancell that Rachel Reeves badly hurt, very badly hurt Many times now we've heard the Prime Minister saying the protection of Britain counts as his highest duty Today, John Healey quit the cabinet over what he's publicly denounced as a defense funding plan that I'm quoting F from Healley's resignation letter reduce the readiness of our forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe It was un theatrical, It was plain spoken, and it was lethal For a Prime mininister, already cornered by a looming threats to his leadership, you can almost see and hear the ground crumbling beneath Starmer's feet Andy Burnham will challenge him if he wins the by election in Makerfield and the Bookies tip him to win both the by election and the Labour leadership. We shall see. As it is, how does Starmer? How does Downing Street even appear to be keeping a grip and composure? and who may resign next over defence, or as another sign of a government in decay or maybe Anna Mihaliba joins us now live on the Line our political editor. Hell to you Anna Hi, John. Hi, what do you think the old cliche word crisis is plainly applicable here. What's your assessment of the political significance for Kir Stama and his administration I mean, the political significance is absolutely huge. Not only is losing a defeense secretary over something as important as defense funding during a time of global uncertainty and wars on several in several areas. in Ukraine ongoing in Iran ongoing. It's the timing as well, in terms of Kistama's personal standing, as you've just alluded to it, is unbelievably damaging The question is why is it that Kist Armt did not do everything in his power to stop John Healey from taking this step becausecause the general feeling from peopleople I'm speaking to is that John Healley would have done this very much as a last resort And in any A normal circumstance, you would have the Prime Minister say, rightight, I'm just going to tell the treasury to do something. I had an MP say that, you know, In times gone by, you've had situations, you've had big rows between defeence secretaries and Chancellors and questions about defence funding And sometimes what you'd have is The almost performative act of a defeense secretary would just march into number ten, flanked by senior senior officers in uniform, you know, perhaps the Chief Deense staff or something like that and just say resign unless you give more money. But at that moment, usually what would happen is a Prime Minister would say, rightight, I will tell my chancellor to find the money. And it's pretty extraordinary that he couldn't as the letter says is unable to do that and the treasury is described as unwilling, so both are downned. And what's the word among MPs you're talking to Well? Most of the ones I've spoken to privately are very much praising John Healley, some of them very much publicly as well. I'll just point out, most notably, I think people like Wees Streeting have says that every word of the letter needs to be heeded and Some of them are really critical of Rachel Reeves Um Very worried about what this means for defence. That has been the ongoing question because we did think we would finally see the deffence investment plan this week And instead, what we've seen is John Heeley in his letter reveals that the current package only seas spending reached two point six eight percent by twenty thirty. So what people wanted and this was already by the way, seen as a sort of bare minimum amount they wanted three percent by twenty thirty The fact that we now see that the plan does not include that and only includes thisero point eight percent rise,ero point ner eight percent will be seen as absolutely incremental and nowhere near enough All right An I'm Heida. Thankk you so much. Let's talk again a little bit later. This story still develops. And now a big welcome to Larissa Brown, the defense editor of the Times. How to you Larissa Hi Joh. Hi, so what do you think of it? The plan for defense spending, the joint invvestment plan seems to have been stripped of force and credibility before it's announced. Yes, I mean it's a complete disaster I am still though, hoping to go to this event in Swinden tomorrow. The Ministry of Defence hasn't yet canceled it. This is the launch of a new drone centre that John Healey was meant to be at with Al Khani Ared Forces Minister. Now, the people that I'm speaking to inside the MOD think that a new defeense secretary might be announced before then therefore allowing this event to go ahead. Now I amm quite skeceptical I'm wondering who will take over the job and who will be willing to accept the deal that the Prime Minister has presented to John Healley, which is to effectively just ten billion pounds extra over the next years when Healley had been expecting Starmer to give him eighteen billion and even that was obviously a lot short And short of the of ten of the ten billion do that's actually needed to plug the twenty eight billion black hole. there's a lot of figures there. but whatever whatever Haly was was expecting, he wasn't he wasn't going to get far from it. And the figure turns out to be as it were on paper thirteen point a half billion extra which amounts in in real terms, ten, but in what is that going to mean For the upgrading of our defense capabilities, is thereSa Well it's Hley had been working on the assumption that Starmer was signing off on eighteen billion extra. so it's eight billion short of what he had been expecting, which meant that overnight last night he was trying to look at the figures and trying to make them add up and trying to work out How on eararth he could suddenly find eight billion pounds worth of savings. And he's under a lot of pressure from all of the military chiefs who all want lots of money being spent in their departments. So take, for example, the army, they had been hoping for two billion pounds over the next years for just spending on drones alone. Now I can't see how Healy would have been able to do that with the money that the treasury were willing to give him. But also there was other projects that for example, the Navy we're looking at. they've got big shipbuilding plans. I can't see that they would have been able to go ahead And so it does mean that whoever's going to take over from Healy is going to be starting from a position of real weakness where they're going to be looking at big cuts rather than great investment. In a moment I' going to be speaking live to General Sir Jon McCult, the former deputy Spreme commander in NATO. How do you imagine this is going to look, Lewisa to our European allies in NATO and for that matter to the United States Well I'm really glad that you'll be speaking to him because this is a huge issue in terms of our standing in NATO and what this means. So we've got the AnchorA summit next Month this is july the seventh, where SAM is going to be meeting Trump and Trump is going to be looking at all the NATO member States and how the progress that they are making to meeting their capability targets and this three point five percent pledge by twenty thirty five. And the UK is currently in a really bad position. We are ranked thirty one out of thirty two countries when it comes to meeting our capability targets And I'm told that in order for us to actually meet those targets, we need to be spending more than three point five percent by twenty thirty five And yet Kistama has refused to set out this pathway to reaching that as Helius set out in his letter. and that's one of the reasons that Helias decided to resign is that he's extremely frustrated by this because he's saying that Starmer has committed to NATO to reach this three point five percent, but is unwilling to do that back here in the UK. Right. So look where we wish whether it here in Britain, whether it's in Europe, whether in the United States, our defence plans are not going to be pressing too many people. Larissa Brown, def friendense editor at the Times, Thankk you so much So let us now, as promised, bring into the conversation General Sir John McCole who's former senior British Army officer and deputy Spreme Allied commommander in Europe. Hello to you General . Tell me then if you would welcome. And your thoughts on this resignation and how do you think it's going to be received among key military figures here and abroad I think well, first of all, I'd like to start just talking about Mr. Healy We've lost a substantive and respected political figure someomebody who was well regarded within government a voice which or a respected voice arguing the defeense corner within government And I think beyond that He was the kind of politician that you would wish to see walking into the room representing the country as other NATO Defense Secretary gathered wherever they might be gathering So he is a loss, there is no doubt about it. And particularly abroad, I think when our position is under pressure for all the reasons I just heard you discussing It's important to have a figure of substance And his loss will be not only a loss to defense, but also a loss to the country as a whole as he represents us abroad Was he right to resign I would say yes. U If you look at the articulation of promises comoming from the Prime Minister following the Strategic Defense review last June. U There were lines such as putting security first, putting NATO first and talking about the possibility and a quote here from the Pime Minister there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as twenty thirty One of the great lessons of our time is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores. So there was A rhetoric there. which coming out from the Prime Minister and it simply has not been supported. By the delivery of resources, the resources required to deliver on the threats identified within the SDR. So I think faced with that, U'm u Mr. Hilldy probably have little choice Interesting, interesting arrgument, interesting answer because you sympathizeed with John Haley's reasoning, the reasoning behind his resignation. You set out some of your reasons for taking that position. But of course, you don't need me to tell you that you know our country needs a defense secretary, ideally, a very good one at a very dangerous and difficult time So how is anyone to fill the defefense secretary in the former defefense Secretary'soes and carry on with the job with the money available Well, I think what come next is interesting. as as your you and previous representative on the programme said, we were promised that NATO the defeence investment programme by the NATO summit as scheduled for the seventh of July. So will it be published by then? I suspect the answer to that is yes, otherwise we will look foolish and be embarrassed at the summit Will the current settlement be revised in advance of that I think that's an interesting area and I hope that it will be Um And then the final thing is who will the Prime Minister find to resent it and to defend it? Not a job that I would think that anyone would relish. I think another point I would make is that We are also moving towards what is cleararsly going to be a leadership election. within the Labate Party and within the country. And I would be very interested to know where the various candidates stand on defvent expenditure And my guess is they would probably say exactly as the Prime Minister has said, which is that the defence of the nation is the number one priority for the government of the nation. Well, what does that mean? in terms of their commitment to the level of resource allocated with the Defence invvestment planlan at the moment. I think they should all be pressed on that. Yes, Well no doubt that that will certainly happen as and when and if we get to a leadership contest, which may be happening very, very soon It pretty standard question this. The Prime Minister, as I said a moment ago, has always named the protection of the country as among his principal primary duty. With this, has he shown himself to be a failure as a leader? if I can put it as crudely as that Well, I think that we should underestimate just how much pressure the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are under when it comes to the allocation of limited resources. However, when you have a problem with the overall level of resources, it simply comes down to priorities. and then you fall back on basic principles. and the basic principles as artificated not just by this Pime minister, but by other prime mininisters as well, that the security and safety of the nation comes first. And in that case, I think it is his duty to ensure that the resources required are allocated. Now of course there are going to be arguments with the trejury, there always are. But it is up to the Prime Minister to make sure that the treasury follows the direction that he lays down as the leader. That's a conolte to answer your question, but I think the straight answer to your question is I think he has come short Well, there's the basic answer to that. But of course Principle and politics and priorities do not always exactly overlap, do they? It's been pointed out by George Robertson, who you know well, the former Defense Scretary and Secretary General of NATO and others too the welfare budget is being given a higher priority than perhaps they argue it should be against defence spending. that has something to do with the balance of opinion at Westminster among labour MPs. Now whoever the Prime Minister is, they have to deal with those MPs and find a way to make it add up, tie up and work. Yeah, so I passive should be more blad I would suggest that his job is not to follow the herd but to lead it and u I think this is wheres perhaps a prrime minister or leader shows its cols. Lord Robertson, and I'm looking at the quotes now, he talked in his speech in April about complacency within government in relation to defense and the threat. He spoke of non military experts in the treasury being guilty of vandalism Well, if that's the case, and he is a highly respected ex labor deffense seecretary and of course Secretary General NATO. If that is the case, and I suspect it is the case then it's up to the Pime Minister to step in and make sure the right decisions are taken. Okay pull out again guies is clear. just very briefly because I'm going to get ont to this this topic in just a moment other ways to fund our defence needs without necessily diving into forbidden territory in debt for public debt, for example, or raising taxes. I'm thinking of the idea of a multinational defense investment idea what I'll be talking to one of its authors about in a moment. It's been discussed a while What's your thought on that on that idea? I think all ways of funding defense, particularly as capabilities become more and more expensive should be explored. So I'm in favour of exploring that approach. The only caveat and difficult to have with it, is that when you have assets which are owned U by multinations The decision of their deployment and use becomes Um subject to the view of everyone. And therefore, you do not have the independence of action that you require in order to take whatever action is required. And within generally speaking when one commits operations and'm thinking about to Kosovo now and Afghanistan and to other operations, generally speaking what's happened is that you begin with a coalition of the willing and then NATO and other organizations follow on behind. Once you've got the body of the Kirk