Assuming another Labour Party parliamentarian doesn’t challenge his leadership bid, Andy Burnham will replace Keir Starmer as the British prime minister on July 20. Burnham’s first priority is to boost economic growth and lower living costs. But he must also urgently repair the damage his predecessor has done to the U.S.-U.K. special relationship. To be blunt, either Burnham significantly boosts defense spending, or he closes the book on the special relationship.
That latter choice would be a great shame. Since its functional inception in the Second World War and thematic conception by Winston Churchill at the start of the Cold War, the special relationship has supported resolute military deterrence, mutually beneficial economic and diplomatic cooperation, and an exceptionally close intelligence partnership. But all is not well with this partnership.
Take Starmer’s announcement of $20 billion in additional defense investments on Tuesday. An extra $20 billion might sound like a lot, but it falls well short of the $37 billion boost that was needed. Although it will raise the defense budget to 2.7% of GDP by 2030, $20 billion simply isn’t enough. Contrasted with what other major allies are doing, it’s clear that the United Kingdom has abandoned its alliance obligations.
The United States will spend at least 3.2% of GDP on defense in 2026, rising to 3.5% or more by 2030. Germany will spend 2.8% of GDP on defense this year, rising to 3.1% in 2027. Poland will hit an astonishing 4.8% of GDP this year, with sustainable spending at 5% of GDP thereafter. The Baltic States are splurging in a similar manner.
Unlike the U.K. and America’s oldest ally, France, these allies are investing appropriately for two reasons. First, because they recognize that Russia’s threat to trans-Atlantic security is only growing. While he is unlikely to pose a threat to NATO territory before the year 2030, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s defense spending is now systemic to his country’s economy. It underlines a long-term strategic threat. In addition, Putin will soon escalate against the West in an effort to deter further support for Ukraine. But allies are also acting because they understand that the U.S. is necessarily refocusing on deterring China but cannot do that while maintaining its current disposition of forces in Europe.
Notwithstanding President Donald Trump’s idiotic, if later backtracked, derision for British military sacrifices in Afghanistan, Starmer has badly damaged the U.K.’s credibility at both U.S. political and professional military levels. Alongside defense spending, major American complaints center on the prime minister’s refusal to support defensive action against Iranian attacks on international shipping, his restrictions on U.S. military requests to use British bases during the Iran war, and his appeasement of China.
Burnham must fix things. And he needs to start with the British military.
The anchored proof of U.K. military decline is found in the Royal Navy. An unmatched global maritime force during the 19th century, the entire Royal Navy would struggle heavily against just three Chinese cruisers today. The U.K. is tolerating this self-inflicted weakness even as Russia surges its hostile submarine activity in British waters. The problem extends across the other military branches.
The head of the British Army, a former special operations officer who has worked extremely closely with Delta Force, is pursuing a plan to reshape his force to better support warfighting readiness. But Gen. Roly Walker needs dramatically scaled-up logistics and mobility enablers, armament stockpiles, and counter-drone air defense systems to do so. According to the Sun newspaper, however, Walker’s equipment requests were overruled in favor of helicopters he did not want. Then there’s the Royal Air Force, which lacks enough pilots, long-range weapons, and airlift, radar, and fast-jet aircraft. The blunt truth: The U.K. military might have exceptionally well-trained personnel, but in 2026, its combat power would be neutered in any conflict of potency, scale, and duration.
ADMITTING UKRAINE DIFFICULTY, PUTIN REJECTS PEACE AND PLEDGES ‘NOVOROSSIYA’ IMPERIUM
Calling earlier this year for Starmer to appropriate the military’s full $37 billion spending request, I noted that the prime minister had “pushed through massive tax hikes, so the matter is not one of revenue. Instead, recognizing the security crisis in Europe and the need for the U.K. to invest in the lethality that serves as the special relationship’s ultimate backstop, Starmer should cut his country’s bloated welfare budget and redirect funding to the military.”
History will record that at a time of peril, Starmer blinded himself to the U.K.’s security and the concerns of its indispensable ally. Now it’s up to Burnham. But if the new prime minister replicates Starmer’s folly, he should know that a new special relationship will be born in Warsaw.