Defence Committee warns military readiness must improve before 2030, as Kemi Badenoch accuses the government of delaying crucial spending decisions and leaving Britain exposed to growing security risks.

Britain has been ranked second from bottom among NATO allies on an internal measure of how effectively members are meeting their rearmament commitments, raising fresh questions about the country’s ability to prepare for a potential Russian attack on the alliance before the end of the decade.

A report by the House of Commons Defence Committee places the UK 31st out of 32 NATO countries, with only Iceland — which has no military capability — ranked lower. The findings expose a gap between the government’s defence ambitions and the readiness of the armed forces, despite plans to invest almost £300bn over the next four years.

With British intelligence and other NATO assessments indicating that Russia could attack the alliance as soon as 2030, the committee warned that the timetable for addressing military weaknesses was becoming increasingly urgent.

“And if the UK government means what it says – that Russia could attack NATO as soon as 2030 – then work to rectify these vulnerabilities cannot start soon enough,” said Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough and chair of the committee.

Read more related news:

Army chief warns ‘war is no longer unthinkable’ and MPs will have to tell Brits ‘where the risk lies’

Britain prepares troops for Ukraine deployment as Trump deepens rift with NATO allies

Badenoch warns Healey ‘Britain is at risk’ if he does not get to 3% of defence spending

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=240497&action=edit&wpil_reminder_notice=CnBP6FheXjfZhdPZB7nAWRPIrgv9ViaJ

The report described Britain’s position as stark. “According to an internal document apparently drawn up by NATO to measure how effectively members are meeting their rearmament promises, the UK is number 31 out of 32 Alliance countries,” it said.

The ranking intensifies scrutiny of whether the government’s planned spending increases will translate into forces capable of responding quickly to a crisis. Defence investment can fund new equipment, but deterrence also depends on existing ships, aircraft and other military assets being available, maintained and ready for deployment.

Ed Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute, told the committee that Britain’s position was “pretty poor”.

“The only way that you can increase that really is through cash because it’s all about fleet availability, it’s all about readiness to be out of the door as soon as possible and as soon as needed,” he said.

The government’s Defence Investment Plan, published in June, commits £298bn over the four years to 2029-30, with the aim of raising defence spending to 2.7 per cent of national income. A longer-term NATO commitment envisages Britain and its allies spending 3.5 per cent of national income on defence by 2035.

But the gap between those targets has become a source of political friction, with the Conservatives accusing ministers of postponing difficult decisions while warning that the security environment is deteriorating.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has called on the government to find additional money for defence in next week’s Budget, arguing that the necessary funding should be prioritised through welfare cuts and tighter control of borrowing.

“If, at this Budget, he does not find the money to get to 3%, John Healey has an awful lot of explaining to do,” she said in a speech in Westminster.

Badenoch described the delay in setting out a clear path towards higher defence spending as “unconscionable”, criticising reports that the decision had been deferred to a spending review that itself had been pushed back until next autumn.

She argued that the additional funding required to reach 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2030 was “less than a third of the increase in welfare since Labour came to office”, framing the dispute as a question of government priorities rather than affordability alone.

“Britain is at risk,” she said. “John Healey said so himself, and no amount of political difficulty should prevent us from responding to that risk.”

Healey has argued that Britain must commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030. The government is not expected to set out a full route towards NATO’s longer-term 3.5 per cent target until next year’s spending review, leaving uncertainty over the scale and timing of future funding.

The debate is particularly pressing for the Royal Navy, whose ability to operate in the High North is central to plans to deter Russian threats across the North Atlantic and surrounding waters.

The government is investing in its Hybrid Navy and Atlantic Bastion concepts, but the Defence Committee warned that the service’s current equipment readiness and platform numbers were substantially below its stated requirements.

“Royal Navy equipment readiness and platform numbers in particular are currently far worse than the government’s stated requirements,” the report said.

With 2030 identified as a key date for Britain to be ready to deter or defeat a Russian threat, the committee called for “dramatic progress” before the end of the decade to improve the availability and capabilities of the armed forces in the High North.

The Ministry of Defence told the inquiry that equipment was maintained at different levels of readiness according to operational requirements. Military platforms move through cycles of deployment, maintenance, training and preparation, with their readiness determined in part by the NATO capabilities they are expected to provide.

That distinction matters. A spending commitment is not the same as an operational capability, and a new platform offers limited immediate reassurance if existing equipment cannot be deployed when required.

The committee concluded that the near-£300bn investment programme was the bedrock of Britain’s contribution to deterring or defeating Russian aggression from 2030. But it also made clear that new procurement alone would not be enough: ministers must improve the readiness of the forces already in service.

The government now faces a difficult choice over how quickly to increase defence spending while balancing public services, welfare commitments and the cost of servicing national debt. The Conservatives are pressing for a faster commitment, while ministers must determine how to finance higher spending and convert it into military capability.

For Britain, the central question is whether its armed forces can become sufficiently equipped and ready before the strategic deadline identified by its own government. With the country near the bottom of NATO’s internal rearmament table, the committee’s warning is that the time available to close the gap is running short.