A contributor to the UK’s strategic defence review has voiced disapproval of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approach to armed forces strategy, highlighting an unusual absence of promptness in security preparations. Fiona Hill, previously a senior advisor on Russian affairs in the White House, supported the views of her collaborator George Robertson, who worked alongside General Richard Barrons on the review. Robertson, a member of the House of Lords and ex-NATO leader, had described the administration’s attitude as harmfully indifferent. He has expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a decade-long funding outline for defence since the review’s release in June. In a Tuesday evening address in Salisbury, Wiltshire, he labeled interference by non-specialist Treasury officials as destructive and cautioned that national protection cannot rely on growing social spending. Robertson mentioned a recent conversation with Defence Secretary John Healey, who reacted with strong displeasure. He explained that such publicity is unwelcome but necessary, stressing his belief in the nation’s vulnerability. Regarding the postponement of expenditure details, he noted confusion and anticipated eventual disclosure. On the same day, discussions of potential reductions in public funding to support defence led Labour parliamentarian Diane Abbott to criticize Robertson for prioritizing military over social needs, warning that following this path could drive voters toward the Green Party. She condemned cuts to international assistance and welfare for weaponry, questioning the appeal of Labour’s direction. In an interview, Hill, who served under former U.S. President Donald Trump, described the administration’s sluggishness in readying the country for conflict as odd. She indicated Robertson was urging faster progress, noting that without a push for immediacy, steps would lag despite global events. Hill pointed to insufficient firm guidance, driven by electoral fears from various political sides. She emphasized the review’s national importance and criticized politicizing it. Referencing threats like those in the Middle East, she suggested potential attacks on key London structures. Barrons, in a broadcast appearance, highlighted a major shortfall between required and current security levels, noting reduced U.S. support and weaknesses in naval and air capabilities. Hill warned that the delay erodes trust in the UK’s defence industry and deters investors, leading firms to seek opportunities abroad or close. She also noted the government’s failure to promote civilian readiness for potential conflicts. Former Defence Secretary John Hutton urged swift funding increases within 18 months to counter Russian threats, suggesting borrowing adjustments similar to Germany’s. He identified gaps in NATO deterrence. Labour MP Tan Dhesi, leading the defence committee, expressed worry over Robertson’s blame on the Treasury and its officials’ reluctance to testify. He called Robertson’s statement serious and condemning, given his stature.
