DefenceSynergia (DS) fully endorses the Strategic Defence Review (SDR 25) as the way forward for future Defence and Security of the United Kingdom. Provided that it is funded.
However, to be effective in the long term, it must be endorsed by all mainstream political parties, who must agree and support funding for all the SDR 25 Recommendations. To do otherwise will leave the future of UK Security to the vagaries of the Political Gods.
House of Lords SDR 2025 Debate - 18th July 2025
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen recently opened the Lords' debate on the 2025 Strategic Defence Review.
In his closing remarks, he said this:
“But the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made an interesting point. He said that it is not about whether there is enough money or whether it will be executed, but that the question is: do we mean it? That is an important question. We are telling the British people that they are not safe. We are telling them that we are underprepared, and that we collectively have left them underprepared. They are underinsured because defence expenditure is the insurance policy of the nation against the future. We need to get that in place and win that argument as well.”
“In many ways, Ukraine is the last war. We keep talking about how people are fascinated and obsessed by the last war, not the next war. Ukraine might be the last war. The next war will be nastier and more brutal, and we need to be ready for it. We must try, through building deterrence and war-readiness, to deter any future adversary from taking on the British nation, because the costs of war will always be much greater than the costs of preventing it and building deterrence.”
Baroness Goldie said this in her opening remarks:
“First, I commend the reviewers for a realistic assessment of the threats and challenges confronting the UK. In the foreword, this phrase struck a chord with us all:
“The international chessboard has been tipped over”.
Another phrase in the foreword hit home:
“With multiple threats and challenges facing us now, and in the future, a whole-of-society approach is essential”.
And went on to say:
“My concern with this expanded NATO definition is that it will not actually lead to any new money being injected into defence but will represent little more than creative accounting. I hope the Minister will implore his ministerial colleagues at the Treasury and the MoD to ensure that the Armed Forces are not fobbed off with balance sheet wizardry but see tangible benefit.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed said this in his opening remarks:
“In many ways, the UK has a unique security need, but in most others we can act as a global, open and interconnected country—but only if we secure the support and partnership of others. In response to the publication of the national security review, I mentioned that, as an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. “
The debate can be seen HERE
And read HERE
