Speaking this week at a major defense and security conference in London, the head of the British Army, Gen. Sir Roly Walker, delivered a stark warning: The UK has three years to bolster its defenses if it is to be prepared for a direct conflict with Russia. The timing of his comments was no coincidence. After 14 years of a Conservative-led government, the Labour Party swept back into office this month with a historically large majority of seats. One of the first defense policy initiatives from the new administration is a review of defense that will be carried out in the coming months. The announcement of the review was not surprising. In 2010, when the Conservative Party regained power after 13 years of a Labour government, a similar review took place. However, the strategic landscape has changed significantly since then. In 2010, the UK military had just withdrawn from Iraq and was deeply involved in fighting a deadly insurgency in southern Afghanistan. Now, the threats and challenges arising from low intensity counterinsurgency operations have diminished for the UK, but the era of great power competition has reemerged. Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is the starkest reminder of this shift. Despite the reduction in the size of its armed forces over the years, the UK remains a global power. But this is not always guaranteed to be the case. What the new government decides to do during its upcoming defense review could have a significant impact worldwide. As Britain’s top defense and security policy experts hammer out new strategic guidance, four key points will need to be addressed. Firstly, it is likely the new British government will prioritize the security and defense of Europe above other regions. Defense Secretary John Healey has already referred to a “NATO first” approach when it comes to the defense review. The new government can build on considerable progress by its predecessor. The UK was considered one of the global leaders in support and the provision of arms for Ukraine, especially in the early days following the Russian invasion. Britain also maintains a sizable military presence in the Baltic states, to help deter a Russian attack against NATO. The issue of support for Ukraine is not politically controversial in the UK, and there will be cross-party backing for more involvement. We can expect assistance for Ukraine and the overall security of Europe to feature prominently in the upcoming review. Secondly, the Indo-Pacific region will be another focal point. As with support for Ukraine, the Labour Party inherits a strong position regarding British involvement and influence in the region. The new government will want to build on the inroads made by its predecessor concerning UK-Japanese defense cooperation. Expect the UK to leverage existing relationships with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and India, so that it can play a greater role in the region. Whatever the UK decides about the Indo-Pacific during its defense review will be closely studied in Washington, where the focus on Asia is increasing. This will particularly be the case if Donald Trump wins the presidential election in November. British policymakers will undoubtedly consider this point as they formulate their defense strategy. As the new government settles into office and works on its first major defense review, Britain’s allies and adversaries will be watching closely. Luke Coffey Thirdly, the Middle East will remain a critical area of focus. As Iran continues to threaten regional stability, it would be wise for the UK to at least maintain, if not bolster, its military presence in the region. This is especially true in the Gulf, where Britain already has very close relationships going back decades. This region is particularly important for the Royal Navy. As the Houthis in Yemen continue to threaten international shipping in the Red Sea, and with Iran promoting the proliferation of drones and missiles among regional actors, it would be smart for the UK to leverage its existing relationships in the region. Finally, the UK needs to maintain and modernize its nuclear deterrent. Britain has been a nuclear power since the 1950s. Its weapons serve as a key component of NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy. Some in the Labour Party have previously voted against renewing the country’s nuclear deterrent, and renewal could prove to be one of the most politically contentious issues for the party. However, now that it is back in power, it should follow the example of previous Labour-led governments and ensure that Britain’s nuclear deterrent is maintained and modernized. In particular, the Dreadnought-class submarine program, designed to replace existing Vanguard-class submarines by the 2030s, must remain on time and fully funded. To achieve all these goals and ensure that Britain remains a global power, additional resources and money will be required. As someone who was personally involved in the 2010 defense review after the Conservative Party took office, I know it will be no easy task for the Ministry of Defense to secure additional resources from the Treasury. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has suggested that defense spending will increase to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2030 but his government has not yet outlined a plan to achieve this goal. Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China all pose challenges to the UK and its closest allies. In recent years, Britain’s armed forces have been operating on a shoestring budget. The British Army currently numbers 72,000 soldiers, the fewest since the Napoleonic era. The Royal Navy struggles to meet its global obligations and keep its two aircraft carriers seaworthy. It would be reckless to think this situation can continue. As the new government settles into office and works on its first major defense review, Britain’s allies and adversaries will be watching closely. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shocked the world; it was a reminder of how unpredictable geopolitics can be. When it comes to defense funding, the time to be bold is now, not when it is too late. Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey